Gun control

[Mycroft]

A.K.A. "backpedalling".

Hmmm, don't see it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Mycroft, it was a reductio ad absurdum. That's the point.

Precisely.

 

[Tmy]

Cars.

I let my freind drive my car for a day, while he "goes to look for a job". Meanwhile, he robs a bank. Should I get busted for my freind's crime? He used my car to commit it. What about my friend using my phone and computer to commit wire fraud? Why should guns be special before the law?

If you know your friend is not a licensed driver and you give him the keys, then yeah you should bear some responsibility. If your buddy is on parole for wire fraud and shouldnt be using a computer, and you give it to him. Yeah you should be in trouble too.

Handing out guns to unlicensed thugs to do who knows what is reckless to say the least.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

If you know your friend is not a licensed driver and you give him the keys, then yeah you should bear some responsibility. If your buddy is on parole for wire fraud and shouldnt be using a computer, and you give it to him. Yeah you should be in trouble too.

Handing out guns to unlicensed thugs to do who knows what is reckless to say the least.

I did not specify that my friend has a criminal record. It could even be a first time offender.

 

[UserGoogol]

What I don't get are the people who make the argument that it would have been better to simply let the woman get robbed/raped than to have killed the attacker. That's great if they want to make that decision for themselves, but it's not cool at all to make that choice for someone else.

But it is cool for the woman to make the choice of whether the attacker shall live or die? In both situations, a person is making a choice on behalf of another person. And being killed is vastly worse than being raped.

I'm not neccesarily saying that lethal self-defense is always unacceptable, but the argument seems to make sense to me.

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft, it was a reductio ad absurdum. That's the point.

And the reducto ad absurdum argument would have made sense if the claim had been that the person couldn't make any[/b] opinion on hunting without having been a hunter, but nobody made that claim. Instead, only one specific claim was challenged.

For example, I personally have never been hunting. If I were to offer the following opinions:

1) Hunting is dangerous.

2) Hunting is a good way for some people to feed a family inexpensively.

3) Hunting is not a good activity to promote father/son bonding.

Some of these opinions make sense, some don't.

Hunting is dangerous. I could form this opinion easily without hunting. I could read news reports of hunting accidents, and come to a conclusion. Someone arguing against me could then compare hunting to other activities if they wanted to refute me, but the opinion itself doesn't require personal experiance.

Hunting is a good way for some people to feed a family inexpensively: This is an objective fact, one doesn't need to hunt to see that to some people it's an effective way to provide inexpensive food.

Hunting is not a good activity to promote father/son bonding: Now this is where we have trouble: If I've never hunted, how would I know this? At best, it's just an assertion from prejudice.

 

[Mycroft]

But it is cool for the woman to make the choice of whether the attacker shall live or die? In both situations, a person is making a choice on behalf of another person. And being killed is vastly worse than being raped.

She gets to make the decision on if she gets robbed/raped or not. If she decides no, and that results in the perpetuators death, the responsibility for the perps death is not hers, but his.

She is not required to allow herself to be robbed/raped in order to preserve the life of her robber/rapist.

 

[Mephisto]

What I don't get are the people who make the argument that it would have been better to simply let the woman get robbed/raped than to have killed the attacker. That's great if they want to make that decision for themselves, but it's not cool at all to make that choice for someone else.

I feel the same way about self-defense as I do about the death penalty. I think the fact that the criminal ended up dying while trying to commit his crime is perfect justice. There were no lawyers to muddle facts or to cloud up the situation, no jury to sway, and nothing besides the worst scenario anyone can imagine; a group of male criminals with murderous intent, a helpless female victim and a well-armed samaritan.

I think we can all admit that the idea of selling Tookie as a modern day Jesus would be more difficult if he were gunned down trying to violently rob a convenience store.

As an ex-soldier and a martial artist of 20+ years, I fully concur that a firearm can level the field between an attacker (or small group of attackers) and a seemingly helpless victim. Why anyone would want to leave an appealing young woman, an infirm old lady, a citizen confined to a wheelchair, a young (safety-minded) boy or girl at the mercy of thugs wielding blades or clubs is puzzling to me.

 

[slingblade]

But it is cool for the woman to make the choice of whether the attacker shall live or die?

What do you mean, "is it cool?" Is she within her legal rights? Is she morally correct? Is she obeying the current dictates of teen fashion as she fires? Come on, let's use specific absurdities.

In both situations, a person is making a choice on behalf of another person.

Try "in all three situations," as the choice that started it all was made by the people who decided to attack the woman (a choice on behalf of another). And once they made that choice, they brought certain possible consequences into being.

That means, if you decide to attack me, one consequence of that might be that I will react with deadly force. That you didn't consider this possibility before I killed you doesn't somehow make me more responsible for your death than it makes you.

And being killed is vastly worse than being raped.

Are you stating an opinion or making a claim?
If a claim, I require evidence that proves this statement.

If opinion, you need to think a little harder about any possible ways that being raped could be worse than being killed to see just where that opinion can go wrong, and quickly.

 

[bigred]

If true, it doesn't take into account those who would choose not to be agressors because they know the other person is also armed.

Yeah I bet that happens a lot, given how often people advertise that they're armed and all.

 

[bigred]

Why anyone would want to leave an appealing young woman, an infirm old lady, a citizen confined to a wheelchair, a young (safety-minded) boy or girl at the mercy of thugs wielding blades or clubs is puzzling to me.

Why you imply that these are the only situations involving handguns is extremely puzzling to me.

Actually it's not, but it is a very weak argument in defense of owning a handgun.

 

[UserGoogol]

What do you mean, "is it cool?" Is she within her legal rights? Is she morally correct? Is she obeying the current dictates of teen fashion as she fires? Come on, let's use specific absurdities.

I was merely adopting Mycroft's terminology for the purposes of debating his particular post.

[It] means, if you decide to attack me, one consequence of that might be that I will react with deadly force. That you didn't consider this possibility before I killed you doesn't somehow make me more responsible for your death than it makes you.

I don't follow. When a woman wears a revealing dress, she also brings certain possible consequences into being, but no reasonable person would say that responsibility lies with her if she gets raped.

Are you stating an opinion or making a claim?
If a claim, I require evidence that proves this statement.

A claim, I suppose. When you're dead you can never be happy again, whereas when you're a rape victim, it is merely harder to be happy. Therefore, death is worse.

 

[Mephisto]

Actually it's not, but it is a very weak argument in defense of owning a handgun.

Well, although I don't golf, I could probably kill you with a #3 wood, but it would probably be easier with a #6 iron . . .

Handguns have a very definite niche in the history of the U.S. and is used in several sports enjoyed by responsible and mature citizens. Perhaps we should ban #6 irons in the hands of the "wrong person?"

 

[Freakshow]

But it is cool for the woman to make the choice of whether the attacker shall live or die? In both situations, a person is making a choice on behalf of another person. And being killed is vastly worse than being raped.

I'm not neccesarily saying that lethal self-defense is always unacceptable, but the argument seems to make sense to me.

There are consequences to our choices. If someone chooses to spend their time on this planet committing acts such as muggings and rapes, they will have to suffer the consequences of that choice. If the consequence is that they end up dead on a sidewalk (rare in defensive handgun use for the attacker to die, actually), well...that's the way it goes. You don't want to get shot? Find something else to do with your time than mugging and raping people.

 

[Freakshow]

Why you imply that these are the only situations involving handguns is extremely puzzling to me.

Actually it's not, but it is a very weak argument in defense of owning a handgun.

I don't think it is. What Mephisto stated is the end result of your policy.

I'll ask you...what other methods of self defense would you advocate to a person, that would be as effective as a handgun?

 

[slingblade]

I was merely adopting Mycroft's terminology for the purposes of debating his particular post.

But what do you mean by "cool?" Unless you know, it does your argument no good to parrot Mycroft's teminology.

I don't follow. When a woman wears a revealing dress, she also brings certain possible consequences into being, but no sane person would say that responsibility lies with her if she gets raped.

But you tried to, anyway, didn't you?

A claim, I suppose. When you're dead you can never be happy again, whereas when you're a rape victim, it is merely harder to be happy. Therefore, death is worse.

Again, I'll ask you to imagine a circumstance in which being left to suffer is not preferable to being killed outright.

Hint: when you're dead, you also can never be in pain again.

 

[Freakshow]

When you're dead you can never be happy again, whereas when you're a rape victim, it is merely harder to be happy. Therefore, death is worse.

And the REASON someone is dead or unhappy doesn't matter?

 

[UserGoogol]

But what do you mean by "cool?" Unless you know, it does your argument no good to parrot Mycroft's teminology.

I was merely questioning his logic. I meant the word "cool" to refer to what he was talking about in his post, and I do not know what he meant. I am not claiming he is wrong, (I suspect he might be, but I'm not willing to make that claim as of yet) but his logic simply did not make sense to me, so I turned it against itself.

Hint: when you're dead, you also can never be in pain again.

The way I see it, the only things worse than being death are when you have inevitable pain which counteracts the pleasure you will feel. Such things exist, but I don't think rape is such a thing, because the main long term damage done is depression. People can work though their depression, thus depression is not worse than death, thus rape is not worse than death.

I suppose you might be right though. I don't have much experience in the matter.

And the REASON someone is dead or unhappy doesn't matter?

I don't see why it should. I was deciding which of two possible states is preferable, and how you got to such a state seems irrelevant.

 

[slingblade]

I was merely questioning his logic. I meant the word "cool" to refer to what he was talking about in his post, and I do not know what he meant. I am not claiming he is wrong, (I suspect he might be, but I'm not willing to make that claim as of yet) but his logic simply did not make sense to me, so I turned it against itself.

I see. You argue statements you don't quite understand without first asking for clarification.

The way I see it, the only things worse than being death are when you have inevitable pain which counteracts the pleasure you will feel. Such things exist, but I don't think rape is such a thing, because the main long term damage done is depression. Depression is curable, thus depression is not worse than death, thus rape is not worse than death.

I suppose you might be right though.

Let me guess: you're thinking primarily of an adult man who forces sex on an unwilling adult woman one time. You're thinking nice, neat, "basic" rape.

You're not thinking of anyone who belongs to a culture where being raped is an automatic death sentence (In which case, rape and death are the same thing. Twofers! Wheee!). You're not thinking of gang rape. You're not thinking of child-rape. You're not thinking of incest. You're not thinking of long-term rape. You're not thinking of the perpetuation of sexual abuse through generations. Or any situation where the rape results in a brain injury, or permanent disability, or a venereal disease, or AIDS, or a baby.

All rape causes is a little depression, right?

You're stating opinion. You are not making a claim. As an opinion, it is based on a very limited world-view and is virtually worthless.

 

[Freakshow]

I don't see why it should. I was deciding which of two possible states is preferable, and how you got to such a state seems irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. In fact, I think it is of critical importance, and the subject can't be properly discussed without considering it.

Do you not believe in the concepts of responsibility and consequences?