Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 2, 2013, 12:41 PM   #326
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
This.

I may have posted this in this thread (but I think it was another) who brags about keeping a LOADED weapon on his nightstand because he knows his toddler won't touch it.

Another friend brags about keeping a round in the chamber at all times while he conceal carries because he knows there's no way it'll ever go off *rolls eyes*.

An ex-manager of mine brought a loaded gun to a work meeting. Guess what went off accidentally. I have no freaking clue how he didn't get fired but he was put on suspended leave for 2 months. He now no longer owns a gun thankfully.

Too many people don't understand common sense weapon safety.
I agree that those scenarios are unsafe. I conceal carry, but keep my weapon without a round in the chamber. I specifically bought a Sig Sauer, which has a de-cocking lever and not a safety, so that I could keep a round out of the chamber, but react quickly if universe forbid it ever came to that.

And it shoots really smooth and is a lot of fun to fire.

idk why you would keep a loaded gun anywhere a toddler would be able to obtain it, nor do I understand why you would bring it to a work meeting. But I don't think that means I can't have a gun.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 12:48 PM   #327
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I thought we were debating things
We are.

But one thing you have to acknowledge is that some of the gun restrictions debated (silencers, saw-off shotgun, armor-piercing ammo, etc.) have been in existence for years. I'm sure—without knowing any specific cases—that these kinds of additional restrictions have been litigated by the courts and ruled valid.

So it is established that the government has the right to restrict your ability to own firearms with certain capabilities and that those extra restrictions don't violate your 2nd Amendment rights.

IMO, magazine capacity, detachable magazines and add-ons that allow semi-automatics to fire at near automatic rates should also be restricted in similar ways.

You say that you should be able to own something simply because you want it.

But government laws, backed by the courts, say you can't own something simply because you want it. For some things—deemed hazardous to public safety—you face extra restrictions and regulations in order to satisfy that simple desire.

Now we can go around and around on this point longer if you wish. After all, what are internet forums for? But it would seem to me a pretty reasonable thing for you to acknowledge that personal desire is sometimes superseded by the overall public good.

The law sees it that way. The courts have affirmed it. What's holding you up?
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 12:48 PM   #328
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post

Another friend brags about keeping a round in the chamber at all times while he conceal carries because he knows there's no way it'll ever go off *rolls eyes*.
.
I always carry with a round in the chamber. Almost no point in carrying otherwise. You'll be stabbed in the neck before you could draw, chamber, acquire and fire.

The first shot is key in a self defense situation. And it's pretty damn hard for a gun to go off "accidentally". Negligence is the bigger problem 99% of the time. I've yet to encounter a hammer that could cock itself and release without human interaction.
Technarchy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 01:00 PM   #329
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I agree that those scenarios are unsafe. I conceal carry, but keep my weapon without a round in the chamber. I specifically bought a Sig Sauer, which has a de-cocking lever and not a safety, so that I could keep a round out of the chamber, but react quickly if universe forbid it ever came to that.

And it shoots really smooth and is a lot of fun to fire.

idk why you would keep a loaded gun anywhere a toddler would be able to obtain it, nor do I understand why you would bring it to a work meeting. But I don't think that means I can't have a gun.
I'm not saying you can't have a gun, I own guns myself. My thing is I am against untrained, careless people having access to guns.

I don't know about your state but too many people in Pennsylvania don't know how to safely handle firearms.
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 01:08 PM   #330
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
We are.

But one thing you have to acknowledge is that some of the gun restrictions debated (silencers, saw-off shotgun, armor-piercing ammo, etc.) have been in existence for years. I'm sure—without knowing any specific cases—that these kinds of additional restrictions have been litigated by the courts and ruled valid.

So it is established that the government has the right to restrict your ability to own firearms with certain capabilities and that those extra restrictions don't violate your 2nd Amendment rights.
Ok, I understand that. But that doesn't mean that it's right, or justified. Just because the law is so, doesn't mean it's bad or that we should change it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
IMO, magazine capacity, detachable magazines and add-ons that allow semi-automatics to fire at near automatic rates should also be restricted in similar ways.
I'm fine with restrictions on things that make the semi-auto weapons fire really fast, but not with magazine restrictions, because I don't think it's justified or necessary o ban.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
You say that you should be able to own something simply because you want it.
Because you should never, ever have to justify owning anything. I don't understand how this is ever a point of contention.

You don't have to justify anything to anybody. If you want to go buy a 1000cc motorcycle, despite the fact that is WAY too much motor, you don't have to tell your peers why or why not you "should" own it. It's your money, your life, buy what you want. Just don't violate the rights of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
But government laws, backed by the courts, say you can't own something simply because you want it. For some things—deemed hazardous to public safety—you face extra restrictions and regulations in order to satisfy that simple desire.
Then you must recognize that such laws set arbitrary limits, and from that, you have no standard or objective basis in which to ban things, thus you'll always have conflict, and you can never actually "be right" because of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Now we can go around and around on this point longer if you wish. After all, what are internet forums for? But it would seem to me a pretty reasonable thing for you to acknowledge that personal desire is sometimes superseded by the overall public good.
Well I acknowledge that it happens, but whether or not it's good or justified is a whole different topic. Part of this whole issue here is whether or not this public good should supersede individual rights, or whether or not individual rights such as owning an AR-15 or whatever actually violates public rights. The problem here is that there is an argument put forth which is that weapons can be stolen from you and then used illegally, and the question of whether or not you should have your rights restricted because bad people do bad things. I think not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
The law sees it that way. The courts have affirmed it. What's holding you up?
Because we're arguing about the basis for law, not the law. Do you see that? When you argue or discuss philosophy, the law is irrelevant, because the law stems from philosophy. I'm arguing a much more broad and basic foundation, so I don't care what the law says, nor will I ever.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrono1081 View Post
I'm not saying you can't have a gun, I own guns myself. My thing is I am against untrained, careless people having access to guns.

I don't know about your state but too many people in Pennsylvania don't know how to safely handle firearms.
That works for me, we should develop safe practices and requirements, close gun show loopholes, etc....
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 01:58 PM   #331
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Ok, I understand that. But that doesn't mean that it's right, or justified. Just because the law is so, doesn't mean it's bad or that we should change it.
Agreed. Just like gay marriage. It's currently against the law and I advocate for changing the law to allow for it.

Luckily for me there is a social trend that is also favoring that direction, so my personal desire is in alignment with society's desire for progress on this matter. When society desires change then our politicians and courts have a tendency to reflect that desire and enact or affirm laws that bring that change into place.

You, on the other hand, are moving against the direction that society is trending towards: you seek less regulation of firearms. In your case it's less likely that politicians will champion laws that you favor or that the courts overturn the laws you wish were abolished.

There is no God that comes from above and declares what is right and what is wrong. There is only the slow and sometimes convoluted process of social progress, the laws and the courts that uphold or overturn laws. Beyond that, what is "right" or "justified" is merely your personal opinion.

And you know what that's worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I'm fine with restrictions on things that make the semi-auto weapons fire really fast, but not with magazine restrictions, because I don't think it's justified or necessary o ban.
Thank you for your personal opinion.

You know what that's worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Because you should never, ever have to justify owning anything. I don't understand how this is ever a point of contention.

You don't have to justify anything to anybody.
Spoken by a man who either has never been married, or is divorced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Then you must recognize that such laws set arbitrary limits, and from that, you have no standard or objective basis in which to ban things, thus you'll always have conflict, and you can never actually "be right" because of that.
Yup.

There is no objective basis for what is right or wrong.

Life is messy.

Get used to it.
citizenzen is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 02:12 PM   #332
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Agreed. Just like gay marriage. It's currently against the law and I advocate for changing the law to allow for it.

Luckily for me there is a social trend that is also favoring that direction, so my personal desire is in alignment with society's desire for progress on this matter. When society desires change then our politicians and courts have a tendency to reflect that desire and enact or affirm laws that bring that change into place.
The difference between gay marriage and gun rights is that one seeks to enhance the liberties of people, while one seeks to restrict the liberties of people.

So naturally, any free society is going to trend toward liberalization of rights, particularly when they affect an entire demographic.

Unfortunately, we can become misguided, and seek to treat symptoms, and not the cause. The US is particularly bad about it, take a look at our health care system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
You, on the other hand, are moving against the direction that society is trending towards: you seek less regulation of firearms. In your case it's less likely that politicians will champion laws that you favor or that the courts overturn the laws you wish were abolished.
Times change. It could very well reverse in a heartbeat. I, fortunately, have obtained all the firearms I want. So it doesn't make a difference whether or not they pass any legislation at all. They are secure, it's done and over with. I actually stand to make a few hundred $$ if they ban 30 round clips.


Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
There is no God that comes from above and declares what is right and what is wrong. There is only the slow and sometimes convoluted process of social progress, the laws and the courts that uphold or overturn laws. Beyond that, what is "right" or "justified" is merely your personal opinion.

And you know what that's worth.
Fortunately, we don't rely on god or men in rational discourse, but logic and reason, which are undeniably correct by their very nature. So what you may see as my opinion, may be fact that you're not willing to admit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Thank you for your personal opinion.

You know what that's worth.
Well some of that is opinion, the rest isn't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Spoken by a man who either has never been married, or is divorced.
That's different. I don't have to justify anything if I don't want to, and certainly not to some crook in Washington.

Unless of course you can provide some sort of logical, objective reason as to why people have to justify obtaining property through mutually consenting agreements.



Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Yup.

There is no objective basis for what is right or wrong.

Life is messy.

Get used to it.
So.... stop using the law as part of your argument?
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 03:53 PM   #333
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
These ridiculous comparison attempts need to stop.

Guns are designed to kill. Their only use is killing.


A house is designed and used for living in. A bike is for sport or transportation.

Trying to compare things like these to a weapon that has one use, KILLING, is absolutely ****ing ridiculous. The more I see this ludicrous crap the more I tend to lean towards the belief that no civilians should be allowed to own a device that's sole purpose is to kill, especially if this is the mentality of the people who want to own these things.
I must be the luckiest man alive.

I have owned firearms for over 40 years, and amazingly, I've never killed anything with any one of them.

Nor has anyone else used one of my firearms to injure anyone. And this time span includes raising two children from birth to adulthood.

And I have fired thousands of rounds through them over these years. What an absolutely incredible feat!
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:03 PM   #334
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I must be the luckiest man alive.

I have owned firearms for over 40 years, and amazingly, I've never killed anything with any one of them.

Nor has anyone else used one of my firearms to injure anyone. And this time span includes raising two children from birth to adulthood.

And I have fired thousands of rounds through them over these years. What an absolutely incredible feat!
And?

That doesn't change the fact that guns are machines designed for killing.
zioxide is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:04 PM   #335
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
What an absolutely incredible feat!
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:08 PM   #336
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
And?

That doesn't change the fact that guns are machines designed for killing.
You seem to think that that is their sole purpose. You are wrong.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
YouTube: video
I didn't bother to watch the video you posted, but I have smoked for a longer period of time than I have owned firearms. I eat lots of beef too (including Steak Tartare... yum!), if you want to queue up another video.

Guess I'm just living on the edge.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:10 PM   #337
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
You seem to think that that is their sole purpose. You are wrong.
Yeah, no.

It is their sole purpose, unless trying to make up for a lack of something else is a legitimate purpose of them.

Hunting? That's killing.

Target shooting? Training to kill.

Guns are solely about killing. That's fact.
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:13 PM   #338
diazj3
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
You seem to think that that is their sole purpose. You are wrong.
yeah, right.... are you serious?

A firearm is a weapon with the sole purpose of killing or injuring - humans or animals - for whatever reason. Anything else you can do with it, you can accomplish with a tag paint toy, a hammer, a stick, a crowbar, or any other piece of metal...
diazj3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:16 PM   #339
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Yeah, no.

It is their sole purpose, unless trying to make up for a lack of something else is a legitimate purpose of them.

Hunting? That's killing.

Target shooting? Training to kill.

Guns are solely about killing. That's fact.
Yeah, you must be right. I guess I've just forgotten about all of those people I've shot and killed. Must be my cold blooded and heartless personality.

Your statement that target shooting is training to kill is so absurd I would have laughed at your "analysis" if your conclusion wasn't so pitifully misinformed.


----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by diazj3 View Post
yeah, right.... are you serious?

A firearm is a weapon with the sole purpose of killing or injuring - humans or animals - for whatever reason. Anything else you can do with it, you can accomplish with a tag paint toy, a hammer, a stick, a crowbar, or any other piece of metal...
Another voice heard from...

Sad.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken

Last edited by stridemat; Feb 10, 2013 at 07:53 AM. Reason: Deleted off-topic part of post
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:22 PM   #340
skunk
macrumors Demi-God
 
skunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Republic of Ukistan
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
It is their sole purpose, unless trying to make up for a lack of something else is a legitimate purpose of them.

Hunting? That's killing.

Target shooting? Training to kill.

Guns are solely about killing. That's fact.
No, you don't understand. It's a delivery system, designed to deliver a projectile to a given destination as quickly and accurately as possible.
__________________
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted the spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
skunk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:43 PM   #341
diazj3
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
Another voice heard from...
Sad.
Sorry - you're right... there's another use for firearms. I just didn't think about it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
unless you're trying to make up for a lack of something else
I stand corrected.

Carry on.
diazj3 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 06:37 PM   #342
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
The difference between gay marriage and gun rights is that one seeks to enhance the liberties of people, while one seeks to restrict the liberties of people.

So naturally, any free society is going to trend toward liberalization of rights, particularly when they affect an entire demographic.
Therefore you must also be against restrictions on automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, short-barrel rifles, armor-piercing and incendiary ammo, and silencers / mufflers as those also restrict the liberties of people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Fortunately, we don't rely on god or men in rational discourse, but logic and reason, which are undeniably correct by their very nature. So what you may see as my opinion, may be fact that you're not willing to admit.
Actually, unless you're wrong here. We rely on laws. "Undeniably correct" logic and reason run society, and proof of that is the amount of denying evident. If this logic and reason was undeniable, then we'd all be in agreement. And that's obviously not the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
That's different. I don't have to justify anything if I don't want to, and certainly not to some crook in Washington.
Here you're just cynically painting with a fallaciously broad brush.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Unless of course you can provide some sort of logical, objective reason as to why people have to justify obtaining property through mutually consenting agreements.
Please provide an example where people are forced to "justify obtaining property through mutually consenting agreements".

I need an example to better understand your argument.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 06:54 PM   #343
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Therefore you must also be against restrictions on automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, short-barrel rifles, armor-piercing and incendiary ammo, and silencers / mufflers as those also restrict the liberties of people.
I am, ideally. Not practically.



Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Actually, unless you're wrong here. We rely on laws. "Undeniably correct" logic and reason run society, and proof of that is the amount of denying evident. If this logic and reason was undeniable, then we'd all be in agreement. And that's obviously not the case.
Logic and reason are undeniable, we don't see logic and reason, and instead are often trumped by emotion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Here you're just cynically painting with a fallaciously broad brush.
why?



Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Please provide an example where people are forced to "justify obtaining property through mutually consenting agreements".

I need an example to better understand your argument.
Ok, too easy:

"you don't need a 30 round clip
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 07:29 PM   #344
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I am, ideally. Not practically.
So in reality ... practically ... you support those restrictions.

So staying in the practical realm, please explain to me why you agree to restricting the barrel length of a shotgun, but you don't agree to restricting the capacity of a magazine. In a practical sense, how are these two restrictions different? If we can restrict guns or ammo based on some capability or arbitrary measure, then why can't we restrict another capability or arbitrary measure?

