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:
Poll: What is your stance on Guns?
- Thread starter genericusername64
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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:
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.
Thank you!Cheery Lunatic said:
It irks me with the whole assault rifle thing, because they're the most impractical crime weapon imaginable. Besides, I follow the argument that guns are objects. They don't kill people, and if you can pass a psychological test, submit to a registry and something like a biannual inspection, with added security to your storage if children are liable to be in your home, you should be able to do collect what you like.
When I make the move from England to America (in several years, after university and hopefully the Royal Marines) I would carry a conceal weapon (rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it) and of course that would be a bog-standard pistol, like an M1911 or something.
More crimes are stopped with guns than committed with guns, the only reason people beleive that the reverse is true is because no one reports crimes that have been stopped.
In any case, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. I prefer citizenship, personally.
In any case, I agree with Thomas Jefferson: An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. I prefer citizenship, personally.
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:
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.
Uhhh... i figure nothing terrible would happen if all Americans could own the real fun guns. Probably go pretty right pretty quick,
I voted just as the military for canada. Gettin worried about this bird
I voted just as the military for canada. Gettin worried about this bird
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:
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.
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:
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:
It especially isn't worth sacrificing the single most important ability and right we as human beings enjoy. Specifically, the ability to choose. By denying everyone the option, you have stripped them of a piece of their humanity. In all honesty, I see potential loss of life as the far more palatable option.
Pistols are easier to conceal than rifles, which makes them more dangerous in non-combat situations. Just so you know.
I'm from NC, and I like to shoot guns. I know how to use them, which means I'm less likely of accidentally blowing someone's head off.
And from a logical standpoint, it is a very dumb idea to outlaw guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, as the old saying goes. I imagine it would result in a "War on Guns" which would be roughly as effective as the current War on Drugs: Not at all.
I'm from NC, and I like to shoot guns. I know how to use them, which means I'm less likely of accidentally blowing someone's head off.
And from a logical standpoint, it is a very dumb idea to outlaw guns. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, as the old saying goes. I imagine it would result in a "War on Guns" which would be roughly as effective as the current War on Drugs: Not at all.
