Here for those of you who want a 'civil' and 'rational debate' on gun control, page 4

reply to post by Bluesma

---

so, if not 'nature' then what ??
did government give you life ?
maybe a specific breeding law that i've never encountered ?
was it just a 'miracle' to you or what exactly ?

i do not follow that train of thought, please clarify.
do you see yourself as a product of science ?
if you believe in or exercise 'free will', where did it come from ?

Illegal means- "you did not have the right to do it."

NO, illegal means a particular act deserves punishment, period.

how you interpret punishment as removing a 'right' is beyond me.

"self-evident" = santa claus language ??
you never were serious about conversing in realistic terms were you?

what does 'god' have to do with 'self-evident' ???
animals recognize 'self-evident' without any dogma, why can't you ??

but, laws haven't even reduced drunk driving let alone prevent it.
laws have never prevented murder, what makes you think they would ?

if your 'kid' isn't of 'lawful age' to be driving the equipment, he/she and you are lawbreakers ... that's the point.
in your mind, that's ok cause no one is around for him to harm ... who cares that it would be illegal, right ?
(given the underage possibility)

crowds don't determine 'legality' either
it is no more legal to litter on the roadway than it is at a carnival.
location nor concentration of ppl make a dang difference.

also, i thought you said you had 'links' to share ??
what happened ?? couldn't find any to back up this BS ??

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Bluesma

---

so, if not 'nature' then what ??
did government give you life ?
maybe a specific breeding law that i've never encountered ?
was it just a 'miracle' to you or what exactly ?

i do not follow that train of thought, please clarify.
do you see yourself as a product of science ?
if you believe in or exercise 'free will', where did it come from ?

You can look up the actual details of conception, my posts are long enough without having to explain that to you!
The philosophical questions of existentialism and free will, I can share my perspectives on, but that goes off the topic a bit too far- in any case, having something has nothing to do with rights. I also have thumbs, that does not mean anything or anyone gave me the "right to have thumbs".

illegal means a particular act deserves punishment, period.

how you interpret punishment as removing a 'right' is beyond me

Illegal means your particular society has deemed the act unacceptable, and they have determined certain punishments to go with them. Legal means they have deemed the act to be acceptable and determined that all members must agree to strive to allow each other that act.

If there was a punishment, then that means the act was judged by the society not as legal and a right, but illegal and not a right. Simple.

"self-evident" = santa claus language ??

Okay, if you lost my reference to the paragraph just before that, I shall repeat-
using language such as "natural" "universal" "God given" (Allah given, etc....)" self-evident", "sacred" all refer to a power that is beyond man, and untouchable, unquestionable, cannot be challenged. I compared this method to that of telling children Santa brings presents.

animals recognize 'self-evident' without any dogma, why can't you ??

AH! If you want to follow my nudge and move that concept to describing "survival instinct" which we all share and so do animals, that gives us meat for discussion!!!
Social animals (which we are) have the drive to form social groupings as one way of increasing their chances of survival. Part of that working effectively is by members adhering to limits of behavior meant to protect each others lives?
An animal that lives outside a group, on it's own, has more freedom and does not have to discipline it's behavior. It also must use more energy for keeping itself alive.
You wil notice that the rules do not apply to outsiders- acts not allowed within the group are certainly allowed toward outsiders! You can kill an outsider with no punishment. Because the right and responsibility exists only within the group.

THat is why our country lays down the "right to life" and yet makes no punishment for the soldier that takes the life of a person believed to be part of a terrorist group. That right isn't considered as "universal" as you were told.

but, laws haven't even reduced drunk driving let alone prevent it. laws have never prevented murder, what makes you think they would ?

Well, now, that's just silly. Yes, the numbers of innocent deaths due to drunk driving went down with drunk driving laws. I watched here, where they made the laws stricter about ten years ago, and the numbers went down a LOT.
I did say they weren't infallible.... but if you only save a few hundred people from having their life taken against their will or choice, that is worth it.

if your 'kid' isn't of 'lawful age' to be driving the equipment, he/she and you are lawbreakers ... that's the point. in your mind, that's ok cause no one is around for him to harm ... who cares that it would be illegal, right ?

Yes, we are lawbreakers in that case. But it is just plain stupid to focus so much on the language to forget the REASON. If someone tells me, hey, there are people who go on that road of yours now, so your son driving the truck on it puts them at risk" I would make sure he didn't do it anymore. The police tolerate it because common sense is respected in this world- lawyers don't rule in this country with retoric. I know the police wouldn't tolerate it if we lived in a big city (and I recognize why!)

it is no more legal to litter on the roadway than it is at a carnival. location nor concentration of ppl make a dang difference.

It is however legal in many countries to litter on your own property. It is also tolerated in isolated areas where no one else is concerned.

also, i thought you said you had 'links' to share ??
what happened ?? couldn't find any to back up this BS ??

Oh THAT's a screwy game! I come back here to post them and read you just wrote you refuse to discuss the subject of drivers licenses with me, so I leave them out... then you say THIS?? Why not just make up your mind? You have the freedom to choose to continue that discussion or not, I will respect it either way, you just need to CHOOSE!!

Okay, putting them on the next post.....

reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

no, i stated that even with laws, neither has been reduced.

i don't generally ponder hypotheticals but i can say this ... there were less fatal incidents BEFORE the laws were enacted and enforced. (regarding drinking and driving)

as for murder, those incident have actually been decreasing since the prior AWB expired in 2008. read it for yourself here

This is going to be long, and I do not want to derail this thread... besides, I have the suspicion that you don't really want me to put up more and engage in that approach to the subject- you were just trying to be insuting and rude. But just in case that is wrong I'll start. But with just one, so we have the space to go through things one by one...

On my assertion earlier posted and challenged by you as bs-

With the industrial revolution still making its presence noticed, railroads and, more importantly, fields, began being flooded with traction-engined vehicles (aka road locomotives). To get from place to place, locomotives had to cross urban, populated ares and, despite the fact the were slow, noisy and impossible to miss, they posed quite a threat to the innocent bystanders. Or horses.

Scared by the prospects of a respectable citizen getting squashed, as well as by the prospects of hearing one of the damn things huffing and puffing in the quiet of the night, the British Parliament adopted what became know as the Locomotive on Highways Act, in 1861.

The provisions of the legislation seem somewhat hilarious now and, even some lost their significance over time. Some, however, have formed the basis for today's traffic legislation. It only stated that the vehicles' weight should be at most 12 tons and imposed a 10 mph (16km/h) speed limit. No idea how they knew a vehicle is speeding...

In 1865, the act is revised and turned into the Locomotive Act (aka Red Flag Act). It required that a motorized vehicle, regardless of its purpose, be preceded by a man carrying a red flag when traveling on the highway .

Speed limits were reduced to 4 mph (6 km/h) in non-urban areas and at 2 mph (3 km/h) in cities (still no idea how they caught speeding vehicles "in the act"). But the most important addition was the requirement to use at least three people to operate a vehicle: one to drive, a stoker, and one carrying a red flag (hence, the name) and a lantern.

The one with the flag was used for two purposes: he slowed the vehicle down, as it was forced to drive at walking speed, and warned approaching pedestrians and horse riders of their presence

www.autoevolution.com...

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

no, i stated that even with laws, neither has been reduced.

That's the same thing.

i don't generally ponder hypotheticals but i can say this ... there were less fatal incidents BEFORE the laws were enacted and enforced. (regarding drinking and driving)

And far fewer cars. That might have had something to do with it, don't you think?

In any case, I'm not sure you're right. An absolute measure is obviously worthless here. Were there fewer fatal accidents involving alcohol per 100k drivers, say, before drink driving legislation? What's your evidence for that?

as for murder, those incident have actually been decreasing since the prior AWB expired in 2008. read it for yourself here

Instances of murder have been declining, yes. But murder is still illegal. Your claim is that if murder wasn't against the law it would still have the same prevalence. Which is absurd.

Do you think, for example, that if tax avoidance was legal people would pay the same amount of tax? Or that if sexual assault carried no penalty we would see the same number of offences? For one thing, even removing the notion of deterrent, prison removes offenders from general circulation and prevents them committing the same crime, at least during their incarceration.

reply to post by Bluesma

---

please, entertain us ... contraception doesn't even need to involve human contact anymore.

having "thumbs" give you the right to use them ... no other animal has them so don't you feel special already ?

so, what do 'thumbs' have to do with 'natural' rights ??
oh yeah, the RIGHT to USE them ... silly me.

Illegal means your particular society has deemed the act unacceptable, and they have determined certain punishments to go with them

so, if the climate society ("authority") decide/legislate that i fart too much, does that remove my right to fart ??

can't you see how ridiculous your argument is ??

Legal means they have deemed the act to be acceptable and determined that all members must agree to strive to allow each other that act

so, if i rip the stinkiest fart ever, does that mean that those around me are restricted from removing themselves from the stench cause it might 'hurt my feelings' ??

and, on the above 'legal' definition ... since firearms are quite legal, why isn't everyone ELSE striving to allow each other that legal act ??

sorry, can't agree with your simplicity statement.
simply because it ignores the fact that arms are legal.

i didn't miss your dismissal but i certainly don't equate 'nature' to Santa Claus or any other 'belief'. nature is absolute, tangible and very much a part of every living thing.

i beg your pardon but nature is NOT a power that is beyond man, untouchable, unquestionable or unchallenging.
if you really believe that, it is no wonder you cannot grasp this.

Social animals (which we are) have the drive to form social groupings as one way of increasing their chances of survival. Part of that working effectively is by members adhering to limits of behavior meant to protect each others lives?

no, every social interaction culminates in one of two methods and only these two methods ... persuasion or force.

while i agree it is beneficial to adhere to limits of behavioral interaction, that is exactly why i am armed. whatever your desire, it will have to be achieved via persuasion as force is no longer an option.

also not so ... animals that are loners are much more disciplined than those who are not as their survival depends on it.
those who travel in groups or packs can and do compensate for those less able to contribute, unless the weak are so that they become prey ... at that point, they (the weak) are often exiled/ostracized as to not jeopardize the remaining group.

You can kill an outsider with no punishment. Because the right and responsibility exists only within the group

they also kill within the group for the same reasons

Yes, the numbers of innocent deaths due to drunk driving went down with drunk driving laws.

not really considering drunk driving laws have been around since 1910.
now, post 1980, after concentrated enforcement of existing laws, yes, they have ... very minimally.

i'll get to the rest later.

reply to post by Bluesma

---

Yes, we are lawbreakers in that case.

but that's ok in your view, right ??

But it is just plain stupid to focus so much on the language to forget the REASON.

so, his ability to harm himself matters not to you or what ?
and if he does get hurt because you chose to turn a blind eye, should we hold you responsible or the lack of enforcement of existing laws ?

If someone tells me, hey, there are people who go on that road of yours now, so your son driving the truck on it puts them at risk" I would make sure he didn't do it anymore.

IF you are a parent, why should anyone ELSE have to tell you to mind the laws ??

The police tolerate it because common sense is respected in this world-

no, that is called 'selective enforcement' and exactly why we have a generation of 'bullies'.

lawyers don't rule in this country with retoric.

lawyers don't 'rule' in this country anywhere, let alone with or without rhetoric

I know the police wouldn't tolerate it if we lived in a big city (and I recognize why!)

police who are actually enforcing the law, wouldn't tolerate it anywhere.
and, that's the point.

how can we control 'arms' when the biggest "illegal arms dealers" are the "lawyers" at the top of the food chain ??
Eric Holder, remember?

deflection isn't helping your argument.
littering is against the law.
tolerance = 'selective enforcement' of existing laws.

perhaps this 'selective enforcement' of existing laws is where the biggest change should originate ??

when have i 'refused' to discuss the license issue ??
i think there is mention of it in nearly every post we've exchanged.
your choice to not post info is still your choice.
so, make up your mind and proceed as you will.

reply to post by Bluesma

---

when you post a legitimate source, i'd be happy to engage you.
this bunk though ... come on, really ???
besides, what does British history have to do with the US regarding licensing ??

the first 'license' to drive was issued in Germany, for the reason previously linked.
do you really think Americans give a rats patutti how the Brits do much of anything ??
if so, you're believing way tooooo much of the propaganda goin'round.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects

yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)

semantics seldom sway any logical debate.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

no it's not.
how do you figure these two statements say the same thing?

1. you really saying that if drunk driving and murder were unpunishable by law there would be the same number of both instances?

2. no, i stated that even with laws, neither has been reduced.

#1 assumes fact not evidenced.
#2 proves the facts stated based on evidence.


not really because the laws (drunk driving) have existed pretty much since the cars have, give or take 10 yrs. and since the 1st drunk driving laws appeared in 1910, it's kinda difficult to imagine a time without them.

this topic is not about driving or driving drunk or laws about driving or driving drunk.
any chance you could stay on topic ?

murder has been 'illegal' in the US since before it was the US.
colonists were punished for acts of murder long before 1775 ... so, what's your point here ?

when did i make this claim ??

Your claim is that if murder wasn't against the law it would still have the same prevalence

link it please, otherwise you are making stuff up.

laws do not deter, prevent or restrict bad behavior ... that is and was my assertion.

laws governing and restricting firearm ownership (AWB) have done NOTHING to reduce violent crime. however, increased firearm ownership has directly influenced a steady reduction in said violent crime. this cannot be denied.

i also will suggest that when we had more firearms throughout society, we had much less crime, a much more polite society and less need for 'law enforcement'. this too cannot be denied.

huh? what do either of these have to do with firearms ??
if there were no penalty for sexual assault, it would increase exponentially. surprisingly, even without substantial convictions for said assaults, increased firearm ownership (since 2009) has reflected a decrease in such assaults.

so, are ppl less likely to commit said assault because of the 'law' or because of the 'risk' ??
and, since when is firearm ownership worthy of incarceration ?

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects

yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)

semantics seldom sway any logical debate.

It's irrelevant whether it's a defensive weapon or not. I was responding to the assertion that these are just "objects" and what matters is the person handling them.

In that sense a nuclear warhead is just an object. And logically we should all be allowed one.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects

yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)

semantics seldom sway any logical debate.

It's irrelevant whether it's a defensive weapon or not. I was responding to the assertion that these are just "objects" and what matters is the person handling them.

In that sense a nuclear warhead is just an object. And logically we should all be allowed one.

Well that's how the government thinks of it.

The U.S. government can have 5,000 Nuclear warheads, but those Iranians...no, they can't have one.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

no it's not.
how do you figure these two statements say the same thing?

1. you really saying that if drunk driving and murder were unpunishable by law there would be the same number of both instances?

2. no, i stated that even with laws, neither has been reduced.

#1 assumes fact not evidenced.
#2 proves the facts stated based on evidence.

If something has not been reduced then it remains the same in number. Both statements are logically identical.

this topic is not about driving or driving drunk or laws about driving or driving drunk.
any chance you could stay on topic ?

It's an analogy. One that you seemed quite happy to run with until it stopped aiding your argument.

murder has been 'illegal' in the US since before it was the US.
colonists were punished for acts of murder long before 1775 ... so, what's your point here ?

My point is to take issue with your extraordinary idea that laws don't circumscribe behaviour at all.

when did i make this claim ??

Your claim is that if murder wasn't against the law it would still have the same prevalence

link it please, otherwise you are making stuff up.

Okay, I'll link to it.

Wait - I don't have to. You say it in your very next sentence.

laws do not deter, prevent or restrict bad behavior ... that is and was my assertion.

If laws don't deter, prevent or restrict behaviour then that behaviour must have the same prevalence as in a case where no law existed to punish it.

laws governing and restricting firearm ownership (AWB) have done NOTHING to reduce violent crime. however, increased firearm ownership has directly influenced a steady reduction in said violent crime. this cannot be denied.

Both of these assertions can and have been denied. Still, I'm not that concerned with them. They have little to do with what we're discussing.

i also will suggest that when we had more firearms throughout society, we had much less crime, a much more polite society and less need for 'law enforcement'. this too cannot be denied.

When were there more firearms throughout society?

huh? what do either of these have to do with firearms ??

Nothing particularly, Although i note you immediately try to make the astounding argument that only firearm ownership deters crime.

if there were no penalty for sexual assault, it would increase exponentially.

Really? But above you said that laws don't deter criminals at all. So which is it? Unless you're going to make an absurd semantic argument that the law can be separated from the penalty then I just can't see where your logic has fled to.

surprisingly, even without substantial convictions for said assaults, increased firearm ownership (since 2009) has reflected a decrease in such assaults.

so, are ppl less likely to commit said assault because of the 'law' or because of the 'risk' ??
and, since when is firearm ownership worthy of incarceration ?

So in order to deter any crime we must have more guns? Laws are useless, guns are not.

I find it difficult to see how you'll prevent, say, fraud with gun ownership. But by all means have a go.

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

---

But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects

yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)

semantics seldom sway any logical debate.

It's irrelevant whether it's a defensive weapon or not. I was responding to the assertion that these are just "objects" and what matters is the person handling them.

In that sense a nuclear warhead is just an object. And logically we should all be allowed one.

Well that's how the government thinks of it.

The U.S. government can have 5,000 Nuclear warheads, but those Iranians...no, they can't have one.

Yes. Because they recognise the dangers posed by a nuclear-enabled Iran. They have weighed up the risk of allowing an unstable actor to own such a thing and concluded that, even though it's just an "object", they would rather not let them have control of one.

This is done all the time. You may disagree with the decisions, but the notion that all things are just "inanimate" and therefore anyone can own anything, is juvenile.

Criminal attacks stopped by guns this year:
377225

Gun defenses since January 1, 2013.
Date and Time Now: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:29:35 PM

This about sums it up, good read and a National Institute of Justice PDF to go with it.

Link

UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags

Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags

Update...Canada Couple Wins Right To Grow Vegetables On Front Lawn...Case Closed!
  Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags

We argue about Healthcare, meanwhile, the Elephant laughs (pls read!)
  Posted 13 days ago with 25 member flags

A new country in North America? What do Canadians and Americans make of this?
  Posted 9 days ago with 22 member flags

" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags

Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags

Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: