9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(29-12-2012 04:27 PM)Diablo Wrote:  Ok, sure but banning alcohol doesn't work. It is way too easy to make.

Banning assault rifles, which are clearly not useful for hunting, does work for the most part.


You are merely comparing apples to oranges. It is a ridiculous argument worthy of Faux Noise.
It is comparing apples and oranges because I have never heard of a person having a gun addiction. You know an uncontrollable need to own guns the way some need to drink alcohol.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2013, 11:15 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(20-01-2013 11:06 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 10:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, because it's not the gun laws, it's health care and social services.
In regards to mass shootings perhaps.
But 11,000 a year is still 11,000 a year. Are you saying that all those 11,000 people that were killed were killed by a mentally unstable person slipping under the radar?


I'm saying that the society is not healthy due to massive income, wealth, educational, and opportunity inequities.
Health care and social services as they are can't cope with this shit as it is. And then there's the really stupid fucking "War on Drugs".

Those are the underlying problems. We all have to face the fact that the guns aren't going away. It can not happen politically, and probably not practically.

Institute a real national health care like Taiwan or Switzerland or others, decriminalize drugs, put some real effort into education; do rational things that improve society and people's lives.

Until then, it will be a violent and dangerous country. Until then, I keep my gun.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(20-01-2013 10:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  I do not understand your concept of right to defend oneself. No right to block a punch? WTAF?
Quote:Do I believe that if a person is capable of blocking, there should be laws that punish that person for doing so? Absolutely not. If that is what you mean by right to defend yourself (or something similar), I believe it is something that should be allowed, without laws against it.

I don't understand what was so tough to get about that.

If that is what you mean by a right to self-defense, that's okay with me. If you mean that every individual should have the right to own a gun and take an offensive action with that gun, like murder or assault with a deadly weapon (gun), against someone who they come into any number of hypothetical conflicts with, then I don't think that should be labeled as defense, first of all (because it's not defense), and I don't think that should be allowed in society.

Simple.

(20-01-2013 10:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your other concepts of self-defense is completely unrealistic. How does a small or weak or disabled person defend against larger, stronger, or multiple assailants?


So, I'm being unrealistic, while you have just provided a hypothetical scenario, or implicitly trying to imply one, in which you are randomly assuming, irrationally, that only allowing owning guns to be an individual right, would bring about different results.

To easily answer: In any way they can, which probably isn't in many ways, naturally. They are pretty close to defenseless, so sorry about their luck, if attacked in that way. They might want to stay away from any activity that could lead to conflict and pray that the 'senior citizen killer' isn't on the loose. If you are small, weak, disabled (or all three), allowing guns to be a right, only allows you to be a small, weak, disabled person with a gun; however, while also allowing big, strong, able people the same right (now it's even). It doesn't also make it mandatory for someone to let you win a fight or give you a fair warning or chance, to either defend yourself or take offensive action in retaliation.

If you are taking offense against anyone, the main objective is to render that person defenseless and unable to take an offensive action, as quickly and effectively as possible. Are you trying to say that all attackers are incompetent, with guns around? Against a competent attacker, unless you are very highly trained and able, you're going to still be pretty defenseless even with a gun (keeping in mind: unarmed =/= defenseless; and that owning a gun =/= automatically having access when you need it). Otherwise, in a situation where they are either incompetent and/or don't want to kill or hurt you, the argument for a gun then kind of fades.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(20-01-2013 11:15 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm saying that the society is not healthy due to massive income, wealth, educational, and opportunity inequities.
Health care and social services as they are can't cope with this shit as it is. And then there's the really stupid fucking "War on Drugs".

Those are the underlying problems. We all have to face the fact that the guns aren't going away. It can not happen politically, and probably not practically.

Institute a real national health care like Taiwan or Switzerland or others, decriminalize drugs, put some real effort into education; do rational things that improve society and people's lives.

Until then, it will be a violent and dangerous country. Until then, I keep my gun.

I'd agree with the underlying problems-- probably more that they are there and more important, more than with what they actually are. But, to that, my point would have to be what it has been throughout: If we seriously can't resolve an issue with guns, how in the hell would anyone think we would even come remotely close to solving problems like those?

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2013, 04:21 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(21-01-2013 12:04 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(20-01-2013 10:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  I do not understand your concept of right to defend oneself. No right to block a punch? WTAF?
Quote:Do I believe that if a person is capable of blocking, there should be laws that punish that person for doing so? Absolutely not. If that is what you mean by right to defend yourself (or something similar), I believe it is something that should be allowed, without laws against it.

I don't understand what was so tough to get about that.

If that is what you mean by a right to self-defense, that's okay with me. If you mean that every individual should have the right to own a gun and take an offensive action with that gun, like murder or assault with a deadly weapon (gun), against someone who they come into any number of hypothetical conflicts with, then I don't think that should be labeled as defense, first of all (because it's not defense), and I don't think that should be allowed in society.

Simple.

(20-01-2013 10:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your other concepts of self-defense is completely unrealistic. How does a small or weak or disabled person defend against larger, stronger, or multiple assailants?


So, I'm being unrealistic, while you have just provided a hypothetical scenario, or implicitly trying to imply one, in which you are randomly assuming, irrationally, that only allowing owning guns to be an individual right, would bring about different results.

To easily answer: In any way they can, which probably isn't in many ways, naturally. They are pretty close to defenseless, so sorry about their luck, if attacked in that way. They might want to stay away from any activity that could lead to conflict and pray that the 'senior citizen killer' isn't on the loose. If you are small, weak, disabled (or all three), allowing guns to be a right, only allows you to be a small, weak, disabled person with a gun; however, while also allowing big, strong, able people the same right (now it's even). It doesn't also make it mandatory for someone to let you win a fight or give you a fair warning or chance, to either defend yourself or take offensive action in retaliation.

If you are taking offense against anyone, the main objective is to render that person defenseless and unable to take an offensive action, as quickly and effectively as possible. Are you trying to say that all attackers are incompetent, with guns around? Against a competent attacker, unless you are very highly trained and able, you're going to still be pretty defenseless even with a gun (keeping in mind: unarmed =/= defenseless; and that owning a gun =/= automatically having access when you need it). Otherwise, in a situation where they are either incompetent and/or don't want to kill or hurt you, the argument for a gun then kind of fades.


I disagree with almost everything you have said on this. Lethal force is an ethical response to a lethal threat.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
21-01-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(21-01-2013 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 12:04 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
I don't understand what was so tough to get about that.

If that is what you mean by a right to self-defense, that's okay with me. If you mean that every individual should have the right to own a gun and take an offensive action with that gun, like murder or assault with a deadly weapon (gun), against someone who they come into any number of hypothetical conflicts with, then I don't think that should be labeled as defense, first of all (because it's not defense), and I don't think that should be allowed in society.

Simple.



So, I'm being unrealistic, while you have just provided a hypothetical scenario, or implicitly trying to imply one, in which you are randomly assuming, irrationally, that only allowing owning guns to be an individual right, would bring about different results.

To easily answer: In any way they can, which probably isn't in many ways, naturally. They are pretty close to defenseless, so sorry about their luck, if attacked in that way. They might want to stay away from any activity that could lead to conflict and pray that the 'senior citizen killer' isn't on the loose. If you are small, weak, disabled (or all three), allowing guns to be a right, only allows you to be a small, weak, disabled person with a gun; however, while also allowing big, strong, able people the same right (now it's even). It doesn't also make it mandatory for someone to let you win a fight or give you a fair warning or chance, to either defend yourself or take offensive action in retaliation.

If you are taking offense against anyone, the main objective is to render that person defenseless and unable to take an offensive action, as quickly and effectively as possible. Are you trying to say that all attackers are incompetent, with guns around? Against a competent attacker, unless you are very highly trained and able, you're going to still be pretty defenseless even with a gun (keeping in mind: unarmed =/= defenseless; and that owning a gun =/= automatically having access when you need it). Otherwise, in a situation where they are either incompetent and/or don't want to kill or hurt you, the argument for a gun then kind of fades.


I disagree with almost everything you have said on this. Lethal force is an ethical response to a lethal threat.

Many U.S. states (particularly those that endorse the Castle Doctrine) include defending oneself against forcible entry of one's home as part of their definition of justifiable homicide without any obligation to retreat.

This includes the use of a firearm.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 10:00 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(21-01-2013 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  I disagree with almost everything you have said on this. Lethal force is an ethical response to a lethal threat.

Yeah, but why is it an ethical response/what makes a response ethical? What is a lethal threat? What does that have to do with guns? What does that have to do with why individual, gun ownership should be protected by law?

Quickly: It being an ethical response is irrelevant, almost completely; "Lethal threat" I view as a contradictory, illogical phrase, if not just implying something that disregards logic, maybe even irrational; and yeah, that all together, is even further removed, in relevance, from guns and gun ownerships being an individual, protected by law, right.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 10:09 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 10:00 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 04:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  I disagree with almost everything you have said on this. Lethal force is an ethical response to a lethal threat.

Yeah, but why is it an ethical response/what makes a response ethical? What is a lethal threat? What does that have to do with guns? What does that have to do with why individual, gun ownership should be protected by law?

Quickly: It being an ethical response is irrelevant, almost completely; "Lethal threat" I view as a contradictory, illogical phrase, if not just implying something that disregards logic, maybe even irrational; and yeah, that all together, is even further removed, in relevance, from guns and gun ownerships being an individual, protected by law, right.


Please explain how "lethal threat" is either contradictory or illogical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 10:17 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(21-01-2013 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Many U.S. states (particularly those that endorse the Castle Doctrine) include defending oneself against forcible entry of one's home as part of their definition of justifiable homicide without any obligation to retreat.

This includes the use of a firearm.

Okay.

That's more of a separate discussion, regarding how laws should, if at all, differ in certain locations. You probably have caught on to my ideology enough by now, to know that I would disagree with any law (any place) without any obligation to retreat (depending on how it was worded) and it being justifiable homicide, especially if explicitly stated that lethal forces is allowed, without first being physically attacked.

I really don't see the relevance of this, beyond showing that people suck at making laws and that politics is full of shit, even outside of gun laws.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2013, 10:27 AM
RE: 9,146 gun homicides in US. 16,885 killed by drunk drivers.
(22-01-2013 10:17 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(21-01-2013 06:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Many U.S. states (particularly those that endorse the Castle Doctrine) include defending oneself against forcible entry of one's home as part of their definition of justifiable homicide without any obligation to retreat.

This includes the use of a firearm.

Okay.

That's more of a separate discussion, regarding how laws should, if at all, differ in certain locations. You probably have caught on to my ideology enough by now, to know that I would disagree with any law (any place) without any obligation to retreat (depending on how it was worded) and it being justifiable homicide, especially if explicitly stated that lethal forces is allowed, without first being physically attacked.

I really don't see the relevance of this, beyond showing that people suck at making laws and that politics is full of shit, even outside of gun laws.


There is more than one argument against an obligation to retreat.

What if one is not physically able to retreat?

What if there is no path of retreat?

But most importantly, why should I have to retreat from an intruder into my home?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  How the NRA killed the debate. witerat 23 931 17-01-2013 06:04 PM
Last Post: TheBlackKnight
Forum Jump: