Reply #70: I wouldn't know [View All]

[iverglas]

So how is being pro gun control liberal?

I haven't been a Liberal since I was 16, and have never claimed to be a liberal.

I'm a social democrat, in the present circumstances.



I think the people that are pro gun control are being foolish.

Or at least so you say.

Not fools. Because I used to be one.

Or at least so you say.

And while I feel I was clear before, let me try again:

Liberals are pro-victim.

Whatever.

Social democrats acknowledge the duty to protect, with particular attention to vulnerable individuals and populations, and advocate public policies that increase individual and collective security and do not unjustifiably impair individual liberty.

Many victimizers have guns that they use against their victims.

In some places. I wonder what "many" is? Do you suppose it's like "much"? I've been told that "much" means "a majority", although that's obviously false.

It seems to me that you've stated a problem and then just skipped on over it.

Many victimizers have firearms. Gosh. Wouldn't it be nice if something could be done about that? Might it be a good idea to adopt policies that could reasonably be expected to do something about that?

Gun control laws do not stop victimizers from possessing guns.

No laws stop anything from happening. Why would anyone be surprised that gun control laws do not stop anyone from possessing guns?? Why would you state the obvious as if it were meaningful?

Some laws do have persuasive effect on some people. Do you speed in school zones? Maybe you woulldn't speed in school zones even if there were no laws prohibiting it, just because you're a decent human being. Some people might be slightly less considerate of others, but are persuaded to behave considerately by laws that provide for punishment if they don't. Potential loss of a driver's licence can persuade people on that borderline to behave considerately.

Laws prohibiting speeding in school zones aren't likely to deter chronic scofflaws from speeding in school zones. But then, laws against murder don't seem to persuade some people not to commit homicide.

Gun control laws stop some victimizers from possessing guns if they persuade the people from whom they would have got the guns not to transfer guns to them. Scofflaws may not obey laws prohibiting them from possessing guns, but many reasonably decent people and people with something to lose will obey laws prohibiting them from transferring guns to scofflaws.

Just look at what you skipped right over! The whole entire point of many gun control laws.

Gun control laws do stop victims from possessing guns.

Really?

To start with, who's a victim? Someone who has not been victimized, but thinks s/he might be? A bit of a conceptual problem there.

What gun control laws stop whom from possessing guns? In what circumstances?

Bit of a sweeping statement you've got there, doncha think?

Gun vs. no gun often equals victim.

That could be, although it's really just an unsupported assertion by you at this point.

The question would be where the "no gun" comes from. I suspect that in a large majority of cases it's personal choice. Nothing to do with gun control laws.

And it takes "gun" as its premise, when as we have seen you have simply disregarded the fact that the risk of the existence of that premise actually can be reduced, so in some cases your equation simply will not apply if appropriate measures are taken.

That is not pro-victim.

Er ... what is not "pro-victim"? Your carefully crafted sophistry?

So how is being pro gun control liberal?

Again -- I wouldn't know. But it's sure as hell social democrat.

Better?

Guess.