As far as your second comment, it is my opinion that guns don't kill anymore than a knife or baseball kills someone. It's the user who does. And before you make the comment that a gun's only use is to kill, I'll tell you that a buddy of mine enjoys target practice as a hobby, and has never killed a person or animal in his life. And no, he's not deranged and no he's not paranoid.
So what would you say to a similar solution we have in the Netherlands? You can own a handgun, provided you are a member of a shooting/gun club and you have a permit. Furthermore the gun has to be stored at the club, not at home.
Saw things so much clearer
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
All "social or reasonable" arguments require a philosophical and moral basis.
Ok. The costs of a gun ban exceed any benefits to me. Therefore, I don't want it. So, where does that leave "us"?
yes, they require that BASIS, but also some flexibility to account for practical realities.
that leaves us trying to convince our fellow citizens we are right enough to command a majority of the vote... or in this case more likely it is a 3/4 supermajority if you're looking for a constitutional amendment.
So what would you say to a similar solution we have in the Netherlands? You can own a handgun, provided you are a member of a shooting/gun club and you have a permit. Furthermore the gun has to be stored at the club, not at home.
Props to the Netherlands...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
When that price violates things I believe are my right and the right of my fellow citizens, I'm no longer willing to pay that price. That means you have to extract it from me. And that means you'll need guns more than I do.
Which seems to be the crux of our differences here, I don't believe that it requires guns on either side of an internal debate, democracies survive or fall based on votes not bullets...
International relations are however another ball game of course, talking of which, I'm outta here, got an appointment to kick a ball around a pitch in the vain attempt of scoring a goal or two.
Later
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Which seems to be the crux of our differences here, I don't believe that it requires guns on either side of an internal debate, democracies survive or fall based on votes not bullets...
Do you not see that democracy requires rights to precede it in order for the former to be true? If your democracy is nothing more than a game wherein a given majority extracts manufactured rights from an opposite minority, then bullets are your only option.
International relations are a how other ball game of course, talking of which, I'm outta here, got an appointment to kick a ball around a pitch in the vain attempt of scoring a goal or two.
yes, they require that BASIS, but also some flexibility to account for practical realities.
Ooohh..."practical realities". You just made my day soulsinging
My life and my rights are as much "practical realities" as anyone's whims, desires, or fears.
that leaves us trying to convince our fellow citizens we are right enough to command a majority of the vote... or in this case more likely it is a 3/4 supermajority if you're looking for a constitutional amendment.
Reducing rights to concepts such as "supermajority" may be your business, but it is not mine. I understand where you're coming from here, and I understand the "practical reality" of the American political construct, but I will not sell my soul to that "practical reality".
Ooohh..."practical realities". You just made my day soulsinging
My life and my rights are as much "practical realities" as anyone's whims, desires, or fears.
Reducing rights to concepts such as "supermajority" may be your business, but it is not mine. I understand where you're coming from here, and I understand the "practical reality" of the American political construct, but I will not sell my soul to that "practical reality".
you knew it was only a matter of time
yes, but everyone's practical realities are going to conflict. so someone's always going to lose in a society this big. unless you're living on a hippie commune or religious compound, you're not going to be able to get everyone's rights and desires to agree. your so-called "right" to free exchange is simply an economic construct of your own ideology anyway and many disagree that that is an innate human right, and their views are just as valid. their right to live free of fear is as valid as your right to buy whatever you damn well please. so someone is always going to have to sacrifice. this is where practical realities come into the picture... someone's got to lose, so we've got to weigh who that is going to be. sometimes it will be you, sometimes me. we haven't come into a better system yet.
and yes, there's no need for you to sell your soul. your principles are just. but that doesn't mean they will prevail. i think it's ridiculous that we have drug laws, but i have accepted that my view is not the majority and i the end, it's the society i live in and i have to live with that. if it's too great a burden, im free to find a society that is more in line with my views.
How so? Seriously, how does my "pracitcal reality" conflict with yours?
you place a higher premium on your right of free trade. i (hypothetically, assuming i want to ban guns) place a higher premium on being free of fear for my life from fellow citizens. thus you think you should be able to buy all the guns you like, i think guns have no place in this society.
you place a higher premium on your right of free trade. i (hypothetically, assuming i want to ban guns) place a higher premium on being free of fear for my life from fellow citizens. thus you think you should be able to buy all the guns you like, i think guns have no place in this society.
Ok. Let's examine this.
