Some facts about guns in the US

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Dec 17, 2012.

  1. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member


    to piggy-back on this... it never has, and it never will

    making laws against murder haven't stopped murder ... i wonder why this is? (not sarcasm or hyperbole, but very relevant)

    it is simple: it's because it doesn't address the core problem of violence, hate, etc
    ... it simply creates a guideline for law abiding people to follow when they actually feel like following it, kinda like a speed limit (you know, that thing that gets broken by everyone but has a few miles plus/minus that everyone knows is OK to do and not actually get a ticket????)

    the problem with making laws against guns is exactly the same problem with exactly the same core problem
    (except that i've noticed, as well as "T", that the laws aren't always enforced by the appointed or hired legal representatives)

    oddly enough, this is one of the key arguments of anti-gun advocates to infringe upon the rights of legal responsible gun owners

    stop and think for just one minute...
    making laws hasn't stopped speeders, rapists, murderers, fraudsters, breaking and entering, assault and battery, spouse abuse, child abuse or any other type of criminal act that we have on the legal books... so what makes anyone think that creating more laws will "stop" any crime from being committed?

    especially (and this is important, so take note) especially when the existing laws aren't actually enforced like they should be

    and again, this is not because of the stupidity of the adult who was irresponsible, but the legal system who didn't actually do their f*cking job

    those prosecutors deserve neither the job nor the pay for those actions, and you should be concentrating on them, not the legal responsible owners

    and before T gets back in here with "you're responsible until you aren't"...
    that gibberish is no different than ownership of a car or any other tool... it's true. you are responsible until you aren't
    but then again, it's also false - you're responsible until you get caught being irresponsible

    what yall want to do is punish those who are stupid or irresponsible
    guess what?
    there are laws for that already... and again, to keep beating the dead horse some can't seem to accept: the argument to make laws to obey when we don't obey or enforce the laws that we already have is a nonsensical argument from delusion

    and lets not forget the fact that criminals, by definition, don't obey the laws....
    this is absolutely true

    of course, more irresponsible gun owners might actually take better care if existing laws were actually enforced as well, don't you think?

    this doesn't mean i advocate for the removal of existing gun laws any more than i advocate for the promotion of more gun laws
    it means, very simply, that until we actually enforce the gun laws we have already, the point of making more laws is crazy stupid, IMHO
    Dr_Toad likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Because nothing is perfect.

    Take drunk driving laws. They have greatly reduced - but have not stopped - the problems of drunk driving. The lesson we can take from that is that good laws can reduce - but never eliminate - the incidence of the crime.
    Laws stop a lot of crime from being committed. They do not stop all crimes from being committed.

    Let's take your comment above about speeders. Let's say a school opens on a busy street where speeds are very high. There are a few incidents and several close calls. So the city puts in a traffic light and reduces the speed limit on the road. Will that guarantee student safety? No. But will it increase their safety? Yes.
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    well yes... especially when they are enforced...
    your example is a great one too... we had DUI laws in the US in the '70-'80's... but there was rampant DUI problems...
    we cracked down on DUI and look what happened: so when we got tough and actually started enforcing laws and educated people about the problems... things started to change for the better

    this is exactly my point, BTW... and thanks for bringing it up because this is what i've been trying to point out for a very long time to people who want to argue for "more laws" kinda thing!!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    As with most such laws related to driving, it's a dangerous example -

    partly because it reduced unintentional disaster by punishing gross negligence, which is something the law can do but that is a comparatively minor factor in gunshot deaths (worth addressing, of course, but nowhere near the bulk of the problem), and something quite different from the purpose of most gun control laws;

    and partly because it is a famous example of mission creep in the law: it started out that if pulled over for cause one could be tested for alcohol and assigned more severe penalties for measured blood alcohol concentrations above .1 whatever;

    and within a few years the police were setting up random roadblocks on the freeways, pulling everyone over and making them blow into alcohol measuring machines, running dogs through their cars to sniff out drugs of any kind, running their driver's license for warrants etc, and suspending their commercial as well as private licenses immediately (before conviction) for testing at blood alcohol levels of .o8.

    That's because the old law didn't get all the drunks off the roads. So the authorities, as is their wont, redoubled their efforts against diminishing returns.

    That's not the reminder you want fresh in mind when advocating for more restrictive gun laws.
  8. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Dr_Toad likes this.

Share This Page