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?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 107 by AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy: �ARe you claiming that guns can't be used for self-defense?'

No.

AgnosticBoy: �Are you claiming that all potential violent threats will end with the suspect not doing harm?�

No.

AgnosticBoy: �Either way, nothing you've said proves that all gun owners commit gun crime.�

I don't feel any need to support such a position, because I never stated such a position.

AgnosticBoy: �If someone is not going to trust all humans with guns, then I would've thought it would be because all humans were bad with guns.�

You would have thought that, would you? You do seem to have trouble drawing conclusions not based on stated premises. You seem to base your conclusions on many unstated and sometimes erroneous assumptions.

AgnosticBoy: �Clearly, that's not your reason so you may as well come up with any reason to say that you want guns banned. You run a red light, ban guns. You're a conservative, ban guns, etc, etc.�

How about this: A ban on guns will reduce gun deaths?

AgnosticBoy: �You said you don't trust all humans because they all can make illogical decisions. That was your given reason as to why you don't trust humans with guns.�

My point was that humans, for various reasons, are untrustworthy. These reasons may include faulty logic, unwarranted assumptions, distraction, physical or mental impairment, et cetera, et alia. But we do have to trust humans, sometimes, with dangerous tools in order for society to function. Guns are not intrinsically necessary to the functions of society. We know this because previous to the invention of guns society used to function without them.

AgnosticBoy: � My factual statement here simply shows that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, but yet you want to use it as such. The clear proof that one doesn't necessarily lead to the other is because there are those who are smart with guns, who know the gun laws, and only use guns for good.�

Charles Whitman was very good with a gun and knew the gun laws when he went up on a tower and shot dead 16 people and injured 31. He had already killed his wife and his mother, but it is doubtful that he could have killed another 16 people and injured 31 without a gun.
He probably did this because he had a brain tumor. So he was operating with a mental defect and would probably been exonerated of murder. In short, he wasn't a criminal.

AgnosticBoy: �Like I said earlier, you started on this thread wanting to restrict guns because of "gun crime" but now you're wanting to ban it because humans have 'feelings'.'

First of all, I was addressing not just “gun crime� but all gun deaths and injuries, whether deliberate, accidental or suicidal.

Secondly, you keep misrepresenting my position, as any reasonable person perusing our exchanges can easily see. I must conclude that you are either doing so deliberately or because of some intellectual defect. In either case, we're done.

[AgnosticBoy]

]
You said you don't trust all humans because they all can make illogical decisions. That was your given reason as to why you don't trust humans with guns.

But we do have to trust humans, sometimes, with dangerous tools in order for society to function. Guns are not intrinsically necessary to the functions of society. We know this because previous to the invention of guns society used to function without them.

Self-defense is necessary for a society. Society can not function without security (self-defense). Guns just happen to be the most effective tool at the present time because you can inflict maximal harm to an attacker while minimizing injury to yourself. I'm sure the elderly, women, and men who don't want a scratch on them would appreciate that!

[/url]"

]My factual statement here simply shows that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, but yet you want to use it as such. The clear proof that one doesn't necessarily lead to the other is because there are those who are smart with guns, who know the gun laws, and only use guns for good.�

Charles Whitman was very good with a gun and knew the gun laws when he went up on a tower and shot dead 16 people and injured 31. He had already killed his wife and his mother, but it is doubtful that he could have killed another 16 people and injured 31 without a gun.
He probably did this because he had a brain tumor. So he was operating with a mental defect and would probably been exonerated of murder. In short, he wasn't a criminal.

Sure there are cases where people use guns for bad, but lets make sure you got my point. The vast majority of lawful gun owners do not commit gun crime. So this population, while prone to dumb decisions like everyone else, tend to use their guns in a smart and/or lawful way. Their compliance with gun laws (not using guns unjustifiably) is at a high percentage, especially among armed law enforcement (cops, FBI agents, etc). What you stated represents a very "TINY percentage" just as one of your own sources mentioned.

]Like I said earlier, you started on this thread wanting to restrict guns because of "gun crime" but now you're wanting to ban it because humans have 'feelings'.'

First of all, I was addressing not just “gun crime� but all gun deaths and injuries, whether deliberate, accidental or suicidal.

Secondly, you keep misrepresenting my position, as any reasonable person perusing our exchanges can easily see. I must conclude that you are either doing so deliberately or because of some intellectual defect. In either case, we're done.

Just trying to keep up with some of your tactics which has involved dodging my points just to reassert your point.

When I told you that guns can be used for self-defense, your response was with a story where you didn't use a gun when you were threatened by someone. Can you blame me for reading between the lines (in a debate context) to presume that your response was an attempt to create a distraction or take away my point. Politicians are good at that. Either way, to believe your story I have to accept that you are "trustworthy" and that you make smart decisions just as you did when someone threatened you. Of course, that's contrary to what you told me earlier regarding humans being "untrustworthy" and feelings-based.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 108 by TSGracchus]

Here's what you've acknowledged so far:
- Not all gun owners commit gun crime.
- The problem of gun crime can be solved by keeping guns in place.
- Guns can be used for self-defense.
- Self-defense is a necessity.

* The specific post number and/or comment of you accepting these 4 points can be given upon request.

With that said, I see no reason to ban guns based on these 4 reasons alone. You've pretty much made my case for me eventhough it took me seperating fact from fiction/personal beliefs (liberalism?) to get there. IF you took these 4 facts to Congress and still demanded for guns to be banned, they'd laugh at you. It would be obvious that POLITICAL IDEOLOGY and other illogical or personal factors were at play. This is especially true given a culture that already believes the 2nd amendment protects their right to bear arms and people go out to buy them (300,000,000+ guns in circulation) accordingly. Good luck trying to convince them while also granting them these 4 facts!

My view on fixing gun crime is rather simple since we have a working model of a population with HIGH gun ownership but with very LOW gun law violations and that model is with our armed law enforcement. You don't hear about there being a problem with cops and FBI agents going on mass shootings or committing gun crime. They go through extensive background checks, training, and gun safety/gun law education. Simply require that ALL Americans go through the same background checks, training, and education! This is in keeping within the 4 points above.

This will be my last post here.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 99 by bluethread]

bluethread: �Yes, freedom isn't free. However, the giving up of freedom does not make one free.�

You have to give up some freedoms to secure others. For instance: If you want to keep your streets free of gunshot victims, you have to regulate the free manufacture, distribution and ownership of firearms. Gun fans are so busy clutching their shootin' irons that they dare not see the carnage.

The manufacture of guns is an economic issue. When one regulates a product in a way that is opposed to market demand will just lead to a black market. The distribution and ownership of firearms is a second amendment issue. There is a equity right to be permit one to protect oneself and be compensated of the victims, but there is no right to be free from gunshot victims. Removing the right to protect oneself does not secure the right to be free from gunshot victims. it does just the opposite.

bluethread: �The giving up of freedom makes one charitable and possibly more civilized.“

“Civilized� folk can be downright uncharitable. They have even been known to separate children from their parents and throw them into concentration camps.

What I am saying is that the giving up of freedom is an act of charity and a requirement of civilization. Here you are making my point. Being charitable in giving up one's rights, even when it make one amenable with ones society, is no guarantee that one is safe, even from that same society. Note that in Nazi Germany it was not the people that separated the citizens from their children and put them in concerntration camps. It was the government, that limited gun owner ship to party members and the military.

bluethread: �the true cost of freedom is the willingness to fight for it. As Jefferson said, 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'"

But fighting for freedom doesn't mean that you will obtain it. It doesn't mean you will keep it, even if you do obtain it.

However, it is more likely that one will obtain and retain rights, if one is willing to fight for them.

bluethread: �Good luck putting the genie back into the bottle. Gun technology is so common that there we can be assured that there will always be guns. If one does not like guns, the best one can do is manage their use.'

But other countries have put the “genie back into the bottle�. Moreover, one proven way to manage the use of guns is to strictly limit their manufacture, distribution, ownership and importation. We might even consider pacing a stiff annual tax on gun owners to pay the costs of the slaughter.

Yes, like the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 111 by bluethread]

Bluethread: �The manufacture of guns is an economic issue.�

Indeed, and the lobbying of the armaments industry adds to the difficulty of control.

Bluethread: �When one regulates a product in a way that is opposed to market demand will just lead to a black market.�

But the production of a even a primitive firearm requires a complex basis of technology. Just producing a rifled barrel is beyond the capabilities of most craftsman. You have to build the tools to make the tools. You are probably not going to be able to fashion, from scratch, an AK-47 in your garage. You certainly won't be able to fashion very many before you are tracked down and stopped.
Moreover, you would need to fashion and sell very many to recover the costs of production.

Bluethread: � The distribution and ownership of firearms is a second amendment issue.�

The constitution can be amended, or even as history has demonstrated, ignored or re-interpreted. It is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Bluethread: �There is a equity right to be permit one to protect oneself and be compensated of the victims, but there is no right to be free from gunshot victims.�

Any right can be taken away, except the right to die. I am discussing the way to prevent mass shootings, real death and injury, and you are wandering off into some fantasy about hypothetical “rights�.

Bluethread: �Removing the right to protect oneself does not secure the right to be free from gunshot victims. it does just the opposite.�

The bottom line: Fewer guns means fewer shooting victims. That is the simple and obvious fact that gun fans are trying to bury under equine manure.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 103 by AgnosticBoy]

Human beings are prone to fits of bad judgement and carelessness. They will ignore facts and substitute feelings as a basis for decisions. That makes them untrustworthy. History has shown that to be true. Guns are an unnecessary risk factor, and controllable.
I have not claimed that strict gun controls are the only way to reduce gun crime, nor have I claimed that it will be 100% effective. I have in fact, denied it, although you, AgnosticBoy, continue to set up the straw-men.
A child might not want to eat broccoli even though it is good for him. In the same way, gun fans don't want to give up their guns, even though it has been shown to be good for societies that have actually done it.

We can't control others actions, only our own of course.

Would you be willing to put signage up at your home noting that you have no guns on your property in a hope that others will follow your example?

I would not want such knowledge to be known personally. I like the idea that criminals and even my own government to a degree are uncertain about my ability to defend myself and my family.

So where do you stand? Would you be willing to make your lack of guns known to the general populace, or would you perhaps be a little trepidation about such knowledge being known to all?

[Clownboat]

The bottom line: Fewer guns means fewer shooting victims. That is the simple and obvious fact that gun fans are trying to bury under equine manure.

Chicago had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year and they have the strictest gun laws in the country.

This seems to go against your claim that fewer guns mean fewer shootings. And again, this is because you can successfully take guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, but not from criminals.

If we could magically poof all guns away, I would be all for it. However, in the world we live in, this seems like a pipe dream and untenable. Therefore, I'm looking for ideas that would actually help. Otherwise, let's just go back to my pipe dream where we get rid of murder so that we don't have to worry about people killing, whether with a gun, knife, bomb or car. The bottom line: Less murderers means less murders. That is the simple and obvious fact that murder fans are trying to bury under equine manure.

My idea seems vastly superior to yours. Why limit yourself to just stopping gun violence?

What! You got a problem with my pipe dream!

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 111 by bluethread]

Bluethread: �The manufacture of guns is an economic issue.�

Indeed, and the lobbying of the armaments industry adds to the difficulty of control.

As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market.

Bluethread: �When one regulates a product in a way that is opposed to market demand will just lead to a black market.�

But the production of a even a primitive firearm requires a complex basis of technology. Just producing a rifled barrel is beyond the capabilities of most craftsman. You have to build the tools to make the tools. You are probably not going to be able to fashion, from scratch, an AK-47 in your garage. You certainly won't be able to fashion very many before you are tracked down and stopped.
Moreover, you would need to fashion and sell very many to recover the costs of production.

That may be true with regard to a particular brand of commodity. However, I think you put way too much faith in government nd way too little faith in the markets ability to innovate. Not only are there innovations in manufacture, there are also innovations in securing that manufacture and facilitating distribution.

Bluethread: � The distribution and ownership of firearms is a second amendment issue.�

The constitution can be amended, or even as history has demonstrated, ignored or re-interpreted. It is not an insurmountable obstacle.

Sure, we can change our basic law. However, as that great pacifist John Lennon said,

"You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead"

Bluethread: �There is a equity right to be permit one to protect oneself and be compensated of the victims, but there is no right to be free from gunshot victims.�

Any right can be taken away, except the right to die. I am discussing the way to prevent mass shootings, real death and injury, and you are wandering off into some fantasy about hypothetical “rights�.

Those are not hypothetical rights. Those are enumerated rights, that were debated in great detail prior to their inclusion in the Constitution and have continued to be debated and fine tuned over more than 200 years by the greatest minds of the day.

Bluethread: �Removing the right to protect oneself does not secure the right to be free from gunshot victims. it does just the opposite.�

The bottom line: Fewer guns means fewer shooting victims. That is the simple and obvious fact that gun fans are trying to bury under equine manure.

That is your dogma and it does not hold up to rational examination. If you want to fight to outlaw guns in the hope that will rid society of gun violence, have at it. I have just one question, what is it you are going to use to force people to give up their guns?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 113 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: �We can't control others actions, only our own of course.�

Government is all about controlling the actions of others.

Clownboat: �Would you be willing to put signage up at your home noting that you have no guns on your property in a hope that others will follow your example?�

As a matter of fact I have a sign in my front window: Friends for Peace put out by the American Friends Service Committee. I have had it there for at least fifteen years.

Clownboat: �I would not want such knowledge to be known personally. I like the idea that criminals and even my own government to a degree are uncertain about my ability to defend myself and my family.�

Well, of course you wouldn't. The psychologists tell us that those who self identify as “conservative� are more fearful than liberals, and in this area at least, you reveal yourself as conservative.

Clownboat: �So where do you stand? Would you be willing to make your lack of guns known to the general populace, or would you perhaps be a little trepidation about such knowledge being known to all?�

I've got a sign. But you don't put a sign in your window. Perhaps you realize that would make you a target for anyone wanting to pick up a firearm? Having a gun in the house, actually puts you and your family at greater risk. Don't take my word for it. Look up the statistics yourself.

[Replying to post 114 by Clownboat]

Clownboat: �Chicago had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year and they have the strictest gun laws in the country.'

So, where do those guns come from? I am not aware that guns are manufactured in Chicago.

Clownboat: �This seems to go against your claim that fewer guns mean fewer shootings. And again, this is because you can successfully take guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, but not from criminals.�

So, all those shootings involved only three guns? There is an endless supply of guns purchased or stolen from legal gun owners and dealers outside of Chicago.

Clownboat: �If we could magically poof all guns away, I would be all for it. However, in the world we live in, this seems like a pipe dream and untenable.'

You have indicated that you won't settle for anything but an instantaneous magical solution. That is not how the real world works. But: “With Australia’s population steadily increasing, the nation’s homicide incident rate has fallen even more than the number of homicides — from 1.6 per 100,000 in 1995-96 (The year strict gun controls were instituted.) to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-2014, according to a government report on crime trends. That was the lowest homicide incident rate at the time in 25 years, as we mentioned earlier.� – https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-c ... a-updated/

The US rate is ten times that of Australia.

Clownboat: � Therefore, I'm looking for ideas that would actually help.�

No. You are not. You demand instant 100% control, but if it were provided you would almost certainly move the goal posts. You want your gun. By your own admission, you are afraid to live without it.

[Clownboat]

Clownboat: �We can't control others actions, only our own of course.�

Government is all about controlling the actions of others.

Non sequitur. You nor I are the government. Please notice that I did not say that governments cannot control others.

Clownboat: �Would you be willing to put signage up at your home noting that you have no guns on your property in a hope that others will follow your example?�

As a matter of fact I have a sign in my front window: Friends for Peace put out by the American Friends Service Committee. I have had it there for at least fifteen years.

This is not an answer to the question I asked. You're 0 for 2.

Clownboat: �I would not want such knowledge to be known personally. I like the idea that criminals and even my own government to a degree are uncertain about my ability to defend myself and my family.�

Well, of course you wouldn't. The psychologists tell us that those who self identify as “conservative� are more fearful than liberals, and in this area at least, you reveal yourself as conservative.

And yet ironically, you avoided answering the question.
How conservative/scared are you?
What is wrong with a scared person owning a gun for example if it helps them cope with being scared? You're scared of guns so much that you would prefer others be scared in their own homes so you can be less scared of guns in general? If so, there is some irony/hypocrisy. Why would your fears trump others?

Clownboat: �So where do you stand? Would you be willing to make your lack of guns known to the general populace, or would you perhaps be a little trepidation about such knowledge being known to all?�

I've got a sign.

Congrats. I have a shoe.

Perhaps you realize that would make you a target for anyone wanting to pick up a firearm?

Correct. Even though I don't keep my firearms and my ammo in the same building, I still do not want that to be common knowledge for just this reason. You are pointing out a benefit for having an armed community. Criminals currently don't know who is armed and who is not. This is a deterrent. Deterrents to crime are good, yet you are arguing against one.

Having a gun in the house, actually puts you and your family at greater risk. Don't take my word for it. Look up the statistics yourself.

So does having alcohol. Perhaps your nose doesn't belong in someone else's home though? I don't have guns/ammo in my home, but I don't see how what I do in my home is any business of yours, nor the governments (within reason of course, as in actions that directly harm others).

Clownboat: �Chicago had over 4,000 victims of gun-related crimes last year and they have the strictest gun laws in the country.'

So, where do those guns come from? I am not aware that guns are manufactured in Chicago.

Irrelevant. You said fewer guns equals fewer shooting victims. I'm pointing to the stat above to show that your statement doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

Clownboat: �This seems to go against your claim that fewer guns mean fewer shootings. And again, this is because you can successfully take guns away from law abiding citizens like myself, but not from criminals.�

So, all those shootings involved only three guns?

Who said such a thing? Your losing me.

There is an endless supply of guns purchased or stolen from legal gun owners and dealers outside of Chicago.

And this point is what you continue to fail to understand. Getting rid of guns is a pipe dream. You strengthen my argument.

Clownboat: �If we could magically poof all guns away, I would be all for it. However, in the world we live in, this seems like a pipe dream and untenable.'

You have indicated that you won't settle for anything but an instantaneous magical solution.

False, I have claimed that what you submit is a pipe dream. You have evidenced my claim for me by acknowledging all the endless supplies of guns.

That is not how the real world works. But: “With Australia’s population steadily increasing, the nation’s homicide incident rate has fallen even more than the number of homicides — from 1.6 per 100,000 in 1995-96 (The year strict gun controls were instituted.) to 1 per 100,000 in 2013-2014, according to a government report on crime trends. That was the lowest homicide incident rate at the time in 25 years, as we mentioned earlier.� – https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-c ... a-updated/

I'm afraid that can be how the real world works. Again, you ignore Chicago with its strict gun laws.

Clownboat: � Therefore, I'm looking for ideas that would actually help.�

No. You are not.

Excuse me! Please debate.

You demand instant 100% control, but if it were provided you would almost certainly move the goal posts.

False. I reject your pipe dream for a better one. Why stop at getting rid of guns? Murders will still take place. Let's get rid of murders.

You want your gun.

Yes, hunting and target shooting are things I find enjoyable. I'm a family man now though and rarely have time for either.

By your own admission, you are afraid to live without it.

If I was afraid to live without guns, why is it that I store guns and ammo in different building? I have already told you that if an armed burglar were to come to my home, I would be at his mercy as I have no fire arms available to me (easily that is).

You, it seems would prefer to argue against some caricature of myself where I'm a scared wannabe cowboy. Clearly I am not, I'm just a law abiding citizen that happens to own guns and keeps his guns/ammo in different buildings for safety reasons. Perhaps you just feel like you are right by imagining that I'm something that I'm not?

If your able, can you address a couple things that Bluethread has pointed out?

1) As is the case with every commodity. Governments can not eradicate a commodity that is in demand. They can only determine how much of that commodity is exchanged in the open market and how much is exchanged on the black market.

Show this statement to be wrong, and you pipe dream is more realistic.

2) If you want to fight to outlaw guns in the hope that will rid society of gun violence, have at it. I have just one question, what is it you are going to use to force people to give up their guns?