Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

The world would be a wonderful place if guns have never been invented, but the reality is that there are two to three times as many weapons in circulation around the world than the entire human population. So we then have to deal with the reality of the situation and stop succumbing to useless platitudes like, "give peace a chance," as if no one's thought about that before. Gee, now why didn't I think of that, John?!?!Then again murder has always existed long before sophisticated weaponry had ever been conceptualized. The problem then is with people and not weapons themselves. The greatest weapon and ironically its worst weapon in any army is not the weaponry, but rather its the soldiers themselves.So to tie both of the OP's premises, society is the foundation of it all. What we allow in to the society can either poison it or make it good and strong. Therein lies the crux of the situation. Every one has opposing views on how to make it better, but it never really does get better in any kind of definitive sense.Is retribution a virtue or is it looked down upon? The reality is it is both. It is frowned upon when calloused retribution is taken outside the confines of the law, but is not the law itself a form of retribution? Are you not personally satisfied when a cold-hearted killer is sentenced to life in prison? We all feel that emotion even if we ultimately wished that the person would have never opted to kill to begin with.To make my position on guns very clear, guns don't kill people... People kill people. Guns are the tools people use to kill people. We look at the VA massacre and people blame the gun, an inanimate object incapable of malice, more quickly than they blame the psychologists who allowed Cho to roam free knowing full well he was a danger to himself and others. Ironically, the tool that gave him the capacity to enact his hatred on his fellow students was also the same tool that stopped it from continuing.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

Yeah, because I'm sure we're all thinking of the value of the life of the person victimizing you who very well may be there to rob, rape, murder, or torture you.It's easy to say what you'll do when you're not actually in the situation, but we'll see if you offer your intruder a cup of tea while you're being brutalized. So what do you suggest? Sitting around waiting to uncover their intent and motive? How are you supposed to know the intentions of someone breaking in to your house? You do realize that a simple B&E can and does turn in to murder, I presume? It's not about that. It's that they are victimizing people in their own domicile, violating their civil rights, brutalizing, thieving, and conniving people to meet their own ends. What you are suggesting is totally unreasonable, because you have no clue what the intruder is actually doing or what they're capable of once they realize they've been discovered.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

I've never understood why anyone would place more blame on guns and their manufacturers over the person who wields it with the forethought of malice. It doesn't make any sense, as if murder will someone stop if every gun was melted in to some benign object. Oh, and that's another thing... Human ingenuity perseveres, sometimes in undesirable ways.You take guns away and people will switch to knives, pipes, axes, etc, etc. Murder is here to stay until the fix the actual root of the problem; their mind! In prison they'll resort to collecting cellophane wrappers from cigarette packs, wad them together, heat and melt them, and then taper the edges in to a rigid stabbing tool. Should that be a new anti-smoking/anti-gun advertisement?Or what about vehicular homicide or involuntary manslaughter via motor vehicles? Should we take away cars, which easily kill more people every year than guns could ever hope or dream? Or should we not make responsible gun/car owners suffer, but hold accountable those who misuse those objects?Cars can't drive themselves, guns don't discharge themselves, and knives don't randomly plunge in to internal organs... It takes people to use the tool. Is that really such a difficult concept to grasp? You seem to get it, what the hell are these other people going on about? The people you and I are dealing with in opposition to some of our cherished ideals are the kind who see the victimizer as the victim, and if we only took the time to understand their plight and their pain, we could rehabilitate them. That's all fine and good in its time and place. Where it's an inappropriate and unreasonable place and time to do that is inside my home where I've just stumbled upon an intruder who was never invited in to my personal space. Since I have no idea what they're capable of or their exact intentions, because I'm not a fucking mind-reader, I will do whatever is necessary to defend myself, my family, and my personal property. If the circumstances permit me to kill the assailant, then so be it. Yeah, well, I value my right to possess and utilize firearms. They can call me whatever they want. I call it the blessing of being free.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

I was pointing out the obvious, that even if you got rid of every firearm that murder and assault would still take place, and that all that disarming law-abiding citizens does is give a greater advantage to the one's who misuse it in the first place. Ergo, it's a self-defeating principle. Yep, they are instruments of war. Just like before when there were no guns there were various weapons of war throughout the ages. Are you seeing a correlation? It's not the weapon, it's people. It's ALWAYS been people.Besides there are limits and there are restrictions. But those restrictions vary from sovereign nation to sovereign nation.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

Gun control advocates get laws passed all the time and then always attempt to get more restrictions passed. To the 2nd Amendment advocates it sounds as if a systematic removal of gun ownership is the ultimate goal.I'd also like to echo the sentiments expressed by Legend that by definition, criminal don't obey the law, so how is passing a law going to somehow subvert their attempts? If you pass a law banning guns altogether, resourceful and enterprising criminals still find ways to get them. So in reality the law-abiding citizens have been effectively disarmed and the criminal continues to usurp legal authority.At the base level we see that it is therefore a self-defeating and circular principle.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

You may not but there are countless others that do, and even those that claim they aren't want to restrict it so far that they might as well. That is what I'm operating under right now and the mindset that I'm dealing with. How is that a slippery slope if what were are discussing is on topic? I'm not introducing anything other than guns and the people who rail against them. And what you seem to be missing is that many, many restrictions have already been addressed and passed, yet the endorsement to continue to further restrict them never ceases. So what do you think that is tantamount to? You can say you don't want to take guns away, but that doesn't reflect what we see. That's not a slippery slope, that's calling someone out to clarify what exactly they're hoping for. I'm not talking about peace keeping institutions (law enforcement I assume?), I'm referring to the common citizen. Which effect gun control sales, which effects people's livelihoods, which affects my ability to procure legal guns, etc. Why not simply limit what is a legal firearm? There is no need to have automatic weapons for home defense, so right there no automatic weapons. Beyond not having felony convictions or not being entered in to a database for individuals with serious mental illness, what reasonable reason is there to preclude anyone from having a firearm? If you limit the amount of guns, then you inherently limit who gets to have one. There are millions of citizens, most of which are law-abiding citizens. So who get to have them and who don't? That's vague and non-descript. Can you please elaborate with some specificity? We don't already have that??? No, actually it really wouldn't considering there are firearm rings all around the world who illegally smuggle in arms. That's how countries with stringent firearm laws still have murders by handguns. In the US it is the job of the ATF to monitor and regulate the sale of legal and illegal arms in to the United States. Yes, it's very simple. Social norms dictate people's behaviors, which is really the cause of crime to begin with, not guns. The unfettered glorification of violence is one, the general disrespect of our citizens is another, and the fact that we have the 3rd largest population all play significant roles in why this society is homicidal.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

But that's already a law... And that's part of the problem. Many of what gun control advocates complain about are already bylaws, and yet they still remain unsatisfied.What exactly are you hoping for when you say that you want stricter gun control? Well, that's already happened in virtually every single society to date... The United States is really one of the last places on earth that believes that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. It's therefore not all that far-fetched that certain people and institutions within the US government want to restrict the 2nd Amendment.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

How else do you think the United States gained its independence from the most powerful empire of the time?For clarification, I have no desire to live like Somali's, where the factions with the most guns rule the streets. I think highly of gun-control and agree with most of what has already been passed. But I am suspicious of those that seek to restrict it further. Those who say they don't want to eradicate citizen ownership of guns altogether aren't stupid. They aren't going to do this in one swift move, but rather by a slow and methodical stripping of rights. Look at how well conventional forces have fared against rag-tag rebel
forces, past and present, with little more than small arms and human ingenuity. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc. The US government would be foolish to even attempt to disarm its own citizens at this point. Americans would never stand for it, nor would they willingly surrender their arms so peacefully. The government knows that. They aren't just going to do something like that overnight. How they would take away gun rights is, like I said, slowly through one piece of legislature at a time.I don't think there is some vast conspiracy theory where the government is trying to disarm the citizens of the US. But there are those in high places that would like to someday see that. I believe they have benevolent intentions... But that doesn't mean that they are necessarily right because they have good intentions in mind.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

Strawman.Vehicles are statistically far more deadly than firearms. Should we suppose that since none of us have died in car accidents that we should stop obeying traffic laws and stop wearing seatbelts?

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

My bone of contention is more with untrained, unlicensed boaters, possibly the dumbest idea in the history. We make it compulsory to get a driver's license, but not a boating license. WTF??? But I digress, as this is not the topic. My job requires to carry firearms every day, so yes. A compact, concealable .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. For home defense and for target practice, yes. Each weapon has a lock box and a trigger lock, never loaded when not in use, with sources of ammunition in a separate location. Whatever the weapon specifies. Sure, because something else people forget is that shooting is also a past-time as it requires skill. Not everyone owns guns for the sole purpose of defense. It would be foolish not to. Yes. Yes.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

You're missing the point. What you were alluding to was that since Legend most likely has never been the victim of gun violence, he therefore has no use for a gun. I'm pointing out how that is faulty reasoning.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

And likewise, Legend, if legally allowed, could familiarize himself with firearms. You didn't become an expert driver intrinsically. It had to be taught, just like everything else. So forsake everything because he might hurt himself, I suppose far worse than an intruder would inflict? Different speeds depending on the caliber. Or how about the intruder shoots you through the head, which travels through a window and kills your neighbors cat? Your reasoning against citizen ownership of guns is silly at best and impractical at worst. Why is a handgun a bad choice for home defense? A few years ago. Everything would be based on the subjects actions. Whether they have a weapon, the opportunity to utilize it, if they are within maximum effective range, and if they have unrestricted access to use it.Basically, deadly force is that force which a person knows or should know has a substantial risk of causing death or grievous bodily injury. Its use is justified under conditions of extreme necessity when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. It's not rocket-science, really. You are over-complicating things. There are four basic principles for handling a weapon safely. If you heed the rules, you can't go wrong.1. Keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction at all times.
2. Keep your finger outside the trigger guard until the decision to shoot has been made.
3. Only point the weapon towards something you intend to shoot, being mindful of your background and surroundings.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until the decision to shoot has been made.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

Not only that but the very law prevents you in the first place from ever gaining the expertise you desire. Theo here invalidates it a priori and then uses circular logic to establish his point.The bottom line is that these laws only negatively effect law-abiding citizens, as it has already been established that criminals by definition don't adhere to laws. At most it is a minor inconvenience for them, but to the law-abiding citizen it could mean the difference between life or death.So what if you never had to use the weapon to defend yourself? Does that somehow invalidate its purpose? Some people have never seen their airbags deploy, so does that invalidate its purpose? It's like an insurance policy. You hope you never have to use it, but should the time ever come that you need it, its purpose becomes invaluable.The optimal situation is never having to use a gun in a self-defense situation. Likewise, the optimal situation is never having to use your airbags or seatbelt in a car accident. It sure is good to know that if you need all three, that you have access to them.

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

You're still missing the point. You had to be taught and had to practice in order to drive well. You didn't have some intrinsic ability the first time you drove. Likewise, you can train with firearms. The way you make it sound is though if you don't fire a weapon every day of your life, you'll some how shoot yourself accidentally. That's absurd and reduces average people to imbeciles. The average person won't point guns to their head either and squeeze the trigger because they're so stupid they don't know any better. And if by chance they honestly don't know any better, maybe its best that nature weeded those individuals out of the gene pool. The further distance you are away from the target you are firing from with a shotgun, the more the cone of buckshot spreads, further increasing the chances of someone crossing the line of fire. I think shotguns are great, but I'm just wondering why you think they're so vastly better than handguns. That's not even remotely accurate. A semi-automatic pistol typically holds anywhere between 8-12 rounds in each magazine, with extra magazines at the ready fully loaded. A shotgun has half the amount of rounds and has to be chambered manually one at a time.

quote:

---

Or how about the intruder shoots you through the head, which travels through a window and kills your neighbors cat? Your reasoning against citizen ownership of guns is silly at best and impractical at worst.

---

Read what you quoted me saying again. First of all, I never referred to myself as a "professional," but I suppose that by legal definition, I qualify. I just said that part of my job is to carry firearms. Secondly, when did I say that I don't care where a slug ends up?I'm the one kneeling furthest to the left (as it is viewed from the computer) holding the M16, not the shotgun.... the devilishly handsome one http://photos-e-5.ak.fbcdn.net/...44880_527316_8267200_n.jpg So your solution is allow the intruder to kill you because you might miss shooting him and instead kill little Timmy crossing the street??? And what if your coveted criminal is as bad of a shot as you are?How is this a defense for gun control? Theo, they put braindead morons behind the wheels of vehicles weighing several metric tons. What you are describing is not an argument for pro gun control as it is so easily refuted by virtue of equivocation. Well, then I guess I'm more of a gun control advocate than you. I think all firearms should be registered. I think a criminal background check should be mandatory. Those are actually already laws, so I would add that a national database for the mentally ill and mentally unstable be added to the list. Why is that?

---

"I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. " Thomas Paine

Your statistics are not as useful as you imply for several reasons. Most notably it's just a collage of sources that are not juxtaposed by anything other than the side of the argument you wish to defend against. That does not make them worthwhile or worth debating. That's tantamount to saying, "Look, see, lots of people. There, I've proven my point."Showing that 700 people died as the result of homicide by firearm is useless unless you also show the inverse and other methods of homicide or deaths.According to statistics per 100,000 people, the State of Maine's rate of homicide by firearm attributes to 6.5% of total homicides. Homicide by knives in Maine is 28.6%, which account for almost three times as many murders.Massachussets is similar, in that homicide as the result of a firearm attributes only 3.1% as opposed to its death by knife, which is at a stunning 26.9%.What could be some contributing factors in why more homicides using knives in New England, as the trend seems to imply? Gun control is much stricter in New England than in other parts of the United States, comparatively. So in a sense, people are getting less guns and using them less. The problem is that they're using other weapons more in their stead.What about the UK versus the US in manners in which homicides are conducted?

quote:

---

The teen's death and the stabbing murder of a young policewoman earlier this month have compelled authorities to get tough on what Prime Minister Tony Blair last week called Britain's knife culture.

​

In its latest and broadest attempt to get knives off the streets and especially out of the hands of young people, the government Thursday announced a nationwide knife amnesty program. Police hope to collect 30,000 knives that will be turned in at police stations, churches, supermarkets and schools around the country. Home Secretary Charles Clark told the BBC a coinciding public-awareness campaign's message is simple: Carrying knives on the streets will not be tolerated.

​

Stabbings are the most common form of murder in Britain, where firearms except certain shotguns and sporting rifles are outlawed. Most police officers in Britain do not carry firearms.

​

Of the 839 homicides in England and Wales in the 12 months ending Nov. 28 the most recent period for which Home Office figures are available 29% involved sharp instruments including knives, blades and swords. Firearms account for just 9% of murders in Britain. The murder rate in Britain is 15 per million people.

​

The U.S. murder rate is 55 per million, according to the FBI. Of those, 70% of murders were committed with firearms; just 14% involved knives or cutting instruments. Source

---

This is precisely my point.Listen how the authorities in Britain were speaking about knives, which to you and I are just cutting instruments. They're talking about "cracking down on knives?!?!?"So what then is truly symptomatic of the problem? Is it guns or knives? How about neither? How about those are simply tools and it is people who are responsible for wielding tools in order to hurt other people.This goes back to what I was saying. In case you hadn't noticed, murder has always been around and so has warfare. You take away guns, people will go to whatever will maim or kill. The root of the problem is people, not guns.Furthermore, Washington D.C. is a prime example of how "gun control" in the form of robbing people of their 2nd Amendment rights has done nothing to curb violence, but in particular, violence with guns. D.C. for years has been likely and statistically the most violent city in America, with homicide by gun pushing beyond 30%. Gun violence actually DECLINED after the SCOTUS shot down the ban, calling it what it was, which is unconstitutional.Yet, how is it that places like Switzerland, Israel, Denmark, etc, who enjoy even more gun rights than the United States has far less crime? Your equivocation of saturating a society full of guns should correspond to massive deaths by firearms, if what you allege is true. Why then are there not rampant murders that rival the violence in the US?Just because you see no purpose in having a gun doesn't give you the right to speak on my behalf. I am robustly afforded the right to keep and bear arms. So do me a personal favor and don't tread on me. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : typo

---

"Don't ask me who's influenced me. A lion is made up of the lambs he's digested, and I've been reading all my life." - Charles de Gaulle