Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

I've not argued that limits shouldn't be placed

Attaboy!

You literally ignore everything in my post to play your games.

Dude, I quoted and responded to everything you said to me (except in this post). My only "game" is taking you to mean what you say. You questioned whether limiting guns limits freedom. I explained that it does, by definition. You coming back with justifications for limiting that freedom does nothing to further the discussion of whether limiting guns limits freedom.

 

[eBay Huckster]

you can't build anything with them

I was going to post a picture of a building made entirely out of guns, but then I remembered there's already a video game with a name along those lines that would make this RIDICULOUSLY HARD TO FIND.

 

[Coriolanus]

Isn't there polling data that indicates that most americans favor things like restrictions on the acquisition of guns with background checks and the like?

If that is still the case, seems more like a rethorical battle that democrats have been doing a terrible job of fighting than anything else, really.

Also the fault of republican voters for putting people in charge that are for no checks at all because slippery slope, obv.

And yes, by definition, imposing limits restricts freedom. Whether one feels that is justified in this specific issue (i personally do), it changes not the fact that it is a restriction on a currently enjoyed/perceived freedom.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Attaboy!



Dude, I quoted and responded to everything you said to me (except in this post). My only "game" is taking you to mean what you say. You questioned whether limiting guns limits freedom. I explained that it does, by definition. You coming back with justifications for limiting that freedom does nothing to further the discussion of whether limiting guns limits freedom.

Who cares? Seriously. This is your shtick ignore the reality of your positions. and belittle some tiny point

 

[speculawyer]

How does limiting guns restrict freedom? Is europe less free because its not a right to own a gun?

Uh yeah . . . they are less 'free'. But they are also less likely to be killed by a gun and that outweighs the freedom to play with guns. It is a balancing act.

For some reason that I don't find logical, we accept the 30,000 or so gun deaths each year as the price to pay for us to play with guns.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

And I still take issue with restrictions take freedom, because the nature of living limits freedom. take away all state restrictions and there are restrictions based on living with others imbalances in power, physical limits, etc. Meaning freedom is an artificial thing. Its something we can only understand in a political construct. Which doesn't say limited lead is freedom reducing

 

[Metaphoreus]

Who cares? Seriously. This is your shtick ignore the reality of your positions. and belittle some tiny point

You care! You chose this topic!

Come on, this is pathetic.

 

[ivysaur12]

You're thinking about the concept of "freedom" differently.

There is no state (hi benji). There are no laws. I literally can do whatever I want in my Ayn Rand-The-Anthem-esque state of purity. We can call that state Freedom. But most of us (hi bneji) don't want to live in such a world, so we make trade offs. That can be through a social contract and the rule of law.

Even simpler, I am less free having to stop at red lights than I am being able to drive whenever. Traffic lights inhibit my freedom. However, we've decided -- as a society -- that traffic lights are a necessary restriction on freedom to serve a public good.

Yes, there is an idea of "limiting freedom" when it comes to restricting gun ownership. Of course there is. I don't really think that's up for debate. The actual policy debate should come from if there is a reason that we should restrict gun ownership to certain people or try to slow or curb gun sales.

That's also talking outside of a 2nd Amendment context.

 

[Fenderputty]

Why is hunting an ok exemption but target shooting not?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You're thinking about the concept of "freedom" differently.

There is no state (hi benji). There are no laws. I literally can do whatever I want in my Ayn Rand-The-Anthem-esque state of purity. We can call that state Freedom. But most of us (hi bneji) don't want to live in such a world, so we make trade offs. That can be through a social contract and the rule of law.

Even simpler, I am less free having to stop at red lights than I am being able to drive whenever. Traffic lights inhibit my freedom. However, we've decided -- as a society -- that traffic lights are a necessary restriction on freedom to serve a public good.

Yes, there is an idea of "limiting freedom" when it comes to restricting gun ownership. Of course there is. I don't really think that's up for debate. The actual policy debate should come from if there is a reason that we should restrict gun ownership to certain people or try to slow or curb gun sales.

That's also talking outside of a 2nd Amendment context.

There still is no freedom here, in this world. Some are more powerful than others, some have more, some have disabilities, some are smarter. Some are struck by lightning, some are killed in storms, eaten by animals.

My points was nobody in the normal political sense of the word says limitations on paint are a limitations on freedom (well libertarians and insane republicans do but that's part of my point, how insane things are getting). We understand that there is a reason. But because people love their guns, we list that with other "freedoms" like speech, due process, etc. My frustration is guns are somehow special. And still nobody has given me a reason besides "collecting, and fun". Europe isn't called less free even though they have restrictions on "freedom" on guns. Because they don't have this fetish.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

At my university, some Young Republicans group was giving out free root beer floats to anyone that signed up as a Republican, lol. Come on, it's fucking Utah, you don't need to bribe people to become Republicans.

Us (Citizens Climate Lobby) and Amnesty International spent some time trolling them with "I Support Planned Parenthood" stickers and Donald Trump jokes though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Why is hunting an ok exemption but target shooting not?

There exists alternatives to target shooting with live rifles, BBs, air pistols, etc (I'm fine with it being legal but you shouldn't own the guns at your home for that reason, and they should stay on the range). What reason is their to target shoot. It seems to me the main reason is because there's no other real way to use it! Which kind of proves its in-utility and purpose as a killing machine

Hunting is something where you need to transport weapons and might be living in the wild. There should still be heavy heavy restriction on them.

Again, my main issue is the fact that its a right, that the government must justifiably take away. Not that you must prove responsible for. That's my biggest issue. But this would be a de facto ban for most because there's very few needs or justifiable uses for guns.

 

[thepotatoman]

Target Point has a poll where respondents had to rate each candidate on a scale of 1-7, allowing them to create this fancy graph:

Pretty much what most of us expected about which candidates are closer to Trump or Bush, but always nice to see data behind it.

They made lots of other fancy graphs too.

 

[ivysaur12]

There still is no freedom here, in this world. Some are more powerful than others, some have more, some have disabilities, some are smarter. Some are struck by lightning, some are killed in storms, eaten by animals.

My points was nobody in the normal political sense of the word says limitations on paint are a limitations on freedom (well libertarians and insane republicans do but that's part of my point, how insane things are getting). We understand that there is a reason. But because people love their guns, we list that with other "freedoms" like speech, due process, etc. My frustration is guns are somehow special. And still nobody has given me a reason besides "collecting, and fun". Europe isn't called less free even though they have restrictions on "freedom" on guns. Because they don't have this fetish.

Not all restrictions of freedoms are bad. In fact, I would argue that to restrict an individual freedom, there needs to be a net good that comes out of it, especially for the collective whole. Limiting gun ownership is a limiting an individual freedom, the same way we require licensing by the government to fly commercial aircrafts and require you to stop at stop lights. That doesn't mean limiting individual freedoms is necessarily a bad thing. Just that that is what this is, even technically. But if it's to promote a public good, then great! Do it!

 

[Fenderputty]

For some reason that I don't find logical, we accept the 30,000 or so gun deaths each year as the price to pay for us to play with guns.

About 15 to 20k people each year die from over the counter NSAID's. Another 100k plus are hospitalized. We accept those deaths yearly so people can stop a headache.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Huh, I'm not sure about Jindal being closer to Bush than Trump.

 

[Sianos]

It's a weird argument. The basic argument should be that guns pose more of a risk to others than do narcotics, therefore those others (i.e., society in general) have more of an interest in prohibiting the former than the latter. The rest is unnecessary and wrong. A person (even one who poses no threat to him or herself or others) might illegally obtain a gun if, for instance, it's cheaper than obtaining one through the proper channels. There's nothing inherently blameworthy in that motive (aside from its illegality, I mean). And a person for whom possession is illegal in all instances may nevertheless possess one because he or she believes it necessary or useful for purposes of self-defense. So the inferences you draw aren't justified.

Yeah, you're right about price being a motive for buying illegal guns that isn't necessarily suspicious, although there is still the danger of introducing unaccounted for guns into the country. My point also assumes that a mandatory gun registration has been established and therefore the introduction unaccounted for guns would undermine that... which would be a reasonable concern, except for the fact that policy doesn't exist yet. Not sure how that one got by me.

However, I disagree about a person for whom possession is deemed illegal being allowed to or justified in possessing guns for self-defense. If a person is barred from owning a gun because of their unstable mental state, especially if they have disorders that affect perception of reality like paranoid schizophrenia or psychotic tendencies, I do not think allowing them to own and use a gun is prudent for their own safety and more importantly the safety of others around them. Especially if they exhibit delusional paranoia, a case in which the sufferer would feel very strongly that they need to defend themselves against the subject of their paranoia, even if outside of their obfuscated perspective there is no real threat.

