Gun Debate

1…2122242627…38

Comments

  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    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.
  • scw156
    scw156 Posts: 442
    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.


    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
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?

    becos you want to buy a gun that somebody else might be killed by.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    gue_barium wrote:
    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?
  • Quint
    Quint Posts: 27
    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...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
    soulsinging wrote:
    for the record, im not afraid of your gun.

    I understand you're being hypothetical here.
    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.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • Vedderlution_Baby
    Vedderlution_Baby Posts: 2,535
    farfromglorified wrote:




    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?


    That's the way it works today.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    soulsinging wrote:
    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?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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...

    booze and guns for all...!!!!
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    inmytree wrote:
    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.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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].
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    gue_barium wrote:
    that is the rule, in case you haven't noticed. booze and guns are available to all in America.

    what the fuck are you talking about now...are you saying there are no laws pertaining to booze and guns...?
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    soulsinging wrote:
    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.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    inmytree wrote:
    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.
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    PJPOWER wrote:
    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...

Categories