Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Biske]

Actually, my mother worked when she was pregnant, she even worked when my brother was pregnant.

It boils down to responsibility, if the single mother had a child, it's her responsibility, if both parents had a child knowing money is scarce, their responsibility.

This isn't a nanny-state, survival of the fittest, it's how the world works, whether you see it or not.

That can be potentially damaging for the child especially if it's a physically stressful job or a job involving chemicals, not to mention how emotional pregnancy can make a woman from the hormonal overload which can interfere with any job. Caring for the unborn isn't being a "nanny state", and unless you're some kind of caveman, no, it's not survival of the fittest. Last I checked, all you needed to survive was money.

[Sicarus]

When you said, "Wait, wait, what?

So law-abiding citizens and criminals SHOULD be treated the same?

Criminals and Law-abiding citizens are not the same.


"

You were heavily implying that law-abiding citizens should be punished for the crimes criminals cause. The two are not the same, but the law still applies to both.

They are from the same population: People inside the United States. And because of the positive negative nature of following the law, you can't even differentiate between them. Have you ever gone over the speed limit? You're a criminal. Ever jaywalked where you aren't supposed to? Criminal. Drink while under 21 without the supervision of a parent or guardian? Criminal. I understand that this may be a difficult thing to comprehend.... but there are such things as shades of gray.

Whenever you say criminal, I figured you were implying felon, there's a difference between a felony, and a misdemeanor.
I've never actually speeded, or drank underage without supervision. I have jaywalked though, and I highly doubt a police officer is going to throw you in the pen for that.

For rights to vote, the vast majority of criminals do have that right. There are criminals who have the right to bear arms, and to hold public office, and to travel abroad. As for the other protections, they are examples of how the law is universal and applies to everyone equally. What's more, the examples where certain otherwise inalienable rights are restricted in order to protect the interests of the populace. I don't think you see how the restriction of criminals having guns pretty much destroys your entire viewpoint that certain rights should not be restricted even if it would be beneficial to society to do so.

There is no where on the face of the United States that you can vote if you're a criminal. (Unless you're in Puerto Rico, I mean srsly wtf.)

Again, when you say criminals in the magnitude the way you said you did, you implied, felons.

When you become a criminal (FELON HERPDEDERP) you lose your rights, I thought I didn't have to spell it out for you, since you're apparently smarter than I am.

Even in the instance of restricting certain rights for certain crimes, the application is universal as there is no legal discrimination between individuals who have done the same crime. For example, just because you're already a "criminal" does not not mean that if you steal a car, you'll be treated worse off than a "law abiding citizen" who steals a car. The exception is, of course, the three strikes rule, which is a system that a number of public bodies and entities have decried as highly unethical and counterproductive to the rational and righteous application of the law.

I never said they'd be treated worse, I said they'd lose rights for commiting, and I thought since you're so smart you'd be able to easily identify that I meant major, crimes, everyone under the legal system is treated the same, however, when you start punishing law-abiding citizens for the crimes that criminals have commited, that's corrupt.

It's sad... you can't even keep your own arguments straight anymore. As for the universality of law, of course it can be questioned. That has nothing to do with the law being applied to everyone equally.

It's even more sad that you can't identify blatant sarcasm, aren't you supposed to be smarter than I am?

[Svifnymr]

My .22lr Assault Weapon...

[GreatOak]

The NRA says a proposal to ban gun sales to anyone in the middle of a killing spree is a gross violation of the Second Amendment.

http://www.theonion.com/video/nra-fi...ales-to,30927/
lol'd

[Sicarus]

Your example makes no sense because 1. I don't advocate banning guns. and 2. Poor parenting is what causes laziness, not the TV. Poor gun control and education is what causes crime, not guns. New laws need to be made to address the issue that people have retarded views about guns. You don't need to ban guns to do that. You need control. Control != ban.

Actually, it makes perfect sense, I just don't think you're thinking about it too clearly.

Household A has a television, they remove the television because they think it makes their children lazy, they become lazy anyway.

Household B has a television, and the children aren't lazy, obviously the televisions fault.

So, you're saying, let's all be household A, even though, and linking crime to laziness, the crime will happen anyway.

Poor gun control and education is not what causes crime, and if you're going to claim that, back it up, pls.

We dont' need control, we don't need bans, we need people who can think past 1+1=fish.

[Kasierith]

Whenever you say criminal, I figured you were implying felon, there's a difference between a felony, and a misdemeanor.

Yes, there is a difference. And it's taken you this long to catch onto that fact, that there is a difference between a criminal and a felon. Pretty much this lack of understanding on your part is relevant in responding to the rest of your posts.

Now, back on topic.... lets see.. ah, yes. Does every single person in the United States have a propensity of being a criminal?

[GreatOak]

I think the answer is obvious. Sam Harris is just another gun toting barbaric numskull, clinging to his ego-stroking, power tripping, blood fueled hobby.

Right?

You forgot to mention how racist he is. He won't even wear black.

[Sicarus]

Perhaps this would have been better directed at someone else.

Yeah, like FusedMass. lol

[Rocko9]

My .22lr Assault Weapon...

Is it true that those are picky when it comes to ammo?

[Biske]

The NRA says a proposal to ban gun sales to anyone in the middle of a killing spree is a gross violation of the Second Amendment.

http://www.theonion.com/video/nra-fi...ales-to,30927/
lol'd

Say what?!

[Sicarus]

Yes, there is a difference. And it's taken you this long to catch onto that fact. Pretty much this lack of understanding on your part is relevant in responding to the rest of your posts.

Now, back on topic.... lets see.. ah, yes. Does every single person in the United States have a propensity of being a criminal?

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

I pointed out so many times, you're supposed to be smarter than me, you should have been easily able to recognize I was talking about the serious crimes in which one becomes a felon.

I think you're the one who has a lack of understanding, context clues, or are just being very misleading on purpose.

[zhero]

No one with 2 brain cells to rub together believes that.

I had never even considered that someone might have thought that until I read this sentence... and I believe you may have caused a stroke in my brain by doing so.

if you're having a stroke, its because your blood flow was already restricted causing impaired judgement for a long time. there are videos all over youtube showing the nonsense involved in the media covering sandy hook, including a guy smiling and laughing just up to the last second before he speaks at a podium about the incident, supposedly one of the fathers.

[Sicarus]

Say what?!

They're totally right man, it's infringing on my rights as a free 'murican.

[Kasierith]

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

I pointed out so many times, you're supposed to be smarter than me, you should have been easily able to recognize I was talking about the serious crimes in which one becomes a felon.

I think you're the one who has a lack of understanding, context clues, or are just being very misleading on purpose.

It really isn't my problem when people fall for the fallacy of composition. You can go on about what you were trying to imply all you want, but criminals are a much larger group than felons, and the difference isn't mere semantics; trying to equate them in such a way is intellectually dishonest. Just because all of A = B does not mean that all of B = A.

Now, would you like to answer my question this time?

[Svifnymr]

You can't be guilty of anything if laws don't exist. And you're not being accused of being guilty of anything whenever a new law is made, so that doesn't apply. I'm also not looking to get rid of any amendment, so I don't know what you're talking about.

Because restricting a right before there is an issue is fundamentally different than punishing a behavior that damaged a person, place, thing or society.

Saying you can't own a gun when you have done nothing wrong is different than punishing you for shooting out streetlights. Saying you can't yell Fire in a theater is different than punishing you for causing a riot or disturbing the peace.

"Innocent until guilty" was my response to you saying "Since it's a potential danger, you can either take reactive measures and punish that criminal after he has killed 20, or proactive measures and make a law that would make it impossible for any potential criminal to kill 20"

You want to punish someone before they've done anything, on the basis that they have the potential to do something. There are other more hyperbolic examples to highlight it, but it's really besides the point.

So, again, we come back to the odds. If you let people have guns, what are the odds that any specific individual will murder someone. We have those numbers, 100's of millions of gun owners, 100's of millions of guns made/imported each year. thousands of murders via guns. (That's also assuming that the murderers in question were not ALREADY prohibited from gun ownership.)

So, as I've said, if that is the measuring stick, then how many criminals have gone free due to the 4th, 5th or 6th amendments? How many crimes have been committed thereby? We only trust the cops with guns, so we may as well trust them to search whoever they want?

