Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

What would criminals do?

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:45:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Gun law
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the nation, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the nation and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the nations limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:51:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?

There doesn't seem to be a point to your thread, or if there is, the point is ambiguous. Am I to loo at the title of your thread and assume "What would criminals do?" to mean that, as far as the criteria listed on gun laws, that criminals would not adhere to it? I'm kind of lost. What are you trying to say?
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:51:39 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?

There doesn't seem to be a point to your thread, or if there is, the point is ambiguous. Am I to loo at the title of your thread and assume "What would criminals do?" to mean that, as far as the criteria listed on gun laws, that criminals would not adhere to it? I'm kind of lost. What are you trying to say?

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I could have been more explicit.

If this were federal law, what would criminals do?*
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:23:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:00:21 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:51:39 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?

There doesn't seem to be a point to your thread, or if there is, the point is ambiguous. Am I to loo at the title of your thread and assume "What would criminals do?" to mean that, as far as the criteria listed on gun laws, that criminals would not adhere to it? I'm kind of lost. What are you trying to say?

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I could have been more explicit.

If this were federal law, what would criminals do?*

Depends on the criminal, but I'm betting you're trying to imply they'd ignore federal gun statutes.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 12:32:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:23:12 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:00:21 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:51:39 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?

There doesn't seem to be a point to your thread, or if there is, the point is ambiguous. Am I to loo at the title of your thread and assume "What would criminals do?" to mean that, as far as the criteria listed on gun laws, that criminals would not adhere to it? I'm kind of lost. What are you trying to say?

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I could have been more explicit.

If this were federal law, what would criminals do?*

Depends on the criminal, but I'm betting you're trying to imply they'd ignore federal gun statutes.

They already do that, that's why they are criminals.
I bet they'd think twice before getting into a possibly violent situation if those laws were in affect though.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:00:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:32:58 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:23:12 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 12:00:21 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:51:39 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?

There doesn't seem to be a point to your thread, or if there is, the point is ambiguous. Am I to loo at the title of your thread and assume "What would criminals do?" to mean that, as far as the criteria listed on gun laws, that criminals would not adhere to it? I'm kind of lost. What are you trying to say?

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I could have been more explicit.

If this were federal law, what would criminals do?*

Depends on the criminal, but I'm betting you're trying to imply they'd ignore federal gun statutes.

They already do that, that's why they are criminals.
I bet they'd think twice before getting into a possibly violent situation if those laws were in affect though.

Based on how often police officers get killed, I don't think it's the deterrent you think it is.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 1:02:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:00:21 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:51:39 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:50:38 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:47:57 AM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
So is there any substance to your thread?

What do you mean?

There doesn't seem to be a point to your thread, or if there is, the point is ambiguous. Am I to loo at the title of your thread and assume "What would criminals do?" to mean that, as far as the criteria listed on gun laws, that criminals would not adhere to it? I'm kind of lost. What are you trying to say?

Oh I'm sorry. I guess I could have been more explicit.

If this were federal law, what would criminals do?*

You get that from Norway?

As far as your question goes, my guess is that they'd buy a gun.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:31:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:45:28 AM, pozessed wrote:
Gun law
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the nation, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the nation and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the nations limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

This is simply a rightist gun nut going over the top in sharing his adolescent brilliant idea with the rest of the class, letting his freak flag stridently flap, i.e. making an altogether extremist and unconstructive contribution to the discussion.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:45:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:31:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:45:28 AM, pozessed wrote:
Gun law
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the nation, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the nation and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the nations limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

This is simply a rightist gun nut going over the top in sharing his adolescent brilliant idea with the rest of the class, letting his freak flag stridently flap, i.e. making an altogether extremist and unconstructive contribution to the discussion.

Actually, this is probably the law in either Finland or Norway, where gun ownership is high (though nowhere near that of the US...the 2nd tier of "high percentage of gun ownership" are still quite low compared to the US), but gun ownership is not considered a right so much as it is a responsibility.

Also, the guns there are typically rifles, not handguns, and owners of those guns are required to regularly submit to gun proficiency inspection and testing, as well as have their ammunition accounted for (failure to produce all the ammunition one should have on hand comes with HEAVY penalties).

As it turns out, laws like that one, assuming they also exclude handgun ownership, actually do curb gun violence.

I'm neither anti-gun, nor pro-gun (I'm pro assault weapons and anti handguns, so I'm pretty well hated by both sides), and I recognize the good that laws like the one above can produce in terms of gun violence reduction, though I doubt the person who made the OP realizes everything that accompanies the laws that he copy and pasted.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:49:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:31:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:45:28 AM, pozessed wrote:
Gun law
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the nation, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the nation and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the nations limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

This is simply a rightist gun nut going over the top in sharing his adolescent brilliant idea with the rest of the class, letting his freak flag stridently flap, i.e. making an altogether extremist and unconstructive contribution to the discussion.

I don't even own a gun, but thanks for letting me watch you put your foot in your mouth.
My adolescent brilliant extremist idea is actually a law in a US city that has a substantial drop in crime rate (mainly home burglaries) after being introduced.

I'll give you a chance to change my POV though.
If you can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that our government is not corrupted by lobbyists contributions to inflict laws and regulations that the people would oppose, I would possibly reconsider my standing.

Prove this didn't happen when they voted on the AR and clip ban.

I see no reason to trust my government with the protection of my freedoms.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was asking you to prove that voting didn't occur like it did in the video concerning the ban on ARs and clips.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:52:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 12:32:58 PM, pozessed wrote:

They already do that, that's why they are criminals.
I bet they'd think twice before getting into a possibly violent situation if those laws were in affect though.

