Guns

[W0RF]

I never did not that. I'm saying that the public should not have such easy access to objects that give them even more power over the lives and deaths of other people than modern society unfortunately already brings, unless there are valid reasons. At the moment there is a vaild reason in protection, but in the long run I believe that guns should be circumnavigated and got rid of.

This has been my same answer post after post even though you kieep asking me question about it. It's not an ambiguous position, so I don't know where that question came from.

The question came from you saying the right was not a natural one. I even quoted your paragraph stating you said it was not naturally a right.

lol. Adding 'period' to the end of something doesn't mean it can't be argued against. If a suitable alternative is put into operation (which I believe I have thought of) then thre is no real need for guns, I don't care what an old bit of paper from another age has to say on the matter.

So now you're arguing that the validity of a government is based solely on the age of its documents? BTW, if there's no need for guns, people simply won't use them, regardless of whether you outlaw them. Obsolescence.

And again, if the government or the military went ape****, all the armed citizens of the US wouldn't have a chance.

Armed resistance is only one safeguard we have for democracy. That's why the right to bear arms is not the only sentence in the Constitution. But it was still important enough for them to include it, having to live under the rule of a government that tried to restrain them through disarmament.

Free from the danger of guns. And whether you feel it or have experienced it or not, it exists.

I'm not free from the danger of cars. I'm not free from the danger of fire. I'm not free from the danger of bladed weapons. Humans will never be completely free from danger of one sort or another, this kind of freedom is a mirage at best.

I don't (obviously) but the government does (laws). It is a democratic government's responsibilty to protect it's citizens, and if a none lethal protection against criminals can work, then this will quite obviously happen.

And the fact that it has not, makes it equally obvious that there is no such alternative.

Just because I believe that dart guns are a good idea you can't accuse me of not listening...especially when you've been so plainly ignoring what I've been saying.

No, but I can accuse you of not listening when you claim to have solved the problem of gun crime in one sentence and consider it the end of the discussion. Turn your own logic around, just because I think dart guns are not nearly effective enough to be a practical solution doesn't mean I haven't been listening. I can listen and not change my opinion.

I don't believe that dart guns would force guns into being obselete. Beyond the practicle purposes, there are people who just like guns. They like the power, the cool factor of that power...whatever - the point is they wouldn't go completely, which is why I am saying that they should be surplanted.

Obsolescence WILL surplant regular guns. That's just progress.

Let me ask you this, how long would you say gun crime has been a problem in the United States?

Completely agreed, but then I'm not arguing that it is perfect, just far preferable. You are saying that law abiding people want protection and don't want to kill people, well here's a much better way of trying to get closer to that goal.

You've missed the point. I'm convinced that any supposedly non-lethal alternative you can muster, I can find a lethal application for it.

It is indeed, but only in a very narrow and very naive understanding of the word liberty. We live in societies, thus there are rules that govern them otherwise they wouldn't be societies, they would be anarchy. Liberty is freedom, but again, it doesn't have to be solely freedom to's. When something affects other people it may just come into the freedom from area.

Me having a gun does not affect you in any way. It doesn't affect any one in any way. I could own a gun my entire life and never harm another human being with it. How have I affected you such that you have to be free from whatever it is I'm oppressing you from?

I am going to make this ever so clear (and this may seem condescending, but I'm sorry, I'll now be saying this for the forth time, so I have to do it like this):

BINGO! STOP RIGHT THERE!

If you can capture a snapshot of the EXACT EMOTION you are feeling right now, and maybe, JUST MAYBE, you'll see that this brand of condescension is derived from TAKING MY EXASPERATION PERSONALLY. I don't take what you say personally, so I don't consider it condescending.

I do not believe that a mass exodus of criminals occur.

Then the legality of guns in other areas should not be a factor.

The first point of this was that gun movement is obviously going to be easier into regulated zones when they are surrounded by de-regulated zones. I don't care if this is a relitively insignificant number, it's an obviously logical point.

However, this point is largely insignificant in my fury that you have repeated ignored the 'AND' part of what I said on this matter. It was conditional, hence the 'and', but you've continually spoken about it as a single point idea (and even that was completely mis-represented and exaggerated).

The AND that you have ignored, was that nothing was going to happen in these situations because the public had no alternative to protect themselves with, which I have consistantly said is needed in the US. Until this half of the conditional statement is met then the first half is largely irrelevent.

1). I already said that only about 20% of guns used in crimes are purchased legally. So the argument of de-regulated zones is a non-issue.

2). If you did this nationally, then what would happen in DC would happen nationally, for exactly the same reasons. And if you enacted conceal-carry nationally, then you'd have the same kind of responsible reasonable self-defense you have in states like Florida. On this point, your notion that a national model would somehow be different from the local model is already without fact, but it also fails on a logical level. If you enacted such strict laws nationally, then EVERYONE would be at the same tactical disadvantage that you note as being responsible for the higher crime in DC.

3). If you make this conditional on a suitable alternative to guns, you basically make your entire argument "irrelevant", because if there were something more effective than guns, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WOULD USE. Typically you don't have to ban something that no one even cares to have for lethal purposes. See also: swords, axes, bows and arrows, etc (all perfectly legal)

Well I think it is pretty clear that I don't think that there is a some massive migration of criminals now. Or any migration for that fact.

Actually you WERE talking about migration. My error was thinking you meant criminal migration, when you actually meant gun migration (which btw does not happen, see above).

I can see the way you are thinking, but you are failing to see some key points. JUST taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not decrease gun crime, which is pretty obvious because you can't be law abiding and commit a crime.

You cannot see the way I'm thinking, if that's what you think I mean in using the term "law-abiding citizens". Laws are designed to punish criminals, to deprive them of certain rights if they infringe upon the basic rights of others (by killing them, taking their property, etc etc you get the idea). This is 180 degrees removed from the concept of taking liberties away from people who HAVE NOT broken any law or done ANYTHING to ANYBODY. Surely you agree with me that people should not be punished when they have not done anything wrong.

However, if guns are surplanted, it makes it that bit easier to tell who the law abiding citizens are and who the criminals are, as any gun is an illegal gun. Thus gun crime should be easier to fight and should thus drop. It may not be easy to fight against illegal arms still, but I hope that you'd agree that any improvment is a good thing.

I do not agree that any improvement is a good thing. If we nuked the whole planet into oblivion, gun crime would fall dramatically. I'd even dare say it would be zero.

Back to reality, Dimebag and several other people died BECAUSE the criminal was the only one in the room with a gun.

It's practicality. Some things are needed and impracticle to get rid of, although they should be as safe as possible. Also these are things designed to be useful. Guns are designed to kill. They have a reason to be there now, but if you have got rid of that reason then all you have left is something that might be fun but kills people (like class A drugs). So ban it.

I doubt you will ever make the planet so safe that people will not need to defend themselves at all. And if they do, they have a right to the most effective form of defense available to them. Thus guns are needed and practical, and thus should be made as safe as possible.

As I have said above I believe that is a consistent view. Ban what is useful only for killing, keep but make safe as much as possible other things that ARE useful.

See above. Guns prevent crimes at a MINIMUM of 150 TIMES more frequently than they kill in this country. The benefits FAR outweigh the detriments. If 1.5 million (lowball) crimes are prevented every year by guns, and we do not have 1.5 million dead people every year, then guns are not useful ONLY for killing, or else that's what all these people would have done. They used it as a NON-LETHAL DETERRENT.

Also you asked why I was focusing on guns before other things that kill, and I just pointed out that the thread was about guns and so that was the subject I was focusing on. I didn't ignore your point, I answered it and I don't see a problem with what I think on the matter so I don't see why I should change it.

I might take that answer if I were arguing a slippery slope, but I'm not, I just don't think that in light of these other things you can argue accidental death as a standalone raison d'etre for a ban.

Because the facts do not say that, the facts say that less legal guns with no suitable form of alternative protection means more murder.

When the government starts deciding what is "suitable" for its citizens to defend themselves with, they're controlling the force of arms in this country. That tips the balance of power away from the citizens which is entirely contrary to the concept of "consent of the governed".

If suddenly all guns disappeared off the face of the Earth, there would be a significant fall in murder rates, which is pretty obvious, so the figures only focus on legal ownership keeping murder down in the face of criminal gun crime, which is something I have not argued against.

You'd better get cracking, then, because that's the only way you're going to disarm the criminals.

Something that was designed to be used take like in the most efficient way possible can never be an inherrently good thing.

If it can be inherently bad because of its lethal application 0.7% of the time, then it can be inherently good because it is applied non-lethally 99.3% of the time.

But these are still lethal objects and if they can thus be surplanted by none lethal objects then that is a good thing.

Again (and again), guns are not automatically lethal in all applications. As evidenced above (and again), they are OVERWHELMINGLY non-lethal. Why is THAT not a good thing? Because it CAN kill? As I said, I can think of a lethal application for anything you might think is non-lethal. What you still come down to (and again), is the intent of the user.

That's because you are condescending and rude. Or at least, the style of your posts are. If you want to prove people wrong you don't have to talk down to them. It can be hard to do, but it is possible, I have done it here even though at times i've been really insensed at some of your comments.

Your obsession with my alleged condescension is about equal to your obsession with guns as brutal killers. You plucked from my posts enough material to fill a small paragraph on the screen, when I've posted pages and pages and pages and pages of discussions, details, sources, opinions, facts and statements of principle. To call me condescending requires you to make two dramatic leaps:
1). you have to apply the cherry-picked examples across the width and breadth of everything I say, and if you do that, I dare say you risk missing the real meat of what I'm trying to say.

2). you have to assume that I think I'm somehow better than other people. Yes, I have strong opinions, and I don't see the point in forming hard opinions if you're not willing to stand by them (I think you'll find I concede differing views and sometimes even reverse course on matters of policy, but some subjects are a matter of principle, and on principles I stand firm). But because I believe strongly that my opinion is correct doesn't mean I'm a better person for believing it. What's right and wrong has nothing to do with me as a person, it simply "is". The PRINCIPLE is what is better. I think you'll find that there are very few people harder on myself than I am.

All examples of the types of things you say that make you seem condescending. When you are directly criticising and trying to keep an argument civil it is unwise to couple sarcasm with what you say.

Based on what you wrote earlier (and I addressed it), I encourage you to think a little bit more about where I'm coming from by the time discussions get to that point. Beyond that I sometimes get cute to punch up my point a little more, the magical bullet phrase being a good example. If that's personally offensive to you, I apologize. But it's not intended to belittle. In fact, it kicked off an entire paragraph wherein I said, plainly and quite nicely, that same point: guns are not automatic killers.

Or just dismiss people as if they are irrelevent or use as I know you like to do with some other people.

A lot of these hapless victims of my cruelty have been RO'ed or banned for their behavior on the boards. When I totally blow off a person, it's not often, and hardly for no good reason.

I have no problem with you trying to argue, I have a problem with your condescending style (referenced above) but much more so your tendency in this thread to take exactly what I've said, then tell me I have said something different or just make up something new that I have said.

If I misunderstand something, I'm always open to correction on something that was simply read incorrectly. Telling me that I misunderstood, and stating it again, or in a different fashion, is far more effective than accusing me of deliberately distorting your argument, or telling me that I'm "ignoring" you. I'm still a bit puzzled on how one can be "ignored" when their posts are referenced so exhaustively in my responses. But I honestly thought, for example, when you were talking about people "popping next door" that you were referring to criminals taking their crime to a better location. If you don't believe me when I say that, I'm sorry, but that's how it went down. I wasn't twisting or ignoring you, I just responded to what I saw.

Indeed, but then I never said that adaptations were necessarily bad.

But you always couple it to the fact that they came from killing machines. You ALWAYS tie this point to that.

I don't say that your points are stupid...

Why are you making stupid arguments...That's just stupid... etc etc etc

...I just think you are wrong and so am presenting my side. However, I am on the defensive here, and it is mainly because what I have actually said is being ignored or taked out of all context no matter how clearly or how many times I state it.

You probably don't believe me but I'm just trying to argue what's on the table.

It don't think you are stupid, but when things like this happen I start to assume that you might have some problem with understanding certain kinds of word orders or phrases. In that case I wouldn't mind repeating myself, but I don't know that so I have to assume that you are being rude. Thus much anger.

You don't have to assume anything. If you ask me, I am happy to clarify anything I have said. And if I've missed something (and I've asked for clarification aplenty in the past), then maybe I DO need to be told again, or differently.

You used it earlier by saying about all the other objects that kill people and asking if we should ban all of them as well. It's using exaggeration to try and highlight a point.

My point was to determine if you were really intent on keeping people safe from accidental deaths, or just getting rid of guns. The fact that guns has been your answer over accidental deaths tells me that accidental deaths are a secondary concern to you or you would promote safety over a ban. I, on the other hand, did not use exaggeration, I used practical everyday materials that need to be made safer.

But you have being arguing that no one has a right to be told what they cant own, where as im trying to highlight that there are obvious cases where that isn't true, such as the nuclear weapons and fighter plane examples, and also drugs applies to it as well.

But your examples were impractical ones. You said yourself the comparisons were ridiculous and extreme, but in the same sentence you equate guns to them and say they should be banned for all the same reasons.

THERE ARE ways we can prevent burning deaths and drownings and kids who are locked in cars by moronic parents and suffocate. You can take my example and REALLY DO IT if you wanted to. The number of people who actually COULD go out and buy their own fighter jet, I imagine I could count on one hand. So even if they WERE legal, you wouldn't see millions of jet owners defending their homes from criminals. The application of these weapons is vastly different from the self-defense to which we have a right.

In other words, you think I'm arguing the right to own a gun, when in fact I am arguing the right to self-defense unfettered by the government. The idea that a nuclear bomb is a tool of self-defense is so un-arguable that Maest dismissed it 5 pages ago. The destructive power of such is infinitely more devestating and so there's just no way to compare the two. Nukes are so deadly that we are trying to limit the number of COUNTRIES that have them, much less individual citizens.

The rights provided in the Constitution are not absolute. Freedom of speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Freedom of the press does not give you the right to libel somebody. And the right to bear arms does not mean you get a fighter jet if you want one. But a gun is not a fighter jet. A gun is not even necessarily a harbinger of death, as evidenced by its massively non-lethal application in REAL-WORLD SCENARIOS. Hell, CONDOMS fail 20 times more frequently per use than a gun kills a person per use, but woe to he who dares say they're not a fantastic form of protection. Again, the benefits of gun proliferation far outweigh the detriments, and with education and responsible ownership the balance can be tipped even FURTHER. You're better suited trying to address the criminal element of gun crime rather than the gun element. Neither one of them would happen overnight, or probably ever in their entirety, but at least if criminals were reformed or removed from society, it would actually BENEFIT from that (especially if they are reformed, or interceded before they even BECOME criminals).

If there was a practicle and much safer form of vehicle transport designed and cars were still causing death, I'd want them banned to. That's not to say I wouldn't feel for the car enthusiasts at all, Id say that we should have centres where they keep cars you can drive, just as I would't object to gun centres where people who love guns could go and fire at things, but that would be the limit of my concession.

Well, if we're now at the point where you would just ban anything you don't think we need, that's just a bridge too far. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

The question came from you saying the right was not a natural one. I even quoted your paragraph stating you said it was not naturally a right.

What I said was that having such power over life and death like that shouldn't be a natural right in society. It has been in the past but I think it's about time we moved past this. Defending yourself IS a right, and will always be, however we have reached the stage where we should have the capacity to defend ourselves without using lethal weapons.

And if there is a working substitute in place, there should be no natural right in a society to keep such machines around if all they are is the original intruments of death, adaptations circumnavigated.

So now you're arguing that the validity of a government is based solely on the age of its documents? BTW, if there's no need for guns, people simply won't use them, regardless of whether you outlaw them. Obsolescence.

No, you said that it WAS a right because of a document, and I was just simply pointing out that something should not be an untouchable right just because it is written on an old bit of paper, representing ideas that cannot be directly applied to the modern day and be expected to match up perfectly.

And as I said, having something that is at good at guns for defence purposes isn't good enough to make them obselete, because not everyone cares about the lethal aspect, in fact some people like that power. Some people just like guns, and the movies ingrain it into us that they're cool. A safer alternative would knock down gun ownership a bit, but certainly not totally.

Armed resistance is only one safeguard we have for democracy. That's why the right to bear arms is not the only sentence in the Constitution. But it was still important enough for them to include it, having to live under the rule of a government that tried to restrain them through disarmament.

I don't see how the same argument can realistically stand up in the modern world. With the huge gap between military and civilian technology gus are irrelevent and would only slow down the complete and utter contol factor if your government were truely to go for it.

It's a romanticised idea that a few armed patriots stand up for their rights against all odds just like in the good old days of the revolution, but today it is just ridiculous.

That in itself is slightly worrying, and what has happened in Russia recently has shown just how easy it is for things to slip into something like this, but for the first time ever in this century we have a true international community, and I hope that with time it will grow so that no individual country will be able to terrorise its citizens without intervention. It's the only true safety.

I'm not free from the danger of cars. I'm not free from the danger of fire. I'm not free from the danger of bladed weapons. Humans will never be completely free from danger of one sort or another, this kind of freedom is a mirage at best.

No you are not, but as I have said before:

Some things have too much practical use to just disgard even though they are dangerous.

With the issue of protection removed, guns are just dangerous, thus should be removed.

So the comparison does not match up.

And the fact that it has not, makes it equally obvious that there is no such alternative.

I don't see why that is true...I'd question if there was enough funding and research going into it, and I'd bet the answer is no.

Obsolescence WILL surplant regular guns. That's just progress.
Let me ask you this, how long would you say gun crime has been a problem in the United States?

But as I have said they wouldn't be obselete, they'd still do the same as they do now, only in alot more dangerous fashion than dart guns. And not all people care about safety above all else.
And as for your question I have no idea. But then I'd guess you could call it a problem ever since the first time someone realised that they would be aided in getting what they want by pointing a pistol at someone.

You've missed the point. I'm convinced that any supposedly non-lethal alternative you can muster, I can find a lethal application for it.

No I understood it, but as I said, not perfect but far preferable. It's obvious that dart guns would be alot less lethal than guns because of the nature of darts vs bullets and thus the decreased risk of major harm from accidents etc. Also the law abiding could defend themselves without having to kill in the extreme cases. But if someone wanted to murder someone they could still just shoot them with a dart and club them to death.

Me having a gun does not affect you in any way. It doesn't affect any one in any way. I could own a gun my entire life and never harm another human being with it. How have I affected you such that you have to be free from whatever it is I'm oppressing you from?

Well that depends on you doesn't it? Maybe you get pissed off one day, maybe lose it, bang bang it's affected me. The point is whereas your point is correct it isn't certain. And if you had no other reason for having it other than you want it, then that is not good enough to justify the power of life and death you command with that machine.

...TAKING MY EXASPERATION PERSONALLY...

It's difficult not to get angry when you say exactly the same thig over and over in exactly the same way, only to be asked why your saying something that contradicts it. I write abc abc abc then get asked how i can justify writing def def def. It makes me very stressed...although I have tried to voice my problem with it without flaming, which i hope I have achieved.

Then the legality of guns in other areas should not be a factor.

The first point of this was that gun movement is obviously going to be easier into regulated zones when they are surrounded by de-regulated zones. I don't care if this is a relitively insignificant number, it's an obviously logical point.

1). I already said that only about 20% of guns used in crimes are purchased legally. So the argument of de-regulated zones is a non-issue.

Only? That's still 20%!

2). If you did this nationally...

I would have said the same thing here about the conditional nature of the phrase but then you comment on this anyway so:

3). If you make this conditional on a suitable alternative to guns, you basically make your entire argument "irrelevant", because if there were something more effective than guns, THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WOULD USE.

But there's your misunderstanding: dguns would not be more effective in protection, just less lethal. Thus guns themselves would not be obselete.

Actually you WERE talking about migration. My error was thinking you meant criminal migration, when you actually meant gun migration (which btw does not happen, see above).

Where do you think guns come from? If there are ones already there then it is logical that the police would confiscate them wen found and sooner or later there would be no more.

So to combat this decline there are two choices, make guns in a state with tighter controls than anywhere else or bring them in. It's like prohibition in that aspect - the state cannot focus on banning supply and confiscating when there are ready sources all around.

Laws are designed to punish criminals...This is 180 degrees removed from the concept of taking liberties away from people who HAVE NOT broken any law or done ANYTHING to ANYBODY. Surely you agree with me that people should not be punished when they have not done anything wrong.

I understand you perfectly, but I think you are plain wrong...just look at drugs. It's not what they always do do, but what they could do and how they could affect others, so I see no difference. Drug laws fall into the freedom froms catagory.

Back to reality, Dimebag and several other people died BECAUSE the criminal was the only one in the room with a gun.

If only they'd been defended? But I've covered that by saying that people should be defended and how i think is a good way.

I doubt you will ever make the planet so safe that people will not need to defend themselves at all. And if they do, they have a right to the most effective form of defense available to them. Thus guns are needed and practical, and thus should be made as safe as possible.

I doubt it too, but you've always got to push for a better way regardless. As I have said, guns are the most effective right now, but I don't see why we should deliberately battle to make them safer, rather than come up with something as effective and less lethal by design.

Guns prevent crimes at a MINIMUM of 150 TIMES more frequently than they kill in this country.

What types of crimes though? all of them murder? That little statistic doesnt say how guns affect the murder rate.

Either way it doesn't matter much to me, as you're talking about their role as protection, and I have acknowledged this and suggested an alternative.

That tips the balance of power away from the citizens which is entirely contrary to the concept of "consent of the governed".

But militarily no balance exists, the state owns it all, thus your argument cannot stand.

If it can be inherently bad because of its lethal application 0.7% of the time, then it can be inherently good because it is applied non-lethally 99.3% of the time.

As much as I don't think that statistic is at all accurate, it doesn't matter because if there is an alternative that is less lethal, then guns suddenly shift to just having the advantage of being lethal which is 100% bad.

Also I don't think an object can be termed as good because it defends you form more of itself.

To call me condescending requires you to make two dramatic leaps:
1). you have to apply the cherry-picked examples across the width and breadth of everything I say, and if you do that, I dare say you risk missing the real meat of what I'm trying to say.

The meat doesn't matter when I'm talking about the condescending style. And I 'cherry picked' those examples because that's where you were condescending.

2). you have to assume that I think I'm somehow better than other people.

Well that's an assumption in itself, because you don't have to do that. You dont have to think your better than someone to act like you think you are. And you dont need to think it to adopt a style that represents you as being so.

But it's not intended to belittle. In fact, it kicked off an entire paragraph wherein I said, plainly and quite nicely, that same point: guns are not automatic killers.

When it's started in a style of belittlement then it's going to influence how the rest is read...but I believe you when you said it wasn't intended, so ok.

If I misunderstand something, I'm always open to correction on something that was simply read incorrectly. Telling me that I misunderstood, and stating it again, or in a different fashion, is far more effective than accusing me of deliberately distorting your argument, or telling me that I'm "ignoring" you.

I tried to correct, but I couldn't find simpler words to put it in other than 'i did not say that and do not think it' which is why I came to assume you were ignoring me.

But you always couple it to the fact that they came from killing machines. You ALWAYS tie this point to that.

Ah now that's a definate misread on your part. Although I never said adaptations were bad, these are not adaptations. They didn't COME from killing machines, they ARE killing machines because that is how they were designed to be. The adaptation is purely is the use, and if this use can be done more safely, the gun is just a killing machine once more.

You probably don't believe me but I'm just trying to argue what's on the table.

You were right...I did call a couple of things you said stupid, but in my defense at that point I was in complete and utter disbelief that I was still saying the same things to defend myself against things I did not say. Either way, I don't think you are.

maybe I DO need to be told again, or differently.

I find it hard to say things differently when I am just stating a fact about what I have said though. Hence the 4 reply frustration side-topic this has turned into. Ill try tho. I may have to start taking material like id do with my philosophy essays and edit them properly, maybe it would help...

My point was to determine if you were really intent on keeping people safe from accidental deaths, or just getting rid of guns. The fact that guns has been your answer over accidental deaths tells me that accidental deaths are a secondary concern to you or you would promote safety over a ban.

If that were true, I would have never said that guns were needed for protection. However since I believe in the possiblity in alternatives, I don't see why I should be interested in making a little bit safer when I could make people a whole lot safer by removing them and substituting with a non-lethal version.

The number of people who actually COULD go out and buy their own fighter jet, I imagine I could count on one hand. So even if they WERE legal, you wouldn't see millions of jet owners defending their homes from criminals. The application of these weapons is vastly different from the self-defense to which we have a right.

It's a hyper-reality argument...the practicalities are not the question, only the points that they highlight.

My point was twofold:

1. that we do not have an inherrant right in society to just own anything we like at all

and 2. that yes we need protection, but there is overkill. A bomb is overkill when you have a gun. But a gun is overkill if you had a dart gun.

You're better suited trying to address the criminal element of gun crime rather than the gun element.

You can never stop the illegal flow of guns whilst advocating poliferation. It is completely contradictory.

Well, if we're now at the point where you would just ban anything you don't think we need, that's just a bridge too far. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

I certainly did not say that in the way implied.

All im saying is that if something can be done with equal efficiency and with more safety, but the less safe one is not made obselete because of equal efficiency, then the less safe one that is still endangering people who took the safe option should be banned.

 

[W0RF]

You can never stop the illegal flow of guns whilst advocating poliferation. It is completely contradictory.

This is not what I said at all.

If you want to talk about gun crime, the logical way to approach a resolution is either to get rid of guns or address the problem of crime. Getting rid of guns won't stop crime, but getting to the root of the problem would end the application of guns for evil purposes. And produce good citizens as well, something you can't do just by getting rid of guns. Neither of these concepts unto themselves are realistic to accomplish in their entirety, but maybe this will help you better understand what I meant by that. It was a bigger issue than proliferation and trafficking.

Let's sum this up quite simply then:

You think the government should be responsible for people's safety, to the point where if something is dangerous and there's an alternative, it should be banned. Whereas I think that when others do that thinking for you, you're not really free.

I think people should be free to ensure their own safety, whereas you think such a responsibility is too grave for people to handle without a watcher.

Have I missed anything?

Either way one looks at it, what it all boils down to is that he who assumes the responsibility assumes the power therein. And that's where freedoms live and die. And that's why I think it is incumbent upon men to assume that responsibility.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

You can never stop the illegal flow of guns whilst advocating poliferation.

This is not what I said at all.

Again, the benefits of gun proliferation far outweigh the detriments...

If you want to talk about gun crime, the logical way to approach a resolution is either to get rid of guns or address the problem of crime....getting to the root of the problem would end the application of guns for evil purposes. And produce good citizens as well, something you can't do just by getting rid of guns. Neither of these concepts unto themselves are realistic to accomplish in their entirety...

I don't think the first statement is logical at all, as I would say that both should be done.

Also as you said, getting rid of guns wont stop crime, teaching in better ways wont stop all crime. So again, I'd say do both. Both help to limit the problem, so use them both.

You think the government should be responsible for people's safety, to the point where if something is dangerous and there's an alternative, it should be banned.

Yup.

Whereas I think that when others do that thinking for you, you're not really free.

But here is where the problem is. If that statement is completely true, then drugs should be legalised. All of them. All military grade weaponry and systems should be able to be owned as well as biological weapons and whatever the hell people like in order to really be free. So is complete freedom to within a society such a great idea?

Either way one looks at it, what it all boils down to is that he who assumes the responsibility assumes the power therein. And that's where freedoms live and die. And that's why I think it is incumbent upon men to assume that responsibility.

But men don't assume that responsibility. It sounds great, and it WOULD BE great, but it just isn't. This is why there is gun crime and drugs problems in the first place. Imagine if we legalised drugs and left it up to personal responsibility...there would be a drugs epidemic.

It would be fine if all of these things reflected solely on the individual, so that they could have all the freedom tos that they wanted and only hurt themselves, but that is just not the way it is. These things affect other people and in a society, it is the government's job to protect people against people who harm others, in which case it is a freedom from.

Hardly anyone is always responsible, and most people just aren't. Teaching can limit that but not erase it.

Guns cause death, and are only good because they can protect you against other guns. If there is a safer alternative there is no conceivably logical reason they should be around unless you think that the freedom to own one outways the cost of the death that will occur from not everyone switching away from them.

And if you do think that freedom is worth it (which I could never understand) then you must also be for the legalisation of all drugs. And if that is true then I can't argue it, because I cannot comprehend how life is worth less than ownership of objects like that.

 

[})FA|Snake]

And if you do think that freedom is worth it (which I could never understand) then you must also be for the legalisation of all drugs. And if that is true then I can't argue it, because I cannot comprehend how life is worth less than ownership of objects like that.

while I don't agree with the way you phrased the last sentence, cause you still don't understand where we are coming from, but this is correct, drugs should be legal as well. government is not here to be a parent to us, least that was the idea when this country was formed.

 

[W0RF]

What you quoted in this second instance is 100% completely DIFFERENT from what you quoted before. The one you mentioned JUST NOW is me saying that if you look at the pros and cons of proliferation, the pros overwhelmingly outweigh the cons. Tens of millions of guns, 8,000 deaths a year (obviously way too many), millions of crimes prevented every year, and when I did that statistical comparison, I didn't even mention hunting, recreational shooting, collecting, and other non-lethal non-criminal non-aggressive use of guns.

What you mentioned the FIRST TIME was my quote noting that crime is the problem and guns the tool to achieve the ones you wish to end. To say that we should go to the root of the problem and reform or intercede to avoid criminal behavior, is NOT AT ALL the same as suggesting (as I have never done), that the country would somehow be better if everybody had a gun and carried it around all the time.

Also as you said, getting rid of guns wont stop crime, teaching in better ways wont stop all crime. So again, I'd say do both. Both help to limit the problem, so use them both.

But stopping crime does not deprive other people of their liberties to achieve their end. To take away guns, you have to take away ALL guns, even if they are NOT USED TO HARM ANYONE EVER. To deter crime affects only the people with whom you are interceding, WITHOUT affecting the populace.

But here is where the problem is. If that statement is completely true, then drugs should be legalised. All of them. All military grade weaponry and systems should be able to be owned as well as biological weapons and whatever the hell people like in order to really be free. So is complete freedom to within a society such a great idea?

I've mentioned already that freedoms are not absolute. Why are we coming back to this? These restrictions on freedom of self-defense already exist. You can speak freely, but not yell fire in a theater. You can print freely, but not if you libel or otherwise wrong another person. You can defend yourself from invasion, BUT IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO KILL PEOPLE. I understand that's not how you see things, but that's the principle of self-governance in America. The government is decentralized (although we seem to be drifting back towards federalization, and to our own detriment), with certain responsibilities relegated to the government, the rest passed down to the states, who in turn pass most down to the people. Live and let live, and all that.

Anyway, some deadly drugs ARE legal, namely tobacco and alcohol. While wine in small amounts can benefit the heart (it is a fruit derivative after all), ethyl alcohol IS A POISON. It has a devestating effect on most internal organs, specifically the liver. The only reason it doesn't kill us straight off is that we usually water it down so much that it doesn't do much damage before our body metabolizes it. But over time that damage adds up, just like cigarettes.

Military grade weaponry is designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time. They were developed BY the military for use IN COMBAT. The danger they present to not only an assailant, but the victim, AND his family, AND EVERYONE WITHIN A SQUARE MILE OF HIS HOME, are overwhelmingly more grave than any protection they might supposedly give (which again, no sane person does this). Atomic weapons are only owned by a handful of countries, and they've only been used on other people twice in the history of the planet, sixty years ago. The danger of these weapons is like a gazillion times worse than a gun could do on its worst day. Please stop using these as comparative examples, as there are reasons for restricting their use that have NOTHING to do with whether or not a person can protect themselves with them, and they don't have any of the benefits that guns provide in our current environment.

But men don't assume that responsibility. It sounds great, and it WOULD BE great, but it just isn't.

Yes they do. There are more crimes prevented by guns in half a week, than murders committed with them in a year. If people WERE using them irresponsibly, there would be corpses all over the place, but the rate of incidence is infitesimally small.

It would be fine if all of these things reflected solely on the individual, so that they could have all the freedom tos that they wanted and only hurt themselves, but that is just not the way it is. These things affect other people and in a society, it is the government's job to protect people against people who harm others, in which case it is a freedom from.

They do. If you shoot someone, you go to jail.

Hardly anyone is always responsible, and most people just aren't. Teaching can limit that but not erase it.

TWO HUNDRED MILLION firearms. 8,000 deaths. Not counting confounding factors like gang-violence, intra-racial crime (yes, intra), multiple offenders, etc etc. When there's 8,000 out of 200,000,000 how is that "hardly anyone" being responsible?

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

But stopping crime does not deprive other people of their liberties to achieve their end. To take away guns, you have to take away ALL guns, even if they are NOT USED TO HARM ANYONE EVER. To deter crime affects only the people with whom you are interceding, WITHOUT affecting the populace.

That would work if crime actually could just be stopped. But obviously it can't, it can only be limited, and even then we've been trying to do that for years, so it's not that easy. Doing BOTH will limit crime even more than just one on its own.

Please stop using these as comparative examples, as there are reasons for restricting their use that have NOTHING to do with whether or not a person can protect themselves with them, and they don't have any of the benefits that guns provide in our current environment.

They really are comparitive examples though. Nuclear weapons...think abouty what they are. deterrents. Deterrents from what? OTHER nuclear weapons!!! It's nuts to think that because guns are the only thing that can protect us from other guns that they are good!!!

Yes they do. There are more crimes prevented by guns in half a week, than murders committed with them in a year. If people WERE using them irresponsibly, there would be corpses all over the place, but the rate of incidence is infitesimally small.

How many of the crimes prevented had guns as agressors tho? The number adds up...but even disregarding those figures, your figure of 8000 a year...infintesimally small? That's 8000 people! If if they are just the murders, think how many incidents of guns being used irresponsibly a year there are. Just because more are responsible with them than not, this does not make them safe enough to be ignored.

It would be fine if all of these things reflected solely on the individual

They do. If you shoot someone, you go to jail.

Problem with that little sentence is of course that they have shot someone, so it doesn't reflect solely on the individual.

TWO HUNDRED MILLION firearms. 8,000 deaths. Not counting confounding factors like gang-violence, intra-racial crime (yes, intra), multiple offenders, etc etc. When there's 8,000 out of 200,000,000 how is that "hardly anyone" being responsible?

Those figures can't work in the argument. The 8000 deaths certainly don't even come close to covering when guns are used irresponsibly.

The other figure is inadmissable because it is the amount of guns, not the amount of gun owners, and some people own a hell of alot more than others.

But forgetting that, my statement was an exaggeration, but in all fairness it was in reponse to you saying 'people are responsible' which is plainly far from true.

Guns cause death, and are only good because they can protect you against other guns. If there is a safer alternative there is no conceivably logical reason they should be around unless you think that the freedom to own one outways the cost of the death that will occur from not everyone switching away from them.

And if you do think that freedom is worth it (which I could never understand) then you must also be for the legalisation of all drugs. And if that is true then I can't argue it, because I cannot comprehend how life is worth less than ownership of objects like that.

You didn't answer that and it is the core of what im saying.

With an equally effective alternative in place, there is no logical way that if you still think civil liberties should prevail that you don't think that the freedom to own a gun is more important than people's lives. It's an object, and if you've equalled its usefulness with something else (forget if you think dart gun is equal, just in theory) then you think that the many people that would still die each year are worth less than the right to possess something.

- - -

while I don't agree with the way you phrased the last sentence

How else is there to phrase it? With the argument I've detailed, If you still think that a gun is worth owning although it is no longer unique in its usefulness and is still lethal to people, then you don't think life is worth enough to concede ownership of an object.

And if the ownership of a specific object is worth more than a single life to you, then I can't argue it because to me that's borderline psychopathy.

 

[Metakill]

But saving lives is the most important thing isn't it? Oh, but not when somebody's civil liberties might be threatened....

*apologies to all.

 

[W0RF]

Meta - you don't think people have a right to protect their own lives, homes, families, countries?

 

[Metakill]

I thought the sarcasm was obvious. I was relating to a different thread...

 

[W0RF]

Yes, I know. But I wanted it to be stated plainly, because it puzzles me that you are comparing the right to defend oneself, which almost never results in death, with the right to kill, which results in at least one death every single time.

So save your sarcasm. I know that you're pissed at me for whatever reason but don't extend that judgement so far as to think that I LIKE death, or think a certain amount is acceptable and shouldn't be addressed. I just think there are ways to go about it, and for you to misstate my position to suit your own sarcasm is insulting.

 

[Swarthy_Foreskin]

This thread is going in circles.