The arbitration system we have has much more to do with the murder rate than firearms. If you only criminalize coercive acts and legalize all voluntary acts the crime rate would go down as much as is humanly possible.
Most bad guys have guns that were legal at one point of time and were smuggled from states with low gun control. The black market would die if we had national gun control. Its much more hard to smuggle country to country than it is state to state.
I honestly don't believe it's that hard. Look at all the drugs that get into the country despite being illegal in every state. i think [not sure] i also stated in the video it's fairly easy to make guns [plumbing parts.] Even if you could stop every single gun from entering a country, that would not stop guns from being available to the people who want them the most.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
"but legally allowing more incompetent drivers, or more incompetent gun owners because they could illegally drive, or own guns anyway is ridiculous."
Laws are only as good as they have an effect. If you have a group of people who are going to own guns no matter what, making it illegal is not useful for anything past "what makes me feel bad should be illegal." The people who do bad things with the guns can be convicted on other laws, so the gun laws are nothing but wasted tax dollars.
Ask MF directly. Anything beyond common sense is inappropriate. That trained (at a *minimum* gun safety) persons should be the only ones to own guns is common sense. Untrained, gun owners defend nothing but the little dick egos against scared monkey brained cowards.
What always happens, however, is people who know nothing about guns or self defense dynamics pass what they think are common sense laws, then escalate and amplify them beyond all reason to plug holes they themselves *created*.
The fact that untrained folks can't hit anything except at point blank range and so miss most of their targets is not a blessing as children who get ahold of guns look down the barrels and show them to other children close up. Common sense laws like no convict who has used a gun can own one and barriers to prevent children from getting at them fail because they are applied like paint. Slap it on and forget about it.
Gonna be a work in progress until we fix our tiny little egos.
the war on drugs does nearly nothing to stop the use or supply of drugs. it does however fuel the black market for illegal guns AND gives the gangs and dealers reason to USE those guns. the most effective gun control measure they could pass would be to end the war on drugs.
Look at who owns them. Look at the mentalities of those who use them. The anology is too weak and outre to have any relevence. Those weapons are part of war and the escalation of weapons in war, totally and utterly nonsensical for self defence of an individual. I could own a quantum vacuum collapse weapon. Ultimate weapon. Destroys whole universes in one shot. Silly to think of grandmas and office workers armed with them, eh ?
What if you want to defend the universe from the oncomming black void? You can imagine all sorts of overkill that one person could get into... but not in real life. One person with a nuke is one dead person and a victorious enemy.
I disagree that it's not a realistic scenario. Society might turn in a direction you don't like (eg, fundamentalist religion), and so you might want to defend yourself against it. This might well happen, and you'll need a lot more than a machine gun.
You are jumping from individually controllable weapons to weapons that need a small army to operate and kill many more than one or a few people. If we wind up needing weapons that an army uses, we'll be *IN* the army. Your scenarios are unrealistic because this discussion is *personal* self defense, not national defence. Join the military if you want to play with really big weapons that kill multitudes. Since I don't want to live in Camp Wanabee, I'll stick with a rifle or a pistol.
If there's enough demand, or if you have enough money, then you may be able to buy nuclear weapons that you can operate all by yourself. So you won't need to be part of an army. Nuclear weapons can be personal weapons.
Common sense still applies and gun collectors who do not store their display items "safe" are fools. You can keep nitpicking every contingency, but eventually you wind up with unwieldy and foolish laws, like we have now. One simple law states "Guns shall be stored safe." meaning they are non-functional. Doesn't cover what kind of gun, just that it be "safe".
The "laws only affect the lawful, not the lawlwss" truism applies to every single aspect of life and every kind of crime, pre-crime, post-crime, grime and slime there is.
I still think it's worth pointing out, as many people tend to have a notion that things like gun regulation laws actually do what they are intended to do.
This has been flagged as spam show
1.71 people are murdered an hour.
12.5-285.3 people defend themselves an hour.
The arbitration system we have has much more to do with the murder rate than firearms. If you only criminalize coercive acts and legalize all voluntary acts the crime rate would go down as much as is humanly possible.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
gun control is for governments to kill its people and change their governments and come to power
AZtrueflow18 1 year ago
Most bad guys have guns that were legal at one point of time and were smuggled from states with low gun control. The black market would die if we had national gun control. Its much more hard to smuggle country to country than it is state to state.
getoman229 1 year ago
@getoman229
I honestly don't believe it's that hard. Look at all the drugs that get into the country despite being illegal in every state. i think [not sure] i also stated in the video it's fairly easy to make guns [plumbing parts.] Even if you could stop every single gun from entering a country, that would not stop guns from being available to the people who want them the most.
MotionFur 1 year ago
@getoman229 Proof?
tiecuando 1 year ago
I think we should ban the internet because people in China are hacking the Pentagon.
FlowCell 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson
edicol 2 years ago
Comment removed
edicol 2 years ago
boring
fortsmith1 2 years ago
As said with the voice of a 12-year old.
MotionFur 2 years ago
"but legally allowing more incompetent drivers, or more incompetent gun owners because they could illegally drive, or own guns anyway is ridiculous."
Laws are only as good as they have an effect. If you have a group of people who are going to own guns no matter what, making it illegal is not useful for anything past "what makes me feel bad should be illegal." The people who do bad things with the guns can be convicted on other laws, so the gun laws are nothing but wasted tax dollars.
MotionFur 2 years ago
bad guys ingnore the law... what that cant be... lol lol lol
michaeltheman8888 2 years ago
I know, right? Why they gotta do that so much?
MotionFur 2 years ago
Ask MF directly. Anything beyond common sense is inappropriate. That trained (at a *minimum* gun safety) persons should be the only ones to own guns is common sense. Untrained, gun owners defend nothing but the little dick egos against scared monkey brained cowards.
What always happens, however, is people who know nothing about guns or self defense dynamics pass what they think are common sense laws, then escalate and amplify them beyond all reason to plug holes they themselves *created*.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
The fact that untrained folks can't hit anything except at point blank range and so miss most of their targets is not a blessing as children who get ahold of guns look down the barrels and show them to other children close up. Common sense laws like no convict who has used a gun can own one and barriers to prevent children from getting at them fail because they are applied like paint. Slap it on and forget about it.
Gonna be a work in progress until we fix our tiny little egos.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
the war on drugs does nearly nothing to stop the use or supply of drugs. it does however fuel the black market for illegal guns AND gives the gangs and dealers reason to USE those guns. the most effective gun control measure they could pass would be to end the war on drugs.
tooltime9901 2 years ago
What about rpg's, tanks, and nuclear weapons? Isn't it reasonable to have these for personal self defence (since other people have them) ?
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Look at who owns them. Look at the mentalities of those who use them. The anology is too weak and outre to have any relevence. Those weapons are part of war and the escalation of weapons in war, totally and utterly nonsensical for self defence of an individual. I could own a quantum vacuum collapse weapon. Ultimate weapon. Destroys whole universes in one shot. Silly to think of grandmas and office workers armed with them, eh ?
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
What if you want to wage war against an army, for your own personal, individual self-defence?
KevinSolway 2 years ago
What if you want to defend the universe from the oncomming black void? You can imagine all sorts of overkill that one person could get into... but not in real life. One person with a nuke is one dead person and a victorious enemy.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
I disagree that it's not a realistic scenario. Society might turn in a direction you don't like (eg, fundamentalist religion), and so you might want to defend yourself against it. This might well happen, and you'll need a lot more than a machine gun.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
You are jumping from individually controllable weapons to weapons that need a small army to operate and kill many more than one or a few people. If we wind up needing weapons that an army uses, we'll be *IN* the army. Your scenarios are unrealistic because this discussion is *personal* self defense, not national defence. Join the military if you want to play with really big weapons that kill multitudes. Since I don't want to live in Camp Wanabee, I'll stick with a rifle or a pistol.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Besides, imagine the horrors if little Susie or Jimmy accidentaly set off that minigun and kill the whole neighborhood by accident.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
If there's enough demand, or if you have enough money, then you may be able to buy nuclear weapons that you can operate all by yourself. So you won't need to be part of an army. Nuclear weapons can be personal weapons.
KevinSolway 2 years ago
Not arguing silliness for arguments sake. You want "reasonable" and talk silliness.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
what if your a gun collecter, and he wants some big guns?
skater3shefik 2 years ago
Common sense still applies and gun collectors who do not store their display items "safe" are fools. You can keep nitpicking every contingency, but eventually you wind up with unwieldy and foolish laws, like we have now. One simple law states "Guns shall be stored safe." meaning they are non-functional. Doesn't cover what kind of gun, just that it be "safe".
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
The "laws only affect the lawful, not the lawlwss" truism applies to every single aspect of life and every kind of crime, pre-crime, post-crime, grime and slime there is.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
I still think it's worth pointing out, as many people tend to have a notion that things like gun regulation laws actually do what they are intended to do.
MotionFur 2 years ago