Poll

Is gun control an effective means of reducing violent crime

Yes.  People cannot be trusted with guns for any reason.  If the population is not armed, then there are less guns in the hands of criminals.  As a result there will be less violent crime
Yes.  But only for gun crimes, it will have no effect on other types of violent crimes
Yes and no.  It may reduce crimes commited with guns, but criminal will then resort to other weapons such as knives.  Other violent crimes will increase
No.  Criminals will get guns despite the law, it will have no effect on crime
No.  Not only will criminals ignore this law and get guns illegally, but such laws will make for easier victims since they will not be armed.  Crime rates will increase

Gun Control

  • 1998 Replies
  • 470317 Views
?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #420 on: January 18, 2009, 11:37:20 PM »
Hey she should have to defend herself hand to hand. She might have hurt that poor man that broke into her house.
Wait til Michael Moore hears about it, then it will turn into this crazy old white woman grabbed a gun and threatened to kill this poor innocent young black guy who was only trying to feed his kids.

The Burglar was black, I saw his mug shot on another news story
HaHa, Michael Moore= Biggest Douche in History.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #421 on: January 18, 2009, 11:39:22 PM »
HEY EVERYBODY. KINGMAN IS MICHAEL MOORE.

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #422 on: January 18, 2009, 11:45:57 PM »
HEY EVERYBODY. KINGMAN IS MICHAEL MOORE.
I'm richer than you then.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #423 on: January 18, 2009, 11:47:12 PM »
Yeah... but,



HaHa, Michael Moore= Biggest Douche in History.





*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #424 on: January 19, 2009, 06:09:51 AM »
I'd rather be a rich douchebag than a poor saint.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

Shredderbeam

  • 91
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #425 on: January 19, 2009, 10:44:19 AM »
You're approaching this from a utilitarian view.  Why not approach it from the "I don't have the right to order you what to do" view?

We are debating the laws, if they didn't have a right to tell us what to do, it wouldn't matter what laws they made.

Sure it would.  They're the ones with the black-uniformed police.

Hence they can make laws for us.

Does might make right?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #426 on: January 19, 2009, 11:08:56 AM »
You're approaching this from a utilitarian view.  Why not approach it from the "I don't have the right to order you what to do" view?

We are debating the laws, if they didn't have a right to tell us what to do, it wouldn't matter what laws they made.

Sure it would.  They're the ones with the black-uniformed police.

Hence they can make laws for us.

Does might make right?

That is immaterial. The very fact that we are debating laws, means we are admitting that what they say matters.

?

Shredderbeam

  • 91
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #427 on: January 19, 2009, 01:47:13 PM »
You're approaching this from a utilitarian view.  Why not approach it from the "I don't have the right to order you what to do" view?

We are debating the laws, if they didn't have a right to tell us what to do, it wouldn't matter what laws they made.

Sure it would.  They're the ones with the black-uniformed police.

Hence they can make laws for us.

Does might make right?

That is immaterial. The very fact that we are debating laws, means we are admitting that what they say matters.

Laws are frequently changed or thrown out.  When debating the law, it is important to consider that.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #428 on: January 19, 2009, 01:49:11 PM »
You're approaching this from a utilitarian view.  Why not approach it from the "I don't have the right to order you what to do" view?

We are debating the laws, if they didn't have a right to tell us what to do, it wouldn't matter what laws they made.

Sure it would.  They're the ones with the black-uniformed police.

Hence they can make laws for us.

Does might make right?

That is immaterial. The very fact that we are debating laws, means we are admitting that what they say matters.

Laws are frequently changed or thrown out.  When debating the law, it is important to consider that.

We are debating the current meaning of a constitutional amendment. They do not routinely get changed or thrown out. It takes a lot to change one.

So no that is not something to be considered. In fact it has been there since the bill or rights was made. Now either get a fucking point or stop posting, you are I assume trying to sound intelligent or add to the debate but you are doing neither.

?

Shredderbeam

  • 91
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #429 on: January 19, 2009, 01:51:34 PM »
Quote from: Raise
We are debating the current meaning of a constitutional amendment. They do not routinely get changed or thrown out. It takes a lot to change one.

Yes, but it does happen.  Also, given the question "How far should it go?" posed by the OP, I would consider all options to be on the table.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #430 on: January 19, 2009, 01:53:08 PM »
Quote from: Raise
We are debating the current meaning of a constitutional amendment. They do not routinely get changed or thrown out. It takes a lot to change one.

Yes, but it does happen.  Also, given the question "How far should it go?" posed by the OP, I would consider all options to be on the table.

Yeah... but we are discussing the intent of the law. Not whether it should be thrown out. We were arguing that they can't redefine what it means to suit the times. They would have to change it through the proper channels.

So, the current debate is how it should be interpreted. If there is a move to alter it from the constitution then a new debate will show up about that.

?

Mythix Profit

  • 407
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #431 on: January 19, 2009, 01:54:07 PM »
The wording of any Law is of interest only to those who "intend" to abide/obey said.

From a practical standpoint; any legal restriction of "supply" is still subject to illegal "demand", resulting in illegal supply.  If one demands a weapon, no legal structure or stricture can effectively halt supply.

Only when intent of demand is addressed, is supply even an issue.
 believe that; the Earth is flat until such time as I stand within the Space Station and personally see that it is a Globe.
or that the Earth is a sphere until such time as I stand upon the Icewall and personally see that it is a Flat Disk.

?

Shredderbeam

  • 91
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #432 on: January 19, 2009, 01:55:46 PM »
Quote from: Raise
We are debating the current meaning of a constitutional amendment. They do not routinely get changed or thrown out. It takes a lot to change one.

Yes, but it does happen.  Also, given the question "How far should it go?" posed by the OP, I would consider all options to be on the table.

Yeah... but we are discussing the intent of the law. Not whether it should be thrown out. We were arguing that they can't redefine what it means to suit the times. They would have to change it through the proper channels.

So, the current debate is how it should be interpreted. If there is a move to alter it from the constitution then a new debate will show up about that.

If that is what the debate has evolved into, so be it.  I simply thought that "What do you believe are the advantages of gun control, disadvantages.  How far should it go?" was not solely a question about the U.S. Constitution.

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #433 on: January 21, 2009, 06:46:33 AM »
The wording of any Law is of interest only to those who "intend" to abide/obey said.

From a practical standpoint; any legal restriction of "supply" is still subject to illegal "demand", resulting in illegal supply.  If one demands a weapon, no legal structure or stricture can effectively halt supply.

Only when intent of demand is addressed, is supply even an issue.

What you're saying is that any law is ineffective in preventing the act it's set out to stop. Of course, no law is perfectly effective in stopping what it defines as crime, though the element of deterrence can't be completely discounted. To say that all social ills (i.e. gun violence, theft, etc.) should solely be treated in a sociological, and not legal manner is absurd.

   There is also an element of punitive and retributive justice in law that can't be discounted. This means that any discussion involving law must take into account the concepts of justice and deterrence. If the debate is centering around interpretation of the law, it is assumed that the law is not going to be changed, or at least take it as an a priori.

   This debate was centered around the spirit of the second amendment, not whether or not the second amendment should be abolished. When debating the spirit of a law, it can be treated as de facto ineffective in depth or scope, but the spirit of that law (assuming we can agree on that) cannot be simply thrown out.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #434 on: January 22, 2009, 08:46:18 AM »
What you're saying is that any law is ineffective in preventing the act it's set out to stop. Of course, no law is perfectly effective in stopping what it defines as crime, though the element of deterrence can't be completely discounted. To say that all social ills (i.e. gun violence, theft, etc.) should solely be treated in a sociological, and not legal manner is absurd.

   There is also an element of punitive and retributive justice in law that can't be discounted. This means that any discussion involving law must take into account the concepts of justice and deterrence. If the debate is centering around interpretation of the law, it is assumed that the law is not going to be changed, or at least take it as an a priori.

   This debate was centered around the spirit of the second amendment, not whether or not the second amendment should be abolished. When debating the spirit of a law, it can be treated as de facto ineffective in depth or scope, but the spirit of that law (assuming we can agree on that) cannot be simply thrown out.

The problem here is gun control, or deterrence laws have not deterred gun crime or violent crime because they target law abiding citizens instead of criminals.  I am not against laws that prevent violent criminals from owning guns, in fact, if they are violent criminals I question why they are let back on the street in the first place.  The problem with targeting guns is that we are not targeting the problem.

To me it is almost the same as banning gasoline and other accelerates from law abiding citizens to prevent arson.

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #435 on: January 22, 2009, 06:21:45 PM »
   the law can't target law abiding citizens, by definition. It targets every citizen equally. The argument that deterance is ineffective would have to be supported by evidence, i.e. pre and post law gun crimes. My argument is not solely based on detturance, it makes the procurment of guns significantly more difficult for "law-abiding citizens" as well as "non law-abiding citizens." It is an attempt to limit the number of guns in a society, which it undoubtedly does (to what extent can be debated).

  The example of banning gas is absurd, considering the other usages for it. Consider a hypothetical society in which gas wasn't used for fuel (or any other of its uses in our society), it would surely be outlawed as a dangerous substance with no reasonable legal usage. Considering guns with this argument begs the question on their "legitimate use," centering around statistics on violent discharges (i.e. not a range, test, etc) as well as a the definition of "legitimate."
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #436 on: January 22, 2009, 07:11:08 PM »
   the law can't target law abiding citizens, by definition. It targets every citizen equally. The argument that deterance is ineffective would have to be supported by evidence, i.e. pre and post law gun crimes. My argument is not solely based on detturance, it makes the procurment of guns significantly more difficult for "law-abiding citizens" as well as "non law-abiding citizens." It is an attempt to limit the number of guns in a society, which it undoubtedly does (to what extent can be debated).

  The example of banning gas is absurd, considering the other usages for it. Consider a hypothetical society in which gas wasn't used for fuel (or any other of its uses in our society), it would surely be outlawed as a dangerous substance with no reasonable legal usage. Considering guns with this argument begs the question on their "legitimate use," centering around statistics on violent discharges (i.e. not a range, test, etc) as well as a the definition of "legitimate."

I have provided plenty of evidence earlier in the thread showing how banning guns, or restricting them, does not lower violent crime, and does not drop the murder rate.  In many cases the rate went up.

As for Gasoline, why is that a bad example?  Guns have plenty of legitimate uses other than crime, just like gasoline.  However both can easily be used to hurt/kill people, and gasoline is capable of far more property damage than a gun.  One legitimate use of guns could be argued to by crime prevention.  Something that they are shown to be very good at.

2.4 million successful defensive uses of firearms is estimated every year in the U.S.  Out of that, 92 percent of the time the situation is resolved with nobody getting shot (ie: the victim typically only needs to show they are armed, or fire a warning shot, and the criminal will abandon their attempt).

That is twice the amount of crimes prevented by citizens than police.

On another note, though violent crime tends to go down in states where gun rights are expanded, non violent crime (particularly property crimes) tend to go up.  Possible reasons for this may be criminals will attempt less risky crimes if there is a higher chance they will be shot.

Police are not required to protect you in the U.S., legally they do not even have to respond to your call.

Even if somehow everybody (criminals and citizens) were disarmed, I would rather not have to face an assailant (or perhaps multiple assailants) with nothing but my fists or maybe a knife.

A criminal can still kill you with fists.  Guns are the most effective means of self defense, especially if you ensure that it's harder for the criminals to get them than law abiding citizens.


*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #437 on: January 22, 2009, 07:19:15 PM »
the argument is stalled at legitimate, and I don't think it can be solved outside of particular societal examples and questions of political justice. I'm just happy I live in a society where handguns are illegal and gun violence is proportionally rare.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #438 on: January 22, 2009, 07:20:27 PM »
I'm happy I live in a society where if three people show up on my door stop with baseball bats, I have a way to defend myself other than cops that aren't legally obligated to protect me.

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #439 on: January 22, 2009, 07:22:41 PM »
I have not once feared/experienced/witnessed/heard about a violent home invasion, other than crime/gang/drug related circumstances, and only on the news. Canada FTW.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30499
  • +0/-0
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #440 on: January 22, 2009, 07:24:45 PM »
I have not once feared/experienced/witnessed/heard about a violent home invasion, other than crime/gang/drug related circumstances, and only on the news. Canada FTW.

I'm talking about the time I pissed a kid off, so instead of fighting me like I offered, he showed up at my house with two older cousins. So I grabbed a gun on the way out because I was "going out to target practice"

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #441 on: January 22, 2009, 07:26:55 PM »
I would have called the local police, who would have been on the scene before I would need a gun. Regardless of legal obligation, precedence and police policy require them to respond. Even if not, I've not once heard of police (Canadian at least) not responding to a call of immediate threat.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #442 on: January 22, 2009, 07:28:24 PM »
the argument is stalled at legitimate, and I don't think it can be solved outside of particular societal examples and questions of political justice. I'm just happy I live in a society where handguns are illegal and gun violence is proportionally rare.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live?

Though gun crime is low in such countries as UK, since their ban on carrying guns and restrictions of gun ownership, their violent crime rates and gun crime rates have gone up.  I believe the same trend is being seen in Canada.  Maybe it is not all gun crime, however criminals feel safer and become bolder if they know their victim is unarmed.

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #443 on: January 22, 2009, 07:29:01 PM »
Ontario, you'd definitly have to show some stats on that one.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

Proleg

Re: Gun Control
« Reply #444 on: January 22, 2009, 07:29:41 PM »
Even if not, I've not once heard of police (Canadian at least) not responding to a call of immediate threat.
Not many Tim Horton's where you live are there?

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #445 on: January 22, 2009, 07:31:42 PM »
lol...but seriously, I lived most of my life in the city Timmys was started.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #446 on: January 22, 2009, 07:31:57 PM »
I would have called the local police, who would have been on the scene before I would need a gun. Regardless of legal obligation, precedence and police policy require them to respond. Even if not, I've not once heard of police (Canadian at least) not responding to a call of immediate threat.

In the U.S. it is not that simple, in 1990, there were about 1700 citizens for every one police officer on duty.  Sometimes seconds count, and the police will not be there in seconds.

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #447 on: January 22, 2009, 07:32:40 PM »
Good thing I'm not talking about the U.S. then.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #448 on: January 22, 2009, 07:33:56 PM »
Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening, Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help (Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)).


Yeah I think we need an effective way to defend ourselves
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #449 on: January 22, 2009, 07:35:33 PM »
And here is the Biggie:
Warren v. District of Columbia. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third women, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed that the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs, they saw that, in fact, the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers." The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.