A bit more seriously, the fact it is a different argument does not make it a lesser argument or an invalid argument.
No, but it makes it an argument for a different discussion.
Old threads comprising endless anecdotes and endless arguments about whether this or that study is biased or flawed and whether this or that interpretation of "well regulated militia" is correct.
There are, however, also a lot of data and evidence, which blots out the endless anecdotes.
I find few people here advocating for the mandatory arming of people who prefer to remain unarmed.
I didn't say they did. I was pointing to the uselessness of anecdotes.
Oh, pshaw. Pish tosh. Balderdash.
The unloaded .38 revolver in a locked case in a tub in my attic in southern Indiana endangers you in Denmark?
Or are you speaking hypothetically? Rhetorically?
Perhaps you are speaking as my neighbor and proclaiming danger on his behalf. Beyond the fact that the neighbors on either side of me would take my side and not yours, you need to do a lot more to prove this clear danger than merely proclaim it exists.
I'm talking about when people live in the same society, of course. And, no, I do not need to prove that citizens having guns is dangerous. I only need to point to the many dead from firearms.
Whether it does or not is irrelevant. Even if the 2nd Amendment cannot be used in support of one argument for firearms ownership, it does not follow that it cannot be used for another argument for firearms ownership.
Either it is irrelevant in a discussion about guns-because-of-protection-from-criminals, or it isn't.
You're not the only one on the forum, Claus, nor do all new members (or even all old members) read all old threads. New discussion of old topics can be quite informative and useful.
Yes, if new information is provided. The reason to keep the old threads is to keep them as reference to discussions already had. We can refer to threads where e.g. Sylvia Browne's Shawn Holbeck fiasco have already been discussed, without the need to bring up old arguments again.
You are welcome to participate by rehashing old arguments, to avoid participating at all, or to participate by linking your irrefutable arguments from the old threads.
Of course. But why have a new thread about already rehashed old arguments?
I'm not convinced that CFLarsen or Alt+F4 have completely thought this through, but that doesn't mean there isn't validity to their point. As my earlier post suggested, you can argue from the perspective of net value. CFLarsen argues from the perspective of "primary purpose."
Then why outlaw murder when children die of disease in hospital?
That argument doesn't hold, either, Skibum, and I'm a gun-owner.
I
also argue from the perspective of "primary purpose".
I agree that there is little we can do to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
What we can do is cut down on the ways criminals can get to guns.
There is alot we can do to keep guns out of the hands of children, both innocent curious little ones, and older crazy ones.
I think it has to go past simple education. Over and over again the media reports stories where children get ahold of their parent perfectly legal guns and someone ends up dead. Why weren't the guns locked up? Cuts down on the time to get the weapon in case of a break in. What bothers me most as when these "responsible" gun owners tell the police, "well I had a talk with my son, he knew never to touch my guns". Children are naturally curious, and boys especially WILL pick up a gun.
In my opinion gun owner should go stringent, mandatory gun safety education. 2 weeks, full time: gun range, classroom and a lecture from a parent who's child killed themselves accidentially with the parent's gun.
Sure, you can lock up your gun so well that kids can't get to it. But that means it will also take
you a long time to get it. So, you have the conflict between removing easy access to the gun and needing to access the gun in case of danger.
That's quite a dilemma gun proponents face. Which do they think is more important? The safety of their children, or their desire to defend themselves against intruders?
Ah. You see, a required education program has never been implemented so we will never know now will we? Unless it happens of course. How many gun laws have aided in cutting down on gun related crime?
If that is the case, then you can't use education as an argument.
20,000 people shot dead? Why should I trust you with a gun?
Huh? I'm allowed by law to defend myself, including the use of deadly force if necessary.
That puts you in a position where you are both accuser, police, judge, jury
and executioner.
You're right, perhaps you should go start yet another nipplegate thread and let people who choose to discuss in this thread to themselves. If you don't like it, petition the mods to close this thread.
Ah....you are one of those gun proponents. Those who can't debate without resorting to being aggressive, merely because other people disagree with you.
Tell me again, why should I trust you with a gun?
