Pudge
Member
Is leaving a vehicle unlocked irresponsible in your society?The problem is a gun isn't like an ordinary possession. And leaving it it an unlocked vehicle is not being responsible in today's society.
Is leaving a vehicle unlocked irresponsible in your society?The problem is a gun isn't like an ordinary possession. And leaving it it an unlocked vehicle is not being responsible in today's society.
Should I go out and panic buy some knives now?
Its incredibly sad that the media won't present the facts on this issue. That would allow for a more rational national discussion, but instead the very people who are supposed to be presenting just the facts try to sensationalize the issue.
If there is a gun in it is.Is leaving a vehicle unlocked irresponsible in your society?
That wasn't my question. I'll post it here again, with emphasis added, just so it's clear what I'm asking.I support legislation which would reduce violent crime.
If some sort of ban or further restriction were to pass and it actually worked and reduced the overall number of murders committed by civilians in this country, would that change your mind at all?
Allowing police to search homes without warrant or probable cause, to torture suspects, to imprison suspects for life without trial, to set up ID and X-ray checkpoints on city streets, etc. would probably reduce violent crime by “civilians” as well. But the result would be a state of affairs that would be *worse* than violent crime.If some sort of ban or further restriction were to pass and it actually worked and reduced the overall number of murders committed by civilians in this country, would that change your mind at all?
I support legislation which would reduce violent crime.
Exactly. Well put. Just to clarify, my answer, to my own question,Allowing police to search homes without warrant or probable cause, to torture suspects, to imprison suspects for life without trial, to set up ID and X-ray checkpoints on city streets, etc. would probably reduce violent crime by “civilians” as well. But the result would be a state of affairs that would be *worse* than violent crime.
I’m sure China has very little violent crime by civilians...but when you count violent crime by the government, they have almost certainly murdered more people since WW2 than the rest of the planet combined.
The Bill of Rights is there for a reason. Yes, pragmatic arguments are very effective against the stupidest gun control proposals, like banning certain rifle handgrip shapes (“assault weapons”), trying to ban and confiscate magazines with less capacity than a 1777 Girandoni or an 1861 Henry, or limiting carry licensure to the rich and famous. But infringement on protected civil liberties that didn’t fail pragmatic tests would not automatically be ok, because civil liberties are foundational to a just society.
, is no, it would not change my mind. The 2A is in place to protect the right of the people to own and train with the tools needed to keep the government in perpetual fear of the people. It's primary purpose is not to prevent or lower violent civilian crime, even though that can be a nice side benefit. Too many "gun people" forget that I think. The number of civilians killed by civilians is a teeny tiny percentage of the number of civilians killed by governments, which is why it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter if civilian gun ownership rates raise or lower civilian violent crime rates.If some sort of ban or further restriction were to pass and it actually worked and reduced the overall number of murders committed by civilians in this country, would that change your mind at all?
Once the guns are gone, the big man with the big stick is king.
Tax incentives for people who attain certain levels of proficiency would be a good start.Exactly what do you think would be able to do that?
What about your house?If there is a gun in it is.
I support universal unicorn ownership.I support legislation which would reduce violent crime.