PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     How criminals get guns

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a link to an article about how criminals get guns.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

(Edited by gunmyths 1/20/2003 at 11:42 AM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 7:03 PM on January 11, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is just more of what I have been saying.

1)  Criminal firearms in general are not stolen.

2)  Most are strawman purchase.

3)  Followed by illegal gun sales.

2) and 3) are already illegal.  You don't need another law it make it illegal again.

Both types or transactions, the transaction can be trased to the last known owner.  This owner will not break the law once, but serveral times.  This last known owner will have several firearms traced to him that were in crimes.  Put these people in prison for a long time, and you stop gun crime, without gun control.

The police know who these people are, but don't put them away.  Common everybody on the street knows who these people are.  Don't you get it?  Stop the ILLEGAL traffic.  The police already have the laws to stop this traffic.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:25 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"These statistics show that when you allow law abiding citizens to own guns, their guns often end up in the wrong hands."

Gunmyths:

Didn't your say that?  Your website clearly states 5% of law abiding guns end up in the wrong hands.

Criminals "while 5% only said that they stole it." - PBS

It is a fact you liar.  Almost none of the illegal guns come from law abiding citizens.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:32 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kelvin,
You call me a liar. Name calling and personal attacks won't get you anywhere.


(Edited by gunmyths 1/13/2003 at 10:07 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 11:54 AM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"These statistics show that when you allow law abiding citizens to own guns, their guns often end up in the wrong hands."

OK then, you made it up.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:02 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kelvin you say,
" 'These statistics show that when you allow law abiding citizens to own guns, their guns often end up in the wrong hands.' "
Didn't your say that? †Gunmyths: Your website clearly states 5% of law abiding guns end up in the wrong hands. Criminals 'while 5% only said that they stole it.' - PBS"

You are quoting me out of context. When I made the above statement I wasn't just talking about stolen guns. I was talking about Pie's statistics which show that criminals often get guns from friends and family members. This is what I said:

" 'Again using the statisic from Pie. †Criminals get guns from family and friends who buy them with the intent of selling them to someone who shouldn't have them.' I think these statistics support my point of view. These statistics show that when you allow law abiding citizens to own guns, their guns often end up in the wrong hands. In contrast, in Japan it's very hard for a criminal to obtain guns because friends and family members of criminals don't own guns in the first place."



(Edited by gunmyths 1/23/2003 at 9:01 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 2:30 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"I'll define freedom as being able to do what you want or say what you want as long as it doesn't hurt or interfere with another person's freedom." - gunmyths

If guns that private citizens keep in their home don't (5%) contribute to gun crime, then how do maintain above sentiment?  STOP INTERFERING WITH MY FREEDOMS!

(Edited by kelvin90703 1/12/2003 at 3:14 PM).
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:09 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Kelvin says:
"If guns that private citizens keep in their home don't (5%) contribute to gun crime, then how do maintain above sentiment?"
5% is contributing towards gun crime(even if only a little bit). 0% is not contributing towards gun crime. Do you feel justified in owning a gun if you are contributing towards gun crime a little bit? This doesn't take into account the many guns that criminals buy or receive from friends and family members (who are private citizens).

More guns means more gun deaths. However, there are disadvantages and advantages to everything. The real question is which is greater- the benefits of gun ownership or the disadvantages of gun ownership?











(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 5:34 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 5:28 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)More legal guns means less gun deaths
2)If stealing weapons is no longer effective, smugglers will import more weapons and sell them, to make more money


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 5:44 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gunmyths at 5:28 PM on January 12, 2003 :
The real question is which is greater- the benefits of gun ownership or the disadvantages of gun ownership?

(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 5:34 PM).


I will suffer the disadvantages or take the benefits of gun ownership.  I am not asking you to help me or protect me.  Go away and leave me alone, your trampling all over my freedoms.  Don't you get it.  Take away my guns, are YOU willing to rush down to my house and protect me when I dial 911?  Is your idealism that strong?  Will you take a bullet for me?  Even someone you don't like.

If you say yes.  Then I will destroy my defensive handguns, but keep my hunting rifle.  But you have to be my 24 hour body guard and take a bullet or stop a knife attack when I need you to.  If your not willing to, then you are leaving me out to be a defensless target for your idealism.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 8:02 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Bograt

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ooowwweee!We got a fire goin' on here I reckon' (said with stereotipical suthun' accent.) I'll take a gun (or ummmm dozen) in my house thank you. I'll do a nice job of fittin' a wood coat for someone if they try to screw with me or my family! So give me (accually, let me keep) my guns dag nabit!!!


-------
Damn you Murphy!
 


Posts: 134 | Posted: 8:59 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you keep a gun in your home are you endangering other people? Can you really say you are not hurting anybody else? Arthur Kellermann conducted a study that revealed that if you keep a gun in your home you are increasing the chance that somebody in your house will be murdered.

"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann...It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances."
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-kellermann.htm

So family members will be more likely to kill each other if they keep a gun in their home. If you disagree with Kellermann, I am interested to see if you can refute his research.





(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 10:38 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 10:34 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

People who don't own one purchase guns to kill, as they are the most convenient weapon to do so with. Do you have a logical reason as to why a firearm in the homee would drive someone to murder?


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 10:38 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And by the way, isn't thia the same guy who did the 43:1? If so, it makes his stats highly suspect.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 10:40 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie asks, "Do you have a logical reason as to why a firearm in the homee would drive someone to murder?"

A quote from the study to answer Pie's question.
"The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts."



(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 10:51 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 10:44 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you say that is the gun wasn't present, a knife would not suffice?


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 10:53 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I've read that you're more likely to survive a knife attack than a gun attack. I'd rather face a drunk or angry person who has a knife than a drunk or angry person who has a gun. Kellermann's study †confirm this. How about you?

Can anybody provide any studies which would refute Kellermann's research? I am interested to know.



(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 11:05 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 10:59 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"you're more likely to survive a knife attack than a gun attack." Granted. A single stab wound from a knife would do less damage than a single shot from a gun of moderate calibre.
My single largest distrust of this study is that it was done by Kellerman, who did the highly misleading 43:1. It is because of this, and numerous other stats, I am not going to just believe that it is correct.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 11:05 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gunmyths at 10:34 PM on January 12, 2003 :

So family members will be more likely to kill each other if they keep a gun in their home. If you disagree with Kellermann, I am interested to see if you can refute his research.

(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 10:38 PM).


You are absolutely right.  My guns at home are more dangerous to my family than an intruder.  As I have said again.  I have weighted the benefits and costs for myself.  I did not ask the government or anyone else to decide this or help me.  So go help someone else who wants it.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:12 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gunmyths, do you have a link to the actual study?


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 11:15 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from gunmyths at 10:59 PM on January 12, 2003 :
I've read that you're more likely to survive a knife attack than a gun attack. I'd rather face a drunk or angry person who has a knife than a drunk or angry person who has a gun. Kellermann's study  confirm this. How about you?

(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 11:05 PM).


Twenty-one feet.  That is the magic number that police use as the minimium distance an attacker can be shot, and still live long enough to kill you with a knife.

I'd rather face a man with a gun with a gun.  I'd rather face a man with a knife with a gun.  I understand you don't want a gun.  There is no such thing as a fair fight in a fight to the death.  So why do you want me to fight fair?


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:17 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
gunmyths

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Pie, here's the link to the study. They'll only let you read an abstract of the study. To see the full text you have to sign in.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/329/15/1084





(Edited by gunmyths 1/12/2003 at 11:28 PM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 11:21 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

These are my points.
1)The site itself acknowledged that illicit use of drugs and pysical violence in the home are important factors to the homocide rate. These cannot be controlled.
2)There is no logical reason as to why a gun in the home would drive someone to murder.
3)Due to the above, I have to conclude that most homocides in the home with firearms are done by those who have a fight/dispute, go out, and purchase a weapon for the purpose of murder. Not by those driven to the brink by the site of a gun.

Also, on a side note, assuming that many homocides with firearms take place in the house (not on the street), then the study would have also included weapons a killer brought into the home, but weren't owned by the by the people living in the home. This can hardly go to show that owning a gun will increase the possibility of a murder being committed in ones dwelling.


(Edited by Pie 1/12/2003 at 11:42 PM).

(Edited by Pie 1/13/2003 at 01:36 AM).


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 11:40 PM on January 12, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To All the Anti-gunners:

Gun control will horribly fail just like the 21st Amendment.  Gun controll tries to wipe out the supply of guns rather than the root cause, demand.  Did a law against drinking spirits in the 1920s stop alcholol use?  Whenever your have an unpopular restrictive law, you just send all activity underground.  As long as criminals and law abiding people want firearms, they will get them.  If you really want people to stop having firearms, then stop the need to have them.

What is scary about that sentiment, it sounds a lot like the social engineering of the Nazis, society wide behavior modification to create the ideal society.  Gun control is not about justice, it is about control.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 11:00 AM on January 15, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The moron says, what?

"What" - Kelvin

Ok I can not count Roman numbers.  Prohibition is the 18th Amendment.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:31 AM on January 18, 2003 | IP
skyhigh

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gun control will horribly fail just like the 18th Amendment.  
How do you know this? Guns and alcohol are two different things. Alcohol is addictive so of course the demand for it will be great. Can you say the same thing about guns? No.

What is scary about that sentiment, it sounds a lot like the social engineering of the Nazis, society wide behavior modification to create the ideal society.  Gun control is not about justice, it is about control.
Oh come on. There is a world of difference between reasonable gun-control laws and the Nazis. It's like saying car-control is not about public safety, itís about control and power. Letís abolish all speed limits, all stop lights, and all traffic laws. Your arguments are very weak and illogical.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 4:59 PM on February 5, 2003 | IP
Pie

|       |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1)Speed limits don't stop speeders. They provide a reasonable ground for those willing to obey them, but cannot stop things such as street racing.
2)Guns are very handy for crime, criminals will naturally want to get their grubby little meathooks on 'em.


-------
A Mac is to a PC is what a Lamborghini is to a Honda Civic.
 


Posts: 202 | Posted: 02:48 AM on February 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're right.  A gun in the home makes it likely someone in the home will be shot.  I shot all four of the skunks, both possums and the armadillo that moved in under my house before the land was cleared and properly developed around me.  I shot the last one because the wife could not hit it, and the one before that because he sprayed me in the face when I tried to take him and dump him out.  

Oh, you mean that I might shoot a family member or they might shoot me!!!  ah.  I might worry about that if I had not given gun education a long time ago.   Did the same thing for my kid to get her driver's license.  You know, a kid with a car in the home is very likely to tear down your fence?

Besides, tossing a frisbee at targets...it just aint the same!!!!
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 1:50 PM on September 26, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b][i][center][color=red] I understand why we have guns in the US but why do we use them to kill each other. I mean, my father died from a handgun. We should only use guns for protection and not to kill each other like and wars and everything and on the streets. If we use guns in war that means more casualties. Why don't we just talk things out. But what I'm saying is that we should have more gun laws.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:42 AM on January 23, 2004 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

you're right we should use swords instead
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:40 PM on February 10, 2004 | IP
Bandit

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Truth About The gun

A gun is an inanimate object! It can not make any kind of decision on its own .It can not load its self, it can not aim its self or pull its own trigger! A gun can not decide to kill someone! All of these actions require "HUMAN" intervention.

Types of guns

Automatic: Is a weapon capable of continuous fire until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammo! It is currently a federal offense to posses such a weapon without a federal license. This weapon usually has a large capacity for bullets. I.e. clip or belt fed.

Semi automatic can only fire one round per squeeze of the trigger. This weapon is also clip fed. Assault weapon  this weapon was designed for military use! It was initially an automatic weapon. However it was converted to semi automatic for sale to the public! It is clip fed and usually has a large ammunition capacity. Legally it can only fire one round ie. Bullet per squeeze of the trigger.

Sport rifle or more commonly known as hunting rifle. This weapon is either semi automatic or bolt action. I.e. requires the magazine to be unlocked and released so the empty cartridge can be released and the new loaded round can be inserted  for re firing. Both of these types of weapons Assault and Hunting are clip fed, Capable of firing as many rounds contained in their clip. These clips can be modified to contain as many rounds i.e. Bullets as one desire to have. The only difference between a legal Assault Weapon and Hunting Weapon is purly cosmetic!

Ammunition: There are two types of ammunition NATO Ammunition and Hunting Ammunition. NATO bullets are designed not necessarily to kill but to injure, they are steel jacketed so that the bullet doesn't explode as it penetrates it's intended target they are intended more to injure than to kill. Although these types of bullets are quite capable of causing death, Assault Weapons usually use this kind of bullet, although these Weapons can fire Hunting bullets of the correct calliber. Whereas hunting bullets have no jacket surrounding its lead. As hunting bullets enter their target they explode causing much more damage, and are intended to kill and do a very through job. Both of these types of bullets are deadly. When "Assault" weapons are banned are Murders going to use Hunting Weapons and Hunting bullets to kill their victims? You can count on it!

Guns  in America!  There are an awful lot of people in the U.S.A. that are anti gun advocates! As we all know they want to ban all  guns in America, they say that if there were no guns the murder rates would decrease. If these people want to try living in a country where there are no guns owned by it's citizens, they might want to move to Russia where only the military and criminals own guns! Or maybe Communist China would suit them better they would surly be safe from gun owning citizens there!

North Korea would be another place that they could escape gun-owning citizens! They don't realize that criminals and "others" are just waiting for the day when the honest law abiding citizens are disarmed. What better opportunity could they have to? Force their will on us? We will have no defense against them! The real problem is enforcement of the gun laws we already have. We do not need more laws to infringe on the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. We need tougher laws and penalties for those who commit crimes with guns! The founding fore fathers gave us the Second Amendment so we could protect ourselves, mainly against government tyranny!  And any one else that would violate us and our rights as American citizens!

Tougher Gun Laws

This might be one solution. If A criminal is found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt of committing any crime with a gun. Then said criminal would immediately forfeit all civil and humanitarian rights as a human being! And be subject to the death penalty to be carried out no later than one year after conviction! These criminals should receive the same rights they gave their victims!

NONE"!.

Irresponsible gun owners!

Accidental shootings are for the most part caused by irresponsible gun owners. A very small part of the gun owning population! However these types of shootings should be dealt with on their own merit and circumstances!

Guns for money!
The guns for money program perpetrated by the government is a propaganda ploy to get law abiding citizens to turn their guns in. They show the guns supposedly turned in by people on TV.
The problem I have with this is, the guns they claim were turned in are $4oo.oo to $6oo.oo, 357's 45's 9 mm`s
Etc.  Now think about it! Who is going to sell a gun that is worth that kind of money for $1oo.oo?
And while you are thinking, How many gang members or criminals turned their guns in?

How many assault weapons did they receive from criminals?

And I can hardly wait to see if this action actually reduces crime! Unfortunately I think not! Although the Anti Gun advocates will "claim" it did !

The liberal socialists and Anti gun advocates are up in the night when it comes to solving the problems concerning guns! All they want to do is violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens!

This is an American Constitutionalist's point of view!

When our second Amendment rights are gone! Which Amendment is next?


The Bandit


-------
The Bandit
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 3:53 PM on October 14, 2005 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Criminals manage to import how many thousands of tons of illegal narcotics into this country every year?  Yet people seem to think banning guns is the answer.

I just want someone to point out ONE SINGLE FUCKING TIME that prohibition of anything has worked.

prohibition of alcohol in the 20's lead to the largest organized crime spree in american history

prohibition of narcotics has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers money, and sent nonviolent criminals to jail with longer sentences than murderers and rapists, yet 40% of american teens still use drugs before graduating highschool.  99% of american teens have access to them.

prohibition of guns in england and australia have led to skyrocketing violent crime.  I believe that violent crime in england increased 56% in one year.  What a surprise, cowardly criminals prefer people who can't defend themselves.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:08 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yes, by all means, let's get rid of all the laws.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 08:29 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 08:29 AM on April 25, 2006 :
yes, by all means, let's get rid of all the laws.  


There is a conceptual difference between prohibition of inanimate objects and illegal ACTS.  I am wasting my time, as you obviously aren't interested in using your brain or having a real discussion; you would rather just be a mild annoyance, saying things like "lets just murder anyone we want, brilliant," even though that obviously doesn't logically follow from a right of self defense.


 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 10:42 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're making blanket statements.  I'm simply pointing out that you can't apply these things unilaterally.  Just like prohibition.  People complain that prohibition caused crime.  Well duh, any law makes someone who is going to igore the law a lawbreaker.  How many fewer criminals would there be if we removed speed limits?  Any law adds criminals and any removal subtracts criminals by definition.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:04 AM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:04 AM on April 25, 2006 :
You're making blanket statements.  I'm simply pointing out that you can't apply these things unilaterally.  Just like prohibition.  People complain that prohibition caused crime.  Well duh, any law makes someone who is going to igore the law a lawbreaker.  How many fewer criminals would there be if we removed speed limits?  Any law adds criminals and any removal subtracts criminals by definition.



Prohibition in the 20's caused ORGANIZED CRIME.  Gangs of criminals suddenly had the means to make enormous sums of money, because they had a monopoly over something that was in very high demand.  With that financing, they then expanded into other areas like murder for hire, prostitution...etc.  They also killed innocent civilians and police officers to maintain control over the community.

Once you prohibit something, you can't regulate it.  You can't say, "Prostitution is illegal, but if you are going to be a prostitute you have to get an STD test twice a month."  People are already breaking the law, thus they have no incentive to obey your other commands.  Thus, if you prohibited abortion, you would have doctors that have been delicensed for health and safety regulation violation, or 'doctors' that never graduated med school performing abortions that aren't held to any safety standard, and they would also be performing third trimester abortions.

You really don't put much thought into your arguments, do you?
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 12:05 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So we should legalize prostitution?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:48 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
florida3006

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my opinion legalizing prostitution would solve many of the problems associated with it.  People's main objection to prostitution is that 'street walkers' get out in public, this alone is objectionable, also they sometimes harass people.  Prostitutes currently are known to spread disease.  Prostitution is typically a last resort for oppressed women, and they are put in dangerous situations and taken advantage of by pimps and drug dealers.

If you legalize prostitution you could license brothels to get the girls off the street, you could require bimonthly testing, you could ensure the safety of the girls, and you could take income away from drug dealers and pimps.
 


Posts: 55 | Posted: 2:30 PM on April 25, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.