Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1272169159' post='2099582']
Well now here we've got a problem. If you want guns to be gone.... not just illegal, but gone, you have to do more than react when someone has one. You have to go after the source. You have to be a hard-ass about it. Otherwise some people will have a gun or two lying around just in case someone breaks in, etc.. If you're serious about guns disappearing, you have to be right on it. Reactionary policy wouldn't be nearly enough. Guns are already illegal in Canada, yet they're very easy for criminals to get. Takes months and months for a law abiding citizen, and even then you can never carry it, but I'd be willing to bet that through extra-legal means, I could get a gun in under a week.

Big Brother becomes a necessity if you actually want to get rid of them.
[/quote]


your putting your ideas of what would make this possible into my mouth. something i never said.

there is more than one way to get rid of guns so to speak. it does not involve crushing some's right to privacy. i understand what your saying. you think getting rid of guns is only possible by eliminating someone's rights. there are other ways, even if you don't see that or choose not to. there is rarley ever one solution to a problem presented.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:26 PM' timestamp='1272169565' post='2099591']
your putting your ideas of what would make this possible into my mouth. something i never said.

there is more than one way to get rid of guns so to speak. it does not involve crushing some's right to privacy. i understand what your saying. you think getting rid of guns is only possible by eliminating someone's rights. there are other ways, even if you don't see that or choose not to. there is rarley ever one solution to a problem presented.
[/quote]
So you think reactionary policy is adequate to eliminate guns from America?

Hasn't worked so far with eliminating illegal firearms. What's going to make it work when instead of just some percentage of illegal guns, you have to get rid of every single gun?
Obviously, when your law goes into effect, only law abiding citizens turn in their guns (btw, planning on reimbursing them for that? Harsh, otherwise.). Criminals all keep theirs. So right there, probably every single person already inclined to criminal action either had no gun to turn in, or didn't turn in the guns they had. Now you've got firearms illegal, and only the seediest of people own firearms, plus some number of people who were formerly perfectly good citizens have now arbitrarily become criminals because they're not interested in giving up their right to self-defense. Now what? Wait until someone gets shot, then come down on their heads with the shining badge of justice? Seems pretty haphazard to me.


Basically you're left with the same situation. The only guns you need to get rid of are held by the people who won't get rid of them unless you kill 'em.

Edited April 25, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1272169882' post='2099597']
So you think reactionary policy is adequate to eliminate guns from America?

Hasn't worked so far with eliminating illegal firearms. What's going to make it work when instead of just some percentage of illegal guns, you have to get rid of every single gun?
Obviously, when your law goes into effect, only law abiding citizens turn in their guns (btw, planning on reimbursing them for that? Harsh, otherwise.). Criminals all keep theirs. So right there, probably every single person already inclined to criminal action either had no gun to turn in, or didn't turn in the guns they had. Now you've got firearms illegal, and only the seediest of people own firearms, plus some number of people who were formerly perfectly good citizens have now arbitrarily become criminals because they're not interested in giving up their right to self-defense. Now what? Wait until someone gets shot, then come down on their heads with the shining badge of justice? Seems pretty haphazard to me.


Basically you're left with the same situation. The only guns you need to get rid of are held by the people who won't get rid of them unless you kill 'em.
[/quote]


a reaction type policy would be hard at first, but would work in the long run. in the immediate future you are right, only law abiding citizens would turn in their guns. so we are left with the criminals having guns. so here's the thing. criminals will commit crimes. when they do, whatever crime they commit you tack on a bunch of extra years for them having illegal guns. and not just a few years, a signifigant amount of years. so if someone is caught with an illegal gun, they get 10 years lets say. if your adding 10 years on to every sentance no matter if the sentance os prohibation or 25 years, how long do you think it would take to drastically reduce the number of gun owners/criminals on the streets?

also add to the fact that by making guns illegal you greatly reduce their sheer numbers. look at how many guns a year are made legally in the united states. ok, so now eliminate that entire production line. that in of itself drastically reduces the number of guns avaliable to criminals. criminals will still make guns, but no where near the rate gun manufactors do today because of how profitable it is for every joe to make and sell guns.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1272170910' post='2099604']
a reaction type policy would be hard at first, but would work in the long run. in the immediate future you are right, only law abiding citizens would turn in their guns. so we are left with the criminals having guns. so here's the thing. criminals will commit crimes. when they do, whatever crime they commit you tack on a bunch of extra years for them having illegal guns. and not just a few years, a signifigant amount of years. so if someone is caught with an illegal gun, they get 10 years lets say. if your adding 10 years on to every sentance no matter if the sentance os prohibation or 25 years, how long do you think it would take to drastically reduce the number of gun owners/criminals on the streets?

also add to the fact that by making guns illegal you greatly reduce their sheer numbers. look at how many guns a year are made legally in the united states. ok, so now eliminate that entire production line. that in of itself drastically reduces the number of guns avaliable to criminals. criminals will still make guns, but no where near the rate gun manufactors do today because of how profitable it is for every joe to make and sell guns.
[/quote]
I think it would get even worse in the long term. Criminals would get better and better at importing black market guns from third world countries or maybe places like Russia and China, and they'd get better and better at hiding them during and after crimes. Then we're still left with criminals with guns, and citizens with one less efficient way to protect themselves from criminals with guns.

Basically you'd have to fight a war against criminals with guns. Guess what that turns into? Tyranny.

Government policy against illegal drugs today is mostly reactionary. I guess they catch some in the smuggling, but the fact is that the drugs still get through. If the government were to go to greater lengths to get rid of drugs, if they government wanted to be more efficient, they'd have to encroach more and more into private lives. They're not now, and look at how the war on drugs is doing. It's a joke. Drugs are easy to get. That's just common knowledge. It's because (so far) the government hasn't decided to stamp it out completely. So far they've more or less stuck to less invasive, less tyrannical, less efficient reactionary policies.

[Jesus_lol]

how long do you have to have a conversation with someone before stating they are a fool becomes a statement of fact and not a personal attack?


hypothetically of course.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='25 April 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1272173559' post='2099624']
how long do you have to have a conversation with someone before stating they are a fool becomes a statement of fact and not a personal attack?


hypothetically of course.


[/quote]
Let me know when you've figured it out. Inquiring minds want to know.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:10 AM' timestamp='1272172251' post='2099616']
I think it would get even worse in the long term. Criminals would get better and better at importing black market guns from third world countries or maybe places like Russia and China, and they'd get better and better at hiding them during and after crimes. Then we're still left with criminals with guns, and citizens with one less efficient way to protect themselves from criminals with guns.

Basically you'd have to fight a war against criminals with guns. Guess what that turns into? Tyranny.

Government policy against illegal drugs today is mostly reactionary. I guess they catch some in the smuggling, but the fact is that the drugs still get through. If the government were to go to greater lengths to get rid of drugs, if they government wanted to be more efficient, they'd have to encroach more and more into private lives. They're not now, and look at how the war on drugs is doing. It's a joke. Drugs are easy to get. That's just common knowledge. It's because (so far) the government hasn't decided to stamp it out completely. So far they've more or less stuck to less invasive, less tyrannical, less efficient reactionary policies.
[/quote]


the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is because of the pathetic excuse they call penalties. unless your talking cartel style drugs, people get off with prohibation all the time. drug enforcement in this country is a joke. increase jail time and you decrease the drug. if there is a strong enough deterent, then the crime rates will drop.

although this country has a history of going light on criminal. i won't even get into how a rapist or child molester can get off in less than 5 years when they should be locked up for at least 25 to life.

like i have said from the earlier, unless there are harsh penatlies for gun ownership, then this idea will never would never work. if there is harsh punishment for this, then it can work. criminals can;t commit crimes of they are all in jail for numerous years.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I couldn't sleep, so rather than toss and turn, I thought I'd get up and log into Phatmass.

I thought this thread was about whether it was time to lower the drinking age. When did it turn into a discussion of gun control in the U.S.?

Canada has a strong nationwide gun control policy that appears to work fairly well.

The U.S. is a different matter. Hypothetical discussions about gun control in the U.S. always have to take into account one big difference between the two countries--The U.S. constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms.

That provision can and has been interpreted many ways, and will continue to be so. And, changing the U.S. constitution is possible, but very difficult.

I'm not about to begin to enter this debate. If you guys think this is a fun way to spend Sat. night, at least no one is doing anything illegal. There are no laws to stop you going round and round and round and getting nowhere, except the law of common sense. This discussion makes me dizzy. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]

Edited April 25, 2010 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 April 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1272174395' post='2099631']
the reason the war on drugs doesn't work is because of the pathetic excuse they call penalties. unless your talking cartel style drugs, people get off with prohibation all the time. drug enforcement in this country is a joke. increase jail time and you decrease the drug. if there is a strong enough deterent, then the crime rates will drop.

although this country has a history of going light on criminal. i won't even get into how a rapist or child molester can get off in less than 5 years when they should be locked up for at least 25 to life.

like i have said from the earlier, unless there are harsh penatlies for gun ownership, then this idea will never would never work. if there is harsh punishment for this, then it can work. criminals can;t commit crimes of they are all in jail for numerous years.
[/quote]
Wow, so is it a nanny state or a police state you want? What about the inevitable times that an otherwise law abiding citizen is caught with a firearm in his house? Ten years in prison, just for exercising his right to self defense?
Besides that, your jail system is already overcrowded, partially because of the war on drugs. You're going to have to ramp up spending for the penal system enormously. So we're looking at huge tax increases, combined with declining civil liberties, increasing organized crime and an ever more pervasive police force. Pretty slippery slope you're looking at there.

Still further, why stop with guns? Why not ban martial arts weapons like nunchuku, kubotan, bō, jō, swords, long knives, shillelaghs, the list goes on and on and on. The only difference between these and firearms is efficiency. They've got no purpose other than for fighting. If you ban guns you've got no logical reason to leave martial arts weapons legal.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='25 April 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1272174730' post='2099633']
I couldn't sleep, so rather than toss and turn, I thought I'd get up and log into Phatmass.

I thought this thread was about whether it was time to lower the drinking age. When did it turn into a discussion of gun control in the U.S.?

Canada has a strong nationwide gun control policy that appears to work very well.

The U.S. is a different matter. Hypothetical discussions about gun control in the U.S. always have to take into account one big difference between the two countries--The U.S. constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms.

That provision can and has been interpreted many ways, and will continue to be so. And, changing the U.S. constitution is possible, but very difficult.

I'm not about to begin to enter this debate. If you guys think this is a fun way to spend Sat. night, at least none of you is doing anything illegal. There are no laws to stop you going round and round and round, except the law of common sense. The discussion makes ME dizzy. Oy.
[/quote]
Lol, I hate to break it to you, but the laws in Canada don't work well at all. Criminals have guns, unless they live in a city that's too poor to get black market guns, like Saskatoon, in which case they just knife each other. Calgary used to be the same way until the Asian triads et. al. became more active. Now all the gangs have guns. Lots of guns. Trouble is, people who aren't in gangs, or who aren't criminals, don't have guns. Or if they do, legally they can only take them from their house to the shooting range, and heaven forfend if you're caught taking them anywhere else, because the tactical team will be on you before you can say "civil liberties".

It is funny how this turned from drinking to guns though, isn't it? I guess they're pretty similar concepts, except you can't really use alcohol for self-defense. Sorta defeats the purpose. Unless you're throwing it in someone's eyes.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:54 AM' timestamp='1272174848' post='2099634']
Wow, so is it a nanny state or a police state you want? What about the inevitable times that an otherwise law abiding citizen is caught with a firearm in his house? Ten years in prison, just for exercising his right to self defense?
Besides that, your jail system is already overcrowded, partially because of the war on drugs. You're going to have to ramp up spending for the penal system enormously. So we're looking at huge tax increases, combined with declining civil liberties, increasing organized crime and an ever more pervasive police force. Pretty slippery slope you're looking at there.

Still further, why stop with guns? Why not ban martial arts weapons like nunchuku, kubotan, bō, jō, swords, long knives, shillelaghs, the list goes on and on and on. The only difference between these and firearms is efficiency. They've got no purpose other than for fighting. If you ban guns you've got no logical reason to leave martial arts weapons legal.
[/quote]


enforcing strict laws on appropriote crimes is not a police state. is it wrong for me to want a rapist or child molester locked up for 25 years? is that to much of a police state? are the current laws better which let them out as soon as a year in some cases? if your a criminal, then you should go to jail and do your time.

a person is not a law abiding citizen if he chooses to break the law. if guns are illegal and he chooses to own a gun then he is actively choosing to break the law. same with drugs or anything else that is illegal. i would have no sympathy for a person who actively chooses to break the law. he knows what the law is. yet he choses to break it. if he doesn't want to follow those laws either suffer the consequences or move somewhere else. why do you have so much sympathy for someone who would be choosing to break the law?

so now with strciter laws on gun control crime will INCREASE. ok, now your going overboard. yes, it would increase the penal system and taxes would go up for that. but rarely do people (except the extreme liberals) complain about increasing taxes for the public saftey. i doubt the vast majority would complain if theire taxes were raised to put more cops on the street and better enforce crimes. unless you honestly think people would rather have less taxes and less public saftey. one of the few things people will complain about is increased taxes to better protect the citizens of the country.

taking away guns does not take away civil liberties if its to protect its citizens.

and here you go again trying to twist words to fit into my mouth to try and better your argument. heck, according to your train of thought i think rocks should be illegal because you can kill someone with one. you've gone off on the deep end and this is becoming a joke. we are talking about guns here. unless your honestly going to tell me kncucks kill as many people a year as guns. is that what your trying to say? let's stay on topic here.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='25 April 2010 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1272175659' post='2099640']
enforcing strict laws on appropriote crimes is not a police state. is it wrong for me to want a rapist or child molester locked up for 25 years? is that to much of a police state? are the current laws better which let them out as soon as a year in some cases? if your a criminal, then you should go to jail and do your time.

a person is not a law abiding citizen if he chooses to break the law. if guns are illegal and he chooses to own a gun then he is actively choosing to break the law. same with drugs or anything else that is illegal. i would have no sympathy for a person who actively chooses to break the law. he knows what the law is. yet he choses to break it. if he doesn't want to follow those laws either suffer the consequences or move somewhere else. why do you have so much sympathy for someone who would be choosing to break the law?

so now with strciter laws on gun control crime will INCREASE. ok, now your going overboard. yes, it would increase the penal system and taxes would go up for that. but rarely do people (except the extreme liberals) complain about increasing taxes for the public saftey. i doubt the vast majority would complain if theire taxes were raised to put more cops on the street and better enforce crimes. unless you honestly think people would rather have less taxes and less public saftey. one of the few things people will complain about is increased taxes to better protect the citizens of the country.

taking away guns does not take away civil liberties if its to protect its citizens.

and here you go again trying to twist words to fit into my mouth to try and better your argument. heck, according to your train of thought i think rocks should be illegal because you can kill someone with one. you've gone off on the deep end and this is becoming a joke. we are talking about guns here. unless your honestly going to tell me kncucks kill as many people a year as guns. is that what your trying to say? let's stay on topic here.
[/quote]
Oh dear Lord, patience.........

I can't respond to this tonight. There's just too many fallacies, straw men, and poor debating skills here. Hopefully I'll be up for it sometime tomorrow.

