|
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. |
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 26 2012 09:15 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2012 11:17 TanGeng wrote:On February 25 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 05:34 TanGeng wrote:On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote:
1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context.
2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat.
3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
There are good neighborhood and bad neighborhoods. Places of easy public security and difficult public security. Example of good areas, example: Bridgewater, NJ. Example of bad areas, example: Detroit. http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05/020512-news-detroit-vigilantes-1-5/ I don't see how this is a response to my point. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but here goes for the fourth time, I think. Operating on generalizations just fails. Just because crime is rare in one area doesn't mean it's rare in another. While you may be perfect ready to screw over one group of people in Detroit because gun control has no effect on the people in Bridgewater, the people in Detroit will tell you to take your over-generalizations with you to hell if you tried to grab their guns. They seriously would shoot you dead. Your logic is totally inappropriate. First of all, I'm not generalizing, but let's assume for argument's sake that I was. You're saying I can't use the good areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun regulation, but all you're doing is the exact opposite. You're using the bad areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun ownership, then saying I'm wrong for generalizing (when that's not even what I'm doing). So your entire basis for calling my point into question falls flat on its face. This lack of logic becomes compounded when you consider that gun ownership won't fix the bad areas in the USA. So all you're doing is arguing in favor of a solution that won't fix the problem using a generalization as a logical basis while decrying generalizations. And are you really telling me how an entire population would shoot me dead for my views in support of gun ownership? At this point I can only assume you're trolling.
Look at the question that is being asked. It's "Should people be allowed to own and carry guns." Unless it's an absolute "no" in a politic then the answer is "yes." More importantly the lack of uniformity isn't just between cities and states. There are neighborhoods within cities where it is absolutely necessary to have armed protection for lack of adequate police. Then there are neighborhoods in that same city where it is absolutely safe. Then what? Would gun control be at all effective if neighborhoods in proximity had to implement radically different gun policies?
Gun ownership won't address crime tendencies. Neither does banning gun ownership. The tendency to commit crime arises out of socio-economic reasons and an insufficient or possibly corrupt enforcement of the law. Gun ownership or lack thereof is largely immaterial. What gun ownership does is it empowers citizens to defend themselves and their property when transgressed. This phenomenon is especially pronounced and important when police protection is inadequate.
As for Detroit, they will shoot you dead if you physically tried to take their guns. The guns are their defense against the criminal elements, and if you tried to steal guns of lawful citizenry, you'd objectively be supporting criminals and a danger to the general population. If the police tried to do it, the Detroit Police would lose the meager bit of legitimacy left in its dysfunctional organization.
Look, if you aren't going to attempt to understand the opposing arguments, there is no point in having a discussion. You will only declare victory regardless. Right now, I probably could argue your position with the same effectiveness using the same generalizations and rhetorical strategy. I doubt that you will ever reach that level of appreciation for the anti-gun control argument. So save yourself time and do it right away. Declare victory without having an inkling of the counter-arguments.
|
On February 27 2012 20:59 CortoMontez wrote:
It is worth noting that the current fire-arm restrictions haven't even been in place for 20 years, and already guns are a rare sight in the media, with almost any gun related incident being reported on, even if the gun isn't fired. These stories are rarely seen more than once or twice a month; massively higher than even the accident rate with firearms in the US.
I guess getting rid of a couple millions guns from people who don't want them is not that hard. Try taking away a couple hundred million guns from people that do... Like that other great American said in this thread, "If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first."
|
I don't really think you must have guns to defend yourself. That doesn't seem one a good argument at all. Its fallacious as it seems like an argument to own a tank just as much as a handgun. Mutual Assured Destruction is a way to defend yourself as well.
What I'd rather say is people should have the right to do whatever they want unless there are serious problems and issues with it. The onus is on the person who is restricting freedom to provide the necessary evidence to ban something. Honestly I've never seen convincing evidence that say it should be banned outright, just regulated. Feel free to provide such evidence to me because I don't particularly like guns. But one needs significant reasons to ban something.
|
On February 27 2012 20:59 CortoMontez wrote:
First of all, unlike knives/cars, guns are DESIGNED to harm people. This makes comparisons between guns and those objects irrelevant since their primary purpose isn't to harm people. Personally I believe that any item which is primarily designed to be a weapon which can inflict serious harm shouldn't be allowed, and the laws here in Australia reflect that; with flick-knives, handguns, knuckle-dusters etc. being banned. (Hunting guns are still allowed with a permit, since their primary purpose ISN'T to harm people)
It is worth noting that the current fire-arm restrictions haven't even been in place for 20 years, and already guns are a rare sight in the media, with almost any gun related incident being reported on, even if the gun isn't fired. These stories are rarely seen more than once or twice a month; massively higher than even the accident rate with firearms in the US.
