Off Topic Poker Forums

In the interest of saving a thread I am very interested in keeping going I am creating this one. Let the fireworks begin.

hmm, drugs can be used improperly, so let's ban them? Seems to really stop people from getting them, and reduce crime.

hmm, guns can be used improperly so let's ban them? Yeah, seems like a good idea to have a bunch of criminals with guns and responsible citizens unarmed.

If someone wants to break into my home or try to rob me on the street, I have a God-given right to defend myself. That God-given right should not be interfered with because of the existence of some maniacs who have nothing to do with me.

If others in the theatre were armed the numbers would probably have been less.


/derail

Criminals would not have such easy access to hardware if you didn't have such lax gun control laws. Which responsible citizens are we talking about anyway? Neighborhood watch members for instance. That seems to be working out well. I think statistics generally show that a family member is far more likely to die by gun violence from guns kept for defense than from home invasion etc.

Criminals would not have such easy access to hardware if you didn't have such lax gun control laws.

Maybe if we amped up our war on drugs there would be less drugs too?

Prohibition of goods in high demand just cause a black market. People know how to make the guns, people want them, so they will be made and distributed. Only problem is that criminals are far more likely to purchase in the black market than non-criminals.

Which responsible citizens are we talking about anyway? Neighborhood watch members for instance. That seems to be working out well.

Not sure what you are referring to here?

I think statistics generally show that a family member is far more likely to die by gun violence from guns kept for defense than from home invasion etc.

a) Citing sources would help

b) Seems like it's certainly possible that it's true, but that is irrelevant to the argument. There are lots of things that can be misused that should not be prohibited. My ability to think can be great if I'm thinking a lot of positive thoughts that give me positive emotions, or, like most people, I can think mostly negative thoughts which greatly harm me. So should the State regulate people's thoughts? Food can keep me a live and allow my body to thrive, or it can kill me. Should the State regulate the amount of food people can eat? Exercise can improve my life and extend my health, or I can overtrain and weaken my immune system and injure my joints. Should the State regulate my exercise regime? Over-the-counter pain medication can help me feel better and bring down inflammation, but it's possible that a child in my house gains access to the pills, ingests them, and dies. Should the State outlaw pain medication?

c) the statistic is complete bullshit and proves nothing because you are comparing apples and oranges. Home's that have guns kept for defense are extremely unlikely to suffer deaths by invasion precisely because they have guns kept for defense. So of course the deaths cause by internal gun violence/accidents is going to be higher than the deaths caused by external invasion. Hypothetically, if homes that had guns for defense instantly no longer had their guns, then the death rate caused by invasion in those homes would be much higher.


Any person has the natural right to defend himself - not only from muggers, thieves, murderes, and so on, but also from the government itself. What if the government turns into a totalitarian regime, how are the people to defend themselves from your blessed State? And don't act as if this is an unlikely event - just about 75 years earlier nearly the whole world was run by violent totalitarian governments, and the history of mankind is marked with violent totalitarian governments. Exponentially more people have been killed at the hands of violent totalitarian States than have been killed by lone madmen who have access to guns. An armed public is something that keeps the State in check, and history has proven the State to be far more dangerous than lone psychopathic murders who can buy guns legally.

The second amendment is not only a practical law that allows for self-defense, but it also a symbolic law - it symbolizes self-governance, independence, freedom, responsibility, and a minimal State.

Maybe if we amped up our war on drugs there would be less drugs too?

Prohibition of goods in high demand just cause a black market. People know how to make the guns, people want them, so they will be made and distributed. Only problem is that criminals are far more likely to purchase in the black market than non-criminals.

There is already a gigantic black market in guns. Predicated on, for example, the gun show loophole which allows private gun owners to sell weapons without the usual background checks and balances, etc. What gun control (nobody even mentioned prohibition btw) does is it limits, for example, the availability of military grade hardware to the general public by creating stringent background checks, wait periods and sentences for the breach of these policies.

Not sure what you are referring to here?

Trayvon Martin.

a) Citing sources would help

I know. Total cop out on my part. I'll look around for something relevant.

b) Seems like it's certainly possible that it's true, but that is irrelevant to the argument. There are lots of things that can be misused that should not be prohibited. My ability to think can be great if I'm thinking a lot of positive thoughts that give me positive emotions, or, like most people, I can think mostly negative thoughts which greatly harm me. So should the State regulate people's thoughts? Food can keep me a live and allow my body to thrive, or it can kill me. Should the State regulate the amount of food people can eat? Exercise can improve my life and extend my health, or I can overtrain and weaken my immune system and injure my joints. Should the State regulate my exercise regime? Over-the-counter pain medication can help me feel better and bring down inflammation, but it's possible that a child in my house gains access to the pills, ingests them, and dies. Should the State outlaw pain medication?

If purchasing weapons is done soley in the belief that doing so will help protect your family from gun violence but statistics clearly show that one of your family members is much more likely to die or be harmed as a result of that decision - how can that be irrelevant? Once again I will search for the statistics but I am fairly positive about the accuracy of this point

The Freedom argument can be taken much too far. Does the state have the right to prevent me from putting on a blindfold and driving my semi-trailer down the wrong lane on the interstate? I should hope so. Freedom cannot be ever completely divorced from responsibility. Are you free to shout 'Fire' in a crowded movie theatre. Public harm must always be taken into consideration when viewing the actions that we as citizens should be allowed to do. This isn't tyranny - it's society.

Any person has the natural right to defend himself - not only from muggers, thieves, murderes, and so on, but also from the government itself. What if the government turns into a totalitarian regime, how are the people to defend themselves from your blessed State? And don't act as if this is an unlikely event - just about 75 years earlier nearly the whole world was run by violent totalitarian governments, and the history of mankind is marked with violent totalitarian governments. Exponentially more people have been killed at the hands of violent totalitarian States than have been killed by lone madmen who have access to guns. An armed public is something that keeps the State in check, and history has proven the State to be far more dangerous than lone psychopathic murders who can buy guns legally.

The American government wields the most powerful fighting force ever assembled in the history of mankind. Do you really believe, that absent from the complete desertion of the majority of the USA armed forces, your state militia is going to have any kind of impact on the kind of force that would be brought to bear on it. Given that the military does swing around to you anti-totalitarian cause? What need of your militia remains. Get over that one.

The second amendment is not only a practical law that allows for self-defense, but it also a symbolic law - it symbolizes self-governance, independence, freedom, responsibility, and a minimal State.

Which is all well and good but the framers simply did not envision 18 year olds wandering into shopping malls with AK-47's and pipe bombs. This is Constitutional fundamentalism. If a law does not live and breathe it fails to remain relevant.

Ok that was fun. Keep it coming. Btw I pretty much live and breathe for this kind of debate. I was a Philosophy student so argument is the nuts to me. I hope that nothing I have said offends you and that we can keep it theoretical. I respect your views, though I vehemently disagree with them, and I would fight to defend your right to have them and express them. Now have at me

Here's one.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110427101532.htm

Here in Australia... There are some guns.

Like...

Bikie gangs have guns... which they mostly use to shoot at each other...

Police have guns that they mostly don't use coz they LOVE using their tasers on people, but every now and then they'll take a pot shot at a bikie gang member just to relieve the tension.

And in the country (only 11% of Aussie population live in the country) there are some guns on the farms mostly (NON-assault) rifles etc. for culling of Roos, and (mostly) preventing dingos from eating babies. Country folk are more comfortable around guns than city-folk here... but they don't treat them like toys they see them as farm equipment.


So all I'm gonna say on this subject with what I've said above to "set the scene" is... that...

It's really hard for some otherwise normal but really pissed off schmo to even come up with the IDEA of going and shooting a bunch of people in a movie theatre.

Like... the thought just can't really logically form in your head.

You might get a knife and go and kill your ex-girlfriend and her new lover... or take a baseball bat to someone's car... but that's pretty much it.

There is already a gigantic black market in guns. Predicated on, for example, the gun show loophole which allows private gun owners to sell weapons without the usual background checks and balances, etc. What gun control (nobody even mentioned prohibition btw) does is it limits, for example, the availability of military grade hardware to the general public by creating stringent background checks, wait periods and sentences for the breach of these policies.

It limits the availability to non-criminals. Criminals are going to find a way to get the military-grade hardware either way. You think that if gun shows were outlawed that drug-cartels wouldn't get assault rifles? You think some crazy person determined to shoot up a theatre wouldn't be able to find an AK-47? What we need is more citizens carrying guns, not less. If 8 out of 10 adults in that theatre had a gun, then as soon as he walked into the theatre and fired shots in the air, there would be 15 people right next to him who had their guns drawn and took him down. He wouldn't have had time to kill more than 5 people probably. Also, if it was widely known that 8 out of 10 adults carry guns, the guy might not have even came into the theatre in the first place knowing he might not be able to kill as many people as he wanted to kill and knowing that his own life would be taken. Obviously there are people who wouldn't care as they want to end their life, but either way the total damage would have been less.

Also do you think that if someone wanted to murder his own wife and children but he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't find another way? I could be wrong, but someone who's gone that crazy will find a way to kill a bunch of helpless people.

Trayvon Martin.

One event blown way out of proportion by the media is completely irrelevant to our debate.

If purchasing weapons is done soley in the belief that doing so will help protect your family from gun violence but statistics clearly show that one of your family members is much more likely to die or be harmed as a result of that decision - how can that be irrelevant? Once again I will search for the statistics but I am fairly positive about the accuracy of this point

Statistics don't clearly show that one of your family members is much more likely to die or be harmed as a result of that decision. The statistic you cited shows that many people are irresponsible with guns. If they were to somehow conduct a study that examined the harm done to family members between three groups: responsible gun owners, irresponsible gun owners, and non-gun owners, I would bet on the first group being the safest, and I would make damn sure I was in the first group when I purchase a gun (keeping it in a safe or hidden place unknown to family members, etc). Also note here that government gun control isn't going to make people more responsible with guns just like a government-mandated diet wouldn't make people more responsible with the food they eat.

Further, whether or not the gun puts a family in more danger is none of the government's business. Letting children eat a lot of sugar is very dangerous, but the government's isn't going to monitor children's diets. Just because a lot of people may use them incorrectly doesn't mean that the government should restrict them. Most people use television incorrectly (watch way too much of it), but the government should not put regulate television time per day.

The Freedom argument can be taken much too far. Does the state have the right to prevent me from putting on a blindfold and driving my semi-trailer down the wrong lane on the interstate? I should hope so. Freedom cannot be ever completely divorced from responsibility. Are you free to shout 'Fire' in a crowded movie theatre. Public harm must always be taken into consideration when viewing the actions that we as citizens should be allowed to do. This isn't tyranny - it's society.

The "everything is arbitrary at least to a point" is a decent argument, but in the counterexamples you proposed, you are directly harming others. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre directly harms others. Also, there should obviously not be a law against driving blind-folded lol. If almost certain death isn't going to deter someone from driving blindfolded, then how can a law possibly deter that person? Writing a law like that would be a waste of time, energy, and paper.

Also note that there is no law preventing you from shouting fire in a crowded theatre - that is to say, there is no *prior restraint.* If you do it, you get an adequate punishment. It would be absurd to implant the public with brain chips that monitor everyone's thoughts so that as soon as one begins to consider shouting "fire," their brain is locked up and they can't do it. Similarly, it's wrong to prevent citizens from owning guns just because some may misuse them. If one misuses them, they are punished.

Prior restraint in most areas is futile. Not only is it an infringement on the rights of the people who would act responsible, but it's a waste of money trying to enforce it. If someone wants to kill 10 people and can't get an AK (fwiw, the black market would still provide it for them, but assume that someone the government is able to completely shutout the black market), they can just get in a car and crash into a busy sidewalk and run 10 people over.

The American government wields the most powerful fighting force ever assembled in the history of mankind. Do you really believe, that absent from the complete desertion of the majority of the USA armed forces, your state militia is going to have any kind of impact on the kind of force that would be brought to bear on it. Given that the military does swing around to you anti-totalitarian cause? What need of your militia remains. Get over that one.

We threw everything we had at Vietnam, and they were nothing but a bunch of farmers with some AK-47s. Obviously the government can blow the public to smithereens if it really wanted to, but that would be self-defeating. A totalitarian state seeks power. What power does that totalitarian state have if all of it's citizens are dead? So if a totalitarian state tried to rise up, it would be forced to fight with less extreme measures, and an armed public deters the appeal of such an endeavor and of joining such an endeavor since many involved in enforcing that state's goals would be slayed by the armed public.

The public owning guns doesn't deter the State from blowing everyone and anyone up at anytime, but it does keep less extreme abuses in check.

Which is all well and good but the framers simply did not envision 18 year olds wandering into shopping malls with AK-47's and pipe bombs. This is Constitutional fundamentalism. If a law does not live and breathe it fails to remain relevant.

a) Obviously there were psychopaths and murderers in the 1700s, so it's not like the founders were idealists. They just saw way more benefit to the public having self-defense from the government and from others.

b) Also note that if more people exercised the 2nd amendment, a psychopath walking into a mall with an AK would not be nearly as catastrophic. Again, if, say, 8 out of 10 adults carried a firearm with them, then as soon as a madman starts spraying, he'd have 8 shots fired back at him rather quickly and less people would die as a result.

It's really hard for some otherwise normal but really pissed off schmo to even come up with the IDEA of going and shooting a bunch of people in a movie theatre.

Like... the thought just can't really logically form in your head.

You might get a knife and go and kill your ex-girlfriend and her new lover... or take a baseball bat to someone's car... but that's pretty much it.

If I go w/ this logic, we should ban the new Batman film and movies like it, so the thought of speading mayhem, fear and death (like characters in a movie) just can't really logically form in your head.

Also, AGTG for omnipotent ruler of the world!

Mexico has hardcore gun-control. No one can defend themselves against criminals.

Anyone who has a gun for sport needs a General to sign a permit. At least that is what a friend says. He is a member of the local Cinegetico (Shooting Club with a live pigeon range -- very wealthy people)

Interesing thing is, I know quite a few Mexicans (older generation) that have a gun in a safe (in the house). I always wonder what would happen legally if they used it against an armed intruder.

Wish I had the time to get into this but my view is pretty much parallel with AGTJ's.

If I go w/ this logic, we should ban the new Batman film and movies like it, so the thought of speading mayhem, fear and death (like characters in a movie) just can't really logically form in your head.

Not quite, though I see where you've gone with that. It's not like we're unable to imagine the spread of mayhem as a thing. We have cinemas and violent TV here too...

That's NOT the thought that we're not able to form.

The thought we can't put together is "I'm gonna do that."

Does that clarify it a bit?

My views on this have changed quite a bit over the years. I am not a "gun person," per se, but I'm pretty much agnostic when it comes to gun control in the U.S. The fact is that guns are a major part of our culture here, and I just don't see that changing any time soon. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, I just haven't seen that many studies and/or evidence that gun control actually works in this country. I welcome links to studies showing otherwise, as I really don't know what I'm talking about here.

That said, I would be very much in favor of requiring a license/test before owning a gun. I imagine a lot of accidental deaths could be avoided this way, and we already have experience licensing the public in the use of dangerous equipment (eg cars).

Not quite, though I see where you've gone with that. It's not like we're unable to imagine the spread of mayhem as a thing. We have cinemas and violent TV here too...

That's NOT the thought that we're not able to form.

The thought we can't put together is "I'm gonna do that."

Does that clarify it a bit?

I guess you're saying the problem is that American culture views guns as toys.....(from your OP). I'm not sure how to respond to this since that may or may not be true and if it is true I'm not sure how gun control would change this.
As far as "normal" people not being able to make the jump to, "I'm gonna do that." I don't know how more gun laws would change that either. It absolutely makes more sense to think about banning/regulating/controlling all the FPS video games.

It limits the availability to non-criminals. Criminals are going to find a way to get the military-grade hardware either way. You think that if gun shows were outlawed that drug-cartels wouldn't get assault rifles? You think some crazy person determined to shoot up a theatre wouldn't be able to find an AK-47? What we need is more citizens carrying guns, not less. If 8 out of 10 adults in that theatre had a gun, then as soon as he walked into the theatre and fired shots in the air, there would be 15 people right next to him who had their guns drawn and took him down. He wouldn't have had time to kill more than 5 people probably. Also, if it was widely known that 8 out of 10 adults carry guns, the guy might not have even came into the theatre in the first place knowing he might not be able to kill as many people as he wanted to kill and knowing that his own life would be taken. Obviously there are people who wouldn't care as they want to end their life, but either way the total damage would have been less.

While I agree with you for the most part, it's not always as simple as that. There is a huge difference between firing a gun at a target at a gun range, and firing a gun at another human being in a gunfight. And I'm not talking about the willingness to kill another human being, though that does play a part.

Today, I checked the Death Penalty in Colorado. From what I saw with a quick check, Colorado failed to overturn the Death Penalty in 2009. IMO, We have the perfect candidate. No mercy. Maybe send him to Saudi Arabia for the final sentence. No mercy.

The pattern I have seen, is those who want gun-control, also are anti-death-penalty (protect the criminal's rights). It will be interesting to see the commentary over the next week, as the details emerge. After all, he will have a defense attorney fighting for him.
........ Right now, everyone is still in shock......WTF *** ****!!!!