Right, but those are now conditions within the universal law of drinking and driving, which is the same as the conditions that would be placed on the universal law of gun control.
Not if the laws are determined state-by-state.
You're not saying that because you live in a rural area you should be allowed to drink and drive, you're saying that special cases can be made about the legal limit, but overall you still agree that drinking while driving, no matter what your legal limit may be, is still universally illegal, right?
Honest question, I don't know: Is there a federal law against drinking and driving?
I don't think so.
Or are you saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive?
I'm saying that universal (federal) laws should be minimalized.
10th Amendment and all that.
How exactlly is it not helping? What kind of difficulties is it placing on you?
Because the people who don't regard the law aren't going to follow the rules anyway. You think the gang bangers have FOID cards? Or just all the responsible hunters who don't really need one in the first place?
I got thrown out of a gun store for picking up a bullet when I didn't hav a FOID card. The law states that I'm unable to even handle one piece of ammunition without a FOID card unless under direct supervision of a person with a FOID card. The guy running the gun store didn't even know the letter of the law, and I was not breaking it because there he was supervising me holding the ammo.
How is that a bad thing?
It shits on peoples' individual rights.
Controlling the distribution of guns and who owns them.
Right, but no state in the US has no drinking and driving laws. That's what I meant by a universal law, maybe I didn't make that clear.
Let me try like this, drinking and driving is universally considered wrong therefore each state has laws concerning it. But no one is making the case that we should not have some laws for it, even depending on where you live.
In my opinion, this would be the same as gun control. There is a universal law that guns must be controlled, therefore each state has laws concerning it. No one should be making the case that no laws should exist.
I'm saying that universal (federal) laws should be minimalized.
10th Amendment and all that.
A better comparison of my position is drivers licenses. There is a universal law that concerns driving: you must have a license. Now, at that point each state places the parameters for people driving. The same with gun control. There should be a universal law to carry a license and register it. At that point each state can place the parameters for the gun owners.
Would that be better?
Because the people who don't regard the law aren't going to follow the rules anyway. You think the gang bangers have FOID cards? Or just all the responsible hunters who don't really need one in the first place?
Then they can't legally buy a gun, can they? That's the point. To legally buy a gun you must have a license and register it, if not, you can try buying it illegally.
I got thrown out of a gun store for picking up a bullet when I didn't hav a FOID card.
Would this same gun shop allow a gang memebr to pick up that bullet if he/she didn't have the license?
It shits on peoples' individual rights.
Every law does that.
And you think its working?
I don't think there are good gun control laws, so no, I don't think it's working. Remember, the laws are for the legal use of it, not for the illegal use of it.
Right, but no state in the US has no drinking and driving laws. That's what I meant by a universal law, maybe I didn't make that clear.
I see. Its clearer now. We should use a different word than "law" though, as that implies legislation. Lets say "rule".
Let me try like this, drinking and driving is universally considered wrong therefore each state has laws concerning it. But no one is making the case that we should not have some laws for it, even depending on where you live.
So then we don't need a federal law that says that there has to be state laws against drinking and driving!?
In my opinion, this would be the same as gun control. There is a universal law that guns must be controlled, therefore each state has laws concerning it. No one should be making the case that no laws should exist.
Nobody is advocating lawlessness, but we do not need a federal law on gun control. It should be up to the individual states.
A better comparison of my position is drivers licenses. There is a universal law that concerns driving: you must have a license. Now, at that point each state places the parameters for people driving. The same with gun control. There should be a universal law to carry a license and register it. At that point each state can place the parameters for the gun owners.
Would that be better?
A universal rule? Fine. An actual law? no.
Then they can't legally buy a gun, can they? That's the point.
But the people who obey the laws are not the ones who are causing the problems.
To legally buy a gun you must have a license and register it, if not, you can try buying it illegally.
Fuck that! How do we protect ourselves from the government if they know where all the guns are?
Registration leads to confiscation.
Goodwin's gonna be pissed, but one of the first things Hitler did was register all the guns and ammo, and one of the second things he did was take them all away. Then there's no possibility of resistance.
Would this same gun shop allow a gang memebr to pick up that bullet if he/she didn't have the license?
If they're under direct supervision of a person with a FOID card (i.e. the guy behind the counter), then they should be allowed to. There's nothing wrong with holding a bullet.
It shits on peoples' individual rights.
Every law does that.
Every? So its okay then? Are you not going ot argue against abortion because of the women's individual right because all laws shit on peoples' individual rights?
I don't think there are good gun control laws, so no, I don't think it's working. Remember, the laws are for the legal use of it, not for the illegal use of it.
Of course they're for the legal use. And since they're not working why would you want more of them?
But the people who obey the laws are not the ones who are causing the problems.
Ok, but how do you stop the people who are not obeying the law? Do you throw out the law and presto, no one's doing anything illegal? Or do you make the laws more stringent so that those who break it face tougher punishments?
Registration leads to confiscation.
Your only verification of this is Hitler? I would fight vociferously for a registration law. I would fight just as vociferously against a law confiscating all firearms. It's not all or nothing, and with the possible exception of RAZD, I haven't seen anyone advocating for a universal gun ban. I think there should be limits on gun ownership (do you really need more than 10 guns), limits on gun types (do you really need a Howitzer?), waiting laws (does it really hurt you to wait 48 hours before picking up your gun? You have to wait at least that long for your online order of a DVD box set), and registration (does it really hurt you to send in a card with the serial number of your gun on it so people know where a gun comes from were it to be stolen and used in a crime?).
Slippery slope arguments, especially when the supporting evidence for the slope in the first place is freaking Hitler, are weak arguments bordering on a fallacy.
If they're under direct supervision of a person with a FOID card (i.e. the guy behind the counter), then they should be allowed to. There's nothing wrong with holding a bullet.
And apparently that's the law, so no worries there. Now, the owner of the gun store can create any rules he wants within his own establishment as long as they are within the limits of the law. If he wants to kick you out for touching a bullet without an FOID card, that's his right. Are you going to argue against the rights of business owners?
Every? So its okay then? Are you not going ot argue against abortion because of the women's individual right because all laws shit on peoples' individual rights?
Every law puts restraints on what a person can or cannot choose to do on their own. The balance required of a society is to decide where the limits of those infractions should be. You put the limit at saying anything about what you can or cannot do with a firearm. Most of us see the balance point at the point where tracking these potentially lethal weapons are going and making sure as well as we can that unbalanced, historically violent people who may or may not have a history of breaking the law don't get their hands on easy guns.
Of course they're for the legal use. And since they're not working why would you want more of them?
You're right. And the Wright brothers' plane only flew a few feet. It wasn't working for actual travel, so why would they keep working on it? The point is that the current laws don't work. Throwing up our hands and saying "Laws can never work, so we should just go Mad Max," is as much a logical fallacy (or more) than the slippery slope oneyou employed earlier. Just because Law A doesn't work doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find a better law B that respects individual rights as much as possible while still amking it harder for people who plan to use the gun illegally to get their hands on them.
Ok, but how do you stop the people who are not obeying the law? Do you throw out the law and presto, no one's doing anything illegal? Or do you make the laws more stringent so that those who break it face tougher punishments?
I'd go with tougher punishments, because those only affect the people who break the law.
More stringent doesn't help against people who aren't obeying the law in the first place.
And what kind of laws do we actually see when it comes to gun control? More stringent ones passed by people who don't know anything about guns. Trigger locks, defining "assault weapon" by aesthetics alone, marking bullets, etc. Stupid bullshit!
I would fight just as vociferously against a law confiscating all firearms.
It doesn't matter how loud you shout when the cops are at your door demanding your guns.
