Fly4Fun;1422957 wrote:No, they are loose because the laws we have provide for the wide availability of guns in our country. Loose as in not strict.

Am I mistaken that in Ohio, for example, the same crime where a gun is used carries a substantially higher penalty than when a gun is not used?

justincredible;1422964 wrote:What makes them so loose in your opinion?

[T]he laws we have provide for the wide availability of guns in our country.

In opposite of that, we as a country we have extensive regulations on professional occupations.

A strict regulation would be one that is difficult. Such as it is much harder to become a lawyer or doctor than it is to own a gun.

Fly4Fun;1422957 wrote:No, they are loose because the laws we have provide for the wide availability of guns in our country. Loose as in not strict.

Laws don't make guns widely available. That happens by default. The only thing laws do is lessen that.

Fly4Fun;1422955 wrote:With regards to making changes to laws after an event, that's typically when laws are changed. Laws generally aren't changed absent some event that brings a certain problem to the forefront of the public debate.

But as far as whether the proposed law would have prevented the situation it is in response to is and isn't relevant. Yes, it would make more sense if the change would directly have an impact on the event that brought the discussion the the public discourse. But, do you really want to oppose a law because it wouldn't help in one situation, but it could be helpful in another? That's what legislation is about.

Your argument would have merit if you were discussing a Supreme Court Judicial ruling that "created" a law that was in applicable to a case before it. As decisions are supposed to be fact specific and remedies tied to the fact.

However, legislation doesn't have that same requirement as to specificity.

So, if they wanted to ban popcorn because kids choke on it, and their argument was kids were hurt at newtown and we don't want more kids hurt, that would make sense? The reason they are passing laws after newtown is to avoid it happening again. But it would have had no effect, so it doesn't make sense IMHO.

FatHobbit;1422970 wrote:So, if they wanted to ban popcorn because kids choke on it, and their argument was kids were hurt at newtown and we don't want more kids hurt, that would make sense? The reason they are passing laws after newtown is to avoid it happening again. But it would have had no effect, so it doesn't make sense IMHO.

It would be relevant. But that doesn't mean it makes sense.

WebFire;1422969 wrote:Laws don't make guns widely available. That happens by default. The only thing laws do is lessen that.

Yes, laws don't make guns available. Guns just like anything else are "available" in the absence of law. But that's just semantics.

Fly4Fun;1422973 wrote:Yes, laws don't make guns available. Guns just like anything else are "available" in the absence of law. But that's just semantics.

You said our laws make guns widely available, then you agree that is wrong, but say it's just semantics?

"I just think it's funny that the anti-gun side wants to do SOMETHING for the children. Even is their something doesn't do anything and THEY KNOW IT."

Agree with this. These regulations aren't going to deal with the guns already existing - and plenty of them exist. Nearly all of the homes have some type of firearm in my hometown. Whether it is for hunting, for personal defense or whatever, the guns exist. My parents are pacifists and they still own hunting rifles, a shotgun and a 38.

Man stabs wife, "...considered buying a gun to kill her, but decided not to because "[he's'] not a violent person"

http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/04/10/Man-kills-wife-over-fear-he-had-given-her-HIV/7571365611793/

Fly4Fun;1422968 wrote:In opposite of that, we as a country we have extensive regulations on professional occupations.

A strict regulation would be one that is difficult. Such as it is much harder to become a lawyer or doctor than it is to own a gun.

Are you saying people need to go through 8+ years of schooling to get a gun? I know you aren't, but I fail to see the relevance of comparing professional occupations and guns.

Fly4Fun;1422968 wrote: A strict regulation would be one that is difficult. Such as it is much harder to become a lawyer or doctor than it is to own a gun.

Becoming a lawyer or a doctor are not protected by the constitution.

WebFire;1422976 wrote:You said our laws make guns widely available, then you agree that is wrong, but say it's just semantics?

It is merely semantics.

You're quibbling over the wording when the end result is the same.

The current gun laws in our country "allow" (instead of provide) for the wide availability of guns. Or you could say the current gun laws in our country don't restrict availability thus allowing for the wide availability of guns. Or you could say the current gun laws don't restrict availability, thus there is a wide availability of guns.

It's purely semantics. The end result is the same, you aren't making any kind of point hinging on the difference in language that I see? Or are you?

If you are going to follow up and make a point based upon the language usage then it isn't merely semantics. But if you're merely arguing over the terminology, then that is semantics.

queencitybuckeye;1422983 wrote:Becoming a lawyer or a doctor are not protected by the constitution.

There's also that.

It doesn't really appear that a wide availability of guns translates into a higher number of homicides. So I ask, what's the problem with the availability of guns in our country?

Fly4Fun;1422985 wrote:It is merely semantics.

You're quibbling over the wording when the end result is the same.

The current gun laws in our country "allow" (instead of provide) for the wide availability of guns. Or you could say the current gun laws in our country don't restrict availability thus allowing for the wide availability of guns. Or you could say the current gun laws don't restrict availability, thus there is a wide availability of guns.

It's purely semantics. The end result is the same, you aren't making any kind of point hinging on the difference in language that I see? Or are you?

If you are going to follow up and make a point based upon the language usage then it isn't merely semantics. But if you're merely arguing over the terminology, then that is semantics.

My point was that you are making an assumption that gun laws are loose because there are guns. Perhaps the laws are loosely enforced? Perhaps we don't even need stricter laws. But you can't blame gun murders on "loose" laws.

There should be a different color entirely for South Africa. That place is a cowboy town - crazy dangerous.

queencitybuckeye;1422983 wrote:Becoming a lawyer or a doctor are not protected by the constitution.

Neither is owning a gun for personal defense.

Furthermore, doing any job is really just a contract a person makes with another person. We as citizens have a right to no deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. A contract is property in the sense that under it you have certain rights with respect to the other person. Regulating the freedom of contract is a deprivation of property in that sense.

I realize that both of those are interpretations of different provisions.

But that's what law is. And that in particular is the whole debate about 2nd Amendment rights. The text itself doesn't unequivocally provide for the right to bear arms for personal use.

Fly4Fun;1422993 wrote:Neither is owning a gun for personal defense.

The text itself doesn't unequivocally provide for the right to bear arms for personal use.

But the decision in D.C. vs. Heller does. I beleieve the term is "settled law".

justincredible;1422922 wrote:Regardless of the laws, criminals will always be able to get their hands on a gun if they want one. Always. You can not limit their access to guns because guns exist and criminals DGAF about laws. They can't buy a gun at a gun shop or a gun show? No problem, just buy one from another criminal. Or steal one.

Yeah, in a way that reminds me of Progressive's reasoning behind being a more friendly insurance to the one-time DUI offender (assuming of course, that act doesn't lead to more incidents like an accident, fatality, property damage, etc.).

To their way of looking at things (which seems logical to me), the average first-time DUI offender is remorseful and feels like an idiot about things and doesn't continue to do that sort of thing due to shame and legal costs. So, for them, it counts on their policy as something along the lines of any basic traffic stop. And, to them, the sort of person who will repeatedly and habitually drive under the influence after getting caught once is also the same sort of person who isn't worried about things like paying for insurance.

So it's along those lines with guns and crime where the people who would be most likely to use guns for crime (not counting, of course, crimes of passion) are the same sort of people who would look to circumvent all the laws and regulations we currently have. So I don't think that making things tougher for the law-abiders to get guns would do much to stop any sort of premeditated gun crime.

queencitybuckeye;1423002 wrote:But the decision in D.C. vs. Heller does. I beleieve the term is "settled law".

I was speaking from merely a textual/historical point of view, a technique championed by conservatives.

Anyways, I know I'm not going to win this argument on this site given the leanings. But I am trying to provide for some more balanced discussion. I usually don't bother with this forum because of how one sided it is.

"I just think it's funny that the anti-gun side wants to do SOMETHING for the children. Even is their something doesn't do anything and THEY KNOW IT."

I agree with this also, except I don't think it is funny. I think it is disingenuous opportunism....to use a tragedy to drive a legislative agenda that doesn't even get to heart of the problem. Doing 'something', just to do 'something' is not a very good reason, especially when doing that 'something' would be completely ineffectual. More than that, it's dangerous self delusion that you are solving the problem, when you refuse to admit or recognizing the real problem. That problem is, a violent subculture, that is not going to go away simply because you ban assault style rifles or large magazines. As long as people (children) are herded in to gunfree zones, they will continue to be easy targets for those who wish to do harm unless you provide a credible deterrent.

Anyways, I know I'm not going to win this argument on this site given the leanings. But I am trying to provide for some more balanced discussion. I usually don't bother with this forum because of how one sided it is.

You're not going to win the argument on this site by knocking down the strawmen that gun control advocates set up. People see thru it.

HitsRus;1423025 wrote:I agree with this also, except I don't think it is funny. I think it is disingenuous opportunism....to use a tragedy to drive a legislative agenda that doesn't even get to heart of the problem. Doing 'something', just to do 'something' is not a very good reason, especially when doing that 'something' would be completely ineffectual. More than that, it's dangerous self delusion that you are solving the problem, when you refuse to admit or recognizing the real problem. That problem is, a violent subculture, that is not going to go away simply because you ban assault style rifles or large magazines. As long as people (children) are herded in to gunfree zones, they will continue to be easy targets for those who wish to do harm unless you provide a credible deterrent.




You're not going to win the argument on this site by knocking down the strawmen that gun control advocates set up. People see thru it.

I agree with all of this.

People can complain that this site is "conservative leaning" and it might be, but at least people make arguments in favor of their stances. There isn't anything wrong with bringing up a differing point of view, as long as there is an actual point of view.

Where I agree with HitsRus is the comment about opportunism. We can pass the strictest gun laws tomorrow, and it won't stop the next Columbine or Newtown from happening.

justincredible;1422982 wrote:Are you saying people need to go through 8+ years of schooling to get a gun? I know you aren't, but I fail to see the relevance of comparing professional occupations and guns.

I think he's just suggesting that the concept that we might try to generate some more regulations on who can readily access or purchase firearms might not be all that bad...especially since...for example...we impose a lot of other license requirements in other areas and the world has not ended, etc.

queencitybuckeye;1423002 wrote:But the decision in D.C. vs. Heller does. I beleieve the term is "settled law".

Indeed you are correct but that individual right to use a firearm is not unrestricted and Heller even suggests that it may be regulated. Universal Background checks might be one example.