Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Contradictory Pro-Gun Arguments

MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?

Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:04:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Your two scenarios only contradict when applied to the "law abiding." If the government banned guns, and everyone abides by the ban - then no-one would have guns to repel a tyrannical government. Only the "criminals" who have guns in spite of the ban would be in the position to defend our freedoms.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 2:53:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:04:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Your two scenarios only contradict when applied to the "law abiding." If the government banned guns, and everyone abides by the ban - then no-one would have guns to repel a tyrannical government. Only the "criminals" who have guns in spite of the ban would be in the position to defend our freedoms.

If you had your legally gained weapon and you intended to take out a "tyrannical" government, you would no longer be law abiding.

If you were a law abiding citizen and you didn't have a gun and you then intend to take on the establishment with force, it wouldn't stop you from illegally obtaining the weapons necessary to do it. You would become a "criminal" as you would perceive that as the morally right thing to do.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:01:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

These don't contradict, it's the same logic. Good guys having guns to counteract the bad guys with guns. 1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 5:25:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?
As the bumper sticker says "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Generally I think of bumper stickers as ways to say cute things to make others smile, but some of them are more cerebral than that.
This slogan address both of your apparently contradictory statements.

If guns are outlawed, criminals will not turn there unregistered guns into authorities, only the law abiding. Only the criminals will remain armed.

If my government becomes more abusive, and restrictive of my inalienable rights, I will morally be impelled to defend myself against them/it, and I will try to arm myself with suitable weaponry, and if t is guns, I will be a criminal.
If it is the empty hand (karate) I use to defend myself, instruction in that art will become illegal, and again I will be a criminal.

If guns are outlawed, I will be at the mercy of criminals, or a criminal myself.
The latter prevents the former.
Regardless, someone, will still have guns.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 6:10:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 3:01:59 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

These don't contradict, it's the same logic. Good guys having guns to counteract the bad guys with guns. 1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 implies that criminals will get guns no matter what.
2 implies that criminals (here rebels) can't get guns if there's a gun ban.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 6:42:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 6:10:52 AM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:01:59 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

These don't contradict, it's the same logic. Good guys having guns to counteract the bad guys with guns. 1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 implies that criminals will get guns no matter what.
2 implies that criminals (here rebels) can't get guns if there's a gun ban.

#2 only implies that rebels who do not want to be criminals can not get guns, and that is true.
It says nothing about rebels willing to be criminals. Further, it implies that the rebels are not willing to become criminals, so they will not be able to get guns to defend themselves.
You insert implication where none exist.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 6:45:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also, it is true that criminals can get whatever they want, guns, drugs, etc.
This is demonstrated daily, and can logically be assumed.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 6:58:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 implies that criminals will get guns no matter what.
2 implies that criminals (here rebels) can't get guns if there's a gun ban.

#2 only implies that rebels who do not want to be criminals can not get guns, and that is true.
It says nothing about rebels willing to be criminals.
It doesn't say anything about rebels willing to be criminals because that should be assumed without any stretch of the imagination. A rebel literally wants to destroy/take over the government. That's a criminal action, and it involves killing, something a lot worse than illegally procuring guns.
Further, it implies that the rebels are not willing to become criminals, so they will not be able to get guns to defend themselves.
This is where some of the faulty thinking comes in. We know that what I just said makes more sense, so either they are saying they wouldn't become criminals or that if they were, they wouldn't be able to procure guns. Obviously the former doesn't make sense, so they're reasoning would have to be the latter, and the latter is in direct conflict with the first argument.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 7:46:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 6:58:04 AM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 implies that criminals will get guns no matter what.
2 implies that criminals (here rebels) can't get guns if there's a gun ban.

#2 only implies that rebels who do not want to be criminals can not get guns, and that is true.
It says nothing about rebels willing to be criminals.
It doesn't say anything about rebels willing to be criminals because that should be assumed without any stretch of the imagination. A rebel literally wants to destroy/take over the government. That's a criminal action, and it involves killing, something a lot worse than illegally procuring guns.
Further, it implies that the rebels are not willing to become criminals, so they will not be able to get guns to defend themselves.
This is where some of the faulty thinking comes in. We know that what I just said makes more sense, so either they are saying they wouldn't become criminals or that if they were, they wouldn't be able to procure guns. Obviously the former doesn't make sense, so they're reasoning would have to be the latter, and the latter is in direct conflict with the first argument.

Here is your OP statement:
"#2 We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?"

Nothing about 'rebels',
Nothing about demanding new, non-existing freedoms.
The only implied criminal element I see is the 'tyrannical government' - arguable so.
So you have moved the goalpost on us, and now have those opposed to a cruel and oppressive government be criminal rebels.
Why are those who 'defend (established) freedoms' thought of as criminals?
As mentioned, inserted implications where none exists.
What is the duty of citizens? To be blindly obedient? If that is you position, please say so.

Following your line of thinking, citizens who are oppressed by the government, and lose established freedoms, should roll over and play dead as a defense mechanism.
Have I missed anything?
Do you have other suggestions?
Please do not suggest the ballot box, which has been proven completely ineffective with oppressive governments, unless you can explain how that would work.

Perhaps you need to reword statement #2, and we can go from there.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:14:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Here is your OP statement:
"#2 We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?"

Nothing about 'rebels',
Nothing about demanding new, non-existing freedoms.
The only implied criminal element I see is the 'tyrannical government' - arguable so.
So you have moved the goalpost on us, and now have those opposed to a cruel and oppressive government be criminal rebels.
...
Perhaps you need to reword statement #2, and we can go from there.

Now you're narrowly and ridiculously interpreting my initial statements. The intent behind the statement, "We will have to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government (with guns)," is a clear statement of rebellion. It always is. Whenever gun proponents use that kind of statement, they're talking about the right to rebel against governments that are tyrannical.

Following your line of thinking, citizens who are oppressed by the government, and lose established freedoms, should roll over and play dead as a defense mechanism.
Have I missed anything?
Yes you have. I have not suggested that citizens oppressed by a government should not fight back, I said that the reasoning behind the two arguments are contradictory. One says that people who want to defy the law and get guns can do so easily, and the other implies that without laws allowing for gun ownership, people rebelling against the law could not possibly acquire guns.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:26:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

There is no contradiction. #1 fully implies that gun bans affect gun availability...."good citizens" won't have guns in #1.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:29:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 6:10:52 AM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:01:59 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

These don't contradict, it's the same logic. Good guys having guns to counteract the bad guys with guns. 1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 doesn't imply that gun bans don't affect availability at all, only that they affect it for the very people who should have guns, but not for the people that shouldn't.

1 implies that criminals will get guns no matter what.
2 implies that criminals (here rebels) can't get guns if there's a gun ban.

Most of these "rebel criminals" would actually consider the government to be criminal. The "rebels" would be the "good citizens" in #2.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 8:50:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 8:14:10 AM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Here is your OP statement:
"#2 We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?"

Nothing about 'rebels',
Nothing about demanding new, non-existing freedoms.
The only implied criminal element I see is the 'tyrannical government' - arguable so.
So you have moved the goalpost on us, and now have those opposed to a cruel and oppressive government be criminal rebels.
...
Perhaps you need to reword statement #2, and we can go from there.

Now you're narrowly and ridiculously interpreting my initial statements. The intent behind the statement, "We will have to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government (with guns)," is a clear statement of rebellion. It always is. Whenever gun proponents use that kind of statement, they're talking about the right to rebel against governments that are tyrannical.

'Narrowly and ridiculously' - verbatim would be more accruate, but, sorry I took you too literally.


Following your line of thinking, citizens who are oppressed by the government, and lose established freedoms, should roll over and play dead as a defense mechanism.
Have I missed anything?
Yes you have. I have not suggested that citizens oppressed by a government should not fight back, I said that the reasoning behind the two arguments are contradictory. One says that people who want to defy the law and get guns can do so easily, and the other implies that without laws allowing for gun ownership, people rebelling against the law could not possibly acquire guns.

The second statement does not deny that citizens without guns can become criminals, and acquire guns first, and then defend (or rebel) an oppressive, tyrannical government. That is not implied at all. I do not see it.
There is no contradiction, that I can see.
The second statement does not deny the first.

Do you know of any gun advocates who say "Well, if they tell me my shotguns are illegal, I'll be taking them to the police station."?
I do not.

The clear intent is that law abiding citizens should not have to resort to being criminals in order to defend established freedoms.
The clear intent is that a government intent on becoming tyrannical should fear a rebellious populace - immediately, not down the road after they become criminals.
The clear intent is that a show of force prevents rebellion, and criminal intent.
The clear intent is that a an armed populace is a deterrent to a potentially tyrannical government.

If guns are outlawed, those who have such things will keep them, deny they have them, and become criminals, even if they were not previously.
Laws against guns will not remove them from past criminals, or future criminals who never even had a parking ticket.
Laws against guns will make more criminals. But of course that is beside the point.

No contradiction because the second does not deny the first, that is the point.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:26:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 2:53:47 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:04:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Your two scenarios only contradict when applied to the "law abiding." If the government banned guns, and everyone abides by the ban - then no-one would have guns to repel a tyrannical government. Only the "criminals" who have guns in spite of the ban would be in the position to defend our freedoms.

If you had your legally gained weapon and you intended to take out a "tyrannical" government, you would no longer be law abiding.

That depends upon the historical perspective. I'm sure King George thought that the minutemen and the framers of our nation (US) were "criminals" too. . . And from their perspective (Declaration of Independence) - he was.

If you were a law abiding citizen and you didn't have a gun and you then intend to take on the establishment with force, it wouldn't stop you from illegally obtaining the weapons necessary to do it.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that "the people" would not have to resort to that. We "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms - preemptively - in defense of our selves and our freedoms.

You would become a "criminal" as you would perceive that as the morally right thing to do.

Prohibiting the ability for "the people" to keep and bear arms to defend themselves is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral and it's a crime in and of it'self. "The people" have the right and the responsibility to repel such an act.

Thus the phrase "when guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns."
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:30:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Why is the tryannical government in 2 not the bad guys referred to in 1?
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:30:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Why is the tryannical government in 2 not the bad guys referred to in 1?

The 'bad guys' in one are against the law, whereas the 'bad guys', the government in 2, are the law.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 12:38:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:34:21 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:30:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Why is the tryannical government in 2 not the bad guys referred to in 1?

The 'bad guys' in one are against the law, whereas the 'bad guys', the government in 2, are the law.

Semantics and you know it. If the government is going against what the government was supposed to be, then it is against the "law", even if they change what the "law" is.
It is not contradictory.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 2:02:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Most people only bring up tyranny when confiscation comes up. And why would civilians want to acquire guns through illegal measures? That would make them criminals. We don't want to be criminals, we want to be law abiding civilians.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:54:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:38:33 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:34:21 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:30:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Why is the tryannical government in 2 not the bad guys referred to in 1?

The 'bad guys' in one are against the law, whereas the 'bad guys', the government in 2, are the law.

Semantics and you know it. If the government is going against what the government was supposed to be, then it is against the "law", even if they change what the "law" is.
It is not contradictory.

Dude you're the one pulling semantics. My points do not hinge on what the law 'really is'. They hinge on saying it's easy to get guns under a gun ban in one argument, and saying the exact opposite under a different argument.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:56:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

The first is irrelevant, whereas the second is pointless if the only guns civilians are allowed to have are not military-grade.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 3:56:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The only person I've agreed with so far is Chuz-Life, who pointed out the deterrence factor behind #2.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:00:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 3:54:42 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:38:33 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:34:21 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:30:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Why is the tryannical government in 2 not the bad guys referred to in 1?

The 'bad guys' in one are against the law, whereas the 'bad guys', the government in 2, are the law.

Semantics and you know it. If the government is going against what the government was supposed to be, then it is against the "law", even if they change what the "law" is.
It is not contradictory.

Dude you're the one pulling semantics. My points do not hinge on what the law 'really is'. They hinge on saying it's easy to get guns under a gun ban in one argument, and saying the exact opposite under a different argument.

And where do you go to buy an illegal gun? I don't know. Do you?
So, under a tryannical government, only the criminals and corrupt government will have guns. Super!!!!
It is still not contradictory. I, as a "good guy" don't have access to a gun to defend myself from either.
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:07:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:00:31 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/28/2015 3:54:42 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:38:33 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:34:21 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:30:16 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Why is the tryannical government in 2 not the bad guys referred to in 1?

The 'bad guys' in one are against the law, whereas the 'bad guys', the government in 2, are the law.

Semantics and you know it. If the government is going against what the government was supposed to be, then it is against the "law", even if they change what the "law" is.
It is not contradictory.

Dude you're the one pulling semantics. My points do not hinge on what the law 'really is'. They hinge on saying it's easy to get guns under a gun ban in one argument, and saying the exact opposite under a different argument.

And where do you go to buy an illegal gun? I don't know. Do you?
So, under a tryannical government, only the criminals and corrupt government will have guns. Super!!!!
It is still not contradictory. I, as a "good guy" don't have access to a gun to defend myself from either.

It is not about "good guys" or "bad guys". When I used that in my initial statements, it was because that's the kind of language commonly used when phrasing the argument. It's about people who are able to get guns under a gun ban in one argument, and people, who have illegal intentions just as the people in the first argument, who cannot get guns in another argument. The scenarios contradict themselves.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:12:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:07:34 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:

It is not about "good guys" or "bad guys". When I used that in my initial statements, it was because that's the kind of language commonly used when phrasing the argument. It's about people who are able to get guns under a gun ban in one argument, and people, who have illegal intentions just as the people in the first argument, who cannot get guns in another argument. The scenarios contradict themselves.

They both say the EXACT same thing: the average citizen (the "good guy') has no means of fending off either criminals or governments.
What is contradictory?

The fact that, theoretically, under a tyrannical government people could still get guns? Yes, they probably could, but not enough to supply an army with any ease or speed.

It is easy for one man to get a gun to be a "bad guy". It is very different for a bunch of men to get guns for the purpose of fighting back a government.

I see what you are trying to do, but it is failing.
These wholly depend on the straw men you set up (since you care about the wording, and not the point, of each)
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:32:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 12:26:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/28/2015 2:53:47 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:04:45 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Your two scenarios only contradict when applied to the "law abiding." If the government banned guns, and everyone abides by the ban - then no-one would have guns to repel a tyrannical government. Only the "criminals" who have guns in spite of the ban would be in the position to defend our freedoms.

If you had your legally gained weapon and you intended to take out a "tyrannical" government, you would no longer be law abiding.

That depends upon the historical perspective. I'm sure King George thought that the minutemen and the framers of our nation (US) were "criminals" too. . . And from their perspective (Declaration of Independence) - he was.

If you were a law abiding citizen and you didn't have a gun and you then intend to take on the establishment with force, it wouldn't stop you from illegally obtaining the weapons necessary to do it.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to insure that "the people" would not have to resort to that. We "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms - preemptively - in defense of our selves and our freedoms.

You would become a "criminal" as you would perceive that as the morally right thing to do.

Prohibiting the ability for "the people" to keep and bear arms to defend themselves is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral and it's a crime in and of it'self. "The people" have the right and the responsibility to repel such an act.

Thus the phrase "when guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns."

The US are such a distrusting lot. Would the black population for most of last century have had the moral justification for overthrowing the government in the US (or in some of the southern states) due to their racist treatment of it's own citizens?

Of course if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns - its a bit of a circular reference.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 4:45:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:12:58 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 1/28/2015 4:07:34 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:

It is not about "good guys" or "bad guys". When I used that in my initial statements, it was because that's the kind of language commonly used when phrasing the argument. It's about people who are able to get guns under a gun ban in one argument, and people, who have illegal intentions just as the people in the first argument, who cannot get guns in another argument. The scenarios contradict themselves.

They both say the EXACT same thing: the average citizen (the "good guy') has no means of fending off either criminals or governments.
What is contradictory?
Here, you still don't get it.
The fact that, theoretically, under a tyrannical government people could still get guns? Yes, they probably could, but not enough to supply an army with any ease or speed.
This is an actual point though. Though you can't really prove this, you're just making an assumption on what the availability of guns would be.
It is easy for one man to get a gun to be a "bad guy". It is very different for a bunch of men to get guns for the purpose of fighting back a government.

I see what you are trying to do, but it is failing.
These wholly depend on the straw men you set up (since you care about the wording, and not the point, of each)
I almost don't see the point of saying this again, but it is you who have been nit-picking about the wording. And the one willfully ignoring the points I've been making about wording.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2015 11:42:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 4:32:37 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:26:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Prohibiting the ability for "the people" to keep and bear arms to defend themselves is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral and it's a crime in and of it'self. "The people" have the right and the responsibility to repel such an act.

Thus the phrase "when guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns."

The US are such a distrusting lot.

Good.

Would the black population for most of last century have had the moral justification for overthrowing the government in the US (or in some of the southern states) due to their racist treatment of it's own citizens?


That's pretty much where things were headed. . . yes.

Of course if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns - its a bit of a circular reference.

True. But the phrase doesn't always tell the whole story. It could be taken to mean that common criminals will be the only ones with guns and they will face little resistance because most of their victims will be unarmed. The phrase "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" can also be as a rallying cry or a line in the sand. "If you ban guns - you are only going to create even more criminals - not less" because those who now own them legally and don't give them up will then also become criminals too.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 2:49:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 11:42:39 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/28/2015 4:32:37 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/28/2015 12:26:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Prohibiting the ability for "the people" to keep and bear arms to defend themselves is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, it's unconstitutional, it's immoral and it's a crime in and of it'self. "The people" have the right and the responsibility to repel such an act.

Thus the phrase "when guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns."

The US are such a distrusting lot.

Good.

Would the black population for most of last century have had the moral justification for overthrowing the government in the US (or in some of the southern states) due to their racist treatment of it's own citizens?


That's pretty much where things were headed. . . yes.

Of course if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns - its a bit of a circular reference.

True. But the phrase doesn't always tell the whole story. It could be taken to mean that common criminals will be the only ones with guns and they will face little resistance because most of their victims will be unarmed. The phrase "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" can also be as a rallying cry or a line in the sand. "If you ban guns - you are only going to create even more criminals - not less" because those who now own them legally and don't give them up will then also become criminals too.

Personally I dont have an issue who has a gun, guns do not kill people....bullets do.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2015 8:30:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/27/2015 9:10:54 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
#1
Why bother illegalizing guns? Criminals will be criminals, and it'll end up with the good guys without guns and the bad ones with.

#2
We need guns in case of a tyrannical government. How will we defend our freedoms without the ability to exercise force?


Problem:
1 implies that gun bans do not affect gun availability and capability of procurement, whereas 2 does just the opposite. Which is it folks?

Here is a noncontradictory one: guns reduce crime.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross