katsucats said: 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. Sounds like a job for the Mythbusters. Anyway, pretty sure I saw a video somewhere of a drunk guy in a truck ramming an empty police cruiser over and over and it still kept running. Also, while I'd rather not dig back into an old part of this discussion, the car theory would serve more purpose if it was being used on an unsuspecting crowd, rather than individuals. After all, the whole point was whether guns vs cars served as more effective mass killing tools. A rifle or handgun in the hand of a seasoned pro, or even worse- a trained nutjob- would certainly be considerably deadly, but again, you are much more likely to survive a gunshot than you are getting mowed down by a couple thousand pounds of metal. That was the basis of my argument earlier in the thread. A car travelling at 30 MPH is already capable of killing a person. Ramming one into a crowd of people at say 50-60 MPH...well...refute away. |
NTADMay 17, 2013 8:31 PM
katsucats said: 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. The argument that cars are necessary evils - how is that not subjective itself? Who says which evil is necessary and which is not. That's like Southerners in the 1800s saying that they don't want to ban slavery because their economy was built upon it (of course, one is arguably more extreme than the other, but still). I don't buy that "better off doing this, this, and that" argument either. It's not even about home invasion only. I, myself, have been in situations in which my life was at the mercy of faggots on the street. I got lucky and I'm still alive today, but it sucks that youre at their mercy. If i had a gun with me, I would have used it in some way or form. What's stopping someone from driving into Times Square with a bigass Cadillac super SUV, or any crowded area, and flooring it? Who says that a .22 caliber is too powerful? Shoudl we ban pressure cookers because they can be made into highly destructive weapons. I understand that youre trying to have "practical" solutions. However, "practical", itself, is arbitrary. Where is the line drawn when discussion economy vs destructive capacity? Why should people have to flee first, defend later? The whole point America is to ban as little as possible. There might be tons of things you can do before a gun can be considered in the event of home invasion or some other crime. However, why should the autonomous individual, with a right to life, property, not be able to defend those rights? Why do cops get to walk around with guns? Surely if they can walk around with guns, under the assumption that they are highly qualified and thoroughly screened, then any individual can go through deep screening and get a gun permit (therefore not banning guns). Due to the nature of our principles, and what the Founding Fathers seemed to have intended, isnt the burden of proof on the people who think something should be out-right banned? |
RandomChampion said: No, I don't think my distinctions are arbitrary, but at the very worst both of us would be making arbitrary claims and somehow you'd think that your arbitrary claims are worth more than others. The burden of proof is inapplicable. If you're really going to use the Founding Fathers as a crutch, you better bite the bullet and advocate legalization of nuclear missiles like it says in the 2nd Amendment.Due to the nature of our principles, and what the Founding Fathers seemed to have intended, isnt the burden of proof on the people who think something should be out-right banned? RandomChampion said: You must remember the context of your own moral code!The argument that cars are necessary evils - how is that not subjective itself? Who says which evil is necessary and which is not. That's like Southerners in the 1800s saying that they don't want to ban slavery because their economy was built upon it The right to self-ownership vs recognizing other people's rights to self-ownership. In some ways, all of politics is subjective, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue here that guns in the hands of civilians have more economic utility than cars in the hands of civilians (or that guns have a higher utility/infringement ratio compared to cars), or that people owning cars infringe on self-ownership more than people owning slaves. If tomorrow, the public sale of guns become illegal, nothing would happen besides an arguable short-term increase/decrease in crime. If cars become illegal, most of us would have a hard time getting to work, and it would shut down the entire economy. That's not very subjective, at least in relative terms. I've never claimed that we could plot these things to an absolute value though -- but we don't have to. The relativity is enough to show that they aren't directly comparable. |
katsucatsMay 17, 2013 10:19 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: No, I don't think my distinctions are arbitrary, but at the very worst both of us would be making arbitrary claims and somehow you'd think that your arbitrary claims are worth more than others. The burden of proof is inapplicable. If you're really going to use the Founding Fathers as a crutch, you better bite the bullet and advocate legalization of nuclear missiles like it says in the 2nd Amendment.Due to the nature of our principles, and what the Founding Fathers seemed to have intended, isnt the burden of proof on the people who think something should be out-right banned? i dont think that my arbitrary claims are worth more, assuming yours are aslso arbitrary. but how are things like "necessary evils' not arbitrary? |
RandomChampion said: I believe we could easily calculate the outcome of banning cars to grave consequences. As I've said above, I would have no problem with it if we had the infrastructure to support the economy after such a ban. In fact, if it were up to me, that's something the government should aim for, if it could be determined that there can be truly a better alternative.but how are things like "necessary evils' not arbitrary? Likewise with the gun issue, if it were up to me, I'd like to determine possible alternatives before an outright ban. I think all hard line stances on these issues are hypocritical at best. But even so, I've outlined above why I think the comparison from guns to cars make no sense. I'd also call into question whether you possessing a gun in public would have really solved your situation, or it could have been likely that it would have escalated the situation and either you, the other guy, or both would have ended up dead or severely wounded. The government does not cater to you alone. With a decision like this, you must take into the account the likelihood of people that will abuse open carry, even if you might not, and whether that might outweigh the benefits. Let me ask you a theoretical question: If it could be proven that some other method would provide better self-defense unilaterally across all situations, would you readily give up this fight for gun ownership? In other words, is this really about self-defense? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: I believe we could easily calculate the outcome of banning cars to grave consequences. As I've said above, I would have no problem with it if we had the infrastructure to support the economy after such a ban. In fact, if it were up to me, that's something the government should aim for, if it could be determined that there can be truly a better alternative.but how are things like "necessary evils' not arbitrary? Likewise with the gun issue, if it were up to me, I'd like to determine possible alternatives before an outright ban. I think all hard line stances on these issues are hypocritical at best. But even so, I've outlined above why I think the comparison from guns to cars make no sense. I'd also call into question whether you possessing a gun in public would have really solved your situation, or it could have been likely that it would have escalated the situation and either you, the other guy, or both would have ended up dead or severely wounded. The government does not cater to you alone. With a decision like this, you must take into the account the likelihood of people that will abuse open carry, even if you might not, and whether that might outweigh the benefits. Let me ask you a theoretical question: If it could be proven that some other method would provide better self-defense unilaterally across all situations, would you readily give up this fight for gun ownership? In other words, is this really about self-defense? Regarding the car thing - it is still arbitrary as to the point at which something becomes a "necessary evil" is. Motorcycles could be used as personal transportation. Buses/trolleys with automated routes, and trains could be used. Regarding the situations that ive been in myself, one of them I would have been able to drive them off (no signs of them packing heat), one of them i probably would have taken my chances (one of them showed that he had a gun) I realize that the government doesnt cater to me alone. But there is the assumption that each person is sovereign. Isnt the premise in America that you have to defend your rights? I do believe that there should be stricter gun control/screening in many areas. But, I dont see how completely banning them makes sense at all. Regarding the theoretical question, I think I could agree to ban personal use of guns if the following would happen in addition to the hypothetical discovery: - Cops wouldnt carry guns - All personal guns would have to be destroyed or something. - There would be guns available in locked storehouses available for National Guard/SWAT use. These would only be used by trained citizens, and their use would be governed by some civil sector/assembly. |
RandomChampion said: I am including motorcycles, which are more dangerous and inefficient, when I say cars. How about "personal automobiles"? I've already mentioned public transportation above; we are nowhere near where need to be in terms of public infrastructure to be able to replace personal automobile transportation.Regarding the car thing - it is still arbitrary as to the point at which something becomes a "necessary evil" is. Motorcycles could be used as personal transportation. Buses/trolleys with automated routes, and trains could be used. RandomChampion said: Didn't you say yourself that the premise is to defend your rights on top of recognizing that other people can defend their rights as well? Doesn't it infringe upon the second category to make laws that value individual liberty above all else, even public security? When you say that you believe there should be stricter gun control/screening in many areas, doesn't that stance itself violate "the premise in America" here? The libertarian extreme is anarchy.Regarding the situations that ive been in myself, one of them I would have been able to drive them off (no signs of them packing heat), one of them i probably would have taken my chances (one of them showed that he had a gun) I realize that the government doesnt cater to me alone. But there is the assumption that each person is sovereign. Isnt the premise in America that you have to defend your rights? I do believe that there should be stricter gun control/screening in many areas. But, I dont see how completely banning them makes sense at all. RandomChampion said: So you wouldn't agree to ban personal use in the discovery that there is a better method of self-defense unilaterally across all situations?katsucats said: Regarding the theoretical question, I think I could agree to ban personal use of guns if the following would happen in addition to the hypothetical discovery:Let me ask you a theoretical question: If it could be proven that some other method would provide better self-defense unilaterally across all situations, would you readily give up this fight for gun ownership? In other words, is this really about self-defense? - Cops wouldnt carry guns - All personal guns would have to be destroyed or something. - There would be guns available in locked storehouses available for National Guard/SWAT use. These would only be used by trained citizens, and their use would be governed by some civil sector/assembly. So this isn't really (or wholly) about self-defense, but one-upmanship against governmental entities, or maybe I should put it as a misguided attempt to protect oneself against the state...? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I am including motorcycles, which are more dangerous and inefficient, when I say cars. How about "personal automobiles"? I've already mentioned public transportation above; we are nowhere near where need to be in terms of public infrastructure to be able to replace personal automobile transportation. Motorcycles are not more dangerous to pedestrians. And yea, what I was getting at is that even if our other transportation infrastructure is not enough to replace personal automobile transportation, why is it a “necessary evil” to trade some workings of society for the thousandas of lives lost from automobiles. Can’t it be argued that the individual’s right to bear arms is a “necessary evil”? Couldn’t slavery have been argued a necessary evil? Where is it determined what is necessary and what is unnecessary? katsucats said: Didn't you say yourself that the premise is to defend your rights on top of recognizing that other people can defend their rights as well? Doesn't it infringe upon the second category to make laws that value individual liberty above all else, even public security? When you say that you believe there should be stricter gun control/screening in many areas, doesn't that stance itself violate "the premise in America" here? The libertarian extreme is anarchy. Well, I meant is that some mentally unstable, chemically unbalanced guy; or guys with certain criminal backgrounds maybe shouldn’t be able to waltz into stores and buy military-grade weapons. katsucats said: So you wouldn't agree to ban personal use in the discovery that there is a better method of self-defense unilaterally across all situations? So this isn't really (or wholly) about self-defense, but one-upmanship against governmental entities, or maybe I should put it as a misguided attempt to protect oneself against the state...? I wrote that I would agree to ban personal use in the discvery of a better method lol. |
| Owning a gun is fine so long as it's something like a handgun or a hunting rifle. But once to you get to high powered shit, semi-auto, and automatic weapons....I thinking you've gone too far. |
| Salmon is delicious. |
| No, banning guns will only keep law abiding citizens - including collectors - from acquiring them. Anyone that wants a gun and isn't going to obey the law anyway will still get one. Heck, where I live switchblades are illegal and I could probably get one tomorrow if I wanted to... and on that note, just think about how many people acquire drugs like marijuana every day. I think what makes the most sense is for there to be gun control, rather than a ban of all guns. Gun control will prevent just any idiot from getting one, even though it won't prevent criminals from acquiring them. |
HigurashiMay 18, 2013 2:44 PM
 |
RandomChampion said: Math. The economic impact from the sudden ban of cars would lead to innumerably more deaths than from automobile accidents, I would say.katsucats said: Motorcycles are not more dangerous to pedestrians. And yea, what I was getting at is that even if our other transportation infrastructure is not enough to replace personal automobile transportation, why is it a “necessary evil” to trade some workings of society for the thousandas of lives lost from automobiles. I am including motorcycles, which are more dangerous and inefficient, when I say cars. How about "personal automobiles"? I've already mentioned public transportation above; we are nowhere near where need to be in terms of public infrastructure to be able to replace personal automobile transportation. RandomChampion said: First, please remember that all of the preceding arguments are using your own criteria of libertarian rights, namely the balance between, in your words, self-ownership and the self-ownership of others. I have asked you whether you agreed that it would be possible to conduct a study to determine a superior method of self-defense (if it exists), and you agreed that such a study is possible. I have then conceded that cars could be replaced using the same logic if there were a superior alternative in the same vein. We both agree that there is not, at the moment.Can’t it be argued that the individual’s right to bear arms is a “necessary evil”? Couldn’t slavery have been argued a necessary evil? Where is it determined what is necessary and what is unnecessary? In determining the economy of use, we are able to figure out a relative value of something to the self-ownership of others. In determining the ease of a reasonable alternative, we are able to figure out the relative constriction to personal freedom eliminating this thing would bring about. In the case of cars, barring an infeasible technological and financial feat, there is no reasonable alternative. In the case of guns, a reasonable alternative is closer to reality. Therefore I argue, while the certainty of benefit/cost ratio lends certain credence to the legal availability of cars, the same cannot be said about guns -- according to your own libertarian moral system at least (assuming we mean to maximize personal liberty as a nation by recognizing other people's right to self-ownership, and not just yourself.) As for slavery, since it directly contradicts the libertarian criteria of recognizing other people's rights to self-ownership that you laid out, and that we've been arguing on, it's besides the point... RandomChampion said: No, not exactly...katsucats said: I wrote that I would agree to ban personal use in the discvery of a better method lol.RandomChampion said: So you wouldn't agree to ban personal use in the discovery that there is a better method of self-defense unilaterally across all situations?Regarding the theoretical question, I think I could agree to ban personal use of guns if the following would happen in addition to the hypothetical discovery: (snip) So this isn't really (or wholly) about self-defense, but one-upmanship against governmental entities, or maybe I should put it as a misguided attempt to protect oneself against the state...? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| *transparently pretends to have understanding of, insight into U.S. despite laughable lack thereof* *proceeds to lecture the masses about real-life matters based on TV show/YouTube video/tabloid magazine knowledge base* *sees no problem here* Take me seriously and care about my opinions. I'm totally an adult. |
 |
katsucats said: Math. The economic impact from the sudden ban of cars would lead to innumerably more deaths than from automobile accidents, I would say. If that is a fact, then I guess it’s kind of a differnt story. But is it a fact? Would banning cars for personal use now or in the nead future lead to more deaths? What I am having difficulty understanding is why a gun can be banned but pressure cooker, which can be used to make boms, shouldn’t be banned according to the same people who want to ban guns. Just because a gun doesn’t have another use like pressure gookers do? But they both have the similar destructive capabilities. I did say that I would be open to the idea of banning guns for personal use (walking around with them, keeping them at home, etc) if something more efficient is developed for self-defense purposes. Keeping guns locked in storehouses for use determined by civic assemblies or something like that is not personal use is it? This is more regarding threats to the people as a whole, not threats to the individuals. I think this way because self-defense is different from offensive tactics. Since these new devices do not necessarily involve the ability to be used in tactical operations (since u mentioned only self-defense in yoru hypothetical situation), then I don’t see why guns are banned. Yes, in the case of storehouses, it would be from potential defense of state etc. Even in today’s society, I’m not exactly a fan of government-controlled SWAT teams that can do whatever they want, include kill civilians without warrant. Wtf @ bringing hummers and and heavily armed units and shit to surround one guy (boston bombing incicdent). |
RandomChampion said: Exactly. I don't see what is there not to understand. You previously stated that we have a moral imperative to balance our right to our own self-ownership with recognizance of the right of others. Assuming, for simplicity sake, guns and pressure cookers have the same potential of abuse (i.e. has the same potential to inflict harm on others, to reduce other people's rights to self-ownership), but that pressure cookers have some other utility whereas guns don't (i.e. pressure cookers have more potential to improve the the livelihoods of people, to increase people's rights to their own self-ownership in a way that isn't just trifling), pressure cookers would have objectively more value using the criteria you previously outlined.Just because a gun doesn’t have another use like pressure gookers do? But they both have the similar destructive capabilities. I'm putting my decision on the gun ban on hold pending more information, but for people such as yourself that hold a fundamental position on gun ownership such that you would only accept a gun ban in the impossible scenario that the state disarms itself --you sort of have a burden of proof-- NOT that I am right by default, but in the name of logical consistency. You've presented a moral/political approach in which gun ownership should presumably be supported -- but you lack evidence... As far as I'm concerned, if your determination is that guns protect your right to self-ownership, in order to present a cohesive argument according to your own libertarian system, you have to demonstrate how that right to self-ownership trumps the rights of other people's self-ownerships in the face of potential abuse, or demonstrate that there is no other potential reasonable alternative. Now, you can go on the offensive and say my reasoning is arbitrary, but that doesn't necessarily improve your argument. It could just be that we are both arbitrary, and we are both wrong. A good cohesive argument starts at solidifying your own foundation before attacking others with a glass house. Just saying... (Note: I'm responding to you now, but don't take that as an endorsement for the OP...) RandomChampion said: So your solution in case SWAT raids your house is to whip out that .22 caliber handgun... and do what? If you want my advice, save your $500 + whatever ammo costs, and put it towards your lawyer fund.Even in today’s society, I’m not exactly a fan of government-controlled SWAT teams that can do whatever they want, include kill civilians without warrant. Wtf @ bringing hummers and and heavily armed units and shit to surround one guy (boston bombing incicdent). |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
LayedBack said: Unlike alcohol, or weed, or cocaine, or sex, or any major product on the black market, guns are not consumable, nor can it easily be sold as a service. A criminal will likely buy 1 gun and keep using it. He will not need to buy 1 for every crime he commits. What tightening regulation (or banning) would do is create the same affect it has for weed -- make it more expensive and more difficult or dangerous for the average person or criminal to obtain. The difference is that there will not be many repeat customers for this to be a profitable enterprise, unless for some reason someone needed guns on a massive scale. That is why more guns flow out of this country into Mexico where guns are needed to feed our drug war than Mexican guns flow into our country.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. Criminals who want a gun already buy them from the black market. Is the average Joe Schmoe pro-gun father-of-2 going to reach out to the black market just to buy a handgun for 10 times the current market value so he could stick it to the man? I can just see it -- otherwise law-abiding citizen going broke hoarding guns because they are illegal... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Frankly it was silly to have them so readily available in the first place. Perhaps limiting distribution would prevent young people from massacring innocent people. It's supposed to be ridiculously difficult to get a gun in England and as a result gun crime is really, really low... Whose idea was it to just give a load of guns to potentially unstable people? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974 |
| Hachikuji: Araragi-san, you don't look even the least bit apologetic. You should at least say something after touching a girl's delicate chest! Araragi: *Clueless look* Thanks? Bakemonogatari, Episode 5. |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: Exactly. I don't see what is there not to understand. You previously stated that we have a moral imperative to balance our right to our own self-ownership with recognizance of the right of others. Assuming, for simplicity sake, guns and pressure cookers have the same potential of abuse (i.e. has the same potential to inflict harm on others, to reduce other people's rights to self-ownership), but that pressure cookers have some other utility whereas guns don't (i.e. pressure cookers have more potential to improve the the livelihoods of people, to increase people's rights to their own self-ownership in a way that isn't just trifling), pressure cookers would have objectively more value using the criteria you previously outlined.Just because a gun doesn’t have another use like pressure gookers do? But they both have the similar destructive capabilities. I'm putting my decision on the gun ban on hold pending more information, but for people such as yourself that hold a fundamental position on gun ownership such that you would only accept a gun ban in the impossible scenario that the state disarms itself --you sort of have a burden of proof-- NOT that I am right by default, but in the name of logical consistency. You've presented a moral/political approach in which gun ownership should presumably be supported -- but you lack evidence... As far as I'm concerned, if your determination is that guns protect your right to self-ownership, in order to present a cohesive argument according to your own libertarian system, you have to demonstrate how that right to self-ownership trumps the rights of other people's self-ownerships in the face of potential abuse, or demonstrate that there is no other potential reasonable alternative. Now, you can go on the offensive and say my reasoning is arbitrary, but that doesn't necessarily improve your argument. It could just be that we are both arbitrary, and we are both wrong. A good cohesive argument starts at solidifying your own foundation before attacking others with a glass house. Just saying... (Note: I'm responding to you now, but don't take that as an endorsement for the OP...) RandomChampion said: So your solution in case SWAT raids your house is to whip out that .22 caliber handgun... and do what? If you want my advice, save your $500 + whatever ammo costs, and put it towards your lawyer fund.Even in today’s society, I’m not exactly a fan of government-controlled SWAT teams that can do whatever they want, include kill civilians without warrant. Wtf @ bringing hummers and and heavily armed units and shit to surround one guy (boston bombing incicdent). Yea, I already realized and admitted that my argument relies upon arbitrary decision regarding what threatens the well-being of others. I What I don't get is this whole "value" thing though. I dont think things should be banned based upon objective value of which the criterion is practical use. Why should what we be legally allowed to keep be determined in part by utility? Why are nunchuks illegal to keep in nyc, but not baseball bats? My approach is not as much based upon the idea that personal gun ownership should be actively supported as it is based upon the idea that everything should be assumed to be legal to keep, after which there needs to be reason to ban something. Basically - everything should start off "allowed". Only when it is an infringement on the rights of others/has the potential to threaten reasonable self-ownership, should it be banned. At that point, it's not about what is more likely to be used as a weapon, if something has other uses, etc. |
RandomChampion said: Because this...What I don't get is this whole "value" thing though. I dont think things should be banned based upon objective value of which the criterion is practical use. Why should what we be legally allowed to keep be determined in part by utility? Why are nunchuks illegal to keep in nyc, but not baseball bats? 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. Nunchucks have no value for the average citizen. Baseball bats have a small value for the average citizen. Considering they both have potential for abuse to cause damage against innocents, if you were serious about coercion being immoral, they would both be banned. The reason they are not is because we must balance that with the freedom of self-determination, and this is where value comes in. There is going to be some cut off point where the value of collateral damage undermines the value of self determination, arbitrary or otherwise. I think you're looking at this through an individual/micro-scale basis, while I'm looking at it through the macro lens, which is how it should be because that's the scale the government makes its decisions on. You think that as long as guns have the ability to hit only the intended target, that the responsibility then falls on the self. I see that the individual using the gun has the ability to hit multiple targets, so the responsibility falls on the community/government. The government does not make laws isolated to you alone, we must consider the ramifications on a holistic perspective. If nunchucks have no other use, then considering potential abuse, there's no reason anyone should have them (unless you argue for the use of nunchucks as a sport). There is a reason people have baseball bats, so under your own moral system I'd say baseball bats have objectively higher value relative to nunchucks. RandomChampion said: It is always about exactly this with your moral system. Something that is more likely and effective to be used as a weapon has a higher index of coercion, which is the reason to ban something. Something that has other non-coercive uses have a higher value for individual freedom.Only when it is an infringement on the rights of others/has the potential to threaten reasonable self-ownership, should it be banned. At that point, it's not about what is more likely to be used as a weapon, if something has other uses, etc. Not taking into account either of these 2 categories is immoral according to yourself. Example. I = value to the individual C = value of potential coercion The overall value of an action is I - C. If the value is positive, it should be legal. If the value is negative, it should be illegal. Obviously this is a simplification. Now let's say the action in question is wildly flailing your arms about randomly in public crowded spaces. The value to the individual is because you feel like it, no particular reason -- let's give it 5. Value of potential coercion from accidentally hitting people is, say, 312. 5 - 312 = -307 Therefore, the action of wildly flailing your arms in public should be looked down upon. You could say that if you flail your arms at the right time, no one would get hit. But the government does not cater the law to you alone, it makes it for everybody. So if people are going to flail their arms in public, the question becomes does the actions of flailing arms across the general public have positive value in terms of value to the individual compared to potential negative consequences. Let's say if there's 200,000 citizens that like to flail their arms, and each instance of doing so gives them +5 points in value. Let's say that 20% will hit someone 10% of the time, and it does -312 points of damage on average in each instance. Then the resulting equation would be 1,000,000 - 1,248,000 = -248,000, so that even if you personally and everyone you know never hit someone, the overall value to society is negative. If you say that this kind of utilitarianism is subjective, then you're right. BUT can you argue that in the event that if X has other uses and Y doesn't have other uses, and they both have the same potential of negative consequences, that X wouldn't objectively have higher value than Y? We can do a study to see how many people enjoy playing with nunchucks and how many people enjoy baseball and get to the bottom of this real quick. |
katsucatsMay 19, 2013 7:07 PM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| 86 yes and 93 no? Are you guys stupid? I don't care about your points, isn't it obvious that the US with guns kill a lot of people? I believe not taking guns away from the citizens because it could cause an uproar and stuff is an excuse. But really now, USA almost every citizen owns a gun or multiple guns, and they have the most deaths in the world because of it, and other stuff. And worst of all young kids and teenagers or young adults in US kill because they have the possession of guns! --Hello! Wake up! Fuck having guns for citizens, other countries are fine without guns so why can't US? And you have the most deaths because of it. --Wake up idiots. |
| i still havent given my vote yet gonna wait until there needs 2 be a tiebreaker |
 |
katsucats said: Nunchucks have no value for the average citizen. Baseball bats have a small value for the average citizen. Considering they both have potential for abuse to cause damage against innocents, if you were serious about coercion being immoral, they would both be banned. The reason they are not is because we must balance that with the freedom of self-determination, and this is where value comes in. There is going to be some cut off point where the value of collateral damage undermines the value of self determination, arbitrary or otherwise. I think you're looking at this through an individual/micro-scale basis, while I'm looking at it through the macro lens, which is how it should be because that's the scale the government makes its decisions on. You think that as long as guns have the ability to hit only the intended target, that the responsibility then falls on the self. I see that the individual using the gun has the ability to hit multiple targets, so the responsibility falls on the community/government. The government does not make laws isolated to you alone, we must consider the ramifications on a holistic perspective. If nunchucks have no other use, then considering potential abuse, there's no reason anyone should have them (unless you argue for the use of nunchucks as a sport). There is a reason people have baseball bats, so your own moral system I'd say baseball bats have objectively higher value relative to nunchucks. The bolded part is exactly what I mean – if we are being serious and consistent, then they both would have the same legal status. I also understand and acknowledge the fact that a gun can hit multiple targets. Using this logic, however, then cars should be banned too, since they can hit multiple targets. But, according to this value system, which I still don’t know from where it comes, 2 things with equal potential to harm others will have different legal status simply for the fact that one has other utility, less propensity to being used, and/or more enjoyment value (as in case with nunchucks and baseball bats). The government’s role is to protect self=ownership in a consistent manner, not to pick and choose based upon what the society is doing at the time. “If nunchucks have no other use, then considering potential abuse, there’s no reason anyone should have them.” – I’m failing to understand why someone should be told that there’s no reason he should have something just because it has no real utility except as a weapon that has the same destructive capabilities as legal objects with other purposes. The government’s role is not to tell people what they should and shouldn’t have based upon factors of utility. If I want to have a nunchuck for the sake of looking at it every day or even just to tell my friends that I have one (aka nothing of real utility), and if the government deems baseball bats legal, then there should be no reason that I cant have a nunchuck. The moral system I posted has the following factors when discussing whether or not an object is moral: - Ability to violate self-ownership of innocents and property. - Ability to discriminate between perpetrators and innocents. Nowhere does it say anything about value in which “I” and “C” are factors. Why does propensity to be used in coercion influence value of coercion? If guns become outdated by newer weaponry, shouldn’t the same legal status apply, assuming that they don’t lose any offensive effectiveness. Nobody uses muskets anymore, and they are not likely to be used as a tool for coercion. Does that mean that they should be allowed? EDIT : OK, I just re-read the Constitution a bit. I will accept the value system as a general concept to be considered in the reasoning. The Constitution states that a role of the Federal Government is to “insure domestic tranquility”. I agree with Like you said, there is still no completely non-arbitray cohesive argument that supports the complete banning of personal use of guns for self-defense and my argument isn’t 100% either. well damn, lol |
RandomChampionMay 19, 2013 7:46 PM
RandomChampion said: Okay. Let's keep this short. Libertarianism is inherently contradictory. You want to have the right to self-determination... until it influences other people's right to self determination. Therein lies the government's role: determining where your determination stops, and where other people's determinations begin. If it's not utility that we try to maximize, then what are we basing this determination upon? Are you saying that gas stoves have as much place in society as a gas propelled grenade launcher?The government’s role is to protect self=ownership in a consistent manner, not to pick and choose based upon what the society is doing at the time. “If nunchucks have no other use, then considering potential abuse, there’s no reason anyone should have them.” – I’m failing to understand why someone should be told that there’s no reason he should have something just because it has no real utility except as a weapon that has the same destructive capabilities as legal objects with other purposes. The government’s role is not to tell people what they should and shouldn’t have based upon factors of utility. RandomChampion said: Because on a national scale that the government designs laws for, the harm to society is calculated by an aggregate of all instances of coercion. 100 instances of coercion is more harmful than 1 instance of coercion, even if the instances are in likeness to each other, get it? If the national average of people dying from gas propelled grenade launchers is 100/year over 10 years, and people dying from gas stoves is 10/year over 10 years, then gas propelled grenade launchers are 10 times more deadly than gas stoves, even if on a case individual basis the perpetrator might set them up in the same way.The moral system I posted has the following factors when discussing whether or not an object is moral: - Ability to violate self-ownership of innocents and property. - Ability to discriminate between perpetrators and innocents. Nowhere does it say anything about value in which “I” and “C” are factors. Why does propensity to be used in coercion influence value of coercion? RandomChampion said: No, for the same reason that corporations don't design their strategies around quarterly profits. There is such a thing called projection (hint: it's not a projectile). We are able to figure out the relative harm of something even if it's not in use and no one's currently dying from it. Leave that to the scientists with their fancy formulas.If guns become outdated by newer weaponry, shouldn’t the same legal status apply, assuming that they don’t lose any offensive effectiveness. Nobody uses muskets anymore, and they are not likely to be used as a tool for coercion. Does that mean that they should be allowed? RandomChampion said: No political system is completely objective. The goal in politics should be to agree to as many variables as possible and then work from there. The only way these things can be somewhat "objective" is if the fundamentals are agreed upon.I agree with Like you said, there is still no completely non-arbitray cohesive argument that supports the complete banning of personal use of guns for self-defense and my argument isn’t 100% either. well damn, lol For example, if we can agree upon the definition of work as "the ability to do useful, non-trivial things." And if we can agree that the goal of an efficient government policy is to maximize people's ability to work, but minimize instances of potential coercion. Only then can we agree that if 2 similar objects have similar ability of potential coercion, but 1 has everyday use and the other has no particular use, then under the system agreed upon 1 of them has objectively more value than the other. However, if people can't agree upon some underlying values, then talking about issues is a waste of time, which is unfortunately the state of our government... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| If we ban guns , only ppl who are going to have guns will be cops and criminals. Just yesterday the news were saying a cop shot and killed a hostage. So we cant trust the police to protect us. No gun ban, but make ppl that brake gun laws (no permits) very harsh to the point that is not fair. 1 unregistered hand gun automatically 20 years, more depending on how many more guns and types. For the ppl who have permits, they CANNOT SELL TO ANY 1 EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE PERMITS. they should get the same punishment as some 1 who doesnt have a permit,hell even more. And they should check with (idk who deals the permits) every month or so that they still have the guns and have not sold them. GUNS DONT KILL PPL, STUPID PPL KILL PPL. Maybe we should ban hammers,knives bats ect. |
 |
katsucats said: RandomChampion said: Okay. Let's keep this short. Libertarianism is inherently contradictory. You want to have the right to self-determination... until it influences other people's right to self determination. Therein lies the government's role: determining where your determination stops, and where other people's determinations begin. If it's not utility that we try to maximize, then what are we basing this determination upon? Are you saying that gas stoves have as much place in society as a gas propelled grenade launcher?The government’s role is to protect self=ownership in a consistent manner, not to pick and choose based upon what the society is doing at the time. “If nunchucks have no other use, then considering potential abuse, there’s no reason anyone should have them.” – I’m failing to understand why someone should be told that there’s no reason he should have something just because it has no real utility except as a weapon that has the same destructive capabilities as legal objects with other purposes. The government’s role is not to tell people what they should and shouldn’t have based upon factors of utility. RandomChampion said: Because on a national scale that the government designs laws for, the harm to society is calculated by an aggregate of all instances of coercion. 100 instances of coercion is more harmful than 1 instance of coercion, even if the instances are in likeness to each other, get it? If the national average of people dying from gas propelled grenade launchers is 100/year over 10 years, and people dying from gas stoves is 10/year over 10 years, then gas propelled grenade launchers are 10 times more deadly than gas stoves, even if on a case individual basis the perpetrator might set them up in the same way.The moral system I posted has the following factors when discussing whether or not an object is moral: - Ability to violate self-ownership of innocents and property. - Ability to discriminate between perpetrators and innocents. Nowhere does it say anything about value in which “I” and “C” are factors. Why does propensity to be used in coercion influence value of coercion? RandomChampion said: No, for the same reason that corporations don't design their strategies around quarterly profits. There is such a thing called projection (hint: it's not a projectile). We are able to figure out the relative harm of something even if it's not in use and no one's currently dying from it. Leave that to the scientists with their fancy formulas.If guns become outdated by newer weaponry, shouldn’t the same legal status apply, assuming that they don’t lose any offensive effectiveness. Nobody uses muskets anymore, and they are not likely to be used as a tool for coercion. Does that mean that they should be allowed? RandomChampion said: No political system is completely objective. The goal in politics should be to agree to as many variables as possible and then work from there. The only way these things can be somewhat "objective" is if the fundamentals are agreed upon.I agree with Like you said, there is still no completely non-arbitray cohesive argument that supports the complete banning of personal use of guns for self-defense and my argument isn’t 100% either. well damn, lol For example, if we can agree upon the definition of work as "the ability to do useful, non-trivial things." And if we can agree that the goal of an efficient government policy is to maximize people's ability to work, but minimize instances of potential coercion. Only then can we agree that if 2 similar objects have similar ability of potential coercion, but 1 has everyday use and the other has no particular use, then under the system agreed upon 1 of them has objectively more value than the other. However, if people can't agree upon some underlying values, then talking about issues is a waste of time, which is unfortunately the state of our government... yea i see what youre saying now, shoulda deleted the other part of my posts so you didnt hae to type so much. You're right. A federal government "insuring domestic tranquility" and real libertarianism are not compatible. and nobody wants real libertarianism, so the problem lies in what people believe in. If somebody believes that gun-violence is an epidemic, then they can argue that "insuring domestic tranquility" includes handling epidemics and whanto. |
RandomChampionMay 19, 2013 8:33 PM
GenuineAnime said: If police start violating your rights, the last things you should do is to return fire.If we ban guns , only ppl who are going to have guns will be cops and criminals. Just yesterday the news were saying a cop shot and killed a hostage. So we cant trust the police to protect us. GenuineAnime said: This would be much easier to enforce and justifiable if guns were illegal, or at least if gun ownership was more restricted.No gun ban, but make ppl that brake gun laws (no permits) very harsh to the point that is not fair. 1 unregistered hand gun automatically 20 years, more depending on how many more guns and types. GenuineAnime said: I agree with this.For the ppl who have permits, they CANNOT SELL TO ANY 1 EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE PERMITS. they should get the same punishment as some 1 who doesnt have a permit,hell even more. And they should check with (idk who deals the permits) every month or so that they still have the guns and have not sold them. GenuineAnime said: If they are as deadly as guns and have no common utility, then maybe we should. As for the "guns don't kill people" cliche, well neither do nuclear weapons.GUNS DONT KILL PPL, STUPID PPL KILL PPL. Maybe we should ban hammers,knives bats ect. Cars don't kill people, drivers do, right? So we should get rid of safety regulations and punish the drivers? Peanuts don't kill people, salmonella does. So regulators should ease on the peanut factories and go after salmonella! Don't punish all peanut manufacturers for a few bad apples. By this logic, maybe we should repeal all regulations period. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
waalex11 said: 86 yes and 93 no? Are you guys stupid? I don't care about your points, isn't it obvious that the US with guns kill a lot of people? I believe not taking guns away from the citizens because it could cause an uproar and stuff is an excuse. But really now, USA almost every citizen owns a gun or multiple guns, and they have the most deaths in the world because of it, and other stuff. And worst of all young kids and teenagers or young adults in US kill because they have the possession of guns! --Hello! Wake up! Fuck having guns for citizens, other countries are fine without guns so why can't US? And you have the most deaths because of it. --Wake up idiots. Right, and you think banning guns will stop criminals from acquiring firearms via different means. They'll find a way. And if you deny that fact, you, quite frankly, are stupid. I personally see it as a means to defend one's property, since somebody recently broke in our house and stole a few things. Thankfully, none of my family members were there to witness it, so everyone's safe. But what if one of them was in the house? What if the robber had a weapon of their own in case it goes bad for them? You expect my mom, dad, or brother to just roll over and let the criminal harm them? Think it's a farfetched scenario? It's possible. And a few recent crimes (like a mother's infant shot because she was unable to defend her child) prove that. So yeah, after an event like that, I have a perfectly valid reason to have a firearm in the house. Not to kill in cold blood, but basically to provide security to those I care about. You think guns are the only things that can be used to potentially kill people? Knives can have fatal effects as well. How about homemade bombs? It's also the people that can potentially use weapons for twisted purposes. My reason is different. Other countries are fine without guns? Let's take a look at Switzerland, where it is a requirement for citizens to have firearms. Probably has the highest gun per capita in the world. And yet their crime rate is just a speck compared to the US. You know what? I'll let this article speak for itself. I honestly won't be surprised if you can't read any of that, because I totally understand. So yeah, not looking at the facts and the consequences that follow different takes on gun laws is honestly naive and, of course, stupid. Don't be calling people out because they have a much different viewpoint than you. It's fine if you disagree, but calling people stupid--who have clearly stated their stance on the issue--compared to the one who claims to not care for people's points is, IMO, stupid in and of itself. Maybe it's you who should wake the fuck up. Idiot. |
 |
katsucats said: GenuineAnime said: If police start violating your rights, the last things you should do is to return fire.If we ban guns , only ppl who are going to have guns will be cops and criminals. Just yesterday the news were saying a cop shot and killed a hostage. So we cant trust the police to protect us. GenuineAnime said: This would be much easier to enforce and justifiable if guns were illegal, or at least if gun ownership was more restricted.No gun ban, but make ppl that brake gun laws (no permits) very harsh to the point that is not fair. 1 unregistered hand gun automatically 20 years, more depending on how many more guns and types. GenuineAnime said: I agree with this.For the ppl who have permits, they CANNOT SELL TO ANY 1 EVEN IF THEY THINK THEY HAVE PERMITS. they should get the same punishment as some 1 who doesnt have a permit,hell even more. And they should check with (idk who deals the permits) every month or so that they still have the guns and have not sold them. GenuineAnime said: If they are as deadly as guns and have no common utility, then maybe we should. As for the "guns don't kill people" cliche, well neither do nuclear weapons.GUNS DONT KILL PPL, STUPID PPL KILL PPL. Maybe we should ban hammers,knives bats ect. Cars don't kill people, drivers do, right? So we should get rid of safety regulations and punish the drivers? Peanuts don't kill people, salmonella does. So regulators should ease on the peanut factories and go after salmonella! Don't punish all peanut manufacturers for a few bad apples. By this logic, maybe we should repeal all regulations period. By we cant trust the cops to protect us I mean, If ppl have a chance to stop the suspect why not? What if he hurts/kills some 1 innocent while the cops are still coming? No 1 forced the suspect to commit a crime so no fault in any 1 but him. Cars dont kill ppl but drivers do YES, but their is a huge difference in a accident (by a stupid decision like speeding,crossing the red light) and pointing the gun at some 1 and squeezing the trigger. |
|
katsucats said: If they are as deadly as guns and have no common utility, then maybe we should. As for the "guns don't kill people" cliche, well neither do nuclear weapons. Cars don't kill people, drivers do, right? So we should get rid of safety regulations and punish the drivers? Peanuts don't kill people, salmonella does. So regulators should ease on the peanut factories and go after salmonella! Don't punish all peanut manufacturers for a few bad apples. By this logic, maybe we should repeal all regulations period. Funny...I posted a similar argument way early on and people thought I was crazy. Think it was the other way around though. Ban all the objects and not go after the people. |
Ntad said: katsucats said: If they are as deadly as guns and have no common utility, then maybe we should. As for the "guns don't kill people" cliche, well neither do nuclear weapons. Cars don't kill people, drivers do, right? So we should get rid of safety regulations and punish the drivers? Peanuts don't kill people, salmonella does. So regulators should ease on the peanut factories and go after salmonella! Don't punish all peanut manufacturers for a few bad apples. By this logic, maybe we should repeal all regulations period. Funny...I posted a similar argument way early on and people thought I was crazy. Think it was the other way around though. Ban all the objects and not go after the people. That comparison doesn't exactly work here, the things listed are accidents. Would you blame the gun or the person in homicides or suicides? |
| "Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes" |
Divinations said: So you think we should do nothing to try to prevent crimes, but just punish people when they commit them? As long as there is someone to take responsibility for a crime, it would be wrong not to hand over all the tools he need to get the job done on a silver platter?That comparison doesn't exactly work here, the things listed are accidents. Would you blame the gun or the person in homicides or suicides? For example... Who is responsible: the rapist or the date rape drug? Legalize all date rape drugs! Who is responsible: the hospital or bad hygiene? Repeal all hygiene laws! Who is responsible: the farmer or poisonous fertilizer? Legalize use of all fertilizer! If anyone gets poisoned by a product, infected in a hospital, or gets date raped, he/she should take it up with the perpetrator, right? Wrong! Thank God this is a republic and not a right-wing free market dystopia... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Vinter said: I voted no. At this rate the US will degenerate into Mad Max style anarchy in a few decades. For the rest of the world, just lean back and enjoy the show. i actually hope that happens. |
 |
katsucats said: Divinations said: So you think we should do nothing to try to prevent crimes, but just punish people when they commit them? As long as there is someone to take responsibility for a crime, it would be wrong not to hand over all the tools he need to get the job done on a silver platter?That comparison doesn't exactly work here, the things listed are accidents. Would you blame the gun or the person in homicides or suicides? For example... Who is responsible: the rapist or the date rape drug? Legalize all date rape drugs! Who is responsible: the hospital or bad hygiene? Repeal all hygiene laws! Who is responsible: the farmer or poisonous fertilizer? Legalize use of all fertilizer! If anyone gets poisoned by a product, infected in a hospital, or gets date raped, he/she should take it up with the perpetrator, right? Wrong! Thank God this is a republic and not a right-wing free market dystopia... I can agree to an extent, but only if you are for "gun control" rather than an outright ban of all guns. I agree that there should be gun regulations, just like there are car safety regulations and hospital sanitation regulations. After all, if someone is mentally unstable they really shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. However, banning guns completely really wouldn't do much other than punish the people that don't use them for crime. If you think it would, I don't think you know how easy it would be for criminals to acquire illegal guns. |
| |
Higurashi said: I don't think you know the economics of the black market. Making something illegal drives up the price, decreases availability over the long run, makes it easier to create harsher sentences if that's your prerogative. It's never going to get rid of guns entirely, but that was never the goal. The difference between guns and drugs (and human trafficking) is that guns are not consumable -- they are one-time investments. There might be a very small subset of gun rights activists that would hoard guns in the event that they are made illegal, the rest would not bother to risk their livelihoods for such triviality. If you think that making guns illegal would be analogous to the Prohibition, it is you that don't understand how things work... for the same reason there isn't a huge underground market for nunchucks in New York...However, banning guns completely really wouldn't do much other than punish the people that don't use them for crime. If you think it would, I don't think you know how easy it would be for criminals to acquire illegal guns. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Divinations said: So you think we should do nothing to try to prevent crimes, but just punish people when they commit them? As long as there is someone to take responsibility for a crime, it would be wrong not to hand over all the tools he need to get the job done on a silver platter?That comparison doesn't exactly work here, the things listed are accidents. Would you blame the gun or the person in homicides or suicides? For example... Who is responsible: the rapist or the date rape drug? Legalize all date rape drugs! Who is responsible: the hospital or bad hygiene? Repeal all hygiene laws! Who is responsible: the farmer or poisonous fertilizer? Legalize use of all fertilizer! If anyone gets poisoned by a product, infected in a hospital, or gets date raped, he/she should take it up with the perpetrator, right? Wrong! Thank God this is a republic and not a right-wing free market dystopia... Who is responsible: the murderer or the kitchen knife? Ban all knives! Who is responsible: the thunderstorm or the metal pole that sent a current through a random passerby? Ban all metal poles! ... The feeling you have right now is the feeling I had when I read your comment. Back on guns. Let's say a murderer kills someone with the gun. Take away the gun, the murderer loses his tool, but what's to stop him from finding another way to kill someone. Admittedly he would have a harder time doing so, but his decision to kill someone is not going to just disappear. Now take away the murderer. How does the gun kill someone now? And that is the simple problem of gun control. It may take the tools away but the source of the problem is left unsolved. |
| "Reality is a story the minds tells itself. An artificial structure conjured into being by the calcium ion exchange of a million synaptic fringes" |