I do place a higher premium on my right of free trade, whereas you in this hypothetical are placing a premium on being free of fear. Now, why do you think these things conflict? How would my valuation of free trade prevent you from being free of fear?
you place a higher premium on your right of free trade. i (hypothetically, assuming i want to ban guns) place a higher premium on being free of fear for my life from fellow citizens. thus you think you should be able to buy all the guns you like, i think guns have no place in this society.
It's this kind of 'fearful' thinking that gets us into messes like Vietnam and Iraq.
So what would you say to a similar solution we have in the Netherlands? You can own a handgun, provided you are a member of a shooting/gun club and you have a permit. Furthermore the gun has to be stored at the club, not at home.
that sounds pretty good.
do you have similar laws on say, shotguns or rifles? (if you wanted to go hunting?)
The Sentence Below Is True
The Sentence Above Is False
I do place a higher premium on my right of free trade, whereas you in this hypothetical are placing a premium on being free of fear. Now, why do you think these things conflict? How would my valuation of free trade prevent you from being free of fear?
becos you want to buy a gun that somebody else might be killed by.
It's this kind of 'fearful' thinking that gets us into messes like Vietnam and Iraq.
true. im not saying it's a good argument, but it's a valid one. the fact is that you cannot buy nuclear weapons becos people are afraid of what you will do with them. this is only a difference of degrees. on the other spectrum, people fear the consequences of alcohol in the hands of youth so it is regulated. and anybody can buy chocolate becos you buying chocolate is not scaring anyone.
we make judgment calls all the time about what you can buy and how regulated it has to be. why should guns be any different? are they more like a cadbury cream egg or a heavy artillery machine gun?
In the Netherlands to go hunting you also have to have a permit, handed out by the police. This can only be obtained when you suffice in a few rules:
- You have to be at least 18 years old
- You're required to have done an official hunter's course, followed by an exam
- You're required to have a special responsibility-insurance (don't know the exact english word)
- You're required to have a hunting-rental-agreement for an area situated in the Netherlands and at least 40 hectares big (1 ha is 100*100 metres)
- You can't have a criminal record
The hunter's course will take about 1 year and consists of 4 parts: 1 part theoretical, 3 parts practical, of which one is entirely about gun safety.
Most hunting in the Netherlands is done with lead-shot guns. Bullet guns are hardly used since you have to have a special permit to shoot animals that require a bullet (big game). These guns can be kept at home, but owners are strongly advised to store them in a special gun-safe which can only be opened by the owner. Besides that it is illegal to carry them outside when not in the hunting-area. (My uncle is one of the few hunters in the Netherlands; about 28.000 hunters on 16,5 mio people)
Saw things so much clearer
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
becos you want to buy a gun that somebody else might be killed by.
No, I just want to buy a gun. I own a gun now. No one has been killed by it. No one is going to get killed by it. My gun and your fear have absolutely no relation to each other outside your own head. So what is the real conflict here?
No, I just want to buy a gun. I own a gun now. No one has been killed by it. No one is going to get killed by it. My gun and your fear have absolutely no relation to each other outside your own head. So what is the real conflict here?
you think you have a god-given right to buy whatever you want from anyone you want, and the other person thinks they have a right to not have to worry about being hurt by other people's poor judgment and buying decisions.
also, your gun could be stolen. you could ahve a psychotic episode and gun someone down. your kid could get to it and take it into their school. any number of things could happen. it's a dangerous weapon.
for the record, im not afraid of your gun. im just saying your gun buying entitlement is just in your own head to the same extent as their fear.
you think you have a god-given right to buy whatever you want from anyone you want, and the other person thinks they have a right to not have to worry about being hurt by other people's poor judgment and buying decisions.
Hehe...but this isn't a conflict between me and the worrier. This is a conflict between the worrier and reality. Human beings always "can possibly be hurt by other people's poor judgments and buying decisions". And whether or not you worry about that is entirely within your control. Furthermore, your proposed law hurts me based on your poor judgments, and you've already demonstrated by your proposal that one man's worry can control another man's behavior. So why do you not submit to my worry?
The conflict between two people with opposite wills only happens when one applies his will to the other's decisions. In the event that I shot you with my gun, a conflict is born.
also, your gun could be stolen. you could ahve a psychotic episode and gun someone down. your kid could get to it and take it into their school. any number of things could happen. it's a dangerous weapon.
Any of the above could certainly happen. But the much higher probability is that they won't happen. Why would the lesser probability rule over the greater?
im just saying your gun buying entitlement is just in your own head to the same extent as their fear.
Not really, no. Because here's the thing -- if no one wanted to sell me their guns, I would have no such entitlement. The right of exchange requires at least two parties -- a seller and a buyer. The "entitlement" arises from the will of both, when that will is consistent. The fear you mention, however, is entirely self-contained and is more often than not completely irrational.
you think you have a god-given right to buy whatever you want from anyone you want, and the other person thinks they have a right to not have to worry about being hurt by other people's poor judgment and buying decisions.
also, your gun could be stolen. you could ahve a psychotic episode and gun someone down. your kid could get to it and take it into their school. any number of things could happen. it's a dangerous weapon.
for the record, im not afraid of your gun. im just saying your gun buying entitlement is just in your own head to the same extent as their fear.
Which one of these does not apply to any other tool?
Any of the above could certainly happen. But the much higher probability is that they won't happen. Why would the lesser probability rule over the greater?
you think you have a god-given right to buy whatever you want from anyone you want, and the other person thinks they have a right to not have to worry about being hurt by other people's poor judgment and buying decisions.
also, your gun could be stolen. you could ahve a psychotic episode and gun someone down. your kid could get to it and take it into their school. any number of things could happen. it's a dangerous weapon.
for the record, im not afraid of your gun. im just saying your gun buying entitlement is just in your own head to the same extent as their fear.
So does that mean we should ban alcohol as well? People have a much higher probability of having "psychotic episodes" when they are under the influence..........might as well get it out of the way since it "could" be part of the problem.............Your kid could get into your alcohol stash and take it into their school causing any number of things to happen.................And, it's a dangerous drug. If a bill passes that we ban guns, shouldn't the same people that voted it vote to ban alcohol since it probably has much more influence on violence than guns? See the slippery slope here?
you think you have a god-given right to buy whatever you want from anyone you want, and the other person thinks they have a right to not have to worry about being hurt by other people's poor judgment and buying decisions.
Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions. U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode.
also, your gun could be stolen. you could ahve a psychotic episode and gun someone down. your kid could get to it and take it into their school. any number of things could happen. it's a dangerous weapon.
for the record, im not afraid of your gun. im just saying your gun buying entitlement is just in your own head to the same extent as their fear.
YOU may have a psycotic episode and i may need to kill you to defend myself. your kid may break into my home and i may need to kill him. if he has an illegally obtained gun; a bat; knife; or sword would be of no use to me.
So does that mean we should ban alcohol as well? People have a much higher probability of having "psychotic episodes" when they are under the influence..........might as well get it out of the way since it "could" be part of the problem.............Your kid could get into your alcohol stash and take it into their school causing any number of things to happen.................And, it's a dangerous drug. If a bill passes that we ban guns, shouldn't the same people that voted it vote to ban alcohol since it probably has much more influence on violence than guns? See the slippery slope here?
on the other hand, perhaps we should do away with all gun and alcohol laws...since everyone will have guns, we don't need a rule of law...the slippery slope will be no more...
on the other hand, perhaps we should do away with all gun and alcohol laws...since everyone will have guns, we don't need a rule of law...the slippery slope will be no more...
booze and guns for all...!!!!
that is the rule, in case you haven't noticed. booze and guns are available to all in America.
So does that mean we should ban alcohol as well? People have a much higher probability of having "psychotic episodes" when they are under the influence..........might as well get it out of the way since it "could" be part of the problem.............Your kid could get into your alcohol stash and take it into their school causing any number of things to happen.................And, it's a dangerous drug. If a bill passes that we ban guns, shouldn't the same people that voted it vote to ban alcohol since it probably has much more influence on violence than guns? See the slippery slope here?
let's not forget that 5 times more people are killed by drunk drivers than by guns. and; according to MADD; alcohol is the number one killer of kids in the us. this includes directly and indirectly [like a drunk parent shaking a baby].
true. im not saying it's a good argument, but it's a valid one. the fact is that you cannot buy nuclear weapons becos people are afraid of what you will do with them. this is only a difference of degrees. on the other spectrum, people fear the consequences of alcohol in the hands of youth so it is regulated. and anybody can buy chocolate becos you buying chocolate is not scaring anyone.
we make judgment calls all the time about what you can buy and how regulated it has to be. why should guns be any different? are they more like a cadbury cream egg or a heavy artillery machine gun?
you can buy nuclear weapons. however; you cannot get the enriched uranium needed to arm it.
on the other hand, perhaps we should do away with all gun and alcohol laws...since everyone will have guns, we don't need a rule of law...the slippery slope will be no more...
booze and guns for all...!!!!
AMEN! lol The point that I was trying to explain is that people so concerned with people not being hurt have a funny way of choosing their battles. Alcohol plays a role in many more deaths than guns, yet I doubt most of the anti-gun fear mongers would say "let's ban everyone from buying alcohol" The fact of the matter is that some people can't handle alcohol..............and some people can't handle guns properly.................Yet others can. People are so willing to pass laws that effect others in a negative way, but would never even dream of passing one that might have a negative effect on them. That sounds a little unempathetic...........or hypocritical. What's wrong with added security and medal detectors at college entrances? How does walking past an armed security officer effect your constitutional rights? Colleges have the money to better defend their campuses...........it seems like a good thing to budget for these days. A law banning guns may or may not have detered this person from shooting up Virginia Tech, but I'm willing to bet that him having to pass through a security checkpoint would have.........even if he was trying to bring a knife in. People need to get real..........guns are in the US and will be for a very very long time. This whole "guns are bad mmmkay" argument is unproductive.
AMEN! lol The point that I was trying to explain is that people so concerned with people not being hurt have a funny way of choosing their battles. Alcohol plays a role in many more deaths than guns, yet I doubt most of the anti-gun fear mongers would say "let's ban everyone from buying alcohol" The fact of the matter is that some people can't handle alcohol..............and some people can't handle guns properly.................Yet others can. People are so willing to pass laws that effect others in a negative way, but would never even dream of passing one that might have a negative effect on them. That sounds a little unempathetic...........or hypocritical. What's wrong with added security and medal detectors at college entrances? How does walking past an armed security officer effect your constitutional rights? Colleges have the money to better defend their campuses...........it seems like a good thing to budget for these days. A law banning guns may or may not have detered this person from shooting up Virginia Tech, but I'm willing to bet that him having to pass through a security checkpoint would have.........even if he was trying to bring a knife in. People need to get real..........guns are in the US and will be for a very very long time. This whole "guns are bad mmmkay" argument is unproductive.
I agree with this...I'm not for banning guns...it's funny how when the topic of gun control comes up, those who are pro-gun automatically assume it means banning...no, it means stricter controls over guns...which can start with the manufacture...and work it's way down....
again:
banning - no
control - yes
but I do have to say, for the most part guns are bad news...they lead to death...that's the function of guns...
Comments
So what would you say to a similar solution we have in the Netherlands? You can own a handgun, provided you are a member of a shooting/gun club and you have a permit. Furthermore the gun has to be stored at the club, not at home.
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
yes, they require that BASIS, but also some flexibility to account for practical realities.
that leaves us trying to convince our fellow citizens we are right enough to command a majority of the vote... or in this case more likely it is a 3/4 supermajority if you're looking for a constitutional amendment.
Props to the Netherlands...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Which seems to be the crux of our differences here, I don't believe that it requires guns on either side of an internal debate, democracies survive or fall based on votes not bullets...
International relations are however another ball game of course, talking of which, I'm outta here, got an appointment to kick a ball around a pitch in the vain attempt of scoring a goal or two.
Later
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Yes, I suppose so.
Do you not see that democracy requires rights to precede it in order for the former to be true? If your democracy is nothing more than a game wherein a given majority extracts manufactured rights from an opposite minority, then bullets are your only option.
Later. Thanks for the debate.
Ooohh..."practical realities". You just made my day soulsinging
My life and my rights are as much "practical realities" as anyone's whims, desires, or fears.
Reducing rights to concepts such as "supermajority" may be your business, but it is not mine. I understand where you're coming from here, and I understand the "practical reality" of the American political construct, but I will not sell my soul to that "practical reality".
you knew it was only a matter of time
yes, but everyone's practical realities are going to conflict. so someone's always going to lose in a society this big. unless you're living on a hippie commune or religious compound, you're not going to be able to get everyone's rights and desires to agree. your so-called "right" to free exchange is simply an economic construct of your own ideology anyway and many disagree that that is an innate human right, and their views are just as valid. their right to live free of fear is as valid as your right to buy whatever you damn well please. so someone is always going to have to sacrifice. this is where practical realities come into the picture... someone's got to lose, so we've got to weigh who that is going to be. sometimes it will be you, sometimes me. we haven't come into a better system yet.
and yes, there's no need for you to sell your soul. your principles are just. but that doesn't mean they will prevail. i think it's ridiculous that we have drug laws, but i have accepted that my view is not the majority and i the end, it's the society i live in and i have to live with that. if it's too great a burden, im free to find a society that is more in line with my views.
How so? Seriously, how does my "pracitcal reality" conflict with yours?
you place a higher premium on your right of free trade. i (hypothetically, assuming i want to ban guns) place a higher premium on being free of fear for my life from fellow citizens. thus you think you should be able to buy all the guns you like, i think guns have no place in this society.
Ok. Let's examine this.
I do place a higher premium on my right of free trade, whereas you in this hypothetical are placing a premium on being free of fear. Now, why do you think these things conflict? How would my valuation of free trade prevent you from being free of fear?
It's this kind of 'fearful' thinking that gets us into messes like Vietnam and Iraq.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
that sounds pretty good.
do you have similar laws on say, shotguns or rifles? (if you wanted to go hunting?)
The Sentence Above Is False
becos you want to buy a gun that somebody else might be killed by.
true. im not saying it's a good argument, but it's a valid one. the fact is that you cannot buy nuclear weapons becos people are afraid of what you will do with them. this is only a difference of degrees. on the other spectrum, people fear the consequences of alcohol in the hands of youth so it is regulated. and anybody can buy chocolate becos you buying chocolate is not scaring anyone.
we make judgment calls all the time about what you can buy and how regulated it has to be. why should guns be any different? are they more like a cadbury cream egg or a heavy artillery machine gun?
- You have to be at least 18 years old
- You're required to have done an official hunter's course, followed by an exam
- You're required to have a special responsibility-insurance (don't know the exact english word)
- You're required to have a hunting-rental-agreement for an area situated in the Netherlands and at least 40 hectares big (1 ha is 100*100 metres)
- You can't have a criminal record
The hunter's course will take about 1 year and consists of 4 parts: 1 part theoretical, 3 parts practical, of which one is entirely about gun safety.
Most hunting in the Netherlands is done with lead-shot guns. Bullet guns are hardly used since you have to have a special permit to shoot animals that require a bullet (big game). These guns can be kept at home, but owners are strongly advised to store them in a special gun-safe which can only be opened by the owner. Besides that it is illegal to carry them outside when not in the hunting-area. (My uncle is one of the few hunters in the Netherlands; about 28.000 hunters on 16,5 mio people)
Once you, were in my...
Rearviewmirror...
No, I just want to buy a gun. I own a gun now. No one has been killed by it. No one is going to get killed by it. My gun and your fear have absolutely no relation to each other outside your own head. So what is the real conflict here?
you think you have a god-given right to buy whatever you want from anyone you want, and the other person thinks they have a right to not have to worry about being hurt by other people's poor judgment and buying decisions.
also, your gun could be stolen. you could ahve a psychotic episode and gun someone down. your kid could get to it and take it into their school. any number of things could happen. it's a dangerous weapon.
for the record, im not afraid of your gun. im just saying your gun buying entitlement is just in your own head to the same extent as their fear.
Hehe...but this isn't a conflict between me and the worrier. This is a conflict between the worrier and reality. Human beings always "can possibly be hurt by other people's poor judgments and buying decisions". And whether or not you worry about that is entirely within your control. Furthermore, your proposed law hurts me based on your poor judgments, and you've already demonstrated by your proposal that one man's worry can control another man's behavior. So why do you not submit to my worry?
The conflict between two people with opposite wills only happens when one applies his will to the other's decisions. In the event that I shot you with my gun, a conflict is born.
Any of the above could certainly happen. But the much higher probability is that they won't happen. Why would the lesser probability rule over the greater?
I understand you're being hypothetical here.
Not really, no. Because here's the thing -- if no one wanted to sell me their guns, I would have no such entitlement. The right of exchange requires at least two parties -- a seller and a buyer. The "entitlement" arises from the will of both, when that will is consistent. The fear you mention, however, is entirely self-contained and is more often than not completely irrational.
Which one of these does not apply to any other tool?
That's the way it works today.
Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions. U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode.
YOU may have a psycotic episode and i may need to kill you to defend myself. your kid may break into my home and i may need to kill him. if he has an illegally obtained gun; a bat; knife; or sword would be of no use to me.
on the other hand, perhaps we should do away with all gun and alcohol laws...since everyone will have guns, we don't need a rule of law...the slippery slope will be no more...
booze and guns for all...!!!!
that is the rule, in case you haven't noticed. booze and guns are available to all in America.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
let's not forget that 5 times more people are killed by drunk drivers than by guns. and; according to MADD; alcohol is the number one killer of kids in the us. this includes directly and indirectly [like a drunk parent shaking a baby].
what the fuck are you talking about now...are you saying there are no laws pertaining to booze and guns...?
you can buy nuclear weapons. however; you cannot get the enriched uranium needed to arm it.
I agree with this...I'm not for banning guns...it's funny how when the topic of gun control comes up, those who are pro-gun automatically assume it means banning...no, it means stricter controls over guns...which can start with the manufacture...and work it's way down....
again:
banning - no
control - yes
but I do have to say, for the most part guns are bad news...they lead to death...that's the function of guns...