If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Those who would assert that laws against murder make gun laws unnecessary probably would argue that laws against arson (and "Causing a Catastrophe" -- my favorite local criminal statute) make Hazmat rules unnecessary.

I love guns, but let's face it, they are analogous to Hazmats. Useful, sometimes lifesaving, even fun to use. But in the wrong hands in the wrong place at the wrong time, deadly. MUCH more deadly than most things. That is why some control of their possession and use is warranted, whereas a federal or state regulatory scheme for teaspoons would be silly.

I happened to grow up in a family heavily involved in the manufacture of certain hazardous chemicals. I love hazardous chemicals. Hazardous chemicals made it possible for me to go to school, and for you to do all sorts of things in life. But that doesn't mean I'd like the retarded sixteen year old down the street to be able to buy a truckload of Hydrogen Peroxide, park it in front of my house, unlock the valves and play "three on a match."
 
Quote:
What exactly have you ever done to fight for the Constitution?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that was codified as a prerequisite for the exercise of one's Consitutionally enumerated rights.
Click to expand...

What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly; 'Tis dearness only that gives everything its value.
Click to expand...
-- Thomas Paine

He was right, as this debate shows.

By the way, I didn't realize mandatory training and testing was codified as a prerequisite for the exercise of one's Consitutionally enumerated rights.:p
 
He was indeed right on that point Vern.

The price of freedom is eternal vigil.

If you lay on your couch and expect someone to pickup the banner for you then you better hope whoever does that is disposed in a friendly way towards you. Because if not then that is your new master.
Quote:
I do believe that we need laws to prevent minors from purchasing weapons. They are not old or experienced enough to make good decisions. Even though 18 is an arbitrary age and by aging one day the person isn't much wiser at least we have set a minimum standard. Laws that reduce the availability of weapons to those that are undesirable from having weapons are helpful as well. While they won't stop known criminals from getting guns they will make it difficult.
Click to expand...
That's why God invented parents.That's why God invented parents.
Click to expand...

Actually parenting is optional, especially these days. As I said it won't keep them from getting guns merely make it more difficult.

I love guns, but let's face it, they are analogous to Hazmats. Useful, sometimes lifesaving, even fun to use. But in the wrong hands in the wrong place at the wrong time, deadly. MUCH more deadly than most things. That is why some control of their possession and use is warranted, whereas a federal or state regulatory scheme for teaspoons would be silly.
Click to expand...

I guess. In the wrong hands a car is much more deadly and dangerous than guns so they are heavily regulated. The regulations don't do a thing to reduce the danger of say a 16 year old stealing one and running it through your local park on a summer day.
 
By the way, I didn't realize mandatory training and testing was codified as a prerequisite for the exercise of one's Consitutionally enumerated rights.
Click to expand...

Hey, I spent a lot of time coming up with that gibberish. :D

Some would say training and testing was a prerequisite. They'd find the code, even if it was a pisspoor interpretation.
 
Titan6: "In the wrong hands a car is much more deadly and dangerous than guns so they are heavily regulated. The regulations don't do a thing to reduce the danger of say a 16 year old stealing one and running it through your local park on a summer day."

Few if any regulations, short of total car prohibition, would make such an act more difficult as a practical matter. However, law can deter the behavior leading up to the lawn job in the park and its potential for maiming and mayhem. If the kid knows he may be caught or imprisoned for car theft, he may avoid stealing the car in the first place. If he knows that endangering people and running down mutts in the park by driving through it in an automobile will be punished, he may avoid doing that, too. This is the Holmesian argument. But I agree, criminal misconduct will always exist.

The fact that some will break the laws is not an argument for their repeal, nor is the potential for criminal misuse of a device an argument for decontrolling its possession.

Certainly the solution is not to suggest letting everyone drive a car anywhere, anytime since the lone dog runner-over was not deterred or stopped by the laws criminalizing his conduct.

I can't believe I'm actually in the position of defending gun regulation, as I am in favor of much less gun law than we have, not more (though I'd like a bit more control in certain neglected areas). It's just that saying "NO WAY! I GET MY GUNS FROM GOD!" is asinine. No less asinine than the idea of me blowing up tanker trucks of hydrogen peroxide in front of your house as a prank being protected by God's Law.
 
112 posts and the Duke, with all the rebuttals, is still running on this thread.
Amazing.You're not going to budge him one inch.He believes in control,we(most of us) believe in absolutism.
100 more posts won't change a thing.Except a lot more used up bandwidth.
Click to expand...

At the minimum, it brightens an otherwise dull day. :)
 
Those who would assert that laws against murder make gun laws unnecessary probably would argue that laws against arson (and "Causing a Catastrophe" -- my favorite local criminal statute) make Hazmat rules unnecessary.

