Irontruth |
TriOmegaZero wrote:Murder is a legal term and wrong in this context. mass execution of the guilty.Andrew R wrote:Better t shrink the blue circle via rope lead and electricity. We have a right to arms, the criminals have to go.That's quite a murder campaign you're endorsing.
Do we need to be able to prove their guilt? Or will accusations suffice?
Andrew R |
And do we kill all the criminals? Whatever laws they've broken?
Or is there some level of criminality they have to reach?
Violent criminals for sure, pretty much any killing not in self defense, acts of torture, armed robbery, etc. Petty crime doesn't need death until taken too far but at some point even most petty thieves have earned to no longer be part of society.
Jessica Price Project Manager |
TriOmegaZero |
Violent criminals for sure, pretty much any killing not in self defense, acts of torture, armed robbery, etc. Petty crime doesn't need death until taken too far but at some point even most petty thieves have earned to no longer be part of society.
I'm rather concerned about where that point ends up, and the precedent it sets.
Digitalelf |
I'm rather concerned about where that point ends up, and the precedent it sets.
And yet the anti-gun people then go on to say that we pro gun people are just paranoid because we are concerned that new anti-gun legislation will only set precedents that lead to further even more harsh anti-gun laws...
But I guess since the anti-gun crowd doesn't care about this being a possible issue, it doesn't matter...
Digitalelf |
I'm sure whoever you're talking about thinks just that.
I used your quote, because many of the anti-gun crowd on these very forums, accuse us pro gunners of being paranoid when we make claims of new gun laws leading to a slippery slope...
But of course your claim of a slippery slope doesn't make you paranoid right?
thejeff |
TriOmegaZero wrote:I'm rather concerned about where that point ends up, and the precedent it sets.And yet the anti-gun people then go on to say that we pro gun people are just paranoid because we are concerned that new anti-gun legislation will only set precedents that lead to further even more harsh anti-gun laws...
But I guess since the anti-gun crowd doesn't care about this being a possible issue, it doesn't matter...
Hell, I'm not even concerned about the precedent it sets.
"even most petty thieves have earned to no longer be part of society" So kill them. That's already most of the way down the slippery slope.
Scott Betts |
TriOmegaZero wrote:I'm rather concerned about where that point ends up, and the precedent it sets.And yet the anti-gun people then go on to say that we pro gun people are just paranoid because we are concerned that new anti-gun legislation will only set precedents that lead to further even more harsh anti-gun laws...
That's not why we call you paranoid.
Scott Betts |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Digitalelf wrote:TriOmegaZero wrote:I'm rather concerned about where that point ends up, and the precedent it sets.And yet the anti-gun people then go on to say that we pro gun people are just paranoid because we are concerned that new anti-gun legislation will only set precedents that lead to further even more harsh anti-gun laws...
But I guess since the anti-gun crowd doesn't care about this being a possible issue, it doesn't matter...
Hell, I'm not even concerned about the precedent it sets.
"even most petty thieves have earned to no longer be part of society" So kill them. That's already most of the way down the slippery slope.
I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
Irontruth |
thejeff wrote:Violent criminals for sure, pretty much any killing not in self defense, acts of torture, armed robbery, etc. Petty crime doesn't need death until taken too far but at some point even most petty thieves have earned to no longer be part of society.And do we kill all the criminals? Whatever laws they've broken?
Or is there some level of criminality they have to reach?
If other people want to institute a death penalty, so be it. I think advocates for it should have to put their name in a lottery to suffer the same fate as any innocent person put to death by the state though, if that list is ever exhausted, the death penalty laws go away.
Digitalelf |
I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
Scott Betts |
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the sort of person who believes that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government, while simultaneously holding the belief that we should encourage the state-sponsored execution of petty criminals (in other words, believing that a government that can kill its citizens is scary, and that the government should be killing more of its citizens). The only person here who I'm reasonably sure fits that criteria is Andrew R. Calm down.
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
Again, that's not why we call gun nuts paranoid.
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
The "anti-gun" people tend not to see unrestricted firearms ownership as an important personal right, so it doesn't really bother us that you see it as a slippery slope.
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
No, here you have it wrong. It does matter to us. It matters in the opposite direction. We're not standing on the sidelines. We're the ones arguing that you shouldn't have that particular freedom.
Andrew R |
Digitalelf wrote:TriOmegaZero wrote:I'm rather concerned about where that point ends up, and the precedent it sets.And yet the anti-gun people then go on to say that we pro gun people are just paranoid because we are concerned that new anti-gun legislation will only set precedents that lead to further even more harsh anti-gun laws...
But I guess since the anti-gun crowd doesn't care about this being a possible issue, it doesn't matter...
Hell, I'm not even concerned about the precedent it sets.
"even most petty thieves have earned to no longer be part of society" So kill them. That's already most of the way down the slippery slope.
i would be happy with exile if it were easier to enforce. you have to face it, someone that preys on others daily must be stopped somehow.
Also i said eventually. how many offenses before they need to be stopped? 10? 100? 1000?Andrew R |
Scott Betts wrote:I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
Ever notice that anti gun folks tend to sound pro criminal?
The black raven |
But there is criminal and criminal.
Anti-gun laws just might make guns a bit more difficult/pricey to get for organized criminals. It will not stop those from getting them though, just make it rarer.
But anti-gun laws WILL make it far harder for occasional criminals (those who do most school shootings and similar slaughters BTW) to get their hands on a gun.
NPC Dave |
But there is criminal and criminal.
Anti-gun laws just might make guns a bit more difficult/pricey to get for organized criminals. It will not stop those from getting them though, just make it rarer.
But anti-gun laws WILL make it far harder for occasional criminals (those who do most school shootings and similar slaughters BTW) to get their hands on a gun.
The thread, though, has discussed how all those anti-gun laws are made utterly useless by 3D printer technology. The occasional criminal or the fellow who wants to commit a massacre has only to print out the guns they need, and go. Organized criminals as well. They will have their hands on the gun.
Nothing can prevent it. You will have to arrest them after the fact, or, if you get very lucky, on the way to the commission of the crime if someone happens to arrest him or her while traveling to the intended target. This is the reality in the next few years.
thejeff |
The black raven wrote:But there is criminal and criminal.
Anti-gun laws just might make guns a bit more difficult/pricey to get for organized criminals. It will not stop those from getting them though, just make it rarer.
But anti-gun laws WILL make it far harder for occasional criminals (those who do most school shootings and similar slaughters BTW) to get their hands on a gun.
The thread, though, has discussed how all those anti-gun laws are made utterly useless by 3D printer technology. The occasional criminal or the fellow who wants to commit a massacre has only to print out the guns they need, and go. Organized criminals as well. They will have their hands on the gun.
Nothing can prevent it. You will have to arrest them after the fact, or, if you get very lucky, on the way to the commission of the crime if someone happens to arrest him or her while traveling to the intended target. This is the reality in the next few years.
It's the reality now.
Nor are the laws "utterly useless". They may become so if 3D printers become cheap and ubiquitious enough that it's easier to print a gun than go to the store and buy one, but we're nowhere near that yet.
Meanwhile, the laws raise the bar.
Scott Betts |
Isn't it funny how people always want to make laws that inhibit everybody just affect a superminority of people who don't care about breaking the law much less doing something wrong for moral reasons.
Isn't it funny how conservatives like to grossly oversimplify the concept of criminality so that it fits a black-and-white worldview where you are either a "law-abiding citizen" (they typically use those exact words) with the utmost respect for legal authority and morality, or you are a "criminal" with absolutely zero respect for the law and an irreconcilable case of sociopathy?
The only way their rationale starts to look halfway sane is if they can make you believe that laws have zero inhibitory effect on crime, and that criminals are born out of the ground fully formed. (For anyone who isn't clear on this, neither of those things is true.)
Fortunately, most people recognize that it takes a pretty deluded mind to believe those things.
Irontruth |
Digitalelf wrote:Ever notice that anti gun folks tend to sound pro criminal?Scott Betts wrote:I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
I'm opposed to criminals having guns. Are you?
Andrew R |
Andrew R wrote:I'm opposed to criminals having guns. Are you?Digitalelf wrote:Ever notice that anti gun folks tend to sound pro criminal?Scott Betts wrote:I love the incredible doublethink.
"We have to protect ourselves from a brutal government gone mad with power!"
"We have to give the government the authority to execute scores of petty criminals!"
I never said one word about protecting ourselves from the government... YOU put those words into my mouth!
What I did say however, was that somehow when someone who is anti-gun makes mention of some slippery slope argument (such as capital punishment), well, that's okay, that isn't paranoia, it's just plain old "common sense" thinking. But when we "gun nutz" say that more legislation will set a precedent for even tighter legislation in the future, well, we're just over-reacting, being paranoid, etc...
In each case, Americans are losing their freedoms piece by piece, but because the anti-gun people tend not to care about the rights of gun owners... "Oh well, sux to be you!" is the general feeling on the matter...
And it's not until a right that is held near and dear to an anti-gun person that gets attacked, does it even begin to matter to them...
Do you see the double standard here??
I am opposed to criminals having victims. But most gun restrictions only accomplish disarming everyone that follows the law
Digitalelf |
You make this claim based on empirical evidence, I'm sure, as opposed to conservative wishful thinking.
Well, let's look at the recent bills that now sit on Governor Brown's desk here in California waiting to be signed or vetoed by him...
First, we have the bill that outlaws the "bullet-button" on the so called "assault weapons"... Nevermind the fact that no bullet button equipped firearm has ever been used in a crime.
We will be given a very short window to register our firearms as "assault weapons", but unfortunately, not all gun owners pay that close of attention to what laws pass and when.
Then we have the bill that makes it illegal to possess a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds... As it stands now, it is just illegal to buy, sell, or transfer a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (possession is not a crime right now).
The problem with these two bills (and these are but two of the many bills that now sit on the governor’s desk), is that there are millions of gun owners that will, in one pen-stroke, become instant felons (without committing an actual crime)...
Sure, if these become law, then eventually, more than 10 round magazines and bullet-buttoned firearms will become scarce, but until then (which will literally be years, if not decades from now), only those that simply do not care if they break the law or not, will be the ones using these things.
This is hardly "conservative wishful thinking"...
Scott Betts |
This is hardly "conservative wishful thinking"...
I was looking for something along the lines of a broad study (or ten) correlating stricter gun control legislation and incidence of gun crime (and violent crime in general). I say this because I have an entire body of evidence that shows that stricter gun control legislation has a positive correlation with lower levels of gun violence and violent crime, both within the United States and between developed nations worldwide.
I was wondering if you were able to demonstrate a similarly substantial (and, ideally, much more substantial) body of evidence demonstrating that stricter gun control legislation is correlated with a higher incidence of gun violence or violent crime.
Is this something that you can provide?
If not, why do you think that is?
Comrade Anklebiter |
Digitalelf |
I was wondering if you were able to demonstrate a similarly substantial (and, ideally, much more substantial) body of evidence demonstrating that stricter gun control legislation is correlated with a higher incidence of gun violence or violent crime.
What I said (and what Andrew said from the part you quoted), have nothing to do with MORE gun violence. What we said was that tighter gun restrictions only serve to create criminals from people that broke no law...
Diane Feinstein even admitted that background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook...
"We know one thing, none of this information would have been caught on a background check,” Feinstein insisted. “And I say that, although I support background checks."
She then went on to say:
"Mr. President, I'm sure background checks will stop many would-be murderers but they would have not prevented Newtown," Feinstein said flatly. "The weapons were legally purchased by his mother and while he was disturbed, he had no criminal record or record of mental illness and would not have been subject to a background check because his mother gave him these weapons."
So, if the bill that she proposed had actually passed and became law, who would have been the most impacted by that? It certainly wouldn’t have been the person who is not bothered if he possesses an illegal firearm or not...
BigNorseWolf |
What I said (and what Andrew said from the part you quoted), have nothing to do with MORE gun violence. What we said was that tighter gun restrictions only serve to create criminals from people that broke no law...
Except that they HAVE worked when aimed at the manufacture, which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
Digitalelf |
which is why your typical hoodlum isn't nearly as well armed as your prohibition era gangster.
The gangster wielding a Thompson sub-machine gun on every corner is a Hollywood romanticization of the actual history...
Contrary to popular myth, Auto Ordinance did not make the Thompson available through catalogs or any other form of mail order...
In fact, they instructed their dealers to do extensive background checks (for the time) of potential buyers to make sure that the firearms were "Sold only to those on the side of law and order" (as was a part of their slogan). There were a few dealers that took bribes and such, but most dealers did not want to risk losing their license to sell Auto-Ordinance firearms...
Most police stations were only issued a few Thompsons that had to be "shared" by all of the officers, while one of them going to the Chief or sheriff himself...
So, most of the Thompsons that the "gangsters" had were those that they could steal from law enforcement...
By the 1930's, the Thompson was sold only to the military, and thus the supply available to the GP dried up, so even fewer "gangsters" had them...
Point being, the average prohibition era gangster was not as well armed as popular myth would have us believe...
BigNorseWolf |
I'll skip all the straw men.
By the 1930's, the Thompson was sold only to the military, and thus the supply available to the GP dried up, so even fewer "gangsters" had them...
I will accept arguments on why a particular law won't work. I will accept, and have even made, arguments that being accused of being crazy does not immediately revoke your constitutional rights. I will not accept the argument that all gun control is useless. It has worked, it can work.