I just gotta ask, why do you have the right to make that decision for the rest of the world? What right do you have to force your worldview on everyone else?StrixMaxima said:The less guns around, at all levels, the better.
I just gotta ask, why do you have the right to make that decision for the rest of the world? What right do you have to force your worldview on everyone else?StrixMaxima said:The less guns around, at all levels, the better.
I don't have the right. All I am giving is my opinion.Agayek said:I just gotta ask, why do you have the right to make that decision for the rest of the world? What right do you have to force your worldview on everyone else?StrixMaxima said:The less guns around, at all levels, the better.
I really hope your trolling, otherwise you understand why people are against gun control in the first place, right? It's because of stupid fucks like you.progunliberty said:O god you're a very bad man. destroy those firearms now. What if someone wanted to start a communist regime and take over the country? we can't have you pro freedom gun owners fighting back! Its just not right
Yes that'll keep them from the criminals!Zenode said:Personally I think the Gun Culture is so engrained into American culture I don't think it is leaving anytime soon.
I for one all for gun control and think they should be banned amongst the general public.
Why do you think he implied he had that right?Agayek said:I just gotta ask, why do you have the right to make that decision for the rest of the world? What right do you have to force your worldview on everyone else?StrixMaxima said:The less guns around, at all levels, the better.
Perfect O said:Because we "The tyrants" said so. He is potential member of our inner circle, "tyrants against guns". You have a problem with that? Zen face the high polish Mauser kar98k rifle from the hands of ze wehrmacht.
Well yea, but it's just as obvious you believe your opinion to be correct and that it should be enforced. If such were to happen, you would be forcing your worldview on the rest of the universe. Assuming it were to happen, what gives you the right to do that? Why should your point of view be forced on everyone else?StrixMaxima said:I don't have the right. All I am giving is my opinion.
Isn't that obvious?
It's the logical accompaniment of any belief. By virtue of the fact you believe something, you believe you are correct. As such, you believe your view is the correct one and everyone else should follow your lead. That's essentially what a debate is, people attempting to convince everyone else to adhere to their ideal(s).faspxina said:Why do you think he implied he had that right?
We all believe our opinions correct, unless we suffer some kind of psychiatric disorder. But, what make opinions beautiful is that they represent an inner truth we believe in, which is particular to each one of us and dodges the crystallizing powers of Rhetoric and Semantics. I have a firm believe that guns create more problems than they solve, and History will be glad to provide us a plethora of examples about this.Agayek said:Well yea, but it's just as obvious you believe your opinion to be correct and that it should be enforced. If such were to happen, you would be forcing your worldview on the rest of the universe. Assuming it were to happen, what gives you the right to do that? Why should your point of view be forced on everyone else?StrixMaxima said:I don't have the right. All I am giving is my opinion.
Isn't that obvious?
I've debated the point with a few people with similar views to yours, and I've never received a satisfactory answer to that question, which is why I ask.
Thank you!Cheery Lunatic said:Every few months we always get a gun control thread. And everyone always goes at each other's necks in it. le sigh.
Anyway, I don't think we (as in Americans) should get all kinds of military guns, that's a bit of an overkill. I don't see why a person ought to own those kinds of guns unless they're a gun connoisseur, but those guns are just too dangerous to give to everyday citizens.
But the poll is a little extreme as there are other guns that people use for everyday life (i.e. hunting rifles) that aren't pistols.
Anyway, I'm fine for pistols and such for protection.
Granted I think every person who owns a gun ought to be taught how to properly handle one.
Quite clearly, we do differ in opinion, but that's what makes debate interesting. You can't challenge your own ideals without learning of someone else's.StrixMaxima said:We all believe our opinions correct, unless we suffer some kind of psychiatric disorder. But, what make opinions beautiful is that they represent an inner truth we believe in, which is particular to each one of us and dodges the crystallizing powers of Rhetoric and Semantics. I have a firm believe that guns create more problems than they solve, and History will be glad to provide us a plethora of examples about this.
I don't think "enforced" is a good word. It is too loaded. I wish there would be a majority consensus, natural and peaceful, that guns are a last-resort under the most extreme situations, and that just a small group of people, screened and trained for this purpose, should have limited access to them. Yes, even understanding the dangers of such a naïve proposal, I think this is the "right thing to do".
You assume a lot of things in your question, and your choice of words make your position very clear. Mind you, this is not a bad thing. But it is quite clear that we have diametrically opposite points of view.
The reason you defend that everyone should be trained to use firearms is the very reason I believe they should be abolished: "Everyone".Agayek said:Quite clearly, we do differ in opinion, but that's what makes debate interesting. You can't challenge your own ideals without learning of someone else's.
That said, your stance has been clarified, and some of it I do agree with, believe it or not. I don't agree with restricting the ownership of weapons (and I will violently disagree with anyone who tries to forcefully take them), but I do agree with training. I just think everyone should be trained in the use of firearms. Honestly, just make a gun-safety course mandatory in high school or something, and a lot of gun problems will be solved.
If someone went through all of the troubles of getting licensed, getting the documentation to own such a weapon (except for anthrax of course), managed to get himself up to an income level that would allow him to afford the weapon and the ammo for it through legal means, (honest work not with drug money) and he has a clean record with no arrest, then by all means he should be able to enjoy his Heavy machine gun. He can shoot all of the clay disk and deer he wants for all I care.NameIsRobertPaulson said:The right to bear arms should not include Gatling Guns, .50 cal sniper rifles, and mutated anthrax just for "duck hunting".
Then again, as Zombieland pointed out, in the middle of a zombie invasion, there is no safer place on this planet than Birmingham, Alabama.
I'll be honest, I find the answer to your question, "How many collateral victims are acceptable for the right to hang that rifle on your wall?", to be "As many as it takes." Fear of potential danger should never dictate your actions. I agree with you, insofar as allowing everyone to own weapons has the potential for danger, but so does walking down the street. If you refuse everything that carries the potential for risk, you'll never do anything.StrixMaxima said:The reason you defend that everyone should be trained to use firearms is the very reason I believe they should be abolished: "Everyone".
You can either give society at large a right, or you have to restrict it, altogether. Since we live in a society that clearly cannot manage its emotions, impulses, political and religious stances and consumption of substances, it is simply impractical to allow firearms for everyone.
We have to ask ourselves: "How many collateral victims are acceptable for the right to hang that rifle on your wall?"
In another world, it could be viable. But, then again, in another world, no guns would be necessary. A classic Orobourous conundrum.