Author Topic: Guy who gunned down several people in California posted this video beforehand.  (Read 10699 times)

whats the difference between ForeverAlone and Riddler?

Exactly, that's why "punish murderers" doesn't work, because there will always be people that murder others
Exactly, that's why "ban these certain drugs" doesn't work, because there will always be means by which people will get those banned drugs.
Your argument contains several fallacies.

First of all, the "take away the guns" method is a matter of averting disasters via prevention methods.

Your implication that the same logic must apply for "punishing murderers" is flawed, because that deals with what you do once the crime has been committed, not how to prevent it in the first place.

The logic behind "banning guns" is to prevent gun-related crimes by limiting access to firearms in the hopes that people with harmful intentions won't shoot up places, but the critical flaw behind that kind of law is the fact that black markets will always exist and continue to offer weapons, and the people with truly harmful intentions will seek them out, and go to rampage on populations of unarmed law-abiding citizens. If law-abiding citizens are armed, then any attempted assault by a madman with a gun is easily extinguished by other armed citizens.

I do see the validity of your comparison of banning drugs to banning guns, however, and I think it's worth a look.
Regardless of whether or not there are drug or gun laws, wicked people will always manage to access both guns and drugs one way or another. It's then a matter of how you prevent an ensuing disaster that comes once the wicked person has the guns or drugs in their possession.
Laws that ban dangerous and addictive substances and regulate useful prescription drugs are good because they prepare society against potential drug-related disasters.
Laws that permit average citizens to arm themselves are good because they prepare society and families against potential gun-related disasters.

With many drug laws, families that want nothing to do with these harmful substances are more easily protected, while without these drug laws, they have to go through society surrounded by narcotic and addictive substances. Their children are easily enticed by the promise of a good time with a joint of weed and end up in a self-destructive cycle of addiction.
With many gun laws, families that want nothing to do with gun-related crime are unable to sufficiently protect themselves.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2014, 12:35:50 PM by Planr »

whats the difference between ForeverAlone and Riddler?
Riddler was more successful and had a wife/girlfriend

whats the difference between ForeverAlone and Riddler?
godwin's law is ridiculously accurate

what's the difference between ForeverAlone and an egg?

an egg gets laid before it cracks
This is the best thing

Video is down

Damn, every video on this site I wanna see gets taken down!

what's the difference between ForeverAlone and an egg?

an egg gets laid before it cracks
god damn it Jairo you win again

I do see the validity of your comparison of banning drugs to banning guns, however, and I think it's worth a look.
Regardless of whether or not there are drug or gun laws, wicked people will always manage to access both guns and drugs one way or another. It's then a matter of how you prevent an ensuing disaster that comes once the wicked person has the guns or drugs in their possession.
Laws that ban dangerous and addictive substances and regulate useful prescription drugs are good because they prepare society against potential drug-related disasters.
Laws that permit average citizens to arm themselves are good because they prepare society and families against potential gun-related disasters.

With many drug laws, families that want nothing to do with these harmful substances are more easily protected, while without these drug laws, they have to go through society surrounded by narcotic and addictive substances. Their children are easily enticed by the promise of a good time with a joint of weed and end up in a self-destructive cycle of addiction.
With many gun laws, families that want nothing to do with gun-related crime are unable to sufficiently protect themselves.
It's just easier to say "maybe we shouldn't try to ban drugs as well, the 'war on drugs' has cost millions or billions and hasn't produced any significantly positive result."

Riddler was more successful and had a wife/girlfriend
Riddler did nothing wrong

Oh and one of my friends found the video before the guy actually did it and was like "haha this guy won't do anything"

" #YesAllWomen because guys can be shirtless at practice but I can't run in a sports bra because it's 'distracting'"

fffffffforgetkool kids klubK

" #YesAllWomen because guys can be shirtless at practice but I can't run in a sports bra because it's 'distracting'"

fffffffforgetkool kids klubK
funfact: It's not against the law for a woman to be topless and shirtless in public.

also if something is legal more people will purchase/use it. if it's not legal people who aren't criminals won't buy it, and people who even have criminal intentions probably dont want to bring attention to the fact that they're breaking the law.. fun fact: if we made guns illegal, Gritty Grapnel could have been prevented a lil bit since whatever that loser's name was had access to his mother's legally purchased rifles.

" #YesAllWomen because guys can be shirtless at practice but I can't run in a sports bra because it's 'distracting'"
fffffffforgetkool kids klubK
not sure what you're trying to say??

also if something is legal more people will purchase/use it. if it's not legal people who aren't criminals won't buy it, and people who even have criminal intentions probably dont want to bring attention to the fact that they're breaking the law.. fun fact: if we made guns illegal, Gritty Grapnel could have been prevented a lil bit since whatever that loser's name was had access to his mother's legally purchased rifles.
Are you trying to say that we should ban guns, but don't ban guns?