No mass murderer was ever deterred by a law

[Delta4Embassy]

Murder's always been illegal. Yet that has never prevented a murderer from commiting murder. So why do gun control people think passing a law banning a gun will prevent gun violence? Attempted murder and murder are already illegal. But that doesn't stop it from happening.

Mass shootings happen in Europe even with their ultra strict gun control laws. The bad guys still manage to get a hold of firearms to commit their crimes. And when your intention is to kill people do you really think they're taking any notice of a gun law? "Gee, I was gonna go shoot up my work I was fired from but it's illegal. Guess I'll do something else instead." That never happens. Yet we continue to try and calm our fears of violence by banning the tools used. It's like banning the car after a drunk driving incident. That never happens either because it wasn't the car's fault but the driver's. Yet we don't use this obvious straight-foward logic when it comes to guns. Why?

People associate guns with violence, and rightly so. That's fair enough. But a gun can also end violence as when police arrive. If you're faced with some homocidal lunatic shooting at you and you're unarmed, you call the Police. Why? Because they have guns and training to use them. Yet in fact, police training is very minimal and a civilian can get vastly superior training in less time to make themselves safer in the event of a shooting incident. But if only police and criminals have guns we're all being put in greater jeopardy. Many mass murderers have said they chose a gun-free locale over ones where people may be armed. So what do gun-free zones accomplish? And what good is a gun ban or restriction when only people who never go on shooting sprees abide by them?

It's understandable to wanna feel safe. But the only way to feel safe is if you actually are safe. Laws never prevented a crime. Sometimes the best solution to a criminal problem is to match up and answer fire. And while untrained people firing back at a bad guy can result in 'friendly fire' and even more victims, it's better to risk that than as much as declare open hunting season on families at a mall, or one's co-workers.

To the gun control people: if you believe gun bans and restrictions are how we should do things ask yourselves if you'd apply that logic on anational level and support military disarmament. If guns are the problem, and getting rid of guns is the solution, then extending that logic the US should disarm itself. Or would that seem like a problem? And if so, why isn't the notion just as ill-advised on a personal level as national? If someone starts lobbing missiles at us, or hostile navies show up and troops are coming ashore what dya wanna do about it? Lodge a protest with the UN and hope peacekeepers show up soon enough to save you, or do you want an armed response?

Patently stupid premise. Law cannot deter crime. If it were so, there would be no crime. Law merely stipulates what crime is.

Patently obvious you didn't read a word.

 

[TNHarley]

Neither was any robberies, rapes, assaults and embezzlement lol

 

[Meathead]

Murder's always been illegal. Yet that has never prevented a murderer from commiting murder. So why do gun control people think passing a law banning a gun will prevent gun violence? Attempted murder and murder are already illegal. But that doesn't stop it from happening.

Mass shootings happen in Europe even with their ultra strict gun control laws. The bad guys still manage to get a hold of firearms to commit their crimes. And when your intention is to kill people do you really think they're taking any notice of a gun law? "Gee, I was gonna go shoot up my work I was fired from but it's illegal. Guess I'll do something else instead." That never happens. Yet we continue to try and calm our fears of violence by banning the tools used. It's like banning the car after a drunk driving incident. That never happens either because it wasn't the car's fault but the driver's. Yet we don't use this obvious straight-foward logic when it comes to guns. Why?

People associate guns with violence, and rightly so. That's fair enough. But a gun can also end violence as when police arrive. If you're faced with some homocidal lunatic shooting at you and you're unarmed, you call the Police. Why? Because they have guns and training to use them. Yet in fact, police training is very minimal and a civilian can get vastly superior training in less time to make themselves safer in the event of a shooting incident. But if only police and criminals have guns we're all being put in greater jeopardy. Many mass murderers have said they chose a gun-free locale over ones where people may be armed. So what do gun-free zones accomplish? And what good is a gun ban or restriction when only people who never go on shooting sprees abide by them?

It's understandable to wanna feel safe. But the only way to feel safe is if you actually are safe. Laws never prevented a crime. Sometimes the best solution to a criminal problem is to match up and answer fire. And while untrained people firing back at a bad guy can result in 'friendly fire' and even more victims, it's better to risk that than as much as declare open hunting season on families at a mall, or one's co-workers.

To the gun control people: if you believe gun bans and restrictions are how we should do things ask yourselves if you'd apply that logic on anational level and support military disarmament. If guns are the problem, and getting rid of guns is the solution, then extending that logic the US should disarm itself. Or would that seem like a problem? And if so, why isn't the notion just as ill-advised on a personal level as national? If someone starts lobbing missiles at us, or hostile navies show up and troops are coming ashore what dya wanna do about it? Lodge a protest with the UN and hope peacekeepers show up soon enough to save you, or do you want an armed response?

Patently stupid premise. Law cannot deter crime. If it were so, there would be no crime. Law merely stipulates what crime is.

Patently obvious you didn't read a word.

I read the title. That was enough.

 

[Vandalshandle]

AZ republicans just defeated another bill by the democrats requiring background checks on all gun sales.

Arizona bill would require background checks at gun shows

There is no possible excuse for this callus indifference to the public safety.

So how many mass shootings have occurred in AZ with guns purchased at gun shows from non-dealer sellers? In other words back up your claim of "callus indifference", what would the law change?

Don't know, and don't care. If you and the republican party feel that there is no particular reason why it should be illegal to sell a firearm to someone who is insane, or a felon, it is obvious that you don't give a rat's ass about preventing shootings by these people. There is absolutely no justification for your position.

 

[Vandalshandle]

AZ republicans just defeated another bill by the democrats requiring background checks on all gun sales.

Arizona bill would require background checks at gun shows

There is no possible excuse for this callus indifference to the public safety.

Background checks are a joke. They don't have authority to check into people's mental health. They might be able to see if a criminal record pops up but criminals seem to always be able to get guns.

In Britain they banned guns. So criminals started using knives. Now Britain has banned knives.

So now criminals are using antique guns.

See post 24.

 

[PK1]

Murder's always been illegal. Yet that has never prevented a murderer from commiting murder. So why do gun control people think passing a law banning a gun will prevent gun violence? Attempted murder and murder are already illegal. But that doesn't stop it from happening.

Let's turn your argument around. You seem to think that since gun laws are ineffective, we should not have them.

Since you just argued laws against murder are ineffective, then shouldn't we do away with laws against murder, too?

Mass shootings happen in Europe even with their ultra strict gun control laws.

Nowhere near the rate they occur here. Not even close. Apples and oranges fallacy.

Most people don't commit murder and it has nothing to do with the law. I don't even like to kill insects.

---
That should be the focus; those individuals who are more likely to be anti-social and commit crimes.
These are the people that should not get their hands on guns to make their crimes easier and more severe.

I consider myself a socially responsible Libertarian. People should be free to do what they want ... Unless their behavioral pattern harms others.
.

Never though of Wiccans as Libertarians before but the Wiccan Rede goes, "If it harm none, do as you will."

---
Was not familiar with Wiccan thought. I just practice a general philosophy similar to "Think for yourself & question authority" and the "Golden Rule".
I also like the ideals in the Declaration of Independence.
.