Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 137

Thread: Guns Kill

  1. #21
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Clicky View Post
    Why does everybody keep saying they do not have wills? I never said that. I just said they kill. I know knives and stuff kill, but not nearly as often.
    Please support this point or retract it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clicky
    As a side note, I am aware people kill, but most of them resort to shooting.
    Please provide statistics on the relative frequency of shooting deaths vs. other forms of violent crimes to support your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Clicky
    If I'm not mistaken, weapons like Guns can be long range, but knives, you would have a chance to escape if you saw somebody running at you.
    Guns *are* long-range, which makes them ideal for a self-defense weapon, precisely because if you can see your attacker coming at you, you can kill him before he gets into close combat range and significantly endangers your life.

    Outlawing guns in the US will not reduce crime rates or gun violence... it will just make it easier for criminals to hurt law-abiding citizens.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  2. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Old age kills far more people than guns do. I move that we outlaw old age. Take that, Father Time.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the debate whether guns kill or people kill. I believe guns kill and here are my reasons:

    - In 2005, 78.9 of all murders involved guns.
    - In Japan, guns are regulated to only policemen, and there is hardly any crime their.
    - Guns were MADE for killing.
    - The Virginia Tech Massacre. Period.

    I could think of more reasons, but that's just off the top of my head.
    The faulty hidden premise here is
    "If something kills people, we should outlaw it".
    Another faulty premise is
    "Laws against guns will prevent gun crime in the U.S"

    --Faulty premise #1 --
    It doesn't follow that because something kills at all or in great amounts that it must be outlawed. There are simply many more things that cause death that we would not dream of outlawing. Such as cars, swimming pools, Prescription medication etc.. All of which cause more deaths than guns.

    --Faulty Premise #2 --
    Many of the mass killings (used as support) occur in "Gun Free zones". Which means, guns are not allowed. If schools are not safe from Guns, what makes you think the entire nation would be safe from guns if it were made like schools? Isn't it more reasonable to think that mass murderers target gun free zones for a reason? That reason is they don't want to get shot. To me this suggest that the answer to mass murder isn't in less guns, but more freedom for law abiding citizens to carry guns. specifically because that is what the criminals are trying to avoid by targeting gun free zones. If you want to deny this, I ask that you provide another motivation for targeting gun free zones.

    The point is, typically many gun laws are broken when people commit mass murders.

    --Weighing the Benefits--

    By looking at guns only in terms of the number of deaths it causes you ignore the vast majority of the contribution Guns make to society.
    For example the number of lives SAVED by guns. In every massacre many deaths could have been avoided if there was an armed citizen other than the attacker Exemplified by this testimony . In many cases the mad gunmen are only stopped when they are confronted with deadly force (IE someone else with a gun).



    --Weighing the meaning--
    Guns ownership and the 2nd amendment also have philosophical/political underpinning that would be destroyed or damaged by outlawing guns. That is that our nation is built upon the power of the people and the gov answers to them, and not the other way around. By outlawing guns it would be seen by a vast majority of citizens(especially gun owners) as an attack on our political structure. This point has been made before by expressing how other nations that outlaw guns never had such a right to begin with.

    In the U.S. there is an understood right to protect ourselves and our property. So that we are saying it is better to risk the negative effects of guns and preserve the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves. One must weight that by outlawing guns people like this 11 year old girl would be victims.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. Likes Apokalupsis liked this post
  5. #24
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I don't know man. People have a hard time giving up what they have. It's one thing to be denied access to something that you don't have; it's very different to have to surrender something that you do have. It's not like pot being illegal keeps people from getting their bud, or that prohibition kept booze under control, or that the Pope saying contraception is a "sin" discourages Catholics from using birth control. I think de-legalizing guns in this country would at a minimum be the catalyst for violent civil war.
    Perhaps. I don't know, I'm not a gun owner (but I did grow up with guns (my father was a police officer / SWAT Team Leader); we had shotguns, revolvers, automatics, and other "goodies" that were either kept at the house or brought home for 'show and tell' all the time). I don't have a strong opinion on the gun issue. I know it's a huge debate, I know that people are extremely passionate on either side of the aisle. So perhaps it is just my lack of interest and experience with civilian gun ownership that is speaking here.

    In any event, I don't think that those who want guns banned, have ever thought out a plan on how to do it...at least...I've never seen anyone propose how it would work. And I've never seen any anti-gun person explain how it would make a difference since it is the case that in almost all instances of shootings by civilians...it is the criminal doing the shooting. Criminals don't necessarily follow gun laws.

    Even in this thread, if you notice the op's author has avoided the issue.

    Usually, the argumentation that I see is one of two types:

    1) The original intent of the founding fathers was not to give every person the right to own a gun, it was supposed to be for a select group, the "militia" which served a specific purpose at the time.

    OR

    2) There is too much gun violence in the US. To solve it, we need to ban guns.


    Both arguments are inadequate and poor arguments. It is the latter argument that was offered in the op.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #25
    thinker
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Knives kill people, too... so do sticks, poisons, fires, broken bottles, fists, and pieces of piano wire. Does that mean we should also outlaw cutlery, trees, chemistry, glass bottles, martial arts training, and pianos? I guess that would mean our next visit to a nice steakhouse with an in-house musician would involve some sort of papyrus or plastic menus, cutting our steak with totally blunted but harmlessly serrated bits of wood or plastic, drinking beer out of plastic bottles, and listening to... some guy doing soulful, unaccompanied jazz saxophone for our ambiance. Without candles... because fire's harmful, too. Oh... and scratch the plastic... because chemistry would be illegal too, so people can't make and use poisons to hurt each other.

    If the basis of your argument for outlawing guns is to eliminate the possibility for an inanimate object to be used by one person to kill another, then the above scenario is the logical conclusion of your argument. There's no other way around it. Either you are committed to the idea that all things that can be used to harm other people should be illegal, or you're just making some arbitrary and baseless distinction between different kinds of random inanimate objects without any real reaason except you don't like them.

    Sorry... your argument has another serious flaw, too. Even if it were possible to totally eliminate one means by which a person may harm another, people would just find another way to harm other people. And that's not including the somewhat preposterous notion that we could somehow absolutely eliminate guns in the United States, which shares a totally porous border with a country rife with guns, corruption, violence, and people willing to deal in illegal things. Sorry... your position is totally untenable. Even if we *could* eliminate private gun ownership in this country, the people would revolt before actually allowing the Draconian measures to be put in place that would actually enable the government to confiscate so many millions of weapons.

    And as Apok astutely pointed out... all that would do is absolutely ensure that the only people who have guns are the ones that are inclined to use those guns to break the law and to harm other people.
    Cooking utensils, pianos and hunting guns are Intrinsically different from hand guns due to their nature and purpose.

    The purpose of cooking utensils is to cook, pianos is for music, and hunting guns is for hunting animals.
    Guns kill people in the sense that unlike pianos, they were designed to hurt or kill a human being.
    Items whose main designed purpose is to kill humans should be illegal.

    On the other hand your argument that even if guns were eliminated, people can still kill others is very persuasive

  7. #26
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    Cooking utensils, pianos and hunting guns are Intrinsically different from hand guns due to their nature and purpose.
    This is not true. Guns are tools, just like knives, saws, hammers, and drills. Their function is to propel a piece of metal at a very high velocity in a straight direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker
    Guns kill people in the sense that unlike pianos, they were designed to hurt or kill a human being.
    Items whose main designed purpose is to kill humans should be illegal.
    Ok... so swords of all types, knives longer than some arbitrary length or following some arbitrarily selected design specifications, clubs, and anything else which has a weapon-type function should be illegal. So... no more movies with swordplay, no more cricket or baseball, no more fencing, no more hunting or wood-chopping. Right.

    And who exactly would you trust to have enough power to go around and confiscate all these newly illegal things?

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker
    On the other hand your argument that even if guns were eliminated, people can still kill others is very persuasive
    Then the whole argument is persuasive, because one is a logical extension of the other.

