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 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 137

Thread: Guns Kill

  1. #81
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Oh ya, been meaning to get back to this one.

    Intent of founding fathers
    Ibseld was very persuasive in his argument and I agree that the founders, or at least some of them had defending yourself against the state in mind when they included the second amendment, especially those most vocal in favor of it.

    Winning against the military
    Squatch's points I find less persuasive. "Victory" is not simply annoying and disrupting the powers that be. Unless you can gain a meaningful political victory its not much of a victory at all. Being a rebel isn't the American dream. George Washington would not have been much satisfied if he'd only succeed in annoying the British, he wanted them to capitulate to American independence. For the second amendment to be meaningful as a deterrent to tyranny it would need to allow much more than planting some IEDs around the country.

    I think trust in a military that is composed of and controlled by good people is a much better protection than a home arsenal is. On occasions where those who do have them have opposed the state in the US, they have been crushed. On the one occasion where we potentially had tyranny... the state and military split and we had a civil war rather than an insurgency... and the "tyrants" won.

    How much does technology matter?
    It matters a lot when you have a like on like combat. It matters less in asymmetric conflicts. Why did we struggle/loose Korea/Vietnam? For starters we were in their country and projecting force is very difficult. Second they had the backing of countries with similar technology. Third, they had a much larger pool of combatants to draw on. Fourth they had a home field advantage.

    Invading countries is hard, fighting in your own country is not so hard. On a militia vs the military scenario both have home field advantage. (though the militia has a slight edge due to very localized knowledge vs the military's more general knowledge.)

    Bottom line is...
    Practically the idea of an effective militia is likely fantasy. It does not have many examples of success as where non-violent political efforts have a long history of success in american politics. Having the kind of militia that realistically can resist the might of the US armed forces is not practical. Few if any Americans could actually afford the kinds of equipment you would need, much less have the temperament for it.

    If you are relying on the idea of parts of the armed forces rebelling, well that is probably sound but it undermines the idea that a militia would be the primary mode of defense against such an event. I do think perhaps that the mentality of independence and liberty are good pursuits and that the ideal of the militia helps support that mode of thinking. It likely has more symbolic purpose than practical.

    Ultimately if our government is working as it should, then there is never any need for am militia uprising.
    I dont understand the logic of saying that Americans couldnt win a war against our government when cave rats in Afghanistan and Jungle people in Vietnam can.
    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

  2. #82
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,073
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I dont understand the logic of saying that Americans couldnt win a war against our government when cave rats in Afghanistan and Jungle people in Vietnam can.
    Cave rats?

    Again, Afghanistan and Vietnam are countries half way around the world. We don't speak the language, we don't know the terrain, we don't have many friends on the ground, we don't know the local history, we don't have local supply, we don't know the wildlife and so on. Imagine playing a war game where you only get to see the hexes just around your units and I can see the whole board all the time. You get fed a constant stream of false information about the rules and terrain while I have accurate information. Even if your units are vastly superior I have some huge advantages over you I can use to overcome that.

    Furthermore in Afghanistan we easily won the main battle. We are fighting insurgents who pose no real threat to our rule. (assuming we were trying to rule there) They pose a threat to the much weaker Afghanistan government, but not to us. They can kill soldiers but nothing like in the numbers it would take to reduce our overall force projection. They cannot beat us, only make life painful. In a foreign invasion that might be enough to get us to give up, but in our own country... not a chance.

    Finally I'd point out these forces were not citizen militia but trained military and para-military forces supplied with government arms and munitions.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #83
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Again, Afghanistan and Vietnam are countries half way around the world. We don't speak the language, we don't know the terrain, we don't have many friends on the ground, we don't know the local history, we don't have local supply, we don't know the wildlife and so on. Imagine playing a war game where you only get to see the hexes just around your units and I can see the whole board all the time. You get fed a constant stream of false information about the rules and terrain while I have accurate information. Even if your units are vastly superior I have some huge advantages over you I can use to overcome that.
    And if we were invaded by a foreign enemy, the local militias would have the same advantage.

    And I doubt you are a military expert. For the record, neither am I. There are an endless number of potential conflicts that a militia could be involved in and if you're going to claim that in each and every one of them, or even most of them, millions of armed citizens forming militias and fighting for their own country would not make victory for their side more likely, I ask that you for support of this.

  4. #84
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,073
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And if we were invaded by a foreign enemy, the local militias would have the same advantage.

    And I doubt you are a military expert. For the record, neither am I. There are an endless number of potential conflicts that a militia could be involved in and if you're going to claim that in each and every one of them, or even most of them, millions of armed citizens forming militias and fighting for their own country would not make victory for their side more likely, I ask that you for support of this.
    You are changing the ground of the argument Mican. I did not say that a militia would not be helpful or effective at repelling an invading army, I said they would be ineffective at defeating the domestic military as ordered by the domestic government. I will say the actual US military would be better at repelling an invading force than a citizen militia, but I do think a citizen militia could be an effective defense against foreign powers.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #85
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Winning against the military
    Squatch's points I find less persuasive. "Victory" is not simply annoying and disrupting the powers that be. Unless you can gain a meaningful political victory its not much of a victory at all. Being a rebel isn't the American dream. George Washington would not have been much satisfied if he'd only succeed in annoying the British, he wanted them to capitulate to American independence. For the second amendment to be meaningful as a deterrent to tyranny it would need to allow much more than planting some IEDs around the country.
    Lets use your example though. Gen. Washington didn't achieve any real meaningful victories. Even Yorktown was a political fiasco rather than an actual military blow. Victory does not require the actual military defeat of an enemy army. Vietnam is another perfect example of this. The US Army not only won on the battlefield (by any conceivable metric), but at the negotiating table, the Paris Peace Treaty was a complete concession to US demands. Yet the war was largely lost later by Congress's refusal to honor our agreement and allowed the NVA to re-initiate hostilities with the South.

    How can tyranny be tyranny if armed resistance is preventing it from being implemented? For example, lets say that the action that prompts armed retribution is the rounding up of homosexuals into camps (or evangelicals, which ever concerns you more). If armed resistance is preventing that action, how is it not an effective resistance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    Bottom line is...
    Practically the idea of an effective militia is likely fantasy. It does not have many examples of success as where non-violent political efforts have a long history of success in american politics. Having the kind of militia that realistically can resist the might of the US armed forces is not practical. Few if any Americans could actually afford the kinds of equipment you would need, much less have the temperament for it.
    The same was said about the colonists and the British, and the Irish and the British and the Jews and the surrounding Arab countries and the Vietnamese and the French. I think there are plenty of examples of assymetric warfare draining the will of an occupation (even when the cultural identity of both countries is similar and the population is neutral or even against the insurgency) to the point of military repression being ineffective.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #86
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Cave rats?

    Again, Afghanistan and Vietnam are countries half way around the world. We don't speak the language, we don't know the terrain, we don't have many friends on the ground, we don't know the local history, we don't have local supply, we don't know the wildlife and so on. Imagine playing a war game where you only get to see the hexes just around your units and I can see the whole board all the time. You get fed a constant stream of false information about the rules and terrain while I have accurate information. Even if your units are vastly superior I have some huge advantages over you I can use to overcome that.

    Furthermore in Afghanistan we easily won the main battle. We are fighting insurgents who pose no real threat to our rule. (assuming we were trying to rule there) They pose a threat to the much weaker Afghanistan government, but not to us. They can kill soldiers but nothing like in the numbers it would take to reduce our overall force projection. They cannot beat us, only make life painful. In a foreign invasion that might be enough to get us to give up, but in our own country... not a chance.

    Finally I'd point out these forces were not citizen militia but trained military and para-military forces supplied with government arms and munitions.
    Cave Rats is a Marine Corps term....I have to remember that you guys dont all speak "Marine" LOL. At any rate, this thread has went way the hell off topic. I will digress for now, though I do not concede my position.
    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

  7. #87
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    People cannot be "legal" or "illegal."
    There are plenty of "illegal" people. Like this guy.. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Jan-24-mexican-border-crossing.jpg 
Views:	77 
Size:	32.3 KB 
ID:	3291
    They exist as a primary endpoint and purpose for the law... not as an object of it.
    Determining the legalness of certain people has been an argument since the beginning of time. Think for a second. Name:  slavery.jpg
Views: 110
Size:  41.7 KB Click image for larger version. 

Name:	332470082.jpg 
Views:	62 
Size:	58.8 KB 
ID:	3293 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Saudi_Women_driving_cartoon.jpg 
Views:	63 
Size:	20.4 KB 
ID:	3294 Illegal people......just another day.
    Guns, on the other hand, are inanimate objects. The comparison is totally invalid. A person is only evaluated in terms of the law by what they do, not what they are.
    Only 160 years ago a man named Dred Scott was told by these American states that he was an "inanimate object". Now granted that is not a popular opinion any longer, but in the not so recent past it was and it is not tough to think of people, thinking of other people as "inanimate objects" or property.
    Gun control laws are based purely upon what the gun is and not what action is taken by the person using it.
    What other purpose has a gun, but not shoot and inlict bodily harm upon something, or someone? What good can a gun do?
    There are certain precautions that must be taken in order to keep a nuclear weapon, even just sitting somewhere not armed or ready to detonate, from hurting other people just by virtue of the highly unstable and inherently dangerous materials used in its construction.
    But do I not have the right to bear arms? I can own an automatic assault rifle, but not thats as far a we gun-nuts will go. We like picking and choosing.
    Unless you have the facilities to keep other people safe from that weapon's inherent effects that it does just by virtue of its existence, then your ownership of a nuclear weapon constitutes a real and constant threat to the public's safety, whether or not you detonate it.
    Ownership of a gun doesnt constitute a public threat? Could I not claim that my possession of a nuke is to protect my family or my self a threat against me or my family?

  8. #88
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I did not say that a militia would not be helpful or effective at repelling an invading army, I said they would be ineffective at defeating the domestic military as ordered by the domestic government. I will say the actual US military would be better at repelling an invading force than a citizen militia, but I do think a citizen militia could be an effective defense against foreign powers.
    But I don't see how you can conclude that millions of armed people would not be helpful in a domestic conflict.

    And a domestic conflict is not necessarily the whole of the US military vs. the citizens. In fact, I think such a scenario would be unlikely. But what if half of the military supported the domestic dictator and half of the military opposed the dictator? I see no reason to think it's unlikely that millions of armed people defending their own territory won't make a difference.

    ---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    What other purpose has a gun, but not shoot and inlict bodily harm upon something, or someone? What good can a gun do?
    Protect you against people who seek to harm you.


    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Ownership of a gun doesnt constitute a public threat?
    It does not.


    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Could I not claim that my possession of a nuke is to protect my family or my self a threat against me or my family?
    Since using it would kill your family, I don't see how you can claim you have it to protect your family.

    And nukes would qualify as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. If you want a dividing line, WMDs should not be owned by individual citizens. So no nukes.

  9. #89
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Protect you against people who seek to harm you.
    That not good, that the lesser of two evils. No good comes from a dead person.




    It does not.
    It did to every victim of gun violence, ever........



    Since using it would kill your family, I don't see how you can claim you have it to protect your family.
    Not if I shot it at an Islamic country harboring terrorists.
    And nukes would qualify as a Weapon of Mass Destruction. If you want a dividing line, WMDs should not be owned by individual citizens. So no nukes.
    The constitution does not make that distinction however. WMD's are illegal via legislative statutory law, not constitutional law.

    The second amendment only says "arms".

  10. #90
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    That not good, that the lesser of two evils. No good comes from a dead person.
    So me being alive instead of dead isn't "good"? I beg to differ...

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    it did to every victim of gun violence, ever........
    And hands are a threat to everyone who was ever strangled. And knives are a threat to everyone who was ever stabbed. And rope is a threat to everyone who was lynched. And hammers are a threat to everyone who was killed with a hammer.

    But does that not mean that those things are a general threat by their very existence. One has to use them in a potentially harmful manner before they become a threat and just having is not such a use.

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    Not if I shot it at an Islamic country harboring terrorists.
    But those terrorists are not an immediate threat to your family, as in they are very likely to kill your family if you don't kill them first.


    Quote Originally Posted by hcabret View Post
    The constitution does not make that distinction however. WMD's are illegal via legislative statutory law, not constitutional law.

    The second amendment only says "arms".
    The second amendment also says "militia" so it is referring to weaponry that a militia would use. The below argument spells it out pretty well.

    "The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly."

    http://constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
    Last edited by mican333; October 9th, 2012 at 01:41 PM.

  11. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  12. #91
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,309
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The second amendment also says "militia" so it is referring to weaponry that a militia would use. The below argument spells it out pretty well.

    "The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly."

    http://constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
    I would disagree with this to some extent, a proper militia (including the one drilling at Concord that started the Revolution) includes field artillery and cavalry which opens up the range of weapons to a large extent (perhaps not nuclear weapons, since even the tactical ones aren't really tactical).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  14. #92
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    That not good, that the lesser of two evils. No good comes from a dead person.




    It did to every victim of gun violence, ever........
    Im not trying to insult you here, but you level of nativity is astounding. If you are really that passive and beta-male like, then give me your bank account information.
    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

  15. #93
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would disagree with this to some extent, a proper militia (including the one drilling at Concord that started the Revolution) includes field artillery and cavalry which opens up the range of weapons to a large extent (perhaps not nuclear weapons, since even the tactical ones aren't really tactical).
    I'm not going to say that you are wrong on this. My point, which you have verified, is that there are solid dividing lines between what pro-gunners say are protected arms and things like nukes so the "why can't we own nukes?" argument has been rebutted.

  16. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  17. #94
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    Im not trying to insult you here, but you level of nativity is astounding. If you are really that passive and beta-male like, then give me your bank account information.
    Why would I give you anything? You'd just kill me for it and then claim self-defense.....

    Dont mix up idealism with Naivety, (or Natvity, which ever you prefer Mr. 'Grammer Nazi').

  18. #95
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Oh ya, been meaning to get back to this one.

    Intent of founding fathers
    Ibseld was very persuasive in his argument and I agree that the founders, or at least some of them had defending yourself against the state in mind when they included the second amendment, especially those most vocal in favor of it.

    The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is there. We are a nation of laws. So, unless the Constitution is changed, we must preserve the right of individuals to won firearms just as we must preserve the freedom of individuals to express their political and religious views. There is no difference, legally, between the two. Yet, for some reason, there are large groups of people, typically liberals, who would like to curtail gun ownership without doing the work of changing the Constitution. Is this a fundamental threat to individual freedom as the founders often suggested? Obviously, the answer depends upon your perspective of the government itself. Sig, you and I have a fundamental disagreement regarding the propensity of our government to act tyrannically. So, it is folly for me to try to convince you the government is dangerous and gun ownership is a needed protection. I would caution you though on implying that our armed citizenry would be ineffective against a government that truly turned its armed services on the people. Most revolutions are fought by bands of people who are not as well-armed nor as well-organized as those whom they overthrow.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #96
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,073
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Sig, you and I have a fundamental disagreement regarding the propensity of our government to act tyrannically.
    Different suspicious I suppose. I think the government can by tyrannical. It tends not to be tyrannical to its own constituents in mass however. The biggest uses of power led to the civil war, not to a nazi state. I think that is more likely the model of nation vs people in the US. If the state turned tyrannical there would be a strong fracturing of the state itself. That is our history.

    I would caution you though on implying that our armed citizenry would be ineffective against a government that truly turned its armed services on the people. Most revolutions are fought by bands of people who are not as well-armed nor as well-organized as those whom they overthrow.
    Most revolutions fail and the revolutionaries are killed. We only really celebrate those that over come the odds and in hindsight we can often see that in truth they had a number of advantages. There are some exceptions of course. I just think that folks should be realistic even while "sticking to their guns." By all means, prepare to resist tyrany should it come, but don't be shocked if it grinds you under its heels in short order if you are just a guy with a gun and they are a nation state. If you really think tyrany is neigh at hand, there are much stronger measures you can likely take than to stock up on extra ammo.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #97
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    993
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Apok
    It is PEOPLE who are the problem. In China, there have been rampages of knife attacks in elementary schools. The latest attack left 22 injured. In another attack 8 children were killed. What did guns have to do with those attacks? Nothing. What does mental health have to do with those attacks? Everything.
    22 kids were "injured" in yesterday's Chinese knife attack. 20 kids were "killed" in yesterday's American gun attack. Do you understand the difference in the efficiency with which an assault rifle kills compared to a large knife? Do you know how relatively difficult it is to kill a bunch of people with a knife compared to a gun? Incredibly, you don't seem to.

    What's even more incredible is that China is talking about instituting more restrictive measures on large knife sales than America has today on gun sales.

    Yes, the problem of mass murder is a mental problem at its core; but still why would you want the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns? And for the most part, they have that access. Yesterday's attack is just one example of this. Guns are everywhere in this country. If you want a gun in the US then you can get a gun, no problem. If you (i.e., anyone in this country) can't get a gun then you probably aren't smart enough to know which way to point the damn thing anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    [Guns] protect you against people who seek to harm you.
    Really? Tell that to the dead mother of yesterday's perp. It was her own gun that killed her. Seems like as about as often as not someone's gun either ends up killing the owner of the gun or a loved one of the owner as it does someone seeking to harm the gun owner.

    Thought experiment: If there were no or very few guns in private hands in this country, do you believe the murder rate would go up dramatically or down dramatically?

  21. #98
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,480
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post

    Thought experiment: If there were no or very few guns in private hands in this country, do you believe the murder rate would go up dramatically or down dramatically?
    In the spirit of this, we should consider chopping off the hands of all babies when they are born. Think about how many murders are committed by use of people's hands each day. If we chopped off all hands, do you believe the murder rate would go up dramatically or down dramatically? Since we cant trust or expect people to act within the confines of law or morality, this measure is justified.
    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

  22. #99
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    22 kids were "injured" in yesterday's Chinese knife attack. 20 kids were "killed" in yesterday's American gun attack. Do you understand the difference in the efficiency with which an assault rifle kills compared to a large knife? Do you know how relatively difficult it is to kill a bunch of people with a knife compared to a gun? Incredibly, you don't seem to.
    Of course I understand the difference. What a sophomoric statement.

    The issue, is as I stated, "mental health." Not a complex issue there Rod.

    Yes, the problem of mass murder is a mental problem at its core; but still why would you want the mentally ill to have such easy access to guns?
    Strawman. I never argued for any such thing. The problem is the solution, which is being discussed in another thread: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...406#post509406

    Thought experiment: If there were no or very few guns in private hands in this country, do you believe the murder rate would go up dramatically or down dramatically?
    Bad question. It fails to make the distinction between guns in the hands of registered uses and those in the hands other than the owner. Again, the problem is the solution, see the other thread.
    -=]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




  23. #100
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,536
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns Kill

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Really? Tell that to the dead mother of yesterday's perp. It was her own gun that killed her. Seems like as about as often as not someone's gun either ends up killing the owner of the gun or a loved one of the owner as it does someone seeking to harm the gun owner.
    One anecdotal example and saying "seems like" is hardly a supported argument for the notion that a gun is more likely to result in one's death instead of one's defense. And keep in mind that one does not need to shoot a bad guy for a gun to defend one's life.

    Since we seem to be forwarding individual anecdotal stories, I had a friend chase off a would-be intruder by just showing his gun. Such an instance didn't even result in a police report or get recorded at all and therefore would not enter any statistics. I wonder how many other unreported stories like this there are? Seems like there's a whole lot of self-defense going on that no one knows about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodriguez View Post
    Thought experiment: If there were no or very few guns in private hands in this country, do you believe the murder rate would go up dramatically or down dramatically?
    You mean like a magician waved a magic wand and then most of the privately-owned guns disappeared from the law-abiding and the criminals alike? Or do you mean like if we passed a very strict law that forbid gun ownership from citizens?

    Assuming we are talking about the latter, there's a good reason to believe that crime would go up. Laws effect the law-abiding more than the law-breaking so the honest people give up their guns and the criminals keep theirs. And crime goes up since the criminals will find it easier to wield power over the innocent.
    Last edited by mican333; December 15th, 2012 at 10:03 AM.

 

 
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 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
  •