10 Year old Girl Gunned Down in Drive By Shooting. :(

[nehalem256]

Looks like we got another "we should have no laws" nutter!

Actually isn't that one of the big liberal arguments for abortion?

We shouldn't pass laws against abortion because women will just ignore them anyway?

 

[palehorse]

Did you not read the post I quoted? Tell me how, logically speaking, his post could mean anything else.

I read the post you quoted, and MtnMan did not suggest anything of the sort. His exact words:

"I'm sure the shooter was obeying every gun law in effect, right?

Tell me how more laws are going to have any effect."

At no point did MtnMan suggest, or even imply, that the solution is "we should have no laws."

You trolled him, plain and simple.

 

[ivwshane]

Actually isn't that one of the big liberal arguments for abortion?

We shouldn't pass laws against abortion because women will just ignore them anyway?

Umm no. The person I responded to made the argument that gun laws don't prevent criminal acts from happening, therefore we don't need gun laws. In fact no laws stop crime.

The argument regarding abortion laws is the same as the one for gun laws, better, smarter, more effective laws should be passed, not more garbage laws.

 

[Genx87]

Looks like we got another "we should have no laws" nutter!

I was wondering when this assinine point was going to be brought up. Nothing spells the end of a debate like somebody bringing up anarchy when the opposition resists every law proposed to ban something. I am surprised you havent brought up Somalia yet.

 

[Genx87]

Umm no. The person I responded to made the argument that gun laws don't prevent criminal acts from happening, therefore we don't need gun laws. In fact no laws stop crime.

The argument regarding abortion laws is the same as the one for gun laws, better, smarter, more effective laws should be passed, not more garbage laws.

You understand laws against murder are there not to prevent the crime right? It is to punish the person who comitted the murder. It is legal recourse for the victim.

The people that push laws against murder are there to prevent the crime are as insane as those who push laws banning a gun claiming it will lower crime stats or prevent gun crime.

 

[ivwshane]

I read the post you quoted, and MtnMan did not suggest anything of the sort. His exact words:

"Tell me how more laws are going to have any effect."

At no point did MtnMan suggest, or even imply, that the solution is "we should have no laws."

You trolled him, plain and simple.

I guess I need to break it down for you because you aren't smart enough to do it yourself.


By asking how more guns laws will have any affect he is saying gun laws are ineffective, which, as I stated, doesnt make sense since no law prevents crimes from happening. Now he could have meant that some laws are better than others but then that would invalidate his point that more laws wont be any more effective.

Of course my argument would be totally pointless if the OP was being serious and not sarcastic but that would be a stretch since he did include smilies.


Does that help? Or do I need to put on my clown shoes for you?

 

[ivwshane]

You understand laws against murder are there not to prevent the crime right? It is to punish the person who comitted the murder. It is legal recourse for the victim.

The people that push laws against murder are there to prevent the crime are as insane as those who push laws banning a gun claiming it will lower crime stats or prevent gun crime.

So speed limits are to punish the people who speed?

Yeah, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[Matt1970]

Did you not read the post I quoted? Tell me how, logically speaking, his post could mean anything else.

Because his post means exactly what it said. You want it to mean something else.

 

[palehorse]

I guess I need to break it down for you because you aren't smart enough to do it yourself.

By asking how more guns laws will have any affect he is saying gun laws are ineffective, which, as I stated, doesnt make sense since no law prevents crimes from happening. Now he could have meant that some laws are better than others but then that would invalidate his point that more laws wont be any more effective.

Of course my argument would be totally pointless if the OP was being serious and not sarcastic but that would be a stretch since he did include smilies.

Does that help? Or do I need to put on my clown shoes for you?

No, it doesn't help. Why? Because you are just plain wrong... or lying... or trolling again? MtnMan did not say or imply any of those things.

You're a walking derp.

 

[Genx87]

So speed limits are to punish the people who speed?

Yeah, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

You need to clarify your point if you are asking more than the obvious. Of course speed limits are there to punish those who speed.

 

[Matt1970]

I guess I need to break it down for you because you aren't smart enough to do it yourself.


By asking how more guns laws will have any affect he is saying gun laws are ineffective, which, as I stated, doesnt make sense since no law prevents crimes from happening. Now he could have meant that some laws are better than others but then that would invalidate his point that more laws wont be any more effective.

Of course my argument would be totally pointless if the OP was being serious and not sarcastic but that would be a stretch since he did include smilies.


Does that help? Or do I need to put on my clown shoes for you?

You're spinning your wheels. I will make it easy for you. Exactly what gun laws do you want to see enacted to prevent this type of behavior?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Tragedies like this are the result of lax gun control, and a gun culture that permeates the U.S.

When you attack gun control remember her face:

The driveby shooters bought a gun legally. My aching laugh reflex!

 

[BoberFett]

So speed limits are to punish the people who speed?