    The problem with your argument is that you're making an arbitrary distinction between things that people can use to kill each other. The intended purpose doesn't matter... the first weapons were just bits of rock that happened to have an edge, or were deliberately fashioned to have one by banging them together until one of them broke. Should we outlaw rocks? They're still bloody dangerous, in case you were wondering.

    Making a random distinction based on the intended purpose of a tool as to which ones should be illegal and which ones aren't is a totally flawed argument because anything can be used for a weapon, regardless of its intention. People inclined to hurt other people will do so... there's no way to avoid it.... except by ensuring that the people who would have otherwise been victims have a safe, effective means to defend themselves against aggressors. Since, as you so aptly pointed out, guns are designed to hurt other people, law abiding citizens who want to use them ONLY for defense are the most logical people to have them. Outlawing guns would take those guns out of the hands of the people that need protection and ensure that people who would use them to hurt others will meet no resistance.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  8. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by thinker View Post
    Items whose main designed purpose is to kill humans should be illegal.
    Don't you think that people have the right to defend themselves?

  9. #28
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Talhtas, its not random, you just have to look for the reasoning behind it and have someone who can articulate it.

    Its not whether or not a person can kill another person. You can do that with your bare hands or a rock or just about anything. We can't stop any and all ways from killing people.

    What it is about is how easy it is to kill people and how easy it is to get away with murder using that tool. An old rule in marketing is if you want people to do something, make it easy for them to do it. Making it easy to kill and making it easy to get away with killing will probably result in more killing one way or another.

    In gun debates i like to ask the gun advocates where they personally draw the line. What kinds of armaments would be too much to allow citizens to own. Would a nuclear bomb be OK? Would putting land mines in your yard be OK? Is having a tank with built in flame thrower OK? How about a anti aircraft rocket? How about hand grenades? And of course there are the levels of safeguards. Is it OK to require a permit or registration for a given weapon? Is it reasonable to carry it in public? Is it reasonable to require security for the weapon? Should weapons of this time be serialized? Etc....

    Its about what you think is a reasonable risk and what you think the benefit of the weapon is. (and of course how you read the constitution) Its not random in truth, though it may be kind or random or unconsidered for some individuals.

    I think its reasonable to say if we sold hand grenades to anyone with $5 in their pocket at 7-11 that we might see more hand grenade deaths. Perhaps not, but I suspect we would.

    So what restrictions do you think are appropriate and why? you don't have to answer but you should think about it. Then consider if you simply shifted that argument down or up the scale of deadliness. Is it the rationale that changes or just the judgement of risk and reward?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What it is about is how easy it is to kill people and how easy it is to get away with murder using that tool.
    Let's not forget to factor in how easy it is to defend oneself with that tool.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    In gun debates i like to ask the gun advocates where they personally draw the line. What kinds of armaments would be too much to allow citizens to own. Would a nuclear bomb be OK? Would putting land mines in your yard be OK? Is having a tank with built in flame thrower OK? How about a anti aircraft rocket? How about hand grenades? And of course there are the levels of safeguards. Is it OK to require a permit or registration for a given weapon? Is it reasonable to carry it in public? Is it reasonable to require security for the weapon? Should weapons of this time be serialized? Etc....

    Its about what you think is a reasonable risk and what you think the benefit of the weapon is. (and of course how you read the constitution) Its not random in truth, though it may be kind or random or unconsidered for some individuals.
    It depends on what you think the purpose of allowing people to own weapons is. For me personally:

    I believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow people to keep arms so they can defend their liberty against enemies foreign and domestic. I also personally believe in the right to self-defense which includes having access to the means to defending oneself. So basically any arm that could be used against a person is an arm that the person should be able to have to defend oneself.

    As far as grenades and nukes - those are not arms but ordnance (explosives). They are not effective self-defense weapons, especially the larger explosive devices since using them against someone who is attacking you would kill you as well.

    Going by the notion that you have the RIGHT to keep arms, there should be no restrictions at all. A conditional right is not a right. If you have a legally valid reason to remove someone's rights (like a criminal) that's one thing, but a law-abiding citizen either has right or he does not.

  11. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  12. #30
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Let's not forget to factor in how easy it is to defend oneself with that tool.
    That is the value, not the harm and Talthas was questioning the justification for banning weapons as a harm, that harm being killing people. But its not killing people, its the ease with which it can kill people that is the objection.

    It depends on what you think the purpose of allowing people to own weapons is. For me personally:

    I believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow people to keep arms so they can defend their liberty against enemies foreign and domestic. I also personally believe in the right to self-defense which includes having access to the means to defending oneself. So basically any arm that could be used against a person is an arm that the person should be able to have to defend oneself.

    As far as grenades and nukes - those are not arms but ordnance (explosives). They are not effective self-defense weapons, especially the larger explosive devices since using them against someone who is attacking you would kill you as well.
    You are incorrect so far as I can tell. Arms is not just guns. Arms can be anything from a knife to a nuclear missile. It stems from the word armaments. It may well be most often used for hand guns and rifles but there word itself is not limited to that. It is a very general word, not a specific one. The second amendment is not very specific. I know you are offering your personal view, and its a common view, but there is actually very little legal definition for what arms means.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arms
    ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t.
    2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In Kentucky, a statute "to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const. Sec. 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125.

    A hand grenade fits that legal definition just fine and as the quote points out, the application of the 2nd amendment varies a lot, and considering how inexact it is, its hard to blame folks. You apply a limitation to it, that its only hand guns and rifles, but that is not written there, it simply doesn't specify. So are you game for grenades at 7-11 or not? We can launch them from a gun if that makes it seem more like arms to you.

    Going by the notion that you have the RIGHT to keep arms, there should be no restrictions at all. A conditional right is not a right. If you have a legally valid reason to remove someone's rights (like a criminal) that's one thing, but a law-abiding citizen either has right or he does not.
    So in one sweep you say no conditions, and then you offer a condition. Sorry but there are always conditions. Famously free speech has limitations, so does the right to assembly and so on. Everything has limits when it comes into conflict with something else. The right to bear arms can cross into the pursuit of life and liberty when they get used to abridge either. That is what the debate on weapons and controlling them is about.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That is the value, not the harm and Talthas was questioning the justification for banning weapons as a harm, that harm being killing people. But its not killing people, its the ease with which it can kill people that is the objection.
    Which corresponds to the ease of using it for self-defense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    A hand grenade fits that legal definition just fine and as the quote points out, the application of the 2nd amendment varies a lot, and considering how inexact it is, its hard to blame folks. You apply a limitation to it, that its only hand guns and rifles, but that is not written there, it simply doesn't specify. So are you game for grenades at 7-11 or not? We can launch them from a gun if that makes it seem more like arms to you.
    Explosives are still poor weapons for self-defense. So I have reason for saying yes to guns and no to grenades. You asked for a dividing line and I have provided one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Sorry but there are always conditions. Famously free speech has limitations, so does the right to assembly and so on. Everything has limits when it comes into conflict with something else.
    As far as limits on free speech go you mean like yelling fire in a crowded theater. But the limits to free speech are very specific exceptions and beyond those specifics, which are quite uncontroversial (no one is FOR yelling fire in a crowded theater or people getting away with libel and slander), there is no limit on free speech. So as far as the question goes "how shall we limit one's rights", the burden is on those who want to apply the limit to explain why a limit should exist. I am for no exceptions at all and if one is going to be debated, it's up to you to provide it and defend it.

    But let me be quite clear on one of my principles. I have the right to self-defense as that is directly tied to my right to life and therefore any gun that might be used to take my life I should have access to to defend my life. So unless we are going to remove a certain kind of gun from existence entirely so no on Earth can have it, I have the right to possess it. And I can't think of a valid exception to that right.

  14. #32
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Which corresponds to the ease of using it for self-defense.
    Not always. Often a weapon that is easy to kill with may not be effective at defending yourself. A suicide bomb for instance is great for killing but not good for self defense. A flame thrower may well stop an attacker but it will likely light many other bystanders and structures on fire as well which would not benefit your self defense much beyond a pistol and some training.

    Explosives are still poor weapons for self-defense. So I have reason for saying yes to guns and no to grenades. You asked for a dividing line and I have provided one.
    Now you are being clear. Good.

    But I can say that many firearms are like explosives in that they can do a lot of collateral damage and yet be no more effective for self defense than a good pistol or shotgun. So even by your criteria there is a good reason to have limitations on what kind of firearms people can own and carry under normal conditions.

    As far as limits on free speech go you mean like yelling fire in a crowded theater. But the limits to free speech are very specific exceptions and beyond those specifics, which are quite uncontroversial (no one is FOR yelling fire in a crowded theater or people getting away with libel and slander), there is no limit on free speech. So as far as the question goes "how shall we limit one's rights", the burden is on those who want to apply the limit to explain why a limit should exist. I am for no exceptions at all and if one is going to be debated, it's up to you to provide it and defend it.
    You seem to lack imagination and experience in this.
    There are in fact thousands of cases of US law challenging this or that expression of speech, and some are upheld and some are not. Slander and death threats for instance are also protected, and there are those who defend those as appropriate uses of free speech. If you think there is no debate on the subject you have your eyes and ears well closed.

    And as for guns, there are all manner of arguments for gun restrictions that have solid reasoning behind them. There is the endangerment that law enforcement faces, there is the danger to the public when automatic weapons are used in a firefight, there are concerns with how quickly a number of people can be killed before anyone can react, there are concerns abut criminals and the mentally ill getting weapons, there are concerns about children getting weapons, there are in fact a great many reasons why gun restrictions are argued for. If you are not aware of them you are not paying attention.

    But me be quite clear on one of my principles. I have the right to self-defense as that is directly tied to my right to life and therefore any gun that might be used to take my life I should have access to to defend my life. So unless we are going to remove a certain kind of gun from existence entirely so no on Earth can have it, I have the right to possess it. And I can't think of a valid exception to that right.
    Just as anyone can kill without a gun, you can defend your life without a gun too. Its been done many times, probably far more than with a gun. If you indeed treat the gun merely as a tool, then it is not exclusive for either killing or avoiding death. Just as you can kill without one, you can survive without one too. So your right to self defense is not a test of means but a test of purpose just as the laws that protect us from attack are a test of means and not purpose.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not always. Often a weapon that is easy to kill with may not be effective at defending yourself.
    But a gun is a good weapon for self-defense. You don't even need to fire it for it to protect you. I had a friend chase off a prospective intruder by just showing his gun.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But I can say that many firearms are like explosives in that they can do a lot of collateral damage and yet be no more effective for self defense than a good pistol or shotgun. So even by your criteria there is a good reason to have limitations on what kind of firearms people can own and carry under normal conditions.
    No. My criteria was the explosives are not good self-defense weapons, especially larger explosives (since using it on someone near you will kill you as well).

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And as for guns, there are all manner of arguments for gun restrictions that have solid reasoning behind them. There is the endangerment that law enforcement faces, there is the danger to the public when automatic weapons are used in a firefight, there are concerns with how quickly a number of people can be killed before anyone can react, there are concerns abut criminals and the mentally ill getting weapons, there are concerns about children getting weapons, there are in fact a great many reasons why gun restrictions are argued for. If you are not aware of them you are not paying attention.
    I know there are arguments out there. Did I say otherwise? But just because someone can present and argument does not mean they are correct. You asked me for my position and I gave it. I'm a gun rights absolutist and while I may be open to considering certain limitations (just like I agree we can ban yelling fire in a crowded theater) the burden is on someone to tell me why I (a law-abiding citizen) should compromise on my rights before I can agree that I should make such compromise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Just as anyone can kill without a gun, you can defend your life without a gun too.
    But not as effectively as with a gun. In other words, limiting my options for defending my life decreases the probability that I will survive a hostile encounter and therefore infringes on my right to self-defense and therefore my right to life.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So your right to self defense is not a test of means but a test of purpose just as the laws that protect us from attack are a test of means and not purpose.
    Not unlike sticking someone's head under water and saying "I'm not denying you the right to breath, just the means."

