Florida School Shooting

[Sparko]

Drug users don't typically become "criminals" until they do/buy illegal drugs. If the desire is out there, all you're doing is making otherwise law-abiding citizens into non-law-abiding citizens (that's the same argument gun rights advocates make about guns, isn't it). We're seeing that in a big way with the opioid epidemic, where law-abiding citizens become hooked on pain relievers given to them by their doctors, and then buying illegal drugs in order to maintain their fix. One of the big reasons for making drugs illegal is to make them harder to acquire. That's always been one of, if not the main reason for making them illegal. To pretend that isn't, or hasn't always been the case just so can cancel out the comparison with a gun ban is just well, it's silly, and a little disingenuous. If the desire to make drugs illegal was simply to prevent law-abiding citizens from ingesting them, then there would never have been any reason for governments and local agencies to prevent their manufacturing and importation.

The point remains: Optimally you want law abiding citizens to have access to guns for self protection and other legal uses while preventing criminals from obtaining the guns illegally. Banning all guns merely makes it impossible for people to get guns legally but doesn't stop criminals from getting them illegally. Just like if you banned all opioides. They have legitimate uses. Why would you want to stop allowing law abiding citizens from getting pain relief just to stop some criminals from misusing them? Banning opioides is not the answer. Banning guns is not the answer.

[seer]

If, through legal constitutional means, total gun prohibition was enacted, then I support the gov. in enforcing laws. Do you not?

Nope:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separationThat whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[Sparko]

I think it's worth the risk if it means less homicides/suicides all the way around.

You won't get less homicides. You will end up with more because criminals will have guns and law abiding citizens won't. And anyone who wants to commit suicide will find an alternate way.

[Darth Executor]

I mean, I support law enforcement. If, through legal constitutional means, total gun prohibition was enacted, then I support the gov. in enforcing laws. Do you not?

What if, through legal constitutional means, "kill all liberals" was enacted. Would you support law enforcement and the government in enforcing laws?

[Adrift]

The point remains: Optimally you want law abiding citizens to have access to guns for self protection and other legal uses while preventing criminals from obtaining the guns illegally. Banning all guns merely makes it impossible for people to get guns legally but doesn't stop criminals from getting them illegally. Just like if you banned all opioides. They have legitimate uses. Why would you want to stop allowing law abiding citizens from getting pain relief just to stop some criminals from misusing them? Banning opioides is not the answer. Banning guns is not the answer.

I disagree. I think it does stop criminals from getting them illegally, or at least, it will make it much harder for them to acquire (certainly harder than shopping for one legally at Walmart). There are other reasons for stopping law-abiding citizens from owning guns as well, including their use in suicides and in accidents where children may obtain access to them. Unless you're for the legalization of hard drugs, I'm going to find the comparison a bit hypocritical.

[guacamole]

There are lots of things that happen through legal means that are morally objectionable. No, I don't support those things.

So, if gun control was enacted through legal constitutional means, you'd kill someone who came to enforce the law.

[Zymologist]

So, if gun control was enacted through legal constitutional means, you'd kill someone who came to enforce the law.

Actually no, I wouldn't. I'd give up my guns, for a few reasons. (Thanks for the assumption, btw)

[guacamole]

What if, through legal constitutional means, "kill all liberals" was enacted. Would you support law enforcement and the government in enforcing laws?

This is a fun game. That law couldn't be passed Constitutionally.

[Mountain Man]

I don't think it would be nearly as easy as you think. I believe that if, say, a woman wanted to kill her husband while a gun ban was enacted, it would be relatively complicated and expensive for her to find an illegal gun smuggler to sell her a weapon. Not nearly as easy, I don't believe, as going to one's local Walmart and purchasing said gun from there. But I repeat myself, as I've already made this point a few times. If you sincerely think it would be as easy or easier than going to Walmart, then I don't know what more to say. We disagree fundamentally.

You really think that's the path a murderous housewife would take? Easier to poison him, or stab him in his sleep. A classic example where banning guns wouldn't actually stop the crime.

[Sparko]

I disagree.

So you keep saying. But you are wrong.

[guacamole]

Actually no, I wouldn't. I'd give up my guns, for a few reasons. (Thanks for the assumption, btw)

I don't understand why you wouldn't just give that answer in the first place. I'm simply trying to tease out what people think from what they post.

[Zymologist]

This is a fun game. That law couldn't be passed Constitutionally.

I agree, demonizing people who disagree with you is a very fun game.

[Darth Executor]

This is a fun game. That law couldn't be passed Constitutionally.

Sure it could. Worst case scenario you'd have to amend the constitution. Just like with guns.

[Sparko]

This is a fun game. That law couldn't be passed Constitutionally.

Just declare democrats to be a terrorist organization. No constitutional change needed.

[Darth Executor]

I don't understand why you wouldn't just give that answer in the first place. I'm simply trying to tease out what people think from what they post.

nobody is gonna admit it outright on a public forum