The Right to Bear Arms
- Thread starter gurusan
- Start date
How about stolen guns? or do they somehow not qualify as illegal? What about the failure of existing gun control laws in the virginia tech and Dunblane massacres?
Are such tragic events statistically relevant in the first place?
Could such events have been prevented if they had not occurred in Gun free areas?
I take it you're forgetting about what happened in Wolverhampton that didn't involve firearms at all (1996)?
But let's look shall we (i'm ignoring stolen weapons in prepration)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platte_Canyon_High_School_shooting
Finding other examples is somewhat difficult as most reports do not contain solid information about the source of the firearms either way.
hmm.....I'm all for the right to bear arms but allowing weapons let alone guns into school is just plain retarded. Teenagers are mentally unstable raging hormone weirdos and allowing them to bring firearms to school is insane!
The purpose is not to allow the teenagers to bring guns to school as much as allowing the teachers to have them to stop the teenager...
There is a reason why most of the gun massacres of recent years have happened in 'gun free' zones, and it all springs back to how those planning to commit crime don't care about the law, so the law only disarms the law abiding.
Of course, tackling the problems that cause most school spree murders in the first place (which have nothing to do with the availability of guns) would be a much better course of action.
Surely if the current practice worked the problem would be nowhere near as significant?
That takes the biscuit, you actually have a dig at me making an edit, via an edit of your own - Comedy classic...
I would have thought all me making an edit proves, is I wanted to add something - But heh, I'm sure you've got some statistics to show otherwise
Why? The only part of our gun control laws that is truly incompatible with the heller clarified view of the second amendment is the handgun ban, and possible the requirement to provide reason for gun ownership that is judged within the FAC application process (although this could be solved by standardising interpretation and opening up 'self-defence' as an option).
That takes the biscuit, you actually have a dig at me making an edit, via an edit of your own - Comedy classic...
I would have thought all me making an edit proves, is I wanted to add something - But heh, I'm sure you've got some statistics to show otherwise
All you did was added another fallacy... given that the bulk of my post was criticising the fallacies within yours, commenting on the addition seems to make sense.
Would you care to address the bulk of the argument yet?
Why would there be far greater numbers? Would you consider getting a handgun if they were legal? I didn't have one prior to the ban and I doubt I would get one if the ban was repealled. My personal choice of killing tool that has no place in a civilised society has a much lower rate of fire and takes a lot more effort.
He was having a dig at the content of the edit, not that you made an edit. I thought that was obvious?
Quite possibly, it would be much easier on my keyboard if people stuck to factual, evidence based debating.
You seem to like using the terms such as 'fallacy' frequently when talking about other peoples suggestions/beliefs, whereas your suggestions/beliefs are all 'facts'. Are you sure your beliefs are so much more 'right' than everyone elses? No one with an alternative view has anything to offer?
Do you not see this as maybe slightly conceited?
If we stick with the topic at hand (the OP), US style gun ownership in the UK, IMHO every additional gun in the UK increases the risk of a gun being mis-used. You disagree, fair enough. But I (& many others) see no reason to 'test' this at the risk of actual lives. Why put lives on the line just so individuals can have a lump of metal?
I guess I may hold a somewhat black and white view on this, probably due to my time working in Johannesburg, where guns were a part of life. As an outsider I found it very disconcerting! Seeing guns in every day circumstances, and even sitting in drawers at work. Hearing gun fire at night. Hearing personal accounts from individuals. Now, I'm in no way likening South Africa to what the UK would be like - very different situations - but something rubbed off on me down there, and I didn't like the smell of it. I think it made me appreciate we're lucky. We live in a society that (currently) is safe enough that I can probably live my life never being threated in any way. Why do I therefore need a gun? If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
Now, by all means continue to throw some more rhetoric at me (& any one else sharing this opinion). Tell me I'm 'emotional' or my beliefs are just 'fallacy', but I'm afraid if you don't wish to understand other people feelings, points of view or opinions on the matter, instead of just shooting them down with accusations of 'emotion', 'fallacy' and 'hyperbole', there's really little more to be gained.
I understand your opinion and see much of your saying has substance, but I'm just not willing to risk lives for what would (IMHO) be no real gain to society. Nothing to gain, too much to lose.
Let's just shake on it, and agree to disagree...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Needing and demanding your own gun just in case someone else has their own gun?
I'm glad I can see the bigger picture .. and indeed live in a society where I have never felt I have needed a gun ever, not least because out of all the nutters I have ever met, none of them have had (or remotely known where to get) a gun..
To be honest it must be horrible living somewhere where when you pop out for a pint of milk, everyone feels they've got to 'tool-up' to save yourself from the scary other people, as they are 'tooled up'
It's seriously strange to me that Dolph would want it that way.
Now Dolph, you should counter with some bizarre Latin. That'd convince everyone.
I'm glad I can see the bigger picture .. and indeed live in a society where I have never felt I have needed a gun ever, not least because out of all the nutters I have ever met, none of them have had (or remotely known where to get) a gun..
To be honest it must be horrible living somewhere where when you pop out for a pint of milk, everyone feels they've got to 'tool-up' to save yourself from the scary other people, as they are 'tooled up'
It's seriously strange to me that Dolph would want it that way.Now Dolph, you should counter with some bizarre Latin. That'd convince everyone.
I think you misunderstand the reason for the use of the term fallacy.
The issue boils down to not arguing with the facts, but with constructs that obscure the facts instead applying or suggesting an alternative route for determining the 'correct' position.
This is shown by the below paragraph (key part bolded)
You start off fine, suggesting that we look at the evidence and see where we go from there (although you are largely still focusing unnecessarily on the gun itself rather than the overall situation). However, the final line suggests that it doesn't matter what the evidence shows, you invoke an appeal to emotion to suggest what the correct path should be. Indeed, it's a two pronged appeal to emotion, where you both highlight the potential for lost lives (which when looked at openly isn't really an issue) and denigrate the other aspect (hence the lump of metal comment).
You are not relying on data to make your case, but tugging on heart strings, which is all well and good, except when you expect it to be used to create laws, because the problem with laws based on fallacy is that they inhibit rights for no benefit. If there was a benefit to be found, it would be shown through the data.
And that's all well and good, you've given clear reasons why you don't want to own a gun, and that's absolutely fine. What none of the above actually gives though, is a reason to prevent everyone law abiding from owning a gun. Again, that can only come from data.
I'm fine with people's feelings and emotions, right up until the point where they impact others unnecessarily. This is the key point, these laws that you support based on nothing factual are impacting the lives of other people. Just as your right to swing your fist stops when it hits my nose, your rights to express your feelings stop when they stop being expressed and start being forced onto me.
I would love to, but shaking and agreeing to disagree does not restore the freedom that has been taken for no justifiable reason. This isn't just about guns, it's about our whole lawmaking process, and I'm on record here as saying that I want all emotion and popularity based laws repealed, even those that currently benefit me. The state does not grant us rights if we live in a free society, it removes that which it can justify through evidence.
Needing and demanding your own gun just in case someone else has their own gun?
I'm glad I can see the bigger picture .. and indeed live in a society where I have never felt I have needed a gun ever, not least because out of all the nutters I have ever met, none of them have had (or remotely known where to get) a gun..
To be honest it must be horrible living somewhere where when you pop out for a pint of milk, everyone feels they've got to 'tool-up' to save yourself from the scary other people, as they are 'tooled up'
Now Dolph, you should counter with some bizarre Latin. That'd convince everyone.
How does a repeal of the handgun ban, or indeed an introduction of a heller interpreted second amendment result in any of the above?
Highlighting that your argument is complete fantasy with no bearing on reality is enough... You appear to be committing a classic slippery slope fallacy.
Very fair point. But your comment is coming across as rather idealistic given the topic at hand. We're not talking about some innocuous law banning a form of clothes or the like. We're talking about the introduction of a device who prime function is to kill.
So the issue people have here is two fold:-
(a) How many people have to be perceived to unecessarily die a year before we believe the freedom is not worth it.
(b) This has to be counter-balanced against any benefits this freedom brings. ie: If (b) is seen to outweigh (a), fine.
So, to put this into context, for most people, I'd imagine they really don't see any benefits, so to be honest even a single life is one too many.
Can you see why some people may think this way? ie: There is (currently) no benefit in allowing more guns, so why risk more deaths? Is it too hard for you to see that mind-set?
I can see why people may think this way, but that doesn't mean it's justified, or that laws should be based on such a metric.
You can call me idealistic if you wish, and to an extent, you'd be correct, but the law should be idealistic, because down the alternative path lies authoritarianism, whether it has popular support or not.
If the aim is to reduce deaths, there are far better approaches that can be taken than targetting guns, starting with the reason people are killing either themselves or others in the first place. You can't look at the tool in isolation and expect removing the tool to solve the problem, it doesn't work, as the figures clearly show.
The real question is do we want laws that achieve the aim, or laws that don't achieve anything but make us 'feel' like we're doing something?
If you can show me clear evidence that banning legally held guns will actually reduce the murder and suicide rates (the accident rates are so small as to be irrelevant), then I will happily support a ban, but so far the evidence from any country does not support such a conclusion.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
EMOTION AND POPULATRITY BASED LAWS DOLPH WANTS REPEALED
Let's have a little look at Dolphs fantastic idea for 'no emotion based laws whatsoever dump them all' society shall we ..
Fox hunting. Does no actually harm to the environment as the numbers repopulate. Having foxes ripped apart by dogs was basically stopped for emotional reasons only. So, rule #1 aboloshed by Prime Minister Dolph. And if the hunters fancy torturing the foxes rather than killing them - stubbing out cigerettes on them once captured etc - well, to say this is 'not' allowed would be purely an emotional decision.
Drink driving. Plenty of people can drive safely home after drinking, more safely that 85 year olf granny who is technically still legally driving, but awful at it. The previous laws (dangerous driving, driving without due care etc) were more than adequate to deal with however badly you drive. The drink driving laws added are effectively emotional based, and affects a whole section of society, only a percentage of which actually drove badly after 2 pints too many. So, drink driving rules out the window too.
Making heroin Illegal would be repealed of course!! Ironically almost identical to the gun argument. SOME people, maybe even most, would just use heroin as a party drug. No stealing. No burglaries. just shoot-up, have a good time, get wacked out of your face, and job done. The fact that 25% of the users will assault people, burgle, prostitute themselves, and do anything to get their next fix including screw over law-abiding citizens, which in turn would make society into a right and total mess for everyone (see 1900 China!) - should not give the government the right to stop 'law-abiding citizens who will hurt no-one' shooting up heroin if they choose .. Wow, the more I think about it, the more this is a real parallel to gun ownership in many ways ... quite interesting really ..
Also I hate to say it but certain sexual abuse to under 1 year old children can't be remembered by the child, and doesn't do the child any physical harm. The fact it is illegal is actually an emotional decision. So, guess it should be legal under 'Dolphs fantastic society scheme'. Nice.
It's also illegal to cut off dogs legs for fun. but it harms no person, its an emotionally based decision. So cutting off your dogs legs with a hacksaw for the 'lolz' - fine. Dogs arn't an endangered species. so no problemo for Dolphy.
And to watch p0rn involving child abuse? No problem in 'Dolph-land', because 60% of the people watching it WON'T think 'I'll do that myself to my kid. OK, many thousands more kids suffer child abuse, but thats not the fault of the p0rn legislation thats the individuals yea?
And don't even get me started on gay rights and getting that lot repealed ..
Now I know what you're going to say .. this is 'appeal to emotion'. Well yes it is, I argue that OF COURSE some laws have to be based on emtion, or often the fact that the 'few' need to be controlled despite it restricting the masses.
Please can you say some Latin to counter this argument? That'd be fantastic .. but I hate to say it, almost everyone on this board thinks you're a bit nuts!!