Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 12:28 AM
24 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Pressie, Theodoric (4 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,843 Year: 9,879/19,786 Month: 2,301/2,119 Week: 337/724 Day: 0/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617181920
21
Author Topic:   for the record (re: guns thread)
nator
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 301 of 305 (400562)
05-14-2007 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by One_Charred_Wing
05-14-2007 10:01 PM


quote:
Then it sounds to me like population density has more to do with violence than guns.

It isn't one or the other. It is more complicated than that.

And...

...as I have repeated innumerable times since the first time nearly 600 posts ago...

I never said that guns were the cause of violence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-14-2007 10:01 PM One_Charred_Wing has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-15-2007 2:46 AM nator has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 305 (400567)
05-15-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Jon
05-14-2007 7:27 PM


Re: Bump for Question
Errm... as has been discussed in other parts of these two threads, the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was so that people wouldn't have to wait for their government to provide them with weapons before they go to deffending their homes.

I think that's much less problematic now, so I don't see that as a major objection.

Do you know how remote some of the border areas are?

If they're remote, then logistically, they have little to fear from military invasion. The point of invasion is to seize valuable targets, not worthless, remote ones.

Really most of this "self-defense from Canada" argumentation is just paranoia. In the meantime, nearly 30,000 people a year are paying the price with their lives - involuntarily - to keep us defended from fictional invasions from Canada. Color me not impressed.

I'm much more interested in the argument from personal self-defense. The Constitution can be changed at literally any time, it's a living document that should guide, but not dictate, our response to the contingencies of the present. Arguments about the original intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment don't make much of an impression on me. It's undeniable that the proliferation of handguns has societal costs - no one seriously argues otherwise - but it's also undeniable that they have a utility in self-defense.

Where's the inflection point, I wonder? Where the costs to everybody else justify putting you at risk by denying you a firearm? I don't expect Jon to have much of a cogent answer but it's an open question. For the next thread, I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Jon, posted 05-14-2007 7:27 PM Jon has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 666 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 303 of 305 (400570)
05-15-2007 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by One_Charred_Wing
05-14-2007 10:01 PM


Then it sounds to me like population density has more to do with violence than guns.

Once again...
We are not talking about the causes if violence, nor are we suggesting that guns cause violence.

Violence occurs. It has many different causes. Population density is surely one of the factors.

The issue at hand is - Why do we need weapons which can allow people to spray bullets willy nilly? Doesn't think increase the body count in cases of violence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 05-14-2007 10:01 PM One_Charred_Wing has not yet responded

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 4329 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 304 of 305 (400571)
05-15-2007 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by nator
05-14-2007 10:22 PM


It isn't one or the other. It is more complicated than that.

me writes:

Then it sounds to me like population density has more to do with violence than guns.

I didn't say it was one or the other, I said that it sounded like more of the problem was with people.

I KNOW you don't think guns=violence. Forgive me for daring to interject?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by nator, posted 05-14-2007 10:22 PM nator has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1911
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 305 of 305 (400572)
05-15-2007 3:07 AM


Time To Empty The Chamber
Well Deputies...its time to ride off into the sunset with this thread.

Thanks everyone for participating. :)

Edited by AdminPhat, : phat becomes AdminPhat



GOT QUESTIONS? You may click these links for some feedback:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Forum Guidelines
    ***************************************
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  •   
    RewPrev1
    ...
    1617181920
    21
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019