|
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 January 10 2013 05:05 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 03:50 JingleHell wrote:
Feel free to explain to me what part of what I said, exactly, is a strawman. These days, accusing someone of such in an argument has reached the point of having no meaning. It happens regularly in place of a rebuttal, usually meaning a person HAS no rebuttal.
Just like you shouldn't be afraid of a dangerous, but caged, animal in a zoo, as long as you're not inside the cage, a responsibly handled, owned, and carried firearm isn't dangerous. Just as you'd be slightly irrational and paranoid to avoid visiting zoos because of occasional accidents, it's paranoid to assume that all guns are going to kill you when it's demonstrably a vast minority.
The intended use of a gun being "kill" does not mean that the gun can only be used for criminal ends. Just like the fact that a condom can deny forensic evidence of rape doesn't mean they're for criminal ends.
I've already explained my logic, and aside from saying you disagree with it on grounds I've addressed, you have yet to really respond to it, except for calling it a strawman. From this point, any reply that doesn't actually include a thought process in your attempt to refute or rebut my analogy, that still references it, will be ignored, as debating with someone who ignores the conventions of debate is slightly less productive than beating my head against the floor. Every time you start your response with "your emotional response tells me" or "Doing this usually means that" instead of actually responding to the post is strawmanning - and you did it again here, both in the start and the end of your post (you are the one so far who has ignored the conventions of debate). Be that as it may: I went through your previous responses and all I could find about you addressing the flaws in your analogy besides blanket statements like was: "Well, some people ARE violently allergic to latex, and internal contact with something you're allergic to can be pretty bad. So, does that mean we should ban latex condoms, because they could hurt someone, and you only need to carry one if you're paranoid? http://www.newyorknymedicalmalpracticeblog.com/2012/07/47-million-jury-verdict-after-latex-allergy-death.shtml"1) Condoms are not only used to protect against STDs but also against unwanted pregnancies - this has nothing to do with paranoia and this alone flaws your analogy. A gun only has the paranoia aspect of the STDs attached to it following your analogy. 2) A condom only lowers the risk of attracting STDs, it does not make them more resistant or in other ways more dangerous. Lenient gun laws just so happen to also make it easier for everyone to get guns, including those we really do not wish to have guns. 3) Your statement about forensic evidence being limited with the use of condoms is flawed for several reasons. The use of condoms, whilst denying sperm samples to be taken, opens the door for a lot of other forensic tests, just to mention one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110119132517.htm4) People generally know if they are allergic to latex and since the use of condoms is agreed upon by both parts in everyday life, there is here the possibility to avoid any risk. Lenient gun laws and concealed carry means that it is not possible to walk around without the possibility of a criminal with a gun. 5) Your analogy completely ignores the fact that there are alternatives to guns with the same capacity for protection, but none of the lethality. There are no other preventive methods that works as well as the condom, outside of abstinence, which we have already established we both find ridiculous. 6) I can use a condom without endangering any lives in everyday life, if you pull a gun on another person you are already endangering that persons life (I believe one of the first thing you are being taught in shooting classes is to never point at something you do not want to kill). Furthermore, no one gets to be judge, jury and executioner - a gun gives you that option, a condom does not. To sum up: I do not believe there is a use for handguns in everyday life when living in a city. I think current gun laws are too lenient. I do not believe total abolishment of guns are feasible nor sensible (despite your previous attempts at making it seem otherwise) - both hunting and sports are good arguments. I do not understand why anyone would feel the need for a concealed carry. I do not believe that adding more guns to the equation will improve the safety of the population. Being for more gun control is neither irrational, nor is it paranoid.
To take this totally out of order, I'm going to start with your conclusion: I never said it was directly paranoid to argue in favor of better gun control. Hell, gun control that's actually better, instead of absurd, is something I've commented on the need for a whole lot of times in this thread. The paranoia being discussed is the paranoia YOU inferred in people wanting to own and/or carry a gun for self defense.
Your first paragraph, by the way, is rather absurd, since you attempt, in your FIRST post that contains more than an ambiguous dismissal of my points, to suggest that I'm the one who has been attempting to keep things away from sane, or rational debate. Further, you continue to dictate to me what my intentions were for my statements, which, at this point, is calling me a liar, as I already elaborated. If you're going to continue to dictate my intentions in the same paragraph where you accuse me of dictating yours, there's nowhere productive for this to go, so please don't respond again.
On to the meat: Use of condoms for prevention of pregnancy could easily be compared to use of firearms for recreation and hunting. Both have a use outside of the one this debate is concerned about. So, we could limit my proposed (and slightly facetious, but still a valid analogy) legislation of condoms to allow people to purchase them if they can get a notarized form from their significant other stating they lack an allergy to latex.
I'm not following your second point. How, exactly, does the fact that a condom doesn't prevent 100% of STD's relate to the fact that guns are too easy to get? If anything, that just follows my actual analogy, since condoms don't prevent 100% of STD's, they're a better analog for guns, which don't prevent 100% of crime.
Your third point, your source actually agrees with something important in what I said: There has been an increase in the use of condoms by sexual offenders, likely due to both to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and to prevent the transfer of DNA evidence. In other words, there's a rise in use of condoms for illegal purposes.
That simple statement also belies your fourth point, as applicable for this analogy, because we're only talking about illegal and accidental uses of condoms being potentially dangerous, because we're in agreement that responsible, legal uses of firearms don't tend to involve mass murder.
I have yet to see any evidence that there is a non-lethal defensive alternative that is equally effective to a firearm.
