Debate Thread Reloaded: Mano-a-Mano (Kucinich Edition)

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Debate Thread Reloaded: Mano-a-Mano (Kucinich Edition)

Postby eriador » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:23 pm

Okay, this thread is intended as a continuation of a debate between myself (aka cowpoodle003) and hive_king (aka themakeouthobo). I thought it might be interesting to let you all see it and maybe add in some comments, but the main point of this is for me and Nick to keep the discussion going. (Think of Peter and Val's debates in the shadow series. People would jump in, but they'd be more or less ignored. That's what I'm aiming for ;)) I'm just gonna post the chat transcript here and we can go from there.

Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:06:41]: i dig obama
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:06:45]: but Kucinich is my fave
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:06:52]: and he's picking up
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:06:58]: in the pools
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:07:01]: polls*
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:07:02]: w00t!
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:07:12]: I dunno, some of his ideas are a bit "what the f*** have you been smoking"
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:07:26]: he's not a scared politician
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:07:37]: he's not going to win because he's capable of doing the job well
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:07:42]: it's a basic law of politics
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:08:08]: whoever is capable of winning an election is fundamentally wrong for the job
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:08:31]: I disagree, some people have done great jobs
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:08:44]: like....
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:08:58]: his problem is that he has ideas like the "department of peace" and his blanket bans on handguns
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:09:05]: or reinstating the fairness doctrine
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:09:21]: i like those ideas
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:09:28]: they agree with my vision of America
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:09:50]: how is reinstating the fairness doctrine, in the modern age, excusable
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:10:00]: or banning all handguns even feasable
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:10:12]: and the department of peace? We have it, it's called the state department
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:10:17]: feasability doesn't have much to do with it
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:10:20]: and are you kidding?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:10:55]: the state department is more of a tool to enforce America's will
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:11:12]: erm, isn't every facet of government?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:11:29]: yea
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:11:48]: but as it's being used currently, that will is not what the aim of a department of peace would be
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:12:13]: sure, call it the state department
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:12:23]: but the point i like that kucinich is making
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:12:30]: ?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:12:36]: is that we have to have a part of the government devoted to promoting peace
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:12:46]: the state department has it's finger in many pies
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:12:58]: economics as much as anything
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:13:00]: so you don't think feasability matters?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:16]: i think that his ideas are sound
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:18]: they are good
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:24]: and they are feasable
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:13:25]: no they're not
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:13:29]: let's take the handgun ban
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:34]: ...in the world where kucinich is elected
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:42]: if he can get himself elected
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:45]: his ideas would work
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:13:51]: do you understand?
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:13:53]: yes, but sadly, under the constitution, fairies and leprachauns can't vote
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:14:00]: *snort*
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:14:04]: maybe in a perfect world, but we don't live in one
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:14:08]: i mean, take the handgun ban
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:14:23]: take the assault weapon ban
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:14:25]: it's there
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:14:28]: it's not perfect
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:14:30]: first of all, its constitutionality is questionable
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:14:40]: but people are very rarely shot with assault rifles
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:14:54]: people were very rarely shot with assault rifles before the ban
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:15:34]: and the only people who are going to respect the ban are the people who wouldn't use them for wrong purposes anyways
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:15:45]: I mean, drugs are illegal, but give me half an hour and I can get a pound of crack
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:15:52]: what about all the people who are killed accidentally with handguns?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:16:02]: people aren't killed accidentally with assault rifles
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:16:04]: we promote putting more safeguards on them
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:16:31]: as to the constitutionality, you have to remember the FIRST phrase of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia..."
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:17:09]: and the last line is "the right to bear arms will not be abridged"
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:17:18]: no
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:17:34]: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:17:54]: whatever, I don't have it in front of me, you know what I mean
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:17:59]: the problem that hasn't really been tested
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:18:07]: is that there is a contradiction in here
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:18:25]: the first phrase says "well regulated" and the third prevents infringement
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:18:37]: there needs to be some sort of compromise between the two
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:18:49]: a blanket handgun ban is not that
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:18:56]: but we don't know
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:19:05]: it's up to the courts
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:19:15]: what was meant
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:19:27]: it doesn't sound like a compromise, since that would mean no one could own a gun
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:20:11]: well, a handgun
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:20:41]: and given the strict constructionists in the supreme court right now, i think they might give creedence to the "what they meant, not what they said" argument
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:20:52]: and that is up for debate
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:21:03]: but it's not a public matter
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:21:06]: it's a court matter
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:21:06]: sure it is
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:21:19]: besides, criminals will still have th em
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:21:22]: it's a solely constitutional issue
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:21:29]: so
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:21:36]: makes it easier to pick out the criminals
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:21:56]: yes, because they will be walking boldly down the street, handguns in holsters
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:22:07]: oh, i'm sure some will
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:22:15]: yeah, bullshit
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:22:20]: oh come on
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:22:26]: some protest group's gonna do it
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:22:34]: and they're gonna be criminals
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:23:44]: for the purposes of the discussion, people who become criminals because of the law don't really apply. The law is to dissuade violent criminals, like murderers and muggers
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:24:06]: okay
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:24:15]: i'll accept that
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:24:33]: but you still have to admit that the number of handugun deaths would go down with a blanket ban in effect
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:24:43]: without really hurting anybody
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:25:00]: do the ends justify the means, young mills?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:25:17]: well, it depends how bad the means are
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:25:27]: and what about home protection? what do i defend my home with, a musket?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:25:41]: not with a gun, that's for sure
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:25:56]: owning a gun to protect your home INCREASES your risk of getting shot
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:26:14]: so claiming that owning a gun is necessary to protect your home is BULLSHIT
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:26:35]: yes, lets imagine
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:26:35]: mean mr. robber breaks in, and he is armed.
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:26:42]: I charge at him with my hockey stick
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:26:45]: i get shot
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:27:02]: more likely, mr robber comes in with a hockey stick
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:27:06]: you have your gun
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:27:13]: and you end up getting shot
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:27:17]: it's a more likely event
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:27:19]: how, pray tell?\
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:28:40]: okay, you, a little unsure of your willingness to shoot somebody (because you're a good citizen, and, in the situation, at an extreme disadvantage (maybe it's your wife / kid!?)) hesitate, giving the robber a chance to grab at the gun. there's a tussle and you get shot
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:28:49]: i don't have hard numbers
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:29:14]: but supposedly the average gun owner is more likely than the average non-gun-owner to get shot during a home invasion
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:29:16]: it's that simple
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:29:29]: yeah, that sounds fishy to me
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:29:40]: or, more likely, the robber isn't stupid or suicidal enough to charge a man with a gun (this isn't the movies) and gets the f*** out of dodge
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:30:03]: well, all i can tell you is that i've heard this many times
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:30:10]: and it makes a certain sense
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:30:21]: most people breaking into homes don't carry guns
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:30:27]: and so having a gun in the home
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:30:39]: increases the likelihood of somebody getting shot
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:30:48]: it's simple probability
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:31:12]: yes, but it also seems a loaded gun will convince a robber to leave very quickly
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:25]: it can
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:30]: but it can also shoot you
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:36]: are you willing to take the risk?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:37]: maybe
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:46]: but it's still not a good choice when you look at the numbers
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:32:04]: ok, some physics. I have a gun pointed away from me. a gun has to be pointed at me to kill me. that is a 180 degree arc. not very likely
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:32:23]: ever been in a really charged tussle?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:32:30]: who knows where that thing will be pointing
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:32:46]: would you get in a tussle with a guy with a gun?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:03]: depends on the situation
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:11]: but if somebody's got a gun on me
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:20]: i don't think they're gonna just let me waltz away
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:33:25]: have you ever had a loaded gun pointed at you?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:29]: or i wouldn't trust them to let me
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:31]: no
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:33:40]: now I'm speaking from experience here when I say you're going to do whatever they want
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:51]: i'm sorry, but it's math
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:33:53]: simple math
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:05]: no gun in the situation, your chance of getting shot is essentially zero
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:16]: if there's an armed and loaded gun in the situation
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:21]: your chance of getting shot is higher
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:26]: no matter what
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:30]: it's higher
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:34:33]: I'm sure you're much more likely to shoot the robber than yourself
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:36]: you can't argue with that
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:38]: still
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:47]: it's actually safer to not own a gun
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:34:51]: if you don't want to get shot
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:34:57]: but the chance is still so infintestimally low that it won't matter
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:35:04]: i wouldn't be so sure
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:35:06]: .5% doesn't really come into account
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:35:16]: yeah it does
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:35:21]: when you have millions of gun owners
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:35:29]: .5 percent of 50 million...
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:35:44]: besides, personal responsibility. i choose the responsibility of owning a gun. that is my choice
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:35:48]: i take the risk
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:35:57]: just like people take the risk of driving drunk
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:05]: they might be informed
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:08]: and make a decision
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:13]: but that doesn't mean the law can't stop them
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:36:17]: apples and oranges. when you're drunk, your thinking IS impared
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:31]: okay
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:36:33]: most people who drive drunk wouldn't make that same decision sober
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:37]: people take the risk of driving too fast
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:41]: how about that?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:51]: very similar risks to drunk driving
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:36:53]: most people know that
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:36:56]: so are you going to mandate cars can't go over 70?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:37:06]: we already do
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:37:12]: sorry
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:37:19]: but you can't make that argument
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:37:28]: no we don't. cars can mechanically go over the speed limit
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:37:35]: yeah
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:37:41]: and guns can shoot cops
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:37:55]: yes I can. I mean mechanically, not speed limit wise
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:37:55]: i can make this argument
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:37:55]: and if you're gonig to shoot a cop, you're not going to obey a gun ban
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:37:59]: I've been mugged at gun point. Now imagine guns were outlawed. Do you really think that the mugger wouldn't have had that gun?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:38:30]: well, speed limits and banning guns are just as analagous as mechanically limiting vehicle speed and preventing guns from shooting good people
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:38:42]: wait, what?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:38:44]: yeah
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:38:45]: back up the logic train
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:38:47]: huh?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:38:49]: okay
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:38:50]: english, my friend
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:38:58]: i see "soft" limits
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:39:10]: to prevent things happening, make them illegal
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:39:14]: like speed limits
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:39:32]: or making it illegal to shoot people
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:39:38]: then there are hard limits
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:39:49]: like mechanically limiting the speed of cars
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:40:00]: or mechanically making it impossible for guns to shoot people
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:40:05]: logical?
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:40:18]: and hard limits on guns is impossible
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:40:36]: not so
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:40:52]: if all guns are mechanically unable to fire
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:40:56]: they can't shoot people
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:41:02]: then it wouldn't be a gun
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:41:03]: sure, they can't do other things either
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:41:04]: it'd be a metal weight
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:41:26]: still
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:41:26]: a gun is something that shoots a bullet. a gun that doesn't fire isn't a gun
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:41:31]: no, not still
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:41:46]: would you be able to shoot people if no guns worked?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:41:47]: no
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:41:50]: so it's possible
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:42:06]: okay
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:42:09]: now i just realized
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:42:17]: that hard and soft limits are really the same
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:42:20]: no they're not
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:42:29]: "soft" limits are laws applied to the end user
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:42:42]: "hard" limits are laws applied to the manufacturer
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:42:44]: make sense?
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:42:48]: and how are these laws going to keep criminals from having guns?
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:42:50]: working guns
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:43:01]: okay
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:43:11]: as i see it, criminals with guns are 10000% more important than the occasional misfire
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:43:18]: a blanket handgun ban
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:43:26]: i'm glad you said that
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:43:33]: back to what i was saying
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:43:37]: a blanket handgun ban
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:43:46]: we have a blanket ban on heroine. I can get heroine easily if i know where to look
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:44:06]: yeah, but it's harder to get than if it were legal, lemme tell you
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:44:23]: the difficulties that making heroin illegal put on drug dealers
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:44:31]: would be the same as those on gun dealers
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:44:34]: it also increases crime across the board
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:44:34]: but less intense
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:44:53]: you just said we could ignore crime created by the new law
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:44:56]: look at how much crime was made during prohibition
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:45:26]: difference between crime created by people breaking the law in question, and circumventing the law in question causing more violent crime