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Logic and reason are undeniable, we don't see logic and reason, and instead are often trumped by emotion.
You mean as in, "I want it, so I should be able to have it."

It doesn't get much more emotional than that.

Infants have that down pat.

Yet their ability to reason logically is rudimentary.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 07:37 PM   #345
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
So in reality ... practically ... you support those restrictions.

So staying in the practical realm, please explain to me why you agree to restricting the barrel length of a shotgun, but you don't agree to restricting the capacity of a magazine. In a practical sense, how are these two restrictions different? If we can restrict guns or ammo based on some capability or arbitrary measure, then why can't we restrict another capability or arbitrary measure?
Well you can arbitrarily restrict them, I've never denied that, I just don't think it's a worthwhile pursuit. Nor do I think it's consistent. You want to restrict things that don't affect murder in the US. Everybody clamoring about this stuff should be going after handguns full bore, and not even thinking about rifles. The fact that people are demonstrates a lack of vision, and corruption by the media that sensationalizes events, while ignoring the larger problem, and even more so ignoring the disease to treat the symptoms.

Why do people kill themselves with weapons? Let's fix that, first.

I actually am not sure why sawed off shotguns are illegal or restricted or whatever. I own a shotgun (well my dad bought it for me and keeps it locked up at his house in his weapon safe), but I've never fired one, nor particularly care to.

And it's not so much that I support them, it's that I recognize that fully auto weapons will most likely never be legal again, so what's the point?


Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
You mean as in, "I want it, so I should be able to have it."

It doesn't get much more emotional than that.

Infants have that down pat.

Yet their ability to reason logically is rudimentary.
Well why should anybody be able to restrict the interactions between two mutually consenting entities? Where is the justification for that?

It's not emotional, sir, it's a matter of looking at the problem and asking a simple question. Why should you, or anybody, tell me what me and person XYZ do, provided we aren't bothering anybody else? Where is the justification for that? How is it derived?

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but that's why I'm a philosophical anarchist. I can't find any single justification to limit interactions between mutually consenting adults.

If you think that there is any justification, you have to admit that limiting things such as drugs, or not allowing gay people to be married, is something you philosophically support, because you support arbitrary limits set by "society". If you say that you don't, than you're just being arbitrary in what you support, thus inconsistent, thus why should we listen to you?

-edit-

And for what it's worth we disagree, but I try and discuss this issue with you and anybody else in the most polite manner I can muster, and with the hope of reaching mutual understanding, and/or obtaining more knowledge. That's what so fun about these forums, is that generally people have disagreements, but we remain civil and we challenge each other's perceptions, so I wanted to make sure you know that whatever we say on here is never personal or anything like that, just friendly debate. I could just as easily discuss this with you over a beer. Just want to make sure that's understood

Last edited by eric/; Feb 2, 2013 at 07:52 PM.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 08:05 PM   #346
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well why should anybody be able to restrict the interactions between two mutually consenting entities? Where is the justification for that?

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but that's why I'm a philosophical anarchist. I can't find any single justification to limit interactions between mutually consenting adults.
Likewise, when the gay marriage debate strays into, "do you support polygamy too?" my answer is yes. I believe that consenting adults should be able to contractually bind themselves in any arrangement of their choosing.

The key difference between that argument and firearm restriction is the issue of social harm. Nobody has been able to prove that allowing gays to marry harms society. In the absence of tangible harm there is no reason the to restrict civil liberties in order to protect the greater good.

There is however ample evidence that the number of guns in the U.S. is contributing to one of the world's worst rates of gun violence. Therefore there is reason to restrict personal liberty in order to reduce the harm inflicted upon society.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 08:08 PM   #347
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Likewise, when the gay marriage debate strays into, "do you support polygamy too?" my answer is yes. I believe that consenting adults should be able to contractually bind themselves in any arrangement of their choosing.

The key difference between that argument and firearm restriction is the issue of social harm. Nobody has been able to prove that allowing gays to marry harms society. In the absence of tangible harm there is no reason the to restrict civil liberties in order to protect the greater good.

There is however ample evidence that the number of guns in the U.S. is contributing to one of the world's worst rates of gun violence. Therefore there is reason to restrict personal liberty in order to reduce the harm inflicted upon society.
But the problem with this argument, is that you have a very small number of individuals breaking the law, whom are harming "society". By and large, the vast majority of firearm owners never commit a crime, or even hurt themselves.

So why should they be punished for the sins of others?
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 08:17 PM   #348
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
So why should they be punished for the sins of others?
Because society overall—as evidenced by the number of killed and wounded—isn't capable of handling complete freedom in this case. Do the more responsible have to sacrifice for the sake of those less responsible? Yes. Unfortunately for them, they do.

But IMO, the sacrifice is negligible.

People (in general) still have the right to own guns. That isn't something that's going to get taken away anytime soon. I just don't see why 10 bullets (I'd prefer six) isn't enough to protect a person in these United States.

And you always have the right to reload.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 08:24 PM   #349
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Because society overall—as evidenced by the number of killed and wounded—is incapable of complete freedom in this case. Do the more responsible need to sacrifice for the sake of those less responsible? Yes. Unfortunately for them, they do.
That's an arbitrary limit, yet again. And if that's the case, then you can arbitrarily ban anything from alcohol to sports bikes, to gay marriage, and you have to accept that as the logical conclusion of your position. You can say gay marriage doesn't harm anybody, sure, but it doesn't matter, because this is all arbitrary and anybody can just make up whatever they want to justify banning it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
But IMO, the sacrifice is negligible.

People (in general) still have the right to own guns. That is something that is not going to get taken away anytime soon. I just don't see why 10 bullets isn't enough to protect a person in these United States.

And you still have the right to reload.
Again, the problem here is that you continue to focus on the wrong things. 30 round clips aren't a problem. Assault rifles aren't a problem. Gang violence using handguns is a problem. People killing themselves is a problem.

Why do you not focus on the largest problems instead of focusing on stuff that doesn't matter? Why do people continue to rely on political talking points and saying things like "well, you just don't need that instead of focusing on the crap that really matters?

One stupid school shooting, and everybody is ready to ban assault rifles, but god forbid anybody raise a peep about increasing our mental health care, or even banning handguns, ya know, the two greatest contributors to firearm related death in this country.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 08:33 PM   #350
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
You wouldn't be able to obtain one, nobody would sell it to you, so it's a moot point. The government maintains exclusive contracts with defense companies, so you wouldn't be able to buy one, build one, store one,or have the equipment on hand to maintain the bomb.
I'm pretty sure that if I was to go hard core underground into some terror cells, it's remotely possible. But yes, pretty much impossible.

Quote:
i always hate this argument because it's absurd. We go from talking about reasonable things, personal weapons, to "oh ho ho I can get a nuclear bomb!!1!!" instead of keeping things grounded in reality. It's rather trite.
And hence the point of my statement, which again was not understood.

My first test was to see whether you agreed to it in principle/philosophically, because you're all about teh anarchy and the no limits on freedom/libertee thing. The second was to see whether you disagreed in practicality.

You babble incessantly about "arbitrary limits" and how you can't set them because that defies logic and order, or something to that effect. Where is the limit between gun and nuclear bomb? Somewhere between the two, or maybe even before either, is when it becomes unacceptable. What is that limit to you? What is the limit in society?

And once you have decided that limit, assuming you can or will, explain why we can't use the same decision process for any and all laws, gun control included.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anti-gun/violence activist caught with gun in a school lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 16 Feb 12, 2014 12:32 AM
Students Sign Petition to Imprison/kill All Registered Gun Owners lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 95 Feb 11, 2014 03:25 AM
National Database of Gun Owners - 2A Patriot Alert! rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 47 Aug 28, 2013 06:59 PM
Happy days for gun owners lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 216 Aug 7, 2013 09:47 AM
Where is the liberal outrage? Paper advocates killing gun owners! thewitt Wasteland 43 Jan 4, 2013 07:55 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC