|
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 May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:09 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If they are shitty parents who don't know how to manage guns--they shouldn't be allowed to buy guns.
Better background checks and psyche checks are needed. I'm not opposed to either. But we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly. Laws don't stop rapist and murders from raping and murdering--should murder be legal then? lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up.
Let me repeat what I said.
"If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic.
One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well."
As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing.
That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence?
|
On May 06 2013 23:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:09 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
I'm not opposed to either. But we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly. Laws don't stop rapist and murders from raping and murdering--should murder be legal then? lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up. Let me repeat what I said. "If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well." As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing. That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence?
I'm pretty sure that murder by firearm is banned, what's your point?
|
On May 07 2013 01:52 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2013 23:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:On May 03 2013 04:16 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Laws don't stop rapist and murders from raping and murdering--should murder be legal then? lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up. Let me repeat what I said. "If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well." As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing. That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence? I'm pretty sure that murder by firearm is banned, what's your point?
Since you can't read... let me quote myself.
the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that.
We ban things we are ethically against. We do it not to "stop all murders" or "stop all rapes" but because we as a society are taking a stance against it. To argue that you can't ban guns because people will still get shot anyway is a bad argument against gun control because an item being illegal does not automatically stop its distribution.
There are many arguments against gun control--saying gun violence would still happen anyway is a bad argument against gun control.
|
We set laws against acts that are morally wrong, like rape, theft and murder. Guns are not an act of crime and are not morally wrong.
Comparing laws against immoral acts to laws against inanimate objects is a bad argument to support gun control.
|
On May 07 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 01:52 Rhino85 wrote:On May 06 2013 23:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up. Let me repeat what I said. "If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well." As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing. That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence? I'm pretty sure that murder by firearm is banned, what's your point? Since you can't read... let me quote myself. Show nested quote +the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. We ban things we are ethically against. We do it not to "stop all murders" or "stop all rapes" but because we as a society are taking a stance against it. To argue that you can't ban guns because people will still get shot anyway is a bad argument against gun control because an item being illegal does not automatically stop its distribution. There are many arguments against gun control--saying gun violence would still happen anyway is a bad argument against gun control.
A gun is not a crime. Your argument is worse than whatever argument you are attempting to refute.
|
On May 07 2013 02:03 Rhino85 wrote:
We set laws against acts that are morally wrong, like rape, theft and murder. Guns are not an act of crime and are not morally wrong.
Comparing laws against immoral acts to laws against inanimate objects is a bad argument to support gun control.
I was not supporting gun control. I was pointing out someone's bad argument.
If we want to do the legal dance--the Heller case decided for us what the current 2nd Amendment reading is. Until another case comes up, that will have to be it.
If we want to do the ethics dance--property ownership is not the government's jurisdiction. I don't like gun bans for the same reason I don't like videogame bans.
If we want to do the safety dance--then you can dance if you want to, you can leave your friend's behind, but if you don't dance...
Wait--I think I strayed off from my point.
Oh right, the point is that I was pointing out a flaw in someone's argument. If you want to see what my stance on gun control is you simply have to read this thread to see the 10+ pages I was talking in. Don't assume that if someone sees a flawed logic that they are automatically your enemy.
I was pointing out a flawed premise. That something occurring despite being banned is a good reason not to ban it. That is a terrible logic because a lot of things we ban (for good reason) still happens. As I said, banning is an ethical stance. We ban Rape and Murder because we feel it is morally wrong, not because we stop all rapes and murders from happening. If the reason we don't ban guns is because guns will still kill people anyway then we should stop banning rape and murder because they still happen anyway.
It leads to bad results to stick with that kind of logic. I personally hate guns and if they disappeared from the US I wouldn't lose sleep over it. But I also wouldn't mind if the US was more like Switzerland and had all guns registered and everyone in the country forced to be trained in use and handling of weapons whether they are for guns or not.
But don't mistake my stance on guns from my argument against someone's faulty logic.
|
On May 07 2013 02:19 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 01:52 Rhino85 wrote:On May 06 2013 23:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic.
One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up. Let me repeat what I said. "If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well." As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing. That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence? I'm pretty sure that murder by firearm is banned, what's your point? Since you can't read... let me quote myself. the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. We ban things we are ethically against. We do it not to "stop all murders" or "stop all rapes" but because we as a society are taking a stance against it. To argue that you can't ban guns because people will still get shot anyway is a bad argument against gun control because an item being illegal does not automatically stop its distribution. There are many arguments against gun control--saying gun violence would still happen anyway is a bad argument against gun control. A gun is not a crime. Your argument is worse than whatever argument you are attempting to refute.
And I did not say that a gun is a crime. Here is what I said.
There are many arguments against gun control--saying gun violence would still happen anyway is a bad argument against gun control.
And also this.
We ban things we are ethically against. We do it not to "stop all murders" or "stop all rapes" but because we as a society are taking a stance against it.
The act of banning something is not to prevent it, it is to take a stance against it. To actually believe that "it happens anyway so why ban it" is a terribly stance to take because a lot of things "happen anyway" that we still want to regulate.
|
On May 07 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 01:52 Rhino85 wrote:On May 06 2013 23:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 04:21 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
lol. Do you even think about what you type? It's like speaking to a wall. You have a severe problem with understanding what people are telling you. If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up. Let me repeat what I said. "If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well." As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing. That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence? I'm pretty sure that murder by firearm is banned, what's your point? Since you can't read... let me quote myself. Show nested quote +the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. We ban things we are ethically against. We do it not to "stop all murders" or "stop all rapes" but because we as a society are taking a stance against it. To argue that you can't ban guns because people will still get shot anyway is a bad argument against gun control because an item being illegal does not automatically stop its distribution. There are many arguments against gun control--saying gun violence would still happen anyway is a bad argument against gun control.
If you are ethically against guns themselves versus/as well as only murder please explain why. (I do hope you knew what I meant- trying to avoid pedantry. Btw, I have found that javelinas are more scared of me than the birds are- so pigs aren't an issue. A knife cannot kill a cougar- just can't- I'd pretty much have to carry a spear. I also am a silver league Protoss, go figure for my hand-eye athletics. My target shooting is impressive due to training and a very steady hand + good eye. Need not be as quick as throwing anything really.)
I cannot defend myself from a cougar with a knife, but I can with my shotgun. And, if it was an option, an assault rifle would be nice against such a tough animal but the objective is to scare it away, not kill it anyway, so I don't mind the current law up for debate in the U.S.
Technically I am unable to defend myself from a rattlesnake with a knife either, but you actually can. A machete would help a lot actually. It is still really dangerous. I prefer the shotgun, I can't blink as fast as these snakes strike- and I can't even hit a tennis ball.
Recently started work in Dateland, AZ. That is where I could (and have) see as many as three snakes in one day.
With regard to places like American countries this thread simply needs a small title edit to be more than relevant.... Lets face it, the current laws don't make a whole lot of sense... As it is, it is only really relevant to European countries, where borders are smaller and there are more people so the government is better able to keep its people safe and enforce such a total ban.
That being said, in china they have almost done it but again, more people per space more govt power, capability in a way. And really, there are some folks here who would not appreciate Chinese policy going worldwide.
Earlier I got banned in this thread, with good reason. This is a serious topic and I put a racist joke post- really despicably out of character to be honest. However, Kenn pointed out Godwin's law to me in the mod note. I question if that law does not apply to this thread... I lose by that, yes, but that only means there are no groups who are so extreme they will never let up on this issue. Besides, technically I wasn't the one bringing up hitler- it was the American Jewish for firearms society or some such organization. I was just pointing out the fact that they exist, to convey to stealthblue why I thought his condition would never happen, and so you would never get any 100% gun control anywhere. That ceases to be people's point though it seems? More some sort of moral obligation that impractical sanctions should just exist for moral reasons? That's similar to America's prohibition of beer, however Christian it is, it is still imposing one set of values on everyone. Granted, beer won't- oh, wait, people taking beer into their cars do kill a heck of a lot of people... Dude, does beer kill people? Maybe we should go back to prohibition in the states?
You see then how imposing one group's values, however right they may be, in legislation is always hypocritical? Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, Bhuddists, Hindus all have different core beliefs, so for any of those groups to impose is hypocritical. However, universal things like murder and rape and the like are already outlawed, as these things cannot be hypocritical as society would fail to function if there was no law... and no major, sane group will assert that these are ok or their society will fail.
I hope this is more helpful than my last post here. People can make counter arguments but I don't know if I will be checking this thread much, so I apologize if I fail to answer. After a few days anyway.
P.S. I have now read new posts and add, you are seeing a straw man though. The argument there is that murder will still be committed, but by different means- often more horrific.
