Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 12:59pm

Darktroop07

Darktroop07

668 posts

All it takes is numerous broadcasts of a terrorist bombing/nuclear plant meltdown/asteroid the size of Texas hurtling towards Earth to make more, and more people fearful of terrorists/industrial scale nuclear reactors/Ceres-class asteroids hurtling towards Earth.

  It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

 

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 4:52pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,546 posts

It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

So? It has no bearing on the severity of the issue, as demonstrated.

 

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 5:39pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

It's that which affects our small little bubble of protection that makes us the most paranoid.

So? It has no bearing on the severity of the issue, as demonstrated.

His point is that until it happens to them, gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

 

Posted Jun 20, '14 at 10:44pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,546 posts

His point is that until it happens to them, gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

That would be a logical conclusion, but I'm fairly certain he means to argue something to the contrary.

 

Posted Jun 22, '14 at 9:29am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

5,069 posts

gun nuts won't realize that proliferating lethal weapons does not, in fact, reduce casualties.

A lethal weapon, according to USLegal for example, is "Any firearm, device, instrument, material, or any other substance that is capable of producing great bodily harm or death from the manner it is used or intended to be used."

A casualty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary for example, is "A person killed or injured in a war or accident."

I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."


last edited Jun 22 2014 09:37 am by MattEmAngel
 

Posted Jun 22, '14 at 9:52am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

5,069 posts

I only found two definitions of "gun nut." One was on Urban Dictionary (hardly a valid source) and one was on Rational Wiki (which calls it a "snarl word," which means "a derogatory label that can be attached to something, in order to ignore it or hate it without guilt." This is a biased label with no practical meaning.")

I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."

In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument, unless we are expected to use your personal interpretation of them as valid material. Through using the actual definition of the words (I took the liberty of using the Oxford English dictionary definition of "proliferate"), you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."


last edited Jun 22 2014 09:54 am by MattEmAngel
 

Posted Jun 22, '14 at 1:10pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,591 posts

I'm guessing you define "lethal weapon" as "any gun I think is lethal" and "casualties" as "innocent people deliberately attacked by what I consider a lethal weapon to be."

No. A lethal weapon is exactly what you stated above. Proliferating them, whether they be guns, knives, bows and arrows, bombs, or anything else, will never reduce the amount of violence caused by them. It can only increase the potential for injury.

I'm guessing you define it as "any person I think loves or promotes guns and/or has too many guns."

I was referring to the people who are constantly ranting about how they'll shoot anyone who tries to take their guns and that everyone should be armed so we can all just engage in a firefight whenever anyone tries to do something and that they'll rise up in revolution and etc.

In other words, no actual definition of those three terms helps your argument,

Wasn't particularly making an argument.

you are saying "His point is that until it happens to them, individuals who (by my standards) obsess over guns won't realize that increasing the number of anything that can kill a person does not, in fact, reduce war-related or accidental deaths."

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Although casualties does not have to refer specifically to a war or accident, only some kind of event.


last edited Jun 22 2014 01:11 pm by Kasic
 

Posted Oct 16, '14 at 9:21pm

apldeap123

apldeap123

582 posts

I am introducing a new argument to this topic, also bumping this thread.

There is nothing wrong with having guns. It is a beneficial tool, and has numerous uses. However, if you love guns, and when I mean 'love', I mean that you have a rigid, one-sided opinion about guns. You feel that any attempts at gun control is an 'infringement on your rights.' People like this are blind. They do not realize that owning a firearm is like driving a car: When an experienced driver is behind the wheel, the car is very beneficial to the driver. But when an inexperienced person is driving, he poses a risk to people and can unintentionally hurt or kill. 

Gun-loving people feel that they will not be able to survive the real world without owning guns. They feel that the world is too dangerous, and must own guns. Their fear is not unfounded. Crime in the world is increasing steadily. But gun-lovers let their fear get the best of them. They become paranoid, perceiving anything as a threat that must be handled with a firearm. Take, for example, these innocent people who have been killed as a result of guns: Chad Oulson. Trayvon Martin.  These people were murdered by men who were inconsiderate. These men simply shot without asking questions, without stopping and thinking. They value their lives over other people's lives.

When will they wake up? Only when such a tragedy happens in their own family. Then, these people will realize how foolish they have been in thinking that guns are a solutions to everything. Then they will stop loving guns.

 

Posted Oct 16, '14 at 10:29pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

5,011 posts

Take, for example, these innocent people who have been killed as a result of guns: Chad Oulson. Trayvon Martin.

Both assaulted their shooters.

These people were murdered

Pretty sure you can't say that about the latter, as Zimmerman was acquitted.
killed =/= murdered

Only when such a tragedy happens in their own family.

If anyone in my family is stupid enough to assault (initiate force against) a legally armed man without cause, then too bad for them.

 

Posted Oct 16, '14 at 11:10pm

Ishtaron

Ishtaron

81 posts

Both assaulted their shooters.

Define assault.  Olson threw a bag of popcorn at the guy who shot him over an argument about texting at the theater (during the previews), and not a single witness ever corroborated Zimmerman's story about Martin attacking him.  Considering the fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck and chased down Martin, legally Zimmerman initiated the conflict with that very act.

Pretty sure you can't say that about the latter, as Zimmerman was acquitted.

The law isn't perfect, just because someone is acquitted doesn't mean they can't be considered a murderer.  OJ was acquitted but most people still consider him a murderer.

If anyone in my family is stupid enough to assault (initiate force against) a legally armed man without cause, then too bad for them.

Yeah, I imagine you'd be singing a different tune if your family member was shot after being chased down a dark street in the rain by a stranger and that stranger just happened to have a legal firearm that they used when verbally confronted.  Or if they get shot for tossing a bag of popcorn at some grumpy old man that's complaining because they're texting in a theater before a movie starts.  You'd have to be insane to consider either of those situations assault or anything even remotely severe enough to warrant lethal force.

Not really taking a stance on the subject, just pointing out some inaccuracies in your post.  To try to justify the actions of George Zimmerman and Curtis Reeves as a response to assault is an outright lie.  These men entered into a situation, antagonized another person, and then shot that person for the crimes of throwing popcorn and not being recognized by a neighborhood watch member on a dark and rainy night.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!