ISideWith 2016 US President Election

[SeventhSandwich]

Never said they had to purchase one, it's just as easy for them to get one from a friend or through other methods.

I disagree. If I owned guns and my friend asked to 'borrow one' with absolutely no explanation for why, I'd be pretty damned convinced they were gonna go shoot up a school.

If someone is going to go out and kill someone, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't care about obtaining a firearm through illegal methods.

This explanation can be applied to the sale of any other potentially dangerous object. That's not what we care about. What we care about is whether enforcing a law will noticeably reduce how much that object is used for crime.

Sure, we can get rid of laws preventing people from buying huge quantities of fertilizer all at once, but they'll just get it through illegal methods, right?

I'm pretty sure that's already a requirement, at least it is in my state.

Gun regulation varies significantly state-by-state.

[Ad Bot]

[rambo1220]

I disagree. If I owned guns and my friend asked to 'borrow one' with absolutely no explanation for why, I'd be pretty damned convinced they were gonna go shoot up a school.
This explanation can be applied to the sale of any other potentially dangerous object. That's not what we care about. What we care about is whether enforcing a law will noticeably reduce how much that object is used for crime.

Sure, we can get rid of laws preventing people from buying huge quantities of fertilizer all at once, but they'll just get it through illegal methods, right?

Gun regulation varies significantly state-by-state.

Sure, you personally wouldn't comply to that, but there are definitely people out there that would, and will. No matter how many gun regulations are put up, people will still have access to firearms. It's something you really can't stop and just putting down more and more regulations would just make it worse and eventually override the 2nd amendment, which is something I like to have y'know.

And as far as I'm concerned, wasn't there a study not too long ago that showed the rate of gun related crimes/deaths in areas that had next to no regulations, and areas that did have regulations and they both exhibited the same death rate? I could be wrong, but just something that's in the back of my mind.

[Plethora]

Sure, we can get rid of laws preventing people from buying huge quantities of fertilizer all at once, but they'll just get it through illegal methods, right?

Did it stop the Boston Bomber?

[SeventhSandwich]

Sure, you personally wouldn't comply to that, but there are definitely people out there that would, and will.

For the sake of reality, I'll agree that there is at least one person in the world who would willingly loan their sketchy-ass friend firearms. But that's not even the point. Giving high-risk individuals a legal route to gun ownership makes it far easier for them to acquire guns. Depriving them of that route will naturally lower crimes of that nature.

I'm not gonna say that it's capable of making a dent in the overall percentage of deaths by gun violence in the country, but it'll save some lives. And honestly, what's the downside here that I'm supposed to bet against? A schizophrenic guy has to purchase an alarm system to protect his home instead of an AK-47? What a tragedy.

No matter how many gun regulations are put up, people will still have access to firearms.

It's something you really can't stop and just putting down more and more regulations would just make it worse and eventually override the 2nd amendment, which is something I like to have y'know.

People owning firearms isn't bad, and people owning fertilizer isn't bad either. The vast majority of people aren't opposed to letting people own guns for self-defense and entertainment, just like the vast majority of people aren't opposed to the sale of fertilizer.

If creating common sense regulations for firearms is a 'slippery slope' to a total ban on firearms, then the restrictions we've placed on fertilizer are eventually going to lead to a nationwide fertilizer ban that will deprive everyone's rights to home gardening.

Did it stop the Boston Bomber?

I'm unimpressed by the fact that you're giving me a specific case when I've already addressed why laws aren't always written with the end goal of entirely eradicating a certain type of crime.

Also, he didn't even use fertilizer IIRC

[rambo1220]

Did it stop the Boston Bomber?

guns=guns

bombs=bombs

big difference there, want to go and try to ban pressure cookers?

For the sake of reality, I'll agree that there is at least one person in the world who would willingly loan their sketchy ass friend firearms. But that's not even the point. Giving high-risk individuals a legal route to gun ownership makes it far easier for them to acquire guns. Depriving them of that route will naturally lower crimes of that nature.

I'm not gonna say that it's capable of making a dent in the overall percentage of deaths by gun violence in the country, but it'll save some lives. And honestly, what's the downside here that I'm supposed to bet against? A schizophrenic guy has to purchase an alarm system to protect his home instead of an AK-47? What a tragedy.
People owning firearms isn't bad, and people owning fertilizer isn't bad either. The vast majority of people aren't opposed to letting people own guns for self-defense and entertainment, just like the vast majority of people aren't opposed to the sale of fertilizer.

If creating common sense regulations for firearms is a 'slippery slope' to a total ban on firearms, then the restrictions we've placed on fertilizer are eventually going to lead to a nationwide fertilizer ban that will deprive everyone's rights to home gardening.
I'm unimpressed by the fact that you're giving me a specific case when I've already addressed why laws aren't always written with the end goal of entirely eradicating a certain type of crime.

Actually, those laws are already in place. In California at least they do a background check so that's good.

And when I said "people will still have access to firearms" It was in the context of psychopathic kiddos, because no matter what they'll find a way to get their hands on a gun. And yes, putting those laws in place can stop a crazed guy from purchasing a firearm, but as I said earlier, I doubt they'd have a problem trying to obtain one illegally. And it is quite a slippery slope, I mean forget I can't even have more than 10 rounds in my rifle.

and hey not the fertilizer cmon

[SeventhSandwich]

And it is quite a slippery slope, I mean forget I can't even have more than 10 rounds in my rifle.

Not a slippery slope, but that sucks.

[Plethora]

If creating common sense regulations for firearms is a 'slippery slope' to a total ban on firearms, then the restrictions we've placed on fertilizer are eventually going to lead to a nationwide fertilizer ban that will deprive everyone's rights to home gardening.

The fact of the matter is that guns are weapons and fertilizer is not.  We'd have to get a real wack job in power before that'd happen.  Same goes for pressure cookers.

Also, he didn't even use fertilizer IIRC

My point was that legislation didn't stop it.  Rational people will turn back from violent action, those sufficiently bent on violence will not, and legislation beyond what's necessary for law and order won't significantly move that threshold.

[Col. Burton]

[SeventhSandwich]

My point was that legislation didn't stop it.  Rational people will turn back from violent action, those sufficiently bent on violence will not, and legislation beyond what's necessary for law and order won't significantly move that threshold.

Legislation didn't stop that specific incident, but you're missing all the cases where it has. It's easy to get this kind of confirmation bias where you only take into consideration the most publicized instances of failure.

[Cappytaino]

Legislation didn't stop that specific incident, but you're missing all the cases where it has. It's easy to get this kind of confirmation bias where you only take into consideration the most publicized instances of failure.

Murder is illegal, doesn't stop people from killing each other. Bans may make it HARDER but in the long run, if someone wants to kill people, they'll do it, legal or not.

[SeventhSandwich]

Murder is illegal, doesn't stop people from killing each other. Bans may make it HARDER but in the long run, if someone wants to kill people, they'll do it, legal or not.

Murder rates would be substantially higher if there were no laws prohibiting it. This is pretty much axiomatic.

[Tayasaurus]

Not a slippery slope, but that sucks.

Gee i wonder what loving lead up to that level of limitation? 

[Taciturn]

84%

[Plethora]

Murder rates would be substantially higher if there were no laws prohibiting it. This is pretty much axiomatic.

So you believe that government is the real thing keeping us all from killing one another.  I'd chock that up to natural law/conscience; it's also worth noting that retribution is not completely dependent upon law (although it ought to be).  Law does not make something morally right or wrong, law may reflect it, but it doesn't define it as so, and in the end law will not affect the morality of killing or anything else except in the minds of political pawns.

[IkeTheGeneric]

uh oh........