Guns

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I never said I praised the criminals I just said you can't stop them. You're putting words in my mouth to start another war. Please, explain how banning guns would lower the crime. How would banning guns stop anyone from getting something they want.. Droomph made it clear with explanations, that you can't stop them and he did a very good job executing it. No asking me questions I'm asking you a question and once you answer my question you can ask me a question.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I never said I praised the criminals I just said you can't stop them. You're putting words in my mouth to start another war. Please, explain how banning guns would lower the crime. How would banning guns stop anyone from getting something they want.. Droomph made it clear with explanations, that you can't stop them and he did a very good job executing it. No asking me questions I'm asking you a question and once you answer my question you can ask me a question.

You can't stop everyone, no. But that hasn't stopped us before. Take the reverse, instead of banning, encouragement. Like with seat belts. Some people still refuse, sure. But most follow the rules though

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

You didn't answer my question. You didn't tell me how it would stop them and how it would lower the crime. I want a legit answer from someone.

 

[Kanzler]

I never said I praised the criminals I just said you can't stop them. You're putting words in my mouth to start another war. Please, explain how banning guns would lower the crime. How would banning guns stop anyone from getting something they want.. Droomph made it clear with explanations, that you can't stop them and he did a very good job executing it. No asking me questions I'm asking you a question and once you answer my question you can ask me a question.

Laws are to be followed - and the people who don't obey them are punished. No not everybody would obey the law the point is that the laws get obeyed. Punishments are there to disincentivize bad behaviour, like giving your kid a time-out when he does something stupid. People are rational and consider costs and benefits. The costs of doing something stupid might be personal happiness, but the time-out might not be worth it. And that's why time-outs work, except on the most delinquent. Similarly those who go into crime would have to add harsher punishment to their calculus. Is it still worth it now that sentences are up. I'm sure the mafias would call it a "cost of doing business", if you will. A law that outlines punishment for a certain crime, which is enforced would add to that cost of business - yunno, more of their soldiers getting locked up, the soldiers still around wanna get paid more for the risk, they've got to risk the price of their product now that the risk is greater - but is that good for their market? It's kind of like a naval blockade - costs to business. You either surrender, or you have to break out of it. And I don't know if the mafia want to risk breaking out stricter law and enforcements because it's not good for business either, know what I mean?

So having a ban on guns does several things. It gets some criminals in prison, as well as increasing their cost of business. And because criminals will be the only ones with guns left, the justice system can target them specifically by raising sentences without fear of implicating a law-abiding citizen.

Alright? So I've explained myself. I especially detest you saying:

No asking me questions I'm asking you a question and once you answer my question you can ask me a question.

.. cuz only my girlfriend gets to talk to me like that.

The only question I have is if you're able to make an argument without resorting to logical fallacies.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Hmm, what's the sentence for rape or murder? Something like 10 to life in prison? Does it stop them? No and they're both illegal and major crimes. Owning a gun illegally is a minor crime and shouldn't be looked at as a major crime. Owning drugs or even selling drugs isn't a major crime either. You still go to prison, and you get a longer sentence but it doesn't stop them. 1 year 20 years they will still take the risk.

Explain why criminals that can no longer own guns from charges get incarcerated for guns again? There are many criminals that have more than 2 or 3 separate crimes involving guns and each time they go back they're there for longer. When they get out, they break the law again.. Meaning banning them wouldn't stop them.

 

[droomph]

Hmm, what's the sentence for rape or murder? Something like 10 to life in prison? Does it stop them? No and they're both illegal and major crimes. Owning a gun illegally is a minor crime and shouldn't be looked at as a major crime. Owning drugs or even selling drugs isn't a major crime either. You still go to prison, and you get a longer sentence but it doesn't stop them. 1 year 20 years they will still take the risk.

Explain why criminals that can no longer own guns from charges get incarcerated for guns again? There are many criminals that have more than 2 or 3 separate crimes involving guns and each time they go back they're there for longer. When they get out, they break the law again.. Meaning banning them wouldn't stop them.

I think you're missing the point. A law is a guarantee by the government that you, indeed, do not need to accept this, and such as correct behavior. People do indeed do wrong things, but the government steps in and says "hey! no." and then punishes them accordingly. If there were no laws, the government is basically saying "nope. you're on your own! haha **** you".

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I think you're missing the point. A law is a guarantee by the government that you, indeed, do not need to accept this, and such as correct behavior. People do indeed do wrong things, but the government steps in and says "hey! no." and then punishes them accordingly. If there were no laws, the government is basically saying "nope. you're on your own! haha **** you".

I know what the point or purpose of a law is. They're made to be followed by citizens created by the govt. but people see them as an opportunity to fight the law. People break them just to see if they get away with it or they disagree with it. The govt. for some reason thinks it's a guarantee people will follow them when they wont. But the govt. are as much as a criminal as us....

 

[Kanzler]

Well banning stops them for a good x amount of years they're in prison. And since crime is a business and profit accumulates over time, I'd say yeah it's stopping them pretty darn well. Imagine you could sentence corporations to prison time. Like if you could lock up BP for 5 years over that oil spill. I bet they'd commit metaphorical seppeku if that ever happened.

You're still doing logical fallacies.

You didn't tell me how it would stop them and how it would lower the crime

But now it's:

Meaning banning them wouldn't stop them.

Wonderful honesty from you. I'll answer both - yes it'll lower the crime, no it won't reduce it to zero and you can't stop all of them. Some criminals will bet 20 years of their life. But you know what? I know for sure as hell more of them would bet 1 year than 20. And so do you. You're misrepresenting what other people saying, you're misrepresenting your own ideas by changing them between posts, how about you stop demanding things from us and show us some respect and integrity.

And no, you don't know what the point of a law is, because according to you, they don't stop people. And people don't break them to see if they get away with it - they want to gain something. Like money or revenge. Seriously stop it with assuming that every person/organization is irrational and does things "just because it wants to" or "just because it can". The only irrational person is the one assuming that.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

I never said it wouldn't do anything. Yea if you get caught you go to jail. Also, what's the risk of getting caught with a gun anyways, very slim. Which is why the crime wouldn't reduce that much.

 

[Kanzler]

Great now we're getting some clarity. It's no longer:

Meaning banning them wouldn't stop them.

But now:

Which is why the crime wouldn't reduce that much

When the argument comes to this point where we agree on principle just differ on more versus less, that's good enough for me. Now we can have a real debate on the effects of an enforced gun ban. Bon appetit!

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Here, want my true explanation on this so you can attack it again?

Crime and violence will actually increase. For one, adding a new law would instantly create more criminals. Secondly, the REAL criminals would no longer be scared of law-abiding citizens. You can see this in the UK. Crime skyrocketed when they banned guns. Sure, GUN CRIME went down, but every other crime went up. There are over 300 million guns in this country. If they were to be banned, it would take centuries for them to all be destroyed or rendered inoperable.

Finally, you will have the patriots and believers of the US Constitution watering the tree of liberty. Flooding it, actually. Lots of murder.

That is my informed opinion based on history. Here is some facts that are in place today:

CA has pretty much ALL the proposed gun control laws in effect already. They have the universal background checks, registration, waiting periods, no "gun show loophole", assault weapon ban, etc. All that ****. And gang violence and crime is still far worse there than any gun-loving state.

Go ahead and argue with the statement to feel superior to me.

 

[Kanzler]

I don't want to feel superior to you, I just don't want you using logical fallacies to kill debate. You're backing up your argument with evidence, which is what I'd like to have happened all along.

Violent crime rates have been falling from 2748 a year to 1942 from 2003 to 2012. Homicides have gone down quite nearly 50% in that same timeframe.

I don't think destroying guns is too difficult, they do it in Afghanistan all the time.

And California borders Mexico, so there's a lot of gun and drug trade going on there. Even if they're one of the most liberal populations in the US, location is a huge influence.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

And Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico aren't bordered with Mexico? They're laws are lax(er) (especially Texas) with a lower crime rate compared to California. Also Illinois is way up north and it's the home of gun and drug trafficking with the strictest gun laws and highest body count not to mention a ridiculous amount of illegal immigration. So bordering isn't the issue. California and Illinois are both major democrat states, that's the problem. New York on the other hand has strict gun laws as well and a major democrat state but lower crime.

What I'm saying is that just because something works in one state doesn't mean it will work in another state. Sure, there's a lot of crime in New York and Texas but not enough to be frightened it depends on a lot of factors. There's lots of crime in every city because they're gang affiliated but it seems the major democrat states that allow "illegal immigration" have the most issues. The illegal immigration (not all) is the main reason for smuggling drugs and weapons.

Where does America's guns come from legally? Our government.

 

[Kanzler]

I agree with that completely. I wouldn't say America's guns "come from" the government. Sure the constitution gives you legal rights to own and bear them, but I guess it's just wording that I disagree with and that's not a big issue. I've always been interested on how easy/difficult to remove an amendment like that though. Now the prohibition amendment has been repealed but I don't know the history behind that to say anything about it. However, I do feel that laws that haven't kept up with the times or didn't forward the common good in the first place should be repealed like DOMA.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

It would fall down to whether we the people allow it or not and we wouldn't. There's voting polls for laws like these and America wouldn't allow an Amendment to get stripped. The only way it would happen is if the govt. rigged the voting polls which wouldn't be a big surprise, I mean they're corrupt. So it would be very difficult if not impossible to get rid of the 2nd Amendment the non corrupt way. But, they are creating propaganda to brainwash us so it could happen.... But that's still "corrupt".

The govt. has no reason to take our guns away, they're fine as is. Everyone knows Wyoming has strong gun ownership beliefs and the crime is almost non-existent but there's no cities. There's still a good amount of people there and I'd say a majority of them own guns, so obviously guns aren't the problem when it comes to crime.

As for cities and (hood politics). Don't tell me you wouldn't wanna own a gun in you're home for self defense. In non dangerous neighborhoods it's a what if situation if you got in that predicament but it could still happen.

Let's say they were to get banned, the gun laws themselves wouldn't be an issue it would be other crimes revolved around it and would cause them to get caught. A vast majority of gun violence is mostly gang affiliated and we're talking war on drugs, territory, and money. They're the ones that break major laws as soon as they join from the initiation. Raping or murdering someone to prove you're cold hearted? Yea, they wouldn't hesitate to carry a gun illegally. Which is my reason behind why the crime wouldn't drop so much. Most crime is gang affiliated and they're in the cities. There's minor crimes everywhere but the major ones are mostly in the streets in the hood.

You understand my beliefs now?

 

[Sir Codin]

Actually, I think a lot of guns manufactured in America are made in the private sector, not the government. I think for the most part, the government just buys them and uses them to equip military and law enforcement. Or the military and law enforcement purchase it themselves.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Actually, I think a lot of guns manufactured in America are made in the private sector, not the government. I think for the most part, the government just buys them and uses them to equip military and law enforcement. Or the military and law enforcement purchase it themselves.

Meaning if they banned guns they're breaking the law themselves, same with law enforcement. In my eyes if somethings illegalized or banned its' illegalized or banned for everyone. Law enforcement and our military needs weapons, honestly I think law enforcement needs more powerful weapons other than .9 mm pistols. If they take something from us, they're taking it from themselves, but they disagree with they're own logic and do whatever they want. It's not right to ban something like pistols from citizens and allow the govt. to own fully auto's. It makes no sense.

 

[Kanzler]

I'd rather own a gun because I love guns and I love shooting. I understand your beliefs, I just don't think they're as significant as you make them out to be. But we can have our differences.

The government isn't thaaat corrupt. I would say it's fragmented and influenced by special interests. But I don't think the US government works as a single unit. And what do you mean by propaganda? I thought it was a US thing to be proud of that you don't have propaganda.

And Canada pretty much works that way and CF is doing pretty well :P Hell if I fail in life I'll join as a 2nd Lieutenant.

 

[Sir Codin]

No, government isn't as corrupt as most people make it out to be. There are good people in the federal government, I meet them every day at my job. Hell, I am one of those good government workers...or at least, I'd like to think I am.

And low and behold, I have to pay federal income tax as well, so the government also "steals" from their own.

Problem is, governments can have bad people as well. And they're the ones who usually mess things up.

 

[ShinyUmbreon189]

Just the liberal govt. mindset and creating conspiracies and lies (on the news)to turn us away from guns. They pretty much say guns are the problem when they're not. I'm directing this towards politicians.

We have more important things to worry about than banning guns.