CDZ gun magazine bullet limits...they only effect law abiding gun owners so why do we need them.

[GaryDog]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

This is the dumbest argument EVER proffered by NRA nuts.

Fine, then, your fists are great. What's the point of a gun?

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
Why do you thin it is possible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law?
Why not just enact a law that prevent people from committing violent crime?

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken; it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law.

You don't have much imagination. We do it all the time. We have bank reporting laws on depositing large amounts of cash to impede drug dealing. The gun control laws we have are meant to prevent gun crimes. You can debate their effectiveness but not their intent.

Something about good intentions and roads to hell comes to mind

 

[GaryDog]

[
Why do you thin it is possible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law?
Why not just enact a law that prevent people from committing violent crime?

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken; it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law.

You don't have much imagination. We do it all the time. We have bank reporting laws on depositing large amounts of cash to impede drug dealing. The gun control laws we have are meant to prevent gun crimes. You can debate their effectiveness but not their intent.

Something about good intentions and roads to hell comes to mind

This is supposed to support the idea of ceasing good intentions? How many fallacies can you pack into 2 posts?

 

[Skull Pilot]

We have bank reporting laws on depositing large amounts of cash to impede drug dealing. The gun control laws we have are meant to prevent gun crimes. You can debate their effectiveness but not their intent.

And... none of these laws prevent people from doing those very things. You make my point.

Are you saying they are 0% effective?

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

It's called a murder law. Without them, we'd have a LOT more murders.

I really can't tell if you're serious. There can't be anyone this dumb who also knows how to turn on a computer or phone.

Really?

Murder has been illegal in societies for thousands of years and yet we still have murders. I don't see how you can prove any murder was actually prevented by merely passing a law

 

[Skull Pilot]

[
Why do you thin it is possible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking the law?
Why not just enact a law that prevent people from committing violent crime?

Criminal law, by its nature, is enforced after the law is broken; it is impossible to enact a law that will prevent someone from breaking the law.

You don't have much imagination. We do it all the time. We have bank reporting laws on depositing large amounts of cash to impede drug dealing. The gun control laws we have are meant to prevent gun crimes. You can debate their effectiveness but not their intent.

Something about good intentions and roads to hell comes to mind

This is supposed to support the idea of ceasing good intentions? How many fallacies can you pack into 2 posts?

You mean by ceasing passing the feel good gun laws that will do nothing to stop criminals from using guns?

Well it seems we agree

 

[alang1216]

[QUOTE="alang1216, post: 15049143, member: 49658
Actually you can and should have a test in some cases. The "right of the people peaceably to assemble" is usually restricted for reasons of public safety. In order to hold a large rally you must first prove you can provide for sanitation and security of the assemblage.

Non-sequtur. Competency tests and time/place/manner permits are not related.[/QUOTE]
I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

 

[alang1216]

Wait.. you think "the problem" can be completely solved?

Not sure where you got that from but so long as we're human there will likely be crime.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

This is the dumbest argument EVER proffered by NRA nuts.

Fine, then, your fists are great. What's the point of a gun?

If someone's fists are better than yours what do you do?

It's called disparity of force look it up

And once again the point of my post sailed over your blunt little intellect.

A gun as compared to a virus simply because it can kill
So if anything an be compared to a virus simply because it can kill the analogy is useless

Like you

 

[M14 Shooter]

2015 was over 12,000 homicides and unintentional shootings.

Neither FBI nor CDC numbers extend to 2015.
In 2014, the FBI reported 8124 gun-related murders; the CDC reported 586 gun related accidental deaths.
Thus, your numbers must be fabricated. What a surprise.
Have any more mindless nonsense you'd like to share?

I provided the source for my numbers.

Yes. And I explained why they are fabricated.
But, keep the mindless nonsense coming.

No you didn't. You asserted they were fabricated because 2014 was different. Guess what, 2015 is a different year.

Yes.. and you believe thee was a 37% jump from 2014 to 2015.
More mindless nonsense.

 

[GaryDog]

We have bank reporting laws on depositing large amounts of cash to impede drug dealing. The gun control laws we have are meant to prevent gun crimes. You can debate their effectiveness but not their intent.

And... none of these laws prevent people from doing those very things. You make my point.

Are you saying they are 0% effective?

My position is obvious:
Laws cannot prevent actions; a law cannot prevent someone from breaking another law.
Enacting a law that restricts the tights of the law abiding based on the false premise that a law can prevent someone from breaking another law is, at best, nonsensical.

You believe I am wrong?
Why don't you propose a law that will prevent people form committing murder?
Do that and we won't need more gun control.

It's called a murder law. Without them, we'd have a LOT more murders.

I really can't tell if you're serious. There can't be anyone this dumb who also knows how to turn on a computer or phone.

Really?

Murder has been illegal in societies for thousands of years and yet we still have murders. I don't see how you can prove any murder was actually prevented by merely passing a law

Wow.

Please just stop.

 

[alang1216]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

Only until you get to the point. You're saying a gun is analogous to many dangerous things. True, but that hardly negates my analogy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Welcome to a free society.

If you think about it, "free society" is an oxymoron since society restricts what you're allowed to say and do.

When your action hams someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, sure.
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm does neither of these things

Now then, you your point about not bein able to tell the good guys from the bad...
Maybe we should tattoo an 6" "F" on the forehead of convicted felons - make it very easy to tell the difference.
How does that sound?

 

[GaryDog]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

This is the dumbest argument EVER proffered by NRA nuts.

Fine, then, your fists are great. What's the point of a gun?

If someone's fists are better than yours what do you do?

It's called disparity of force look it up

And once again the point of my post sailed over our blunt little intellect.

A gun as compared to a virus simply because it can kill
So if anything an be compared to a virus simply because it can kill the analogy is useless

Like you

Almost nothing in this post made any sense, much less bothered to address the fallacy I identified in my post.

If gun laws are unnecessary because anything can kill, then we should also freely allow all rogue nations to acquire nukes. Your logic is flawed. I can keep explaining it to you if you want, but you're holding up the rest of the class.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

What percentage of people who pass every background check to get a CCW permit will all of a sudden turn to a life of crime murder and mayhem?

I'm saying it's such a small percentage as to be statistically irrelevant.

What percentage of people with criminal records will continue to live lives of crime?

A hell of a lot more so focus your efforts there

 

[GaryDog]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

What percentage of people who pass every background check to get a CCW permit will all of a sudden turn to a life of crime murder and mayhem?

I'm saying it's such a small percentage as to be statistically irrelevant.

What percentage of people with criminal records will continue to live lives of crime?

A hell of a lot more so focus your efforts there

Red herring fallacy.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Sorry but a gun and a virus are not analogous at all

They can both kill

A hammer can kill
A fist can kill
A baseball bat can kill

need I go on?

This is the dumbest argument EVER proffered by NRA nuts.

Fine, then, your fists are great. What's the point of a gun?

If someone's fists are better than yours what do you do?

It's called disparity of force look it up

And once again the point of my post sailed over our blunt little intellect.

A gun as compared to a virus simply because it can kill
So if anything an be compared to a virus simply because it can kill the analogy is useless

Like you

Almost nothing in this post made any sense, much less bothered to address the fallacy I identified in my post.

If gun laws are unnecessary because anything can kill, then we should also freely allow all rogue nations to acquire nukes. Your logic is flawed. I can keep explaining it to you if you want, but you're holding up the rest of the class.

Saying that there is a fallacy and identifying a fallcy are 2 different things but since you can't seem to figure out the metrics of a simple study I'm not surprised you don't understand

 

[alang1216]

Something about good intentions and roads to hell comes to mind

I still think I'd prefer people with good intentions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Stop focusing on law abiding gun Owners and focus on the actual problem.....criminals who use guns for crime......

There are repeat offenders for sure and I agree with you that they require tough measures. Unfortunately it's hard to tell the good guys from the future bad guys until it is too late.

What percentage of people who pass every background check to get a CCW permit will all of a sudden turn to a life of crime murder and mayhem?

I'm saying it's such a small percentage as to be statistically irrelevant.

What percentage of people with criminal records will continue to live lives of crime?

A hell of a lot more so focus your efforts there

Red herring fallacy.

WHat's the red herring?

The criminals or the law abiding people?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Something about good intentions and roads to hell comes to mind

I still think I'd prefer people with good intentions.

Until they try to tell you how to live your life all the time right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I gave an example of a "right" which requires a prior test (safety) before it can exercised.

No, you tried to create a false equivalence, probably because you know you have nothing else.
Time/place/manner permits are in no way competency tests, especially the oral/written tests you referred to.

And, I see you quickly gave up the court cases you cited. Smart of you.