Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Fortunately the Irish, or Brits, or Canadians, or any other foreigners do not get to decide our policies and which rights we are allowed to have.Thank you, almighty God. 👆 👆
Yeah because if they did then you might have had some basic human rights like free healthcare.
Yeah....
Thinking back to the argument presented by Klaw, it seems that it is a very sound outlook.
Gun control within the community of law-abiding citizens should never be aimed to completely disarm them, since, like Klaw rightly pointed out, criminals (by definition) do not abide by the law.
Originally posted by Blakemore
Guns are ****ing dangerous!
Originally posted by StigmaBut by definition lowering the amount of guns available means criminals are less likely to have them as well.
Yeah....Thinking back to the argument presented by Klaw, it seems that it is a very sound outlook.
Gun control within the community of law-abiding citizens should never be aimed to completely disarm them, since, like Klaw rightly pointed out, criminals (by definition) do not abide by the law.
Also, to the point of guns being dangerous. Yeah, it's their main quality that could be used for both good or ill. Not sure if it is a good argument for strict gun control or an outright ban on gun ownership?
And before someone says that worked so well with drugs, the problem is we have data from other countries to show that removing guns makes them less likely to be involved criminal activities.
Drugs and guns are very beasts that require different ways handling things.
Originally posted by Newjak
But by definition lowering the amount of guns available means criminals are less likely to have them as well.
Basically the pool of legally available guns is the only option for law-abiding citizens, while it is one of the options for criminals. Even outright banning guns will not end all of the options criminals have at their disposal.
Thus with strict gun control for criminals the likelihood of getting them legally is minimized, true, but they have the illegal ways to obtain it too. And if pushed, they will purse them more, I am certain.
What needs to be done is not to impair legal options, but to crush the illegal ways criminals maintain to their advantage.
Originally posted by Newjak
And before someone says that worked so well with drugs, the problem is we have data from other countries to show that removing guns makes them less likely to be involved criminal activities.Drugs and guns are very beasts that require different ways handling things.
@Stigma you literally just made the argument I was trying to warn against with the drug comment.
A lot people like to come back with criminals will still get guns because they have 'illegal' channels to do so.
The problem is the data in other countries shows this to not be the case. Do some things slip through yes but it's such a reduced rate that doesn't even matter because crimes committed with guns drastically falls.
So criminals aren't obtaining them through secondary channels at the same rates.
Originally posted by Newjakand the guns criminals have are inferior and five years for possession is a big deterrent
@Stigma you literally just made the argument I was trying to warn against with the drug comment.A lot people like to come back with criminals will still get guns because they have 'illegal' channels to do so.
The problem is the data in other countries shows this to not be the case. Do some things slip through yes but it's such a reduced rate that doesn't even matter because crimes committed with guns drastically falls.
So criminals aren't obtaining them through secondary channels at the same rates.
Originally posted by Newjak
@Stigma you literally just made the argument I was trying to warn against with the drug comment.A lot people like to come back with criminals will still get guns because they have 'illegal' channels to do so.
The problem is the data in other countries shows this to not be the case. Do some things slip through yes but it's such a reduced rate that doesn't even matter because crimes committed with guns drastically falls.
So criminals aren't obtaining them through secondary channels at the same rates.
Other countries are other countries. They aren't a recipie or computer program, what works for one will not work for another.
Do other countrirs have the precedent we do? Prohibition for example? One of the biggest failures of an outright ban in the history of bans.
Yet other countries have successfully banned alchohol. Because what works for one country will not work for another, and vice versa.
Originally posted by cdtmlaughcry
Other countries are other countries. They aren't a recipie or computer program, what works for one will not work for another.Do other countrirs have the precedent we do? Prohibition for example? One of the biggest failures of an outright ban in the history of bans.
Yet other countries have successfully banned alchohol. Because what works for one country will not work for another, and vice versa.
Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't see how he's wrong. Even from the outside it's easy to see that guns are an ingrained part of American culture in ways they're not in other countries. Just banning all guns tomorrow would be horribly short-sighted.The alcohol example is a bad one, though.
I mean, the point I was going for is that even if you banned guns across the entire world, it would take differently and different places, and went with prohibition because that's one example where alcohol was just about banned across the world and took differently in different places.
Finland for example did it very successfully.
While researching the topic I also learned Chinese can drink anywhere they want.
And we think they're the oppressed people?? 😱
Originally posted by cdtm
I mean, the point I was going for is that even if you banned guns across the entire world, it would take differently and different places, and went with prohibition because that's one example where alcohol was just about banned across the world and took differently in different places.Finland for example did it very successfully.
While researching the topic I also learned Chinese can drink anywhere they want.
And we think [b]they're
the oppressed people?? 😱 [/B]
If the ban was successful, wouldn't it still be in place?
Originally posted by -Pr-Oh yeah I wouldn't say you would see drastic changes overnight. It would probably take a decade to the results here in America.
I don't see how he's wrong. Even from the outside it's easy to see that guns are an ingrained part of American culture in ways they're not in other countries. Just banning all guns tomorrow would be horribly short-sighted.The alcohol example is a bad one, though.
Although I do think you would potentially see less school shootings immediately
Originally posted by Newjak
Oh yeah I wouldn't say you would see drastic changes overnight. It would probably take a decade to the results here in America.Although I do think you would potentially see less school shootings immediately
Oh yeah, definitely.
And it's not like "ingrained in the culture" is inherently a positive thing either.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
For like the 300th time already, our 2nd amendment rights are non-negotiable. Period.
To you.
Originally posted by Newjak
@Stigma you literally just made the argument I was trying to warn against with the drug comment.
I don't see any weak points in the argument when applied to gun control issue, though.
On top of that, as I looked through other responses, the issue of constitutional rights seemed to pop up. Truly, the efforts to erode 2nd Amendment are worrying imho. And I am not even American.
Originally posted by Newjak
A lot people like to come back with criminals will still get guns because they have 'illegal' channels to do so.The problem is the data in other countries shows this to not be the case. Do some things slip through yes but it's such a reduced rate that doesn't even matter because crimes committed with guns drastically falls.
So criminals aren't obtaining them through secondary channels at the same rates.
What I can say is that the nature of the problem (gun control vs. war on drugs) appears to be vastly different, therefore I believe that, when tackling the gun control issue, the argument I mentioned above stands as a reasonable approach.
Originally posted by cdtm
Other countries are other countries. They aren't a recipie or computer program, what works for one will not work for another.Do other countrirs have the precedent we do? Prohibition for example? One of the biggest failures of an outright ban in the history of bans.
Yet other countries have successfully banned alchohol. Because what works for one country will not work for another, and vice versa.
Originally posted by StigmaPerhaps I should be more clear on what the drug part means.
I see. I am not familiar with the "war on drugs" and the associated issues to a degree that I would like to, so cannot address this.I don't see any weak points in the argument when applied to gun control issue, though.
On top of that, as I looked through other responses, the issue of constitutional rights seemed to pop up. Truly, the efforts to erode 2nd Amendment are worrying imho. And I am not even American.
I assume you extrapolate here from the issue of drug control?
What I can say is that the nature of the problem (gun control vs. war on drugs) appears to be vastly different, therefore I believe that, when tackling the gun control issue, the argument I mentioned above stands as a reasonable approach.
A base retort to gun control is conservatives and pro-gun advocates like to talk about how drug laws didn't stop drug use.
As you said they are vastly different problems and using drug laws to say Gun laws won't work isn't a good argument. Especially when faced with the data we have from other countries around gun control laws.