The would be gun grabbers position all shot to hell

Spare me the self-righteous hyperbole.

I stated what laws are acceptable. A law that enables society to properly punish a malefactor who has engaged in the brutalization of his fellow man is legitimate. A law that prevents the malefactor's victim from defending themselves against brutalization is immoral.

Therefore: gun bans are not acceptable. Laws that prohibit honest citizens from having access to appropriate defensive firearms are not acceptable.

Laws which enhance penalties upon violent criminals and give society the ability to lock violent perpetrators up and keep 'em locked up are perfectly acceptable.

 

In other words you have no actual ideas about workable laws that will actually prevent gun violence. Punishment after the fact is what we already have and it has done nothing to prevent gun deaths.

 

Nor do you beyond the typical dogma preached by GCAs.

 

Except of course I have provided many examples of laws that are deliberatly designed to change behaviors. The easiest of course is the laws that require warnings on cigarette packages.

 

See above. Such laws are designed to promote fines on the improper operation of a motor vehicle on a public right of way.



None of which seem to be doing any good at deterring the use of tobacco products. The warnings exist only so the public cannot claim that it did not know any better.[/QUOTE]

I suspect you are in denial. Or at minimum incapable of rational thinking.

 

I suspect you are in denial. Or at minimum incapable of rational thinking.[/QUOTE]

 

That is true. Laws cannot physically prevent an act. Laws are designed to modify behavior. Most rational people modify their behavior to comply with laws while others do require that the penalties be imposed

Although perhaps the laws that require safe food growing and handlind proceedures and the laws requiring certain design features in cars might actually change the physical behaviors and prevent certain acts from occuring. The fact that penalties do follow non compliance doesn't change the fact that the laws do actually prevent certain behaviors and acts. .

 

Of course I do and have presented them many times. They just scare the gun nuts into their little safe places. You can do a search in case your memory is faulty.

 

Are you actually going to claim that a society where every citizen has nuclear weapons is not going to be a safer society? To me it certainly follows that if more guns are going to make society safer then it should follow that giving every citizen a nuke should guarantee ultimate safety.

Remember. Only a good guy with a nuke can stop a bad guy with a nuke!

 

Except for the simple fact that such laws are not doing anything to change behaviors. If such laws did indeed work, the tobacco industry would not actually be thriving like it is currently.

 

Why do the existing laws against murder fail to prevent murders from being committed in the united states? Why is the homicide rate so exceedingly high each year?

 

Then why is the united states so riddled with all manner of crime? Murder, manslaughter, homicide, drug use, drug trafficking, underage drinking, sexual assault, firearm trafficking, human trafficking, child sexual exploitation, embezzling, insider training, and countless other criminal offenses, all committed with wanton disregard and abandonment. The united states incarcerates more of its citizenry than any other country in the world, despite having more than enough laws in place to convince everyone that engaging in these acts is a bad decision to make. Why are these laws and so many others failing to modify the behavior of the people? With so many laws, why does the united states have to incarcerate so many every year?

 

He gave you ideas: Remove the restrictions halting the law abiding and ONLY the law abiding from being armed in public.
Then you don't have giant barrels of sitting ducks everywhere.

 

There is psychological help available if you are really that insanely paranoid. .

 

Everyone know the answer. We have the highest rate of income inequality in the developed world. Next question.

 

Because of course the laws are a joke. Thank you NRA. Next question.

 

They are thrieving because of course they have bought the government and the result is no real laws preventing the tobacco companies from peddling death. Any other product with totally conclusive use related to death would have bedn banned from the market years ago. All the existance of continuing tobacco sales has proven os the total corruption of our government.

Or you can claim that use is a personal decision in which case why ban other addictive drugs. Corruption comes to mind.

 

Oh, PLEASE get over yourself! Free society, Constitutional Right, can't pass laws of prior restraint infringing upon the rights of those who have committed no crime! Punishment after the fact is ALL WE LEGITIMATELY CAN HAVE IN A FREE SOCIETY.

 

And expecting rational people to accept infringements upon their most fundamental rights in hopes that will somehow stop criminals from brutalizing them is simply not rational.

 

It's not paranoia when there is a legitimate threat. I'm alive today because I had a gun and knew how to use it; so you feel free to shove that little self-righteous puling where the sun don't shine, CJ.

 

Then laws in the united states do not actually have the ability to modify behavior.

 

That's because we have too many people who are lazy or lightly educated or both, in the U.S. there is no limit of how much one can make if they are willing to push themselves hard enough.

 

You can see the Aurora shooting for an explicit example of a shooter going out of his way to choose a gun free zone over carry applicable venues of the same type.

 

Of course - the anti-gun left supports gun-free zones because it knows they facilitate mass shootings.
More mass shootings = more dead bodies* = better chance to push their agenda.

*: Especially white middle-class school-aged children

 

Except there are many moe instances where mass shootings did not occur in gun free zones. One instance does not make a trend.