Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

U.S. Gun Violence

Page 3 of 34 [ 530 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 34  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

18 Jan 2014, 2:33 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
LKL wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'
Is that the best analogy you can come up with? Try strict drug laws.


Strict drug laws (being punished for personal use of marijuana, for example) are stupid as well. The ban on light drugs haven't done anything apart from turning shady characters into businessmen and giving regular people punishments they do not deserve.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jan 2014, 2:39 pm

Kurgan wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
LKL wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'
Is that the best analogy you can come up with? Try strict drug laws.


Strict drug laws (being punished for personal use of marijuana, for example) are stupid as well. The ban on light drugs haven't done anything apart from turning shady characters into businessmen and giving regular people punishments they do not deserve.
I don't disagree at all. That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across. Prohibiting possession of things like guns and drugs only serves to prop up a black market for them and it's totally ridiculous to compare prohibiting objects to prohibiting actions.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 18 Jan 2014, 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

18 Jan 2014, 2:40 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
LKL wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'
Is that the best analogy you can come up with? Try strict drug laws.


Strict drug laws (being punished for personal use of marijuana, for example) are stupid as well. The ban on light drugs haven't done anything apart from turning shady characters into businessmen and giving regular people punishments they do not deserve.
I don't disagree at all. That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across. Prohibiting possession of things like guns and drugs only serves to prop up a black market for them and it's totally ridiculous to compare prohibiting guns to prohibiting an action that intentionally harms someone else.


Then we agree. :)



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

18 Jan 2014, 2:55 pm

Yeah, I was actually defending you lol. I'm no fan of prohibiting things in general or the media's fear mongering BS.



American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

18 Jan 2014, 3:05 pm

Kurgan wrote:
LKL wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'


Assault is an action, i.e. something that is punishable. Guns are properties and inanimate objects--thus they only reflect the will of whoever interacts with them. I'm not sure about the US, but guns in Scandinavia used for criminal purposes are almost always stolen (and they're usually stolen from the military).

Laws against violence renders laws against gun unnecessary, save for very limited restrictions (eg. selling guns to mentally challenged people).


Kurgan is correct. The act of owning or carrying a gun does not harm anyone, whereas battery or other crimes that have victims do harm others and therefore should be illegal. I agree with public smoking bans (and think they should be extended to most outdoor places too) but I am against banning people from carrying cigarettes in smoke-free places. The harmful act is the smoking of the cigarette because it pollutes the air, so that should be a crime but the act of carrying the cigarettes harms no one. It should be illegal to shoot someone unless in legitimate self-defense but merely carrying a gun should be legal.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2014, 3:08 pm

American wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
LKL wrote:
Kurgan wrote:
Strict gun laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.

'Strict assault laws make no sense whatsoever; criminals aren't exactly known to follow laws.'


Assault is an action, i.e. something that is punishable. Guns are properties and inanimate objects--thus they only reflect the will of whoever interacts with them. I'm not sure about the US, but guns in Scandinavia used for criminal purposes are almost always stolen (and they're usually stolen from the military).

Laws against violence renders laws against gun unnecessary, save for very limited restrictions (eg. selling guns to mentally challenged people).


Kurgan is correct. The act of owning or carrying a gun does not harm anyone, whereas battery or other crimes that have victims do harm others and therefore should be illegal. I agree with public smoking bans (and think they should be extended to most outdoor places too) but I am against banning people from carrying cigarettes in smoke-free places. The harmful act is the smoking of the cigarette because it pollutes the air, so that should be a crime but the act of carrying the cigarettes harms no one. It should be illegal to shoot someone unless in legitimate self-defense but merely carrying a gun should be legal.


I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than somene carrying a gun.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

18 Jan 2014, 3:19 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
American wrote:

Kurgan is correct. The act of owning or carrying a gun does not harm anyone, whereas battery or other crimes that have victims do harm others and therefore should be illegal. I agree with public smoking bans (and think they should be extended to most outdoor places too) but I am against banning people from carrying cigarettes in smoke-free places. The harmful act is the smoking of the cigarette because it pollutes the air, so that should be a crime but the act of carrying the cigarettes harms no one. It should be illegal to shoot someone unless in legitimate self-defense but merely carrying a gun should be legal.


I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than someone carrying a gun.


Unless you like the smell of nasty cigarette smoke that makes no sense. Who would you rather stand next to: someone smoking a cigarette or someone carrying a gun who is not going to shoot you?



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2014, 3:30 pm

American wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
American wrote:

Kurgan is correct. The act of owning or carrying a gun does not harm anyone, whereas battery or other crimes that have victims do harm others and therefore should be illegal. I agree with public smoking bans (and think they should be extended to most outdoor places too) but I am against banning people from carrying cigarettes in smoke-free places. The harmful act is the smoking of the cigarette because it pollutes the air, so that should be a crime but the act of carrying the cigarettes harms no one. It should be illegal to shoot someone unless in legitimate self-defense but merely carrying a gun should be legal.


I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than someone carrying a gun.


Unless you like the smell of nasty cigarette smoke that makes no sense. Who would you rather stand next to: someone smoking a cigarette or someone carrying a gun who is not going to shoot you?


For sure, the cigarette smoker. No doubt. The presence of the gun escalates the amount of damage that could occur.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

18 Jan 2014, 3:43 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
American wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than someone carrying a gun.


Unless you like the smell of nasty cigarette smoke that makes no sense. Who would you rather stand next to: someone smoking a cigarette or someone carrying a gun who is not going to shoot you?


For sure, the cigarette smoker. No doubt. The presence of the gun escalates the amount of damage that could occur.


I'm not asking about damage that could occur if the person carrying the gun does something illegal with it, I'm asking about damage that will occur in the given situation.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2014, 3:45 pm

What's the given situation?


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

18 Jan 2014, 3:52 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
What's the given situation?


The person carrying a gun is not going to use that gun in a way that violates the law while the smoker is polluting the air with nasty cigarette smoke without regards for his fellow human beings. The reason why this is the situation for our exercise is because the debate is over whether people should be able to carry guns, not whether people should be allowed to shoot the person next to them. So, what's physically more harmful to you (i.e., don't take into account irrational mental distress)? The person carrying the gun or the person smoking a cigarette?



Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

18 Jan 2014, 4:00 pm

Whether standing next to someone with a gun is dangerous or not, depends on the circumstances. In a hunting lodge or a shooting range, I doubt that anyone with a gun is there to harm you. To be fair, I don't think someone who carries an assault rifle at the mall is there to shoot deer, though.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than somene carrying a gun.


Why? Licensed carriers are less likely to murder you than the police are, by a 3 to 1 margin. That's only counting the murders the police are actually convicted of, not all the "justified" shootings they get away with.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


American
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 285

18 Jan 2014, 4:47 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than somene carrying a gun.


Why? Licensed carriers are less likely to murder you than the police are, by a 3 to 1 margin. That's only counting the murders the police are actually convicted of, not all the "justified" shootings they get away with.


A lot of people have an irrational fear of guns because they don't understand or care that people who legally carry guns are much less likely to commit a crime than the general public. Oftentimes such people think that their irrational fears should dictate public policy and that society should cater to their irrational fears by infringing on the constitutional rights of gun owners.



Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

18 Jan 2014, 5:49 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Ann2011 wrote:
I would rather be next to someone smoking a cigarette than somene carrying a gun.


Why? Licensed carriers are less likely to murder you than the police are, by a 3 to 1 margin. That's only counting the murders the police are actually convicted of, not all the "justified" shootings they get away with.

If my choice is between cigarette smoking man, armed civilian and cop, I would want to stand next to them in that order. The presence of a weapon increases the danger to everyone, no matter who is carrying.


_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

18 Jan 2014, 5:51 pm

:roll:


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.