I love guns, but let's face it, they are analogous to Hazmats. Useful, sometimes lifesaving, even fun to use. But in the wrong hands in the wrong place at the wrong time, deadly. MUCH more deadly than most things. That is why some control of their possession and use is warranted, whereas a federal or state regulatory scheme for teaspoons would be silly.

I happened to grow up in a family heavily involved in the manufacture of certain hazardous chemicals. I love hazardous chemicals. Hazardous chemicals made it possible for me to go to school, and for you to do all sorts of things in life. But that doesn't mean I'd like the retarded sixteen year old down the street to be able to buy a truckload of Hydrogen Peroxide, park it in front of my house, unlock the valves and play "three on a match."
Click to expand...
In what way do hazmat regulations prevent arson? I thought hazmat regulations were to prevent accidental fires/chemical spills/etc.
 
100 more posts won't change a thing.Except a lot more used up bandwidth.
Click to expand...
I actually enjoy picking apart appeals to emotion and misleading vividness. I fully admit that it's a personality flaw.
 
Hazmat rules -- those governing the transportation and storage of certain materials-- do not prevent arson. You can still set a five gallon bucket of gasoline on fire. But the Hazmat rules DO make it a lot harder for you or I or a disgruntled former employee to blow up a hospital block by sabotaging an oxygen truck. Maybe not everyone knows how to sabotage an oxygen truck and blow up a hospital. I do. And I know how much easier it would be without the Hazmat rules. And so I appreciate their existence.
 
Hazmat rules -- those governing the transportation and storage of certain materials-- do not prevent arson. You can still set a five gallon bucket of gasoline on fire. But the Hazmat rules DO make it a lot harder for you or I or a disgruntled former employee to blow up a hospital block by sabotaging an oxygen truck. Maybe not everyone knows how to sabotage an oxygen truck and blow up a hospital. I do. And I know how much easier it would be without the Hazmat rules. And so I appreciate their existence.
Click to expand...
But, as you admitted, they are not in place to prevent Arson, and therefor your comparison of hazmat rules and gun laws that attempt to prevent murder is not a valid argument. The gun laws are redundant because the murder is illegal in the first place. The Hazmat laws are not redundant because they are not there to prevent arson. So your comparison is flawed because the relation you suggested does not exist, as you admit in the above quote... so... What was your point?
 
But the Hazmat rules DO make it a lot harder for you or I or a disgruntled former employee to blow up a hospital block by sabotaging an oxygen truck.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If it weren't for Hazmat rules disgruntled former employees would be blowing up hospital blocks by sabotaging oxygen trucks every day and twice on Sundays. :rotfl:
 
People laughed when Stephen King had one of his fictional characters hijack a commercial airliner and fly it into an American skyscraper.

Yeah, like that could ever happen.
 
Private Geoff: "Duke of Doubt feels safer knowing that there are regulations in place preventing people from buying guns, cash & carry. He does not like liberty."

Actually, no law prevents that around here. A friend of mine could drive up from New Jersey, use a prepaid disposable cell phone to call a telephone number in one of the local advertising circulars offering guns for sale, show up, pay cash, walk away and not break a single law in the process.

And I don't have a problem with that.

I DO have a problem with mental defectives possessing firearms (to say nothing of posting on the internet).
 
Duke of Doubt said:
People laughed when Stephen King had one of his fictional characters hijack a commercial airliner and fly it into an American skyscraper.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that was the late Michael Crichton in your appeal to emotion.

Duke of Doubt said:
I DO have a problem with mental defectives possessing firearms (to say nothing of posting on the internet).
Click to expand...

Uh-oh, there oughta be a law.
 
Vern: "And gun laws prevented it from happening?"

My point was that the scoffer re: oxygen trucks was whistling past the graveyard.

Know what I mean, Vern?
 
I'd still be for reasonable regulation, and by reasonable I mean that violent convicted felons would not have the ability to legally purchase firearms.
 
Delta G Supernaught: "I'm pretty sure that was the late Michael Crichton in your appeal to emotion."

Nope. It was Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman, in "The Running Man," two decades before 9/11. No, the movie didn't use the scene (or the rest of the book, basically).

Emotion?
 
K3: "Isn't that already verboten?"

Yep. I'm not arguing for MORE gun control, I'm arguing for much less. But not none, as some think is appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Gun laws- if you were in charge, what would you keep?
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Muzzleflash
M
T
  • Locked
What Impact Would Greater Numbers Of CHPs Have?
2
Replies
25
Views
762
230RN
230RN
H
  • Locked
Were you ever anti-gun?
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
7K
hdwhit
H
H
  • Locked
For those new to guns, here's the mindset you will find against you
Replies
6
Views
453
powell&hyde
P
R
  • Locked
How law-abiding are you?
Replies
7
Views
583
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top