British Soldier Hacked/Chopped to Death

[Jenksismyhero]

People will make the contitutionality argument, but we prohibited alcohol and gave African American's 3/5ths of a vote at one time too. The Constitution can and will change as times change.

 

Really, I have no problem with guns whatsoever, but I feel like owning and firing a gun is similar in power to owning and driving a car. You will almost always pay more for a car, but it's just as (if not more) dangerous than a gun and it takes extensive training to become skilled in the practice. Cars are more of a necessity than guns, but people can absolutely live without a car. Thus, much the same as cars, I believe people should be required to apply for a gun through the state - wherever - you should have to take a written test to have a gun "permit," and then you need to take a shooting test to have a gun "license." Every 3-5 years, people should have to go in and take a basic re-test to check for mental and physical stability to ensure that no dangerous changes have occurred.

 

There would also be different types of licenses - rifles, shotguns, handguns, automatics, bazookas, chicken-launchers - and for each different license, you would have to test for it. Once you have a license, you are free to purchase and use any type of gun of that classification pending it's registration.

 

Yes, it would be a pain in the ass, but that's the point - to actually get a gun legally, it is going to be a pain in the ass and you are going to have to make the economic decision as to whether it is worth it to wait and go through all that hassle to get a gun. If it is, then happy gun-owning.

 

All of the major changes don't restrict rights, they expand freedoms.

 

I'm fine with what you suggest in your second paragraph. Those seem reasonable to me.

 

BTW, my comment was more about poking fun at Balta who seems to legitimately fear being killed in the crossfire of a shootout, as if that happens on a daily basis on every street corner in the country. I own many guns, and I can't tell you how many shootouts i've gotten into with my neighbors.

 

And just think if the soldier - someone trained with weapons - could have been carrying a concealed weapon. I'd imagine this story would have ended very differently.

[witesoxfan]

Pro gun people fight the banning of guns and restrictions, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking.

 

Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence. The problem will solve itself. Banning them or restricting them hasn't worked, that much is obvious.

 

It won't all be at the end of the chain though. People still drive drunk even though the punishments most times are extreme. You have to do some battling both before and after to start weeding it out, and while doing so you need to do whatever you can to weed out the criminals.

[Soxbadger]

Pro gun people fight the banning of guns, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking.

 

Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence. The problem will solve itself. Banning them or restricting them hasn't worked, that much is obvious.

 

They absolutely fight the consequences. Gun owners will not go for: "If you have an unlicensed gun 1 year mandatory sentence", they will not go for "If you buy/sell an unlicensed gun, 1 year mandatory sentence."

 

These type of consequences wont fly in the current pro-gun environment. They fought the Brady Bill, they fight everything.

 

If they didnt, why dont we have stronger consequences?

 

 

[Y2HH]

They absolutely fight the consequences. Gun owners will not go for: "If you have an unlicensed gun 1 year mandatory sentence", they will not go for "If you buy/sell an unlicensed gun, 1 year mandatory sentence."

 

These type of consequences wont fly in the current pro-gun environment. They fought the Brady Bill, they fight everything.

 

If they didnt, why dont we have stronger consequences?

 

This is giving IL politicians a pass.

 

New York has WAY stronger consequences, therefore, so can we. A lot of places have very tough consequences on illegal guns. IL, who's politicians are supposedly anti-gun, don't seem to care. Or we'd have what NY has.

[Jenksismyhero]

They absolutely fight the consequences. Gun owners will not go for: "If you have an unlicensed gun 1 year mandatory sentence", they will not go for "If you buy/sell an unlicensed gun, 1 year mandatory sentence."

 

These type of consequences wont fly in the current pro-gun environment. They fought the Brady Bill, they fight everything.

 

If they didnt, why dont we have stronger consequences?

 

Those penalties are unreasonably severe. That's why we don't have them. That, and 99.9% of gun owners don't commit crimes, so you're punishing tens of millions without any evidence that it would result in any changes in crime rates.

[Soxbadger]

Those penalties are unreasonably severe. That's why we don't have them. That, and 99.9% of gun owners don't commit crimes, so you're punishing tens of millions without any evidence that it would result in any changes in crime rates.

 

Well they are criminals. Having an unlicensed gun would be a crime, selling a gun without a license would be a crime.

 

So those people dont fall into the completely made up 99.9% of gun owners dont commit crimes, they would be the .1% who are committing crimes.

 

See Y2hh, this is why we cant have tougher laws. Because people will make up arguments about how "gun owners dont commit crimes". Even though the premise is not punishing a gun owner, its punishing someone who broke the law, which is a crime.

 

I couldnt have made up a more perfect response to prove my point.

[mr_genius]

Victim. Singular. You avoided the point though, so I'm glad to see you can do that.

 

Good sir, a lot of people fall victim to knife related violence, not just one.

[mr_genius]

Anything can kill you at any given moment. The fact that people live until they're 70 or 80 or 110 is incredibly lucky to begin with. Perhaps we should start banning everything until all we have is a naked wasteland of people, right?

 

Well, I'm not ready to take it that far. Let's just start with the knife ban and see the results.

 

I want to clarify something, non-sharp knifes (such as a flimsy butter knife) would be exempt from the ban. OK maybe a sharp knife would be allowed in a fancy restaurant or something.

Edited May 24, 2013 by mr_genius

[Jenksismyhero]

Well they are criminals. Having an unlicensed gun would be a crime, selling a gun without a license would be a crime.

 

So those people dont fall into the completely made up 99.9% of gun owners dont commit crimes, they would be the .1% who are committing crimes.

 

See Y2hh, this is why we cant have tougher laws. Because people will make up arguments about how "gun owners dont commit crimes". Even though the premise is not punishing a gun owner, its punishing someone who broke the law, which is a crime.

 

I couldnt have made up a more perfect response to prove my point.

 

So the way to curb gun crime is to make stronger penalties for owning guns which will create tens of thousands of new criminals who should be punished so severely that they'll be put in jail for a year, all for not getting a stupid piece of paper, even though those same people today have done absolutely nothing to contribute to said gun crime you want to prevent.

 

That's the logic that's sound in this debate? Really?

Edited May 24, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

So the way to curb gun crime is to make stronger penalties for owning guns which will create tens of thousands of new criminals who should be punished so severely that they'll be put in jail for a year, all for not getting a stupid piece of paper, even though those same people today have done absolutely nothing to contribute to said gun crime you want to prevent.

 

That's the logic that's sound in this debate? Really?

 

Y2hh asked why cant there be harsher laws. I answered because people will fight them.

 

Pro gun people fight the banning of guns and restrictions, not the consequences of using/having them illegally. The issue is, we never talk about consequences, we talk about bans or restrictions on legal ownership. That's backwards thinking.

 

Put consequences on actions, if you have a gun/use a gun illegally, you pay a very VERY heavy consequence.

 

You then proved my point.

 

Thanks for playing though.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Y2hh asked why cant there be harsher laws. I answered because people will fight them.

 

 

 

You then proved my point.

 

Thanks for playing though.

 

That's not why, and your point wasn't proven. At all.

 

New York HAS harsher laws.

 

The point of laws is to punish NON law abiding citizens, not those that follow the law. Legally obtaining a gun isn't the issue here. Do you honestly think these people murdering people with guns on the streets of Chicago obtained them legally? Try again. You target criminals, you don't pass laws that CREATE new criminals out of thin air.

 

That's the difference in what I'm asking for, and the ridiculous solution you're coming up with.

[Soxbadger]

That's not why, and your point wasn't proven. At all.

 

New York HAS harsher laws.

 

The point of laws is to punish NON law abiding citizens, not those that follow the law. Legally obtaining a gun isn't the issue here. Do you honestly think these people murdering people with guns on the streets of Chicago obtained them legally? Try again. You target criminals, you don't pass laws that CREATE new criminals out of thin air.

 

That's the difference in what I'm asking for, and the ridiculous solution you're coming up with.

 

People who are selling guns without a license, not registering are breaking the law. They are criminals.

 

How can you legitimately argue that someone breaking the law obtained it legally?

 

They arent law abiding citizens if they are breaking the law.

 

If you dont buy a gun properly, you are not owning it legally.

 

If you obtained the gun legally, you have nothing to worry about in my scenario.

 

It would only apply to criminals who did not apply the gun legally. Thus when you are arrested, you either 1) have papers to show you bought the gun legally and thus you have no issue or 2) do not have those papers and thus have an issue.

 

Pretty hilarious how youve immediately back tracked. As now you are arguing against yourself from earlier.

 

lol

 

(edit)

 

Just explain how someone who bought or sold a gun illegally is a "law abiding citizen."

 

If you can do that, Ill concede.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

People who are selling guns without a license, not registering are breaking the law. They are criminals.

 

How can you legitimately argue that someone breaking the law obtained it legally?

 

They arent law abiding citizens if they are breaking the law.

 

If you dont buy a gun properly, you are not owning it legally.

 

If you obtained the gun legally, you have nothing to worry about in my scenario.

 

It would only apply to criminals who did not apply the gun legally. Thus when you are arrested, you either 1) have papers to show you bought the gun legally and thus you have no issue or 2) do not have those papers and thus have an issue.

 

Pretty hilarious how youve immediately back tracked. As now you are arguing against yourself from earlier.

 

lol

 

(edit)

 

Just explain how someone who bought or sold a gun illegally is a "law abiding citizen."

 

If you can do that, Ill concede.

 

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.

