Current Events > Taking away people's rights won't stop mass killings

(+) Yeah! (+)

Look at what happened at the Bataclan or in Nice, France. Many innocent people were brutally slaughtered in unconventional ways by murderers who broke the law even though the citizens followed the law.

The solutions are not statism and fascism and taking away people's rights.

It won't stop sweet, sweet gay sex from happening, either
---

should I be able to purchase a nuclear weapon because my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon?
---

But it will cut down the number of mass shootings. Yes they still happen in places like the UK and France but they are years or decades apart not not weeks or months.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

same could be said for assault rifles

why any random civilian needs one is beyond me
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

should I be able to purchase a nuclear weapon because my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon?

This seems like a false equivalency. However, I could be wrong.

Firearms can have the purpose of killing. I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

fixed to remove intellectual dishonesty
---

Butterfiles posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

should I be able to purchase a nuclear weapon because my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon?

This seems like a false equivalency. However, I could be wrong.

Firearms can have the purpose of killing. I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

fixed to remove intellectual dishonesty

No you actually made it worse by using intellectual dishonesty

Well, perhaps a lack of intellect is more accurate.
---

Perfect is the enemy of good.

It's either naive or a strawman to think restrictive laws will stop mass killings. The goal is to reduce both their frequency and severity.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

This seems like a false equivalency. However, I could be wrong.

Firearms can have the purpose of hunting, protection, and as a hobby. I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

If you think the practical implications of a rights violation matter, then that opens up the possibility that infringing on someone's rights can lead to positive outcomes.

On the other hand, if you deny that the practical implications of a rights violation matters, then doesn't it follow that the practical uses of something don't matter either?

Also, what if I need my nuke to compel the government to stop violating other rights? Isn't that (one of) the typical arguments in favor of gun rights? If anything, a nuclear weapon seems much more effective at checking government power than any number of conventional assault weapons, at least to me.
---

Honestly, it's too late for America, banning guns will just make the matter worse. The focus now should be to minimise collateral damage

Second amendment should never have happened tbqh
---

at this point, it wouldn't work. theres just too many guns in the country already and its too easy to run them up from mexico and south america or modify them your self. guns are too much of a staple in the world in general, especially in the americas. this type of mass shooting is also very rare both in context to how many people die by rifles each year and how many people statistically defend themselves from a bad guy with a gun who more often then not doesnt care about laws or regulations and will get the firearm anyway given how many are out there.

this situation isnt like Australia or the UK. even if you did flat out ban guns it wouldnt be easy to collect them and chances are youd have even more deaths on your hands given this countrys affiliation and upbringing with them.

now thats not to say you cant do anything. theres definitely things that can be done without taking anything away. the big one is making sure the person buying it isnt a nut case. thats not fool proof given how someone can change over the course of their lives, but it is something. and in general just making people be aware of how dangerous they are and how to safely handle them. a safety course could be mandatory for any firearm purchase for instance.

awesome999 posted...

Second amendment should never have happened tbqh

the 2nd has helped to get us to where we are in the world. its just that every positive has a negative unfortunately.
---

awesome999 posted...

Honestly, it's too late for America, banning guns will just make the matter worse. The focus now should be to minimise collateral damage

Second amendment should never have happened tbqh

so you are fine with the government having weapons, and not civilians, or governments forcing us to do what we don't wanna do and hold a gun to our heads??? the 2nd A was created to keep stuff like that from happening.. 2A is our checks and balances against the corrupt government.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

This seems like a false equivalency. However, I could be wrong.

Firearms can have the purpose of hunting, protection, and as a hobby. I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

If you think the practical implications of a rights violation matter, then that opens up the possibility that infringing on someone's rights can lead to positive outcomes.

On the other hand, if you deny that the practical implications of a rights violation matters, then doesn't it follow that the practical uses of something don't matter either?

Also, what if I need my nuke to compel the government to stop violating other rights? Isn't that (one of) the typical arguments in favor of gun rights? If anything, a nuclear weapon seems much more effective at checking government power than any number of conventional assault weapons, at least to me.

Ah yes, the nuclear suitcase argument, the age old insult to everyone's intelligence during times of debate, and especially tragedy.
---

Using one shooting in France as a basis of your argument is pretty weak. Why not look at statistics of Gun related deaths in France vs the US and then kindly shut the fuck up
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Butterfiles posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

should I be able to purchase a nuclear weapon because my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon?

This seems like a false equivalency. However, I could be wrong.

Firearms can have the purpose of killing. I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

fixed to remove intellectual dishonesty

I wouldn't say that listing out the popular uses of firearms is intellectually dishonest.

It is intellectually dishonest, to list out any firearms, when firearms are not the cause of the shooting.
---

I don't think the constitution says anything about letting people own military grade weaponry. :U
---

A gunHylianFox posted...

same could be said for assault rifles

why any random civilian needs one is beyond me

Good thing actual assault rifles are already highly regulated, then.
---

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I don't think the constitution says anything about letting people own military grade weaponry. :U

The Constitution, is there to guarantee our rights as men and citizens. If you do not see this, then you are not patriotic.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Ah yes, the nuclear suitcase argument, the age old insult to everyone's intelligence during times of debate, and especially tragedy.

frankly I can't imagine anyone reading this topic could actually find that more intellectually insulting or disrespectful than what TC posted.

why do you think that it is?
---

to elaborate, I'm not saying that is a reasonable argument

I am saying TC's logic allows for it

my point is that TC's logic is flawed and incorrect, but by proposing my point in the form of a question, I intend to force people to elaborate on their own opinions to see how intellectually honest they are

some people just dismiss the question without elaboration, probably because they have no real point with respect to the topic at hand
---

I did actually, because saying something profoundly stupid in response to something stupid, is still stupid.
---

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

OpheliaAdenade posted...

I don't think the constitution says anything about letting people own military grade weaponry. :U

The Constitution, is there to guarantee our rights as men and citizens. If you do not see this, then you are not patriotic.

I don't see anything in the constitution that guarantees our right to own gatling guns. :u
---

Malcrasternus posted...

I did actually, because saying something profoundly stupid in response to something stupid, is still stupid.

what makes it stupid? please be specific while you have the floor
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Ah yes, the nuclear suitcase argument, the age old insult to everyone's intelligence during times of debate, and especially tragedy.

During times of tragedy, it is common for people like yourself, who don't feel the same firearms that the rest of us feel, to make vague arguments like this for selfish causes. Until you have fired twenty rounds into tannerite you cannot understand. The loss of life, while tragic, can never justify denying firearms enthusiasts this basic enjoyment, nor the people the right to defend himself, from a despotic government.
---

True. Remember, though, this is Trump and not Obama. Obama was practically giddy when he got a chance to double down on his anti-gun fear mongering.

Trump realizes he's wrong.
---

idk what solid snape is talking about

I myself have occasionally owned firearms, though I currently don't since ammo got too expensive and I'm poor

I think people should be allowed to own guns

framing it as an argument about rights, though, is misleading in most cases because most people readily agree that rights should be infringed if you conceptualize them appropriately. the issue is when people talk about their rights, they assume some base point of what's "reasonable," which is based on their personal experiences, so the principles that underlie their arguments get lost in translation
---

Balrog0 posted...

what makes it stupid? please be specific while you have the floor

The benefit to risk factor. A bullet is targeted and deliberate, and when aimed properly will stop an attacker, while a fucking explosion has no guidance other than where detonated. Can you imagine the dilemma of a man with a concealed carry nuclear suitcase being attacked by someone having to make the choice of killing not only his attacker, but themselves, possibly his friends, family, and all of his possessions? The guy is dead but so is everyone and everything you tried to protect. It makes no sense, and is a horrible, stupid, and insulting argument for anyone to make.
---

Balrog0 posted...

idk what solid snape is talking about

I myself have occasionally owned firearms, though I currently don't since ammo got too expensive and I'm poor

I think people should be allowed to own guns

framing it as an argument about rights, though, is misleading in most cases because most people readily agree that rights should be infringed if you conceptualize them appropriately. the issue is when people talk about their rights, they assume some base point of what's "reasonable," which is based on their personal experiences, so the principles that underlie their arguments get lost in translation

It is an argument about rights, basic rights, fundamental rights. The Constitution says it is our right, to own firearms, and shall not be abridged. In this sense even restrictions against automatic weapons, goes too far. Unabridged means just that: unabridged. Malcrasternus and Asherlee and Balrog, though you may own guns, should not lose sights of this fundamental fact.
---

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

Ah yes, the nuclear suitcase argument, the age old insult to everyone's intelligence during times of debate, and especially tragedy.

During times of tragedy, it is common for people like yourself, who don't feel the same firearms that the rest of us feel, to make vague arguments like this for selfish causes. Until you have fired twenty rounds into tannerite you cannot understand. The loss of life, while tragic, can never justify denying firearms enthusiasts this basic enjoyment, nor the people the right to defend himself, from a despotic government.

The hell are you on about?
---

Malcrasternus posted...

The benefit to risk factor.

I agree, thank you for making my point.

The reason you wouldn't let people do this is because they could hurt a shitload of people. This same argument applies to gun ownership in general.

Nothing stupid about it.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

The benefit to risk factor. A bullet is targeted and deliberate

Whether it is targeted and deliberate, makes no difference. The bullets at Las Vegas, NV clearly were not targeted. That still does not change the fact, even if the world woulds be safer without firearms, it should not and can not be abridged, for it is a basic and fundamental right of man. Until you have fired into tannerite you cannot understand. Your arguments about nuclear missiles, while not wrong, so not defer from the basic truth, that the right to bear arms is entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers and God.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

The benefit to risk factor.

I agree, thank you for making my point.

The reason you wouldn't let people do this is because they could hurt a shitload of people. This same argument applies to gun ownership in general.

Nothing stupid about it.

Way to completely ignore the entire post. Now that I know you selectively read, there's no point in debating with you.
---

the issue is no longer about rights now that we've clarified why we allow rights violations

it is now about what we expect the ROI to be for gun ownership in terms of risk to reward
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Doesn't this presuppose that Constitution is uninhibitedly correct 100% of the time? I would say that isn't the case because we have amendments.

I think the right to bear arms via the constitution and its purpose does play an important role, but I'm not so sure it works as a solid foundation for the right to own a firearm in and of itself.

Exactly, the whole point of the Constitution is that it is a living document that changes as the times require. Amendments, by their literal definition, are changes. Keep in mind that while the Constitution is the very foundation of our government, both the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms weren't included in the base document.

As far as the right to bear arms is concerned, firearm ownership is already fiercely regulated. Private ownership of weapons capable of fully automatic fire as well as suppressors already have so many restrictions patched onto them that they are unattainable for the vast majority of the population. Likewise you can't buy a firearm from a licensed dealer without undergoing a background check. Depending on the state, you can't even own a magazine with a capacity of more than 10 rounds.

Likewise, firearms are far to ingrained into our culture for any sort of full ban to be productive. An overnight ban would just create the largest black market the US has ever seen. We saw this already happen with Prohibition and that bloody body count was for an item that wasn't even backed by an amendment.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Doesn't this presuppose that Constitution is uninhibitedly correct 100% of the time? I would say that isn't the case because we have amendments.

If you want to change it, then elect 75 Democrats in the Senate and 400 Democrats in the House, and pass an Amendment.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

Way to completely ignore the entire post. Now that I know you selectively read, there's no point in debating with you.

the rest of the post is irrelevant, though. The exact mechanism through which people can harm others is immaterial to the "benefit to risk factor" -- or if you think it isn't, explain why
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

should I be able to purchase a nuclear weapon because my right to bear arms should not be infringed upon?

This seems like a false equivalency. However, I could be wrong.

Firearms can have the purpose of hunting, protection, and as a hobby. I'm not sure nuclear weaponry has a purpose or use outside of mass killing.

Guns should not be a hobby. I've seen people with whole arsenals you don't think these people are more inclined to be trigger happy?

Malcrasternus posted...

Way to completely ignore the entire post. Now that I know you selectively read, there's no point in debating with you.

You are afraid to debate, then do not start the quarrel in the first place. Until you know what it feels like to feel that much firepower at your beck and call, do not speak about firearms. Shooting guns is something which will change your life, more than any human relationship possibly.
---

Balrog0 posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

Way to completely ignore the entire post. Now that I know you selectively read, there's no point in debating with you.

the rest of the post is irrelevant, though. The exact mechanism through which people can harm others is immaterial to the "benefit to risk factor" -- or if you think it isn't, explain why

No, you completely ignored the post, merely saying it's irrelevant without being able to explain why. If you're unable to address the entire post, you lost, and we're done here.
---

Guns are tools of death and destruction.
---

SOLID_SNAPE posted...

Malcrasternus posted...

Way to completely ignore the entire post. Now that I know you selectively read, there's no point in debating with you.

You are afraid to debate, then do not start the quarrel in the first place. Until you know what it feels like to feel that much firepower at your beck and call, do not speak about firearms. Shooting guns is something which will change your life, more than any human relationship possibly.

New User, got it. Try to not use all your posts up in one day.
---

Malcrasternus posted...

If you're unable to address the entire post, you lost, and we're done here.

It is embarrassing when people say this.
---