• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Right to bear arms vs. right to fire

ElasticNinja said:
It works well enough in Europe, although I can see it failing herrendously in the US. Heck the only guns police have in my state are locked in the boots of 5 or 6 cars that swan around the cities. People still get robbed, and hardened criminals *do* shoot each other in gangland murders. But civilians very rarely get shot at, nevermind killed. People can still get guns if they try - some EU states have relatively liberal gun laws, and obviously farmers and hunters can aqquire them (and they can be transferred state to state even if its not quite legal: link). Generally automatic weapons are banned, but they can be aqquired.

TL;DR, In Europe only Police and criminals tend to have guns on them, but ordianry folks dont. Civilians dont get shot in robberies or assualts by and large. Not saying that would work in the US.
Click to expand...

Is that why GUN CRIME is on the RISE in the UK since the gun ban?


Seems to be working great! :rolleyes:
 
I used to try to compare one country's violent crime record with others. It doesn't work very well, though, and for a lot of reasons. I do like seeing violent crime stats go down when guns are disallowed, especially if it's over a long period of time. Maybe somebody will post some of that here.

It would have been nice if guns were never needed anywhere.
 
IOWA said:
Is that why GUN CRIME is on the RISE in the UK since the gun ban?


Seems to be working great! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I couldnt give you statistics from 1900 tbh, but if it has risen I'd imagine its due to increasing urban populations, especially poor immigrants :p

And of course, illegal firearms entering. Again, my point was civilians rarely get killed (although, civilian shootings do of course occur, saw a story regarding a girl being paralysed after a random shooting attack on a shop).
 
Frisco said:
Also, I began to see that those crimes all had one thing in common: the police could not protect the victims.
Click to expand...

You could make that argument about all crime period from vandalism to murder. I don't think either of us would advocate citizen vigilante squads though.

OstrichSaK said:
The fallacy most anti-gun people live by is that if there were no guns the streets would be safe because only the cops would have them and they would protect everyone from the fewer criminals out there. There is SO much wrong with that line of thinking that I don't even know where to begin. For starters if you outlaw all guns tomorrow you just take them out of the hand of law abiding citizens and nothing more. It's an unfortunate burden they put on cops (who are normal human beings) that they're supposed to prevent harm coming to anyone. They simply can't be everywhere all the time and most that I know (I know quite a few) would MUCH rather show up to a shootout than a massacre.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone in this thread has made the argument that all guns should be outlawed.
 
Frisco said:
It would have been nice if guns were never needed anywhere.
Click to expand...

Ja me too... :(

Sadly guns are needed... if you are going to ban guns then what is next???

Toothpicks???

Razor Blades???

These things can all kill people... banning guns will not solve anything sadly.

Are you going to ban everything that can hurt some one???

That is just plain bat shit crazy.

It is like saying this:

"If guns kill people... then spoons make people fat"

It is up to the person that holds it that is it in a nutshell...

You can't live in bubble 24 / 7 sadly.

It is crazy to ban guns... what will be next... knives????

It is sad to see what the USA has turned into... it used to be such a freedom loving country so very sad indeed... the same has happened to us here in SA our country is screwed... how sad...
 
A.Nonymous said:
Honest question. Who in this thread made the argument that guns should be banned? I can't find it.
Click to expand...

Honest question here:

What is wrong with making the subject slightly more interesting?????

I do know what the subject is about.

Just trying to make it interesting.

Is it a crime?

What is wrong with that?

Why do I deserve such silly replies???

If making something more interesting upsets you then.... I just dunno what to say... really I have no idea what to say...
 
If they want to ban guns perhaps first they should ban McDonalds. I'm willing to bet McDonalds leads to more deaths than every homicide type combined.
 
Stinky Stinky said:
Honest question here:

What is wrong with making the subject slightly more interesting?????

I do know what the subject is about.

Just trying to make it interesting.

Is it a crime?

What is wrong with that?

Why do I deserve such silly replies???

If making something more interesting upsets you then.... I just dunno what to say... really I have no idea what to say...
Click to expand...

'Cuz it's an irrelevant threadjack. It's like discussing whether cell phones should be banned while driving. You have people who say that cell phones should be banned for drivers and those who say they shouldn't and those who say that hands free is the only thing that's acceptable. Then someone starts making the argument that it's foolish to ban cell phone altogether. If we got rid of cell phones it would wreck our economy. People are accustomed to being able to walk around and call people. Plus, putting cell carriers out of business completely would put the hurt on the economy so it's foolish to want to ban cell phones completely. No one can argue with any of that, but no one argued that cell phones should be banned altogether. It's a complete non-sequiter.

Arguing whether guns should be banned completely or not is a non-sequiter as well if no one in the thread has made the argument that they should all be banned. It's also one that gun advocates frequently bring up any time anyone advocates any sort of gun regulations at all.

"I think convicted felons should not be allowed to buy guns."
"If you ban guns completely, only felons will have them!"

"I think a safety class should be required before someone is allowed to have a gun."
"If you ban guns completely, it doesn't make anyone safer."

In both of those examples the argument against banning guns is non-germane to the discussion. No one has argued that guns should be banned in either example. Yet I see gun advocates bring this argument up all the time because it stirs up an emotional response and none of their opponents will argue with them on this point because none of them are advocating it in the first place.

Again, who in this thread argued that guns should be banned completely? I seem to have missed it. I see people arguing that private property owners should be allowed to ban guns on their property (and those who disagree with this). I see people debating about whether concealed carry makes people safer or less safe. I see a debate about whether Walgreens is justified in firing this guy or not and whether the guy acted appropriately or not. I don't see a single person advocating banning all guns.
 
A.Nonymous said:
'Cuz it's an irrelevant threadjack. It's like discussing whether cell phones should be banned while driving.
Click to expand...

Wow... jeepers creepers take a chill pill... relax...

Then I am sorry for trying to make the discussion slightly more interesting...

Jeepers

I was not trying to make the thread go off topic just trying to make it more interesting I really don't see what is wrong with this.

Any way I don't want to argue about something so meaningless, I think it is meaningless to argue about whether I was trying hard to derail the thread even though that was not my intent.

Enough said.
 
Stinky Stinky said:
Wow... jeepers creepers take a chill pill... relax...

Then I am sorry for trying to make the discussion slightly more interesting...

Jeepers

I was not trying to make the thread go off topic just trying to make it more interesting I really don't see what is wrong with this.

Any way I don't want to argue about something so meaningless, I think it is meaningless to argue about whether I was trying hard to derail the thread even though that was not my intent.

Enough said.
Click to expand...

It wasn't you. It was other posters before you. It just bugs me as I see it as an extremely common rhetoric tool used by pro-gun advocates. They claim that anyone who advocates any gun restrictions at all, whether they be reasonable or not, is advocating banning all guns. Then they bash that straw man to pieces and feel like they've won the discussion. In fact, no discourse has happened at all. Those advocating gun control go away as their arguments aren't even being addressed and those advocating a more pro-gun viewpoint go away feeling like they've won when in fact they've done their view a complete disservice. I would feel the same way if someone was to make a "think of the children" type appeal in favor of gun control. It's irrelevant. Now, if someone makes the argument that all guns should be banned, then it's fair game IMO. Until then, it's a complete non-sequiter. It's like bringing in Godwin's law. It's a non-sequiter.

I meant no offense. Logical fallacies like this annoy me. It's one of my pet peeves. I apologize if I offended you.
 
A.Nonymous said:
It wasn't you. It was other posters before you. It just bugs me as I see it as an extremely common rhetoric tool used by pro-gun advocates. They claim that anyone who advocates any gun restrictions at all, whether they be reasonable or not, is advocating banning all guns. Then they bash that straw man to pieces and feel like they've won the discussion. In fact, no discourse has happened at all. Those advocating gun control go away as their arguments aren't even being addressed and those advocating a more pro-gun viewpoint go away feeling like they've won when in fact they've done their view a complete disservice. I would feel the same way if someone was to make a "think of the children" type appeal in favor of gun control. It's irrelevant. Now, if someone makes the argument that all guns should be banned, then it's fair game IMO. Until then, it's a complete non-sequiter. It's like bringing in Godwin's law. It's a non-sequiter.

I meant no offense. Logical fallacies like this annoy me. It's one of my pet peeves. I apologize if I offended you.
Click to expand...

Great! Logical fallacies annoy you.

Then you should be annoyed at the concept of gun control, as gun control in itself is the biggest fallacy in all gun related conversations. All gun control laws do are keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. That's it.

Criminals don't follow gun control laws.
 
IOWA said:
Great! Logical fallacies annoy you.

Then you should be annoyed at the concept of gun control, as gun control in itself is the biggest fallacy in all gun related conversations. All gun control laws do are keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. That's it.

Criminals don't follow gun control laws.
Click to expand...

Let's apply that logic across the board. It's foolish to make laws regulating doctors as criminal doctors don't follow the law. It's foolish to make laws regulating the food supply as cooks who are criminals are going to break them and serve unsafe food anyway. It's foolish to make laws governing how to drive because people are going to break them anyway.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Let's apply that logic across the board. It's foolish to make laws regulating doctors as criminal doctors don't follow the law. It's foolish to make laws regulating the food supply as cooks who are criminals are going to break them and serve unsafe food anyway. It's foolish to make laws governing how to drive because people are going to break them anyway.
Click to expand...

Not really seeing the relevance between your Apple's and Oranges. Sorry.
 
IOWA said:
Not really seeing the relevance between your Apple's and Oranges. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Regulating guns for safety reasons makes no sense. Regulating the practice of medicine, the food supply, driving, etc... for safety reasons makes sense?
 
A.Nonymous said:
Regulating guns for safety reasons makes no sense. Regulating the practice of medicine, the food supply, driving, etc... for safety reasons makes sense?
Click to expand...

Again, apples and oranges.

None of these have anything to do with an inalienable right.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Speech is a right. Yet it is regulated. Ownership of property is a right. Yet it is regulated as well.
Click to expand...

Speech is regulated? Since when? How so?

Regulations of Ownership of property is another one I disagree with. If people purchase property, they should be able to do as they please while on their property (including building on your own property) as long as its a.) Not breaking any laws and b.) Not hurting anyone else.
 
IOWA said:
Speech is regulated? Since when? How so?

Regulations of Ownership of property is another one I disagree with. If people purchase property, they should be able to do as they please while on their property (including building on your own property) as long as its a.) Not breaking any laws and b.) Not hurting anyone else.
Click to expand...

The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. There are also well-established laws against libel and slander. There are laws against verbally harassing someone. I can't stand in the street and yell death threats at you all day for example.
 
A.Nonymous said:
The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. There are also well-established laws against libel and slander. There are laws against verbally harassing someone. I can't stand in the street and yell death threats at you all day for example.
Click to expand...

That's called being responsible for your actions. Besides, doing something to hurt someone in any way SHOULD (and is) illegal. I never said people should have the right to hurt each other. Much, MUCH different than regulation. I believe gun responsibility.
 
IOWA said:
That's called being responsible for your actions. Besides, doing something to hurt someone in any way SHOULD (and is) illegal. I never said people should have the right to hurt each other. Much, MUCH different than regulation. I believe gun responsibility.
Click to expand...

Libel and slander laws are very much restricting speech. Just the definition of them is that you can say anything you want except for X. That's legally restricting speech.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Libel and slander laws are very much restricting speech. Just the definition of them is that you can say anything you want except for X. That's legally restricting speech.
Click to expand...

Oh brother. Circle up again.

Are you understanding the concept of "unless it hurts someone else?"
 
IOWA said:
Oh brother. Circle up again.

Are you understanding the concept of "unless it hurts someone else?"
Click to expand...

I'm just saying there is legal precedent for restricting Constitutional rights. We restrict speech. We restrict property. We restrict the practice of religion. All of these things are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Why should we not restrict guns?
 
A.Nonymous said:
I'm just saying there is legal precedent for restricting Constitutional rights. We restrict speech. We restrict property. We restrict the practice of religion. All of these things are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Why should we not restrict guns?
Click to expand...

None of those things are restricted. There are CONSEQUENCES if you don't follow the rules(basically, don't hurt anyone else! that's it!). If you don't understand this, it's not my problem to teach you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom