A fallacious argument which would mean there should be no law against any criminal offences.
Today's shooting in America thread
- Thread starter Mad Eyed Screamer
- Start date
Mad Eyed Screamer
Moderator
Care to expand?
Once upon a time there were no criminal laws at all. Murder, rape and theft were commonplace.
Then a nasty Tory suggested passing a few laws. The highly moral Labour Party opposed these laws on the grounds that the bad guys would just ignore them, while the good guys did not do these acts anyway. So we passed no statute outlawing murder.
(Note: Most of this is made up, apart from the last sentence which is true.)
Think drink driving.
Shooter kills his mother, 3 others in Miami Lakes murder-suicide, source says
Miami-Dade police are investigating an apparent murder-suicide after five people were found shot dead in a home in Miami Lakes Friday morning, according to the department.
www.local10.com
Slipper One
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2022
- Messages
- 931
It's not as straightforward as that KS55, it's a huge cultural thing with guns.
I'm pro guns, in so far as having one for a means, not just to carry around everywhere I go or have them lying in drawers at home.
We have a fair number of guns in this country, but a fraction of the issues they have south of the border. All but a small number of shootings here are drug/gang related.
Unlike south of the border, we can't simply walk into Walmart, show some ID and then leave with a military grade weapon, besides, they are banned here.
For a shotgun/rifle we are required to take a day long course in the use and safety of a firearm and then if that is passed, an application is made to the RCMP who then run a check on you. If everything is good, then a licence is issued.
I need this licence before I can purchase a gun and every time I buy ammunition, I need to show my licence and what I purchase is recorded.
If I want a restricted firearm like a pistol, then I have to take a different course/test and apply for a separate licence. The use and transportation of a restricted firearm is even more strict than an unrestricted like a shotgun.
Recently our beloved leader Prince Trudeau decided to ban the sale of handguns to reduce gun violence and subsequent deaths. It's a worthless law, because all it would do is stop somebody like me purchasing a handgun, the people who use these weapons for crime don't go through the licencing/vetting process.
Their weapons are smuggled through a porous border by the thousands. If Trudeau, really, really wanted to do something about reducing the use of guns in crime, then that would be a good place to make a start. That's a statement supported by the police, as they have even said that it won't make any difference to gun crime.
If a law was put in place forcing people to hand in their guns, besides causing uproar, the bad guys, the guys that are being targeting, wouldn't comply at all. Why would they, nobody knows they have them.
They won't/can't remove guns from American life, but they could make an effort to keep them out of the hands of people who may endanger others.
They have gone too far down the road to eliminate guns, but a proper vetting/licencing system would be a start and then move on from there.
That said, I'm not sure what the response would be if they tried to make automatic rifles illegal..........pretty unsettling I suspect.
idahoblues
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2009
- Messages
- 20,236
Soft northern fairies
The issue is:
What should a government do about a moral hazard, if relevant legislation is likely to cause serious social disruption?
Not an easy question but my post was about that issue, not gun law per se.
The implication of your post is:
The answer is to do nothing because the reaction to legislation would be unsettling. Well, it’s an answer, but not one holding out much hope for innocent victims of the moral hazard.
Purely in terms of US gun law, I believe about 75% of the electorate favour legislation, even in Southern states. Should potential disruption by a minority hold the rest hostage?
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
The problem isn’t that you can’t purchase a handgun. The problem is that you think that it’s a problem if you can’t purchase one. Because you’re a “good guy.”
Until you aren’t.
And that’s what I freak out about. Those non-criminals who become mass murderers because they fool the system into thinking they’re “good guys” and obtain guns.
Those of us who aren’t armed have to trust those who are armed legally to obey the law. That’s what you ask, right? But over and over and over again, every day, that trust is broken. And the consequences are hundreds — thousands — of dead innocents.
But gunowners don’t give a fuck. Not one single fuck. As always the argument is, “Fuck it. Let’s not have a law. The bad guys won’t comply anyway.” It is literally the stupidest argument in the universe of possible arguments regarding law. ANY law.
Until gun owners demand the harshest possible sentences for gun crimes, demand the strictest possible regulations for ownership, demand the highest taxes paid on the product, demand random spot checks on licensed owners to make certain storage and carrying are done precisely with legal bounds, their perspectives on this topic are pointless.
And the reason guns deserve this special treatment is because they have no societal utility whatsoever except to deliver lethal or near-lethal force. No other consumer good should be regulated as strongly because no other consumer good has such a singular, solely destructive purpose. The “good feelings” — safety, security, protection — derive from the fundamental purpose of the good, which is to harm its target.
Anyhow, I am a believer in the fundamental right to own a weapon. I am also a believer in the fundamental power of the legislature to regulate ownership. The problem is the latter, and the core of that problem is gun owners themselves whose freedom is more important than the lives of the innocent, and who, more cynically, simply don’t want to be bothered to be part of the solution because it inconveniences them.