But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[BlaqueKatt]

Like the US would turn into Somalia inside of a week after any new gun control law because suddenly there would be no "good guys" with guns around to turn back the tides of darkness.

the mexican drug cartels would like a word.

[Gravekeeper]

I think the main thing that annoys me about the argument is the assumption that there's this massive legion of quad dicked gang rapist pirates out there that are just barely being held at bay by armed civilians. Just waiting for their moment to strike.

Like the US would turn into Somalia inside of a week after any new gun control law because suddenly there would be no "good guys" with guns around to turn back the tides of darkness.

[Andara Bledin]

We'd probably have less resistance to education in general if the fucktards in one ring of our political circus would stop pushing anti-intellectualism as an ideal. >_<

^-.-^

[bara]

people likely wouldn't support increasing education, because many people think treating the visible symptoms of a problem is better than actually treating the underlying problem,

Right, its really nice to take some pain meds to get your back to stop hurting but the same people wont exercise or even attempt to correct the poor posture that is causing the problem to begin with.

And, god forbid teachers assign more homework or we have more demanding classrooms because that might require their parents to actually give a damn.

It wont do a lot of good to increase education until we can figure out how to get people to care enough to make sure the kids are doing homework. I am however a huge supporter of education. Just pointing out another underlying problem.

[Duelist925]

but.. red make it go fasta
/ork

why puny grots not like red! red da best.
/ork

[siead_lietrathua]

.... Re-enacting it would be the equivalent of banning red paint on cars to stop the deaths caused by drag racing.

but.. red make it go fasta
/ork

[Nekojin]

However, even if the link was proven, people likely wouldn't support increasing education...

There are a lot of reasons why certain classes of people are anti-education (they're not actually against education per se, they're against school teaching). First and foremost is the idea that the schools will "indoctrinate" and/or "brainwash" their kids - the truth is exactly the reverse, that if kids learn how to think logically, learn how to think for themselves, they'll shake off the indoctrination that their community has fostered. They want their kids to think and act the same way they do, and resent the idea that their way of behavior could somehow be viewed as wrong; they are fiercely defensive of their ideals, and often, if they're shown categorically to be wrong, they just double down on it, and assert that the facts you're using are wrong or irrelevant in some way.

Note, for example, the Romney Campaign's flat-out assertion that they weren't going to let facts get in their way. For them, what you feel to be true is more important than what can be proven.

[BlaqueKatt]

I mentioned in another thread a definite correlation between lack of education (just basic education) and violent crime. I don't know what we can do to fix our education problem, but working on that will have more substantial long-term benefits all around than just about anything else, and if it does prove that there's a causal link, the violent crime rate will also be reduced.

I can see that a link would be possible, when many opportunities are denied to you for want of education, I can see there would be anger and possibly acting on that anger, feeling that society or the government had somehow failed you.

However, even if the link was proven, people likely wouldn't support increasing education, because many people think treating the visible symptoms of a problem is better than actually treating the underlying problem, which isn't as dramatic, and doesn't "feel" like it's doing anything, especially as it would take time, and passing some random, ill thought out weapons laws is "instant gratification".

[Andara Bledin]

I agree with an earlier point made of we need to find the REAL cause of people snapping and work with that instead of going after guns.

While we do need to figure out why people snap, they really are a statistical anomaly and while their crimes are scary and terrible, there are far more endemic crime issues we should focus on first.

I mentioned in another thread a definite correlation between lack of education (just basic education) and violent crime. I don't know what we can do to fix our education problem, but working on that will have more substantial long-term benefits all around than just about anything else, and if it does prove that there's a causal link, the violent crime rate will also be reduced.

^-.-^

[insertNameHere]

the "assault weapons ban" is a perfect example of pointless laws, all it banned were cosmetic features.



this image shows different models of the same firearm-the ruger mini 14(used for coyote, rabbit, squirrel, and deer hunting), they all fire the same ammunition, at the same rate, but only the first one is legal under the "assault weapons ban", this is why it was refered to as the "scary weapons ban"-it actually only banned cosmetic features that have zero effect on the operation of the firearm. Re-enacting it would be the equivalent of banning red paint on cars to stop the deaths caused by drag racing.

Mostly true, the only thing for functionality affected was new guns couldn't be sold to regular people with over 10rd magazines.... However, there were plenty of Military surplus 30rd magazines in existence that were legal to obtain and use. at least for Ar15s the mini 14 was a little harder I believe to get 30rd mags for due to less being in existence before the ban.

The government and gangs all have high powered rifles with 30rd mags, why can't I choose to be on equal footing if I need to defend myself? I agree with an earlier point made of we need to find the REAL cause of people snapping and work with that instead of going after guns.

[BlaqueKatt]

Without diving too far into the Gun Control Debate in this thread too, re-enacting the law banning assault rifles would be a good start to fixing the problem with criminals still having guns, or at least those types. .

the "assault weapons ban" is a perfect example of pointless laws, all it banned were cosmetic features.



this image shows different models of the same firearm-the ruger mini 14(used for coyote, rabbit, squirrel, and deer hunting), they all fire the same ammunition, at the same rate, but only the first one is legal under the "assault weapons ban", this is why it was refered to as the "scary weapons ban"-it actually only banned cosmetic features that have zero effect on the operation of the firearm. Re-enacting it would be the equivalent of banning red paint on cars to stop the deaths caused by drag racing.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I'm not sure we can say, definitely, that jail time doesn't stop people from killing. It certainly doesn't stop some people from killing.

The problem I've had with people claiming "you're only punishing law abiding citizens" is that a law abiding citizen (unless provably mentally unstable) would still be able to get guns.

I'm sorry if I don't want gun-ignorant, but still law-abiding people running around with guns, just like I don't want a person who was never taught to drive a car driving around. If I had to spend hours in a classroom, and additionally more hours on the road, then take two tests before I was allowed a driver's license (one that was under restrictions until a certain age) I think gun owners could handle doing it before they get lethal weaponry.

I know that Massachusetts has these laws already in place, but Missouri doesn't. Oklahoma doesn't. Ohio doesn't. That terrifies me.

[Rageaholic]

It depends on the law.

Punishing a serial killer with life in prison is intended for justice. It makes sure that there is a price to pay for doing evil things. It may not prevent people from killing, but it makes sure those who do will be stopped.

But then you got laws that are so obviously intended to control things. Gun control isn't meant to punish people for using guns, it's meant to prevent shootings from happening. It just so happens that punishing people who use guns is the method used to prevent the shootings. Well when shootings still happen, then the only thing the law does is punish people who have guns and not necessarly the killers. Therefore, it serves no purpose.

(I don't really have that strong of an opinion on the issue of gun control, but that's what I'm getting at from those who are against it)

[bara]

Well, the majority of these mass shootings aren't known criminals. So its a moot argument isn't it?

[AmbrosiaWriter]

I think another problem in this country is that we don't place blame in the correct spot when something happens. We don't look at things objectively.

In the case of shooting sprees, my opinion is that we do need better laws, standardized laws across the country in terms of guns and ammo. We ALSO need to look into our social safety net and what the heck is wrong with our mental health care. BOTH of these things need to be addressed. However we have one side putting all the blame on mental health, the other side putting all the blame on the guns, and then those just screaming because HEY! RAWRWAJRLAISJFRABBLERABLLERABBLE PITCHFORKS.

In the case of rape, well, the blame more often than not gets put on the victim. We start teaching people how not to get raped instead of teaching people to not rape. We say that women are asking for it when they make themselves up nicely, instead of saying that man chose to force himself on her.

In almost every case, we have this tendency to try to find something neat and clean to put the blame on instead of sitting down and going, "Fixing this is going to be messy, and hard, but it's got to be fixed."