Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Unless we have the statistics, your talking down to me is meaningless.
|
ok will, you are right. I have no statistics and do not know the number of criminals who carry their guns openly in america. I'll find that and post it up here for you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Then Porsche is guilty of keeping fast cars from law abiding citizens. I'm sorry, but if there were to be a law that prevented people rom getting guns, it would keep all people from getting guns.
|
This is a complete apples and oranges comparison. Porsche does not make their automobiles expensive because of numerous regulations. They put a price on their product by supply/demand/costs. the government makes products and services MORE expensive by taxes/regulations/controlling supply.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You aren't going to convince anyone by citing examples of 'precursers'. Apollo 11 was a precurser to the first mission to Mars, but we're not there yet.
|
how about examples of the past? I've posted numerous examples, but that would never happen in america, would it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
If they can't vote, then they shouldn't have weapons.
|
why not? we let them drive, we let them get married?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So it's a gun ban. A gun ban is not gun control. Gun control is an effort to regulate of the sale and use of rifles and handguns. A ban is not regulatin, it is a ban. Also, it isn't semantics because you were answering a question that I asked: "...what gun control law denies 'law abiding citizens' from getting guns? Before you answer that question, remember that a gun ban is not gun control just like a fast is not a diet."
|
A gun ban IS gun control by different means. They both are intended to keep guns out of civilian hands. One by restrictions on the person, the other by restriction of living in a municipality. Same effect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
If you are sent to prison for a year or more, you can't get a gun. If yoiu bounce checks repeatedly, you can go to jail. It's no abuse of power, it's simple common sense.
|
There is nothing common sense about making laws to keep guns out of violent felons hands and collecting non violent misdemeanors in the process.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Without photos of bruises, police reports, doctor's reports, tape recordings of telephone conversations, etc. the judge usually won't grant a restraining order. The decision on a restraining order is no less important than a court ruling. There cannot be a restraining order without proof.
|
Then you're sorely lacking in experience and knowledge on domestic violence restraining orders. This even affects people who were inappropriately convicted for spanking their kids. It's a bad law to begin with and it's effects are even worse with sympathetic judges who issue restraining orders on the words of a vindictive spouse/significant other.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Your 'people who make simple mistakes' are criminals. Do you want criminals to have guns or not?
|
I don't want violent felons to have guns. Somebody who makes a simple mistake in a victimless crime should not lose their constitutional rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You should contact a local lawyer about restraining orders. They have a lot of useful and tested information on them, and could teach you a lot.
|
Thats why I want to be a lawyer myself, I know how to find this info.
[QUOTE=willravel]Do you know what resources I used? Nope. I didn't list any because I found all of it in my encyclopedia. If you want to argue with the encyclopedia, go right ahead. No need to shoot the messsenger. None of your examples showed guns being taken from law abiding citizens, so I don't know why you see this hidden menace with the intent of taking your gun. If you become a criminal, they will be within their legal right to take your guns and make sure you can't legally purchase guns.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
This is the fear I was talking about. So you're saying that even if I had military protection and several foot deep steel doors (fort knox) a criminal will come and get me? A gun is not a magic shield of protection. Guns are machines built to kill people. A gun is what you are afraid of, and yet you are willing to get a gun yourself for the purpous of defence. That is truely confusing.
|
If you were a prisoner there, I'd say no. But in the really real world, you have to go out on a near daily basis, right? Again, A gun is NOT a magic shield, nor is a taser or mace, but it greatly increases your odds of survival. Guns are a tool to defend yourselves, much like a baseball bat is made to hit home runs. It's who uses it and how that makes the difference.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Edit: This is becoming adversarial again. My intent is to teach and learn on the subject, not win or lose. I apologize if anything I've written has been inapropriate to these ends. Know that I have a great deal of respect for you and have no wish to bring harm (potential or otherwise) or discomfort to you and yours.
|
I've taken no offense by anything you've written in this thread. No apologies are necessary. If it seems adversarial, well, thats because it is. You say you aren't asking me to turn my gun in, technically thats true, but you also say that you think gun bans will work, you want to run for office to make those changes, so I make the natural assumption that you want me to turn my gun in.
My intent is to teach and learn on the subject as well, maybe we're so ingrained in our beliefs that we will never come to terms.