Gun Control & RKBA

Straw Man

(6,777 posts)

65. No, you just don't understand it.

Tue Oct 6, 2015, 01:23 AM

Oct 2015

This is a deeply flawed argument.

It has to do with malum in se vs. malum prohibitum and with the practical calculus that has to be undertaken when considering questions of the latter.

Some acts are evil in and of themselves, and should be banned despite the difficulties of enforcement that may ensue. Theft, rape, and murder are some examples that come to mind.

Drunk driving is another. However, drinking per se, while it has some negative effects on the individual and society, might be seen as less harmful, perhaps even arguably beneficial in some ways. So when Prohibition ended up creating and sustaining the monster of organized crime, that had to be calculated against the meager benefits of the law. Result? Repeal.

So we still have laws against drunk driving and drunk-and-disorderly (malum in se), but not against social drinking, whose malum prohibitum paled against the enforcement challenges and unintended consequences it entailed.

Much as gun controllers are loathe to recognize it, civilian gun ownership is not malum in se. Millions of gun owners do no harm with their firearms, and even the CDC recognizes the value of armed self-defense. The enforcement challenges and unintended consequences would be enormous if anything resembling a complete ban on firearms were ever to be attempted in this country.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

68 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I've asked this question many times of those who would ban all guns; I never get an answer... [View all] cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 OP

The decision to ban guns has never Gman Oct 2015 #1

Ban guns and guns will come across the border. It's not rocket science. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #5

Guns crossing the border would be a good example Gman Oct 2015 #6

Wait a minute. Australia being surrounded by water . . . brush Oct 2015 #21

yes, but did it end mass murders? gejohnston Oct 2015 #24

It greatly reduced the frequency of mass killings brush Oct 2015 #26

post hoc ergo propter hoc gejohnston Oct 2015 #27

Stop with all the word salad. Just say you want no gun control. brush Oct 2015 #28

just pointing out your logical fallacy gejohnston Oct 2015 #30

How's this? brush Oct 2015 #32

no. gejohnston Oct 2015 #33

Stop saying no and offer solutions brush Oct 2015 #34

see my edit gejohnston Oct 2015 #35

What is all this? brush Oct 2015 #36

copied and pasted from my list gejohnston Oct 2015 #37

I see there's less there than meets the eye. brush Oct 2015 #38

Frankly, *you're* the one dealing from a position of weakness. Why should we help you? friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #45

So statue quo then? Mass shooting multiple time a month? brush Oct 2015 #47

You propose, in essence, to fight drunk driving by universally restricting cars... friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #49

If you're still wondering *why* we don't simply agree to your proposals, look at *this* thread: friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #50

So you have nothing to offer either — just content with mass shootings multiple time a month brush Oct 2015 #51

A strawman claim, as I am in no way content with the number of multiple shootings we see friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #53

Yeah sure, but you still offer no solutions yourself brush Oct 2015 #55

It always amuses me that prohibitionists expect those they demonize to help them friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #44

To quote longtime DUer Eleanors38: Don't expect us to carry *your* slop bucket friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #43

What the hell are you talking about? brush Oct 2015 #46

I repeat: You are in a position of political weakness. Why should *we* help you? friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #48

Even then, gejohnston Oct 2015 #23

I don't support "banning all guns", jmg257 Oct 2015 #2

Like drinking and driving, those penalties are really stopping all the drunks from driving? virginia mountainman Oct 2015 #4

if it stopped the drunk that might have killed you that would be good, correct? nt msongs Oct 2015 #7

The world doesn't work by all or nothing, light switch thinking Warpy Oct 2015 #3

Strict gun regulations in Mexico. Is that why the death rate by gun violence is 11.17 to our 10.64 cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #9

The guns pouring over the border from the US is responsible. Warpy Oct 2015 #22

guns are the most regulated consumer product in the US gejohnston Oct 2015 #25

Drugs come across - guns will, too. 840high Oct 2015 #8

Guns will be worth so much money that the drug traffic will be supplanted by the gun traffic. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #11

I noticed. 840high Oct 2015 #14

Thank you very much! cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #15

It's all based on feel good emotions. ileus Oct 2015 #10

A better question for you wilt the stilt Oct 2015 #12

If you didn't have jack shit to add to the conversation... couldn't you have just said so? cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #13

Are you sure sarisataka Oct 2015 #19

You -can- own a bazooka. n/t Decoy of Fenris Oct 2015 #20

Yes, we can.. virginia mountainman Oct 2015 #29

Ummm, you can own a bazooka, GGJohn Oct 2015 #41

Have some TLAs: discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2015 #42

I never got an answer to that question either. darkangel218 Oct 2015 #16

Not only that, but the question always seems to make people mad. cherokeeprogressive Oct 2015 #17

Maybe because there is no answer to the inevitable darkangel218 Oct 2015 #18

This is a deeply flawed argument. procon Oct 2015 #31

"Do something." Like stand-up. Prohibition is America's most addictive social policy. Eleanors38 Oct 2015 #39

No, you just don't understand it. Straw Man Oct 2015 #65

The debate has never been about "gun owners do no harm with their firearms". procon Oct 2015 #67

Whoa, there ... Straw Man Oct 2015 #68

The answer is simple, you do not. oneshooter Oct 2015 #40

When the conversation starts with a rightwing talking point like this randys1 Oct 2015 #52

How would *you* prevent gun smuggling, were guns to be banned in the US? friendly_iconoclast Oct 2015 #54

So do you have anything useful to contribute that has a chance of passing? Lurks Often Oct 2015 #56

Rightwing framed conversations arent any fun. randys1 Oct 2015 #57

That is what I thought, you have nothing Lurks Often Oct 2015 #58

Well, to be fair, I have the 2nd amendment randys1 Oct 2015 #59

You keep thinking that Lurks Often Oct 2015 #60

Gun control at a minimum is required in a rational society...control implying their randys1 Oct 2015 #61

Which is your opinion and worth very little at that Lurks Often Oct 2015 #62

So all the societies where guns are controlled, all of those people are just dumb I guess randys1 Oct 2015 #63

It's dumb to think that the U.S. is the same as other countries Lurks Often Oct 2015 #64

Automatics made after 1986 are banned. Kaleva Oct 2015 #66