Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,178 Year: 5,435/9,624 Month: 460/323 Week: 100/204 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 5 of 310 (668935)
07-25-2012 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by hooah212002
07-25-2012 7:27 PM


Yes, it is evident based on context, but it has also been argued that we already have our militia: the National Guard
Sure. Except what happens when it's the National Guard that we all need to protect ourselves from?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:27 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:53 PM Jon has replied
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 12:40 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 7 of 310 (668938)
07-25-2012 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by hooah212002
07-25-2012 7:53 PM


Simmer Down...
What part of that made you think I was making that argument.
What part of my post made you think I was doing anything other than bringing up another possible line of thought?
Do you think that maybe you overreacted just a little?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 7:53 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 07-25-2012 9:15 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 310 (668959)
07-26-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 12:40 AM


Do you think it is going to make a hill of beans difference what the 2nd Amendment states if individual citizens are defending themselves against the National Guard or the US Military. At that point federal and even state legislation is a moot point. Not that I think this will ever happen.
The point I was making is that if people's guns are taken away from them now, it gives them no defense against an oppressive tyranny in the future.
The purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the individual citizen the right to have weapons for the protection of himself and his loved ones through militias and the like against any future tyranical powers that could possibly take away his 'God-given' freedoms.
Exactly'future tyranical powers'. Such as the U.S. government. The former Brits had just fought the British kingtheir own leaderto defend their rights. They were well aware of the potential necessity for people to fight against their own government.
Certain gun enthusiasts have taken this freedom to a whole new extreme wanting very few if any restrictions on highly lethal weaponry (automatic and semi-automtic machine guns, unlimited ammo and weapon stashing, high capacity magazines, etc) that no 18th century patriot could dare imagine much less advocate.
If the only arms allowed are useless in protecting someone from 'future tyranical powers', then the amendment is as good as non-existent.
All inalienable rights require a certain amount of qualifiers and controls to protect other people's freedoms and allow for public safety.
Sure. The purpose of the amendment is to create a check against tyrannical nutjobs. So it is clearly in the best interest of the people to keep weapons out of the hands of such tyrannical nutjobs.
This does, of course, raise the issue of just what constitutes a 'nutjob'. But that is an issue for the people to decide...
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 12:40 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by xongsmith, posted 07-26-2012 11:50 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 173 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-29-2012 6:34 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
(3)
Message 83 of 310 (669046)
07-26-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 10:46 AM


Re: Us poor scared people
Briterican writes:
Is it really necessary to say why?
Only if you want me to believe it's something other than fear.
Let's be fair to Briterican; he's also against gun ownership because it makes him 'sick'. (Message 21)
All valid reasons, of course...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 10:46 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 87 of 310 (669055)
07-26-2012 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Huntard
07-26-2012 3:22 PM


There must be an explanation for this, yet I can't think of any.
Compare: The violent Middle East; an area of the world rife with ideological and cultural extremism, mass ignorance, and serious racial/ethnic inequalities.
And the U.S.; a country rife with religious and ideological extremism, mass ignorance, and serious racial/ethnic inequalities.
I, personally, don't think the explanations could be anymore obvious.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Huntard, posted 07-26-2012 3:22 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by onifre, posted 07-26-2012 5:06 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 118 of 310 (669136)
07-27-2012 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate
07-27-2012 1:01 AM


What I am saying is there is a greater capacity (not intent) to do harm to more people with a machine gun than with a pistol in one incident.
What is the capacity of a stationary car to do harm?
Does a stationary train have a greater capacity to do harm?
If the weapon is not being used, isn't its capacity to do harm zero?
How does 'capacity' relate to your three-pronged analysis of 'capability', 'intent' and 'opportunity'?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 1:01 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 132 of 310 (669193)
07-27-2012 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Adequate
07-27-2012 8:38 PM


What they didn't do was form a citizens' militia, fight a victorious pitched battle against the SS, and then march on Berlin.
That may have not happened in early 20th century Germany, but it certainly happened in the British Colonies of 1776.
An armed citizenry doesn't always rise up against an oppressive tyranny. But that's not the point. The point is that an unarmed citizenry never can.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-27-2012 8:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 12:11 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 134 of 310 (669196)
07-27-2012 9:54 PM


Murder is Murder
We need to stop setting up an artificial distinction between gun murders and other types of murders.
Murder is murder.
And that's all she wrote.

