|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself.
Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights.
There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy.
Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely.
|
On December 25 2012 13:39 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:35 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? The point of gun ownership is indeed defense, but not self-defense. The whole point is to maintain your ability to defend your rights. An unarmed populace is a helpless populace. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. " "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " -All three were said by Thomas Jefferson A last resort to protect yourself from tyranny of the government. Two thoughts: 1 - This has been said 10000 times, but I think its pretty obvious that this quote is meant to specifically describe the situation with Britain in the 18th century. 2 - Everyone has thoughts on what tyranny is. I think pro-life and and not allowing gays to get married is tyranny. Am I justified in using deadly force to defend my thoughts? What is the point of having laws and government if anytime I feel like they're tyrannical I can just start blasting?
1- It did describe the situation with Britain, but that's because that's just what the founding fathers knew best. They had plenty of historical examples to look to that didn't involve Britain though. Throughout all of history, tyrants have done everything in they could to stay in power. This usually meant keeping anyone who might challenge you weak. The easiest way to keep them weak is to take their weapons. The Spartans did it, the Assyrians did it, and the Emperor of Japan did it.
2 - Deadly force is a last resort, for two reasons. First, it's immoral to initiate violence. Second, in the modern world with how pervasive the media is, it's counter-productive. If you shoot first, the media will set you up as a monster, and you'll never be listened to again. In the modern world, words are more effective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a last resort for when words fail.
Edit: I feel I should state my position more clearly. I believe you should be able to own any weapon you desire, short of nukes or bioweapons. Now, I am totally in favor of background checks though, and for some of the more dangerous weapons (handguns or artillery), mandatory safety courses. I did not include rifles for a reason. Despite what the media would have you believe, semi-automatic rifles are practically never used in crimes. They make up an extremely miniscule percent of gun-related injuries. I think the private sale/gun show loophole should be closed, but only until a way to regulate it is found. The background checks required should be easily accessible to everyone not just FFL's, and once they are, private sales can be legalized again, with the condition that they now require a background check.
|
On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely.
I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time.
Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite.
|
On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite.
I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things.
|
On December 25 2012 13:55 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:39 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:35 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? The point of gun ownership is indeed defense, but not self-defense. The whole point is to maintain your ability to defend your rights. An unarmed populace is a helpless populace. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. " "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " -All three were said by Thomas Jefferson A last resort to protect yourself from tyranny of the government. Two thoughts: 1 - This has been said 10000 times, but I think its pretty obvious that this quote is meant to specifically describe the situation with Britain in the 18th century. 2 - Everyone has thoughts on what tyranny is. I think pro-life and and not allowing gays to get married is tyranny. Am I justified in using deadly force to defend my thoughts? What is the point of having laws and government if anytime I feel like they're tyrannical I can just start blasting? 1- It did describe the situation with Britain, but that's because that's just what the founding fathers knew best. They had plenty of historical examples to look to that didn't involve Britain though. Throughout all of history, tyrants have done everything in they could to stay in power. This usually meant keeping anyone who might challenge you weak. The easiest way to keep them weak is to take their weapons. The Spartans did it, the Assyrians did it, and the Emperor of Japan did it. 2 - Deadly force is a last resort, for two reasons. First, it's immoral to initiate violence. Second, in the modern world with how pervasive the media is, it's counter-productive. If you shoot first, the media will set you up as a monster, and you'll never be listened to again. In the modern world, words are more effective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a last resort for when words fail.
I'm going to drop the forefathers argument, just because its been done to death and who the hell are either of us to know for sure what they intended or would say today.
I will argue point 2. Yes, its immoral to initiate violence, but obviously that doesn't stop it from happening all the damn time. Relying on people to act morally is an effort in futility.
I'm not sure I understand the second part of your argument. The media generally portrays people who shoot and kill other people as bad. Wouldn't you generally agree that is a good thing?
If words fail, our back up should be deadly force? I want the government do X, other guy wants Y, and since I can't convince him verbally I shoot him?
|
On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things.
Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. It increases your chance of being harmed.
|
The problems I see:
Americans don't want to give up 2nd amendment.
It is difficult to take back all the guns distributed around the country, etc.
Use for guns is for hunting, recreational activities, don't want to take away from that.
The problems gun ownership causes:
More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem.
Pro gun arguments:
Don't take away hunting, recreational sports, etc.
Something about keeping second amendment, Americans have history and culture, etc.
Deeper issues
State of the person shooting is almost always unstable, or has a previous criminal record. Here lies the problem. Pro-gun people say its the mental issues that cause it. Anti-gun people say without guns, they cannot inflict harm. This part is definitely true.
Possible solutions
Mental checks for sanity, obvious stuff like that, or we take away the availability of guns. Last one is extremely difficult to put into action. First one is used, but stronger measures are being considered. First one is much less effective, last one is extremely effective.
Stupid arguments
Something about how if everyone has guns, then people will be more safe, cause they can defend themselves. This is utterly stupid. In case of common sense deprivation, explanation:
If no one has guns, no one will get hurt or killed by guns. Yes, they can be killed by other ways and methods but this is about gun control.
Everyday Americans do not carry a gun around with them. An example would be in a school. One day, a kid holds a grudge against another. He brings a gun, maybe his fathers. He shoots the other kid. The point is that guns are too widespread and available to everyday citizens, and that in the unlikely event of a shooting, most people will be unarmed, as it is not common to carry a gun everyday. I understand that it is too difficult to get rid of all guns in the country.
When there is an argument, or conflict between two people, if no one has guns, no one will get hurt. If one person has a gun, the other might get hurt. If both have guns, the possibility of death or injury dramatically increases (compared to the other two scenarios).
So the point I am trying to prove here is that if everyone has guns, the likelihood of injury or death increases.
Other Points
If a person is in the mental state to kill another person, they will undergo serious attempts to attain a weapon, without any consideration of the consequences. i.e. Stealing guns, or forcibly attaining them, because they don't care about being jailed or fined as they would kill a person the next day anyway, or shoot themselves.
My Opinion
I am not making any suggestions to change gun laws or such. I am just wishing for less stupid arguments and more intelligent ones, because every time gun control sparks up a debate, it is filled with useless and biased opinions, fueled by arrogance and stubbornness.
Note: I can speak and write English perfectly well, but I am writing this in a very lexically dense manner so it is easy to understand and short and concise. Please don't pick on a word or a phrase that doesn't sound completely correct. I deliberately wrote it this way in the hope that it would be easier to understand the key points I am trying to convey.
|
On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite.
You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in many situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity.
More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem.
More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media.
|
On December 24 2012 07:45 Sanctimonius wrote:
I am simply asking for a gun owner to please come up with decent arguments why gun ownership is a good thing, why a law crafted for the US in a different time still has any relevance today. I can understand the notion that the gun culture in the US is simply so ingrained that you might as well let people legally carry, but given the choice between a gunless society and a gun carrying one, I would choose the former every day of the week, and find it hard to understand anyone who would argue for the latter.
My wife is 5'4", under 120 lbs. I have 3 kids, one is female. If a 6'4" 250 lb dude comes into my house, what do you suppose my wife should do while I'm at work? Does anyone seriously think any amount of Tae Ninja Fu will do anything? I've practiced various martial arts longer than most of you have been alive, size does matter if the opponent knows how to use it.
If your answer is to call 911, pound sand, the nearest local LEO is over 2 hours away. This guy would have 2+ hours to 'have fun' with my wife and daughter. It's pretty common knowledge around here that the police are hours away. I unfortunately can not keep loaded weapons 'readily accessible' as I used to do due to the kids, but there is a pistol (empty chamber, mag inserted, retention holster) where she can get it. I doubt she has the gall to use it, but it's there, she has the option.
Admit to yourself if you'd let your family be a victim with no response, if your answer is 'yes', you are a sheeple coward. You will sit at the mercy of someone else while someone like me responds, assuming you were able to get to a phone. I will at least give my wife a chance to not be a victim.
I've dealt with the evil in society for the last 13 years, been involved with 4 shootouts on duty. I've lost 5 friends in the line of duty, a couple dozen I didn't know personally (one to friendly fire recently). Simply put, there is evil out there, to put your head in the sand and say 'It will never happen to me' is fine. Do not, however, expect me to do the same when the right to defend yourself is fundamental, not given to me by any governmental document. What people don't understand is that the 2nd Amendment does not grant anything, simply protects it from being 'infringed'.
God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.-Unknown
|
On December 25 2012 14:01 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 13:55 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 13:39 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:35 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? The point of gun ownership is indeed defense, but not self-defense. The whole point is to maintain your ability to defend your rights. An unarmed populace is a helpless populace. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. " "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. " -All three were said by Thomas Jefferson A last resort to protect yourself from tyranny of the government. Two thoughts: 1 - This has been said 10000 times, but I think its pretty obvious that this quote is meant to specifically describe the situation with Britain in the 18th century. 2 - Everyone has thoughts on what tyranny is. I think pro-life and and not allowing gays to get married is tyranny. Am I justified in using deadly force to defend my thoughts? What is the point of having laws and government if anytime I feel like they're tyrannical I can just start blasting? 1- It did describe the situation with Britain, but that's because that's just what the founding fathers knew best. They had plenty of historical examples to look to that didn't involve Britain though. Throughout all of history, tyrants have done everything in they could to stay in power. This usually meant keeping anyone who might challenge you weak. The easiest way to keep them weak is to take their weapons. The Spartans did it, the Assyrians did it, and the Emperor of Japan did it. 2 - Deadly force is a last resort, for two reasons. First, it's immoral to initiate violence. Second, in the modern world with how pervasive the media is, it's counter-productive. If you shoot first, the media will set you up as a monster, and you'll never be listened to again. In the modern world, words are more effective, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a last resort for when words fail. I'm going to drop the forefathers argument, just because its been done to death and who the hell are either of us to know for sure what they intended or would say today. I will argue point 2. Yes, its immoral to initiate violence, but obviously that doesn't stop it from happening all the damn time. Relying on people to act morally is an effort in futility. I'm not sure I understand the second part of your argument. The media generally portrays people who shoot and kill other people as bad. Wouldn't you generally agree that is a good thing? If words fail, our back up should be deadly force? I want the government do X, other guy wants Y, and since I can't convince him verbally I shoot him?
Violence is not the worst thing imaginable. People like Adam Lanza or the guy who shot the firefighters ARE bad, but George Washington was not. He and the other founding fathers had petitioned for years for Britain to at least listen to their demands, and they refused, time and time again. They had dozens of opportunities to settle things peacefully, and yet they chose violence. While no one knows who fired the first shot at Lexington and Concord, the British moving to capture the arsenal was the real first act of violence. If George Washington were alive today, and if he had fired first, the media would call him a terrorist and a monster.
You can't punish the innocent for the transgressions of others. Even though some people are irresponsible and drive drunk, we still don't ban alcohol. Likewise, we should not ban guns simply because some people are irresponsible.
As for your last point, you don't have to convince everyone. Just because the other guy refuses to agree doesn't mean you can't get a majority on your side and still have your way. But if you shoot him before he shoots at you, you'll be demonized and certainly never get your way.
|
On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. Show nested quote +More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media.
I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic:
You say: "I have a right to defend myself"
I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun."
Statistics prove this, without question.
|
On December 25 2012 14:10 weekendracer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 07:45 Sanctimonius wrote:
I am simply asking for a gun owner to please come up with decent arguments why gun ownership is a good thing, why a law crafted for the US in a different time still has any relevance today. I can understand the notion that the gun culture in the US is simply so ingrained that you might as well let people legally carry, but given the choice between a gunless society and a gun carrying one, I would choose the former every day of the week, and find it hard to understand anyone who would argue for the latter. My wife is 5'4", under 120 lbs. I have 3 kids, one is female. If a 6'4" 250 lb dude comes into my house, what do you suppose my wife should do while I'm at work? Does anyone seriously think any amount of Tae Ninja Fu will do anything? I've practiced various martial arts longer than most of you have been alive, size does matter if the opponent knows how to use it. If your answer is to call 911, pound sand, the nearest local LEO is over 2 hours away. This guy would have 2+ hours to 'have fun' with my wife and daughter. It's pretty common knowledge around here that the police are hours away. I unfortunately can not keep loaded weapons 'readily accessible' as I used to do due to the kids, but there is a pistol (empty chamber, mag inserted, retention holster) where she can get it. I doubt she has the gall to use it, but it's there, she has the option. Admit to yourself if you'd let your family be a victim with no response, if your answer is 'yes', you are a sheeple coward. You will sit at the mercy of someone else while someone like me responds, assuming you were able to get to a phone. I will at least give my wife a chance to not be a victim. I've dealt with the evil in society for the last 13 years, been involved with 4 shootouts on duty. I've lost 5 friends in the line of duty, a couple dozen I didn't know personally (one to friendly fire recently). Simply put, there is evil out there, to put your head in the sand and say 'It will never happen to me' is fine. Do not, however, expect me to do the same when the right to defend yourself is fundamental, not given to me by any governmental document. What people don't understand is that the 2nd Amendment does not grant anything, simply protects it from being 'infringed'. God made man, Samuel Colt made them equal.-Unknown
Your wife and kids are much more likely to kill themselves with said gun than to stop an intruder. Also, if your wife attempts to use a gun to stop an intruder, and the intruder is armed, the situation will likely turn deadly for somebody when it otherwise wouldn't have, and the person being killed could be your wife.
That being said, there are of course situations where her having the gun could save her life. There are just many more situations where the opposite is true.
|
On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 12:32 foxmeep wrote:
It's funny that every self-righteous gun toter in this thread is from the US. It is exactly why the US is the most fked up when it comes to gun violence. No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American. Seriously, you think your right to a gun is more important than the lives of innocent children. That's just messed up. If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids. Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is... Edit: Guns take more lives than they save, I don't think any sane person would argue that. Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives. This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question.
Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm?
|
On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:05 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
No, they are not all American. There might be more Americans because this is largely an American forum, and most of the senseless attacks are directed towards Americans. But they are not all American.
[quote]
If someone with a car ran down some children, no one would ask whether driving was more important than innocent children. People also didn't ask that question of Norway after Breivik shot dozens of kids.
Is the right to drink alcohol more important than the lives of 75,000 Americans, some of them innocent children killed in drunk driving accidents? Yes, it is...
[quote]
Alcohol takes more lives than it saves. So what? The primary argument in favor of gun ownership is not that it saves lives.
This is where the arguments change again. I'm not getting on the merry go round of changing argument points here. I am responding to only these horrible arguments. Thanks in advance. I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm?
The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger.
The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others.
|
You don't realize how absurd it is to tell an INDIVIDUAL that they are "more likely to kill themselves with the gun." Again, you are applying statistics regarding 300,000,000+ people to an individual. You are talking about people who had the desire and the means to kill themselves, and then applying that probability to someone who has no such desire. It's just absurd to use that sort of logic... If some people want to kill themselves, that has no bearing whatsoever on a persons right to defend themselves.
|
On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:On December 25 2012 13:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I was under the impression that the #1 argument for gun ownership was that you could defend yourself, aka save lives. If that's not it, can you tell me what it is? It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others.
Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking.
In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger.
|
On December 25 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You don't realize how absurd it is to tell an INDIVIDUAL that they are "more likely to kill themselves with the gun." Again, you are applying statistics regarding 300,000,000+ people to an individual. You are talking about people who had the desire and the means to kill themselves, and then applying that probability to someone who has no such desire. It's just absurd to use that sort of logic... If some people want to kill themselves, that has no bearing whatsoever on a persons right to defend themselves.
Why is it absurd? It's unarguably true. Owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by one.
Your desire of what to do with your gun doesn't change that. Other people have guns, and you can't control what they do with them. And don't even get me started on accidental gun deaths.
|
On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:28 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
It's the right to attempt to defend yourself. It's not about saving lives per se, it's more about being allowed to stand up for yourself. Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights. There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy. Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger.
It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one.
|
On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights.
There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy.
Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one.
It is a fact that living outside of a prison cell makes you more likely to be murdered. Or run over by a car. Or die of AIDS.
