Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How come Bloomberg can have guns?

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 10:01:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have heard a lot of nonsense arguments in the gun rights debate, but one that just might top them all is the idea that Michael Bloomberg is somehow a hypocrite for having an armed security team while advocating for tighter gun control laws. The argument is normally framed as "He wants to disarm New Yorkers but has no problem arming himself". I never really thought anyone took this seriously till I saw it tonight on Hannity, who as usual went out and found the dumbest liberal he could find to defend it.

The argument is complete nonsense. Hannity tries to make his point by comparing Bloomberg to a woman who is being harassed, asking why can't the woman protect herself? She can. The woman has every right to hire an armed security team to protect her, the fact that she can't afford it is her problem. Bloomberg is the mayor of NYC. No matter what he does there will always be someone out there who will want to hurt him. If we the taxpayers are going to hire someone into a position that puts their life in danger, it is obvious that we should minimize that danger. That is common sense.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:16:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 10:01:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
No matter what he does there will always be someone out there who will want to hurt him.

Multiple people on live national television said they wanted to dress up in a uniform and shoot Alex Jones in the face with a semi-automatic AR-15. He doesn't have bodyguards.

If we the taxpayers are going to hire someone into a position that puts their life in danger, it is obvious that we should minimize that danger. That is common sense.

Oh, but being an average person has no likelyhood of being in danger. Thousands of people aren't violently assaulted each month.

Oh wait, all the Jews in Germany were all high profile people who's lives were in danger because of their posiiton! No. Average people have danger in their life too, don't be an idiot.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 11:17:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1764
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 12:41:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 11:16:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Multiple people on live national television said they wanted to dress up in a uniform and shoot Alex Jones in the face with a semi-automatic AR-15. He doesn't have bodyguards.

If he doesn't want bodyguards that is his choice.

Oh, but being an average person has no likelyhood of being in danger. Thousands of people aren't violently assaulted each month.

Oh wait, all the Jews in Germany were all high profile people who's lives were in danger because of their posiiton! No. Average people have danger in their life too,

So much fail that I think I would lose a few IQ points refuting directly. Let me try this: Would you wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle? Would you wear a helmet while walking down the street? Please explain the reason for discrepency in your answers, from there I will teach you the concept of different levels of danger and how it affects decisions in our daily lives.

don't be an idiot.

You're doing just fine for the both of us.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:13:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 10:01:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
I have heard a lot of nonsense arguments in the gun rights debate, but one that just might top them all is the idea that Michael Bloomberg is somehow a hypocrite for having an armed security team while advocating for tighter gun control laws. The argument is normally framed as "He wants to disarm New Yorkers but has no problem arming himself". I never really thought anyone took this seriously till I saw it tonight on Hannity, who as usual went out and found the dumbest liberal he could find to defend it.

The argument is complete nonsense. Hannity tries to make his point by comparing Bloomberg to a woman who is being harassed, asking why can't the woman protect herself? She can. The woman has every right to hire an armed security team to protect her, the fact that she can't afford it is her problem. Bloomberg is the mayor of NYC. No matter what he does there will always be someone out there who will want to hurt him. If we the taxpayers are going to hire someone into a position that puts their life in danger, it is obvious that we should minimize that danger. That is common sense.

In this frame, the logic doesn't flow as well as it should. Bloomberg does not have guns, in this case, so he is not arming himself.

The hypocrisy is that if people feel that guns offer protection (you yourself say that the woman has every right to hire ARMED security), why are they denying the average citizen the right to offer the same level of protection? Why should only security and police be allowed to have guns, the tool of choice for protection?

Perhaps this is a jobs bill...

Side point: Does Bloomberg want to ban all guns, or certain ones? If it is not all guns, then it is even worse of an analogy, as people will still have access to guns.
My work here is, finally, done.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:38:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course a lot of normal people get killed. That's because there are more of them. That doesn't mean that they are more likely to be targeted though.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:02:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
She has every right to hire an armed security team

Liberals: Accepting disparate treatment based on economic status, as long as it is treatment by the state and in accordance with their public policy goals, since the invention of zoning.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 6:53:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 10:01:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
I have heard a lot of nonsense arguments in the gun rights debate, but one that just might top them all is the idea that Michael Bloomberg is somehow a hypocrite for having an armed security team while advocating for tighter gun control laws. The argument is normally framed as "He wants to disarm New Yorkers but has no problem arming himself". I never really thought anyone took this seriously till I saw it tonight on Hannity, who as usual went out and found the dumbest liberal he could find to defend it.

Combes is back?!?!?!? Alright. FoxNEWS, you've regained my viewership!!!


The argument is complete nonsense. Hannity tries to make his point by comparing Bloomberg to a woman who is being harassed, asking why can't the woman protect herself? She can. The woman has every right to hire an armed security team to protect her, the fact that she can't afford it is her problem. Bloomberg is the mayor of NYC. No matter what he does there will always be someone out there who will want to hurt him. If we the taxpayers are going to hire someone into a position that puts their life in danger, it is obvious that we should minimize that danger. That is common sense.

I don't agree with a lot of Ron Paul's ideas, but I like his foreign policy policies, and even though I think he's a racist, I don't think he would let this affect how he did his job, and I think that with the end of the drug war and the end of the other wars, that Ron Paul would have done more for black rights than any other president since Lincoln.

Also, he loves his country and he's not so rigid that he won't change his opinion with new information.

And, he's a million times smarter than Hannity...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:04:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:13:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The hypocrisy is that if people feel that guns offer protection (you yourself say that the woman has every right to hire ARMED security), why are they denying the average citizen the right to offer the same level of protection? Why should only security and police be allowed to have guns, the tool of choice for protection?

No one is denying anyone the right to equal protection. The difference between Bloomberg and the woman is that Bloomberg has someone who is willing to pay for his security team. That would be the taxpayers, and the vast majority of taxpayers agree that when you hire someone for a job that puts their safety and even their life in danger then it is their responsibility to protect that person. This is not a controversial idea, that is why construction workers are supplied with hard hats.

But the crux of your argument seems to be that if guns offer protection then why are people denied protection? It seems simple to me, if everyone was protected to the level in which law enforcement was then law enforcement would have no advantage, leaving them inadequate to enforce the law.

Let me ask you, would you feel safer walking the streets of NYC if everyone had a gun on them? I live here and let me tell you, if that was the case then the next time a pedestrian flips off a cab I would run and duck.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:18:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:38:45 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Of course a lot of normal people get killed. That's because there are more of them. That doesn't mean that they are more likely to be targeted though.

Give me one reason why we should trust the government to have guns and not citizens? Give me ONE good reason.

Government killed 260 million people in the last 20th Century.
http://www.hawaii.edu...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
civil_rights_supporter
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:20:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:04:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:13:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The hypocrisy is that if people feel that guns offer protection (you yourself say that the woman has every right to hire ARMED security), why are they denying the average citizen the right to offer the same level of protection? Why should only security and police be allowed to have guns, the tool of choice for protection?

No one is denying anyone the right to equal protection. The difference between Bloomberg and the woman is that Bloomberg has someone who is willing to pay for his security team. That would be the taxpayers, and the vast majority of taxpayers agree that when you hire someone for a job that puts their safety and even their life in danger then it is their responsibility to protect that person. This is not a controversial idea, that is why construction workers are supplied with hard hats.

But the crux of your argument seems to be that if guns offer protection then why are people denied protection? It seems simple to me, if everyone was protected to the level in which law enforcement was then law enforcement would have no advantage, leaving them inadequate to enforce the law.

Let me ask you, would you feel safer walking the streets of NYC if everyone had a gun on them? I live here and let me tell you, if that was the case then the next time a pedestrian flips off a cab I would run and duck.

Not everyone needs to be armed to benefit from shall issue concealed carry permit laws.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:23:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:18:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 3:38:45 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Of course a lot of normal people get killed. That's because there are more of them. That doesn't mean that they are more likely to be targeted though.

Give me one reason why we should trust the government to have guns and not citizens? Give me ONE good reason.

Government killed 260 million people in the last 20th Century.
http://www.hawaii.edu...

How does the "government" kill a person. It's always a person on the other end of the weapon pointed at you.

Why shouldn't citizens have guns - because they're too lazy and/or stupid to use them for their constitutionally stated purpose, and since they are doing me no good as they were intended to do, and they cause the harm they do otherwise, the failure to exercise the right in its liberty protecting purpose necessarily means the right is forfeit.

Rights are just as much responsibilities as anything else, and Americans are not responsible with their weapons.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:33:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:23:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:18:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Give me one reason why we should trust the government to have guns and not citizens? Give me ONE good reason.

Government killed 260 million people in the last 20th Century.
http://www.hawaii.edu...

How does the "government" kill a person. It's always a person on the other end of the weapon pointed at you.

Wait, so there's no difference between people in government and people in private? Then why do people in government get guns but not people in private? According to you there's no difference.

Why shouldn't citizens have guns - because they're too lazy and/or stupid to use them for their constitutionally stated purpose, and since they are doing me no good as they were intended to do, and they cause the harm they do otherwise, the failure to exercise the right in its liberty protecting purpose necessarily means the right is forfeit.

Does that apply to the 1st Amendment as well? Too much cursing, too much media violence, too much profanity in music, too much media bias, you forfeit your free speech right?

Rights are just as much responsibilities as anything else, and Americans are not responsible with their weapons.

Yes they are. National Crime Victimization Survey says guns are used 100,000 times per year in self-defense, and that's a conservative estimate.
http://mobile.businessweek.com...

Btw, Americans aren't responsible drivers either, should we ban those too?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:20:16 PM, civil_rights_supporter wrote:
Not everyone needs to be armed to benefit from shall issue concealed carry permit laws.

At 1/29/2013 1:33:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wait, so there's no difference between people in government and people in private? Then why do people in government get guns but not people in private? According to you there's no difference.

Obviously the idea that everyone in society will be walking around with a gun is never going to happen, but from a logical perspective the idea that a person should have just as much of a right to carry one as a police officer leads to believing that everyone having a gun on them is safer. I will assume (for now) that neither of you two believe that.

If we recognize that everyone carrying a gun on them is not safer then that only leads to the conclusion that restrictions on who may be allowed to carry guns make us safer. The question is how far to restrict them. The idea that most gun control advocates believe is that the right to carry firearms in public should be limited to professionals who are trained to use them and tasked to protect others. That means cops, federal law enforcement, and armed security guards. These people are all heavily screened, monitored, and depend on their status of being trustworthy with a firearm to continue maintaining a living. There is no way to apply these factors to any and every ordinary citizen.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 2:50:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:04:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:13:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The hypocrisy is that if people feel that guns offer protection (you yourself say that the woman has every right to hire ARMED security), why are they denying the average citizen the right to offer the same level of protection? Why should only security and police be allowed to have guns, the tool of choice for protection?

No one is denying anyone the right to equal protection.
Only the means of protection.

The difference between Bloomberg and the woman is that Bloomberg has someone who is willing to pay for his security team. That would be the taxpayers, and the vast majority of taxpayers agree that when you hire someone for a job that puts their safety and even their life in danger then it is their responsibility to protect that person. This is not a controversial idea, that is why construction workers are supplied with hard hats.
The analogy would be if I am allowed to have a hard hat if doing anything around my home. Must I hire someone to be protected, whether it is a hard hat or firearm?

But the crux of your argument seems to be that if guns offer protection then why are people denied protection? It seems simple to me, if everyone was protected to the level in which law enforcement was then law enforcement would have no advantage, leaving them inadequate to enforce the law.
Really?
The police force would have strength in numbers, legal use of force, and training.

Let me ask you, would you feel safer walking the streets of NYC if everyone had a gun on them? I live here and let me tell you, if that was the case then the next time a pedestrian flips off a cab I would run and duck.
Is this what Bloomberg is proposing? Is he proposing a ban on ownership, or a ban on carrying in public? Either way, aren't their regulations in place that would prevent someone who would shoot someone over flipping one off from acquiring a gun (mental issue or criminal record), let alone being granted a permit for conceal and carry?

To answer your question, though. I would feel safest walking down any street if I had a gun, regardless if everyone else did or not. So, I suppose I would feel safer if everyone had a gun, instead of only the police (who aren't always around), armed guards (who cost money), and criminals.

This question is a bit of a straw man, however, since the issue is intellectual consistency, not practicality. Saying everyone on the streets of NYC ought not carry a gun is not the same as saying they cannot carry a gun.

Double_R, I am now asking you to state what Bloomburg is proposing that critics would make such analogies. When I hear "gun ban", I think it is not being able to OWN them. However, if the issue is CARRYING them in public, concealed or not, that is another issue. I have a major issue with the former and it is indeed hypocritical, but the latter is much less so, if at all.
My work here is, finally, done.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:20:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:30:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:20:16 PM, civil_rights_supporter wrote:
Not everyone needs to be armed to benefit from shall issue concealed carry permit laws.

At 1/29/2013 1:33:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wait, so there's no difference between people in government and people in private? Then why do people in government get guns but not people in private? According to you there's no difference.

Obviously the idea that everyone in society will be walking around with a gun is never going to happen, but from a logical perspective the idea that a person should have just as much of a right to carry one as a police officer leads to believing that everyone having a gun on them is safer. I will assume (for now) that neither of you two believe that.

If we recognize that everyone carrying a gun on them is not safer then that only leads to the conclusion that restrictions on who may be allowed to carry guns make us safer. The question is how far to restrict them. The idea that most gun control advocates believe is that the right to carry firearms in public should be limited to professionals who are trained to use them and tasked to protect others. That means cops, federal law enforcement, and armed security guards. These people are all heavily screened, monitored, and depend on their status of being trustworthy with a firearm to continue maintaining a living. There is no way to apply these factors to any and every ordinary citizen.

Using a gun with knowledge of basic gun safety is easier than driving a car with knowledge of the road rules.

A car is a 2,000 lb projectile that can move at 160 miles per hour and anyone can obtain a license and drive one.

According to the FBI, bats and knives kill more people than guns. Should we ban knives and bats?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
civil_rights_supporter
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 4:27:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:30:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:20:16 PM, civil_rights_supporter wrote:
Not everyone needs to be armed to benefit from shall issue concealed carry permit laws.

At 1/29/2013 1:33:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wait, so there's no difference between people in government and people in private? Then why do people in government get guns but not people in private? According to you there's no difference.

Obviously the idea that everyone in society will be walking around with a gun is never going to happen, but from a logical perspective the idea that a person should have just as much of a right to carry one as a police officer leads to believing that everyone having a gun on them is safer. I will assume (for now) that neither of you two believe that.

If we recognize that everyone carrying a gun on them is not safer then that only leads to the conclusion that restrictions on who may be allowed to carry guns make us safer. The question is how far to restrict them. The idea that most gun control advocates believe is that the right to carry firearms in public should be limited to professionals who are trained to use them and tasked to protect others. That means cops, federal law enforcement, and armed security guards. These people are all heavily screened, monitored, and depend on their status of being trustworthy with a firearm to continue maintaining a living. There is no way to apply these factors to any and every ordinary citizen.

Do not assume that I believe that a person carrying a gun is less safe than a person who is not armed. Also there is a way to apply the factors surrounding an armed citizen, it is called the 2nd Amendment.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 2:58:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 2:50:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:04:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
No one is denying anyone the right to equal protection.
Only the means of protection.

No one is denying the means of protection either. This really isn't that difficult.

The difference between Bloomberg and the woman is that Bloomberg has someone who is willing to pay for his security team. That would be the taxpayers, and the vast majority of taxpayers agree that when you hire someone for a job that puts their safety and even their life in danger then it is their responsibility to protect that person. This is not a controversial idea, that is why construction workers are supplied with hard hats.
The analogy would be if I am allowed to have a hard hat if doing anything around my home. Must I hire someone to be protected, whether it is a hard hat or firearm?

I am astonished that you are comparing your right to carry your hard hat around with you to carrying around a gun. That is not a valid analogy. And no, you don't need to hire someone to be protected. You can protect yourself. But if you need a gun to do that then you have serious issues, which is no reason for us to change our laws.

But the crux of your argument seems to be that if guns offer protection then why are people denied protection? It seems simple to me, if everyone was protected to the level in which law enforcement was then law enforcement would have no advantage, leaving them inadequate to enforce the law.
Really?
The police force would have strength in numbers, legal use of force, and training.

If I am a police officer walking around NYC and an altercation over someone looking at someone else's girl breaks out and they are both armed, I would hate to think that the advantage I have over them is my training. And if I have to call back up for such a simple incident then I just made my point.

Let me ask you, would you feel safer walking the streets of NYC if everyone had a gun on them? I live here and let me tell you, if that was the case then the next time a pedestrian flips off a cab I would run and duck.
Is this what Bloomberg is proposing? Is he proposing a ban on ownership, or a ban on carrying in public? Either way, aren't their regulations in place that would prevent someone who would shoot someone over flipping one off from acquiring a gun (mental issue or criminal record), let alone being granted a permit for conceal and carry?

Currently there are no laws I am aware of that would stop someone who might do something stupid with a gun should an incident occur and they just happened to have one on them from buying a gun. I'll have to research that one.

To answer your question, though. I would feel safest walking down any street if I had a gun, regardless if everyone else did or not. So, I suppose I would feel safer if everyone had a gun, instead of only the police (who aren't always around), armed guards (who cost money), and criminals.

Ok, so you would rather walk around in a society where you need a firearm to protect yourself as opposed to one where your fists would do just fine more then 99% of the time. That is your view. Most people do not share it.

This question is a bit of a straw man, however, since the issue is intellectual consistency, not practicality. Saying everyone on the streets of NYC ought not carry a gun is not the same as saying they cannot carry a gun.

To repeat an earlier point, if you believe that a society where no one is allowed to a carry gun is safer then a society where everyone is allowed to carry a gun then you have already admitted that restricting gun rights makes society safer. The question is simply how far to restrict them, and I don't see how following this to it's logical end will result in what you seem to be suggesting.

What I am getting from you is that your concern is really not about making society safer but rather making yourself safer, which makes no sense because they are directly related.

Double_R, I am now asking you to state what Bloomburg is proposing that critics would make such analogies. When I hear "gun ban", I think it is not being able to OWN them. However, if the issue is CARRYING them in public, concealed or not, that is another issue. I have a major issue with the former and it is indeed hypocritical, but the latter is much less so, if at all.

First of all when you hear "gun ban", it is usually coming from gun rights advocates strawmanning their opposition. No one is proposing a ban on guns, and even if so there would be no reason to take it seriously because it completely violates the 2nd amendment. Here is a good source on what Bloomberg is for:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But even if Bloomberg was proposing that, it still would not be hypocritical. The belief that only trained professionals who fit into the traits I mentioned earlier should be allowed to carry/own firearms is a reasonable position, and is perfectly valid with Bloomberg having a security team. Like I have said over and over, no one is stopping our hypothetical woman from hiring one as well. The only difference here is about how it gets paid for.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:03:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 3:20:54 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:30:08 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:20:16 PM, civil_rights_supporter wrote:
Not everyone needs to be armed to benefit from shall issue concealed carry permit laws.

At 1/29/2013 1:33:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wait, so there's no difference between people in government and people in private? Then why do people in government get guns but not people in private? According to you there's no difference.

Obviously the idea that everyone in society will be walking around with a gun is never going to happen, but from a logical perspective the idea that a person should have just as much of a right to carry one as a police officer leads to believing that everyone having a gun on them is safer. I will assume (for now) that neither of you two believe that.

If we recognize that everyone carrying a gun on them is not safer then that only leads to the conclusion that restrictions on who may be allowed to carry guns make us safer. The question is how far to restrict them. The idea that most gun control advocates believe is that the right to carry firearms in public should be limited to professionals who are trained to use them and tasked to protect others. That means cops, federal law enforcement, and armed security guards. These people are all heavily screened, monitored, and depend on their status of being trustworthy with a firearm to continue maintaining a living. There is no way to apply these factors to any and every ordinary citizen.

Using a gun with knowledge of basic gun safety is easier than driving a car with knowledge of the road rules.

A car is a 2,000 lb projectile that can move at 160 miles per hour and anyone can obtain a license and drive one.

According to the FBI, bats and knives kill more people than guns. Should we ban knives and bats?

Cars, knives, and bats all have practical uses in our society. Cars especially, are essential to the way our society functions. Completely irrelevant when comparing it to a gun, whose only purpose is to shoot people.

Could you provide me with a list of all of the mass murders which occurred by the use of a knife or a bat?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 3:08:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 4:27:36 PM, civil_rights_supporter wrote:
Do not assume that I believe that a person carrying a gun is less safe than a person who is not armed.

I didn't assume that. This discussion is about what will make society safer, unless you believe that making society safer does not result in the people who live in that society being safer. If that is the case I would love to hear how you explain that.

Also there is a way to apply the factors surrounding an armed citizen, it is called the 2nd Amendment.

???
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 5:53:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 2:58:08 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/29/2013 2:50:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 1/29/2013 1:04:28 PM, Double_R wrote:
No one is denying anyone the right to equal protection.
Only the means of protection.

No one is denying the means of protection either. This really isn't that difficult.
Please explain it, then. If me having a gun is the means of protection for myself, then denying me the ability to acquire a gun is denying me the ability to protect myself, since that is how armed security protects their client.

The difference between Bloomberg and the woman is that Bloomberg has someone who is willing to pay for his security team. That would be the taxpayers, and the vast majority of taxpayers agree that when you hire someone for a job that puts their safety and even their life in danger then it is their responsibility to protect that person. This is not a controversial idea, that is why construction workers are supplied with hard hats.
The analogy would be if I am allowed to have a hard hat if doing anything around my home. Must I hire someone to be protected, whether it is a hard hat or firearm?

I am astonished that you are comparing your right to carry your hard hat around with you to carrying around a gun. That is not a valid analogy. And no, you don't need to hire someone to be protected. You can protect yourself. But if you need a gun to do that then you have serious issues, which is no reason for us to change our laws.

I am astonished that you would misrepresent me like this. I said nothing of carrying my hard hat or a gun around town; I specifically said around my house. This was your analogy, and I am addressing the safety around my house specifically.

But the crux of your argument seems to be that if guns offer protection then why are people denied protection? It seems simple to me, if everyone was protected to the level in which law enforcement was then law enforcement would have no advantage, leaving them inadequate to enforce the law.
Really?
The police force would have strength in numbers, legal use of force, and training.

If I am a police officer walking around NYC and an altercation over someone looking at someone else's girl breaks out and they are both armed, I would hate to think that the advantage I have over them is my training. And if I have to call back up for such a simple incident then I just made my point.

As I said, there is a world of difference between conceal-and-carry and owning on personal property. If NYC can't handle conceal-and-carry, that is their deal, and not really my issue. However, even in NYC, if I cannot own a firearm for my home, that I have an issue with. Training and backup to execute an arrest warrant is hardly a simple incident.

Let me ask you, would you feel safer walking the streets of NYC if everyone had a gun on them? I live here and let me tell you, if that was the case then the next time a pedestrian flips off a cab I would run and duck.
Is this what Bloomberg is proposing? Is he proposing a ban on ownership, or a ban on carrying in public? Either way, aren't their regulations in place that would prevent someone who would shoot someone over flipping one off from acquiring a gun (mental issue or criminal record), let alone being granted a permit for conceal and carry?

Currently there are no laws I am aware of that would stop someone who might do something stupid with a gun should an incident occur and they just happened to have one on them from buying a gun. I'll have to research that one.

To answer your question, though. I would feel safest walking down any street if I had a gun, regardless if everyone else did or not. So, I suppose I would feel safer if everyone had a gun, instead of only the police (who aren't always around), armed guards (who cost money), and criminals.

Ok, so you would rather walk around in a society where you need a firearm to protect yourself as opposed to one where your fists would do just fine more then 99% of the time. That is your view. Most people do not share it.
1. My fists would not do the fine most of the time.
2. Generally speaking, fists would do fine unless confronted with a better weapon (gun, chain, bat, knife, etc.)
3. I would rather walk around in a society that criminals didn't exist.

This question is a bit of a straw man, however, since the issue is intellectual consistency, not practicality. Saying everyone on the streets of NYC ought not carry a gun is not the same as saying they cannot carry a gun.

To repeat an earlier point, if you believe that a society where no one is allowed to a carry gun is safer then a society where everyone is allowed to carry a gun then you have already admitted that restricting gun rights makes society safer. The question is simply how far to restrict them, and I don't see how following this to it's logical end will result in what you seem to be suggesting.

I have not admitted this point. I would concede that if no one actually carries a gun, it would be safer. But just not being allowed means little to me, as no one is allowed to steal from me, yet muggings happen for some reason.

What I am getting from you is that your concern is really not about making society safer but rather making yourself safer, which makes no sense because they are directly related.

If a criminal is less likely to target me because I may be armed, they will be less likely to target anyone because they may be armed. Thus, society is safer. Of course, if people are shooting each other for looking at each others' girls, then maybe not.

Double_R, I am now asking you to state what Bloomburg is proposing that critics would make such analogies. When I hear "gun ban", I think it is not being able to OWN them. However, if the issue is CARRYING them in public, concealed or not, that is another issue. I have a major issue with the former and it is indeed hypocritical, but the latter is much less so, if at all.

First of all when you hear "gun ban", it is usually coming from gun rights advocates strawmanning their opposition. No one is proposing a ban on guns, and even if so there would be no reason to take it seriously because it completely violates the 2nd amendment. Here is a good source on what Bloomberg is for:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Why can't you just tell me what he is planning? After all, you are the one critizing the opposition. It would make sense to hear what your interpretation of the plan is...

From speaking to you, it seems the issue is CARRYING a weapon, which if it is, I will gracefully back out of this argument, as I do not have a huge problem with cities denying this. I think it is better if they allow citizens to carry, but it is up to the city/state.

But even if Bloomberg was proposing that, it still would not be hypocritical. The belief that only trained professionals who fit into the traits I mentioned earlier should be allowed to carry/own firearms is a reasonable position, and is perfectly valid with Bloomberg having a security team. Like I have said over and over, no one is stopping our hypothetical woman from hiring one as well. The only difference here is about how it gets paid for.

Again, if the issue at hand is some sort of conceal-and-carry issue, then it is less hypocritical; I may even agree with your criticism. I do not quite see why someone has to be in the profession of armed security to carry a weapon, though.
My work here is, finally, done.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:22:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Double_R, The reasons given for Bloomberg being allowed armed security guards is that he can afford them, it s legal, they are trained, he needs them, and they have the force of numbers. You don't seem to deny that private citizens can have need for armed protection, but rather that they ought to be denied for the other reasons.

The argument "he can afford them" means "only wealthy people should e allowed to have the means of self-defense they need." That's self-evidently ridiculous. either you have a right to defend yourself or you don't.

The argument that bodyguards are legal and therefore allowed is circular. If we made the laws so that bodyguards were illegal ad concealed carry was legal, then the argument would work entirely for the opposing viewpoint. Being legal is not an argument for making something legal.

The force of numbers argument is invalid because having five unarmed body guards would be ineffective against one armed attacker. It isn't the numbers, it's the weapons that make the difference.

That the bodyguards a trained is an important point. It's not only being trained, but having a background checks that's important. So the question is then whether background checks and training requirements if applied to official bodyguards works, but training requirements and background checks applied to private citizens do not work. We have lots of data on that question because a number of states have "right to carry" laws by which any citizen who passes a background check and meets a training requirement is given a concealed-carry permit without proving need. Florida and the State of Washington are two examples.

The data are clear: citizens given permits under background and training requirements virtually never commit gun crimes. In Washington it was one crime in 50 years. In Florida the citizen rate is below the police rate, and no one was ever harmed by gun crime of a permitted citizen. The argument that only a few peope can be effectively checked and trained is plausible, but it's clearly false.

I think Bloomberg could escape the charge of hypocrisy by saying that he needs protection because guns are not universally banned, and he must deal with the present laws in which they are not. I don't know if he is saying that, but that's a legitimate defense. If he believes that universal ban would be effective, then he's a moron, not a hypocrite.

I think liberals have a religious belief: every citizen ought to belief that the State will protect them from harm. Those who do not hold that fundamental belief are apostate, and if they die from their lack of faith, they deserve it. those who die with the believe are saved and glorious, although still dead. The State, being the priestly class, cannot be compared to the commoners who ought to be obliged to believe in the State. This perfectly explains why Bloomberg, et al, deserve armed protection, by ordinary people to not. Bodyguards are allowed because they are bestowed with priestly status.

I hope you think my "priestly class" theory is ridiculous. The idea is absurd. But there is no other explanation for the absurdity that school children do not deserve armed protection but the Mayor does.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 9:53:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 10:01:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
I have heard a lot of nonsense arguments in the gun rights debate, but one that just might top them all is the idea that Michael Bloomberg is somehow a hypocrite for having an armed security team while advocating for tighter gun control laws. The argument is normally framed as "He wants to disarm New Yorkers but has no problem arming himself". I never really thought anyone took this seriously till I saw it tonight on Hannity, who as usual went out and found the dumbest liberal he could find to defend it.

The argument is complete nonsense. Hannity tries to make his point by comparing Bloomberg to a woman who is being harassed, asking why can't the woman protect herself? She can. The woman has every right to hire an armed security team to protect her, the fact that she can't afford it is her problem. Bloomberg is the mayor of NYC. No matter what he does there will always be someone out there who will want to hurt him. If we the taxpayers are going to hire someone into a position that puts their life in danger, it is obvious that we should minimize that danger. That is common sense.

Well, first off, I do agree that it's silly to use the fact that Mayor Bloomberg has a security team as an argument against gun control laws. Clearly, access to guns needs to be controlled. But, this doesn't mean that access to guns should be limited. It means that it should be controlled. John Stewart made some excellent points on this issue. For example, the fact that gun owners don't need to catalogue their gun ownership very often, and with little coercion for accuracy in this catalogue. Makes it pretty easy for them to get lost in the system and enter the black market as a result. Those guns have to come from somewhere.

However, there are several statements in this particular argument presented by the OP with which I have a real problem. First of all, the class in which a person falls should not determine how well they are able to protect him or herself under the law. Ragnar made a brilliant statement regarding that issue.

Second, I think that your equivocation between the risks experienced by the layman and the risks experienced by the New York City mayor are a joke. I don't remember the last time a mayor of NYC, or any politician for that matter, save for the President while he's overseas, was a victim of any sort of violent crime. However, violent crimes against regular New York City citizens are reported on the news every single day.

Not only do I believe that gun laws should be tighter, I also believe that self defense, both with and against guns, should be taught to everyone. Not only would it increase safety measures, but it would also decrease victimization by those who take it upon themselves to learn for the sake of hurting others from those who learned by hurting others.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 7:22:38 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
@Double_R, The reasons given for Bloomberg being allowed armed security guards is that he can afford them, it s legal, they are trained, he needs them, and they have the force of numbers. You don't seem to deny that private citizens can have need for armed protection, but rather that they ought to be denied for the other reasons.

The argument "he can afford them" means "only wealthy people should e allowed to have the means of self-defense they need." That's self-evidently ridiculous. either you have a right to defend yourself or you don't.

The last time I checked, armed security guards cost money. Not everyone has money. So if being unable to afford something = being denied the right to that something, and having armed security guards = the means of self defense one needs, then you are in favor of the state supplying armed security guards for every citizen. Now that is self-evidently ridiculous.

The argument that bodyguards are legal and therefore allowed is circular. If we made the laws so that bodyguards were illegal ad concealed carry was legal, then the argument would work entirely for the opposing viewpoint. Being legal is not an argument for making something legal.

That is a complete strawman. I simply pointed out the fact that armed security guards are legal to show that Bloomberg is not being hypocritical, which is the point of this thread.

The force of numbers argument is invalid because having five unarmed body guards would be ineffective against one armed attacker. It isn't the numbers, it's the weapons that make the difference.

I never made the force of numbers argument. Another strawman.

That the bodyguards a trained is an important point. It's not only being trained, but having a background checks that's important. So the question is then whether background checks and training requirements if applied to official bodyguards works, but training requirements and background checks applied to private citizens do not work.

No, the question is whether more guns on the streets is safer then less guns. If you believe more guns is safer then we have different views. If you believe less guns is safer, then how far should we go to restrict them? I think it is obvious that armed security guards would come before private citizens when it comes to who would be allowed to carry them. And I am not necessarily against private citizens carrying a gun, but I am very apprehensive as to what adding them to the pool of those allowed to carry would mean from a numbers standpoint.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 7:54:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 9:53:28 AM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
Second, I think that your equivocation between the risks experienced by the layman and the risks experienced by the New York City mayor are a joke. I don't remember the last time a mayor of NYC, or any politician for that matter, save for the President while he's overseas, was a victim of any sort of violent crime. However, violent crimes against regular New York City citizens are reported on the news every single day.

And you don't think that the fact that these guys travel with security teams guarding them might have something to do with that?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:08:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
While I agree that Bloomberg having armed guards while advocating for gun control or taking away guns completely is hypocritical in theory, in reality not having armed guards and being a high profile gov't official defies basic logic.

Regardless, the average person should also have the right to an armed guard, or to arm themselves, they face the same threats the President (or Bloomberg) does, just on a scaled down level.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2013 8:14:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 5:53:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am astonished that you would misrepresent me like this. I said nothing of carrying my hard hat or a gun around town; I specifically said around my house. This was your analogy, and I am addressing the safety around my house specifically.

Sorry then, I have no idea what the concept of your analogy response was. My analogy was simple: construction companies supply their workers with hard hats because they take personal responsibility for the safety of their employees. Bloomberg is an employee of NYC, and the danger he may faces is the result of his position. Therefore it is justified that NYC provide him with security.

If a criminal is less likely to target me because I may be armed, they will be less likely to target anyone because they may be armed. Thus, society is safer. Of course, if people are shooting each other for looking at each others' girls, then maybe not.

The analogy was an exaggeration, just in case you were wondering...

It is legal to carry around a knife yet criminals with knives still target other people, even though they may have a knife on them as well. I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I believe less guns makes society safer. You believe more guns makes society safer. I believe that a conflict where only one person has a gun is much less likely to result in a gun going off then a conflict where both people have a gun. You believe that the presence of more guns = less conflicts. I think that is absurd, but I am sure you will disagree, etc...

Why can't you just tell me what he is planning? After all, you are the one critizing the opposition. It would make sense to hear what your interpretation of the plan is...

That has little to do with the topic. This thread is about the argument that Bloomberg is a hypocrite for having an armed security team. So unless he is proposing to ban all armed security teams while maintaining his, he is not being a hypocrite. It is that simple, and no, he is not advocating that. If he is then I will recant...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:07:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/30/2013 8:14:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/30/2013 5:53:39 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I am astonished that you would misrepresent me like this. I said nothing of carrying my hard hat or a gun around town; I specifically said around my house. This was your analogy, and I am addressing the safety around my house specifically.

Sorry then, I have no idea what the concept of your analogy response was.
To illustrate the difference (and absurdity) between an outright gun ban (i.e. use of protection in the home) vs. a conceal and carry ban (i.e. use of protection in public). To say that I must hire someone to be secure in my home, whether from physical threats (security) or falling beams (hard hat), is ridiculous; I should be able to protect myself from harm INSIDE MY HOME regardless if I hire someone or not.

Being in public, that is another issue.
My analogy was simple: construction companies supply their workers with hard hats because they take personal responsibility for the safety of their employees. Bloomberg is an employee of NYC, and the danger he may faces is the result of his position. Therefore it is justified that NYC provide him with security.

There is a difference between providing him with security and him accepting it. The issue is in his accepting it. Obama refused to relinquish his Blackberry when taking office; an unneccessary risk, but his to take. Bloomberg could take the unnecessary risk of no armed security to show the courage of his convictions.

Why can't you just tell me what he is planning? After all, you are the one critizing the opposition. It would make sense to hear what your interpretation of the plan is...

That has little to do with the topic. This thread is about the argument that Bloomberg is a hypocrite for having an armed security team. So unless he is proposing to ban all armed security teams while maintaining his, he is not being a hypocrite. It is that simple, and no, he is not advocating that. If he is then I will recant...

Actually, it has everything to do with the topic. Since the issue is hypocrisy, we need to know both the initial stance and the contradictionary action. You explained the contradictionary action is his having an armed security, but without knowing what this contradicts, we can't assess the validity of the claim of hypocricy.

For example, he would be a hypocrite to publically denounce the use of guns, saying that his hero MacGyver never uses them, so neither does he, and then use an armed security force. He could simply have bodyguards take bullets for him, instead (not ideal, but consistent).

He would also be a hypocrite if he were to try and ban all guns from every household in NYC, as he is benefiting from guns in his household and those guns are owned by someone, regardless if these guns are not his, or who pays for them.

However, you are right in saying that if he only wants trained, responsible, and level-headed people walking around with guns, it would not be hypocritical. So, if the claim of hypocricy stems from Bloomberg's stance of not letting the average citizen walk around with a gun, it is not hypocritical, it just has a negative impact on Joe six-pack (i.e. not being able to afford armed protection).

Although, I wonder if the average citizen would simply hire themselves as their own bodyguards (assuming they pass the background check), paying themselves for their own protection, thus paying taxes on said revenue. Again, perhaps it is a jobs bill...

I am assuming the claim of hypocrisy is unwarranted because Bloomberg is either 1) not allowing guns in public, or 2) some sort of "assualt weapons" ban. As I said, the use of the term "gun ban" solicits the knee-jerk response of total prohibition, and as such, it is often used as a buzz word for advocates/opponents. For the record, Bloomberg would be a hypocrite if it was #2 and his security used those weapons.
My work here is, finally, done.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:07:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
To illustrate the difference (and absurdity) between an outright gun ban (i.e. use of protection in the home) vs. a conceal and carry ban (i.e. use of protection in public). To say that I must hire someone to be secure in my home, whether from physical threats (security) or falling beams (hard hat), is ridiculous; I should be able to protect myself from harm INSIDE MY HOME regardless if I hire someone or not.

Being in public, that is another issue.

I may not know exactly what Bloomberg is proposing, that doesn't mean I don't know what he is not. He is not proposing a total gun ban, nor is he proposing banning armed security guards.

There is a difference between providing him with security and him accepting it. The issue is in his accepting it. Obama refused to relinquish his Blackberry when taking office; an unneccessary risk, but his to take. Bloomberg could take the unnecessary risk of no armed security to show the courage of his convictions.

Bloomberg doesn't need to show the courage of his convictions to avoid being a hypocrite. If that's not the problem and instead people have a problem with the fact that he won't do that then being rational is obviously not a priority for them.

Actually, it has everything to do with the topic. Since the issue is hypocrisy, we need to know both the initial stance and the contradictionary action. You explained the contradictionary action is his having an armed security, but without knowing what this contradicts, we can't assess the validity of the claim of hypocricy.

I already showed what the group that he helped create and is actively involved in is advocating, that should be enough but you are asking for me to provide proof to you of what he is not for. Seems like common sense to me that if someone with such a high profile on this issue as was proposing a total gun ban, a complete violation of the 2nd amendment, then it would be all over the talk shows. Same with the absurd idea of banning armed security guards. That is enough for me. If it is not enough for you then what can I say, have fun with Google.

However, you are right in saying that if he only wants trained, responsible, and level-headed people walking around with guns, it would not be hypocritical. So, if the claim of hypocricy stems from Bloomberg's stance of not letting the average citizen walk around with a gun, it is not hypocritical, it just has a negative impact on Joe six-pack (i.e. not being able to afford armed protection).

Although, I wonder if the average citizen would simply hire themselves as their own bodyguards (assuming they pass the background check), paying themselves for their own protection, thus paying taxes on said revenue. Again, perhaps it is a jobs bill...

I think that there is an important aspect here that I said earlier about these individuals needing their guns to maintain a living. In other words, their jobs require them. It is the basic point of everything I have been saying and you guys all seem to overlook it.

You wouldn't for example be given a job as an FBI special agent if you were not considered trustworthy, yet that doesn't mean that every FBI special agent has access to all of the same classified information. Sometimes the hire ups don't even have the same info as those below them. It's not about whether you can be trusted, it is about whether you need to be trusted. It is purely a numbers game and in order to lower the odds of classified information ending up on the front page of the NY Times, only those who require the information as part of their jobs are allowed access to it. The same concept applies here.

You can disagree with how far we go to restrict guns, but there is no contradiction in the position that only professionals who meet the criteria I mentioned earlier should be allowed to carry is contradictory or absurd.

BTW, there is a lot more to being an armed security guard then having Joe Schmo give you $100 to walk around with him. When someone hires armed security they don't employ them, they contract that work out to a security company who supply the guards. These companies have much paperwork and scrutiny to deal with. Businesses don't want that headache, which is where the demand for these companies comes from.