posted by like_that
We already have data that proves otherwise. Tell me why Japan's suicide rate is so high. Thanks. If someone has gotten to the point where they have convinced to kill his/herself, access/non-access to a gun isn't going prevent it.
posted by BoatShoes
A world where we might have to worry about a heavily motivated killer downloading 3-D printer blueprints, purchasing a 3-D printer and manufacturing a firearm is much more desirable than a world where a snowflake can waltz into Daddy's shed on a whim and commit mass murder with ease.
1. LOL, no it is not.
2. The whole point is all of these dumbass "common sense" gun law and gun confiscation fetishes will be obsolete once 3D printer technology gets better.
3. I am not worried about either and I live in a city. We are living in the safest era in the history of the world in a otherwise very safe country. Try going a pair.
4. I still see no justification to punish the mass majority of our country, because we have a small size of people who commit evil acts.
5. It still doesn't change the fact that time and time again "common sense" laws and banning guns do not work. Despite data agreeing with this statement, we have yahoos like you who still get their panties in a bunch and create arguments out of their ass (i.e. your argument regarding the purpose of the 2A and suicides).
1. Yes it is if we want motivated criminals to turn to less efficient vehicles of crime. You are a conservative or something and have in the past expressed sympathy for work requirements for those who use food stamps. The reasoning of course is that this will lead to otherwise rational SNAP users to engage in more socially optimal behavior i.e. working as greater barriers are placed in the way of being able to consume what you need while being in leisure. The same supply-side logic applies to crime. Barriers that provide obstacles to motivated individuals to committing crime are Constitutional per the Heller decision and don't place undue burdens on the liberties of those who would choose to keep arms creates a better world under Conservative logic just like regulatory burdens would make a life on the dole less desirable do.
2. They will not be obsolete under a LICENSING AND REGULATION regime. Anybody can create a promissory note on a piece of paper and sell it in violation of the securities laws of our nation and commit fraud and yet they have been incredibly effective at reigning in the massive fraud that pre-dated the securities laws and creating securities markets that were and are the model and envy of the world. Just like you can successfully regulate a world where any yahoo can create unlicensed and unregistered promissory notes in their kitchen, you could regulate unlicensed and unregulated firearms printed in their kitchen. Your belief on this isn't conservatism or libertarianism - it's nihilism.
3. "Try going a pair" - LoL - I'm not worried about it either in my day to day life and it has nothing to do with "growing a pair" - how about try to have a discussion like an adult? I'm not worried about being defrauded by a cold-calling fraudster selling bullshit oil and gas wells to me either - but it happens every day to elderly people in this country and thankfully we have securities laws and regulations and enforcers of those laws who have been tremendously successful at fighting and reducing that kind of crime. Moreover, it is indeed a desirable end to continue working to prevent and rectify said crime and just because no regulator scheme can snuff out 100% of crime does not mean it is not highly successful or desirable.
4. Define "Punish"?? I'm not talking about banning any firearm. I'm talking about licensing and registration like we do for any number of types of free expression protected under the first amendment and few people have any qualms about this.
Is it a "punishment" that I as lawyer who has never used my legal speech to commit crime have to pass an intense character and fitness examination, adhere to a professional code of conduct, pay licensing fees, successfully pass a rigorous examination and on and on - just so I can exercise my 1st Amendment Right to Free Expression in the form of drafting a Last Will and Testament? Or is it a compelling and narrowly tailored burden on my first Amendment Rights in order to promote a compelling public interest in a competent and just legal system?
Are you running around complaining that all the multitude of financial advisors out there are "punished" with burdens on their first amendment rights in the form of licensing requirements and examinations of their behavior from securities regulators? It's not a "punishment" We're not saying those who keep arms should be "punished" for the conduct of others. We are saying that those who keep arms should be held to a standard of conduct like the standards countless citizens are held to when they exercise their First Amendment Rights and other Fundamental Liberties.
5. The National Firearms Act which heavily regulated and licensed fully automatic weapons at the Federal Level virtually eliminated mass shootings or gun violence of any kind committed with fully automatic weapons in the United States in the wake of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and thereafter in comparison to gun violence and mass shootings committed with semi-automatic firearms which are less federally regulated in the United States. Provide credible evidence that the National Firearms Act did not reduce gun violence committed with fully automatic weapons and I'll never post in a gun related thread again.
And mind you - the suicides comment is an important one in this context because - well gee - not many people committing suicide with Thompson Sub Machine Guns now are there?