unreconstructed1 wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
I don't believe so. Good and bad judges people's character based on a set of morals. The set of morals used may change, but whether someone is good or bad remains relative.
"relative" being the operative term here. to some anti's "bad" means taking someones life for any reason whatsoever ( moral relativism is what they term the belief, I believe)
and yet in some cultures taking someones life "just" for offending your honor is a good thing. in that instance "relative" is a very large gap.
character evaluations are always far to relative in my opinion to warrant "only three kinds of people" understand my point now?
It makes absolutely zero sense to divide people as "law-abiding" and "criminal". OF COURSE law-abiding people will follow the law and OF COURSE criminals will break the law. These are defining terms based on what people have done ALREADY. But the discussion really needs to be about keeping people law-abiding and restricting criminals. No one is born a criminal, yet no one seems to understand that "law-abiding citizens" CAN and DO become criminals all the time. That's where criminals come from!
I accept that, but there are already hundreds of gun control measures on the books, and they have proven to have no discernible effect upon "bad" people. those who desire to cause bodily harm on others will find a way. look at England as your perfect example...
they went all the way to outlawing guns. what happened? knife attacks increased exponentially. gun control measures ( including those that you support) will always serve to impair the ability of the "good" guys, while aiding the "bad guys"
it may sound like a cliche, but gun control is nothing more than OSHA for "bad guys"
As for the first part, I can't really disagree there. That's the sad reality. Everyone has their own definition of morals. But isn't that why we have laws? Because even if you and I are both good people in our own eyes, hell, even in the eyes of each other, we're still bound to disagree on some things. While you think shooting in your backyard, which happens to be next to my house, is perfectly safe, I'm worried about ricochet. So to some extent we have to have agreements that we both come to so we can live peacefully despite our disagreements. I'm not directly addressing what you said with this, but more the prevailing idea around this board that laws are all pointless because "criminals" don't follow them anyway. It's not the criminals I'm worried about because everyone is right, they don't follow laws
by definition. Laws are made for the people that WILL obey them and those people can be inherently good or inherently bad, but the laws keep them in check, just like they keep you from shooting in your backyard. Society is compromise. If you want to exercise full, unrestricted rights, go move to a desertedisland.
Again, I don't disagree with gun control having no effect on "bad" people because bad people will always do bad things. So keep in mind that these measures aren't for "bad" people, they're for "law-abidng" people that are both good and bad.
Background checks are the only objective way to sort out the criminals (people that have
proven themselves to be bad) from the law-abiding citizens (people that can be good or bad, but toesociety's line nonetheless). Everyone here will cry that they aren't 100%. However, the only thing is life that is 100% is death, so that argument against them is out the window. Then everyone will say, "yea well they'll just purchase them illegally." Well... yea... that's the point. Do you really want your local thug to be able to walk into Walmart and LEGALLY purchase a weapon? No. Does Walmart really want the obligation to sell it to him? No. Will this create stores seeking to discriminate against customers based on how they look? Yes. Would that be worse than it is now? Yes. So let them go buy ILLEGALLY and live the life on a criminal. It takes you three minutes to fill out the background check and another one minute to wait while they call it in. Is it really worth having that four minutes back so that Tyrone Jackson, MS13 membercan waltz in there next to you and buy a gun in plain sight? Why legitimize them like that? Let him go get his gun on the street and risk being robbed or killed for looking at the guy the wrong way, that's the life he chose. Criminals have no right to enjoy easy access to the purchase of firearms like the rest of us do.
Then we have training. What's wrong with training? If the training was part of an elementary education, as someone else suggested, or government funded, that doesn't exclude anyone that can't afford it. We have programs that help people pay to advance themselves in just about every way possible, why can't we have a program that helps poor people pay for required firearms training? Everyone will cry that free speech doesn't require training, but speech can't directly kill anyone either. If people are so stupid as to refuse FREE training, then they really don't deserve a gun in the first place.
So as you can see, nothing I'm for is about keeping guns from bad people because I recognize as well as you do that that isn't possible. I'm FOR keeping law-abiding people law-abiding and giving law-abiding people a sense of responsibility to go with their guns.
