• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Criminals won't obey gun laws

A criminal is, by definition, someone who doesn't obey the laws. You say we shouldn't have gun control laws because criminals won't obey them, but that's an absolutely terrible argument. Should we not have laws against murder and rape too then? After all, criminals don't obey those laws either.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating taking guns away from people (I'm in favor of only modest restrictions on firearms purchases), but this argument just doesn't hold water.
bad analogy

Laws against rape have no effect on non-rapists. The same can't be said about making guns illegal. Law abiding citizens would turn in their guns while the criminals would still have them.
 
Not to mention, if you have to have a gun-owner's license as a precondition to owning a gun (prior restraint)...

Then there is nothing stopping the Gov from starting off with reasonable conditions for a license and then gradually raising the bar until almost nobody can qualify for one.

A right is not a right if you have to have a license BEFORE you can exercise it.
 
Not to mention, if you have to have a gun-owner's license as a precondition to owning a gun (prior restraint)...

Then there is nothing stopping the Gov from starting off with reasonable conditions for a license and then gradually raising the bar until almost nobody can qualify for one.

A right is not a right if you have to have a license BEFORE you can exercise it.


Before I begin: I am FOR Firearms and less gun-control.

True, but it's the State that gave you the ability to have guns as a 'right' in the first place.
 
No - but petty criminals will have less access to guns - and that is what we have found here in Australia.

Did you know since the gun buy back there has been only one spree killing of over 5 people? Prior to that we were averaging one spree killing a year.


Tell us about your general crimes stats, though. Burglary, assault, etc. What has happened with those? I would love to see a year by year list of crime stats starting in the early 1990's moving forward to compare against crime stats of the US during the same time frame. I am well aware that the US has a much higher crime rate overall. It would be interesting to see the differences in rate of increase or decrease in various crimes covering the timeframe when guns were outlawed in Australia.
 
Before I begin: I am FOR Firearms and less gun-control.

True, but it's the State that gave you the ability to have guns as a 'right' in the first place.
Actually, the founding fathers were quite clear in their writings that it's the opposite, we are born with inaliable rights and the government must recognize them or else are in contempt of the governed and in violation of the constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the only exception of the rule, the only way rights may be "infringed" is by due process, they are forfeit as a result of criminal actions, only.
 
Actually, the founding fathers were quite clear in their writings that it's the opposite, we are born with inaliable rights and the government must recognize them or else are in contempt of the governed and in violation of the constitution and Bill of Rights. Furthermore, the only exception of the rule, the only way rights may be "infringed" is by due process, they are forfeit as a result of criminal actions, only.

They are the ones that said that. Nature makes no such suggestion. Are we born with the right to a man made item? Ha. you silly, dawg.
 
Last edited:
They are the ones that said that. Nature makes no such suggestion. Are we born with the right to a man made item? Ha. you silly, dawg.
It's not the right to an item per se, but the means to self defense, or defense of others, which is a concept found in nature.
 
It's not the right to an item per se, but the means to self defense, or defense of others, which is a concept found in nature.

Agree'd, though that's where the gun-control nuts would draw the line, which is why it's such a difficult argument. Keyword here is argument. Egh.


Personally, I think you should be able to use anything when it comes to defense, but they would arrest me if I put the heads of burglars on pikes outside my house. :( I wouldn't completely be against allowing homeowners to bait burglars and criminals >: D MUAHAHAHAHA! just kidding yeah that would be bad.
 
Personally, I think you should be able to use anything when it comes to defense, but they would arrest me if I put the heads of burglars on pikes outside my house. :( I wouldn't completely be against allowing homeowners to bait burglars and criminals >: D MUAHAHAHAHA! just kidding yeah that would be bad.

I don't see a problem with this at all. If the burglar was in your home when you took his head, I would call it justifiable. :) Putting his head on a pike would just be a fair warning to others with his criminal tendencies.

/only half joking
 
I don't see a problem with this at all. If the burglar was in your home when you took his head, I would call it justifiable. :) Putting his head on a pike would just be a fair warning to others with his criminal tendencies.

/only half joking

Read the following in Mr. "USMC" Rogers voice:

I want you, to be mah neighbor.
 
Agree'd, though that's where the gun-control nuts would draw the line, which is why it's such a difficult argument. Keyword here is argument. Egh.


Personally, I think you should be able to use anything when it comes to defense, but they would arrest me if I put the heads of burglars on pikes outside my house. :( I wouldn't completely be against allowing homeowners to bait burglars and criminals >: D MUAHAHAHAHA! just kidding yeah that would be bad.


Not really.

Everything that lives desires to continue living and will defend itself if it can. Humans included. A right to life and a right to self-defense can be argued from this.

If I have a right to self-defense, I have a right to EFFECTIVE self-defense. In modern times this means firearms.

Others have also posted here on DP how the concept of the right to bear arms goes back to long before there was a USA or a Constitution.
 
Not really.

Everything that lives desires to continue living and will defend itself if it can. Humans included. A right to life and a right to self-defense can be argued from this.

If I have a right to self-defense, I have a right to EFFECTIVE self-defense. In modern times this means firearms.

Others have also posted here on DP how the concept of the right to bear arms goes back to long before there was a USA or a Constitution.


Not that I'm disputing the right to self-defense, (You should find the thread on "Is it a right not to exercise a right" and I think at some point in there we discuss the word and origins (or are still discussing) of "Rights." ) But we're not really entitled to anything but the laws of physics. Though at the same time, what's to stop us from saying what we are and aren't entitled to.

The point is, we can't take these for granted or as fact, because the very basic truth is OUR right to bear arms is a Man-Made concept, granted us by the State and if they REALLY wanted to (try) they could take it away.
 
Not that I'm disputing the right to self-defense, (You should find the thread on "Is it a right not to exercise a right" and I think at some point in there we discuss the word and origins (or are still discussing) of "Rights." ) But we're not really entitled to anything but the laws of physics. Though at the same time, what's to stop us from saying what we are and aren't entitled to.

The point is, we can't take these for granted or as fact, because the very basic truth is OUR right to bear arms is a Man-Made concept, granted us by the State and if they REALLY wanted to (try) they could take it away.
The concept of rights is directly tied to freedom and liberty, which are not two of the same things. Freedom exists, this is as obvious as looking to different individuals, their innate free will, and their limits on how far they will use natural advantages to gain ground on other individuals(aka, anarchy).

Liberty is a human concept, it is the socially acceptable limit to natural freedoms, this is where all other societies differ, the U.S. is supposed to be based on maximum liberty, the ideal limit is when one would abuse their freedoms to the detriment of others, unfortunately, a bunch of power mad jackasses have hijaked the law(a collective societal concept) to limit liberty, however freedom can only be limited on an individual level(what consequences one is willing to accept).

A totalitarian regime(limited liberty, maximum legal penalty/constraint) is just a hair less preferable to a socialist/communist government(more libertarian than totalitarianism/despotism), but far from as libertarian than a true democratic republic based on extending liberty to maximize freedoms.
 
Last edited:
The concept of rights is directly tied to freedom and liberty, which are not two of the same things.

Neither of which, it could be argued, are anymore naturally occurring than someone's desire to rule or be ruled over. But I see where you're going. Progress!

Freedom exists, this is as obvious as looking to different individuals, their innate free will,

Agree'd. But Free Will is the freedom to make choices, and so could be seen as, without limit, I license to create and exercise whatever rights tickled your fancy.

and their limits on how far they will use natural advantages to gain ground on other individuals(aka, anarchy).

How is that also known as Anarchy?

Liberty is a human concept, it is the socially acceptable limit to natural freedoms, this is where all other societies differ, the U.S. is supposed to be based on maximum liberty, the ideal limit is when one would abuse their freedoms to the detriment of others, unfortunately, a bunch of power mad jackasses have hijaked the law(a collective societal concept) to limit liberty, however freedom can only be limited on an individual level(what consequences one is willing to accept).

I kinda see what you're trying to say but I think you're using the wrong words, or the words meaning the same thing to define two things that you perceive are different.

Liberty n. 1. the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

Freedom n. 1. the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another

A totalitarian regime(limited liberty, maximum legal penalty/constraint) is just a hair less preferable to a socialist/communist government(more libertarian than totalitarianism/despotism), but far from as libertarian than a true democratic republic based on extending liberty to maximize freedoms.

Based on my previous comment, this makes little sense to me, But I think I'm getting the gist of what you're saying.
 
Neither of which, it could be argued, are anymore naturally occurring than someone's desire to rule or be ruled over. But I see where you're going. Progress!
Again, innate, i.e. what we are originally born with, things are learned over the years that silence certain parts of free will, depending on that society, for better or worse. We know we have needs, and desire to fullfill them, what extents we will take it to is where our initial freedom ends.



Agree'd. But Free Will is the freedom to make choices, and so could be seen as, without limit, I license to create and exercise whatever rights tickled your fancy.
Technically you are correct, however, when a government(social contract) is accepted, those liberties are implied as granted which are stated. The U.S. is by any stretch meant to maximize liberty and restrain government interference unless provably necessary and proper, which is why the ninth and tenth amendments are in place, it is to limit the federal and defer powers to the states, this was done to keep a powerful, encroaching federal government from damaging the concepts of liberty.



How is that also known as Anarchy?
True anarchy is the absence of societal law and enforcement, thus, the strong would be at liberty to prey on the weak, anarchy could only work if 100% of the population had benevolent desires.



I kinda see what you're trying to say but I think you're using the wrong words, or the words meaning the same thing to define two things that you perceive are different.

Liberty n. 1. the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice

Freedom n. 1. the quality or state of being free: as a: the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b: liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
The definitions are similar, I admit that, but the connotations are what mean the most when defining the scope of law. I bolded the connotations that have the most appropriate meaning when determining the state of man from a philosophical point of view.
 
Again, innate, i.e. what we are originally born with, things are learned over the years that silence certain parts of free will, depending on that society, for better or worse. We know we have needs, and desire to fullfill them, what extents we will take it to is where our initial freedom ends.

Ahh O.K. now I see what you're saying. Don't 100% agree but I get ya.

True anarchy is the absence of societal law and enforcement, thus, the strong would be at liberty to prey on the weak, anarchy could only work if 100% of the population had benevolent desires.

Alright, The way it was written, I thought you we're suggesting that people trying to impose over someone else was Anarchy.



The definitions are similar, I admit that, but the connotations are what mean the most when defining the scope of law. I bolded the connotations that have the most appropriate meaning when determining the state of man from a philosophical point of view.

The definitions are the same. It's like comparing the same object in two languages or cultures. Some cultures attach more/less to the definition, but in essence it is the same thing. And, no offense, but just because you bold the connotations that have most appropriate meaning (to you) does not mean everyone else will accept that as the best idea.


But overall, I think I see what you're saying, and I like the concept that we have Freedom but with it comes responsibility. my humble opinion, constructive criticism of sorts, use different words besides Liberty and Freedom to compare the two ideas you present, words with a clear definition of what you are looking for. Off the top of my head I can't think of what those words might be but you're on the right track with innate, Free Will, Rghts, etc.
 
Criminals won't obey gun laws? Then I suggest you arm yourselves.

Mossberg and Smith and Wesson can make criminals obey, I saw it I saw it with my own two eyes.
 
Criminals won't obey gun laws? Then I suggest you arm yourselves.

Mossberg and Smith and Wesson can make criminals obey, I saw it I saw it with my own two eyes.

I love you.

epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1163-why-carry-gun.jpg
 
Criminals won't obey gun laws? Then I suggest you arm yourselves.

Mossberg and Smith and Wesson can make criminals obey, I saw it I saw it with my own two eyes.
Crook: [during a diner robbery] What's you doing, you pighead sucka?

Harry Callahan: Every day for the past ten years, Loretta here's been giving me a large black coffee- except today she gives me a large black coffee and it has sugar in it. Alotta sugar. I just came back to complain.

Crook: Say what, sucka?

Harry Callahan: Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here.

Crook: Who'se we sucka?

Harry Callahan: Smith and Wesson... and me.
 
Crook: [during a diner robbery] What's you doing, you pighead sucka?

Harry Callahan: Every day for the past ten years, Loretta here's been giving me a large black coffee- except today she gives me a large black coffee and it has sugar in it. Alotta sugar. I just came back to complain.

Crook: Say what, sucka?

Harry Callahan: Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here.

Crook: Who'se we sucka?

Harry Callahan: Smith and Wesson... and me.

inb4 Politically Correct people claim this story to be racist.
 
For all the anti-gun people, here is a collection of essays that are worth the read. If nothing else, they are very thought provoking. I think this man has some of the most articulate arguments for gun ownership and carrying.

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com

One of the best starts out like this.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

.......

why the gun is civilization. the munchkin wrangler.
 
Last edited:
Gun control advocates always amuse me, do they ever realize that they make those they believe they are protecting more vulnerable?

Come on now,these are the same people that want to be humane by putting the Gitmo crew into the American prison system....where they will be ripped to shreds.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom