Forum Settings
       
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...

#1 Mar 14 2013 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm the one who originally said you can't prevent them entirely.


So, you are arguing for anarchy as there's no law that prevent people from breaking rules.

Gbaji wrote:
The gun control approach only works by preventing the person from having the weapons to use in the shooting in the first place. It therefore places very high restrictions on gun ownership, with very little results for the exact reason you keep mentioning, but seem unable to grasp the meaning. Since all people are "law abiding" until they commit a crime, in many cases, you can't prevent a person from doing something like this without restricting gun access to all "law abiding" citizens as well. You can't know if that person might commit a shooting, so your solution requires limiting his access to guns and the type of guns on the off chance that he commits a crime with them.

That's the wrong approach IMO.


That's because you're chasing leprechauns. As you so nicely demonstrated, THERE IS NO relevance with the "law abiding citizen" term. You're creating a fictional label with the intent to befog the point.

Gbaji wrote:
Neither. I'd say that attempting to punish everyone because they *might* commit a crime is not only moronic, but is in abject violation of the most basic principles of a free society.


You wont back peddle your way out of this. Either the person in your scenario is a "law abiding citizen" who committed the crime or he's a law breaker who committed a crime. Unless you're arguing for anarchy or a fantasy land void of violence, hunger and hatred, you have demonstrated that the "law abiding citizen" label is irrelevant.

Gbaji wrote:
What metal detectors?

The same ones that are already implemented and practiced in society.

Gbaji wrote:
This is exactly the problem with the gun control approach. While gun control is just one aspect of it, the basic concept behind it is troubling precisely because it presumes that we should restrict the actions of everyone on the grounds that they might commit a crime. Again, this is a violation of the principles of a free society. But this route is what you *must* follow in order for your approach to have any chance of success.

Long before you'll put a dent in the random/mass shootings, you'll have taken a huge chunk of our liberties away. That's why I reject this as a good methodology.


Oh. And aside from that, let me also point out that metal detectors don't actually prevent you from entering. They just warn people that you're there. All this means is that the shooter starts his shooting at the metal detector, and not a little bit past it. Unless you're proposing massive security gates, armed guards, gun turrets, and whatever other ridiculous thing you think will make every disarmed person on the other side "safe" that is.

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow the other folks to be armed? I'm honestly far far less worried by the thought that random people around me might be carrying guns than having to go through security checkpoints everywhere I go out of some fear that the one in a million odds of a shooting happening might just happen where/when I am. See, cause in the event that happens, the static security is less likely to be effective than random people in the crowd being armed. And lets not forget that if you make some areas super impregnable, the shooter will just go elsewhere. So while I'm safe in the armed fortress you've made my mall into, I'm less safe in the parking lot walking in. Or say, in the huge line waiting to get into the secure area.

You're failing to understand that there's no way to prevent someone who wants to kill a bunch of random people in a public space, unless you can put that level of security in *every* public space. That means every single part of the world I might travel in between my house and everywhere else. You just can't do that. It's not possible, even if we had the money and time to do so. Which puts us back at gun control, which is limited by the 2nd amendment. Thus, unless you're proposing to repeal the 2nd amendment, the approach you're using can't work. Ever.


I differentiate reality from fantasy. Everyone realizes that there will always be crime. The goal is to dramatically reduce it, not chase the "mythical dragon" from South Park. Yes, the person at the gun point might get shot, but everyone beyond it is much safer as the attack MUST happen before the check point. Not only that, the likelihood of that person obtaining an illegal weapon is dramatically reduced.

Gbaji wrote:
Who cares?

I care. So, what is it in your scenario? You can't provide a variable changing scenario that adjusts to support your point.

Gbaji wrote:
Let people carry their own weapons, and you don't have to spend a dime on that kind of security. Everyone is safe, everywhere, all the time.


As stated in my post in the previous thread that you ignored, you're spending money in any scenario. Oh, and you're living in a fantasy world as everyone doesn't desire to carry weapons and shootings will always happen. You're simply just adding to the nonsense.

Gbaji wrote:
One wonders if people arrive at your approach because it's the best way to solve the problem at hand, or because they start by wanting to restrict gun ownership and then latch on to this as a justification. Because it honestly makes no sense at all. It's counterproductive towards the presumed goal. We need less stringent gun control, not more. Let more people own guns. Let more people carry guns. Let more people carry them concealed. Do that, and you'll see the rate of shootings like this decrease dramatically. And as a bonus, you'll likely see all sort of other crimes decrease as well. People are far less willing to try to mug someone if there's a possibility that person might be armed.

But let's not let logic and reason overwhelm our irrational fears over guns.


You say that and at the same time fail to counter my fully implemented plan. All you have done was demonstrate that strict gun laws reduces such violence.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 44 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, lolgaxe, RavennofTitan, stupidmonkey, Anonymous Guests (40)