Final edit, I shall shat on my whole post: I agree with you a lot: more gun control than we have for certain, gun license required just like driver's- not public or universally required, etc- I just don't hate them. And it's questionable to want to load it more than 30 rounds, more than 10 is where I'd start to ask why but I think there are scenarios where that makes sense.
|
On May 07 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I personally hate guns and if they disappeared from the US I wouldn't lose sleep over it. But I also wouldn't mind if the US was more like Switzerland and had all guns registered and everyone in the country forced to be trained in use and handling of weapons whether they are for guns or not.
But don't mistake my stance on guns from my argument against someone's faulty logic.
So do you support the NRA's opinion that gun safety should be taught in public schools?
|
On May 07 2013 02:58 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 02:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:
I personally hate guns and if they disappeared from the US I wouldn't lose sleep over it. But I also wouldn't mind if the US was more like Switzerland and had all guns registered and everyone in the country forced to be trained in use and handling of weapons whether they are for guns or not.
But don't mistake my stance on guns from my argument against someone's faulty logic. So do you support the NRA's opinion that gun safety should be taught in public schools?
No, I think that's silly. I don't believe that gun use = public education for the same reason I don't think driving a car = public education.
But I don't mind conscription, registry, and a 6-52 week training program that fits closer with the idea of a militia if we were to use a militia.
|
I can't take someone seriously anymore when they propose a 6-52 week training program for a modern militia. Thats a bridge to far for me.
The thing you are looking for is fucking called gun safety class and they teach it everywhere out in the country. how ignorant can anybody be on the gun control debate if they don't even know about gun safety class's.
|
On May 07 2013 02:44 Jrocker152 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 01:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 01:52 Rhino85 wrote:On May 06 2013 23:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 15:07 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 14:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 08:27 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 03 2013 05:21 Sermokala wrote:On May 03 2013 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic.
One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well. Get off your high horse. You're being a complete asshole comparing the difference between people just being stupid with guns to people raping and murdering others. Have some dignity and self respect please. You don't have to try to use everyone's death to support your slanted views. What high horse? I'm saying the logic is not sound and doesn't make sense. Laws are present to reduce crime, not prevent it. Step one: Form society Step two: realize something is happening that society dislikes Step three: make law against it Step four: the thing happening happens less often, but still happens That's how laws work. Saying no guns laws because guns will still be used is bad stance to take. You're completely misconstruing what happens between your steps 2 and 3. Why not take away purple peoples right to vote because they elect shitty leaders. Why not pass a law where anarchists are outlaws and shot on sight? Why not ban peoples ability to eat fatty food when it kills our heath care costs in the country? Why allow somali immigrants to our country when all they do is cause trouble with everyone here and refuse to assimilate? You don't think any of your ideas though and you get them all from propaganda and treat it like the writ of god. If you ban purple people from voting--it does not stop their influence from affecting elections, it just reduces it. Banning something does not eliminate it--it reduces it. Much like banning rape in the US has not stopped rape from occurring. That is fact. Banning stealing has not stopped stealing from occurring, that is also fact. Banning guns will not stop all gun violence, that is also fact. But saying it won't stop all of crime is not a good argument to not have a law for it. You're utterly missing the point again. Its not about stopping something bad from occurring its about whether you should ban it in the first place. How you can use taking away the vote from a certin colored people and just saying "it just reduces their influence on elections" no it actually totally eliminates the influence they have on elections. Its also utterly raceist to deny people the right to vote based on the color of their skin. But by useing your logic its perfectly okay beacuse it reduces something bad from happening is how much of a joke your arguments are getting. Stop picking one point, completely misrepresenting it to yourself, straw man that into your entire post, and then have the idiocracy to actually post that shit. I don't even want to start on your -- usage, god help you wherever you picked that up. Let me repeat what I said. "If the logic is that "we both know neither of those will stop stupid people from acquiring guns or make them store them properly" as an argument against gun control. Then we can use the same argument against rape and murder. Why not? Bad logic leads to bad logic. One can't just say "we can't stop stupid people getting guns" and assume that that logic doesn't apply to other laws as well." As you can see, whether it is ethical to ban guns or not isn't what I have been discussing. I have been talking abou the argument that banning guns not preventing all gun violence as an arguments against gun control is a stupid argument because banning anything only reduces its influence, not remove it. My examples are of things currently banned in the US such as rape and stealing. That is because the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. As a society are we for or against gun violence? I'm pretty sure that murder by firearm is banned, what's your point? Since you can't read... let me quote myself. the act of banning is not a stopgap but an ethical stance. As a society, we are against rape, we are against stealing--so we ban that. We ban things we are ethically against. We do it not to "stop all murders" or "stop all rapes" but because we as a society are taking a stance against it. To argue that you can't ban guns because people will still get shot anyway is a bad argument against gun control because an item being illegal does not automatically stop its distribution. There are many arguments against gun control--saying gun violence would still happen anyway is a bad argument against gun control. If you are ethically against guns themselves and not murder please explain why.
I'm technically ethically against both--and I support the banning of murder.
But I am more loyal to the constitution when it comes to lawmaking as opposed to my personal biases--so while I would like a gun ban I am legally against it.
I cannot defend myself from a cougar with a knife. I can with my shotgun. And, if it was an option, an assault rifle would be nice against such a tough animal but the objective is to scare it away, not kill it anyway, so I don't mind the current law up for debate in the U.S.
Technically I am unable to defend myself from a rattlesnake with a knife either, but you actually can. It is just really dangerous. I prefer the shotgun, I can't blink as fast as these snakes strike.
Recently started work in Dateland, AZ. That is where I could (and have) see as many as three snakes in one day.
With regard to places like American countries this thread simply needs a small title edit to be more than relevant. As it is, it is only really relevant to European countries, where borders are smaller and there are more people so the government is better able to keep its people safe and enforce such a total ban.
That being said, in china they have almost done it but again, more people per space more govt power, capability in a way. And really, there are some folks here who would not appreciate Chinese policy going worldwide.
Earlier I got banned in this thread, with good reason. This is a serious topic and I put a racist joke post- really despicably out of character to be honest. However, Kenn pointed out Godwin's law to me in the mod note. I question if that law does not apply to this thread... I lose by that, yes, but that only means there are no groups who are so extreme they will never let up on this issue. Besides, technically I wasn't the one bringing up hitler- it was the American Jewish for firearms society or some such organization. I was just pointing out the fact that they exist, to convey to stealthblue why I thought his condition would never happen, and so you would never get any 100% gun control anywhere. That ceases to be people's point though it seems? More some sort of moral obligation that impractical sanctions should just exist for moral reasons? That's similar to America's prohibition of beer, however Christian it is, it is still imposing one set of values on everyone. Granted, beer won't- oh, wait, people taking beer into their cars do kill a heck of a lot of people... Dude, does beer kill people? Maybe we should go back to prohibition in the states?
You see then how imposing YOUR values, however right they may be, in legislation is always hypocritical? Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, Bhuddists, Hindus all have different core beliefs, so for any of those groups to impose is hypocritical. However, universal things like murder and rape and the like are already outlawed, as these things cannot be hypocritical as society would fail to function if there was no law... and no major, sane group will assert that these are ok or their society will fail.
I hope this is more helpful than my last post here. People can make counter arguments but I don't know if I will be checking this thread much, so I apologize if I fail to answer.
P.S. I have now read new posts and add, you are seeing a straw man though. The argument there is that murder will still be committed, but by different means- often more horrific.
The problem with banning guns in America (from a logistic standpoint) is that unless you also take guns away nothing will change. We have more guns in the US than some countries have people. Telling us that we can't buy guns anymore will not stop crazy people from getting guns because they are so prevalent. Banning guns will not stop gun violence in America because the gun problem in America has metastasized. There isn't some local niche of people hiding in the woods we can extract from america and we no longer have that tumor infecting us with guns. Guns are everywhere.
Adding more regulations is not the same as banning guns. But regulations can only so so much in a country that is this heavily infested with them.
And I agree with you that killing snakes with a knife is hard (I used to use a Bolo Machete when I found snakes outside specifically to get more range) I also know that if you're a boar hunter--sometimes a handgun is needed when your throwing knife didn't get the job done.
So I understand why people like guns despite my own personal feelings toward them.
|
On May 07 2013 03:18 Sermokala wrote:
I can't take someone seriously anymore when they propose a 6-52 week training program for a modern militia. Thats a bridge to far for me.
The thing you are looking for is fucking called gun safety class and they teach it everywhere out in the country. how ignorant can anybody be on the gun control debate if they don't even know about gun safety class's.
He was asking about my opinions on government sponsored training programs like they have in Switzerland. I think that if we need guns to defend against tyranny then we should be taught more than don't point and have a safety on. Most DMVs require a young driver to have many hours of behind the wheel training before they're considered skilled in driving. I would hope it takes more than a day of training to teach people how to defend against tyranny. .
|
I would not have thought that would be your take on conscription. As far as registry and training I have conflicting opinions. I personally would love to see gun owners be more knowledgeable about gun safety. On the other hand I've known too many gun owners (my family included) that have spent a lifetime around guns and gun safety. Its part of my family's culture to teach gun safety and at a fairly early age. For myself, and I'm sure many other families, a 6-52 week program might be a bit over the top. I'd be more inclined to a strict written test similar to the Hunter's Safety Course you are required to have in some states before you can obtain a hunting license.
Then there's the gun registry. If it weren't the fact that every other nations gun bans were after a national registry I might be more willing to consider it. I don't believe a national registry will have an affect on illegal gun use.
|
On May 07 2013 03:31 Rhino85 wrote:
I would not have thought that would be your take on conscription. As far as registry and training I have conflicting opinions. I personally would love to see gun owners be more knowledgeable about gun safety. On the other hand I've known too many gun owners (my family included) that have spent a lifetime around guns and gun safety. Its part of my family's culture to teach gun safety and at a fairly early age. For myself, and I'm sure many other families, a 6-52 week program might be a bit over the top. I'd be more inclined to a strict written test similar to the Hunter's Safety Course you are required to have in some states before you can obtain a hunting license.
Then there's the gun registry. If it weren't the fact that every other nations gun bans were after a national registry I might be more willing to consider it. I don't believe a national registry will have an affect on illegal gun use.
Frankly I'd rather err on the side of caution if some sort of training program were to be implemented.
|
On May 07 2013 03:31 Rhino85 wrote:
I would not have thought that would be your take on conscription. As far as registry and training I have conflicting opinions. I personally would love to see gun owners be more knowledgeable about gun safety. On the other hand I've known too many gun owners (my family included) that have spent a lifetime around guns and gun safety. Its part of my family's culture to teach gun safety and at a fairly early age. For myself, and I'm sure many other families, a 6-52 week program might be a bit over the top. I'd be more inclined to a strict written test similar to the Hunter's Safety Course you are required to have in some states before you can obtain a hunting license.
Then there's the gun registry. If it weren't the fact that every other nations gun bans were after a national registry I might be more willing to consider it. I don't believe a national registry will have an affect on illegal gun use.
I'm pretty all or nothing when it comes to my personal opinions on guns.
Either ban it or train everyone.
I also play terran and all-ins are just part of the mindset :p
My legal stance on them is pretty basic--I don't believe in government control of property ownership without sufficient evidence.
I don't mind people being put on the terror watch list for ordering 200 lbs of anthrax, but I do mind being told that gun owners can't have guns and women can't have birth control without sufficient evidence on the subject.
A shooting is not sufficient evidence for the same reason a meteor strike is insufficient evidence for living in a bunker. Being a criminal is already illegal. I would support anything to make it easier for cops to catch them--this is my main reason for liking a registry, to make it easier to track down what gun came from where when doing an investigation. I also believe in more safety training--because I already had to have a DMV guy sit in my passenger side watching me drive around town before they even think about issuing a driver's license. Cars a privilege, not a right (guns are rights though, 2nd amendment and all), but I still don't mind them having regulation and training because I don't mind the regulation and training expected of me as an american driver.
I do hate guns though, and that definitely affects my viewpoints on them. I will argue for their restriction and ban every chance I get--but I really don't want them actually banned. I just personally hate them.
|
On May 07 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 03:31 Rhino85 wrote:
I would not have thought that would be your take on conscription. As far as registry and training I have conflicting opinions. I personally would love to see gun owners be more knowledgeable about gun safety. On the other hand I've known too many gun owners (my family included) that have spent a lifetime around guns and gun safety. Its part of my family's culture to teach gun safety and at a fairly early age. For myself, and I'm sure many other families, a 6-52 week program might be a bit over the top. I'd be more inclined to a strict written test similar to the Hunter's Safety Course you are required to have in some states before you can obtain a hunting license.
Then there's the gun registry. If it weren't the fact that every other nations gun bans were after a national registry I might be more willing to consider it. I don't believe a national registry will have an affect on illegal gun use. I'm pretty all or nothing when it comes to my personal opinions on guns. Either ban it or train everyone. I also play terran and all-ins are just part of the mindset :p My legal stance on them is pretty basic--I don't believe in government control of property ownership without sufficient evidence. I don't mind people being put on the terror watch list for ordering 200 lbs of anthrax, but I do mind being told that gun owners can't have guns and women can't have birth control without sufficient evidence on the subject. A shooting is not sufficient evidence for the same reason a meteor strike is insufficient evidence for living in a bunker. Being a criminal is already illegal. I would support anything to make it easier for cops to catch them--this is my main reason for liking a registry, to make it easier to track down what gun came from where when doing an investigation. I also believe in more safety training--because I already had to have a DMV guy sit in my passenger side watching me drive around town before they even think about issuing a driver's license. Cars a privilege, not a right (guns are rights though, 2nd amendment and all), but I still don't mind them having regulation and training because I don't mind the regulation and training expected of me as an american driver. I do hate guns though, and that definitely affects my viewpoints on them. I will argue for their restriction and ban every chance I get--but I really don't want them actually banned. I just personally hate them.
Evidence for what specifically?
Your last paragraph sounds like you have some personal conflicting feelings on the issue and aren't even too positive about your own opinion. You just personally hate them? I don't understand why. Guns aren't always bad, you've already admitted several times in this thread that there are some instances where a gun may be necessary, but you still seem to be trying to downplay the reality of defensive gun uses.
|
On May 07 2013 03:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 07 2013 03:31 Rhino85 wrote:
I would not have thought that would be your take on conscription. As far as registry and training I have conflicting opinions. I personally would love to see gun owners be more knowledgeable about gun safety. On the other hand I've known too many gun owners (my family included) that have spent a lifetime around guns and gun safety. Its part of my family's culture to teach gun safety and at a fairly early age. For myself, and I'm sure many other families, a 6-52 week program might be a bit over the top. I'd be more inclined to a strict written test similar to the Hunter's Safety Course you are required to have in some states before you can obtain a hunting license.
Then there's the gun registry. If it weren't the fact that every other nations gun bans were after a national registry I might be more willing to consider it. I don't believe a national registry will have an affect on illegal gun use. I'm pretty all or nothing when it comes to my personal opinions on guns. Either ban it or train everyone. I also play terran and all-ins are just part of the mindset :p My legal stance on them is pretty basic--I don't believe in government control of property ownership without sufficient evidence. I don't mind people being put on the terror watch list for ordering 200 lbs of anthrax, but I do mind being told that gun owners can't have guns and women can't have birth control without sufficient evidence on the subject. A shooting is not sufficient evidence for the same reason a meteor strike is insufficient evidence for living in a bunker. Being a criminal is already illegal. I would support anything to make it easier for cops to catch them--this is my main reason for liking a registry, to make it easier to track down what gun came from where when doing an investigation. I also believe in more safety training--because I already had to have a DMV guy sit in my passenger side watching me drive around town before they even think about issuing a driver's license. Cars a privilege, not a right (guns are rights though, 2nd amendment and all), but I still don't mind them having regulation and training because I don't mind the regulation and training expected of me as an american driver. I do hate guns though, and that definitely affects my viewpoints on them. I will argue for their restriction and ban every chance I get--but I really don't want them actually banned. I just personally hate them. Evidence for what specifically? Your last paragraph sounds like you have some personal conflicting feelings on the issue and aren't even too positive about your own opinion. You just personally hate them? I don't understand why. Guns aren't always bad, you've already admitted several times in this thread that there are some instances where a gun may be necessary, but you still seem to be trying to downplay the reality of defensive gun uses.
Guns allow people to kill too easily for the same reason that cameras allow people to draw pictures too easily. Whether that's good or bad is up to the law to decide over many many arguments.
For example, in the Philippines, a large part of gun control is economics. Guns aren't banned--but majority are too poor to get guns so gun violence isn't that big. They don't have laws against it because its not a problem.
Gun violence is massive in the US popularized by the media. As someone who doesn't like guns I am perfectly comfortable with increasing its restrictions. But I also know that me hating guns is a bad reason to have laws against them for the same reason that some white guy in the midwest hating blacks is a bad reason to have laws against them. So I will always argue against guns--it's my nature. And guns have many uses--my dad and my family loves guns and have used it to protect themselves many times. My personal distaste of them is my own.
|
Gun violence in the Philippines is most definitely a problem. Their gun homicide rates are on par with the USA. It's a side effect of large scale socioeconomic issues just as it is for us. An interesting fact is their low ownership rate yet high gun homicide rate.
|
On May 07 2013 04:22 heliusx wrote:
Gun violence in the Philippines is most definitely a problem. Their gun homicide rates are on par with the USA. It's a side effect of large scale socioeconomic issues just as it is for us. An interesting fact is their low ownership rate yet high gun homicide rate.
The gun violence is also very much regional. The island I was in had very little gun deaths because so few people had guns. There were lots of stabbings and machetes, but for the most part gun violence in the Philippines stems from terrorist groups + pseudo civil wars due to militant islamists in the south living in the same country as militant catholics in the north.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
