• 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 Control advocates...

TurtleDude said:
gun control laws that harass honest people don't decrease crime. but then again, that wasn't the purpose that motivated Bannerrhoids to push such laws


https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...s-less-safe/3845k7xHzkwTrBWy4KpkEM/story.html


“Massachusetts probably has the toughest laws on the books, but what happens is people go across borders and buy guns and bring them into our state,” rationalizes Boston Mayor Tom Menino. “Guns have no borders.”

This has become a popular argument in gun-control circles. It may even be convincing to someone emotionally committed to the belief that ever-stricter gun control is a plausible path to safety. But it doesn’t hold water.
Click to expand...

It only holds water for idiots who think it is possible to deny criminals what they want. ie the only way they can get guns is now closed.... like the only way they can get drugs or the only way they managed to get alcohol during prohibition...... dimwits who cannot think for themselves.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, I'm asserting that if a law is underenforced, and specifically current gun laws, it is preferable to actually up the enforcement of those laws rather than to have new, underenforced laws, especially laws aimed at making the exercise of guns rights more difficult for law abiding citizens that don't negatively impact criminals at all or have any impact to the crime rate. Laws like "universal" background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, "assault weapons" bans, etc.


How much better do enforced laws work at influencing behavior? How well does incarceration work at preventing the incarcerated from committing a crime against society during that period of incarceration? How well does the certainty of punishment influence behavior?

To be more precise - what laws are you wanting to impose, and what behavior by whom will those laws influence?
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no purpose in enforcing laws which are not or "under enforced". Such laws are useless to cops because if they wotked they would not be under enforced. Worked to a cop means it is helpful in bringing CRIMINALS to justice. Cops are not great on administrative crimes which impact mainly good people or are of no help in reducing crime.

The reason they are under enforced needs to be examined and not blindly throwing resources at useless laws.

For your other questions see the father of criminology Cesare Beccaria "Of crimes and punishments"

Cesare Beccaria: Of Crimes and Punishments

This will give so in-depth thought on the subject.
 
Rucker61 said:
I'll go further: a measurable, material reduction in crime and increase in public safety attributable to the law. "If it saves even one life" isn't acceptable.
Click to expand...

I usually don't pander to dummies but in the case of gun control advocates exceptions must be made as stating the obvious is not obvious to them.

I can't agree with that. There are millions of anti-gun people out there who'd be perfectly happy if guns all disappeared by magic, or were forcibly confiscated by the government.
Click to expand...

Mea culpa. Sometimes I take things I should not for granted. Everyone of those millions is only interested because of their own safety. It is out of fear they wish to deprive others. That fear is for their own lives and nobody else.

What people say, do and think are often not the same. Few will admit to being selfish yet that is what all gun control supporters really are. I know this and assume others do.... as it is deductible logic based on observable behaviour.

I have spent +30 trying to figure an understanding of this fight in order to win. That leaves no place for error so thanks for pointing that out. It is an obvious thing that needs to be understood and not acted on out of error.
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
Have you realized yet that you don't have an actual argument against gun control, whatsoever?
Click to expand...

The point is simple: if 4 felony "gun crime" convictions gets a person placed on *gasp* probation then how seriously are those "gun crime" laws to be taken? The objection is not to gun control, but to passing laws declaring a non-violent act to be a felony and then allowing folks that violate a felony "gun crime" law multiple times to recieve a sentence which is less than that for driving drunk or running a red light.

Simply be honest and say that these laws are all for show - they let folks inflate felony "gun crime" statistics yet are not taking a multiple count "gun crime" felony convict off of the streets. A sentence of if you commit a felony "gun crime" for a 5th time then there may be serious consequences is a ridiculous sentence.
 
Black Dog said:
Well thanks for having nothing worth saying. It's been a pleasure.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you mean by that... I think that you're mad because I wouldn't engage you in a diatribe on gun control with respect to this issue. We both agree that this individual should have gotten jail time. You may remember however that I posted a story of a guy from Oakland who had a CCW license and had been traveling back and forth to Arizona I think it was, and had been buying and then selling on the streets of Oakland. He bought and sold 90 pistol; and he got jail time. So this gal in the new story, pled down and got away with it and the law allows for that. So since we agree, I don't know what your problem is.
 
jet57 said:
I don't know what you mean by that... I think that you're mad because I wouldn't engage you in a diatribe on gun control with respect to this issue. We both agree that this individual should have gotten jail time. You may remember however that I posted a story of a guy from Oakland who had a CCW license and had been traveling back and forth to Arizona I think it was, and had been buying and then selling on the streets of Oakland. He bought and sold 90 pistol; and he got jail time. So this gal in the new story, pled down and got away with it and the law allows for that. So since we agree, I don't know what your problem is.
Click to expand...

So you are still going to play stupid? You said...

jet57 said:
The story is a year old, she had a clean record and pleaded down the charges.

So what.
Click to expand...

So you are stating the story is old, and she had a clean record, so no big deal. Now that has nothing at all to do with the point I was making. That is until we treat the laws for guns we already have on the books as the felonies they are, new laws are an incredible waste of time.

My "problem" is that you said basically it was no big deal so lets just drop it. Sorry the whole reason for this thread was not that the story was from a year ago or that it was meh.

So again thanks for contributing nothing.
 
Black Dog said:
So you are still going to play stupid? You said...



So you are stating the story is old, and she had a clean record, so no big deal. Now that has nothing at all to do with the point I was making. That is until we treat the laws for guns we already have on the books as the felonies they are, new laws are an incredible waste of time.

My "problem" is that you said basically it was no big deal so lets just drop it. Sorry the whole reason for this thread was not that the story was from a year ago or that it was meh.

So again thanks for contributing nothing.
Click to expand...

(chuckle)

Dude; that was just my first comments on it. I clarified and agreed with you later. The point, as with all cases, is that - the law has spoken. I never said drop it, I said I don't know why you keep attacking ME as we agree on this, so what's your point? You're mad because of the way it turned out that's all. I had nothing to do with it. Pleading down a charge happens every day; the cleaner your record, the better your chances. On the subject of "the law on straw buying and selling on the black market", I gave you a case wherein a guy did in fact get jail time and you're conveniently ignoring that in favor of attacking me personally; which actually says more about your thinking here than anything about the subject.

So I've contributed a great deal to the discussion can clarification, but you don't what to see that part of it. You just want to attack me personally, which is the gun thread MO, so...
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

Dude; that was just my first comments on it. I clarified and agreed with you later. The point, as with all cases, is that - the law has spoken. I never said drop it, I said I don't know why you keep attacking ME as we agree on this, so what's your point? You're mad because of the way it turned out that's all. I had nothing to do with it. Pleading down a charge happens every day; the cleaner your record, the better your chances. On the subject of "the law on straw buying and selling on the black market", I gave you a case wherein a guy did in fact get jail time and you're conveniently ignoring that in favor of attacking me personally; which actually says more about your thinking here than anything about the subject.

So I've contributed a great deal to the discussion can clarification, but you don't what to see that part of it. You just want to attack me personally, which is the gun thread MO, so...
Click to expand...

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Again thanks for contributing nothing.
 
Black Dog said:
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Again thanks for contributing nothing.
Click to expand...

Show me the red herring.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah; you've ceded the argument.

Good
Click to expand...

That would be a lie. Your Haymarket tactics will not work here, lol! It's not like anyone does not see that nonsense. The whole addressing the example rather than the argument. Please, I have been here to long for that nonsense. Again thanks for nothing. No argument, no nothing.

I will take you game playing and red herring for what it is.
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

Dude; that was just my first comments on it. I clarified and agreed with you later. The point, as with all cases, is that - the law has spoken. I never said drop it, I said I don't know why you keep attacking ME as we agree on this, so what's your point? You're mad because of the way it turned out that's all. I had nothing to do with it. Pleading down a charge happens every day; the cleaner your record, the better your chances. On the subject of "the law on straw buying and selling on the black market", I gave you a case wherein a guy did in fact get jail time and you're conveniently ignoring that in favor of attacking me personally; which actually says more about your thinking here than anything about the subject.

So I've contributed a great deal to the discussion can clarification, but you don't what to see that part of it. You just want to attack me personally, which is the gun thread MO, so...
Click to expand...

Nice bait and switch. Who do you think you caught?

If you have ever contributed anything useful I have yet to see it. Could you post a link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom