Live by the gun, die by the gun!!

[Czardas]

Loose the nanny mentality and get into reality... please.

I find it interesting that many people who use this catchphrase with regard to gun rights nevertheless support government intrusion into marriage, abortion, business, police, fire, et cetera. Surely we can afford to lose the FDA, the OSHA, the EPA, and all those other government agencies that do nothing except essentially protect people from themselves? For that matter, why do we need a police force or a fire department to be funded by the government? There's the nanny state mentality again -- oh, let the government catch criminals and save your burning house for you, instead of preparing you for the real world. Why should the government have a say in people's choice to get married? That's nanny state again, trying to legislate morality. Even the military can be seen as something of a "nanny state" idea: people must be incapable of defending themselves if they need the government to successfully repel any invasion force. Why not abolish it and just give everyone a gun?

And yet very few people make these arguments. It's only on guns that they get hung up, reinforcing my belief that most of them are just paranoid.

So basically, where do you believe to be an acceptable point for the nanny state mentality to stop? After all, all government is like that to some degree. What is and isn't acceptable, and why?

[CanuckHeaven]

There is an article in last weeks New Scientist that shows statisticly that in the USA those who carry a gun are more likely to die by gun violence than those who do not carry a gun.

Does that figure classify active duty soldiers as part of the "gun carrier" demographic in order to have the outcome match their liberal agenda?

Maybe, but it probably includes criminal on criminal violence, thus not differentiating between lawful use and non-lawful use.

Well I have that very article in my hand right now, and what it says is that it is a study of shooting victims, no mention of crime at all and it does talk about citizens rather than criminals so probably not. The numbers it gives are thus:

If you carry a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to get shoot and 4.2 time more likely to get killed by being shoot, than if you do not carry a gun.

Even more interesting:

Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45

It's only interesting if you don't know anything about sampling bias.

Unless you can prove bias then their claim certainly is interesting.

[The Norse Hordes]

Dont you guys understand? The bitch owned a gun, therefore she is directly responsible for her and her husbands death, and they had it coming.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest or repugnant about that claim at all!

[Czardas]

Dont you guys understand? The bitch owned a gun, therefore she is directly responsible for her and her husbands death, and they had it coming.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest or repugnant about that claim at all!

Eh, I don't bother to read most of CanuckHeaven's posts anyway. It's long since struck me as an exercise in futility.

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

Are yah done yet?

[Erich Dahmer]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

I guess it depends on the neighborhood.

Yankety Sax makes everything better.

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

Are yah done yet?

How about now?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Unless you can prove bias then their claim certainly is interesting.

There's also correlation =/= causation, but for some reason, that never applies to gun control debates.

[New Ziedrich]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

I guess it depends on the neighborhood.

Yankety Sax makes everything better.

Something about "Yankety Sax" sounds distinctly wrong.

[F1-Insanity]

Dont you guys understand? The bitch owned a gun, therefore she is directly responsible for her and her husbands death, and they had it coming.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest or repugnant about that claim at all!

I suppose that if she had NOT owned a gun, she'd never have been able to kill her husband and herself. Maybe by using someone elses gun?

[Erich Dahmer]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

I guess it depends on the neighborhood.

Yankety Sax makes everything better.

Something about "Yankety Sax" sounds distinctly wrong.

Oh but you will laugh.

[New Ziedrich]

well wear a gun to a child's soccer game does point to mental instability.

I guess it depends on the neighborhood.

Yankety Sax makes everything better.

Something about "Yankety Sax" sounds distinctly wrong.

Oh but you will laugh.

Oh, I know about Benny Hill and all, but the music's called Yakety Sax; the extra "N" in there made me think of something else entirely...

[Neu Leonstein]

That's what I said Weimar did. Weimar banned guns, and the result was that the people who simply ignored the laws ended up taking over, with no one able to resist them. You see, only law-abiding citizens obey laws, the thugs never do.

The reason the Nazis ended up in government had nothing to do with their owning guns. They abandoned the idea of gaining power through violence on the streets after they got their arses kicked by the military. Which is precisely what would happen to the people who use the "defend ourselves against government oppression" argument for gun ownership today.

[Skeptikosia]

...

Where'd you go?

I'm about. Just taking some time to think up a response.

Are yah done yet?

How about now?

What about now?

[Rolling squid]

Dont you guys understand? The bitch owned a gun, therefore she is directly responsible for her and her husbands death, and they had it coming.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest or repugnant about that claim at all!

I suppose that if she had NOT owned a gun, she'd never have been able to kill her husband and herself. Maybe by using someone elses gun?

Because you can't kill someone with a kitchen knife?

[RAHIT RA]

Because you can't kill someone with a kitchen knife?

surely actually plunging a piece of metal into somebody's body is completely different to standing a dozen paces off and moving your trigger finger a few milimetres


what i mean to say is it strikes me that it would be much easier to 'accidentally' kill someone with a gun than with a knife

[Rolling squid]

I find it interesting that many people who use this catchphrase with regard to gun rights nevertheless support government intrusion into marriage, abortion, business, police, fire, et cetera.

Some do, but not all.

Surely we can afford to lose the FDA, the OSHA, the EPA, and all those other government agencies that do nothing except essentially protect people from themselves?

They don't protect people from themselves. The FDA protects consumers by preventing companies from cutting corners when it comes to food/drug production, the OSHA protects workers by preventing companies cutting corners on saftey, and the EPA exists to prevent companies from abusing the environment.

For that matter, why do we need a police force or a fire department to be funded by the government? There's the nanny state mentality again -- oh, let the government catch criminals and save your burning house for you, instead of preparing you for the real world. Why should the government have a say in people's choice to get married? That's nanny state again, trying to legislate morality. Even the military can be seen as something of a "nanny state" idea: people must be incapable of defending themselves if they need the government to successfully repel any invasion force. Why not abolish it and just give everyone a gun?

You keep using the word 'nanny state'. I do not think you know what it means. All states, to some extent provide police, fire, and military protection to its citizens from accidents, criminals, external threats, and the like. That's not a nanny state. A nanny state is a state that tries to legislate 'good' behavior, such as no drugs, wearing seatbelts, eating right, ect.

And yet very few people make these arguments. It's only on guns that they get hung up, reinforcing my belief that most of them are just paranoid.

So basically, where do you believe to be an acceptable point for the nanny state mentality to stop? After all, all government is like that to some degree. What is and isn't acceptable, and why?

I've noticed that most people who oppose gun ownership also favor governments that try to tell them what not to do. They want government out of their private lives, and want to be able to say and do whatever they want, except when it comes to guns. This reinforces my belief that these people are immature.

See why that argument doesn't work?

[Rolling squid]

Because you can't kill someone with a kitchen knife?

surely actually plunging a piece of metal into somebody's body is completely different to standing a dozen paces off and moving your trigger finger a few milimetres


what i mean to say is it strikes me that it would be much easier to 'accidentally' kill someone with a gun than with a knife

Possibly, but how often does that really happen?

[The Sentenial Empire]

I believe that there should be required permits to carry weapons in all states...I am pro gun ownership; yet, in all the events that have happened over the past few decades and all the deaths that have resulted from issues such as domestic violence, school shootings, and domestic and foreign terrorism I wouldn't want the government blindly letting people who frankly would attract more danger by having a gun own firearms. Whilst the people who actually have need to carry fire-arms are refused for some issue because of state law.

[Pedoka]

Gun control seems to be the one debate where no one knows what the hell they are talking about....

I believe that there should be required permits to carry weapons in all states...I am pro gun ownership; yet, in all the events that have happened over the past few decades and all the deaths that have resulted from issues such as domestic violence, school shootings, and domestic and foreign terrorism I wouldn't want the government blindly letting people who frankly would attract more danger by having a gun own firearms. Whilst the people who actually have need to carry fire-arms are refused for some issue because of state law.

Point in case.

[Czardas]

I find it interesting that many people who use this catchphrase with regard to gun rights nevertheless support government intrusion into marriage, abortion, business, police, fire, et cetera.

Some do, but not all.

I know.

Surely we can afford to lose the FDA, the OSHA, the EPA, and all those other government agencies that do nothing except essentially protect people from themselves?

They don't protect people from themselves. The FDA protects consumers by preventing companies from cutting corners when it comes to food/drug production, the OSHA protects workers by preventing companies cutting corners on saftey, and the EPA exists to prevent companies from abusing the environment.

Basically, they all protect people from each other -- but one could argue that gun control laws also only protect people form each other.

For that matter, why do we need a police force or a fire department to be funded by the government? There's the nanny state mentality again -- oh, let the government catch criminals and save your burning house for you, instead of preparing you for the real world. Why should the government have a say in people's choice to get married? That's nanny state again, trying to legislate morality. Even the military can be seen as something of a "nanny state" idea: people must be incapable of defending themselves if they need the government to successfully repel any invasion force. Why not abolish it and just give everyone a gun?

You keep using the word 'nanny state'. I do not think you know what it means. All states, to some extent provide police, fire, and military protection to its citizens from accidents, criminals, external threats, and the like. That's not a nanny state. A nanny state is a state that tries to legislate 'good' behavior, such as no drugs, wearing seatbelts, eating right, ect.

Again, where can the line be drawn between legislating "good behavior" and preventing crime? Is a ban on DUI "nanny state" legislation? A ban on smoking in public? A law preventing convicted criminals from owning firearms?

And yet very few people make these arguments. It's only on guns that they get hung up, reinforcing my belief that most of them are just paranoid.

So basically, where do you believe to be an acceptable point for the nanny state mentality to stop? After all, all government is like that to some degree. What is and isn't acceptable, and why?

I've noticed that most people who oppose gun ownership also favor governments that try to tell them what not to do. They want government out of their private lives, and want to be able to say and do whatever they want, except when it comes to guns. This reinforces my belief that these people are immature.

See why that argument doesn't work?

Indeed -- although at the moment one of the main reasons is because I haven't suggested anywhere that I oppose gun ownership.

[Rolling squid]

Again, where can the line be drawn between legislating "good behavior" and preventing crime? Is a ban on DUI "nanny state" legislation? A ban on smoking in public? A law preventing convicted criminals from owning firearms?

That is a tricky question. I would say that Nanny state laws are laws that create victimless crimes. Substance control laws of any sort can be considered such, DUI laws cannot, because drunk drivers are an actual threat.

[Czardas]

Again, where can the line be drawn between legislating "good behavior" and preventing crime? Is a ban on DUI "nanny state" legislation? A ban on smoking in public? A law preventing convicted criminals from owning firearms?

That is a tricky question. I would say that Nanny state laws are laws that create victimless crimes. Substance control laws of any sort can be considered such, DUI laws cannot, because drunk drivers are an actual threat.

So you would support a ban on public smoking except in designated areas, due to the health problems that can result from inhaling secondhand smoke? (Just to give an obvious example.)

And is a potential threat to others reason enough to ensure a crime is not victimless?

[Rolling squid]

Again, where can the line be drawn between legislating "good behavior" and preventing crime? Is a ban on DUI "nanny state" legislation? A ban on smoking in public? A law preventing convicted criminals from owning firearms?

That is a tricky question. I would say that Nanny state laws are laws that create victimless crimes. Substance control laws of any sort can be considered such, DUI laws cannot, because drunk drivers are an actual threat.

So you would support a ban on public smoking except in designated areas, due to the health problems that can result from inhaling secondhand smoke? (Just to give an obvious example.)

And is a potential threat to others reason enough to ensure a crime is not victimless?

It has to be an obvious threat. For instance, there are numerous studies that show that driving while intoxicated greatly increases your chance of having an accident and/or injuring someone else. This makes public smoking a tricky one. On one hand, studies show that chronic exposure to second hand smoke is harmful, on the other hand, walking down the street smoking a cigarette isn't going to give anyone cancer. I'd say so long as a place is outdoors, you should be able to smoke, and in public areas (areas owned by governments) smoking should be banned. For anything privately owned, it should be up to the individual owner.

[Czardas]

Again, where can the line be drawn between legislating "good behavior" and preventing crime? Is a ban on DUI "nanny state" legislation? A ban on smoking in public? A law preventing convicted criminals from owning firearms?

That is a tricky question. I would say that Nanny state laws are laws that create victimless crimes. Substance control laws of any sort can be considered such, DUI laws cannot, because drunk drivers are an actual threat.

So you would support a ban on public smoking except in designated areas, due to the health problems that can result from inhaling secondhand smoke? (Just to give an obvious example.)

And is a potential threat to others reason enough to ensure a crime is not victimless?

It has to be an obvious threat. For instance, there are numerous studies that show that driving while intoxicated greatly increases your chance of having an accident and/or injuring someone else. This makes public smoking a tricky one. On one hand, studies show that chronic exposure to second hand smoke is harmful, on the other hand, walking down the street smoking a cigarette isn't going to give anyone cancer. I'd say so long as a place is outdoors, you should be able to smoke, and in public areas (areas owned by governments) smoking should be banned. For anything privately owned, it should be up to the individual owner.

Hmm.

So would permitting convicted criminals to carry guns in public be considered an "obvious threat"? Since overwhelming evidence has shown that the vast majority of violent crime is, in fact, committed by criminals.



... Well, you know what I mean.