Political Crossfire Forums

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2522

Boneman wrote: Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Boneman wrote: Here you go LL, looks like a point I was making.
Boneman wrote: And anyway, back to my original point, since when have legally owned guns (baring Dunblane, the police wanted the man barred from owning them before it happened) ever been a big factor in gun crime?

Because most gun crimes are about the illegal ownership of a gun Boneman.

:-D
:-D

so legal gun owners do not contribute to the crime rate?

Their contribution to the total crime rate is minimal, some would say insignificant in Scotland:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

Because of reasons like this, maybe:
Quote: The fact that the shotgun was legally available, made the aquisition of a sawn-off shotgun, aquired ilegally, possible.
How could it possibly be available to criminals when they are kept in 2000 pound metal gunsafes, bolted to the floor?

Boneman, you have made 5 posts since I said this in my first post:

blinky wrote: I can' speak for the UK, but in Australia there are fewer illegal firearms due to the fact that there are fewer legal firearms.
Gun-nuts fail to understand that it is once-legal firearms that supply the market for illegal firearms. Guns that are "lost" (sold by their owners), stolen etc.

"Lost", and stolen Boneman.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

OneZero wrote:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

What do you mean if this is true? I provided all the evidence to prove that it is.

I happen to believe that a human life is meaningful well above any desire of some gun lovers to own a handgun OneZero.

:-D
:-D

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:36 am Post subject:

Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

What do you mean if this is true? I provided all the evidence to prove that it is.

I happen to believe that a human life is meaningful well above any desire of some gun lovers to own a handgun OneZero.

:-D
:-D

No one kills anyone by simply owning a gun lucky.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Blinky wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Boneman wrote: Here you go LL, looks like a point I was making.
Boneman wrote: And anyway, back to my original point, since when have legally owned guns (baring Dunblane, the police wanted the man barred from owning them before it happened) ever been a big factor in gun crime?

Because most gun crimes are about the illegal ownership of a gun Boneman.

:-D
:-D

so legal gun owners do not contribute to the crime rate?

Their contribution to the total crime rate is minimal, some would say insignificant in Scotland:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

Because of reasons like this, maybe:
Quote: The fact that the shotgun was legally available, made the aquisition of a sawn-off shotgun, aquired ilegally, possible.

nevertheless, the gun was legal until a criminal took it and committed an illegal act rendering the firearm itself illegal. It had nothing to do with legal gun owners or legal guns, sawn-off shotguns and converting legal shotguns to sawn-off shotguns is already illegal.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

What do you mean if this is true? I provided all the evidence to prove that it is.

I happen to believe that a human life is meaningful well above any desire of some gun lovers to own a handgun OneZero.

so what you're saying is basically.... "yes, legal guns and legal gun owners do not contribute to the crime rate; but I want very strict gun control to punish the legal gun owners who don't commit crimes."

yes?

mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal. You are blaming a tool when in reality it is the person.

Lucky Luke, when a gun crime is committed, who's fault is it; the criminal or the weapon he used?

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

What do you mean if this is true? I provided all the evidence to prove that it is.

I happen to believe that a human life is meaningful well above any desire of some gun lovers to own a handgun OneZero.

:-D
:-D

No one kills anyone by simply owning a gun lucky.

As far as the handgun is put beyond use, I have no worries about it being owned as a relic of the past Thefranzkafkafront.
:-D
:-D

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

OneZero wrote:

so what you're saying is basically.... "yes, legal guns and legal gun owners do not contribute to the crime rate; but I want very strict gun control to punish the legal gun owners who don't commit crimes."

yes?

mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal. You are blaming a tool when in reality it is the person.

Lucky Luke, when a gun crime is committed, who's fault is it; the criminal or the weapon he used?

Who said that gun owners did not commit crimes? Certainly not me OneZero.

As for "legal" gun owners, whoever they are, as soon as they commit a crime they aren't "legal" gun owners anymore, claiming that "legal" gun owners don't commit crimes is as stupidly true as claiming that law abiding citizens don't commit crimes.

You'll find that most criminals with illegal guns were one day law abiding citizens who legally owned guns.

Some guns in the wrong hands are the problem and gun control laws are the best way to tackle it.

:-D
:-D

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552 Location: London

OneZero wrote:

mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal. You are blaming a tool when in reality it is the person.

Naah. Don't agree with this sentence ..

Heroin doesn't kill anyone unless it is used it so shouldn't people be allowed to own it?

Rhohypnol (spelling) - the date rape drug -- is completely harmless unless someone actually spikes someone's drink with it. Shouldn't people be allowed to go clubbing with Rohypnol on their person?

Of course not. Common sense.

Or is Rohypnol perfectly acceptable to take clubbing because a responsible person would never use it against a girl, yet may need to use it on the way home if a stray horse needs rendering unconscious because he is running riot? Same logic, just a different tool selected ...

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:08 am Post subject:

Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:

if this is true, and I agree here, then why would you want to pass any law that punishes legal gun owners who do not, as you just admitted, contribute meaningfully to the crime rate?

What do you mean if this is true? I provided all the evidence to prove that it is.

I happen to believe that a human life is meaningful well above any desire of some gun lovers to own a handgun OneZero.

:-D
:-D

No one kills anyone by simply owning a gun lucky.

As far as the handgun is put beyond use, I have no worries about it being owned as a relic of the past Thefranzkafkafront.
:-D
:-D
Care to answer that in understandable english? Not a amature poetry competition lucky.

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

britboy wrote: OneZero wrote:

mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal. You are blaming a tool when in reality it is the person.

Naah. Don't agree with this sentence ..

Heroin doesn't kill anyone unless it is used it so shouldn't people be allowed to own it?

Rhohypnol (spelling) - the date rape drug -- is completely harmless unless someone actually spikes someone's drink with it. Shouldn't people be allowed to go clubbing with Rohypnol on their person?

Of course not. Common sense.

Or is Rohypnol perfectly acceptable to take clubbing because a responsible person would never use it against a girl, yet may need to use it on the way home if a stray horse needs rendering unconscious because he is running riot? Same logic, just a different tool selected ...
Except rohypnol and heroine have no other uses, guns most definitley do.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552 Location: London

Boneman wrote: britboy wrote: OneZero wrote:

mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal. You are blaming a tool when in reality it is the person.

Naah. Don't agree with this sentence ..

Heroin doesn't kill anyone unless it is used it so shouldn't people be allowed to own it?

Rhohypnol (spelling) - the date rape drug -- is completely harmless unless someone actually spikes someone's drink with it. Shouldn't people be allowed to go clubbing with Rohypnol on their person?

Of course not. Common sense.

Or is Rohypnol perfectly acceptable to take clubbing because a responsible person would never use it against a girl, yet may need to use it on the way home if a stray horse needs rendering unconscious because he is running riot? Same logic, just a different tool selected ...
Except rohypnol and heroine have no other uses, guns most definitley do.

BUT the original sentence said

Quote:
'mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal.'

Now let's stick to the logic the writer said and apply it a little.. he makes NO distinction between a gun and any other object. This was his mistake. He is suggesting a gun can be treated as any other tool, then applies ownership rights to it. OK, if we can do it for a gun, following his logic, we can do it for everything ...

'mere possession of heroin, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal.'

'mere possession of a date-rape drug, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal.'

Therefore the writer is not bringing ANY other arguments into his statement. Whether guns have other practical uses or not is not presented as part of his argument. Therefore his sentence is clearly wrong, and should have added extra information.

The bottom line is he is saying 'mere possession of ANYTHING does not kill anyone and thus should be legal.' I disagree with this statement, and think it's rather silly.

Boneman · Joined: 24 Feb 2006 Posts: 511

britboy wrote: Boneman wrote: britboy wrote: OneZero wrote:

mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal. You are blaming a tool when in reality it is the person.

Naah. Don't agree with this sentence ..

Heroin doesn't kill anyone unless it is used it so shouldn't people be allowed to own it?

Rhohypnol (spelling) - the date rape drug -- is completely harmless unless someone actually spikes someone's drink with it. Shouldn't people be allowed to go clubbing with Rohypnol on their person?

Of course not. Common sense.

Or is Rohypnol perfectly acceptable to take clubbing because a responsible person would never use it against a girl, yet may need to use it on the way home if a stray horse needs rendering unconscious because he is running riot? Same logic, just a different tool selected ...
Except rohypnol and heroine have no other uses, guns most definitley do.

BUT the original sentence said

Quote:
'mere possession of a gun, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal.'

Now let's stick to the logic the writer said and apply it a little.. he makes NO distinction between a gun and any other object. This was his mistake. He is suggesting a gun can be treated as any other tool, then applies ownership rights to it. OK, if we can do it for a gun, following his logic, we can do it for everything ...

'mere possession of heroin, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal.'

'mere possession of a date-rape drug, as thefranzkafkafront said, does not kill anyone, and thus should be legal.'

Therefore the writer is not bringing ANY other arguments into his statement. Whether guns have other practical uses or not is not presented as part of his argument. Therefore his sentence is clearly wrong, and should have added extra information.

The bottom line is he is saying 'mere possession of ANYTHING does not kill anyone and thus should be legal.' I disagree with this statement, and think it's rather silly.
I happen to agree with franz, possesion of anything (barring WMDs) should never be illegal, it is the misapropriate use of an object that should be punished, not possesion of the object itself.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:34 am Post subject:

britboy wrote:
The bottom line is he is saying 'mere possession of ANYTHING does not kill anyone and thus should be legal.' I disagree with this statement, and think it's rather silly.

Is it now, go on then, why is it 'silly'.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552 Location: London

OK, you offered the steak -- I'll bite.

I believe the following possessions, as example, should be illegal despite the fact they may never be used for any ill-doing

1) Child porn
2) Vials of anthrax sealed in jiffy bags with Mps (or senators) addresses written on them, but currently unposted
3) A manual showing the weakspots of skyscrapers, alongside explosives and videos from Bin Laden urgin Muslims to attack the targets
4) 40 individual wraps of Speed being held by a guy outside a school
5) Counterfeit money being held in someones pocket.
6) Fake ID

etc. etc. Could think of more.

none of the above will do any harm to anyone in theory. But bit silly saying therefore they should be perfectly legal to carry / hold possession of because of that reason -- isn't it?

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:52 am Post subject:

britboy wrote: OK, you offered the steak -- I'll bite.

I believe the following possessions, as example, should be illegal despite the fact they may never be used for any ill-doing

1) Child porn
Requires the explotation of the child to create, children cannot give concesent are they are not reasonable ethical agents.

Quote:
2) Vials of anthrax sealed in jiffy bags with Mps (or senators) addresses written on them, but currently unposted

Dosent harm anyone untill its posted, you could argue for the banning of millions of objects on the basis that when they are used in a certain way they could harm someone.

Quote:
3) A manual showing the weakspots of skyscrapers, alongside explosives and videos from Bin Laden urgin Muslims to attack the targets

Dosent harm anyone itself and you could justify the banning of a huge amount of litrature, from mein kampf to the two treistes of goverment on the basis the knowledge 'could harm people'

Quote:
4) 40 individual wraps of Speed being held by a guy outside a school

Drug legisation is a diffrent issue, suffice to say theres no good reason speed should be illegal.

Quote:
5) Counterfeit money being held in someones pocket.
6) Fake ID

etc. etc. Could think of more.
Both harm no ones rights.

Quote:
none of the above will do any harm to anyone in theory. But bit silly saying therefore they should be perfectly legal to carry / hold possession of because of that reason -- isn't it?

Ok before we move any futher with this, do you understand the diffrence between Deontological and Teleological reasoning?

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552 Location: London

er nope. Sorry. What is the difference?

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Lucky Luke wrote:
Who said that gun owners did not commit crimes? Certainly not me OneZero.

:lol:
Lucky Luke wrote:
Their contribution to the total crime rate is minimal, some would say insignificant in Scotland

Quote: As for "legal" gun owners, whoever they are, as soon as they commit a crime they aren't "legal" gun owners anymore, claiming that "legal" gun owners don't commit crimes is as stupidly true as claiming that law abiding citizens don't commit crimes.

I'm not talking about gun owners who commit crimes (by their very definition, not legal gun owners), I'm talking about gun owners who do NOT commit crimes. interestingly, I read a study not too long ago that showed that the vast majority of legal gun owners do NOT ever commit gun-related crimes.

Quote: You'll find that most criminals with illegal guns were one day law abiding citizens who legally owned guns.

I don't think so. For example, According to a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1993-1995), children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).
source

In state correctional facilities, fully 90% of felons convicted for weapons offenses had prior convictions. 44% of felons convicted for weapons offenses had prior convictions for violent crimes. In federal correctional facilities 75% of felons convicted for weapons offenses had prior convictions. 26% of felons convicted for weapons offenses had prior convictions for violent crimes.
source

Quote: Some guns in the wrong hands are the problem and gun control laws are the best way to tackle it.

Instead of trying to pass MORE gun control laws, when you admit the ones we have don't stop crime, why don't we first try enforcing the laws we have? there are over 22,000 gun laws on the books, do you think every single one of them is enforced?

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:00 pm Post subject:

britboy wrote: er nope. Sorry. What is the difference?

Sorry You have to stop me if you don't understand an ethical term im using in the future.

Deontological reasoning is where you consider the ethical situation, soley around the act itself.

Teleological reasoning is where you consider the ethical situation, soley around the possible outcomes.

Now what your esposing is the latter, Teleoglocail reasoning.

A man shoulnt be able to be able to own a gun, as he 'might' do on a murdering rampage. (and all the other examples execpt the child porn one above).

Now can you see the flaw in that reasoning?

Knight · Joined: 09 Jun 2005 Posts: 838

Lucky Luke wrote: You'll find that most criminals with illegal guns were one day law abiding citizens who legally owned guns.
:-D
:-D

Proof, sir?

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3552 Location: London

thefranzkafkafront wrote: britboy wrote: er nope. Sorry. What is the difference?

Sorry You have to stop me if you don't understand an ethical term im using in the future.

Deontological reasoning is where you consider the ethical situation, soley around the act itself.

Teleological reasoning is where you consider the ethical situation, soley around the possible outcomes.

Now what your esposing is the latter, Teleoglocail reasoning.

A man shoulnt be able to be able to own a gun, as he 'might' do on a murdering rampage. (and all the other examples execpt the child porn one above).

Now can you see the flaw in that reasoning?

OK, I'm going to have to think about it for a while (which means you're probably exactly right) .. so if you don't get a reply for a day or so it's because my brain works slowely but I will reply and admit defeat or argue more then .. !