Convince me: Assault weapons edition

alfadriver said:

Chris_V said:

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to mtn :

I make the argument that the punishment for you is enough of a deterrent. In the cases you mentioned, of the people I know you are greatly a minority. The majority of the people I know do plenty of illegal drugs and speed limits are suggesting.

The punishment becomes a deterrent if it's strong enough. Speeding punishment is basically a slap on the wrist, so it goes on unabated. Murder has a fairly strict punishment, so it's much less prevalent. But if you could legally kill someone for cutting you off in traffic or insulting you, the landscape would look considerably different, Rape has relatively harsh punishment, but judging by how badly men are behaving towards women now, making it legal would also negatively change the landscape for our wives and daughters.

My point is, getting rid of regulations/laws is not a good idea using the logic that criminals aren't obeying them anyhow. We should instead make the punishments more severe to serve as a better deterrent. Like if a kid uses their parents weapons to shoot up a school, those parents are held responsible for those murders. There would definitely be changes in how those weapons are stored and accessed, and changes in how said parents see/raise their children.

Since when?  Has the death penalty actually stopped everyone from murdering other people?  That's the ultimate "strong enough" case, and it's pretty ineffective.

It's pretty simple if you read the rest of the post. We don't murder people for insulting us or cutting us off in traffic, because the punishment is pretty harsh. but if it were legal, there'd be a lot of dead morons.... ;)

Same with rape. There are a lot of stories of men behaving badly towards women, enough to say that if it were legal, that number would rise exponentially. So yes, deterrent works OVERALL.

In reply to Chris_V :

I'm not disagreeing with your premise. However most of the people that I have known personally that do illegal things have no respect for the consequences. No matter how harsh. If the punishment was death it would be a game to not get caught doing it, it certainly wouldn't stop them from doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing to make anything legal. I just know through my life experiences that the criminals I know do not look at the law as a deterrent for anything they want to do. They all believe they'll never get caught. Hence my belief that laws are only in place for after a crime has been committed and the person is caught. 

alfadriver said:

Whereas gun deaths can't be researched with public money what so ever.  Nothing can be looked at if anyone was interested in reducing deaths via gun.  That seems really dumb to me, and it just makes me feel more that the NRA represents gun makers as opposed to gun owners- as the #1 thing they do is make sure all guns can be sold, and they also do a great job in creating a frenzy to buy guns.  Like how the 8 years President Obama was in office were some of the highest gun sales rates, ever.,  And when the current president took office, sales plummeted.  All due to the perceived fear of losing gun rights. 

 Minor correction. The CDC was never outright banned by the Dickey amendment from performing the research, it simply stated that it can't use the funds to advocate for a position on gun control.

The politicalization of the science was the main issue and that arguably had the same effect as banning the research. I can't argue that but it's different than a ban.

The omnibus bill passed earlier this year walked back a lot of the Dickey amendment. Here's NPR's interview on how to resume research with the former CDC researcher Dr. Mark Rosenberg who headed the Gun Violence task force.

Here's the interview prior to the passing of the provision in the ominbus with Dr. Seema Yasmin also formally of the CDC just after Parkland who talked about how the research could have been accomplsihed.

Okay everyone carry on civilly.

I do not commit murder because it is wrong and immoral. The fact that is also illegal doesn't have much of anything to do with it, nor does the severity of the punishment. 

T.J. said:

I do not commit murder because it is wrong and immoral. The fact that is also illegal doesn't have much of anything to do with it, nor does the severity of the punishment. 

And if it were legal and not punishable by a trip to Hell, what then? You kill pests, like bugs and animals, right?

By saying it's wrong, you acknowledge a legal punishment for it, and by saying it's immoral, you acknowledge a spiritual punishment for it. Both are deterrents, otherwise you'd have no more compulsion than you do for animals and other pests.

if the punishment for speeding was life imprisonment, would you speed?

IBTL

In reply to Chris_V :

I think you're trying to say that people that commit crime have the same morality that you do. They do not. And the punishment for getting caught is not a deterrent for those types of people. The vast majority yes, because they also have morality. These people do not.

In reply to Chris_V :

Nobody knows whether there is even a hell or not, so basing my actions on avoiding something that may not even be real would be silly. Right and wrong exist on their own. Morality exists without religion. You seem to be interjecting your own opinions and beliefs into what I wrote, so I find your first couple parts are not accurate, but I can answer your last question.

If the punishment for speeding was life imprisonment, I would move to a different country or die in the revolution trying to restore the country.

Speeding is not immoral even if it is illegal. Murder is immoral and would remain so even if it were legal.

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to Chris_V :

I think you're trying to say that people that commit crime have the same morality that you do. They do not. And the punishment for getting caught is not a deterrent for those types of people. The vast majority yes, because they also have morality. These people do not.

No, I'm saying that many people do not do these things because there is a harsh punishment. Again, most of us here speed, which is technically immoral and wrong because it's against the law. How would that change if the punishment for speeding was not a fine, but life imprisonment? Simple question. Even if you would work to change the law, would you change your behavior while the law and punishment was in effect? Why? Would most people?

Another example was segregation. Most people followed those laws, even folks who didn't believe in them. Some worked to change them, and we now revere them. But the average person followed the law due to the punishment, not the morality of the law.

In reply to Chris_V :

I just asked the nearest pothead at what point would the punishment be strong enough for simple possession to get him to stop smoking weed. I asked him if it was mandatory 20 years imprisonment would he still smoke. He said " I guess if I got caught I would quit for 20 years "  I'm sure not everyone who partakes would feel the same way but it goes toward my point that for some the law is a deterrent but for the majority of criminals, again in my experience, the law simply doesn't matter. 

T.J. said:

In reply to Chris_V :

Nobody knows whether there is even a hell or not, so basing my actions on avoiding something that may not even be real would be silly. Right and wrong exist on their own. Morality exists without religion. You seem to be interjecting your own opinions and beliefs into what I wrote,

 

I never said religion. Morality is based on either societal mores, or a spiritual code (could be religious, might not be). Society making laws codifies those mores, making breaking those laws immoral in a societal framework. Therefore speeding IS immoral, as it breaks those codified mores.

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to Chris_V :

I just asked the nearest pothead at what point would the punishment be strong enough for simple possession to get him to stop smoking weed. I asked him if it was mandatory 20 years imprisonment would he still smoke. He said " I guess if I got caught I would quit for 20 years "  I'm sure not everyone who partakes would feel the same way but it goes toward my point that for some the law is a deterrent but for the majority of criminals, again in my experience, the law simply doesn't matter. 

So again, should we do without punishment for murder and rape as they aren't deterrents? What do you honestly think the societal landscape would look like in that situation? Ask your wife how she would like that? And what her thoughts are on that societal landscape if rape were legal. You might find a COMPLETELY different perspective. Ask any black man afraid of lynching NOW what they would think if murder were made legal. Ask any victim of road rage what it would be like if that were able to go out of control legally.

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

Stop with the religious/spiritual junk, answer this.

z31maniac said:

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

Stop with the religious/spiritual junk, answer this.

Seconded.

In reply to Chris_V :

I think your the only one saying anything about making those things legal. I certainly wouldn't be out there murdering, raping and road rage murdering just because it was legal. I don't know anyone that would except those that are already doing those things now even with them being illegal. Those are the people we are talking about. Not the majority of people in this country. But those things do happen every single day and will continue no matter the punishment.

z31maniac said:

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I
I'm genuinely curious. 

Stop with the religious/spiritual junk, answer this.

I don't have guns, so I'm not your target.

I also find it odd that the same people that say deterrents and laws and bans don't work are asking for the same for cell phone use in cars...

Nick Comstock said:

In reply to Chris_V :

I think your the only one saying anything about making those things legal. I certainly wouldn't be out there murdering, raping and road rage murdering just because it was legal. I don't know anyone that would except those that are already doing those things now even with them being illegal. Those are the people we are talking about. Not the majority of people in this country. But those things do happen every single day and will continue no matter the punishment.

We're talking about guns and gun control, banning vs having them legal. If banning and deterrents don't work, then why not do away with all deterrents for all laws? And what would the consequences be, since I wasn't the one that brought up that we should get rid of all laws since criminals don't follow them anyhow...

You 're basically saying we don't need any laws (gun or otherwise), since criminals don't follow them and good people don't need them. And deterrents don't work anyhow.

mtn said:

z31maniac said:

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

Stop with the religious/spiritual junk, answer this.

Seconded.

I can't answer that as I've never felt that way. I've owned a revolver once and I still own a single shot shotgun but I haven't touched it in fifteen years. I don't feel unsafe without a gun nearby. I don't think I would feel safer if I had one nearby. I have been thinking about getting my concealed carry permit and a small pistol for when I'm on the bike because I generally don't plan where I'm going and never know where I'll end up. It's not unheard of for a person to be killed for their bike. I haven't made my mind up yet. 

I will say this. On the subject of a total gun ban, I'm fine with it either way. 

z31maniac said:

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

Stop with the religious/spiritual junk, answer this.

I can't answer that question because it does not apply to me. I feel safe without a rifle and/or pistol nearby.

Nick Comstock said:

Bob the REAL oil guy. said:

In reply to Nick Comstock :

In this one, the parents weren't aware of the behavior either. The councelor could have reached out to the parents to let them know of the behavior, giving the parents the option of seeking clinical help for the kid or at the least getting the weapons in the house locked down/out of the house. There were telling behaviors before the act and could have created an opportunity for the family to help the kid out. 

I haven't followed the story closely but did the school counselors actually have conversations with this kid? If so were the parents notified? I know when I had to have a conversation with the counterco and principle due to a paper I wrote my parents certainly knew about it before I got home from school that day.

Was the kid 18 by any chance?  Because if he was 18 then the counselor wouldn't have contacted the parents, and in fact they would have been legally prevented from doing so by HIPAA regulations.

z31maniac said:

z31maniac said:

Legitimate question:

What are you guys doing that you don't feel safe without a pistol or rifle nearby? I grew up in Tulsa, look up the violent crime per capita rates, working at QTs in ROUGH neighborhoods.................like we piled up cased of beer to hide the bullet holes, or one store I worked at where a manager was taken into the cooler and beaten to death with a baseball bat. 

I was actually robbed at knife point in one of less dangerous stores. 

I'm genuinely curious. 

Stop with the religious/spiritual junk, answer this.

I primary own guns for defence against the four legged. 

Guns are tools to me, not something to be feared but something to be respected. It never hurts to have a wide variety of tools on hand.

In reply to Duke :

17. Still a minor.

As for the question posed, it's another strawman thrown out there.  I have my permit, trained and practiced because I wasa boy scout. "Always be prepared". It's also why I have insurance, fire extinguishers, a generator and at least  a weeks worth of food in the house. You hope to never need it, but its there in case. 

Also, I live rural. So we have to deal with varmints and coyotes. Best tool for the job and all. 

spitfirebill said:

red_stapler said:

DuctTape&Bondo said:

They don't affect those except the law abiding.

Why do we bother with laws in the first place if people are just going to break them anyhow?

You just boiled it down to one question.  

Except that these kinds of laws make criminals of those who are NOT guilty of any other crime, despite the fact that no party is injured.  Once violence is done, it becomes a whole different set of crimes, which absolutely no one disagrees with.

I think many of you are missing the point of the second amendment. It wasn't about hunting, or target shooting. It was about giving the people the right to protect themselves, and the number one priority was protecting themselves from their own government. Not on an individual basis, but as a whole. An armed populace is much harder for a government to abuse, especially back at our founding. No one distrusted government more that the founders themselves. Over most of the history of civilization throughout the world, power has been abused. When it was written, the average citizen could be armed as well as the average soldier. It could be argued that our country would not exist as it does today if it were not for the second amendment. 

Our founders were wise enough to realize that while times may change, human nature does not. It didn't in the last couple thousand years prior to our founding, and it hasn't since. 

Those of you who say, "we don't need guns, we have our military to protect us" are ignoring history and human nature. We live in a brief and not guaranteed period of time where most people are fat and happy. Change that, and the rules change. Those with the guns will make the rules. He average citizen is not a match for a soldier today. Not even close. But there are a lot more of them. Hence the resistance to further regulation by law abiding gun owners. So to answer the question as to why a law abiding citizen should be able to possess an "assault" weapon- because they exist and are possessed by other people.