 

NY has harsher penalties when it comes to gun crime. Therefore, so can we.

 

Though you claim we cannot, because pro gun people won't allow it. But they allowed it in NY.

 

Licensing and registration is much more grey area, as these aren't national laws, but local, so I'm not even talking about that, and it's what you are focusing on. I'm talking about people who carry guns around (ALREADY illegal), and use them in crimes (ALREADY illegal). No new laws need to be passed to make those things illegal. What needs to happen, and what I'm asking for, is we make the penalty of those laws HARSHER, which is what NY did. This has nothing to do with writing new laws, or creating new laws that penalize people who didn't license their gun after buying it legitimately.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

Y2hh,

 

And as I said. They wont do that.

 

I never said anything about writing new laws. In Illinois to own a gun you need a FOID card. It is already illegal to own a gun without one.

 

So I said why not make the penalty harsher for that. You seemingly agreed, then completely changed your position just to disagree with me.

 

Are you just not familiar with the law?

 

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/

 

The FOID card is required for any resident of Illinois to possess or purchase firearms.

 

So there is no need for a new law, just increasing the penalties on an old law. This is exactly what you are saying, yet somehow you disagree.

 

Does not compute.

[Y2HH]

Y2hh,

 

And as I said. They wont do that.

 

I never said anything about writing new laws. In Illinois to own a gun you need a FOID card. It is already illegal to own a gun without one.

 

So I said why not make the penalty harsher for that. You seemingly agreed, then completely changed your position just to disagree with me.

 

Are you just not familiar with the law?

 

http://www.isp.state.il.us/foid/

 

 

 

So there is no need for a new law, just increasing the penalties on an old law. This is exactly what you are saying, yet somehow you disagree.

 

Does not compute.

 

That's a scarier area, because what if my foid card expires and I simply forget to renew it? I don't really consider that person a criminal like you seem too.

 

I'm talking about outright criminals. People who carry guns around are breaking the law. People using guns in gun crimes. Things such as this. These are much more black and white crimes vs a person that doesn't have a foid card, who did when they initially bought the gun they haven't seen in 20 years that they locked in a safe and haven't looked at since.

 

Focus on the criminals we have first...then create new ones with stuff like this.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Y2HH

[Soxbadger]

That's a scarier area, because what if my foid card expires and I simply forget to renew it? I don't really consider that person a criminal like you seem too.

 

I'm talking about outright criminals. People who carry guns around are breaking the law. People using guns in gun crimes. Things such as this. These are much more black and white crimes vs a person that doesn't have a foid card, who did when they initially bought the gun they haven't seen in 20 years that they locked in a safe and haven't looked at since.

 

Focus on the criminals we have first...then create new ones with stuff like this.

 

The ultimate problem is that a criminal is a criminal. You cant just say "Oh well thats not my type of criminal."

 

I guess in my opinion I am fine with people owning guns, as long as they understand that owning a gun comes with responsibility. I do not believe that it is to much to ask to keep your FOID card registered, etc.

 

If someone can not do that, why are they trustworthy enough to own a gun?

 

The person who locked their gun up 20 years and hasnt seen it, doesnt know where their gun is. For all we know its been stolen, lost or is in the hands of a "real criminal" who will then use it to hurt someone else.

 

I guess I just think there should be some give and take. If you want to play the "gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens", then shouldnt we hold them to that?

 

And this isnt my opinion. I dont get to say who is a criminal or who is not. A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you want to create a different category "violent criminal" etc, well then we can have a reasonable discussion. But no one has framed it that way, everyone used the word "criminal" generally.

 

 

[Soxfest]

I am glad he is caught on video so he cannot get out of it.

[Jenksismyhero]

The ultimate problem is that a criminal is a criminal. You cant just say "Oh well thats not my type of criminal."

 

I guess in my opinion I am fine with people owning guns, as long as they understand that owning a gun comes with responsibility. I do not believe that it is to much to ask to keep your FOID card registered, etc.

 

If someone can not do that, why are they trustworthy enough to own a gun?

 

The person who locked their gun up 20 years and hasnt seen it, doesnt know where their gun is. For all we know its been stolen, lost or is in the hands of a "real criminal" who will then use it to hurt someone else.

 

I guess I just think there should be some give and take. If you want to play the "gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens", then shouldnt we hold them to that?

 

And this isnt my opinion. I dont get to say who is a criminal or who is not. A criminal is someone who breaks the law. If you want to create a different category "violent criminal" etc, well then we can have a reasonable discussion. But no one has framed it that way, everyone used the word "criminal" generally.

 

The word means nothing when you look at it in this way. Every single one of us is a criminal because we've all driven faster than the posted speed limit or made a rolling stop instead of a complete stop. You have to look at it on different levels.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

The word means nothing when you look at it in this way. Every single one of us is a criminal because we've all driven faster than the posted speed limit or made a rolling stop instead of a complete stop. You have to look at it on different levels.

 

Not really the word means what it is intended to mean, if you break the law (regardless of how small or big) you are a criminal. I do not get into subjective arguments about what I really meant criminal to mean, because I have the power to put qualifiers in front of the word or use a more appropriate word.

 

Perhaps you meant felons, that 99.9% of gun owners are not felons, but I wouldnt know, because you said "law abiding citizens", and that means "following the law".

 

Otherwise the word means nothing. Because what does it matter if I dont think people who do drugs are criminals, they are. Its not my subjective opinion, its the state of the law today.

 

I would never say Im a law abiding citizen and I admit that I am a criminal. That is the true definition of the word.

 

Which is why I dont like arguments about how criminals should have less rights etc, because almost all of us are criminals in some way.

 

Hence why my discussion is based not on whether a gun owner is a criminal or not, but on the fact that a gun is a dangerous tool and therefore there should be some responsibility that comes with owning that tool.

 

Not about whether gun ownership is right or wrong, just about being reasonable to everyone. Gun owners and non gun owners a like.

[Y2HH]

Not really the word means what it is intended to mean, if you break the law (regardless of how small or big) you are a criminal. I do not get into subjective arguments about what I really meant criminal to mean, because I have the power to put qualifiers in front of the word or use a more appropriate word.

 

Perhaps you meant felons, that 99.9% of gun owners are not felons, but I wouldnt know, because you said "law abiding citizens", and that means "following the law".

 

Otherwise the word means nothing. Because what does it matter if I dont think people who do drugs are criminals, they are. Its not my subjective opinion, its the state of the law today.

 

I would never say Im a law abiding citizen and I admit that I am a criminal. That is the true definition of the word.

 

Which is why I dont like arguments about how criminals should have less rights etc, because almost all of us are criminals in some way.

 

Hence why my discussion is based not on whether a gun owner is a criminal or not, but on the fact that a gun is a dangerous tool and therefore there should be some responsibility that comes with owning that tool.

 

Not about whether gun ownership is right or wrong, just about being reasonable to everyone. Gun owners and non gun owners a like.

 

So you are saying there is a difference in a knife and a gun and a nuclear bomb...but there is no difference between a child rapist and a person that rolls through stop signs?

 

Shark jumped.

 

WTG Fonzie.

[Soxbadger]

So you are saying there is a difference in a knife and a gun and a nuclear bomb...but there is no difference between a child rapist and a person that rolls through stop signs?

 

Shark jumped.

 

WTG Fonzie.

 

Where did I ever say that?

 

I defined a word.

 

If I used the word "weapon", the definition would encompass, knife, a-bomb, laser beam, brass knuckles.

 

Please show me where I used the word "weapon" and then argued, that wasnt the type of weapon I meant?

 

In fact I took the time to actually go through that in one of my earlier posts:

 

Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not.

 

I have no problem recognizing that certain criminals are more dangerous. Show me where I said otherwise?

Edited May 24, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

Nope, that is impossible because their position is, as we know, based on hypocrisy.

 

Either we recognize that certain weapons are inherently more destructive and thus should be subject to greater scrutiny, or we do not.

 

The reason we know they are hypocritical is because almost no one is willing to argue that I should be allowed to have my own personal nuclear weapon.

 

Its basically arguing there should be no speed limit because you can die in a car fatality even if the car is only going 1 mile an hour, so why have a limit speed at all?

 

The inanity of the argument is mind blowing.

 

Right. There.

 

Let's recognize that certain laws should carry harsher penalties than others, too.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Where did I ever say that?

 

I defined a word.

 

If I used the word "weapon" it would encompass, knife, a-bomb, laser beam, brass knuckles.

 

Please show me where I did that?

 

In fact I took the time to actually go through that in one of my earlier posts:

 

 

 

I have no problem recognizing that certain criminals are more dangerous. Show me where I said otherwise?

 

To start over, we need harsher penalties on gun crime. And not all gun crime is to be treated equally.

[Soxbadger]

Right. There.

 

Let's recognize that certain laws should carry harsher penalties than others, too.

 

Ive never said otherwise.

 

I absolutely recognize different crimes have different penalties.

 

But when you say "criminal", how in the world do I know what you mean? How am I supposed to guess you mean rapist, thief, drug addict, etc?

 

They are all criminals.

 

But I never said their crimes are equal nor that all criminals are equal, you cant find that anywhere, you are just making it up.

[Soxbadger]

To start over, we need harsher penalties on gun crime. And not all gun crime is to be treated equally.

 

I agree.

 

Ive never said otherwise.

 

I dont believe I suggested that someone who doesnt have a FOID card, should be subject to the same penalty as someone who commits a violent act with a gun.

 

That would be asinine.