8% of federally licensed gun dealers sell over 90% of the guns used in crimes...and, when the sale is made, it appears, to all but the audit expert who ends up looking at the paperwork after the fact, to be a legitimate transaction.

There is a small "black market" for firearms, but the majority of the illegal gun transactions which are made, are made by "legitimate" business owners.

Who is the criminal here? Is it the guy who uses the gun that wasn't supposed to be sold to him to commit a crime, or is it the guy who sold the gun in the first place and facilitated the crime to occur.

In the law, there is a concept called an intervening act. Essentially, if not for X, Y would not occur.

In the case of these guns sales and crimes, I think I'm being conservative by saying that 60% of the gun crimes would be abated if these greedy @ssholes didn't knowingly sell the guns in their inventory to criminals.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:12:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:49:34 PM, pozessed wrote:

If you can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that our government is not corrupted by lobbyists contributions to inflict laws and regulations that the people would oppose, I would possibly reconsider my standing.

Firstly, why would I wish to deceive anyone into thinking that the lobbyists, i.e. the professional corrupters of our corporatocracy, are ineffective at their job of co-opting our supposed public representatives into serving the special interests of the economic elite?

Secondly, are you at all aware that the gun industry, and its front organization the NRA, also employ lobbyists to help them subversively influence public policy in a direction that economically benefits firearms manufacturers at the expense of public safety? Apparently not.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:24:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 3:12:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
Secondly, are you at all aware that the gun industry, and its front organization the NRA, also employ lobbyists to help them subversively influence public policy in a direction that economically benefits firearms manufacturers at the expense of public safety? Apparently not.

If the NRA, or any organization similar to it, didn't exist, what would be the situation? I hear that it's the NRA and gun lobby groups fault but in reality it's that the left can't comprehend the gun culture of the USA. They can't comprehend it so they find a scapegoat, the NRA, the gun manufactures etc. The truth is that Majority of Americans are gun owners and that's why elected officials fear voting on it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 3:28:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 3:12:49 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/11/2013 2:49:34 PM, pozessed wrote:

If you can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that our government is not corrupted by lobbyists contributions to inflict laws and regulations that the people would oppose, I would possibly reconsider my standing.

Firstly, why would I wish to deceive anyone into thinking that the lobbyists, i.e. the professional corrupters of our corporatocracy, are ineffective at their job of co-opting our supposed public representatives into serving the special interests of the economic elite?

Secondly, are you at all aware that the gun industry, and its front organization the NRA, also employ lobbyists to help them subversively influence public policy in a direction that economically benefits firearms manufacturers at the expense of public safety? Apparently not.

Charles, if you are a true Anarcho-Communist, as you claimed, you would see no problem with guns. You supported an armed citizenry for insurrection, but apparently it's absurd to think that you could have one to defend yourself.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 10:59:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM, drhead wrote:
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.

That wasn't the case at Sandy Hook from what I have heard. I heard he had a great marksmanship ability for a lack of training.
Just because it is required doesn't mean everyone would need or want one. The idea of it being a law should scare some significant amount of criminals into finding peaceful solutions.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 11:00:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 10:59:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM, drhead wrote:
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.

That wasn't the case at Sandy Hook from what I have heard. I heard he had a great marksmanship ability for a lack of training.
Just because it is required doesn't mean everyone would need or want one. The idea of it being a law should scare some significant amount of criminals into finding peaceful solutions.

I should have said provoke not scare.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 12:30:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/14/2013 11:00:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/14/2013 10:59:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM, drhead wrote:
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.

That wasn't the case at Sandy Hook from what I have heard. I heard he had a great marksmanship ability for a lack of training.
Just because it is required doesn't mean everyone would need or want one. The idea of it being a law should scare some significant amount of criminals into finding peaceful solutions.

I should have said provoke not scare.

Didn't his mother take him to the shooting range?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 12:20:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 12:30:46 AM, drhead wrote:
At 3/14/2013 11:00:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/14/2013 10:59:57 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM, drhead wrote:
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.

That wasn't the case at Sandy Hook from what I have heard. I heard he had a great marksmanship ability for a lack of training.
Just because it is required doesn't mean everyone would need or want one. The idea of it being a law should scare some significant amount of criminals into finding peaceful solutions.

I should have said provoke not scare.

Didn't his mother take him to the shooting range?

Yes yes, you are correct. A friend of the mothers is saying that she took them quite often.
That is still not the same as official training though.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 12:30:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM, drhead wrote:
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.

Your point is odd and just doesn't really make a good amount of sense to me. A gun is a tool, so you're saying I can't have a hammer, knife, screwdriver or drill because it's not fair to those who can't afford it?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 2:33:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 12:30:43 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:01:30 PM, drhead wrote:
It is well-known that without training, you are more harmful with a gun to yourself than to your target. This is why this law wouldn't work. Not only would some people be unable to afford a gun (minimum-wage workers, for example), people would not be able to get training in many cases.

Your point is odd and just doesn't really make a good amount of sense to me. A gun is a tool, so you're saying I can't have a hammer, knife, screwdriver or drill because it's not fair to those who can't afford it?

Did you read the OP? The OP is saying that everyone should be required to own a gun. It is reasonable to say that if some people can't afford a gun, nobody should be REQUIRED to own one. The only way to fix this would be to use a government program (paid for by taxes) which would cover the cost of a gun for the economically disadvantaged. Neither party would support that, and no sane person would support it, either.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian