IT BEGINS: 15-Point Plunge For GOP Senator After Gun Vote

[Oddball]

Where do the thieves get their guns from...aren't there laws against 'thievery'?
Why not repeal those?

Non sequitur.

Owning a gun is not a criminal act.

I know that you willfully misinterpreted my statement there...very clever.
I said that theft is a criminal act.

I misinterpreted nothing...It's you who is trying to twist things.

Laws against thievery are in place because stealing is an act of antisocial aggression...The act of owning a gun transgresses nobody's property or liberty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where do the thieves get their guns from...aren't there laws against 'thievery'?
Why not repeal those?

There's a simple and easy answer to that:
Criminal law exists as a means through which to punish those who commit crime, not to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place.

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

Otherwise addressed - 'prevent' and 'deter' are different things.

A willingness to commit murder indicates that there's no deterrence value in gun laws.

 

[idb]

There's a simple and easy answer to that:
Criminal law exists as a means through which to punish those who commit crime, not to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place.

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

None...The law is supposed to primarily be for recompense for antisocial/criminal acts, not as some sort of weird tool for social engineering.

Really??!!
So you don't see law as a signal from society at large as to the acceptability or otherwise of certain activities?
And you also don't think that the threat of punishment is a deterrent to any criminal activity?

How can prison or hanging be recompense for anything?

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

None...The law is supposed to primarily be for recompense for antisocial/criminal acts, not as some sort of weird tool for social engineering.

Really??!!
So you don't see law as a signal from society at large as to the acceptability or otherwise of certain activities?
And you also don't think that the threat of punishment is a deterrent to any criminal activity?

How can prison or hanging be recompense for anything?

Ruin another's life, your life is ruined as well....Not that difficult to figure out.

 

[Oddball]

There's a simple and easy answer to that:
Criminal law exists as a means through which to punish those who commit crime, not to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place.

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

Otherwise addressed - 'prevent' and 'deter' are different things.

A willingness to commit murder indicates that there's no deterrence value in gun laws.

Nor the death penalty.

Not trying to hijack the thread, just sayin'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

Otherwise addressed - 'prevent' and 'deter' are different things.

A willingness to commit murder indicates that there's no deterrence value in gun laws.

Nor the death penalty.
Not trying to hijack the thread, just sayin'.

That's the point - if you're willing to risk the death penalty, you won't give second thought to breaking a law regarding guns.

 

[idb]

If you're trying to argue that background checks stop criminal acts with guns, then you're completely detached from reality.

I'm trying to argue that background checks will stop some criminal acts with guns...just like laws against drink driving stop some people from driving drunk.

You confuse "prevent" with "deter".

The threat of punishment for committing a crime might well -deter- someone from committing that crime, but does not in any way -prevent- him from doing it.

If you plan to commit murder/robbery/rape, the threat of punishment from a background check won't give you the leat pause.

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.
If you didn't plan to carry out the murder/robbery/rape but a rush of blood/testosterone/alcohol to the head pushed you into it a background check might just give you enough time to re-think/jerk off/sober up and change your mind.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you expand? What do you see?

I find it interesting that you dismiss without comment.

I see a poll that surveys a bunch of ppl vs you looking out your window and suggesting you get a clear statewide view from your pair of eyes

What you see is a push poll from a biased leftist source....RCP even identifies them as such.

Nothing to see here.

What you see is a dark shadowy figure around every corner or excuses why nothing is true because you say it isnt

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm trying to argue that background checks will stop some criminal acts with guns...just like laws against drink driving stop some people from driving drunk.

You confuse "prevent" with "deter".

The threat of punishment for committing a crime might well -deter- someone from committing that crime, but does not in any way -prevent- him from doing it.

If you plan to commit murder/robbery/rape, the threat of punishment from a background check won't give you the leat pause.

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.

This is can only be even possibly true if it is impossible to acquire a gun w/o a background check.
But, I am glad you agree that gun laws do not deter crime.

 

[Oddball]

I see a poll that surveys a bunch of ppl vs you looking out your window and suggesting you get a clear statewide view from your pair of eyes

What you see is a push poll from a biased leftist source....RCP even identifies them as such.

Nothing to see here.

What you see is a dark shadowy figure around every corner or excuses why nothing is true because you say it isnt

Piss Poor Polling is an overtly leftist polling organization...That is a fact.

Deal with it.

 

[Oddball]

I'm trying to argue that background checks will stop some criminal acts with guns...just like laws against drink driving stop some people from driving drunk.

You confuse "prevent" with "deter".

The threat of punishment for committing a crime might well -deter- someone from committing that crime, but does not in any way -prevent- him from doing it.

If you plan to commit murder/robbery/rape, the threat of punishment from a background check won't give you the leat pause.

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.
If you didn't plan to carry out the murder/robbery/rape but a rush of blood/testosterone/alcohol to the head pushed you into it a background check might just give you enough time to re-think/jerk off/sober up and change your mind.

You're talking about the fabled "cooling off period" not background checks.

But I guess the goalposts aren't going to move themselves.

 

[idb]

There's a simple and easy answer to that:
Criminal law exists as a means through which to punish those who commit crime, not to prevent them from committing the crime in the first place.

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

Otherwise addressed - 'prevent' and 'deter' are different things.

A willingness to commit murder indicates that there's no deterrence value in gun laws.

But gun laws are primarily intended to stop them falling into the wrong hands, not deter.
It won't work in all cases, but no law does.

Why were the proposed new laws so egregious, didn't they simply apply the checks that apply in most cases to nearly all cases?

 

[idb]

You confuse "prevent" with "deter".

The threat of punishment for committing a crime might well -deter- someone from committing that crime, but does not in any way -prevent- him from doing it.

If you plan to commit murder/robbery/rape, the threat of punishment from a background check won't give you the leat pause.

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.
If you didn't plan to carry out the murder/robbery/rape but a rush of blood/testosterone/alcohol to the head pushed you into it a background check might just give you enough time to re-think/jerk off/sober up and change your mind.

You're talking about the fabled "cooling off period" not background checks.

But I guess the goalposts aren't going to move themselves.

No, having to go through the background check is going to slow you up isn't it...with the added bonus that, if you're a certified arse you'll be denied?

Of course, I'm certain that would never apply in your case.

 

[Oddball]

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

Otherwise addressed - 'prevent' and 'deter' are different things.

A willingness to commit murder indicates that there's no deterrence value in gun laws.

But gun laws are primarily intended to stop them falling into the wrong hands, not deter.
It won't work in all cases, but no law does.

Why were the proposed new laws so egregious, didn't they simply apply the checks that apply in most cases to nearly all cases?

It doesn't work in enough cases to be worth the bother, the same way that laws against recreational drugs are a complete waste of time, money and effort.

Besides that, the act of owning a gun is not, in and of itself, an aggressive antisocial act...What's so fucking difficult to understand about that?

 

[Spoonman]

Fair enough, so you're saying that laws against criminal activity are no deterrent at all.

Otherwise addressed - 'prevent' and 'deter' are different things.

A willingness to commit murder indicates that there's no deterrence value in gun laws.

But gun laws are primarily intended to stop them falling into the wrong hands, not deter.
It won't work in all cases, but no law does.

Why were the proposed new laws so egregious, didn't they simply apply the checks that apply in most cases to nearly all cases?

if gun laws are intended to keep guns out of the wrong hands, why do they contain stupid things like you can't have a flash hider and a pistol grip? most of the laws on the books have nothing to do with keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but instead put limits on safe gun owners.

 

[Oddball]

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.
If you didn't plan to carry out the murder/robbery/rape but a rush of blood/testosterone/alcohol to the head pushed you into it a background check might just give you enough time to re-think/jerk off/sober up and change your mind.

You're talking about the fabled "cooling off period" not background checks.

But I guess the goalposts aren't going to move themselves.

No, having to go through the background check is going to slow you up isn't it...with the added bonus that, if you're a certified arse you'll be denied?

Of course, I'm certain that would never apply in your case.

"Instant" background checks slow down the process?

Give it up.

 

[idb]

You confuse "prevent" with "deter".

The threat of punishment for committing a crime might well -deter- someone from committing that crime, but does not in any way -prevent- him from doing it.

If you plan to commit murder/robbery/rape, the threat of punishment from a background check won't give you the leat pause.

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.

This is can only be even possibly true if it is impossible to acquire a gun w/o a background check.
But, I am glad you agree that gun laws do not deter crime.

No, I agree that gun laws don't prevent all gun crime.
That's self-evident.

 

[Spoonman]

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.
If you didn't plan to carry out the murder/robbery/rape but a rush of blood/testosterone/alcohol to the head pushed you into it a background check might just give you enough time to re-think/jerk off/sober up and change your mind.

You're talking about the fabled "cooling off period" not background checks.

But I guess the goalposts aren't going to move themselves.

No, having to go through the background check is going to slow you up isn't it...with the added bonus that, if you're a certified arse you'll be denied?

Of course, I'm certain that would never apply in your case.

so once a person goes through a background check and we determine he is a nut case, what do we do with him? just not let him buy a gun but go back into society whe he can beat someone with a hammer or stab them? if this is really about safety, shouldn't we be fixing the problem when we identify it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, but it might "prevent" you from having the tools that you wanted to carry out the murder/robbery/rape easily to hand.

This is can only be even possibly true if it is impossible to acquire a gun w/o a background check.
But, I am glad you agree that gun laws do not deter crime.

No, I agree that gun laws don't prevent all gun crime.
That's self-evident.

I said 'deter', not 'prevent'. It's clear that gun laws do not prevent crime because it is impossible for a law to prevent spomeone from breaking the law.

So, as to deterrence...
If you are willing to commit murder, why would you be detered by a gun law?

 

[idb]

You're talking about the fabled "cooling off period" not background checks.

But I guess the goalposts aren't going to move themselves.

No, having to go through the background check is going to slow you up isn't it...with the added bonus that, if you're a certified arse you'll be denied?

Of course, I'm certain that would never apply in your case.

"Instant" background checks slow down the process?

Give it up.

You've talked me into it, I tried to resist but your powers of persuasiveness are too strong...maybe there should be background checks and a cooling off period for all gun purchases.
Damn..there..I said it!!!
I tried to resist but...