's not all or nothing, and with the possible exception of RAZD, I haven't seen anyone advocating for a universal gun ban.
quote:If this is the case (and the statistics shown in this thread seem to suggest it is), then ethically the best thing to do is to tighten gun control laws and reduce the net harm to society - possibly including banning personal gun ownership entirely (possibly with exceptions for hunting rifles, since those are difficult to use for home invasions, muggings, and other crimes).
I think there should be limits on gun ownership (do you really need more than 10 guns),
What if you're a collector?
limits on gun types (do you really need a Howitzer?),
Already exist.
waiting laws (does it really hurt you to wait 48 hours before picking up your gun? You have to wait at least that long for your online order of a DVD box set)
Not much of a problem although I don't see what purpose it serves.
and registration (does it really hurt you to send in a card with the serial number of your gun on it so people know where a gun comes from were it to be stolen and used in a crime?).
YES!!! You don't want the government to know where all the guns are.
Every? So its okay then? Are you not going to argue against abortion because of the women's individual right because all laws shit on peoples' individual rights?
Every law puts restraints on what a person can or cannot choose to do on their own. The balance required of a society is to decide where the limits of those infractions should be.
And if society decides that slavery should be legal again then you're gonna be all for it!?
You put the limit at saying anything about what you can or cannot do with a firearm.
False.
Most of us see the balance point at the point where tracking these potentially lethal weapons are going and making sure as well as we can that unbalanced, historically violent people who may or may not have a history of breaking the law don't get their hands on easy guns.
Unbelievable, ignorant, and stupid. As long as Big Brother is taking care of you, I guess.
Of course they're for the legal use. And since they're not working why would you want more of them?
You're right. And the Wright brothers' plane only flew a few feet. It wasn't working for actual travel, so why would they keep working on it?
The proper analogy would be for them to keep building and trying to fly the same damned plane over and over again,
The point is that the current laws don't work. Throwing up our hands and saying "Laws can never work, so we should just go Mad Max," is as much a logical fallacy (or more) than the slippery slope one you employed earlier.
Nobody's advocating that.
Just because Law A doesn't work doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find a better law B that respects individual rights as much as possible while still making it harder for people who plan to use the gun illegally to get their hands on them.
The problem is that more laws don't do a good job affecting people who don't obey the laws.
I'd go with tougher punishments, because those only affect the people who break the law.
Well, you have to have a law to have punishments, right? So you agree, there should be gun control laws.
Trigger locks
What do you have against trigger locks? Do you think we should amek it easy for a kid to pick up dad's gun and shoot their little brother in the face? I think some rudimentary safety requirements are a good compromise between removing all guns and allowing all guns.
It doesn't matter how loud you shout when the cops are at your door demanding your guns.
I disagree. You have a very poor opinion of the police and the government in general it seems. The government is nominally under our control. We can petition the government to overturn a new law. We can take it to court to have it ruled unconstituional (which an across the board ban of all guns would be). We can elect new representatives who are more in line with our opinions. I don't see anyone in any position to do anything about it wanting to take away all guns. The fact that you do seems to be a slight bit of paranoia.
If this is the case (and the statistics shown in this thread seem to suggest it is), then ethically the best thing to do is to tighten gun control laws and reduce the net harm to society - possibly including banning personal gun ownership entirely (possibly with exceptions for hunting rifles, since those are difficult to use for home invasions, muggings, and other crimes).
And if you notice, there are ifs and possiblys scattered quite prominantly throughout. Rahvin even acknowledges the possibility of allowing hunting rifles, even if a "total ban" were to go in effect. And again, Rahvin is in no position to enact even those rules, and no one who is in that position has indicated a desire to do so, with the possible exception of a few who have no hope of finding a majority to even get the law debated, let alone enacted.
What if you're a collector?
Well, a collector's license could be issued, or there could be exceptions for guns that don't have ammo, or are considered collectible by a majority of gun enthusiasts, etc.
Not much of a problem although I don't see what purpose it serves.
Well, if my girlfriend and I get in a huge fight, I go off to drown my anger in alcohol and all it does is make me angrier, and I decide the bitch doesn't deserve to live any more, after all, all she does is spend my money, use my things and get in my way, and I go down to the local gun shop to buy the gun to kill her in the heat of the moment, don't you think it's probably a good idea for me to cool off a bit?
YES!!! You don't want the government to know where all the guns are.
They won't necessarily know where they are, just who bought them. This fear of the government is very perplexing to me. Do you have any reason to fear them like you do? I've been inconvenienced a couple of times, but the benefits I derive from the government far outweigh any minor inconvenience I have ever felt from them. Sounds like more irrational paranoia to me.
And if society decides that slavery should be legal again then you're gonna be all for it!?
No. I don't have to agree with my society. I'm just saying that society, as a whole, is beneficial, and no matter what society you have, it will infringe on your personal liberties. It is up to us, as part of that society to decide where those limits are to be or we can leave the society or try to change it. If slavery were allowed, I would try to change society to make it illegal again. Just as now, I am arguing to change society to protect those who don't want to be shot by a legal gun owner any more than I want to be shot by an illegal one while at the same time not taking away a responsible person's ability to own a gun at all.
Unbelievable, ignorant, and stupid. As long as Big Brother is taking care of you, I guess.
What am I being ignorant or stupid about? I'm not scared of the big bad government. I disagree with amny of the things it has done, but again, it has been more beneficial to me and those I know than detrimental. I don't see this dystopia you are crying about. When the government acts like big brother, I decry it (such as the wiretapping scandal and such). Do I see any issue with making sure violent and mentally unbalanced people don't get guns. No. In fact, I see a benefit of it.
The proper analogy would be for them to keep building and trying to fly the same damned plane over and over again,
Only if you're assuming that we keep passing the exact same law over and over again without trying to make it better or learning from past laws. While I agree the congress can be wasteful with time and money, I can't quite get to the level where I see them passing the exact same law over and over again.
The problem is that more laws don't do a good job affecting people who don't obey the laws.
But this seems to indicate you believe that there are two classes of people in the world: those who follow laws and those who don't and never the twain shall meet. A perfectly good, law-abiding citizen can decide to go crazy and break any law out there. A former criminal can have a change of heart and renounce their previous ways, becoming a law abiding citizen. Will a new law stop someone hell bent on doing something they want to do regardless fo laws or not? No. Will it stop someone from doing something they shouldn't do who respects laws? Yes. I'm not advocating a law that stops people from doing something I think should be allowed. So, a gun control law that I agree with stops or restricts people from doing something I think is dangerous to the populace or could be easily exploited to do something dangerous.
This whole "protection from government" thing is perplexing to me.
I understand the historical roots, especially in the US, and have some similar concerns in the long term myself.
However, the idea that an armed citizenry is going to make any difference is absurd. If you want to be protected from an oppressive, powerful government you have to, for one thing, reduce the power of that government.
Exactly what good will all sorts of citizen weaponry be against F16s and M1 battle tanks? Those are just the start of what is available to the government. Included in the states power is an indoctrinated, patriotic force that accepts "my country, right or wrong".
If you want to be protected against this force then no reasonably imaginable amount of citizen weaponry will do the job. You must instead work to reduce the power of the force of the state. Or at least do a lot of both.
It is, to me, an absurd argument and obviously not one really believed by most of those putting it forward.
(a small bet: a large majority of those against gun control are in favor of a strong army).
This whole "protection from government" thing is perplexing to me.
I must say, I find it hilarious It does tend to destroy the credibility of any arguments in its vicinity.
In terms of gun control, anyone who thinks the unwashed masses of Great Britain should have guns at their disposal needs their head examining. At least the gun toting criminals know how to use them
Right, but no state in the US has no drinking and driving laws. That's what I meant by a universal law, maybe I didn't make that clear.
Okay, I misunderstood you too.
-----
onifre, msg #146, writes:
Simply put, population increase comes with crime increase, whether people own guns or not.
If the people are the deciding factor, then shouldn't the people be the targets of the laws, rather than the guns? I think our society would benefit more from teaching people to be responsible about things than from trying to control or keep tabs on what they're doing.
Exactly what good will all sorts of citizen weaponry be against F16s and M1 battle tanks?
The military isn't all F-16's and M1 battle tanks: citizen weaponry can be useful in a guerilla warfare against the infantry. Furthermore, battle tanks and fighter jets are of limited use against small, mobile bands in the forests of West Virginia.
At any rate, a shotgun is infinitely more effective than a kitchen knife.
I must say, I find it hilarious It does tend to destroy the credibility of any arguments in its vicinity.
In terms of gun control, anyone who thinks the unwashed masses of Great Britain should have guns at their disposal needs their head examining. At least the gun toting criminals know how to use them
It's frankly stupid. Here in the US we've all heard about "rights" and worshiped the Constitution to the point where reason and logic are thrown out the window. Nobody thinks about why we have these rights any more; nobody understands that rights are not objective, inborn traits of human beings, but are rather communally-decided and mutable. Even the Founding Fathers ensured that the Constitution was mutable, right down to the Bill of Rights, through the process of amendments.
The 2nd Amendment was written in an age when a citizen militia could both provide for the common defense and resist an oppressive government. Citizen militias can now do neither. Guns may make some people feel safer, but the reality is (and statistics plainly show) that guns simply escalate violence and crime that would otherwise happen without a gun-related death. They do absolutely nothing to defend against an oppressive government - how well are the armed citizens of Iraq doing against our professional and technologically advanced military force? They can cause casualties, sure - but they don't have a prayer of actually putting up more than token resistance and giving us a headache. How well are a bunch of gun nuts with assault rifles going to do if the US government institutes martial law?
The fact is that guns don't prevent crime - they escalate violence. When guns are illegal only criminals have guns...but fewer of them have them due to decreased availability, and fewer guns statistically translate directly into fewer deaths.
The fact is that guns don't provide a defense against an oppressive government. Military and even police forces have become strong enough that even well-supplied militias with illegal weaponry (full machine guns, shoulder-launched missiles and RPGs, improvised explosives, etc) cannot hope to be more than a speed bump to the tanks, helicopters, jets, armored assault vehicles, and well-trained professional soldiers.
Guns now have only a few uses: recreational target practice, hunting, and defense against predators in rural areas. These are easily and even best accomplished via rifles rather than handguns.
For all the panic induced by gun nuts whenever anyone suggests taking away gun ownership, societies that have done so are provably safer as a result, and have lost no effective defense against an oppressive government - since they didn't have one to begin with.
If the people are the deciding factor, then shouldn't the people be the targets of the laws, rather than the guns? I think our society would benefit more from teaching people to be responsible about things than from trying to control or keep tabs on what they're doing.
Perhaps you could look at it like a pharmacy? Because of the inherent risk of some drugs, we don't allow just anyone to get them. You need a prescription. Imagine, if you would the danger of allowing any drug to be available for any schlub to pick up at the corner 7-11. People make mistakes, they can not be reasonably expected to know which drugs might react with others. People can use drugs to do bad things to themselves or to others. Because of this, we regulate access to those drugs that are considered dangerous. Guns are inherently dangerous. As an officer you're trained on how and when they could or should be used. The common citizen hasn't, and the danger of 'collateral' damage is high if and when a citizen decides to use his weapon. They aren't a doctor, or pharmacist.
At least in the United States, we have decided to keep a precarious balance between your right to bear arms and the protection of the citizens from those who might harm them, whether indirectly or on purpose. In order to minimize the danger of abuse and human mistakes, doesn't it seem reasonable that, like those drugs at the local pharmacy, we regulate those things deemed inherently dangerous, such as a gun?
As far as I recall, there have been restrictions placed on drugs like Pseudoephedrine or ephedrine, that could be used to make meth. Those drugs by themselves are not inherently dangerous but when cooked in a home lab they can produce a highly addictive, killer drug. Why do we not see the degree of outrage over the restrictions placed on these seemingly harmless drugs? Because many people, while inconvenienced to some degree, see the benefit provided to society by placing restrictions on them.
Edited by DBlevins, : Added an example I suddenly recalled
We should use a different word than "law" though, as that implies legislation. Lets say "rule".
Yea, I think Bluejay changed it to "universal law making" and I figure we were all on the same page. I'm cool with "rule," or as I put it a few posts back:
quote:If you feel there should be a universal standard for science, then why should guns be exempt from a universal standard simply because a few have personal feelings about it?
I was just refering to a standard that we all agree should be in place, like the standard for science, or the standard for not drinking and driving. Now the specifics of these standards should be state issued and enforced, except of course for science.
So then we don't need a federal law that says that there has to be state laws against drinking and driving!?
No, not at all. In fact I don't think there needs to be any federal laws when state laws are fine. I meant universal standard for guns, that standard being that there should be a form of gun control.
But the people who obey the laws are not the ones who are causing the problems.
Then the laws do no harm. The laws are in place for the legal use not for the illegal use. Anyone illegally using a gun, and uses it to harm someone, has many more charges or things to worry about than not carrying a license to use it properly.
Gun control laws are not to stop crime or even reduce it slightly, they are only for gun control - sale and ownership.
Fuck that! How do we protect ourselves from the government if they know where all the guns are?
Oh come on, bro, don't tell me you're falling for that NRA propaganda crap?
Goodwin's gonna be pissed, but one of the first things Hitler did was register all the guns and ammo, and one of the second things he did was take them all away. Then there's no possibility of resistance.
Oh wait, you are!
Resistance against the government? Realllly... with what a Glock and a couple of shotguns?
Waco Texas mean anything to you?
If they're under direct supervision of a person with a FOID card (i.e. the guy behind the counter), then they should be allowed to. There's nothing wrong with holding a bullet.
Then what's your beef? You weren't allowed because the gun shop owner made a mistake, right? Same dude would make that mistake with anyone else. He had understood the law differently but he did follow the law, just not properly.
Every? So its okay then?
Yes, every law, why, because people have different standards for what they consider their individual right. All laws in some way will shit on what certain people will feel is their "right." At least that's how I see it.
Are you not going ot argue against abortion because of the women's individual right because all laws shit on peoples' individual rights?
Yes, and some people do. I wouldn't specifically for that case, but cigarette laws shit on what I feel are my rights. So do certain drug laws.
And since they're not working why would you want more of them?
That depends on what we consider "not working." I feel they're not working because there aren't many good laws to control guns. In my opinion every person who wants a gun should have a license, take a safety class and register the weapon with his/her county. That would be a start. Also age limits would work too, especially in Texas where minors can buy hunting rifles.
Gun control laws are NOT to prevent crime or to reduce it in anyway, they simply place restrictions on the guns themselves and who can purchase one. I think that's a good thing.
If the people are the deciding factor, then shouldn't the people be the targets of the laws, rather than the guns? I think our society would benefit more from teaching people to be responsible about things than from trying to control or keep tabs on what they're doing.
This is a good point, but remember we're talking about weapons, not iPods or TV's. There should be some control over who can purchase them don't you think? A simple FBI background check perhaps, and cross referenced with local and state police as well. To give some assurance that the one purchasing it is responsable. And a license that says you took a course in safety for the weapon you're about to purchase - it's often done even at hunting clubs.
Also, registering the weapon actually benefits you. One, if it is stolen and used illegally it can't be traced back to you once you've reported it stolen. And two, it gives local law enforcement, the people you and I count on to protect the streets, a sense of how many weapons are out there, that way they can properly equip themsleves as well.
I also think that there should be absolutely no sale of automatic weapons, in any case.
It does tend to destroy the credibility of any arguments in its vicinity.
™ Version 4.2
