You just said insurance. I had assumed you were referring to health insurance.
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
You just said insurance. I had assumed you were referring to health insurance.
Then what is the goal? Because it will do one of two things:
1. act as a deterent to law abiding citizens
or
2. turn them into criminals.
On this board I'd say 70% of the time. Very many direct, plain spoken (such as myself) posters on here.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Is "not reporting a stolen gun" a problem that occurs often?
The second one is a damn stupid requirement if you have a gun for self defense...which is the reason for the right in the first place.
Although you rarely if ever take an actual position or advocate for specifics (a convenient way to deny that you are against something eh?), the benefits of gun ownership are clearly lacking in your analysis of (attack on) guns. Your sole focus has been on victims for 50 straight pages without giving the tiniest recognition to the other side of the coin.
Basically, it's a "you take a position so I can chisel out the tiniest specks of dust for 82 pages while playing naive of the actual granite statue from which they came" tactic. That's why I've mostly stayed out of it, and also why many like myself have gone from an attitude of considering new regulations to saying screw that slippery slope there's no pleasing the anti-gun crowd.
And that's why gun fanatics are buying up everything, which makes guns even more entrenched, which does nothing but work against those who prefer stricter gun regulations.
At the end of the day, it's pretty damn funny how going overboard has backfired on the anti-2nd amendment crowd.
You mean the argument that, potentially, anyone could act irrationally, so the best strategy to employ is to impose stringent limits on those who will most likely use guns responsibly, for personal defense or to diffuse a dangerous situation?
Yeah. It's brilliant.
The notion that eliminating any gun from any situation will automatically make that situation better/safer is flat out incorrect.
No. I agree with his statement that most who text and drive will not get killed doing so, or kill others. Off the top of my head, I don't recall the other specific behaviors he mentioned. Anyhow, I was agreeing with the concept that something harmful should not necessarily be allowed to occur without any regulation or restriction simply because harm does not ALWAYS result.
I interpreted his statement to mean that it is OK to restrict a behavior, such as texting while driving, even though many who do it will not cause any harm while doing it. The fact that many can do something without causing harm to occur does not mean that it should be completely unregulated. I agreed with that.
So to the question of gun owners, the fact that the majority of them are responsible people whose guns will cause no harm is not a reason for me to say that there should be no regulations regarding the owning of guns. The argument opposing gun regulation based on the idea that "most gun owners are law-abiding citizens" is not a convincing one for me.
OK, fair enough. However the argument that we should restrict guns even more based on what someone might do does not convince me that more laws are needed. In my honest opinion this is a topic better left alone by the anti gun crowd. If the AWB is passed people will not abide by it. They are already using 3d printers to get around a potential clip/magazine limiting law.
So then the government finds themselves in a position where they have to enforce a law on a large population in disobedience or not enforce it and make the law effectively useless. If people attempt to enforce it than something will happen and you will see mass revolt. I'm talking civil war type ****.
I am not calling for it but just what I see happening. You'll have a million little wacos and as they start to fall they will band together and then you'll have 500,000 medium wacos, then 200,000 large ones and so on...
The flaw in this comparison is, there is no substantive benefit from texting while driving. Texting while driving does not have the potential to defend someone's life or repel an assault. Gun owners who carry don't do so just for ****s and giggles. You (and Brow) don't seem to want to acknowledge that there is a benefit to law abiding citizens being armed, but there most certainly is.
Whether there is a benefit or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned, and should not negate taking steps to minimize risks.
This is silly. So based on this, you want to regulate...everything that exists? Everything that we do has some level of risk. And no matter how many "steps" you take, there will still be risk to "minimize". Where do you draw the line?
I think we should ban food because it can be a choking hazard. Whether there is a benefit or not is beside the point as far as I'm concerned.
You HAVE to consider benefits in any argument.