3732 pts ยท May 11, 2013
Thanks for the spoilers!
Should rocket propelled grenades (or anything that falls under "destructive device") be legal?
Again, not one-to-one. Both deal with restricting what you can do. But fine. Lets try something else.
Well, the court ruled in favour of NRA and the authorities are forced to return those. They also changed the law after that.
Again, if you want background checks to work, there needs to be oversight over the whole chain, not just retailers/wholesalers. (2)
Yeah, but isn't that database limited to the retailers/wholesalers. It is a bit hard to track if firearms if resold. (1)
It is reasonable that I should be punished for not performing a background check. But how would they trace the firearm back to me? (2)
I think I get why they added registration. Lets say the gun I sell is used to murder someone. The prep has a criminal history. (1)
If you want to stop criminals from getting firearms, you need to keep track to who and how firearms are being sold. (3)
The statistics here are unreliable, because there is no way of keeping track.
I remember looking up where criminals get their guns. About 30% was stealing, the rest was reselling or under the counter dealing. (2)
Lets say a criminal is caught with a firearm he shouldn't have. How would you trace where it came from? (1)
And lets not forget how the public will react. Again, USA is unique in that aspect. (3)
,but USA has a tradition and far too many firearms to make confiscation practical. Switzerland is the closest and they still have theirs.(2)
I don't think you can compare USA and the rest of the western world in that aspect. If we were talking about e.g. GB, then sure, but (1)
Analogies are not supposed to be one-to-one. We are talking about people being responsible, yet there are laws in place for the tool (car).
Umm... the upper one is a poliece car and the lower one is a SWAT vheicle?
Ok, I just looked up military spending by GDP (wiki). Saudi Arabia > Iraq > Israel > Russia >USA.
How would you measure fallout? (I'm not trying to argue here)
What's wrong with registration?
Point here is that without knee jerk reactions nothing will get through. I'm not in favour of this. That's just a byproduct of 2 party sys.
Again, no disagreement. Why do people always assume I'm in favour of banning all guns?
Yeah, it's not supposed to be forced. No disagreement there.
Do you agree that there should not be car safety laws? Why? (2)
Ok, here is an anology... I hate seatbelts (car safety) being manditory. I'm a good driver. It's people who are the blame, not cars. (1)
I understand what you are trying to say. In theory it is all good. In practice, its a big mess.
Yeah, but that the problem. The parties are not capable of working together. The only way something goes (gets forced) through is by emotion
That's the problem. If you are not willing to offer good legislation, the the other side will do it for you. You will not like the result.
Gun legislation is the obvious example. It would take something very extreme to force your gov to deal with the problem.
Are you sure it works like that? To me it seems the opposite. Emotion seems to be the only way to power legislation through bicam.
Thanks for the spoilers!
Should rocket propelled grenades (or anything that falls under "destructive device") be legal?
Again, not one-to-one. Both deal with restricting what you can do. But fine. Lets try something else.
Well, the court ruled in favour of NRA and the authorities are forced to return those. They also changed the law after that.
Again, if you want background checks to work, there needs to be oversight over the whole chain, not just retailers/wholesalers. (2)
Yeah, but isn't that database limited to the retailers/wholesalers. It is a bit hard to track if firearms if resold. (1)
It is reasonable that I should be punished for not performing a background check. But how would they trace the firearm back to me? (2)
I think I get why they added registration. Lets say the gun I sell is used to murder someone. The prep has a criminal history. (1)
If you want to stop criminals from getting firearms, you need to keep track to who and how firearms are being sold. (3)
The statistics here are unreliable, because there is no way of keeping track.
I remember looking up where criminals get their guns. About 30% was stealing, the rest was reselling or under the counter dealing. (2)
Lets say a criminal is caught with a firearm he shouldn't have. How would you trace where it came from? (1)
And lets not forget how the public will react. Again, USA is unique in that aspect. (3)
,but USA has a tradition and far too many firearms to make confiscation practical. Switzerland is the closest and they still have theirs.(2)
I don't think you can compare USA and the rest of the western world in that aspect. If we were talking about e.g. GB, then sure, but (1)
Analogies are not supposed to be one-to-one. We are talking about people being responsible, yet there are laws in place for the tool (car).
Umm... the upper one is a poliece car and the lower one is a SWAT vheicle?
Ok, I just looked up military spending by GDP (wiki). Saudi Arabia > Iraq > Israel > Russia >USA.
How would you measure fallout? (I'm not trying to argue here)
What's wrong with registration?
Point here is that without knee jerk reactions nothing will get through. I'm not in favour of this. That's just a byproduct of 2 party sys.
Again, no disagreement. Why do people always assume I'm in favour of banning all guns?
Yeah, it's not supposed to be forced. No disagreement there.
Do you agree that there should not be car safety laws? Why? (2)
Ok, here is an anology... I hate seatbelts (car safety) being manditory. I'm a good driver. It's people who are the blame, not cars. (1)
I understand what you are trying to say. In theory it is all good. In practice, its a big mess.
Yeah, but that the problem. The parties are not capable of working together. The only way something goes (gets forced) through is by emotion
That's the problem. If you are not willing to offer good legislation, the the other side will do it for you. You will not like the result.
Gun legislation is the obvious example. It would take something very extreme to force your gov to deal with the problem.
Are you sure it works like that? To me it seems the opposite. Emotion seems to be the only way to power legislation through bicam.