The result of gun control

[Callie]

If you're so worried about kids and gun crime, here's a thought. Sell your PC and house and donate that money to a child who has lost their parents due to gun crime. Or become a doctor and treat young gunshot victims. Or work in one of those social programs where they reform gang members. Otherwise, I'm going to call BS. You don't care about the kids. If you genuinely cared, you'd actually make some sort of self sacrifice

 

In order to genuinely care about X, one must devote a substantial amount of time or money to X? If you don't become a civil rights lawyer or donate huge lump sums to rights advocacy organizations, you must not genuinely care about civil rights.

[Kelandon]

Yeah yeah, I know, even normal people who have a bad day and are pushed can (rarely) resort to violence. But if you don't get in their faces, that won't be a problem, will it now?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that every murder victim deserved it, right?

[Skwish-E]

When they came for my neighbors' assault weapons, I said nothing, because I don't have an assault weapon.

When they came for my neighbors' extended magazines, I said nothing, because I don't have extended magazines.

When they came for my neighbors' large caliber weapons, I said nothing, because I don't have any.

When they came for my neighbors' handguns, I said nothing, because I don't have any handguns.

When they came for my neighbors' hunting rifles, I said nothing, because I don't hunt.

 

When my home was invaded and my family dragged outside and shot on my lawn, my neighbors stood by and watched because nobody had any weapons to defend us.

[keira]

I don't understand the slippery slope argument. I mean, let's look at it this way.

 

Allow people who aren't rich male white landowners to vote. The slippery slope argument says that soon the family dog and little ten-year-old Timmy can vote. Clearly that is not the case today. We somehow managed to get blacks and women (and black women!) to the voting booths without having to let in Fido.

 

A similar argument comes up with gay marriage. If we let "the homosexual agenda" take over, then soon pastors will be forced to let neckbeards marry their toasters or some such. Clearly that is ridiculous.

 

It works the other way too. If we don't regulate assault rifles, what do we do when Joe Serial Killer gets a tank? What happens when he gets a nuke?

 

I dunno.

[Alorael at Large]

So you're against people defending themselves with a gun because some people who claim they used a gun to act in self defense might not have actually been under threat? Seem like specious argument to me. You're essentially disarming thei population (against their will... typical) because the right to bear arms might be abused by a few.

A few? 11,000 homicides is not a few. That is more than twice the number of American who have died in Iraq dying of gun violence every year. There are 20,000 suicides, and I can support a right to euthanasia while thinking most of those suicides could have been prevented and not having those guns around would have saved lives.

 

 

If my life is put in mortal peril, I feel morally justified in taking any means to defend it. Just because there are people in society who are happy to be mown down like sheep does not mean I'm obliged to feel the same way.

Here's the crux of the problem of guns as right and guns as public health problem. In principle I believe everyone should have the right to everything until it starts impinging on others' rights. Gun proliferation is a serious public health problem because tens of thousands of people die. Your right to ownership ends when my right to life is affected, and it's eminently clear that more guns means more deaths.

 

 

—Alorael, who does not think this particular branch of argument can get anywhere. Rights vs. statistics is apples and oranges. One is a matter of principle and the other a matter of reality. Neither has any answers for the other per se.

[Lilith]

When they came for my neighbors' assault weapons, I said nothing, because I don't have an assault weapon.

When they came for my neighbors' extended magazines, I said nothing, because I don't have extended magazines.

When they came for my neighbors' large caliber weapons, I said nothing, because I don't have any.

When they came for my neighbors' handguns, I said nothing, because I don't have any handguns.

When they came for my neighbors' hunting rifles, I said nothing, because I don't hunt.

 

When my home was invaded and my family dragged outside and shot on my lawn, my neighbors stood by and watched because nobody had any weapons to defend us.

 

trying to appropriate a pacifist and disarmament advocate's speech about the holocaust to push your own political views in favour of gun proliferation is an incredibly crass thing to do. don't do that

[Brocktree]

In order to genuinely care about X, one must devote a substantial amount of time or money to X? If you don't become a civil rights lawyer or donate huge lump sums to rights advocacy organizations, you must not genuinely care about civil rights.

 

YES!

 

I reiterate: YES!!!

 

If you genuinely care about a particular topic, you should be willing to act. If you don't act, then you are merely paying the issue lip service.

It's all well and good to tell *other people* to give up something they enjoy. But strangely enough, this same person won't actually inconvenience *themselves* to improve the situation.

 

Such people are insincere. Put up or shut up. It's that simple. Put up, or shut up.

 

ξ

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that every murder victim deserved it, right?

 

Nope. But you are much less likely to get shot if you don't antagonise people. That's a fact.

 

Some people would call my strategy of 'not pissing people off' to be self-defense. I don't. Self-defense are actions that protect you when you are actually be attacked (turning your body to avoid a knife thrust hitting vital organs, using a tazer, running away, putting a barrier between yourself and the victim). De-escalating a conflict, or preventing one in the first place, is something different, but just as important.

 

Dr. Tin

Your right to ownership ends when my right to life is affected, and it's eminently clear that more guns means more deaths.

 

Your right to life is *not* affected by gun ownership. It is affected by misuse of guns. If gun ownership really bothers you, then move elsewhere. If you're worried about getting shot, act in a manner to reduce your likelihood of getting attacked. Unless you're a gangbanger or soldier, the chance of you getting shot at is neglible.

[keira]

YES!

 

I reiterate: YES!!!

 

If you genuinely care about a particular topic, you should be willing to act. If you don't act, then you are merely paying the issue lip service.

It's all well and good to tell *other people* to give up something they enjoy. But strangely enough, this same person won't actually inconvenience *themselves* to improve the situation.

 

Such people are insincere. Put up or shut up. It's that simple. Put up, or shut up.

What have you done to make the world a better place, then?

Edited January 30, 2013 by صيلي
out of curiosity is all

[Brocktree]

I don't see how that is relevant, given that I'm not the one crying 'Think of the children'. If you care about 'the children', go and actually make an effort to help them, instead of using them as a talking point for your political bias.

[Xaiya]

Except we live in a society where specialization is most efficient. We can't do everything.

[Dikiyoba]

Good thing gun rights aren't important to you then, Ghaldring.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Brocktree]

That sounds like a cop out to me. Even if you can't treat a gunshot wound, surely you can sell your luxury items and donate that money to a hospital? Maybe take an orphan in off the street? Hell, there's heaps of stuff you can do, but people won't do it because it inconveniences them.

[Brocktree]

Good thing gun rights aren't important to you then, Ghaldring.

 

Dikiyoba.

 

They aren't. I can live without a gun, and even if guns were permitted here, I probably wouldn't buy one. I wouldn't mind a zapper for House of the Dead, but I can live without it.

 

That doesn't change the fact that many people here would take that choice away from others. Seems pretty selfish, if you ask me.

[Xaiya]

Not everyone is in a position to do something like that.

 

Also, I think it's been stated here that gun control != taking away all guns.

[Harehunter]

The only thing I can see coming out of increased gun control is futility. We tried to ban alcohol, even going to the extent of passing an amendment to the constitution. That worked out really well... NOT. We are still trying to ban the sale and use of marijuana. Slowly it is dawning on people that this is equally futile. Other hard drugs are still as abundant as ever, despite the so-called war on drugs.

 

The notion that making guns illegal in this country will make them less available does not make sense to me given that our borders are so porous as to make a sieve seem like a pipeline. Maybe I am a pessimist, but that is what I see.

[Lilith]

YES!

 

I reiterate: YES!!!

 

If you genuinely care about a particular topic, you should be willing to act. If you don't act, then you are merely paying the issue lip service.

It's all well and good to tell *other people* to give up something they enjoy. But strangely enough, this same person won't actually inconvenience *themselves* to improve the situation.

 

Such people are insincere. Put up or shut up. It's that simple. Put up, or shut up.

 

individual action won't fix the world; solving problems requires that we all be made to work together, whether some of us like it or not

 

(for what it's worth, though, my entire estate is willed to be sold and left to the charity where i feel the money will do the most good, and i'm attempting to live as frugally as reasonably possible to maximise the amount i leave behind.)

 

 

The only thing I can see coming out of increased gun control is futility. We tried to ban alcohol, even going to the extent of passing an amendment to the constitution. That worked out really well... NOT. We are still trying to ban the sale and use of marijuana. Slowly it is dawning on people that this is equally futile. Other hard drugs are still as abundant as ever, despite the so-called war on drugs.

 

The notion that making guns illegal in this country will make them less available does not make sense to me given that our borders are so porous as to make a sieve seem like a pipeline. Maybe I am a pessimist, but that is what I see.

 

You know what? You've made this exact point several times, and several times it's been refuted with explanations of why drugs and guns aren't comparable. Repeatedly posting the same thing and ignoring all responses is a form of spam, and your posting is starting to reach that point now. So I'm going to have to insist as a moderator that you either respond to people's specific arguments about how drug bans are different to gun bans, or stop posting in this thread.

[Harehunter]

Drugs and guns are not comparable with regard to their purpose. That is not my point. My point is that we have attempted to ban things that have been deemed to be dangerous. It is not the object of the ban that I am talking about. it is the ban itself. This is what I believe is an exercise in futility.

[Lilith]

Right now you're not actually engaging with anything that anyone is saying in this thread: you're just constantly repeating the same exact point over and over and over again like a broken record. We've all heard your point by now. We've already explained why you're wrong (for example, by pointing to other bans that have been extremely successful). Now stop spamming the thread with it.

[Alorael at Large]

Brocktree, if I had guns I would give them up. I have no guns. What would you ask me to sacrifice in order to make this equitable? But for that matter, why does this need to be equitable? I am willing to pay higher taxes, and indeed vote for people who say they will raise my taxes. Not as much as is necessary, but my choices are limited. But that's a sacrifice I am willing to make for what I see as a greater good. I can't do any such thing for guns; I have nothing to offer. Do I need to buy guns to give them up? That's ludicrous, but if it meets your requirements...

 

 

My right to life is risked by misuse of guns? Yes. But it's also infringed upon by misuse of cars. We as a society have weighed the risks and benefits and decided that cars are, on the whole, worth having, so we do our best to control the risks. We do no such thing for guns. We do very little to minimize the risks when the benefits are vanishingly small. I'm throwing out my words, and my donations, and my votes for the idea that the guns are a problem and need to be fixed. This is a democracy, and I can do that.

 

Harehunter, gun trafficking is not drug trafficking. Guns are not addictive. Guns are not even especially recreational, for the most part. And drugs mostly kill users; the other damages are, ironically, largely a result of their illegality. Guns kill everyone.

 

—Alorael, who isn't sure whether picking up Brocktree's appeal to extreme utilitarianism is worthwhile or not. Few live a life of utter self-denial for greater causes, and it's not generally held to be the litmus test one must pass in order to participate in free, democratic society. But if it really bugs you, look up some of Peter Railton's papers, starting with "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality" and going from there. He builds a case that living like that is, in fact, not a moral priority. Don't like it? He certainly has his detractors too, but you're not unopposed in the moral view that I'm pretty sure you're throwing in faces but not holding yourself.

[Harehunter]

Re Drug trafficking and gun trafficking.

 

http://unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art918.pdf

[Dikiyoba]

They generally use the same routes' date=' although arms production and the demand [/size']for illicit drugs are found in industrialized countries, whereas illicit drugs production and the demand for weapons are found in the so-called developing countries.

Translation: The market for illegal guns is not very big in the United States. That means, most crimes in which guns are involved started out as legal guns owned by seemingly law-abiding citizens before being used in a crime, and that only a few crimes involving guns are committed by never-do-wells who bought the gun off the black market. Black market guns are not a factor when debating gun control.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Student of Trinity]

This thread may not be in free fall yet, but it's beginning to go downhill. Jeff's boards are not the place for this.