Such statistics are insufficient to deny basic liberties.
|
On December 25 2012 14:23 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
You don't realize how absurd it is to tell an INDIVIDUAL that they are "more likely to kill themselves with the gun." Again, you are applying statistics regarding 300,000,000+ people to an individual. You are talking about people who had the desire and the means to kill themselves, and then applying that probability to someone who has no such desire. It's just absurd to use that sort of logic... If some people want to kill themselves, that has no bearing whatsoever on a persons right to defend themselves. Why is it absurd? It's unarguably true. Owning a gun makes you more likely to be killed by one. Your desire of what to do with your gun doesn't change that. Other people have guns, and you can't control what they do with them. And don't even get me started on accidental gun deaths.
The vast majority of self-inflicted gunshot deaths are suicides. That is why its absurd. The vast majority of gun owners are not suicidal, so you cannot assume that owning a gun makes you more likely to kill yourself. A cursory look at the math proves this.
Of non-violent gun deaths, ~17,000 were suicides. Only ~2,000 were accidental.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
On December 25 2012 14:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 14:22 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:19 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:17 Millitron wrote:On December 25 2012 14:11 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 14:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 14:03 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:59 jdseemoreglass wrote:On December 25 2012 13:57 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On December 25 2012 13:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
Yes, this. It is about my right to defend myself not being superseded by some cost-benefit analysis or statistics. The laws of a nation should not be based upon some simplistic cost-benefit analysis, but upon a series of principles and rights afforded to the people, rights that the government must not infringe. Self-defense is about as basic as you can get when it comes to these rights.
There is zero doubt in my mind that for example alcohol has more costs than benefits for society, but I do not have any desire at all to use the force of government to deny people the ability to drink alcohol. Freedom has costs, and yes, in many cases those costs equal a slightly shorter life expectancy.
Use a reductio ad absurdum argument here. Imagine how long we could extend life expectancy for a person forcibly imprisoned. Fewer accidents, fewer murders, less disease, etc. But obviously that statistical life expectancy does not justify imprisoning a person and taking away their rights and their freedom. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Basic self-defense at least should not be restricted by that line, which means the right to own a firearm, which does not mean we have NO gun control, it just means we do not ban ownership entirely. I understand that self-defense is a basic human right. Unfortunately, gun ownership makes you much more likely to be killed by a gun. Also, the same rights that allow you to defend yourself allows others to arm themselves for malicious purposes at the same time. Owning a gun makes you feel safer, but the reality is the opposite. I didn't say the right to feel safer, or the right to be statistically safer. I said the right to the opportunity and ability to defend yourself. Those are very different things. Defending yourself is making yourself safe against an attacker. Unfortunately, using a gun to defend yourself actually does just the opposite. You are still thinking in collectivist terms. Rights aren't for collectives, they are for individuals. An individual can quite obviously defend themselves in some situations with a weapon, and they should not be denied that opportunity based upon collectivist probabilities. More civilian deaths due to improper use, thats about it. However, this is a massive problem. More people die every year from alcohol. Does that mean alcohol is more massive of a problem and more worthy of a ban? This isn't about deaths, it is about emotional prejudice, most of which is fostered by the media. I know you're a philosophical guy. I'm not. My logic: You say: "I have a right to defend myself" I say: "Defending yourself = not being injured or killed if somebody attacks me. However, I am more likely to be injured or killed if I own a gun." Statistics prove this, without question. Just because statistics show that its safer to not be armed does not mean that you should not have the option to be armed if you so choose. People still smoke cigarettes despite the absolute certainty that they're damaging their lungs, and yet we allow it. So you say people should not have the option to be armed, which actually has a possible benefit, and does not guarantee self-harm? The same right that allows you to be armed puts me in danger. The legality of cigarettes allows somebody to kill themselves by smoking. The legality of firearms allows somebody to kill me or others. Second hand smoke can kill you even if you yourself don't smoke. I am well aware smoking is illegal indoors in most places, but you can still breathe it in outside just by walking past someone smoking. In the hands of a responsible gun-owner, it in fact does not put you in danger. It is a fact that gun ownership makes you more likely to be killed by one.
And it is a fact that smoking makes you more likely to die from smoking-related illnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
