Gun Control

[Town Heretic]

Is this just hyperbole for someone you see as a troll? or do you really believe this?

Both his trolling and the moral failure of the gun lobby are as real as Christmas. I don't have to believe in them, only observe them.

Not only has the NRA opposed laws relating to mandatory safety courses, restrictions on gun clips, any ban on any gun outright, but it has pushed for loosening existing legislation, including a backing of laws to deregulate silencers... lain:

 

[intojoy]

Still lamenting that the madly successful gun lobby (in either sense) has managed to facilitate schoolyards, churches, and concerts become killing grounds while wrapping a lie in the robes of public virtue.

But don't worry, I have enough pity left over for racist trolls, so you're covered.

Racist? Lol



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[intojoy]

Both his trolling and the moral failure of the gun lobby are as real as Christmas. I don't have to believe in them, only observe them.

Not only has the NRA opposed laws relating to mandatory safety courses, restrictions on gun clips, any ban on any gun outright, but it has pushed for loosening existing legislation, including a backing of laws to deregulate silencers... lain:

Gasp! Dude please. Quit worrying about controlling other people’s lives. You’re not the boss of anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Both his trolling and the moral failure of the gun lobby are as real as Christmas. I don't have to believe in them, only observe them.

Not only has the NRA opposed laws relating to mandatory safety courses, restrictions on gun clips,

The fact that you said "restrictions on gun clips" tells me you don't know a lot about guns to begin with.

These are "clips":

This is a "magazine":

any ban on any gun outright, but it has pushed for loosening existing legislation, including a backing of laws to deregulate silencers... lain:

So, you'd rather have people damage their hearing while defending themselves because they don't have time to put on ear protection because of a silly regulation?

Also, what law prevents (as in, makes it completely impossible) for a criminal to go around such laws?

 

[Town Heretic]

The fact that you said "restrictions on gun clips" tells me you don't know a lot about guns to begin with.

Nah, it tells you I doubt most people know or care about the distinction.

So, you'd rather have people damage their hearing while defending themselves because they don't have time to put on ear protection because of a silly regulation?

Hunters (and recreational shooters) can use hearing protection without needing silencers that most law enforcement oppose.

Also, what law prevents (as in, makes it completely impossible) for a criminal to go around such laws?

So you only pass laws you believe criminals can get behind? lain:

Here's a better question that answers the concern behind yours: why do you think that in countries where criminals are no more inclined to follow the law we have dramatically reduced gun violence and incidents of mass-shooting when tough, universal gun laws are put into play?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Still lamenting that the madly successful gun lobby (in either sense) has managed to facilitate schoolyards, churches, and concerts become killing grounds while wrapping a lie in the robes of public virtue.

Creating "gun free zones" without supplying armed guards is what turns schoolyards and concerts into killing grounds.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here's a better question that answers the concern behind yours: why do you think that in countries where criminals are no more inclined to follow the law we have dramatically reduced gun violence and incidents of mass-shooting when tough, universal gun laws are put into play?

First they take away the guns, then they take away the knives?

Amid Push for Knife Control, UK Shows Gun Control Doesn’t Increase Safety It was widely reported earlier this month that London experienced a higher number of murders over the first three months of 2018 than did New York City—the first time in modern history that has occurred. The United Kingdom has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world, so the increased murder rate in the British capital is largely a result of a sharp rise in knife-related crime. The surge in violence prompted London Mayor Sadiq Khan to announce a massive “knife control” campaign eerily reminiscent of those sometimes proffered in the United States in response to firearms-related violence. The knife control measures will include the deployment of 300 additional London police officers to conduct “stop and frisk” searches of individuals suspected of knife-carrying, a policing tactic once roundly condemned by Khan. Emergency legislation also appears set to prohibit knives purchased online from being sent to residential addresses. The U.K. already criminalizes the purchase or possession of various types of knives, and the carrying of any knife with a blade longer than 3 inches in public is illegal unless it is carried “with good reason.” Self-defense is not considered a good reason. This crackdown on knives, and the surrounding rhetoric demonizing those who would carry them in public, should serve as a warning to Americans disconcerted by the vocal anti-Second Amendment activists in our own country. They will not be satisfied by merely taking away your scary “assault weapons.”

​

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nah, it tells you I doubt most people know or care about the distinction.

So you intentionally used the wrong word? I call that being dishonest.

Hunters (and recreational shooters) can use hearing protection without needing silencers that most law enforcement oppose.

That's twice now that you've not paid attention to what I said.

I specifically said "damage their hearing while defending themselves. That generally means that they're not out hunting...

And even so, so what? I think it would be a tactical advantage to use a silencer when hunting, so that you don't scare off all the animals when you fire a shot.

But again, I was referring to in-home use, defending oneself against intruders, the idea being to have the silencer already attached to the gun in storage so that all you would need to do is load it and fire at the intruder...

So you only pass laws you believe criminals can get behind? lain:

See below.

Here's a better question that answers the concern behind yours: why do you think that in countries where criminals are no more inclined to follow the law we have dramatically reduced gun violence and incidents of mass-shooting when tough, universal gun laws are put into play?

Because they have far more severe punishments than we do here in America. Prison sentences aren't exactly severe, nor are they swift and painful.

From above, Let's imagine for a moment that a lottery was taken to choose a new king for America, and I had a clean slate to work with, no previous laws would cross over, and no new laws could be enforced retroactively, and I could put into place a whole new government and criminal justice system.

I, as king, would immediately do the following:

1) outlaw murder of any kind (including the killing of the unborn), rape of any kind (including incest), adultery (and other certain forms of sexual immorality, such as homosexuality), and make them all punishable by death (upon due conviction).
2) ban the use of prisons.
3) set up a system of judges as described in Exodus 18:13-27.

Spoiler

And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.So when Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?”And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God.When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws.”So Moses’ father-in-law said to him, “The thing that you do is not good.Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself.Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God.And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do.Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you.If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace.”So Moses heeded the voice of his father-in-law and did all that he had said.And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people: rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.So they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves.Then Moses let his father-in-law depart, and he went his way to his own land. - Exodus 18:13-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus18:13-27&version=NKJV

4) declare all theft illegal, and set up punishments (upon due conviction) according to what the Bible says, as I listed above in a previous post, which is restitution.
5) set the punishment (upon due conviction) for assault and physical harm to what the Bible says it should be, as described before in a previous post.
6) declare that attempted crime is punished (upon due conviction) as if they had succeded.

Also:

Each person, including visiting foreigners, has God-given rights that this Government exists to protect, the right to Life and Liberty; to Worship; to Free Speech; to Purchase and Use Property; to Purchase, Own, and Carry Individual Defensive Weapons including Firearms; to Protect the Innocent; to Corporally Punish his Children; to Due Process of Law; and to Fail. No person has a right to food, water, clothing, shelter, energy, healthcare, or education. Excepting for emergency relief, from natural disasters and short-term life-or-death crises, and for government employees only as mission critical, the Government must not give or subsidize such
resources to anyone, nor can America compel charitable giving.

All of this would reduce crime to the point where it's almost nonexistent. Yes, I said almost nonexistent. Why? Because the type of punishments fit the crimes. No one would want to lose their life just because they wanted to open fire on a crowd (because not only would the crowd begin to fire back, but also if they survived, they would be tried, convicted, and executed for attempted murder), or be flogged or maimed for injuring someone else, or have to pay restitution to someone for stealing someone else's property.

You still might be wondering how does this address "gun control."

It allows citizens to defend themselves, and if they so choose, to defend their neighbors from criminals.

Why would this make crime almost "nonexistent"?

Because the criminals wouldn't WANT to commit the crime.

God says that the government is to instill fear in the hearts of criminals. Our current justice system fails to do that, and adding more "gun control" laws doesn't fix that. Imprisoning criminals doesn't fix that. Only having appropriate punishments for crime fixes that.

The laws just make it more difficult for a criminal to commit a crime. The above punishments would make it so that they wouldn't want to commit the crime in the first place. Do you see how that works?

If a criminal wants to commit a crime in the current system, first he analyses the difficulty of doing so, then he plans out how to overcome those difficulties, and if he gets caught, he gets a few years behind bars (in which he grows resentful of the government who put him there, and learns new ways from other inmates to commit the same crime so that he doesn't get caught the next time) and then he's out again, or he has the opportunity to escape, in which case he's back to square one.

In God's system, a criminal first weighs the risks of committing the crimes with whether it would be worth the punishment, and seeing that the punishment is severe, but just, would decide not to commit the crime. (Ergo, less crime overall.)

Which system would you rather have? One where criminals have every opportunity to commit crime and do so without fear (our current system), or one where would-be criminals choose not to commit the crime in the first place because the punishment is worse than the payout of the crime (God's system)?

 

[intojoy]

Silencers lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Town Heretic]

So you intentionally used the wrong word? I call that being dishonest.

But then, you call what you're doing argument, so who knows what you mean by that? :think:

No, I used a word as it is often and popularly used. It's so common Guns & Ammo did an article on it. Now if the point of communication is to be understood and you understood me then the only reason to make something of it is the absence of reason, or a need to distract. It's not dishonest, but it's a waste of time on your part.

That's twice now that you've not paid attention to what I said.

Sorry, what was that?

I specifically said "damage their hearing while defending themselves. That generally means that they're not out hunting...

I chose to address the better argument, the one you should have but didn't make. The idea of keeping a silenced weapon around as part of a self-defense argument is so goofy I had to aim higher. At least the hunting advance makes a little sense. If you know anything about silencers then you ruled out carrying, unless you want to look like Wyatt Earp and probably end up dead before you can wield the thing. At home I can understand the idea, because shooting indoors is going to be deafening with any sort of real firepower. But in that case I'd say you should keep muffling headgear handy. Let the bad guy go deaf or to his knees when you fire that shotgun, assuming your aim is on par with your argument. It couldn't hurt.

And even so, so what? I think it would be a tactical advantage to use a silencer when hunting, so that you don't scare off all the animals when you fire a shot.

So, to borrow from you, you don't know much about hunting...or don't realize how loud a silenced weapon still is. You're not gaining a hunting advantage with the animals. It's strictly about your ears and their proximity to the part of the gun that makes the racket, and that protection can be accomplished by other means that don't make police officers irked and impair their ability to do their jobs.

As to why our cousins do so much better where criminals still don't love obeying the law:

Because they have far more severe punishments than we do here in America.

No they don't. They're more lenient on the whole. Google it if you don't believe me. It's part of why they have a lot less of their population in prison. Their approach to drugs alone, on average, saves them a lot of space and money.

I've already been clear that I'm wildly indifferent to the discussion of alternate hypothetical governments when the topic is gun control because you might as well say that your answer to gun violence is to write the next great American novel. Neither of those is likely to amount to doodly.

So I'm skipping over the divine right section with one side bar: if you attach the DP to rape all you manage to do is encourage rapists to kill their victims. It's one reason we stopped making that connection. Anyway...

You still might be wondering how does this address "gun control."

No, because draconian fantasies don't address gun control. There will be no return of the kings. Concentrating power in fewer hands remains an invitation to injustice and eliminating appeals and prisons invites miscarriages of that cannot then be recompensed.

Back to the OP then:

The point remains that we can, using any number of models (that differ in both approach and impact) tested for decades by every other Western industrial democracy, significantly impact gun violence and mass shooting.

The rationally indisputable truth is that even when we weak sister the attempt on a state level we do better than states without that level of control, which is why New York can lose around four citizens to gun violence while Alabama loses double digits. None of that is coincidental. I've linked to the hard data and pools of it for a number of you, from state to international data that confirms everything I've told you.

The rest is what we do or fail to do within the strictures of the law.

 

[Town Heretic]

First they take away the guns, then they take away the knives?

Can't be done. It's too easy to make an effective one.

But you've chosen a media outlet with a known right-wing agenda (see: Mediabiasfactcheck.com). Here that bias manifests in a bit of trickery.
What they should but don't tell you is that New York, a city of approaching 9 million people, averaged around 3 murders for every 100k citizens, making it one of the safest places and the safest city in the U.S. They've been doing better for a while now. It's the anti-Chicago, and it's only used by "journalists" in this sense with an eye to misleading a bit.

So when you compare any city to New York, lately, you're comparing yourself to one of the very best in the world.

Creating "gun free zones" without supplying armed guards is what turns schoolyards and concerts into killing grounds.

No, allowing easy access to weapons that can kill dozens in moments is what does that. All you need is the eventual evil or diseased idiot with enough cash in his pocket and the carnage is on its way. I'm not an advocate of gun free zones. They're too small to matter and don't address the actual problem of access outside of those zones. Rather, use the models we have on hand and make a deliberate choice to dramatically reduce gun violence in our lifetimes.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I, as king, would immediately do the following:

1) outlaw murder of any kind (including the killing of the unborn), rape of any kind (including incest), adultery (and other certain forms of sexual immorality, such as homosexuality), and make them all punishable by death (upon due conviction).

Well, thank goodness you'll never be one then.

:freak: