If There Were No Antis What Gun Laws Would You Have?
- Thread starter shotgunjoel
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
That you sold your house and moved to the other side of town, fearing some disgruntled employee would blow up the whole hospital block by tampering with an oxygen truck?
expvideo
Member
I see you didn't feel the need to respond to my last post. That's ok.
As you can see here, Duke of Doubt is against all liberty, not just gun rights. Free speach apparently isn't off limits either.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
I must have overlooked your last post.
It was easy.
It was easy.
expvideo
Member
Seem to be overlooking a lot.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
You mean this?
Videodrone: "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?"
The Hazmat rules do not exist to prevent crime, they exist to prevent crimes (and accidents) from being any more destructive than they have to be.
Basically, they make it harder for dangerous stuff to fall into the wrong hands or become involved in a bad situation.
Similarly, while a retard might get his hands on a dinner fork and kill somebody with it, it's less likely to be a fatal incident than if he is allowed to run around the mall with a full-auto Skorpion.
There. Now I've answered your post.
Videodrone: "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?"
The Hazmat rules do not exist to prevent crime, they exist to prevent crimes (and accidents) from being any more destructive than they have to be.
Basically, they make it harder for dangerous stuff to fall into the wrong hands or become involved in a bad situation.
Similarly, while a retard might get his hands on a dinner fork and kill somebody with it, it's less likely to be a fatal incident than if he is allowed to run around the mall with a full-auto Skorpion.
There. Now I've answered your post.
I think these are funny. All the work of gun control propoganda creeps into the gun owner society.
If someone is so mentally unstable that they can't be trusted with a gun then I don't really want them on the streets. Same for felons and whatever other situations you can think of. You should also ban them from having cars, anything heavy, anything sharp, sticks, and their own arms and legs. These can all be killing devices.
If someone is so mentally unstable that they can't be trusted with a gun then I don't really want them on the streets. Same for felons and whatever other situations you can think of. You should also ban them from having cars, anything heavy, anything sharp, sticks, and their own arms and legs. These can all be killing devices.
Funderb
Member
I am surprised that no one has yet to throw out the joker quote about rules to DOD yet... It seems that it applies in a sense.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
wrx, you may be onto something.
Perhaps we don't need gun control; perhaps we need troll control.
Perhaps we don't need gun control; perhaps we need troll control.
expvideo
Member
Uh-huh. Your argument doesn't hold water and you know it.
BTW, in before the lock
Vern Humphrey
Member
And surprise, surprise, we didn't need mandatory training and testing of CCW holders to accomplish that.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
I get a kick out of those who say "I disagree." And then say nothing else. Or "I don't think your argument holds water." And add nothing further.
As if anyone cares what you might think personally.
If you want to argue, argue. Opinions are opinions, arguments are arguments.
As if anyone cares what you might think personally.
If you want to argue, argue. Opinions are opinions, arguments are arguments.
expvideo
Member
Not all arguements are arguements. i.e.:
That's just rediculous. The Hazmat rules are in place to prevent accidents. Not to prevent arson. Saying that they are there to prevent crime isn't an argument. It's stupid.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That person would be you. You don't deny that criminals can easily get and use guns. You can't credibly deny that liberalized CCW reduces violent crime. And you can't deny that firearms accidents are so low that they wouldn't even be carried as a seperate category in government statistics if not for the politics involved.
And yet you continue to oppose actually enforcing the 2nd Amendment rights.
The problem with gun laws is this: Once we start making "sensible" laws to protect people from using tools (yes, like hammers, guns are tools) against each other, who defines "sensible?" One law leads to another law. If someone gets killed in a driveby, and it takes 15 shots to kill the innocent man, is it sensible to say, "More than 14 shots is too much?" No, it's not. Sensible laws create a slippery slope. We all know how the government works-more laws, more money, more laws. Anything that lines their pockets and grants them power. Gun laws do both. Of course, even though I'm contradicting myself, I don't really think we need howitzers. The problem is Americans have so many laws (which criminals don't abide by anyway), we think we need them in order to be sensible. We don't need laws prohibiting tools. The only thing that helps is lawbreakers (i.e. people who don't give a d%*n about laws). As citizens we need to start being a little more self-reliant! Let's work on reducing these stupid laws because it's our god-given to be free and to have a say in America, even though corruption (through money and power) has plagued politics. I say it's time we stop talking about hypotheticals; it's time we stop complaining. Let's use our rights! 
Titan6
member
There that fixed her...
We aren't talking about making mass shooting legal.
Then why not control gasoline and keep people from getting it? I can go to the gas station and buy a 100 gallons and burn down as many buildings as I like with it (till they catch me or kill me). I would say it is pretty destructive and dangerous but the sale is nearly completely uncontrolled any man with a the appropriate container and money can buy as much as he likes... Don't you want to control it so you can be safe?
My brain don't work so good. Do you want more or less people control?
Who said that? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Titan6
member
Welcome aboard Deacon 8. I am glad you are here.
And yet howitzers are legal many places and in the hands of private people and groups all over the country. When was the last time someone robbed a bank with a howitzer or shelled a shopping mall or school? A prohibition against howitzers makes as much sense as a prohibition against .50BMG.
And yet howitzers are legal many places and in the hands of private people and groups all over the country. When was the last time someone robbed a bank with a howitzer or shelled a shopping mall or school? A prohibition against howitzers makes as much sense as a prohibition against .50BMG.
Funderb
Member
I believe the steps that need to be taken to control gun violence are in the judicial system.
Sure, guns make things easier to do, like kill people.
People can be killed by many things, as they are simultaneously delicate and hardy creatures.
The problem is the people who get away with shootings, stabbings, and murder of the type.
They know the punishment it severe, but they know as well, punishment is not certain.
Certainty of punishment is undeniably a greater de-motivator than severity of punishment.
Sure, guns make things easier to do, like kill people.
People can be killed by many things, as they are simultaneously delicate and hardy creatures.
The problem is the people who get away with shootings, stabbings, and murder of the type.
They know the punishment it severe, but they know as well, punishment is not certain.
Certainty of punishment is undeniably a greater de-motivator than severity of punishment.
Titan6
member
According to my morals and ethics I don't have to make everyone agree with me. We can celebrate our differences and even do it politely. Of course if you want to defend your positions that I posted about in my first post in this thread than feel free to. Otherwise you are just prattling on about nothing.
Funderb
Member
all quiet on the western front?
legaleagle_45
Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 834
Hmmmmm.... briefly scanned this thread, so perhaps I missed it.
Perhaps if we delved back into history before antis had any real voice, we could look at the laws they had then and extrapolate them to present day circumstances?
1. Mandatory education in elementary grades to promote gun safety.
2. Civilian marksmanship classes for older children... say 12- 18.
3. Expanded CMP for adults.
4. Hue and Cry reinvigorated with exceptions for those conscientiously opposed....
Just some off the wall ideas which look at gun laws from a different perspective.
Perhaps if we delved back into history before antis had any real voice, we could look at the laws they had then and extrapolate them to present day circumstances?
1. Mandatory education in elementary grades to promote gun safety.
2. Civilian marksmanship classes for older children... say 12- 18.
3. Expanded CMP for adults.
4. Hue and Cry reinvigorated with exceptions for those conscientiously opposed....
Just some off the wall ideas which look at gun laws from a different perspective.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