Divinations said: Exactly. The point of such a law would be to maximize security to society. Maximize does not mean there will be no murders ever again. It's about saving lives by making it harder for criminals to kill.Let's say a murderer kills someone with the gun. Take away the gun, the murderer loses his tool, but what's to stop him from finding another way to kill someone. Admittedly he would have a harder time doing so, but his decision to kill someone is not going to just disappear. If in the future kitchen knives become the weapon of choice for criminals, then there would be a similar determination, but it would also depend on kitchen knives' utility to society and the cost/benefit ratio of their existence. Divinations said: It is impossible to take away murderers unless you implant mind-reading chips in every resident. That's why we attack the variables that we can influence, instead of spouting off ideals that cannot be enforced.Now take away the murderer. How does the gun kill someone now? And that is the simple problem of gun control. It may take the tools away but the source of the problem is left unsolved. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I really dont know why they are legal in the first place, but sooner or later, kids that play too much call of duty is gonna take their dads gun and start shooting at stuff, wait...that already happened Guns should be banned for real, I dont want gangstars shooting up at me round the next corner while im in the US |
| kek |
| No. Banning them is stupid, and impossible. But... USA needs a shitloads of regulations and stricter gun laws. As of now, it is just too much, but it's doubtfull that would even help, atleast in the short run. Becuse of now, it exist over 300 000 000 guns in USA and it's very easy to buy a used one. |
| Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? |
Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? The need comes from americas gun culture, which is rooted way back to the first settlers. Guns have always been important there. |
Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? look what is happening in turkey. unarmed protesters are being killed and abused by the police |
| Most definitely... |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| Yes. But then only bad guys would have firearms, so it's an issue. I'm leaving this in your hands. |
 |
Speedhoven said: Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? The need comes from americas gun culture, which is rooted way back to the first settlers. Guns have always been important there. Yes, that's what I learnt in school, but damn, when it comes out with so many tragedies, I don't get why nothing changes. RandomChampion said: Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? look what is happening in turkey. unarmed protesters are being killed and abused by the police I get what you mean, but I still don't agree. I understand the fact of giving weapons to syrian people, but the situation in Turkey is very different, and I would not really like seing people shooting the police, while they shoot back, just for a story of alcohol restriction. (I know some turkish are fighting for freedom I have many friends there and I follow the situation, but most of young "rebel" are protesting for the alcohol issue, so why giving people guns for problems like this one ? But enough with the Turkey this is not the main thing here sorry ^^ I just see so many problems with guns, that's why I think it should be banned, but as I said, that's just my opinion, it doesn't really matter ! :p |
| I will kill the monster that necroed this thread. :< |
| The Art of Eight |
dankickyou said: I will kill the monster that necroed this thread. :< Use a cricket bat. Give him or her a taste of their own medicine. |
 |
Kalheesi said: Speedhoven said: Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? The need comes from americas gun culture, which is rooted way back to the first settlers. Guns have always been important there. Yes, that's what I learnt in school, but damn, when it comes out with so many tragedies, I don't get why nothing changes. RandomChampion said: Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? look what is happening in turkey. unarmed protesters are being killed and abused by the police I get what you mean, but I still don't agree. I understand the fact of giving weapons to syrian people, but the situation in Turkey is very different, and I would not really like seing people shooting the police, while they shoot back, just for a story of alcohol restriction. (I know some turkish are fighting for freedom I have many friends there and I follow the situation, but most of young "rebel" are protesting for the alcohol issue, so why giving people guns for problems like this one ? But enough with the Turkey this is not the main thing here sorry ^^ I just see so many problems with guns, that's why I think it should be banned, but as I said, that's just my opinion, it doesn't really matter ! :p The main story is not Turkey, but it kind of exemplifies the whole concept of having armed citizens. The thing is that the police are abusing the people, and even if the people wanted to fight back, they cant really. There is the idea in the US that an individual has the right to defend himself and his property - defend his right to be unmolested. I live in NYC, where it is virtually impossible for a civilian to legally obtain and carry a gun. You could say guns are banned here. However, all this leads to is a bunch of criminals having guns. On the other hand, I dont think that some psychopath should be able to go to his local store and buy as many guns as he can afford. |
RandomChampion said: Kalheesi said: Speedhoven said: Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? The need comes from americas gun culture, which is rooted way back to the first settlers. Guns have always been important there. Yes, that's what I learnt in school, but damn, when it comes out with so many tragedies, I don't get why nothing changes. RandomChampion said: Kalheesi said: Actually, yes it should. I don't really understand americans's citizens's points when I hear them saying "if we don't have guns anymore the bad guys will and we'll be vulnerable". And the best one was "Kids die in swimming pool, should we close them too ?" Doesn't make any sense at all seriously. Where does this need of having a gun comes from ? look what is happening in turkey. unarmed protesters are being killed and abused by the police I get what you mean, but I still don't agree. I understand the fact of giving weapons to syrian people, but the situation in Turkey is very different, and I would not really like seing people shooting the police, while they shoot back, just for a story of alcohol restriction. (I know some turkish are fighting for freedom I have many friends there and I follow the situation, but most of young "rebel" are protesting for the alcohol issue, so why giving people guns for problems like this one ? But enough with the Turkey this is not the main thing here sorry ^^ I just see so many problems with guns, that's why I think it should be banned, but as I said, that's just my opinion, it doesn't really matter ! :p The main story is not Turkey, but it kind of exemplifies the whole concept of having armed citizens. The thing is that the police are abusing the people, and even if the people wanted to fight back, they cant really. There is the idea in the US that an individual has the right to defend himself and his property - defend his right to be unmolested. I live in NYC, where it is virtually impossible for a civilian to legally obtain and carry a gun. You could say guns are banned here. However, all this leads to is a bunch of criminals having guns. On the other hand, I dont think that some psychopath should be able to go to his local store and buy as many guns as he can afford. Yeah I undesrtand, but I guess I can't agree with you because I'm not american... But I do agree with your last sentence, when they didn't accept the fact of checking any mental illness to anybody who wants to carry a gun, that just made me sick. :/ |
| Of course not. |
| Come visit my town // I apologize in advance for my second-rate English Join my fan club // Improve the transport network |
RandomChampion said: Do you really think it would benefit the situation if you give the protestors a bunch of guns so that they become armed protestors engaged in a shootout with the police? I bet there would be a lot more casualties on both sides and the police would crack down harder.look what is happening in turkey. unarmed protesters are being killed and abused by the police |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
More topics from this board
» Do you think there should be an age limit on friendship?Thy-Veseveia - Feb 28 |
43 |
by Noboru
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
681 |
by blankflag
»»
39 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Would you be a good partner? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Apr 14 |
68 |
by -Jahra
»»
43 minutes ago |
|
» Plushies_Nette_ - Apr 25 |
21 |
by rohan121
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» The level of NoLifer / NEET / Hiki you are?IpreferEcchi - Apr 22 |
31 |
by cody
»»
3 hours ago |