Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[AgnosticBoy]

Straw man! I never claimed that it was the only way. On the other hand, it might be the only practical way.

I appreciate you finally acknowledging that a ban on guns is not the only way to reduce gun crime. That has been the ONLY thing I've been asking you about lately, and you've chosen to reply to me with stats. Next time answer the question instead of skipping over it to present stats and statements like, "NO guns, no crime."

Those who think that banning guns is the only solution to reduce gun crime are clearly not relying on logic. So clearly there are any number of personal factors (political ideology, ignorance, etc.) at play with this group.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 90 by bluethread]

Freedom must be paid for. Freedom isn't free. To be free of gun violence we must give up freedom to own guns. Humans can't be trusted with guns, not even the police.

Most shooters obtain their guns legally. Others steal guns from legal owners and gun stores.

Getting rid of guns won't stop all violence, but it will stop the cheap easy and very deadly violence that infests the US. If no one has a gun, then no one needs a gun. QED

Yes, freedom isn't free. However, the giving up of freedom does not make one free. The giving up of freedom makes one charitable and possibly more civilized. the true cost of freedom is the willingness to fight for it. As Jefferson said,"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Good luck putting the genie back into the bottle. Gun technology is so common that there we can be assured that there will always be guns. If one does not like guns, the best one can do is manage their use.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 99 by bluethread]

bluethread: �Yes, freedom isn't free. However, the giving up of freedom does not make one free.�

You have to give up some freedoms to secure others. For instance: If you want to keep your streets free of gunshot victims, you have to regulate the free manufacture, distribution and ownership of firearms. Gun fans are so busy clutching their shootin' irons that they dare not see the carnage.

bluethread: �The giving up of freedom makes one charitable and possibly more civilized.“

“Civilized� folk can be downright uncharitable. They have even been known to separate children from their parents and throw them into concentration camps.

bluethread: �the true cost of freedom is the willingness to fight for it. As Jefferson said, 'The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.'"

But fighting for freedom doesn't mean that you will obtain it. It doesn't mean you will keep it, even if you do obtain it.

bluethread: �Good luck putting the genie back into the bottle. Gun technology is so common that there we can be assured that there will always be guns. If one does not like guns, the best one can do is manage their use.'

But other countries have put the “genie back into the bottle�. Moreover, one proven way to manage the use of guns is to strictly limit their manufacture, distribution, ownership and importation. We might even consider pacing a stiff annual tax on gun owners to pay the costs of the slaughter.

[AgnosticBoy]

To be free of gun violence we must give up freedom to own guns. Humans can't be trusted with guns, not even the police.

Why do you say that humans can't be trusted with guns? Can you back up your absolute claim? I know that CRIMINALS can't be trusted with guns!!! Are you saying that every lawful gun owner has committed crime with guns or are you willing to acknowledge that there are gun owners like me who do not use guns unjustifiably?

If you factored in the type of people (criminals?) responsible for the vast majority of gun crime, then I'm sure your conclusion would change accordingly! Not factoring in that point leads to conclusions that are blown out of proportion like what you stated in your post - as if every single gun owner is going out there shooting people at random which is NOT the case.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 101 by AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy : �Why do you say that humans can't be trusted with guns? Can you back up your absolute claim?'

I can point to history.

AgnosticBoy : �I know that CRIMINALS can't be trusted with guns!!! “

Soldiers can't be trusted with guns, cops can't be trusted with guns, seven-year-olds can't be trusted with guns, that three-year-old who shot his gun totin' mother with her own gun couldn't be trusted with guns (And neither could she!), all those oh-so-righteous gun fans who sell their guns or have them stolen can't be trusted with guns, those law-abiding guys who go off the deep end and slaughter their families can't be trusted with guns...

AgnosticBoy : �Are you saying that every lawful gun owner has committed crime with guns or are you willing to acknowledge that there are gun owners like me who do not use guns unjustifiably?�

I didn't say that. I am saying that any human pressed beyond tolerances by fear, anger, or despair is liable to find a convenient release from the nearest accessible firearm.

