Shooting at Connecticut Elementary School

You said (more or less) that whether it is possible to enforce a law shouldn't affect whether it's a good law to have or not. And that's wrong.
 
Sheepo said:
You said (more or less) that whether it is possible to enforce a law shouldn't affect whether it's a good law to have or not. And that's wrong.
Click to expand...
No. I was saying that just because a law can be broken doesn't render it ineffective and pointless. There are plenty of other factors which can have that affect on the law but saying "some people will break it" isn't really one of them. Of course people break laws. Every law can be broken.
 
My thoughts on gun control basically boil down to how stupid it is that its easier to get a gun license than get a driver's license. And getting a driver's license is way to ****ing easy. I'm fine with guns being easily obtainable for licensed owners, but getting those licenses should require training, and safe-use tests just like driving does, AND you should have to repeat these tests and training every couple of years to renew the license (which I think should be the case for driver's licenses as well).
 
Stylo said:
No. I was saying that just because a law can be broken doesn't render it ineffective and pointless. There are plenty of other factors which can have that affect on the law but saying "some people will break it" isn't really one of them. Of course people break laws. Every law can be broken.
Click to expand...
I know I said I would stop at my last post but you aren't taking into account that these are ownership prohibition laws and not something like rape where you actually partake in an act to achieve it. In the case of gun control, someone could be breaking the law unknowingly just by having guns and not keeping up with the news or their mail.
Trying to prevent something that is already happening and trying to prevent something that hasn't happened yet are two different types of law that don't apply to what you have said here.
 
Stylo said:
No. I was saying that just because a law can be broken doesn't render it ineffective and pointless. There are plenty of other factors which can have that affect on the law but saying "some people will break it" isn't really one of them. Of course people break laws. Every law can be broken.
Click to expand...
I'm not accusing you of saying anything else. You pretty much said and are saying that enforcement isn't an issue to be concerned with whatsoever when making a law. It's not an "Is it possible to break" issue, it's "How much will it be broken" issue. In the case of an instant gun ban the answer would be: "Immediately and all the time and completely and hey a few people are going to jail for no reason and it's not convincing anyone else to stop so um yeah why did we make this law again?" Do I think America would be better if guns didn't exist? Yes. Would I ever pass such a law? No. Because it couldn't be enforced. The fact that people will break it matters.
 
Sheepo said:
I'm not accusing you of saying anything else. You pretty much said and are saying that enforcement isn't an issue to be concerned with whatsoever when making a law. It's not an "Is it possible to break" issue, it's "How much will it be broken" issue. In the case of an instant gun ban the answer would be: "Immediately and all the time and completely and hey a few people are going to jail for no reason and it's not convincing anyone else to stop so um yeah why did we make this law again?" Do I think America would be better if guns didn't exist? Yes. Would I ever pass such a law? No. Because it couldn't be enforced. The fact that people will break it matters.
Click to expand...

Stylo said:
America is already full of guns and gun owners, thus there would be great difficulty in seeing positive results from changing the law at this point.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
I know you've stated and restated that point, I was just using a gun ban as an example. Obviously whether a law would actually be followed, enforced, or accomplish anything is an important factor to consider when making it. I don't know why you can't grasp the general concept as I say it when you can clearly understand a concrete example of it.
 
Yeah, I was just picking at the black and white base statement that laws broken equate to laws ineffective because clearly it's not as simple as that.
 
lol there's no way in hell I'd send my kids to a school where the teachers are armed. this is how insane the gun culture is in the US that this is actually a solution some people are endorsing. surprise surprise that the suggestion comes from a gun advocate
 
I like how he managed to fit a comparison to manicures into a post about gun control.
 
Gun licenses aren't the answer to the problem, anyway. People acting illegally aren't going to be stopped by being unlicensed.
 
Rampages like this wont be stopped, no. But the thousands of accidental deaths would be, and stolen guns would be less prevalent. If you actually had to take any safety training whatsoever to get one, people would be less inclined to just leave them about.
 
MuToiD_MaN said:
Gun licenses aren't the answer to the problem, anyway. People acting illegally aren't going to be stopped by being unlicensed.
Click to expand...


you're right however it WILL cut down on the number of people who own firearms. in canada you cant own a gun without a license and the US has more school shootings in a typical year than all of canada since 1902
 
Well, you need to be trained and pass a test to drive a car, which can be perfectly safe in the right hands and extremely dangerous in the wrong ones. Just like a gun. It's a point.
 
NRA blames video games for school shootings

In its first public comment since the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the National Rifle Association (NRA) today assigned some of the blame for mass shootings on violent video games.
"There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people," Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president, said during a press conference this morning.
That includes "vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse," LaPierre continued.
Click to expand...

pot meet ketttle, kettle meet pot

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413495,00.asp

lol pointing the finger at someone else to take off the heat? funny how to the NRA virtual guns are not ok but real ones are ok. it's no wonder the rest of the world looks upon america as if they've lost their collective minds
 
MuToiD_MaN said:
Gun licenses aren't the answer to the problem, anyway. People acting illegally aren't going to be stopped by being unlicensed.
Click to expand...

If I wanted to shoot up a school I would try to get the best gun for the job legally before I tried to steal it or find it on the black market. Yeah, it's still possible they could get it the illegal way, but maybe we should try to make it as inconvenient and difficult as possible for people to commit mass murder. Also, what Kurrrn said.
 
MuToiD_MaN said:
Gun licenses aren't the answer to the problem, anyway. People acting illegally aren't going to be stopped by being unlicensed.
Click to expand...

you miss the point of licensing; make it harder to own a gun. the more obstacles you put in front of ownership the better. not just anyone can get into a car and start driving. only licensed drivers can. licensing ensures they at least are qualified. saying criminals arent going to bother getting a license is just being intellectually dishonest as there are countless examples of people with no prior criminal record commiting crimes. the v-tech shooter comes to mind. there will always be a blackmarket for firearms but by forcing it underground you limit accessibility. it's worked well in canada and in other countries
 
What's wrong with teachers having Tazers? They're 99.9% non lethal plus it would make everyone feel a bit safer. Also another decent idea I think would be take some unemployed experienced veterans the chance to protect our children. Retrain them for civilian protection (mainly the National Guard veterans would be ideal here) and the unemployment rate wouldn't be so bad. If we can "afford" to bail out the banks by the trillions I'm pretty sure we can afford to beef up our security around our schools and unprotected institutions.
 
Tazers can be lethal if used improperly, training teachers to use them properly would cost untold millions of dollars, and if I were a student I would be ****ing terrified if my teacher had one.
 
A heavy couple of days for the parents with presents already bought.

Not saying that the others weren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top