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 (3,150 Views)
ThePlague
Unregistered

Fear can curtail anything, if you let it.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Fear of violent crime involving guns is necessarily of greater validity and concern than violent crime that does not involve guns. Otherwise identical crimes in this comparison have a far higher probability of resulting in loss of life.

We are constantly attempting to stop nations from having nuclear weapons, quite rightly, because if everyone has them - well, what's the point?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Ah, that's exactly it. The belief that "we" are responsible, while those other guys can't be trusted. It's the same basic idea whether it's guns in the hands of individuals, or nukes in the hands of nation states. It's merely an attempt to enforce a hierarchy among individuals or countries.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
One that correctly exists.

People aren't equal, hierarchy is fundamental to human society. Believe it or not I trust the security services and the government with nuclear weapons more than Carole Oliver.

Posted Image

I do, and on weighing the options I'm correct to. Just as I trust dentists with my teeth over non-qualified people - racing car drivers, for example.

I don't want the person pictured above to have a gun and the price I am forced to pay? That I too cannot own one. This is a fair deal - and the alternative is a destructive anomaly of reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Ah, so she doesn't look like she can be trusted, so she shouldn't have a gun. And to prevent her from having a gun, you're willing to forgo one yourself.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
Well, no - in her case she actually can't be trusted. She has been convicted of making her grandchildren fight each other.

On the other point, yes. Exactly so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Of course I'm willing to forego owning a gun so other people can't own them. I'm ONE person. There's millions of people out there. Essentially, if everyone is armed, it's me against millions of guns.

Everyday.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Well, that's an...interesting...choice.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Evil_Henry
Member Avatar
In Vino Veritas
I don't see it as being an especially peculiar stance. When I enter into a disagreement, for example, even if that person is of a weaker stature, I don't beat them to the floor with my fists. It's generally considered to be excessive force. Still though, infinitely preferable to firing a bullet at 900mph and spraying pieces of their spine all over the kitchen surfaces.

Most people think the wild west is a pretty cool basis for fiction - but I'm not sure how many people would want to live there, brothels aside. The Americans are a little odd in this pursuit of personal weaponry - the truth though, however ignorant many would like to be of it, is that it'd be a whole lot safer if you weren't all carrying guns.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
There is no evidence pointing to gun ownership and increased personal safety...in fact, it seems the extreme opposite. So I'm not so sure what is odd or "interesting" about my choice, considering I do have quite a lot on my side confirming this is the correct choice to make.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

The correct choice is giving up freedom for supposed security? Interesting.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Our definitions of freedom are very, very different.

Believing I need to have a gun to protect myself, to me, isn't freedom.

I don't need to own a gun to feel "free".

I have a hard time believing parents who have lost young children due to accidental household shootings feel particularly free after excercising their rights to gun ownership.

Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Well, I'm glad that this country doesn't make policy due to a few isolated incidents and some personal tragedies, at least with respect to gun ownership. There's a simple solution if you have small children and fear them getting into your guns: get rid of them. That doesn't mean the rest of us should have to give up our rights, though, and that includes meddling from the nanny state.

It's the same old story: "I don't like it, so no one should be allowed to do it". You see that with the drug laws and with discrimination against homosexuals to name just a few.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
What a crybaby attitude - I want a gun, I want one now! Better not stop me, or make me jump through too many hoops to get one! I'm an adult! Can't you tell?

Discrimination against homosexuals cannot be compared to gun laws.

Last time I checked, fears people have against homosexuals are unsubstantiated and unproven (ie. homosexuals molest children, homosexuals turn other people into homosexuals, etc.).

Whereas, fears against private gun ownership seem to be confirmed by the day.

Especially by the States.

Also, if you have small children getting rid of your own guns just isn't a plausible answer - many children killed by guns are killed in friend's homes by other curious children.

I like this - you are unable to prove that more guns = safer place to live so now you'll just whine and moan about rights.

Lol.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

I am indifferent whether a gun prohibition makes a "society" safer or not. I am concerned about the rights of individuals to protect themselves free of government interferrence. Just like if alcohol prohibition were effective, there's little doubt that society would have been "safer". A complete elimination of drunk driving would have resulted. Likewise for drug prohibition. It's the same argument. It even shares elements of superior moralizing and "protecting the children". It sacrifices the rights of individuals for some misguided attempt at social engineering. This is also the "justification" for the discrimination against homosexuals, to protect marriage or children, etc.

Now, just as some people misuse alcohol or drugs, people misuse guns. There are laws to cover such occurrences. Imposing more laws specifically tailored to abrogate the rights of individuals with respect to weaponry to prevent their misuse is the same thing as doing it for drugs or alcohol. It is the sacrifice of the personal freedom for some misguided "greater good". It is one I am not willing to make.

Adults should have the freedom to make personal choices, and assuming that they will abuse guns/alcohol/drugs/whatever to the point of hampering or prohibiting those choices is condescending nannying. Of course, that's to be expected given the attitude expressed by:

Quote:
 
I like this - you are unable to prove that more guns = safer place to live so now you'll just whine and moan about rights.


I guess rights are more important to some people than others. Personally, I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights for some statistical indicator of slightly increased safety.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Your feeble attempts at comparing guns to drugs or discrimination against homosexuals leaves me wondering if you even know what a gun is.

Last I heard, a shooter didn't go into VTech and kill 32 kids with marijuana.

Quote:
 
I am indifferent whether a gun prohibition makes a "society" safer or not. I am concerned about the rights of individuals to protect themselves free of government interferrence. Just like if alcohol prohibition were effective, there's little doubt that society would have been "safer". A complete elimination of drunk driving would have resulted. Likewise for drug prohibition. It's the same argument. It even shares elements of superior moralizing and "protecting the children". It sacrifices the rights of individuals for some misguided attempt at social engineering. This is also the "justification" for the discrimination against homosexuals, to protect marriage or children, etc.


Aww, that's nice and "Our Rights!" and such...but it's just not set in reality. There wouldn't be a complete elimination of drunk driving - there would be LESS drunk driving. Just like how in Canada, there's LESS school shootings.

Get it yet?

Again, it's easier to kill a person with a gun than a can of beer. Please, Plague, get a grip.

As for rights being more important to some than others? Again, we disagree on rights. I have a right, as an honest hard-working person, to raise my children in a country where I feel safe.

That is my right. And yeah, that's more important to me than owning a gun.

I have this weird thing in my life called prioritizing.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

The effectiveness isn't the issue. The issue is sacrificing personal liberty for being "statistically more safe". Prohibiting alcohol or drugs have to the same effect as prohibiting guns: an increase in safety in relation to crimes involving them. All three are at the sacrifice of personal freedom in an attempt to prevent someone from misusing any of them.

More people are killed by alcohol abuse than guns, by an order of magnitude even in "gun happy" America. I'm sure it's even a higher ratio in a country like Canada. Why aren't you for government regulation of an individual's alcohol consumption? Wouldn't that make you "feel safer"?

Once you take safety as your mantra in sacrifice of personal freedom, it's just a short slippery slope pushed on by a few high-profile extreme cases of abuse.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
Got a crackhead? Yeah, that's nasty.

Got a crackhead with a gun? Yeah, that's everyone's problem.

Got a crackhead with a gun who thinks you have a gun? Yeah, you're fucked.


Again, Plague, you're not grasping the fact that I see freedom and rights in a far different light than you do. I don't feel I have a right to a gun - I don't feel my neighbour has a right to a 9mm Glock just cause he feels like it, either.

I feel more free in a room where I know no one has a handgun. It's a feeling, you can't argue me out of that.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ThePlague
Unregistered

Ah, feelings. Ok, there's no reason then. You're just willing to sacrifice personal liberties that you don't exercise to "feel safer". Hence, your inconsistency between gun registration and alcohol consumption or drug consumption registration.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pestiferous
Member Avatar
Chief Officer of Operations and Quality Management Controller
NO, I genuinely believe guns and alcohol are two completely different social issues and should be treated as such.

But, sorry, your "my rights!" thing is completely based on feelings considering there are gun laws in place that you seem to deem perfectly acceptable, and not unconstitutional.

Nice try.
Like my avatar? It has your eyes, doesn't it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General · Next Topic »
Add Reply