{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por TheArtist:
10/28/2018 3:31:19 PM
1
[quote]I can’t be bothered reading that all.[/quote]
And that's the problem.
The relevance of my point doesn't change whether you're for or against gun control.
This is not a simple problem with easy answers, and increasingly we don't have the collective attention span or patience to give the topic the consideration it deserves.
Which is why we are where we are.
English
-
Listen, I only said what was logical, nothing more or less. Laws don’t stop crime.
-
Because only Law ENFORCEMENT does.
-
Law enforcement can’t be everywhere at once, when my life matters im the first responder! Not the guy who’s 6 minutes away.
-
I never made a comment on enforcement
-
Editado por TheArtist: 10/28/2018 3:36:21 PMWhich is why I am. Limits without consequences is simply nagging.
-
So why are you here then when I’m commenting on the control law itself then? I already know enforcement works, but only if a perpetrator is found.
-
Smh. I refuse to continue this when you refuse to read what I write. [i]I’ve already answered that question.[/i] Twice.
-
I’m not particularly bothered on the outcome either way. [spoiler]quick tip: summarising is a valuable skill[/spoiler]
-
He’s basically saying that the argument “having gun laws won’t stop gun violence” is like saying “might as well not have any laws at all.” No laws stop determined criminals, but they place barriers to slow down criminals, and provide a metric for deciding when to punish people for their actions.
-
[quote] “having gun laws won’t stop gun violence” is like saying “might as well not have any laws at all.” [/quote] No, the gun control laws are to prevent access, or easy access, to firearms and to most likely have the citizens hand in their firearms, with the aim of preventing gun violence. Ultimately, laws are written to notify people of what is crime and what is not, however people are only punished once they have committed crime, [b]hence laws don’t stop crime[/b]. I don’t even know how you got to the idea that it’s similar to not having any laws. All I’m saying is that there’s no physical barrier to prevent crime, so gun laws will only affect those who follow the law [b](NOT CRIMINALS).[/b]
-
I’m not sure how to explain this in a different way that you will understand, but his point is: If gun control laws don’t work because gun crime still happens, then (for instance) murder laws don’t work because murder still happens. Thus, saying that we shouldn’t have gun control [i]because[/i] it “doesn’t work” is the same as saying we shouldn’t have laws against other crimes because those crimes don’t work any better. More precisely, the logic for both is identical. Why do we have laws regarding thievery? Fraud? Speeding? I’m sure he ran tangential to the original idea at some points, but the fact is that mentioning that criminals don’t follow laws is completely irrelevant, whereas you heavily implied that the “inability” of gun control laws to keep [u]criminals[/u] from doing their thing is anymore relevant than talking about the “inability” of the illegality of murder to stop murder.
-
Firstly, thank you for explaining what they were trying to say. I understand that completely, but it’s not whether laws work or not. The law is there to punish those who break it. Referring back to my original post, a gun control law would involve confiscation of firearms and those who do not are punished. However, someone with the intent of doing damage with said weapon would not hand it in and stay hidden. Yes, it can be interpreted as ‘all laws are like that so they may as well not exist’, but the whole point is that gun control is completely useless, as it only makes those following the law more vulnerable.
-
[quote]laws will only affect those who follow the law [b](NOT CRIMINALS).[/b][/quote] Again, you could say this about all laws, but it’s clearly a flawed argument. It doesn’t work for gun laws either.
-
I don’t see how it’s a flawed argument.
-
That’s your problem. If you didn’t understand it the short way, you should go back and read the long post.
-
I read the first part about how burglary laws should be removed because it doesn’t stop a burglary. I stopped there because I had the sudden realisation that this person doesn’t understand how law is there to punish those who break it, not to prevent crime.
-
Jesus Christ... that’s the point he’s making. You’re the one who doesn’t understand.
-
[quote]Let’s suppose gun control does happen and the law abiding citizens can’t get guns. This [b]MUST[/b] mean that all gun related crime would stop because [b]ALL CRIMINALS[/b] would happily hand in their firearms which they were gonna use for crime. Because gun control ‘works’[/quote] In which case, why was he arguing about what I said? I’m kinda confused now because I’ve got that guy and then you arguing for that guy.
-
Because the point you are trying to make actually works better for the other side of the argument and you don’t even realize it. It’s sad. The other guy was right. You aren’t worth having a discussion with.
-
Do me a favour: When you’re making these accusations, perhaps put links or quotes? Worth having a discussion? Please. Get off your high horse.
