• 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

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The only thing this will really accomplish is to leave the law-abiding citizens, who will obey the law and turn in their guns, completely at the mercy of armed criminals. All law-abiding citizens should have the right to own a gun if they choose.

Gun control advocates always amuse me, do they ever realize that they make those they believe they are protecting more vulnerable? Do they actually expect the government street gangs (police) will protect people? I remember when my dad bought me my first rifle (age 15) and I ask him why we needed guns his response was that in America nobody is going to protect you, one must learn to protect himself. I found out that day that he had been keeping a a few pistols in the house and had since he served in Vietnam. I also was more full of hope and optimism back then too, unlike the proud cynical bastard that I am now.

Criminals won't obey gun laws | gun, obey, anybody - Opinion - YumaSun
 
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.
 
Gun control advocates always amuse me, do they ever realize that they make those they believe they are protecting more vulnerable? Do they actually expect the government street gangs (police) will protect people? I remember when my dad bought me my first rifle (age 15) and I ask him why we needed guns his response was that in America nobody is going to protect you, one must learn to protect himself. I found out that day that he had been keeping a a few pistols in the house and had since he served in Vietnam. I also was more full of hope and optimism back then too, unlike the proud cynical bastard that I am now.

Criminals won't obey gun laws | gun, obey, anybody - Opinion - YumaSun

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.
 
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.
"Reasonable" gun control necessitates that the law in question has a positive effect on gun violence and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Gun control laws based on the supposition that criminals will comply with said laws are, by the above definition, unreasonable.
 
"Reasonable" gun control necessitates that the law in question has a positive effect on gun violence and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Gun control laws based on the supposition that criminals will comply with said laws are, by the above definition, unreasonable.

Gun laws are not about controlling criminal behaviour but ACCESS to guns.
 
Gun laws are not about controlling criminal behaviour but ACCESS to guns.
Gun laws are about reducing gun violence.
If a gun law has no demonstrable positive effect on gun violence, it is useless; useless laws cannot be held as 'reasonable'.
 
Gun laws are not about controlling criminal behaviour but ACCESS to guns.

I can go down to my local gunshop, follow all the rules, and get in a few weeks get that semi auto pistol and rifle I ordered.

While I'm out at dinner, those guns are taken from my home by a criminal that took all of ten minutes to get his guns.

Your gun laws restricting access fail.

OR, said criminal could purchase said guns off the blackmarket.

Once again, gun "access" = fail.
 
Gun control advocates always amuse me, do they ever realize that they make those they believe they are protecting more vulnerable? Do they actually expect the government street gangs (police) will protect people? I remember when my dad bought me my first rifle (age 15) and I ask him why we needed guns his response was that in America nobody is going to protect you, one must learn to protect himself. I found out that day that he had been keeping a a few pistols in the house and had since he served in Vietnam. I also was more full of hope and optimism back then too, unlike the proud cynical bastard that I am now.

Criminals won't obey gun laws | gun, obey, anybody - Opinion - YumaSun

What's your beef with the Police? I seriously lose respect for you bro when you use such idiotic comments like "Government street gangs"
 
I can go down to my local gunshop, follow all the rules, and get in a few weeks get that semi auto pistol and rifle I ordered.

While I'm out at dinner, those guns are taken from my home by a criminal that took all of ten minutes to get his guns.
Of course. Criminals rarely get their guns thru legal means.
Thus, restrictions on the law abiding do not have a demonstrable effect on criminals' access to guns.
 
Of course. Criminals rarely get their guns thru legal means.
Thus, restrictions on the law abiding do not have a demonstrable effect on criminals' access to guns.

Of course they do not, I was merely illustrating the futility of restricting "access" to criminals as a reason for odious ineffective gun laws.
 
Of course they do not, I was merely illustrating the futility of restricting "access" to criminals as a reason for odious ineffective gun laws.
Agree completely.
 
Gun laws are not about controlling criminal behaviour but ACCESS to guns.
That's right, and typically criminals don't buy their guns at gun stores. So controlling access there only controls law abiding citizens.
 
"Reasonable" gun control necessitates that the law in question has a positive effect on gun violence and does not infringe on the rights of the law abiding.

Gun control laws based on the supposition that criminals will comply with said laws are, by the above definition, unreasonable.

I'm not coming at gun control from the angle of trying to prevent people from having access to guns. I'm coming at it from the angle that the government should try to exercise due diligence to make sure that people who do purchase firearms legally are informed of laws surrounding firearms and safe usage of them.

What I would ideally like to see is something similar to the following:

Before you're allowed to purchase any firearms, you must get a gun-owners license. To get one you'd need to take an approved course on gun laws and gun safety, and pass a simple test on the same subjects. The test should be very basic and most of the answers should be common sense (similar to the driver's test to get your learner's permit). You only need to take the course once, and you can take the test as many times as you want until you pass.

Then, whenever you purchase a gun, you would need to register it with the government. Ideally, the gun would have a unique identification number etched into it in several places, similar to the VIN number on a car.

The only other restriction would be you'd have to pass a criminal background check.
 
I'm not coming at gun control from the angle of trying to prevent people from having access to guns. I'm coming at it from the angle that the government should try to exercise due diligence to make sure that people who do purchase firearms legally are informed of laws surrounding firearms and safe usage of them.

What I would ideally like to see is something similar to the following:

Before you're allowed to purchase any firearms, you must get a gun-owners license. To get one you'd need to take an approved course on gun laws and gun safety, and pass a simple test on the same subjects. The test should be very basic and most of the answers should be common sense (similar to the driver's test to get your learner's permit). You only need to take the course once, and you can take the test as many times as you want until you pass.

Then, whenever you purchase a gun, you would need to register it with the government. Ideally, the gun would have a unique identification number etched into it in several places, similar to the VIN number on a car.

The only other restriction would be you'd have to pass a criminal background check.


What if we applied the same thing to the first amendment



You must present a license to go to political debate forums,chat on the phone,talk or write letters to anyone, go to church, be a reporter, protest or to address grievances to the government.

You must take classes on what is and isn't offensive, what constitutes libel and treason. If you want to join a church you must take classes first on what that religion believes in as so not to offend them or be surprised when certain issues come up.

You must register you pencil, paper,computers,telephone and anything else used for verbal or nonverbal communication, you must register your bibles and other religious books and anything else used to exercise 1st amendment rights.

Ideally each pencil or pack of pencils should have a unique lead content so that if someone writes a threatening letter it can be traced back to the person who bought the pencil.Paper should have a unique composition so that a threatening letter can be traced back to the person who bought the paper Computers and computer hardware should be registered so that if someone downloads copyrighted material,slanders someone,threatens someone or downloads child porn the computer can be traced back to the person who bought it.
Bibles should have a unique serial number just in case someone hits someone over the head with it or uses it for hate speech and leaves it at the scene it can be traced back to it's original owner.
Telephones/cellphones and any other device used for communication should have a unique serial number as its parts and be registered with the government so that if you make a threatening phone call,slander someone, spreads hate speech, or anything else the government can trace it back to the person who bought it.

You must pass a criminal back ground check before getting a 1st amendment license.
 
A criminal is, by definition, someone who doesn't obey the laws
Not entirely accurate.
There are many law abiding, voting and productive members of society that have been convicted of committing a crime in the past, yet are still called a criminal.
Better wording would be 'hasn't obeyed'.


What I would ideally like to see is something similar to the following:
Because those are infringements to actually owning a firearm, I do not agree with them.
 
I'm not coming at gun control from the angle of trying to prevent people from having access to guns...
You are, until they meet your conditions.
These preconditions to the exercise of the right are infringements.
 
What if we applied the same thing to the first amendment



You must present a license to go to political debate forums,chat on the phone,talk or write letters to anyone, go to church, be a reporter, protest or to address grievances to the government.

You must take classes on what is and isn't offensive, what constitutes libel and treason. If you want to join a church you must take classes first on what that religion believes in as so not to offend them or be surprised when certain issues come up.

You must register you pencil, paper,computers,telephone and anything else used for verbal or nonverbal communication, you must register your bibles and other religious books and anything else used to exercise 1st amendment rights.

Ideally each pencil or pack of pencils should have a unique lead content so that if someone writes a threatening letter it can be traced back to the person who bought the pencil.Paper should have a unique composition so that a threatening letter can be traced back to the person who bought the paper Computers and computer hardware should be registered so that if someone downloads copyrighted material,slanders someone,threatens someone or downloads child porn the computer can be traced back to the person who bought it.
Bibles should have a unique serial number just in case someone hits someone over the head with it or uses it for hate speech and leaves it at the scene it can be traced back to it's original owner.
Telephones/cellphones and any other device used for communication should have a unique serial number as its parts and be registered with the government so that if you make a threatening phone call,slander someone, spreads hate speech, or anything else the government can trace it back to the person who bought it.

You must pass a criminal back ground check before getting a 1st amendment license.

I see what you're saying, and it is a double standard. But it's one I'm comfortable with. You can't kill someone with hate speech. You can with a gun.
 
You are, until they meet your conditions.
These preconditions to the exercise of the right are infringements.

I said I wasn't in favor of preventing people from owning guns, and I stand by that.

There's a difference though, between preventing gun ownership and restricting it, and I am in favor of restrictions.
 
I said I wasn't in favor of preventing people from owning guns, and I stand by that.
You're OK with it 00 so long as they meet your preconditions.
Absent that, you are NOT OK with it.

You are arguing that "You cannot own a gun, unless..."

There's a difference though, between preventing gun ownership and restricting it, and I am in favor of restrictions
Yes... and as I said, the restrictions you want are infingements.
 
I disagree.
You can disagree all you want; unless you can show that these things would pass a test of strict scrutiny, your disagreement is unsupportable.

Predconditions to the exercise of a right not inherent to that right are, necessarily, infringements.
 
I see what you're saying, and it is a double standard. But it's one I'm comfortable with. You can't kill someone with hate speech. You can with a gun.

Guns don't kill people, pencils do.
 
I said I wasn't in favor of preventing people from owning guns, and I stand by that.

There's a difference though, between preventing gun ownership and restricting it, and I am in favor of restrictions.

You need to get together with like minded people and change the Constitution... what you want is an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights, and at present, that is against the law.
 
I disagree.

Restrictions are infringements.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life

infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 
5734_531657073336_53502627_31508641_5370787_n.jpg


:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom