A liberal against gun control - Page 5

7960 · 04-10-2008, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

See what I'm getting at yet?

I've known what you're saying each time you've said it. I disagree with it.

As long as we're going to allow intent into any discussion about laws, then having a gun in your pocket when you commit a felony showed your intent differently than having one at home.

thewise1 · 04-10-2008, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I've known what you're saying each time you've said it. I disagree with it.

As long as we're going to allow intent into any discussion about laws, then having a gun in your pocket when you commit a felony showed your intent differently than having one at home.

That's where we disagree. I don't believe it's right to convict someone for intent without action, because up until they take the action, they have the ability to make the right choice.

It may be current law, so don't bother appealing to that if that's your next move. I get it. I just don't think it's right.

kinggovernor · 04-10-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I know it's illegal- that's why I'm saying it doesn't make sense.

Think outside the box with me for a moment, if you will.

WHY is it illegal? The end result is the same. A crime is committed. If a robbery is committed, and the gun isn't fired, then only a robbery was committed. If it IS fired, then a murder was committed.

You guys argue about what MIGHT happen because he has a gun. But I MIGHT load up my guns and go on a shooting spree, yet we don't convict me of what MIGHT happen.

See what I'm getting at yet?

edit- I said if it's fired a murder is committed, but I meant if it's fired and someone is killed, of course

going along with the robbery example:
if an unarmed person tries to rob me, I am not just going to hand over my wallet. I am probably going to kick his teeth in.

if a person with a gun tries to rob me, I am going to hand over my wallet.

the usage of the gun ensures a higher succuess rate of the crime, in the criminal's perspective.

7960 · 04-10-2008, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

That's where we disagree. I don't believe it's right to convict someone for intent without action, ...

I think I started a thread on this before......there's a big gray area around what to do about intent without action. If I drive to your house with a gun and get of my car with my gun and walk toward your door while loading my gun, can police arrest me?

Nobody has any idea what my intent was, and my action was just walking up the walkway. So then people start to guess...."but he had a loaded gun in his hand while walking toward the front door!" What was my intent? Is trespassing the only thing I could be arrested for? Really that's all I've done.

Now we've got to start figuring out what to do with the guy who carries a gun into a bank while he's robbing it. Does it show any other intent? We can only guess what he'd do with the gun he brought if the guard tries to stop the robbery.

WickedLou9 · 04-10-2008, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I think I started a thread on this before......there's a big gray area around what to do about intent without action. If I drive to your house with a gun and get of my car with my gun and walk toward your door while loading my gun, can police arrest me?

Nobody has any idea what my intent was, and my action was just walking up the walkway. So then people start to guess...."but he had a loaded gun in his hand while walking toward the front door!" What was my intent? Is trespassing the only thing I could be arrested for? Really that's all I've done.

Now we've got to start figuring out what to do with the guy who carries a gun into a bank while he's robbing it. Does it show any other intent? We can only guess what he'd do with the gun he brought if the guard tries to stop the robbery.

Yes we have had this discussion already.
There are alot of problems with ignoring intent. What if someone is accidentally killed? Should we punish that person just as harshly as the person who premeditatedly murders someone?

We also have judges and juries who have to find beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of something. IF you go and arrest someone before they kill someone, it's up to a jury of your peers to determine whether you are guilty or not. It's not a perfect system but it's the best one I can think of.

thewise1 · 04-10-2008, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I think I started a thread on this before......there's a big gray area around what to do about intent without action. If I drive to your house with a gun and get of my car with my gun and walk toward your door while loading my gun, can police arrest me?

Nobody has any idea what my intent was, and my action was just walking up the walkway. So then people start to guess...."but he had a loaded gun in his hand while walking toward the front door!" What was my intent? Is trespassing the only thing I could be arrested for? Really that's all I've done.

Now we've got to start figuring out what to do with the guy who carries a gun into a bank while he's robbing it. Does it show any other intent? We can only guess what he'd do with the gun he brought if the guard tries to stop the robbery.

Can they? yes.

Should they? That's another question entirely.

7960 · 04-10-2008, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Can they? yes.

Should they? That's another question entirely.

And one that's answered correctly as far as I'm concerned.

Spideynw · 04-10-2008, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by kombayn

We're insane? You're insane. You think someone can just go out in the United States and buy 20 AK-47's? They can't.

They should be able to.

Originally Posted by kombayn

We have a very good background check system, which is why all firearms need to be legal and not regulated so the government can keep track of who are purchasing said items.

Only non-criminals submit to background checks. Background checks are just another victimless worthless crime.

thewise1 · 04-10-2008, 12:08 PM

Also, you can just go out and buy 20 AK-47s, if you've got the money for them.. I could drive over to my local gun shop and drive home with them today if I were at home. And if I had the money.

Spideynw · 04-10-2008, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Seriously, some people here need to lay off the movies...home invasion in which you think a few seconds will decide whether you kill all the bad guys or be taken over?

Seriously, how do you propose to enforce this law? Random home searches? Sounds like a stupid law to just take up paper on law books and to add extra punishment to someone whose kid was accidentally shot and is probably devastated already.

RockPusher · 04-10-2008, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Spideynw

Seriously, how do you propose to enforce this law? Random home searches? Sounds like a stupid law to just take up paper on law books and to add extra punishment to someone whose kid was accidentally shot and is probably devastated already.

It amazes me how some people expect law abiding citizens to significantly handicap their ability to defend their lives because in their own fantasy world, in home invasions, the defender always has such advanced notice that they can piss away time before defending themselves, and nobody ever has to run to or fight their way to a weapon.

Talk about watching too many movies!

There are numerous examples of people who were unable to defend themselves because of these 'safety' devices, but at least there are stories where their absence has saved lives.

What kind of a deluded and sheltered person has never heard of an event where an attacker enters a home and struggles with the occupant who then manages to get to a firearm to protect themselves.

In some idiot fantasies, someone can signal a time-out - "Okay... you have to stop stabbing and beating me for 3 seconds to allow me to unlock my pistol...... GO!". There are no rules to yield back to a defender the handicap time to unlock a firearm.

7960 · 04-10-2008, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by RockPusher

It amazes me how some people expect law abiding citizens to significantly handicap their ability to defend their lives because in their own fantasy world, in home invasions, the defender always has such advanced notice that they can piss away time before defending themselves, and nobody ever has to run to or fight their way to a weapon.

Talk about watching too many movies!

There are numerous examples of people who were unable to defend themselves because of these 'safety' devices, but at least there are stories where their absence has saved lives.

What kind of a deluded and sheltered person has never heard of an event where an attacker enters a home and struggles with the occupant who then manages to get to a firearm to protect themselves.

In some idiot fantasies, someone can signal a time-out - "Okay... you have to stop stabbing and beating me for 3 seconds to allow me to unlock my pistol...... GO!". There are no rules to yield back to a defender the handicap time to unlock a firearm.

There's this, and there's the idea that I can hear a window smash at 2am and wake up from a sound sleep, find a key, get the gun, remove the safety and load it in "3 seconds." While at the same time I'm supposed to remain totally calm so I can get that done in "3 seconds" even though my kids' rooms are over 2 seconds away from mine.

If a window smashes at 2am I want to run down the hall toward their rooms, NOT sit in my room trying to find a key, get the gun, remove the safety and load the gun.

They're basically asking me to choose between my kids and my gun, so I'd like an answer from the anti-gun people. Would you be ok with phones requiring a (some number of seconds) lock on them so if you hear a window smash at 2am you won't be able to dial your phone for some number of seconds? Or if that happens are you going to jump up, grab the phone, and start running to your kids' rooms while dialing?

Spideynw · 04-10-2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

going along with the robbery example:
if an unarmed person tries to rob me, I am not just going to hand over my wallet. I am probably going to kick his teeth in.

Which means he was not able to rob you. That would be considered attempted robbery.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if a person with a gun tries to rob me, I am going to hand over my wallet.

Which means it is not attempted robbery anymore. It has escalated to actual robbery. The criminal should be punished for robbery, not robbery with a gun.

A man might better be able to rob a woman because he is stronger than her, shall we punish him for "using muscles"? Your criteria is completely subjective and unneeded. The law can already punish someone for attempting to do something or actually doing it.

thewise1 · 04-10-2008, 02:30 PM

I just wish folks would realize that all activities in life involve risk. There is risk when I get on the road in the morning; There will be risk when I fly home tonight. There was risk when I grew up in a home with unlocked firearms and ammunition. There was risk growing up on a farm in general.

The fact is, the vast, VAST, majority of the time, that risk is not realized. In other words, the risk was very low on a large scale. Now yes, accidents do happen and yes, it's a tragedy when a kid dies because of a gun or something, but we don't ban travel on I-5 because of the risk (which I'm pretty confident took more lives last year than child deaths due to gunshot wounds), so don't try to ban it or control it for everyone to force diminishing returns on safety elsewhere.

Thorgrim · 04-10-2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Or we could teach our children to have an appropriate respect for them and leave them alone without an adult there. Worked great for my siblings and I.

Dad kept his arsenal in his closet all our lives, ammunition on the floor next to it. 2 or 3 pistols, about 10 rifles of varying types. I think that much like sex, it's best to take the route of full disclosure and free information instead of pretending it doesn't exist to kids.

Why do you, a non gun owner, feel you're more qualified to tell me how to store my firearms than I am?

Becuase I've handled guns in the past, and I don't fear them/dislike them but I know their danger first hand

Do you have any idea how many teens deal with depression? You think those kids are going to give a fuck about any rule they are given in such a situation?

I am sure a lot of kids can live with bowls full of painkillers and bottles of vodka lying around the floor since they were 2, but it's still dangerous

Thorgrim · 04-10-2008, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

I just wish folks would realize that all activities in life involve risk. There is risk when I get on the road in the morning; There will be risk when I fly home tonight. There was risk when I grew up in a home with unlocked firearms and ammunition. There was risk growing up on a farm in general.

The fact is, the vast, VAST, majority of the time, that risk is not realized. In other words, the risk was very low on a large scale. Now yes, accidents do happen and yes, it's a tragedy when a kid dies because of a gun or something, but we don't ban travel on I-5 because of the risk (which I'm pretty confident took more lives last year than child deaths due to gunshot wounds), so don't try to ban it or control it for everyone to force diminishing returns on safety elsewhere.

Child safety on guns would not affect the economy

Closing down all the roads would save tens of thousands of lives from car accidents but would destroy american society and the economy

How can you compare that to a law requiring trigger locks?

thewise1 · 04-10-2008, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Becuase I've handled guns in the past, and I don't fear them/dislike them but I know their danger first hand

Do you have any idea how many teens deal with depression? You think those kids are going to give a fuck about any rule they are given in such a situation?

I am sure a lot of kids can live with bowls full of painkillers and bottles of vodka lying around the floor since they were 2, but it's still dangerous

Should we remove kitchen knives, razors, and rope from homes too? Suicide of a child (or anyone, really) is obviously tragic, and I don't mean to be callous to it, but if someone wants to end their life, not having a gun isn't going to stop it, man.

If you want to solve that problem, I suggest a different approach - let's ask ourselves why kids are dealing with depression and solve that instead.

Spideynw · 04-10-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Child safety on guns would not affect the economy

Closing down all the roads would save tens of thousands of lives from car accidents but would destroy american society and the economy

How can you compare that to a law requiring trigger locks?

And child safety on guns would not affect whether or not people would actually use them. There is no way to enforce such a ludicrous law.

Thorgrim · 04-10-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Should we remove kitchen knives, razors, and rope from homes too? Suicide of a child (or anyone, really) is obviously tragic, and I don't mean to be callous to it, but if someone wants to end their life, not having a gun isn't going to stop it, man.

If you want to solve that problem, I suggest a different approach - let's ask ourselves why kids are dealing with depression and solve that instead.

I couldn't count on my hand the number of healthy people today who tried to commit suicide with a knife and failed

I never even heard of anyone who tried to commit suicide with a gun and failed

When's the last time you heard of a cooking accident with a knife where the chef died? Yet even people familiar with guns die...guns are mechanical objects with a failure rate like any other and people are not flawless

We can't even agree on giving kids vaccines that would save them from a very serious risk to cancer, yet you think we as a society can solve depression? Although this is offtopic, it's simply impossible, way too many families teach their kids and tell themselves that depression is a bunch of crock and they need to "man up" or "stop being a little girl"