Active Member
Read: http://www.echoingthesound.org/commu...0020#post80020Originally Posted by aggroculture
The second amendment is not a granted right. It's an explicitly secured right (again, read the post I'm linking you to).
Again, try doing that with the restriction of rights instead: http://www.echoingthesound.org/commu...9900#post79900
Active Member
You changed your post! I *liked* the previous one, it was better.
Bite me
sorry about that
Throbbing Member
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
Recent study by Harvard Law about the nature of gun control. Just started reading.
Add Violins
So do you feel that gun violence is an impediment on someone else's rights? Cause for me, that's where the conflict lies. On the one hand, we all have the right to live without being murdered or assaulted. And on the other hand, there is this mass circulation of deadly weapons. To me, those two things seem totally incompatible. How do you reconcile them?
Bite me
Not Harvard Law.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harva..._Public_Policy
Quiet Member
Bite me
Quiet Member
I have the right to not get ran over by a drunk driver but I don't see anyone rallying to make booze illegal? Irresponsibility + booze = dead people. Irresponsibility + firearms = dead people.
Surely you'd be okay with making booze illegal?
Active Member
Just a friendly reminder.
Mass stabbing in Texas = no deaths.
Not one person died.
The goal is to reduce GUN related violence. Yes people will still uses knives, baseball bats and whatnot but guess what, less people will die.
Last edited by Deepvoid; 04-11-2013 at 10:40 AM.
Quiet Member
Okay we have a goal. I think everyone agrees that less gun violence would be good for everyone. Now how do you reduce gun violence in the real world?
Last edited by Satyr; 04-11-2013 at 11:45 AM.
Active Member
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
I reviewed most of the countries listed there and by far the United States has the broadest definition or acceptance (for lack of better words) of the right to bear arms.
What gives?
Active Member
Completely ridiculous statement and goal void of any factual evidence. This paper sums it up nicely:
Active Member
If someone threatens you or attacks you (gun or not) it is an infringement on your rights.
Me owning a gun is not an infringement on your rights.
You'd do well to read this for how I "reconcile them":
Throbbing Member
Oops my bad.
Active Member
It's still very well written and researched. MUCH more depth than I've seen from all sides.
Active Member
Can you explain why every gun owner should not have to undergo rigorous gun use and safety training?
Why do you need a license to own and operate a car...but not a gun?
What is gained from putting guns in the hands of people who have not demonstrated - to anyone - that they are responsible enough to own a gun?
What possible rationale can there be for saying "no...gun owners need no training whatsoever"?
30,000 deaths a year testify to the fact that we are getting it wrong on some fundamental level: why is this so hard to accept?
Active Member
What's ridiculous about wanting less crimes committed with guns? Are you pro-violence?
Last edited by Deepvoid; 04-11-2013 at 04:37 PM.
Active Member
The above 2 posts were answered, by me, within the last 24 hours.
Massive reading comprehension issues up in this thread by the gun control proponents. Go figure! I'm also laughing at the parallels between gun control proponents and global warming skeptics. Facts 'n shit must be the devils tools. Gotta ignore them and keep going on emotional appeals void of actual fact!
You have NO justification for your claims that holds up against even basic examination. You fail.
Active Member
You answer with external links or linking back to other statements you've made.
You are unable to answer these basic questions because your arguments are sophistry: under the guise of abstraction you duck the issue.
You appeal to "rights" but fail to acknowledge or credit specifically where you're getting your idea of "rights" from, apart from a generic "America was built this way" and that rights are not utilitarian. Tell me where you're getting your idea of "rights" from.
Do you also believe that we have the right to own and drive cars without a license? Because that's where your train of thought is headed.
Active Member
It's simple: I am linking you because I refuse to keep repeating myself.
The fact that you keep asking questions that have been answered is further proof of my statements. It's kind of awesome really.
Active Member
Also, we can apply your exact usage of rights to guns: first absolute freedom (pretty much the present day situation). Then, when we realize that isn't working (30000 deaths a year), put some regulation on it to help reduce that death toll.
I don't see how anyone, including the NRA, would consider that unreasonable.
If I was selling a product, the last thing I'd want is tons and tons of people dying from my product every year. And yet that is where we're at right now.
It's astonishing if you even begin to think about it.
As for comparing gun control advocates to global warming skeptics...this really shows how you are blinded by your ideology.
Fewer guns=fewer gun deaths: true the whole world over in practice and in theory. It's you guys who are in denial.
Active Member
You're not answering them because you are unable to answer them. Sadly not awesome at all, because you are the people responsible for all these 30000 dead people a year. So yeah it's not very cool really.
Quiet Member
Can you please tell me what regulation you're proposing that will translate into a real world reduction in violent crime?
Add Violins
Well of course you individually owning a gun is not an infringement. But on a mass scale we know that the deregulation of guns leads to an increase in overall gun violence, so it's not a question of you, the individual.
An individual drunk driver does not inherently lead to anyone's harm, not 100% of the time. It is possible for someone to drive home drunk without a problem, but that doesn't matter, because on a large enough scale the risk becomes too great. So we've taken a preventative measure by making drunk driving illegal. We try to lower the risk of people getting hurt beforehand. Likewise, gun regulation is a preventative measure, trying to lower the chances of a guy with a documented history of paranoid schizophrenia from purchasing an assault rifle before he opens fire on a crowd.
Quiet Member
Someone with a documented history of paranoid schizophrenia technically cannot buy a gun....Also the issue of paranoid schizophrenics opening fire into crowds with assault rifles isn't really a huge issue in the grand scale of things.
I'd bet thousands more people are killed by drunk drivers per year then paranoid schizophrenics with assault rifles.
Active Member
no we fucking don't!
You only "know" this if you have a very myopic view of the statistics. I am going to link to this again because I've already detailed the justification. Plus, this paper does it better: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
In fact, the INVERSE of your statement seems to be true. People like @aggroculture know this and have switched the rhetoric to "less guns = less GUN deaths" as if reducing gun deaths while maintaining overall deaths is somehow better.
I have no problem with limiting access to all forms of lethal machinery when it concerns people who cannot responsibly operate it. However, all the proposed legislation that I see applies to 100% of a population.
Active Member
Why do you automatically assume that if you reduce the number of deaths by firearms, that those will automatically be counter-balanced by other means of killing?
We just witnessed a mass stabbing which had 0 (ZERO) death. Take the same guy, give him guns and you know the end result would have been different. Don't be stupid.
Active Member
I "assume" this because the data backs it up. All data proves you are wrong: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf
Hint: if you have to appeal to "common sense" and similar rephrasing... you are probably wrong and just regurgitating rhetoric.
Even with your myopic view of a single event... you are still wrong. The guy used a knife in a place where he could have easily chosen a gun.
Active Member
On the topic of mental health (which actually makes sense to focus on)... You have to really think about how you go about it. Trying to increase treatment and hoping it will drop all forms of crime = good. Focusing on blocking people from accessing gun if they have mental problems = might just backfire and produce a bunch of untreated people who have guns: http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/11/ta...lose-your-guns
You really need to think about proposed legislation at more than a superficial "well of course that makes sense" level.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