Can you point to something that says the crime rate in Australia is getting better? Everything I can see says that it's stayed the same or gone up since the gun ban / buyback of the late 90's.
Less guns but the same or more crime? Not success in my opinion.
I'm not tuned in to what's happening in Australia so if you have more information or articles I'd like to check them out.
|
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy
|
On February 26 2012 17:24 dogabutila wrote:
What parts do you think you actually need? What parts would you ban. Tell me now. Because I doubt you'd be banning metal. And you know what? Why not just arrest them when they rob and assault somebody? How would you know they are manufacturing guns in their basement anyways? You clearly are out of touch with reality and need to learn about, examine, and gain experience in subjects before your replies make any sort of sense.
Are you serious? A gun is a precision made device. You'd require a machine shop at the very least, you wouldn't need to ban metal. Like I said before, you won't be doing precision machine work in your basement metal or no metal.
On February 27 2012 06:59 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 05:24 Usul wrote:On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So everybody should be allowed to own nuclear bombs and killer viruses... . It's not illegal to be HIV positive, and nuclear power plants which have the capacity for a nuclear disaster can be privately owned, so technically those things are legal to own already and exist within society. In any case, if we are talking about the means to self defense, I really hope you don't need me to articulate the differences between a handgun, and say, a nuclear warhead or deadly virus. A weapon of "mass destruction" cannot be used "responsibly."
These are two of the worst strawman fallacies I have ever seen. You can't compare accidental infection with a virus to a biological weapon designed to infect/kill multiple people. You might argue that people deliberately infect others, but that doesn't adequately speak to the intent, or how the virus was obtained. Nobody deliberately infects themselves with HIV, so it's impossible to speak to an intent. Obtaining a biological weapon is with the intent of using it to kill. You also can't compare technology designed for the purposes of energy production with technology designed for mass destruction. Notwithstanding the fact that nuclear reactors must be up to code to be legally operated, privately or otherwise, and that code includes moderators that absorb neutrons which prevent fission from chain reacting out of control.
The point is these things do not already exist within society, such weapons are incredibly tightly regulated. Why? Because regardless of how they might be responsibly used, they can cause mass destruction if they are abused. This is also true of a handgun with or without hollow point bullets. How it can be "responsibly" used (responsible = kill someone who enters your house, ROFL), is irrelevant, because the fact is you can hide a handgun on your person, take it to a club/restaurant/church/train or other crowded venue, and use it to kill 20+ people easily. This isn't speculation on my part, this has happened in your country multiple times already. My question then is why are handguns (and even more destructive weapons) allowed when there is already a precedent in your country for regulating weapons that can cause mass destruction if abused?
On February 27 2012 20:54 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 20:42 TanTzoR wrote:On February 26 2012 18:20 liberal wrote:
If you don't believe that owning a gun is necessary, then don't own a gun.
If you want to dictate what other people own, then don't live in a free nation.
The government has the moral authority to regulate actions which cause harm to others. Ownership is not harm. Ownership coupled with irresponsibility is harm. Make the irresponsibility illegal, not the ownership.
So bad argument. NOTHING is an arm in itself. Give a responsible guy a nuclear device, he won't use it so it won't be any harm. An object has no proper will. In a democracy people vote about big society debates. Gun ownership is a society debate. You claim the right to own a gun. Very well. I claim the right to not be surrounded by guns, it impacts my life. Then people choose, in Europe people chose to ban private gun ownership (except for hunting). And whatever you may say, gun is not a neutral object. Gun first purpose is to shoot a bullet. The only legitimate use I see is hunting, and shooting at the range(but then the gun stays at the range). And with the amount of irresponsible people I see everyday (and you can never be sure that licenses are only delivered to responsible people) I'm happy they do not own a gun. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You do not have the right to strip me of my rights. Your rights end at another man's. My owning a gun does not impact your life in any way. Your made up sorry excuse is just a desire to restrict the freedoms and rights of others in the guise of a right.
There are two logical fallacies expressed in this post. The first is a strawman comparing a fist to a gun. It is illegal to use your fist to injure someone without a very good reason. It is also illegal to use your gun to injure someone. The two differences are that you can't regulate hands, people need them to wipe their ass, and because of the lethal nature of a gun there are two few "very good reasons" to use them to justify mass ownership and the problems that go along with them.
The second fallacy is circular reasoning. This thread is asking should guns be legal to own. You can't cite their current legality as a reason for their legality.
On February 28 2012 00:14 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 20:59 CortoMontez wrote:
It is worth noting that the current fire-arm restrictions haven't even been in place for 20 years, and already guns are a rare sight in the media, with almost any gun related incident being reported on, even if the gun isn't fired. These stories are rarely seen more than once or twice a month; massively higher than even the accident rate with firearms in the US. I guess getting rid of a couple millions guns from people who don't want them is not that hard. Try taking away a couple hundred million guns from people that do... Like that other great American said in this thread, "If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first."
Sorry, but you're not a great citizen if you think this. All he's really saying is that he'd be willing to shoot and kill law enforcement to defend illegal ownership of his guns if society decided to regulate and restrict them. People have defended illegal and immoral actions as patriotism before, and in almost all cases those people have been profoundly crazy. In effect he's saying he'd be willing to murder his fellow countrymen to defy the law were it passed. This is also a very dubious claim to make if you're trying to convince people you are a responsible gun owner.
|
On February 20 2012 03:18 fabiano wrote:
If people want to kill, they will find a gun anyway, banning guns would make little to no difference at all.
I don't see how this makes sense. I live in Northern Ireland and I wouldn't have the first clue where to get a gun, and even terrorist organisations like the IRA aren't that well-armed.
Also I could easily see a situation where someone is in a fit of rage and grabs a gun out of the closet to kill someone, but in a country with gun laws it would take time to find and obtain a gun and the person would be much more likely to come to their senses.
|
Totally missed my point of GL trying to take 200 million+ firearms from citizens who lived when it was there right as a citizen to own one. If they actually changed the 2nd amendment I'd still say GL hah. Gun control is awesome, I'm all for it and don't own any guns. It's just damn near impossible to ban guns in the US without a huge cultural change.
|
On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy
Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state.
Shamelessly jacked from wikipedia.
Gun control regulation is but one policy that a government deals with. It's not an all or nothing based solely on gun control laws.
The government doesn't give any guns to anybody. We buy them from retail gun stores or direct from the manufacturer just like any other product. It would be ridiculous to expect any government to protect all of it's citizens 100% of the time. It's not admitting failure on the government's part, it's being realistic.
Smaller places where they cut off your hands for stealing might be able to pull off a gunless society though.
|
On February 28 2012 00:10 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 09:15 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 11:17 TanGeng wrote:On February 25 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 05:34 TanGeng wrote:On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote:
1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context.
2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat.
3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
There are good neighborhood and bad neighborhoods. Places of easy public security and difficult public security. Example of good areas, example: Bridgewater, NJ. Example of bad areas, example: Detroit. http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05/020512-news-detroit-vigilantes-1-5/ I don't see how this is a response to my point. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but here goes for the fourth time, I think. Operating on generalizations just fails. Just because crime is rare in one area doesn't mean it's rare in another. While you may be perfect ready to screw over one group of people in Detroit because gun control has no effect on the people in Bridgewater, the people in Detroit will tell you to take your over-generalizations with you to hell if you tried to grab their guns. They seriously would shoot you dead. Your logic is totally inappropriate. First of all, I'm not generalizing, but let's assume for argument's sake that I was. You're saying I can't use the good areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun regulation, but all you're doing is the exact opposite. You're using the bad areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun ownership, then saying I'm wrong for generalizing (when that's not even what I'm doing). So your entire basis for calling my point into question falls flat on its face. This lack of logic becomes compounded when you consider that gun ownership won't fix the bad areas in the USA. So all you're doing is arguing in favor of a solution that won't fix the problem using a generalization as a logical basis while decrying generalizations. And are you really telling me how an entire population would shoot me dead for my views in support of gun ownership? At this point I can only assume you're trolling. Look at the question that is being asked. It's "Should people be allowed to own and carry guns." Unless it's an absolute "no" in a politic then the answer is "yes." More importantly the lack of uniformity isn't just between cities and states. There are neighborhoods within cities where it is absolutely necessary to have armed protection for lack of adequate police. Then there are neighborhoods in that same city where it is absolutely safe. Then what? Would gun control be at all effective if neighborhoods in proximity had to implement radically different gun policies?
No, it wouldn't. All I'm saying is that you can't use the worst places in the USA as a justification for mass gun ownership, especially when it wouldn't solve the problem. Citing the current problems associated with the police is not a justification, since there are ways to improve the effectiveness of the police. Not only that, there are many other ways of improving the conditions in some cities. Mass gun ownership will do no such thing, it will likely just make things worse in the long run.
On February 28 2012 00:10 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2012 09:15 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 11:17 TanGeng wrote:On February 25 2012 06:13 sevencck wrote:On February 25 2012 05:34 TanGeng wrote:On February 25 2012 04:44 sevencck wrote:
1) We're talking about a rare occurrence. In other words, we're outlining an unsafe scenario, but in the context of an otherwise highly safe society. You're the one that's using the unsafe scenario to promote your position while ignoring the larger context.
2) It becomes more unsafe when everyone owns guns. In other words, what I'm saying is your position takes an unsafe scenario and just turns up the heat.
3) If even that highly rare unsafe scenario were to become more safe (a highly dubious claim), you're making the larger context more unsafe. So you're promoting personal safety in a rare occurrence at the expense of public safety at large. This is a backwards view.
There are good neighborhood and bad neighborhoods. Places of easy public security and difficult public security. Example of good areas, example: Bridgewater, NJ. Example of bad areas, example: Detroit. http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/02/05/020512-news-detroit-vigilantes-1-5/ I don't see how this is a response to my point. I don't see how it could be any clearer, but here goes for the fourth time, I think. Operating on generalizations just fails. Just because crime is rare in one area doesn't mean it's rare in another. While you may be perfect ready to screw over one group of people in Detroit because gun control has no effect on the people in Bridgewater, the people in Detroit will tell you to take your over-generalizations with you to hell if you tried to grab their guns. They seriously would shoot you dead. Your logic is totally inappropriate. First of all, I'm not generalizing, but let's assume for argument's sake that I was. You're saying I can't use the good areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun regulation, but all you're doing is the exact opposite. You're using the bad areas of the USA as a generalization for nation-wide gun ownership, then saying I'm wrong for generalizing (when that's not even what I'm doing). So your entire basis for calling my point into question falls flat on its face. This lack of logic becomes compounded when you consider that gun ownership won't fix the bad areas in the USA. So all you're doing is arguing in favor of a solution that won't fix the problem using a generalization as a logical basis while decrying generalizations. And are you really telling me how an entire population would shoot me dead for my views in support of gun ownership? At this point I can only assume you're trolling. Gun ownership won't address crime tendencies. Neither does banning gun ownership. The tendency to commit crime arises out of socio-economic reasons.
If you understand this, then why do you not see that mass gun ownership is inappropriate? Socioeconomic reasons. So basically you're saying crime is often about homeless/impoverished/desperate people. First of all, why is it appropriate to kill people like this when they enter your home? If even people owned guns, why do they always just confront and shoot to kill? Why do all the news stories I read about applaud these actions? Why don't people take their gun and hide and only shoot if there is absolutely no other recourse? How many of your belongings to you really think one man is gonna be able to remove from your house? Are they worth a human life? I'm sorry but justifying gun ownership to kill the desperate impoverished when they break into your house is ridiculous, when again, it won't solve the problem, just ends up costing lives in what amounts to total overkill, and causes enormous gun-related tragedies elsewhere in society.
If you recognize that crime is socioeconomically based, why aren't we talking about funding public social programs to improve the socioeconomic conditions in inner cities? Why not increase spending for education? Why not increase spending to help those likely to commit crime to help themselves? Why not increase spending on the police? The problem with your position is that it doesn't care enough about its own country and the people within, it really only cares about itself and its family. Typical republicanism. I don't wanna spend a dime funding social progress, it's every man for himself, and if this problematic view point contributes to an ineffective police force, poor education in many areas, failing social programs, and an increase in homeless, hungry, and desperate people, we can solve the problem by shooting them. Sorry if that seems trite, but fundamentally that is how your viewpoint comes across.
Anyway I'm done in this thread this will be my last post. There are too many ridiculous posts and I can't even begin to speak to them all.
|
On February 28 2012 03:46 Laurence wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:18 fabiano wrote:
If people want to kill, they will find a gun anyway, banning guns would make little to no difference at all. I don't see how this makes sense. I live in Northern Ireland and I wouldn't have the first clue where to get a gun, and even terrorist organisations like the IRA aren't that well-armed. Also I could easily see a situation where someone is in a fit of rage and grabs a gun out of the closet to kill someone, but in a country with gun laws it would take time to find and obtain a gun and the person would be much more likely to come to their senses.
well, to be fair, Northern Ireland is much smaller than the USA, has much smaller borders (being an island and all), and has a much smaller population. it's apples and oranges.
it's all elementary anyway. there is no way that the 2nd amendment will ever be repealed, ever.
|
On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy
Well that would certainly suck if the government in question was a tyranny. Don't worry lol, you have your words to protect yourself. Those peaceful words are definitely working in Syria.
|
On February 28 2012 03:55 NoSlack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. Shamelessly jacked from wikipedia. Gun control regulation is but one policy that a government deals with. It's not an all or nothing based solely on gun control laws. The government doesn't give any guns to anybody. We buy them from retail gun stores or direct from the manufacturer just like any other product. It would be ridiculous to expect any government to protect all of it's citizens 100% of the time. It's not admitting failure on the government's part, it's being realistic. Smaller places where they cut off your hands for stealing might be able to pull off a gunless society though.
Its obvious that you have no experience interacting with countries and policies that are geared towards gun control.
|
On February 28 2012 04:02 Weedk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy Well that would certainly suck if the government in question was a tyranny. Don't worry lol, you have your words to protect yourself. Those peaceful words are definitely working in Syria.
If the rebels get guns and organize they are taking all the right steps to create a new government, and if they win, that use of violence will be legitimized.
|
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 00:14 Dizmaul wrote:
I guess getting rid of a couple millions guns from people who don't want them is not that hard. Try taking away a couple hundred million guns from people that do... Like that other great American said in this thread, "If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first." Sorry, but you're not a great citizen if you think this. All he's really saying is that he'd be willing to shoot and kill law enforcement to defend illegal ownership of his guns if society decided to regulate and restrict them. People have defended illegal and immoral actions as patriotism before, and in almost all cases those people have been profoundly crazy. In effect he's saying he'd be willing to murder his fellow countrymen to defy the law were it passed. This is also a very dubious claim to make if you're trying to convince people you are a responsible gun owner.
The loyalties of americans during domestic disputes lies with the constitution, not with our fellow americans. We were founded on principles of unalienable rights, which include the rights for every person on this planet to defend themselves. This is in our constitution. When US military officers take their oath it's only to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic (link). It's not an oath to the president or any position that can be occupied by a person. There is no allegience to the president, congress, the courts, or any other entity that is controlled by man, only the constitution. Why do you think that is? If someone is trying to take away your constitutional rights (as an american) you are SUPPOSED to fight them. He may not have put it in so many words, but I get what's being said here. We are rebels from great britain, remember? 
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:
The point is these things do not already exist within society, such weapons are incredibly tightly regulated. Why? Because regardless of how they might be responsibly used, they can cause mass destruction if they are abused. This is also true of a handgun with or without hollow point bullets. How it can be "responsibly" used (responsible = kill someone who enters your house, ROFL), is irrelevant, because the fact is you can hide a handgun on your person, take it to a club/restaurant/church/train or other crowded venue, and use it to kill 20+ people easily. This isn't speculation on my part, this has happened in your country multiple times already. My question then is why are handguns (and even more destructive weapons) allowed when there is already a precedent in your country for regulating weapons that can cause mass destruction if abused?
This is one of the weaker arguments for the gun control debate. It's fear mongering. It plays on paranoia. But it's effective. If I was arguing for gun control, I'd use it, too.
What if a crazy mad man gets their hand on a gun and starts shooting everyone. Why that has happened!!! That person could be me! It could be you! Let's stop everyone from getting their hands on a gun ever! And the cops! They might be crazy, too!
Talk about someone using the worst-case as the rationale for public policy.
As for the other regulations of items "mass destruction," they are there for responsible handling. There are standards for responsible handling for guns and trainers will teach that to you, and most people are capable of practicing responsible gun-ownership. The courts enforce these standards retroactively through criminal courts in the form of assault, homicide, or negligence.
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2012 20:54 dogabutila wrote:
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. You do not have the right to strip me of my rights. Your rights end at another man's. My owning a gun does not impact your life in any way. Your made up sorry excuse is just a desire to restrict the freedoms and rights of others in the guise of a right. There are two logical fallacies expressed in this post. The first is a strawman comparing a fist to a gun. It is illegal to use your fist to injure someone without a very good reason. It is also illegal to use your gun to injure someone. The two differences are that you can't regulate hands, people need them to wipe their ass, and because of the lethal nature of a gun there are two few "very good reasons" to use them to justify mass ownership and the problems that go along with them. The second fallacy is circular reasoning. This thread is asking should guns be legal to own. You can't cite their current legality as a reason for their legality.
In my opinion, this is one of the stronger arguments, asking the hypothetical what if guns weren't invented or what if we could magically rid the country of all guns, and simultaneously institute strict gun control. Could a gunless society be better? Possibly with the prerequisite that criminals should be disarmed sooner rather than later.
The most difficult question is, of course the one Dogabutila posed, what is the process to get from current society to a country without guns.
On February 28 2012 03:35 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 00:14 Dizmaul wrote:
I guess getting rid of a couple millions guns from people who don't want them is not that hard. Try taking away a couple hundred million guns from people that do... Like that other great American said in this thread, "If they are coming for my guns and ammo, I'll be sure to give them the ammo first." Sorry, but you're not a great citizen if you think this. All he's really saying is that he'd be willing to shoot and kill law enforcement to defend illegal ownership of his guns if society decided to regulate and restrict them. People have defended illegal and immoral actions as patriotism before, and in almost all cases those people have been profoundly crazy. In effect he's saying he'd be willing to murder his fellow countrymen to defy the law were it passed. This is also a very dubious claim to make if you're trying to convince people you are a responsible gun owner.
The idea of fighting back against authority is not a crazy idea in the US. The idea of fighting against illegitimate political powers to assert one's rights or to push back against tyranny is part of the US tradition. If that illegitimate political power is in the form of police you just might have a showdown. It's not irresponsible, but it's a bit extreme. Whether or not that scenario plays out would depend on the willingness of police to enforce the law. In many cases, police departments would refuse such an order.
Of course, arguing by tradition isn't air-tight logic, it does show that some basic assumption cannot be made.
On February 28 2012 03:55 sevencck wrote:
Anyway I'm done in this thread this will be my last post. There are too many ridiculous posts and I can't even begin to speak to them all.
There you go. Took my advice. You seriously should have long ago because it's been a one-way rant all the way.
|
On February 28 2012 04:02 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 03:55 NoSlack wrote:On February 28 2012 03:14 D10 wrote:
No, only state sponsored law enforcement should be able to use guns, what defines a government is the monopoly of legitimate violence.
If the goverment is giving guns to the people, its admiting it failed to protect them, and that its cowboy no rules land.
So imho, either control the fucking guns and only let law enforcement people use them, or go full anarchy Government is the means by which state policy is enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. Shamelessly jacked from wikipedia. Gun control regulation is but one policy that a government deals with. It's not an all or nothing based solely on gun control laws. The government doesn't give any guns to anybody. We buy them from retail gun stores or direct from the manufacturer just like any other product. It would be ridiculous to expect any government to protect all of it's citizens 100% of the time. It's not admitting failure on the government's part, it's being realistic. Smaller places where they cut off your hands for stealing might be able to pull off a gunless society though. Its obvious that you have no experience interacting with countries and policies that are geared towards gun control.
You are correct. I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like you are correct. I haven't interacted with a country or their policies in ages... Oh those were the days... I used to ... interact with those countries and their policies....
Would you mind making a point? I base my support off of american society and government capabilities and facts regarding the use of guns. What do you base yours off of? The thread is here to discuss gun control, so let's discuss without directing your statements right at me, but instead at opinions that you have that are based off of something. It's unlikely that you would ever change my mind as an american, but I do love to learn new things.
|
sigh, the kid would have had a much harder time getting the gun to shoot his classmates. sad story, but i believe more gun control might've been able to stop this tragedy.
|
On February 28 2012 05:05 darthfoley wrote:
sigh, the kid would have had a much harder time getting the gun to shoot his classmates. sad story, but i believe more gun control might've been able to stop this tragedy.
We need more context but I'm assuming the kid lived with his parents and got it from them?
If so it's a case of bad parenting and the parents should be held liable for every crime commited due to their negligence.
If they got it from the black market then it's something that gun control laws would have no effect on anyway. Criminals don't obey the laws. That's why they are criminals. 300+ million people something is bound to go wrong.
Personally I blame the parent for every bad kid out there. When my kid does something wrong it's my fault, because I didn't teach him any better. Parenting is a whole different subject though.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
As a bit of service to the rest of the thread, I'll explain the differences in view points.
On February 28 2012 03:55 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2012 00:10 TanGeng wrote:
Gun ownership won't address crime tendencies. Neither does banning gun ownership. The tendency to commit crime arises out of socio-economic reasons. If you understand this, then why do you not see that mass gun ownership is inappropriate? Socioeconomic reasons. So basically you're saying crime is often about homeless/impoverished/desperate people. First of all, why is it appropriate to kill people like this when they enter your home? If even people owned guns, why do they always just confront and shoot to kill? Why do all the news stories I read about applaud these actions? Why don't people take their gun and hide and only shoot if there is absolutely no other recourse? How many of your belongings to you really think one man is gonna be able to remove from your house? Are they worth a human life? I'm sorry but justifying gun ownership to kill the desperate impoverished when they break into your house is ridiculous, when again, it won't solve the problem, just ends up costing lives in what amounts to total overkill, and causes enormous gun-related tragedies elsewhere in society.
The difference here is a philosophical difference on self-defense and on helping the poor. One philosophy is the right to stand one's ground when transgressed. That's how most Americans view the right of self-defense. Brazen home invaders can be driven off, captured, or killed by active response as long as they are on your property. The other philosophy is yielding until the only option left is to escalate. Home invaders should be given ground until there is none left to give. Then and only then can the defender strike.
One philosophy is to show compassion to criminals that are resorting to destructive and greedy recourses of stealing, mugging, and breaking and entering. These are after all the poor and unfortunate and just involuntarily give up your belongs as "donations" of some sort. The other philosophy is make a sharp distinction between the two groups. Criminals are criminals, and the poor are the poor. These two groups need not be the one and the same, and some criminals are not only not part of the poor but prey on the poor. The response is therefore active defense in face of criminal activity, and charitable giving in targeted at the poor.
On February 28 2012 03:55 sevencck wrote:
If you recognize that crime is socioeconomically based, why aren't we talking about funding public social programs to improve the socioeconomic conditions in inner cities? Why not increase spending for education? Why not increase spending to help those likely to commit crime to help themselves? Why not increase spending on the police? The problem with your position is that it doesn't care enough about its own country and the people within, it really only cares about itself and its family. Typical republicanism. I don't wanna spend a dime funding social progress, it's every man for himself, and if this problematic view point contributes to an ineffective police force, poor education in many areas, failing social programs, and an increase in homeless, hungry, and desperate people, we can solve the problem by shooting them. Sorry if that seems trite, but fundamentally that is how your viewpoint comes across.
Number one concern when funding social programs is efficacy. Organizations that cannot demonstrate marginal improvement is not worth greater funding. These systems have to be defunded and reconstituted. Inner cities schools are not in shambles for lack of money but for lack of strategy, inapplicable curricula and inability to control the disruptive students. Likewise, inner city police are not doing their job for lack of money but lack of priorities, like drugs instead of violence.
I appreciated the psycho-analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
