Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

Well, I'll put it this way. The potentially harmful things we are talking about are (a) guns and (b) drink driving. If we say that the person driving and holding the gun is important and not the activity itself, then could justifying gun ownership for some people entail justifying drink driving for some people as well?

 

No, when using this analogy, guns are equal to cars, and drunk/reckless driving is equal to unsafe use (drunk, aggressive, or otherwise) of a gun.

Neither of the first two should be illegal, both of the second two should be illegal.

 

I think the difficultly that I'm having is that you are equating guns and drunk driving and I would say that it is guns and cars that should be equated.

As for, could justifying gun ownership for some people entail justifying drink driving for some people as well? I do not justify a criminal illegally using a gun, just like I do not justify illegally driving while drunk and that is whether someone is injured or not by the misuse of gun or car.

 

I didn't see your post before I replied. I think I might like yours better, it's more succinct.

 

Is there any further purpose to this thread? Guns, cars, and alcohol are, and should remain legal. We have laws on the books which provide consequences for the misuse of each. Are the consequences sufficient? If not, increase them.

 

That's the problem you don't understand.

I the first case you are telling me that I somehow said or implied that "So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun" should their rights to own a gun be abrogated.

In the second "rephrase", you are asking if that is what I meant. which is fine.

But the two are not the same, as you seem to be saying.

The first is a "straw-man" argument and is what you do a lot. You end up telling the other person what they said and believe, even if it is not what they said or believe and then argue that point with them.

Much time and effort is wasted just trying to correct what you have said about what they have said or believe, rather than just discussing the subject at hand.

 

Again that is the point. You have to tie three of my post together, none of which say that you want to ban guns, so you can say that it seems that I might, maybe, possibly be implying that that you want to ban guns.

Sorry, try as you might and you can tie all my posts together, you will never be able to show that I said or implied that you wanted to ban all guns. Mainly because I never said or implied that you wanted to ban all guns.

This is just another example of your diverting attention way from the topic at hand and why you do so, I don't think even you know why because you don't even seem to realize you are doing it.

You've said this often enough now that I'm beginning to think you are trying to hide something.

A case of "the lady doth protest too much me thinks"?

Originally I believe I asked this as a question to you; Doesn't any kind of gun control, by definition, "limit the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible".

Even gun registration and a two week waiting period, limits "the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible" and I'm not even necessarily against those things and I'm supposing that you are for them as well.

The only thing I was bringing out was if you are for gun control, you are for the limiting the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible and to say other wise is just not being truthful.

 

Talk about ranting, I don't believe I said anything about you "committing heinous crimes" against me. I may have pointed out after your call for clarification, you did seem to go off a bit and your saying now that I could have given you clarification seems a bit disingenuous, seeing as I did try give you clarification.

The point is that is once you pointed out my error in not ending the sentence with a question mark, I corrected it.

It is racist, that's why I asked. There may be alot of phrases that have racial overtones in the US, that have no such connotations in the UK.

Don't you remember the civil rights movement in the US, when certain bigots were beating and killing people they thought were "uppity"?

Well, today in the US there are still people being beaten and killed, it is just not as out in the open and is usually done by the police, who seem to think they have a built in accuse.

 

Again with the nothing to hide, I have to admit, I'm getting mighty suspicious.

The point is that what you believe about attacking the source of the problem, I agree with. The problem is that I was talking about someone who had already committed a violent crime with a gun and not someone who may commit a crime sometime in the future that would be helped by attacking the source of the problem and thus was not applicable to the problem at hand. And so your reasoning though sound in it's self was not a valid argument against the point at hand. (Although a criminal may be helped by "attacking the problem" after committing a crime, it does not change the fact that a gun should and will be taken out of his hand for the time being by already existing laws.)

Now you seem to be mixing things together but if you are talking about attacking the source of the problem of crime, I have no counter argument because that's a great idea, although perhaps a bit naive seeing as people have been working on solving it for years and haven't come up with a good solution yet and I can be a bit pragmatic.

And because there is no evidence, I'm guilty?

So I'm reluctant, is that now a crime?

And what you call condescending and disparaging remarks on second thought sound just like condescending and disparaging remarks and so I apologize.

A problem perhaps but not the problem.

I'm annoyed at all, I'm just trying to point to some things that seem to have stalled the discussion and I'm willing to discuss the issues anytime you want.

As for point scoring, you are the one who brought it up, I don't generally even think about it until it is brought up and then I think here's someone who's keeping score.

 

Well the last few posts have just been in answer of what you asked for, examples of what you have been doing and so they have not been "real arguments" as such but an attempt to get the discussion back on track.

I only say you're wrong because you are wrong.

As for my "real arguments", here's a few I have collected up for you:

 

Well, if you keep telling people that they believe what they repeatedly have stated they do not believe, I will continue to tell you that you are wrong because you are wrong.

Interestingly, you do not look at your own posts at the same time. After all at this point in time I'm merely responding to your request for examples of how you are derailing this conversation.

I will not "point out" to you anything that has only, at best, a peripheral application to this thread, that is just an attempt on your part to obfuscate the discussion in this thread.

I have at no time accused you of "crimes" that "I’ve clearly not committed". I believe I have been quite straight forward with the "crimes" you have committed and the simple fact is that I'm not the only one in this thread has told you that.

Sure, as soon as you quit making these posts, I mean I'm still discussing the OP with others, just not you.

Just following your example.

 

OWB, I have to say, in god related threads, you and thedope bore me to death.....

But I like you rather more in this sort of discussion.

You hit home run after home run.

 

Don't you dare try to take away my guns!

 

Thank you. You aren't too shabby yourself. I like your nice mixture of well thought out reasoning and humor.

As for God related threads, there is less room for imagination, as it constrained by having to stick closely to what you consider to be the truth. I try to stick closely to what the Bible says without saying something that conflicts with what the Bible says somewhere else.

As for threads like this you are still constrained by trying not to be contradictory but not being constrained by an already existing body of work, allows you to be more free form. A little like the difference between playing classical music and jazz.

 

The recent attack in Norway had me wondering about Norway and gun control. A quick perusal of what happened and of Norway's gun laws says:

"Many reports, if accurate, say the gunman used “automatic weapons,” which, except for some tightly regulated collector exemptions, are banned from civilian ownership in Norway."

So it would seem that some fairly strict gun control measures did not keep “automatic weapons” out of the hands of this criminal.

 

OWB

This is why I think you are dishonest.

You claim you wish to debate the issues but you don’t answer questions but to you or address the criticisms levelled at your ideas, but instead make stupid little asides.

I mean come on man - you comment darkly that my preference for coffee over tea “That explains a lot”. Only then to say when challenged on that cryptic aside that you only mean it explained that I prefer coffee to tea.

What was the point?

If you are serious about wanting to debate why not start by answering the questions?

*

LOL

They meant the same and I’ve tried both on a lot of people here and they think they’re the same - I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand English but then it is English not American.

Ok so seriously - you don’t think them the same but now you do know my meaning so can you actually answer the question?

So are you saying that only once someone has committed a violent crime WITH A GUN, would that warrant the removal of their ‘right’ to own a gun? To further clarify I’m wondering about people that have not actually committing a violent crime WITH A GUN, but have committed other crimes or have shown a tendency to violent acts, what about them? They have not committed a violent crime WITH A GUN, so in your view would they still be able to own a gun?

*

Again you did say those things. Again I’ve ran it against a few people and they think the same – if you want to go with your belief rather than what was actually said, I’m fine with that, but it isn’t a rational or reasonable argument.

So your intention (although it came across as such) was not to say I wanted a complete ban, so what did you mean when you said I was not saying the truth when I’ve said I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning guns?

*

LOL oh dear here we go again you hint darkly that I must have done something wrong, because you haven’t got any evidence that I actually have.
*

 

OWB

As far as I can tell you say it for the first time in post 712.

Thus I pointed out that the two are not compatible. You have pointed out many times that gun control that would "limit the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible" is necessary to lessen the number of guns in the hands of criminals and yet proclaim that you “have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.”.

I mean the way you put it in quotes does suggest you think you said it before somewhere else, but where I’m unsure.

My reply to the question –

Doesn't any kind of gun control, by definition, "limit the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible”

- Would be the same one I’ve said at other times when this has come up. I don’t believe there ever has been a totally anarchist state. I there have been rules from the beginning of human civilisation and there were probably ones before then.

Your argument is basically - Doesn't any kind of law or regulation by definition limit what a law abiding person can do.

I believe in regulation yes but that doesn’t mean I don’t want the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, I believe there are many pro-gunners who believe in gun regulation of one degree or another are all of them lying when they say they want the law abiding to own guns?

Why did you single me out?

*

I’ve never said I wasn’t for gun control, like many people even pro-gunners.

To put it simply many believe in sets of rules to govern the access of guns to the law abiding and responsible and I believe in such a set of rules.

To claim that I am a liar because my rules would be different from another persons set of rules was silly when you first put it forward and is still silly now, but what is really silly is that you wanted to waste so much times debating that rather than the real thing of interest which is the merits or not of the differing set of rules.


*

 

OWB

So you don’t know and don’t want to try and understand why the US is as racist as you claim?

*

That is gobbledygook – but what you basically seem to be saying I was correct you were putting the repressive argument without seemingly giving any alternatives. Why did we have to go through all this rigmarole, why couldn’t you have just admitted that back at the beginning?

 

OWB

LOL – wilful misdirection.

What I’ve pointed out is that your claim to want to tackle things in an alternative way (to the repressive approach) doesn’t seem to exist other than your assertion.
In other words you cannot show where you have discussed such things, so I don’t have a clue what your views really are.

Well if there is no evidence to prove your 'innocence' then if could be possible you are 'guilty'. I mean I’ve asked several times now and you don’t seem willing to produce it.

Not a crime - but it doesn’t exactly make your case and in fact would seem to make you seem guiltier.

Well why don’t you just answer questions and address the criticisms rather than going into all this run around only to admit I was correct.
*

Sorry you made claims that you don’t seem to back up. Which makes it seem that your whole intention was to try and stall the argument?
*

But the things you point to have already been covered, I mean just repeating stuff from which discussion has already moved on is just stupid. Can you please start debating in an honest way?
*

 

It is the lack of questioning that is so disheartening in these threads. Pro-gunners seem so desperate to make a point, any point that they hope will make there arguments seem just a little bit valid that they seem to forget to question their ideas or think things through.

Roo

This has been said to me about gun regulation in the US. And my reply is the same, why?

Why is regulation ‘a joke’ in the US? What is it about the US system that is failing?

*

A gun’s only function is to maim or kill, that was what it was designed for. Was ‘fast food’ designed to kill people? Were ‘swimming pools’ designed specifically to kill people, were clothes, hot air balloons or personal computers?

And the thing is that all those things are all regulated to one degree or another.

Food has a whole bunch or regulations governing it - the source, content and preparation etc

I know someone who is a life guard and swimming instructor at a public swimming pool and she had to pass an examine and has a certificate that she has to keep up to date, and there are lots of other rules involving cleanliness and safety, for example my six year old has to prove she can swim a certain distance unaided before she is allowed down the water slide at our local pool. The water has to be checked regularly to see if it is clean and free of infections etc.

Even clothes have regulations attached to them over safety (flammability etc) and the welfare of the people that make them etc.

As I said in relation to cars - There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns. And that to me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.


*

Roo you are just not thinking things through many things that are out there that you take for granted are regulated, but you don’t notice because you don’t realise they are. It is a free country as long as you abide by the laws and there are already laws in place to try and stop the irresponsible or lawbreakers from owning or running possibly dangerous enterprises.

I’m just saying that I think gun ownership should also be better regulated to try and insure public safety.