Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #41

    Jul 5, 2006, 05:45 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by talaniman
    FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
    1. Both are citizens
    2. Depends on circumstances, a gun in the hand is just as likely to result in the death of the holder
    4. Wrong, its about protection of the populace
    5. You can now
    6. A typical NRA obfuscation. Gun control is not about preventing crime, its about making the populace safer
    11. What part of "a well ordered militia" don't you understand?
    15. An oversimplification
    16. If you don't shoot to kill you aren't shooting to stay alive
    19. See 6
    20. See 6
    21. Gun control is not about preventing gun ownership, but about preventing guns from getting into the wrong hands. Again, its about protecting the populace.
    23. Gun laws need to be coordinated and enforced. When someone can get a gun by establishing residence by living 2 weeks in a transient motel, then the existing laws aren't sufficient.
    24. Ridiculous
    25. Times have changed in 230 years, the colonists didn't have the checks and balances of the constitution to protect them.
    26. Remember part of that is "FOR the people".

    Those points I did not answer were because I either agree or there is no response. By the way, I don't need to hide behind anonymity. I'm not afraid to speak out for what I believe in.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #42

    Jul 5, 2006, 06:14 AM
    It was sent by a friend the other day so I just decided to share it here. I was too lazy last night to write a disclaimer. I want no part of gun control until you can keep them out of the hands of criminals. Just my opinion
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #43

    Jul 5, 2006, 06:18 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by talaniman
    It was sent by a friend the other day so I just decided to share it here. I was too lazy last night to write a disclaimer. I want no part of gun control until you can keep them out of the hands of criminals. Just my opinion
    But there you promote one of the fallacies of gun control. Its not designed to keep arms out the hands of citizens. Its designed to make it harder for people who shouldn't have arms to get them.

    Of course you won't prevent criminals from getting weapons, but the harder you make it the more you prevent it.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #44

    Jul 5, 2006, 06:55 AM
    The harder you make it the more ways they come up with to get them anyway. Have you ever heard a criminal complain of not being able to get a gun. Its easer than you buying groceries.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #45

    Jul 5, 2006, 07:46 AM
    That's not the point. You are never going to stop a truly determined person from doing something. But, by making it harder, you do inhibit the less determined person.

    The answer is not to reduce obstacles.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #46

    Jul 5, 2006, 12:15 PM
    I suspect the less determined person will find a more determine one to get what he wants, but my point is, I think there are a number of laws on the books that hamper citizens a lot more than prevent criminals from by-passing the law which they do with flagrant regularity. I think the real answer is to make a criminal pay a hefty price for breaking the law, like life with no parole for even having a gun in his possession and double it for those that sell or supply him with a weapon.
    ScottGem's Avatar
    ScottGem Posts: 64,966, Reputation: 6056
    Computer Expert and Renaissance Man
     
    #47

    Jul 5, 2006, 12:54 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by talaniman
    I suspect the less determined person will find a more determine one to get what he wants, but my point is, I think there are a number of laws on the books that hamper citizens a lot more than prevent criminals from by-passing the law which they do with flagrant regularity. I think the real answer is to make a criminal pay a hefty price for breaking the law, like life with no parole for even having a gun in his possession and double it for those that sell or supply him with a weapon.
    I can't really agree with that. It assumes that such penalties provide an effective deterrant which I don't believe. If someone is going to break the law, their sense of ethics has already diminished to the extent that such punishment is no longer a consideration.

    I do agree that citizens may be hampered more than potential criminals. But as long as the fundamental rights are preserved, then I think that is a small price to pay. Franklin's quote ("Those who trade liberty for security have neither.") is an issue, but as long as the ultimate liberty is preserved, we can have greater security.
    talaniman's Avatar
    talaniman Posts: 54,327, Reputation: 10855
    Expert
     
    #48

    Jul 5, 2006, 01:11 PM
    Darn it I thought that I'd get ten points for that life w/o parole thing! Anyway deep down nothing will ever be enough to deter a criminal,so I may as well lock and load. Can't LOL because it is so sad!

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.



View more questions Search