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 12:00 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 310 (669398)
07-29-2012 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2012 12:11 AM


My point was simply that Hitler, in particular, constitutes a counterexample to rather than an example of any claims about a connection between guns and liberty.
What Hitler did is a perfect example of not only why people need to keep their guns, but why people need to learn why they have them.
General Gandhi, leader of the famed Indian Revolutionary Army that defeated the British redcoats at the Battle of Delhi. Or something like that.
And in a perfect world my ass would wipe itself.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2012 12:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2012 10:30 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 310 (669401)
07-29-2012 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Modulous
07-28-2012 12:00 PM


Re: Murder is Murder
Unless of course, someone were to make the claim that gun restrictions don't prevent gun crime as criminals will still have guns - or similar claims. Then its quite pertinent to gun control discussion.
No. It was never pertinent to the discussion, no more than flying elephants are pertinent to the discussion just because I brought them up.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 12:00 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 12:26 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 310 (669480)
07-30-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Tangle
07-30-2012 11:54 AM


Re: Inclusive
1. Availability of a weapon that is lethal even in untrained hands
2. Potential to do massive damage to a large number of people quickly (do you really think the Colorado and Norwegian killings could have been done with a knife?)
3. Ability to kill at range
4. Ability to kill regardless of defense.
5. Ability to kill impersonally (killing with a knife is a very personal thing and it requires physical strength, luck and determination.)
6. Increased likelyhood of use in crime
7. Development of a gun culture which normalises gun use
And so on.
Nice list. But wouldn't it have been better if you had actually answered crashfrog's question?
It stands unless corrected
And it has been corrected. See crashfrog's Message 198.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2012 11:54 AM Tangle has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 310 (669486)
07-30-2012 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Modulous
07-30-2012 12:26 PM


Should I anticipate you addressing what I said, though?
What's to address that's relevant to the topic?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 12:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 3:40 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 310 (669502)
07-30-2012 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Modulous
07-30-2012 2:18 PM


Re: opportunity, not motive
If we make something easier to do, we tend to find more people do it
But that's just the thing: Does that 'tendency' even exist for gun access and homicide rates?
The data crash presented seem to indicate that such a 'tendency' does not, in fact, existthat there is no correlation between making it easier to kill someone by providing people with guns and an increase in killings.
The principle probably rests on the notion that it is easier to get a gun and pull the trigger several times in the heat of the moment than it is to get a knife and plunge it into someone several times
Whatever you may have heard about regarding ease-of-access to guns in the U.S., let me assure you that there is more to getting a firearm than just being in the 'heat of the moment'. It is, contrary to what you've said, actually easier to get a knife than a gun.
As for the second part of it allpulling a trigger vs. plunging a knife into someone's chestI have experience doing neither, so I cannot really tell you which is easier.
Add to that, that guns can kill people in circumstances where knives or clubs cannot.
There may well be an effect in respect of 'he might have a gun, therefore I should shoot at the first hint of a weapon' which might result in more deaths and injury too.
Back to the 'cans' and 'may well bes' again?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 2:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 3:45 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 218 of 310 (669512)
07-30-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Modulous
07-30-2012 3:40 PM


And the argument 'gun control does not prevent gun crime as criminals would still have guns' is an argument against gun controls.
And an irrelevant one at that.
Any ensuing discussion is also irrelevant.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 3:40 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2012 4:53 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 227 of 310 (669522)
07-30-2012 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by dronestar
07-30-2012 3:54 PM


Re: Inclusive
I would guess there are a lot more accidental deaths by guns versus knives or ropes or unlit stairwells.
Your 'guesses' aren't evidence.
There are about 100-500 child deaths a year due to accidental shootings, yes? Umm, . . . hooray for living in a gun society, . . . hooray, hooray, hooray.
Please review the relevancy of your fresh-from-the-ass statistics:
quote:
Accidental Firearm Deaths (National MCH Center for Child Death Review):
In 2000, 174 children (0-18) in the United States died from unintentional firearm-related injuries.
quote:
Intentional Firearm Deaths (National MCH Center for Child Death Review):
In 2000, 1,242 children in the United States died from intentional firearm-related injuries. Homicides of children are most often murders of teens by other teens.
quote:
Vehicle-related Deaths (National MCH Center for Child Death Review):
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of unintentional deaths to children. In the United States in 2000, 6,466 children (0-18) were killed in motor vehicle crashes.
In fact, more children die of natural causes than gun deaths and car deaths combined, and that's in a developed country with state-of-the-art medical sciences and technologies:
quote:
Deaths by Natural Causes (National MCH Center for Child Death Review):
In 1999, 9,848 children over the age of one died in the United States from natural causes.
Main site: http://www.childdeathreview.org/causes.htm.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by dronestar, posted 07-30-2012 3:54 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024