P
pnewton
Guest
Well that is inane, agreed. It is also a straw man, and is not near the grammatical equivalent of the post you quoted.
What types of "gun control" would actually be effective? What sort of "gun control" would I actually support?
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
Because to do so is to focus on the means rather than the end. I am as opposed to murder by machete as by any other means because I am opposed to murder.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, it is as grammatically wrong as the post it references.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
As a practical matter, what is wrong with that?LeafByNiggle:
Because to do so is to focus on the means rather than the end.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Protecting or perfecting the means at the expense of achieving the end is an error.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
How is gun control “at the expense of achieving the end?” For that to be true somehow gun control would have to be positively contrary to the end of stopping killings. It is not.
P
pnewton
Guest
I did not say that it was grammatically wrong, I said it was not the grammatical equivalent. But seeing your mistake in this response as well, I understand what the problem is.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, it is. Any new gun control laws that prevents the good Samaritan in Texas from owning a gun increases the number of murders. A basic problem with gun control laws is that only the law-abiding obey them; more laws and fewer good guys have guns.
“… a good guy with a [legal] gun took on a bad guy with a [illegal] gun.”
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
The best advice for posts from wannabe moderators who have nothing of substance to add is to ignore them.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Better gun control might have prevented the shooter in Texas from killing anyone in the first place. I know you think bad guys are not affected by laws because they just chose to disobey them. But they are affected despite their desire to break the law.LeafByNiggle:
Yes, it is. Any new gun control laws that prevents the good Samaritan in Texas from owning a gun increases the number of murders. A basic problem with gun control laws is that only the law-abiding obey them; more laws and fewer good guys have guns.
“… a good guy with a [legal] gun took on a bad guy with a [illegal] gun.”
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
My understanding is that the existing gun control laws should have prevented the shooter in Texas from killing anyone in the first place.
P
pnewton
Guest
My first post (#49) was my list that was a direct answer to the question in the OP. It is still there.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
but the level of violence (death by mass attack) itself was not reduced. the tool is really immaterial as the data proves.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What other way is there to address death by mass attacks than to address individually the various ways in which attacks are carried out?LeafByNiggle:
but the level of violence (death by mass attack) itself was not reduced. the tool is really immaterial as the data proves.
U
upant
Guest
it all depends on how it is written and implemented. the way some have proposed it you could not loan a relative a gun for a hunting trip without a background check. now you definitely said sales but the slope is slippery on the wording. look to new joisy for examples of pushing the law on out-of-state visitors caught up in nj’s gun issues. even though the hypocrites are quick to toss the gun charge for an easy conviction of an instate criminal.
the left should drop the whole assault rifle terminology. i think they would have less opposition. why not just call it a semi-automatic rifle and leave it at that?
i am not a fan of this but i could have a discussion on it. but the discussion is how do you make it so no one can use a large cap mag? when you read the cop reports you often see the cops unloading an extremely large amount of rounds. if they need to do this we would also. the criminal element is well armed.
O
o_mlly
Guest
So, I’ll ask the gun man who breaks into my house to show me his paperwork. And, I tell him that if it’s not in order then I don’t have to let him have my stuff. That’s the law. After his warning shot grazes my ear, I run to the closet to get my gun. Oh, I forgot. Being law-abiding, I no longer have a gun so when my cell phone call to 911 goes to the next available agent, I hope to use it as a projectile to repel him.
U
upant
Guest
retreat? another issue for discussion. i have a right to stand my ground. why should i retreat to a criminal?
mass killings remained the same 14 in the 20 years before the ban and 14 in the 20 years after the ban but yes the after were by other tools.
not with a thriving black market. the option is still there and with the flow of illegal substances not all that difficult to purchase. cigarettes are a classic example. new york increased the tax on cigarettes and the black market sale of them increased. eric garner died over them.
14,000 laws on the books haven’t done it yet. what is the magic law that will do it?
therein lies the problem we often stop at the gun. why didn’t the aussies address the rest of the tools used? we need to address the root causes and not just the tools
P
pnewton
Guest
That is why I went past the comma where you cut that post off.
How much is too much? That is always the question. Police have a different job than just immediate defense and escape. They go toward incidents, not away from them. Even then the number of shots that do not bring down a thread are the number of shots that can cause collateral damage.
U
upant
Guest
not every state requires a duty to retreat.
in the free states, you have a right to stand your ground anywhere you have a legal right to be.
.
P
pnewton
Guest
So what? If a little damaged pride can keep you alive, then it is a wise strategy, whether one is legally compelled to retreat or not. No one should carry a gun if they ignorant of every option but that one.
- Status