AgnosticBoy : �If you factored in the type of people (criminals?) responsible for the vast majority of gun crime, then I'm sure your conclusion would change accordingly! Not factoring in that point leads to conclusions that are blown out of proportion like what you stated in your post - as if every single gun owner is going out there shooting people at random which is NOT the case.�

Of course you don't count war as a gun crime. War is holy, because we wave a flag over it. We can march into tribal lands, into Cuba and the Philippines, into Viet Nam, or the campus at Kent State and that isn't criminals and doesn't count. An injured woman approaches a house on a dark night and rings a doorbell, gets shot by the home owner, but he isn't a criminal. He is heroically defending his home.

Where does that gangsta' get the gun he used in the drive-by shooting to “accidentally� gun down a seven-year-old? He stole it, or bought it from someone who did, stole it from some non-criminal law-abiding owner or dealer.

And if you factored in every soldier marching into a foreign land, and every cop or civilian who feared for his life, and every homeowner who shot his teen-aged child sneaking in after curfew, and all those suicides, made so much more convenient and efficient because of guns... If you set the known good done by guns against the known bad, guess which way the scales will tip.

I suppose now you will again demand statistics, which if I provide them, you will dismiss as a distraction. Or you will set up a straw man and accuse me of thinking every gun owner a criminal. I am not saying that, but I will say, every gun fan is an enabler.

[AgnosticBoy]

�Why do you say that humans can't be trusted with guns? Can you back up your absolute claim?'

I know that CRIMINALS can't be trusted with guns!!! “

Soldiers can't be trusted with guns, cops can't be trusted with guns, seven-year-olds can't be trusted with guns, that three-year-old who shot his gun totin' mother with her own gun couldn't be trusted with guns (And neither could she!), all those oh-so-righteous gun fans who sell their guns or have them stolen can't be trusted with guns, those law-abiding guys who go off the deep end and slaughter their families can't be trusted with guns...

Surely, your absolute claim that humans can't be trusted with guns does NOT mean that all gun owners use their guns for crime. Bringing up 2 or 3 gun incidents does not prove that all gun owners will use their guns for crime. If guns can be used for good (SELF-defense?!), and there are many cases of people using guns for only self-defense and not for crime, then I fail to see what trust issues we should have with this group. This group alone would disprove your point.

So far you're failing to prove your point and you're also skipping over my evidence that goes directly against your absolute claim.

AgnosticBoy : �Are you saying that every lawful gun owner has committed crime with guns or are you willing to acknowledge that there are gun owners like me who do not use guns unjustifiably?�

I didn't say that. I am saying that any human pressed beyond tolerances by fear, anger, or despair is liable to find a convenient release from the nearest accessible firearm.

Lets put your likelihoods into perspective. We can say that people who have guns are more likely to use them compared to people without guns, but how many lawful gun owners actually do so? Saying that gun owners are more likely to use their gun sounds scary, right? Lets add add some perspective here. Lawful gun owners are responsible for about 1% of the gun crime. So within that ONE percent who do commit gun crime, we have to worry about those who might lose their cool and actually use their gun. Now that doesn't sound like a big problem of gun owners getting "scared, angry, and in despair" and shooting people now does it? It certainly doesn't justify your absolute claim.

AgnosticBoy : �If you factored in the type of people (criminals?) responsible for the vast majority of gun crime, then I'm sure your conclusion would change accordingly! Not factoring in that point leads to conclusions that are blown out of proportion like what you stated in your post - as if every single gun owner is going out there shooting people at random which is NOT the case.�

Of course you don't count war as a gun crime. War is holy, because we wave a flag over it. We can march into tribal lands, into Cuba and the Philippines, into Viet Nam, or the campus at Kent State and that isn't criminals and doesn't count. An injured woman approaches a house on a dark night and rings a doorbell, gets shot by the home owner, but he isn't a criminal. He is heroically defending his home.

Again, you said that no human can be trusted with a gun. Then when I asked you if you were claiming that every human used their weapons for bad you said no when you stated, "I didn't say that". You can't have it both ways. You boxed yourself into this corner by making an absolute claim, so now it's time for you to get yourself out of it by scaling down your claim.

Bringing up the crimes done by SOME, doesn't mean that ALL gun owners would do the same. Please acknowledge that your claim applies only to SOME people and not all.

I suppose now you will again demand statistics, which if I provide them, you will dismiss as a distraction. Or you will set up a straw man and accuse me of thinking every gun owner a criminal. I am not saying that, but I will say, every gun fan is an enabler.

I will not arbitrarily dismiss any stats. I've only disagreed with your stats to a degree because there is a difference with showing that a ban on guns reduce gun crime and showing that a ban is the ONLY way.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 103 by AgnosticBoy]

Human beings are prone to fits of bad judgement and carelessness. They will ignore facts and substitute feelings as a basis for decisions. That makes them untrustworthy. History has shown that to be true. Guns are an unnecessary risk factor, and controllable.
I have not claimed that strict gun controls are the only way to reduce gun crime, nor have I claimed that it will be 100% effective. I have in fact, denied it, although you, AgnosticBoy, continue to set up the straw-men.
A child might not want to eat broccoli even though it is good for him. In the same way, gun fans don't want to give up their guns, even though it has been shown to be good for societies that have actually done it.

[AgnosticBoy]

Human beings are prone to fits of bad judgement and carelessness. They will ignore facts and substitute feelings as a basis for decisions. That makes them untrustworthy. History has shown that to be true.

I disagree with your assessment because it equates individual instances of behavior with overall behavior. Lying one time doesn't make you a "liar". Lying one time does not mean that you're also prone to murder. I would certainly think twice before calling my wife "untrustworthy" overall, or to just go ahead and label her a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, etc (are you borrowing Original Sin concept from the Bible and doing so as an atheist? ) just because she's made a few unnecessary purchases based off of her feelings.

That's why 100% of humans have made dumb decisions but only 1% of lawful gun owners have committed gun crime. We can trust humans with guns just as much as we can with cars. In fact, in the US more people die from car crashes than they do from gun crimes committed by lawful gun owners.

Guns are an unnecessary risk factor, and controllable.

Guns are necessary for self-defense. I'm okay with doing away with guns once we find another effective means for self-defense.

I have not claimed that strict gun controls are the only way to reduce gun crime, nor have I claimed that it will be 100% effective. I have in fact, denied it, although you, AgnosticBoy, continue to set up the straw-men.

When you make absolute claims like "No guns means no gun crime", and "humans can't be trusted with guns", then it is natural for people to conclude that only banning guns would fix the gun crime problem. You usually clarify (or back-pedal?) your statement only after I put pressure on you to prove your claims.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 105 by AgnosticBoy]

AgnosticBoy: �I disagree with your assessment because it equates individual instances of behavior with overall behavior.�

That is your interpretation, based, I'm guessing, on what you want to be true.

AgnosticBoy: �Lying one time doesn't make you a 'liar'.�

Yes, it does. All humans are liars. Even some other animals practice deliberate deception. Of course humans are inconsistent in this regard. Indeed, if someone lies all the time, the lie would lose its utility.

AgnosticBoy: �Lying one time does not mean that you're also prone to murder.�

I don't think I ever said that it would. But murdering, even just once, makes you a murderer.

AgnosticBoy: � I would certainly think twice before calling my wife 'untrustworthy' overall,... “

So, you admit that there are or have been times when you couldn't trust her?

AgnosticBoy: �... or to just go ahead and label her a murderer, a thief, an adulterer, etc ...�

If she murdered someone, even only once, she would be a murderer. If she stole, even only once, she is a thief. Et cetera!

AgnosticBoy: �...(are you borrowing Original Sin concept from the Bible and doing so as an atheist? )...�

I am not. I suspect you are merely trying to discount me by postulating arbitrary personal classifications.

AgnosticBoy: �just because she's made a few unnecessary purchases based off of her feelings.�

So, you can't always trust her to make good decisions. QED: You can't always trust her to be trustworthy! (Best keep that to yourself or you might be sleeping on the couch.)

AgnosticBoy: �That's why 100% of humans have made dumb decisions but only 1% of lawful gun owners have committed gun crime.�

I do not perceive any logical form in that statement. Not all “dumb decisions� are criminal, possibly not even 1%. And, considering all risk factors, a crime might not be a “dumb decision�. For instance, Jean Valjean's decision to steal bread, while problematic, and leading in the event to unfortunate results, might not have been a “dumb� decision.

AgnosticBoy: �We can trust humans with guns just as much as we can with cars.�

And in either case, a momentary carelessness, a distraction, a bad decision can lead to tragedy. But cars while not the best solution to a transportation problem are at least a solution to a real problem. Guns are only a "solution" to the problem of guns.

AgnosticBoy: � In fact, in the US more people die from car crashes than they do from gun crimes committed by lawful gun owners.�

There are people working on the problem of eliminating traffic deaths. They are meeting far less resistance than those working to eliminate gun deaths.

AgnosticBoy: �Guns are necessary for self-defense. I'm okay with doing away with guns once we find another effective means for self-defense.�

Twice in my life I have been threatened with a gun, and once with a knife. I kept my emotions in check and there was no violence.

AgnosticBoy: �When you make absolute claims like "No guns means no gun crime", and "humans can't be trusted with guns", then it is natural for people to conclude that only banning guns would fix the gun crime problem.'

You may think it the “natural� conclusion, but that does not mean it is correct.

AgnosticBoy: �You usually clarify (or back-pedal?) your statement only after I put pressure on you to prove your claims.�

Shall we review your dismissal of the statistics you demanded as “distracting�? I have indeed clarified what you seem to have misunderstood or misinterpreted. You seem to interpret that as “back-pedaling�.

[AgnosticBoy]

Guns are necessary for self-defense. I'm okay with doing away with guns once we find another effective means for self-defense.�

Twice in my life I have been threatened with a gun, and once with a knife. I kept my emotions in check and there was no violence.

Why would you offer this response to my claim that guns can be used for self-defense. Does your response disprove my claim? ARe you claiming that guns can't be used for self-defense? Are you claiming that all potential violent threats will end with the suspect not doing harm?

I disagree with your assessment because it equates individual instances of behavior with overall behavior.

That is your interpretation, based, I'm guessing, on what you want to be true.

Either way, nothing you've said proves that all gun owners commit gun crime. If someone is not going to trust all humans with guns, then I would've thought it would be because all humans were bad with guns. Clearly, that's not your reason so you may as well come up with any reason to say that you want guns banned. You run a red light, ban guns. You're a conservative, ban guns, etc, etc.

I would certainly think twice before calling my wife 'untrustworthy' overall,... “

So, you admit that there are or have been times when you couldn't trust her?

Although this is not the case but lets just say I don't trust her with money. Not trusting her with money, does not equate to untrustworthy "overall" (can't be trusted on all matters). I can trust her with other things besides money.

�That's why 100% of humans have made dumb decisions but only 1% of lawful gun owners have committed gun crime.�

I do not perceive any logical form in that statement. Not all “dumb decisions� are criminal, possibly not even 1%.

You said you don't trust all humans because they all can make illogical decisions. That was your given reason as to why you don't trust humans with guns. My factual statement here simply shows that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, but yet you want to use it as such. The clear proof that one doesn't necessarily lead to the other is because there are those who are smart with guns, who know the gun laws, and only use guns for good.

Like I said earlier, you started on this thread wanting to restrict guns because of "gun crime" but now you're wanting to ban it because humans have "feelings".