Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

The timing of gun control

Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?
TheJesusParadox
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 4:37:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

They bring it up when mass shootings happen for a reason -- the social consciousness is aware of gun violence. In other words, people are focused on a tragedy regarding guns. Any other time, for instance, when gang violence happens -- nobody cares, nor is aware(sad fact). It is for that that reason, bringing up gun control after a mass shooting is a savvy political move. Moreover, it is actually the only time gun control legislation has a possibility of sticking. Any other time, something else will be in the news -- thus, in the social consciousness -- eliminating the possibility of gun control legislation.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 5:36:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Because mass shootings draw more emotion. Few people care if a gang member dies.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:27:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Propaganda purposes of course. The mass shootings stir up the emotions of the population because they rarely happen. Exactly when people are not thinking in their right state of mind they can be persuaded more easily.
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 1:43:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it has a lot more to do with the issue of gang members operating outside of the law, specifically gun control laws, that would undermine efforts of accepting the regulation of firearms. Gang violence must be downplayed for authority to maintain power.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 7:53:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Gang violence is pretty much 100% the result of illegal firearms, so it's just about irrelevant to the gun control discussion. It isn't avoided out of convenience, it's avoided in the discussion because other legislative reforms would be necessary to mitigate the number of people going into gangs. I favor educational reforms.

There are actually plenty of shootings each week to talk about. Last week, there was 2 school shootings. A mother killed herself an her children with a gun. There was a shooting at a grocery store, the movie shooting. And most recently when an 88 year old man walked into his wife's hospital room and shot her.

Those in favor of gun control will always have something to argue from, because there are always many current examples use.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue for increased gun control if there was no problem of violence? The fact is, is that we have the worst firearm related homicide rate of any western country, and gang related deaths only account for about 17% of that total.

I'm not in favor of trudging along as we have been, I think something should be done and I think the discussion needs to be had. Like every other civilized society in western society, I think we should treat these deadly weapons with more respect as a society.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 12:16:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Apparently there is another shooting, perhaps still even in progress at Purdue University. Only in America...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 1:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://edition.cnn.com...

There was only one victim in that and I'm pretty damn appalled. No doubt you'll respond that cranky ol' Mr. Reeves was just protecting himself from a dangerous bombardment of popcorn and 'standing his ground'.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:11:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 1:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com...

There was only one victim in that and I'm pretty damn appalled. No doubt you'll respond that cranky ol' Mr. Reeves was just protecting himself from a dangerous bombardment of popcorn and 'standing his ground'.

No Wocambs, This is an unjustified use of force.

Seriously. There is such a thing as legitimate use of deadly force, as much as you would like NOT to believe.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:12:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 7:53:27 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Gang violence is pretty much 100% the result of illegal firearms, so it's just about irrelevant to the gun control discussion. It isn't avoided out of convenience, it's avoided in the discussion because other legislative reforms would be necessary to mitigate the number of people going into gangs. I favor educational reforms.

There are actually plenty of shootings each week to talk about. Last week, there was 2 school shootings. A mother killed herself an her children with a gun. There was a shooting at a grocery store, the movie shooting. And most recently when an 88 year old man walked into his wife's hospital room and shot her.

Those in favor of gun control will always have something to argue from, because there are always many current examples use.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue for increased gun control if there was no problem of violence? The fact is, is that we have the worst firearm related homicide rate of any western country, and gang related deaths only account for about 17% of that total.

I'm not in favor of trudging along as we have been, I think something should be done and I think the discussion needs to be had. Like every other civilized society in western society, I think we should treat these deadly weapons with more respect as a society.

What do you mean treat them with more respect?
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:14:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 9:12:20 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:53:27 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Gang violence is pretty much 100% the result of illegal firearms, so it's just about irrelevant to the gun control discussion. It isn't avoided out of convenience, it's avoided in the discussion because other legislative reforms would be necessary to mitigate the number of people going into gangs. I favor educational reforms.

There are actually plenty of shootings each week to talk about. Last week, there was 2 school shootings. A mother killed herself an her children with a gun. There was a shooting at a grocery store, the movie shooting. And most recently when an 88 year old man walked into his wife's hospital room and shot her.

Those in favor of gun control will always have something to argue from, because there are always many current examples use.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue for increased gun control if there was no problem of violence? The fact is, is that we have the worst firearm related homicide rate of any western country, and gang related deaths only account for about 17% of that total.

I'm not in favor of trudging along as we have been, I think something should be done and I think the discussion needs to be had. Like every other civilized society in western society, I think we should treat these deadly weapons with more respect as a society.

What do you mean treat them with more respect?

I certainly don't mean speak nicely about them. I am talking about having a healthy fear and caution involved when making policies about these weapons. For instance requiring safety equipment (a locked case) for any weapon purchased that is secure where children or others would not be able to access.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:18:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 9:14:45 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:12:20 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:53:27 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Gang violence is pretty much 100% the result of illegal firearms, so it's just about irrelevant to the gun control discussion. It isn't avoided out of convenience, it's avoided in the discussion because other legislative reforms would be necessary to mitigate the number of people going into gangs. I favor educational reforms.

There are actually plenty of shootings each week to talk about. Last week, there was 2 school shootings. A mother killed herself an her children with a gun. There was a shooting at a grocery store, the movie shooting. And most recently when an 88 year old man walked into his wife's hospital room and shot her.

Those in favor of gun control will always have something to argue from, because there are always many current examples use.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue for increased gun control if there was no problem of violence? The fact is, is that we have the worst firearm related homicide rate of any western country, and gang related deaths only account for about 17% of that total.

I'm not in favor of trudging along as we have been, I think something should be done and I think the discussion needs to be had. Like every other civilized society in western society, I think we should treat these deadly weapons with more respect as a society.

What do you mean treat them with more respect?

I certainly don't mean speak nicely about them. I am talking about having a healthy fear and caution involved when making policies about these weapons. For instance requiring safety equipment (a locked case) for any weapon purchased that is secure where children or others would not be able to access.

I think you'd be pretty stupid to say that the average gun owner doesn't have a healthy respect for guns. I'm all for locked cases and storage, but only for guns that are for hunting/target/plinking. Lock up all those. I think that the one (or however really, within reason) gun you have for defence should be much more accessible for your sake. There are still plenty of ways to keep a gun out of the reach of kids, and if you safely educate your kids how to handle a gun, you'll be fine.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2014 9:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 9:18:35 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:14:45 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:12:20 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:53:27 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Gang violence is pretty much 100% the result of illegal firearms, so it's just about irrelevant to the gun control discussion. It isn't avoided out of convenience, it's avoided in the discussion because other legislative reforms would be necessary to mitigate the number of people going into gangs. I favor educational reforms.

There are actually plenty of shootings each week to talk about. Last week, there was 2 school shootings. A mother killed herself an her children with a gun. There was a shooting at a grocery store, the movie shooting. And most recently when an 88 year old man walked into his wife's hospital room and shot her.

Those in favor of gun control will always have something to argue from, because there are always many current examples use.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue for increased gun control if there was no problem of violence? The fact is, is that we have the worst firearm related homicide rate of any western country, and gang related deaths only account for about 17% of that total.

I'm not in favor of trudging along as we have been, I think something should be done and I think the discussion needs to be had. Like every other civilized society in western society, I think we should treat these deadly weapons with more respect as a society.

What do you mean treat them with more respect?

I certainly don't mean speak nicely about them. I am talking about having a healthy fear and caution involved when making policies about these weapons. For instance requiring safety equipment (a locked case) for any weapon purchased that is secure where children or others would not be able to access.

I think you'd be pretty stupid to say that the average gun owner doesn't have a healthy respect for guns. I'm all for locked cases and storage, but only for guns that are for hunting/target/plinking. Lock up all those. I think that the one (or however really, within reason) gun you have for defence should be much more accessible for your sake. There are still plenty of ways to keep a gun out of the reach of kids, and if you safely educate your kids how to handle a gun, you'll be fine.

Those who disagree, and don't assume responsibility (when the numbers don't support that conclusion) are "stupid?" Okay.

And I'm not going to assume that every parent correctly teaches their child proper care of that firearm. That's worked out great for all the kids who took daddy's gun to school one day. Or for those who wanted to play with the gun and killed themselves.

Concealed weapons permits shouldn't be forbidden, and we have protections in place for that. I would favor extending those kinds of regulations to all firearms owners.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:15:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 9:11:40 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 1:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com...

There was only one victim in that and I'm pretty damn appalled. No doubt you'll respond that cranky ol' Mr. Reeves was just protecting himself from a dangerous bombardment of popcorn and 'standing his ground'.

No Wocambs, This is an unjustified use of force.

Seriously. There is such a thing as legitimate use of deadly force, as much as you would like NOT to believe.

May I have an example of such a use of force? I'm genuinely interested to hear. Also... Surely the world would be a better place if no one believed there was such a thing as a legitimate killing
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:19:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:15:40 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:11:40 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 1:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com...

There was only one victim in that and I'm pretty damn appalled. No doubt you'll respond that cranky ol' Mr. Reeves was just protecting himself from a dangerous bombardment of popcorn and 'standing his ground'.

No Wocambs, This is an unjustified use of force.

Seriously. There is such a thing as legitimate use of deadly force, as much as you would like NOT to believe.

May I have an example of such a use of force? I'm genuinely interested to hear. Also... Surely the world would be a better place if no one believed there was such a thing as a legitimate killing

The perpetrators didn't die, but if they did, that wouldn't change the fact that this was a legitimate use of force. Get Real Wocambs.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:22:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/21/2014 9:24:27 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:18:35 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:14:45 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:12:20 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 7:53:27 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/17/2014 2:27:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
If it's such a big deal to them, why do liberals only bring up gun control whenever there's a mass shooting (5+ for the most part) and not whenever there's any gang violence?

Anyone?

Gang violence is pretty much 100% the result of illegal firearms, so it's just about irrelevant to the gun control discussion. It isn't avoided out of convenience, it's avoided in the discussion because other legislative reforms would be necessary to mitigate the number of people going into gangs. I favor educational reforms.

There are actually plenty of shootings each week to talk about. Last week, there was 2 school shootings. A mother killed herself an her children with a gun. There was a shooting at a grocery store, the movie shooting. And most recently when an 88 year old man walked into his wife's hospital room and shot her.

Those in favor of gun control will always have something to argue from, because there are always many current examples use.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous to argue for increased gun control if there was no problem of violence? The fact is, is that we have the worst firearm related homicide rate of any western country, and gang related deaths only account for about 17% of that total.

I'm not in favor of trudging along as we have been, I think something should be done and I think the discussion needs to be had. Like every other civilized society in western society, I think we should treat these deadly weapons with more respect as a society.

What do you mean treat them with more respect?

I certainly don't mean speak nicely about them. I am talking about having a healthy fear and caution involved when making policies about these weapons. For instance requiring safety equipment (a locked case) for any weapon purchased that is secure where children or others would not be able to access.

I think you'd be pretty stupid to say that the average gun owner doesn't have a healthy respect for guns. I'm all for locked cases and storage, but only for guns that are for hunting/target/plinking. Lock up all those. I think that the one (or however really, within reason) gun you have for defence should be much more accessible for your sake. There are still plenty of ways to keep a gun out of the reach of kids, and if you safely educate your kids how to handle a gun, you'll be fine.

Those who disagree, and don't assume responsibility (when the numbers don't support that conclusion) are "stupid?" Okay.

And I'm not going to assume that every parent correctly teaches their child proper care of that firearm. That's worked out great for all the kids who took daddy's gun to school one day. Or for those who wanted to play with the gun and killed themselves.

Concealed weapons permits shouldn't be forbidden, and we have protections in place for that. I would favor extending those kinds of regulations to all firearms owners.

Sure, those who don't assume responsibility are "stupid". The majority however, is responsible.

And honestly, the kids who did act out with the parents gun, probably weren't taught a healthy respect for guns and how to handle them.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 9:27:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:22:54 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Sure, those who don't assume responsibility are "stupid". The majority however, is responsible.

Frankly, I think it's "stupid" to create policies that simply assume the best in people. I don't care how the majority treats their guns, I recognize that there is a number of people, a significant number of people who don't. And I think it would be a pretty good idea to do something about it. To ensure that those who are responsible are the only ones with guns.

And honestly, the kids who did act out with the parents gun, probably weren't taught a healthy respect for guns and how to handle them.

No sh!t eh? Hence the stupidity of assuming responsibility.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:15:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 9:27:04 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:22:54 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Sure, those who don't assume responsibility are "stupid". The majority however, is responsible.

Frankly, I think it's "stupid" to create policies that simply assume the best in people. I don't care how the majority treats their guns, I recognize that there is a number of people, a significant number of people who don't. And I think it would be a pretty good idea to do something about it. To ensure that those who are responsible are the only ones with guns.

And honestly, the kids who did act out with the parents gun, probably weren't taught a healthy respect for guns and how to handle them.

No sh!t eh? Hence the stupidity of assuming responsibility.

Agreed.

Yeah. I guess really the only thing to do would make safety training mandatory for everyone in the home that has a firearm in it.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:18:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:15:16 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:27:04 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:22:54 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Sure, those who don't assume responsibility are "stupid". The majority however, is responsible.

Frankly, I think it's "stupid" to create policies that simply assume the best in people. I don't care how the majority treats their guns, I recognize that there is a number of people, a significant number of people who don't. And I think it would be a pretty good idea to do something about it. To ensure that those who are responsible are the only ones with guns.

And honestly, the kids who did act out with the parents gun, probably weren't taught a healthy respect for guns and how to handle them.

No sh!t eh? Hence the stupidity of assuming responsibility.

Agreed.

Yeah. I guess really the only thing to do would make safety training mandatory for everyone in the home that has a firearm in it.

That's a regulation I could agree to. As the whole concept of self defense is to preserve life, our policies which help that end should also make sure the policies also preserve life.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:29:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:19:41 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:15:40 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:11:40 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 1:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com...

There was only one victim in that and I'm pretty damn appalled. No doubt you'll respond that cranky ol' Mr. Reeves was just protecting himself from a dangerous bombardment of popcorn and 'standing his ground'.

No Wocambs, This is an unjustified use of force.

Seriously. There is such a thing as legitimate use of deadly force, as much as you would like NOT to believe.

May I have an example of such a use of force? I'm genuinely interested to hear. Also... Surely the world would be a better place if no one believed there was such a thing as a legitimate killing



The perpetrators didn't die, but if they did, that wouldn't change the fact that this was a legitimate use of force. Get Real Wocambs.

So what makes the use of force in this example legitimate? That's a genuine question; I do currently believe that there is such a thing as 'legitimate self-defence / intervention', but I'm trying to work out if that's a justified intuition or if I have to become a pacifist.

I'd also like to apologise for that time I twisted the phrasing of your debate, that probably wasn't fair.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 12:07:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because, for reasons I personally find baffling, having sixty people killed in a day by different people raises no eyebrows, but having five people killed in a day by one person does.

So yes, it's tactical reasons rather than ideological ones.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 1:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 12:07:39 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Because, for reasons I personally find baffling, having sixty people killed in a day by different people raises no eyebrows, but having five people killed in a day by one person does.

So yes, it's tactical reasons rather than ideological ones.

It's the public nature of mass killings that distinguish them. Shootings in schools or malls have many witnesses and attract a lot of media attention. If the media were to report on every shooting and killing in America, they would have to have about 30 separate stories every day.

