Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[AgnosticBoy]

�Clownboat didn't ask you about lives taken due to only guns, but rather he asked about lives, in general. Guns aren't the only weapons used to take lives or to severely injure people.�

Of course not, but if you want to kill quickly, one or dozens, guns are the most convenient, and most available.

So says the military guy who carried guns himself.

As I've argued before, guns can exist without a lot of GOOD people dying. Cars are more available than guns, and they can also be used to kill but that doesn't mean someone will actually do it any more than a gun owner would use their gun. So logically, your point doesn't hold water.

My argument involves preserving self-defense AND reducing gun crime. Your view involves reducing gun crime (and not crime with other weapons, assuming you can keep guns away from the bad guys even with a ban) BUT at the expense of self-defense. If most want a means of self-defense, then your argument will not persuade much of anybody, except some hardline liberals.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 49 by AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy: �As I've argued before, guns can exist without a lot of GOOD people dying.�

I agree. This is especially true if all the guns were to be kept under lock and key and only unlocked under strict supervision for a specific purpose.

AgnosticBoy: �Cars are more available than guns, and they can also be used to kill but that doesn't mean someone will actually do it any more than a gun owner would use their gun. So logically, your point doesn't hold water.'

Indeed, cars can be used to kill, and have been, but cars are not specifically designed to kill. Guns are specifically designed to kill, and while they can be turned to other uses, the basic function of a gun is to kill.

AgnosticBoy: �My argument involves preserving self-defense AND reducing gun crime.�

But without guns society is safer, because one means of killing is absent, just as a society without smallpox is not free of disease, but is safer.
By the way, if you have a gun, it can be stolen from you. And it is unlikely that you will be confronted. It is more likely you will be shot from behind or from ambush. That's what "BAD" guys do.

AgnosticBoy: � Your view involves reducing gun crime (and not crime with other weapons, assuming you can keep guns away from the bad guys even with a ban) BUT at the expense of self-defense.�

Other killings can be addressed in other ways. One does not have to discuss eradicating typhoid when addressing the question of malaria.

AgnosticBoy: �If most want a means of self-defense, then your argument will not persuade much of anybody, except some hardline liberals.�

Of course, some will not be convinced, just as flat-Earthers, or young Earth creationists won't be convinced. And forgive me please for noting that "liberals' are not noted for being "hardline". In fact, they seem to many, such as radicals, far too willing to compromise or concede outright. I suspect, although I could be wrong, that you are simultaneously preaching to the choir, erecting a strawman, and poisoning the well. If so, I must applaud your economy.

[Clownboat]

Of course not, but if you want to kill quickly, one or dozens, guns are the most convenient, and most available.

I'm with you so far...
Now all guns are gone somehow, except for government and criminals that don't care about abiding by the law.

So guns are now no longer the most convenient way to kill. Now it's cars or homemade bombs or what have you. Is your argument not a slippery slope because it seems to be attacking the most convenient way to kill which logically there will always be.

I'm trying to understand why the 'attack on guns', as I personally don't have a problem with gun ownership with qualifications of course. Like doing things similar to what the police force does and such for anyone that wants to own a gun. The idea of just having guns gone seems like a pipe dream to me and it seems like a wasted effort to strive for such a dream while we can do real things to help regulate who has a gun and who doesn't.

Your thoughts...
Do you think a government is more or less likely to be tyrannical when the people are armed?

Thanks for your thoughts.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 51 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: "I'm with you so far...
Now all guns are gone somehow, except for government and criminals that don't care about abiding by the law.
So guns are now no longer the most convenient way to kill. Now it's cars or homemade bombs or what have you. Is your argument not a slippery slope because it seems to be attacking the most convenient way to kill which logically there will always be."

You see a slippery slope where I see a tortuous ascent. I will stipulate that perfection is beyond us, but improvement is possible. And maybe smart cars will make it harder for homicidally intentioned drivers.

[AgnosticBoy]

So guns are now no longer the most convenient way to kill. Now it's cars or homemade bombs or what have you. Is your argument not a slippery slope because it seems to be attacking the most convenient way to kill which logically there will always be.

I'm trying to understand why the 'attack on guns', as I personally don't have a problem with gun ownership with qualifications of course. ?

Great points. There will always be a need for self-defense, as well. And I'm willing to say that point alone defeats the anti-gun side unless they can offer an effective means of self-defense.

The real debate should be on how to effectively vet gun owners. I believe we already have a model for that when we look at the biggest population of gun owners, that is, law enforcement and the military.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 51 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: "The idea of just having guns gone seems like a pipe dream to me and it seems like a wasted effort to strive for such a dream while we can do real things to help regulate who has a gun and who doesn't."

Once, a country without a king was a pipe-dream. Once a country where slavery was illegal was a pipe-dream. once a country with universal adult suffrage was a pipe-dream.

Clownboat: "Your thoughts...
Do you think a government is more or less likely to be tyrannical when the people are armed? "

I think that tyranny is likely, perhaps inevitable when any government is not closely regulated by the governed. There were tyrannies before guns. There are tyrannies supported by guns. And history has shown that any tyranny overthrown by force is usually, almost always, replaced by tyranny.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 51 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: "I'm with you so far...
Now all guns are gone somehow, except for government and criminals that don't care about abiding by the law.
So guns are now no longer the most convenient way to kill. Now it's cars or homemade bombs or what have you. Is your argument not a slippery slope because it seems to be attacking the most convenient way to kill which logically there will always be."

You see a slippery slope where I see a tortuous ascent.

Odd, because my words were: " Is your argument not a slippery slope..."

I will stipulate that perfection is beyond us, but improvement is possible.

I agree that improvement is possible, but that is not at question. It would be an odd argument to claim that things cannot be improved. Like qualifications about who owns a gun for example.

And maybe smart cars will make it harder for homicidally intentioned drivers.

Maybe... So once guns are not the most convenient way, then perhaps cars will be and we should make cars smart? Why not improve our gun ownership laws as you have already stated that improvement is possible.

I ask because it seems like you just want government to have guns. Keep in mind, if a law is passed where I have to part with my guns, as a law abiding citizen, I would do such a thing. Criminals, those non law abiding people will not abide by such a law as they are already law breakers. Exceptions to every rule of course.

I can somewhat understand where people are coming from to just allow government to have guns (not that I agree), but why should only government and criminals have guns?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 51 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: "The idea of just having guns gone seems like a pipe dream to me and it seems like a wasted effort to strive for such a dream while we can do real things to help regulate who has a gun and who doesn't."

TSGracchus: Once, a country without a king was a pipe-dream. Once a country where slavery was illegal was a pipe-dream. once a country with universal adult suffrage was a pipe-dream.

You addressed the 'pipe dream' comment only. Why did you fail to address the main argument, that we can regulate better who has a gun and who doesn't. It seems you got lost on the words 'pipe dream' and forgot to address the actual point.

Clownboat: "Your thoughts...
Do you think a government is more or less likely to be tyrannical when the people are armed? "

TSGracchus: I think that tyranny is likely, perhaps inevitable when any government is not closely regulated by the governed. There were tyrannies before guns. There are tyrannies supported by guns. And history has shown that any tyranny overthrown by force is usually, almost always, replaced by tyranny.

You once again failed to address the questions posed to you.

I do not plan to waste more of either of our time.
Be well...

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 56 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: "Why did you fail to address the main argument, that we can regulate better who has a gun and who doesn't."

Certainly we could, in principle, but we haven't. It isn't politically feasible. And in principle we could vet those wishing to possess guns, but we do a very poor job of vetting even law enforcement officers, who shoot down unarmed persons every week, often by "accidental discharge". (Sometimes guns do kill people.)

Clownboat: "Your thoughts...
Do you think a government is more or less likely to be tyrannical when the people are armed? "

TSGracchus: "I think that tyranny is likely, perhaps inevitable when any government is not closely regulated by the governed. There were tyrannies before guns. There are tyrannies supported by guns. And history has shown that any tyranny overthrown by force is usually, almost always, replaced by tyranny."

Clownboat: "You once again failed to address the questions posed to you."

I only failed to provide the answers you wanted to hear.

Clownboat: "I do not plan to waste more of either of our time."

Of course! I am not surprised.

[Clownboat]

Certainly we could, in principle, but we haven't. It isn't politically feasible.

Readers, let me remind you of his own words:
TSGracchus: "Once, a country without a king was a pipe-dream. Once a country where slavery was illegal was a pipe-dream. once a country with universal adult suffrage was a pipe-dream."

And in principle we could vet those wishing to possess guns, but we do a very poor job of vetting even law enforcement officers, who shoot down unarmed persons every week, often by "accidental discharge". (Sometimes guns do kill people.)

Readers, Law enforcement also get into car accidents. It's the leading cause of police fatalities. Perhaps guns are to blame for car accidents too.

Clownboat: "You once again failed to address the questions posed to you."

I only failed to provide the answers you wanted to hear.

Demonstrably false. The available answers are more tyrannical, less tyrannical or stays the same.

Clownboat: "I do not plan to waste more of either of our time."

Of course! I am not surprised.

I would imagine you saw it coming. Give enough non answers and what would you expect.



Be well...