The right to bear arms (1 Viewer)

[powlmao]

 

[Graney]

You know that's not true.

I've been threatened by the police far more often than I've been threatened by anyone else. I commit many victimless crimes, I face potential persecution for them, it's a real and ever present threat, I frequently come in contact with the police who overtly state their objective is to cause me harm for my choice of recreation, if only they could catch me.

So, in your opinion, the law shouldn't be enforced because your own personal liberty is affected because of your choices?

The law is in many cases immoral, an immoral law shouldn't be enforced, and individuals are justified in resisting the enforcement of an immoral law by whatever means necessary.

Someone who kidnaps someone and murders them has every right to defend them self against the police officer who wishes to arrest them and charge them of the crimes they committed?

In that case the police would be morally justified obviously. That is a less common scenario than the police harassing people for victimless crimes.

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

I've been threatened by the police far more often than I've been threatened by anyone else. I commit many victimless crimes, I face potential persecution for them, it's a real and ever present threat, I frequently come in contact with the police who overtly state their objective is to cause me harm for my choice of recreation, if only they could catch me.

what do you mean by "threaten", and how would possessing a firearm solve your problem?

Your original offence, which you call a "victimless crime" would turn into a crime involving victims if you had a firearm. You'd either:
a) threaten the officer for doing their job and/or;
b) shoot the officer

both options have implications on not only yourself, but the police officer(s). They're people too. They're not above anyone at the end of the day, they experience the same pain and emotions as us. Just because they're enforcers of the law shouldn't make them targets.

The law is in many cases immoral, an immoral law shouldn't be enforced, and individuals are justified in resisting the enforcement of an immoral law by whatever means necessary.

That's subjective and irrelevant. What if someone thought laws against rape was immoral (because they're misogynistic or something). Does that mean is shouldn't be enforced against that individual?

ofc there are some stupid laws, but for the most part, i'd think most of them that'd warrant an arrest are justifiable.

In that case the police would be morally justified obviously. That is a less common scenario than the police harassing people for victimless crimes.

What you may see as a victimless crime isn't what others may see as a victimless crime. Some may argue drink driving is a victimless crime, but wouldn't you think the risk posed to everyone on roads makes everyone a potential victim?

 

[Phoenix Fury]

So how would you discern the intentions of people, and hence distribute these arms accordingly? You can't. And for that very reason, they shouldn't be allowed. How do we know who is innocent, and who is using it inappropriately?

Exactly, idk someone with a better brain will probably manage to reason and justify it (lol).

Is the danger in our society warranting the need for arms? What are the chances of you needing to defend yourself in THIS society?

Is any danager worth ignoring and forgetting about completely, if you got attacked yourself would you still feel the same way?
People even in our society find themselves in situations where their life is in immediate danger due to weapons (including people's physical bodies etc) being used against them. Do they not deserve a chance to prevent this situation from escalating and decrease the likelihood that themselves or their loved ones will suffer, or do you think the aggressor only should use arms because ~good people shouldnt have them~ and that they are free to take what they want by virtue that there is no one to stop them?

You act as if these shootings are random.These shootings are targeted attacks against certain individuals who are involved in things they shouldn't be.

And this justifies anyone else to attempt to take their life?
Also at least one of the recent drive-by victims were reported to have no connection to gangs etc (though it's certainly possible they did).

In any society will there be problems, but how does allowing every man, child and dog to possess an incredibly dangerous weapon, regardless of their intentions, make society any more safe?

Not children, I would assume a 16 or 18 age restriction would be imposed just like other potentially harmful activities. Also property owners would be able to decide whether guns were or were not allowed on the premisis.
I believe in the right to defend oneself so I would say yes. I concede there is a problem that increased gun access would mean it's even easier for criminals to get and do ~bad things~ with, however I dont believe restricing access to the innocent/non harmful is a just solution. That said I really dont have a better alternative or idea how on how to prevent terrible and harmful people from being terrible and harmful.

I luv dis kwote
"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right." Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
– L. Neil Smith

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

Exactly, idk someone with a better brain will probably manage to reason and justify it (lol).

But it's impossible to discern, and humans are erratic. Someone seemingly innocent may snap and go all vtech on everyones ass. Having a gun enables them to quickly kill lots of people. Of course they may do this with other weapons, but the efficiency of a gun will mean more people will be hurt in a shorter period of time, which is why guns are usually the weapon of choice when you wanna go all Seung-Hui Cho on everyone's ass

Is any danager worth ignoring and forgetting about completely, if you got attacked yourself would you still feel the same way?
People even in our society find themselves in situations where their life is in immediate danger due to weapons (including people's physical bodies etc) being used against them. Do they not deserve a chance to prevent this situation from escalating and decrease the likelihood that themselves or their loved ones will suffer, or do you think the aggressor only should use arms because ~good people shouldnt have them~ and that they are free to take what they want by virtue that there is no one to stop them?

