Gun control debate (merged)

[LouderVol]

I have not heard of a lot of shotguns being used in mass shootings.

The school shooting down in Florida. The guy in Vegas had some that didnt get used sniping (for obvious reasons). Did the gay night club in Orlando? I cant remember that one.

 

[LouderVol]

Sure. Love thy neighbor and all.
But you know very well that the reality is that some will ignore that rational and reasonable restriction; which then necessitates that second layer of rational and reasonable restrictions. It's a bummer that society has to function that way, but unfortunately some individuals suk.

And how has that second layer worked? Maybe you need a third and a fourth?

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Sure. Love thy neighbor and all.
But you know very well that the reality is that some will ignore that rational and reasonable restriction; which then necessitates that second layer of rational and reasonable restrictions. It's a bummer that society has to function that way, but unfortunately some individuals suk.

Again and again you seem the think you can bend the free will of man with laws. If you do not possess the innate morality to not kill or maim innocent people no amount of laws will stop you from doing so.

We have roughly 10k homicides a year. The reason the other 99.996% of us don’t murder has nothing to do with laws.

 

[luthervol]

And how has that second layer worked? Maybe you need a third and a fourth?

Much better than not having that second layer, or third or fourth.

 

[hog88]

Sure. Love thy neighbor and all.
But you know very well that the reality is that some will ignore that rational and reasonable restriction; which then necessitates that second layer of rational and reasonable restrictions. It's a bummer that society has to function that way, but unfortunately some individuals suk.

When someone ignores the rational and reasonable restriction of not hurting other people they should be punished rationally and reasonably and the rest of us rational and reasonable people who abide by the rational and reasonable restrictions should be left alone and not be encumbered by irrational and unreasonable regulation.

 

[LouderVol]

Much better than not having that second layer, or third or fourth.

Based on what? You want to compare gun violence rates today, to those before the second layer?

I bet you wont educate yourself.

And definitely dont look at what an AR does vs a handgun. You might accidentally learn something there you dont like too.

 

[luthervol]

Again and again you seem the think you can bend the free will of man with laws. If you do not possess the innate morality to not kill or maim innocent people no amount of laws will stop you from doing so.

We have roughly 10k homicides a year. The reason the other 99.996% of us don’t murder has nothing to do with laws.

Laws do effect behavior. I can guarantee you that I drive more slowly on some roads than I otherwise would if there were no speed limit. I guarantee many people would be more willing to have that third of fourth beer before they left the bar if DWI wasn't illegal.

Secondly, if one does have the will to kill or maim innocent people, I would much prefer they not have an AK-47 or nuclear warhead.

 

[Only_1_OK]

I know that's your response. You have stated your willingness to allow the nonsensical extension.
I think you may have even said that people walking around with their own personal mini-nuke was acceptable.
That's not a position very many are willing to take.
For those not willing to take that position, the obvious conclusion is a line will be drawn.
So where does that leave us?
Either there are absolutely no restrictions. (people have anti-aircraft guns, nukes, land mines, and chemical weapons)
Or we have some rational and reasonable restrictions.

You do realize practically any firearm can be construed as an "anti-aircraft gun"?

You do realize chemical weapons are fairly easy to produce by mixing generally uncontrolled substances into a lethal blend? They aren't as potent as government produced ones, but they can be produced by everyday people.

Owning nuclear weapons is the most ignorant argument one could make for gun control. First off, where in the ever living hell are you going to buy enough plutonium or uranium to make one? Second, it's pretty much a huge technical challenge to produce one. Last, but certainly not least, the components to include the manufacturing tools to make one are highly expensive. As is the nuclear reactor needed to produce the plutonium.

Land mines are also easy to produce.

I've perused this thread since it's relevant to my interests and generally try to stay away from discussions with those (you specifically) who cannot comprehend basic knowledge of the argument at hand. But your examples just takes the cake on ignorance. You really aren't being rational and reasonable in your posts here.

 

[luthervol]

Based on what? You want to compare gun violence rates today, to those before the second layer?

I bet you wont educate yourself.

And definitely dont look at what an AR does vs a handgun. You might accidentally learn something there you dont like too.

Compare gun violence in our country and countries with stricter laws.

 

[Only_1_OK]

The school shooting down in Florida. The guy in Vegas had some that didnt get used sniping (for obvious reasons). Did the gay night club in Orlando? I cant remember that one.

No, that was a semi-auto rifle and pistol.

 

[luthervol]

When someone ignores the rational and reasonable restriction of not hurting other people they should be punished rationally and reasonably and the rest of us rational and reasonable people who abide by the rational and reasonable restrictions should be left alone and not be encumbered by irrational and unreasonable regulation.

That works swimmingly for all but the ones hurt and killed by those irrational and unreasonable people.
And those are precisely the ones the restrictions are intended to protect.

 

[hog88]

Compare gun violence in our country and countries with stricter laws.

Compare our liberties and freedom to other countries.

 

[hog88]

That works swimmingly for all but the ones hurt and killed by those irrational and unreasonable people.
And those are precisely the ones the restrictions are intended to protect.

Irrational and unreasonable people with always be hurting rational and reasonable people no matter how many or what irrational and unreasonable laws are on the books. There will always be freedom hating irrational and unreasonable people out there trying to strip the rights of the rational and reasonable in order to provide themselves with an irrational sense of security and they must be stopped at every turn by us truly rational and reasonable citizens. The only rational and reasonable position one can take is to punish the irrational and unreasonable offenders.

 

[luthervol]

You do realize practically any firearm can be construed as an "anti-aircraft gun"?

You do realize chemical weapons are fairly easy to produce by mixing generally uncontrolled substances into a lethal blend? They aren't as potent as government produced ones, but they can be produced by everyday people.

Owning nuclear weapons is the most ignorant argument one could make for gun control. First off, where in the ever living hell are you going to buy enough plutonium or uranium to make one? Second, it's pretty much a huge technical challenge to produce one. Last, but certainly not least, the components to include the manufacturing tools to make one are highly expensive. As is the nuclear reactor needed to produce the plutonium.

Land mines are also easy to produce.

I've perused this thread since it's relevant to my interests and generally try to stay away from discussions with those (you specifically) who cannot comprehend basic knowledge of the argument at hand. But your examples just takes the cake on ignorance. You really aren't being rational and reasonable in your posts here.

- A rock can be considered an anti-aircraft missile.
- Skunk bait can be considered a chemical weapon.
- There are plenty of billionaires in this world.
- A pop rock could be considered a land mine.
- Corona virus can be easily produced.

Your points are meaningless. I understand why you avoid the debate. Rational and reasonable restrictions are a must. Name a society that does not have them. Mic drop.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Laws do effect behavior. I can guarantee you that I drive more slowly on some roads than I otherwise would if there were no speed limit. I guarantee many people would be more willing to have that third of fourth beer before they left the bar if DWI wasn't illegal.

Secondly, if one does have the will to kill or maim innocent people, I would much prefer they not have an AK-47 or nuclear warhead.

Do you honestly think there’s loads of people out there that would be murdering if not for laws? You sound like the reefer madness crowd who think there’s a quarter billion stoners out there if not for muh laws.

 

[Only_1_OK]

- A rock can be considered an anti-aircraft missile.
- Skunk bait can be considered a chemical weapon.
- There are plenty of billionaires in this world.
- A pop rock could be considered a land mine.
- Corona virus can be easily produced.

Your points are meaningless. I understand why you avoid the debate. Rational and reasonable restrictions are a must. Name a society that does not have them. Mic drop.

See, here's where your ignorance shines once again.

Skunk bait by itself is not a lethal chemical agent.

Plenty of billionaires in this world that have no inclination of building a nuclear weapon.

Pop rock? Really? Am I being trolled here?

Most biological weapons aren't as easy to produce as Hollywood lets on. Or the really virulent and deadly ones engineered to be resistant to medications. But make no mistake, at medical universities around the world the capability exists to make some really deadly **** that could kill millions or billions. Many of them actually are being contracted by your very own government to come up with such ideas and the counters to them.

It does appear your arguments are a single shade prior to being full on special needs category.

If you didn't notice, our society does have "reasonable and rational" restrictions. Which were outlined in various Supreme Court cases over the years.

 

[LouderVol]

Compare gun violence in our country and countries with stricter laws.

Compare our prison logs with those same stricter laws.

Compare the self civilian victim counts from government action in those countries to ours. And ours is too high.

Your entire stance requires such a limited view on everything.

 

[luthervol]

Compare our liberties and freedom to other countries.

In many ways we have more and in some ways we have less.....
but that wasn't the point of his post nor my response.

 

[LouderVol]

- A rock can be considered an anti-aircraft missile.
- Skunk bait can be considered a chemical weapon.
- There are plenty of billionaires in this world.
- A pop rock could be considered a land mine.
- Corona virus can be easily produced.

Your points are meaningless. I understand why you avoid the debate. Rational and reasonable restrictions are a must. Name a society that does not have them. Mic drop.

Name a society without victims. Mic drop.

 

[luthervol]

Irrational and unreasonable people with always be hurting rational and reasonable people no matter how many or what irrational and unreasonable laws are on the books. There will always be freedom hating irrational and unreasonable people out there trying to strip the rights of the rational and reasonable in order to provide themselves with an irrational sense of security and they must be stopped at every turn by us truly rational and reasonable citizens. The only rational and reasonable position one can take is to punish the irrational and unreasonable offenders.

Well that was certainly irrational and unreasonable.

 

[hog88]

In many ways we have more and in some ways we have less.....
but that wasn't the point of his post nor my response.

Rational and reasonable people, not horribly despicable ones favor individual liberty and freedoms. Irrational and unreasonable horribly despicable people don't want the inherent dangers that come with being free and prefer horrendously despicable irrational and unreasonable controls on their life.

 

[luthervol]

Do you honestly think there’s loads of people out there that would be murdering if not for laws? You sound like the reefer madness crowd who think there’s a quarter billion stoners out there if not for muh laws.

Are you saying you feel that murder should not be illegal?

 

[hog88]

Well that was certainly irrational and unreasonable.

Coming from someone that is neither rational or reasonable I can see how you would find a rational and reasonable conversation about liberty and rights to be irrational and unreasonable.

 

[luthervol]

If you didn't notice, our society does have "reasonable and rational" restrictions. Which were outlined in various Supreme Court cases over the years.

You certainly took a round about way to eventually agreeing with me.
Of course we have reasonable and rational restrictions. Every society must. That's been my point since the beginning. Why would we need Supreme Court cases to decide?

 

[luthervol]

Name a society without victims. Mic drop.

There is none. Never has been, never will be. What point does that make?