Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 14 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: No. No one else should have authority. Because he has a right to his gun and he has a right of self-defense. So screw everyone else's rights in that situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: So screw everyone else's rights in that situation? Which rights are being screwed in that situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Which rights are being screwed in that situation? Potentially my right to not get shot by some Dime Store Cowboy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Potentially my right to not get shot by some Dime Store Cowboy? Haha, I'm not sure if that's how the right is listed. But two points: Are you the one initiating the danger? I don't see how a person pulling out his weapon in a time of danger would result in your shooting if you're not the initiator. If you're an innocent bystander and I harm you, can you not hold me responsible? Is that not how your right is protected and expressed? You could die, but then your family could hold me responsible. Is that not sufficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Haha, I'm not sure if that's how the right is listed. But two points: Are you the one initiating the danger? I don't see how a person pulling out his weapon in a time of danger would result in your shooting if you're not the initiator. If you're an innocent bystander and I harm you, can you not hold me responsible? Is that not how your right is protected and expressed? You could die, but then your family could hold me responsible. Is that not sufficient? To the first bit, no I'm talking about an innocent bystander. I don't give a hairy rat's ass about the violent criminal's rights in the context of a mass shooting. To the 2nd, that's cold comfort if I'm dead or crippled. Not sufficient, I'm afraid. It's a consolation prize at best, and that's if you can collect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: To the 2nd, that's cold comfort if I'm dead or crippled. Not sufficient, I'm afraid. It's a consolation prize at best, and that's if you can collect. Are those really the only two outcomes of your getting shot? And what would be sufficient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 10 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Nice. But that's not an argument I'm disputing. It makes sense to conclude that a person who possesses a firearm is more likely than someone who doesn't to inflict injury or death upon himself or others with the use of said firearm. That's not the point. Gun control assumes every gun owner is a likely threat. When I say "likely," I'm not talking about specific odds. When I say "likely" I'm suggesting that they're "expected" to be threats. And the data don't support that. This is precisely true and meaningless in the same way that car licensing assumed everyone is a threat with a car, yet the vast majority of car owners never have an accident. The point is not and has never been that we must assume all gun owners are a threat. We start from the premise that instead - just like cars - guns are inherently dangerous and can cause a lot of damage if handled improperly. Therefore we wish to control guns not because humans all suck but because guns can cause a lot of damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 11 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Are those really the only two outcomes of your getting shot? And what would be sufficient? No, but they aren't unlikely outcomes, are they? Not being able to legally carry firearms would be sufficient against that possibility, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: No, but they aren't unlikely outcomes, are they? No. I haven't implied they were. But isn't it just as likely that you could recuperate from it? 21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Not being able to legally carry firearms would be sufficient against that possibility, methinks. Weren't you the one who took issue with having your rights screwed. So it's sufficient for you to screw the rights of others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Just now, Mother Cocanuts said: No. I haven't implied they were. But isn't it just as likely that you could recuperate from it? Weren't you the one who took issue with having your rights screwed. So it's sufficient for you to screw the rights of others? Again, besides the point. I don't want to get shot by some wannabe action hero, do you? I'm a First Amendment guy. I believe that right to be important enough to die for dependent upon context. The 2nd Amendment? Not so much. Sure as hell don't want to die for your right to own a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Again, besides the point. I don't want to get shot by some wannabe action hero, do you? Why do you assume that you're going to get shot by some wannabe action hero? How often does that happen? 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: I'm a First Amendment guy. I believe that right to be important enough to die for dependent upon context. The 2nd Amendment? Not so much. Sure as hell don't want to die for your right to own a gun. It's not just my right; it's yours as well. And you're selecting which rights are important? That's not how they function. They're rights; the government protects them; not endorse an arbitrary significance of one over the other. And again, the inference that you're going to "die" is based off of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 29 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Why do you assume that you're going to get shot by some wannabe action hero? How often does that happen? It's not just my right; it's yours as well. And you're selecting which rights are important? That's not how they function. They're rights; the government protects them; not endorse an arbitrary significance of one over the other. And again, the inference that you're going to "die" is based off of what? How often do accidental shootings take place? Not sure. Don't care? They happen, that's good enough for me. It's an amendment. It can be amended. See Prohibition. It wouldn't be easy, but I think it's high time we started down that road. This is a right that we clearly cannot handle responsibly as a society. It's not up to me, obviously, it's up to us as a society to decide whether or not this is an important enough issue to address. The inference that I might die is based off of Vegas/Orlando/San Bernadino/Columbine/Newtown/Virginia Tech/Aurora/Charleston/Chattanooga/Washington Navy Yard/Coalinga/Colorado Springs/San Francisco/Burlington/Fort Lauderdale/Roseburg/Isla Vista/Fort Hood/Washington DC/Santa Monica/Brookfield/Minneapolis/Oak Creek/Oakland/Seal Beach/Tuscon/Manchester/Huntsville/Binghamton/Dekalb/Omaha/Salt Lake City/Nickel Mines/Goleta/Red Lake Indian Reservation/Meridian/Santee/Wakefield/Honolulu/Fort Worth/Atlanta/Jonesboro/Garden City/Olivehurst/Iowa City/Killeen/Jacksonville/Stockton/Edmond/ and San Ysidro. Is that enough inference for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 5 hours ago, maarsen said: Sometimes I wonder why I bring facts and logic to an argument that tends to come down to an emotional appeal to 'let me have my stupidity stay unchallenged'. Then I get a response like yours and yeah, someone understands. Thanks. Heh. +1/ The car argument drives me batty, although I don't THINK anyone here has gone that far down the rabbit hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Vegas was/is a concealed carry city was it not?(Actual question since I don't know) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 54 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said: Heh. +1/ The car argument drives me batty, although I don't THINK anyone here has gone that far down the rabbit hole. Mother Cocanuts used a form of that argument on the first page of the first Gun Control thread. "Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?" Can't quote it in the official manner, as the thread is locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Oh well, humanity is doomed then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 7 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said: ... And why is this important? This is important because the only reason to carry a concealed weapon is for the carrier to use it at moment's notice. Which means they need to be able to get a very good situational overview, and have superb weapons handling. Because if that is not the case they will be a danger to those around them. But of course in recent decades the bar for concealed carry has been lowered in many US states. 5 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said: Haha, I'm not sure if that's how the right is listed. But two points: Are you the one initiating the danger? I don't see how a person pulling out his weapon in a time of danger would result in your shooting if you're not the initiator. If you're an innocent bystander and I harm you, can you not hold me responsible? Is that not how your right is protected and expressed? You could die, but then your family could hold me responsible. Is that not sufficient? Who is initiating the danger? It there an objective danger or is it just the concealed gun carrier who is scared? Given the tendency for people to pull guns over property crimes, or even arguments, that seems an important question. Very insufficient. Trying to solve issues after the damage has been done is inherently inefficient. It is much easier to solve the problem at the source, which in that case would have been people walking around with guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rippounet Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 7 hours ago, maarsen said: Sometimes I wonder why I bring facts and logic to an argument that tends to come down to an emotional appeal to 'let me have my stupidity stay unchallenged'. I think on some level, that's what voting for Trump meant for many people. I remember that about fifteen years ago, people would say scathing things about W. There was this idea that stupid people could relate to him and feel comforted in their silly ideas. So now that Trump is president, what? Isn't it obvious that people are going to feel emboldened to come out and use completely dumb arguments in political discussions? They know they have numbers, they know they even have -to some extent- the power of the federal government behind them. My point is, the discussion about guns is as impossible as ever. In the current political climate pro-2ndA have zero reason to compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Cocanuts Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 10 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: How often do accidental shootings take place? Not sure. Don't care? They happen, that's good enough for me. It's an amendment. It can be amended. See Prohibition. It wouldn't be easy, but I think it's high time we started down that road. This is a right that we clearly cannot handle responsibly as a society. It's not up to me, obviously, it's up to us as a society to decide whether or not this is an important enough issue to address. The inference that I might die is based off of Vegas/Orlando/San Bernadino/Columbine/Newtown/Virginia Tech/Aurora/Charleston/Chattanooga/Washington Navy Yard/Coalinga/Colorado Springs/San Francisco/Burlington/Fort Lauderdale/Roseburg/Isla Vista/Fort Hood/Washington DC/Santa Monica/Brookfield/Minneapolis/Oak Creek/Oakland/Seal Beach/Tuscon/Manchester/Huntsville/Binghamton/Dekalb/Omaha/Salt Lake City/Nickel Mines/Goleta/Red Lake Indian Reservation/Meridian/Santee/Wakefield/Honolulu/Fort Worth/Atlanta/Jonesboro/Garden City/Olivehurst/Iowa City/Killeen/Jacksonville/Stockton/Edmond/ and San Ysidro. Is that enough inference for you? They're referred to as "amendments" because they're changes to the Constitution, not changes unto themselves. The first 10 amendments, you should know, are referred to as The Bill of Rights. As interesting as this semantic inquiry is, none of the amendments particularly 1-10 have ever been changed. The 21st Amendment revoked (not amended) the Eighteen Amendment, which are outside of the Bill of Rights. What you're suggesting is a type of prohibition so I don't know how that helps your case. As for social responsibility, most gun owners are "socially responsible," i.e. they haven't used their firearms in violent offenses. But even if they weren't, their rights are not something to be handled. What is a right? And to who's authority are they beholden? When the Constitution was conceived and James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights, they were all influenced by the philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment, which supported the concept of natural rights. The Government is not there to dictate what these rights are; it's there to protect them. Lastly, as for the mass shootings you listed, I looked at an overview of mass shootings in the last 50 years. There have been 948 victims and 134 shooters. That's 19 people a year. Is that enough to offer basis to your inference? Statistically, no. 7 hours ago, Seli said: This is important because the only reason to carry a concealed weapon is for the carrier to use it at moment's notice. Which means they need to be able to get a very good situational overview, and have superb weapons handling. Because if that is not the case they will be a danger to those around them. But of course in recent decades the bar for concealed carry has been lowered in many US states. The reason is determined by the person who possesses the firearm. While your reason isn't wrong, it's just as valid that the person is concealing a weapon because it makes him "feel safe" whether or not it actually contributes to its intended outcome. 7 hours ago, Seli said: Who is initiating the danger? It there an objective danger or is it just the concealed gun carrier who is scared? Given the tendency for people to pull guns over property crimes, or even arguments, that seems an important question. Why are you asking me the question that I asked? It was intended for Manhole Eunuchsbane's claim that he has a right to not be shot by a Dime Store Cowboy. 7 hours ago, Seli said: Very insufficient. Trying to solve issues after the damage has been done is inherently inefficient. How? 7 hours ago, Seli said: It is much easier to solve the problem at the source, which in that case would have been people walking around with guns. Except no one here (or anywhere else for that matter) has shown that walking around with guns is a problem, at least not by any objective statistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 38 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: ... The reason is determined by the person who possesses the firearm. While your reason isn't wrong, it's just as valid that the person is concealing a weapon because it makes him "feel safe" whether or not it actually contributes to its intended outcome. Here we have the reason I personally feel that anyone who wants to carry a concealed firearm should by definition be stopped from owning firearms. Of course that won't happen in the USA. 38 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said: ... How? Second law of thermodynamics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.