Only 1 shooting this week so far

[hobbsyoyo]

2) They don't have the violent culture that the USA has
.

I haven't dug back into the threads, but has VRWCAgent admitted yet that it isn't only the,gun control types who bring up the 'violent' and/or 'gun' culture of the US yet?

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, many reasons... in order of why...
1) Home defense... I've said it a million times, when seconds matter, the police are only minutes away
2) Away from home defense... in particular for women to be able to defend themselves, they are too often turned into victims by men and pepper spray doesn't work
3) Hunting... for actual food... if you sport hunt for trophies I think it is despicable
4) Enjoyable hobby... target shooting, for me, #4 is a support function of 1, 2 and heaven forbid I ever need it for #3, #5, #6
5) Yes, the ability to fend off the government should they go haywire, as was the intent... however, in this day and age, it's pretty much pointless. If you become an enemy of the state, it's curtains for you.
6) Livestock protection... I don't need this, but some do

Off the top of my head, that's what is coming to mind...

Now, if you believe as I believe, you need to defend these points against the arguments that gun ownership can make violence more lethal when it occurs, even if violence itself is unavoidable in the larger picture of things.

1) The counterpoint will argue that violence deterred by armed homeowners is less that that of increased harm done. This is muddy, violence deterred is not necessarily the same thing as violence stopped in progress. The latter is easier to collect data on, the former is harder.
2) Same as 1.
3) Is hunting a legitimate reason here? Could we not answer protecting a right to hunt with allowing hunters to check out guns to practice and then hunt? Turning them back in when they are done?
4) Same as 3.
5) This is a bigger evaluation, and a judgement call. You correctly recognize that direct confrontation with the government is an unrealistic goal of an armed populace in the 21st century. Is the functional check on governmental reach such that it is worth some increased body count when things go very wrong as they did last week.
6) Limited licensing could be the answer here too. I don't see how the 1.5% or so of remaining farmers justify ownership of handguns by citizens in Chicago, unless it is then to protect themselves from the dictatorship of farmers.

Bear in mind I agree with you overall, but you need to prepare to refute the counterarguments.

 

[bhsup]

I haven't dug back into the threads, but has VRWCAgent admitted yet that it isn't only the,gun control types who bring up the 'violent' and/or 'gun' culture of the US yet?

1) " 'violent' and/or 'gun' culture " is not the same as "culture of gun violence" in any way at all, which is what I railed against.

2) I don't care who brings it up.

3) Nothing wrong with a gun culture.

 

[kochman]

Now, if you believe as I believe, you need to defend these points against the arguments that gun ownership can make violence more lethal when it occurs, even if violence itself is unavoidable in the larger picture of things.

Well, if I were to use a weapon, I would be able to shoot to kill or maim. Chances are, in the middle of the night and I don't know how many colleagues the criminal brought along, I will choose option A.
It's home defense.

1) The counterpoint will argue that violence deterred by armed homeowners is less that that of increased harm done. This is muddy, violence deterred is not necessarily the same thing as violence stopped in progress. The latter is easier to collect data on, the former is harder.

Actually, violence deterred is pretty much impossible to determine. A criminal is most likely going to avoid a house with old "BEWARE OF OWNER" symbol prominently displayed... it happens every day.

3) Is hunting a legitimate reason here? Could we not answer protecting a right to hunt with allowing hunters to check out guns to practice and then hunt? Turning them back in when they are done?

No, because you have to sight them in, etc... you own them... Most hunters are in the boondocks, and many live in the boondocks, it would require a huge and largely pointless expansion of government to cover the ground. Plus, it would require transportation, etc.

5) This is a bigger evaluation, and a judgement call. You correctly recognize that direct confrontation with the government is an unrealistic goal of an armed populace in the 21st century. Is the functional check on governmental reach such that it is worth some increased body count when things go very wrong as they did last week.

Not really, because they have shown they will crush you in the end... I don't think it checks them at all anymore.

6) Limited licensing could be the answer here too. I don't see how the 1.5% or so of remaining farmers justify ownership of handguns by citizens in Chicago, unless it is then to protect themselves from the dictatorship of farmers.

Well, it is a combination of issues, #1 still being, in my opinion, #1.

Bear in mind I agree with you overall, but you need to prepare to refute the counterarguments.

I'm prepared, I've been having these arguments all my life.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm prepared, I've been having these arguments all my life.

It's more about targeting your responses in language that those you are disagreeing with understand, and knowing that they are unlikely to change their assessment of the facts barring a clear and shining study from a relatively impartial source. Even then, some won't change how they see facts. It's human, after all.

Given that crime deterred is hard to prove or measure, and crime committed is easy, you probably need to argue(at least here) that there is something else in play besides raw numerical numbers of lives. Take note that the tone thus far has been scandalized that people are buying more guns as the country gets safer to live in and isn't it ironic that this is occurring. I haven't seen it floated from many people that the causation could even theoretically run the other way(true or not, it would at least be something to consider). That leaves "soft" values rather than utilitarian measurements.

The right to hunt and to sport are probably not going to measure up against human lives, which is one reason I like to bring cell phones into the conversation. Cell phones on the road definitely aren't worth it by any measure(even handsfree people!), but there are a lot of folks that aren't really as seriously dedicated to saving the lives of their countrymen when it would cause such a personal inconvenience to a soft value they themselves use.

No, I think we have to take guns all the way back to a baser use. We know, deep down, we allow guns to be owned by citizens precisely because they can be used to kill other people. I think this is actually pretty optimistic in a vaguely naive way. We have structured our society based on the assumption that our fellow citizen is responsible enough to be entrusted with ownership of lethal force and respected enough to leave them final recourse for their own self-preservation in their own hands. We have not outsourced their and our security in its entirety to the communal action of the state. We empower them and ourselves to be able to do so in conjunction with the state. It's a different sort of fundamental view of democracy. Are we an individual bit of the great hive-mind of country, or are we one human unit of democracy instead?

All decisions like this have trade offs, and costs. Very real costs. It's hard to hold up a soft value like this and try to weigh its merit against blood. There are and always must be limits. I trust my neighbor with his gun collection. I do not trust him with an ICBM. I don't trust Gov. Quinn with an ICBM. Etc and so forth.

 

[JollyRoger]

I know... it's really odd actually...
If a tax atty doesn't know the difference between 0 and 10 vs 10 and 12, that's pretty scary.

You are the one advocating for both 0 and 12 (or more) while hating on 10.

But some can indeed lose their right to own a firearm to accomplish that (depending on state law).

Felons for example.

I know - and the arguments used to justify such infringements are the same arguments that NRA members typically hate hearing from other gun grabbers.

A 'right-wing' state might still have a democrat congress, or even a democrat governor. Your label of 'right-wing' is fairly meaningless given that context.

Texas has had a Republican Governor since 1994 and has super-majorities in the legislature. All 18 Supreme Court members (9 on the civil side and 9 on the criminal side) were appointed and approved by Republican governors and legislators. We have far more gun grabbing than that state with the socialist Senator (Vermont). The first state case that upheld a gun grabbing infringement after Heller was out of Texas - it was ok to infringe against 18 to 20 year olds. If you are a law-abiding citizen living with someone that is on deferred adjudication for something as minor as small marijuana possession, you can't possess a gun or your household member will likely end up in jail.

 

[MobBoss]

I know - and the arguments used to justify such infringements are the same arguments that NRA members typically hate hearing from other gun grabbers.

Uhm.....no. Unless of course one equates a law abiding citizen with a felon with a criminal history.

Texas has had a Republican Governor since 1994 and has super-majorities in the legislature.

One example doesnt mean they all are.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I've stopped using "Felon" and started using "Violent criminal" in my own personal vocabulary. Since there are some felonies that are still victimless crimes. Drug use for one.

 

[MobBoss]

I've stopped using "Felon" and started using "Violent criminal" in my own personal vocabulary. Since there are some felonies that are still victimless crimes. Drug use for one.

Most drug use crimes are just midemeanors. Drug felons are usually only those that sell or manufacture their product to helplessly addicted users.

And lets not forget that nasty habit of drug addicts robbing or stealing from others to fuel their drug use.

Victimless indeed.

One of these days you are going to find out how the real world actually works...and boy are you going to be suprised.

 

[JollyRoger]

Uhm.....no. Unless of course one equates a law abiding citizen with a felon with a criminal history.

Make the argument for me of why a felon released from prison should not be able to keep and bear arms.

One example doesnt mean they all are.

Find me a Southern state with less gun grabbing that Vermont.

 

[Formaldehyde]

it is a felony to possess an ounce or more of marijuana in Florida and other similarly backward states where the "law and order" religious right exert far too much influence.

"Victimless indeed".

 

[MobBoss]

Make the argument for me of why a felon released from prison should not be able to keep and bear arms.

Well, for one a significant number of felons re-offend. Secondly, I do support felons being able to get their gun rights restored but only after a multi-year waiting period (Washington State has a 5 year period, but I think 3 years would be adequate) in which they remain free of any additional law violation. I dont think restoration should be automatic (especially for those that are convicted of violent crime) either. If having their gun rights restored is important enough for them, then they can make the choice to apply to have a court of law reinstate them.

Find me a Southern state with less gun grabbing that Vermont.

Nah, 'cause even if I did you'd just not believe it or just laugh it off. Id rather not even waste my time knowing that. Besides that wasnt my point anyway.

it is a felony to possess an ounce or more of marijuana in Florida and other similarly backward states largely controlled by the "law and order" religious right.

"Victimless indeed".

And for less than that it is simply a misdemeanor.

What would you suggest as the cutoff between 'use' and holding enough to sell to others? An ounce not enough for you at any particular time?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Most drug use crimes are just midemeanors. Drug felons are usually only those that sell or manufacture their product to helplessly addicted users.

Well, it has nothing to do with gun rights, but I'd be the first to agree with you that those who sell to teenagers (Who cannot legally consent) should be cracked down on, but selling to adults should not be illegal.

And lets not forget that nasty habit of drug addicts robbing or stealing from others to fuel their drug use.

While unfortunate, firstly, I never claimed that stealing was a victimless crime, but to claim that all drug users steal is an absurdity (Although even if it were true, just being able to convict for theft instead of drug use would make it far easier to convict without destroying the constitution in the process), secondly, legalization of drugs would allow providers to compete on the market which would drive prices down and would enable people to more easily pay for their habit legally, which makes this stealing you speak of less common.

Victimless indeed.

You aren't paying attention, I never said theft was victimless.

One of these days you are going to find out how the real world actually works...and boy are you going to be suprised.

Perhaps. But your flamish attempts aren't working. How about actually debate instead of throwing personal insults? Either that or don't waste your time.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, for one a significant number of felons re-offend. Secondly, I do support felons being able to get their gun rights restored but only after a multi-year waiting period (Washington State has a 5 year period, but I think 3 years would be adequate) in which they remain free of any additional law violation. I dont think restoration should be automatic (especially for those that are convicted of violent crime) either. If having their gun rights restored is important enough for them, then they can make the choice to apply to have a court of law reinstate them.

So you supporting these infringemets as a public safety issue?

 

[MobBoss]

So you supporting these infringemets as a public safety issue?

I guess I made my argument then. I dont support convicted felons having the same access to guns as any other citizen until they've shown society that they are willing to abide by the law.

But i'm glad to see your willing to sell a handgun to a guy just out of prison for robbing gas stations at gunpoint. You might think thats a great idea. I have some reservations about it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I guess I made my argument then. I dont support convicted felons having the same access to guns as any other citizen until they've shown society that they are willing to abide by the law.

But i'm glad to see your willing to sell a handgun to a guy just out of prison for robbing gas stations at gunpoint. You might think thats a great idea. I have some reservations about it.

He's not. He's ust trying to get us to give up our rights as law abiding citizens and claiming this is perfectly fine because a violent criminal can lose his rights to bear arms than so can we.

I'm uncertain how long the waiting period for an ex-violent criminal should be, but I freely acknowledge that that situation has nothing to do with any rights a law abiding citizen has.

 

[JollyRoger]

I guess I made my argument then. I dont support convicted felons having the same access to guns as any other citizen until they've shown society that they are willing to abide by the law.

But i'm glad to see your willing to sell a handgun to a guy just out of prison for robbing gas stations at gunpoint. You might think thats a great idea. I have some reservations about it.

That's good and noble . . . but the same type of public safety trumping rights argument made by your garden variety gun grabber.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It would probably be best if you tried not to pretend that you know anything at all about marijuana, especially in regard to what constitutes acceptable quantities for individual consumption. But one ounce is clearly not it. Many individual drug sales are at that level, and they are frequently even larger to get a better discount.

The criminal laws in the US are a completely joke compared to most any other modern country, especially the drug laws. The US is an international laughingstock in that regard, yet you apparently find nothing at all wrong with the existing system. As usual, I think this is quite revealing.

 

[MobBoss]

He's not. He's ust trying to get us to give up our rights as law abiding citizens and claiming this is perfectly fine because a violent criminal can lose his rights to bear arms than so can we.

Settle down Francis. I haven't made that argument at all. And if you think I have then you havent been listening.

It would probably be best if you tried not to pretend that you know anything about marijuana in regard to what constitutes acceptable quantities for individual consumption. But one ounce is clearly not it.

A. I didnt try to pretend, and B. Thats why I asked you.

But as usual, you cry about the question being asked instead of actually answering the question.



So, more than an ounce. How about a pound? That too much?

 

[Zelig]

I'm uncertain how long the waiting period for an ex-violent criminal should be, but I freely acknowledge that that situation has nothing to do with any rights a law abiding citizen has.

If guns are banned, anyone with a gun is by definition not law abiding.