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:45:32]: HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:23:44]: for the purposes of the discussion, people who become criminals because of the law don't really apply. The law is to dissuade violent criminals, like murderers and muggers
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:45:44]: which it would
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:46:04]: first off, it would be harder to distribute guns
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:46:10]: no, it would mean they could get more money by smuggling guns into the country, which would lead to other types of crime
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:46:14]: because of their size and lack of innate concealability
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:46:17]: like the drug trade does today
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:46:20]: heroin is much easier to conceal
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:46:29]: i can put a gun in my backpack, et viola
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:46:44]: yeah, but how are you gonna get them into the country?
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:46:50]: smuggle them
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:46:58]: bribe a few people sneak 'em over, it isn't hard
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:47:03]: yeah, with drugs it's easier
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:47:06]: guns would be harder
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:47:11]: i didn't say impossible, but harder
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:47:18]: dude. we smuggle people into this country easily all the time
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:47:22]: we can handle a glock
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:47:31]: not to mention the bazillion guns already in the country
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:47:33]: in the end, you would make it hardeER for criminals to get guns
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:47:47]: not by much, and that means honest citizens couldn't defend themselves
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:01]: we already went over this
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:09]: statistically it's safer to not own a gun
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:48:16]: says you
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:29]: you can't argue with the facts
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:48:32]: you have facts?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:40]: that if there's a gun in the room, you're more likely to get shot
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:48:46]: by what percentage
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:49]: no idea
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:48:52]: there ya go
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:55]: but it
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:48:59]: 's still different
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:49:06]: if it's by .000001%, it's statistically insignifigant
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:49:13]: not really
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:49:29]: statistically, yes
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:49:34]: you can't argue with statistics
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:49:35]: one one hundred thousandth of a percent is one more dead person for every million home invasions
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:49:39]: and that's one too many
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:49:56]: oops. ten million
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:49:56]: you don't think people can be smart enough to use a gun? we're not a nanny state here
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:49:57]: but still
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:50:03]: no
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:50:09]: but all it takes is one person
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:50:27]: i think that if you could save one person's life by banning handguns it would be worth it
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:50:28]: people can die of cholesteral, do you want to ban fatty foods?
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:50:32]: how about cheetos?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:50:45]: well, that's more slippery
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:50:52]: how many people die in car crashes, why don't we ban cars? all it'd take is one life saved
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:50:53]: because it isn't so hard-edged
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:05]: once again, it's a matter of balance
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:51:12]: all it takes is one person
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:12]: i don't see any upside to keeping guns legal
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:51:19]: i see plenty of them
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:21]: i see an upside to keeping cars
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:23]: like what?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:27]: protecting yourself?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:35]: that's a ridiculous reason
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:51:35]: buddy, i'm a civil war reenactor. they're a hobby for me
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:46]: but you don't believe in bullets
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:51:52]: hey, live firing is fun
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:51:52]: at least for that
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:51:58]: and protection is not a ridiculous idea
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:52:05]: we've been over this
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:52:12]: more guns = more shootings
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:52:15]: plain and simple
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:52:29]: how many homeowners get shot vs. how many criminals
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:52:46]: imagine the guy wanted to rape my girlfriend. a gun would be handy then
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:52:47]: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 75-5279022
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:52:51]: we should both read this book
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:53:01]: i've seen links all around the web
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:53:06]: it looks good
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:53:13]: and you would read one on why we should keep handguns, i assume
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:53:17]: if you pay for it, i'll read it
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:53:27]: ditto on a pro-gun one
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:54:01]: and what about kucinich wanting to reinstate the fairness docterine
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:54:06]: okay
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:54:10]: i think it's a good idea
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:54:17]: go on
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:54:54]: when the founding fathers talked about free press
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:55:13]: one of the things they really stressed was the availibility of multiple viewpoints
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:55:21]: seeing all sides of the issue
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:55:24]: without which
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:55:24]: and they're out there
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:55:31]: voters would be unable to come to decisions
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:55:37]: you just have to look for them
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:55:41]: and the entire basis of democracy would come crashing down
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:55:52]: the problem with that is that continued deregulation of the medai
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:55:54]: in this age of modern media, internet, radio, you can find any viewpoint on any issue
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:56:17]: the press is in a way, not free
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:56:25]: because certain markets are saturated
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:56:31]: with content from a single company
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:56:48]: politically, people choose with their money and dials what to support
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:56:54]: not really
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:56:55]: if air america couldn't make it, oh well
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:57:00]: i'm sad, but it happens
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:57:12]: have you seen how much power news corp has in a lot of markets/
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:57:22]: yes
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:57:23]: in some places, it controls almost all of the media outlets
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:57:26]: so go online
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:57:31]: i read daily kos every day
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:57:39]: but people aren't necessarily informed
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:57:49]: but they could be if they wanted to be
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:58:07]: if one day murdoch told all his lackeys that he wanted every single outlet he owned to favor republicans, it could happen
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:58:16]: and a lot of people wouldn't notice
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:58:26]: i believe in freedom of the press
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:58:33]: so far as they're allowed to choose what to cover
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:58:39]: or what to publish
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:58:47]: but one-sidedness is bad
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:59:00]: and people can find the other outlet if they want
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:59:08]: should daily kos invite a rupublican publisher?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:59:47]: well, it's a matter of deciding what media the fairness doctrine applies to
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:59:54]: i don't think that it should apply to internet
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:06]: but something like radio or television
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:14]: which utilizes PUBLIC airwaves
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:17]: should serve the public
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:26]: by presenting a balanced view
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [11:00:29]: but the people have a right to be informed!!!
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:35]: exactly
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:37]: they do
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [11:00:43]: that shouldn't apply online
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [11:00:44]: ?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:46]: and that's why we allow media to use the airwaves
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [11:00:48]: sorry dude, gotta go
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:51]: okay
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [11:00:53]: ttyl

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:45 pm

Okay, I found some information on crime statistics and handguns from the Violence Policy Center:

-This challenges the assertion that handgun owners are law-abiding citizens. Here's one gem:
From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older.
-This tells us:
most gun deaths are not homicides, but preventable suicides. Even in homicide, the vast majority stem not from criminal activity, but are the result of arguments between people who know one another. Less than eight percent of all gun deaths are felony related. The most common scenario for homicide in America is an argument between two people who know one another.
-New Harvard University Study Shows Direct Link Between Gun Availability And Gun Death Among Children

-For Every Time a Women Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders

-Finally, their "Handgun Ban Backgrounder" tells us:
In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes.
and
For every time a gun in the home is used in a self-defense homicide, a gun will be used in—

* 1.3 unintentional deaths

* 4.6 criminal homicides

* 37 suicides
and
No gun control law has ever been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds. Such laws include federal bans on machine guns and semiautomatic assault weapons as well as local community bans on the sale and possession of handguns.

I think I've stated my views on the gun issue and now I've given my backup. I'll have more on media fairness later.

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:00 am

I'll admit right now that I did not read it all.. just roughly skimmed it. I think we've even talked about this before (the gun thing)...

I noticed Hobo related banning guns to the ban of heroine. This is actually a fairly accurate relation. I, the every day person, can't necessarily easily obtain heroine, however criminals often can. The same holds true in relation to guns. I, an upstanding citizen, am unable to obtain guns legally. However, criminals can still obtain guns illegally, giving them the upper hand by far. One can not completely eliminate guns.

Someone recently brought to my attention the Temperance Movement which I thought was fairly interesting. Essentially, in case you are unaware of what this is, in most English speaking countries in the 19th and 20th century, it was thought of to ban alcohol as it related to an increase in violent tenancies. Once they did this, however, smuggling of alcohol began, underground bars were created, and it helped in the formation of mafias.

I could see the same thing happening here. Either way we'll see criminals with guns controlling the common folk without guns. You can not remove guns completely no matter how hard you try. There are not enough people to make it happen. For every one person you have who is willing to work their hardest to remove guns from the world, you have two or three who are working just as hard to put them back.

I also have to stress that it is NOT guns that kill people. If someone has the innate ability to kill, they will do it. Don't have a gun? Knife. No knife? A blunt object. If they want to do it, they will do it. It just so happens that gun related violence is higher because guns are more accessible and easier to obtain the end result of death with. Removing guns does not mean the violence will go away. Perhaps down simply because of the fact that it is easier to protect yourself from a knife or a blunt weapon, but not away. On the other hand, if I do not have a gun and an intruder in my home does, I'll be more likely to submit, more than likely saving my life. Rates will go down, but they will not disappear.
-New Harvard University Study Shows Direct Link Between Gun Availability And Gun Death Among Children
I would like to see a study that shows BB gun availability and the direct link to animal death by BB. Of course if it's available the death rate will be higher than zero. This is just common sense. It also shows the stupidity of parents for having those guns so available to their children.
-For Every Time a Women Uses a Handgun to Kill in Self-Defense, 101 Women Die in Handgun Murders
1:101 is better than 0:101 ;)


I suppose my entire stance on the gun thing is essentially this: Death will go down, criminal control will go down. We can NOT remove guns from the Planet Earth. We can NOT stop people from smuggling them and using them. We are a violent species -- our history shows us this. I'd rather have a gun to protect myself than be at the mercy of others. But, that's just me.

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4460
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Luet » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:50 am

I, an upstanding citizen, am unable to obtain guns legally.
Uh, yes you can. You walk into walmart and buy one. At least a rifle or shotgun, that is.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
Wil
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
Title: Not the mama!
Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Contact:

Postby Wil » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:23 am

I, an upstanding citizen, am unable to obtain guns legally.
Uh, yes you can. You walk into walmart and buy one. At least a rifle or shotgun, that is.
Not if we ban the sale of guns.

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:34 am

Not that I have anything against making this a pweb debate, I would appreciate if you let me know next time before you post our debates. Just FYI in the future.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN
Contact:

Postby Dr. Mobius » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:22 pm

It's not as if banning guns would solve anything, even if you could find a surefire way of making sure no one could obtain them. Humans were violent long before guns were invented and we'll continue being violent long after guns are rendered obsolete.

The problem isn't guns, the problem is humans. Guns are just one of the many tools. The solution is to make humans less violent, not to hide the tools and pray they can't find them.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:35 pm

The problem isn't guns, the problem is humans. Guns are just one of the many tools. The solution is to make humans less violent, not to hide the tools and pray they can't find them.
Entirely off topic, but that's pretty much my response when people blame religion for so much war and suffering in the world. Violence is part of human nature and religion just provides a convenient justification, just as you say guns simply provide a convenient tool. I guess the difference though is that guns don't serve any purpose but violence.

Anyway, to make this post more relevant, I wanted to comment on one section of the discussion in particular:
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:31:12]: yes, but it also seems a loaded gun will convince a robber to leave very quickly
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:25]: it can
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:30]: but it can also shoot you
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:36]: are you willing to take the risk?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:37]: maybe
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:31:46]: but it's still not a good choice when you look at the numbers
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:32:04]: ok, some physics. I have a gun pointed away from me. a gun has to be pointed at me to kill me. that is a 180 degree arc. not very likely
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:32:23]: ever been in a really charged tussle?
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:32:30]: who knows where that thing will be pointing
HoboNick (themakeouthobo) [10:32:46]: would you get in a tussle with a guy with a gun?
I don't think that the main danger of having a gun in the home is getting shot by it yourself while confronting an intruder. It's more an issue of a family member being shot by accident because of a false alarm or a child finding it or something. Apparently, according to the following article (which is cited in something I read but I haven't looked up myself):
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
The odds are 22-1 in favour of killing someone other than an intruder if you have a handgun in your home. I've never seriously researched the matter, but whenever the issue comes up the stats seem to agree that an intruder is probably the least likely person to be shot by a gun in one's home.

endercoaster
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:31 pm
Location: Glenview

Postby endercoaster » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:20 pm

stats seem to agree that an intruder is probably the least likely person to be shot by a gun in one's home.
No, I believe the least likely person to be shot by a gun in one's home is, ironically, Charleton Heston.

In all seriousness, I'm on the fence about gun control. In an idealized world, I would support a complete moratorium on guns, I think there's very little debate about this. But it's not an idealized world. As Nick pointed out, criminals would still obtain guns, and soldiers and police officers would still have guns, increasing the potential for government oppression. No, I'm not being crazy and saying that banning handguns will automatically turn the US into the Third Reich, but I nonetheless distrust arbitrarily unequal divisions of power, even made with the best intentions.

As far as the fairness doctrine goes, I think that a more effective and enforcable tactic would be to undo the deregulation allowing advertisements to be shown during news shows. Removing the profit motive for news would remove incentives for sensationalizing stories (not to mention airing celebrity gossip and american idol recaps). While bias from the views of the owners would still remain, this would be no different from the current state, and infact not much different from under the fairness doctrine, which could be subverted by choosing a representative of an opposed view which reinforces negative stereotypes, is uninformed, or uncharismatic, and doing the opposite for the choice of speaker for the view which the news owner wishes to promote.

Oh, and as far as the "guns don't kill people, people do" argument goes, I think the gun helped a little bit.
Denny

"Children are a perpetual, self-renewing underclass, helpless to escape from the decisions of the adults until they become adults themselves."

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:44 pm

:::shrug:::

i grew up in a home with guns. many, many guns, in fact. my father also had a licence to carry, and often did so. the guns in my house were kept in my father's bedroom closet, unloaded, in separate, locked safe boxes. there was only one set of keys, and it was on my father's keyring, which never left his person.

the first time i remember my father showing me the guns and explaining the rules i was probably about five years old. the rules were:

1. never, ever, EVER touch the guns, the bullets, the boxes they were locked in, or the keys that unlocked the box.
2. if i ever saw the boxes, bullets, or guns anywhere but in my father's hands or in the top shelf of the closet of his bedroom, i was to leave the house immediately, taking everyone with me, and go next door to my neighbors' house and call my parents from there to tell them what was happening.


he used to test me on it, too. the first test was two weeks after i was initially told. i was five years old, and failed. i hadn't even noticed the guns were (unloaded) just hanging out unattended on the kitchen table. i was punished. no dessert for a week and i had to go to bed half an hour earlier than usual for a week as well, (unthinkable punishments for a five year old) not to mention a VERY serious talk. the next time my father tested me, i didn't fail.

he kept testing us, both me and my sister, throughout the entire time i lived with him. after the first time (when my sister was able to walk and talk, he started in on her, too), we never ever failed again.

the last time i went back home a few months ago, i drove up to NH and let myself into my father's house. four or five of his guns were lying out on the table, and he wasn't in the room. i whistled for the dog, turned around, locked the door behind me, got back in my car, drove up the street, parked, and called my father on my cell phone.

it turns out he actually wasn't trying to test me that time. he'd been cleaning his guns and left to go to the bathroom. he lives alone, and all the guns were unloaded. but he wasn't at all disappointed in my reaction.

i've been to the shooting range with my father three times in my life, and fired his guns. other than that, i've never had the slightest curiosity about them, and never ever touched them without permission.

it's not enough to say "don't touch this, kids," and then throw it in a drawer and expect that to be that.

but just like anything else, if your children and your family are trained properly in the Offical Family Rules concerning guns in the home, then there won't be (shouldn't be) any issues.


...then again, we had pitbulls, too. and i just about want to stab someone every time they claim a pitbull can lock its jaw when it bites you. anatomically impossble. if you teach an animal to be vicious, it will be. if you don't, it won't.



this was sort of long-winded. but my thoughts are, having guns in the house isn't the problem.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:43 pm

my thoughts are, having guns in the house isn't the problem.
...as long as it's done responsibly, which oftentimes it's not.

It seems to me that everybody here who has come to the defense of guns has attacked the view that guns should be outlawed, but not one of you has put forward a good reason to keep them legal (except for endercoaster whose claim is ridiculous*). I'd like to hear a single GOOD reason to leave guns legal that would outweigh the benefits of banning them.


*
soldiers and police officers would still have guns, increasing the potential for government oppression
This is absolutely ridiculous if you accept, like many here seem to do, the following:
The problem isn't guns, the problem is humans. Guns are just one of the many tools.
----------
Apparently, according to the following article (which is cited in something I read but I haven't looked up myself):
Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.
The odds are 22-1 in favour of killing someone other than an intruder if you have a handgun in your home. I've never seriously researched the matter, but whenever the issue comes up the stats seem to agree that an intruder is probably the least likely person to be shot by a gun in one's home.
Perhaps not the least likely (;)), but what most people don't recognize is that this sort of situation rarely turns out the way one might expect. It really is surprising how much danger a family is in when there is a gun in the house.

----------

And touching on what Val said once again: if guns are treated in a way that would be safe in a home, their usefulness in protecting said home decrease drastically. So what purpose DO they serve in that case?

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:52 pm

Uh, yes you can. You walk into walmart and buy one. At least a rifle or shotgun, that is.

Creepers... is that for real? And just the other day I was joking with a friend that in the States you could probably buy guns from Walmart...
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:59 pm

as to your last point, my father can get to his guns, unlock the box, load them and be prepared to use them in a matter of seconds. still pretty effective protection if you ask me. besides which i did mention that he has a licence to carry, and so often has a gun on his person as well.


the right to bear arms is a constitutional right. and you're damn right i want to be able to carry and use a gun if i so choose. (i don't. but that's not the point). if the goverment can improve gun education, then i'm all for it. but i have the right to possess a gun for sport or for protection, and if i obtain it legally, then that's the end of that.

i don't have to think of reasons why it SHOULD be allowed, because it IS allowed.

you're also completely ignoring the people who keep guns in their home because of hunting or sport, which is another reason my father keeps guns.

you're working toward the wrong end. rather than attempting to have the right to bear arms revoked, you should focus energy on promoting gun safety and awareness. and perhaps urging the goverment to crack down on illegal gun sales.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Postby neo-dragon » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:21 pm

Uh, yes you can. You walk into walmart and buy one. At least a rifle or shotgun, that is.

Creepers... is that for real? And just the other day I was joking with a friend that in the States you could probably buy guns from Walmart...
lol. I don't think they realize how weird that seems to us Canadians. For us, buying guns at Walmart is like buying cigarettes at McDonalds.

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:34 pm

as to your last point, my father can get to his guns, unlock the box, load them and be prepared to use them in a matter of seconds. still pretty effective protection if you ask me. besides which i did mention that he has a licence to carry, and so often has a gun on his person as well.
Okay, I wasn't clear on that point, but it still doesn't change the fact that a gun is (statistically) more of a liability in a home defense situation than an asset. I speak statistically because we are considering a broad ban that affects so many people that anecdotes are next to useless. Statistics provide the most accurate picture of the effects a ban might have.
the right to bear arms is a constitutional right.
No gun control law has ever been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on Second Amendment grounds. Such laws include federal bans on machine guns and semiautomatic assault weapons as well as local community bans on the sale and possession of handguns.

Every federal Court of Appeals that has considered the meaning of the Second Amendment has held that it protects the right of states to maintain a militia, not an individual right to own a gun.

* In 1981 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated that "possession of a handgun by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms."

* In 1976 the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted "the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
So I'd say no, it isn't.
you're also completely ignoring the people who keep guns in their home because of hunting or sport, which is another reason my father keeps guns.

We're only considering a HANDGUN ban here. Does your father do all of his hunting with handguns? And why would he need to carry a loaded weapon on his person "often" if he uses them for hunting?
you're working toward the wrong end. rather than attempting to have the right to bear arms revoked, you should focus energy on promoting gun safety and awareness. and perhaps urging the goverment to crack down on illegal gun sales.

First of all, it's impossible to revoke what was never there. Secondly, if you really want to improve gun safety and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, a blanket ban is the most effective way. Keep this in mind:
From 1996 to 2000, Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 81 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older.
That quote's from http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4intr.htm which explains how strict Texas' "shall issue" concealed weapon law is. Even with those protections in place, it seems like criminals are getting guns.
Last edited by eriador on Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LilBee91
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:43 pm
Title: AK Hermione
First Joined: 10 Jan 2005

Postby LilBee91 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:43 pm

We have a gun section in our Walmart. It's where we go to buy fishing and hunting licenses. I don't know if they sell handguns there or not--it is in Alaska, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I know a lot of people with handguns for bear protection (and for killing really big halibut). It would be pretty rough if they were banned.
I used to hate gravity because it would not let me fly. Now I realize it is gravity that lets me stand.

Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:45 pm

Oh noes! I'm gonna hafta kill this halibut with a club. This sucks!

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4460
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Luet » Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:07 pm

Uh, yes you can. You walk into walmart and buy one. At least a rifle or shotgun, that is.

Creepers... is that for real? And just the other day I was joking with a friend that in the States you could probably buy guns from Walmart...
lol. I don't think they realize how weird that seems to us Canadians. For us, buying guns at Walmart is like buying cigarettes at McDonalds.
I think a lot depends on your upbringing in addition to your country of origin. Because although I was raised in the States, I was also raised by a very anti-gun mother. We weren't allowed to play with guns of any sort, including toy or water guns. So, while I think Kelly's opinion of guns was influenced by her upbringing, so was mine. Which meant that when I first realized that Walmart carried guns of any kind I was fairly horrified.
Last edited by Luet on Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:46 pm

i can only offer annecdotal evidence because frankly, that's my only investment. i don't have guns. i don't want guns. i think it should be much more difficult than it currently is to obtain guns (for reasons Nomi and others have pointed out).

but i still think people should be allowed to have them. i also think your supporting sources aren't all as blanket as they appear--but i don't have the energy or interest to hunt down court cases. so i'll have to live with letting my opinions rest on my upbringing only.


and yes, my father has handguns as well as rifles, and while he does not hunt with handguns, he does go to the shooting range with them. target practice and marksmanship are actually sports as well. and can be done with a handgun.

other than that, since i have no personal investment and only chimed in to illustrate that i grew up in a house with guns where nothing bad happened, i'm going to bow out now.


[edited to add]

my father--because he was legally licenced (not only to carry, but also to conceal)--could have carried around his gun just because he felt like it. however, he did so because of the dangerous nature of his work, at specific points in his life. he did so legally, with all the proper paperwork and notification of the government and routine background checks and all that.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:56 pm

other than that, since i have no personal investment and only chimed in to illustrate that i grew up in a house with guns where nothing bad happened, i'm going to bow out now.
Well thank you. I appreciate your additions to the conversation.
nd yes, my father has handguns as well as rifles, and while he does not hunt with handguns, he does go to the shooting range with them. target practice and marksmanship are actually sports as well. and can be done with a handgun.
So is street racing and dog fighting. In those cases, the cons outweigh the pros and so they're illegal. My point is that the dangers of allowing gun ownership outweigh any potential benefits.

endercoaster
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:31 pm
Location: Glenview

Postby endercoaster » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:16 am

you're creating a false dichotomy: the status quo vs. a complete moratorium on handguns. And in the case of that dichotomy, I'd lean towards a moratorium. But you can't just compare those two. You have to consider other possibilities: what other approaches are there that may work out even better overall, and what could the money spent on enforcing a gun ban be better spent on.

The fact of the matter is that the gun makers are corporations. Big ones. And big corporations stay alive with big customers. Now as appealing as it may be to try and take out the redneck market with a gun ban, there is another single client which the government can directly remove without imposing on any citizens and with added benefits beyond cutting funding to the gunmakers: itself. If the US could remove, or at least reduce, the degree to which it is a militaristic nation, companies would no longer try to produce products benefiting from the military-industrial complex. Without the contracts from the US miitary, gun companies would struggle and either fold or raise prices to compensate, reducing the number of people in the general public who buy guns.

Furthermore, the money that would've been spent buying guns and keeping people from buying guns could then be spent on programs which would combat the iniquities which are the root causes of violent crime. With a small portion of our nation's offense spending, which incidentally is larger than that of the rest of the world combined, we could easily establish equitable public schooling at least on the level of the best in our nation, fully subsidize college education, and fund a universal healthcare system. We'd probably end up with enough left over to create a real nice mandatory gun saftey program. Of course, if you try to do that, you'll be called a socialist (which is apparently automatically a bad thing) and written off faster than you can say Noam Chomsky. *shrugs* Just because the powers that be won't allow it doesn't make it a bad idea.
Denny

"Children are a perpetual, self-renewing underclass, helpless to escape from the decisions of the adults until they become adults themselves."

endercoaster
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:31 pm
Location: Glenview

Postby endercoaster » Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:18 am

you're creating a false dichotomy: the status quo vs. a complete moratorium on handguns. And in the case of that dichotomy, I'd lean towards a moratorium. But you can't just compare those two. You have to consider other possibilities: what other approaches are there that may work out even better overall, and what could the money spent on enforcing a gun ban be better spent on.

The fact of the matter is that the gun makers are corporations. Big ones. And big corporations stay alive with big customers. Now as appealing as it may be to try and take out the redneck market with a gun ban, there is another single client which the government can directly remove without imposing on any citizens and with added benefits beyond cutting funding to the gunmakers: itself. If the US could remove, or at least reduce, the degree to which it is a militaristic nation, companies would no longer try to produce products benefiting from the military-industrial complex. Without the contracts from the US miitary, gun companies would struggle and either fold or raise prices to compensate, reducing the number of people in the general public who buy guns.

Furthermore, the money that would've been spent buying guns and keeping people from buying guns could then be spent on programs which would combat the iniquities which are the root causes of violent crime. With a small portion of our nation's offense spending, which incidentally is larger than that of the rest of the world combined, we could easily establish equitable public schooling at least on the level of the best in our nation, fully subsidize college education, and fund a universal healthcare system. We'd probably end up with enough left over to create a real nice mandatory gun saftey program. Of course, if you try to do that, you'll be called a socialist (which is apparently automatically a bad thing) and written off faster than you can say Noam Chomsky. *shrugs* Just because the powers that be won't allow it doesn't make it a bad idea.
Denny

"Children are a perpetual, self-renewing underclass, helpless to escape from the decisions of the adults until they become adults themselves."

VelvetElvis
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
Title: is real!
First Joined: 0- 9-2004

Postby VelvetElvis » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:47 am

Uh, yes you can. You walk into walmart and buy one. At least a rifle or shotgun, that is.

Creepers... is that for real? And just the other day I was joking with a friend that in the States you could probably buy guns from Walmart...
lol. I don't think they realize how weird that seems to us Canadians. For us, buying guns at Walmart is like buying cigarettes at McDonalds.
I think we need to note that the procedure for buying the firearms is exactly the same as the procedure for buying a firearm at your local sporting goods shop. There is no difference in my mind. After all, you can buy tobacco at WalMart, too, and they check ID just like a gas station does.

(Who knows what is next for McDonalds, you can buy dvds there, you know.)
Yay, I'm a llama again!

User avatar
Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.
Contact:

Postby Eaquae Legit » Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:54 am

Never that I've seen.

Walmart is not a sporting goods store. It's not an outdoors store. Its outdoors/sporting goods section is a bare nod to the concept. It's one giant cheap corner store. I was gonna say "You don't buy liquor at a corner store either," but then I remembered you do. Walmart employees are not exactly the most dedicated and vigilant. I prefer that my firearms be sold from someone who's actually serious about the process.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII

VelvetElvis
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2535
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:22 am
Title: is real!
First Joined: 0- 9-2004

Postby VelvetElvis » Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:03 pm

Well, I wouldn't know about buying liquor at WalMart, I live in a dry county. The staff at WalMart have always been very knowledgeable and helpful in gun buying, and a lot of children get their first guns at WalMart (puchased, of course by a parent or grandparent).
Yay, I'm a llama again!

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4460
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Postby Luet » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:06 pm

Many of the staff at the Walmart in my area are barely out of high school. Including the ones manning the gun counter, I've taken note, which doesn't instill confidence.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:58 pm

you're creating a false dichotomy: the status quo vs. a complete moratorium on handguns. And in the case of that dichotomy, I'd lean towards a moratorium. But you can't just compare those two. You have to consider other possibilities: what other approaches are there that may work out even better overall, and what could the money spent on enforcing a gun ban be better spent on.
I'm not making a dichotomy, I'm considering a range of options. This range stretches from no regulation of handguns at one end to allowing no handguns whatsoever at the other. I believe that a blanket ban on civilian handgun ownership is a good, reasonable and safe position on this continuum.

Another important point is that it would actually SAVE money to have a blanket ban because enforcement would be much easier. It would only cost more if we seriously stepped up enforcement to a level above what there is on guns today (which isn't exactly lax, but isn't tremendously strict).
The fact of the matter is that the gun makers are corporations. Big ones. And big corporations stay alive with big customers. Now as appealing as it may be to try and take out the redneck market with a gun ban, there is another single client which the government can directly remove without imposing on any citizens and with added benefits beyond cutting funding to the gunmakers: itself. If the US could remove, or at least reduce, the degree to which it is a militaristic nation, companies would no longer try to produce products benefiting from the military-industrial complex. Without the contracts from the US miitary, gun companies would struggle and either fold or raise prices to compensate, reducing the number of people in the general public who buy guns.
Furthermore, the money that would've been spent buying guns and keeping people from buying guns could then be spent on programs which would combat the iniquities which are the root causes of violent crime. With a small portion of our nation's offense spending, which incidentally is larger than that of the rest of the world combined (Not exactly. It's larger than the next 20 countries combined), we could easily establish equitable public schooling at least on the level of the best in our nation, fully subsidize college education, and fund a universal healthcare system. We'd probably end up with enough left over to create a real nice mandatory gun saftey program. Of course, if you try to do that, you'll be called a socialist (which is apparently automatically a bad thing) and written off faster than you can say Noam Chomsky. *shrugs* Just because the powers that be won't allow it doesn't make it a bad idea.
What are you smoking!? That is the stupidest logic I have heard in a long time. The fact of the matter is that if the gun companies lost a customer in the government they would simply reign in their business but raise prices? No! If anything they might lower them to increase their market again. This really is stupid thinking. I don't have numbers, but I'm sure that handgun manufacturers make much more money from the civilian market than they do from the government market. Gun companies are not like the rest of the military-industrial complex. To think that they would "struggle and either fold or raise prices" is just stupid.

However, the aims of reducing military spending, bettering education and eliminating the root causes of violent crime are noble, but your plan is not built on the best foundation. Otherwise I like it!

User avatar
hive_king
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1269
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 am
Title: has been eaten by a bear
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Postby hive_king » Fri Aug 24, 2007 10:33 am

I'm going to impose a rule on this thread, fetus, that you're not allowed to make a statistical claim unless you have the numbers from a fair and impartial source, because otherwise it's just obnoxious. I've been busy at work, I'll add more when I can.
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet him, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

User avatar
Dr. Mobius
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 2531
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
Title: Stayin' Alive
First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
Location: Evansville, IN
Contact:

Postby Dr. Mobius » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:53 pm

43.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Supposedly that figure comes from the ASA, but I don't have time to hunt down his source.

I don't really care, either.
The enemy's fly is down.
Image

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Fri Aug 24, 2007 3:08 pm

I was wrong :-[
The United States spends more than the next FOURTEEN countries, not twenty. Sorry.

Here are some facts from Global Issues:
In Context: U.S. Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

While FY 2008 budget requests for US military spending are known, for most other countries, the most recent data is from 2005 (at time of writing). Using US spending at that time, we can compare US military spending with the rest of the world:

* The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.
* The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.
* The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.
* It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.
* The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)
* The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.
The linked page also contains a table showing how much the top 35 countries spend on their militaries.

P.S. Wikipedia also has good information on this topic.

P.P.S. In case any of you were wondering, the site I linked to, Global Issues, is accepted by Wikipedia as a source. For more about sources on Wikipedia please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ty#Sources

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:17 pm

Eri,

Actually, our military expenditure is less than the combined expenditure of the next nine nations (CIA World Factbook). But, by all means, trust a source that uses an anti-military "peace" organization comprised entirely of Quakers over anything even remotely resembling objective. After all, it was on Wikipedia!

Meanwhile, we have the third largest military in the world in in terms of personnel [CIA World Factbook], which happen to be highly trained specialists outfitted with some of the very best equipment in the world. It's not unusual to funnel large sums of money to the military.

Also, when you look at the figures as per capita and/or per dollar of our GDP, you get a very different picture. After all, we only spend one cent more (per $10 of our GDP) than France [CIA World Factbook]. There are at least forty-five nations with higher percentages of their GDP going to military funding. Per capita, we're ranked third in the world (only spending $169 more per person than France) [CIA World Factbook].



Now then, the vast majority of guns used in criminal acts were not obtained legally. Eighty percent obtained them illegally. [Bureau of Justice Statistics]. The fact of the matter is that the people using these guns for criminal purposes are not obtaining them legally, anyway. And the vast, vast, vast majority of guns sold are never used in crime. Something like one percent of all guns sold wind up being used in a criminal act. So... what exactly are you stopping?


Beyond that, access to guns isn't what causes crime. It isn't even what makes the situation worse. Switzerland requires most males to own a firearm and they take great pride in their firearm use. Yet, Great Britian (a nation with huge restrictions on firearms) has higher crime rates (including homicide) than the Swiss. The same can be said of ethnic groups within the United States. Immigrant populations of the first few generations have the same access to guns as the rest of us -- yet, in a large percentage of cases, the homicide rate of their population is much smaller than that of their home nation (in the case of Japanese Americans, it's half that of Japan). Meanwhile, in Kennesaw, GA, every household is required to own a gun. Their crime rate, as a result, has dropped dramatically (and is much lower than their neighboring towns). In fact, not a single firearm related homicide has occurred since the ordinance was passed. And the only homicides that have occurred happened to be committed by people who were passing through the town.

Guns aren't the problem and the more time you waste trying to prevent citizens from their constitutional right, the less time you spend actually trying to fix the real problem.

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:34 pm

trying to prevent citizens from their constitutional right
Ummm, we've been over this. That's bullshit. Every decision concerning the second amendment has supported the opinion that it was protecting the state's right to organize a militia, not the personal right to carry weapons.

I've also said it several times in this thread that even if a handgun ban wouldn't be radically effective, it would do something.
Seth Just (cowpoodle003) [10:50:27]: i think that if you could save one person's life by banning handguns it would be worth it
All that you've done with your carefully researched and worded post is call my arguments into question by saying that they won't be massively effective. All that matters is that the pros outweigh the cons. Of course, that's only because I can't see a real drawback to banning handguns because I see no valid uses for them. How about pointing out one of those to me instead of relying on logical fallacies.

User avatar
Young Val
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3166
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
Title: Papermaster
First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
Contact:

Postby Young Val » Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:12 pm

trying to prevent citizens from their constitutional right
Ummm, we've been over this. That's bullshit. Every decision concerning the second amendment has supported the opinion that it was protecting the state's right to organize a militia, not the personal right to carry weapons.

that's not even remotely true.


:::ducks back out again:::

[edited to add]

:::ducks back in:::


Parker v District of Columbia. 2007. Individuals have the right to bear arms.

U. S. v Emerson. 1999. Individuals have the right to bear arms.


ok, seriously bowing out now.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant

User avatar
eriador
KillEvilBanned
Posts: 2512
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:02 pm
Location: North Plains, OR (read Portland)
Contact:

Postby eriador » Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:08 pm

Parker v District of Columbia. 2007. Individuals have the right to bear arms.

U. S. v Emerson. 1999. Individuals have the right to bear arms.
The Parker case is in the District of Columbia where there is no state government which seriously changes the way the second amendment applies. DC is an exception because there is no state government.

The Emerson case (which is a 2001 decision by the way, not 1999) has two problems. First, it didn't actually strike down a gun control law, they upheld the law in question. Secondly, the finding in the Emerson case concerning the second amendment has been contradicted by the more recent Silveira v. Lockyer.

The fact remains that the huge majority of cases concerning this issue agree with the view that the second amendment protects the rights of the state, not the individual; and that NO STATE OR FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAW HAS EVER BEEN STRUCK DOWN ON THE GROUNDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. I'm sorry. That's just the way it is.

(Links click through to Wikipedia summaries of the cases with links to the full texts of the decisions)

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2217
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:07 am

Eri;

First of all, what you happen avoid mentioning is in the Emerson case, the court found that it was the right of the individual, not the state, to keep arms.

Not that it matters, since you seem perfectly fine with dismissing any contradicting evidence to your claims of absolutes. "Every decision says this! Oh, what's that? Oh, well, yeah. Those are examples of it supporting the individualist viewpoint... Um... look over here! Distraction! The gun control laws weren't stricken!"

The simple fact of the matter is that you're talking out of your ass when you're making those wild claims and haven't provided a shred of substantiation. Further, the insistence that gun control laws existing and being supported in Supreme Court cases is evidence that the Court upholds the belief that the right applies to states is more than a little specious. Limitations on rights do not indicate a lack of those rights.

Beyond that, it's rather clear you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about in terms of militias. Believe it or not, the militia was nothing more than the collective, adult, male population of the area. When our founding fathers spoke of militias, they didn't speak of government run bodies. Of course, Teddy changed that during his tenure in the White House, but that doesn't change the fact that the militias spoken of in the Constitution is merely the adult male population. Brushing up on legislation from early American history would serve you well. You might start with the Militia Act of 1792, for starters.

And congratulations. Saving one life makes it all worth it. Why stop there, though? We could save so many more lives by banning all guns. And knives. Scissors. Knitting needles. Clubs. Tire irons. Baseball bats. For someone calling the logic of others in question, you sure do base your arguments on pretty faulty logic yourself. Though, if you're going to play that card, at least you could give me the courtesy of labeling those fallacies, instead of the rather lame "oMg, Ur uSiNg l0gIcAl fAlLaCiEs!111!1!!1one!!11!!" At least you recognize that I've actually done some research, though. You might want to try it some time.

Regardless, it isn't just that it won't be massively effective. It's counter-productive. You're limiting the freedom of people wholly unrelated to the situation. "Let's stop crime by banning guns! If we make them illegal, the people getting them illegally already won't be able to get them legally!"

And, for the record, presenting the opinion that the pros outweigh the cons as a valid argument doesn't make for an interesting discussion. You're free to hold any opinion you like -- there are, in fact, undetectable turtles (giant turtles!) under the Earth holding us stationary so that the Invisi-Pink Unicorn may watch us and bless his followers -- it doesn't make your opinion any more true than the facts can illustrate. Stating your opinion isn't supporting your argument; presenting evidence is.

Anyway, I look forward to your response. You always manage to give me a chuckle.


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 21 guests