Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Final Thoughts on Gun Rights

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 2:51:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some Final Thoughts on the Topic

Well, I've won my debate but of course it's a mere and quite ungratifying formality that I'm handed the victory given the fact that my opponent didn't post any arguments. At any rate, it's an important issue and I have a few final comments I'd like to share.

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.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 3:05:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 3:03:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
You posted this already in another thread.

Several thread I believe.

He appears to somewhat long-winded.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 4:21:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 3:05:01 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/17/2012 3:03:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
You posted this already in another thread.

Several thread I believe.

He appears to somewhat long-winded.

So what, is this all you've got?!
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 4:22:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 3:05:01 PM, OberHerr wrote:


He appears to somewhat long-winded.

So what, is this all you've got?!
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.
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 12:02:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 2:51:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Some Final Thoughts on the Topic

Well, I've won my debate but of course it's a mere and quite ungratifying formality that I'm handed the victory given the fact that my opponent didn't post any arguments. At any rate, it's an important issue and I have a few final comments I'd like to share.

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.
What the heck....So let me get this straight. Possibly dangerous object in some circumstances = Increased Temptation for the perpetrator? Quite frankly, this seems like some flawed logic here.
I'm using a computer right now. Computers can cause mass harm through hacking, internet scams, etc. But does that tempt me to commit these actions? Sure, perhaps the minority few who have criminal tendencies will have an increased wanting to commit crimes with an actual gun in their hand, but the majority do not have similar motives. If anything, by arming the majority, we provide a deterrent to criminals. "What if that person has a gun?"
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.
They could also be that extra push to be good.
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.
If anything, more people with guns helps to create fear in criminals - due to the fact that they do not know who has weapons and who doesn't. In a society where guns are outlawed, you must keep in mind that there exists a *black market*. *gasps* Banning guns will only embolden and assure criminals that their victims are defenseless.
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.
Uhh. In my opinion, I'd rather be around rational, smart gun owners. Far less chance of a criminal approaching us.

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.
First off, Ad Populum Fallacy?

And being able to carry around guns contributes to the 'feeling of being safe' that many Americans might need.
Furthermore, we have to consider that the fact that America is rather overly liberal. We, as a general population, believe that the constitution was made specifically to make sure that the rights are being served to the people, and the government is not infringing on the lives of its citizens. Part of the reason of why we are allowed to bear arms is to make sure and deter the government from displeasing the public. If the government is not doing a correct job, then the people have a means of correcting the government. If anything, banning guns will incite fear in many Americans.


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.
Once again, it's only the minority of gun owners who are not qualified to own a gun. Banning guns will not stop criminals from getting the guns. It will only disarm well-behaved citizens, making them defenseless. We are undermining the people of the US.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 1:37:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 12:02:56 AM, vmpire321 wrote:

Furthermore, we have to consider that the fact that America is rather overly liberal...

Well, not to be personally insulting (I genuinely have no desire to be personally insulting), but this brilliantly unbrilliant, prodigiously preposterous, outrély out-of-touch-with-reality statement, that America is "overly liberal", and that this is the root cause of our being adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, renders everything else that you have to say pretty much self-trashed and unworthy of refutation.
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
1/18/2012 1:45:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 1:37:47 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/18/2012 12:02:56 AM, vmpire321 wrote:

Furthermore, we have to consider that the fact that America is rather overly liberal...

Well, not to be personally insulting (I genuinely have no desire to be personally insulting), but this brilliantly unbrilliant, prodigiously preposterous, outrély out-of-touch-with-reality statement, that America is "overly liberal", and that this is the root cause of our being adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, renders everything else that you have to say pretty much self-trashed and unworthy of refutation.

Well, to be scrupulously fair, you don't actually go so far as to explicitly say that being "overly liberal" is what has cast America adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, but whenever conservatives characterize the country's social and political zeitgeist as "liberal", well, this is what they're invariably insinuating.
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.
vmpire321
Posts: 4,731
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 8:44:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 1:37:47 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/18/2012 12:02:56 AM, vmpire321 wrote:

Furthermore, we have to consider that the fact that America is rather overly liberal...

Well, not to be personally insulting (I genuinely have no desire to be personally insulting), but this brilliantly unbrilliant, prodigiously preposterous, outrély out-of-touch-with-reality statement, that America is "overly liberal", and that this is the root cause of our being adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, renders everything else that you have to say pretty much self-trashed and unworthy of refutation.

I meant that in the case of the constitution.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 9:01:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 2:51:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Some Final Thoughts on the Topic

Well, I've won my debate but of course it's a mere and quite ungratifying formality that I'm handed the victory given the fact that my opponent didn't post any arguments. At any rate, it's an important issue and I have a few final comments I'd like to share.

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.

Really? I've never seen a gun put on trial. This is not just some pithy remark. You say guns have a share of the wrongdoing. Put this in a legal sense. If someone or something has a share in the wrongdoing, then it deserves a share of the punishment. How can you "punish" a gun? Furthermore, if a person isn't solely responsible for an act, they deserve less punishment. Essentially you're saying a person that robs a bank with a gun deserves less punishment than if they rob a bank without a gun, since the gun shares in the wrong doing. This is absurd and in direct opposition with current jurisprudence: guns increase the punishment, not reduce it.

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.

Poetic, but hardly convincing. Guns are not like crack because guns are not an addictive substance. There are no subliminal messages hidden in guns. Guns simply are. Guns, by definition, are passive objects. They do absolutely, positively, NOTHING unless a person with a will manipulates them toward some end.

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.

Money is a factor in crime too. What do you suggest we do about that? Also, how do gun laws affect criminals anyway?

"Damn, I want to use a gun to rob this bank, but I can't get one legally! I guess I'll go donate some blood instead. So much for a life of crime. Thank you gun laws!"


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.

The only thing I can interpret from this post is that you wanted an excuse to use accent marks.


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.

This is basically the essence to your issue: mental maturity and moral conscience. The entirety of your post could have been reduced to:

"[G]uns 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."

There is something to be said for brevity.

Now, regarding those issues:

1. Mental Maturity - There is no way to measure or enforce this. Even if you mandated gun education for gun owners, gun accidents are still going to happen and the issue is usually not with the actual gun owner, but the gun ending up in the hands of someone else.

2. Moral Conscience - If people are deemed too immoral to own a gun, do you think they're going to be stopped by gun laws?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 9:34:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 1:37:47 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/18/2012 12:02:56 AM, vmpire321 wrote:

Furthermore, we have to consider that the fact that America is rather overly liberal...

Well, not to be personally insulting (I genuinely have no desire to be personally insulting), but this brilliantly unbrilliant, prodigiously preposterous, outrély out-of-touch-with-reality statement, that America is "overly liberal", and that this is the root cause of our being adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, renders everything else that you have to say pretty much self-trashed and unworthy of refutation.

http://tvtropes.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 9:37:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 1:45:44 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/18/2012 1:37:47 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 1/18/2012 12:02:56 AM, vmpire321 wrote:

Furthermore, we have to consider that the fact that America is rather overly liberal...

Well, not to be personally insulting (I genuinely have no desire to be personally insulting), but this brilliantly unbrilliant, prodigiously preposterous, outrély out-of-touch-with-reality statement, that America is "overly liberal", and that this is the root cause of our being adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, renders everything else that you have to say pretty much self-trashed and unworthy of refutation.

Well, to be scrupulously fair, you don't actually go so far as to explicitly say that being "overly liberal" is what has cast America adrift in a sea of social and political troubles, but whenever conservatives characterize the country's social and political zeitgeist as "liberal", well, this is what they're invariably insinuating.

http://tvtropes.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2012 2:46:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 9:01:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 1/17/2012 2:51:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Some Final Thoughts on the Topic

Well, I've won my debate but of course it's a mere and quite ungratifying formality that I'm handed the victory given the fact that my opponent didn't post any arguments. At any rate, it's an important issue and I have a few final comments I'd like to share.

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.

Really? I've never seen a gun put on trial. This is not just some pithy remark. You say guns have a share of the wrongdoing. Put this in a legal sense. If someone or something has a share in the wrongdoing, then it deserves a share of the punishment. How can you "punish" a gun?

First I'd just like to say that I don't share your retributory ethical thinking, according to which identifying someone or something as bad must ipso facto entail his/her/its punishment. However, one punitive legal response that society might make upon recognizing the part that guns play in motivating crime would of course be to outlaw them.

Furthermore, if a person isn't solely responsible for an act, they deserve less punishment.

Say what?! Since when does being involved in a gang rape or a conspiracy to commit murder, for instance, diminish the moral responsibility of a participant? As for legal accountability, well, pragmatic prosecutors will sometimes make a deal with an accomplice to obtain his/her testimony against the defendant they've set their sites on, but this doesn't always necessarily mean that said accomplice deserved less punishment (if one thinks of justice in terms of incarceration and punishment, which I don't, making your whole point here quite moot as far as I'm concerned).

Rather, guns are like crack to individuals contemplating committing a crime. They 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.

Poetic, but hardly convincing. Guns are not like crack because guns are not an addictive substance. There are no subliminal messages hidden in guns. Guns simply are. Guns, by definition, are passive objects. They do absolutely, positively, NOTHING unless a person with a will manipulates them toward some end.

So, you view human beings as living and acting in a vacuum, of their own wills and characters, susceptible to no external influence from factors such as having the means to commit an act readily available to them?!

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.

Money is a factor in crime too. What do you suggest we do about that? Also, how do gun laws affect criminals anyway?

Well, something should most certainly be done about the economic factors that contribute to high crime rates, i.e. the abolition of capitalism in favor of a system that fosters a more equitable distribution of wealth. As to how gun laws affect criminals, well, if firearms, due to gun control laws, are less plentiful and easy to lay one's hands on ...

"Damn, I want to use a gun to rob this bank, but I can't get one legally! I guess I'll go donate some blood instead. So much for a life of crime. Thank you gun laws!"

This is reductio ad absurdum, nothing more.

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.

The only thing I can interpret from this post is that you wanted an excuse to use accent marks.

Not to be unkind, but perhaps this is an indication of your powers of comprehension?

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.

This is basically the essence to your issue: mental maturity and moral conscience. The entirety of your post could have been reduced to:

"[G]uns 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."

There is something to be said for brevity.

You seem like an intelligent enough fellow, but perhaps you're another non-reader.

Now, regarding those issues:

1. Mental Maturity - There is no way to measure or enforce this. Even if you mandated gun education for gun owners, gun accidents are still going to happen and the issue is usually not with the actual gun owner, but the gun ending up in the hands of someone else.

This is a good reason why only members of a well-screened, well-trained, and well-regulated militia should be allowed to bear arms.

2. Moral Conscience - If people are deemed too immoral to own a gun, do you think they're going to be stopped by gun laws?

If the guns aren't available and an individual is perhaps too lazy or cowardly to commit a crime without one ...
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.