    As far as I'm concerned there is no difference. If you deny me the means of defending myself then you are denying me the right to defend myself.
    Last edited by mican333; August 27th, 2012 at 04:16 PM.

  16. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    In gun debates i like to ask the gun advocates where they personally draw the line. What kinds of armaments would be too much to allow citizens to own. Would a nuclear bomb be OK? Would putting land mines in your yard be OK? Is having a tank with built in flame thrower OK? How about a anti aircraft rocket? How about hand grenades? And of course there are the levels of safeguards. Is it OK to require a permit or registration for a given weapon? Is it reasonable to carry it in public? Is it reasonable to require security for the weapon? Should weapons of this time be serialized? Etc....
    I draw the line at the constitution and the definition of "arms". In general my idea is whatever is issued to the common soldier, the citizen has a right too as well.
    I have no problem with people owning explosives. They used to be readily available in the form of Dynamite.
    You can currently own a tank, and I wish I could have a flame thrower. After all, I shouldn't have to walk 20ft to set someone on fire.

    Carrying in public has to do with the definition of "bare". If it falls under the idea of "arms" then we have a right to carry it in public.

    I don't like permits or registrations, but I do like background-checks. If you have a right to it, that is your "permit".
    I'm not sure what you mean to provide security for the weapon.


    Now in general, I don't consider ordnance "arms". But I don't think I should be breaking any laws just because I have 10K lbs of Black powder in my basement. (I re-load a lot.. Or would like too) That said, I don't have a problem passing a law against such things as long as they are clearly voted on. I think we could easily pass a const amendment outlawing Nukes, and anti-aircraft missiles, and land mines as well as a few other things.
    I just think those things should be actually voted on and amended to the const, not regulated away or attached to some "pay teachers" bill. All I want is an honest debate.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  17. #35
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But a gun is a good weapon for self-defense. You don't even need to fire it for it to protect you. I had a friend chase off a prospective intruder by just showing his gun.
    I could do the same with explosives, showing someone a vest bomb and a dead man trigger would be plenty intimidating. And if a real gun is good for self defense you could use a fake gun too and get the same protection but without any risk to life or limb. I think your rebuttal is incomplete.

    No. My criteria was the explosives are not good self-defense weapons, especially larger explosives (since using it on someone near you will kill you as well).
    Its not that hard to use explosives without endangering yourself. Otherwise we wouldn't give them to soldiers. We don't want soldiers to kill themselves after all. And besides that, plenty of folks get killed or injured by their own weapons due to carelessness. And as we mentioned, explosives are quite intimidating so perhaps my rocket propelled grenade launcher is mostly just there to scare off attackers.

    I know there are arguments out there. Did I say otherwise?
    No, but you imply that they need to be forwarded to provide exceptions and they have been. By demanding reasons you imply there aren't any.

    But just because someone can present and argument does not mean they are correct. You asked me for my position and I gave it. I'm a gun rights absolutist and while I may be open to considering certain limitations (just like I agree we can ban yelling fire in a crowded theater) the burden is on someone to tell me why I (a law-abiding citizen) should compromise on my rights before I can agree that I should make such compromise.
    I'm not keen on convincing you, I just want you to realize what the concerns are and agree that they are not entirely misguided. Anti-gun activists are interested in greater public safety because they recognize the intrinsic danger of effective weapons. You recognize them too, you just have different limitations. My above needling si to point out that your arguments also have flaws and grey areas just like theirs do. The designations are somewhat arbitrary all around. Weapons are constantly changing and evolving. some day perhaps you can have a nuke in a tic-tack or lasers that shoot from your eyes. The tools of destruction only get more powerful over time. To simply say that any gun like thing you can put in your hands is a boon to mankind is probably short sighted.

    What you need is to establish principles and then work to meet them without prejudice to some sense of tradition. If effective personal self defense is the aim, then we should licence weapons good for self defense in such a way that minimizes the potential harm they can cause. If a military militia is the aim then we should be more like switzerland and require training by all citizens and service in the armed forces reserves along with careful tracking of such issued weapons.

    But not as effectively as with a gun. In other words, limiting my options for defending my life decreases the probability that I will survive a hostile encounter and therefore infringes on my right to self-defense and therefore my right to life.
    But taking away explosives and poison darts also limits my options for self defense. So does not allowing me to strike first at suspicious characters. So does not letting me drive a tank to work. Lots of stuff is limiting and its limiting because our liberty becomes a danger to others. Certain kinds of guns can arguably be a great danger to you while not significantly increasing your security.

    Not unlike sticking someone's head under water and saying "I'm not denying you the right to breath, just the means."
    Yes, very much unlike that. There is only one way to breathe. There are many ways to defend yourself. I've had more than one encounter with criminals and have never needed or used a gun in my personal defense. I have never found a way I can breathe with my airways blocked.

    Again, I'm for gun ownership in the US, I just think the debaters on both sides are lacking in their arguments and in their communication.
    On the control side they often fail to justify their measures by showing them to have any good effect.
    On the rights side they often go too far trying to justify any and every weapon they would think it fun to own ignoring the danger it can pose to the public even if used for its intended purpose of self defense.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I could do the same with explosives, showing someone a vest bomb and a dead man trigger would be plenty intimidating. And if a real gun is good for self defense you could use a fake gun too and get the same protection but without any risk to life or limb. I think your rebuttal is incomplete.
    A real gun is better than both a bomb or a fake gun for self defense for with a real gun you have the option of actually killing the assailant and leaving yourself alive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Its not that hard to use explosives without endangering yourself. Otherwise we wouldn't give them to soldiers.
    We give them to use on enemies that are far away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, but you imply that they need to be forwarded to provide exceptions and they have been. By demanding reasons you imply there aren't any.
    In my opinion there are none. And keep in mind you asked me for my position. To quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    "In gun debates i like to ask the gun advocates where they personally draw the line...Its about what you think is a reasonable risk and what you think the benefit of the weapon is."
    So I explained my position and since I am unaware of any good reason for compromising one's rights, I hold that I do not believe that there are no reasons to compromise. That's not to say that there aren't good reasons - I'm just not aware of any and that's why I hold my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'm not keen on convincing you, I just want you to realize what the concerns are and agree that they are not entirely misguided. Anti-gun activists are interested in greater public safety because they recognize the intrinsic danger of effective weapons. You recognize them too, you just have different limitations. My above needling si to point out that your arguments also have flaws and grey areas just like theirs do. The designations are somewhat arbitrary all around. Weapons are constantly changing and evolving. some day perhaps you can have a nuke in a tic-tack or lasers that shoot from your eyes. The tools of destruction only get more powerful over time. To simply say that any gun like thing you can put in your hands is a boon to mankind is probably short sighted.
    But I have clearly explained the difference between a gun and a nuke. And I'm aware of the anti-gun arguments but I don't think they hold water. It's entirely debatable whether laws against guns make us safer since they will clearly effect the law abiding-people who have a legitimate need for self-defense than the outlaws who would prey on them. So first and foremost, there needs to be clear reason why I, Me, Mican, should compromise on my rights before I should even consider doing so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What you need is to establish principles and then work to meet them without prejudice to some sense of tradition. If effective personal self defense is the aim, then we should licence weapons good for self defense in such a way that minimizes the potential harm they can cause.
    You can't limit my access to guns without simultaneously limiting my ability to defend myself.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If a military militia is the aim then we should be more like switzerland and require training by all citizens and service in the armed forces reserves along with careful tracking of such issued weapons.
    I wouldn't object to that. But failing doing that, we don't take away everyone's guns for that limits the citizen's ability to form an armed militia if it ever became necessary to do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But taking away explosives and poison darts also limits my options for self defense. So does not allowing me to strike first at suspicious characters. So does not letting me drive a tank to work. Lots of stuff is limiting and its limiting because our liberty becomes a danger to others. Certain kinds of guns can arguably be a great danger to you while not significantly increasing your security.
    What kind of gun are you referring to?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yes, very much unlike that. There is only one way to breathe. There are many ways to defend yourself. I've had more than one encounter with criminals and have never needed or used a gun in my personal defense. I have never found a way I can breathe with my airways blocked.
    That is an irrelevant difference. Interfering with one's ability to do something is infringing on their right to do it. And while I'll take your word for it that you've encountered criminals, have you ever had someone attempt to kill you? And if a man with a gun was attempting to kill you, would you want the most effective weapon you could possibly have to defend yourself or would you be fine with a significantly less effective weapon? Would you bring a gun to a gunfight or would you bring a knife to a gunfight?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Again, I'm for gun ownership in the US, I just think the debaters on both sides are lacking in their arguments and in their communication.
    On the control side they often fail to justify their measures by showing them to have any good effect.
    On the rights side they often go too far trying to justify any and every weapon they would think it fun to own ignoring the danger it can pose to the public even if used for its intended purpose of self defense.
    As far as your criticism of the "Rights" side, it is unwarranted. You have not supported that they are motivated by "fun" or that they have not calculated the relative danger of owning any gun they want. I'm not saying that there is no danger with an armed citizenry. I'm saying that it's worth the risk. If you are saying that my assessment is faulty, then you need to support that. And I'm sure you'll agree that when it comes to compromising our rights, the burden is ALWAYS on those who seek to limit them. If you can't provide a reason to limit one's rights, then there should be no limit.

  19. #37
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    69
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    You can't limit my access to guns without simultaneously limiting my ability to defend myself.
    For the record, I don't have much experience with civilian gun ownership, and I don't own a gun, but I don't have any issue with responsible gun ownership.

    I just wanted to bring into the discussion the fact that your access to guns IS limited, depending on state. So I have a question, not a position, and that question is: Is the current limiting of access to certain weaponry limiting your ability to defend yourself?

    Whether your answer is yes or no, my followup question is: Where should the line be drawn? SHOULD there be a line at all (bringing to mind the discussion already present about grenades vs guns)?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law...tes_(by_state)

  20. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by manic
    I just wanted to bring into the discussion the fact that your access to guns IS limited, depending on state. So I have a question, not a position, and that question is: Is the current limiting of access to certain weaponry limiting your ability to defend yourself?
    I know the question is not to me, but yes our current gun laws do limit our ability to protect ourselves.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNM...eature=mh_lolz
    That is a link to a case in point. The fed made it a crime to take a gun into certain restaurants. Woman owned a gun, knew how to use it and choose to follow the law and leave her gun in the car as they went out for dinner. Crazy gunman walks in, kills her parents and lots of other patrons.

    The gov made it illegal for her to defend herself against someone who would not follow the laws no matter what they are.
    Hand to Hand Combat skills, explosives, and fake guns wouldn't have cut it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  21. Likes mican333 liked this post
  22. #39
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,441
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Manic View Post
    Whether your answer is yes or no, my followup question is: Where should the line be drawn? SHOULD there be a line at all (bringing to mind the discussion already present about grenades vs guns)?
    Read my posts. All of those questions have been answered already.

  23. #40
    brooke24
    Guest

    Re: Guns Kill

    When people say that guns kill people it just makes me mad and irritates the hell out of me. An inanimate object cannot kill somebody. It is the person who pulls the trigger. People are still going to be able to get guns, even if they are illegal. Some forms of gun control are a good idea, like the people with felonies or misdomeniers and minors aren't legally able to own guns. But getting rid of having guns available to the public is kind of insulting I think, especially for people who live in states where hunting is popular.
    Last edited by brooke24; August 29th, 2012 at 07:44 PM. Reason: typo

 

 
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Do you believe guns kill people?
    By wanxtrmBANNED in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: December 21st, 2013, 12:51 PM
  2. Moral Dilemma: To Kill Him or not to Kill him
    By Idunno in forum Hypothetical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2009, 12:57 AM
  3. Guns and Voters
    By Slater in forum Politics
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 27th, 2008, 03:21 PM
  4. Zombies With Guns...Can They Or Can't They
    By zombiewithguns in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 05:47 AM
  5. How many guns do you own?
    By Atticus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: August 30th, 2004, 05:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •