Gun Crime

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


It's not an alternate plane. Statistically, wealthy people in the US generally do not commit violent crimes - I think their biggest one would be domestic violence.

*rummages around to find a link to the du Pont heir who went crazy as a loon and strangled somebody*

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


I highly doubt that. Given thier physics experience, I think that either Rogan Josh or KittyHorse could build one if they had the materials.

GP almost certainly knows intricate details of the designs of current weapons.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Small firearms pose a general safety risk to society when in the hands of individual citizens.

Cars also pose a general safety risk to society. Just look at the large number of automobile fatalities, all of which could have been prevented if we only outlawed cars.

I am opposed to people believing they have the right to own small firearms, which are made for one purpose -- to kill.

So you'd rather that criminals be the only people who own guns?

Regardless, as has already been pointed out on this thread, swords and poisons are also made for one purpose -- to kill.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
GP almost certainly knows intricate details of the designs of current weapons.

I'm ashamed that I forgot a person who actually worked with them.

[KrazyHorse]

The debate on firearms needs to step back to reality. Guns are made to kill. The question remains whether society is harmed enough by their private ownership to justify removing that right/privilege.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Sure, if you have enough advanced degrees in physics, engineering, and probably a bunch of other stuff too - I doubt anyone on Poly, even with a complete set of schematics and detailed instructions, could successfully assemble a nuclear weapon.

I agree with KrazyHorse: Nukes really aren't all that difficult to build once you've got the proper materials, particularly if you're only trying to build a fission bomb.

[David Floyd]

There are at least 10 people here who could do so, and you're talking to one of them. GP could probably do it with his eyes shut and his hands tied behind his back. Rogan and Dr. Spin, at least, could probably design one from scratch. The physics is 1940s and 50s stuff, and is easily accessible to even those in the undergraduate stages of their education.

Assuming these people could - which I still doubt, I'm sure you aren't all rich enough to afford the materials - do you think they would have any urge to use a nuclear weapon maliciously, or even build one in the first place? No? I would submit that is the attitude of everyone in this country both rich and talented enough to build their own nuclear weapon. For people fulfilling both criteria, the number would be very low indeed, which is why I feel I can say "no one" with a good deal of confidence.

But even if one of these few people had malicious intent, that doesn't justify preventing everyone from owning one, just as the fact that there are murderers out there doesn't justify banning guns, or the fact that there are drunk drivers and drunk criminals doesn't justify banning either cars or alcohol.

[David Floyd]

The question remains whether society is harmed enough by their private ownership to justify removing that right/privilege.

You can't remove a right from an entire population, and by definition the *right* to bear arms isn't a privilege.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The question remains whether society is harmed enough by their private ownership to justify removing that right/privilege.

Is there any possible way to guarantee that criminals would not be able to gain possession of firearms after they are outlawed? If not, then the question is moot; a society in which only criminals have access to firearms is clearly inferior to a society in which everybody has access to firearms.

[KrazyHorse]

You have, once more, fallen into the trap of drawing false, "either/or" lines. Banning cars is not reasonable. Restricting access to nuclear materials is.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
You can't remove a right from an entire population,

That's correct. However, limits on rights can and have been put in place as a matter of course throughout the history of the US. So, defining something as a right doesn't automatically exempt it from being regulated.

[David Floyd]

You have, once more, fallen into the trap of drawing false, "either/or" lines. Banning cars is not reasonable. Restricting access to nuclear materials is.

Wrong. Both come down to private property rights.

So, defining something as a right doesn't automatically exempt it from being regulated.

Yes it does, so long as you are not using that right to harm another. The simple act of owning a nuke harms no one, therefore it cannot be regulated. The act of setting off a nuke is harmful to millions, and thus can be regulated (unless you can confine the effects of the blast to your own property, I suppose).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by loinburger


Is there any possible way to guarantee that criminals would not be able to gain possession of firearms after they are outlawed? If not, then the question is moot; a society in which only criminals have access to firearms is clearly inferior to a society in which everybody has access to firearms.

In Britain or Canada it is relatively difficult to own a handgun. It certainly remains possible for criminals to acquire one, yet the difficulty they have in doing so certainly shows in the ratio of gun murders to total murders when compared to similar statistics from the US. Restricting access to guns does not just take guns out of the hands of "legitimate" users; it als disarms the criminal population. It is not, again, an all-or-nothing approach.

[Sarxis]

We can't even keep track of foriegn nationals here in the US; how the hell will we keep handguns out of criminal hands?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes it does, so long as you are not using that right to harm another.

The explain why we license drivers, doctors, teachers, etc. Is this not a "violation" of thier right to privacy? As you stated earlier.

The simple act of owning a nuke harms no one, therefore it cannot be regulated.

It harms the international community because it makes that person a world power. Why do you think that Nation-States have been working so hard to keep them out of the hands of sub-national groups, ex. Al-Qaeda, ect.?