Is it possible for any Country to have “Reasonable” Gun Laws? What would they be?

by pistolpete 70 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Stefan Basil Molyneux is a Canadian far-right white nationalist, white supremacist, podcaster and banned YouTuber, who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics, and racist views.

  No he is not. ... except the part about being Canadian. That part is true. And being banned from YouTube - except that is more like a badge of honor these days. And it’s only half true, since all his videos still get uploaded to YouTube under a different account.

  This has come up time and time again, even on this forum. Prove it. Quote him - in context. He has an entire series of videos stepping through these claims one at a time. If you went searching for a smear site, they are all out-of-context bull shirt.

  But even if all your baseless claims were true, how does that change the substance of the argument above?
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  More guns equals more safety

  More assault guns equals more safety

  More grenade launchers equals more safety

  More flamethrowers equals more safety

  More nuclear bombs equals more safety.

  Where does this logic break down?

  There are net effects. This is the same one-step, one-layer, monomaniacal logic that’s applied to just about everything these days, even COVID.
  

  All of these weapons are, in one shape or form, equalizers. A woman walking through a dark parking lot is approached by a rapist. Are you really saying that she should feel safer because your regulations made it harder for him to get a gun? What if she knows for a fact he doesn’t have a gun? Is that any better? Is that going to prevent the rape? Sadly, it’s probably more accurate to assume that your preferred regulations would make it difficult for the woman to get a gun, but since the rapist is willing to rape in dark parking lots, he doesn’t really care about your stupid regulations, and is therefore more likely to be armed.
  

  Or how about my neighborhood’s situation? How can decent people fend off leftist mobs? With sticks? Maybe, with the press of your miracle gun-go-away button, you can get a leftist mob without guns. Great. How the fork does that help? It doesn’t.
  

  Less guns, less effective deterrent. You may think your society is safer, but on net, it’s not.
  

  I suppose a world without any guns at all, nuclear weapons, crime, government, or roving mobs of leftists would be safer. But that’s fantasy land. Utopia is not for this world, and will never be.
  

  Good lord - “assault guns”? Dare you to try and define that one.
  
• 

  joey jojo

  Mustard,

  It's already been mentioned that in the U. S, the horse has already bolted, guns are everywhere and are easy to get. Does it make America safer? Tough question to answer. It doesn't stop crime. Does it even deter crime?

  If a crim has the intention of armed assault or robbery, he already has the advantage because he initialises the crime. He has a gun ready, loaded and has intent. Unless the victim happens to have a loaded weapon within reach at the time of the crime, the crime will be committed. Any self defence instructor will tell you that if someone pulls out a gun and asks for something, the best option is usually to give them what they want. If someone is going to shoot you, they are going to shoot you.

  Nothing gives me more satisfaction than seeing victims fight back and watching the tables turned on criminals while attempting to commit a crime and it sometimes happens but is it the exception or the rule?

  Some of the arguments for open access to guns seem delusional.
• 

  TD

  Pete,
  

  That kind of "all or nothing" cognitive disfunction (of a small percentage of the population) is a large aspect of the problem.
  

  I was referring specifically to the U.K. and the path they took and the arguments they made as they did it.
  

  You can chide me about cognitive dysfunction if you want, but you, my friend, are the one who made the jump from weapons to purely utilitarian objects like kitchen knives and therefore it is you have bridged the gap and made my point for me via a demonstration of the logical end-point of your argument.
  

  I'm not trying to be caustic here. As I pointed out farther up this thread a ban on what Biden calls, "weapons of war" would not be enough. Not in a country as violent as the U.S.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  but you, my friend, are the one who made the jump from weapons to purely utilitarian objects like kitchen knives and therefore it is you have bridged the gap and made my point for me via a demonstration of the logical end-point of your argument.

  My point is simply that every one recognizes the wisdom of limiting access to weapons. "Hide the kitchen knives" is a proverbial expression for when you've pissed off your wife. It was meant to be funny while still making the point of the importance of limiting access to weapons to those whose judgement is compromised. If you prefer, I could have said "check your gun at the door" of the saloon. Another American proverb. This completely indisputable wisdom is lost on people when discussing gun regulation. It's classic slippery slope fallacy to suggest reasonable, measured regulation of gun use is impossible. Reasonable regulation of commerce and behavior is the cornerstone of civilization. It's what defines us as civilized.

  . As I pointed out farther up this thread a ban on what Biden calls, "weapons of war" would not be enough. Not in a country as violent as the U.S.

  The question is not whether it would 'be enough' but 'would it help.' I'm convinced it would.
  
  
• 

  TD

  Pete,

  A slippery slope fallacy occurs when one claims in the absence of any sort of evidence that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related steps culminating in an overall negative effect.

  It is not a fallacy when one can provide evidence for or otherwise demonstrate that progression.

  Are you aware of Biden's thirty-six year history as a senator? Are you aware of the bills he introduced and voted on during that time? If you are, then you understand that he is not exactly a fan of handguns either. (To put it mildly.) If you believe the draconian measures he proposed for nearly four decades as a senator were reasonable and measured, I would really like to know why.
  

  Are you sure you understand exactly what it is that Biden proposes now? It is not simply a ban on the so-called "Assault weapons." It is a ban on every center-fire semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, which includes a goodly number of makes and models. Again, if you believe this is reasonable and measured, I would like to understand why.

  It also is not a logical fallacy to point out when an argument is inimical one's point. You said that, "People will hurt each other with whatever means they have, if motivated to" (Emphasis yours) and that this understanding "...is behind the logic of locking up the kitchen knives if an argument breaks out" and "It also is behind the logic of gun regulation."

  Hyperbole is by definition not logical, but if your reference to kitchen knives was along the lines of "Hide the knives," and this was simply your own dry humor, then okay. (I've got a dry sense of humor too, so I can appreciate that.)

  Even with that clarification though, you have still advanced an argument that would apply with equal force to all firearms because there is not a single one that we could not hurt each other with if motivated to.

  Open ended arguments are incompatible with the notions of reason and measure. If pointing this out is a logical fallacy in your mind, then I would say, "Physician heal thyself."

  On a more personal note, I would happily have this conversation with you on my patio while filling your wine glass. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic and wish you good health.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Protecting the citizens form the standing army is archaic? Let’s see what happens when the National Guard is called to assist with forced vaccinations.

  DD
• 

  frozen2018

  I would support any kind of gun control law as long as the law applied to all gun owners, private AND public. The government has to live by the same law at all levels - local, county, state, and federal. If certain types of weapons are illegal to own, well Sherriff you have to turn them in. Can you imagine how much revenue would be generated if the US military had to pay a $1,000 fee on all so called weapons of war? Would a sling-shot owned by the Army be a weapon of war? I think so. Using Bernie/AOC logic, the fees paid by the military would be enough to not only fund the military but also to pay for free college for anyone who wants it. Sometimes my brilliance even overwhelms me.
• 

  peacefulpete

  A slippery slope fallacy occurs when one claims in the absence of any sort of evidence that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related steps culminating in an overall negative effect.
  It is not a fallacy when one can provide evidence for or otherwise demonstrate that progression.

  What you believe you can provide as evidence that demonstrating an inevitable progression is merely a nebulous narrative being passed as evidence. The existence of gun regulations in most every country of the world, including our own, actually demonstrates the opposite. Regulations can be unoppressive and adaptable to local circumstances. IOW What America already has regarding gun regulations are proof that regulations do not inevitably result in the complete loss of the ability to own guns responsibly.

  I actually provided the link with Biden's policy proposals. So yes, I'm aware of them. I happen to agree with the majority of Democrats and Republicans that we can improve upon the regulations we currently have.
• 

  road to nowhere

  From memory so details may be garbled. I know (from a forum) a Swede. he is allowed 7 guns. It was not clear if his wife was allowed another 7, or children at home were allowed. Why 7, not 8?

  Mexico has 1 gun store. Strict regulation. Do you think that stops the cartels? There are stories of mex villages using their illegal 22s and taking back the streets from the cartels ans corrupt police.

  Big IF you could guarantee the street gangs had no weapons some of us would consider cutting back. Remember the police have been crooked too.

  A reasonable law would be that any crime committed with a gun would go to a carefully conducted trial; then the penalty would be a short drop.

  Right now both halves of the US fear a military take over or coup. The other half wants personal firearms to counter that if it comes. That takes us to the 2nd; written so the citizens could have weapons equal to the military. In 1776 the brown bess was the state of art infantry weapon, complete with a supply of ammunition. Now it is an AK 47 which we are not allowed to own despite all the muddying over so called military grade guns whatever that means