Virginia declares emergency Militias threaten to seize Gov.

[Nocturnes rest]

No one is arguing for removal, just restriction.

Also, answer me this: is your absolutely unrestricted right to bear arms more important than protecting people right to avoid being murdered by abusive loved ones? I'm focusing on one aspect right now.

You are arguing for removal though. Removing the rights of others without due process because of what they might do.

How would restricting my right to defend myself help abuse victims that are living with their abuser? Wouldn’t it be more effective to separate them and put the abuser on trial?

Because it's not always that simple.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=235

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... rs-go-jail

Plus what do you do when they get out of prison? I'm sure a lot of them are rather pissed at the people who put them there

[Bombadil]

The difference between cars, knives or guns is that only one is specifically designed solely to kill. Cars and knives have plenty of other useful purposes asides from mowing down your neighbour, regardless of their also being useful in that regard.

Yes they are also designed to kill the people who would mow down your neighbor.

You simply ask everyone to disarm themselves and stand around with making finger guns while they're being mowed down.

Because like said before, evil people don't follow rules.

They seem to, in places with less guns fewer 'evil people' resort to shooting, or even carrying arms because they don't expect to come up against other armed people. Arming everyone only ensures more people will be shot because 'evil people' are going to exist and do what they do regardless, they're not exactly operating on logic.

Your poor aim doesn't obviate the point.

You didn't have a point, you had a false assertion.

Not at all, the designing of a gun is to optimise its ability to kill, not to open a cardboard box as I see someone facetiously writing.

[Ors Might]

You are arguing for removal though. Removing the rights of others without due process because of what they might do.

How would restricting my right to defend myself help abuse victims that are living with their abuser? Wouldn’t it be more effective to separate them and put the abuser on trial?

Because it's not always that simple.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=235

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... rs-go-jail

Plus what do you do when they get out of prison? I'm sure a lot of them are rather pissed at the people who put them there

Ah, so we should remove rights in spite of due process? Do you understand the god awful precedent that would set? How quickly do you see that being abused?

I don’t believe in continuing to punish people after they’ve served their time.

[Ors Might]

Yes they are also designed to kill the people who would mow down your neighbor.

You simply ask everyone to disarm themselves and stand around with making finger guns while they're being mowed down.

Because like said before, evil people don't follow rules.

They seem to, in places with less guns fewer 'evil people' resort to shooting, or even carrying arms because they don't expect to come up against other armed people. Arming everyone only ensures more people will be shot because 'evil people' are going to exist and do what they do regardless, they're not exactly operating on logic.

You didn't have a point, you had a false assertion.

Not at all, the designing of a gun is to optimise its ability to kill, not to open a cardboard box as I see someone facetiously writing.

The designing of a gun is to optimize it’s ability to propel small objects in a straight-ish line. Much like how the designing of a knife is to optimize it’s ability to cut or a car it’s ability to move from point A to point B.

[Neu California]

Because it's not always that simple.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=235

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... rs-go-jail

Plus what do you do when they get out of prison? I'm sure a lot of them are rather pissed at the people who put them there

Ah, so we should remove rights in spite of due process? Do you understand the god awful precedent that would set? How quickly do you see that being abused?

I don’t believe in continuing to punish people after they’ve served their time.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

And I personally believe that if you committed a violent felony or are enough of a danger to convince a judge that you need to stay away from someone, you shouldn't have a gun.

[Albrenia]

With some exceptions (dart guns, fish cannons, and so on) it's not unreasonable to claim that guns are designed to shoot stuff with the purpose of killing it.

Not that it really means much to the conversation, but I'm just sayin'.

[The Lone Alliance]

They seem to, in places with less guns fewer 'evil people' resort to shooting, or even carrying arms because they don't expect to come up against other armed people. Arming everyone only ensures more people will be shot because 'evil people' are going to exist and do what they do regardless, they're not exactly operating on logic.

Yeah imagine how much better that Church shooting would have been if we had simply disarmed everyone in the building.

That would have fixed all the problems.

And if evil people are always going to exist we might as well arrest everyone because in the process we'll arrest the evil people.

It's the only way to be sure.

We must punish everyone for the actions of evil people.

[Ors Might]

Ah, so we should remove rights in spite of due process? Do you understand the god awful precedent that would set? How quickly do you see that being abused?

I don’t believe in continuing to punish people after they’ve served their time.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

And I personally believe that if you committed a violent felony or are enough of a danger to convince a judge that you need to stay away from someone, you shouldn't have a gun.

Not a slippery slope to question how we’d prevent abuses of a very flawed system but go off.

Great, establish such in a fair trial. And no, having committed a crime in the past doesn’t count unless you’re also a believer in extra-judicial punishments.

[Neu California]

They seem to, in places with less guns fewer 'evil people' resort to shooting, or even carrying arms because they don't expect to come up against other armed people. Arming everyone only ensures more people will be shot because 'evil people' are going to exist and do what they do regardless, they're not exactly operating on logic.

Yeah imagine how much better that Church shooting would have been if we had simply disarmed everyone in the building.

That would have fixed all the problems.

Yes, how much better it would have been if the guy trying to shoot up the church didn't have access to a gun

[Ors Might]

With some exceptions (dart guns, fish cannons, and so on) it's not unreasonable to claim that guns are designed to shoot stuff with the purpose of killing it.

Not that it really means much to the conversation, but I'm just sayin'.

Not really. You’re mixing design with potential purpose. Is the design of a firearm faulty if it only shoots holes into paper targets? Is a car malfunctioning if it runs someone over?

[The Lone Alliance]

Yeah imagine how much better that Church shooting would have been if we had simply disarmed everyone in the building.

That would have fixed all the problems.

Yes, how much better it would have been if the guy trying to shoot up the church didn't have access to a gun

He's already planning on killing people, he would be fine with killing someone to get access to a gun.

Again let's punish the innocent in the off chance it gets the guilty.

That's gun control in a nutshell.

[Neu California]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

And I personally believe that if you committed a violent felony or are enough of a danger to convince a judge that you need to stay away from someone, you shouldn't have a gun.

Not a slippery slope to question how we’d prevent abuses of a very flawed system but go off.

Great, establish such in a fair trial. And no, having committed a crime in the past doesn’t count unless you’re also a believer in extra-judicial punishments.

It is possible to carve out a narrow exception, you realize

Also, On the second point, you're gonna have to convince scotus

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

I'm just operating on the idea that scotus got it right. So show that it results in better outcomes allowing felons and the like to have access to guns on some grounds other than "muh rights"

[Bombadil]

With some exceptions (dart guns, fish cannons, and so on) it's not unreasonable to claim that guns are designed to shoot stuff with the purpose of killing it.

Not that it really means much to the conversation, but I'm just sayin'.

Not really. You’re mixing design with potential purpose. Is the design of a firearm faulty if it only shoots holes into paper targets? Is a car malfunctioning if it runs someone over?

If the only reason for owning a gun was recreational then no one would be bothered about regulation. It's really facetious to suggest the point of guns is anything other than the ability to kill.

Anyway, it's a dead end argument given minds won't be changed here.

[Neu California]

Yes, how much better it would have been if the guy trying to shoot up the church didn't have access to a gun

He's already planning on killing people, he would be fine with killing someone to get access to a gun.

Again let's punish the innocent in the off chance it gets the guilty.

That's gun control in a nutshell.

No, that's gun control in a strawman.

Gun control in a nutshell is make it harder for dangerous people to get guns and kill people.with them

Plus I'd love to see him kill someone who has a gun without a gun of his own then get away without a manhunt

[Ors Might]

Not a slippery slope to question how we’d prevent abuses of a very flawed system but go off.

Great, establish such in a fair trial. And no, having committed a crime in the past doesn’t count unless you’re also a believer in extra-judicial punishments.

It is possible to carve out a narrow exception, you realize

Also, On the second point, you're gonna have to convince scotus

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

I'm just operating on the idea that scotus got it right. So show that it results in better outcomes allowing felons and the like to have access to guns on some grounds other than "muh rights"

Forgive me if I’m not reassured by such promises.

Considering that the bolded would also see me made defenseless, I don’t much value the ruling. As for my counter-argument, well, I consider my life worth defending with instruments more effective than pepper spray or tasers.

[USS Monitor]

I have a dream that one day on the blue hills of Virginia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down with their guns at the table of brother...

That would be nice, living in a world where racism and gun violence are solved enough so people see a black guy with a gun and they think he's just enjoying his 2nd amendment rights.

[Ors Might]

Not really. You’re mixing design with potential purpose. Is the design of a firearm faulty if it only shoots holes into paper targets? Is a car malfunctioning if it runs someone over?

If the only reason for owning a gun was recreational then no one would be bothered about regulation. It's really facetious to suggest the point of guns is anything other than the ability to kill.

Anyway, it's a dead end argument given minds won't be changed here.

I disagree. I want a firearm primarily for self-defense. Ideally the mere drawing of the firearm would dissuade further conflict. Hence, the point of that gun would not be to kill.

[The Lone Alliance]

No, that's gun control in a strawman.

Gun control in a nutshell is make it harder for dangerous people to get guns and kill people.with them

Plus I'd love to see him kill someone who has a gun without a gun of his own then get away without a manhunt

No it collectively makes it harder for anyone to get guns in the hope that some of those people are dangerous.

Because a lot of dangerous people are perfectly normal people until they decide to be dangerous.


Speaking of I have the perfect idea to stop rape.

We simply arrest anyone who approaches someone's personal space.
Sure you might be saying hi to someone but you also might be planning to grab and rape that person so we'll just arrest everyone on the safe side.

You don't NEED to talk to other people, it's not a right.... you can talk to people from a 15 foot distance, we'll call it "Personal space control".

If you want to touch a person you'll need to fill out and get a license and have a background check to make sure you aren't a sex offender.

[Telconi]

With some exceptions (dart guns, fish cannons, and so on) it's not unreasonable to claim that guns are designed to shoot stuff with the purpose of killing it.

Not that it really means much to the conversation, but I'm just sayin'.

Sure it is, "Guns" cover a massive breadth of devices, I own a gun designed for and optimized for hitting paper targets, specifically. I have a gun designed for and optimized for teaching children shooting skills, I have a gun designed for and optimized for teaching people how a gun works, in fact, that last one is wholly incapable of harming anyone, well, as a gun, I suppose if you threw it at someone hard enough it could harm.

[Neu California]

It is possible to carve out a narrow exception, you realize

Also, On the second point, you're gonna have to convince scotus



I'm just operating on the idea that scotus got it right. So show that it results in better outcomes allowing felons and the like to have access to guns on some grounds other than "muh rights"

Forgive me if I’m not reassured by such promises.

Considering that the bolded would also see me made defenseless, I don’t much value the ruling. As for my counter-argument, well, I consider my life worth defending with instruments more effective than pepper spray or tasers.

And I consider my life and he lives of those that I love worth more than people's right to walk out of prison and buy a gun no questions asked.

I harp on the domestic violence thing because a family friend was stalked and threatened by her abuser and I learned just how scary that can be

[Neu California]

No, that's gun control in a strawman.

Gun control in a nutshell is make it harder for dangerous people to get guns and kill people.with them

Plus I'd love to see him kill someone who has a gun without a gun of his own then get away without a manhunt

No it collectively makes it harder for anyone to get guns in the hope that some of those people are dangerous.

Because a lot of dangerous people are perfectly normal people until they decide to be dangerous.


Speaking of I have the perfect idea to stop rape.

We simply arrest anyone who approaches someone's personal space.
Sure you might be saying hi to someone but you also might be planning to grab and rape that person so we'll just arrest everyone on the safe side.

You don't NEED to talk to other people, it's not a right.... you can talk to people from a 15 foot distance, we'll call it "Personal space control".

If you want to touch a person you'll need to fill out and get a license and have a background check to make sure you aren't a sex offender.

Okay, prove that that's what gun control is for in its entirety. With sources. Lots of non-right wing sources.

Also, your reduction as absurdum is just stupid. Stupid enough that I refuse to dignify it with a response

[Telconi]

No it collectively makes it harder for anyone to get guns in the hope that some of those people are dangerous.

Because a lot of dangerous people are perfectly normal people until they decide to be dangerous.


Speaking of I have the perfect idea to stop rape.

We simply arrest anyone who approaches someone's personal space.
Sure you might be saying hi to someone but you also might be planning to grab and rape that person so we'll just arrest everyone on the safe side.

You don't NEED to talk to other people, it's not a right.... you can talk to people from a 15 foot distance, we'll call it "Personal space control".

If you want to touch a person you'll need to fill out and get a license and have a background check to make sure you aren't a sex offender.

Okay, prove that that's what gun control is for in its entirety. With sources. Lots of non-right wing sources.

Also, your reduction as absurdum is just stupid. Stupid enough that I refuse to dignify it with a response

Yes, demand proof for that which you cannot prove. Surely you've won now!

[Albrenia]

With some exceptions (dart guns, fish cannons, and so on) it's not unreasonable to claim that guns are designed to shoot stuff with the purpose of killing it.

Not that it really means much to the conversation, but I'm just sayin'.

Sure it is, "Guns" cover a massive breadth of devices, I own a gun designed for and optimized for hitting paper targets, specifically. I have a gun designed for and optimized for teaching children shooting skills, I have a gun designed for and optimized for teaching people how a gun works, in fact, that last one is wholly incapable of harming anyone, well, as a gun, I suppose if you threw it at someone hard enough it could harm.

Fair point. I'd include most of those as the exceptions I mentioned, but it is a fair point nonetheless.

[Ors Might]

Forgive me if I’m not reassured by such promises.

Considering that the bolded would also see me made defenseless, I don’t much value the ruling. As for my counter-argument, well, I consider my life worth defending with instruments more effective than pepper spray or tasers.

And I consider my life and he lives of those that I love worth more than people's right to walk out of prison and buy a gun no questions asked.

I harp on the domestic violence thing because a family friend was stalked and threatened by her abuser and I learned just how scary that can be

I’m genuinely sorry that you and your friend experienced that. No bullshit, that’s fucked up.

In my situation, I’m a sexual minority living in a state where my most positive experience with the locals is living in an area where the word faggot wasn’t tossed around left and right. I’ve had to walk home alone in the dead of night in a shit area. Being able to ward off an aggressor could mean the difference between life and death for me.

[Neu California]

Okay, prove that that's what gun control is for in its entirety. With sources. Lots of non-right wing sources.

Also, your reduction as absurdum is just stupid. Stupid enough that I refuse to dignify it with a response

Yes, demand proof for that which you cannot prove. Surely you've won now!

He made the assertion first. If he can't prove then why should anyone believe him?

After all the burden of proof is on the one making the claim