Gun Debate

UKDave

jeffbr wrote:

You should expect comments commensurate with the tone of the debate, I suppose. As they say, it takes two to tango.

no worries

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

Everyone except the government, apparently. I mean, you had a private doctor killing off patients. This simply cannot be allowed. Therefore, only the government should be allowed to dispense medicine and medical services.

No. "Everything" would include euthanizing everyone in this country. That would reduce gun violence to zero. The cost, however, would be too high. So no, we shouldn't do "everything" to minimize it.

Yes despite the laws and restrictions that did happen, in ONE instance and then action was taken to prevent it happening again...

Everything within reason... :rolleyes:

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Two actually:

1. You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.

2. You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.

The post is here:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4358371&postcount=426

if you'd like to review it.

yeah, if you're making a philosophical or moral argument. but i think most people here are making social or reasonable arguments, not ideological ones. ideally, we'd all be free to do whatever we damn well please. but that's just not the case in real life in modern society. there are limits. so we have to determine what limits we can live with and what costs are worth the benefits received.

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

Yes despite the laws and restrictions that did happen, in ONE instance and then action was taken to prevent it happening again...

Everything within reason... :rolleyes:

"Within reason" would be very nice, yes.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

yeah, if you're making a philosophical or moral argument. but i think most people here are making social or reasonable arguments, not ideological ones.

All "social or reasonable" arguments require a philosophical and moral basis.

ideally, we'd all be free to do whatever we damn well please. but that's just not the case in real life in modern society. there are limits. so we have to determine what limits we can live with and what costs are worth the benefits received.

Ok. The costs of a gun ban exceed any benefits to me. Therefore, I don't want it. So, where does that leave "us"?

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

"Within reason" would be very nice, yes.

Which is decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies...

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

Which is decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies...

Hehe....was slavery "reasonable"? How about the Iraq War? How about the Patriot Act? How about the Vietnam War? How about the Sedition Acts? How about Prohibition? How about segregation? Each one, "decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies".....

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe....was slavery "reasonable"? How about the Iraq War? How about the Patriot Act? How about the Vietnam War? How about the Sedition Acts? How about Prohibition? How about segregation? Each one, "decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies".....

The price you pay for living in a democracy is that certain actions are taken in your governments name...

Doesn't mean they are right or you agree with them, it goes with the territory, how you respond to them depends on how strongly you disagree...

And how "civilised" society was/is when those decisions were made is debatable too, all subjective, it's not a perfect system but it would seem the best of what's been tried so far

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

The price you pay for living in a democracy is that certain actions are taken in your governments name...

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.

Doesn't mean they are right or you agree with them, it goes with the territory, how you respond to them depends on how strongly you disagree...

And how "civilised" society was/is when those decisions were made is debatable too, all subjective, it's not a perfect system but it would seem the best of what's been tried so far

It is "the best of what's been tried so far". I completely agree.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

In a civilized, healthy democracy, what it really means is that you have to work and organize to have your point of view represented.

Quint

fanch75 wrote:

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.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Quint wrote:

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...

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

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

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

It really means you have to work and organize to have your point of view represented.

Yes, I suppose so.

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

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.

Later

Later. Thanks for the debate.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

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".

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

you knew it was only a matter of time

yes, but everyone's practical realities are going to conflict.

How so? Seriously, how does my "pracitcal reality" conflict with yours?

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

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.