Philosophy Discussion Forums

Rederic wrote:By the way, did you know that your government can declare you a security risk & lock you up without trial for as long as it likes.

False. That is an amusing but inaccurate interpretation of the NDAA and AUMF. Check your sources and try again.

Spirol Out.

Please have a look at the following website: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/d ... tion-obama

Regards, John.

Wooden shoe,

Please learn how to spell my username, then please actually read the articles you cite as a supposed retort to my posts.

Thank you and have a pleasant evening.

- Spiral Out

Spiral Out wrote:Out of desperation, Robert66 has concocted quite an amusing (albeit idiotic) story for us based on his highly emotional interpretations of our statements and for the sole purpose of the intentional misrepresentation of our positions in order to attempt to undermine them. But that's all that story is.

At no time have I ever stated or even implied that my possession of firearms is in any way due to any belief that I must protect myself from despotic governments, alien invaders or any other unrealistic threat. As I have stated numerous times (apparently to no effect), I keep firearms in my home for the protection of my family in the event of a home invasion by criminals.

It is my duty and responsibility to protect my family to the best of my abilities, which is also why I stay in good physical shape and keep up practice in hand-to-hand CQC techniques.

If Robert66 thinks that keeping firearms in one's home for the protection of one's family against real-world potential threats is in any way unwarranted, unjustified or otherwise as moronic as his story, then who's the fool here?

We have a word for people like that: victim.

Try again kid.

Now, would you care to address the criticisms (of the article you had referenced) that I had posed to you way back in post #293?

The story was just a bit of fun, SpiralOut, and you were like Clint Eastwood in it. Anyway, despite the immoderacy of your words designed to put me down, I'm happy to respond.

I'm not attempting to undermine anyone's positions or suggesting that they are necessarily unwarranted or unjustified in keeping firearms. I have no problem with your enjoyment of your legal right to keep firearms.

You may have criticisms of the article I referenced, or with any of the many articles to be found on the subject which may attempt to argue, however imperfectly, for the validity of tightening gun controls, based on study of the recent Australian experience. I may address those criticisms when time permits.

Based on my understanding of Australia's experience:

Gun control was made more effective; Far fewer people are shot or shoot themselves; The level of violence has decreased.

Now anyone can bring in arguments about cars, knives, drugs and aliens, I don't really care. And whichever State has whatever laws about guns, that's their business.Governments of any stripe will always be in the business of gun control, and line-drawing will continue as any State trys to work out what is best. I'm just saying that the Australian government's drawing of the line to restrict the use and storage of certain weapons and ammunition, to reduce the number of weapons held privately, and to better record the registration of weapons, and to do all this at a federal level, not leaving laws in the hands of the states, has been vindicated. It demonstrates to me that a path can be taken to reach a better outcome when it comes to the problem of guns.

Rederic wrote:

Subatomic God wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


We have teeth, fists, and a lot of body mass to suffocate someone if we wanted to. Whether you accept it or not, the only reason why we are drawn to gun power, is because that same power lies naturally within us.

It's true that there are many ways to kill another human, but a gun is specificly designed to kill & wound in a very efficient manner. Not everyone is drawn towards gun power, in fact people who are, are in the minority. It's like the hunting thing. I don't understand why people get enjoyment from blasting the life out of a fellow creature.

Rederic,

It is impossible to get rid of all tools/weapons that can kill others. A peanut is enough to kill those who are allergic to them. A gun, knife, fork, ice pick, foods, medicines, etc.. are inanimate objects that are lifeless, per se, and are neutral, but, the people using these items are the ones who need to practice self control, as one controls the natural tools/weapons of the self. Who is going to protect the masses from the government if the government decides to take all personal freedoms away? The government will still have guns, just like the criminal will still have guns. That is why the constitutions says the people have a right to bear arms. A gun is also designed to deter aggression, not just to kill or maim. I am more concerned with gasses and germ warfare.

Robert66,

Robert66 wrote:The story was just a bit of fun

We know what that story was Robert. Your story was posted in a desperate attempt to make us look like crackpots. It didn't work. I think the fact that you won't take honest responsibility for the intent of your post is indicative of the inherent gun-control mindset that merely attempts to skirt personal responsibility.

Robert66 wrote:I'm not attempting to undermine anyone's positions or suggesting that they are necessarily unwarranted or unjustified in keeping firearms. I have no problem with your enjoyment of your legal right to keep firearms.

Yes, I think you are attempting to undermine the gun owner's position and are suggesting that they are necessarily unwarranted and unjustified in keeping their firearms. You do have a problem with our legal right to keep firearms.

Stay committed to your intents and let's maintain some honest continuity here.

Robert66 wrote:I may address those criticisms when time permits.

I'm looking forward to our discussion on that.

Robert66 wrote:I'm just saying that the Australian government's drawing of the line to restrict the use and storage of certain weapons and ammunition, to reduce the number of weapons held privately, and to better record the registration of weapons, and to do all this at a federal level, not leaving laws in the hands of the states, has been vindicated.

On this point, do you honestly believe that if you remove any particular outlet used for the expression of any given individual's emotional compulsion that such emotional compulsion is somehow satisfied and is thus resolved?

>>>

Misty wrote:It is impossible to get rid of all tools/weapons that can kill others. A peanut is enough to kill those who are allergic to them. A gun, knife, fork, ice pick, foods, medicines, etc.. are inanimate objects that are lifeless, per se, and are neutral, but, the people using these items are the ones who need to practice self control, as one controls the natural tools/weapons of the self.

Thank you Misty for that synopsis. People must be held responsible for their actions. The principle of gun control does not hold people responsible for their actions, it merely scapegoats the tools used in their actions.

Misty wrote:Who is going to protect the masses from the government if the government decides to take all personal freedoms away? The government will still have guns, just like the criminal will still have guns. That is why the constitutions says the people have a right to bear arms.

Please Misty, don't feed the Rederic.

Misty wrote:A gun is also designed to deter aggression, not just to kill or maim.

A gun is designed to launch a projectile from the muzzle at a high velocity. Anything past that is the design of the person using the gun.

Spiral Out wrote:

Misty wrote:A gun is also designed to deter aggression, not just to kill or maim.

A gun is designed to launch a projectile from the muzzle at a high velocity. Anything past that is the design of the person using the gun.

The gun can also be a deterrent as the sight of a gun or threat of being shot may cause another to abandon their agenda.

Misty wrote:

Spiral Out wrote:

(Nested quote removed.)


A gun is designed to launch a projectile from the muzzle at a high velocity. Anything past that is the design of the person using the gun.

The gun can also be a deterrent as the sight of a gun or threat of being shot may cause another to abandon their agenda.

Misty. Do you own a gun?

Rederic wrote:

Misty wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


The gun can also be a deterrent as the sight of a gun or threat of being shot may cause another to abandon their agenda.

Misty. Do you own a gun?

No. Why? I do own knives, forks, ice picks, sticks and stones, hands, the emotion of anger etc..

Misty wrote:

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Misty. Do you own a gun?

No. Why? I do own knives, forks, ice picks, sticks and stones, hands, the emotion of anger etc..

Have you ever felt the need to own a gun?

The other items you listed have a different designed use & are not meant to be weapons. The gun, especially automatic guns, were specifically designed to cause maximum damage to the human body & to as many human bodies as possible. That's why they're used by deranged mass murderers. Just because someone is deranged it doesn't mean they can't plan their crime meticulously.

But the idea isn't to ban guns but introduce better controls to try & stop guns getting into the hands of irresponsible people, as demonstrated by the Australian example. Please explain why this is a bad thing?

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you the same question that Spiral Out refused to answer. Do you think the US has a problem with gun crime & school shootings? If you do, can nothing be done about it? Do you just shrug & think it can't be helped.? Don't you have a duty to try & improve the situation for the sake of children at least?

It may be true that introducing more controls may allow only the "evil ones" to have the weapons, but it´s a choice we make. We either have very flexible laws or have controls to prevent the "less evil ones" (the law abiding citizens) from falling into accidental behaviors involving these weapons.

Rederic wrote:

Misty wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No. Why? I do own knives, forks, ice picks, sticks and stones, hands, the emotion of anger etc..

Have you ever felt the need to own a gun?

The other items you listed have a different designed use & are not meant to be weapons. The gun, especially automatic guns, were specifically designed to cause maximum damage to the human body & to as many human bodies as possible. That's why they're used by deranged mass murderers. Just because someone is deranged it doesn't mean they can't plan their crime meticulously.

But the idea isn't to ban guns but introduce better controls to try & stop guns getting into the hands of irresponsible people, as demonstrated by the Australian example. Please explain why this is a bad thing?

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you the same question that Spiral Out refused to answer. Do you think the US has a problem with gun crime & school shootings? If you do, can nothing be done about it? Do you just shrug & think it can't be helped.? Don't you have a duty to try & improve the situation for the sake of children at least?

Rederic,

I always enjoy talking with you, so I do not mind you asking me anything. Glad your avatar is back!

I have not as yet had a home invasion, rape, or mugging. If I do encounter that I am sure I would wish I had a gun. But, I am more worried by the powers that be, wanting to destroy America by means other than guns.

I think school, workplace, and other site shootings are a result of the over medication of children and adults, both legally and illegally. Turn back the clock 25 years or so and these things were not happening. I don't think I have met many people in the last 15 years that is not taking some kind of drug. People are out of control of the self. Children are indulged without responsibility. Adults act like they are teens. Try going to the doctor with any complaint and you will get a pill. Guns are not the only way people kill. I think crime in general is a problem. Who is really responsible for it?

By the statistics I have looked up, gun crime has declined. Responsible people get guns legally, through the provided system. Most of the stories I have seen on TV about school shootings are by children who have fallen through the cracks with their mental illnesses and are medicated with the most dangerous mind altering drugs. Children who feel bullied, lonely, isolated, etc.. Perhaps a closer watch on kids like these would be better than trying to punish the population from the right to bear arms.

I will tell you Rederic that if I am attacked, and it is my time to die, I would rather be shot dead than stabbed multiple times.

Please do not confuse the right to bear arms with guns used by criminals. They do not get them legally.

Parents should make sure their guns are well secured away from any child/teen or anyone with mental issues.

Most gun related crime/death is by gangs in poor urban areas. All the money being used to try and take away guns from the law abiding population would be better spent paying attention to the areas causing the problems.


http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

Misty

p.s. If I have not answered your questions let me know and I will try again.

One solution, at least as an immediate solution to the school aspect of these mass shootings, which hasn't got enough attention is placing some form of armed professional at schools. Now I've heard objection to this where someone says "I don't want my little child to have to see armed guards while in school" implying that this is somehow traumatizing. I'm not saying that it is an ideal solution, or that there aren't issues that would need to be addressed to do this in an professional and controlled way, but I have two kids, one in High School and one in college, and I can tell you I would be thrilled to know there were armed personnel at the ready incase of some "nut" getting ahold of a gun gets loose in their schools. Without society taking real steps to make sure psychos don't get ahold of weapons of any kind, this seems to me to be the next best solution. I want my kids protected even at the expense of their so called "innocence" as one pundit proclaimed. I don't even know what that means but it seems ridiculous when compared with the alternative. We protect banks and jewelry stores with armed guards, why not our most precious resource, our children. I dare say the kids actually would welcome the protection and after a short adjustment period would get used to the scene. Saying that it's a sad commentary on modern life or why can't it be the way it was when we were kids is just a form of non-acceptance. The world has changed and we need to get over it already and deal with reality here and now. While this should certainly mean serious mental health restrictions on gun ownership, it should most definitely mean proactively protecting vulnerable school children.

Misty wrote:

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Have you ever felt the need to own a gun?

The other items you listed have a different designed use & are not meant to be weapons. The gun, especially automatic guns, were specifically designed to cause maximum damage to the human body & to as many human bodies as possible. That's why they're used by deranged mass murderers. Just because someone is deranged it doesn't mean they can't plan their crime meticulously.

But the idea isn't to ban guns but introduce better controls to try & stop guns getting into the hands of irresponsible people, as demonstrated by the Australian example. Please explain why this is a bad thing?

If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you the same question that Spiral Out refused to answer. Do you think the US has a problem with gun crime & school shootings? If you do, can nothing be done about it? Do you just shrug & think it can't be helped.? Don't you have a duty to try & improve the situation for the sake of children at least?

Rederic,

I always enjoy talking with you, so I do not mind you asking me anything. Glad your avatar is back!

I have not as yet had a home invasion, rape, or mugging. If I do encounter that I am sure I would wish I had a gun. But, I am more worried by the powers that be, wanting to destroy America by means other than guns.

I think school, workplace, and other site shootings are a result of the over medication of children and adults, both legally and illegally. Turn back the clock 25 years or so and these things were not happening. I don't think I have met many people in the last 15 years that is not taking some kind of drug. People are out of control of the self. Children are indulged without responsibility. Adults act like they are teens. Try going to the doctor with any complaint and you will get a pill. Guns are not the only way people kill. I think crime in general is a problem. Who is really responsible for it?

By the statistics I have looked up, gun crime has declined. Responsible people get guns legally, through the provided system. Most of the stories I have seen on TV about school shootings are by children who have fallen through the cracks with their mental illnesses and are medicated with the most dangerous mind altering drugs. Children who feel bullied, lonely, isolated, etc.. Perhaps a closer watch on kids like these would be better than trying to punish the population from the right to bear arms.

I will tell you Rederic that if I am attacked, and it is my time to die, I would rather be shot dead than stabbed multiple times.

Please do not confuse the right to bear arms with guns used by criminals. They do not get them legally.

Parents should make sure their guns are well secured away from any child/teen or anyone with mental issues.

Most gun related crime/death is by gangs in poor urban areas. All the money being used to try and take away guns from the law abiding population would be better spent paying attention to the areas causing the problems.


http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

Misty

p.s. If I have not answered your questions let me know and I will try again.

Can I take your reply to mean that you don't think the US has a gun problem?

Rederic wrote:
Can I take your reply to mean that you don't think the US has a gun problem?

Rederic,

I think there is an illegal gun problem, both gun running (domestic and international) for criminal intent. I do not think there is a gun problem with the general law abiding gun owners. The gun problem is always being hijacked from the true problem to try to diminish the right to bear arms.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/09/the- ... e-problem/

www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-us-gun-facts/

May need to type in 2nd one.

Misty