Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Philosophyabsurdity. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're probably looking for old friends, or old enemies. Don't panic! They still exist. Sure, they've forgotten about you. It's just the internet. But with passion, intellect and an enormous penis you can force your way back into their affections or the sex offenders register. So type a message. Expect a witty response. It's all for you... you just might have to wait 2 or 3 years.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Virginia Tech and Gun Laws; Someone had to do it
Topic Started: Apr 18 2007, 03:35 PM (3,148 Views)
Mock
Member Avatar

Mock
Pestiferous
Apr 28 2007, 09:46 PM
See, Plague, when I was a little girl I was a hostage in a bank robbery. Now, the chances of being a hostage in a bank robbery are tiny - miniscule, really.

But it happens. Happenned to me, my mother, and my sister.

Tell us more. :mellow:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Quote:
 
So, why not register alcohol sales? After all, one can not moderately kill someone while drunk driving.


Because the perpetrator of a drunk-driving homicide is tracable by 1.) the registration of his car; 2.) his dead or injured body at the crime scene; 3.) his fingerprints or other DNA in the car that he was driving, in the eventuality that he would flee the scene of the accident on foot; and, in cases of hit-and-run, registering the alcohal would be of no use anyway, because there'd be no evidence of the registered alcohal left behind at the crime scene to link to the perpetrator, unless and until it becomes technologically possible to assign a unique chemical signature to each and every bottle of hootch sold, and, then, capture alcohal vapor from the atmosphere and determine that such vapor came from the hit-and-run perpetrator and only the hit-and-run perpetrator at a point in time which would plausibly indicate causation between the consumption of the registered alcohal and the drunk-driving accident.


But, seriously, Plague, you never addressed the issue of strict construction of Amendment 2. Do you advocate decriminalising ALL arms, in order to be consistent with the letter of the Second Amendment?

Does shall not be infringed mean shall not be infringed?

Shoulder-mounted rocket launchers, dirty bombs, nuclear RPG's - do you advocate the legalised sale and ownership of these and all other arms, as per Amendment 2 of the US Constitution? Or, are you in favor of infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear these arms?

If the purpose of Amendment 2 is to protect us from THE GOVERNMENT, then, surely we must have the right to arm ourselves commensurately to the latently tyrannical Gov, right? If the Gov has battlefield nukes, then, we'll need an equal or greater capability in order to check the Gov's ability to oppress us. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only proven deterent to a first strike, and, as such, the right to it should not be infringed, yes?
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

An emotional response brought on by experienced trauma. I'm sympathetic, but it's hardly a reason to make draconian policy.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
RevWolf
Member Avatar
MacGyver of Sex
Freedom is Cho's biggest victim
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mock
Member Avatar

Mock
That article was trivial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RevWolf
Member Avatar
MacGyver of Sex
i knew you'd love it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mock
Member Avatar

Mock
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RevWolf
Member Avatar
MacGyver of Sex
good to see you helping mummy around the house.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mock
Member Avatar

Mock
Pictorial representation of me reading that article of yours. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Quote:
 
An emotional response brought on by experienced trauma. I'm sympathetic, but it's hardly a reason to make draconian policy.



First of all, defining gun laws as draconian policy is hysterical.

Second of all, my point wasn't to demonstrate experienced trauma - it was to demonstrate that you're not going to affect my reasoning by mathematically minimizing my chances of being shot, given the fact that I have already been in a situation statistically smaller than your take on gun death.

What's killing me, however, is your continued patronization over my reasons for wanting gun laws...meanwhile your argument is you "feel safer against the government" with weapons being readily available.

Now, I'd like to see you answer Cyg for once.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Unlikely things happen. If they didn't, they wouldn't be unlikely, they'd be impossible. That's not a very good reason to support absurd prohibitions, much in the manner of the WCTU of the late 19th and early 20th century with regard to alcohol.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cygnus-X1
Member Avatar
Davros Valid
Quote:
 
Unlikely things happen. If they didn't, they wouldn't be unlikely, they'd be impossible. That's not a very good reason to support absurd prohibitions,


Is it a very good reason to support absurd freedoms?

If plausibility is your stated criteria for public policy, then, the most likely scenario should logically be favored in policy-making decisions. So, which of the following scenarios has the greatest liklihood:

That THE GOVERNMENT (which is composed of elected, fellow citizens) will run amock, at the first sign that "the people" are no longer sufficiently armed to resist it, eventually subjugating, and oppressing or enslaving the entire population?

OR, that uninfringed freedom to keep and bear arms will inevitably yield more murders and homicides of innocent citizens?


Which is more likely? Hmm...well, let's see...

The latter occurs more than 11,000 per year, every year. And, since the advent of gun laws, the former has occurred...hmm...how many times is it?

Umm....oh, yeah - zero.

So, let's do a little math here. I'm pretty good at math too, you know.

Which is more: 11,000 or 0?

Well, now, let's not get all flustered on this one. Let's think it through rationally: if I have 0 rocks, and you have 11,000 rocks, which of us has more rocks?
* This post is not a veiled, cryptic insult about anyone.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ConfusedMonkey
Member Avatar
Satan Valid
:lolly:
There are no promises or assurances in any shape or form contained in the above post. Do not trust this Monkey.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Except plausibility isn't my "stated criteria for public policy", my criteria is that individuals have a right to defend themselves, and that includes unfettered access to firearms.

Now, as for your math, I realize 11,000 is a big scary number. Truly, I do. That amounts to ~3/100k per capita rate. There's only one federal government, so if the feds run amok and kill one person in one year, that would leave a rate of 100k/100k (100k deaths per 100k federal governments). If we scale this up to the same level as the population of the US, that would be 300 million deaths per 300 million federal governments. If 11,000 is a scary number, and the associated 3/100k rate, then I assume the scaled 300 million is more scary.

I take it that you think that the feds haven't done this, and have never done this. Some would take exception, and count say Waco or Ruby Ridge in the statistics of federal government caused death. Or the Civil War. These would be examples of federal government run amok.

One can only speculate on the increased frequency of such occurences if it weren't for an armed populace.

Of course, that's not the crux of my argument at all. My argument is simply that adults want guns and they have a right to arm themselves. They do NOT have to demonstrate a need for this, or justify it. A few people abusing their rights to firearms should not negate everyone else's freedom.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Where do you draw the line on guns?

People want to buy the gun below - should they be free to? I'm uncomfortable with the Westboro Baptists accumulating things like this.

Posted Image

I want to know what you think is and isn't acceptable. I can't tell what you mean by firearms, if it's without infringement what's the most dangerous firearm you can think of in that category - and do you think certain weapons should be classified as military only - ICBMs for example?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HollyHostess
Member Avatar
Consummate Cunt
isnt that gun available at walmart?
Kiss me, I'm shit faced.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
I think it's in the bargains section, quite old now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

I notice that there are two people pictured with that weapon. They put on a uniform, and suddenly they're trustworthy? That's some trick, bordering on magical.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
You've got to tell me where you draw the line here. If the government can own nukes - can individual citizens, assuming they can purchase (or even build) them?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

That's a difficult question. On the one hand, you have the individuals right to defend themselves and not to be denied whatever their cleverness or resources can procure. On the other, you have the dual arguments of the whether a nuke constitutes a personal arm, which would be difficult to maintain, and the consequences of misuse.

Of course, that raises the question of why a government should be trusted with nukes either. The case against individual ownership of nukes can equally be applied to whatever government you have in mind. Sure, there's sixty years of "responsible use" as the case for it, but it only takes one incident to spike the per capita numbers. That also implcitly assumes that Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted responsible use as well, a position that has its opponents. There hasn't been the historic data for individual stewardship, since to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been a case of private ownership.

So, I don't have a clear-cut answer to that question. I suppose I am succumbing to the "scary numbers" syndrome, or rather, scary scenario. That's not really a valid reason, I admit.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply