Political Crossfire Forums

[OneZero]

Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: 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?

I am not for more gun control laws but for less and stricter gun control laws and you just admitted that the ones you have are stopping criminals.

Different gun control laws per state is nonsense without border control, 22,000 of them is insane. This is what I call making the job of police officers difficult and the life of criminals easy.
:-D
:-D

I never admitted any such thing.

Hey, I'm only telling you how many there are; I agree, it is an insane number, they should be brought down to 0.

[OneZero]

Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: 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?

In America children are not born criminals but a lot of them seem to be raised in a home with guns.

:-D
:-D

please provide some kind of proof for that wild statement.

[Otacon]

I've grown up in a home with guns. There are about a dozen guns in my home, and i've been taught proper gun safety. I've gone and had fun shooting guns. Growing up in a home with guns isn't going to turn anyone into a criminal.

[OneZero]

Otacon wrote: I've grown up in a home with guns. There are about a dozen guns in my home, and i've been taught proper gun safety. I've gone and had fun shooting guns. Growing up in a home with guns isn't going to turn anyone into a criminal.

:clap:

[thefranzkafkafront]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Care to answer that in understandable english? Not a amature poetry competition lucky.

People own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used.

:-D
:-D

So your a fan of teleological reasoning as well then lucky?

You ever seen a grown man naked?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/quotes

:-D
:-D

Going to answer my question?
Guess not.

[Lucky Luke]

Boneman wrote:
Alright then, for a moment there I was slightly confused. So LL, as you probably know, In the UK you need a separate certificate for each fire arm you purchase. So if I wanted to buy a .22 rifle and a .22 magnum, I would need 2 separate certificates, which cost time and money to get. I need one of these certificates for every rifle I buy, so I can only buy one .22 rifle with a .22 certificate, and if I wanted another I would have to get another certificate. So, since your for simpler gun laws, would you or would you not prefer it to be one certificate for each class of weapon, so a certificate for a shotgun, one for rifles etc, and with that certificate you could buy whatever caliber in that range you wanted, as many times as you wanted?

A certificate per gun is the only way to trace the gun and its' owner. You should be paying for your own certificates for your own guns, don't expect me to help you.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Care to answer that in understandable english? Not a amature poetry competition lucky.

People own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used.

:-D
:-D

So your a fan of teleological reasoning as well then lucky?

You ever seen a grown man naked?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/quotes

:-D
:-D

Going to answer my question?

Going to answer mine?

:-D
:-D

[britboy]

britboy wrote: 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 .. !

Yes I can certainly see your argument (er .. I think ;) . I think we've probably hit the nail on the head here .. theres no real right or wrong. I think, and you may agree, that it all boils down to the value you put on the benefits guns give you. Just like everything else. I own a car. I put the value of owning that HIGHER than the risk of me losing control and smashing into a busstop full of people.

For all items we have to make the same judgement. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? I was not making that judgement and arguing it, I was just screaming the risks with regards to guns, and comparing it with the risks of the most crazy items I could think of, which was unbalanced arguing.

I do however still stand by my argument that just possession of certain items should, without question, be illegal, as the risk to society far outweighs any possible benefit EVEN THOUGH the items may never be used for wrong. Do you agree that if the police find 2 guys with a bomb and a 'how to blow up the empire state building' manual, the state should be able to charge them with something just based off possession - should it not? What do you think? (Goodness me, people running around with suicide bomb packs on, but not exploding them ... you've got to try and detain them (or shoot them) haven't you? Even if they could be doing it with no intention of setting the thing off?)

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: 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?

In America children are not born criminals but a lot of them seem to be raised in a home with guns.

:-D
:-D

That is not proof. That is an assumption.

Proof of what Knight, that children are not born criminals or that a lot of American homes have guns in them?

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: 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

...........

You forgot to read the end of my post OneZero, here you are:

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

Quote: The use of firearms in criminal activity constituted only a small proportion of all offences in 2004-05; six per cent of recorded homicides (eight offences), two per cent of attempted murders (20 offences), and two per cent of robberies (85 offences). Less than one per cent of serious assaults (48 offences), and less than half a per cent of petty assaults (229 offences) and vandalism offences (407 offences) involved the alleged use of a firearm.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/10/25094914

Even in the US the number of firearms is quite irrelevant to the total crime rate but very relevant to some specific crime rates:

66% of all murders (10,650), 40.6% of robberies (162,938), 19,3% of aggravated assaults (164,997), 8% of rapes (7,570) were committed with guns, that equals to 25% of all violent crimes or less than all property and violent crimes in the US.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#weapon

60%, 40% and 20%, enjoy OneZero!
:-D
:-D

:rotf: you didn't even reply to my post! :lol:

I win.

I gave four replies to your one post OneZero, isn't that enough?

1/ Above
...........
2/
Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote:
..................
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.

..............

Try again OneZero do your "legal" gun owners commit crimes or not? It is time to make your mind up because you finished your sentence by claiming that some do, what is it going to be?

:-D
:-D
............
3/
Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: ................

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
.................


This is not a quote from the DOJ site OneZero, try again.
source

Nobody is born a criminal in America or anywhere else OneZero and I am telling you that most wannabe criminals in America are introduced to guns at an early age.

Once a law abiding citizen becomes a criminal, the easiest path for this now criminal to follow seems to be to live a life of crimes. Still what would you do with petty young offenders to make sure that they don't do it again OneZero?

Still most weapon offences are the result of gun control laws, you should be pleased that they get so many criminals behind bars.
:-D
:-D
.............
4/
Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: 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?

I am not for more gun control laws but for less and stricter gun control laws and you just admitted that the ones you have are stopping criminals.

Different gun control laws per state is nonsense without border control, 22,000 of them is insane. This is what I call making the job of police officers difficult and the life of criminals easy.
:-D
:-D

Come again.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Hyde wrote:

:clap: way to be.

How many replies should one post get Hyde?

:-D
:-D

[britboy]

Lucky Luke wrote: Hyde wrote:

:clap: way to be.

How many replies should one post get Hyde?

:-D
:-D
Yea I must admit posts that just say :dance: whilst quoting other posts are not really worthwhile.

Like hiding behind your big brother when he's arguing, occassionally poking you head round, saying 'Yea!' then scurrying back behind him again!

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
This is not a quote from the DOJ site OneZero, try again.
source

um...? what is that supposed to mean? I gave you my sources.

..........

It means that this is not a quote from the DOJ site OneZero:

OneZero wrote: ........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.....

Try again.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: ..........

and I showed you that no child who is introduced to guns by his parents becomes a criminal (0%).

Quote: Once a law abiding citizen becomes a criminal, the easiest path for this now criminal to follow seems to be to live a life of crimes. Still what would you do with petty young offenders to make sure that they don't do it again OneZero?

haha you think it's EASY to live a life of crime?

You did not show me such a thing OneZero, try again.

Most criminals believe that it is the easiest and only way for them to live their lives. I can't see the existing criminal system proving them wrong.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: OneZero wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: 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?

I am not for more gun control laws but for less and stricter gun control laws and you just admitted that the ones you have are stopping criminals.

Different gun control laws per state is nonsense without border control, 22,000 of them is insane. This is what I call making the job of police officers difficult and the life of criminals easy.
:-D
:-D

I never admitted any such thing.

Hey, I'm only telling you how many there are; I agree, it is an insane number, they should be brought down to 0.

But with no gun control laws, this you admitted is happening would not happen OneZero:

OneZero wrote: 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.

Should they be free and given back their weapons?

:-D
:-D

[Knight]

Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Knight wrote: 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?

In America children are not born criminals but a lot of them seem to be raised in a home with guns.

:-D
:-D

That is not proof. That is an assumption.

Proof of what Knight, that children are not born criminals or that a lot of American homes have guns in them?

:-D
:-D

Proof of your statement. You know damn well what I'm talking about. The relation that children who become criminals are more likely to have been raised at a home with guns.

That is exactly what you are saying in that statement.

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote:

Proof of your statement. You know damn well what I'm talking about. The relation that children who become criminals are more likely to have been raised at a home with guns.

That is exactly what you are saying in that statement.

In America children are not born criminals but a lot of them seem to be raised in a home with guns.

A lot of them, them as American children Knight.

Very few crimes are committed with guns.

Incidentally most American criminals would have likely been born in a home with guns, don't you think Knight?
:-D
:-D

[Knight]

How does that answer my question for proof of your statement? It doesn't.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote:
Care to answer that in understandable english? Not a amature poetry competition lucky.

People own things to use them except for collectors who could not care less if the thing can't be used.

:-D
:-D

So your a fan of teleological reasoning as well then lucky?

You ever seen a grown man naked?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/quotes

:-D
:-D

Going to answer my question?

Going to answer mine?

:-D
:-D

Now do you refuse to answer it, because you can't, or becuase you know it will force you to expose you position as illogical.

Which is it lucky?

And please don't answer with another innane link.

[Lucky Luke]

Knight wrote: How does that answer my question for proof of your statement? It doesn't.

Read again my answer Knight, I never claimed that children who become criminals are more likely to have been raised at a home with guns even if it is probably true.

I claimed that in America children are not born criminals and that a lot of them (American children) seem to be raised in a home with guns.


:-D
:-D