Gun Safety Laws

[Tecumsehsbones]

It occurres to me that anytime the issue of trying to reduce/limit something comes up, the instant response from those who are against such things is "But criminals will still get it".

Sure, but the point is to reduce the likelyhood of that happening. Which leads to the question why this is such a bad thing.

Yep, it's the naysayer's go-to response. It amounts to a declaration that unless something is 100% effective, it's useless. Binary.

Murder has been illegal for millennia, and there are still murders, but I don't hear the naysayers advocating to take the murder laws off the books. Funny, enit?

 

[Serryah]

Yep, it's the naysayer's go-to response. It amounts to a declaration that unless something is 100% effective, it's useless. Binary.

Murder has been illegal for millennia, and there are still murders, but I don't hear the naysayers advocating to take the murder laws off the books. Funny, enit?

It's like the realization that humans suck, and regardless of 'legality', shit will still happen means we should do nothing at all to prevent things from happening.

Or at least, the things that certain parts of society care more (or less) about than they should.

I mean, many of the same people who are all "no gun regulations cause they don't matter; Freedom!" are also the same people who are all for telling women what they can and can't do regarding their health care. To me it just proves again it's all about power and that people and their lives don't really matter to these select people.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

It's like the realization that humans suck, and regardless of 'legality', shit will still happen means we should do nothing at all to prevent things from happening.

Or at least, the things that certain parts of society care more (or less) about than they should.

I mean, many of the same people who are all "no gun regulations cause they don't matter; Freedom!" are also the same people who are all for telling women what they can and can't do regarding their health care. To me it just proves again it's all about power and that people and their lives don't really matter to these select people.

And the sad part is that so many people have absorbed the logical fallacies, factually incorrect premises, and faulty reasoning without analyzing them that they're like religious dogma. . . trot it out when you hear the key concepts, get it shot down, and go home still unswervingly certain that the failed argument is right.

 

[Serryah]

Love Katie Porter!

 

[taxslave]

I'm not trying to stop it, I'm trying to reduce it. Reducing addiction was the reason we outlawed heroin and other hard drugs. If "keeping criminals from importing" something is an absolute and irreducible requirement for a law, might as well just scrap the law-book. Every single thing we've made illegal is done by somebody every day.

As I said in the OP, I regard this as a do-able first step. I think further steps will be harder, and may fail entirely. But "harm reduction" is a perfectly legitimate reason for laws.

But now that you have prevented law abiding taxpayers from importing guns, how do you propose to prevent criminals from importing them? Since criminals use guns in robbing banks even though it is against the law, do you really think they will quit imp guns because it is illegal?

 

[harrylee]

It occurres to me that anytime the issue of trying to reduce/limit something comes up, the instant response from those who are against such things is "But criminals will still get it".

Sure, but the point is to reduce the likelyhood of that happening. Which leads to the question why this is such a bad thing.

So, since criminals also steal cars, we should reduce the number of cars we are allowed to own?
Since criminals also steal food, we should reduce the amount of food we have?
Since criminals also steal money, we should also be allowed less money?

Hey, now that I think about it, those things seem to be what the libs are pushing for and is happening.....Must be a good thing, right?

 

[Serryah]

So, since criminals also steal cars, we should reduce the number of cars we are allowed to own?

No, but then cars are regulated to have things to help prevent theft, and developers are allowed to do things to protect cars from being stolen.

Since criminals also steal food, we should reduce the amount of food we have?

Stealing food should not be a crime per-say, IMO, but that's a whole other issue that can have it's own thread.

Since criminals also steal money, we should also be allowed less money?

Banks have vaults, security guards, dyes on money (which helps make it absolutely useless) and other things are developed to make it harder to use money if it's stolen or counterfitted.

Hey, now that I think about it, those things seem to be what the libs are pushing for and is happening.....Must be a good thing, right?

Glad you think this is broken down into a "lib/con" thing. It's not, nor is it that simple. But whatever floats your boat.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So, since criminals also steal cars, we should reduce the number of cars we are allowed to own?
Since criminals also steal food, we should reduce the amount of food we have?
Since criminals also steal money, we should also be allowed less money?

Hey, now that I think about it, those things seem to be what the libs are pushing for and is happening.....Must be a good thing, right?

Another standard dodge. When the subject is gun safety, talk about anything you can think of except guns.

 

[Serryah]

Another standard dodge. When the subject is gun safety, talk about anything you can think of except guns.

I'm sure the usual "But this state does this for restrictions" will come in at some point, where it's forgotten that while 1 state may do one thing, others do SFA which means no state might as well do a damned thing in the end. Hence why a total national push/policy needs to be made.

But logic doesn't fit the agenda so...

 

[harrylee]

Personally I really couldn’t give a shit about guns. I don’t own one, have never owned one and have no intention to ever own one. But there are people that have a reason and in the states have a right to own one. It’s all about government over reach as usual whether it be guns or anything else.
that said the US does have a problem. Start on the issue of the criminals rather than picking on average joe.

 

[Jinentonix]

The point that you quoted in your Post #13 above. A preference is not a requirement.

The FN Five-seveN is regarded as the preeminent self-defence firearm. Are you suggesting the Secret Service shouldn't be equipped with the best?

 

[pgs]

No, but then cars are regulated to have things to help prevent theft, and developers are allowed to do things to protect cars from being stolen.



Stealing food should not be a crime per-say, IMO, but that's a whole other issue that can have it's own thread.



Banks have vaults, security guards, dyes on money (which helps make it absolutely useless) and other things are developed to make it harder to use money if it's stolen or counterfitted.



Glad you think this is broken down into a "lib/con" thing. It's not, nor is it that simple. But whatever floats your boat.

You on the other hand are perfectly okay calling the right the party of guns .

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The FN Five-seveN is regarded as the preeminent self-defence firearm. Are you suggesting the Secret Service shouldn't be equipped with the best?

Yep. "Best" is a matter of opinion.

Are you suggesting the Secret Service can't protect the President with Colts, S&Ws, or Rugers?

And, looping back, I'll remind you that you acknowledged early on that I said "commercial sale," so this entire back-and-forth is completely academic.

 

[taxslave]

I'm sure the usual "But this state does this for restrictions" will come in at some point, where it's forgotten that while 1 state may do one thing, others do SFA which means no state might as well do a damned thing in the end. Hence why a total national push/policy needs to be made.

But logic doesn't fit the agenda so...

Gun control is a federal responsibility, not the provinces.

 

[taxslave]

Yep. "Best" is a matter of opinion.

Are you suggesting the Secret Service can't protect the President with Colts, S&Ws, or Rugers?

And, looping back, I'll remind you that you acknowledged early on that I said "commercial sale," so this entire back-and-forth is completely academic.

So selling to the government is not commerce?

 

[Jinentonix]

Yep. "Best" is a matter of opinion.

Are you suggesting the Secret Service can't protect the President with Colts, S&Ws, or Rugers?

Well, whoever sources the Secret Service's arsenal doesn't seem to think so.

And, looping back, I'll remind you that you acknowledged early on that I said "commercial sale," so this entire back-and-forth is completely academic.

I also pointed out that "Buy American" would be a hard sell if govt agencies and police continue using foreign-made firearms. I'm telling you, govts adding more fuel to their "Do as I say, not as I do" dumpster fire attitude isn't a smart way to go.

 

[Jinentonix]

No, but then cars are regulated to have things to help prevent theft, and developers are allowed to do things to protect cars from being stolen.

I guess you've been ignoring the skyrocketing number of armed car jackings in Canada, the majority of which involve handguns, which have been heavily restricted in Canada for around 100 years. Unlike South Africa in the 80's and 90's, the govt here won't let you install side mounted flame throwers under your car to defend against car jackers.

Banks have vaults, security guards, dyes on money (which helps make it absolutely useless) and other things are developed to make it harder to use money if it's stolen or counterfitted.

Yep, but your home and purse/wallet don't. Or did you think only banks get robbed? There are also leftist elements in the US, including govt turds, who strongly feel that the "less privileged" shouldn't be punished for breaking into your home and stealing your shit because A) You have insurance( supposedly) and B) Because they obviously need your stuff more than you do.

Glad you think this is broken down into a "lib/con" thing. It's not, nor is it that simple. But whatever floats your boat.

If a govt needs to heavily restrict or ban firearms it just means they really suck at governing.

 

[Serryah]

Gun control is a federal responsibility, not the provinces.

Not talking Canada so that comment is moot.

 

[Serryah]

I guess you've been ignoring the skyrocketing number of armed car jackings in Canada,

Not ignoring; if it's skyrocketing, then there's not much in the news about it. *shrug* so... sure, okay, how much and where's the data?

the majority of which involve handguns, which have been heavily restricted in Canada for around 100 years.

They have been, yes.

Unlike South Africa in the 80's and 90's, the govt here won't let you install side mounted flame throwers under your car to defend against car jackers.

That's an odd left field comment.

Yep, but your home and purse/wallet don't.

True, they don't.

Or did you think only banks get robbed?

Obviously not if I just agreed to the above.

There are also leftist elements

Aannnddd..... that's where this convo derails.

Thanks for the partial discussion. When you start throwing this stuff in, I know it's time to stop the even brief discussion with you.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Guns and cars, guns and cars. They're either too dense to know that the primary purpose of a car is transportation and the primary purpose of a gun is killing, or they do know, but think that this false analogy is "winning."

But I'm OK with it. Let's regulate guns like we regulate cars. You have to be trained and licensed to use one. It has to be registered with the government and marked with a license tag. It has to be inoperable until you insert a key and turn it on (or these days, have the fob on you and hit the "start" button). You have to pay to have the government inspect it every year or two for safety.

And even a cheap one costs at least $20,000 new.