Gun Control: Your Opinion

[The Adrian Empire]

And if they ban knives?

Have they?

(Whoever the 'they' is).

Are they not doing so in Britain? Trying to make all knives remove the sharp stabby bits to ensure safety due to rising knife crime

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

No.

Yes.

And, like I said, take your Bluth-esque meanderings elsewhere. I'm not following your hijack.

Stating basic economic facts =/= obsession with unregulated free market capitalism.

[Grave_n_idle]

And if they ban knives?

Have they?

(Whoever the 'they' is).

Are they not doing so in Britain? Trying to make all knives remove the sharp stabby bits to ensure safety due to rising knife crime

Unless the girl shooting the guy in the neck, was in England (which seems unlikely, since she had a gun), then what has been done, or is being done, in England is irrelevant, isn't it?

[The Parkus Empire]

Are they not doing so in Britain? Trying to make all knives remove the sharp stabby bits to ensure safety due to rising knife crime

Yes, some extremely expensive stab-proof knives have been invented after some doctors advised banning regular knives. No official law yet, though, but I don't see how the knives will sell unless they are mandatory.

[Grave_n_idle]

No.

Yes.

You asked. I answered.

If you're going to post what you wanted me to say, anyway, then you can save yourself from wasting the time of asking me in the first place.

[The Adrian Empire]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_police_response_time

Eight minutes, well that's better then my time, hmm, I'll try to find my source again, still going to leave you down and dying without a wallet, but at least they might arrive in time to still be able to look for the murderer.... heck, if you're lucky you'll still be alive, wallet-less and in excruciating pain but alive...

[Grave_n_idle]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_police_response_time

Eight minutes, well that's better then my time, hmm, I'll try to find my source again, still going to leave you down and dying without a wallet, but at least they might arrive in time to still be able to look for the murderer.... heck, if you're lucky you'll still be alive, wallet-less and in excruciating pain but alive...

So, what you're really arguing for, is watchtowers.

[The Adrian Empire]

And if they ban knives?

Have they?

(Whoever the 'they' is).

Are they not doing so in Britain? Trying to make all knives remove the sharp stabby bits to ensure safety due to rising knife crime

Unless the girl shooting the guy in the neck, was in England (which seems unlikely, since she had a gun), then what has been done, or is being done, in England is irrelevant, isn't it?

Just providing an example of a place where they have begun to phase out knives. Not ban them but...

Sorry it was a subject jump

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You asked. I answered.

You may have answered. I didn't ask.

You necessarily place a finite value on your life. If you did not, you would forgo any activity that did not lead to increasing your lifespan, because a finite opportunity cost is less than an infinite opportunity cost.

[The Adrian Empire]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_police_response_time

Eight minutes, well that's better then my time, hmm, I'll try to find my source again, still going to leave you down and dying without a wallet, but at least they might arrive in time to still be able to look for the murderer.... heck, if you're lucky you'll still be alive, wallet-less and in excruciating pain but alive...

So, what you're really arguing for, is watchtowers.

No,I'm arguing for concealed carry and guns for law-abiding citizens, I don't think watch towers will be effective at all, and the financial aspect is impossible.

[Grave_n_idle]

And if they ban knives?

Have they?

(Whoever the 'they' is).

Are they not doing so in Britain? Trying to make all knives remove the sharp stabby bits to ensure safety due to rising knife crime

Unless the girl shooting the guy in the neck, was in England (which seems unlikely, since she had a gun), then what has been done, or is being done, in England is irrelevant, isn't it?

Just providing an example of a place where they have begun to phase out knives. Not ban them but...

Sorry it was a subject jump

I see how it connects - but I don't see how it affects the story. The discussion is about guns - so we have two situations - with, or without, guns. Without guns, the story (as told) would work just as well with a knife.

So - jumping to England's law on knives... I can see the tenuous connection, but not how it applies in this case.

[The Parkus Empire]

Eight minutes, well that's better then my time, hmm, I'll try to find my source again, still going to leave you down and dying without a wallet, but at least they might arrive in time to still be able to look for the murderer.... heck, if you're lucky you'll still be alive, wallet-less and in excruciating pain but alive...