Of course anyone is welcome, in the meantime, to start picking it apart. It won't be hard, I promise. I'll even give you +1s for your effort.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 01:57 AM' timestamp='1272175033' post='2099636']
Lol, I hate to break it to you, but the laws in Canada don't work well at all. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/P.gif[/img] Criminals have guns, unless they live in a city that's too poor to get black market guns, like Saskatoon, in which case they just knife each other. Calgary used to be the same way until the Asian triads et. al. became more active. Now all the gangs have guns. Lots of guns. Trouble is, people who aren't in gangs, or who aren't criminals, don't have guns. Or if they do, legally they can only take them from their house to the shooting range, and heaven forfend if you're caught taking them anywhere else, because the tactical team will be on you before you can say "civil liberties".

It is funny how this turned from drinking to guns though, isn't it? [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img] I guess they're pretty similar concepts, except you can't really use alcohol for self-defense. Sorta defeats the purpose. Unless you're throwing it in someone's eyes.
[/quote]

I'm crushed. All my work colleagues in Toronto used to tell me how much better it was in Canada because they had gun control. All my fantasies of Canada as Utopia (except for the obscenely high taxes) have been demolished. All that's left is poutine, I guess. <sigh>

When I tried to explain to my Canadian colleagues that in my suburb of Chicago, I can walk alone at night safely, they didn't believe me. The last gun-related death in my town was last year when a guy went nuts and killed his family. Very sad. The only gun-related death previous to that happened about 20 years ago, and again, it was a family dispute.

At some point, the best way to "win" a debate like this is to let the other guy feel like he's won, and then go out and have a drink. LOL It's not like the Internet is the real world and you're ever going to meet in real life.

I'm kicking myself for getting up. Now, when I go to bed, I won't be able to stop singing, "Take off, to the Great White North, Take off, It's a beauty way to go." Have a beer on me, eh?

[Innocent]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='25 April 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1272175033' post='2099636']
Lol, I hate to break it to you, but the laws in Canada don't work well at all. Criminals have guns, unless they live in a city that's too poor to get black market guns, like Saskatoon, in which case they just knife each other. Calgary used to be the same way until the Asian triads et. al. became more active. Now all the gangs have guns. Lots of guns. Trouble is, people who aren't in gangs, or who aren't criminals, don't have guns. Or if they do, legally they can only take them from their house to the shooting range, and heaven forfend if you're caught taking them anywhere else, because the tactical team will be on you before you can say "civil liberties".
[/quote]


So the Canada of James Oliver Curwood's adventure novels doesn't exist anymore?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' date='25 April 2010 - 01:38 AM' timestamp='1272177507' post='2099649']
I'm crushed. All my work colleagues in Toronto used to tell me how much better it was in Canada because they had gun control. All my fantasies of Canada as Utopia (except for the obscenely high taxes) have been demolished. All that's left is poutine, I guess. <sigh>

When I tried to explain to my Canadian colleagues that in my suburb of Chicago, I can walk alone at night safely, they didn't believe me. The last gun-related death in my town was last year when a guy went nuts and killed his family. Very sad. The only gun-related death previous to that happened about 20 years ago, and again, it was a family dispute.

At some point, the best way to "win" a debate like this is to let the other guy feel like he's won, and then go out and have a drink. LOL It's not like the Internet is the real world and you're ever going to meet in real life.

I'm kicking myself for getting up. Now, when I go to bed, I won't be able to stop singing, "Take off, to the Great White North, Take off, It's a beauty way to go." Have a beer on me, eh?
[/quote]
Canadians like to delude themselves into thinking that everything we do in Canada is a million times better than the way Americans do it.

[quote name='Innocent' date='25 April 2010 - 11:27 AM' timestamp='1272212853' post='2099736']
So the Canada of James Oliver Curwood's adventure novels doesn't exist anymore?
[/quote]
Probably not.