I blame typing on the phone for my terrible meandering, even this post has terrible syntax.

 

[Butts-a-plenty]

You care! You chose this topic!

Come on, this is pathetic.

I default to human rights and freedoms enshrined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Freedoms and rights that are necessary for humans to live in dignity without impeding on the freedom and rights of others.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
^ Top

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
^ Top

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
^ Top

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
^ Top

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
^ Top

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
^ Top

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
^ Top

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
^ Top

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
^ Top

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
^ Top

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
^ Top

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
^ Top

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
^ Top

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
^ Top

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
^ Top

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
^ Top

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
^ Top

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
^ Top

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
^ Top

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
^ Top

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
^ Top

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
^ Top

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
^ Top

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
^ Top

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
^ Top

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
^ Top

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
^ Top

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
^ Top

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
^ Top

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

The idea that owning a gun is a universal freedom is no less equally absurd that the freedom to own weapons grade uranium as a hobby is.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

About 25 to 30k people each year die from over the counter NSAID's. Another 100k plus are hospitalized. We accept those deaths yearly so people can stop a headache.

First of all NSAID's do far more than stop headaches.

And second of all you have yet to give me the positive of gun ownership. What is it. What is the purpose?

I can list many for NSAIDs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsteroidal_anti-inflammatory_drug#Medical_uses

I default to human rights and freedoms enshrined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Freedoms and rights that are necessary for humans to live in dignity without impeding on the freedom and rights of others.



The idea that owning a gun is a universal freedom is no less equally absurd that the freedom to own weapons grade uranium as a hobby is.

This is a much better post than mine

 

[HyperionX]

Regulating isn't outright banning. One is a limit on a freedom the other is the removal.

The vast majority of gun owners aren't harming anyone. The vast majority are fine with limits being placed on their freedom. They just don't want it removed.

What have we learned from police brutality threads? When possibly hundreds of people are being wrongly killed by cops every year, and nothing is being done to stop it after each event, and this has been going on for decades, then you can no longer blame it on a "just a few bad apples" anymore. You can no longer say that most cops are good and get away with it because it's clearly a problem that involves all cops, good or bad.

Gun owners are in the same boat. The gun owning community has completely failed to police itself for a long time, and has been actively trying to prevent anyone else from policing it either. So this type of excuse needs to stop. It's a problem that involves all gun owners, even supposedly good ones.

I'll take that as a withdrawal of the statements.

You basically are demanding others to play your game and anything less than that is something you consider to be a win for yourself. I've seen this tactic before and it's basically a way to annoy the other person and it doesn't contribute anything.

 

[ivysaur12]

I default to human rights and freedoms enshrined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Freedoms and rights that are necessary for humans to live in dignity without impeding on the freedom and rights of others.



The idea that owning a gun is a universal freedom is no less equally absurd that the freedom to own weapons grade uranium as a hobby is.

You're conflating the idea of universal freedom = common good/human right, with just a blank statement that "freedom" is the ability to do whatever, whenever. Unlimited murder! Arms races of personal use of uranium! These are not good things. These are bad things. Yet in a world with no laws, you would have the freedom to do such things. We cannot do that. We've decided, as we should, that the common good in these situations outweighs the freedom of the individual to murder whomever without consequence.

That also isn't really what the policy debate is about.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Poll thread got locked. Let's keep the poll discussion here.

Don't start troll threads, and don't start a new thread for every poll, especially a Rasmussen poll. My electric weenie is more accurate.

 

[Coriolanus]

I default to human rights and freedoms enshrined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Freedoms and rights that are necessary for humans to live in dignity without impeding on the freedom and rights of others.

The idea that owning a gun is a universal freedom is no less equally absurd that the freedom to own weapons grade uranium as a hobby is.

Freedoms aren't the same thing as rights. How legislators view freedoms and rights determines how laws are crafted. Western legislators tend to favour the view that citizens have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want unless there's a law limiting that freedom (usually with the expectation that the limit is For The Greater Good), and then give special protection to certain freedoms and craft (or recognize) rights as needed.

The (old) alternative view is the authocratic german/prussian model, where you can only do what the state allows you to do. We've shied away from that quite a long while ago.

It's like, y'all thinking Meta is arguing from some libertarian viewpoint of all the freedoms all the time that he wants to defend. He ain't. He's just explaining how it's setup from a legal perspective, and then expecting people to defend their arguments.

 

[User1608]

My simplistic opinion on what's happening right now in regards to mass shootings and gun violence in general; the problem is a combination of guns and people. To me, there isn't an argument we need common sense gun control and background checks, because clearly, way too many rotten/broken people have access to firearms way too easily. I don't know really. I'm just saddened and depressed that people continue to die for nothing. I absolutely do support a person's right to bear arms though. Reluctantly but eh.

 

[Retromelon]

Poll thread got locked. Let's keep the poll discussion here.

Don't start troll threads, and don't start a new thread for every poll, especially a Rasmussen poll. My electric weenie is more accurate.

Modbot?

 

[speculawyer]

Why is hunting an ok exemption but target shooting not?

I'd refer target shooting be legal and hunting not. That way you could have everyone lock up their guns in a secure store room at the range.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Trump has passed Walker on Predictwise's betting markets:

http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination

 

[Fenderputty]

First of all NSAID's do far more than stop headaches.

And second of all you have yet to give me the positive of gun ownership. What is it. What is the purpose?

I can list many for NSAIDs

I intentionally used the dumbed down "headache" because I felt "play with guns" is dumbed down too.

What purpose will suffice for you? Does it need a practical purpose? Why is enjoyment and enrichment of ones life not valid? Hunting and target shooting in my family was a way for the men to get together and bond. My father, uncles, cousins and grandparents. A way for the men to get away from the women, curse tell stories and have a couple beers. It's both cultural and generational in my family so it's not a tradition easily replaced.

 

[benjipwns]

(unless we talking administrative law, in which case it's the reverse)

*guffaw*

 

[adamsappel]

Yeah, it is the old "Those who forget the problems of the past are doomed to repeat them." The EPA is another good example. The country is pretty clean these days . . . well all the young people weren't around when Los Angeles was a toxic soup of smog, the Cuyahoga River was on fire, and Love Canal was poisoning people.

I'm almost 49 years old and I grew up just as the government was attempting to change public behavior about littering with campaigns like Woodsy Owl and Iron Eyes Cody. People really used to just toss trash at their feet, then suddenly there were trashcans all over the place (and you still had people just throwing trash). Gum was everywhere. But it actually turned around pretty quickly, it seemed. A decade, maybe. Too bad 9/11 got people so spooked that public trashcans are fewer.

You talking about dudes that have been keeping the bullet market drained for nearly 8 straight years now, all out of some remote fear that the black man in charge might come for their guns, and who then proceed to think that the bullet shortage is happening not because they're buying everything, but because the mooslem in charge is using his subtle ways to curtail bullet production.

If gun store owners were smart, they'd vote Democrat.

What's odd about this is that it's .22 caliber ammo that's hardest to find. I've got a 1890's pump .22 rifle I can't shoot because of it.

Any clue why .22 is so hoarded?

Are we really going to get into semanticall arguments about freedom?

Freedom is a semantical argument.

If one in three Americans owns a gun then there's 100 million gun owners in the U.S. It isn't stupid at all to say "vast majority"

Does one in three Americans own a gun, or are there 300 million guns in the US? I'm genuinely curious, I don't know the statistic. I'm a gun owner, but I own inherited guns. How am I counted?

Why is hunting an ok exemption but target shooting not?

I know I would prefer that the people who are allowed to shoot guns in this scenario are also allowed to practice at it.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I intentionally used the dumbed down "headache" because I felt "play with guns" is dumbed down too.

What purpose will suffice for you? Does it need a practical purpose? Why is enjoyment and enrichment of ones life not valid? Hunting and target shooting in my family was a way for the men to get together and bond. My father, uncles, cousins and grandparents. A way for the men to get away from the women, curse tell stories and have a couple beers. It's both cultural and generational in my family so it's not a tradition easily replaced.

Its a dangerous weapon. It kills, accidents happen. I don't know why you can't replace gun with machine gun in that. But we're not seeing people argue for them having that.

But I really think its sad that we're unable to severely limit gun ownership because some family's will have to find other hobbies. We've banned cock fighting, bear baiting, hunting of endangered animals that have lead to people losing things they used to bond over. The thought that outweighs peoples lives is scary IMO. You having no guns to bond over just isn't a horrible loss and is worth the society benefit of having so many more people live long lives.

 

[Coriolanus]

*guffaw*

Did i really need to put an asterisk in there with in theory?

 

[speculawyer]

About 15 to 20k people each year die from over the counter NSAID's. Another 100k plus are hospitalized. We accept those deaths yearly so people can stop a headache.

Well, those people largely caused their own problems by taking the meds inncorrectly whereas guns often kill people that did not buy or use the gun. And we have also moved to change that situation with various pain killers. Take a look at the warning labels on Tylenol and any multisymptom cold medicine that contains Tylenol. They have taken steps to hopefully improve the situation.

 

[benjipwns]

This entire discussion is silly for entertaining the notion that rights can be taken away. They aren't rights then, they're privileges. Driver's licenses and their accompanying access grants aren't any kind of rights, they're a set of privileges granted by the state.

Privileges may be so universally granted so as to seem like rights, but that doesn't make them so. The Scandinavian model for example.

The Second Amendment, like the rest of most of the Constitution, places a limitation on government infringement of rights. It doesn't *grant* anything to the people, only the federal government.

The reverse would be like the Canadian Constitution which lists a whole bunch of shit with the starting clause that "any of this can be taken away at any time because the government feels it wants to" or the Soviet Constitution which did the same thing but way funnier.

Did i really need to put an asterisk in there with in theory?

No, no, it's accurate. Guilty until proven guilty or settlement reached with no admission of guilt.

 

[Fenderputty]

Any clue why .22 is so hoarded?

Freedom is a semantical argument.

Does one in three Americans own a gun, or are there 100 million guns in the US? I'm genuinely curious, I don't know the statistic. I'm a gun owner, but I own inherited guns. How am I counted?


I know I would prefer that the people who are allowed to shoot guns in this scenario are also allowed to practice at it.

I'm not sure why it's so hoarded. It's been years since I've been able to find ammo. I really like my old west 1890's rifle too. It shoots shorts though, which are even harder to find.

It can be semanticall. I felt the post of mine APK quoted set the definition though.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031

I agree. Banning target shooting is a great way to make sure the people who can use a gun don't know how to.

 

[Sianos]

The issue is the confusion between the literal meaning of freedom and the connotations Americans have attached to the word freedom. When Meta says that banning guns limits freedom, this is an objectively true statement in the sense that if two countries are theoretically identical in terms of policy except for gun laws, the country that bans guns is "less free" than the country that allows them. But in American politics, the word freedom is associated with positive feelings and patriotism, so naturally anything that takes away a freedom must be bad (/s, but I've seen this line of attribution before), which is why people try so hard to avoid saying that something restricts a freedom, even if it "by definition" does.

Of course you could also argue that a person using a gun in an aggressive manner is limiting another person's freedom by taking away the victim's right to life and the pursuit of happiness. The people killed by mass shooters have objectively lost all of their freedoms, because being dead limits a person's ability to do something they would be otherwise capable of doing to the maximum possible extent. Dead people aren't traditionally considered to be without freedom, but "by definition" they have had all of their freedoms taken away by their killers.

The point of contention isn't whether limiting guns limits freedom (yes, it does by definition), but rather the task at hand is to find the balance between preserving the freedom for people to own guns and preserving the ability of other people to exercise their freedoms without having those freedoms taken away by the illegal use of a gun. I personally think that mandatory psychological evaluations when buying a gun and renewing your license, gun safe laws, and mandatory gun registration by serial number making it so that the possession of unaccounted for guns is illegal are all reasonable restrictions that would protect the freedoms of innocent people while preserving the freedom of law-abiding citizens to use their guns for sport.


(aw yeah keyboard post looks and feels so much better)

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not sure why it's so hoarded. It's been years since I've been able to find ammo. I really like my old west 1890's rifle too. It shoots shorts though, which are even harder to find.

It can be semanticall. I felt the post of mine APK quoted set the definition though.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/one-three-americans-own-guns-culture-factor-study-finds-n384031

I agree. Banning target shooting is a great way to make sure the people who can use a gun don't know how to.

I'm not in favor of most people owning guns. And of course in my perfect world would have to pass training courses. But your using target shooting as a reason why people who already have guns should be allowed to have them or as a reason why people should have them

 

[Fenderputty]

Its a dangerous weapon. It kills, accidents happen. I don't know why you can't replace gun with machine gun in that. But we're not seeing people argue for them having that.

But I really think its sad that we're unable to severely limit gun ownership because some family's will have to find other hobbies. We've banned cock fighting, bear baiting, hunting of endangered animals that have lead to people losing things they used to bond over. The thought that outweighs peoples lives is scary IMO. You having no guns to bond over just isn't a horrible loss and is worth the society benefit of having so many more people live long lives.

This is silly. Bear baiting, cock fighting and killing endangered animals all result in a negative outcome 100% of the time. Target shooting and hunting do not in the majority of cases

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This is silly. Bear baiting, cock fighting and killing endangered animals all result in a negative outcome 100% of the time. Target shooting and hunting do not in the majority of cases

but there are far to many not "majority of cases". Again your proving my point, we're ok with those "minority of cases" because its fun.

Again, I'm not in favor of whole sale banning them but I'm against private gun ownership unless someone passes a very rigorous test, like they have in Europe. I don't believe they should be legal public, I believe they should all be registered, and the right shouldn't be perpetual.

You say 'responsible gun owners' aren't against common sense regulations. What of those aren't common sense? (the underline) ignoring my feelings on target shooting

 

[Metaphoreus]

You're thinking about the concept of "freedom" differently.

Your post is essentially my point. Limiting gun ownership, possession, or use is a limit on the freedom to own, possess, or use guns. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be limits; it means those limits have to be justified.

There still is no freedom here, in this world.

I eagerly await HyperionX's opinion on how popular this conception of freedom is.

In any event, in your posts, you're setting up a false dilemma: people have to give up their guns or else people keep being murdered. But the connection between gun ownership and murder is pretty tenuous, given the number of guns and the number of murders, and further, I suspect, given the data I mention in my response to Fenderputty, below. So gun owners have good reason to reject the profferred dilemma and insist that prevention efforts be focused elsewhere.

About 15 to 20k people each year die from over the counter NSAID's. Another 100k plus are hospitalized. We accept those deaths yearly so people can stop a headache.

I think there's a stronger case that could be made here, but I don't have the data to make it. APK (and others) characterize guns as designed solely for killing. The implication is that that's all they're good for. But I suspect that if you counted the bullets-fired-per-death and compared it with, say, NSAIDs-taken-per-death, guns would end up looking awfully inefficient at killing, given how they're used in reality. I think that's a good reason to question the solely-for-killing characterization.

However, I disagree about a person for whom possession is deemed illegal being allowed to or justified in possessing guns for self defense. If a person is barred from owning a gun because of their unstable mental state, especially if they have disorders that affect perception of reality like paranoid schizophrenia or psychotic tendencies, I do not think allowing them to own and use a gun is prudent for their own safety and more importantly the safety of others around them. Especially if they exhibit delusional paranoia, a case in which the sufferer would feel very strongly that they need to defend themselves against the subject of their paranoia, even if outside of their obfuscated perspective there is no real threat.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should lift the prohibitions that keep certain particularly dangerous people from owning guns. I'm just saying, as a matter of fact, such people might own a gun for perfectly legitimate reasons, like self-defense. So, we shouldn't infer from their mere ownership of a gun that they had malicious intentions.

I default to human rights and freedoms enshrined in the UDHR and ICCPR. Freedoms and rights that are necessary for humans to live in dignity without impeding on the freedom and rights of others.

The idea that owning a gun is a universal freedom is no less equally absurd that the freedom to own weapons grade uranium as a hobby is.

So, the right to "security of person" is just kind of sitting there toothless, huh?

You basically are demanding others to play your game and anything less than that is something you consider to be a win for yourself. I've seen this tactic before and it's basically a way to annoy the other person and it doesn't contribute anything.

It's not a game. It's a conversation. I don't know how you're drawing the line between a libertarian conception of freedom and restricting the freedoms of others. As far as I know, the libertarian conception of freedom specifically excludes such restrictions. And, you claim that this libertarian conception of freedom would not be accepted by most people. That's either a statement subject to empirical confirmation, or a purely rhetorical device meant to make a weak argument appear stronger.

In any event, if you're unwilling to explain or defend your statements, why should I or anyone else take them seriously?

 

[benjipwns]

The point of contention isn't whether limiting guns limits freedom (yes, it does by definition), but rather the task at hand is to find the balance between preserving the freedom for people to own guns and to preserving the ability of other people to exercise their freedoms without having those freedoms taken away by the illegal use of a gun.

Let's further note here that the "ideal" is to restrict the freedoms/rights of the law abiding because of the criminal acts of others. Not because of anything the law abiding have done except desire to own an object similar to those a criminal has used in an illegal manner.

 

[pigeon]

There still is no freedom here, in this world. Some are more powerful than others, some have more, some have disabilities, some are smarter. Some are struck by lightning, some are killed in storms, eaten by animals.

My points was nobody in the normal political sense of the word says limitations on paint are a limitations on freedom (well libertarians and insane republicans do but that's part of my point, how insane things are getting). We understand that there is a reason. But because people love their guns, we list that with other "freedoms" like speech, due process, etc. My frustration is guns are somehow special. And still nobody has given me a reason besides "collecting, and fun". Europe isn't called less free even though they have restrictions on "freedom" on guns. Because they don't have this fetish.

I mean, I think the answer is straightforward, people just don't like it.

Guns are the tool the state uses to maintain their monopoly on violence. The carrot of cooperating with the state is that everything is better for everybody and overall the world is a better place when you voluntarily participate in society. The stick is that if you don't cooperate with the state, eventually the state will shoot you with a gun.

So the freedom to own guns is also the freedom to resist the state if it is abrogating your rights. That is what makes it distinct from the freedom to own lead paint.

You should know this already! It's the lesson of the Black Panthers.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I'm not playing these games

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I mean, I think the answer is straightforward, people just don't like it.

Guns are the tool the state uses to maintain their monopoly on violence. The carrot of cooperating with the state is that everything is better for everybody and overall the world is a better place when you voluntarily participate in society. The stick is that if you don't cooperate with the state, eventually the state will shoot you with a gun.

So the freedom to own guns is also the freedom to resist the state if it is abrogating your rights. That is what makes it distinct from the freedom to own lead paint.

You should know this already! It's the lesson of the Black Panthers.

You think the reason why people want guns to be legal is to defy the state? That seems unlikely because if someone felt the state was going to use violence on them, they wouldn't listen to the law anyways. This accounts for maybe the crazy NRA types but I'm talking about people like fenderputty, who's not crazy or stupid. Neither are the vast majority of gun owners. Who don't share this reasoning

It also doesn't account for the freedom to own other deadly weapons

 

[benjipwns]

Guns are the tool the state uses to maintain their monopoly on violence. The carrot of cooperating with the state is that everything is better for everybody and overall the world is a better place when you voluntarily participate in society. The stick is that if you don't cooperate with the state, eventually the state will shoot you with a gun.

The state only holding that "legitimacy" in the first place because the citizens granted it the power. Which means the power originates in the citizenry, not the state.

This shouldn't even be a libertarian/anarchist thing either. Not with Americans of all people.

 

[Fenderputty]

but there are far to many not "majority of cases". Again your proving my point, we're ok with those "minority of cases" because its fun.

Again, I'm not in favor of whole sale banning them but I'm against private gun ownership unless someone passes a very rigorous test, like they have in Europe. I don't believe they should be legal public, I believe they should all be registered, and the right shouldn't be perpetual.

You say 'responsible gun owners' aren't against common sense regulations. What of those aren't common sense? (the underline) ignoring my feelings on target shooting

I don't have an issue with your underlined points. I'm not sure what tests they have in Europe but I'm for stricter tests here.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't have an issue with your underlined points. I'm not sure what tests they have in Europe but I'm for stricter tests here.

I know funkypapa in OT is a Spanish gun owner. He sometimes comes into gun threads.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Also, guys, "semantical" isn't a word.

Unless it's some English thing, like those misplaced u's.

EDIT:

You think the reason why people want guns to be legal is to defy the state? That seems unlikely because if someone felt the state was going to use violence on them, they wouldn't listen to the law anyways.

So, what, they'd just conjure the guns out of thin air?

 

[Coriolanus]

The state only holding that "legitimacy" in the first place because the citizens granted it the power. Which means the power originates in the citizenry, not the state.

This shouldn't even be a libertarian/anarchist thing either. Not with Americans of all people.

Think the only systems that disagree with that are monarchies and intensely authocratic stuff, really.

I mean, one's basically going full L'État c'est moi if they disagree with that.

 

[benjipwns]

I mean, one's basically going full L'État c'est moi if they disagree with that.

"Après moi, le déluge" - Barack Hussein Obama