Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Calling Out All Gun Rights Advocates

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 3:21:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've just completed a debate with a fellow who goes by the name of RebornPatriot on the topic of gun rights. He took the pro position, and I of course have attempted to adequately articulate and defend the con (anti-gun rights) point of view. Unfortunately, however, for whatever reason my philosophical foe in this forensic contest has been an absentee arguer, i.e. he hasn't posted any arguments! Well, as I have no desire to win by default I therefore propose the following. I propose that I take on all comers, that any and everyone who disagrees with my position, who is pro-gun rights posts his/her arguments and attempted refutations of my arguments in the comments section. And I propose that DDO citizens eligible to vote weigh my arguments against these contributions before doing so. This will make it a genuine and sporting debate, rather than a one-sided monologue, and therefore a good bit more intellectually engaging.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 3:24:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh yeah, here's the link, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 4:46:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And perhpas now those of you who accuse me of being unwilling to debate can give that one a rest.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 10:00:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's kind of a shame, I know a lot of people would like to debate you. If you want to have the debate reset or removed, so that you can do a new challenge, let me know.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 11:59:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Alternatively, you could challenge a gun rights advocate who will actually debate with you. Comment debating is unorganized and messy, and since there's only three days left of voting, lots of people will vote while one side may have finished with a point that the other side wants to counter and will, but hasn't yet; I don't see why you'd go through the hassle when we have an entire system just for actual organized debating.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 12:16:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, I read the debate and I hope Charles' arguments can be recycled and deployed on a more worthy opponent in a future debate.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 1:44:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 1:35:43 AM, DaveElectric wrote:
Gun control is statist hypocrisy.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but did you take the trouble to read my arguments before posting this libertarian-sounding categorical pronouncement? If not, please do so, here's the link again, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 2:10:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Charleslb position is not really a con position. It's merely a more restricted and hypocritical Pro-position.

Charleslb completely ignores the fact that all law requires force to back it up and when guns exist this means the enforcers must carry guns as well in order to be able to compete with the criminals. I assume Charleslb supports this.

If he does then this means he supports the gun rights of the state. If he supports the gun rights of the state, but does not support the gun rights of private citizens then this means Charleslb's position is completely hypocritical. Why would it be morally wrong for a private citizen to own guns, but it would be moral for a state employee to own a gun? Charleslb expects us to think that if a private citizen with all their flaws and viciousness puts a costume on with a yellow badge on it they all of a sudden become angels who can be trusted with a weapon. This obviously can't be the case. Humans do not fundamentally change when they enter the government. If people are evil than the government will be evil especially if the government is democratic.

My argument is simply this: in order to oppose private gun rights you must support state gun rights otherwise there would be no way to enforce such a law. This means the anti-gun position is fundamentally hypocritical.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 2:25:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 2:10:57 AM, DaveElectric wrote:
Charleslb position is not really a con position. It's merely a more restricted and hypocritical Pro-position.

Charleslb completely ignores the fact that all law requires force to back it up and when guns exist this means the enforcers must carry guns as well in order to be able to compete with the criminals. I assume Charleslb supports this.

If he does then this means he supports the gun rights of the state. If he supports the gun rights of the state, but does not support the gun rights of private citizens then this means Charleslb's position is completely hypocritical. Why would it be morally wrong for a private citizen to own guns, but it would be moral for a state employee to own a gun? Charleslb expects us to think that if a private citizen with all their flaws and viciousness puts a costume on with a yellow badge on it they all of a sudden become angels who can be trusted with a weapon. This obviously can't be the case. Humans do not fundamentally change when they enter the government. If people are evil than the government will be evil especially if the government is democratic.

My argument is simply this: in order to oppose private gun rights you must support state gun rights otherwise there would be no way to enforce such a law. This means the anti-gun position is fundamentally hypocritical.

I certainly agree that the boys and girls in uniform, i.e. police and military personnel, are not boy scouts and campfire girls (I've in fact drawn a good deal of heat and hate in the past for posting anti-military editorials), that they are primarily armed agents, gun-toting enforcers of the business-political complex. However, this being recognized and said, the state does enjoy a degree of relative autonomy (to use a Marxist term) from the capitlist power elite. Thanks to conservative Republicans this relative autonomy has significantly diminished in recent decades, but it's not quite yet nil. This means that the big bad government and its law enforcement agencies are not just minions and muscle men for the hegemons of the hedge funds and the imperators of industry, so to speak. No, as I said above, our gendarmerie are primarily, but not entirely a duly constituted and glorified goon squad for, the belauded badge-wearing b*tches of the ruling class. Some police agencies do have a partially legitimate mission after all, i.e. they in part function to suppress crime, to genuinely protect and serve the residents of their community, not merely to preserve and safeguard our plutocratic status quo and its corporate kingpins.

And, of course, it follows that to effectively and safely fulfill this legitimate function the police have a legitimate need to be armed. They also receive training and are inculcated with a strict set of guidelines about how and when to use their weapons. This all makes the proposition of a cop carrying a gun more legit, sane, and safe than the proposition of indiscriminately allowing private citizens to go about packing. Yes, just because a peace officer dons a uniform and pins on a badge doesn't make him/her a paladin or an angel; and yes, he/she is a sentinel of the state, not the people's knight in shining armour, but at least he/she has been vetted and well trained, and is subject to some measure of scrutiny. And so I have no reservations about saying better an armed constabulary than an armed citizenry.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 6:25:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For the most part, my opponent seems to be agreeing with me. That the people in the state do not fundamentally change once they put a costume and a badge on. That humans are still humans once they become state employee. He does make one comeback though and that is policemen have public scrutiny and are better trained.

Better trained by who? It is bizare that he would type out a long paragraph considering the ever increasing power of the capitalist elite over the government and then in the next second thinks the policeman's training will better serve our interests. Evil people are attracted to positions of power and them being trained only makes matters worse for us. Not better. This argument also completely ignores my point that human nature is constant and if the people are evil the government will be especially evil when those people get the right to vote. The people who train the police officers will be evil since those that vote for them are evil.

So if we are all evil especially the government than why would one set of evil people have the right to own weapons, but the set would not? It doesn't matter what way you interpret human nature. Charleslb's position is still hypocritical and assumes an asymetrical human nature between the people and the government.

"Public scrutiny" requires that the public be smarter than the government otherwise it would be worthless. This immediately begs the quesiton why wouldn't the public be able to own weapons? See Charleslib wants us to believe we are smart enought to criticize people's handling and ownership of weapons, but somehow we aren't smart enough to actually own them. This is an impossible position to hold. The only reason we can criticize a policeman's handling of weapons is because we think we can handle the weapons better ourselves. This is a classic case of the "form of the argument" invalidating the argument itself.

So I end with this: Charleslb has failed to demonstrate how his position is not hypocritical and not only that his second argument tacitly cedes the case that the people can handle weapons better than the government.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 12:07:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/15/2012 6:25:19 PM, DaveElectric wrote:
For the most part, my opponent seems to be agreeing with me. That the people in the state do not fundamentally change once they put a costume and a badge on. That humans are still humans once they become state employee. He does make one comeback though and that is policemen have public scrutiny and are better trained.

Yes, admittedly, human beings aren't a seraphic species, i.e. a righteous race of holy-minded angels. We certainly walk through history with feet of clay, and our polities are often more the embodiment of our collective fallibility than our combined wisdom. But we are social creatures, and our experience of life is considerably richer when shared in community. This means that rather than adopting some asocially individualistic ideology such as "libertarianism", i.e. attempting to create the ultimate atomized society of people who think that John Donne was wrong and that every man can exist as an island, rather than rejecting community in the guise of rejecting the state, we must seek to devise a form of society in which we reach a practical compromise with, a moral modulation of, and a spiritual sublimation of the baser side of our nature, such as our will to play the capitalist or the statist and to exploit and dominate one another. Rather than opting for a "libertarian" dismantling of civilization into millions of privatisitc egos, who each chaotically protects his/her own interests, who each carries a firearm to deter other privatistic egos from treading on his/her interests, we ought to strive to invent a form of community based upon a recognition of life's intrinsic interdependence, upon bonds of affiliation and harmony in which we democratically select and entrust certain members with the proper character traits to take on civic roles and responsibilities necessary for the maintenance of public safety. These are the individuals who should be authorized by the people, not the state, to bear arms. A well-regulated constabulary and militia, as it were, of volunteer, citizen peace officers and soldiers serving society, rather than professional police who serve the state.

Better trained by who? It is bizare that he would type out a long paragraph considering the ever increasing power of the capitalist elite over the government and then in the next second thinks the policeman's training will better serve our interests.

So, apparently you reject the commonsense notion that training conduces to competency and fitness and think that allowing any yahoo and meshuggener to carry a gun would be just as rational as a community forming a well-trained and regulated constabulary to maintain public safety?!

Evil people are attracted to positions of power and them being trained only makes matters worse for us. Not better.

But then again the vetting and training process can also weed out individuals that you wouldn't wish to entrust with a lethal weapon.

This argument also completely ignores my point that human nature is constant and if the people are evil the government will be especially evil when those people get the right to vote. The people who train the police officers will be evil since those that vote for them are evil.

I don't agree that people are all incorrigibly evil beings who can't hope to live together in communities in which they entrust some of their neighbors to perform certain armed functions.

So if we are all evil especially the government than why would one set of evil people have the right to own weapons, but the set would not? It doesn't matter what way you interpret human nature. Charleslb's position is still hypocritical and assumes an asymetrical human nature between the people and the government.

Again, we're not all such characterologically ill-equipped, morally deficient specimens who can't be entrusted with weapons. You're positing that human beings are a homogeneously bad lot, that each of us is morally interchangeable and equally unfit to bear arms, and you reason that we therefore should all be permitted, quite indiscriminately, to do so! Well, not only is your conclusion quite absurd, but your premise is quite simply untrue, rendering your whole argument here unsound.


"Public scrutiny" requires that the public be smarter than the government otherwise it would be worthless. This immediately begs the quesiton why wouldn't the public be able to own weapons?

Because not every individual member of the public can be trusted on an individual basis to be competent and conscientious with a firearm.

See Charleslib wants us to believe we are smart enought to criticize people's handling and ownership of weapons, but somehow we aren't smart enough to actually own them.

No, simply that guns are seriously dangerous items and that there are way too many individuals who lack the minimal maturity and the good character to be allowed to own one.

This is an impossible position to hold.

No, it's just a matter of realizing that some individuals, especially those who've received a bit of training, are more qualified for certain things than other individuals who lack the training and the mental and moral right stuff.

The only reason we can criticize a policeman's handling of weapons is because we think we can handle the weapons better ourselves. This is a classic case of the "form of the argument" invalidating the argument itself.

Rubbish, we can criticize a policeman's wrong use of his weapon, or any wrong behavior, not because we think that we're all equally morally excellent and qualified for certain roles in society, but because we possess enough rudimentary moral intelligence to apprehend that, say, shooting a handcuffed suspect isn't kosher police conduct.

So I end with this: Charleslb has failed to demonstrate how his position is not hypocritical and not only that his second argument tacitly cedes the case that the people can handle weapons better than the government.

And I would assert that although my friend DaveElectric is a reasoning fellow he simply has an ideologically short-circuited ability to process my point of view and statements, ergo to his mind I haven't made any valid arguments, when in fact I have.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:00:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
charleslb, tell me if I'm understanding this correctly: you wish for every individual to be reviewed and approved by the entire community before being issued a gun (which I'm assuming will have been modified in some way to put some particular mark on the bullets fired so that the policemen will know who shot it, yet can still be modified yet again by the owner to become unidentifiable should he ever wish to turn rogue)?

How large would such a community be, and how many people would need to approve of this? Also, what would stop the black market or self-assembly of guns to use against the mostly un-armed populace? And finally, what makes a community review any more effective than a criminal or mental background check?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 1:39:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 1:00:13 AM, mongeese wrote:
charleslb, tell me if I'm understanding this correctly: you wish for every individual to be reviewed and approved by the entire community before being issued a gun

How many community members directly take part in selecting the members of the community's constabulary would of course depend upon the size of the community and the logistics, so to speak, involved.

(which I'm assuming will have been modified in some way to put some particular mark on the bullets fired so that the policemen will know who shot it, yet can still be modified yet again by the owner to become unidentifiable should he ever wish to turn rogue)?

Really, did you infer any of this from anything that I've said?!

How large would such a community be, and how many people would need to approve of this?

Small communities are better for a multitude of reasons.

Also, what would stop the black market or self-assembly of guns to use against the mostly un-armed populace?

Ah, the defeatist canard, as it were, that we may as well throw our hands up in the air and despairingly accept that those infinitely resourceful villains will always have just as many guns as they currently do no matter what measures society takes.

And finally, what makes a community review any more effective than a criminal or mental background check?

Recall that the community would review candidates for membership in its well-regulated constabulary, who would then undergo some amount of training; the purpose of community review would not merely be to determine which private citizens get to pack heat qua private citizens.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 10:25:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 1:39:18 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/16/2012 1:00:13 AM, mongeese wrote:
charleslb, tell me if I'm understanding this correctly: you wish for every individual to be reviewed and approved by the entire community before being issued a gun

How many community members directly take part in selecting the members of the community's constabulary would of course depend upon the size of the community and the logistics, so to speak, involved.

Can you give an example?

(which I'm assuming will have been modified in some way to put some particular mark on the bullets fired so that the policemen will know who shot it, yet can still be modified yet again by the owner to become unidentifiable should he ever wish to turn rogue)?

Really, did you infer any of this from anything that I've said?!

If someone shot and killed someone else, I'm guessing you'd want to know who shot the gun, and if the bullets are marked, it would be easier to identify the killer. Of course, a keen-enough killer would counter-modify his gun, but there's no liberty lost in your targets being identified. Basically, I assume the community would realize the value of such a suggestion and implement it.

How large would such a community be, and how many people would need to approve of this?

Small communities are better for a multitude of reasons.

"Small," as in, say, 150?

Also, what would stop the black market or self-assembly of guns to use against the mostly un-armed populace?

Ah, the defeatist canard, as it were, that we may as well throw our hands up in the air and despairingly accept that those infinitely resourceful villains will always have just as many guns as they currently do no matter what measures society takes.

Pretty much. I'd prefer a refutation to a summary.

And finally, what makes a community review any more effective than a criminal or mental background check?

Recall that the community would review candidates for membership in its well-regulated constabulary, who would then undergo some amount of training; the purpose of community review would not merely be to determine which private citizens get to pack heat qua private citizens.

Of course, it would be far from impossible for someone to pretend to have good intentions in joining the constabulary but then later kill people.

You know, except for the whole black market thing and the fact that we currently don't live in small, independent communities and probably won't for at least hundreds more years, this idea could work rather well.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 2:54:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 10:25:18 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 1/16/2012 1:39:18 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/16/2012 1:00:13 AM, mongeese wrote:
charleslb, tell me if I'm understanding this correctly: you wish for every individual to be reviewed and approved by the entire community before being issued a gun

How many community members directly take part in selecting the members of the community's constabulary would of course depend upon the size of the community and the logistics, so to speak, involved.

Can you give an example?

Admittedly, the devil, as ever, is in the details. But this doesn't mean that Old Nick can't be exorcised by a practicable scheme for the working out of the details.


(which I'm assuming will have been modified in some way to put some particular mark on the bullets fired so that the policemen will know who shot it, yet can still be modified yet again by the owner to become unidentifiable should he ever wish to turn rogue)?

Really, did you infer any of this from anything that I've said?!

If someone shot and killed someone else, I'm guessing you'd want to know who shot the gun, and if the bullets are marked, it would be easier to identify the killer. Of course, a keen-enough killer would counter-modify his gun, but there's no liberty lost in your targets being identified. Basically, I assume the community would realize the value of such a suggestion and implement it.

As you might recall, my position is that the gun rights of private citizens ought to be repealed. So, if guns are no longer being legally manufactured for private citizens how is it that they're going to be made with barrels that leave an identifying signature on a bullet, which also isn't being manufactured?

How large would such a community be, and how many people would need to approve of this?

Small communities are better for a multitude of reasons.

"Small," as in, say, 150?

I know, to a libertarian such as yourself, who believes in an atomized gesellschaft society in which people are unabashedly self-interested economic actors and consumers rather than citizens, relating to each other only through the cash nexus, i.e. in impersonal business transactions, the notion of a smallish, close-knit gemeinschaft community is unrealistic.


Ah, the defeatist canard, as it were, that we may as well throw our hands up in the air and despairingly accept that those infinitely resourceful villains will always have just as many guns as they currently do no matter what measures society takes.

Pretty much. I'd prefer a refutation to a summary.

As I thought. Now then, as for a refutation, it's called Australia, Poland, France, Germany, etc.

And finally, what makes a community review any more effective than a criminal or mental background check?

Recall that the community would review candidates for membership in its well-regulated constabulary, who would then undergo some amount of training; the purpose of community review would not merely be to determine which private citizens get to pack heat qua private citizens.

Of course, it would be far from impossible for someone to pretend to have good intentions in joining the constabulary but then later kill people.

I never said that I was trying to convince anyone that a perfect, utopian social system is possible, merely a preferable and more human one.

You know, except for the whole black market thing and the fact that we currently don't live in small, independent communities and probably won't for at least hundreds more years, this idea could work rather well.

Gosh, thanks for the backhanded praise.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 3:01:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, we can all remain up in the cloud-cuckoo-land of theoretical debate; we can speculate, in whichever direction we're ideologically inclined, about what the consequences of banning guns vs. making them easily available might be, and we can construct plausible arguments to support our speculative-ideological positions. But all of our rationalization and rhetoric on the issue of gun rights is rendered quite academic if we simply take notice of the fact that there are real-world social laboratories, as it were, countries in which unpermissive restrictions on access to guns are in place and have been for some time; and, conversely, in which easygoing regulation of private gun ownership is the law of the land.

Okay, and so what then are the results of these societies' social experimentation with strict vs. lax gun regulation? Well, firstly, Western countries that don't recognize any putative right of their citizens to bear arms do not have a higher crime rate than the U.S.; rather, they all have lower homicide and violent crime statistics. And secondly, a largely disarmed population has not led to the rise of statist repression of a Hitlerian intensity in Belgium, Britain, Australia, France, etc. Now then, if we look at the United States where of course we have the good ole Second Amendment blocking stringent gun control, we find a shockingly high incidence of murder and crimes involving the use of firearms. And we also find heavily armed right-wing militias whose members are currently taken to be harmless cranks who play weekend warrior in the woods with assault rifles, but who under the right circumstances would use their AK-47s to take over and establish their own tea party totalitarianism. So much for American exceptionalism!

Well then, we can empirically say that not treating private gun ownership as an absolute right does not lead to catastrophic consequences, societies that don't have anything like the Second Amendment are in fact safer and more stable. This really ought to settle the question. Ah, but then many folks are more immersed in their subjective ideologies than they are in touch with objective reality, and not about to allow the facts to put a crimp in their conservative convictions.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 6:05:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's really astonishingly simple, Charles. Laws only apply as a deterrence to law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, are people who do not obey the law. Ergo, outlawing private ownership of guns only creates a black market for the very people you don't want to have them... the criminals. Yet the people who would obey the law are now disarmed with little to no way of protecting themselves from the people you initially created the law for.

The logic is completely backwards and ineffective. In Switzerland, almost everyone is legally armed, yet their rates of homicide by gun is remarkably low. Corresponding with that is that they simply have low crime rates period.

Comparing that with Russia and Mexico, both who disallow private gun owvership, have crime statistics that are far greater than even the US.

And in Washington D.C., after the unconstitutional handgun ban was lifted, homicides by gun fell dramatically, which is the exact opposite of what the gun-grabbers alleged would happen.

Guns =/= crime. Culture induces crime. You either live in a violent place or you don't.

Simple logic.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2012 7:58:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/16/2012 6:05:26 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
It's really astonishingly simple, Charles. Laws only apply as a deterrence to law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by definition, are people who do not obey the law. Ergo, outlawing private ownership of guns only creates a black market for the very people you don't want to have them... the criminals. Yet the people who would obey the law are now disarmed with little to no way of protecting themselves from the people you initially created the law for.

It's really asthonishingly counterintuitive, PARADIGM_LOST, to think that drying up all of the legal sources of guns, which the vast majority of black-market and crime guns originate from, and banning the legal manufacture of guns, and earnestly enforcing a policy of strict gun control, would leave the number of guns that are readily available to private citizens, including the criminal element that you apparently believe to be infinitely resourceful to a man, entirely untouched. In a word, rubbish.

The logic is completely backwards and ineffective. In Switzerland, almost everyone is legally armed, yet their rates of homicide by gun is remarkably low. Corresponding with that is that they simply have low crime rates period.

And note that in Switzerland they have precisely what a strict, and once-upon-a-time conventional interpretation of the U.S. Constitution calls for, a "well regulated militia"; that is, private Swiss citizens are all equipped with guns not qua private citizens, but rather as members of the Swiss defense forces.

Comparing that with Russia and Mexico, both who disallow private gun owvership, have crime statistics that are far greater than even the US.

Oops, you shouldn't have mentioned Mexico. For now I will rhetorically ask where you think most of the illegal firearms being used by the cartels in their bloody internecine warfare come from? Okay, even though I said that it was a rhetorical question I just can't resist the urge to answer it. Yes indeed, yes indeed, most of the weapons in the arsenal of the Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel, et al, were purchased north of the U.S.-Mexico border from legal gun stores and sellers in Texas and Arizona, etc. The cocaine and crystal flows across the border from Mexico into this country, and the guns flow in the reverse direction. So, the legality and easy availability of guns in our society is a problem for two nations!

And in Washington D.C., after the unconstitutional handgun ban was lifted, homicides by gun fell dramatically, which is the exact opposite of what the gun-grabbers alleged would happen.

Anyone can play the ole game of quoting statistics to his purpose, as easily as the devil in Shakespeare's opinion can quote scripture. And a term like "gun-grabbers", really, are you some kind of hardcore 2nd Amendmentite?

Guns =/= crime. Culture induces crime. You either live in a violent place or you don't.

I've actually stipulated this in round one of my debate. However, although guns aren't the whole story of violence in America, they are a significant sociological subplot, as it were.

Simple logic.

Your logic is a tad too simple. You remissly neglect to take into account how having the ideal means to commit a crime can perhaps factor into a bad guy's decision to do an illegal deed. It's simply human nature 101 that having at hand the means to do something is going to increase the likelihood of an individual opting to make the attempt. This applies to all individuals, criminals as well as law-abiding human beings. It they have a gun, which for instance will nicely facilitate a take-over robbery, then they're going to be more disposed to attempt to pull off such a crime. You can of course facilely dismiss this contribution of the availability of guns to the motivation component of homicides and violent crime with the old bromide that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", but guns in truth are not innocent inanimate objects, they do tempt predisposed people to do very naughty and life-destroying things. Removing as many guns from society as possible will reduce crime & violence rates, regardless of what the statistics you reference above seem to indicate.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:26:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some Final Thoughts

Not to sound like a lawyer here, but let's say that I stipulate that the buck of moral accountability should not be passed from criminals and killers to the weapons they use. But this being said, guns are not just blameless shiny objects with no share in the wrongdoing and wickedness they facilitate. Rather, guns are like crack to individuals contemplating committing a crime. The send out a subliminal siren's song that further tempts him/her to perpetrate the despicable deed being premeditated. That is, the presence of guns in the equation most certainly does affect people's decisions and behavior. They are not passive items, they sometimes give us that little extra push to be bad and belligerent. Sure, being under the influence of drugs or desperate for one's next fix doesn't absolve one of responsibility for one's evil conduct, and neither does being under the influence of the availability of a gun. However, this doesn't mean that we should dismiss the reality that guns do assist, embolden, and encourage those so inclined to do violence and crime. Guns are a factor in much of our modern society's crime, even if only a secondary factor, and this is a fact gun lovers need to face with intellectual honesty and moral courage, not evade with ideological sophistry and a morally chickens*t retreat into denial.

As for framing the issue of gun rights as a libertarian cause célèbre, a case of the private individual's rights vs. the government's putative propensity to become an overbearing big brother, well, that plays nicely to those with an ideological idée fixe about the state up their libertarian behinds, but since other societies in which the government enforces a greater measure of gun control (France, Australia, The Netherlands, etc.) haven't exactly gone totalitarian, it's hardly a realistic concern. A citizenry steeped in the values of democracy, not an armed-to-the-teeth populace, is the best insurance for the liberties we enjoy.

In most modern societies most sensible people realize that guns are dangerous items that shouldn't be too readily accessible to Jonh & Jane Q. Public, who may or may not be equipped with the mental maturity and moral conscience to be trusted with a lethal weapon. That so many otherwise levelheaded folks in this country can't seem to grasp this is a quite abberant bit of American exceptionalism, it would be quaint if it didn't cause so many tragic deaths.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
DaveElectric
Posts: 107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 6:55:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am a bit dumbfounded by your position. Are you saying you want to control the flow of private gun ownership (to make sure complete idiots don't get guns) or do you want to get rid of private gun ownership entirely? I haven't read your posts to other people yet and I'm not sure what your position is. I think the latter is hypocritical and I don't understand why the former implies a rejection of gun rights. For example, we can deem someone a retard and therefore limit their right to property and contract. That doesn't invalidate property rights. Setting an age limit for consenting to sex doesn't prove that people don't have sexual rights. It just proves we need to distinquish between different sets of human beings. Ones that can be trusted with responsibility and others that cannot be trusted.

If you read between my words more closely you reveal that I never said that all human beings are evil. I was pointing out IF most people were evil then the government would be especially evil since it is a source of power and it is democratic. I was pointing out the government reflects the will and the nature of the people who elect rulers into it. If people generally speaking cannot be trusted with weapons it makes no sense to give them to right to vote people who will train our policemen how to use guns. Your idea of officers getting public scrutiny implies that the population is generally knowledgeable about how weapons ought to be handled. Otherwise, there votes would be destructive. You seemed to interpret that as me saying EVERYONE is equally trustworthy with a weapon. That is not what I meant. That is a truly impossible position to hold.

Now, you did say this:
"Rubbish, we can criticize a policeman's wrong use of his weapon, or any wrong behavior, not because we think that we're all equally morally excellent and qualified for certain roles in society, but because we possess enough rudimentary moral intelligence to apprehend that, say, shooting a handcuffed suspect isn't kosher police conduct."

I didn't say we can criticize police conduct because we're all morally equal and qualified. I said we can criticize their behavior only because we believe we could of been more virtous than they were. This begs the question: why should the state have exclusive rights to guns when it gets its idea of how to properly use guns from the people? You keep bringing up the problem of retards owning guns. I don't see how that justifies the government having exclusive ownership of guns.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 2:33:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 6:55:53 PM, DaveElectric wrote:
I am a bit dumbfounded by your position...

To be quite clear then, my position is that the concept of gun rights is an American cultural and legal fiction; that the Second Amendment should be repealed; and that the private ownership of guns should be banned. As for my arguments in defense of these positions, I won't rehash, I simply refer you back to my debate on the topic (http://www.debate.org...) and to my posts in this thread.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 9:06:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's really asthonishingly counterintuitive, PARADIGM_LOST, to think that drying up all of the legal sources of guns, which the vast majority of black-market and crime guns originate from, and banning the legal manufacture of guns, and earnestly enforcing a policy of strict gun control, would leave the number of guns that are readily available to private citizens, including the criminal element that you apparently believe to be infinitely resourceful to a man, entirely untouched. In a word, rubbish.:

You live in a fantasy world of hypotheticals that is, quite frankly, utterly useless to even entertain. You can't wind back the clock on the invention of modern weaponry. It's here to stay, although we would both agree that the world would be a better place without them. So instead of creating illusions that will never be, we might as well confront the problem with a sense of realism.

Even supposing that you rewrote the Constitution and made the manufacturing of guns illegal in the United States doesn't mean the rest of the world would acquiesce and follow suit. All this does is create black markets that really is no different than what the failed drug war produced and what Prohibition produced.

And even supposing we could totally eradicate guns off the planet for good does not stop wars, conflict, strife, murder, etc, which is at the HEART of the issue, something you gun-grabbers just can't f*cking figure out.

Newsflash: This just in!

Warfare and murder has existed LONG before guns were ever invented. Just look at prison and what human ingenuity can create when it comes to wanting to kill people. You want to change people externally by enforcing quaint little laws that nobody gives a crap about when it comes to survival, versus changing them internally through persuasion (i.e. making a society that prefers peace and tranquility with their fellow man).

You're not engaging the actual problem. Your policies prescribe a band-aid for an amputee victim.

And note that in Switzerland they have precisely what a strict, and once-upon-a-time conventional interpretation of the U.S. Constitution calls for, a "well regulated militia"; that is, private Swiss citizens are all equipped with guns not qua private citizens, but rather as members of the Swiss defense forces.:

You can try and lecture on the intent of the 2nd Amendment, but the Founding Fathers were quite clear about their vision.

http://cap-n-ball.com...

Oops, you shouldn't have mentioned Mexico. For now I will rhetorically ask where you think most of the illegal firearms being used by the cartels in their bloody internecine warfare come from? Okay, even though I said that it was a rhetorical question I just can't resist the urge to answer it. Yes indeed, yes indeed, most of the weapons in the arsenal of the Zetas and the Sinaloa cartel, et al, were purchased north of the U.S.-Mexico border from legal gun stores and sellers in Texas and Arizona, etc. The cocaine and crystal flows across the border from Mexico into this country, and the guns flow in the reverse direction. So, the legality and easy availability of guns in our society is a problem for two nations!

Haha, so? They get cars from the US too therefore, as per your logic, cars are de facto bad because the Zetas transport their drugs and arms in cars. It's really simple. Without the laws making the drugs illegal, there would be no cartel whatsoever. And you make guns illegal to boot only ensures the same kind of violence, if not worse, here in the US.

Anyone can play the ole game of quoting statistics to his purpose, as easily as the devil in Shakespeare's opinion can quote scripture. And a term like "gun-grabbers", really, are you some kind of hardcore 2nd Amendmentite?:

I don't know what a hardcore 2nd Amendmentite is. I believe in the purpose of the Bill of Rights and think that's worth defending. If that makes me a wild-eyed, gun-toting maverick, then so be it.

Your logic is a tad too simple. You remissly neglect to take into account how having the ideal means to commit a crime can perhaps factor into a bad guy's decision to do an illegal deed. It's simply human nature 101 that having at hand the means to do something is going to increase the likelihood of an individual opting to make the attempt.:

We all have the ability to rob banks if we really wanted to, but only a tiny fraction of human beings actually go through with it. The bottom line is... you can't legislate against crazy and you never will.

"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws... That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette

This applies to all individuals, criminals as well as law-abiding human beings. It they have a gun, which for instance will nicely facilitate a take-over robbery, then they're going to be more disposed to attempt to pull off such a crime. You can of course facilely dismiss this contribution of the availability of guns to the motivation component of homicides and violent crime with the old bromide that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", but guns in truth are not innocent inanimate objects, they do tempt predisposed people to do very naughty and life-destroying things. Removing as many guns from society as possible will reduce crime & violence rates, regardless of what the statistics you reference above seem to indicate.:

You know, you'd have a better time trying to outlaw motor vehicles than you would guns, being that said motor vehicles kill many, many more people than firearms. The fact of the matter is that you have aversion to violence, which is totally fine with me. But you'd also have a better time outlawing movies, music. videogames, etc that romanticize violence than you would outlawing a tool that, like it or not, is controlled by PEOPLE. The heart of the matter is, and will always be, the very psyche of an individual.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)