People are largely ignorant about these other murders, and often because of the more heinous nature of the public mass shootings, they consequently draw more attention. I don't see what' so baffling about that.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:11:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 1:02:32 PM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 12:07:39 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Because, for reasons I personally find baffling, having sixty people killed in a day by different people raises no eyebrows, but having five people killed in a day by one person does.

So yes, it's tactical reasons rather than ideological ones.

It's the public nature of mass killings that distinguish them. Shootings in schools or malls have many witnesses and attract a lot of media attention. If the media were to report on every shooting and killing in America, they would have to have about 30 separate stories every day.

People are largely ignorant about these other murders, and often because of the more heinous nature of the public mass shootings, they consequently draw more attention. I don't see what' so baffling about that.

Yes, but even when people's attention is called to the sheer number, they still don't care as much.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:45:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:29:55 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:19:41 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:15:40 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/21/2014 9:11:40 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/21/2014 1:41:19 PM, Wocambs wrote:
http://edition.cnn.com...

There was only one victim in that and I'm pretty damn appalled. No doubt you'll respond that cranky ol' Mr. Reeves was just protecting himself from a dangerous bombardment of popcorn and 'standing his ground'.

No Wocambs, This is an unjustified use of force.

Seriously. There is such a thing as legitimate use of deadly force, as much as you would like NOT to believe.

May I have an example of such a use of force? I'm genuinely interested to hear. Also... Surely the world would be a better place if no one believed there was such a thing as a legitimate killing



The perpetrators didn't die, but if they did, that wouldn't change the fact that this was a legitimate use of force. Get Real Wocambs.

So what makes the use of force in this example legitimate? That's a genuine question; I do currently believe that there is such a thing as 'legitimate self-defence / intervention', but I'm trying to work out if that's a justified intuition or if I have to become a pacifist.

I'd also like to apologise for that time I twisted the phrasing of your debate, that probably wasn't fair.

With this scenario and in general, when there is immediate danger to your life or the lives of innocent bystanders, lethal force is justified.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:47:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:18:07 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:15:16 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:27:04 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:22:54 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Sure, those who don't assume responsibility are "stupid". The majority however, is responsible.

Frankly, I think it's "stupid" to create policies that simply assume the best in people. I don't care how the majority treats their guns, I recognize that there is a number of people, a significant number of people who don't. And I think it would be a pretty good idea to do something about it. To ensure that those who are responsible are the only ones with guns.

And honestly, the kids who did act out with the parents gun, probably weren't taught a healthy respect for guns and how to handle them.

No sh!t eh? Hence the stupidity of assuming responsibility.

Agreed.

Yeah. I guess really the only thing to do would make safety training mandatory for everyone in the home that has a firearm in it.

That's a regulation I could agree to. As the whole concept of self defense is to preserve life, our policies which help that end should also make sure the policies also preserve life.

Ditto my friend. As long as it's not unreasonable.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:59:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 5:47:10 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:18:07 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:15:16 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 1/22/2014 9:27:04 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:22:54 AM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
Sure, those who don't assume responsibility are "stupid". The majority however, is responsible.

Frankly, I think it's "stupid" to create policies that simply assume the best in people. I don't care how the majority treats their guns, I recognize that there is a number of people, a significant number of people who don't. And I think it would be a pretty good idea to do something about it. To ensure that those who are responsible are the only ones with guns.

And honestly, the kids who did act out with the parents gun, probably weren't taught a healthy respect for guns and how to handle them.

No sh!t eh? Hence the stupidity of assuming responsibility.

Agreed.

Yeah. I guess really the only thing to do would make safety training mandatory for everyone in the home that has a firearm in it.

That's a regulation I could agree to. As the whole concept of self defense is to preserve life, our policies which help that end should also make sure the policies also preserve life.

Ditto my friend. As long as it's not unreasonable.

Agreed, I don't have all the answers, but I am only for reasonable regulations.