Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

SaviorShot wrote:Laws only effect the law abiding anyway.

Do you drive faster than the speed limit?

Yes, the law doesn't affect me as I'm not law abiding relative to that particular law. What's your point?

Your answer makes the point for me -- "law abiding citizen" has no meaning free from the context of what law is being referred to; and if it's being used to refer to people who don't obey gun laws, then it's a tautological argument. In other words, SaviorShot's comment really means "gun laws only affect those who obey gun laws."

It's not a tautological argument because the problem with the gun isn't "oh noes, he owns it illegally" it's "oh noes, he committed a [more serious] crime with it." That's ultimately the point of the gun advocates. If someone is going to break the law by murdering someone, why would they obey a gun control law?

When it comes to school gun-free zones and school shootings in particular, that logic is fine. But it doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's going to illegally buy a gun -- not necessarily with the intent to kill, either. They might be sufficiently dissuaded by the consequences of what will happen if they are caught with an illegal weapon.

Metsfanmax wrote:When it comes to school gun-free zones and school shootings in particular, that logic is fine. But it doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's going to illegally buy a gun -- not necessarily with the intent to kill, either. They might be sufficiently dissuaded by the consequences of what will happen if they are caught with an illegal weapon.

Are you talking about strawman purchases? As far as I can tell, they are already illegal. It is also illegal in most jurisdictions to sell guns without all sorts of permits, registrations, and the like. I suppose one could be sufficiently dissuaded (for example, I would not purchase a gun for someone else mostly because I would expect the other person to commit a crime with it, but somewhat because I would be afraid to get caught).

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:When it comes to school gun-free zones and school shootings in particular, that logic is fine. But it doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's going to illegally buy a gun -- not necessarily with the intent to kill, either. They might be sufficiently dissuaded by the consequences of what will happen if they are caught with an illegal weapon.

Are you talking about strawman purchases? As far as I can tell, they are already illegal. It is also illegal in most jurisdictions to sell guns without all sorts of permits, registrations, and the like. I suppose one could be sufficiently dissuaded (for example, I would not purchase a gun for someone else mostly because I would expect the other person to commit a crime with it, but somewhat because I would be afraid to get caught).

In the limit of arbitrarily high stiffness of punishment for the action, very few people would be motivated to illegal acquire a firearm. (Imagine if you would serve 25 years for being caught with one.)

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:When it comes to school gun-free zones and school shootings in particular, that logic is fine. But it doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's going to illegally buy a gun -- not necessarily with the intent to kill, either. They might be sufficiently dissuaded by the consequences of what will happen if they are caught with an illegal weapon.

Are you talking about strawman purchases? As far as I can tell, they are already illegal. It is also illegal in most jurisdictions to sell guns without all sorts of permits, registrations, and the like. I suppose one could be sufficiently dissuaded (for example, I would not purchase a gun for someone else mostly because I would expect the other person to commit a crime with it, but somewhat because I would be afraid to get caught).

In the limit of arbitrarily high stiffness of punishment for the action, very few people would be motivated to illegal acquire a firearm. (Imagine if you would serve 25 years for being caught with one.)

Good, let's do it. What else you got?

Note, straw purchases are punishable with up to 10 years in prison (federal law violation).

http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/

By the way, I'm all in favor of good gun control laws (like the finger print idea). Just want people to come up with them instead of bitching. No one but the most ardent NRA activist is going to say straw man purchases should be legal.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:When it comes to school gun-free zones and school shootings in particular, that logic is fine. But it doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's going to illegally buy a gun -- not necessarily with the intent to kill, either. They might be sufficiently dissuaded by the consequences of what will happen if they are caught with an illegal weapon.

Are you talking about strawman purchases? As far as I can tell, they are already illegal. It is also illegal in most jurisdictions to sell guns without all sorts of permits, registrations, and the like. I suppose one could be sufficiently dissuaded (for example, I would not purchase a gun for someone else mostly because I would expect the other person to commit a crime with it, but somewhat because I would be afraid to get caught).

In the limit of arbitrarily high stiffness of punishment for the action, very few people would be motivated to illegal acquire a firearm. (Imagine if you would serve 25 years for being caught with one.)

Good, let's do it. What else you got?

Note, straw purchases are punishable with up to 10 years in prison (federal law violation).

http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/

By the way, I'm all in favor of good gun control laws (like the finger print idea). Just want people to come up with them instead of bitching. No one but the most ardent NRA activist is going to say straw man purchases should be legal.

Not just talking about straw purchases here. More broadly, was referring to any method of illegally acquiring a firearm (including, say, stealing it from a neighbor's house). I mean, I'm reluctant to have very stiff penalties in this latter case, but it's just an example.

A policy that's related to the fingerprinting one is to have all ammunition rounds be specifically tagged for later identification.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:When it comes to school gun-free zones and school shootings in particular, that logic is fine. But it doesn't necessarily apply to someone who's going to illegally buy a gun -- not necessarily with the intent to kill, either. They might be sufficiently dissuaded by the consequences of what will happen if they are caught with an illegal weapon.

Are you talking about strawman purchases? As far as I can tell, they are already illegal. It is also illegal in most jurisdictions to sell guns without all sorts of permits, registrations, and the like. I suppose one could be sufficiently dissuaded (for example, I would not purchase a gun for someone else mostly because I would expect the other person to commit a crime with it, but somewhat because I would be afraid to get caught).

In the limit of arbitrarily high stiffness of punishment for the action, very few people would be motivated to illegal acquire a firearm. (Imagine if you would serve 25 years for being caught with one.)

Good, let's do it. What else you got?

Note, straw purchases are punishable with up to 10 years in prison (federal law violation).

http://smartgunlaws.org/straw-purchases-policy-summary/

By the way, I'm all in favor of good gun control laws (like the finger print idea). Just want people to come up with them instead of bitching. No one but the most ardent NRA activist is going to say straw man purchases should be legal.

Not just talking about straw purchases here. More broadly, was referring to any method of illegally acquiring a firearm (including, say, stealing it from a neighbor's house). I mean, I'm reluctant to have very stiff penalties in this latter case, but it's just an example.

A policy that's related to the fingerprinting one is to have all ammunition rounds be specifically tagged for later identification.

That's a good one too. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: A policy that's related to the fingerprinting one is to have all ammunition rounds be specifically tagged for later identification.

That's a good one too. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be.

At first, probably not much. But as it enables more convictions for crimes that otherwise would have gone unsolved, I think the deterrence effect would rise with time.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: A policy that's related to the fingerprinting one is to have all ammunition rounds be specifically tagged for later identification.

That's a good one too. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be.

At first, probably not much. But as it enables more convictions for crimes that otherwise would have gone unsolved, I think the deterrence effect would rise with time.

Agreed. I also wonder what deterrent effect current strawman purchase laws have as compared to the desire/risk associated with strawman purchases. The common thought in Philadelphia is that girlfriends of gang bangers are "forced" to purchase guns for their significant others. Does 10 years in prison have the deterrant effect desired? Will 25 years?

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: A policy that's related to the fingerprinting one is to have all ammunition rounds be specifically tagged for later identification.

That's a good one too. I wonder how much of a deterrent it would be.

At first, probably not much. But as it enables more convictions for crimes that otherwise would have gone unsolved, I think the deterrence effect would rise with time.

Agreed. I also wonder what deterrent effect current strawman purchase laws have as compared to the desire/risk associated with strawman purchases. The common thought in Philadelphia is that girlfriends of gang bangers are "forced" to purchase guns for their significant others. Does 10 years in prison have the deterrant effect desired? Will 25 years?

When people make that calculation, it also depends on how thoroughly the law is enforced. 10 years in prison means little if none of the girlfriends are ever charged for the crime.

What I meant by Gun laws only effect the law abiding is this .... if they make a law banning fire arms do you think criminals are going to turn them in, the new law in CT where everyone had to register there weapons an high cap mags ( 30 round AR mag is Standard capacity in Free America ) there was a huge line to do so. How many criminals you think were in that line? if u guess 0 you were right. The real criminals are the banksters an politicians that have runined our country. I feel very safe with my glock 19 on me btw ... you wanting to take our guns ... how would you feel if I said I want 10% of the shit you own... your car your wedding ring I mean you would be pissed an wanna fight back. Guns are just tools. no more dangerous than a hammer. it actually serves the same purpose as a hammer. it is a tool for a job. humans are the weapon. If all the kids in the neighborhood are beating each other with baseball bats do we ban all kids from playing baseball or do we say WHY THE HELL ARE THEY HITTING EACH OTHER WITH BASEBALL BATS. sry if this does not make any cents ... this subject gets my blood pressure up hehe

An FBI stats = More Guns Less Crime ... Look it up 49% drop in violent crime. A free nation is a armed nation. The founding fathers knew that the people should be armed to protect themselves from any threat or tyrannical government. an for all the people that say well they didn't know AK/AR would exsist. DUDE these people make electricity an shit they were inventors they knew. They also knew the public should bear the same arms as the military. Look up where "Right to bear arms comes from" History shows when they take the guns they will eventually come for your freedom. Guns save lives!!! every person who has ever taken a Self Defense class knows you never pull your gun unless its to SAVE A LIFE .... NOT TO TAKE ONE! MOLON LABE

O ya an why is the highest crime rates in America all in 3 states with the most GUN CONTROL LAWS where citizens can not be armed... Chicago new York an California. Damn near impossible to get a gun in those 3 places, well get a gun legally. So criminals are not afraid they kno the public can not defend themselves.

You people (Anti Gunners) Fear the Sheep Dog because we have fangs like the wolf, Claws like the wolf, but it is not in our nature to harm the sheep. Please know that. How many CCDW holders commit crimes? How many people with class 3 permits commit crimes?

A quote I heard quite a while ago but forgot about until I heard it again recently.

God made men. Smith & Wesson made men equal.

patrickaa317 wrote:A quote I heard quite a while ago but forgot about until I heard it again recently.

God made men. Smith & Wesson made men equal.

Indeed... unless you're Travyon Martin.

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:A quote I heard quite a while ago but forgot about until I heard it again recently.

God made men. Smith & Wesson made men equal.

Indeed... unless you're Travyon Martin.

Another thread for that discussion.

Truth is, Smith & Wesson don't equalize anything
in a fair fight.

oVo wrote:Truth is, Smith & Wesson don't equalize anything
in a fair fight.

Really? Would A or B win in a fist fight? (answer is definitely A) Would A or B win in a gun fight? (noone knows)

A.


B.

Trick question! They're the same guy (note the beards).

thegreekdog wrote:Trick question! They're the same guy (note the beards).

Damn you are good! Thought I'd get someone there.

Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.

http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -prankster

A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.

Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.

Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.

Metsfanmax wrote:Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.

http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -prankster

A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.

Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.

Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.

You must operate with the premise that accidents are not a part of humanity, and that you know if this person was intoxicated or not. It's hard to demand responsibility from someone who is half into a bottle of Bacardi 750 w/ Red Bulls

And I don't think it's coincidence that days after a certain person here opined that school shootings are rare and basically warrant no policy changes

2 students shot in Philadelphia high school
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/justice/p ... -shooting/

and the one about the movie theater/texting shooting, you can just tell by looking the guy who got shot was a supreme dickhead

Well then sure, pardner, gun him down.

Metsfanmax wrote:Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.

http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -prankster

A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.

Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.

Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.

He should be held fully accountable for his recklessness. I do disagree that this is any good reason to support a ban on guns though.

Do you want to ban glass bottles after this story? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html

A second employee who told police someone broke a bottle over his head was also taken to Mass. General, Grant said.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.

http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -prankster

A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.

Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.

Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.

He should be held fully accountable for his recklessness. I do disagree that this is any good reason to support a ban on guns though.

Do you want to ban glass bottles after this story? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html

A second employee who told police someone broke a bottle over his head was also taken to Mass. General, Grant said.

I'd rather ban alcohol, but banning guns is more politically feasible.

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.

http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -prankster

A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.

Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.

Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.

He should be held fully accountable for his recklessness. I do disagree that this is any good reason to support a ban on guns though.

Do you want to ban glass bottles after this story? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html

A second employee who told police someone broke a bottle over his head was also taken to Mass. General, Grant said.

I'd rather ban alcohol, but banning guns is more politically feasible.

The two are mutually exclusive from each other so i have no idea what the intent of your reply is.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:Man, those law-abiding citizens are really responsible with their firearms.

http://www.abc27.com/story/24480398/pol ... -prankster

A 14-year-old boy was shot in the foot while he and other juveniles were ringing doorbells at Arendtsville homes as a prank early this morning, according to police.

Authorities have arrested the alleged shooter, 28-year-old Eric Lee Steinour, and have charged him with aggravated assault, simple assault and reckless endangerment, according to state police in Gettysburg.

Several juveniles were involved in the pranks at around 2 a.m. when Steinour confronted two of the youths in an alley and fired a shot from a handgun when they ran away, police said in a news release.

He should be held fully accountable for his recklessness. I do disagree that this is any good reason to support a ban on guns though.

Do you want to ban glass bottles after this story? http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... story.html

A second employee who told police someone broke a bottle over his head was also taken to Mass. General, Grant said.

I'd rather ban alcohol, but banning guns is more politically feasible.

The two are mutually exclusive from each other so i have no idea what the intent of your reply is.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In your example the accident happened in a bar, and Phatscotty implied in response to my shooting example that the guy was probably drunk. So, take away the alcohol and a lot of the stupid fights go away. Unfortunately, the last time we tried that it didn't end so well.