Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 3:25pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

No, it's the value of the right to ultimately control your own property (including yourself) freely vs your life.


You have the right to control your own property. That's what we call ownership and why theft is a crime. You also have the right to protect your property. However, as I have been trying to point out, you are placing a far greater risk upon yourself by engaging in the conflict directly, even if you do come armed with a gun. It is NOT safer to have a gun, unless the person intends to harm you anyways. That is the point.

I've said this before. I support gun ownership and concealed carry. I think people have the right to defend themselves and others. I do not, however, support idiots without training obtaining lethal weapons on the premise that they're safer with them, when really, they're just a danger to themselves and others. If you want a gun, know how to use it and responsibly own it. That's all I'm saying. It's crazy how absurd that idea seems to be to everyone though.

If you comply, they own you.


Not necessarily. Momentarily complying while waiting for help to arrive (assuming you've called the police) is a strategic move. Of course, if they try to put you in a position of utter vulnerability, or appear as if they intend harm (for example, it's a man and you're a woman and think he might rape you if you drop your weapon) then it would be a bad idea to take that course.

They only 'own you' as much as you let them. Shooting them in the face and letting them beat you to death is a false dichotomy you're presenting. There are so many other options that you can take to prevent them from taking your stuff that DOESN'T involve killing them.

Don't fight back until the threat is carried out? Really?


No. Don't engage in violence until it's unavoidable. If the robber doesn't know you're there/awake, calling the police and waiting is the best thing to do. Not grabbing your pistol and running down the stairs, where you place yourself in unnecessary danger and potential legal trouble, not to mention it might not even be a robber. There are those cases where it's a family member who's mistaken in the night.

If you're in a desperate situation where you're already expecting life in prison if you're caught,


Robbery isn't exactly a life sentence.

Why would you blame the victim under those circumstances? Does being naked and unconscious count as sexual consent?


I consider gross idiocy punishable. If you strip and go to sleep in the middle of a back alley, then get raped, I have no sympathy. The rapist is at fault for committing the crime, but you're a **** moron. Except in this case, the harm from negligence was done onto the person being negligent, so there's no reason to punish.

I'm pretty sure most police would view leaving an untended car running next to a prison as at LEAST worthy of citation. Likewise, if you leave a weapon within each reach and someone steals it to commit a crime, you're responsible in part.

Every object is a tool. Something being a weapon is dependent on what is done with it, not the manufacturer's intent.


And some tools are better for certain tasks than others. I can use a wrench as a can opener. Should I call the wrench a can opener? You're arguing that a kitchen knife is equivalent to a gun. It's not. You're arguing that a random object improvised as a weapon is used as extensively as a gun. They're not. You're arguing that if we banned guns (which I'm not saying we even should, yet again addressing this ridiculous strawman) people would just use different objects in the same proliferation as guns. EVEN IF THEY DID, those other objects are almost certainly not as dangerous or life threatening as a gun.

So it's only a problem after (#) of people are killed? Why isn't the focus on prevention of further actions?


It's only a problem when it's a problem. I should think that's obvious. You don't go around banning everything because you can imagine ways in which it could be misused. You address what the problem is.

The focus SHOULD BE on prevention of further actions. THAT'S WHAT GUN CONTROL IS. Making sure those who have guns will use them responsible, and taking them away from those who do not have them legally.

What do you call surveillance? People whine about being 'spied' on without realizing how they're being protected by it. OH NOE THE GOVERNMENT READ MY FACEBOOK STATUS AND LEARNED I HAD PASTA! Yeah. They don't care.

I'm disappointed EmperorPalpatine. I had thought you were more reasonable than this, but you keep resorting to sweeping fallacies and paranoid hypotheticals while (perhaps not intentionally) misrepresenting my words.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 4:41pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

I do not, however, support idiots without training obtaining lethal weapons on the premise that they're safer with them, when really, they're just a danger to themselves and others. If you want a gun, know how to use it and responsibly own it. That's all I'm saying. It's crazy how absurd that idea seems to be to everyone though.

I agree with training, education, and responsibility, even as mandatory requirements. But considering that even the people who get the most rigorous training (law enforcement, military) sometimes abuse their power regardless of their qualifications, what amount is enough?

