Good police work vs. gun control-- The former is the winner here.

[OHCHUTE 0]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57583019/fbi-raid-of-mobile-home-disrupted-terror-attack-in-minn/

Placing further gun control on the law abiding citrizen would have had zero effect on this case. Good police work was most effective.

[skinnay 0]

well since the murder laws weren't going to stop him either we should do away with those also

[Andy9o8 0]

The only thing the homicide laws do is turn law-abiding citizens into criminals just because they happen to kill someone.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

well since the murder laws weren't going to stop him either we should do away with those also

Do you understand the difference between prior restraint and punishing the actual bad act?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The only thing the homicide laws do is turn law-abiding citizens into criminals just because they happen to kill someone.

Not really. Plenty of folks kill people and aren't tried or convicted of murder. They committed homicide, but not every homicide is a criminal act.

Booyah, lawyered the lawyer.

Seriously though, if punishing the bad act isn't enough, where do you stop with criminalizing otherwise undamaging conduct in an effort to prevent the bad act?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,426]

>Plenty of folks kill people and aren't tried or convicted of murder.

Exactly. Criminals don't obey laws against murder - so why have them? They just restrict what law abiding people do.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Plenty of folks kill people and aren't tried or convicted of murder.

Exactly. Criminals don't obey laws against murder - so why have them? They just restrict what law abiding people do.

See, I see it differently.

1 - Keep the law against murder.

2 - Charge a Fee for a permit to murder.

3 - Since lawbreakers will murder regardless of there being a law, just think how much money we could collect by requiring them to pay for a permit. That money can be used for education. Or free abortions. Or meals on wheels. Or whatever we think is cool right now.

4 - Alternately, we could discourage murder by increasing the cost of the permit up to the point that the lawbreakers can't afford to murder.

However, if the cost is too prohibitive, then only the rich can afford the permit. Since that's unfair, we could possibly start a fund to subsidize permits for the very poor. Maybe a tax on clothes, or a bonding bill.

Edit: nooo, I rethought that. just subsidizing the permits for the poor makes no sense. That money really should just go into the general fund. We might need a tax increase to support that. It's pretty obvious, at least for those that don't hate children.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Exactly. Criminals don't obey laws against murder - so why have them? They just restrict what law abiding people do.

Really?


I'll bite...

How?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

The only thing the homicide laws do is turn law-abiding citizens into criminals just because they happen to kill someone.

There is a hell of a difference between outlawing an action, and outlawing a possession.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>Plenty of folks kill people and aren't tried or convicted of murder.

Exactly. Criminals don't obey laws against murder - so why have them? They just restrict what law abiding people do.

Way to leave out the next sentence. I was messing with Andy because he implied every homicide is a crime, when that's not true. Self defense, police protecting victims from imminent deadly force, soldiers in war, etc.

Quote

Not really. Plenty of folks kill people and aren't tried or convicted of murder. They committed homicide, but not every homicide is a criminal act.

Now, care to address the issue of laws against bad acts with those using prior restraint to attempt to prevent bad acts? I think we all agree murder is wrong and should be a crime. But is gun ownership in and of itself bad? That's not the case gun control types make. They always say they want to prevent murder and mayhem. They don't say gun ownership is bad. They specifically say they respect gun rights. They say they don't want to ban guns.

Edited for clarity

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

They always say they want to prevent murder.

..and mayhem. Clarity, please.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Now, care to address the issue of laws against bad acts with those using prior restraint to attempt to prevent bad acts?

I understand your argument, but then why is DWI illegal? Even more to the point, why are drugs in general illegal? Why is the government banning the object (the joint, the pill, etc.) instead of only punishing the criminal acts caused by the irresponsible use of the object?

- Dan G

[Hooknswoop 19]

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

[champu 1]

Quote

well since the murder laws weren't going to stop him either we should do away with those also

The OP is consistently one of the worst-presented arguments against additional firearms laws, but buried in there is a worthwhile point.

Assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, armed robbery, manslaughter, murder, etc... these are all bad things that we all agree we don't want to happen, so we have laws to codify them as bad things and to allow them to be prosecuted should they occur.

The first wave of firearms regulations are things like mandating safety courses, background checks/licensing, and storage requirements. Here, already, it's important to note that simply owning a gun without having taken a safety course, selling someone a firearm without a background check, or storing a firearm in an insecure fashion are NOT inherently bad things that we all agree we don't want to happen. These are indirect laws that are made because the person owning the gun might not know how to handle it safely, the person the gun is being sold to might be a felon or mentally ill, and because the firearm might be accessed by a child or stolen to use in another crime. In other words, one of the above agreed-upon bad things might happen as a result of someone breaking the firearm regulation. So it's entirely possible to break a firearm regulation, and yet not actually have done anything that a reasonable person would care about you having done. That does not render this type of law fundamentally useless (see: DUI laws), and should not be used as an argument that such laws cannot be reasonably implemented, but it does mean you can pave a road to hell with good intentions.

The second wave are things like the assault weapon bans, bans on magazine sizes, and the NFA. These laws are basically saying, "Well, we've made the actions that we really care about illegal, and we've got some regulations in place on behaviors that might lead to these actions, but lets assume that won't work, and try to limit what might happen if a failure of regulations leads to the actions we don't want." I think this is getting into territory where it's really easy to get off course. It's very easy to find oneself banning items or technologies that are absurdly simple or that have such wide availability that you only affect people who weren't going to do anything a reasonable person would care about anyway AND you don't substantially slow down people on their way to do bad things. I think the DMCA is a good comparative example from another area where people didn't really bother to understand what they were trying to legislate.

The third wave is my personal favorite, and that involves people going after the ways in which people try to comply with the second wave. This involves attempting to ban things like bullet buttons / mag locks or magazines that appear to hold more than 10 rounds even if they don't. It's sort of indirectly acknowledging the stupidity of the second wave.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, care to address the issue of laws against bad acts with those using prior restraint to attempt to prevent bad acts?

I understand your argument, but then why is DWI illegal? Even more to the point, why are drugs in general illegal? Why is the government banning the object (the joint, the pill, etc.) instead of only punishing the criminal acts caused by the irresponsible use of the object?

I personally think drug prohibition is bad policy. I wouldn't "legalize" drugs, but I'd decriminalize a good portion of them. DWI is a different case, though. Driving on public streets and highways is an inherently dangerous activity. Being impaired by alcohol or other drugs makes a person incapable of avoiding or mitigating that danger when it occurs, leading to death, injury, and damage. I don't care if you drink, but don't get hammered and then get behind the wheel.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[DanG 1]

Quote

Driving on public streets and highways is an inherently dangerous activity.

No its not. And I think you'd have a hard time arguing that in a court of law.

Quote

Being impaired by alcohol or other drugs makes a person incapable of avoiding or mitigating that danger when it occurs, leading to death, injury, and damage.

You're still assuming that bad things will happen before they do. Aren't you one of the people mocking Kallend for his future-crime machine?

Quote

I don't care if you drink, but don't get hammered and then get behind the wheel.

Obviously, but we're talking about the law, not common sense.

- Dan G

[SkyDekker 1,141]

Quote

Driving on public streets and highways is an inherently dangerous activity. Being impaired by alcohol or other drugs makes a person incapable of avoiding or mitigating that danger when it occurs, leading to death, injury, and damage. I don't care if you drink, but don't get hammered and then get behind the wheel.

When it occurs? So you are punishing people for something that may happen, or at least for increasing the odds of something potentially happening.

Another one is open container laws, drinking while driving etc.

Sounds like you are trying to suck and blow while being half pregnant.

[Andy9o8 0]

he he he, skydekker called u half-pregnant.

[linebckr83 3]

DanG

Quote

Driving on public streets and highways is an inherently dangerous activity.

No its not. And I think you'd have a hard time arguing that in a court of law.

What about drinking and driving on public streets and highways? I'd say that is an inherently dangerous activity, not just to yourself but others. That's why it's illegal.

Owning a gun isn't a dangerous activity. What a select few people decide to do with it, well that's a different story. Same goes for cars and alcohol. We aren't going to ban them just because some people choose to be idiots and use them to kill other people.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[DanG 1]

Quote

What about drinking and driving on public streets and highways? I'd say that is an inherently dangerous activity, not just to yourself but others. That's why it's illegal.

OK, good point. Then what about drugs? Why should they be illegal?

- Dan G

[linebckr83 3]

Personally, I think it's a joke how much money is spent on drug enforcement. If you want to get high in your house, I think you should be able to. They don't care if you get drunk, what's the difference? You can hurt yourself with either one. I'm sure there are valid reasons, but I just don't understand why the same rules as alcohol can't be used. I.E. minor age, no driving, no supplying minors, etc.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52