quade 4 #101 January 7, 2004 Quote There's yet another generic criticism, just like Kallend's. Not at all! A fact is something that is not disputable. For instance, the statement "a water molecule is comprised of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom" would be considered a fact. An example of a logical statement could be "if 1 + 1 = 2 and if 2 + 2 = 4 then 1 + 1 + 2 = 4". Your conclusion that "Gun Control Laws Don't Work! " is neither factual nor logical based on the information you've presented.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #102 January 7, 2004 QuoteOk my point is: even if the law keeps guns away from even one felon it works whether they murder anybody or not. Nope, that is not how freedom is maintained. We could pass all kinds of laws based upon the argument that "if it saves just one life, it will be worth it." For example, we could ban alcohol to prevent tragic deaths from drunk driving. Oh wait, we already tried that and it was a disaster. We could ban illegal drugs to prevent people from ruining their lives. Oh wait, we're doing that now, and it doesn't work. We could eliminate freedom of speech to ban pornography and protect children, but then we would be less free. *Any* proposal could be justified on that basis. And all of our freedoms could be sacrificed "to save just one life". The fact is, freedom isn't free. There are pros and cons to freedom. Allowing people certain freedoms, may have some negative aspects. But in balance, we prefer to keep the freedom. Should skydiving be banned to save lives? If it saves 30 fatalities per year, wouldn't it be worth it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #103 January 7, 2004 QuoteThere seems to be an element missing here. There are those that consider all gun laws either inherently good or bad. But a reasonable discussion would seem to require a specific law be cited. I believe that we should (do) have the right to own firearms, but that doesn't mean that I believe trying to keep firearms out of the hands of those with violent criminal histories is a bad idea. How this should be done makes for a better discussion. Excellent point! I'm all for keeping people with histories of violence from obtaining guns and other weapons. However, any such person who wants one, will get one, despite any laws passed attempting to prohibit him. You don't change someone's violent character or intent by passing laws. So all those laws really seem to accomplish is to harass law-abiding gun owners, who aren't the problem. Let's just prosecute people to the full extent of the law when they commit violent crimes. Period. No parole. No time off for good behavior. Three strikes, you're out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #104 January 7, 2004 Quote>Nah, the Canadians are just more easy-going and tolerant than Americans. must be the weather Actually, there may be something to that. For example, crime rates are higher in the southern U.S., than in the north. Cold weather may deter criminals from being out and about, looking for victims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #105 January 7, 2004 Dude...I gotta tell you. I'm on your side on this issue, but what's with the 500 posts in a row on the same thread? It's the visual equivalent of incessant babbling. I can't make myself read through all your posts even though you may have some good points. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #106 January 7, 2004 QuoteJust because I may talk about this subject a lot hear, doesn't mean that what I say is invalid. Nope, but it certainly does suggest that this subject is your pet cause which, you may recall, was my intitial observation.A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #107 January 7, 2004 Thus...A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #108 January 7, 2004 QuoteI'm not aware of any law that can prevent a murder or other act of violence. Your previous quote: " Ok my point is: even if the law keeps guns away from even one felon it works whether they murder anybody or not. " So how come you consider a gun law to "work", even though it doesn't prevent any crimes? If this theoretical felon gets a gun, but doesn't use it to hurt anyone, where is the problem? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n2skdvn 0 #109 January 7, 2004 well i can see this thread is like a dull pencil now... it's lost it's pointif my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN my site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #110 January 7, 2004 QuotePardon me, I don't know any Law abiding citizens who have not been able to own any firearm they chose. Preventive laws don't affect law abiding citizens either. Incorrect. Because they are law-abiding, they can only acquire those firearms and accessories which are government-approved. For example, if I'm visiting another state and see a handgun I like, I can't just buy it on the spot and take it home with me. The government only allows me to buy handguns in my home state. Criminals, on the other hand, who don't care about laws and jail time, can obtain all the handguns they want, anywhere they want, on the black market, or through theft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sdgregory 0 #111 January 7, 2004 Quotewell i can see this thread is like a dull pencil now... it's lost it's point Do you just have like a cut and paste response here? I know you have said this in other threads bvefore Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n2skdvn 0 #112 January 7, 2004 nope typed it but i am looking for new material. lighten up people. and smileif my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN my site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #113 January 7, 2004 QuoteI can't go out and buy an automatic weapon. They're completely illegal. Actually, that's not entirely true, and is a common misconception. There are 254,000 registered machine guns in private civilian ownership. Since coming under regulation by the National Firearms Act in 1934, only _one_ murder has been committed with a legally owned machine gun. One murder in over 60 years! We should be so fortunate as to have other consumer items achieve the same exemplary safety record. All you have to do is register both yourself and the firearm with the BATF, and pay a "tax". These items tend to be fairly expensive, which keeps most people from bothering with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #114 January 7, 2004 they're completely illegal if made after 1986. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #115 January 7, 2004 QuoteBut take for example a specific gun law which prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of violent crime. This law would not prevent that person from possessing a firearm. It would however provide the grounds to take the firearm away from that person. Yes, those laws which specifically target criminals, without hindering the law-abiding, are fine. However, if that prohibited person uses that gun in another crime, then the laws for those crimes already provide the means to punish them. If an ex-felon robs a 7-11 at gunpoint, we can be tried for armed robbery. The law prohibiting him from owning the gun in the first place, really doesn't add anything to the situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #116 January 7, 2004 Quoteif you've committed a felony, you give up some of your rights. the right to bear arms should be one of them. And that is the current law. The ban applies for life, regardless of the fact that the felon has served his sentence and paid restitution. And it even applies to all felony crimes, regardless of whether or not they were violent in nature. A mild, meek bookkeeper who embezzles funds from his employer, is treated the same as a murderer, in this regard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #117 January 7, 2004 Quotemade or imported PRIOR TO 1985. What if I want one that was made last week? I'm a law abiding citizen with no interest other than as a collector. why can't I buy one? The actual date is 1986. You can't have one manufactured after that date "because the government says so". It's illogical, but that's the nature of gun laws. Those that are available, because of the cutoff date, are finite in number. And that makes them valuable collector items, which appreciate in value over time. BATF Machinegun FAQ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #118 January 7, 2004 Quote The actual date is 1986. You can't have one manufactured after that date "because the government says so". It's illogical, but that's the nature of gun laws. You're familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws? Cut off dates are not specific to the nature of gun laws.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #119 January 7, 2004 QuoteIn Fla. last I checked you can get a dealer license, pretty easy as long as no convictions(can own full autos) and concealed firearm permit is easy. You can buy anthing you want at a gun show w/ no problem I have to question your definition of "easy". A gun dealer license costs money, paperwork, background check, and a business location (can't be your home). A concealed carry permit costs money, background check, fingerprints, and mandatory training. All the usual gun laws still apply at gun shows - if you buy a machinegun at a gun show without the proper BATF procedures, both the seller and the buyer face 10 years in prison. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #120 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuote Let's just prosecute people to the full extent of the law when they commit violent crimes. Period. No parole. No time off for good behavior. Three strikes, you're out. What about the non-criminals who are simply negligent in various ways that either cause accidents or allow their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sdgregory 0 #121 January 7, 2004 QuoteI have to question your definition of "easy". A gun dealer license costs money, paperwork, background check, and a business location (can't be your home). You sure about this one? I buy my firearms from a guy who has a dealer's license in Ohio and runs it out of his home. He does not keep any weapons in stock though and only sells to his friends. He also only sells them for his cost. He got the license for this reason only. He does not even work the cost of his license into the prices we pay him. And I know that that is an expensive license to hold. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,131 #122 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteyour premise "Gun Control Laws Don't Work! " is neither factual nor logical. There's yet another generic criticism, just like Kallend's. It is void of any specifics. It's so easy to throw those out, since you don't actually provide any facts or logic to support your statement. Which makes it worthless and meaningless. I provided a study to support my statement. You've provided nothing. The study you provided is not proof of anything. If it were a legitimate piece of research it would be published in a peer-reviewed journal, not by a "think tank" with an agenda to push. I don't believe any "research" coming out of think tanks, either of the left or the right, unless it is independently peer reviewed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AdD 1 #123 January 7, 2004 According to the CDC there were 3.9 firearm homocides per 100,000 people in the US in 2000. In Canada that figure was about 0.48 per 100 000. That means the US gun homocide rate was 8 times higher in year 2000. Those were the latest stats I could find. Both of these are credible agencies, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Less guns means less people die from being shot. I frankly don't see why this is even a debate. I will criticize the canadian firearms registration because it costs way too much, but gun control in general seems to be effective here. Now I'm gonna go watch a fight behind the hockey arena. These are my sources btw. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/firearms.htm www.statcan.comLife is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #124 January 7, 2004 QuoteHowever, I think the NRA and other pro-gun organizations have made a real effort to ensure that the implementation of gun laws was destined to fail. Balogna. Provide some facts or examples to support this assertion. The NRA actually works with legislators to try to make the laws effective, without impacting law-abiding gun owners. For example, when "cop killer" bullets were going to be banned, because they can cut through a bullet-proof vest, the NRA pointed out that the definition being used would outlaw virtually every rifle cartridge in existence, exterminating hunting and shooting sports with long guns acrosss the nation. QuoteI suspect that effective laws could be devised Care to give us an example of one? QuoteThe USA accepts the status quo, including a ridiculously high homicide rate, because it likes it that way. Same with highway speed limits and the highway death rate. Yeah, we're barbarians over here, and we just love to see our fellow citizens slaughtered - so much for your credibility... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bmcd308 0 #125 January 7, 2004 >>negligent in various ways << We have civil liability for that. >>cause accidents<< Civil and perhaps criminal. >>allow their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals? << Interesting perversion. It is a crime for a criminal to have a firearm. So we already have laws addressing that. This argument seems to me to be a bit analogous to the argument that I should not be able to learn about exothermic reactions because I might build a bomb, or that I should not have access to ammonium perchlorate because I might build an antiaircraft system, or that I should go on a list for buying two bottles of Sudafed because I might be cooking meth. Essentially, all these laws do is criminalize more stuff and make more people "criminals." A motivated person will always be able to get what they want / need to achieve a goal, particularly if they are flexible in their goals and have nothing to lose. That is just a sad fact of life. Keeping me from buying guns because they might "fall" from my control into that of a criminal makes about as much sense to me as keeping you from buying model rocket motors because you might rig an explosive payload and launch one into the open window of a building. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 15 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
sdgregory 0 #121 January 7, 2004 QuoteI have to question your definition of "easy". A gun dealer license costs money, paperwork, background check, and a business location (can't be your home). You sure about this one? I buy my firearms from a guy who has a dealer's license in Ohio and runs it out of his home. He does not keep any weapons in stock though and only sells to his friends. He also only sells them for his cost. He got the license for this reason only. He does not even work the cost of his license into the prices we pay him. And I know that that is an expensive license to hold. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #122 January 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteyour premise "Gun Control Laws Don't Work! " is neither factual nor logical. There's yet another generic criticism, just like Kallend's. It is void of any specifics. It's so easy to throw those out, since you don't actually provide any facts or logic to support your statement. Which makes it worthless and meaningless. I provided a study to support my statement. You've provided nothing. The study you provided is not proof of anything. If it were a legitimate piece of research it would be published in a peer-reviewed journal, not by a "think tank" with an agenda to push. I don't believe any "research" coming out of think tanks, either of the left or the right, unless it is independently peer reviewed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdD 1 #123 January 7, 2004 According to the CDC there were 3.9 firearm homocides per 100,000 people in the US in 2000. In Canada that figure was about 0.48 per 100 000. That means the US gun homocide rate was 8 times higher in year 2000. Those were the latest stats I could find. Both of these are credible agencies, I think the numbers speak for themselves. Less guns means less people die from being shot. I frankly don't see why this is even a debate. I will criticize the canadian firearms registration because it costs way too much, but gun control in general seems to be effective here. Now I'm gonna go watch a fight behind the hockey arena. These are my sources btw. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/firearms.htm www.statcan.comLife is ez On the dz Every jumper's dream 3 rigs and an airstream Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #124 January 7, 2004 QuoteHowever, I think the NRA and other pro-gun organizations have made a real effort to ensure that the implementation of gun laws was destined to fail. Balogna. Provide some facts or examples to support this assertion. The NRA actually works with legislators to try to make the laws effective, without impacting law-abiding gun owners. For example, when "cop killer" bullets were going to be banned, because they can cut through a bullet-proof vest, the NRA pointed out that the definition being used would outlaw virtually every rifle cartridge in existence, exterminating hunting and shooting sports with long guns acrosss the nation. QuoteI suspect that effective laws could be devised Care to give us an example of one? QuoteThe USA accepts the status quo, including a ridiculously high homicide rate, because it likes it that way. Same with highway speed limits and the highway death rate. Yeah, we're barbarians over here, and we just love to see our fellow citizens slaughtered - so much for your credibility... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bmcd308 0 #125 January 7, 2004 >>negligent in various ways << We have civil liability for that. >>cause accidents<< Civil and perhaps criminal. >>allow their weapons to fall into the hands of criminals? << Interesting perversion. It is a crime for a criminal to have a firearm. So we already have laws addressing that. This argument seems to me to be a bit analogous to the argument that I should not be able to learn about exothermic reactions because I might build a bomb, or that I should not have access to ammonium perchlorate because I might build an antiaircraft system, or that I should go on a list for buying two bottles of Sudafed because I might be cooking meth. Essentially, all these laws do is criminalize more stuff and make more people "criminals." A motivated person will always be able to get what they want / need to achieve a goal, particularly if they are flexible in their goals and have nothing to lose. That is just a sad fact of life. Keeping me from buying guns because they might "fall" from my control into that of a criminal makes about as much sense to me as keeping you from buying model rocket motors because you might rig an explosive payload and launch one into the open window of a building. ---------------------------------- www.jumpelvis.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