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 06:14 PM ----------

The NRA says a proposal to ban gun sales to anyone in the middle of a killing spree is a gross violation of the Second Amendment.

http://www.theonion.com/video/nra-fi...ales-to,30927/
lol'd

If they haven't been convicted yet, then they still have a right to buy a gun!

[Biske]

Because restricting a right before there is an issue is fundamentally different than punishing a behavior that damaged a person, place, thing or society.

Saying you can't own a gun when you have done nothing wrong is different than punishing you for shooting out streetlights. Saying you can't yell Fire in a theater is different than punishing you for causing a riot or disturbing the peace.

"Innocent until guilty" was my response to you saying "Since it's a potential danger, you can either take reactive measures and punish that criminal after he has killed 20, or proactive measures and make a law that would make it impossible for any potential criminal to kill 20"

You want to punish someone before they've done anything, on the basis that they have the potential to do something. There are other more hyperbolic examples to highlight it, but it's really besides the point.

So, again, we come back to the odds. If you let people have guns, what are the odds that any specific individual will murder someone. We have those numbers, 100's of millions of gun owners, 100's of millions of guns made/imported each year. thousands of murders via guns. (That's also assuming that the murderers in question were not ALREADY prohibited from gun ownership.)

So, as I've said, if that is the measuring stick, then how many criminals have gone free due to the 4th, 5th or 6th amendments? How many crimes have been committed thereby? We only trust the cops with guns, so we may as well trust them to search whoever they want?

You keep talking about me saying that we can't own a gun. Why do you keep saying that? I own a gun. I've NEVER said we shouldn't own guns. Also, making more laws isn't punishing anyone. Or are you going to say that you're being punished every time a new law is made?

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 11:19 PM ----------

I think I just accidentally deleted one of my posts.

[Rocko9]

The NRA says a proposal to ban gun sales to anyone in the middle of a killing spree is a gross violation of the Second Amendment.

http://www.theonion.com/video/nra-fi...ales-to,30927/
lol'd

Didn't click the link, but isn't theonion.com a comedy site?

[Biske]

Actually, it makes perfect sense, I just don't think you're thinking about it too clearly.

Household A has a television, they remove the television because they think it makes their children lazy, they become lazy anyway.

Household B has a television, and the children aren't lazy, obviously the televisions fault.

So, you're saying, let's all be household A, even though, and linking crime to laziness, the crime will happen anyway.

Poor gun control and education is not what causes crime, and if you're going to claim that, back it up, pls.

We dont' need control, we don't need bans, we need people who can think past 1+1=fish.

Except removing the TV would be akin to banning guns which is what I've already told you I don't want to do. What I want is better education and more control. Lack of education is what gets people accidentally shot in the face by their own gun. Lack of education and control is what makes people think it's ok to shoot anyone that walks on your front lawn. As for sources? Sure:

http://nbclatino.com/2013/01/29/geor...ay-police-say/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/2...n-my-property/

Those were posted before on MMO-Champ and you can find people straight up defending their decision to kill an innocent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that mentality is ok to some people makes it clear that people are uneducated and controls are needed to protect you and others.

---------- Post added 2013-02-04 at 11:25 PM ----------

Didn't click the link, but isn't theonion.com a comedy site?

It is. I think that's the reason no one took it seriously and went off on a rant.

[Templar 331]

Actually, my mother worked when she was pregnant, she even worked when my brother was pregnant.

I loled too hard at this.

It boils down to responsibility, if the single mother had a child, it's her responsibility, if both parents had a child knowing money is scarce, their responsibility.

This isn't a nanny-state, survival of the fittest, it's how the world works, whether you see it or not.

First part I agree with. Second part suggests how little you know of how the government helps you in every day life. That food you eat is ensured by the government to be edible, the water you drink clean. The waste you create taken care of. And those are just the basics.

[Sicarus]

It really isn't my problem when people fall for the fallacy of composition. You can go on about what you were trying to imply all you want, but criminals are a much larger group than felons, and the difference isn't mere semantics; trying to equate them in such a way is intellectually dishonest. Just because all of A = B does not mean that all of B = A.

Now, would you like to answer my question this time?

No not really, you've never answered any of mine, lol.