Question about guns

[BvBPL]

I suppose the hunt itself may make for good sport, but killing without purpose is gross and nasty and really - the actual act of killing is not particularly fun(exceptions to every rule I suppose).

I agree. Even killing for a purpose isn't particularly easy. That said, hunting can be an immensely thrilling activity and that can outweigh the psychic effluvia resulting from the death of another creature.

But, as you say, different strokes for different folks.

 

[JohnRM]

Why don't you defend yourself with a butter knife?

I both would and have, thank you very much. However, I am not a very good knife fighter and firearms level the playing field much better for those less physically able to fight off an attacker.

 

[JohnRM]

You are putting words in my mouth. I'm not making any argument about means or ends or such. A reduction in hospitalizations resulting from making violent acts less harmful clearly serves the public good per se.

Of course you are. You're saying the ends (reducing hospitalizations) justifies the means (revoking my constitutional right to bear arms).

 

[Bugfatty300]

I both would and have, thank you very much. However, I am not a very good knife fighter and firearms level the playing field much better for those less physically able to fight off an attacker.

Not to mention, in a society awash with firearms, I'd prefer a gun because there is a good chance that the assailant would be armed likewise.

 

[JohnRM]

Not to mention, in a society awash with firearms, I'd prefer a gun because there is a good chance that the assailant would be armed likewise.

Yes, and unfortunately, society is awash in butter knives, too. I have the scar to prove it.

 

[Leoreth]

I both would and have, thank you very much. However, I am not a very good knife fighter and firearms level the playing field much better for those less physically able to fight off an attacker.

Doesn't this also apply to someone who wants to attack people?

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I thought you said it was the person, not the weapon? If that's so, why wouldn't you be just as willing to have a butter knife to defend yourself with? How does having a gun to defend yourself with 'level the playing field' if violence, rather than guns, are the problem?

 

[Leoreth]

Exactly. I could just as well say that we ought to outlaw all sorts of guns to level the playing field for people who only own butter knives.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, I thought you said it was the person, not the weapon? If that's so, why wouldn't you be just as willing to have a butter knife to defend yourself with? How does having a gun to defend yourself with 'level the playing field' if violence, rather than guns, are the problem?

Are you that enamored with the old tyranny of size? I see no reason for the vast majority of young men to have a problem with a less even playing field of violence. They'll become older men soon enough though, and then they may want it re-evened some. Or maybe they'll have a daughter and rethink as well.

 

[BvBPL]

Of course you are. You're saying the ends (reducing hospitalizations) justifies the means (revoking my constitutional right to bear arms).

You're daft. I did not make an argument for removing one's right to bear arms.

 

[Flying Pig]

Are you that enamored with the old tyranny of size? I see no reason for the vast majority of young men to have a problem with a less even playing field of violence. They'll become older men soon enough though, and then they may want it re-evened some. Or maybe they'll have a daughter and rethink as well.

The problem is that the 'level the playing field' argument assumes that all criminals have guns and that all those who currently do not have guns would be entirely sensible about using them... I contest both axioms.

 

[Farm Boy]

The problem is that the 'level the playing field' argument assumes that all criminals have guns and that all those who currently do not have guns would be entirely sensible about using them... I contest both axioms.

I wouldn't take it that far, I would merely attest that if we are going to consider a degree of violence as unavoidable then tools of violence available should be such that physical dominance should not be the only or primary deciding factor in play.

 

[Phrossack]

I both would and have, thank you very much. However, I am not a very good knife fighter and firearms level the playing field much better for those less physically able to fight off an attacker.

Yes, and unfortunately, society is awash in butter knives, too. I have the scar to prove it.

Do tell!

 

[JohnRM]

Doesn't this also apply to someone who wants to attack people?

Yeah, I thought you said it was the person, not the weapon? If that's so, why wouldn't you be just as willing to have a butter knife to defend yourself with? How does having a gun to defend yourself with 'level the playing field' if violence, rather than guns, are the problem?

Defending yourself with a knife is a lot about mobility and strength. Defending yourself with a firearm is just hand-eye coordination.

A 115 pound woman having to fight off a 225 pound rapist has a greater chance of defending herself with a firearm than a knife of any kind.

Do you boneheads understand that?

Do tell!

Do tell what? I've been both attacked with and had to defend myself with a butter knife. I have scars on my fingers from cuts from the attack. Happened in junior high, at lunch. I tried to defend myself with a tray, but the kid slashed at my fingers. Do you want to see a picture of the scars? Cause I get the impression that you think I'm BSing.

 

[Camikaze]

Do you boneheads understand that?

Oh, sure, I understand that, I just wasn't sure you did, given you were suggesting that there isn't any difference between guns and butter knives. But seeing as you are acknowledging that difference, where does that leave your argument that violence itself is the sole problem, and gun control wouldn't make a difference because butter knives would be a direct substitute?

 

[JohnRM]

Oh, sure, I understand that, I just wasn't sure you did, given you were suggesting that there isn't any difference between guns and butter knives. But seeing as you are acknowledging that difference, where does that leave your argument that violence itself is the sole problem, and gun control wouldn't make a difference because butter knives would be a direct substitute?

No, apparently you don't understand it.

Let me try this one more time.

Making firearms illegal won't end violence.

Violence does not come from the presence of firearms.

Violence can just as well be done with other weapons and objects.

We need to address the true sources of violence, otherwise making firearms illegal only takes away from the ability of the weak to defend themselves from predators.

Firearms level the playing field for those who are weak or physically disabled and can't defend themselves with a baseball bat, a knife, or some other object that a stronger person would have a much easier time handling in an attack. These kinds of weapons are still a lot about strength and mobility whereas a firearm is just about hand-eye coordination. A weaker person is nearly on a level playing field with a potential attacker, less the element of surprise.

Can you understand that? Or do you just not want to understand it?

 

[Camikaze]

You're assuming that the aim of gun control is to end all violence and anything less is a complete failure. And I don't think anyone is contending that solving the underlying issues that cause violence is important too.

You say that making firearms illegal only takes away from the ability of the weak to defend themselves, but this is simply not true, because it (perhaps not equally, but to a great extent) takes away from the ability of weak criminals to perpetrate violence in the same way. Just as you are going to have a harder time defending yourself with a butter knife, a criminal is going to have a harder time attacking you with a butter knife. The point you have made does not contend that gun control takes guns away from weak defenders only, and whether gun control would work to limit criminal access to guns might be a relevant consideration. But it would be a consideration relevant to specific instances of gun control, and not to the principle in itself.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Gun control would limit criminals, sure. But it would weaken the innocent even more. Yes, weak criminals would be neutered some, but this is counteracted by the fact that the victim can also be armed. It is DOUBLY counteracted by the fact that someone who REALLY wants to use gun violence can buy one off the black market. I'm not saying it won't do anything at all, but honestly, I'm not convinced it would. At best, it would do very little.

Honestly, if machine guns were useful for committing crimes, they'd probably be freely available. I honestly don't think they'd be good for the purpose unless your goal was simply to kill as many people as you can in the middle of a city square and to hell with the consequences. Most of the time, its much easier to get away with it while using a pistol. So I don't think machine gun bans even helps that much. What it really does is take away any level of accountability from the government, at all.

I want to address a common objection to this "But a group of people with machine guns would never stand a chance..." yes, I know. An individual with a machine gun SHOULD'NT stand a chance. But if the government (In theory) abuses the democratic process to become tyrannical, an armed populace IS a check because even the threat of death for INDIVIDUALS is a threat. The possibility that a politician who advocates dictatorship and tyranny could potentially get killed might put a check on his power in certain cases where nothing else can. Of course, this isn't a problem now, but we wouldn't be allowed to get military-grade weapons in that case. If a free society allows an armed populace, it naturally checks itself against any that would try to take that freedom away. It at least ensures that free society can make life hell on earth for the tyrants.

 

[Farm Boy]

You're assuming that the aim of gun control is to end all violence and anything less is a complete failure. And I don't think anyone is contending that solving the underlying issues that cause violence is important too.

You say that making firearms illegal only takes away from the ability of the weak to defend themselves, but this is simply not true, because it (perhaps not equally, but to a great extent) takes away from the ability of weak criminals to perpetrate violence in the same way. Just as you are going to have a harder time defending yourself with a butter knife, a criminal is going to have a harder time attacking you with a butter knife. The point you have made does not contend that gun control takes guns away from weak defenders only, and whether gun control would work to limit criminal access to guns might be a relevant consideration. But it would be a consideration relevant to specific instances of gun control, and not to the principle in itself.

How very egalitarian.

 

[JollyRoger]

We need to bring back the government mandate to gun ownership.