This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
What if we gave guns to more people?
For example, what if that movie theatre had three security guards, all with a small calibur pistol? Same for every school, store, or whatever?
Obviously, those jobs would need to be more regulated, so you don't get the wrong people doing them, but would it maybe help?
Post by
FatalHeaven
I'm gonna allow this topic to run a bit longer as there still seems to be a respectful debate/conversation taking place. I'll probably change it in the morning.
Post by
MyTie
I'm gonna allow this topic to run a bit longer as there still seems to be a respectful debate/conversation taking place. I'll probably change it in the morning.
Good call, Fatal! Thanks. This is a very interesting topic.
Post by
Magician22773
What if we gave guns to more people?
For example, what if that movie theatre had three security guards, all with a small calibur pistol? Same for every school, store, or whatever?
Obviously, those jobs would need to be more regulated, so you don't get the wrong people doing them, but would it maybe help?
This is a part of why having trained citizens with concealed carry permits "may have" helped.
First, the Aurora shooter was wearing very good body armor. A typical handgun would not have been effective unless the shooter was very lucky, or a very good shot. From what I read, he was armored from his neck down.
While I would not be opposed to armed guards, its just not possible to have guards in every public place. That is why I support concealed carry. Most people that carry a firearm do not just have the minimum required training necessary to obtain the permit, but will continue to train on thier own after they recieve their permit. I can tell you that had this shooting occured with me and my normal group of friends in the theater, the outcome would have very likely been different. I cannot carry concealed anymore, due to my past, but nearly everyone I run around with does. Most of them carry guns that are of a large enough caliber and use specialized ammo, that his body armor would have been breached.
Post by
1012446
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
331902
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
My attitude hasn't changed much since
this topic
.
Here's the thing in the
US
. As it stands, implementing gun control laws in a country with such a provision in the Constitution would probably have minimal effects on crime. Liberalising gun control laws in other countries could potentially increase crime though.
There are a lot of variables when analysing data though. One can note an increase in intentional homicide rate after a gun control law has passed and still not refute the premise of the OP (stricter gun laws lowering crime), as crime may have increased by a greater degree without the passage of the law. Comparing similar countries may be useful then, but there won't be isomorphism - there are significant cultural impacts.
Yes gun crime is lower in the UK, but Crime is not.
Right - and that is answering the OP, but I'd rather be mugged than murdered.
In a dictatorship where the politicians are above the law and control the media, that kind of corruption is easier to get away with.
Worth consulting
independent
sources
, thar...
It's Christian values.
Holmes and his family were regular attendees of their local Presbyterian church.
In the absence of guns, he could have placed bombs in the movie theater, and killed many more than he could have with guns, and maybe even gotten away with it.
Cinema staff often check thoroughly for abandoned bags and whatnot. I know at my local cinema it's disallowed to leave a bag on a seat while using the toilet or buying popcorn and the staff will come and confiscate it. He presumably performed a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis and decided he'd be able to kill more people by shooting, rather than bombing. That said, I support limiting the number of explosives a citizen can have.
And finally, swiftly execute anyone convicted of first degree murder. Let the man with the gun know that when he pulls that trigger, he may as well be pulling it on himself, and maybe he will think twice.
The only guns that will be removed by anti-gun laws, is the guns of those who abide by laws.
Well, that's false, cuz there are already anti-gun laws that permit confiscation of weapons by those ineligible to own them (illegal immigrants, felons in certain states). There are certain weapons that only the military are permitted to use, as far as I know. While it would certainly be difficult, if not impossible, to disarm a populace already distrustful of their government, it'd probably be achieved by increments. There's already a huge arms disparity between the military and the rest of the population. Not to mention, most gun control laws would restrict private ownership. Certain branches of law enforcement would still be permitted to use them. It'd also discourage the sale of illegal weapons.
And finally, swiftly execute anyone convicted of first degree murder. Let the man with the gun know that when he pulls that trigger, he may as well be pulling it on himself, and maybe he will think twice.
Countries and states with no capital punishment have lower murder rates on average.
Post by
Magician22773
Holmes and his family were regular atendees of their local Presbyterian church
I regularly go in my garage. It does not make me a car.
Countries and states with no capital punishment have lower murder rates on average.
Perhaps I should have put more empahsis on the "swiftly" part. Current capital punishment procedure is a joke. Spending 15-20 years in the safest part of a prison, with almost endless appeals, and a quiet, painless death is not going to be much more of a deterrant than any other punishment. Besides, even in states that do execute, most criminals will plea out of the death penalty. I believe that if EVERY convicted 1st degree murderer were put to death following 1 appeal, the statistics would be much different.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#35: Should teens have to abide by a city or state curfew?
As the topic says, I am
not
addressing a curfew set in place by parents; those should be followed, mmkay?
But as far as a city wide ordinance or state regulation as to a curfew for teens, should they have to follow it? Does it actually do what it's intended to do? Which is to keep the kids themselves safe, and the city/state a better place?
Sorry it took me longer to change the topic than I planned. I woke up late and heck if I didn't have to work? :P
Post by
Adamsm
#35: Should teens have to abide by a city or state curfew?
Yes, if that's the municipal law. If a teen is found outside of their home after curfew they should 'pay the price'; but really, how many cities/states now a days actually have a mandated curfew(honest question here)?
Post by
FatalHeaven
#35: Should teens have to abide by a city or state curfew?
Yes, if that's the municipal law. If a teen is found outside of their home after curfew they should 'pay the price'; but really, how many cities/states now a days actually have a mandated curfew(honest question here)?
To be honest, every city/state I've lived in. Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma... and I'd be willing to bet, most do. Atleast in the States. Not sure as to other Countries.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
We had a situation in my state (New South Wales) in Australia where a lot of young provisional licence holders (17/18/19 years olds) were dying in road accidents.
They have since had curfews of sorts placed on them in an attempt to reduce the road toll.
Eg: Limiting engine size, ban on turbo's, and no more than one passenger after 11 pm.
Will be interesting to see if these measures have any effect.
As for city/region/state wide curfews, I think all it will acheive is moving the probelm along to another area, where there aren't curfews.
I've noticed an improvement in the quality of driving after 11pm after the curfews were introduced, to be honest.
Less
Fewer hoons, that's for sure. I'm not sure whether the engine size / turbo restrictions make much difference, however, as most kids who have access to the cars just get their parents to write a letter to the RTA saying "oh, the only cars we have in the house are a WRX STi and an XR6T" and get an exemption.
In direct answer to the question, if it's the law, then yes, they should have to abide by it. Curfews aren't some sort of special optional law that people can choose whether they obey or not. Should people have to abide by red lights? Of course. It's not an optional sort of thing. If there aren't any cars coming and you don't see a cop car around, you can try to get away with it, but that's purely at your own risk.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
FatalHeaven
In direct answer to the question, if it's the law, then yes, they should have to abide by it. Curfews aren't some sort of special optional law that people can choose whether they obey or not. Should people have to abide by red lights? Of course. It's not an optional sort of thing. If there aren't any cars coming and you don't see a cop car around, you can try to get away with it, but that's purely at your own risk.
I don't think the point of the question wasn't completely understood as intended. Let me further specify, I'm not asking if they should abide a law specifically; more so if there should be a law in place addressing curfews that affects teens.
Should teens have to abide by a curfew = Should there be a curfew for teens.
That was what I meant to be asking, sorry if it were unclear.
Post by
yukonjack
#35: Should teens have to abide by a city or state curfew?
Those laws should not exist and I am very surprised that they do, furthermore wherever those laws do exist the kids affected by them now have a good motivator to get into local politics eventually and change them.
Post by
Magician22773
#35: Should teens have to abide by a city or state curfew?
I have 2 initial reactions to this question.
The first is, I don't see a problem with it. Teens rarely have a "good" reason to out past midnight, or maybe 1am. So passing a law like this would only be reinforcing what a good parent should already be enforcing.
But my second reation is, we should not have to rely on laws to parent our kids for us.
I guess the winning factor here would be that a law would take the slack for kids that have parents that will not, or cannot, properly raise their children.
There would have to be several exceptions to the rule though. Jobs, emergency situations, and emancipated minors are just a few that I can think of.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.