On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2013, 09:10 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 08:31 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I'm not advocating for making guns illegal. Are you actually reading my posts?
Huh? I never said you were. I was only expanding on your analogy with The War on Drugs. Are you reading my posts?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 06:14 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  @ TrulyX Well, I tried to avoid that, but TBD wouldn't have any of it.

@TBD Yeah, and like there aren't many people who advocated that we should make caffeine or tobacco illegal there aren't many people who want to make air cannons and harpoon guns illegal.

You are being part of the problem, but in a way, to a larger extent.

You took your own personal ideology and worldview, made it present, blatantly, in your views on the topic, that in turn led to TBD initiating a conversation (and I think this might have been at several points in the discussion) that was more fundamental, based on worldviews and ideology, which I have been saying for a long time is the actual core problem behind many issues, not just guns; but you deflected that portion of the conversation.

I would just be assuming, but I could see that if we did start a discussion on socioeconomic issues, that the conversation would be exactly the same as this one, give or take. That is what I was trying to get at with my last post. People argue over the same bullshit, a lot of the times in the luxury of their own situations. A lot of politicians, for example, especially on a national level, don't have to actual be anywhere near the actual problems that they are either ignoring, dismissing, not enthusiastic or active in fixing, and are ultimately leaving unsolved, while others suffer the consequences of the incompetency of society. Same applies to a lot of the people discussing them. Others are, "too busy surviving to argue about Darwin".

That's why taking away guns, from everyone, is ideologically, in my view, a good thing to do within a society. If you can live laid back, in luxury or comfort, and have the personal view, that if it really gets that bad, I'll just have to kill someone, that's a problem. If anything, not being personally armed, might make you paranoid enough to give a shit about the problems, as opposed to be paranoid about the problems coming through your front door at night.

A common sense rule, that might have been alluded to, but I can't say if it was blatantly mentioned or not, is this: If you are really worried about the shootings and murders, in terms of attempting to lower or prevent them, the goal is not to care about the victims, it's to care about the shooters and murderers.

The problem is that people don't really give a shit about anyone, usually apart from themselves. That is why, there are only widespread, gun debates after mass shootings, when, even during the debate, people are quick to tell you how little that has to do with overall shootings. Then, they are quick to tell you about the socioeconomic problems-- that remain unsolved and get worse. Then the next mass shooting happens, and you have to listen to how much people care about themselves, over again.

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
[+] 2 users Like TrulyX's post
07-02-2013, 01:55 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2013 01:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(06-02-2013 01:31 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Regardless of your or someone else's interpretation of the 2nd amendment or what the founding fathers had in mind when writing it, you are advocating the banning of firearms with no evidence that it will reduce the murder rate in any significant way. In fact, the number of crimes that are prevented with firearms suggests that removal of them could actually result in the increase of the murder rate per 100,000. Just admit that guns scare you so you want them banned and you'll come up with any cherry picked statistic or other excuse you can think of to accomplish that goal.


Also, have fun in your failed gun control goals in 2013. Hundred bucks says that not even a universal background check bill passes the House. And as long as gun control is the hot topic those that support it will lose seats in Congress making it even harder for control advocates. On top of the zero Republicans that will support gun control there are dozens of Dems from red states/districts that also won't support it.
When one of your kids is killed by gunfire, we'll see how you feel.
No one is afriad of guns. I've been hunting since I was in 4th grade.
What is your explanation for the astoundingly highest number of gun deaths on the planet in the US ?
No one needs assault weapons. They are unreasonable.
And besides bitching, what exactly is your suggestion for fixing the enormous problem, or are things fine the way they are ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein (That's a JOKE, ya idiot)
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
07-02-2013, 06:34 AM
Re: On guns, where does one draw the line
No you weren't, you were taking points I had already brought up in that post and dodging everything else.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 06:37 AM
Re: On guns, where does one draw the line
Well said. Crime is a socioeconomic issue that can be helped by improving education and health care. At least health care is getting addressed, now to help with education.

Mass shootings are a result of complex issues but involves guns, so among other things, addressing guns can help, but not solve.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 10:15 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
I wasn't dodging, I was just lazy...kind of lost interest, got tired of it. Rest assured I will muster the will to reply an more in-depth reply addressing all of your points tonight or tomorrow as I have nothing to do tomorrow.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
I have not read the whole thread (too many pages) but it is one of the issues I feel strongly about, so I might as well post my opinion, like everyone else.

A long time ago (as Zatamon) I started a thread called: "Options in a 'Mental Institution'"

It is highly appropriate here, so I will paste the OP.

=======================================

All my life I have had to listen to arguments against idealism from pragmatists. Their argument usually goes like this: You live in a dream world, where people are perfectly rational and nice to each other. That world does not exist and if you live there, you give up any chance of making the real world better. The problem with this argument is in the assumptions I would have to accept in order to be pragmatic.

Most clinical psychiatrists can tell you that schizophrenics often use perfectly sound logic and be consistent, though their actions are based on a central delusion. Would I like to live in a mental institution, where everyone behaved sensibly, as long as one accepts the assumption that the water faucet is God?

And that is my problem with the human species.

Look at an example: violent crimes committed by fire arms. Canada is trying to solve this problem by gun registration. Enormous expense, red tape, administration, resistance, resentment. Violent criminals are not lining up to register their firearms. Very limited, if any, result.

The real solution to this unsolvable problem is foolproof and obvious: Stop manufacturing firearms and ammunition, destroy any we can lay our hands on. Sooner or later there won't be any left. An even saner solution: remove the causes that make most people use them in violent crime.

Whenever I suggest it, hearty laughter. I am obviously a funny man.

Why?

Because everyone knows that it is impossible.

Just like 'everyone knows' that the water faucet is God.

Now, as a good pragmatist, I could accept that and try to find another solution, based on the premise that assumes: it is impossible to stop manufacturing firearms. But do I want to participate in a society where the only sane solution is rejected out of hand as impossible?

Before I go on, let me admit: I know it is impossible. Not because of a natural law of physics, not because the Martians forced it on us, but because we humans (a sufficient majority of those in power) choose to make it impossible.

Crimes committed by firearms is just one example. Almost all of our unsolvable social problems have perfectly obvious, sane, simple solutions. All of them impossible.

So, do I want to participate in a society which is run by people who reject the only sane solution as impossible? Where the majority of citizens go along with this by refusing to consider and implement the required life style changes?

I can only see four basic choices:

1/ Escape from the mental institution to a place of sanity.
2/ Go along with the assumption that the water faucet is God.
3/ Try to convince the inmates they are wrong
4/ Ignore the inmates and isolate myself as much as humanly possible.

Looking at these options, I have to realize that: 1/ would require a space ship or a time machine; 2/ is repulsive and painful for a healthy mind; 3/ I have tried that - no chance in hell; 4/ is the only practical solution I have ever found.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2013, 11:10 AM
Re: On guns, where does one draw the line
I'm beginning to think your answer to 4 is correct. Convincing an inmate they are in jail should not be so bloody hard.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
09-02-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(09-02-2013 09:29 AM)Zat Wrote:  Would I like to live in a mental institution, where everyone behaved sensibly, as long as one accepts the assumption that the water faucet is God?

3/ Try to convince the inmates they are wrong

That would seem simple, if they actually accepted that there was, in fact, a water faucet.

If they didn't accept that there was a water faucet (only God), you would have a problem; but otherwise, I'd presume, if you no longer provided a conclusion, but only the self-evident, the compulsion for everyone else to provide a conclusion might disappear.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: