Cigarette said: this thread needs to die specifically by getting shot Don't worry, I shot it. It's only a matter of time now before it runs out of blood and dies. Though, as an unforeseen side effect, my computer monitor no longer works. |
EeyoreMay 16, 2013 8:25 AM
Woodstock said: Cigarette said: this thread needs to die specifically by getting shot Don't worry, I shot it. It's only a matter of time now before it runs out of blood and dies. Though, as an unforeseen side effect, my computer monitor no longer works. I laughed at this more than I should have. |
RailgunS said: No they won't, because murder is still illegal. When the 30% shits on the 70%, they will go to prison.And if you take away say 70% of everyones guns, the other 30% will have a lot more power than other citizens |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Woodstock said: A HACigarette said: this thread needs to die specifically by getting shot Don't worry, I shot it. It's only a matter of time now before it runs out of blood and dies. Though, as an unforeseen side effect, my computer monitor no longer works. SO U R 4 GUNZZzzzzz |
 |
| lol @ pepper spray here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned gun violence in the US is highest in the areas (mainly urban areas) where there is heavy gun control (aka it's almost impossible to get a gun) contrary to popular belief, you cant just go anywhere in America and buy as many guns that the money in your wallet can buy. for example, where i live, nyc, you basically arent getting a permit for a gun |
| I think it should be mandatory for everyone to carry a gun at the age of sixteen. I would love to see how things turn out. |
 |
RandomChampion said: lol @ pepper spray here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned gun violence in the US is highest in the areas (mainly urban areas) where there is heavy gun control (aka it's almost impossible to get a gun) contrary to popular belief, you cant just go anywhere in America and buy as many guns that the money in your wallet can buy. for example, where i live, nyc, you basically arent getting a permit for a gun Isn't that because there are more people in these areas proportionately? Of course crime would be higher. Then you have other factors, like Afro-Caribbean men who typically live in these areas lacking a father figure, and turning to crime at a younger age. |
 |
| No. It's what the rest of the world loves about the US, how stupid it is. |
Kazeshini said: No. It's what the rest of the world loves about the US, how stupid it is. I legitimately laughed. +1 |
 |
RandomChampion said: Here's a fun fact for people who like fun facts:here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned gun violence in the US is highest in the areas (mainly urban areas) where there is heavy gun control (aka it's almost impossible to get a gun) It's not true. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: Here's a fun fact for people who like fun facts:here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned gun violence in the US is highest in the areas (mainly urban areas) where there is heavy gun control (aka it's almost impossible to get a gun) It's not true. Heresy, next you'll be telling me that the UK has a lower gun crime rate or something. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: Here's a fun fact for people who like fun facts:here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned gun violence in the US is highest in the areas (mainly urban areas) where there is heavy gun control (aka it's almost impossible to get a gun) It's not true. the majority of the gun violence happens in urban areas (last time i checked), which usually have tighter gun control laws. but i i guesss that they can just bring them in from surrounding areas. edit: i read the preceding fun fact comment, what i meant to write was in this comment |
spyrocoot said: RandomChampion said: lol @ pepper spray here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned gun violence in the US is highest in the areas (mainly urban areas) where there is heavy gun control (aka it's almost impossible to get a gun) contrary to popular belief, you cant just go anywhere in America and buy as many guns that the money in your wallet can buy. for example, where i live, nyc, you basically arent getting a permit for a gun Isn't that because there are more people in these areas proportionately? Of course crime would be higher. Then you have other factors, like Afro-Caribbean men who typically live in these areas lacking a father figure, and turning to crime at a younger age. the murder rates are higher, not just the number of crimes. youre right about the other factors, which is the whole point. the problem is not really guns in these situations. also i wonder what the statistics are for hold ups in which the victim is not killed, but the gun is used to threaten. this should be factored in, in my opinion, since your life is at the mercy of the perpetrator. edit: but let's just forget about that "fun fact" i threw out there....it's not my argument my argument is based upon the bill of rights. guns shouldnt be outright banned |
RandomChampionMay 17, 2013 1:52 PM
RandomChampion said: here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned RandomChampion said: So in other words, what you want to say is that there is not necessarily any direct correlation or causation between gun ownership and gun violence, but you want to make it sound like there's both...the majority of the gun violence happens in urban areas (last time i checked), which usually have tighter gun control laws. RandomChampion said: Neither should nuclear missiles.my argument is based upon the bill of rights. guns shouldnt be outright banned |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| High regulation or no regulation is inconsistent with the amount of violence. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: here's a fun fact for those who think guns should be banned RandomChampion said: So in other words, what you want to say is that there is not necessarily any direct correlation or causation between gun ownership and gun violence, but you want to make it sound like there's both...the majority of the gun violence happens in urban areas (last time i checked), which usually have tighter gun control laws. RandomChampion said: Neither should nuclear missiles.my argument is based upon the bill of rights. guns shouldnt be outright banned well there is higher rate of gun deats in urban areas. i wasnt trying to talk correlation between gun ownership and gun violence. i was trying to talk about gun control and gun violence, but forget it. i dont think i can argue that lol (for example, even if the gun homicide rate is generally greater in urban areas than in surrounding areas, that could maybe be due to criminals simply smuggling them in or something) regarding the nuclear missiles part, i thought we we went over that in that other topic long ago lol. nuclear missiles cannot discriminate between those threatening you, and innocent others. not to mention there is the radiation factor. |
RandomChampion said: But I thought you said your argument was based upon the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution -- the 2nd Amendment -- our right to bear "Arms"... which nuclear weapons are a part of.regarding the nuclear missiles part, i thought we we went over that in that other topic long ago lol. nuclear missiles cannot discriminate between those threatening you, and innocent others. not to mention there is the radiation factor. So is your argument really about the Constitution? If you're a textist, you take it literally, good and bad, and not try to apply arbitrary criteria after it. Otherwise, what's the difference between what you're doing and anyone else who wants tighter gun regulation or even outright bans? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: But I thought you said your argument was based upon the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution -- the 2nd Amendment -- our right to bear "Arms"... which nuclear weapons are a part of.regarding the nuclear missiles part, i thought we we went over that in that other topic long ago lol. nuclear missiles cannot discriminate between those threatening you, and innocent others. not to mention there is the radiation factor. So is your argument really about the Constitution? If you're a textist, you take it literally, good and bad, and not try to apply arbitrary criteria after it. Otherwise, what's the difference between what you're doing and anyone else who wants tighter gun regulation or even outright bans? Well, we can start with the fact that citizens have the right to bear arms (arms of any description is implied in the 2nd Amendment). However, there is also the concept of natural rights that comes into play. Here is an outline of my general argument: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) Ownership of being creates a responsibility for its general welfare. 3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit of securing one's general welfare. 4) Efficient self-defense most capably sees to one's general welfare. 5) Firearms represent an efficient tool for self-defense. Following from that: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. Many guns can avoid collateral damage, provide direct defense. People who want to ban guns outright draw the line not based upon factors such ability to to disregard collateral damage, but just based upon category... Explosive devices with huge destructive capabilities, and that are really purely offensive in nature, can be built with many readily available items. Yet why do people who want to ban all guns not want to ban such items? Why do they not want to ban cars? It is poor logic on their part. Youre right about me not being a textualist I guess, but even if not discussed from a textualist approach, I don't see how outright banning guns makes sense - the line is still arbitrary AND if you want to use their logic, we would have to ban other things as well. However, discussed from the other end, it's pretty apparent that not all guns should be banned. I don't believe that any chump should be go into a store go into a store and buy military-grade weapons with no checks done on him. I do agree that whatever line that is drawn will be arbitrary. However, there is a difference between a person owning some kind of rocket-launcher and a person owning a sidearm or rifle. |
| Before we move on, can we both agree that your argument has nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather some kind of libertarian philosophy? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RandomChampion said: katsucats said: RandomChampion said: But I thought you said your argument was based upon the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution -- the 2nd Amendment -- our right to bear "Arms"... which nuclear weapons are a part of.regarding the nuclear missiles part, i thought we we went over that in that other topic long ago lol. nuclear missiles cannot discriminate between those threatening you, and innocent others. not to mention there is the radiation factor. So is your argument really about the Constitution? If you're a textist, you take it literally, good and bad, and not try to apply arbitrary criteria after it. Otherwise, what's the difference between what you're doing and anyone else who wants tighter gun regulation or even outright bans? Well, we can start with the fact that citizens have the right to bear arms (arms of any description is implied in the 2nd Amendment). However, there is also the concept of natural rights that comes into play. Here is an outline of my general argument: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) Ownership of being creates a responsibility for its general welfare. 3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit of securing one's general welfare. 4) Efficient self-defense most capably sees to one's general welfare. 5) Firearms represent an efficient tool for self-defense. Following from that: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. Many guns can avoid collateral damage, provide direct defense. People who want to ban guns outright draw the line not based upon factors such ability to to disregard collateral damage, but just based upon category... Explosive devices with huge destructive capabilities, and that are really purely offensive in nature, can be built with many readily available items. Yet why do people who want to ban all guns not want to ban such items? Why do they not want to ban cars? It is poor logic on their part. Youre right about me not being a textualist I guess, but even if not discussed from a textualist approach, I don't see how outright banning guns makes sense - the line is still arbitrary AND if you want to use their logic, we would have to ban other things as well. However, discussed from the other end, it's pretty apparent that not all guns should be banned. I don't believe that any chump should be go into a store go into a store and buy military-grade weapons with no checks done on him. I do agree that whatever line that is drawn will be arbitrary. However, there is a difference between a person owning some kind of rocket-launcher and a person owning a sidearm or rifle. Cars are a necessity in everyday life. They are practical in that they take us from point A to point B. Without them, people wouldn't be able to work as they do now. Guns, on the other hand, are designed to kill. While I did find your parody thread of mine (replacing guns with cars) to be quite humorous, I find it difficult to take any argument you make seriously when you keep making such an absurd comparison. katsucats said: Before we move on, can we both agree that your argument has nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather some kind of libertarian philosophy? Seconding this. |
|
katsucats said: Before we move on, can we both agree that your argument has nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather some kind of libertarian philosophy? Sounds reasonable to me. The Framers; intent was basically libertarian right? spyrocoot said: RandomChampion said: katsucats said: RandomChampion said: But I thought you said your argument was based upon the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution -- the 2nd Amendment -- our right to bear "Arms"... which nuclear weapons are a part of.regarding the nuclear missiles part, i thought we we went over that in that other topic long ago lol. nuclear missiles cannot discriminate between those threatening you, and innocent others. not to mention there is the radiation factor. So is your argument really about the Constitution? If you're a textist, you take it literally, good and bad, and not try to apply arbitrary criteria after it. Otherwise, what's the difference between what you're doing and anyone else who wants tighter gun regulation or even outright bans? Well, we can start with the fact that citizens have the right to bear arms (arms of any description is implied in the 2nd Amendment). However, there is also the concept of natural rights that comes into play. Here is an outline of my general argument: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) Ownership of being creates a responsibility for its general welfare. 3) Self-defense is a rational pursuit of securing one's general welfare. 4) Efficient self-defense most capably sees to one's general welfare. 5) Firearms represent an efficient tool for self-defense. Following from that: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. Many guns can avoid collateral damage, provide direct defense. People who want to ban guns outright draw the line not based upon factors such ability to to disregard collateral damage, but just based upon category... Explosive devices with huge destructive capabilities, and that are really purely offensive in nature, can be built with many readily available items. Yet why do people who want to ban all guns not want to ban such items? Why do they not want to ban cars? It is poor logic on their part. Youre right about me not being a textualist I guess, but even if not discussed from a textualist approach, I don't see how outright banning guns makes sense - the line is still arbitrary AND if you want to use their logic, we would have to ban other things as well. However, discussed from the other end, it's pretty apparent that not all guns should be banned. I don't believe that any chump should be go into a store go into a store and buy military-grade weapons with no checks done on him. I do agree that whatever line that is drawn will be arbitrary. However, there is a difference between a person owning some kind of rocket-launcher and a person owning a sidearm or rifle. Cars are a necessity in everyday life. They are practical in that they take us from point A to point B. Without them, people wouldn't be able to work as they do now. Guns, on the other hand, are designed to kill. While I did find your parody thread of mine (replacing guns with cars) to be quite humorous, I find it difficult to take any argument you make seriously when you keep making such an absurd comparison. katsucats said: Before we move on, can we both agree that your argument has nothing to do with the Constitution, but rather some kind of libertarian philosophy? Seconding this. lol Fine, so what do you think about materials that can be used to make explosive devices? Also, cars are still a bigger cause of death than guns are. |
RandomChampionMay 17, 2013 3:07 PM
RandomChampion said: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. 1. There is a balancing act, according to this moral philosophy, between recognizing one's own rights to self-ownership and recognizing other people's rights to self-ownership. 2. If, theoretically, it could be demonstrated that some other weapon besides guns have higher efficacy for self-defense and lower potential to harm an innocent, then it would be immoral for a person to use guns for this purpose. 3. Such a study is possible. Therefore, it is immoral to take a hard line stance for gun ownership rights with this moral philosophy. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
RandomChampion said: Fine, so what do you think about materials that can be used to make explosive devices? Also, cars are still a bigger cause of death than guns are. Anyone educated in making explosives could easily go to a local supermarket, buy the materials and then construct the explosive. If someone is going to plan to murder someone, then they will find a way. The thing is, though, most murders in the UK are impulse murders (IDK if it's the same in the US). Planned murders are a minority. Therefore, it's far more likely that someone is going to snap and pull a trigger, rather than take the time to construct a weapon their selves. We don't know how true that statistic is. All car deaths are reported. Not all gun deaths are, so the statistics may be inaccurate. Even if we assume the statistics are correct, at least cars serve a practical purpose other than to kill. |
|
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. 1. There is a balancing act, according to this moral philosophy, between recognizing one's own rights to self-ownership and recognizing other people's rights to self-ownership. 2. If, theoretically, it could be demonstrated that some other weapon besides guns have higher efficacy for self-defense and lower potential to harm an innocent, then it would be immoral for a person to use guns for this purpose. 3. Such a study is possible. Therefore, it is immoral to take a hard line stance for gun ownership rights with this moral philosophy. damn that is a good point...but how does a small handgun have disregard for collateral damage? It's not about what means of self-defense is most effective, it's about which isn't in-discriminant in any case, though, i guess technically even in-discriminant is to be arbitrarily decided...but since the founding fathers (framers' intent) allowed the ownership of guns, ill take their judgement over anybody else's for now lol. I'll try to come up with another argument maybe lol @spyrocoot so youre basically allowing some weapons/potential weapons, and not others. youre also trying to add apply value to different types of crimes... |
RandomChampion said: @spyrocoot so youre basically allowing some weapons/potential weapons, and not others. youre also trying to add apply value to different types of crimes... "Weapon" is defined as: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage A gun is designed for inflicting physical damage. Materials you find at a supermarket are not. Technically, anything can be a potential weapon. A pencil, a remote control, an apple etc, so I don't see where you're going with this. Impulse murders are the most common type of murder, and it is easiest done with a firearm. All you need to do is pull the trigger. How many instances do you hear of someone being murdered with homemade explosives when compared to guns? |
|
| On the homemade explosives point, while they may be further in-between than gun related incidents, the amount of damage done by bomb attacks tends to exceed what you've seen in most reported shootings. Such as OKC in '95 You can buy the materials for a fertilizer bomb anywhere. It's so easy to do that the ATF literally watches specifically for purchases made of the materials within close proximity/time frames of each other. Unfortunately, they cannot catch'em all and they can still happen. Again, while further in-between, the damage done cannot be denied and frankly I still find this more troubling than a random drive-by...at least a shooter might actually miss. The shock wave from a well-made explosive alone is enough to kill. And of course there is always homemade napalm...your local grocery store might seem innocent enough, but it doesn't take a degree in chemistry to do some whacko shit with what you can find there. |
NTADMay 17, 2013 4:53 PM
spyrocoot said: RandomChampion said: @spyrocoot so youre basically allowing some weapons/potential weapons, and not others. youre also trying to add apply value to different types of crimes... "Weapon" is defined as: A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage A gun is designed for inflicting physical damage. Materials you find at a supermarket are not. Technically, anything can be a potential weapon. A pencil, a remote control, an apple etc, so I don't see where you're going with this. Impulse murders are the most common type of murder, and it is easiest done with a firearm. All you need to do is pull the trigger. How many instances do you hear of someone being murdered with homemade explosives when compared to guns? Where I'm going with this is that it doesn't matter what something is designed for, what other uses it could have, etc. When discussing whether or not something should be banned in the US, certain guidelines should be used. Weapons are not necessarily banned in America. Things that are designed for inflicting physical damage are not necessarily banned in America. The main argument (that anti-gun people use) against banning guns is not that they were desgined to inflict physical harm and can inflict physical harm (basically 2 factors). The main argument is only that they can threaten others too much. The same can be said about a car - a car can threaten others too much. It doesnt matter what kinds of crimes there are either. An impulse crime can be committed with anything from a grenade to a softball stick. What does matter is if all guns are too unreasonably powerful. If youre going to argue that a handgun is too unreasonably powerful, then you must also believe that a car is too unreasonably powerful (again, other uses and intent of design plays no role in anything). An impulse crime can easily be done with a car too. Ever hear of road rage? By the way, whether not not the murder is actually committed isnt the whole story. If you've ever had your life threatened, you'd understand. At the moment the crime is being committed, your life is at the mercy of the perpetrators. It doesnt even matter what their intents are - your rights are being molested and your life is threatened. You you are at the mercy of others, which is what American law tries to prevent. The reason nobody is going to ban pencils and apples is because pencils and apples are not unreasonably powerful. It also doesnt matter about rates of crimes. It doesnt matter if gun violence is more common than crimes involving explosives. The law is not something that is to be decided merely on things like how common something is, how dumb something sounds (cars being used as weapons; guns being more sinister in nature than pressure cookers), etc. The law is the law, and should stick to spirit of the principle as much as possible. That is the reason things are heavily debated here. Thigns arent to be taken lightly |
| Fuck that nanny-state bullshit. The worst part of that stupid banning guns logic is that guns would still be available, criminals and rampage psychopaths would still have them, and it would only fuel the black market and violent gangsters further (same way the failing war against drugs does). We law abiding citizens aren't gonna give up our guns so some criminal piece of trash can just waltz into our home and assault and murder our family. No we keep guns to handle those types of situations. And to hunt buffalo of course. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
LayedBack said: Fuck that nanny-state bullshit. The worst part of that stupid banning guns logic is that guns would still be available, criminals and rampage psychopaths would still have them, and it would only fuel the black market and violent gangsters further (same way the failing war against drugs does). We law abiding citizens aren't gonna give up our guns so some criminal piece of trash can just waltz into our home and assault and murder our family. No we keep guns to handle those types of situations. And to hunt buffalo of course. The first paragraph has been brought up countless times in this thread already, and successfully refuted each time. As for the second part, nobody has ever waltzed into my home, let alone with murderous intent. I suppose it's more common in the US? Your only valid point was to hunt buffalos. If only these "law abiding citizens" learned how to protect themselves without carrying a pocket sized killing device... |
|
| No I want mah guns so fuck off. :D How can you refute the fact that banning guns won't stop criminals from owning and using them? And that law abiding citizens then won't have anything to protect themselves with. And that you'll be fueling the black market by outlawing them, essentially handing money to violent mobsters? What happens when a country gets invaded and the people aren't guaranteed protection? Nobody's waltzed into your home? Good for you. Mine has been broken into, so has my neighbors for that matter. And I don't even live in a bad neighborhood. So you're confident that you can protect yourself if two very large violent lifetime criminals wielding guns or even knives mugged you on the street? Can you protect yourself and your family all at once? Do you want to take the chance that someone you love might end up dead because you happen to think you're fucking Jet Li and can roshambo your way out of any situation. Or are you too naive to think shit like that will never happen to you or your family because nobody *you* know ever could get raped or murdered? Please, refute away I'm not gonna dig into a 26 page thread, I want to hear my points actually addressed. And I wanna it to be directed to what I've actually said, not what someone else said. Either that or don't give me that shit you just said, disagreeing without actually saying anything. Boooo. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
RandomChampion said: All guns can be used indiscriminately. In choosing a weapon that may not maximize your self-ownership in the face of potential infringement of other people's self-ownership, you contradict your own moral system. Is less wrong ever good enough when we're talking about moral ideals? If so, then the line we draw is simply arbitrary... Even if you may not use a weapon indiscriminately, a libertarian government's role in this would be to maximize the liberty and safety of all its citizens, such that it maximizes the opportunity for anyone to protect their self-ownership, but minimizes the opportunity for anyone to coerce against other people's self-ownership. When presenting a moral or political principle as you have done, you must take the tightest line.katsucats said: how does a small handgun have disregard for collateral damage? It's not about what means of self-defense is most effective, it's about which isn't in-discriminant RandomChampion said: 1) An individual is in absolute ownership of his/her being. 2) By recognizing one's self-ownership one must also recognize right of others to self-ownership. 3) Coercion subverts the self-ownership of others, and is therefore immoral. 4) Coercion can be met with self-defense. 4) A moral means of self-defense must not violate the self-ownership of innocents or their property. 5) Means of self-defense that have disregard for collateral damage do not qualify as moral. 1. There is a balancing act, according to this moral philosophy, between recognizing one's own rights to self-ownership and recognizing other people's rights to self-ownership. 2. If, theoretically, it could be demonstrated that some other weapon besides guns have higher efficacy for self-defense and lower potential to harm an innocent, then it would be immoral for a person to use guns for this purpose. 3. Such a study is possible. Therefore, it is immoral to take a hard line stance for gun ownership rights with this moral philosophy. in any case, though, i guess technically even in-discriminant is to be arbitrarily decided... RandomChampion said: The founding fathers also allowed private militia and, presumably, cannons and other artillery of the day. So much for not permitting indiscriminate weapons...but since the founding fathers (framers' intent) allowed the ownership of guns, ill take their judgement over anybody else's for now lol. RandomChampion said: There is no "main argument" that can be taken out of context of the overall picture. That's a straw man. No one is calling for our rights to use cars as a weapon of self defense.The main argument (that anti-gun people use) against banning guns is not that they were desgined to inflict physical harm and can inflict physical harm (basically 2 factors). The main argument is only that they can threaten others too much. The same can be said about a car - a car can threaten others too much. What do you need nuclear weapons for? Probably nothing. What do you need guns for? Hunting? Self-defense? What do you need cars for? Transportation? Racing? Self-defense? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
LayedBack said: No I want mah guns so fuck off. :D How can you refute the fact that banning guns won't stop criminals from owning and using them? And that law abiding citizens then won't have anything to protect themselves with. And that you'll be fueling the black market by outlawing them, essentially handing money to violent mobsters? What happens when a country gets invaded and the people aren't guaranteed protection? Nobody's waltzed into your home? Good for you. Mine has been broken into, so has my neighbors for that matter. And I don't even live in a bad neighborhood. So you're confident that you can protect yourself if two very large violent lifetime criminals wielding guns or even knives mugged you on the street? Can you protect yourself and your family all at once? Do you want to take the chance that someone you love might end up dead because you happen to think you're fucking Jet Li and can roshambo your way out of any situation. Or are you too naive to think shit like that will never happen to you or your family because nobody *you* know ever could get raped or murdered? Please, refute away I'm not gonna dig into a 26 page thread, I want to hear my points actually addressed. And I wanna it to be directed to what I've actually said, not what someone else said. Either that or don't give me that shit you just said, disagreeing without actually saying anything. Boooo. Can you please refrain from swearing at me, thank you. Even if criminals still have access to guns through the black market, it becomes much more difficult to acquire guns, so gun crime in the US would decrease. You're underestimating just how difficult it is to get a gun illegally. Do you know the type of people you'd have to deal with? Your "the only way to beat a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" logic is also hilarious and the reason people still feel the need to own guns. Oh wow, another "what will the people do in case of an invasions" argument. A few civilians with firearms against a trained army wouldn't stand a chance. Besides, most people would be too busy eating their McFlurries to give a damn anyway. I've been held at knife point, and I dealt with it. I've been trained to disarm an individual holding a gun to me, but I don't know if I could do it against two people or even if I could do it in a real life situation to begin with. I'm no Jet Li, but disarming an individual, in theory, is relatively easy providing they are within close distance (which they usually are). |
|
spyrocoot said: I'm no Jet Li, but disarming an individual, in theory, is relatively easy providing they are within close distance (which they usually are). Unless he's IN A CAR...VROOOOM. Get run down, you squirrel. |
spyrocoot said: Can you please refrain from swearing at me, thank you. Even if criminals still have access to guns through the black market, it becomes much more difficult to acquire guns, so gun crime in the US would decrease. You're underestimating just how difficult it is to get a gun illegally. Do you know the type of people you'd have to deal with? Your "the only way to beat a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" logic is also hilarious and the reason people still feel the need to own guns. Oh wow, another "what will the people do in case of an invasions" argument. A few civilians with firearms against a trained army wouldn't stand a chance. Besides, most people would be too busy eating their McFlurries to give a damn anyway. I've been held at knife point, and I dealt with it. I've been trained to disarm an individual holding a gun to me, but I don't know if I could do it against two people or even if I could do it in a real life situation to begin with. I'm no Jet Li, but disarming an individual, in theory, is relatively easy providing they are within close distance (which they usually are). Honestly maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I haven't heard a single valid point from you as to why guns should be banned. At least nothing that actually makes any sense whatsoever. Do you even think they should be banned or are you trying to poke holes in my argument using straw man tactics for the fun of it? "You're underestimating just how difficult it is to get a gun illegally. Do you know the type of people you'd have to deal with?" Umm lets see. We're talking about violent criminals obtaining guns, and you're saying they wouldn't be able to deal with other violent criminals? They are violent criminals to begin with, smart one. Like I said, the only thing banning guns will do is lose the country billions of dollars, give the money to violent criminals, and make it harder for innocent people to protect themselves. Prohibition of drugs and guns has never and will never work properly. If they ban guns it will then become a billion dollar black market industry and the real violent ones that you have to worry about will have plenty of access. The people who won't have access are the innocent civilians who want protection. Anyways with the invading army scenario, it's not about taking your guns out and actually turning the tide of the war. It's about surviving and protecting your family. And there have been plenty of cases of civilians doing that in wartime by using guns. Guns have saved many lives. The fact that you reasonably think you could protect yourself from a violent gunman who's more than happy to shoot you is a bit naive if you ask me. And even if you could most people cannot. What happens when they aren't dumb enough to let you within arm's reach, or if they just decide to blast your ass then and there? What happens when an innocent poor shop owner gets robbed 10 times because he has no protection, and what happens when their 5 year old kid is in the shop at the time? This happens in America every single day. I'm not gonna be anybody's lamb to the slaughter if I can help it. If it's gonna be dog eat dog then I'm gonna devour your ass or die trying. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ntad said: spyrocoot said: I'm no Jet Li, but disarming an individual, in theory, is relatively easy providing they are within close distance (which they usually are). Unless he's IN A CAR...VROOOOM. Get run down, you squirrel. Running someone down with a car isn't as easy as you make it out to be. |
|
| Getting out of the way isn't as easy as you make it out to be. Also, Joke, learn to take. It's become increasingly obvious that no matter what argument is brought before the anti-gun lobbyists, their views won't change and the same goes for the pro-gun lobbyists. The thread has become beyond redundant. |
| No matter what you believe, no one can deny that prohibition will lose the country billions of dollars, AND fuel the black market and put that lost money into the hands of violent criminals. Not just any violent criminals either, drug and gun kingpins, huge criminal organizations full of violent psychopaths. Look at the Mexican cartel because they will be the ones profiting and we'll be losing money that can go towards education and the health industry. That part can't be debated. So if you're for prohibition you better be prepared to say you can accept that or you're only being naive. |
LayedBackMay 17, 2013 6:35 PM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ntad said: Getting out of the way isn't as easy as you make it out to be. Also, Joke, learn to take. It's become increasingly obvious that no matter what argument is brought before the anti-gun lobbyists, their views won't change and the same goes for the pro-gun lobbyists. The thread has become beyond redundant. Sorry, I find it difficult to distinguish between whether someone is joking or serious online, my bad. And that is the beauty of these threads. Just like the sub vs. dub thread, there won't be a single correct answer, just people finding ways to justify theirs. @LayedBack "Honestly maybe I'm not looking hard enough but I haven't heard a single valid point from you as to why guns should be banned. At least nothing that actually makes any sense whatsoever." Like what? Besides, most of my points were at the start of the thread, now it's a case of just reiterating myself. "Do you even think they should be banned or are you trying to poke holes in my argument using straw man tactics for the fun of it?" If you're looking for straw man tactics, then look no further than RandomChampion. "Hmm lets see. We're talking about violent criminals obtaining guns, and you're saying they wouldn't be able to deal with other violent criminals? They are violent criminals to begin with, smart one." I hope you realise that it isn't like in the movies where all the bad guys know each other and help each other out, striving towards a common goal, right? It's a dangerous business IRL. "...the only thing banning guns will do is lose the country billions of dollars..." That's true. I suppose it comes down to: >Human lives >Profit Pick one. "Prohibition of drugs and guns has never and will never work properly. If they ban guns it will then become a billion dollar black market industry and the real violent ones that you have to worry about will have plenty of access. The people who won't have access are the innocent civilians who want protection." You don't think prohibition of guns will ever work, so you're content with the way things are now? How do you know it will never work? What if policing improves? What if laws are stricter? And again, you're over-exaggerating the extent of the blackmarket. "What happens when they aren't dumb enough to let you within arm's reach, or if they just decide to blast your ass then and there?" If they want me dead, wouldn't it be easier for them to kill me when I'm unaware? Besides, if they intend on killing me, then I'm more than likely going to die anyway. However, to maximise my chances of survival, I'd "act", find a way to get closer (or have the perpetrator get closer to me) without making it obvious. Basically, playing the role of "the grey man". The thing is, if someone pulls a gun on you with intent to kill, you're unlikely to live regardless of whether you have a gun or not. I suppose you're going to tell me the perpetrator wouldn't stand a chance against your gun slinging skills? "What happens when an innocent poor shop owner gets robbed 10 times because he has no protection" You'd think he would've phoned the police by the 10th time, lol. |
|
| Has anyone figured out yet that there are good sides and bad sides to banning guns, and thus coming up with a right answer is very difficult? |
Battlechili1 said: Has anyone figured out yet that there are good sides and bad sides to banning guns, and thus coming up with a right answer is very difficult? "And that is the beauty of these threads. Just like the sub vs. dub thread, there won't be a single correct answer, just people finding ways to justify theirs." |
|
Battlechili1 said: Has anyone figured out yet that there are good sides and bad sides to banning guns, and thus coming up with a right answer is very difficult? Maybe so. It's much more difficult than say the war on drugs, which is something I've put much more thought into and I think is extremely black and white. (obviously they need to be legalized, but heavy penalties against dealing to minors and driving under the influence, money goes towards education and rehab treatment and maintenance) Truth be told, maybe extra lives are lost because guns are legal, the math seems impossible to do when factoring in everything. But there will still be random rampages and all that bad shit legal or not. And there are still many many times when guns save lives, and that number would have to be deducted from the lives lost from guns being legal as well. And I think the black market would be able to make just as much money as the legal market can make, the violent criminals would still have easy access to them anyways. I don't think so many millions of people should lose their rights just because of a few bad seeds. And I don't think it's worth losing billions of dollars because of a few bad seeds that will most likely kill people no matter what the laws are. They are murderers after all. We shouldn't be catering to them and losing so much money that could possibly save many lives as well. Guns make people feel safe. What if your life has been threatened by someone who could wait months or even years to get revenge? The police can't do shit about that. What if the guy even wants to kill your children? You wouldn't want a gun around to protect your own children from a capable psychopath? My reply is targeted to you spyrocoot. I think this is something that we won't come ever come together on because we both just have different ways of thinking about things. You did better at making your points in that last post, but hasn't changed anything for me at all. But I will respect that this in particular does seem to be a very difficult subject to come to terms with. It's also a very important topic and deserves full discussion from both sides. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
katsucats said: All guns can be used indiscriminately. In choosing a weapon that may not maximize your self-ownership in the face of potential infringement of other people's self-ownership, you contradict your own moral system. Is less wrong ever good enough when we're talking about moral ideals? If so, then the line we draw is simply arbitrary... Even if you may not use a weapon indiscriminately, a libertarian government's role in this would be to maximize the liberty and safety of all its citizens, such that it maximizes the opportunity for anyone to protect their self-ownership, but minimizes the opportunity for anyone to coerce against other people's self-ownership. When presenting a moral or political principle as you have done, you must take the tightest line. What I meant was that the guy using a handgun or rifle is able to discriminate between perpetrator and innocent better than a guy firing off a nuke to defend himself. But yea, I agree, using my argument, the ability to discriminate is still a value that needs to be (arbitrarily) determined as a cutoff I guess. katsucats said: The founding fathers also allowed private militia and, presumably, cannons and other artillery of the day. So much for not permitting indiscriminate weapons... Well that might be the case, I still don’t think that they’d support banning of all guns in today’s America either. "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." (George Washington) I just don’t see how arguments like OP’s work. He’s basically saying that guns arent necessary and that they do more bad than good in that they are responsible for deaths (as far as I can tell that’s what he’s saying). Who determines that? Who says that the value cars provide to society is a greater good than the bad they bring about in the form of automobile deaths? Why are things that can be turned into explosive devices allowed then? |
RandomChampion said: I'm not arguing for the OP. I'm saying parts of your argument is internally inconsistent. Either that, or you're drawing an artibrary cut off.katsucats said: Well that might be the case, I still don’t think that they’d support banning of all guns in today’s America either.The founding fathers also allowed private militia and, presumably, cannons and other artillery of the day. So much for not permitting indiscriminate weapons... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: I'm not arguing for the OP. I'm saying parts of your argument is internally inconsistent. Either that, or you're drawing an artibrary cut off.katsucats said: Well that might be the case, I still don’t think that they’d support banning of all guns in today’s America either.The founding fathers also allowed private militia and, presumably, cannons and other artillery of the day. So much for not permitting indiscriminate weapons... yea i realized that when you responded to the syllogism (or my attempt at it) i posted. that argument does require an arbitrary cutoff. however, let's say if guns are banned, even for the use of self-defense, for the reason that they are too deadly (like OP is saying), then why shouldnt cars be banned? A car can cause tons more damage than a .22 caliber handgun. Am I missing something? Edit: unless he's arguing that guns arent a viable means of self-defense? |
RandomChampion said: katsucats said: RandomChampion said: I'm not arguing for the OP. I'm saying parts of your argument is internally inconsistent. Either that, or you're drawing an artibrary cut off.katsucats said: Well that might be the case, I still don’t think that they’d support banning of all guns in today’s America either.The founding fathers also allowed private militia and, presumably, cannons and other artillery of the day. So much for not permitting indiscriminate weapons... yea i realized that when you responded to the syllogism (or my attempt at it) i posted. that argument does require an arbitrary cutoff. however, let's say if guns are banned, even for the use of self-defense, for the reason that they are too deadly (like OP is saying), then why shouldnt cars be banned? A car can cause tons more damage than a .22 caliber handgun. Am I missing something? Edit: unless he's arguing that guns arent a viable means of self-defense? I covered the whole cars thing way back, remember? Pointless argument. Even if it holds validity (which it does), you're still wrong. |
Ntad said: RandomChampion said: katsucats said: RandomChampion said: I'm not arguing for the OP. I'm saying parts of your argument is internally inconsistent. Either that, or you're drawing an artibrary cut off.katsucats said: Well that might be the case, I still don’t think that they’d support banning of all guns in today’s America either.The founding fathers also allowed private militia and, presumably, cannons and other artillery of the day. So much for not permitting indiscriminate weapons... yea i realized that when you responded to the syllogism (or my attempt at it) i posted. that argument does require an arbitrary cutoff. however, let's say if guns are banned, even for the use of self-defense, for the reason that they are too deadly (like OP is saying), then why shouldnt cars be banned? A car can cause tons more damage than a .22 caliber handgun. Am I missing something? Edit: unless he's arguing that guns arent a viable means of self-defense? I covered the whole cars thing way back, remember? Pointless argument. Even if it holds validity (which it does), you're still wrong. lol we've had this debate on this forum so many times that i forget what's going on |
RandomChampion said: I don't know the particulars of OP's argument, but my response to that is to weigh individual rights against the economy of ownership.however, let's say if guns are banned, even for the use of self-defense, for the reason that they are too deadly (like OP is saying), then why shouldnt cars be banned? A car can cause tons more damage than a .22 caliber handgun. Am I missing something? The real problem in my opinion is whether we can invent and demonstrate the efficacy of a purely self-defense weapon, or failing that, at least establish which weapons are most efficient in the common situations where self defense is required. This shifts the argument from "why do we need guns?" to the more immediate "what can we do about violence?". I see this pro/anti-gun debate as a huge red herring and straw man to the question of self defense. The actual utility of a gun in self defense is inconclusive. In the case of a car -- without cars, our economy will fall apart. Cars are, at this time at least, our primary method of transportation, and a necessary evil. If it were not so... if there comes a day where our public transportation infrastructure becomes good enough to transport us to anywhere in the country at 15 minute intervals, then the economy of car ownership would no longer justify the number of deaths it potentially causes (and maintenance cause, for that matter), and I would be no longer against the banning of cars. Guns, by comparison, have almost no economy to ownership. They do jack shit for the majority of their life time; unless you're a big game hunter, they will likely sit in some corner of the house, inviting kids, relatives, friends, or neighborhood thieves to steal them or do something stupid. Seriously, you are better off replacing all the bedroom doors in your house with steel doors with locks, and call the cops in the event of an intruder -- one of a myriad of things you could do before a gun should even be considered. As for the argument of deadly force, we can use your own criteria of being indiscriminate. A car gets into an accident one time. You can't keep ramming into other cars and getting away. This isn't Grand Theft Auto. A car would have a hard time indiscriminately running over pedestrians continuously unless it were an open field. A .22 caliber handgun with a 10 bullet capacity can kill 10 people with relative ease, before you take a few seconds to reload. The result is the difference between a car and a handgun: CAR - High economy - medium indiscrimination GUN - Low economy - high indiscrimination KITCHEN KNIFE - Relatively high economy - medium indiscrimination I think your job here is to prove that guns have an economy of use for which there is no reasonable alternative, like kitchen knives. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» A real painting you'd like to see as fanartPyGno_ - 46 minutes ago |
2 |
by Zarutaku
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » is marriage compulsory?FruitPunchBaka - 10 hours ago |
14 |
by FZREMAKE
»»
13 minutes ago |
|
» How do you like your coffee? ( 1 2 )Kvistis - Feb 8 |
79 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Do you believe in prophecies?Absurdo_N - May 5 |
21 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
20 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » will there be any zombie outbreak in the near future?FruitPunchBaka - 3 hours ago |
3 |
by DesuMaiden
»»
22 minutes ago |