Thread: So let's talk about gun control

On my note, it doesn't matter how you control it, people will find a way of getting guns, legally or illegally. All this control talk is based on politicans more than the citizens, it's all publicity. I state again, i don't like media and how it portrays this only for governments sake not ours, but is easily manipulating the situation through media.

Originally Posted by cmind

Just because both sides of an argument don't listen to each other, that doesn't mean one side isn't correct.

You do realize I favor the 2nd amendment, right?

Originally Posted by tommo

But they're both morons who don't have a proper grasp on their position and so just repost/regurgitate one-liners over and over again.

With two mutually incompatible viewpoints, one must be correct and the other incorrect. That's just logic.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You do realize I favor the 2nd amendment, right?

Well, I'm sure you favor some watered down version of it.

Actually, I'm not a constitutionalist. I believe that people are free even without magical documents supposedly "protecting" their freedom. Plus, the constitution itself is sloppy as hell, using language like "general welfare" and so forth.

Originally Posted by cmind

With two mutually incompatible viewpoints, one must be correct and the other incorrect. That's just logic.

So by that reasoning, which side was correct - flat earth or hollow earth?

Originally Posted by cmind

Well, I'm sure you favor some watered down version of it.

Rofl and what gives you that idea? Everything I've said in the thread so far where I've argued in favor of even less restrictions on fire-arms than we currently possess?

I like shooting. When I turn 18 and get the money for a gun, I do believe I will own a bolt action rifle as well as a shotgun. I'll probably get a semi-automatic rifle (typically confused with an assault rifle) with a 30 round magazine. The shotgun will be accessible for my home. Any extraneous rifles will be locked, unloaded, cleaned, and possibly disassembled.

When I turn 21 I will apply for a concealed carry permit, take the required courses, and train regularly with a handgun to use as a carry weapon. This will be maintained and kept on me for the defense of myself and any other citizens who might (but hopefully won't) need it. I'm also debating applying for ATF approval for a pre-1986 true assault rifle that will fire fully automatic. It will be locked and disassembled. I will train with it regularly and occasionally take it out for a day of fun because it is a great hobby.

All of these will be maintained and stored with ammunition. Disassembled (with the exception of home defense weapons) but accessible in a reasonably short amount of time.

I do not ever intend on using these to take a human life but if one is forcibly going to be taken I'm not going to let it be mine, that of a loved one, or that of an innocent bystander if I can help it.

Consider this: First we have our classic tyrannical government scenario. This cannot be discounted considering our country's foundation. Also we do have history of people in power abusing said power. This isn't to say we're expecting our government to come down and oppress its citizens. But consider a martial law scenario where a section of the military under the command of a single person indiscriminately fires upon civilians in US territory. This isn't something I expect or hope to happen in my lifetime. But what if it does?

What about invasion from a foreign entity? A war or terrorist attack? What if the people on any of the hijacked planes on 9/11 had been carrying semi automatic weapons?

What about civil unrest? During the LA riots, several shop owners successfully defended their stores with automatic weapons. If I was looting a store and the owner pulled a fully activated AK-47, I'd move across the street. Several people had to defend their homes during Hurricane Katrina. What if something stupid happens, like the power grid going down? I live in a neighborhood of several hundred homes that's a 15 minute drive away from thenearest store and a 45 minute drive from the nearest hospital. I couldn't locate a police station right now if my life depended on it. I have a rough idea of the nearest fire station. It's a 20 minute drive. There's a 2 lane road to get into my neighborhood and if that gets blocked off at any point, you can't get in or out. If power failed for 2 weeks, we would not be on the top of the priority list for the authorities. Consider there's no supplies for miles, I can guarantee we'd have robberies. We already had over 40 break ins in 2 months last summer, and that was just bored kids.

Again, I'm not saying this happens, but if it does, I'm not going to be able to go out, buy a gun, get hundreds of rounds of ammo, and train and get proficient with it. If anything goes bad, even for a couple days before it gets back under control, I'm willing to bet you want the responsible neighbor with the gun on your side.

Also, let's talk about the restrictions. High powered semi automatic rifles kill many, many less people than handguns. The two most offending weapons are, I believe, a .38 and a .357, both revolvers. Both are cheap to buy, easy to handle, and only hold 6 rounds. Under any gun ban, these would still be legal. Even New York, which just capped magazines at 7 rounds, would have absolutely no provisions against the two biggest killers in America.

Also, it's believed that in the Newtown shooting, the assault rifle actually wasn't fired. It was all handguns. The Virginia Tech killer used a Glock handgun (legal) which he was incredibly proficient with. The Columbine killers used a Tech-9 (which would be banned under new laws), a sawed off shotgun (legal, but not to saw down) and handguns (legal) along with improvised CO2 bombs they called "crickets".

The DC sniper used a .223 caliber rifle, but if I remember, it was bolt action and not semi automatic. Even if it was a semi auto, no more than a few rounds were fired and they were long range.

In fact, Aurora is perhaps an outlier in the fact that an automatic assault rifle was used. I think if anybody in that theater had a gun, especially an automatic (and obviously the training) they could have at least suppressed him, got his head down, and distracted him long enough for people to escape. That's assuming the civilian shooting back doesn't even hit the target.

Also, we have to look at Finland, who has almost identical gun laws to us. You do have to declare a reason to own a weapon, but sport shooting and gun collecting are considered valid reasons, which means anyone who really wanted one could get it anyways. Yet, Finland has one of the absolute lowest gun death rates in the world.

I think that's all I have to say for now.

Originally Posted by cmind

With two mutually incompatible viewpoints, one must be correct and the other incorrect. That's just logic.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So by that reasoning, which side was correct - flat earth or hollow earth?

Took the words right out of my mouth. Further, which is correct, flat Earth or spherical Earth?

Neither, the Earth is just closer to a sphere than flat.

The point being, carrying over the analogy, there are subtleties that should be present in any well thought out stance.
If someone is extreme one way or the other ideologically, they are almost always certainly wrong and biased.

Originally Posted by cmind

With two mutually incompatible viewpoints, one must be correct and the other incorrect. That's just logic.

False dichotomy says hello.

Plus, the constitution itself is sloppy as hell, using language like "general welfare" and so forth.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." - Lysander Spooner

Originally Posted by oniman7

Also, we have to look at Finland, who has almost identical gun laws to us. You do have to declare a reason to own a weapon, but sport shooting and gun collecting are considered valid reasons, which means anyone who really wanted one could get it anyways. Yet, Finland has one of the absolute lowest gun death rates in the world.

I think that's all I have to say for now.

Thank you for this. The problem isn't (totally) legislation, it's culture.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Can we please keep this thread clear of stupid, fallacious propaganda? I'm so sick of these sorry excuses for arguments. It's practically all I see on facebook. How would you feel, UM, if you liked a bunch of pages on facebook that generally agreed with your conservative outlook then had to witness their massive loads of BS dissing evolution in favor of intelligent design after it became newsworthy? Here are some examples of what I've been seeing lately.

It's hilarious to see you bitch so passionately against propaganda you agree with. Some propaganda is true, and some true propaganda is logical. Don't assume that evidence is always meant to appear to be conclusive proof. Some of it is just food for thought. Here is some more true and logical propaganda. Play lawyer and argue against it although you agree with it. Expose the holes.

the_experts_agree_gun_control_works.jpg

Propaganda definitely works, but just because it's effective and just because I support the second amendment does not mean that I think fallacious reasoning (such as the pictures you've posted thus far) is ever, ever, ever justified. I think it degrades the discussion.

I like that last picture a couple posts up. What they don't tell you is that if everyone had a gun, then a lot more guns would be shot in self defense throwing those stats off. Also, they don't tell how many idiots there are--unless those were the accidental shootings.

You can reveal the fallacy of any of these propaganda pictures. The one UM posted shows a bunch of dictators that controlled guns to make it look like only a dictator controls guns, even though the US has some of the loosest gun laws in the world and very, very few countries with tighter gun laws is run by a dictatorship.

But again, I'm not supporting more gun control, just pointing out how worthless propaganda is.

16 shootings (so far, this year) in my peacefull, wonderfull city, Adelaide, (boo-hoo-hoo).

I just heard it on tv news. the 16th shooting this year in adelaide happened just a few hours ago. meone drove up to a man on a stolen motorbike and put 6 or 7 bullets in him. not random and shot guy was pushing stolen bike asking for help because he was shot. So he isnt dead.

16 shootings in less than 6 weeks in one of the most peacefull cities in the world. (boo-hoo-hoo)

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Propaganda definitely works, but just because it's effective and just because I support the second amendment does not mean that I think fallacious reasoning (such as the pictures you've posted thus far) is ever, ever, ever justified. I think it degrades the discussion.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

You can reveal the fallacy of any of these propaganda pictures. The one UM posted shows a bunch of dictators that controlled guns to make it look like only a dictator controls guns, even though the US has some of the loosest gun laws in the world and very, very few countries with tighter gun laws is run by a dictatorship.

But again, I'm not supporting more gun control, just pointing out how worthless propaganda is.

The pictures illustrate that dictators favor gun control because it gives the government more power over the people. The point is not that only dictators have gun control laws.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

False dichotomy says hello.

Not in this case. I will be more clear: when two mutually incompatible viewpoints cover the entire possible space of viewpoints, then exactly one must be correct. For example, person A says 4+4 = 8, person B says person A is wrong. This is a "true" dichotomy. Now, in the case of "gun control", either the government should "control" guns (at least some of the time) or it should not. There are only 2 options to this question.

Originally Posted by cmind

Not in this case. I will be more clear: when two mutually incompatible viewpoints cover the entire possible space of viewpoints, then exactly one must be correct. For example, person A says 4+4 = 8, person B says person A is wrong. This is a "true" dichotomy. Now, in the case of "gun control", either the government should "control" guns (at least some of the time) or it should not. There are only 2 options to this question.

This is false. Saying "the government should either control guns or it shouldn't" is a false dichotomy, because it is subject to personal opinion. In my opinion, the government should control guns to a certain degree, but should still allow a certain amount of freedom. In other words, the government should control certain aspects of gun possession, but not all aspects.

That's like saying, "either the Christian God exists or it doesn't."

Originally Posted by SnowyCat

This is false. Saying "the government should either control guns or it shouldn't" is a false dichotomy, because it is subject to personal opinion. In my opinion, the government should control guns to a certain degree, but should still allow a certain amount of freedom. In other words, the government should control certain aspects of gun possession, but not all aspects.

That's like saying, "either the Christian God exists or it doesn't."

You didn't read what I wrote, try again.

Originally Posted by cmind

You didn't read what I wrote, try again.

I see you're going to be stubborn about this. Very well, I'll continue.

You stated that

For example, person A says 4+4 = 8, person B says person A is wrong. This is a "true" dichotomy.

In this case, person A is objectively correct, while person B is unarguably incorrect. There is no objective answer to whether or not the government should control guns, as neither "option" is any more morally or logically correct than the other, making it a false dichotomy. It is similar to if person A said "Cats should live, and dogs should die" and person B countered with "A is wrong, dogs should live and cats should die". The false dichotomy here is that it is being stated that either cats or dogs should die.

EDIT: oh yeah, I forgot about this part:

either the government should "control" guns (at least some of the time)

The (at least some of the time) does not save your dichotomy. It actually makes it worse, as you are adding a third option. According to that statement, the government can either

1. Control guns all the time
2. Control guns some of the time
3. Do any of the infinite variations on 2
4. Not control guns at all

So really you're just stating the obvious. Your argument boils down to "The government can have an opinion on gun control if it wants".

Originally Posted by SnowyCat

This is false. Saying "the government should either control guns or it shouldn't" is a false dichotomy, because it is subject to personal opinion. In my opinion, the government should control guns to a certain degree, but should still allow a certain amount of freedom. In other words, the government should control certain aspects of gun possession, but not all aspects.

That's like saying, "either the Christian God exists or it doesn't."

Those both work as true dichotomies when specific objective definitions of "should" and "Christian God" are given.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Those both work as true dichotomies when specific objective definitions of "should" and "Christian God" are given.

This is true.

I'm a little disappointed that we are arguing syntax more than actual points brought up.

I just learned that there was another theater shooting in San Antonio, but it was back in December. The incident ended quickly when an off duty cop shot the suspect.

Shots fired, patrons panic at San Antonio theater - CBS News

Originally Posted by louie54

I just learned that there was another theater shooting in San Antonio, but it was back in December. The incident ended quickly when an off duty cop shot the suspect.

Shots fired, patrons panic at San Antonio theater - CBS News

What? Guns can save lives? No, guns kill people, which means they are automatically bad. We should ban them so they will disappear. Things go away when they are made illegal.

untitled.jpg