Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Spiral Out » May 11th, 2013, 11:21 am

I find it very interesting that you will not answer even one question posed to you. Do you have any understanding of what your position actually is, other than "you don't like guns"? Are you unable to answer questions posed to you?

So is it simply necessity that drives this bus? What is your specific criteria for defining what is necessary?
Do you wish to ban all alcohol as well?
Do you think that people should only be allowed to have beer but not tequila, such as allowing people to only have handguns but not assault rifles?
How is it not an adult and responsible activity if I simply own a firearm or take it to the range to shoot at practice targets?
Why is the appreciation for guns childish?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Xris » May 11th, 2013, 11:34 am

Spiral Out wrote:I find it very interesting that you will not answer even one question posed to you. Do you have any understanding of what your position actually is, other than "you don't like guns"? Are you unable to answer questions posed to you?

So is it simply necessity that drives this bus? What is your specific criteria for defining what is necessary?
Do you wish to ban all alcohol as well?
Do you think that people should only be allowed to have beer but not tequila, such as allowing people to only have handguns but not assault rifles?
How is it not an adult and responsible activity if I simply own a firearm or take it to the range to shoot at practice targets?
Why is the appreciation for guns childish?
You are not suggesting that the desire to fire guns is somehow normal? I thought your argument was based on the need not the pleasure? Guns are essential in certain circumstances is that a difficult position to understand? How can anyone like guns, it's like saying you like knives or bombs. They are weapons made to kill to maim. Hunting for food appears reasonable.A hand gun in secure place away from children held by licensed individual for security is not beyond my understanding. BUT a machine gun, not secured where juveniles can use them. Bought by any fool for pleasure or harm is not acceptable to any civilised community.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Spiral Out » May 12th, 2013, 10:50 am

Xris wrote:You are not suggesting that the desire to fire guns is somehow normal?
Yes I am. You are not suggesting that the desire to fire guns is somehow abnormal?
Xris wrote:I thought your argument was based on the need not the pleasure?
There are both necessity and recreation aspects to my argument.
Xris wrote:Guns are essential in certain circumstances is that a difficult position to understand?
Explain what "essential" means in that context and what circumstances determines them to be essential.
Xris wrote:How can anyone like guns, it's like saying you like knives or bombs.
I love knives. I like guns. I think bombs are interesting. What do you like that someone else might have an issue with? Alcohol perhaps?

How many innocent children are killed every year due to alcohol related incidents?
Xris wrote:They are weapons made to kill to maim.
Ah, there's your problem. You believe an assault rifle MUST be used for assault simply because it is called an assault rifle, is that your issue? Do you think that all implements must only be used for their "designed or intended purpose"? Can you imagine any other things in your life that you do not use as intended?
Xris wrote:Hunting for food appears reasonable.
So you think I should be allowed to use bombs for hunting then?
Xris wrote:A hand gun in secure place away from children held by licensed individual for security is not beyond my understanding.
You apparently have a very limited understanding.
Xris wrote:BUT a machine gun, not secured where juveniles can use them. Bought by any fool for pleasure or harm is not acceptable to any civilised community.
You seem to believe that ownership of "machine guns" and responsibility are mutually exclusive. Why is that? Do you think that there are no machine guns out there in private hands that have ever been used responsibly?

I think you're just using emotion to pander to people's inherent fears. That's more dangerous than the weapons themselves because you are weaponizing minds. The mind is the most dangerous weapon ever created.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Xris » May 12th, 2013, 11:06 am

I live without the desire or the need for gun that can kill another human. I have an air rifle to kill rats that get too close to my cottage and I have no problem with similar weapons used as a necessity.But we have to disagree on guns. I am just grateful that my culture, my neighbours and my community are not attracted, nor find the need to carry, use or own guns. Maybe parachuting from a Hercules with GPMG strapped to my leg, carrying the damned thing for four days at a time, put me of ever wanting one.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Spiral Out » May 12th, 2013, 12:21 pm

I live with the desire to own guns for home and/or personal protection and the desire to own and use guns for recreational purposes. I have committed no crimes with my guns. Guns are only as dangerous as those who wield them.

Don't blame the guns for the crimes of the criminals who use them. Ban the criminals, not whatever they choose as weapons.

Anyway, you're still avoiding answering questions. I think it's because you know your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I think you just don't like guns and are willing to say anything to satisfy your own agenda no matter the reality of the situation.

So, what of your alcohol? More drunk drivers have killed innocent children with their vehicles than anyone has with assault rifles. So then will you agree to ban alcohol and/or vehicles along with assault rifles since there are many more of those "damned fools" who can get their hands on alcohol and cars than assault rifles?
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Xris » May 12th, 2013, 3:58 pm

Spiral Out wrote:I live with the desire to own guns for home and/or personal protection and the desire to own and use guns for recreational purposes. I have committed no crimes with my guns. Guns are only as dangerous as those who wield them.

Don't blame the guns for the crimes of the criminals who use them. Ban the criminals, not whatever they choose as weapons.

Anyway, you're still avoiding answering questions. I think it's because you know your logic doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I think you just don't like guns and are willing to say anything to satisfy your own agenda no matter the reality of the situation.

So, what of your alcohol? More drunk drivers have killed innocent children with their vehicles than anyone has with assault rifles. So then will you agree to ban alcohol and/or vehicles along with assault rifles since there are many more of those "damned fools" who can get their hands on alcohol and cars than assault rifles?
If you believe alcohol kills then oppose it but do not assume that it relieves those who own guns of their responsibility. Guns are made to kill cars are made to transport us. The reality is in the statistics something you will not accept.

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by wanabe » May 12th, 2013, 6:16 pm

Xris, re Post 97:

Machine guns have predictable vectors, explosives do not. Obviously the potential for collateral damage is higher for explosives. Guns should be banned as soon as the police give up their guns, if were going to go along with the UK model.

But guns won't be taken away from police in the US, nor will everything that can be made into a bomb be restricted from sale. So guns should reaming legal to own an operate, and fertilizer should still be allowed to be sold as well. Hence the need for proper gun licensing.

I can't speak for what other gun "lobbyists," as you call us, on the forums think. That may be part of your confusion, that is categorizing forum members as lobbyists. What I have called for since I first contributed to this thread was proper licensing of guns.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Spiral Out » May 12th, 2013, 8:50 pm

Xris wrote:If you believe alcohol kills then oppose it but do not assume that it relieves those who own guns of their responsibility.
If I believe alcohol kills? Do you believe it doesn't? Do you have selective attention? Alcohol kills far more people than guns by a landslide. The reality is in the statistics and statistics don't lie, right?

I'm not using that fact to absolve criminals of their crimes, but your very own logic as to why guns must be banned also demands that alcohol and cars be banned as well, thus invalidating your argument.
Xris wrote:Guns are made to kill cars are made to transport us.
That's false but otherwise completely and utterly irrelevant. The intent of the design does not determine the intent of its use. Guns are made to prevent potential violence by criminals the same way that nuclear weapons are meant to keep the peace through a concept called "mutually assured destruction".

If guns are simply made to kill then alcohol is simply made to make people less moral and more able to kill and maim people without normal inhibitive restraint.
Xris wrote:The reality is in the statistics something you will not accept.
Look at the statistics regarding alcohol and the deaths you equate to guns. You'll find that alcohol is a far worse offender.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Xris » May 13th, 2013, 5:39 am

Spiral do you want an argument considering statistics or not? I am quite happy to do so.

Wanabe, Police in the UK do carry weapons but not on a regular basis.So are certain members of the public permiited through licince to own certain guns. This is not about a complete ban but a reasonable argument about who and what?The geni is out of the bottle but asking for wish list is possible. So what's your argument for the ownership of machine guns? Spiral simply enjoys them. Something I find weird to say the least.

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Spiral Out » May 13th, 2013, 6:42 am

Xris wrote:Spiral do you want an argument considering statistics or not? I am quite happy to do so.
Knock yourself out. I'd like to see your attempt to try to justify the legality of alcohol and automobiles based solely on drunk-driving death statistics like you've been arguing about firearms. Let's see that logic.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Xris
Posts: 5962
Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
Location: Cornwall UK

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Xris » May 13th, 2013, 9:56 am

Spiral Out wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Knock yourself out. I'd like to see your attempt to try to justify the legality of alcohol and automobiles based solely on drunk-driving death statistics like you've been arguing about firearms. Let's see that logic.
Whose defending drunk drivers? As far as I can see from official government figures for one particular year, 2007. Over 3000 children died from gun shot wounds and approx 550 by drunk drivers. We can do without guns but we sure can not do without cars.So whats your argument now, apart from you enjoy shooting your weapons?

User avatar
Spiral Out
Site Admin
Posts: 5007
Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Spiral Out » May 13th, 2013, 5:26 pm

Xris wrote:As far as I can see from official government figures for one particular year, 2007. Over 3000 children died from gun shot wounds and approx 550 by drunk drivers.
That's interesting. Where did you get those numbers? What is your source?

I have statistics that say that a total of 561 children were killed by gunfire from 2006 to 2010 according to the FBI, and that in 2007 alone 245 children were killed by drunk drivers according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In the same 5 years that the 561 children were killed by gunfire, it would be approximately 1225 children killed by drunk drivers if we use that figure as an average.

Therefore, alcohol and cars are more dangerous than firearms.

So then if you are using statistics as the foundation for your argument for banning guns then you would also have to argue to ban alcohol and motor vehicles in order to maintain the validity of your logic.

The guns are to the criminals as the vehicles are to the drunks.
Xris wrote:We can do without guns but we sure can not do without cars.
That is completely irrelevant to your own argument that appeals only to statistics. The guns are no more dangerous to anyone when not in the hands of a criminal any more than a car is dangerous when not in the hands of a driver, or worse, a drunk driver.

If you don't blame the cars for the deaths of innocent children by the drunk drivers then you cannot blame the guns for the deaths of innocent children by violent people either.
Xris wrote:So whats your argument now, apart from you enjoy shooting your weapons?
My argument is that your argument is utterly invalid.
Dedicated to the fine art of thinking.

Gee
Posts: 185
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Gee » May 13th, 2013, 8:07 pm

Hi All;

Well, I managed to read through all eight pages and have some comments regarding some of your statements. Also please note that I have little regard for any arguments that rely solely upon statistics as statistics are not reliable, so I prefer personal experience when making my judgments.
JustAnotherCommenter wrote:If a guy broke into my house I think it would be more effective for me to either call the cops and hide or have a baseball bat ready to hit him with than it would be to go unlock my gun case, load my gun, and then go after him. What do you guys think?
Well, I doubt that your plan would work for me. I could go to my room, get my gun, load it, find the "bad guy", shoot him in the leg once, or twice if necessary, call 911, and greet the ambulance, all before the police showed up. I had a neighbor, who seemed to be able to summon the police quickly, and many of my other neighbors thought that she had some relationship with the police, but it was not so. She told me her secret; she used to have one of her daughters call when she needed the police, because they respond quicker to children.
Mike A wrote:I'm sure that you are well aware that the mere racking of a 12 ga. pump in the dark of night is the sound of a real deterrent.
Now this is the absolute truth. And following that sound, is the sound of the front screen door slamming and the sound of footsteps running down the street away from the house. I know this from personal experience, but this experience will not be found in statistics because I did not bother to report it. It was my opinion that the police could not do anything anyway, and the problem was solved, as that person was not going to be back. That was thirty some years ago, so I believe that my assessment was correct. Hopefully, he thought twice before walking in some other door uninvited.
Blauw Bloed wrote:There are plenty of incidents when a crazed persons shoots up twelve people, and I hardly hear about somebody preventing a robbery or rape by pulling a gun.
Please consider the above statement in response to Mike A. I suspect that many instances are not reported.
Hugbeam wrote:Or we could just control the guns in the first place.
This is a good point. I, personally, always keep my gun in a cage and feed it no more than one bullet a month. This keeps it in a weakened state and makes it easier to control.
Ascendant606 wrote:So lets say your attractive 110 pound neighbor Jessica gets a night time visitor she uses her gun, and shoots. He has a gun and he starts shooting. You hear gunfire, so you grab your gun to "help" Jessica, being the white knight you are. But so does Jeff. Jeff gets there and sees you with your gun. He thinks you are responsible and he shoots you. Then George comes and shoots Jeff, and so on until it becomes a full out massacre and innocent people die.
You really should consider a career writing comedy in Hollywood.
Xris wrote:Just as long as you don't blow your wife's head off with one of them as is the custom.The vast majority of homicides are committed by those brave American heterosexual heroes needing a phallic symbol to cling on to when their wives are not complying to their demands.
If it is the "custom" for American's to "blow your wife's head off", then I would suggest that it is more to do with the No Fault Divorce Laws than with gun laws. For the last 20 or 30 years, it has been the law that a wife can throw her husband out of "her" house, take his children and his money and his property, and do this because she is essentially bored with him. She also has the right to abuse/neglect his children, spend his money, f**k his neighbor, slander his name and his family name, and make him pay his hard earned wages for this privileged. Since the law provides him with little or no recourse, a bullet to the brain could seem reasonable in some situations. Have you ever heard the expression, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? There are some legislators who need to learn about this corruption.
Xris wrote:A secure gun cupboard and most importantly a brain scan.
Well, I had a "brain scan" and have scars all over my brain. Are you saying that I can not have a gun because I have Multiple Sclerosis?
Xris wrote:You can not escape from the facts that guns are available to fools, retards, arrogant bar stewards, the insane, the humiliated husbands or the bullied strange school kid.
Xris wrote:You are one of those who do not realize that damned fools are obtaining guns legally and even illegally because gun salesmen have no scruples to who they sell them to.
If you review the underlined words above, I believe you will find a very stereotyping mentality has authored these statements. A mentality more suited to a rag magazine than to a philosophy forum.
Xris wrote:What about your schizophrenic neighbor can he have a ballistic missile?
I found this especially interesting. When my son was 13 years old, he took a Hunter's Gun Safety course that was sponsored by the local Sheriff's Department and the NRA. After completing this course, he was allowed to hunt with his family. When he was 15 years old, he came to me and asked if he could put his guns in my closet. (His guns were kept in his closet because he was responsible for their maintenance, oiling and cleaning) I said, "Of course, but why?" He explained that some of his friends had seen his guns in his closet and wanted to take them out and shoot them. He said, "They think that they are toys!" None of his friends were trained in Hunter Safety; he moved the guns.

Ten years later, my son gave all of his guns to an Uncle, who lived in another State. This Uncle had the authority to transfer the guns State to State. The reason that my son gave up his guns is that he no longer trusted himself, because we had learned that he is schizophrenic. So in this case, good sense and training beat out insanity.
Xris wrote:From A UK perspective you are all just little mad to even consider wanting a gun.
Now I could be wrong because MS (Multiple Sclerosis) does play with my memory, but wasn't it sometime in the 1940's that the UK was damned glad to see a bunch of American's with guns? Something about being bombed? My how fickle we can be.
Mike A wrote:A government that operates as if it gives its citizens rights, is a government that can take those rights away.
I agree with the above statement by Mike A, and with Wanabe and Spiral Out. My Grandparents remembered the fiasco that was Prohibition, and the corruption that came out of that. We ended up with the FBI carrying guns, corruption in our city and State governments, and Mafia. The 1960's, I believe, was the time when people were protesting the Viet Nam war, and there was a protest at one of the colleges, don't remember the name. The government got a little out of control and killed a bunch of college kids.

In the 1970's my State decided to step up the war on drugs, so they granted a narcotics squad rights to search and seizure that went way beyond anything reasonable. A friend of mine had rented a room to a guy, who was selling drugs, but my friend didn't know about it. This squad came into my friend's house and completely destroyed everything in it, including all of his very expensive musical equipment, guitars, drums, amplifiers, looking for drugs. They found none, but there was no recourse for my friend with regard to the damage, because his renter did sell drugs. My friend lost his ability to make a living, because he worked as a musician, so he lost his home. The narcotics squad only lasted a few years, but a lot of damage was done.

Right now in Michigan, if you have a drink or two then drive, it can destroy your life. Even if you have never had an accident, if you have never had a ticket, if you are the best driver around, it is irrelevant. Just the fact that you had a drink makes you a criminal. But there are bars all over the State that are regulated and taxed by the State, and these bars have some very large parking lots. This makes no sense. Now if you had a ticket for some other driving infraction, or if you had an accident, and were also drinking, this might make some sense, but this is not how the law was written.

A lot of people like to talk about drunk truck drivers. OK. Consider this: If you are a professional truck driver, and you live in Michigan, and your Mother calls you to say that her washer is broken on one hot summer day, you go to fix it. She is grateful and offers you a cold beer after you have finished. You drink half of the beer then head out to drive the six blocks to your house. Another vehicle runs through a red light and broadsides your car--obviously not your fault. But because you are a professional driver, you are required to submit to an alcohol and drug test immediately. There is alcohol in your system so you lose your license, your ability to work, maybe your home, then your wife divorces you because you are no longer a provider. Statistics will state that one more truck driver was involved in an alcohol related accident.

When laws make criminals out of people, who have committed no crime, the law is corrupt.

I think that I have a right to own a gun. A law prohibiting that right would be a corruption because it would make me a criminal without my having committed a crime.

Gee

User avatar
wanabe
Moderator
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by wanabe » May 14th, 2013, 12:25 am

Xris,

"Police in the UK do carry weapons but not on a regular basis." That's understandable, people should be the same way. "So are certain members of the public permitted through license to own certain guns." Yes license to own and operate whatever weapon a person wants, that fires solid projectiles that do not explode, provided they pass an ability and safety test. If people are trained with the weapons proper use it will only be dangerous to those that use guns for crimes or war against a trainee or 3rd party. To be used train for and prevent further violence in extreme circumstances. Essentially creating a public militia that is democratic in nature rather than authoritarian.

Is there a need for that? If people participated in this we may not need to have large scale troop moments or wars that the majority of the public don't want to be involved in.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Should People Be Allowed to Own Guns?

Post by Londoner » May 14th, 2013, 3:22 am

Spiral Out wrote: Therefore, alcohol and cars are more dangerous than firearms.
That alcohol and cars can be dangerous to others is recognised, so their use is regulated by law. Similarly, the use of firearms should be regulated.

Presumably we are all OK with some regulations? For example, people should not be allowed to board aircraft equipped with guns? Or take flame-throwers into infant schools? Or that gangsters in prison should not be allowed to equip themselves with machine-guns?

OK - well what are the reasons behind these regulations? Might those reasons apply in other circumstances? For example, if we do not allow convicts to own guns because they have shown themselves to be dangerous individuals, should we allow people with mental problems to buy them? If we allow institutions to ban guns in places where they have no legitimate purpose, why shouldn't that principle be extended to everywhere outside the home or recognised sporting venues?

So this isn't about 'people should be allowed to own guns'; nobody sensible would suggest that. Nor that all guns can be removed from the world. We are discussing which people, in what circumstances.

Post Reply