Again and again and again... - Page 9 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 301Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #121 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 05:07 PM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 2,703
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapientia View Post
Just to be clear, this was Thor's argument, not mine. His argument about crime (or anything involving risk) needing to be zero in order to not carry is just silly.

I daresay I'm more of a risk-taker than most. It's where I got to where I am. I just happen to be excellent at managing risk and, at least here in Canada, it doesn't require I carry a gun.
Yes, that was what I was getting at; I understood what he was saying, and what you have been. You seem to take issue with him carrying. It's his right to do so, even if he's not at risk most of the time. I'd no more take away a man's right to wear a metal suit than take their right to arm themselves against alien invaders, or more realistically, home invaders. We can mock the man in the metal suit, or the man carrying his gun, but either way, it would be immoral to demand that they be made to stop by force of government. (unless they start threatening folks with their armaments, but that's a different issue than what we're discussing)

I'm with you that this isn't a justifiable fear for many of us. I don't live my life in fear of it. I'm much more concerned with my government's overreach into my life than I am of a raving loon with a gun. But I live in a good neighborhood, where we have a strong sense of community and look out for each other; and a lot of other people don't.

Thor's point was that there's always going to be a risk, so he should always have the option. Which is how he wishes to handle that risk, and is his decision to make.

You and I don't fear car accidents, so we ride in cars. But depending on how much we fear them, we may or may not wear our seatbelts (I often don't). We don't fear micrometeorite falling on us so we don't hide from the sky. (Funny story I actually had a very small meteorite come so close I could feel the heat on my face; one exciting experience.) But other people may prefer to ride a bike; or perhaps they do fear falling rocks from space. And that's their row to hoe.


Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #122 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 05:43 PM
Member
 
Fozzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,527
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tech-novelist View Post
In other words, you have no answers to my questions. Got it.
You won an internet argument! GOOD JOB!!!


Darling it's better down where it's wetter, take it from me! --- Sebastian
Fozzy is offline  
post #123 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 05:59 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,694
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
DiFi and Chuck are extremists. You're correct that they would take it to a level of infringement. We're never going to be rid of extremists, but I don't think you counter an extremist by going off the deep end in the other direction.
Except that real citizens are already having their rights greatly impaired by people just like DiFi and Chuck U Schumer. When one of them becomes Atty General or President or some other position of great power they will impose such restrictions on the entire country.

And that is why we fight for the full measure of our rights as guaranteed us in the Constitution. Why should I and other law abiding citizens compromise away our rights? Every time we do compromise, there is yet another demand made of us.

If we agree that some unspecified form of "reasonable" training is ok and we'll submit to it, I know with 100% certainty that the very next day there will be calls for ever greater amounts of restrictions on my rights.

Would you agree to some kind of "sensible" voter knowledge test? You and I could come up with something we'd both agree is "reasonable", but as soon as you let a dedicated party hack have some power in the arena you can kiss your voting rights goodbye. So why even agree to giving up any of your voting rights in the first place?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
I'm not familiar with places that already do have training requirements because I don't live in one of those places. Are the prices set by the government or private facilities? CCW classes where I live are very affordable and provided by state licensed trainers. Considering the relative price of guns, I don't see a single qualification class as being much of an impediment.
The government sets minimum number of hours and tasks required. If 8 hours of training is required, and if live fire is required, the applicant is going to have to pay a professional for that training. If 16 hours of training is required, it is going to be even more expensive. That's how it is done. In addition, do you have 16 hours available to go to training? Do you have 30 hours? It isn't difficult to see that much of the population can be quickly eliminated by these training requirements, and the most likely to need a defensive weapon are the least able to afford the training.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fozzy View Post
As for the delay, a person could take their safety class at any point prior to purchase. It doesn't have to be the day that they actually purchase it. I took my first safety class when I was 7 years old and have had other classes since, many before I bought my first firearm.
So when my sister discovered a stalker's footprints in the snow outside her living room window, how long do you think is reasonable before society deems it allowable for her to purchase a gun or possess a borrowed gun? Furthermore, what are the real world statistics showing that there is in fact a problem with people who are unaware of the basics of gun safety?

Every new firearm is delivered with safety instructions. Every retail seller will show the buyer how to safely operate the firearm. Free training is available, as is professional training. Manufacturers have extensive safety information on their websites, as does the NRA. YouTube has probably thousands of hours of videos on gun safety and how to operate every imaginable make and model of firearm.

The real problem is not the typical law abiding gun owner but the violent criminal who is committing intentional acts of violence.
Thor is offline  
 
post #124 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 06:06 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,694
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sapientia View Post
Just to be clear, this was Thor's argument, not mine. His argument about crime (or anything involving risk) needing to be zero in order to not carry is just silly.

I daresay I'm more of a risk-taker than most. It's where I got to where I am. I just happen to be excellent at managing risk and, at least here in Canada, it doesn't require I carry a gun.
No, what I'm saying is that unless the violent crime rate is zero you have no rational argument to deny law abiding people the right to carry defensive weapons. You doing so would guarantee some of those innocent people become the victims of violence. If you can point to places with a zero violent crime rate then you can argue there is no need to carry.

You keep trying to argue that you have no "need" in Canada to carry because your streets are so safe. Well they actually aren't all that safe, especially for those who become victims. But you are willing to accept those risks personally, and that is fine.

Though need is not a litmus test when it comes to natural rights including those in the Bill of Rights. The innocent don't need the 4A because they have nothing to hide. The innocent have no need for the 5A because they have nothing to confess to.
Thor is offline  
post #125 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 06:09 PM
Member
 
NobodySpecial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,108
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
We can mock the man in the metal suit, or the man carrying his gun, but either way, it would be immoral to demand that they be made to stop by force of government.
Yet no one gets their knickers in a twist about the immorality of my losing my rights to my lawn darts. Why is that?
NobodySpecial is offline  
post #126 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 06:17 PM
Member
 
Cletus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 4,509
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
No, what I'm saying is that unless the violent crime rate is zero you have no rational argument to deny law abiding people the right to carry defensive weapons. You doing so would guarantee some of those innocent people become the victims of violence. If you can point to places with a zero violent crime rate then you can argue there is no need to carry.
Until the number of victims from the side effects of allowing every law abiding citizen to carry defensive weapons exceeds the head count from victims of violent crime should they be outlawed, if we're going to take a strictly numeric definition of rational.

You can of course take the approach that every crime committed by a law abiding citizen with a defensive weapon makes him a non law abiding citizen, thereby defining the problem out of existence, but that would be intellectually dishonest, so I'm confident you won't do that.
Cletus is offline  
post #128 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 10:45 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,694
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
Until the number of victims from the side effects of allowing every law abiding citizen to carry defensive weapons exceeds the head count from victims of violent crime should they be outlawed, if we're going to take a strictly numeric definition of rational.

You can of course take the approach that every crime committed by a law abiding citizen with a defensive weapon makes him a non law abiding citizen, thereby defining the problem out of existence, but that would be intellectually dishonest, so I'm confident you won't do that.
What is that body count by law abiding citizens lawfully carrying concealed? I presume you're discussing accidental discharges resulting in death, innocent bystanders in legitimate self defense shootings, stupid idiots accidentally shooting themselves or a friend, etc. These would be law abiding citizens who do not commit an intentional criminal act.

And then there are the criminal class who by some stroke of luck (and perhaps lack of enforcement of existing laws) are engaged in criminal activity yet have no criminal conviction record. These people can purchase and possess a firearm legally simply because they have not yet been convicted of crimes they have already committed. Had they been caught and convicted they would be prohibited persons. So, these people can pass the background check and buy a gun, or they can pass the background check and obtain their concealed carry permit.

How many are in that group and what is the estimated body count there?

I assume you're getting to numbers up in the hundreds of thousands per year with those two groups, as the research consistently shows 250,000 to over 2 million legitimate self defense uses of firearms every year.

Which leaves us with those who were law abiding citizens when they obtained weapons (not simply non-convicts but actual law abiding citizens) who then converted to violent criminal. What is the body count with this group. Be careful though because research consistently shows that domestic homicide and suicide rates are not affected by the availability of any particular weapon or method, so those crimes don't count.

As was discussed beyond any reasonable limit on the gun control thread, the overwhelming majority of violent crimes are committed by a relatively small group of people who have long histories of committing violent crimes. Those people are already prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms, or even ammunition or parts of firearms. They certainly cannot legally carry concealed.
Thor is offline  
post #129 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 10:48 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,694
Re: Again and again and again...

The American media is probably working hard to figure out what the motive for this attack might have been. Seriously, if you were to watch the mainstream media you'd see they have great difficulty coming to conclusions about these things.
Thor is offline  
post #130 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-18-2016, 11:03 PM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,694
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
Until the number of victims from the side effects of allowing every law abiding citizen to carry defensive weapons exceeds the head count from victims of violent crime should they be outlawed, if we're going to take a strictly numeric definition of rational.
To take it a little bit further, we should consider that victims of side effects, as you call it, would have the right to choose to be armed or not armed. Thus those who choose not to be armed, while they are not to blame for becoming victims, are not as sad cases as those who forcibly disarmed by the law and then become victimized.

That is, the woman raped in the parking garage on the college campus within yards of the campus police station is a morally repugnant situation because she was forced to be unarmed for her own defense, and the perp likely targeted that location knowing his victim would be defenseless. She is the victim of both her attacker and the gun ban advocates.

The woman who chooses to be defenseless and is raped where defensive firearms are allowed is a victim of her attacker but not a victim of society at large.

If somehow we attribute some violent gun crime to the law permitting lawful concealed carry, we should consider whether the victim chose to be unarmed.

As an analogy, if a motorcyclist is hit by a car in a situation 100% the fault of the car's driver, we should consider if the rider was wearing protective gear as part of evaluating laws regarding the wearing of protective gear. If he chooses to wear shorts, flip flops, no jacket, no helmet, and no eye protection then while we still blame the car driver 100%, we can't tally his injuries the same as if he were wearing all the gear.

Thor is offline  
post #131 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-19-2016, 08:42 AM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 2,703
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodySpecial View Post
Yet no one gets their knickers in a twist about the immorality of my losing my rights to my lawn darts. Why is that?
If you're asking me whether or not I'm against the ban, I am. I'm against making almost any product illegal. You should be able to determine for yourself what you wish to buy, and what activities you think are acceptable for your children. What's next, banning swimming pools? Or automobiles? Or bow and arrow sets? etc

If you're wanting to know why people aren't as bothered by this ban, it's because A) it doesn't affect many people (most folks don't even think about lawn darts through the course of their lives); B) It doesn't violate your inherent right to self-defense; and C) It's not illegal to own or assemble, it is illegal to sell them already assembled, so you can get them if you're intersted. Combined, these reasons tend to ensure lawn darts won't evoke that visceral reaction out of people.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #132 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-19-2016, 09:04 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,105
Re: Again and again and again...

People seem really bad at risk analysis. If you live in the US, you are by most likely to die of age related medical problems. (cancer, heart attack, etc). Something like 90%. Accidental injury deaths are 6% (about 1/2 of those are traffic accidents at 2% of total deaths).

Intentional injuries are 2.8%, but 1.5 of that is suicides. Violent deaths are 1%.

So suicide is about 1.5X as likely as violent death, and automotive accidents are 2X as likely.

That makes the safety aspect of guns questionable. They will presumably decrease violent deaths, but increase suicides (guns make suicide easy so probably more common).
(number from wikipedia list of causes of death by rate)



For me, The 1% chance of dying by violence isn't worth the inconvenience of carrying a gun. If I were willing to put in the effort, I'd do better with advanced driving training, and if I want to help my fellow man / family, by becoming more expert at first aid.

Since violent deaths are a low risk in any case, I don't care very much if other people want to carry guns.
uhtred is offline  
post #133 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-19-2016, 09:07 AM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 2,703
Re: Again and again and again...

@NobodySpecial

RE: Lawn Darts... I'll just note that the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned these a long time ago; and upon being challenged in court, they removed the ban. They then reinstated the ban ~8 years later. This indicates that another challenge may be successful. (unless there was one that lost, of which I'm unaware)

I'll bring up the fact that the CPSC by banning a product is passing legislation, which is a power granted only to Congress, not to some agency created by Congress.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #134 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-19-2016, 09:49 AM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,162
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
What kind of training requirement do you imagine a Diane Feinstein or Chuck Schumer would impose?

There already are places with such training requirements which price gun ownership out of range for most citizens. Is that not an infringement?

Is not a delay or requirement to prove your qualifications prior to being allowed to exercise a right an infringement?
Take a class offered by a sanctioning body like the NRA with content and instructor meeting some basic standards jointly set by the sanctioning body and some fed agency, pass a range test administered by said sanctioning body, and buy anti aircraft artillery for your backyard for all I know.

Here in the exclusive suburbia we're seeing high end indoor ranges that offer high end product, competent instruction, and are making money like there's no tomorrow. Our community, the type that balks at Victoria's Secret and liquor type places has no problem and I applaud that.

That's how you build more acceptance and introduce more people to legal, responsible, and fun gun ownership.
john117 is offline  
post #135 of 362 (permalink) Old 07-19-2016, 09:51 AM
jld
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 18,800
Re: Again and again and again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by john117 View Post
Take a class offered by a sanctioning body like the NRA with content and instructor meeting some basic standards jointly set by the sanctioning body and some fed agency, pass a range test administered by said sanctioning body, and buy anti aircraft artillery for your backyard for all I know.

Here in the exclusive suburbia we're seeing high end indoor ranges that offer high end product, competent instruction, and are making money like there's no tomorrow. Our community, the type that balks at Victoria's Secret and liquor type places has no problem and I applaud that.

That's how you build more acceptance and introduce more people to legal, responsible, and fun gun ownership.
Do you own a gun, John?

One of the deepest feminine pleasures is when a man stands full, present, and unreactive in the midst of his woman's emotional storms. When he stays present with her, and loves her through the layers of wildness and closure, then she feels his trustability, and she can relax. -- David Deida, The Way of the Superior Man
jld is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome