2013 America (and Friends!) Gun Violence Thread No Plows Allowed!

[Blubbartron]

The same reason anyone argues anything on the internet. It is fun/entertaining.

I guess I'm just not a masochist. I only like arguing for the reason of learning/educating. There's no chance either will happen when you argue with people who aren't thinkers, but believers. In this case, he believes that guns are awesome, and nothing anyone says or shows him will change his beliefs. They're not founded in rational inquiry. Anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and he will continue using every logical fallacy in the book until you give up and he declares himself the winner.

The only way to win is not to play (or mock him from a distance for being dumber than a box of rocks).

[Ksandra]

It's pretty silly to think that those who penned the constitution were omitting everyone but white males when they enumerated the rights guaranteed by the document.

you are right it is silly, they also had to be landowners.

[Fhqwghads]

There's no chance either will happen when you argue with people who aren't thinkers, but believers. In this case, he believes that guns are awesome, and nothing anyone says or shows him will change his beliefs. They're not founded in rational inquiry. Anyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and he will continue using every logical fallacy in the book until you give up and he declares himself the winner.

The only way to win is not to play (or mock him from a distance for being dumber than a box of rocks).

I see. So your opinion is a fact, but my stance is a "belief" (which is odd, since we do in fact have a 2nd amendment and a right to bear arms, so I'm not sure how you can classify this as a "belief" as it's reality). I could just as easily argue that people who aren't willing to stick up for their own 2nd amendment rights use logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks (like you just did with your post when you insinuated that I'm "dumber than a box of rocks") and all sorts of other MSM mantras to bolster their opinions.

The reality is it's up to people who want to remove the right for others to own firearms to prove that their absence from law-abiding citizens will be in the best interests for our nation. Lucky for me and other people who appreciate our rights, that's just not going to happen.

[wipers]

I don't understand rights therefore stricter gun laws. So when you get killed with a knife you will be happier.

[Draginhikari]

You're listing things which are not a right guaranteed by the constitution. You also assert that a firearm is only intended to kill, which is incorrect. They are designed to fire a projectile at high velocity. It is 100% up the owner of the firearm as to what it's pointed at. None of my firearms has ever killed anything.

I take issue when people keep misconstruing "responsible" with increasingly aggressive standards for something which is a constitutionally guaranteed right, and expecting people who have never done anything wrong to jump through all sorts of hoops to maintain their basic rights.

A gun is a firearm, a weapon, something design by intention is to either kill or injury something.

Nearly every constitutional right can regulated to some degree in regards to situations where it may pose a danger or threat to the rights of others. You have the right to bear arms, nothing has been proposed that would downright take away that right. It doesn't mean that you have the right to all arms or any weapon.

We can have reasonable regulation on guns, without destroying the 2nd amendent I just don't think it's an either or situation.

[archibaldcrane]

Of course the actual best way to reduce gun crime is to increase economic opportunity for poor people, and especially poor blacks.

But that's like decreasing abortions with sex education, it's way less fun to argue about.

[wipers]

Why would you want to reduce gun violence ? The newspapers will not have anything to write about.

[archibaldcrane]

Well, it's been reducing steadily since about 1994 regardless.

[Ksandra]

I could just as easily argue that people who aren't willing to stick up for their own 2nd amendment rights use logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks (like you just did with your post when you insinuated that I'm "dumber than a box of rocks") and all sorts of other MSM mantras to bolster their opinions.

I know you weren't necessarily referring to me, but I want to stress why I keep bringing this up. There is a difference between defending your rights, and defending what you imagine that right to be.

You cannot claim you are defending your 2nd amendment rights when that isn't what the 2nd amendment is saying.

If it had said "right to bear any arms under any condition without regulation" then you would have a point. It doesn't. So stop assuming people who counter it aren't defending their second amendment rights and you are.

You aren't defending your 2nd amendment, you are just using it as a shield and making it say something it never said.

[edit] to go further, if you want your guns, then defend it with statistics and research and what have you, don't use the 2nd amendment as a scapegoat. It's stupid.

[Qalbert]

I have done nothing to warrant this type of post. I've been nothing but courteous. You're free to disagree with me, but you are not free to make personal attacks and I'd appreciate it if you didn't.

OH SHIT PERSONAL ATTACKS, EVERYONE RUN, HE'S GONNA STAND HIS GROUND

[notorious bum]

Fucking hell, sorry fam. I'm taking the L for this can of bullshit.

[Fhqwghads]

A gun is a firearm, a weapon, something design by intention is to either kill or injury something.

Nearly every constitutional right can regulated to some degree in regards to situations where it may pose a danger or threat to the rights of others. You have the right to bear arms, nothing has been proposed that would downright take away that right. It doesn't mean that you have the right to all arms or any weapon.

We can have reasonable regulation on guns, without destroying the 2nd amendent I just don't think it's an either or situation.

Weird, I guess all those people who enjoy skeet shooting, collecting, target practice, etc. are all using their firearms incorrectly. I have dumped countless amounts of ammo through everything I own, and not a single life has been taken and nothing has been injured in the process. Your biased perception on what a firearm is intended for is entirely derived from what the media has led you to believe.

The issue with gun control is the chipping away of our rights, a bit at a time, under the guise of "common sense" and "practical". It infers that what we have now lacks sense and is impractical. I find that hard to believe considering that firearms have been in the hands of the people of this nation since its inception. This whole "gun control" nonsense is a fairly recent development in our nation's history, and I fail to see the need for it. You won't restrict or regulate your way to safety when the only people impacted are those who obey the laws.

As it stands, those who want to do away with 2nd amendment rights have already put thousands of laws in place, so they have their "reasonable" regulations already. The problem is it's never enough for those people. They won't stop until the only thing people can legally own is a bolt action .22LR, and even then it would need to be stored locked away in a safe and we'd only be allowed a box of ammo with 5 rounds in it.

Would the 2nd amendment be destroyed in this scenario? Technically no. But is this where we want to wind up? The whole purpose of the 2nd was to give the people a fighting chance against enemies - foreign or domestic. I hardly think that's a possibility when "reasonable" regulations strip away everything but a step-up from a pellet gun. Firearms owners have given up enough ground already. There won't be any more taken. Period.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I know you're trolling

i'm actually not, i just don't care enough about you to elaborate very much. i did that for a few years; got tired of it after the 3rd or 4th time around the same circle.

when i see you provide a suggestion as to how to improve enforcement, i'll take you seriously. maybe.

[Fhqwghads]

I know you weren't necessarily referring to me, but I want to stress why I keep bringing this up. There is a difference between defending your rights, and defending what you imagine that right to be.

You cannot claim you are defending your 2nd amendment rights when that isn't what the 2nd amendment is saying.

If it had said "right to bear any arms under any condition without regulation" then you would have a point. It doesn't. So stop assuming people who counter it aren't defending their second amendment rights and you are.

You aren't defending your 2nd amendment, you are just using it as a shield and making it say something it never said.

[edit] to go further, if you want your guns, then defend it with statistics and research and what have you, don't use the 2nd amendment as a scapegoat. It's stupid.

I don't really need to use it as a scapegoat. We have a natural right to defend ourselves. The constitution guarantees that right. And we're still on the phrase "shall not be infringed". That's all the evidence I need to demonstrate that restricting the right to bear arms in any capacity is implicitly unconstitutional. It doesn't need to explicitly state "for all weapons ever made", because they summed it up very succinctly. We're where we're at now because apathetic people allowed others to slowly chip away at our rights. Now we're stuck having ridiculous arguments on the most basic and fundamental aspects of one of the least wordy and most easily understood sections of the bill of rights as a result.

[Fhqwghads]

i'm actually not, i just don't care enough about you to elaborate very much. i did that for a few years; got tired of it after the 3rd or 4th time around the same circle.

when i see you provide a suggestion as to how to improve enforcement, i'll take you seriously. maybe.

Don't put the onus on me to provide solutions if you can't be bothered to elaborate.

[Qalbert]

now who is making personal attacks? leave Bane's onus out of this

[zoobernut]

I don't really need to use it as a scapegoat. We have a natural right to defend ourselves. The constitution guarantees that right. And we're still on the phrase "shall not be infringed". That's all the evidence I need to demonstrate that restricting the right to bear arms in any capacity is implicitly unconstitutional. It doesn't need to explicitly state "for all weapons ever made", because they summed it up very succinctly. We're where we're at now because apathetic people allowed others to slowly chip away at our rights. Now we're stuck having ridiculous arguments on the most basic and fundamental aspects of one of the least wordy and most easily understood sections of the bill of rights as a result.

So right now you can own privately any "arms" ever created? If you wanted you could go out and legally purchase and own any weapon that the U.S. government has in their arsenal? If the answer to that is anything other than yes then your rights have already been infringed upon and I would ask why people are not incensed about that? Why are they ok with a degree of infringement?

[Fhqwghads]

So right now you can own privately any "arms" ever created? If you wanted you could go out and legally purchase and own any weapon that the U.S. government has in their arsenal? If the answer to that is anything other than yes then your rights have already been infringed upon and I would ask why people are not incensed about that? Why are they ok with a degree of infringement?

Why are you assuming that there are some who aren't?

[zoobernut]

Why are you assuming that there are some who aren't?

Your whole argument has been predicated on an unyielding definition of the amendment including the term "shall not be infringed". Following your logic there should not be any sort of arms that the U.S. Government or its entities could possess that citizens are not allowed to legally own.

If you do not believe that then you must allow for a reinterpretation of the amendment based on the values and positions of modern society and understand that things have changed drastically since it was written.

Edit: And in all honesty anyone who is incensed that they cannot legally own any weapon in the U.S. arsenal is a crazy person who should not be allowed to own any weapon.

[Draginhikari]

Weird, I guess all those people who enjoy skeet shooting, collecting, target practice, etc. are all using their firearms incorrectly. I have dumped countless amounts of ammo through everything I own, and not a single life has been taken and nothing has been injured in the process. Your biased perception on what a firearm is intended for is entirely derived from what the media has led you to believe.

The issue with gun control is the chipping away of our rights, a bit at a time, under the guise of "common sense" and "practical". It infers that what we have now lacks sense and is impractical. I find that hard to believe considering that firearms have been in the hands of the people of this nation since its inception. This whole "gun control" nonsense is a fairly recent development in our nation's history, and I fail to see the need for it. You won't restrict or regulate your way to safety when the only people impacted are those who obey the laws.

As it stands, those who want to do away with 2nd amendment rights have already put thousands of laws in place, so they have their "reasonable" regulations already. The problem is it's never enough for those people. They won't stop until the only thing people can legally own is a bolt action .22LR, and even then it would need to be stored locked away in a safe and we'd only be allowed a box of ammo with 5 rounds in it.

Would the 2nd amendment be destroyed in this scenario? Technically no. But is this where we want to wind up? The whole purpose of the 2nd was to give the people a fighting chance against enemies - foreign or domestic. I hardly think that's a possibility when "reasonable" regulations strip away everything but a step-up from a pellet gun. Firearms owners have given up enough ground already. There won't be any more taken. Period.

I'm well aware of the other uses of firearms, but that doesn't change the fact that the firearm was developed as a weapon. Just like all weapons are. If you are implying that I am somehow some kind of media sheep that only came to this conclusion because I believe what the media tells me. You'd be wrong in that regards. I've held this opinion for quite a long time as I simply do not like guns, does this make me biased in regards to the gun control issue. Yes. There is obviously some biased on my part but I don't let it cloud my view to suggest that I want guns banned, that's illogical and ridculious.

The United States has one of the higher gun death per capita in the world and there are more firearms here then probably anywhere else in the world. The problem with your logic about the past is the differences in technology and how much more dangerous our guns have become they have evolved more then any other weapon. Back when the the country was formed a gun was not capable of the sheer destructive force and often couldn't fire more then handful of rounds are far as I know. These days many assault weapons could killls hundreds of people in a very short time sometimes with one clip. Yes Gun Control is more recent development but because the much the impact of these weapons have become. Sometimes you have to be willing to relook at a situation and decide what is the best thing to do, but that's not the political climate we live it. It's either heaven or hell, good and evil, tyrant or freedom. There is no balance about the issue only generally outrage.

Are you really expecting me to believe that firearm owners have given up much ground? When the NRA and other gun lobbying groups basically paid off politicians to continue to do nothing about the death tolls so the gun manufactors can continue to sell more guns to people they shouldn't be? That weapons capable of high-capacity magnazine are a good idea? Sorry, I don't believe in keeping the things the same because simply because that has always been the case.

At this point I don't feel there is much more that I can say that has already been said.