Yeah, you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

Wow. Are you going to to claim that speed limits prevent people from speeding? Have you ever driven a car?

 

[Lithium381]

Yep, laws only provide either an incentive to do something or a disincentive to do something. The laws by themselves don't prevent anything.

 

[BoberFett]

Hell, if I drive the speed limit I'll be a public menace, because EVERYBODY speeds. So much for preventing anything.

 

[momeNt]

I'll just leave this little nugget for you to see if you find issues with your logic when applied to the otherside of the argument.

I find no issues.

No law would have prevented it. Magically making the Earth a place without guns cannot be achieved through laws.

 

[Lithium381]

I find no issues.

No law would have prevented it. Magically making the Earth a place without guns cannot be achieved through laws.

why are you worried about guns? lets stop ALL violence . . .

 

[momeNt]

why are you worried about guns? lets stop ALL violence . . .

Most would agree that gun violence is especially abhorrent because the gun is more than just a weapon, it is a symbol, and people fear the symbol.

If guns were eradicated the knife, or bow/arrow would never take its place as a symbol for violence. People have a fetish for guns and express that fetish in violence towards eachother.

That is why guns are the target and violence is not.

 

[Lithium381]

Most would agree that gun violence is especially abhorrent because the gun is more than just a weapon, it is a symbol, and people fear the symbol.

If guns were eradicated the knife, or bow/arrow would never take its place as a symbol for violence. People have a fetish for guns and express that fetish in violence towards eachother.

That is why guns are the target and violence is not.

but regardless of the symbolism, wouldn't cutting down on violence as a root not be more beneficial? the symbolism and fear is irrational. a gun is no more dangerous than a knife or even a pencil if they're both sitting in a drawer. human intent is dangerous.

 

[Lithium381]

Most would agree that gun violence is especially abhorrent because the gun is more than just a weapon, it is a symbol, and people fear the symbol.

If guns were eradicated the knife, or bow/arrow would never take its place as a symbol for violence. People have a fetish for guns and express that fetish in violence towards eachother.

That is why guns are the target and violence is not.

and who is "most" that would agree with that sentiment?

 

[woolfe9998]

OP is attempting to demagogue the issue by substituting a raw emotional appeal for reasoned argumentation.

That is all.

 

[momeNt]

but regardless of the symbolism, wouldn't cutting down on violence as a root not be more beneficial? the symbolism and fear is irrational. a gun is no more dangerous than a knife or even a pencil if they're both sitting in a drawer. human intent is dangerous.

Trying to cut down on violence takes us into uncomfortable territory. Like what fuels violence, most violence has to do with illegal activity that has high enough demand to still be pursued regardless of the illegality, namely drugs. Drugs is so far ahead that the violence associated with the sex trade is probably second highest but still pales in comparison.

How do we propose to change the drug culture and the violence that emanates from pushing a culture into criminality? To legalize drugs is just giving up right?

 

[ivwshane]

Wow. Are you going to to claim that speed limits prevent people from speeding? Have you ever driven a car?

Lol. So why do we have speed limits? Is it to promote a certain type of behavior and to punish unwanted behavior? How is a gun law different from that?

Background checks doesn't prevent anyone from getting a gun but it does promote a particular behavior, in this case it promotes uniformed access and it punishes those that are deemed unworthy of the right to bare arms. Of course if someone unworthy wants a gun they will have to do so through extraordinary means and if you feel that's not a big enough deterrent then why not remove all access to guns via the currently available means, after all if people want a gun they will still be able to get one. Of course you nor any other gun proponent would go for that because its not as easy to obtain a gun that way.

And just to repeat what I have already said in this post and in others because apparently people can't read; laws don't prevent crimes, they simply promote a particular behavior or punish a particular behavior.

Laws are not created with the sole intent to punish people.

 

[BoberFett]

Lol. So why do we have speed limits? Is it to promote a certain type of behavior and to punish unwanted behavior? How is a gun law different from that?

We use monetary fines to promote not speeding, but damn near everybody speeds anyway.

We promote not murdering people, through prison and or the death penalty, but people doe it anyway.

Laws cannot stop. They can only punish.

Gun laws will not stop murders.

Anti-gun nuts are just oblivious to reality.

You want to prevent murders? End the drug war. Treat drug addiction as a medical issue, not a criminal one. Murder rates will plummet.

 

[ivwshane]

We use monetary fines to promote not speeding, but damn near everybody speeds anyway.

We promote not murdering people, through prison and or the death penalty, but people doe it anyway.

Laws cannot stop. They can only punish.

Gun laws will not stop murders.

Anti-gun nuts are just oblivious to reality.

You want to prevent murders? End the drug war. Treat drug addiction as a medical issue, not a criminal one. Murder rates will plummet.

You are quoting me but your posts have nothing to do with what I said other than saying almost the same thing I did.