Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 5, 2013, 04:58 PM   #251
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
Speculative, yes. But not without merit. We can assume certain conditions, then ask "what effect would action X then have?" even if those assumed conditions turn out to not match the reality of Adam Larza's situation. Or Kyle's situation, since this is a thread about his murder.
I will not speculate. Both, based on reports center around mental illness.

Quote:
Anyway, if you feel that no law you would be comfortable having enacted would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting or Kyle's murder, would you be willing to state that such events, while certainly regrettable, are an acceptable cost of firearm ownership?
I never said that a law couldn't be enacted, I said current laws. Any death is regrettable, and no I do not think it is an acceptable cost of ownership.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:00 PM   #252
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I'm still wondering how that's supposed to be enforced?

Ah... I can see it now. The ATF thugs show up (since you're on the gun database) and inspect your house, looking for illegal guns, and making sure you are storing them up to standard.

Maybe they can make sure you are storing alcohol and cigarettes properly too so minors can't obtain them.

You left out jack-booted.

I think gun owners should have to carry liability insurance. The insurance company can require appropriate proof of gun storage as a condition of issuing a policy. Law enforcement would only be involved if the guns were used in a crime or stolen.
rdowns is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:01 PM   #253
elistan
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver/Boulder, CO
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well there are variations, but in the popular culture classic sense it means to be rid of government, or somebody who does not think the government should exist, etc...
But I'm curious what it means to eric/.

Quote:
I can explain it. It's just arbitrary and whimsical. You see it on TV, so, now you think it's bad.

It's not like 9000 people weren't dying every year before these school shootings. You just didn't hear about them on the news, because they were inner city.
Yeah, a lot of "out of sight, out of mind" going on. It's why a few dozen dying in a plane crash is so much more of a big deal than thousands dying in car crashes in ones and twos. Honestly, I'm more concerned with the ones and twos of gun deaths than the Sandy Hooks.

Quote:
Yeah, I mean it's kind of like saying well I sure hope this barbarians don't kill me.
When they're at the gates, what else can you do, eh?

Quote:
That's not the question. The question really is:

Do you have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot buy?

That's the underlying philosophical contest here.
A lot of people say "Yes, we do."

Quote:
I don't know what that is.
The measure of the hotness of a chili pepper.

Quote:
Well, I guess when people are upset about gay marriage not being legal we should just say "tough tooties", that's what society wants, and societies opinion carries a great deal of weight?
Yep. Except for the bit where I said "try to change every individual member of society's opinion." And you know what? They're succeeding. And good for them! (Because I share their view.) Dislike slavery but live in a society that promotes it? Tough tooties unless you can change that society. Enjoy cannibalism but live in a society that condemns it? Tough tooties unless you can change that society.

Quote:
That's off topic don't you think?
I'm not sure that a single post of mine in this thread has been on-topic. (The topic being Kyle's murder.)

Quote:
I say we just let people own whatever they want
Even if that causes your death or suffering?
If your neighbor starts stockpiling plutonium in their back yard, your response is to only move away?
elistan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:03 PM   #254
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I'm still wondering how that's supposed to be enforced?

Ah... I can see it now. The ATF thugs show up (since you're on the gun database) and inspect your house, looking for illegal guns, and making sure you are storing them up to standard.
Good point, they can't. It will be after the fact. But, it seems like many in this thread, and similar threads, keep mentioning that she had not secured her firearms.

Quote:
Maybe they can make sure you are storing alcohol and cigarettes properly too so minors can't obtain them.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:08 PM   #255
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
I agree we don't know.

Do we know how her firearms were stored? No we don't.
We do know they weren't secure enough. We also know that they weren't enough to protect her.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:10 PM   #256
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
We do know they weren't secure enough. We also know that they weren't enough to protect her.
Have you read the police report?
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:13 PM   #257
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Have you read the police report?
Nope. But we know he used her guns, right? If her mentally ill son was able to get to them and use them on her, the odds are better than not that they weren't secure enough.
Moyank24 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:13 PM   #258
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Have you read the police report?
We don't need a police report to draw those conclusions.

We now know that he got the guns ergo, they were not secure enough.

We know she is dead ergo the guns didn't protect her.
rdowns is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:18 PM   #259
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
Nope. But we know he used her guns, right? If her mentally ill son was able to get to them and use them on her, the odds are better than not that they weren't secure enough.
Agreed that he used her firearms.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
We don't need a police report to draw those conclusions.

We now know that he got the guns ergo, they were not secure enough.

We know she is dead ergo the guns didn't protect her.
Maybe ergo
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:18 PM   #260
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Agreed that he used her firearms.
And there you go...

Or...what rdowns said.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 05:20 PM   #261
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
And there you go...

Or...what rdowns said.
I will wait until the report is released.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 07:40 PM   #262
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
We don't need a police report to draw those conclusions.

We now know that he got the guns ergo, they were not secure enough.

We know she is dead ergo the guns didn't protect her.
Well, it would seem that she did not have the guns for her own protection, unless perhaps there was one in her nightstand (which, perhaps, he took with him, who knows). The guns in the house appeared to have been primarily for sport.

Quote:
... they were not secure enough...
This is the key. We hear RWers prattle on about personal responsibility, but it runs up against freedom limits. The simplest approach to reining in the gun problem is strict registration combined with an accessory rider: you take proper care of your guns, if one registered to you is used in a crime, you face prosecution. Whether you loan the gun out, sell it to your ex-con uncle or allow it to be stolen from your inadequately secured cache, you really need to take responsibility for how that gun gets used. If you sell it, you could only escape the accessory clause by properly transferring the registration through official channels.

That would go a long way toward getting gun violence under control, I believe.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 07:51 PM   #263
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
That's not the question. The question really is:

Do you have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot buy?

That's the underlying philosophical contest here.
We already do with tons of other things.

Why should guns be an exception?
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 07:56 PM   #264
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
We already do with tons of other things.

Why should guns be an exception?
So because we do something we should do it?
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 08:05 PM   #265
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
So because we do something we should do it?
You didn't answer my question. You're not getting around that by trying to deflect another question back to me. Answer it.

You were asking if people should have the right to tell other people what they can and can't buy. Clearly they do since we already do this, with food, drinks, medicines, and tons of other products.

So, I'll ask again, why should guns be the exception? If the people already regulate other products and tell people what they can or can't buy, then what makes guns special that people shouldn't be able to tell them if they can buy them or not?
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 08:11 PM   #266
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
You didn't answer my question. You're not getting around that by trying to deflect another question back to me. Answer it.

You were asking if people should have the right to tell other people what they can and can't buy. Clearly they do since we already do this, with food, drinks, medicines, and tons of other products.
No that's not how this works. You don't get to say "we do x, so we should do x"

That's not a valid argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elistan View Post
So, I'll ask again, why should guns be the exception? If the people already regulate other products and tell people what they can or can't buy, then what makes guns special that people shouldn't be able to tell them if they can buy them or not?
Nothing. Let's regulate gay marriage. Let's regulate drugs, like marijuana. Let's regulate the Internet. Let's ban gay marriage, drugs, and the Internet.

I'm not saying anything should be an exception, if you use faulty reasoning you can justify banning or regulate anything for any reason. Which is the problem here.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 08:20 PM   #267
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
No that's not how this works. You don't get to say "we do x, so we should do x"

That's not a valid argument.
Clearly it's not valid. It would have to be "we do x, so we should do y", right?

And yeah, that's part of living in a civilized society. Society doesn't make decisions based on what's best for one person, they make them on what's best for everyone.
zioxide is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 09:07 PM   #268
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Clearly it's not valid. It would have to be "we do x, so we should do y", right?

And yeah, that's part of living in a civilized society. Society doesn't make decisions based on what's best for one person, they make them on what's best for everyone.
Well, so long as you admit that it's not based on any sort of logic, completely arbitrary, and in turn everything is equally valid (banning gay marriage, for example) than everything is A-OK.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 09:35 PM   #269
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well, so long as you admit that it's not based on any sort of logic, completely arbitrary, and in turn everything is equally valid (banning gay marriage, for example) than everything is A-OK.
Gay marriage doesn't kill people (despite what the religious extremists would want you to believe), so this comparison isn't logical at all.

Banning gay marriage is discriminatory towards a specific portion of the population. You're denying a specific group their civil rights based on their sexual orientation. Just because someone loves someone of the same sex doesn't make them any less of a person, which is what banning gay marriage only would imply.

Banning guns (which I'm not in favor of) wouldn't be only for a specific group, it would be for everyone. It's not like anyone is saying "ban women from having guns", "ban black people from having guns", or "ban republicans from having guns". The people who actually want guns banned want that ban for everyone.

There's a huge difference between a ban that applies to everyone and a ban that discriminates against a specific group.
zioxide is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 09:47 PM   #270
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Gay marriage doesn't kill people (despite what the religious extremists would want you to believe), so this comparison isn't logical at all.

Banning gay marriage is discriminatory towards a specific portion of the population. You're denying a specific group their civil rights based on their sexual orientation. Just because someone loves someone of the same sex doesn't make them any less of a person, which is what banning gay marriage only would imply.

Banning guns (which I'm not in favor of) wouldn't be only for a specific group, it would be for everyone. It's not like anyone is saying "ban women from having guns", "ban black people from having guns", or "ban republicans from having guns". The people who actually want guns banned want that ban for everyone.

There's a huge difference between a ban that applies to everyone and a ban that discriminates against a specific group.
"Society doesn't make decisions based on what's best for one person, they make them on what's best for everyone."

That means, anything goes, so long as society says it's ok.

So if banning gay marriage is "best for society" so be it.
If banning free speech is "best for society" so be it.

etc. etc.
Unless of course you mean "except for when it's in my favor"

You don't get to cherry pick what you support, unless you first admit that you're doing it irrationally and arbitrarily.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2013, 10:17 PM   #271
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
That means, anything goes, so long as society says it's ok.
Yes. That is generally the way it works.

75% of the states could vote to amend the Constitution and outlaw gay marriage.

While the percentages can vary—sometimes it's a simple majority, sometimes it takes more—if society wants to change something, it can, and often does.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2013, 12:39 AM   #272
zioxide
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Massachusetts
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
"Society doesn't make decisions based on what's best for one person, they make them on what's best for everyone."

That means, anything goes, so long as society says it's ok.
Pretty much.

That's why slavery used to be legal, because society at the time said it was okay. It's why people are still fighting for marriage equality, why women fought so long for the right to vote, and why the fight against segregation took so long, because back in the day society apparently was okay with denying civil rights to different groups of people.

I never said it was right.
zioxide is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2013, 07:29 AM   #273
Peterkro
macrumors 68020
 
Peterkro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Communard de Londres
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well there are variations, but in the popular culture classic sense it means to be rid of government, or somebody who does not think the government should exist, etc...
Of course Anarchists think Government not only unnecessary but detrimental to the organisation of society.But it springs from the basic tenet of the movement which is no hierarchical relationships which not only means no Government but no Capitalism,Church or Property ownership.I'm guessing from this you can see you are not an Anarchist nor are those few Americans who refer to themselves as "Anarcho-Capitalists" or "Libertarians".The first is a contradiction in terms and the second stolen in recent years and twisted from it's actual meaning which is a synonym of Anarchist.
Peterkro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2013, 07:56 AM   #274
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Pretty much.

That's why slavery used to be legal, because society at the time said it was okay. It's why people are still fighting for marriage equality, why women fought so long for the right to vote, and why the fight against segregation took so long, because back in the day society apparently was okay with denying civil rights to different groups of people.

I never said it was right.
Ok I think it'll be interesting to recap how this discussion has gone:

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Do you have a right to tell other people what they can and cannot buy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
We already do with tons of other things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
That's not a valid argument. You don't get to say "we do x, so we should do x"
Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
Clearly it's not valid. It would have to be "we do x, so we should do y", right?
And yeah, that's part of living in a civilized society.
So I think it's quite clear here, that, as you admitted, your argument, and thus "society's" argument are not valid.

In addition, your argument is that society exerting its collective will is the price we have to pay for "living in society".

But then you readily admit that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zioxide View Post
I never said it was right.
So my question here I suppose is why, after admitting that society isn't right (and by right I'm assuming you mean moral) and doesn't have a valid argument, you're justifying it's actions?

Surely you don't believe that just because a bunch of people can get together and make somebody do something that it's justified, do you?
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2013, 10:49 AM   #275
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
So I think it's quite clear here, that, as you admitted, your argument, and thus "society's" argument are not valid.

In addition, your argument is that society exerting its collective will is the price we have to pay for "living in society".

-So my question here I suppose is why, after admitting that society isn't right (and by right I'm assuming you mean moral) and doesn't have a valid argument, you're justifying it's actions?

Surely you don't believe that just because a bunch of people can get together and make somebody do something that it's justified, do you?
I'm sorry, but in my line of work I make a lot of really bad arguments and I have to say that takes the cake. I'm fairly certain you took an argument out of context, twisted its meaning, and then jumped to a ludicrous result.

Well done! I applaud your ability to do what I trained for years to do. Bravo!
mcrain is offline   1 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
"Message not found" text from unknown (with screen shot) rrandyy iPhone 17 May 4, 2013 01:55 AM
"American Wallpaper USA Themes...50% Launch Sale!" iglobal123 iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Jul 1, 2012 01:35 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.

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

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