Police State of the USA/The loss of civil liberties at home

[Archon]

So all the other ways for kids to die are ok with you then?

I didn't say that, did I?

I want to know why you are singling out guns and ignoring everything else that kill kids too? If there were no cars, trucks or SUVs a lot more kids could be saved then by eliminating guns so why are you just picking on guns?

I'm singling out guns for several reasons:
1) We happen to be talking about guns, not cars or anything else.
2) You can't enact a universal "Anti-Child-Death" piece of legislation. It has to be done in parts.
3) Cars, trucks, and SUVs have useful purposes: they transport people and, in general, allow our country to run. Guns can only injure/kill people or be used for sport (which I'll address later). There's an enormous difference.
4) Stop being ridiculous. Surely you're not seriously suggesting that we ban cars.

You don't care about saving kids at all. Clearly all you care about is keeping law abiding people who have never committed a crime or hurt anyone from enjoying a safe sport. Mean while the real problem goes on untreated because people don't seem to care what the real problem is.

I don't see how you could possibly justify an assumption of this magnitude. In spite of the fact that my entire argument has so far been about children, and the fact that I haven't once said or implied the word "sport" or anything like it, I must have it out for the people who want to use guns for sport, and for the children who are killed by guns. Right...

Anyway: A "safe" sport? More or less. But it certainly isn't played with safe equipment. You can't kill people with a soccer ball (at least, not easily). Guns are a different thing entirely. What would you think if I invented a sport that involves (somehow) Anthrax, or weapons-grade Uranium? As long as it doesn't hurt people, its fine right? (Please say no.)

Wait, wait. I have an interesting idea. How about gun-users find a different sport that doesn't either
a) Involve the slaughter of innocent, defenseless animals, or
b) Necessitate the use of "real" weapons which can be used to kill people?
Why do you need a "real" gun for target practice? Why do you need to kill animals at all?

If you want to save lives why not start with the what kills the most?
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Looks like we need to outlaw cross walks now doesn't it?

Oh, yes. We should outlaw crosswalks. They certainly don't serve and useful purpose. I mean, it's not like they allow people to cross the street without being maimed by cars half the time.

Seriously, if you can describe some method by which the U.S. could ban cars and still survive as a country, I'd be all for it. So, how would you go about doing this?

 

[Townsend]

Seriously, if you can describe some method by which the U.S. could ban cars and still survive as a country, I'd be all for it. So, how would you go about doing this?

I don't have to, cars are recent development that we have lived without for most of the time the US existed. We can always go back to horse and carriage or walking. I have no problem with that at all ..

You talk about the usefulness of cars... What is so useful about traveling past 50 mph? What is so useful about SUV's? They are not useful and their uses are limited to wastefulness.

Guns are very useful as a deterrent from criminals breaking into my home.

I like dangerous toys that make loud noises and blow crap to pieces...what is wrong with that? I have every right to wield a dangerous weapon that can kill in the blink of an eye and you have no reason to say I should not.

Like or not, cars kill more people than guns. The chance of someone on this board dying from a gun is very low. The chances of one or more people from PF dying from an auto accident is almost a sure thing. We don't need cars any more than we need guns. We don't need big cities or major highways or airplanes either. We like them because of the convinces and pleasures the offer us. The same is true of guns. No one needs to own them but they offer me pleasure and convinces in the form of personal security. I will never trust the police with my personal security as most of them shouldn't be carrying a gun at all.

Perhaps you don't mind relying on cops for your personals security but I do and if I must own a gun illegally to feel safe then I will. Banning guns will only make innocent people become criminals. That is it...nothing more and you haven't got a statistic out there that can prove otherwise.

As far as your concern for kids? They tragic death is means to your ends and nothing more. If you cared you would look at what could be done to save the most lives, like raising the driving age to about 25...when people start to become more responsible. What person under 25 needs to be driving anyways? There is NO need for it at all. They can be transported by other people or stay at home where they won't risk hurting themselves or others.

 

[Townsend]

Oh, yes. We should outlaw crosswalks. They certainly don't serve and useful purpose. I mean, it's not like they allow people to cross the street without being maimed by cars half the time.

I was trying to illustrate how stupid it is to go around and try to ban everything that might kill someone. Guns are no more dangerous than anything else and yet you feel we need to outlaw them. And then you go and attempt to relate them to WMD's. If guns are WMD's then Iraq had a whole bunch...

 

[Archon]

I don't have to, cars are recent development that we have lived without for most of the time the US existed. We can always go back to horse and carriage or walking. I have no problem with that at all ..

Sure, you don't. Neither do I. But why don't you ask ambulance drivers or postal workers or people who want to transport big, heavy things across the country without resorting to air travel?

You talk about the usefulness of cars... What is so useful about traveling past 50 mph? What is so useful about SUV's? They are not useful and their uses are limited to wastefulness.

I agree that SUV's aren't useful in most cases. But saying that a certain type of car or a car traveling above a certain speed isn't useful does not negate the usefulness of all cars in all situations.

Guns are very useful as a deterrent from criminals breaking into my home.

As a deterrant? Not unless you have a sign in front of your house that says "I have a gun. Don't rob me." By the time the criminal is in the house, it's already too late to "deter" him. Anyway, chances are that most criminals today would assume you have a gun and either carry one themselves or move stealthily enough not to be detected.

I like dangerous toys that make loud noises and blow crap to pieces...what is wrong with that? I have every right to wield a dangerous weapon that can kill in the blink of an eye and you have no reason to say I should not.

Okay, so why shouldn't Iran or North Korea have the right to have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't I have the right to own nuclear weapons, or create deadly biological agents in my basement?

Like or not, cars kill more people than guns. The chance of someone on this board dying from a gun is very low. The chances of one or more people from PF dying from an auto accident is almost a sure thing. We don't need cars any more than we need guns. We don't need big cities or major highways or airplanes either. We like them because of the convinces and pleasures the offer us. The same is true of guns. No one needs to own them but they offer me pleasure and convinces in the form of personal security. I will never trust the police with my personal security as most of them shouldn't be carrying a gun at all.

Are you seriously contending that cities have no bigger or better purpose than do guns? You would, given the choice between removing guns from society and removing cities from society, not be certain of which to choose? Or would you choose cities?

It's true that we don't need cars or highways or cities to survive. But if we want modern society to exist, then we do need these things.

Personal security: all I can say is, say hello to anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness!

Perhaps you don't mind relying on cops for your personals security but I do and if I must own a gun illegally to feel safe then I will. Banning guns will only make innocent people become criminals. That is it...nothing more and you haven't got a statistic out there that can prove otherwise.

But I don't need to prove anything. I just have to disprove what you've said. This, of course, is pointless, since you haven't actually proven anything yet.

As far as your concern for kids? They tragic death is means to your ends and nothing more. If you cared you would look at what could be done to save the most lives,

This is what I would do, if we were having a debate about the deaths of children. But we're not: we're debating gun laws. As it happens, many children die in the United States each year because guns are legal. The fact that I'm pointing this out during a debate about guns doesn't by any means imply that I don't care about children. If you think that it does, please explain why rather than restating the assumption that I don't care about kids who die in other ways.

like raising the driving age to about 25...when people start to become more responsible.

Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that deaths caused by teenage drivers are the result of irresponsibility rather than just inexperience?

What person under 25 needs to be driving anyways? There is NO need for it at all. They can be transported by other people or stay at home where they won't risk hurting themselves or others.

Well, I need to be driving, and I'm sixteen. Nobody else can transport me, public transportation doesn't work on a schedule that could accommodate me, and I can't stay home.

 

[Townsend]

Sure, you don't. Neither do I. But why don't you ask ambulance drivers or postal workers or people who want to transport big, heavy things across the country without resorting to air travel?

Take the train...simple as that.

I agree that SUV's aren't useful in most cases. But saying that a certain type of car or a car traveling above a certain speed isn't useful does not negate the usefulness of all cars in all situations.

All we need are horses, and public transportation...nothing more.

As a deterrant? Not unless you have a sign in front of your house that says "I have a gun. Don't rob me." By the time the criminal is in the house, it's already too late to "deter" him. Anyway, chances are that most criminals today would assume you have a gun and either carry one themselves or move stealthily enough not to be detected.

You do realize that people you know are the most likely to steal from you than are complete strangers? These people who know me also know I have guns and that I will kill someone for breaking into my house illegally.

Okay, so why shouldn't Iran or North Korea have the right to have nuclear weapons? Why shouldn't I have the right to own nuclear weapons, or create deadly biological agents in my basement?

Since when is a gun a nuclear weapon?

Are you seriously contending that cities have no bigger or better purpose than do guns? You would, given the choice between removing guns from society and removing cities from society, not be certain of which to choose? Or would you choose cities?

I am not contending that cities have no bigger purpose...I don't care to what degree something is purposeful and I don't know...I suspect it is a hard question to really answer. What I am saying is that their purpose is ultimately no different than the purposes of having a gun.

It's true that we don't need cars or highways or cities to survive. But if we want modern society to exist, then we do need these things.

Cities can and have existed without them and we don't need them to continue growing as a society. The same is true for guns...but they are things that make life better and worth living...

Personal security: all I can say is, say hello to anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness!

We have had guns since this country started and there purpose was in fact personal security. And yet, we did not live in anarchy, chaos and lawlessness...

But I don't need to prove anything. I just have to disprove what you've said. This, of course, is pointless, since you haven't actually proven anything yet.

Guns are the status quo...you're are the one who must prove the need for change. I just need to disprove whatever you say to maintain the status quo...HELLO!

This is what I would do, if we were having a debate about the deaths of children.

Then why bring it up? If you want to bring up the deaths of children then I will bring up the deaths of children...simple as that.

But we're not: we're debating gun laws. As it happens, many children die in the United States each year because guns are legal.

That is completely false...kids die for a lot of reasons and some of those reasons involve guns but there is no proof that outlawing guns would have saved those lives.

The fact that I'm pointing this out during a debate about guns doesn't by any means imply that I don't care about children. If you think that it does, please explain why rather than restating the assumption that I don't care about kids who die in other ways.

Because you're implying that because a machine that by it self cannot kill anything! Is responsible for the deaths of children...you have not shown that to be true you simply implied it. So if you want to tell me that a machine can be used to kill then why are you limiting your discussion to just one machine? It is only a machine and requires an operator to do anything at all.

Just out of curiousity, what makes you think that deaths caused by teenage drivers are the result of irresponsibility rather than just inexperience?

Car insurance prices...

Well, I need to be driving, and I'm sixteen. Nobody else can transport me, public transportation doesn't work on a schedule that could accommodate me, and I can't stay home.

No you do not need to be driving! You are an more than likely an irresponsible kid who thinks they know how to drive and will take chances that will put other drivers at risk. A much greater risk than I will ever put anyone no matter how many guns I own or how many rounds I fire off. You want to drive but you DON'T need to and it is a very risky thing...at your age you're statistically more likely to drive too fast and have poor judgement in dangerous situations. You, don't need to drive. You would be much safer at a shooting range punching holes in a target with someone who is competent and responsible there to teach you and guide you in the safe and enjoyable sport of shooting.

Just out of curiosity, do you like the idea of people banning violent video games, music, and any of other things out there that you might enjoy? They are all potentially harmful so why should we keep them when they serve no purpose?

 

[Archon]

Take the train...simple as that.

Oh, Lord. You're suggesting that people being taken to hospitals should be transported in trains? Brilliant. Yeah, and we should transport our mail that way too. And then the mailmen could drive it to our individual houses on their horses. That would be efficient. And do you really think that all the transportation of goods now being handled by trucks could suddenly be switched over to trains?

All we need are horses, and public transportation...nothing more.

So cars are useless because we don't need them to survive. Actually, why do we need horses or public transportation? Why not just walk everywhere? That's all we need to survive, right? Hey, and now that we all have guns, why not just do away with laws entirely? We can fend for ourselves now.

You do realize that people you know are the most likely to steal from you than are complete strangers? These people who know me also know I have guns and that I will kill someone for breaking into my house illegally.

Maybe. But what about the people who don't know you?

Since when is a gun a nuclear weapon?

You said:

I like dangerous toys that make loud noises and blow crap to pieces...what is wrong with that? I have every right to wield a dangerous weapon that can kill in the blink of an eye and you have no reason to say I should not.

A nuclear weapon is a "dangerous toy that makes loud noises and blows crap to pieces." Because of this, by your logic, I have the right to own nuclear weapons, and so do North Korea, Iran, etc. And you have no reason to say why they should not, right?

I am not contending that cities have no bigger purpose...I don't care to what degree something is purposeful and I don't know...I suspect it is a hard question to really answer. What I am saying is that their purpose is ultimately no different than the purposes of having a gun.

Well, let's see: a city provides a place for people to live near their jobs (saving time and money) and it centralizes the location of important businesses and such (saving more time and money). Guns kill or wound people, and can be used for sport. I think there's a big difference.

Cities can and have existed without them and we don't need them to continue growing as a society.

I didn't say that cars make cities possible. I said that they facilitate modern society (and also economy). Whether or not we need them to continue growing as a society is debatable. But whether or not we need them to continue with our current society is not.

The same is true for guns...but they are things that make life better and worth living...

Your life is better and worth living because of guns?

I just got chills...

We have had guns since this country started and there purpose was in fact personal security.

Guns were originally legal because they were a necessary part of a "well-regulated Militia," which, in turn, is "necessary to the security of a free State." The Second Amendment does not mention personal security.

And yet, we did not live in anarchy, chaos and lawlessness...

That's because we have a police force protecting us. We don't, in general, have to use guns to defend ourselves, because the police find and apprehend most criminals.

Guns are the status quo...you're are the one who must prove the need for change.

You made a statement: "Banning guns will only make innocent people become criminals." Because you made the statement, you have to defend/prove it. You haven't shown any evidence for this statement other than your own personal beliefs. In fact, there is a major problem here: anyone who breaks the law is by definition guilty, therefore not innocent.

I just need to disprove whatever you say to maintain the status quo

Go right ahead.

...HELLO!

Hi. You don't have to so excited to see me, you know...

Then why bring it up? If you want to bring up the deaths of children then I will bring up the deaths of children...simple as that.

Because it's relevant to the discussion. We are talking about guns, the regulation of guns, and gun-related deaths. Thus, the number of accidental deaths of children due to guns is relevant. The number of deaths of children due to car accidents is not, unless you make an actual point with it.

That is completely false...kids die for a lot of reasons and some of those reasons involve guns but there is no proof that outlawing guns would have saved those lives.

Well, if guns are illegal, fewer people will own them. Those that do own them regardless of the laws will be more likely to conceal or secure them in a place where police, much less children, won't be able to find them. If children can't find the guns, they can't kill themselves with the guns. Simple as that.

Because you're implying that because a machine that by it self cannot kill anything! Is responsible for the deaths of children...you have not shown that to be true you simply implied it. So if you want to tell me that a machine can be used to kill then why are you limiting your discussion to just one machine? It is only a machine and requires an operator to do anything at all.

I've explained this already: I didn't mention any other sorts of machines because this is a debate about guns, not things that kill children. And let's compare the uses of two such dangerous machines:
Guns-used to kill people, injure people, and for fun.
Cars-used for fun, to transport people and other things, and to facilitate the economy of the United States.
Hmmm...

Car insurance prices...

Car insurance prices are high for teenagers because they tend to have more accidents then drivers of other ages. The Insurance companies don't care whether this is because teenagers are irresponsible or whether it is because they are inexperienced. Now, what evidence do you have that suggests the former? Why don't you think car insurance companies would raise car insurance prices for 25-29 year-olds if the legal driving age was increased to 25?

No you do not need to be driving!

How do you know?

You are an more than likely an irresponsible kid who thinks they know how to drive and will take chances that will put other drivers at risk.

Quite the contrary, actually. But again, how would you know?

A much greater risk than I will ever put anyone no matter how many guns I own or how many rounds I fire off. You want to drive but you DON'T need to and it is a very risky thing...at your age you're statistically more likely to drive too fast and have poor judgement in dangerous situations.

At my age, or with my experience?

You, don't need to drive. You would be much safer at a shooting range punching holes in a target with someone who is competent and responsible there to teach you and guide you in the safe and enjoy sport of shooting.

At a shooting range, if I was using a gun borrowed from the owner of the shooting range, then I would be safer. If this is an option, why do you need to own a gun for the purpose of sport at all?

Just out of curiosity, do you like the idea of people banning violent video games, music, and any of other things out there that you might enjoy? They are all potentially harmful so why should we keep them when they serve no purpose?

Whether these things actually cause kids to be violent is debatable. The danger of guns is not. No, I am not in favor of banning violent video games, music, etc. But these things aren't capable of killing anyone, while guns are. They entertain people, and nothing more. The same can't be said of guns.

By the way, are you implying that everything I might enjoy is potentially harmful and purposeless?

 

[Townsend]

That's because we have a police force protecting us. We don't, in general, have to use guns to defend ourselves, because the police find and apprehend most criminals.

Have you been living in a hole? The police cannot offer me protection for most if not all possible situations that might be me dangerous to me or my family. Urban violence is outrageous in case you haven't noticed...

Please show me how the police helped the girl in the following video:
http://media.putfile.com/oaktownjustice/320

And I could post many more videos that are much more graphic...In all cases the police were not able to protect anyone. I can also post video of cases where police are beating the crap out of someone. Yeah, you want to trust the cops do you...I could be a cop in heart beat. Do you trust me with your life?

You made a statement: "Banning guns will only make innocent people become criminals." Because you made the statement, you have to defend/prove it.

A hell of a lot of law abiding citizens will not give up their guns, that is just a fact and it is very obvious. Banning guns will be forcing these people to become criminals... what more proof do you want?

You haven't shown any evidence for this statement other than your own personal beliefs.

No...I have proven to be true. The quantification was that some people will hold onto their guns even if they are banned. I have already said I will, and therefore someone who has never committed any crime before. Has spent many hours working for my community. Has served in the military for over 8 years, will become a criminal. That is what would happen...and not a single life would be saved. Period...

In fact, there is a major problem here: anyone who breaks the law is by definition guilty, therefore not innocent.

Dude...If a law is passed that makes breathing illegal, guess what. You will no longer be innocent while you were before. I am not breaking the law now, if you banned my guns I would at which point I would be a criminal. Is that so hard to understand?

Car insurance prices are high for teenagers because they tend to have more accidents then drivers of other ages.

I know...so what?

The Insurance companies don't care whether this is because teenagers are irresponsible or whether it is because they are inexperienced. Now, what evidence do you have that suggests the former?

I have you ever filled out an application for car insurance? Well guess what...it makes a hugh difference. Your age makes a hell of a lot more difference than experience ever will. Notice they ask you not just how old you are but also when you started driving. If I started driving when I was 14 and I turned 25 guess what? My insurance would be cheaper than if I started driving when I was 24... They take into account experience and age as age is a good indicator of maturity. Besides...you are the one who needs to provide the evidence of your claims in this situation...not me.

Why don't you think car insurance companies would raise car insurance prices for 25-29 year-olds if the legal driving age was increased to 25?

They would raise...but not by very much because the 25 year olds would clear be much less likely to try the dangerous driving that younger people try and end up killing innocent children all the time.

At my age, or with my experience?

More your age than anything else...

At a shooting range, if I was using a gun borrowed from the owner of the shooting range, then I would be safer. If this is an option, why do you need to own a gun for the purpose of sport at all?

Whether these things actually cause kids to be violent is debatable. The danger of guns is not.

Well why has no one ever found a gun that has killed someone or something without a person there to operate it? Oh, that is right...because guns are not dangerous. And you are right in saying that the danger of guns is not debatable...they are not dangerous, people are dangerous.

No, I am not in favor of banning violent video games, music, etc. But these things aren't capable of killing anyone, while guns are.

No gun has ever killed anything... only people operating the guns have killed other people. And guess what, they kill even without guns...they kill with swords, but swords don't kill people kill. Guess what...music can cause people to kill...that makes it even more dangerous than any gun.

They entertain people, and nothing more. The same can't be said of guns.

You tell me to provide evidence for what is common sense and in return to tell me than music is nothing more than entertainment but provide no proof...

By the way, are you implying that everything I might enjoy is potentially harmful and purposeless?

I am stating that a lot of things people enjoy are potentially harmful and yes they are in fact as purposeless as guns...in fact they are even more purposeless than guns and probably much more harmful.


Simple question... you said

Your life is better and worth living because of guns?

I just got chills...

Does music make your life better? How about art, does that make your life better? What do you have that you find makes your life better?

And you have your list of things that make your life better...what the hell does that have to do with me? I can like whatever the hell I like and so long as it does not hurt you or anyone else what is the problem with me having it?

And why does what I said give you chills...this could turn personal real fast

 

[Archon]

Have you been living in a hole?

That depends on your perspective. I wouldn't call my house a hole, but it's really a personal judgement.

The police cannot offer me protection for most if not all possible situations that might be me dangerous to me or my family. Urban violence is outrageous in case you haven't noticed...

Wouldn't urban violence be much more outrageous if criminals didn't have to be afraid of police officers prowling the streets, looking for them?

And I could post many more videos that are much more graphic...In all cases the police were not able to protect anyone. I can also post video of cases where police are beating the crap out of someone. Yeah, you want to trust the cops do you...I could be a cop in heart beat. Do you trust me with your life?

I trust the police enough not to believe that anyone should be able to waltz down to the local WalMart and buy a gun. I also understand that there is a need for an official peace-keeping force, because if we allow everyone to defend themselves against whatever threats they see, the U.S. would very quickly spiral into anarchy.

A hell of a lot of law abiding citizens will not give up their guns, that is just a fact and it is very obvious. Banning guns will be forcing these people to become criminals... what more proof do you want?

Well, the law-abiding citizens will give up their guns, because they abide by the laws. And how exactly are they being "forced" to become criminals? They can give up their (now illegal) guns, can't they? If they don't, then they are criminals.

No...I have proven to be true. The quantification was that some people will hold onto their guns even if they are banned.

Surely you understand the difference between evidence and conjecture. If you polled a large number of gun-owners, and a significant percentage of them answered that they would keep their guns, then you would have evidence. If you say, "many gun-owners will keep their guns, becuase I would," you are making a conjecture. The latter isn't worth anything unless you have evidence to back it up.

I have already said I will, and therefore someone who has never committed any crime before. Has spent many hours working for my community. Has served in the military for over 8 years, will become a criminal.

Surely people who have served in the military aren't capable of committing crimes!

That is what would happen...and not a single life would be saved. Period...

Why don't you think that any lives would be saved?

Dude...If a law is passed that makes breathing illegal, guess what. You will no longer be innocent while you were before. I am not breaking the law now, if you banned my guns I would at which point I would be a criminal. Is that so hard to understand?

A law against breathing is unreasonable. A law banning guns is not.

I know...so what?

They use the average number of accidents, not some abstract measure of irresponsibility. Accidents are caused by inexperience as much as anything.

I have you ever filled out an application for car insurance? Well guess what...it makes a hugh difference. Your age makes a hell of a lot more difference than experience ever will. Notice they ask you not just how old you are but also when you started driving. If I started driving when I was 14 and I turned 25 guess what? My insurance would be cheaper than if I started driving when I was 24... They take into account experience and age as age is a good indicator of maturity. Besides...you are the one who needs to provide the evidence of your claims in this situation...not me.

Whose point are you arguing for? You're saying that car insurance companies take experience into account. This is exactly my point: they obviously don't believe that age counts for much, since they ask you about how long you've been driving, as well as your age (which, really, every official form asks).

They would raise...but not by very much because the 25 year olds would clear be much less likely to try the dangerous driving that younger people try and end up killing innocent children all the time.

That is if we assume that car insurance base their insurance prices on the age and irresponsibility rather than the inexperience of teenage drivers. You still have not established it (in fact, you just argued against it).

More your age than anything else...

Why age because teenagers tend to crash more, and I am a teenager. But do they crash more because of inexperience of because of irresponsibility? That's still the question.

Well why has no one ever found a gun that has killed someone or something without a person there to operate it? Oh, that is right...because guns are not dangerous. And you are right in saying that the danger of guns is not debatable...they are not dangerous, people are dangerous.

This response was very predictable. So let's see: people can use guns to shoot, harm, and kill other people. Unless you're going to bash someone over the head with it, a video game can't be used to the same effect. And of course, a gun can be operated without knowledge, like when a child finds a gun in his parents' closet and accidentally shoots himself while playing with it. That's what I mean when I say guns are dangerous.

No gun has ever killed anything... only people operating the guns have killed other people. And guess what, they kill even without guns...they kill with swords, but swords don't kill people kill.

See above.

Guess what...music can cause people to kill...that makes it even more dangerous than any gun.

Do you have any reputable sources that say that music has (indirectly) killed more people than have guns?

You tell me to provide evidence for what is common sense and in return to tell me than music is nothing more than entertainment but provide no proof...

This is different because it doesn't require us to predict the future. There is hard evidence (or the lack thereof) to support one of our claims. I say that there isn't enough evidence to really justify the belief that music causes people to kill other people. Can you prove otherwise?

I am stating that a lot of things people enjoy are potentially harmful and yes they are in fact as purposeless as guns...in fact they are even more purposeless than guns and probably much more harmful.

Give me some examples of things people do that potentially endanger other people without their consent.

Does music make your life better? How about art, does that make your life better? What do you have that you find makes your life better?

The things that make my life better can't kill people. Art and music haven't killed millions of people (indirectly or otherwise) during the last century.

And you have your list of things that make your life better...what the hell does that have to do with me? I can like whatever the hell I like and so long as it does not hurt you or anyone else what is the problem with me having it?

You're being defensive. I asked you whether your life is better because of guns. Then I indirectly expressed my belief that actually liking guns is disgusting. Surely you don't have a problem with me expressing my opinion.

And why does what I said give you chills...this could turn personal real fast

It gives me the chills because I find it appalling that there are people who actually like guns.

 

[Townsend]

You're being defensive. I asked you whether your life is better because of guns. Then I indirectly expressed my belief that actually liking guns is disgusting. Surely you don't have a problem with me expressing my opinion.

My life is better when I enjoy myself and I don't have the government in all their infinite wisdom deciding what is best for me. If you think liking guns is disgusting then the rest of your pathetic post is not even worth responding to because that is pure ignorance. And I do have a problem when people's opinions that are based on ignorance are expressed. Just like I won't listen to people's opinions if they are bigots I won't listen to your ignorant opinion about the things I find beautiful.

Just so you know, guns are the status quo...that means you must provide evidence to prove otherwise. That is the way things work...not the other way around. So far you have proved nothing what so ever while I have given you many reasons that you have not refuted but danced around...

All of your diatribe is utterly meaningless and is nothing more than a weak attempt to denigrate a reasonable argument...I won't even bother acknowledging you any further as reasoning is well beyond you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This really needs it's own thread. This the second I have seen in a matter of weeks that has become a debate on guns.

 

[Archon]

My life is better when I enjoy myself and I don't have the government in all their infinite wisdom deciding what is best for me. If you think liking guns is disgusting then the rest of your pathetic post is not even worth responding to because that is pure ignorance. And I do have a problem when people's opinions that are based on ignorance are expressed. Just like I won't listen to people's opinions if they are bigots I won't listen to your ignorant opinion about the things I find beautiful.

You find it beautiful, therefore it is? This doesn't seem to encourage dissenting opinions, does it?

Do you really think that the fact that I find guns disgusting is based on ignorance? Don't delude yourself: it certainly isn't.

Now, why do you find guns beautiful?

Just so you know, guns are the status quo...that means you must provide evidence to prove otherwise.

To prove otherwise? You want me to prove something that is false? I'm good, but I'm not that good.

That is the way things work...not the other way around. So far you have proved nothing what so ever while I have given you many reasons that you have not refuted but danced around...

You said guns can be used for sport. I said that their "fun" aspects don't outweigh their potential for harm, and that you could rent a gun for sport rather than own one.

You said that you need a gun to protect yourself. I said that if everyone were to own a gun and use it whenever he or she felt threatened, the country would descend into anarchy.

You said that it is our right to own guns. I said that your logic leads us to the conclusion that North Korea and Iran, as well as everybody else with the ability to do so, has the right to seek and own nuclear weapons.

How did you miss these?

If you want to see my arguments, just re-read my posts.

All of your diatribe is utterly meaningless and is nothing more than a weak attempt to denigrate a reasonable argument...I won't even bother acknowledging you any further as reasoning is well beyond you.

Well, I'm sure your argument seems reasonable from your perspective. But thus far, it can be summed up with "guns are fun, and I need them to protect myself." I think I've given some fairly convincing arguments against gun ownership (at least, convincing enough that you haven't been able to show otherwise). In any case, I'm capable of reasoning at least to the extent required to carry on an argument with you (considering how this reflects on you, you may wish to rethink that last statement).

 

[Townsend]

You said that it is our right to own guns. I said that your logic leads us to the conclusion that North Korea and Iran, as well as everybody else with the ability to do so, has the right to seek and own nuclear weapons.

And this is not true at all... they are not nuclear weapons. Shooting a gun is no big deal...it really is not. That you fail to understand that is pure ignorance on your part.

I think I've given some fairly convincing arguments against gun ownership (at least, convincing enough that you haven't been able to show otherwise).

You have only said that they kill children and that banning guns would save childrens lives. You have not proved that is in fact true...you simply assumed the rest.

In any case, I'm capable of reasoning at least to the extent required to carry on an argument with you (considering how this reflects on you, you may wish to rethink that last statement).

That is your opinion and so far what you have said proves it wrong.


Why is it that you believe people cannot responsibly own guns? I have never seen a person who died because of a gun but I have seen four different people lying dead on the street from auto accidents. I have been around guns my entire life and I have owned a gun since I was 13 years old. I have harmed no one with a gun and I never will and that is a FACT.

Responsible gun ownership is something I take seriously and there is no way one of my guns will ever be able to cause harm to another person unless I intend on killing that person in defense, which is not likely.

What has a rather high probability is that you will kill someone else due to your irresponsible driving. That is something that actually has a decent chance of happening.

The point is that I don't want to ban cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, knives, guns, music, video games or any thing else that has some potential risk. Sure, banning bungee jumping might save some lives but it is not my place to protect everyone from themselves.

The only thing that makes America better than other countries is that we have liberties that other countries don't have. Sure it has costs to society...but they are what makes life worth living. What you find beautiful is up to you and I don't want anyone to try and take it away from you. What I find beautiful is clearly not the same as for you yet it is still beautiful to me. I try not to go around insulting people by telling them that something they find beauty in is disgusting. It is rather rude and I hope you at least have the sense to not do something like that to someone's face.

The difference between my perspective and your's is that you think it is right to play nanny for other people and control people's lives. I guess that in your mind you don't think I am capable of being responsible enough to live my own life so you feel the need to tell me what I can and cannot have. Like I am just a kid who can never grow up. And yet you trust the state to look after everyone's best interest. Almost any law abiding idiot can become a cop and it is very easy to abuse that authority and get away with it.

Not a single argument given by you or anyone else has shown me that guns pose a more serious risk to the lives of me or anyone else than cars, knives, or simply living our world. Yet, you believe that removing just one particular harm is ok but not the rest. There are many other things are dangerous and their usefulness is clearly debatable. What use do we have for motorcycles? There are cars which are much safer... What use do we have for skydiving? What use do we have for football? What use do we have for allowing large numbers of teen gathering in groups? Teenagers can pose a serious risk to themselves and others when in large groups you know.

The usefulness something come from the fact that people enjoy them and while there is some risk that someone irresponsible will make a mistake it is a risk that people are willing to take. Just like when you go out for a drive with no where to go really. It is many times more dangerous than guns and yet you still go out there and take that risk...why would you take such a risk? What purpose does it serve? You enjoy it perhaps?

And as far as the police thing goes...

If you believe that cops are any different than a responsible gun owner then show me what proof you have. Do you believe that if someone puts on a badge they some how become benevolent protectors of civilization?

I would even go so far as to say that guns bring about a certain kind of peace between people. I know I don't want to get shot and I am not going to put myself in harms way unless it is something I really want to do. On the other hand if I know that no one has a gun and I am a big bad dude, well what is to stop me? The cops? You need to take a few more trips around the block if you believe they will come to your rescue...

If you want to save kids lives why not work towards that end instead of taking away peoples liberties? Why not ask for more responsible gun ownership? People need a license to drive a car why not for shooting a gun? People drive drunk all the time and kills kids, why not push for harsher penalties for drunk driving? Kids get behind the wheel of a car at the age of sixteen and kill themselves and other people, why not push for a higher age that will most definitely save lives?

Banning things is never the way to go...I only hope you come to understand that before you're old enough to vote.

You mentioned simply renting guns for use at a target range. Why not ban cars and have people just take the bus or a taxi everywhere they need to go?

There is no reason for people to own their own personal car when they can simply use some other form of transportation and pay for it. It would much safer because those people will likely be much better drivers and also much more responsible than the average person.

This argument is not just about guns...it is about weather banning something is the right way to solve a problem and so far you have not demonstrated that at all.

 

[champ2823]

America would be far worse off if Americans didn't have the right to bear arms. This right is essential for all civilizations claiming freedom and liberty. That's why our founding fathers spoke so vehemently for gun ownership. If a claim is made that guns kill people, then don't automobiles, prescription drugs, and medical malpractice as well. Are you going to ban transportation and doctors? Didn't think so. Here's some stats on the medical field vs. guns...

Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171
( U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services )

Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188
( U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms )

That means its roughly 9,000 times more likely that you'll die at the hands of a doctor than a gun. That's not including prescription drugs...the third leading cause of death in the U.S. Those numbers kinda pale the argument about guns huh? Also, one must note that the overwhelming majority of crimes and deaths associated with guns is exponentially greater among those who obtained their guns illegally on the black market. By banning guns in the U.S., you will take away guns from the law abiding citizenry and criminals would still own guns. A war on guns would go the way of the war on drugs as that hasn't done much of anything has it? So now you would only have criminals, police officers, and the military as the only people owning guns. The owning of guns is a person's right to defend themselves. How would a citizenry unable to defend itself be capable of fending off a totalitarian govt. declaring martial law on said citizenry? Would this not give incentive to power hungry politicians to wage a war on the populace? After all, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And what about a foreign attack? Is the military supposed to be our countries sole protector of the populace if a foreign country or alliance decides to attack our homeland? If attacked on our homeland, Americans would obviously fight against the foreign occupation as their lives, culture, and way of life would be at risk. Without guns, what are they supposed to do? Throw rocks? While it may seam that gun control would eliminate needless deaths, would it really? And at what price? What type of security would there be without the right to bear arms?

 

[alexandra]

This really needs it's own thread. This the second I have seen in a matter of weeks that has become a debate on guns.

I totally agree with you, TSA. Why don't those interested start a thread re-guns? I, personally, am not interested at all in that whole debate, but am very interested in what the topic of this original debate was. I'm just scrolling through all the discussion on guns, hoping to get back to the OP's subject. I'm a few pages into it now, but the discussion is still on guns.

EDIT: Oh no - I've reached the last page and the *whole thing* was about guns!

 

[russ_watters]

That means its roughly 9,000 times more likely that you'll die at the hands of a doctor than a gun.

You did a meaningless calculation there. The data shows you are roughly 80 times more likely to die at the hands of a doctor than a gun owner.

In any case, I think you probably already know why that's an invalid (and, quite frankly, sick) comparison... so no need for me to say it.

 

[champ2823]

My calculations were as follows...To match the number of gun owners to physicians, you have 114.29 times as many gun owners. So 114.29 x 120,000 accidental physician deaths = 13,714,000. 13,714,000 / 1,500 accidental gun deaths = 9,142.667. With actual numbers, 80 is most accurate...while my calculations were comparative of gun owners to physicians on an equal scale.

Why is it invalid and sick to compare? I do not see why. Based on my calculations, or yours, does it not show the need for a) a better nationwide medical program to correct this problem and b) less controversy and support for gun control when it could better be served in other fields?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I totally agree with you, TSA. Why don't those interested start a thread re-guns? I, personally, am not interested at all in that whole debate, but am very interested in what the topic of this original debate was. I'm just scrolling through all the discussion on guns, hoping to get back to the OP's subject. I'm a few pages into it now, but the discussion is still on guns.

EDIT: Oh no - I've reached the last page and the *whole thing* was about guns!

Yes. The thread got hijacked.

 

[russ_watters]

My calculations were as follows...

I understand how you did your calculations. The problem is that the calculations do not match what you were saying. What you calculated is the relative risk of a death per gun owner vs per doctor, not the overall risk of death from gun accidents or doctors. What you were talking about was the overall risk associated with each. Perhaps it was just an error in grammar, but I don't think so - relative risk is a pretty useless way to compare. The overall risk of death from gun accidents vs doctors is simply the number of malpractice deaths divided by gun deaths. The overall risk does not depend on the number of each (doctors and guns) in circulation.

Why is it invalid and sick to compare? I do not see why.

Several reasons. First, deaths from medical errors are based on a weighed risk, ie death is a real risk to the people who died from malpractice, and there is still a risk of death whether they went to the doctor or not. Accidental death from guns does not have an associated risk of death if the accident had not happened. To put it more simply, a kid cannot die from not shooting himself in the eye, but a person with brain cancer can die from not going to a doctor.

Second, making the comparison between doctors and guns implies that having fewer doctors will result in fewer deaths. While it is true that if we got rid of doctors, there'd be no malpractice deaths, it is also trivially obvious that there'd be many, many, many, many more deaths from injury and illness.

Third, death from malpractice involves an assumed risk, ie, every person who goes to a doctor (or gets in a car, for that matter) makes a conscious decision to assume the risk involved. This is not generally the case for gun accidents - and by the way...

...Fourth, you left out gun murders.

Essentially, such arguments are, in their entirety, an illogical appeal to emotion - perhaps you are just regurgitating something you heard somewhere, but someone made up this argument, hoping the emotional impact of big, ugly, hairy numbers would overwhealm logic.

Based on my calculations, or yours, does it not show the need for a) a better nationwide medical program to correct this problem and b) less controversy and support for gun control when it could better be served in other fields?

As a matter of fact, the medical industry is heavily regulated already. Much more heavily regulated than the gun industry. So what it shows is that the gun industry needs to lose its immunity. As you imply, though, I'd very much be in favor of the gun industry being held to the same standards as the medical industry. Would you?

 

[Townsend]

Third, death from malpractice involves an assumed risk, ie, every person who goes to a doctor (or gets in a car, for that matter) makes a conscious decision to assume the risk involved. This is not generally the case for gun accidents - and by the way...

...Fourth, you left out gun murders.

Essentially, such arguments are, in their entirety, an illogical appeal to emotion

So you're saying that the kid who takes a ride in a SUV with a drunk dad, crashing his 4 ton SUV into a minivan full of kids and killing the lot of them is taking an assumed risk but a kid picking up his dad's gun and shooting himself in the eye is not? Me taking a drive down the road and being killed by another person's careless driving is a weighted risk I am taking when I go for a drive but getting hit by a stray bullet is not a weighted risk I take when I go shooting? Being murdered by a car, knife, or even by being beaten to death is a weighted risk but being murdered by a gun is not?

Kids are not taking an assumed risk with either the car or the gun or the toy he might choke on or any thing else that could possibly kill him. In all cases, not going for a ride or not shooting himself in the eye or not choking on a toy, will not result in his death. In all cases the problem is in the irresponsible actions of the parents and NOT in the responsible actions of most people. We regulate both guns and cars and will hold the irresponsible persons criminally liable for their careless actions.

If you want to start banning things because of their harms then I suggest you do so with impartiality. People have as much or more right to own guns as they do cars and not one is more important than the other. If you want to disagree with me then you need to keep your subjective opinions out of the discussion because I doubt we can agree on much for a starting point. After all, most New Yorkers get along just fine without owning a car or a gun. However, owning a car and a gun can sure make life easier for a lot of people. Of course it is a matter of opinion in both cases.

If we look at history one can see the need for caution when banning things. The drug war has been a failure and a waste. Prohibition failed. No one has shown a convincing argument that banning things works. Attempts to keep people from doing what they want to do is fighting a losing battle and arguably a ill conceived one at that.

I see your point on the doctor one and you make a good point that I don't disagree with but I don't see what is illogical about all of these arguments, and surely they are not all illogical in their entirety. If you think that is in fact the case then I have some ocean front property in North Dakota I could sell to you for a real bargain.

 

[champ2823]

Well Townsend did a damn good job on the whole assumed risk ordeal. So for your sake let's take overall risk. Overall risk is still 80 times more likely die from an accidental gun incident than accidental malpractice. The statement I am making is that people, like yourself, jump on the "ban guns" bandwagon, without looking at bigger problems and the repercussions if guns were banned. I am not saying we need less doctors or that doctors are evil if that's what you're thinking btw. Also, you want to talk about gun murders. I don't have the stats on it but if you do please share. But also, a true comparison would need to know what percentage and total number of gun murders involved legally bought guns and illegally bought guns. You can ban whatever, in this case guns, but the number of illegal guns and murders involving them will not decrease but most likely increase. The war on drugs is an example of this as when drugs were legal and Bayer was selling cocaine on store shelves, there wasn't such a large drug problem as their is now. But if you want to compare gun murders, then also compare deaths due to prescription drugs. I am a law abiding citizen, and I know how oppressive governments work throughout history, so if someone tried to tell me it was illegal to own a gun and tried to take my legally bought gun away from me, there isn't a chance in hell I'd give it to them. I'm sure I'm not the only gun owner that would give up their rights either.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is now a thread for the Gun discussion. Go to it.