Cops can't really help unless they arrive during the crime. Their chance of catching such a criminal is extremely unlikely. How will they recognize the criminal in a crowded city (where muggings tend to occur) when he could just hide in an alley?

Unless a known felon lives nearby who matches a description better than: "Tall black man in jeans and black shirt", there really is not much the cops can do to find the guy, let alone get enough evidence to convict.

How many people do you know who were robbed (I know a few), reported it to the police, and later heard of their assailants arrest?

[Grave_n_idle]

You asked. I answered.

You may have answered. I didn't ask.

I was being polite.

To be more accurate, you have quite deliberately misrepresented me, for your own ends, twice.

[Grave_n_idle]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_police_response_time

Eight minutes, well that's better then my time, hmm, I'll try to find my source again, still going to leave you down and dying without a wallet, but at least they might arrive in time to still be able to look for the murderer.... heck, if you're lucky you'll still be alive, wallet-less and in excruciating pain but alive...

So, what you're really arguing for, is watchtowers.

No,I'm arguing for concealed carry and guns for law-abiding citizens, I don't think watch towers will be effective at all, and the financial aspect is impossible.

Why wouldn't watchtowers be effective... and why would they be impossible?

It's hardly a new idea I just made up.

[The Parkus Empire]

Why wouldn't watchtowers be effective...

They didn't really seem to help much way back when.

[Omnicracy]

Because, at the end of the day, it is they who make the laws. If a governemnt were to succumb to Nazi preasures in a similar way, I would still revolt. Also, although I currently do not drink and do not plan on it, I possibly would have had I been alive during prohibition. I would have at least tried to help with an underground bar if an oportunity presented itself.

The point wasn't about whether you drink or not - it was about the government introducing a Constitutional amendment that 'removed rights'. It's a parallel. If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is revoked, the pressure will come from the voters. The government isn't going to just turn around and 'ban' guns - they can't.

Well, techniclay they could, but you missed my point. Just because it is democratic and caused by preasure from civilians does not make it good or would not mean I follow it. democracy =/= inherant good

No - but I think we are getting closer to what I actually wanted to know - your justification for owning guns ISN'T that the Constitution says you have that right - because you wouldn't respect an Amendment that changed it.

That's kind of what I wanted to know - whether the Constitution mattered - or whether it's just a means to an end - where that end is having guns.

Given that you don't care about the Constitution, OR about democracy... why do you think other people should let you have guns? You seem to be making the kind of arguments that would PROMPT people to overturn the Second Amendment. You're a loose cannon.

1) I have said time and time again that the rights are what matter. How did you not get that I would fight for rights over a document intended to govern a nation? Government exists to protect rights. One should never support a government or system over liberty.

2) I have no idea what that even means, but I asume you misunderstod something at a basic level of my argument.

3) I care about the Constitution, but not because it is the Constitution. I care about it because it is a well-writen functional system of government that secures liberty. The fact that I would fight for liberty is an argument for people removeing my ability to fight for liberty in your mind? How the hell does that work?

[Omnicracy]

1) No. I said a crime for morals was differant than a crime for personal gain.

Right. Being shot in the face for morals is okay. Being shot in the face for personal gain isn't.

Oh... no, actually. Turns out being shot in the face is just the same, either way. Apparently, crime is crime.

Who knew?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

[Omnicracy]

1) No. I said a crime for morals was differant than a crime for personal gain.

Right. Being shot in the face for morals is okay. Being shot in the face for personal gain isn't.

Oh... no, actually. Turns out being shot in the face is just the same, either way. Apparently, crime is crime.

Who knew?

Also, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was people acting due to morals will act differantly than people acting for personal gain. People are more likely to risk their lives for morals than personal gain, not so?

[Grave_n_idle]

Why wouldn't watchtowers be effective...

They didn't really seem to help much way back when.

'Way back when'? Don't the militaries still use the basic 'sentry' concept to some sucess?

(Not infallible of course - looking back at recent history).

[Omnicracy]

It does not say, "the right of the aformentioned well regulated militia." It says, "The right of the people." How can I make that any clearer?

The whole second part of the amendment is prefaced by an obviously intrinsic contingency.

How can I make that any clearer?

Its why the right is given to the people. A right given to the people for any reason is still given to the people. Also, could you not cut up the arguments so much? You eventulay take them quite far away what they start as.

[The Parkus Empire]

'Way back when'? Don't the militaries still use the basic 'sentry' concept to some sucess?

I practiced being one in training, and I, along with pretty much all the other tower guards, got killed anytime an enemy was simulated.

[Grave_n_idle]

Because, at the end of the day, it is they who make the laws. If a governemnt were to succumb to Nazi preasures in a similar way, I would still revolt. Also, although I currently do not drink and do not plan on it, I possibly would have had I been alive during prohibition. I would have at least tried to help with an underground bar if an oportunity presented itself.

The point wasn't about whether you drink or not - it was about the government introducing a Constitutional amendment that 'removed rights'. It's a parallel. If the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is revoked, the pressure will come from the voters. The government isn't going to just turn around and 'ban' guns - they can't.

Well, techniclay they could, but you missed my point. Just because it is democratic and caused by preasure from civilians does not make it good or would not mean I follow it. democracy =/= inherant good

No - but I think we are getting closer to what I actually wanted to know - your justification for owning guns ISN'T that the Constitution says you have that right - because you wouldn't respect an Amendment that changed it.

That's kind of what I wanted to know - whether the Constitution mattered - or whether it's just a means to an end - where that end is having guns.

Given that you don't care about the Constitution, OR about democracy... why do you think other people should let you have guns? You seem to be making the kind of arguments that would PROMPT people to overturn the Second Amendment. You're a loose cannon.

1) I have said time and time again that the rights are what matter. How did you not get that I would fight for rights over a document intended to govern a nation? Government exists to protect rights. One should never support a government or system over liberty.

2) I have no idea what that even means, but I asume you misunderstod something at a basic level of my argument.

3) I care about the Constitution, but not because it is the Constitution. I care about it because it is a well-writen functional system of government that secures liberty. The fact that I would fight for liberty is an argument for people removeing my ability to fight for liberty in your mind? How the hell does that work?

1) I'm used to seeing people argue that the Second Amendment is important. Your 'it's irrelevant' position is new to me - I apologise if that's causing me gear-change problems.

2) As above - you don't care about the Constitutional argument, that's what I neded to know.

3) The fact that you would oppose the Constitution, and fight against the majority in your democracy if they didn't agree with you - THAT is the argument for removing your ability to fight. You're going to be considered too dangerous by a lot of people, sicne you're not feeling bound to the laws or to democracy.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) No. I said a crime for morals was differant than a crime for personal gain.

Right. Being shot in the face for morals is okay. Being shot in the face for personal gain isn't.

Oh... no, actually. Turns out being shot in the face is just the same, either way. Apparently, crime is crime.

Who knew?

So shooting someone in the face because they are trying to rape a little girl is the same as shooting someone in the face to steal their wallet then?

Face goes splat in both cases?

There's a certain degree of similarity, yes.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) No. I said a crime for morals was differant than a crime for personal gain.

Right. Being shot in the face for morals is okay. Being shot in the face for personal gain isn't.

Oh... no, actually. Turns out being shot in the face is just the same, either way. Apparently, crime is crime.

Who knew?

Also, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was people acting due to morals will act differantly than people acting for personal gain. People are more likely to risk their lives for morals than personal gain, not so?

Are they?

I've not seen a lot of fighting for morals in recent history, but I've watched the success of Blackwater prove that people will fight for personal gain. Literally.

[Grave_n_idle]

It does not say, "the right of the aformentioned well regulated militia." It says, "The right of the people." How can I make that any clearer?

The whole second part of the amendment is prefaced by an obviously intrinsic contingency.

How can I make that any clearer?

Its why the right is given to the people. A right given to the people for any reason is still given to the people.

Underlined! It MUST be true!

Of course, the converse is - a right that is contingent, is still contingent, no matter what group.