Gun Control Brain Storm

Your authoritarian fantasies are similarly meaningless, and if you actually knew the first thing about "logic", something you continually reference but show no valid understanding of, you would realize that we must share certain assumptions or axioms before we can have a truly logical discussion, and since our moral codes are fundamentally opposed to one another (you think it's okay to initiate violence against peaceful people, whereas I do not), there is no room for "logical" discussion, only assertions of moral truth.

 

They are. They are a problem. Sorry. They are. See, the "countless" good people are largely less responsible than you try to paint. Sure, there are a lot of wonderful and responsible gun owners. You may be one of them. What I am really saying is that "nice white picket fences make for nice neighbors". That we need to reign in a lot of behavoir by putting responsibility back on the owner. Lock up you dam guns, don't give or sell your guns to shady people, don't be a shady arms dealer and pass your crap off, don't let your kids (*)(*)(*)(*) around with your guns, etc.


PS> the point about church pedifles is weird. Don't make me respond to that. lol

 

Do you think mindlessly asserting your opinion as fact somehow constitutes a valid debate tactic?

 

Why are you not holding the people responsible who are actually doing the killing? Your blame seems oddly misplaced.

 

What is this? You aren't saying anything that I can respond to... Why even talk ? Why tell me that you "reject the evil empire" and that is all? I am starting to question your ability to reason to be honest. Maybe this forum isnt' for me, I've initiated a few threads and end up with devolved arguements with weird people. Just be civil, tell me that you disagree and why, that is all I ask? I am not name calling (mostly), I am being relatively fair. This is weird. I miss the better days on Internet. ...

 

Think about what you just said for a second... Essentially you are saying "we can't have a discussion about this because there are criminals", where are we supposed to go with that? Also, you are wrong. I am not going to repeat my previous points for just your one line retort.

 

I have tried explaining it to you in the simplest way possible. In order for us to have a "logical" discussion, we must share certain assumptions. At a certain point, an argument becomes irreducible and must rest upon certain AXIOMS. Since you and I have fundamentally opposed axiomatic views of the world (you think it's okay to use government violence against peaceful people, whereas I do not), we cannot have a logical discussion. We can only exchange assertions of moral truth. As an example, if two individuals sat down for a logical discussion on gay marriage, but did not share the assumption that our reality "exists", they could not have a logical discussion, could they? Of course not. They would be arguing endlessly over irreducible assertions about the nature of reality instead of discussing the underlying issue. The same principle applies to this discussion. You are operating under totally different moral assumptions than I am, which means we cannot discuss "logically" the merits of your position.

 

Well stated, you are high class sir. lol Am I supposed to respond to this kind of drivel? You aren't so innocent, well statistically you aren't. It's much like a person with a few drinks, "I can drive". A gun owner acts as if there is a black and while line between good and bad. I want irresponible behavior reigned in. Sorry you disagree. Good for you that you have a gun. Good night sir.

 

No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm saying why are we not discussing the criminals since they are the ones causing the problems? You seem to want to ignore the criminals and just talk about the guns. Which is dumb. And doesn't fix the problem.

 

Did you expect people to be civil towards you when you are advocating violating their moral code with government violence? Some soul-searching is in order, young man.

 

You are very sharp.

But this is such a political tool. No one is ever going to be able to effectively able to put these kind of controls in place, I wish they could. What ends up happening is that one or two parts of this kind of gun control strategy get put in place and then they fail. The failure is made into a talking point. And then it all falls apart.

I do not like being a pessimist, but guns are going to be around in America. We are too big and the citizens are too used to easy access and lax control.

But my hats off to you for making a rational try at explaining how it could and should be done.

 

Sorry my friend, you are shaping this to look like you have been fair and balanced, maybe in the Fox News sense if anything. Now you are talking about this jargon that to me is a way of convincing me I am not worth your time. IDK, this forum is becoming less attrractive as time goes by. Just talk to me, tell me your views, what happened to that ?

 

I don't agree with you. It'a about root cause about how criminals obtain guns as well. 35+% are given to them (friends/family), 10% are stolen and there are a pile of dealers that only care about money.

 

Show me the statistics that show I'm a threat. I'm real curious if my threat level is even statistically significant. I've been around firearms for well over a decade now without a single accident or uncontrollable urge to kill. It is in fact YOU that is the problem here, not me. I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm simply living my life. You on the other hand are telling me I'm a threat and trying to erode our rights for no good reason. People like yourself are the biggest problem we have today. You hand over everyone's rights thinking it somehow makes you safer and morally superior yet it does nothing more than punish peaceful people. It makes me want to vomit. If it wasn't for the respect I have for the forum I'd once again sum up my thoughts in words that will be censored because powerful language is quickest and easiest way to express my feelings towards you. While I hope one day you will understand why I feel this way, and I hope it won't be at the potential loss or limitation of something you enjoy because unlike you I believe in leaving peaceful people alone to live their lives and don't believe they should be arbitrarily punished.

 

I'm curious as to where these facts are coming from. You're in NYC, I'm in NYC. I hang out with criminals--in fact, they love me. I don't know that may of them stupid enough to commit crimes with registered guns they got from family members. I think people tend to disregard those crimes where guns were used to coerce people into handing over money, or submitting to forced sex. Far more guns used in the commission of crimes come from Mexico and can't be traced.

 

Honestly, i was giving you the benefit of the doubt and was assuming you had more to bring than "well what about the criminals?". It's a bit retrograde to think we can have a debate about guns and only keep it on the criminals themselves. How do they get guns? How do we reign that in? How about I ask you, how many "good people" end up letting there gun be used in a crime ? Do you see any room to improve on that ?

 

Look, it's very simple. In order to have a "logical" discussion, we MUST share certain assumptions. If, for instance, I was operating under the assumption that neither of us actually existed, that really we're just projections in a computer simulation, we could not possibly have a "logical" discussion about gun rights, could we? No, of course not. You would insist that, yes, we do exist, and, no, we are not projections in a computer simulation, whereas I would insist just the opposite. Neither of us could actually demonstrate, prove, or establish the veracity of our respective assertions - in other words, we would be operating under different assumptions - so we would be limited in our ability to "logically" discuss the underlying issue of gun control. I am not saying that you aren't worth my time, I am simply informing you of the fact that logical discussion, truly logical discussion, can only occur if we share certain assumptions about reality, which clearly we do not. I am operating under the assumption that initiating violence against peaceful gun owners is morally wrong, whereas apparently you are not. Neither of us can demonstrate in any objective manner that what we say is "true" or "correct", so we are basically stuck at square one with me saying "no" and you saying "yes". Get it?

 

Why do you focus on the gun and not on the people? Simple question. Is it because you believe that humans are corrupted and "unfix-able"?

 

Hi, thanks for responding... .

These are CDC Stats. I can dig up links later.

Note, you may be close to a particular situation and may see things in a certain way. It's like asking a Vietnam vet if the war was worth it assuming they have a better idea when it's really the wrong type of question to ask someone like that. You raise an interesting point, but since guns usually flow south while drugs flow up, I don't think that it's about Mexico alone. However, new markets may arise from changes, but that is a separate issue.

 

Well, basing the discussion on the morality of the legitimate use of force against gun owners inherently muddies the logical nature of a conversation, given that morality is a relative social construct. Now, if we are going to have a discussion as to the underlying issues of gun control from an objective viewpoint, certain parameters must be established utilizing objective means of knowledge discovery, such as statistical analysis. Even then, issues regarding the methodologies of discovering the underlying matters of gun control arise.

 

They are homicide statistics, not gun crime statistics which was my point. Homicide includes cases of domestic violence where guns, knives, pillows, and fists are also used. DV cases make up the bulk of violent crimes all across the world--even in places with, yes, gun control.

These are the CDC stats you referenced:

All homicides

Number of deaths: 16,259
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.3

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

Note that there are only 3.6 deaths per 100,000 people which is less than a percentage.

 

I've never represented that view, it's putting responsibility on the owner. BTW, I'm also for spending money for gun turn ins.

 

That's still talking about guns. Guns don't shoot themselves. I can kill with a knife or car bomb if I'm a murderer.

What do you (personally) think is wrong with people that they are so murderous now?

 

Actually, it is logical to have similar language and assumptions when engaging in dialogue, regardless the topic or type of conversation, else you can not have any sort of structure or linear progression. Ethereal was correct.

 

Agreed people be allowed to own as many as they want. They should simply be required to pay 10000 dollars a year to owe machine guns and other military weapons.

As for keeping out of criminals hands...We should make the illegal sell of firearms a class a felony and hold the seller accountable for injury and death caused by their products as well as making it a high level felony to own a gun bought from an illegal source. Getting 25 years in prison for buying or selling a black market gun would deter many criminals