"Draconian laws WORK!!" We need more gun laws..

[twoblink]

OK, I am facing something I have not faced before, so I thought I'd throw the situation on the board, and get some feedback..

I'm here in Taiwan, where recent outbreaks of SARS is getting worse and worse..

But in places like Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.. Mass implimentation of draconian laws have stopped the spread of SARS..

Soo... Now I even have my AMERICAN friends saying, wow, they were right, if there is a joint effort to impliment draconian laws even for a short period of time, then it does work.. Flimsy laws doesn't work, what we need (and what they feel has been proven now) is that a swift blanket implimentation of Draconian laws is the solution..

So they (now think) that if the 2nd was pulled, and the military went door to door (Gestopal style) then we can in 1 month, get rid of the "gun problem" in America once and for all..

Of course, while 99.99999% of everybody agrees that getting SARS is a bad thing, and don't feel the same about guns, it doesn't seem to matter to the anti-gun crowd...

I tell them, that's an apple and oranges comparison, or rather a biology vs hardware arguement...

Anything else I should say?

 

[Admiral Thrawn]

They're full of it...

as usual.

 

[jsalcedo]

Guns serve a legitimate purpose in our society.

They eliminate the disparity between weak potential victims and strong predators in the urban and wild.

Guns are a recreational tool.

Guns are private property.

Door to door gestapo tactics only serve to rip apart the fabric of
our society and create a superclass vs an underclass.

I'm sure the advocates of the door to door gun confiscation will feel really good when their door is knocked down, their children
held with guns to their head, wife/ GF groped and their house/property is ransacked while all private documents and effects are confiscated.

Its all for the greater good....

 

[Jim March]

People don't want to catch the "Hong Kong Death Flu" so they're OBEYING the various rules out of fear.

Anybody can make a law work that people want to obey.

The tricky bit is when they DON'T.

 

[JShirley]

Yup. What Jim said.

And, the last thing anti-freedom types want, is to press their elitist strongarm tactics in this way, at this time. It's so much easier to gradually steal freedoms away, dividing allies one by one, than to prove how much firearms still guarantee our freedom.

 

[TechBrute]

That arguement has sooooo many holes in it, I don't know where to start. Ok, how about this...

WHAT GUN PROBLEM?!?!?!

We may have a criminal problem...

Actually, our gun problem is that there aren't more in the hands of law abiding citizens. Our gun problem is that the government only has the ability to take them out of lawful citizens' hands. Our gun problem is that BS lawsuits drive up the price of guns. Our gun problem is that people fear the guns, not the people behind them.

My gun problem is that I don't have enough.

 

[gudel]

do people in taiwan have guns? are they even allowed to have guns?

 

[Croyance]

I guess that is why SARS hasn't been spreading in America, our quick use of draconian measures.
How many Chinese are in California and New York? Many have traveled to Hong Kong, China, and Canada. There are few cases here, and no deaths. What we do have in overabundance is hysteria, the same kind that sells duct tape.
There are laws that prevent the use of the military in law enforcement, though I doubt that would be a real obstacle. I really don't know how many officers would go along with it. A disappointingly high amount.
Why stop at guns? Why not just use the armed forces to occupy the cities of the US and eliminate crime? We could have check points and travel permits.
While our military searches for guns (once made illegal), they may as well look for signs of any other crimes, since the homes will be turned up side down.
I think any such move would cause civil unrest, to say the least.

 

[LiquidTension]

One of the reasons that such laws can work with SARS is that everyone knows it to be a threat. There is no doubt that a deadly contagion is a bad thing. Such laws could not work with firearms because there are many people that do not believe they are a threat, and they are the same people with the weapons. Many of them would also be willing to fight back.

 

[twoblink]

hehehe..

My friend's answer was.. "Screwdrivers and hammers."



But he said that there have been MANY murders committed in the past years with hammers and screwdrivers..

So therefore, we can conclude we have a "Screwdriver and Hammer" problem in our society..

Of course us LOGICAL people conclude we have a "crazy, lunny criminal problem".

Jim you got it right.. I'm ok with obeying laws that better my own health, but not ok with gun laws that make me a victim..

 

[R127]

Huh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that germs really obey human laws... even in the US. There is no law that will keep germs from spreading. The only thing you can do against an infectious disease is take appropriate action against it, like vacinations, quarantines, etc.

Does anybody believe laws against murder keep anybody from killing anybody else?

Here's a real head-scratcher: if we already have laws against murder, do we need gun laws?

The logic used by these people is erratic, to say the least.

 

[pax]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that germs really obey human laws... even in the US. There is no law that will keep germs from spreading. The only thing you can do against an infectious disease is take appropriate action against it, like vacinations, quarantines, etc.

Errrr, R127, what's a "quarantine" if not a law that keeps germs from spreading?



pax

My grandfather always told me "Don't guard your money; guard your health." While I was busy guarding my health, my grandfather stole my money. -- Jackie Mason

 

[Partisan Ranger]

My only problem with guns is that I have a mortgage, car payment and various other (necessary?) expenses that prevent me from buying a gun for every outfit, day of the week, and social event.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

Aside from the small problem of gross Constitutional violations of your friends' Gestapo-gun-grabbing brainstorm, it's completely impractical.

There are 200 million+ guns in this country. Exactly where is the money going to come from to fund the 100,000+ goons who are going to implement this abortion of an idea? And your genius buddies are assuming that I am going to willingly hand over my private property that cost me $500 without a tussle.

 

[SDC]

For one, there HASN'T been a "draconian response" to SARS in Canada; the Liberals are still wondering if it would be a good idea to install temperature scanners in our airports. The second issue they might want to think about is "How many people are they willing to see get killed trying to enforce this law?" I'm sure some (maybe even most) gun owners would go along, but there are a WHOLE BUNCH of us who would rather see it come to a head once and for all.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Health directors have more power than the police. They can quarantine a city or area. Nothing in, nothing out. These powers were emplaced right after the Spanish Influenza of 1919-20. I don't mind isolating passengers who fly in from an isolated area, but not aboard the airplane. That air is recirculated and the potential for harm is greater. An unused hangar is better.

 

[raz-0]

Yes draconian laws work wonderfully. THat's why toronto is still locked down with nobody coming in or out right?

Oh wait, it isn't in fact they are giving away $1 baseball game tickets to make you go there.

So how are these draconian laws working?

 

[R127]

Not to argue...

but I'd say a quarantine isn't a case of a law stopping the spread of a disease, but an actual physical action that provides for a buffer zone that may slow the spread of disease. I'm not even sure if it is common to enact legislation to allow for quarantine... although I'm sure there are legally instituted quarantines that are part of the SOP for customs agencies and such.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Gee, whillickers! Have draconian laws really solved the SARS problem anywhere?

Might rain nickels later this evening, too—and anyway, we don't have a firearms problem. We have a criminals problem.

 

[ahadams]

twoblink: would you please ask your friends what they would consider to be the result of only, oh, say 10 percent of American gun owners (that'd be at least 8.5 million gun owners) actively resisted such activities with lethal force...given that each such gun owner would only have to wound or kill one member of the groups [military, paramilitary, paramilitary police, whatever] attempting to enforce said policy thus guaranteeing that the enforcers would all be dead or otherwise out of action long before the 10 percent was used up. I'd be interested to hear their responses - if they try to claim the military would wipe them out tell them an NRA member says "peoples army peoples war" and see what they do then.

[and no, I'm a Republican, not a maoist - I just want to get my point across in terms they'll understand... like a fish in the sea....]

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

Interesting how gunownership is being compared to a virus on this thread.

 

[synoptic]

So they (now think) that if the 2nd was pulled, and the military went door to door (Gestopal style) then we can in 1 month, get rid of the "gun problem" in America once and for all..

I think this situation would be the exact reason the framers of our constitution gave us the right to bear arms... Also a good reason to be thankful our soldiers can disobey an order they find to be immoral and unconstitutional.

It is frustrating how when a young mexican boy is killed by marines on an operation within our nation's borders the liberals scream "Posse Comitatus!" (I think that is the right one) but when it would be to their advantage they are moer than willing to forgo our rights. And in the end, when the new draconian laws aren't revoked, they will wish us "gun nuts" had our weapons.