I can, and have, "used" a gun in everyday life with no intent to harm, and by causing no harm. You're choosing to define "use" in a manner that automatically steps outside the law; brandishing your weapon without cause is illegal. Also, the gun does not give you the option to be the judge, jury, and executioner. It merely changes who those bodies sit in judgement OF. You, or the person who violently accosted you. To use the overdramatized cliche, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
|
On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly.
A methed up mugger won't even notice that you're even taseing him. Other drugs also lower the ammount that they feel from it. Not to mention that as soon as they stop taseing them they're going to come after her meaning that the problem only gets worse by the old lady getting a taser. Did you think this situation though?
|
On January 10 2013 05:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly. A methed up mugger won't even notice that you're even taseing him. Other drugs also lower the ammount that they feel from it. Not to mention that as soon as they stop taseing them they're going to come after her meaning that the problem only gets worse by the old lady getting a taser. Did you think this situation though?
What he said is pretty silly in the first place. If granny cant work a gun, then why would she carry one? She would carry something she could use. Thats not a reason to ban anything. Some people cant use there arms... I dont even wanna go there.
|
On January 10 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 05:05 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 03:50 JingleHell wrote:
Feel free to explain to me what part of what I said, exactly, is a strawman. These days, accusing someone of such in an argument has reached the point of having no meaning. It happens regularly in place of a rebuttal, usually meaning a person HAS no rebuttal.
Just like you shouldn't be afraid of a dangerous, but caged, animal in a zoo, as long as you're not inside the cage, a responsibly handled, owned, and carried firearm isn't dangerous. Just as you'd be slightly irrational and paranoid to avoid visiting zoos because of occasional accidents, it's paranoid to assume that all guns are going to kill you when it's demonstrably a vast minority.
The intended use of a gun being "kill" does not mean that the gun can only be used for criminal ends. Just like the fact that a condom can deny forensic evidence of rape doesn't mean they're for criminal ends.
I've already explained my logic, and aside from saying you disagree with it on grounds I've addressed, you have yet to really respond to it, except for calling it a strawman. From this point, any reply that doesn't actually include a thought process in your attempt to refute or rebut my analogy, that still references it, will be ignored, as debating with someone who ignores the conventions of debate is slightly less productive than beating my head against the floor. Every time you start your response with "your emotional response tells me" or "Doing this usually means that" instead of actually responding to the post is strawmanning - and you did it again here, both in the start and the end of your post (you are the one so far who has ignored the conventions of debate). Be that as it may: I went through your previous responses and all I could find about you addressing the flaws in your analogy besides blanket statements like was: "Well, some people ARE violently allergic to latex, and internal contact with something you're allergic to can be pretty bad. So, does that mean we should ban latex condoms, because they could hurt someone, and you only need to carry one if you're paranoid? http://www.newyorknymedicalmalpracticeblog.com/2012/07/47-million-jury-verdict-after-latex-allergy-death.shtml"1) Condoms are not only used to protect against STDs but also against unwanted pregnancies - this has nothing to do with paranoia and this alone flaws your analogy. A gun only has the paranoia aspect of the STDs attached to it following your analogy. 2) A condom only lowers the risk of attracting STDs, it does not make them more resistant or in other ways more dangerous. Lenient gun laws just so happen to also make it easier for everyone to get guns, including those we really do not wish to have guns. 3) Your statement about forensic evidence being limited with the use of condoms is flawed for several reasons. The use of condoms, whilst denying sperm samples to be taken, opens the door for a lot of other forensic tests, just to mention one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110119132517.htm4) People generally know if they are allergic to latex and since the use of condoms is agreed upon by both parts in everyday life, there is here the possibility to avoid any risk. Lenient gun laws and concealed carry means that it is not possible to walk around without the possibility of a criminal with a gun. 5) Your analogy completely ignores the fact that there are alternatives to guns with the same capacity for protection, but none of the lethality. There are no other preventive methods that works as well as the condom, outside of abstinence, which we have already established we both find ridiculous. 6) I can use a condom without endangering any lives in everyday life, if you pull a gun on another person you are already endangering that persons life (I believe one of the first thing you are being taught in shooting classes is to never point at something you do not want to kill). Furthermore, no one gets to be judge, jury and executioner - a gun gives you that option, a condom does not. To sum up: I do not believe there is a use for handguns in everyday life when living in a city. I think current gun laws are too lenient. I do not believe total abolishment of guns are feasible nor sensible (despite your previous attempts at making it seem otherwise) - both hunting and sports are good arguments. I do not understand why anyone would feel the need for a concealed carry. I do not believe that adding more guns to the equation will improve the safety of the population. Being for more gun control is neither irrational, nor is it paranoid. To take this totally out of order, I'm going to start with your conclusion: I never said it was directly paranoid to argue in favor of better gun control. Hell, gun control that's actually better, instead of absurd, is something I've commented on the need for a whole lot of times in this thread. The paranoia being discussed is the paranoia YOU inferred in people wanting to own and/or carry a gun for self defense. Your first paragraph, by the way, is rather absurd, since you attempt, in your FIRST post that contains more than an ambiguous dismissal of my points, to suggest that I'm the one who has been attempting to keep things away from sane, or rational debate. Further, you continue to dictate to me what my intentions were for my statements, which, at this point, is calling me a liar, as I already elaborated. If you're going to continue to dictate my intentions in the same paragraph where you accuse me of dictating yours, there's nowhere productive for this to go, so please don't respond again. On to the meat: Use of condoms for prevention of pregnancy could easily be compared to use of firearms for recreation and hunting. Both have a use outside of the one this debate is concerned about. So, we could limit my proposed (and slightly facetious, but still a valid analogy) legislation of condoms to allow people to purchase them if they can get a notarized form from their significant other stating they lack an allergy to latex. I'm not following your second point. How, exactly, does the fact that a condom doesn't prevent 100% of STD's relate to the fact that guns are too easy to get? If anything, that just follows my actual analogy, since condoms don't prevent 100% of STD's, they're a better analog for guns, which don't prevent 100% of crime. Your third point, your source actually agrees with something important in what I said: Show nested quote +There has been an increase in the use of condoms by sexual offenders, likely due to both to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and to prevent the transfer of DNA evidence. In other words, there's a rise in use of condoms for illegal purposes. That simple statement also belies your fourth point, as applicable for this analogy, because we're only talking about illegal and accidental uses of condoms being potentially dangerous, because we're in agreement that responsible, legal uses of firearms don't tend to involve mass murder. I have yet to see any evidence that there is a non-lethal defensive alternative that is equally effective to a firearm. I can, and have, "used" a gun in everyday life with no intent to harm, and by causing no harm. You're choosing to define "use" in a manner that automatically steps outside the law; brandishing your weapon without cause is illegal. Also, the gun does not give you the option to be the judge, jury, and executioner. It merely changes who those bodies sit in judgement OF. You, or the person who violently accosted you. To use the overdramatized cliche, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Your very first post started out saying "following his logic" after which you went to argue that people who used my logic were paranoid and hypocrits - just because you change paragraph, you are still referring back to the first. That might not have been what you meant, but why then, when I brought up that this was what you did, did you instead of saying so respond with "your emotionel response tells me I was right"? But seriously, let us let that slide and instead move on to the meat:
1) The debate is about carrying guns in the average daily life at which point you made an analogy to condoms. Now condoms have a purpose in the average daily life, you have yet to demonstrate that the same could be said for guns. Or would you propose that hunters have a reason for carrying a gun in the middle of the city? Or people who shoot for sport? They are not going to use it on the street, so why not have it in a case then?
2) My point was not that condoms only reduced the spread, but that condoms did not have the same drastic drawbacks that guns did. You need to read that one again, because everything you said had nothing to do with the argument.
3) My source also happened to debunk what you stated. There is also an increase in diabetes, should we ban elevators? (yes, that analogy is just as terrible as yours).
4) We are not only talking about illegal use. In my initial post I pointed out that I could not understand people who felt the need for carrying a gun in their daily lives and that it was hardly paranoid to lift an eyebrow when someone told you that they felt the need to do so.
When you gun down your assailant you are effectively judge, jury and executioner. I would argue that by having lenient gun laws, a mugging is much more likely to have a lethal outcome than when there are strict gunlaws in place as availability, even for criminals are lower.
|
1019 Posts
On January 10 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
I can, and have, "used" a gun in everyday life with no intent to harm, and by causing no harm.
Just because you and the people around you are responsible gun users doesn't mean that every other gun user is. I find that gun proponents always bring themselves up as good people with guns. How awesome you are at being responsible with your gun means nothing to society. The point is, the country needs better gun laws and mental health laws because the wrong people continue to get guns.
There is a way to create a safer society while respecting the 2nd amendment. Why gun proponents seem to see the issue in nothing but one extreme (the fantasy of guns in every corner of public society) or the other (liberals and their evil big brother government completely destroys our god given right to a gun) is beyond me.
|
On January 10 2013 05:12 RedFury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 02:01 dUTtrOACh wrote:
Walk around in the wrong hood in the U.S. and you may find yourself in a life or death situation pretty fast. Denmark is just... different from the U.S. It's hard for someone with no concept of a truly shitty neighbourhood where practically everyone is armed or cracked out to fathom the type of situations that can arise in one. Canada has less of a "self-defense" mentality surrounding guns, simply because we have less crime, but I'll tell you, with the amount of wildlife and the popularity of outdoor activities here, I couldn't imagine not being able to legally and responsibly carry around a rifle or a shotgun if I really wanted to enjoy the great white North. The very concept sounds oppressive and totalitarian to me.
Please explain this life or death situation because in such case I don't see how carrying a gun could make things look better especially from a government standpoint.
If you are the wrong race in the wrong area or are wearing the wrong color clothing you can be shot in parts of the country. Those places are just urban warzones for the wrong people and will not feel any different if there is gun control or if there isn't. If every women in america was issued a voucher and was required to have training for a gun do you think there would be more or less violence against women?
|
On January 10 2013 04:43 Antyee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 04:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:On January 10 2013 04:17 Antyee wrote:On January 10 2013 04:11 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 10 2013 03:53 Millitron wrote:On January 10 2013 02:37 Jockmcplop wrote:
lol this has become silly... but what i meant to say is that there is kind of a wierd logic that dictates that you have to carry guns for protection in case someone attacks you with a gun....
I guess its true where guns aren't easily banned. Once again i find myself posting in this thread that i promised not to post in anymore... There's no easy answer here, but everyone should chill their views out a little.
Guns ain't gonna get banned in the USA, but stopping dangerous people having them (including ignorant people who don't know how or when to use them) is just common sense, and arming as many people as possible is a crazy psychopathic thing to do...
edit:
LOL at the spoiler xD It's not in case someone attacks you with a gun, it's in case they attack you at all. Their weapon is irrelevant, if your life is in danger, you should be able to fight back. My point is that the only reason you need to carry a gun is because so many people are armed, otherwise some other weapon would do the job... I also go on to say that this is the reason that guns can't and won't be banned... Some other weapon may not do the job though. If an elderly woman is under attack by some 6'5" bruiser, no other weapon will do the job. He is simply far too strong for her to have a chance, unless she has a gun. I know you don't believe guns can or will be banned, but other people might. Because of that, I can't let your post go uncontested, sorry. A taser works just as well. And an elderly woman can't handle a gun properly. The ignorance of comments like these is just astounding. Not everyone is in their mid-20s or somewhere else in the prime of life, capable of defending themselves from assault, if multiple people attack you they don't come at you one at a time like in the movies, and old ladies can and do handle guns properly. So do young ladies. They tell women to scream fire instead of help if they're being assaulted because people don't come to help if you scream for help. They'll come for a fire. Firearms are about the only way an elderly person or a woman can defend themselves against a serious criminal attack, the vast majority of which are committed by males in the prime of life. A taser does not work as well as a gun either. You have one shot with a taser in a close situation, multiple shots with a gun. One shot with a gun is more damaging than one with a taser. Sure if you get off the right shot a taser will put someone down. If you mace someone most of the time they'll run simply because they've met successful resistance. But if you miss with a taser or mace or it doesn't work, you're done. A gun, you still have a chance. Not everyone gets to live in the nice part of town where you don't have to worry about walking down the street and you don't have to worry about someone knocking on your door and bum-rushing you when you answer it or breaking the kitchen window at 2 am to sack the place. I can't point out how absurd and unreal your points are if you are this paranoid, and live your life in constant fear.
Many people around the world live their lives in constant fear. And, many of those people's fears come from their government.
There is no magical trump card that makes you auto-win an argument. When you try to pull one, you are only surrendering. I assume you understand that those who surrender are not victorious.
An argument is not to prove someone wrong, but so both parties involved grow in understanding. If you're just fighting, you've both lost already.
|
On January 10 2013 05:59 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
I can, and have, "used" a gun in everyday life with no intent to harm, and by causing no harm. Just because you and the people around you are responsible gun users doesn't mean that every other gun user is. I find that gun proponents always bring themselves up as good people with guns. How awesome you are at being responsible with your gun means nothing to society. The point is, the country needs better gun laws and mental health laws because the wrong people continue to get guns. There is a way to create a safer society while respecting the 2nd amendment. Why gun proponents seem to see the issue in nothing but one extreme (the fantasy of guns in every corner of public society) or the other (liberals and their evil big brother government completely destroys our god given right to a gun) is beyond me.
Most people who drink alcohol are responsible. Just because a few are not and drive drunk does not mean we should ban alcohol.
I'm all for better mental healthcare and keeping guns away from psychos, as long as that doesn't restrict the ability for responsible citizens to have guns.
Seeing as how you mention mental health, I assume you're talking about shooting sprees. Those are exceptionally rare. They are indeed horrible, but they are mindbogglingly rare. You're way more likely to be hit by lightning than to die in a mass shooting. We don't cut the speed-limit on highways to 30mph, even though once in a while there's a massive 50 car pile-up.
Let me just state that I am in favor of background checks for guns, and better mental healthcare. But I would also be in favor of having every responsible citizen be armed.
|
On January 10 2013 05:59 white_horse wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
I can, and have, "used" a gun in everyday life with no intent to harm, and by causing no harm. Just because you and the people around you are responsible gun users doesn't mean that every other gun user is. I find that gun proponents always bring themselves up as good people with guns. How awesome you are at being responsible with your gun means nothing to society. The point is, the country needs better gun laws and mental health laws because the wrong people continue to get guns. There is a way to create a safer society while respecting the 2nd amendment. Why gun proponents seem to see the issue in nothing but one extreme (the fantasy of guns in every corner of public society) or the other (liberals and their evil big brother government completely destroys our god given right to a gun) is beyond me.
I don't really place myself in either one of your dichotomies, however, you made a very interesting statement at the end of your first paragraph. You mentioned that the [USA] needs better mental health laws because the wrong people continue to get guns. Now, grant me a bit of grace here, but who are you to decide if someone is mentally equipped enough to handle a gun?
Where is the line that you are so quick to draw? Let's look at some possibilities. How about criminals? No guns, right? Ok. How about if someone has ever been convicted of being a criminal? No gun? What if it was unpaid parking tickets? What about depression? Someone that is depressed probably shouldn't own a gun, right? They're certainly not "mentally healthy." What if someone who has had depression in the past wants to own a gun? They could get checked. But, now we have to finally, accurately, define what depression is, because who doesn't exhibit some sign of depression every day, and several a week? What about people with only one good arm? Sure, they could handle a pistol physically, but they still probably, somewhere down deep, resent the person that made them lose their other one in that wreck. Might even be depressed.
What about angry people? What about wayyyy too nice people? ...they scary. What about people that aren't good at math? Uneducated people? People that can't read? Can read, but can't write? Too many tattoos? That's a sign of acting out. What about poor people? They always be tryin' to take the rich man's money, you know. They certainly secretly resent them for it. That's not mentally healthy.
I probably didn't even bring up the good ones. I'm just saying it's not as cut and dry as we want to think. It's complicated. Soon, though, it's not up to you to decide. Your fate is in which lawyer is stronger in court. A good lawyer could convince any jury of your mental instability. Just look at the past month of your life. If shown in just the right light, you don't think you could be the one too unhealthy to own a gun?
Pretty soon, the government can strip just about anyone they want of owning a gun. I'm not an anarchist, but some of you people make me seem like one. :p
|
Iam quite torn on this issue, there are good argument on both sides. One bad argument though is the popular saying, guns dont kill people people kill people. Those who have this argument seems to think that all killings are planed which is not true at all. Actually alot of killings are impulse killings and with less guns there is going to be less people dying.
However the arguments i think is good in favor of having guns legal are.
1. If you make guns illegal there is going to be a much bigger black market for guns. This is obviously huge in some countries and a little less of and problem in others. For example in Sweden where i live, the gun interest for the average joe is almost nonexistent. However in other countries like USA, where the interest is far bigger. The black market would be so much bigger and it would be able to finance criminal gangs.
2. If theocrates and facists are trying to take youre rights away, then it is alot better if people had gun training and guns so they could kill them. This seems to not be very likely in the near future of Sweden but it could bite us in the butt in the distant future.
Iam slightly positive with the gun restriction in Sweden and i think they work decent. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it would be a good idea in all countries.
|
On January 10 2013 05:58 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On January 10 2013 05:05 Ghostcom wrote:On January 10 2013 03:50 JingleHell wrote:
Feel free to explain to me what part of what I said, exactly, is a strawman. These days, accusing someone of such in an argument has reached the point of having no meaning. It happens regularly in place of a rebuttal, usually meaning a person HAS no rebuttal.
Just like you shouldn't be afraid of a dangerous, but caged, animal in a zoo, as long as you're not inside the cage, a responsibly handled, owned, and carried firearm isn't dangerous. Just as you'd be slightly irrational and paranoid to avoid visiting zoos because of occasional accidents, it's paranoid to assume that all guns are going to kill you when it's demonstrably a vast minority.
The intended use of a gun being "kill" does not mean that the gun can only be used for criminal ends. Just like the fact that a condom can deny forensic evidence of rape doesn't mean they're for criminal ends.
I've already explained my logic, and aside from saying you disagree with it on grounds I've addressed, you have yet to really respond to it, except for calling it a strawman. From this point, any reply that doesn't actually include a thought process in your attempt to refute or rebut my analogy, that still references it, will be ignored, as debating with someone who ignores the conventions of debate is slightly less productive than beating my head against the floor. Every time you start your response with "your emotional response tells me" or "Doing this usually means that" instead of actually responding to the post is strawmanning - and you did it again here, both in the start and the end of your post (you are the one so far who has ignored the conventions of debate). Be that as it may: I went through your previous responses and all I could find about you addressing the flaws in your analogy besides blanket statements like was: "Well, some people ARE violently allergic to latex, and internal contact with something you're allergic to can be pretty bad. So, does that mean we should ban latex condoms, because they could hurt someone, and you only need to carry one if you're paranoid? http://www.newyorknymedicalmalpracticeblog.com/2012/07/47-million-jury-verdict-after-latex-allergy-death.shtml"1) Condoms are not only used to protect against STDs but also against unwanted pregnancies - this has nothing to do with paranoia and this alone flaws your analogy. A gun only has the paranoia aspect of the STDs attached to it following your analogy. 2) A condom only lowers the risk of attracting STDs, it does not make them more resistant or in other ways more dangerous. Lenient gun laws just so happen to also make it easier for everyone to get guns, including those we really do not wish to have guns. 3) Your statement about forensic evidence being limited with the use of condoms is flawed for several reasons. The use of condoms, whilst denying sperm samples to be taken, opens the door for a lot of other forensic tests, just to mention one: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110119132517.htm4) People generally know if they are allergic to latex and since the use of condoms is agreed upon by both parts in everyday life, there is here the possibility to avoid any risk. Lenient gun laws and concealed carry means that it is not possible to walk around without the possibility of a criminal with a gun. 5) Your analogy completely ignores the fact that there are alternatives to guns with the same capacity for protection, but none of the lethality. There are no other preventive methods that works as well as the condom, outside of abstinence, which we have already established we both find ridiculous. 6) I can use a condom without endangering any lives in everyday life, if you pull a gun on another person you are already endangering that persons life (I believe one of the first thing you are being taught in shooting classes is to never point at something you do not want to kill). Furthermore, no one gets to be judge, jury and executioner - a gun gives you that option, a condom does not. To sum up: I do not believe there is a use for handguns in everyday life when living in a city. I think current gun laws are too lenient. I do not believe total abolishment of guns are feasible nor sensible (despite your previous attempts at making it seem otherwise) - both hunting and sports are good arguments. I do not understand why anyone would feel the need for a concealed carry. I do not believe that adding more guns to the equation will improve the safety of the population. Being for more gun control is neither irrational, nor is it paranoid. To take this totally out of order, I'm going to start with your conclusion: I never said it was directly paranoid to argue in favor of better gun control. Hell, gun control that's actually better, instead of absurd, is something I've commented on the need for a whole lot of times in this thread. The paranoia being discussed is the paranoia YOU inferred in people wanting to own and/or carry a gun for self defense. Your first paragraph, by the way, is rather absurd, since you attempt, in your FIRST post that contains more than an ambiguous dismissal of my points, to suggest that I'm the one who has been attempting to keep things away from sane, or rational debate. Further, you continue to dictate to me what my intentions were for my statements, which, at this point, is calling me a liar, as I already elaborated. If you're going to continue to dictate my intentions in the same paragraph where you accuse me of dictating yours, there's nowhere productive for this to go, so please don't respond again. On to the meat: Use of condoms for prevention of pregnancy could easily be compared to use of firearms for recreation and hunting. Both have a use outside of the one this debate is concerned about. So, we could limit my proposed (and slightly facetious, but still a valid analogy) legislation of condoms to allow people to purchase them if they can get a notarized form from their significant other stating they lack an allergy to latex. I'm not following your second point. How, exactly, does the fact that a condom doesn't prevent 100% of STD's relate to the fact that guns are too easy to get? If anything, that just follows my actual analogy, since condoms don't prevent 100% of STD's, they're a better analog for guns, which don't prevent 100% of crime. Your third point, your source actually agrees with something important in what I said: There has been an increase in the use of condoms by sexual offenders, likely due to both to the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and to prevent the transfer of DNA evidence. In other words, there's a rise in use of condoms for illegal purposes. That simple statement also belies your fourth point, as applicable for this analogy, because we're only talking about illegal and accidental uses of condoms being potentially dangerous, because we're in agreement that responsible, legal uses of firearms don't tend to involve mass murder. I have yet to see any evidence that there is a non-lethal defensive alternative that is equally effective to a firearm. I can, and have, "used" a gun in everyday life with no intent to harm, and by causing no harm. You're choosing to define "use" in a manner that automatically steps outside the law; brandishing your weapon without cause is illegal. Also, the gun does not give you the option to be the judge, jury, and executioner. It merely changes who those bodies sit in judgement OF. You, or the person who violently accosted you. To use the overdramatized cliche, better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. Your very first post started out saying "following his logic" after which you went to argue that people who used my logic were paranoid and hypocrits - just because you change paragraph, you are still referring back to the first. That might not have been what you meant, but why then, when I brought up that this was what you did, did you instead of saying so respond with "your emotionel response tells me I was right"? But seriously, let us let that slide and instead move on to the meat: 1) The debate is about carrying guns in the average daily life at which point you made an analogy to condoms. Now condoms have a purpose in the average daily life, you have yet to demonstrate that the same could be said for guns. Or would you propose that hunters have a reason for carrying a gun in the middle of the city? Or people who shoot for sport? They are not going to use it on the street, so why not have it in a case then?
If it's being carried for the potential self defense scenario, legally, and not being brandished or otherwise used illegally, or it's part of a job requirement, or you're using it in a recreational way, or if you own land and carry in case there's predators (I live in Texas, it's possible and common. Coyotes, bobcats, and mountain lions all exist, and I've seen the damage they can do to livestock.) All of those are "everyday", as well as responsible, and legal.
2) My point was not that condoms only reduced the spread, but that condoms did not have the same drastic drawbacks that guns did. You need to read that one again, because everything you said had nothing to do with the argument.
Condoms are great, if they're used responsibly. So are guns, with the same caveat. Since we're only talking about irresponsible and/or criminal uses, at that point, condoms aren't great, neither are guns. The only difference is in severity of the trauma, which is not directly comparable.
3) My source also happened to debunk what you stated. There is also an increase in diabetes, should we ban elevators? (yes, that analogy is just as terrible as yours).
Just because your article shows that using a condom in a rape doesn't prevent forensic evidence, that doesn't mean they can't be used in one. I've already admitted that there's a little bit of amusement intent in my analogy, but I still want you to try to intellectualize it. So far, you're too busy attacking it. Especially considering how far afield that's dragged us.
4) We are not only talking about illegal use. In my initial post I pointed out that I could not understand people who felt the need for carrying a gun in their daily lives and that it was hardly paranoid to lift an eyebrow when someone told you that they felt the need to do so.
You distinctly called it irrational and implied that it was paranoid to carry for self defense, because needing to defend yourself with lethal force is a fringe case. To bring the condom analogy back on track, the primary point I was making was, in fact, that people intending to pass STD's is a fringe case, so using condoms to prevent STD's is also paranoid and irrational. You're the one who actually tried to carry it over to a catch-all analogy.
When you gun down your assailant you are effectively judge, jury and executioner. I would argue that by having lenient gun laws, a mugging is much more likely to have a lethal outcome than when there are strict gunlaws in place as availability, even for criminals are lower.
Wrong. If you gun down your assailant, and you followed the laws in so doing, you are NOT becoming the entire judicial process. The judicial process exists for determining guilt and punishing people who violate the law, yes, but if the law states that your situation merits lethal force, and that law has been upheld constitutionally, then it merely changes where the burden of proof lies. If you can prove you were within the law, to a judge and jury, there's no need for an executioner.
It's only marginally different from a cop using lethal force, with the differences being in oversight and required evidence. Those are areas where I've said a ton of times that the laws need work, but that's entirely outside the scope of this.
|
On January 09 2013 21:41 ninini wrote:
The founding fathers don't have all the answers. Look at the world at that time. The height of colonization, and the height of slavery. USA was actually the only country that sent for slaves, (they transported them from Africa to America), while the british and other european powers mainly used domestic slave labour in their colonies. Most of the british blacks are descended from the Caribbeans, from their colonies, while most of the black americans are from Africa, where the white americans never even set their foot on.
Wow. That's a profound misunderstanding of the African slave trade you have there. Ignoring for a moment that at the time all the American colonists were British, the slaves used in the Caribbean were from Africa, many of the slave laws that existed came from the Caribbean (most notably the Barbados slave code), and the majority of the slaves that came to America came from or through the Caribbean. The United States actually banned the import of slaves not too long after the founding of the country.
Even if you found some country to compare the United States to in a more fitting manner though, it's completely irrelevant to the current debate. I ignored the involvement of all other nations because Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, or even African; it doesn't matter because we're not talking about slavery. We are talking about gun control, and proving that a person or a nation was wrong about their treatment of one issue does not mean they are wrong about another.
On January 10 2013 01:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 00:37 micronesia wrote:On January 10 2013 00:34 PROPrototype wrote:
Dear Hertzy,
I say no To guns, excluding hunting and military uses How do you propose to make guns available to hunters, but not other people? Will hunters be allowed to target shoot for practice? If not, you'll see lots of deer getting shot in the ass and stuff.. it's like this in France ( and probably in most european countries). You need to get a licence to buy a weapon and to have no judiciary background. It means that only people who know how to shoot can get one, then you need an additionnal licence to carry it around ( and still it must be in it's locked container). Furthermore the hunting habits of hunters are strictly regulated so that it's not a slaughter in the forests. Doesn't that seem like the smart thing to do? What's amazing in the US is that people who never tried once to shoot and don't have a clue about any safety rules when holding guns, can buy it nonetheless. (talking about legal stuff, of course people who have no clue about how tu use guns can buy some illegally anywhere )
For the majority of Americans this actually isn't true. For instance in California before you can buy a handgun you have to complete a Handgun Safety Certificate Program. I'm not saying that all or even most States have these requirements, but the majority of the population are restricted in at least handgun ownership in ways similar to this. A lot of high population cities have even more required certifications before legal possession of a firearm of any kind, which includes home storage of said firearms.
On January 09 2013 22:08 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2013 22:03 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 21:45 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 21:17 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On January 09 2013 20:52 sc4k wrote:On January 09 2013 13:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Jon Stewart just explained it perfectly - "Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future keeps us from addressing our actual dystopic present." In terms of Gun Control in America. That's a great quote. But yeah, the general debate is pretty prickly for us out-of-USA people to get involved in because we're so used to not having guns in regular circulation that we can't relate to the Americans. However, my general argument is that although the US and UK have comparable violent crime rates, the US murder rate hovers around 11,000 per year and the UK around 450. The US is roughly 5 times the size of the UK, so our murder rate is 2500 in proportion. 11,000 v 2,500. The only sensible explanation for that disparity is the fact that guns are a) harder to run away from and b) more likely to kill than knives. So yeah, as far as I can see it, guns are wicked things that damage and don't protect a society. The only arguments left are a) we need guns to overthrow the government and b) we need guns to defend from home invasions. I don't accept b) because the chances of a malicious home invasion are just too small to model your entire society around, and if it's just a burglary, let them have their shit and get it back on insurance (still very rare). I accept the spirit behind a) but I can't sympathise with the mentality that allows that to override the previously explained danger that guns present to a society. What if there is a natural disaster like in new orleans and people are looting homes? Or perhaps riots like in london and people are looting stores? Insurance may cover all my personal possessions, but what about my food and water supply? What about the fact that waiting for insurance to come through, having my store repaired/cleaned up, and replacing my merchandise, could put my store out of business for a prolonged period of time? This is all assuming of course that you are right about guns being responsible for the homicide rate, which is doubtful because there are a million possible factors, and Switzerland has a very low homicide rate despite having a lot of guns. Okay so you have obviously been misinformed somewhere along the line if you think the looting in London was something that guns would have in some way helped. It was almost entirely abandoned stores which were targeted and retail areas after dark where no one lives. Guns wouldn't have helped...are you KIDDING me!!! Guns would have been used by the mob of random looters and created the most horrifying situation ever. As it happens now, if someone is caught with a gun in the UK they get a gigantic mandatory prison sentence. Hell if they are caught with a knife it can be 5 years in jail immediately. Your other two points are 1) about looting in a post-hurricane city and 2) disputing what I am saying about guns. 1) Maybe guns would help. But only a few people who are willing to put their LIVES on the line and provoke a gun battle to defend themselves. It's not like this sort of thing wouldn't happen in the UK. In such a situation people would certainly be armed with baseball bats and cricket bats etc ready to defend themselves. But such a situation is extremely rare, and just like malicious home invasions, you are actively making your country worse-off by preparing for this unlikely event (unlikely in most places in the US). And of course the gun control debate right now is about automatic weapons and weapons which disperse large bullet counts. Would you not be satisfied having a pistol in case worst came to worst? Would you need an M16 or you wouldn't feel safe? 2) Low violent crime rate in Switzerland + small rich country + the fact that almost everyone does national service = invalid comparison with the US. The comparison with the UK is apt because we are a pretty rowdy country. Similar violent crime rate, 2,500 murders compared to 11,000. Alex Jones says that 75% of that number is gang bangers. What...he doesn't think we have gangs over here? Of course we do, with comparable numbers of murders. Look, my town doesn't have gun crime. We've got a shitload of guns, but no gun crime. Seriously, zero. So how about when we start having these problems everyone else has, we can decide this shit for ourselves. Until then, I don't see why we should fix something that isn't broken. I don't understand what your point is... You want legal independence for your town? You don't care about people other than those in your town? Or just that you refuse to acknowledge that life exists outside your town?
Most places in the world today have a system of laws set up for this. In the US there are laws at a Federal level (restricted by constitutional amendments), State level (also restricted by constitutional amendments), county level, and city level. You can have a lot of ridiculous laws at county and city levels to restrict all kinds of things. One example is in Carlsbad, CA it is illegal to skateboard. When I was younger it wasn't uncommon to hear friends crying because some cop just confiscated and/or destroyed their brand new skateboard because they were skating in town.
On January 10 2013 03:25 LeonGrand wrote:
Just wanted to throw this out there. I don't disagree with people being able to own and carry a handgun. But the United States needs to put into place, or create stricter regulations that make it harder for an individual to purchase a gun. AFAIK it is very easy for someone to get a gun, and takes very little time and certification for someone to get one. Because of this relaxed approach to gun ownership in the United States, it's neighbours such as Mexico and Canada suffer. Criminals rely on this system to supply them with their needed fire power. A lot of the guns circulating around here, are illegally smuggled from the United States. Here, in Toronto, around 70% of all the guns used in crimes, all can be traced to be originating from the United States. It's absolutely ridiculous, and pisses me off I have to be cautious of potentially getting shot while walking through the mall because of your damned gun laws.
This is a legitimate concern arising in many subjects in international politics. It's very difficult to restrict the availability of anything in one area without restricting it in the surrounding areas. Here in North America we don't have a tremendous problem with that because the laws and cultures of the US and Canada are so similar to my understanding (I'm ignoring Mexico for the moment because the conversation gets difficult there because of a lot of racial bigotry in the Southwestern United States). I was under the impression that Canada has very lax gun regulation though, are you saying the opposite is true?
On January 10 2013 04:33 shadowy wrote:
I will name only one phenomena, which happens to be very specific to the U.S.- school shootings.
Such thing are rarely, if ever, seen in the rest of the world.
Nothing more to say.
This thread was actually created for discussion of gun regulation in Finland because of a recent string of school shootings there, and you come here to say school shootings are rarely if ever seen outside of the US? You should do yourself a favor and spend a little time reading before formulating arguments out of your uninformed opinions.
|
On January 10 2013 06:00 Sermokala wrote:
If you are the wrong race in the wrong area or are wearing the wrong color clothing you can be shot in parts of the country. Those places are just urban warzones for the wrong people and will not feel any different if there is gun control or if there isn't. If every women in america was issued a voucher and was required to have training for a gun do you think there would be more or less violence against women?
Same violence just more deaths, either on the "victim" side or on the "agressor one". Urban warzones are just hopeless. And more guns just cause more war.
|
On January 10 2013 07:01 RedFury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 06:00 Sermokala wrote:
If you are the wrong race in the wrong area or are wearing the wrong color clothing you can be shot in parts of the country. Those places are just urban warzones for the wrong people and will not feel any different if there is gun control or if there isn't. If every women in america was issued a voucher and was required to have training for a gun do you think there would be more or less violence against women? Same violence just more deaths, either on the "victim" side or on the "agressor one". Urban warzones are just hopeless. And more guns just cause more war.
I don't think the proper attitude toward these zones is to throw our hands up and declare them hopeless. The proper solution to crime in the long run is always a hard look at cultural and socioeconomic realities and how to change them, not accepting war zones in a modern nation and passing legislation that is more likely to harm innocent bystanders than career criminals.
|
On January 10 2013 07:08 liberal wrote:
I don't think the proper attitude toward these zones is to throw our hands up and declare them hopeless. The proper solution to crime in the long run is always a hard look at cultural and socioeconomic realities and how to change them, not accepting war zones in a modern nation and passing legislation that is more likely to harm innocent bystanders than career criminals.
Actually I agree with you. I mean, on a realistic point of view I tend to consider them hopeless. Being more positive, instead, I'd like to see the government taking measures to change such realities.
That said, guns in the hand of common people don't change much except maybe giving the illusion of more security.
|
On January 10 2013 07:19 RedFury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 07:08 liberal wrote:
I don't think the proper attitude toward these zones is to throw our hands up and declare them hopeless. The proper solution to crime in the long run is always a hard look at cultural and socioeconomic realities and how to change them, not accepting war zones in a modern nation and passing legislation that is more likely to harm innocent bystanders than career criminals. Actually I agree with you. I mean, on a realistic point of view I tend to consider them hopeless. Being more positive, instead, I'd like to see the government taking measures to change such realities. That said, guns in the hand of common people don't change much except maybe giving the illusion of more security.
The efficacy of a gun in a situation such as a home invasion is anything but an illusion. Most people who use a gun for home defense have an "ambush zone", in which any intruder entering this area will be met with a hail of gunfire. Hallways, bedrooms, and upper floors are common areas to use.
|
On January 10 2013 07:35 heliusx wrote:
The efficacy of a gun in a situation such as a home invasion is anything but an illusion. Most people who use a gun for home defense have an "ambush zone", in which any intruder entering this area will be met with a hail of gunfire. Hallways, bedrooms, and upper floors are common areas to use.
Well, that's the home invasion situation and still he will probably enter anyway. Also the "hail of gunfire" will cause damage at him or at you or at your stuff etc. It's not a solution to crime, especially (i repeat myself) from an institutional standpoint that should also protect the life of the criminal.
|
On January 10 2013 10:23 RedFury wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2013 07:35 heliusx wrote:
The efficacy of a gun in a situation such as a home invasion is anything but an illusion. Most people who use a gun for home defense have an "ambush zone", in which any intruder entering this area will be met with a hail of gunfire. Hallways, bedrooms, and upper floors are common areas to use. Well, that's the home invasion situation and still he will probably enter anyway. Also the "hail of gunfire" will cause damage at him or at you or at your stuff etc. It's not a solution to crime, especially (i repeat myself) from an institutional standpoint that should also protect the life of the criminal.
That's a strange position to take. If someone breaks into my home while I am in it and I hide in my room and he opens that door I am waiting behind, I guarantee you it will be a solution to his crime. My belongings and his safety would be the last thing on my mind. Someone breaking into an occupied home are likely not only there to steal. Thieves break into homes that are empty. I do understand what you mean by it not being a solution to break ins because they know it's very likely the homeowner will be armed and yet there are violent home invasions daily.
|
|
|
Yea well, mass shootings have taken a climb. I believe that's what the latest gun control debates all pertain to, keeping guns away from psychopaths and limiting the amount of damage they can do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
