4 ms·

Counterpoint; anyone not in uniform and carrying a gun = criminal. Deal with accordingly. (This is definitely one of the debates to avoid here because it is v

by ErrantX 16y ago

Counterpoint; anyone not in uniform and carrying a gun = criminal. Deal with accordingly. (This is definitely one of the debates to avoid here because it is very polarizing, however, for the record we have a pretty good firearms record in the UK)

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
tome 16y ago
I'm not sure why you were downvoted. What you say is absolutely correct. In the UK it's easy for law enforcement to find certain types of criminal simply because they are in posession of firearms.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs. At least; that is my impression from the cases I see.
  - tome 16y ago
    I should say that banning guns because guns are a good way to detect general crime seems like a flawed move to me. What I support is banning guns as a good way to detect gun crime.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      The two are often intrinsically linked. Tbh I'm not really giving an opinion on the actual issue, my orginal reply was supposed to "show up" the fallacy of the gp. The relationships between guns, crime and their banning is way too complex for me to have an opinion on :p
  - anamax 16y ago
    > Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs. How do they get "caught carrying weapons" without a search to find said weapons? (Terry v Ohio explains some of this, but note that Terry lets police search you even if you're not carrying.) If our goal is to catch drug dealers, we could just let cops search based on hunches. After all, those hunches are fairly accurate. > At least; that is my impression from the cases I see. And those cases are representative of what?
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Oh it was just an interesting correlation I saw; there is no implication of causation.

by ErrantX 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

tome 16y ago

I'm not sure why you were downvoted. What you say is absolutely correct. In the UK it's easy for law enforcement to find certain types of criminal simply because they are in posession of firearms.

ErrantX 16y ago
Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs. At least; that is my impression from the cases I see.
- tome 16y ago
  I should say that banning guns because guns are a good way to detect general crime seems like a flawed move to me. What I support is banning guns as a good way to detect gun crime.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    The two are often intrinsically linked. Tbh I'm not really giving an opinion on the actual issue, my orginal reply was supposed to "show up" the fallacy of the gp. The relationships between guns, crime and their banning is way too complex for me to have an opinion on :p
- anamax 16y ago
  > Random anecdote; for some (I suppose obvious) reason a surprising number of drug dealers are caught because they are caught carrying weapons - which leads to searches, which leads to the drugs. How do they get "caught carrying weapons" without a search to find said weapons? (Terry v Ohio explains some of this, but note that Terry lets police search you even if you're not carrying.) If our goal is to catch drug dealers, we could just let cops search based on hunches. After all, those hunches are fairly accurate. > At least; that is my impression from the cases I see. And those cases are representative of what?
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Oh it was just an interesting correlation I saw; there is no implication of causation.