I just think guns pose more danger than preventing them.

It's bullshit if you think having guns on streets will make streets safer (example: america).
Of course I think aggressors shouldn't have their way, but this is exactly why we have the law, and law enforcement. In a utopian world, innocent people who want to defend themselves with a gun are able to do so, but in reality: we're not. It causes new problems.

~incaysed we geht atahked, we shud all carry guhns!~

There are so many problems with this. How do you know someone was actually defending themself, and not pretending they were being attacked so they could justify killing someone? How do you justify risking an increase in gun related violence because very very few people get attacked? Should we have to suffer from increased violence as a result of the allowance of firearms to try to prevent our already small crime rate? It'll boost crime rates. It'll boost killings. We should focus more on crime prevention and the apprehension of dangerous individuals as opposed to resorting to having to defend ourself with a weapon that causes more problems than good. It's too broad an issue.

And this justifies anyone else to attempt to take their life?
Also at least one of the recent drive-by victims were reported to have no connection to gangs etc (though it's certainly possible they did).

Of course not.

Okay, then. So at least one drive by. This justifies EVERYONE to be allowed to possess a firearm. Bro, the chances of us even getting attacked are so low. Why do we need guns? WHHHHHYYYYY? I don't get it. It sounds really retarded to me.

Not children, I would assume a 16 or 18 age restriction would be imposed just like other potentially harmful activities. Also property owners would be able to decide whether guns were or were not allowed on the premisis.
I believe in the right to defend oneself so I would say yes. I concede there is a problem that increased gun access would mean it's even easier for criminals to get and do ~bad things~ with, however I dont believe restricing access to the innocent/non harmful is a just solution. That said I really dont have a better alternative or idea how on how to prevent terrible and harmful people from being terrible and harmful.

You have to restrict access to all people because, how do we determine whether someone is "innocent" or not?
Who decides this?
Who enforces and regulates to distribution of weapons for ~innocent~ people?
You could pay someone "innocent" to get their gun because you're a ~bad person~ and can't get one yourself.

In essence, you're enabling more violence by making it easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons. Yes they can get it now, but it's hard for them. Making them widely available makes is even easier for them to collect and use guns against innocent people. What will you do then? You can't distribute them to selective groups of people.

I luv dis kwote
"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220-pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110-pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out … People who object to weapons aren't abolishing violence, they're begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically "right." Guns ended that, and a social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work."
– L. Neil Smith

[/QUOTE]
Not realistic imo



Until someone can find a way to distribute weapons to mentally stable and "innocent" people, and ensure they aren't stolen/sold/given to bad people, guns should not be allowed for wide distribution to the public.

 

[Graney]

what do you mean by "threaten"

Being publicly searched and questioned, with the implication of violence if the search goes a certain way.

and how would possessing a firearm solve your problem?

If I were being arrested, and I shot the police dead, potentially this would solve my problem of being arrested.

Your original offence, which you call a "victimless crime" would turn into a crime involving victims if you had a firearm. You'd either:
a) threaten the officer for doing their job and/or;
b) shoot the officer

If someone is committing an act of violence against me, such as forcefully detaining me, when I have done nothing to harm any other person, and I defend myself with equal and opposite force, they are not an innocent victim.

That's subjective and irrelevant. What if someone thought laws against rape was immoral (because they're misogynistic or something). Does that mean is shouldn't be enforced against that individual?

ofc there are some stupid laws, but for the most part, i'd think most of them that'd warrant an arrest are justifiable.

So you are arguing individuals should always comply with all laws, because the individuals perception of what is moral is too subjective?
Can you see any potential problems with that, historical examples of where that was a bad idea?
You admit there are 'some stupid laws', why is forcing people to comply with them justified, and why shouldn't you fight being arrested for them?

I think the circumstances in which an individual is justified in defying a law are very relevant, and there is a good argument for what is and isn't a moral and justified law. I believe in Mill's harm principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Under this principle, rape or drink driving, are clearly harmful behaviours to others, and the community is justified in using force to stop the individual. Laws that only protect people from themselves "for their own good", are not justified, and the individual is justified in defying those laws.

 

[ZombieApocalypse]

eh, cbb arguing


tl;dr: I don't think guns in streets is a good idea

y'all can think what you think

 

[Galapagos]

lol, AND THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE STREETS SAFER IS TO ALLOW THE USE AND FREE DISTRIBUTION OF WEAPONS.

You're a genius.

I didn't say that "the only way to make streets safer is to allow the use and free distribution of weapons". If that's what I think, then I would have said it. Instead, I was clearly pointing out that IN FACT your claims that the "streets" are safe doesn't hold true everywhere in Sydney.

/eyeroll

 

[lolcakes52]

Schizophrenic's, people with Bi-polar disorder and depressed people should not be allowed to bear arms for obvious reasons, but where does that stop? Really, weapons have only ever increased the volatility of a culture and if the only reason to bear arms is to defend oneself against someone else whose armed then it is purposeless. Otherwise I believe that weapons are merely destructive.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

But it's impossible to discern, and humans are erratic. Someone seemingly innocent may snap and go all vtech on everyones ass. Having a gun enables them to quickly kill lots of people. Of course they may do this with other weapons, but the efficiency of a gun will mean more people will be hurt in a shorter period of time, which is why guns are usually the weapon of choice when you wanna go all Seung-Hui Cho on everyone's ass

I dont disagree, this scenario is a problem and with more available guns the chances of this happening increases.

I just think guns pose more danger than preventing them.

I disagree but I cant say with any degree of conviction because it's not exactly testable. You may very well be correct and it could fuck things up horrendously.

It's bullshit if you think having guns on streets will make streets safer (example: america).
Of course I think aggressors shouldn't have their way, but this is exactly why we have the law, and law enforcement. In a utopian world, innocent people who want to defend themselves with a gun are able to do so, but in reality: we're not. It causes new problems.

The law is only for punishment (granted some countries attempt rehabilitation, and some to a larger extent that others), but what good is the law once you've been raped or family has been attacked and possibly killed, or any other number of unpleasant circumstances taken place. Such things could be prevented from happening in the first place, I have no doubt it would be universally agreed upon that this would be preferable to sticking them in a cell for a few years.

~incaysed we geht atahked, we shud all carry guhns!~

There are so many problems with this. How do you know someone was actually defending themself, and not pretending they were being attacked so they could justify killing someone? How do you justify risking an increase in gun related violence because very very few people get attacked? Should we have to suffer from increased violence as a result of the allowance of firearms to try to prevent our already small crime rate? It'll boost crime rates. It'll boost killings. We should focus more on crime prevention and the apprehension of dangerous individuals as opposed to resorting to having to defend ourself with a weapon that causes more problems than good. It's too broad an issue.

An excellent point/flaw that I cant directly fault. Although I cant say whether it will increase or lower crime rates with any conviction. I'm going to assume you mean monitor dangerous individuals more strictly than apprehend them.

Of course not.

Okay, then. So at least one drive by. This justifies EVERYONE to be allowed to possess a firearm. Bro, the chances of us even getting attacked are so low. Why do we need guns? WHHHHHYYYYY? I don't get it. It sounds really retarded to me.

I think that if you wish to protect yourself and those around you, you are within your rights to do so with a firearm. Sure you may go through life and never have to put your hand on it, but there might also be a chance you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time or get jumped somewhere and it may be the only thing that can save your life.

You have to restrict access to all people because, how do we determine whether someone is "innocent" or not?
Who decides this?
Who enforces and regulates to distribution of weapons for ~innocent~ people?
You could pay someone "innocent" to get their gun because you're a ~bad person~ and can't get one yourself.

I think this is a significant part of the argument as a whole, I'm not advocating guns be available at big w and kmart and so easily accessible it's a joke. I believe they should be regulated in such a way that a citizen who has undergone specific firearm training and testing and has been deemed psychologically fit can own and carry a firearm that is registered, on the condition it is kept in a safe location when it is not on their person.

In essence, you're enabling more violence by making it easier for criminals to get their hands on weapons. Yes they can get it now, but it's hard for them. Making them widely available makes is even easier for them to collect and use guns against innocent people. What will you do then? You can't distribute them to selective groups of people.

I wonder if a large part of this argument really just comes back to defining what everyone means by "widely available".

Not realistic imo

fak u gooby

 

[Bloodstriker]

I'm trying to find the article about this community in Arizona where gun ownership is a requirement if you want to live there..

 

[CO7]

For those who want guns, which country are you from? I live in Australia and I don't really see the need for guns.