No. Don't engage in violence until it's unavoidable. If the robber doesn't know you're there/awake, calling the police and waiting is the best thing to do. Not grabbing your pistol and running down the stairs, where you place yourself in unnecessary danger and potential legal trouble, not to mention it might not even be a robber.

I'm not advising to run at them. What's wrong with calling the police and waiting with a weapon just in case? Could an unarmed person who knows Krav Maga stand by their door and wait instead of laying on the floor with their hands on their head? Yes, they could be putting themselves in more danger, but is that not their right?

There are so many other options that you can take to prevent them from taking your stuff that DOESN'T involve killing them.

Yes. As you said before, the aim is to stop the threat, not to necessarily kill. So what's wrong for a homeowner with proper training to aim for an appendage?

Robbery isn't exactly a life sentence.

I meant past crimes beyond the current incident.

And some tools are better for certain tasks than others.

I never said that all tools are equal, but where should the line be drawn for "harmful enough to need restrictions"?

It's only a problem when it's a problem. I should think that's obvious. You don't go around banning everything because you can imagine ways in which it could be misused. You address what the problem is.

Pressure cookers have been used as explosive devices and have caused hundreds of deaths. Should there be public restrictions on them? Or should we wait for more attacks?
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 5:52pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,367 posts

MattEmAngel, do you believe that all problem children come from families with broken homes? Or at the very least, the vast majority of them?


How about I go ahead and quote what I already said?

"I would go as far as to say a majority of the criminal population comes from irresponsible parents. A man I personally know teaches public education at an elementary school. He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes"

The students being a reference to the students he interacts with, i.e. an entire elementary school. In an elementary school in Maryland, which enforces some of the strictest gun laws in America, 100% of the "problem students" came from broken homes. That is a fact.

Not necessarily. Momentarily complying while waiting for help to arrive (assuming you've called the police) is a strategic move. Of course, if they try to put you in a position of utter vulnerability, or appear as if they intend harm (for example, it's a man and you're a woman and think he might rape you if you drop your weapon) then it would be a bad idea to take that course.


There is no such thing as "momentarily complying." You either have control of the situation or you do not. Plus, you have offered a perfectly valid situation in which having a firearm is the safest course of action. The phrase "Better safe than sorry" comes to mind, and if an intruder is in your house you are not safe. Regardless of whether you intend to ever draw your firearm, it is better to have one than to not have one.

I don't dream about having someone break into my house and I kill them with my handy .357 revolver (I don't own one anyway). I hope I never have to use a gun on another person, but I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

I consider gross idiocy punishable. If you strip and go to sleep in the middle of a back alley, then get raped, I have no sympathy. The rapist is at fault for committing the crime, but you're a **** moron.


...seriously? You saw "naked and unconscious" as THAT? I'm fairly certain he meant a woman who had been knocked unconscious and stripped naked. Please avoid personal insults. We've been mature enough to avoid using them on you.

You're arguing that if we banned guns (which I'm not saying we even should, yet again addressing this ridiculous strawman) people would just use different objects in the same proliferation as guns. EVEN IF THEY DID, those other objects are almost certainly not as dangerous or life threatening as a gun.


You are the one who constantly argues this "strawman." He mention the knives being locked in a vault, not banned. YOU keep dragging this single point (that I made only once and never used as material since) on and on and on, like it's some kind of trump card. I'm not talking about bans, and neither was he.

It's only a problem when it's a problem. I should think that's obvious. You don't go around banning everything because you can imagine ways in which it could be misused. You address what the problem is.

The focus SHOULD BE on prevention of further actions.


Absolutely correct.

THAT'S WHAT GUN CONTROL IS.


Wrong!

My uncle could bring a shotgun to high school 50+ years ago. It had an official gun club for students to compete with shotguns, rifles and pistols. They were never locked up, you didn't need special permission or a permit to bring one and no one was ever shot or shot at.

So what changed? Shotguns didn't change: a 12-gauge from then is the same 12-gauge in 2014. Control changed: no firearms of any kind are allowed on school properties, but people are being killed. If you want to address the real problem, it's people and society. Morals, discipline and responsibility are to blame, not guns.

A gun can sit on a cafe table in downtown DC and never hurt anyone. It is a lifeless machine. Guns as a whole have not changed: they have always been lifeless machines, and you will never be able to blame a gun, or ANY lifeless machine, for the actions of a human. The amount of access a human has to a lifeless machine is irrelevant, whether you like it or not. No one is under any obligation to pick up the gun and shoot a bystander any more than a person is obligated to rape a naked, unconscious woman.

It hinges on the will of man to do what he wants. THAT is the real, inescapable problem. You can delay it by making it harder to get firearms, but that will not actually solve the problem, and you clearly want to solve the problem. Controlling guns is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable. People will still die.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 6:26pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

"I would go as far as to say a majority of the criminal population comes from irresponsible parents. A man I personally know teaches public education at an elementary school. He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes"

The students being a reference to the students he interacts with, i.e. an entire elementary school. In an elementary school in Maryland, which enforces some of the strictest gun laws in America, 100% of the "problem students" came from broken homes. That is a fact.


As you're restating what I've already read and not answering the question, I'll hold to my previous conclusion.

Regardless of whether you intend to ever draw your firearm, it is better to have one than to not have one.


I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you more likely.

...seriously? You saw "naked and unconscious" as THAT? I'm fairly certain he meant a woman who had been knocked unconscious and stripped naked.


That wouldn't really fit with the context of what he had been replying to. Of course someone who was assaulted and left somewhere isn't responsible for what happens after that.

We've been mature enough to avoid using them on you.


*All uses of 'you' were to the contextual person in my example, who willingly stripped off their clothing and slept in an alley. I did not mean to refer to anyone posting here.

He mention the knives being locked in a vault, not banned.


Knives in the kitchen aren't an object people commonly pick up to harm other people with.

Or tell me, do you see a gun on the counter as harmless as a knife on the counter?

YOU keep dragging this single point (that I made only once and never used as material since)


You've only explicitly stated it once. You've used it multiple times, and I pointed out each time. EmperorPalpatine has used it far more than you.

I'm not talking about bans, and neither was he.


One by one then, here we go.

I believe people have a right to own guns. Not only is it constitutional, it's a part of capitalism. The flaw is that those against guns constantly ask the same question: "Why do you NEED this? Why do you need a 30-round magazine, fore grip, scope, etc."


Page 96. Implying that the other side is against ownership of guns.

Gun bans to reduce crime:


Page 96. Explicit strawman of gun control to mean the same as gun ban.

Gun bans will not stop gun violence to any useful extent.


Page 96. Explicit strawman that the argument is about banning guns.

I didn't say "gun control" because I wasn't talking about gun control. I was talking about literally banning guns entirely, i.e. outright denying firearms to the public. I mentioned gun control afterwards. Gun BANS are indeed an issue because some believe that no one should ever own a gun at all. I was arguing against that, not control.


Page 97. Do I really need to explain how this is a strawman of the argument on gun control?

No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it.


Page 97. Admitting that you were arguing against gun bans, not gun control. The definition of a strawman when the topic is gun control.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.


Page 97. Classic front for the "gun ban won't work" argument, which is a strawman in this case.

These are all from you Matt. Don't tell me you aren't using it, when it's been in every single one of your posts.

Morals, discipline and responsibility are to blame, not guns.


The sad thing here is you're almost correct. It's a change in our society to blame. That's the pitiful part of the catechism, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's true. Except entirely missing the point. Guns are being using to kill people.

Society is to blame. Guns are objects, they are not inherently good or evil. It is how they are used that determines what they are. Currently, in our society, guns are being rampantly used for evil. We could reduce that if we wanted to.

Controlling guns is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable. People will still die.


Prosecuting criminals is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable result of criminals committing crimes. They will still commit crimes.

Yet we still do it. Do you think we should not?

But considering that even the people who get the most rigorous training (law enforcement, military) sometimes abuse their power regardless of their qualifications, what amount is enough?


That would be something for experts in training to decide. I'm not qualified to say what's a safe level of training. Yes, we can't ensure that the guns won't be misused, but we can take steps to ensure less are misused.

What's wrong with calling the police and waiting with a weapon just in case?


Nothing at all. That's exactly what I've been saying to do all along. Take measures to protect yourself, avoid the conflict, and defend yourself if necessary.

Yes, they could be putting themselves in more danger, but is that not their right?


It is their right, and I've said as much. I was arguing the idea that having a gun makes you less likely to be harmed. That simply isn't true unless the person has prior intent to harm. A robber wants your things, not to hurt you. They almost certainly aren't going to try and hurt you unless you threaten them. Pulling a gun out and confronting the robber could be the difference between getting shot yourself and having the police arrive a few minutes later.

So what's wrong for a homeowner with proper training to aim for an appendage?


Nothing at all. I said the exact same thing earlier, and I quote, "You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate as much as possible. These gun maniacs think it's justified to shoot a dozen rounds into a guy's chest because he threatened to take their wallet."

I meant past crimes beyond the current incident.


I'm not familiar with sentencing rates for burglars with a loooong record. Once or twice won't be more than a few years though, unless they hurt someone too. All the more reason for the burglar not to hurt the person.

I never said that all tools are equal, but where should the line be drawn for "harmful enough to need restrictions"?


I'd say, 'made to kill things' is a pretty obvious line. A knife, unless it's a combat knife, is made to cut food. I don't know whether combat knives are require some kind of license to buy. Likewise, pressure cookers are not made to be weapons.

As for when these things not made to be weapons should be restricted, I would say when it becomes a problem. If we're constantly seeing pressure cooker bombs, it's an obvious move to restrict the sale of pressure cookers. If they aren't being used to cause trouble often, there's no point.

Should there be public restrictions on them? Or should we wait for more attacks?


A dozen incidents. We see thousands of instances of gun violence every year. See the difference? Pressure cookers aren't being used nearly often enough to justify requiring checks on who they're being sold to. They aren't a problem. This seems common sense to me.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 7:36pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,367 posts

As you're restating what I've already read and not answering the question, I'll hold to my previous conclusion.


I believe a majority of irresponsible and rebellious people come from broken homes.

That wouldn't really fit with the context of what he had been replying to. Of course someone who was assaulted and left somewhere isn't responsible for what happens after that.


It's more reasonable to apply "naked and unconscious" to a person who has been attacked, not a person who, by choice, took off all of their clothing and passed out. But it doesn't really matter anymore.

Knives in the kitchen aren't an object people commonly pick up to harm other people with.

Or tell me, do you see a gun on the counter as harmless as a knife on the counter?


A kitchen knife, as far as offense goes, is probably second only to a firearm. And as for your question, I already answered it. They are lifeless machines (tools would probably apply better), and are equally harmless. A knife and a handgun could sit on a kitchen counter until the world ended and would never harm anyone.

Alright. Gun bans, once and for all. You quoted me as saying "I'm not talking about gun bans." That is present-tense.

Your first three are all from my first post, in which I was making an opinion specifically about bans because I wanted to go ahead and mention it, and only the second two are referenced to actual bans. The first was about the topic of capitalism and logic, not about bans.

In the next one, the only mention of "bans" was to say that I had already made a point about it, and it is past-tense. I was arguing against that, not control. Was.

No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it. is, again, past-tense. I WAS arguing it, all the way back in Post 1, and I only brought it up because you brought it up.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done literally says NOTHING about gun bans.

These are all from you Matt. Don't tell me you aren't using it, when it's been in every single one of your posts


It has been in every post because it has been in every one of YOUR posts, and my response in every case was "This was something I discussed previously, I have nothing to add." You've made your opinion on gun bans quite clear. Stop telling me I'm using it when I'm not actually using it. Besides responding to your responses about that specific topic, I've never so much used the word "ban" in any other sentence (minus mentioning urban centers gun bans. You must have missed that one). Feel free to go back and re-read all of them.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 8:13pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

I believe a majority of irresponsible and rebellious people come from broken homes.


Which is what I had gathered. That you believe these people are 'irresponsible' and 'rebellious' due to a father not being present is sexist. There are far more factors at play than the lack of a male figure in the home. Correlation does not equal causation.

A kitchen knife, as far as offense goes, is probably second only to a firearm.


For day to day items perhaps. Even still, it's far below the lethality, range, and stopping power of a gun, and it requires strength to use.

A knife and a handgun could sit on a kitchen counter until the world ended and would never harm anyone


Then please explain why it is not responsible to leave a gun sitting on the counter.

You quoted me as saying "I'm not talking about gun bans." That is present-tense.


I also quote sexists and racists saying they aren't sexist and racist. That doesn't make it so. You said you weren't, but you built your arguments around the assumption that you were talking about gun bans in the areas I quoted.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done literally says NOTHING about gun bans.


Yes, and saying cigarettes kill people literally says nothing about how. It's implied in your statement that "bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done" is in reference to how, if all guns were banned, there would still be violence. That is the central idea of your statement. It is the most common argument against gun bans.

I'd like to hear your response to this part below.

I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you more likely.
 

Posted Jan 20, '14 at 11:55pm

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

I'm not on my computer, so forgive the brevity and disjointed style.

- You'd need to be near dead to fail in using a kitchen knife as a weapon. It's balanced, sharp, has a point. In case you forgot--people are squishy. Although it may lack the range of a firearm, it is quite literally a household item. I'm fairly certain I read that kitchen knives were used in a surprising amount of crimes/attacks. I'll look for it when I get on a computer. Regardless! Man has been using knives of some sort to kill each other for bloody ages for a reason. They're cheap to make, easy to use a good at what they do.

- You totally missed the context and poit behind the counter situation. He was saying that without human interference, neither one will do anything. If you put a pen in the hand of a determined person they -will- kill.
As a side note: You shouldn't just leave a kicthen knive on a counter unattended. That can go wrong really fast.

 

Posted Jan 21, '14 at 12:10am

Kasic

Kasic

5,746 posts

- You'd need to be near dead to fail in using a kitchen knife as a weapon. It's balanced, sharp, has a point. In case you forgot--people are squishy.


Yet knife wounds are far less often fatal. They also require someone to be close. You can run from someone holding a knife. Not so much with guns, that punch straight through your body doing massive damage to all surrounding tissues.

Regardless! Man has been using knives of some sort to kill each other for bloody ages for a reason. They're cheap to make, easy to use a good at what they do.


Yeah. But we use guns now, because guns are far better. Guns were the reason Europe could control so many different areas with so few soldiers. Swords and shields only went so far.

And knives have nothing to do with the fact that guns are being used rampantly in crime, and that we often see crimes that would have been easily prevented if the gun owner had been checked/been responsible in how they stored their gun.

He was saying that without human interference, neither one will do anything. If you put a pen in the hand of a determined person they -will- kill.


And you totally missed the point that a gun is far more lethal than a knife. I'm sure you've heard the cliche, "brought a knife to a gunfight." Who's going to win?
 

Posted Jan 21, '14 at 1:03am

Devoidless

Devoidless

3,838 posts

If you're going to try and provide counter-arguments, you are going to need to do better than that. I expect better from you.

Let me get back on my computer and I'll respond. I'll delete this post upon getting on. This is simply a placeholder.

 

Posted Jan 21, '14 at 2:07pm

MattEmAngel

MattEmAngel

7,367 posts

Which is what I had gathered. That you believe these people are 'irresponsible' and 'rebellious' due to a father not being present is sexist. There are far more factors at play than the lack of a male figure in the home. Correlation does not equal causation.


It is NOT sexist. It is a fact. In 2007 alone, 13.7 out of 22 million parents (over half of all families) raised a child while the other parents was "somewhere else," and 82% of custodial parents were mothers (this from the government census bureau), and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency reports that the most reliable indicator of violent crime in a community is the proportion of fatherless families (this from the National Criminal Justice website). An article by Kay Hymowitz titled "The Real, Complex Connection Between Single-Parent Families and Crime" states that "there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched. Few experts...dispute this." (posted on The Atlantic's news website).

Then please explain why it is not responsible to leave a gun sitting on the counter.


I never said it was responsible. You only asked "do you see a gun on the counter as harmless as a knife on the counter?" and the answer is that neither is more harmless.

I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you more likely.


You already said that you stated it multiple times. I have already replied: you have no way of knowing that. 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. The criminal may be willing to harm you regardless to avoid a witness. They may also be willing to harm you because they enjoy it. They are also entirely likely to flee at the sight of an armed homeowner.

As I have already stated, I would rather be armed and defend myself than be unarmed and hope that the intruder would have mercy on me. Your life is in danger if he is armed. You can hide (and hope you aren't discovered), surrender (and hope he doesn't hurt you) or fight back and at least have a chance at losing neither your life, the life of anyone else in your house or your property.

I'd like to hear your response to this part below.[quote]

As you said, you've stated it "multiple times." I have responded multiple times. Asking me one more time isn't going to change the answer.
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!