• 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!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zyphlin said:
I think we'd have more, because right now the only people getting dope, crack, blow, and speed are those who have no issue with breaking the law. If they were legal, those who don't wish to break the law would then have access to them.
Click to expand...

I think that's certainly true. I think you'd also get more people who don't really mind breaking the law but who aren't willing to risk the stiff penalties current law imposes.
 
haymarket said:
I agree. Legalizing such drugs would only increase usage... increase the problems that arise from usage .... and increase the misery that drugs can bring.
Click to expand...

Arguable. The crime that surrounds the illegal drug trade, the questionable choices that are made in an effort to hide drug use due to it's illegality, the psychological impact to being "responsible" when one is already doing something illegal...there's a lot of factors that increase the misery that drugs can bring currently that conceivably could be reduced should they become legal. The question to actually determine the impact would be whether or not the net effect is positive or negative, not just looking at it from one angle which helps ones argument.
 
Zyphlin said:
Arguable. The crime that surrounds the illegal drug trade, the questionable choices that are made in an effort to hide drug use due to it's illegality, the psychological impact to being "responsible" when one is already doing something illegal...there's a lot of factors that increase the misery that drugs can bring currently that conceivably could be reduced should they become legal. The question to actually determine the impact would be whether or not the net effect is positive or negative, not just looking at it from one angle which helps ones argument.
Click to expand...

Sorry for agreeing with you. :(
 
Zyphlin said:
Arguable. The crime that surrounds the illegal drug trade, the questionable choices that are made in an effort to hide drug use due to it's illegality, the psychological impact to being "responsible" when one is already doing something illegal...there's a lot of factors that increase the misery that drugs can bring currently that conceivably could be reduced should they become legal. The question to actually determine the impact would be whether or not the net effect is positive or negative, not just looking at it from one angle which helps ones argument.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was not trying to make a comprehensive statement on the whether or not drugs should be legal -- just talking about whether laws actually reduce drug use, as it was suggested by TD and others that they do not. The implication being that it would be senseless to pass more stringent gun laws because they would not be effective.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Sorry for agreeing with you. :(
Click to expand...

You weren't. You were agreeing with your point that you projected onto mine. I didn't make any suggestion in my post that problems or misery would arise. I only suggested that more individuals would likely use them because those who wouldn't break the law previously would have the opportunity to use it.

So taking it back to the drug/gun analogy. Yeah, gun's being legal allows more people to have them. Primarily, individuals who wouldn't have them if they were made illegal because 1) They are illegal or 2) The punishment is too severe [and whatever that punishment is, it's not as severe as murder or assault with a deadly weapon]. Are there likely a handful that don't fall in that category? Sure. But not enough to warrant punishing the vast majority.
 
AdamT said:
Yes, I was not trying to make a comprehensive statement on the whether or not drugs should be legal -- just talking about whether laws actually reduce drug use, as it was suggested by TD and others that they do not. The implication being that it would be senseless to pass more stringent gun laws because they would not be effective.
Click to expand...

An argument can be made it wouldn't be exceedingly effective against those who perpetrate the acts that led to you wanting more stringent gun laws...namely, those taking actions like this.

Killing people like this is illegal, so the individual has no issue breaking the law. Killing people like this has a much harsher penalty then would ever be put into place for owning a gun, so the individual isn't exactly deterred by the threat of penalty.

The large majority of individuals you're going to be effective in taking guns out of their hands in terms of stringent gun laws are those who want to adhere to the law or those who are deterred by relatively minor to moderate legal punishment.
 
Zyphlin said:
You weren't. You were agreeing with your point that you projected onto mine. I didn't make any suggestion in my post that problems or misery would arise. I only suggested that more individuals would likely use them because those who wouldn't break the law previously would have the opportunity to use it.

So taking it back to the drug/gun analogy. Yeah, gun's being legal allows more people to have them. Primarily, individuals who wouldn't have them if they were made illegal because 1) They are illegal or 2) The punishment is too severe [and whatever that punishment is, it's not as severe as murder or assault with a deadly weapon]. Are there likely a handful that don't fall in that category? Sure. But not enough to warrant punishing the vast majority.
Click to expand...

sure ... whatever .... okay.....

would hate to think we agree on something...... the world might stop spinning.
 
haymarket said:
sure ... whatever .... okay.....

would hate to think we agree on something...... the world might stop spinning.
Click to expand...

Um. No.

I have no problem that we agree the use would increase.

We don't agree with the continuing statements you made
 
Zyphlin said:
An argument can be made it wouldn't be exceedingly effective against those who perpetrate the acts that led to you wanting more stringent gun laws...namely, those taking actions like this.

Killing people like this is illegal, so the individual has no issue breaking the law. Killing people like this has a much harsher penalty then would ever be put into place for owning a gun, so the individual isn't exactly deterred by the threat of penalty.

The large majority of individuals you're going to be effective in taking guns out of their hands in terms of stringent gun laws are those who want to adhere to the law or those who are deterred by relatively minor to moderate legal punishment.
Click to expand...
The obvious and heavily used counter argument to this idea is that, with more stringent gun laws, somehow we would end up with fewer guns, and by the laws of supply, fewer guns = harder to acquire.

Meaning, more stringent gun laws results in fewer guns in circulation, which would make it harder to criminals to come accross them using various illegal methods.
 
Connery said:
My post, which for which you base your opinion, speaks only to "children and youth under age 20 are killed or injured by firearms in the United States". It does not address other means and was not intended to. My post and it's content was to support those that held the view there was a nexus between individual freedoms and public safety as a valid viewpoint.
Click to expand...

The study you cited claims accessibility is a "key" factor for the high rates and the fallacy is not mitigated by the referenced age group.
 
KevinKohler said:
The obvious and heavily used counter argument to this idea is that, with more stringent gun laws, somehow we would end up with fewer guns, and by the laws of supply, fewer guns = harder to acquire.

Meaning, more stringent gun laws results in fewer guns in circulation, which would make it harder to criminals to come accross them using various illegal methods.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. More stringent gun laws are something I think would reduce how many criminals have guns by SOME degree. That alone is by no means a reason to do it because it's a very narrow focused way of judging based on information only based on information that helps that sides argument. The correct question would be to weigh that against the amount of law abiding citizens who would have guns removed from their hands that would use them in instances of self-dense, etc. To me, the amount of criminals that would be less likely to have guns in their hands is lower and not worth the trade off to the amount of law abiding citizens who would potentially use guns for legitimate positive reasons having it taken from their hands.

And that's just about gun owners that utilize them for protected purposes. That doesn't even take into account those who are simply exercising their constitutional freedoms in a perfectly legal manner whose liberty we wish to remove in the name of security.
 
Zyphlin said:
Um. No.

I have no problem that we agree the use would increase.

We don't agree with the continuing statements you made
Click to expand...

Yeah - I guess its kind of baseless for me to suggest that if the market drastically increases for narcotics that more people might develop medical problems and various social pathologies that come with narcotic usage. I should have realized that those new LEGAL narcotics will be absent of such negative factors. I am sure the ads on TV will tell us just how great they really are.

Silly me.
 
KevinKohler said:
And if so...then the question must be asked...how to keep people LIKE him, from causing things like this?

Also, if he was simply an idiopathic total nut case...why choose now? Why not snap in school, as seems to be the popular choice with idiopathic nut cases?

The only way to really begin to prevent this sort of ****, it to REALLY understand it, and the people behind it. The better we understand something, the better we can predict something, the better we can prevent something.

Sans guns, this kid would have simply found another way to kill.

Why?
Click to expand...

I don't know. This case could be used as a thesis for a PhD in psycology, then maybe we'd have an idea what caused him to do what he did.

or not. It's not like psycology is an exact science.
 
Furiounova said:
The study you cited claims accessibility is a "key" factor for the high rates and the fallacy is not mitigated by the referenced age group.
Click to expand...

No firearm, no injury by firearm. It really is that simple.
 
It's amazing that people who recognize the futility of gun control laws don't apply that same reasoning to undocumented immigration laws, i. e. "we need stronger border laws! If we just make more laws, all the undocumented workers will leave. Doesn't matter that demand exists."

Become Libertarian: oppose all gun laws, drug laws, and immigration laws. Thank you :)
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Yeah - I guess its kind of baseless for me to suggest that if the market drastically increases for narcotics that more people might develop medical problems and various social pathologies that come with narcotic usage. I should have realized that those new LEGAL narcotics will be absent of such negative factors. I am sure the ads on TV will tell us just how great they really are.

Silly me.
Click to expand...

No, the only silly thing is that you didn't bother to read what I stated and decided to run off on a strawman like this.
 
Zyphlin said:
You weren't. You were agreeing with your point that you projected onto mine. I didn't make any suggestion in my post that problems or misery would arise. I only suggested that more individuals would likely use them because those who wouldn't break the law previously would have the opportunity to use it.

So taking it back to the drug/gun analogy. Yeah, gun's being legal allows more people to have them. Primarily, individuals who wouldn't have them if they were made illegal because 1) They are illegal or 2) The punishment is too severe [and whatever that punishment is, it's not as severe as murder or assault with a deadly weapon]. Are there likely a handful that don't fall in that category? Sure. But not enough to warrant punishing the vast majority.
Click to expand...

The relevant question is whether society wants to punish the suppliers of a good or its consumers. Whenever something is made illegal or more illegal, only the consumers of that good are punished, while the supplier reaps more profits, taking advantage of the artificially reduced supply stemming from that good being illegal. Drug cartels make billions precisely because of this artificial reduction in supply stemming of anti-drug laws; it secures them a monopoly (i. e. a cartel) that otherwise wouldn't exist.

The same thing would happen to guns. If all guns were banned in the US, guns would still be available (albeit illegally) and cost a whole lot more. Meanwhile, small time legit gun dealers would be run out of business, and illegal gun traffickers would become rich kingpins.
 
Zyphlin said:
No, the only silly thing is that you didn't bother to read what I stated and decided to run off on a strawman like this.
Click to expand...

There was no strawman.
 
Zyphlin said:
An argument can be made it wouldn't be exceedingly effective against those who perpetrate the acts that led to you wanting more stringent gun laws...namely, those taking actions like this.

Killing people like this is illegal, so the individual has no issue breaking the law. Killing people like this has a much harsher penalty then would ever be put into place for owning a gun, so the individual isn't exactly deterred by the threat of penalty.

The large majority of individuals you're going to be effective in taking guns out of their hands in terms of stringent gun laws are those who want to adhere to the law or those who are deterred by relatively minor to moderate legal punishment.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking more in terms of dissuading the people from *selling* things like high-capacity magazines. Crazy people are going to do what crazy people do. But we can limit what rational and at least semi-law-abiding people supply them and thus possibly reduce the damage they inflict.
 
solletica said:
The relevant question is whether society wants to punish the suppliers of a good or its consumers. Whenever something is made illegal or more illegal, only the consumers of that good are punished, while the supplier reaps more profits, taking advantage of the artificially reduced supply stemming from that good being illegal. Drug cartels make billions precisely because of this artificial reduction in supply stemming of anti-drug laws; it secures them a monopoly (i. e. a cartel) that otherwise wouldn't exist.

The same thing would happen to guns. If all guns were banned in the US, guns would still be available (albeit illegally) and cost a whole lot more. Meanwhile, small time legit gun dealers would be run out of business, and illegal gun traffickers would become rich kingpins.
Click to expand...

So does your theory about gun prices soaring but still easily available work in a nation like Japan?
 
Connery said:
No firearm, no injury by firearm. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Yep. No brain, no headache. Making THINGS illegal, like recreational drugs, does not make them disappear, just raises their price and puts criminal gangs in charge of their distribution. It may make many more law abiding citizens into unarmed crime victims, pack the jails full of "posession" violators, embolden the criminals and decrease the legal use (thus tens of thousands of jobs) a lot.
 
Perhaps we need a national discussion in this nation as to what constitutes "arms" as in "the right to keep and bear arms"?

Yeah - I know - now is not the time and neither is later the right time.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep. No brain, no headache. Making THINGS illegal, like recreational drugs, does not make them disappear, just raises their price and puts criminal gangs in charge of their distribution. It may make many more law abiding citizens into unarmed crime victims, pack the jails full of "posession" violators, embolden the criminals and decrease the legal use (thus tens of thousands of jobs) a lot.
Click to expand...

Another one who wants to take a simple statement and attach a different meaning for the purpose of it was presented...:roll:
 
haymarket said:
There was no strawman.
Click to expand...

The entire implication that I don't think that there could be additional problems from increased drug usage is a strawman. My argument never suggested it wouldn't, only that judging its worth based simply on that and not the NET effect is short sited.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps we need a national discussion in this nation as to what constitutes "arms" as in "the right to keep and bear arms"?

Yeah - I know - now is not the time and neither is later the right time.
Click to expand...

Why? It won't solve jack

When a person is determined to kill, maim, or otherwise harm a bunch of people

There's nothing you can do about it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom