Gun Ownership is a Privilege, Not a Right

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I don't recall any of the people who stopped Jared Loughner as citing anger or being "pissed off" as the reason they went for him. I have never heard of anyone stopping a shooter doing so because they were "pissed off."

I have to assume, by your response, that you've not been shot at much (a situation for which you have my sincere congratulations).

It pumps you so full of adrenaline that you have to do something with it: Some folks call it Fight or Flight reflex.

If you get pissed off, you fight. If you don't, you either run or hide.

Bruce Lee used to call it, "emotional content," when he was teaching the fight: You use the adrenaline instead of letting it use you. It's a way to be totally pissed off but still be in control. (Me, I stand on adrenaline's throat until the shooting's done, then puke all over the place... but it's still just coping with being pissed off.)

....

Hmmm.... Now that I think about it, fear for someone else's safety could do it, too. It's still just another way of dealing with adrenaline, though.

If the gun advocates want to claim that guns don't kill people then their suggestions that gun violence be solved with more guns is nonsensical. In order for it to make sense they must acknowledge that guns do kill people.

Guns do NOT kill people, nor do they defend nor preserve people. Guns are tools with neither volition nor moral bias. A firearm is simply a lever and fulcrum system for turning 4 to 7 pounds of pressure from one's finger into enough force to pry a person's life from his/her/its body.

While, overwhelmingly, that force is never directed actually TO someone's body, that's certainly the metric.

If that force is used to defend or destroy, that's the choice of the person carrying the firearm, right, because the firearm don't care.

As such, more guns in the hands of reasonably law-abiding people will accomplish more reasonably law-abiding things, and more guns in the hands of persons of criminal intent will accomplish more things of criminal intent.

What we want, and pretty much what we are getting despite the rhetoric from both sides, is more guns in the hands of that whole, "reasonably law-abiding things," demographic.

(Personal opinion: I don't fall for that "More guns = less crime" model, but considering the direction of violent crime in the US, "more guns," certainly and demonstrably doesn't mean, "more crime.")

 

[Biscuit]

Its a Purchase permit. It lasts 3 months and allows the buying of up to 3 guns in that time. It's "one gun a month" but the buyer can but them all at the same time.

buying later another time after 3 months, requires a new permit.

I see that now. The wiki article was not clear on this. Still a step in the right direction.

On a whole the combination of laws in switzerland and their respect for guns, as opposed to glorification, make for a safer society.

 

[RandFan]

Guns do NOT kill people...

• Ovens don't bake.
• Paintbrushes don't paint.

Yes, we all get the semantic straw man. People use guns to kill people more effectively and more efficiently.

"Guns do not kill people" is fatuous statement. We've all heard it. It doesn't in anyway advance the argument. Please learn what proximate causation and ultimate causation are.

 

[Biscuit]

Hi

I have to assume, by your response, that you've not been shot at much (a situation for which you have my sincere congratulations).


It pumps you so full of adrenaline that you have to do something with it: Some folks call it Fight or Flight reflex.

If you get pissed off, you fight. If you don't, you either run or hide.

Bruce Lee used to call it, "emotional content," when he was teaching the fight: You use the adrenaline instead of letting it use you. It's a way to be totally pissed off but still be in control. (Me, I stand on adrenaline's throat until the shooting's done, then puke all over the place... but it's still just coping with being pissed off.)

....

Hmmm.... Now that I think about it, fear for someone else's safety could do it, too. It's still just another way of dealing with adrenaline, though.

No I have never been shot at but I have worked as a private armed guard and I have had guns pointed at me and I have returned the favor to those people. I have also been in the direct vicinity of gun shots. I have been in a number of unarmed physical altercations as I use to and still occasionally work as a bouncer at bars and college parties.

What you describe as pissed off is completely foreign to me. Any anger came much later after the incident. Nor have I ever heard anyone describe their fight instinct as one of being "pissed off" and I think you are projecting your own reaction onto others.

Guns do NOT kill people, ...snip

Yes they do. It is their primary function to kill. That the gun is not self aware is a ridiculous and pointless argument. The only reason people carry guns for self protection is because they kill. That's the whole point. That's why I use to carry and that's why I switched to non lethal protection because I don't want to kill anyone.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

• Ovens don't bake.
• Paintbrushes don't paint.

Yes, we all get the semantic straw man. People use guns to kill people more effectively and more efficiently.

"Guns do not kill people" is fatuous statement. We've all heard it. It doesn't in anyway advance the argument. Please learn what proximate causation and ultimate causation are.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that guns can kill people independent of human direction, ovens can bake without that same direction, or that paint brushes do not require a human hand to guide them?
If that is so, then forget about killing people. I've got a birthday coming up, and my deck is in need of a coat of varnish.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that guns can kill people independent of human direction, ovens can bake without that same direction, or that paint brushes do not require a human hand to guide them?
If that is so, then forget about killing people. I've got a birthday coming up, and my deck is in need of a coat of varnish.

Did you bother to watch the video? I provided a link for proximate causation and ultimate causation, Did you bother to find out what proximate causation and ultimate causation are?

I wouldn't mind your question except that I provided you with ample reason for you not to come to such a silly conclusion.

You can lead a horse to water and all that.

 

[RandFan]

Question:

Are you saying that guns can kill people independent of human direction...

Are you saying that killing is not a purpose of guns? Are you serious?

A gun, by definition, is a lethal weapon. It's made so that if needed it can effectively kill people. Do you deny that? Are you saying that if I want to kill someone I should not choose a gun because it won't work for that purpose?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Did you bother to watch the video? I provided a link for proximate causation and ultimate causation, Did you bother to find out what proximate causation and ultimate causation are?

I wouldn't mind your question except that I provided you with ample reason for you not to come to such a silly conclusion.

You can lead a horse to water and all that.

Of course I watched it, and I am familiar with proximate and ultimate causation.
It was an intentional silly conclusion in response to an equal specious argument.
Your position infers that because guns are specifically designed to project metal objects through human bodies that they are inherently "evil".
You reiterate that position with a statement in your next post
"Are you saying that killing is not a purpose of guns?"
Not at all. The purpose of a firearm is specifically to kill.
But by taking that position you are implying that it is wrong to kill. How so?
A gun is designed to perforate flesh. That is its only purpose (yes, it can be used for other things such as target competition, but that is ancillary to the purpose it was designed for).
A scalpel is designed to sever human flesh. That is its only purpose (although it, too, can be used for ancillary purposes, it was specifically designed to sever flesh with maximum efficiency).
Does this mean that scalpels should be banned?
A scalpel, in the hands of Albert Schweitzer, is an instrument of benefit. In the hands of Joseph Mengele, it is an instrument of horror.
The difference lies not in the instrument, but in the intent.
Exactly the same is true of a firearm, and this is point that you, and the author of your video, fail to comprehend.
Ask yourself this:
Are there circumstances where killing is not wrong, where it is, in fact, the right course of action?
If your six month old baby girl was on a chopping block and a delusional cannibalistic murderer (with a taste for babies) was standing over her, meat cleaver poised to cut her in half, would you view the gun in your hand as an instrument that could save an innocent life, or would you maintain the position that killing is "wrong"?
Someone is going to die under those conditions. As long as that has been established, then (at least in my opinion) it should be the antisocial, not the innocent.
If you can find fault with my logic, please educate me. As we both know, I'm not the most educated person on this board.
But if you cannot find fault with it, then it tends to support my position, does it not?
Specifically the ultimate causation is not the gun, it is the intent with which the gun is wielded.

 

[RandFan]

Do you think that people don't have the basic right to protect themselves or to feed themselves?

Absolutely.

Both are legitimate uses for guns that have been around for much longer than that "Ambiguous" document.

This strikes me as an appeal to tradition (legitimate). Let's grant the premise for argument sake. That they have been perceived of as legitimate does not mean that they should be legitimate.

There are limits to self protection (as your claim suggests). But, by the same token, SCOTUS has ruled in the case of guns that they are legitimate.

But that does not make guns a basic or fundamental right. It's self protection that is the right. The question of "legitimate" is not axiomatic. And one more time, the UN, most if not all other modern liberal democracies, civil rights organizations, etc., do not see guns as a basic or fundamental right.

 

[RandFan]

Your position infers that because guns are specifically designed to project metal objects through human bodies that they are inherently "evil".

Straw man. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Not at all. The purpose of a firearm is specifically to kill.

That's my point. That's my only point. Proximate cause.

But by taking that position you are implying that it is wrong to kill. How so?

Straw man. No such implication exists.

The difference lies not in the instrument, but in the intent.

Exactly, and if the intent is to kill then the gun is the proximate cause.

Specifically the ultimate causation is not the gun, it is the intent with which the gun is wielded.

Another straw man. I never claimed that a gun is the ultimate cause.

Gun: Proximate cause.
Human intent: Ultimate cause.

So, please to stop with the straw man and address my arguments. This is all a waste of our time.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Straw man. Please don't put words in my mouth.

That's my point. That's my only point. Proximate cause.

Straw man. No such implication exists.

Exactly, and if the intent is to kill then the gun is the proximate cause.

Another straw man. I never claimed that a gun is the ultimate cause.

Gun: Proximate cause.
Human intent: Ultimate cause.

So, please to stop with the straw man and address my arguments. This is all a waste of our time.

With all due respect, your source ( the video) stated very specifically that the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" was a straw man argument, which pretty directly infers that the consequent "people kill people" relies on a fallacy of logic, the corollary being that "guns do kill people".
Now you are arguing that that is a straw man argument?
I think the intent of the original statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is to show that the ultimate cause is human intent, and that guns are only a means. Killing itself is neither good or bad, it all depends on the intent (legitimate self defense vs murder).
If you agree that there are legitimate circumstances for killing another human, then what is your objection to the original statement? That the statement is not specific enough?
Most bumper stickers aren't.

 

[RandFan]

I think the intent of the original statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is to show that the ultimate cause is human intent, and that guns are only a means.

Which everyone knows. The statement provides no helpful information. It advances no argument. It's a rhetorical device.

Oh, and FWIW: As a lifelong and passionate gun rights advocate I've uttered the silly statement hundreds of times. It means absolutely nothing to me now as far as gun rights are concerned. It doesn't tell me anything that is in anyway compelling.

 

[jimbob]

Which everyone knows. The statement provides no helpful information. It advances no argument. It's a rhetorical device.

Oh, and FWIW: As a lifelong and passionate gun rights advocate I've uttered the silly statement hundreds of times. It means absolutely nothing to me now as far as gun rights are concerned. It doesn't tell me anything that is in anyway compelling.

The Gun Thing Eddie Izzard (Youtube)

 

[RandFan]

The Gun Thing Eddie Izzard (Youtube)

The gun helps.

 

[RandFan]

I like George Carlin's take.

 

[applecorped]

I like George Carlin's take.

Yeah, insinuating someone is gay based on their name is a great way to criticize an opponent.

 

[shawmutt]

So many gun threads...

 

[Biscuit]

Which everyone knows. The statement provides no helpful information. It advances no argument. It's a rhetorical device.

Oh, and FWIW: As a lifelong and passionate gun rights advocate I've uttered the silly statement hundreds of times. It means absolutely nothing to me now as far as gun rights are concerned. It doesn't tell me anything that is in anyway compelling.

THANK YOU!

I would add that so long as one side of the debate refuses to come off their rhetorical perch we will never even come close to solving the problems with guns in America. Say it with me, "guns kill people and I am ok with that."

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

THANK YOU!

I would add that so long as one side of the debate refuses to come off their rhetorical perch we will never even come close to solving the problems with guns in America. Say it with me, "guns kill people and I am ok with that."

OK. I have no problem coming off my "rhetorical perch". I'm even open to suggestions.
Just what is your solution to the problem of violence in America?
Please note that I used the term "violence", not "guns", but if you think guns are the problem, not violence in which guns are merely one of many tools, so be it.
State your case. Offer your solutions.

 

[Biscuit]

OK. I have no problem coming off my "rhetorical perch". I'm even open to suggestions.
Just what is your solution to the problem of violence in America?
Please note that I used the term "violence", not "guns", but if you think guns are the problem, not violence in which guns are merely one of many tools, so be it.
State your case. Offer your solutions.

Mandatory training, licensing, and qualifying for gun owners would be a great start. Lets teach people about guns and instill a respect for them instead of our current glorification of them. Then ban everything except single shot bolt action hunting rifles from leaving the home for any extended period. If you are taking your guns to the range you go straight there and straight home where they are locked in a safe. If you absolutely have to carry a gun with you at all times then you need a damn good reason and a whole lot of training and qualifying.