• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A hypothetical gun control proposal

thaiboxerken said:
Your point it? If they are all the same, why complain about banning the ones that "look" evil?
Click to expand...

What's the point with resisting the creation of frivolous laws that give the lawmakers some semblance of doing their job? Is that what you're asking?

I generally fall on the side of giving people rights unless there is a good reason to restrict them.

What is the advantage that one has over the other, and what can be gained by banning one over the other?
 
Last edited:
With regards to registration, I know it did next to nothing in Canada besides prove how safe most gun owners actually are. But that's just why I don't oppose it. Yes it could be used to confiscate guns, but I feel the best way to defend against that is to not let those guns be made illegal in the first place. My feeling is that this specific slope isn't that slippery.

It could also be constructed in such a way that gun confiscation is a use of the list, but confiscation from people determined no longer fit to own a firearm such as newly convicted criminals and those going through severe mental issues. As for use against straw buys and unlawful transfers, unregistered guns or guns in the possession of those to who it is not registered would obviously have a chance to be confiscated from the criminal element because they are the ones who wouldn't register. I'm not claiming to have good evidence that this would actually have an effect, only to have an argument for it.

Actually I like Nessie's idea best. There are many things that can be done that don't alienate gun owners.
 
DavidJames said:
I thought laws were useless as criminals ignore them?
Click to expand...

Some laws and polices are useless because criminals ignore them. That does not mean all laws are useless, let alone policies which you cut out.
 
Brian-M said:
I was thinking that local gun clubs would be able to get their instructors accredited to run the courses and issue certificates of completion that could then be turned in for a license once a background check is compete.
Click to expand...
That sounds good until you realize that local gun clubs are being driven out of business due to people encroaching upon the formerly remote land and complaining about the noise. Noise reduction is not politically correct in the USA, some jurisdictions have laws prohibiting it, WA was one.

I am hearing that local gun clubs will no longer be allowed to charge any fees for use of their facilities when conducting hunter safety courses. Any money collected is to go to the state. The state is not making it easy for people to learn how to use a gun when they put these obstacles in the way.

Ranb
 
Sabretooth said:
Because banning something based on cosmetics is ignorant.

It's like banning all Corvette's because they look like they go too fast.
Click to expand...

Corvettes are designed to go speeds higher than what is lawful and therefore the only reason to have one is to go above the speed limit. Thus should they be banned and the owners scorned for their hobby.
 
tyr_13 said:
Some laws and polices are useless because criminals ignore them. That does not mean all laws are useless, let alone policies which you cut out.
Click to expand...

Laws and policies which are ignored are ones which are either not enforced by the police and criminal justice system or they are so badly worded they are unenforceable.

Saying "Some laws and polices are useless because criminals ignore them." is a non sequitur. Criminals by definition do not follow a certain law, or many laws. That does not mean the law is useless.
 
tyr_13 said:
Corvettes are designed to go speeds higher than what is lawful and therefore the only reason to have one is to go above the speed limit. Thus should they be banned and the owners scorned for their hobby.
Click to expand...

Nope. They should be limited so that they can't go over the highest speed limit in the USA. I believe that is 85 mph at the moment.
 
Let's move beyond criminals ignoring laws for a moment.

Consider the three guns I listed above. What improves when the bottom two are outlawed for civilian use, leaving only the top one?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Nope. They should be limited so that they can't go over the highest speed limit in the USA. I believe that is 85 mph at the moment.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement over that one. The technology is there, for instance my motorcycle could not go over 115. At 115 the computer would start cutting off the fuel.

My current car, a 2012 Ford Focus, is programmable. I can set a lot of restrictions for, say, a teenage driver. http://cars.about.com/b/2008/10/08/ford-introduces-parental-controls-for-the-2010-focus.htm

/OT
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
Laws and policies which are ignored are ones which are either not enforced by the police and criminal justice system or they are so badly worded they are unenforceable.

Saying "Some laws and polices are useless because criminals ignore them." is a non sequitur. Criminals by definition do not follow a certain law, or many laws. That does not mean the law is useless.
Click to expand...

Some laws are useless because criminals ignore them, but that's is an oversimplification. I didn't well define 'useless'. I mean that some laws intended to address some issues don't address those issues and are redundant.

For example, let's say to address a spree of bank robberies, we propose to make double-parking an actual criminal offense. Well, the bank robbers aren't about to not rob the bank because they now have to break an additional law about double parking the get-away car. In this case the law is useless because it doesn't address the issue effectively because the criminals are just going to ignore it anyway. It isn't going to stop them from robbing the bank unless they happen to get caught double-parking right before entering the bank. There is no deterrent because the criminal won't care about that offense compared to the one they are committing anyway and it doesn't otherwise make the crime more difficult.
 
shawmutt said:
Let's move beyond criminals ignoring laws for a moment.

Consider the three guns I listed above. What improves when the bottom two are outlawed for civilian use, leaving only the top one?
Click to expand...

Criminals don't like wimpy looking weapons and prefer the "manly" ones.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Criminals don't like wimpy looking weapons and prefer the "manly" ones.
Click to expand...

Source? My source, the USDOJ, states the vast majority of criminals use small caliber, small capacity handguns. These are the same handguns, when carried legally, that are normally carried by women. The most traced guns to crime are:

1 Lorcin P25 .25 Pistol
2 Davis Industries P380 .38 Pistol
3 Raven Arms MP25 .25 Pistol
4 Lorcin L25 .25 Pistol
5 Mossburg 500 12G Shotgun
6 Phoenix Arms Raven .25 Pistol
7 Jennings J22 .22 Pistol
8 Ruger P89 9 mm Pistol
9 Glock 17 9 mm Pistol
10 Bryco 38 .38

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=947

Hmm, other than the Glock 17 and Ruger P (basically any 9mm), this manly man (with a small penis) might, and I mean might, give one of the pistols to my wife.

Are you too inventing more premises?
 
Last edited:
shawmutt said:
Source? My source, the USDOJ, states the vast majority of criminals use small caliber, small capacity handguns. These are the same handguns, when carried legally, are normally carried by women. The most traced guns to crime are:

1 Lorcin P25 .25 Pistol
2 Davis Industries P380 .38 Pistol
3 Raven Arms MP25 .25 Pistol
4 Lorcin L25 .25 Pistol
5 Mossburg 500 12G Shotgun
6 Phoenix Arms Raven .25 Pistol
7 Jennings J22 .22 Pistol
8 Ruger P89 9 mm Pistol
9 Glock 17 9 mm Pistol
10 Bryco 38 .38

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=947

Hmm, other than the Glock 17 and Ruger P (basically any 9mm), this manly man (with a small penis) might, and I mean might, give one of the pistols to my wife.

Are you too inventing more premises?
Click to expand...

Thanks! These are the weapons we should be banning. I'm glad you cleared that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom