Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 21, '14 at 2:09pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,807 posts

Sorry, those last two lines should have been reversed: the first is a quote and the second is my response.

 

Posted Jan 21, '14 at 6:28pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

It is NOT sexist. It is a fact

Yes, everything you said there is a fact. What's not a fact is that it's because the father is missing that the child is poorly behaved. The father missing is a consequence of other symptoms on the mother's side, such as not having time to spend at home due to work, divorcing probably due to relationship problems, having a child while not married and thus being a single parent without help, and so on.

The father not being present isn't why the child is often poorly behaved. It's a slew of other reasons which are heavily related to the father not being present, or to be more precise, there being only a single parent. It's hard to raise a kid, much less raise one alone. But it's sexist to say that a father is needed to make the kid behave when that isn't true at all.

and the answer is that neither is more harmless.

Inherently as an immobile object, yes. But the gun has a far greater propensity for violence.

The concept that "a criminal will more likely harm you if you have a gun" is not an absolution, as you keep insisting it is.

Higher Gun Ownership Rates Correlate With Higher Amounts of Gun Related Death (Duh)

Gun Owners Are Far More Likely To Get Shot

From the second link,

"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

Sorry, those last two lines should have been reversed: the first is a quote and the second is my response.

Oh. That would explain why I just spent 5 minutes scratching my head and thinking, "I don't remember reading this before..." while scrolling back through the posts looking for it.

 

Posted Jan 23, '14 at 3:43pm

themastaplaya

themastaplaya

662 posts

I believe that the necessity for firearms varies depending on the are where someone lives.
Example:

A person who lives in a relatively safe suburb won't in all likelihood need a gun for self defense although they may want to get one for legal activities like skeet shooting.

A person (perhaps a single woman) lives in a place like South Atlanta or East LA and is greatly concerned about his/her safety. He/she legally obtains a firearm in case he/she is attacked, but he/she has no desire to use it unless absolutely necessary. I see nothing wrong with this at all. I fact it seems highly sexist to say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun to protect herself from being raped.

 

Posted Mar 9, '14 at 7:42pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,807 posts

Recently, NYC initiated Administrative Code 10-306 b, which effectively bans possession of rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Anyone who has registered their firearm is now required by law to turn in their gun, send it out of the city or have the firearm "permanently modified," which I assume means disabling it.

This is directly related to the Second Amendment and it has shown that the government now has the ability to selectively ban firearms. Will this change crime rates, or is it a waste of time? Is disarming Americans (who purchased their firearms legally) a good strategy? They didn't do anything wrong by buying a gun. Or should they have been allowed to have one in the first place?

 

Posted Mar 20, '14 at 8:49pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,807 posts

Posted Mar 20, '14 at 7:33pm
09philj

Previous post is a bit over the top in retrospect.

I've some time to kill, so I'm going to argue against every claim made about why people need guns:

1. For defense.
A gun is an offensive weapon. Unless you want to block blows with it, you are attacking, not defending. There is usually an alternative to attacking.

2. For hunting.
You can hunt with a variety of other weapons. If you couldn't, we wouldn't be alive today.

3. For sport shooting.
Keep the firearms for that safely stored at the licensed venue. Also, you don't need assault rifles for this.

4. I have the right to bear arms.
If you can bear at least one kind of arms, you can bear arms, so the constitution still stands.

Sorry, but you killed your argument immediately with this:

I'm going to argue against every claim made about why people need guns

"You don't need this" is, as I have said before, not a valid excuse. America is a Capitalist society. Free market. If you want to buy something, and you have the money (and it is legal to buy), you do not need a reason to buy or not buy it. You would be surprised by how many things you do not actually need.

You don't need a car. Just run wherever you want to go. Sure, it will take longer, it will be much less convenient and in the long run it would be better to own a car, but you don't need one.

Let's hit the bullet points anyway.

1. For defense.
A gun is an offensive weapon. Unless you want to block blows with it, you are attacking, not defending. There is usually an alternative to attacking.

Self-defense refers to the defense of life and property. Attacking in order to protect life and property is a means of defense. A variety of martial arts (which all involve attacking an assailant) are labeled as "self-defense."

2. For hunting.
You can hunt with a variety of other weapons. If you couldn't, we wouldn't be alive today.

If you would like to hunt fowl with a bow and arrow, feel free, but hunting with a semiautomatic shotgun is a much more practical method. In fact, there is no other way to hunt some game besides using a firearm (known commonly as "big game").

3. For sport shooting.
Keep the firearms for that safely stored at the licensed venue. Also, you don't need assault rifles for this.

I'm not going to leave my $1200 rifle in someone else's safe, especially if I want to practice before the event, and if you want to compete in competitions like 3-Gun, you do in fact need an assault rifle.

4. I have the right to bear arms.
If you can bear at least one kind of arms, you can bear arms, so the constitution still stands.

By this logic, you have the freedom of speech as you are allowed to say at least one word. How ridiculous is that? Besides, in NYC Administration Code 10-306b, you are not allowed to discharge a firearm under any condition inside the city. You're allowed to own a few kinds of guns that you cannot shoot. You call that "bearing arms?" An unloaded rifle or shotgun capable of firing less than five rounds?

 

Posted Mar 20, '14 at 10:00pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,546 posts

"You don't need this" is, as I have said before, not a valid excuse.

Shortly before I explained how your counter argument is invalid.

A variety of martial arts (which all involve attacking an assailant) are labeled as "self-defense."

People suffering from scizophrenia are labelled as "psychopaths". This makes it true, right?

In fact, there is no other way to hunt some game besides using a firearm (known commonly as "big game").

If we take that as our premise and examine the evidence, we have to conclude that the firearm was actually invented by Homo erectus.
See Here

I'm not going to leave my $1200 rifle in someone else's safe, especially if I want to practice before the event, and if you want to compete in competitions like 3-Gun, you do in fact need an assault rifle.

1 I think he means that they should provide the guns, rather than confiscate them. Not to say that it would be a very good idea either.
2 Therefore, everyone in Spain needs three banderillas and a sword because traditional bullfighting would be impossible without them. Do you see the problem with your reasoning here?

By this logic, you have the freedom of speech as you are allowed to say at least one word. How ridiculous is that?

Nearly as ridiculous as an argument from incredulity intended to refute an obvious fact via an erroneous reductio ad absurdum.

Besides, in NYC Administration Code 10-306b, you are not allowed to discharge a firearm under any condition inside the city.

If self defence is sufficient grounds to kill someone without conviction, I highly doubt this will still be enforceable under the same conditions.

You call that "bearing arms?" An unloaded rifle or shotgun capable of firing less than five rounds?

Technically, it is correct. Therefore, yes.

 

Posted Mar 21, '14 at 2:09am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,985 posts

2 Therefore, everyone in Spain needs...

Everyone in Spain is not a bullfighter.
He's not saying that everyone needs an assault rifle, just people who want to participate in specific competitions that require experience with one. But I agree that ownership is not essential for practice.

 

Posted Mar 21, '14 at 4:06am

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

4,807 posts

People suffering from scizophrenia are labelled as "psychopaths". This makes it true, right?

The dictionary definition of Martial Art is "any one of several forms of fighting and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sports." When I said "labeled," I meant labeled by fact, rather than by stereotype. In other words, no, but it doesn't prove anything.

Nearly as ridiculous as an argument from incredulity intended to refute an obvious fact via an erroneous reductio ad absurdum.

Fine. I'll be a bit more generous. If "The right to bear arms" can be reduced to only one kind of firearm, "The right to freedom of speech" can be reduced to only one language, since limitations are irrelevant when the only parameter is "at least one kind." The only kind of firearm is an unloaded rifle, and the only kind of speech is oral English.

If self defence is sufficient grounds to kill someone without conviction, I highly doubt this will still be enforceable under the same conditions.

The conditions are "No shooting." It is illegal to kill in self-defense and will result in conviction regardless of circumstances.

Technically, it is correct. Therefore, yes.

Technically, it eliminates the purpose of owning a firearm, making the right useless. Therefore, no.

But I agree that ownership is not essential for practice.

The rules for a professional shooting league match, in regard to firearm, are: "Any firearm chambered for the .22 Long Rifle cartridge may be used. Any Scope may be used. Competitors may use any number of firearms to complete a target." That means you buy, tweak and practice with your own weapon. Any attachments are your expense. These rifles are designed for target shooting competitions, they are marketed to those interested in that form of competition and they are expensive. Plus, competitions occur in multiple states at multiple times.

For reference, here is a picture of an Anschutz 22, one of the more expensive rifles:
http://www.rose-hulman.edu/Users/groups/RifleTeam/Public/HTML/OtherImages/1913_lg.jpg

If I want to compete, I want to be able to take my customized rifle and ammunition from my place of residence to a range for practice and then to the location of the event. It is the most convenient, safe, and practical place for storage.

 

Posted Mar 21, '14 at 12:24pm

09philj

09philj

1,168 posts

Firstly, with a martial art, there is a lower chance of killing them outright and you have a greater control over the damage you do.

Secondly, for sports shooting, it should be a test of who has the greatest skill and not who has the most money to modify a rifle. A .22 rifle is sufficient for most purposes. As for 3-gun, it's one competition type out of many.

Thirdly, no market is entirely free. The ones that decide to be entirely free end up in deep trouble. Markets need restricions

If "The right to bear arms" can be reduced to only one kind of firearm,

You seem to be under the impression that it's the right to bear firearms. It's not. It's the right to bear arms. All weapons are covered by it, and thus as long as a ceremonial broadsword is legal, it stands.

 

Posted Mar 21, '14 at 12:44pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

1,546 posts

Everyone in Spain is not a bullfighter.

They are "needed" for the sport. Therefore, we can conclude, as Matt has demonstrated, that it is necessary for people to own them. Not just proffesional sportsmen with special permits, but the general populace.

"any one of several forms of fighting and self-defense (such as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sports."

Why did you omit the part that relates to their use of lethal force?

Fine. I'll be a bit more generous. If "The right to bear arms" can be reduced to only one kind of firearm, "The right to freedom of speech" can be reduced to only one language, since limitations are irrelevant when the only parameter is "at least one kind." The only kind of firearm is an unloaded rifle, and the only kind of speech is oral English.

Yeah, that's about what it amounts to. Unless there is an explicit stipulation that says otherwise, such a restriction can hypothetically be enforced.

The conditions are "No shooting." It is illegal to kill in self-defense and will result in conviction regardless of circumstances.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to fire or discharge any gun, pistol, rifle, fowling-piece or other firearms in the city; provided that the provisions hereof shall not apply to premises designated by the police commissioner, a list of which shall be filed with the city clerk and published in the City Record."

So, what does the City Record have listed as the exempt premises?

Technically, it eliminates the purpose of owning a firearm, making the right useless. Therefore, no.

Irrelevant. The definition stands, no matter how impractical or contrary to public opinion.

 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!