• Woman shot in the head after knocking on door and asking for help
    998 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793661]firearms aren't produced through the violation of the natural rights of people(except in the same way production of any consumer good in a capitalist society does). owning a firearm does not violate the natural rights of other people or perpetuate a violation of the natural rights of anyone. child porn and guns are incomparable even in an abstract philosophical discussion about possession because the nature of the manufacture, propagation, and use of the two items are fundamentally different.[/QUOTE] idk i think Renisha McBride felt her natural rights being pretty subverted at about 2:30am
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793591]Why isn't europe rocked by homemade bombs.[/QUOTE] I don't read up much on Europe as much as I do as say Australia, but outside of some insurgent groups through out the 80's and 90's, I'd say that its because of good living standards and healthcare. Also because the whole, "throw a pipebomb" will get you more than just say jabbing someone.
this is the same reason you can't compare firearms and cars to each other in a conversation about the practicality of firearm legislation.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;42793655]you know philosophers can be disagreed with in fact most of philosophy is dudes disagreeing with each other[/QUOTE] well the thing is John Locke's philosophical concepts drove the Enlightenment movement and his ideas are what drives the American political system today it's kind of hard to argue against it in america
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793668]idk i think Renisha McBride felt her natural rights being pretty subverted at about 2:30am[/QUOTE] Yes, because one shooting with one gun somehow means that the majority of the 300 million guns in America are being used to kill people.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793668]idk i think Renisha McBride felt her natural rights being pretty subverted at about 2:30am[/QUOTE] that wasn't due to gun ownership. that was due to a person using their possessions to violate the rights of another person.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793646]which one of you is right plus john locke is just a single philosopher. Not the moral compass of the world.[/QUOTE] i'm not really working in tandem with him and we have different opinions you can't lump together people like that without seeming like a huge ignorant cockbag lol locke's not the moral compass of the world but that doesn't mean i'm wrong also doesn't mean i'm completely right but we can both argue it all day the point is that's what i believe about natural rights so if you have a counterargument to that that's an entirely different conversation that i'd be happy to have with you in a PM or on a different thread
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793709]I think the amount of firearm murders in the USA subvert a greater weight of natural rights than the collective mass of hobbyists. Maybe I just value life more than you idk[/QUOTE] attacking the character of the person you're arguing with is a bad way to argue sorry how about instead of banning a thing we work to get rid of the situations that cause the thing to be used incorrectly or make the thing more difficult to access for people who intend to do bad with the thing but not people who don't intend to do bad with the thing that's what i'm arguing
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793709]I think the amount of firearm murders in the USA subvert a greater weight of natural rights than the collective mass of hobbyists. Maybe I just value life more than you idk[/QUOTE] no you don't value life otherwise you wouldn't be using the death of someone else as an excuse to justify the violation of the natural rights of others in such an obscene and shameless fashion. you look at a killing and say "how can i use this restrict people"? this is the logic that gets people molested at airport security and gets afghani children killed by drones.
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793729]attacking the character of the person you're arguing with is a bad way to argue sorry how about instead of banning a thing we work to get rid of the situations that cause the thing to be used incorrectly or make the thing more difficult to access for people who intend to do bad with the thing but not people who don't intend to do bad with the thing that's what i'm arguing[/QUOTE] How could you have possibly prevented this particular case from happening? There are no tests that can say if someone will use a firearm on someone today or in 20 years time. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42793732]no you don't value life otherwise you wouldn't be using the death of someone else as an excuse to justify the violation of the natural rights of others in such an obscene and shameless fashion. you look at a killing and say "how can i use this restrict people"? this is the logic that gets people molested at airport security and gets afghani children killed by drones.[/QUOTE] is this where you call me hitlers first nazis again or a double-facist or what ever you did last time
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793709]I think the amount of firearm murders in the USA subvert a greater weight of natural rights than the collective mass of hobbyists. Maybe I just value life more than you idk[/QUOTE] 8000 murders versus the property rights, rights to privacy, and rights to security of the person, including through self defence, of ~100 million people, and a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar price tag to try and get rid of 300 million specific pieces of property, not to mention a fight against an ideology and culture. If one more person saves a life with a gun than gun murders take each year, did the murders subvert a greater weight of natural rights than the ownership of guns preserved?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793751]How could you have possibly prevented this particular case from happening? There are no tests that can say if someone will use a firearm on someone today or in 20 years time.[/QUOTE] racism and mental illness are much easier to fix than getting rid of guns in america at least i know you don't know what it's like here but bear with me i know a little more about my home country than you
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793732]this is the logic that gets people molested at airport security and gets afghani children killed by drones.[/QUOTE] guess what, where I come from I don't have a disgusting amount of firearm homicide, the TSA, or drone attacks.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793751]is this where you call me hitlers first nazis again or a double-facist or what ever you did last time[/QUOTE] when you advocate policies historically used by authoritarian societies to enforce social cohesion and stability, or you parade around the dead like they are some sort of political trophy, then i will call you out on it.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42793773]8000 murders versus the property rights, rights to privacy, and rights to security of the person, including through self defence, of ~100 million people, and a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar price tag to try and get rid of 300 million specific pieces of property, not to mention a fight against an ideology and culture. If one more person saves a life with a gun than gun murders take each year, did the murders subvert a greater weight of natural rights than the ownership of guns preserved?[/QUOTE] More people have been killed by private firearm ownership than all the losses in all the wars america has ever fought in. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42793787]when you advocate policies historically used by authoritarian societies to enforce social cohesion and stability, or you parade around the dead like they are some sort of political trophy, then i will call you out on it.[/QUOTE] There is no correlation between firearm ownership and democracy. Worldwide or historically. Try again.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793777]guess what, where I come from I don't have a disgusting amount of firearm homicide, the TSA, or drone attacks.[/QUOTE] once again you're labeling me as some idiotic hyperconservative if you actually read my posts you'd know that i'm in favor of stricter gun control laws that would limit firearm violence while also preserving individual rights to firearms, with relative ease compared to prying guns from the hands of every citizen in the US the TSA had to do with terrorist attacks carried out by extremists who took over planes with [I]box cutters[/I] drone attacks are the result of that along with the lust for oil the us government has so two of your points have nothing to do with actual firearm violence but hey one out of three actually relevant things in your posts isn't that bad considering your track record [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoDachi;42793790]More people have been killed by private firearm ownership than all the losses in all the wars america has ever fought in. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] There is no correlation between firearm ownership and democracy. Worldwide or historically. Try again.[/QUOTE] but there is a negative correlation between firearm sales and firearm violence lol [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/[/url]
[QUOTE=Tacosheller;42793814]but there is a negative correlation between firearm sales and firearm violence lol [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/[/url][/QUOTE] That is a falsity though. [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg[/img] don't trust forbes, its a junk news site anyway
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793790]More people have been killed by private firearm ownership than all the losses in all the wars america has ever fought in. [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] There is no collaboration between firearm ownership and democracy. Worldwide or historically. Try again.[/QUOTE] Do you have anything that can prove that statement? Because I highly doubt private firearms ownership has lead, historically, to the deaths of several hundred million people, which by what you said, is the total of all the losses of all the wars America has ever fought in. Hell, even just going off the number of Americans killed your statement still sounds absurdly hyperbolic. Assuming that, annually, 50,000 people have died in the US due to private ownership of firearms, a number that is absurdly higher than the actual value, that means that private firearms ownership in the US would have killed 11.8 million people since it was founded in 1776. Total allied casualties during WWII were over 16 million people, just for the military. Using an absurdly high value just to make it skew in your favour, less people have died due to private gun ownership in the US since its inception than the allied forces lost in WWII alone. Actual numbers will be much lower, since 50,000 people have not died in the US due to private firearms ownership annually since its inception.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793732]no you don't value life otherwise you wouldn't be using the death of someone else as an excuse to justify the violation of the natural rights of others in such an obscene and shameless fashion. you look at a killing and say "how can i use this restrict people"? this is the logic that gets people molested at airport security and gets afghani children killed by drones.[/QUOTE] You know neither of you are being particularly mature or clever by painting the other as evil or out to get you. We are talking about guns because it is relevant to the matter at hand. We can't just see threads like this and just go "how sad." because that doesn't actually fix anything. We have to offer up solutions to the problem.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793836]That is a falsity though. [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120731095634-declining-gun-ownership-chart-story-top.jpg[/img] don't trust forbes, its a junk news site anyway[/QUOTE] % owners =/= % sales. There are more guns in the US than ever before, but crime is at a 50-year low.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42786401]the facepunch gun lobby deflection team will be on in a few hours reminding us of all the same tired logical fallacies about how they're inanimate objects and cars kill more people.[/QUOTE] Except that cars do kill more people? Whether it's people driving drunk, racing, or doing stunts, there are always retards out there misusing their cars too. Not really sure how that's a logical fallacy. Also way to throw a strawman out there before anyone had even said anything. Wow you are really bad at this sometimes.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793790]There is no correlation between firearm ownership and democracy. Worldwide or historically. Try again.[/QUOTE] um yea from the shogun's sword hunts, great britain's gun ban, or the restrictions used in nazi germany, restricting the weaponry available to a populace has been a key part of authoritarian regimes.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;42793881]Do you have anything that can prove that statement? Because I highly doubt private firearms ownership has lead, historically, to the deaths of several hundred million people, which by what you said, is the total of all the losses of all the wars America has ever fought in. Hell, even just going off the number of Americans killed your statement still sounds absurdly hyperbolic. Assuming that, annually, 50,000 people have died in the US due to private ownership of firearms, a number that is absurdly higher than the actual value, that means that private firearms ownership in the US would have killed 11.8 million people since it was founded in 1776. Total allied casualties during WWII were over 16 million people, just for the military. Using an absurdly high value just to make it skew in your favour, less people have died due to private gun ownership in the US since its inception than the allied forces lost in WWII alone. Actual numbers will be much lower, since 50,000 people have not died in the US due to private firearms ownership annually since its inception.[/QUOTE] [quote]To absorb the scale of the mayhem, it's worth trying to guess the death toll of all the wars in American history since the War of Independence began in 1775, and follow that by estimating the number killed by firearms in the US since the day that Robert F. Kennedy was shot in 1968 by a .22 Iver-Johnson handgun, wielded by Sirhan Sirhan. The figures from Congressional Research Service, plus recent statistics from icasualties.org, tell us that from the first casualties in the battle of Lexington to recent operations in Afghanistan, the toll is 1,171,177. By contrast, the number killed by firearms, including suicides, since 1968, according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI, is 1,384,171.[/quote] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/american-gun-out-control-porter[/url] [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=DaCommie1;42793889]% owners =/= % sales. There are more guns in the US than ever before, but crime is at a 50-year low.[/QUOTE] but less people use guns and there is less firearm crime [editline]8th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=FlakAttack;42793896]Except that cars do kill more people? Whether it's people driving drunk, racing, or doing stunts, there are always retards out there misusing their cars too. Not really sure how that's a logical fallacy. Also way to throw a strawman out there before anyone had even said anything. Wow you are really bad at this sometimes.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.bloomberg.com/image/i3cs6F7hTHkc.jpg[/img] [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Lurker;42785885]This is why guns are bad.[/QUOTE] Good luck regulating [I]shotguns[/I] Handguns are one thing, semi auto rifles are another (lesser) thing, but shotguns are by and large the most common and "tool-like" of guns and they are legal and/or limited regulation basically everywhere.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793907]um yea from the shogun's sword hunts, great britain's gun ban, or the restrictions used in nazi germany, restricting the weaponry available to a populace has been a key part of authoritarian regimes.[/QUOTE] hitler encouraged shooting as a sport and the only restrictions were places on by the Treaties after WW1. This is a common school myth. Firearm ownership was boosted in the Third Reich.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793931]hitler encouraged shooting as a sport and the only restrictions were places on by the Treaties after WW1. This is a common school myth. Firearm ownership was boosted in the Third Reich.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act[/url] i'm sorry but you are objectively wrong. the regime used gun restrictions to ensure only those who the regime "trusted" or found desirable could purchase guns.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793907]um yea from the shogun's sword hunts, great britain's gun ban, or the restrictions used in nazi germany, restricting the weaponry available to a populace has been a key part of authoritarian regimes.[/QUOTE] Did you know the acquisition of shotguns and rifles was deregulated by the Nazis? e: oh thats already been said
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42793931]hitler encouraged shooting as a sport and the only restrictions were places on by the Treaties after WW1. This is a common school myth. Firearm ownership was boosted in the Third Reich.[/QUOTE] i dunno i'm pretty sure a lot of firearms were taken away from the people they were actually trying to oppress during the third reich firearm ownership was increased among citizens and jews, slavs, gypsies, etc weren't really considered citizens
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42793951][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act[/url] i'm sorry but you are objectively wrong. the regime used gun restrictions to ensure only those who the regime "trusted" or found desirable could purchase guns.[/QUOTE] "Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as was the possession of ammunition."[4] The legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.[5] Permits were valid for three years, rather than one year.[5] The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[4]" The act lowered restrictions and firearm ownership went up. They only banned jews, which were banned from everything.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.