Gun control debate (merged)

#7,753
#7,753
37L1 said:
It's the only way to stop "Gun Violence." But in trying to confiscate you would create more violence and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Click to expand...
No one believes gun violence will ever be stopped. That's like saying we will stop all car accidents. All that can be done is take rational and reasonable actions that will reduce the number of those inevitable negative consequences.
 
#7,756
#7,756
luthervol said:
I'm pretty comfortable with the law of averages. Sure the more scarce the item come the higher the value will rise. We could hand out guns for free and then there would be no need to steal them or for a black market, but that doesn't mean that handing out guns for free would have an overall positive effect.
Click to expand...
That is a preposterous proposition and a ridiculous extrapolation but I've come to expect that of you.

So how many gun crimes would be reduced if you were somehow able to reduce the number of guns in circulation in half by allowing only one purchase per year as you suggested (which also is preposterous and unconstitutional and would take forever). 50%? Things don't work that way, you know. . .
 
#7,760
#7,760
37L1 said:
That is a preposterous proposition and a ridiculous extrapolation but I've come to expect that of you.

So how many gun crimes would be reduced if you were somehow able to reduce the number of guns in circulation in half by allowing only one purchase per year as you suggested (which also is preposterous and unconstitutional and would take forever). 50%? Things don't work that way, you know. . .
Click to expand...
No, not 50%, 22.1%. It's not taking us long to see why these "discussions" are pointless.
 
#7,761
#7,761
luthervol said:
No one believes gun violence will ever be stopped. That's like saying we will stop all car accidents. All that can be done is take rational and reasonable actions that will reduce the number of those inevitable negative consequences.
Click to expand...
Here we go with "rational and reasonable" again. So far you've come up with one purchase per year. You call that rational and reasonable, I call that irrational and unreasonable because it would not achieve the desired goal and it would be an unreasonable imposition upon people who have broken no laws. (as well as unconstitutional)
 
#7,766
#7,766
37L1 said:
You are 100% incorrect because you are just pulling numbers out of your ass.
Click to expand...
lol......You asked a question that you knew fully well had an unknowable answer and then tell me I am 100% incorrect.
Who knows how much it would be reduced, it's unknowable. But a rational and reasonable person can accurately assume it would in fact be reduced.
 
#7,767
#7,767
Of course. You
luthervol said:
No, not 50%, 22.1%. It's not taking us long to see why these "discussions" are pointless.
Click to expand...
say you want “rational and reasonable” blah blah. You don’t even know what those words mean. Start with a coloring book, get back to us when you can keep the crayons inside the lines and we’ll give you your next coloring book to work on.
 
#7,768
#7,768
37L1 said:
Here we go with "rational and reasonable" again. So far you've come up with one purchase per year. You call that rational and reasonable, I call that irrational and unreasonable because it would not achieve the desired goal and it would be an unreasonable imposition upon people who have broken no laws. (as well as unconstitutional)
Click to expand...
That was the point from the start.......
We will not agree on what is rational and reasonable.
It all boils down to who decides what rational and reasonable is.......I like the direction of the current tide.
 
#7,769
#7,769
luthervol said:
lol......You asked a question that you knew fully well had an unknowable answer and then tell me I am 100% incorrect.
Who knows how much it would be reduced, it's unknowable. But a rational and reasonable person can accurately assume it would in fact be reduced.
Click to expand...
Or increased because more prople would want them because they are more valuable due to being scarce. Criminals would target them, even kill for them, dopers would be able to turn them into more quick cash, there would be a lucrative blackmarket, they would be made illegally, they would be smuggled into a demanding market, less people would be armed thus making criminals more bold, etc., etc, etc. All those reasons are rational and reasonable, luther.
 
#7,774
#7,774
Luther, you asked who decides what is reasonable and rational. If you boil it down to the very core of the issue, the individual decides. Inanimate objects cannot be evil or good. They are an extension of the will of an individual. Good or evil can happen by the choice of an individual. That’s why gun legislation fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#7,775
#7,775
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Luther, you asked who decides what is reasonable and rational. If you boil it down to the very core of the issue, the individual decides. Inanimate objects cannot be evil or good. They are an extension of the will of an individual. Good or evil can happen by the choice of an individual. That’s why any gun legislation will fail.
Click to expand...
Yet sarin gas and pedophilia remain illegal.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top