I’m still not quite sure what your point is, Neodoxy. My point is that humans have been killing each other ever since they crawled out of the sea. If you really want to stop humans from killing each other, you’re going to have to amputate their limbs.
As I said before, I have debated people who want to ban all guns for the citizenry. If you are not familiar with reading comprehension maybe you should familiarize yourself.
Seriously, I can only respond to the things that you write, not to what some others somewhere have said at somepoint about gun control. I am not going to attribute to you another person’s argument just because it has been used or is more common.
If it is your belief that assault weapons should be banned, then please state this clearly. Otherwise, state clearly what you do actually mean to say. I’m not going to try guessing. Either be clear or gtfo.
For the record, I have no idea why you brought up nerf guns except to ridicule me. Clearly you have nothing to offer other than attacking people. This is why Autolykos correctly identified you as a troll.
Skeptic,
Correct. But that doesn’t mean that guns don’t make the process easier. Thus we get back to the OP. You’re a lot less likely to die if someone is going be using a knife than if they’re going to be using a gun.
Neodoxy, I swear, you’re sounding like a liberal. So I’ll just ask you this - what would be your argument against the lefties?
What’s wrong with pointing out that they support the end justifies the means? Most people don’t want to be associated with that.
-
Making guns illegal won’t disarm criminals and will make civilians more helpless in the face of criminals
-
Making guns illegal will make people who enjoy guns for whatever reason worse off.
-
Making guns illegal will mean the government has less to fear from the populace. This means that the government will be more likely to be able to abuse its power if things become dire.
-
Guns are not the source of, but the effect of America’s violent culture.
Point 1 alone makes the whole argument absolutely irrelevant because it means that the leftists can’t obtain their goal. It’s the same as price controls; fixing the price doesn’t achieve the goal of allowing the poor to get more of a good, so it literally has no redeeming factor.
On the RLM thread I cracked up when I saw one guy arguing that guns would not help you in the event of a crime and another saying the state doesn’t fear an armed populace. Both of those are just plain idiotic arguments.
And how would I express such a thing to them?
“You think that the ends justify the means.”
I know that these people are wrong, but putting how they are wrong in good words? I’m good at structuring stories, but debates? Eh.
@ Neodoxy
Exactly. It is precisely because of the fatuity of these arguments and the bizarre and grotesquely-utopian worldview of the left-wing fundamentalists that generate the provocation in my mind that makes it nearly-unberable for me to give a sagacious retort. How can I structure a good response to such density?
Well, it’s a little tricky, but essentially what these people are saying is that it is okay to use violence in order to prevent an individual from owning or possessing a gun, even if he has never even threatened another with violence. In other words, gun control advocates are the ones initiating violence (as you know). So, while you might want to see nonviolent actions taken to reduce gun violence, they are okay with violence up to and including execution (by cop).
I don’t find that to be much of a persuasive point. The choice between a child dying from being shot with a gun and living mutilated from a knife attack isn’t quite that simple for most people.
Cars kill a whole lot more people than guns do, despite the fact that killing people is not a primary use of a car. So what does that say when something that is not designed to kill people kills more of them than something that is designed to kill them?
And recognizing the positive economic function of cars to the majority of people is exactly the point. Guns also have a positive economic function, a function far greater than the negative outcomes of shootings such as this.
Biggest flaw in liberal logic is to me the fact that banning simply means that one group of people (criminals - public and private) are immune to ban while non-criminal private sector is not. It is simply a way to give more power (physical and psychological) to one group of people (imho “bad”, parasitic people) at the cost of another group of people (“good”, productive people). Banning guns will improve security of those that will have guns - namely criminals, public and private.
You can minimize effects violence only when either nobody has weapons or when everybody has them. Giving government and criminals (purely semantic difference) exclusive access to weaponry seems like dumb idea to me if you do not value concentration of power and all assorted baggage.
Cars have a lot more uses than guns do.
How would you know that and yes, how would you measure that?
So I decided to rework what I wrote above. I think this is better. This argument is tailored for people who associate law with the state:
gotlucky, you must help me out on the RLM forums.
More in the same vein as the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011)
The conclusion is that the state is ineffective at preventing schools from being invaded by would-be killers.
Adults should take some responsibility for their own defense and they should only entrust the safety of their children to people who are capable of contributing to their defense. When adults send their children to public schools, they are abdicating responsibility for their safety to an organization which is unwilling or unable to ensure it.
I checked out that thread, and I have to say, I have no idea why you want to debate with people like that. They seem to just want to spout of their mouths.
…Otherwise known as all gun control advocates.
The point is, no matter how full of shit we know they all are, they are getting somewhere, especially by using tragedies to promote their oppressive system. Debating is the least we can do, because all the media ever lets you see from the opposition are the rednecks with the “praise the lord and pass the ammunition” mentality. You should have heard the Diane Rehm show earlier today. I was about to throw up in my stomach while listening to it.
Is that a fact?
You first.
By the way, I don’t consider you to be a troll.