Gun Control - A Political Thread

[Viinborg]

WEll, one's made with the intention of inflicting bodily harm on others, while the other's a method of transportation that can only harm people if something goes wrong.

Not all guns are made with the intention of inflicting bodily harm, and doing so is not always a bad thing.

Now we are getting somewhere. Some guns are?

[Big Jim P]

Not all guns are made with the intention of inflicting bodily harm, and doing so is not always a bad thing.

Now we are getting somewhere. Some guns are?

Those intended for defensive purposes are.

[Viinborg]

Now we are getting somewhere. Some guns are?

Those intended for defensive purposes are.

Quite so.
Now, are we likely to realise the greatest possible amount of human happiness and well-being by arming the masses?

[Big Jim P]

Those intended for defensive purposes are.

Quite so.
Now, are we likely to realise the greatest possible amount of human happiness and well-being by arming the masses?

As long as there are predators among us, then arming the masses might not make them happy, but it will improve their ability to defend against said predators.

[Spirit of Hope]

Those intended for defensive purposes are.

Quite so.
Now, are we likely to realise the greatest possible amount of human happiness and well-being by arming the masses?

Would you say the masses are generally smart self interested people, who wish to do good (or at least not do evil)? Really this is a rather central question to gun control, do you trust your fellow citizens to act responsibly or not?

If yes the guns should be allowed, reasonable people use guns reasonably.

If no then guns shouldn't be allowed, non reasonable people can be trusted to act reasonably with guns.

If yes and no, then those considered reasonable should get guns and those not considered reasonable shouldn't get them.

[Big Jim P]

Quite so.
Now, are we likely to realise the greatest possible amount of human happiness and well-being by arming the masses?

Would you say the masses are generally smart self interested people, who wish to do good (or at least not do evil)? Really this is a rather central question to gun control, do you trust your fellow citizens to act responsibly or not?

If yes the guns should be allowed, reasonable people use guns reasonably.

If no then guns shouldn't be allowed, non reasonable people can be trusted to act reasonably with guns.

If yes and no, then those considered reasonable should get guns and those not considered reasonable shouldn't get them.

The problem is is that many gun-control freaks consider wanting to own a gun as inherently unreasonable.

[Viinborg]

Would you say the masses are generally smart self interested people, who wish to do good (or at least not do evil)? Really this is a rather central question to gun control, do you trust your fellow citizens to act responsibly or not?

If yes the guns should be allowed, reasonable people use guns reasonably.

If no then guns shouldn't be allowed, non reasonable people can be trusted to act reasonably with guns.

If yes and no, then those considered reasonable should get guns and those not considered reasonable shouldn't get them.

The problem is is that many gun-control freaks consider wanting to own a gun as inherently unreasonable.

Quite so.

Guns save lives. In the sense that if we all have guns, we would all be safe. Such is the conservative logic: if we all have guns, there is less gun violence; along the same lines that if we all have a disease, there is less illness; if we are all right-wing, there are less fascists; if we all own a car, there are less traffic jams.

If you want to save lives, you remove the things that cause deaths, you do not hand everyone a piece of the lethal problem. That is to say, if you are concerned about saving lives, and you find that alpha causes deaths, you do not hand everyone an alpha.

"Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Obviously. If you believe guns kill people out of their own volition you should see a specialist in mental health. People kill people. There’s the clue. It turns out to be quite obvious that people can’t be trusted with those instruments – so why are firearms still legal? How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?" - Unknown Source

If you feel like you want to own a gun because you tend to feel safer, freer, less insecure, or just good in general, just say so, but do not pretend it has any beneficial use in civilised society.

If you need a gun to feel safe, you might just not live in the safest society in the world.
If you need a gun to feel free, you might just not be the most independent person in the world.
If you need a gun to feel less insecure, you might just not have the strongest personality in the world.
If you need a gun to feel good, you might just not be the happiest person in the world.
If you need a gun to constantly re-establish your freedom, you either have very bad neighbours, or you might just not live in the most libertarian society in the world.

"People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns, too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld

[Big Jim P]

The problem is is that many gun-control freaks consider wanting to own a gun as inherently unreasonable.

Quite so.
{snip}

However that is untrue. Wanting to own a gun is reasonable, as doing so provides a variety of benefits.

[Viinborg]

Quite so.
{snip}

However that is untrue. Wanting to own a gun is reasonable, as doing so provides a variety of benefits.

You tend to feel safer, freer, less insecure, or just better in general?

[Big Jim P]

However that is untrue. Wanting to own a gun is reasonable, as doing so provides a variety of benefits.

You tend to feel safer, freer, less insecure, or just better in general?

Well, let's see, I am safe, secure and free, I can defend this condition, so yes, I do feel better. I also have the added benefit of the various recreational uses of firearms.

[Farnhamia]

The problem is is that many gun-control freaks consider wanting to own a gun as inherently unreasonable.

Quite so.

Guns save lives. In the sense that if we all have guns, we would all be safe. Such is the conservative logic: if we all have guns, there is less gun violence; along the same lines that if we all have a disease, there is less illness; if we are all right-wing, there are less fascists; if we all own a car, there are less traffic jams.

If you want to save lives, you remove the things that cause deaths, you do not hand everyone a piece of the lethal problem. That is to say, if you are concerned about saving lives, and you find that alpha causes deaths, you do not hand everyone an alpha.

"Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Obviously. If you believe guns kill people out of their own volition you should see a specialist in mental health. People kill people. There’s the clue. It turns out to be quite obvious that people can’t be trusted with those instruments – so why are firearms still legal? How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?" - Unknown Source

If you feel like you want to own a gun because you tend to feel safer, freer, less insecure, or just good in general, just say so, but do not pretend it has any beneficial use in civilised society.

If you need a gun to feel safe, you might just not live in the safest society in the world.
If you need a gun to feel free, you might just not be the most independent person in the world.
If you need a gun to feel less insecure, you might just not have the strongest personality in the world.
If you need a gun to feel good, you might just not be the happiest person in the world.
If you need a gun to constantly re-establish your freedom, you either have very bad neighbours, or you might just not live in the most libertarian society in the world.

"People with guns don't understand. That's why they get guns, too many misunderstandings." - Jerry Seinfeld

I actually want to own a gun because I like to shoot, and hunt. That is the primary reason I want a gun, and honestly the primary reason most gun owners want a gun.

I mean a gun would make me feel safer, the same way a parachute would on a plane, or a life jacket on a cruise ship. 99% (Probably higher) of the time I'm not going to nee it, but when I need it I am really going to be glad to have it.

Now how many people are killed by things other than guns.
Driving Accidents: 32,367 (2011) of which ~10,322 died due to drunk driving.
Drug Overdose: 38,329 (2010) (78% unintentional)
Guns: 32,163 (of which 2/3 are suicides)

Mod edit: Took out the blocktext tags to fix the page.

[Viinborg]

Quite so.

I mean a gun would make me feel safer, the same way a parachute would on a plane, or a life jacket on a cruise ship. 99% (Probably higher) of the time I'm not going to nee it, but when I need it I am really going to be glad to have it.

I like your metaphor. I would like to live in a society in which the 1% of that "need" is eradicated. Now, realistically speaking, that may well prove to be impossible; but what do you want to do, hand everyone life jackets or try to make sure the ship does not sink?

[Spirit of Hope]

I mean a gun would make me feel safer, the same way a parachute would on a plane, or a life jacket on a cruise ship. 99% (Probably higher) of the time I'm not going to nee it, but when I need it I am really going to be glad to have it.

I like your metaphor. I would like to live in a society in which the 1% of that "need" is eradicated. Now, realistically speaking, that may well prove to be impossible; but what do you want to do, hand everyone life jackets or try to make sure the ship does not sink?

Try and make sure the ship doesn't sink, by making sure this ship is strong and can get through the weather with good leadership. Not by taking away my life jacket.

By this I mean target the underlying problem of most gun violence, poverty. This can be done in a verity of ways, I prefer better education personally.

[Viinborg]

I like your metaphor. I would like to live in a society in which the 1% of that "need" is eradicated. Now, realistically speaking, that may well prove to be impossible; but what do you want to do, hand everyone life jackets or try to make sure the ship does not sink?

By this I mean target the underlying problem of most gun violence, poverty. This can be done in a verity of ways, I prefer better education personally.

Very good point. I agree.
Although, I would also argue that the culture of guns is also to blame for the use of guns to a certain extent; the glorification of arms and the uneducated perception that weapons are the upholders of the fundamental principles of civilised society is not only uninformed rubbish, it is quite a dangerous misconception as well.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Well some gun control advocates have proposed and even tried to mandate inspections of gun owners jones to ensure they are safely and responsibly storing their weapons. Heck in Japan I believe there's a yearly inspection in which all weapons must be shown to be properly secured and stored unloaded and every single round must be accounted for ( of course that's if you can even get a permit for a gun which is nearly impossible).

Gun-control freaks will not be satisfied with anything less than full prohibition. That is why they keep demanding more every time gun-owners give up anything in the spirit of (one-sided) "compromise".

I say that the next time that gun control advocates want us to compromise, we ask for the Hughes Amendment to FOPA to be repealed in exchange.

That would be true compromise, both sides giving up something to obtain a goal.

[Big Jim P]

I mean a gun would make me feel safer, the same way a parachute would on a plane, or a life jacket on a cruise ship. 99% (Probably higher) of the time I'm not going to nee it, but when I need it I am really going to be glad to have it.

I like your metaphor. I would like to live in a society in which the 1% of that "need" is eradicated. Now, realistically speaking, that may well prove to be impossible; but what do you want to do, hand everyone life jackets or try to make sure the ship does not sink?

How are you going to eliminate the predatory instinct in humanity? As long as there are those who prey on the innocent, then there is a need for the innocent to arm themselves in defense.

[Big Jim P]

Gun-control freaks will not be satisfied with anything less than full prohibition. That is why they keep demanding more every time gun-owners give up anything in the spirit of (one-sided) "compromise".

I say that the next time that gun control advocates want us to compromise, we ask for the Hughes Amendment to FOPA to be repealed in exchange.

That would be true compromise, both sides giving up something to obtain a goal.

Want to force us to carry licenses? fine. So long as that license also functions as a national CCW/Open carry permit, covers the need for point-of-purchase background checks, and the training for said license is made available in school (and out side of school for those of us long past our school years), at no more than cost.

If the gun-control freaks agree, then we use their own tactics against them and push for it to cover class 3 items as well.

[Big Jim P]

By this I mean target the underlying problem of most gun violence, poverty. This can be done in a verity of ways, I prefer better education personally.

Very good point. I agree.
Although, I would also argue that the culture of guns is also to blame for the use of guns to a certain extent; the glorification of arms and the uneducated perception that weapons are the upholders of the fundamental principles of civilised society is not only uninformed rubbish, it is quite a dangerous misconception as well.

Which culture of guns? The criminal, gansta culture that the media glorifies, or the responsible gun owners culture that everyone ignores (even though it vastly outnumbers the former)?

[Viinborg]

I like your metaphor. I would like to live in a society in which the 1% of that "need" is eradicated. Now, realistically speaking, that may well prove to be impossible; but what do you want to do, hand everyone life jackets or try to make sure the ship does not sink?

How are you going to eliminate the predatory instinct in humanity? As long as there are those who prey on the innocent, then there is a need for the innocent to arm themselves in defense.

You are not. At least, it's not likely. I guess the rhetorical point I would make is "Do you take arms off the streets? Or do you arm every person on that street?"

Very good point. I agree.
Although, I would also argue that the culture of guns is also to blame for the use of guns to a certain extent; the glorification of arms and the uneducated perception that weapons are the upholders of the fundamental principles of civilised society is not only uninformed rubbish, it is quite a dangerous misconception as well.

Which culture of guns? The criminal, gansta culture that the media glorifies, or the responsible gun owners culture that everyone ignores (even though it vastly outnumbers the former)?

Is there no such thing as a gun lobby promoting the use of guns?

[Big Jim P]

How are you going to eliminate the predatory instinct in humanity? As long as there are those who prey on the innocent, then there is a need for the innocent to arm themselves in defense.

You are not. At least, it's not likely. I guess the rhetorical point I would make is "Do you take arms off the streets? Or do you arm every person on that street?"

Which culture of guns? The criminal, gansta culture that the media glorifies, or the responsible gun owners culture that everyone ignores (even though it vastly outnumbers the former)?

Is there no such thing as a gun lobby promoting the use of guns?

The responsible, legal use, yes. the only people who are supporting criminals are those who want to take away the rights of the innocent to defend themselves. AKA gun-control freaks.

[Viinborg]

You are not. At least, it's not likely. I guess the rhetorical point I would make is "Do you take arms off the streets? Or do you arm every person on that street?"

Is there no such thing as a gun lobby promoting the use of guns?

The responsible, legal use, yes. the only people who are supporting criminals are those who want to take away the rights of the innocent to defend themselves. AKA gun-control freaks.

Am I supporting criminals when I say:

Guns save lives. In the sense that if we all have guns, we would all be safe. Such is the conservative logic: if we all have guns, there is less gun violence; along the same lines that if we all have a disease, there is less illness; if we are all right-wing, there are less fascists; if we all own a car, there are less traffic jams.

If you want to save lives, you remove the things that cause deaths, you do not hand everyone a piece of the lethal problem. That is to say, if you are concerned about saving lives, and you find that alpha causes deaths, you do not hand everyone an alpha.

"Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Obviously. If you believe guns kill people out of their own volition you should see a specialist in mental health. People kill people. There’s the clue. It turns out to be quite obvious that people can’t be trusted with those instruments – so why are firearms still legal? How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?" - Unknown Source

[Big Jim P]

The responsible, legal use, yes. the only people who are supporting criminals are those who want to take away the rights of the innocent to defend themselves. AKA gun-control freaks.

Am I supporting criminals when I say:

Guns save lives. In the sense that if we all have guns, we would all be safe. Such is the conservative logic: if we all have guns, there is less gun violence; along the same lines that if we all have a disease, there is less illness; if we are all right-wing, there are less fascists; if we all own a car, there are less traffic jams.

If you want to save lives, you remove the things that cause deaths, you do not hand everyone a piece of the lethal problem. That is to say, if you are concerned about saving lives, and you find that alpha causes deaths, you do not hand everyone an alpha.

By wanting to disarm the innocent, yes you are.

[Viinborg]

Am I supporting criminals when I say:

By wanting to disarm the innocent, yes you are.

I would like to live in a world in which there are no guns on the streets. Now, you might think that is a crime because of some selfish, uninformed and petty hang-up, but I for one refuse to be called accessory to a criminal act.

Answer this question for a change: How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?

[Big Jim P]

By wanting to disarm the innocent, yes you are.

I would like to live in a world in which there are no guns on the streets. Now, you might think that is a crime because of some selfish, uninformed and petty hang-up, but I for one refuse to be called accessory to a criminal act.

Answer this question for a change: How many children a year are killed by their father’s stash of arsenic or stick of gelignite?

How many times are guns used to defend the innocent? Guns on the street are not a problem in law-abiding hands.

Nice strawman by the way.

[Paddy O Fernature]

By wanting to disarm the innocent, yes you are.

I would like to live in a world in which there are no guns on the streets. Now, you might think that is a crime because of some selfish, uninformed and petty hang-up, but I for one refuse to be called accessory to a criminal act.

And I would like to live in a world, where criminals didn't exist, society took care of it's own, and proper healthcare was truly affordable for all. However, I'm not going to hold my breath in the meantime...

Also, calling BJP "uninformed" is absolutely laughable at best. Just thought I'd point that error out to you, and fix your uninformed comment.