142 replies to this topic

[Whitey]

Guns are harmless. Bullets, hardly. The people with guns with bullets? Very.

Let me own a gun. Why can't I?

And politics? What politics? Are you out of your flippin mind? I mean c'mon. I didn't bring politics into it.

EDIT: Nevermind... but it's all I see from this topic on the opposing side...

Edited by Leatherneck, 29 April 2007 - 23:26.

[AllStarZ]

You're just being ridiculous now. I could say a tank is "harmless" if its out of shells or machine gun ammunition.

If you're going to get a gun, you're going to get ammunition, because a gun fires ammunition. Otherwise there is no point to its purchase, other than to scare people away by the potential it could fire bullets.

And for the last fucking time, I am not overtly against firearms ownership.

Edited by AllStarZ, 29 April 2007 - 23:35.

[Whitey]

I'm for tank ownership as well, so long as they don't crush the street... and fit in 1 lane.

And the potential of scaring someone off with a gun without ammo is pretty good. Chances are, they will run.

[AllStarZ]

[Whitey]

Doubleyou Eich Ay Tee?

[LCPL Carrow]

BillyChaka, on 29 Apr 2007, 00:21, said:

I believe you need to surrender one right to better protect others.

Benjamin Franklin said:

They who would give up their liberties for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.

Thank you, Ben.

I don't give a fourth a flying fuck about Europe, but in the US it's unconstitutional to tell me that I can't own a gun. There is no politics in that, unless you want to try and undermine the goddamned Constitution.

It comes down to what was said in the last gun debate we had: sure guns can be used for malicious intent, but they can also be used to defend oneself from said malicious intent. No matter what you might like to convince yourselves, the police do not arrive in time to stop shit from happening. To illustrate my point, look at the news footage of the VT incident. What do you see? Police running around ineffectually like chickens with their heads cut off.

Also, as said before, Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt. "Where catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults." Simply change "catapults" to "guns" ('degustare' as near as I could guess? The Romans didn't exactly have guns so there isn't a specific word for them that I know of) and you have a relevant quotation. If only the outlaws have guns, then the rest of us are at their mercy until the police show up - invariably, too late.

Emptying the mag into someone who has a knife is not exactly proportionate response, but then again, neither is firing one round into the air if the other guy doesn't have a gun. 'Proportional response' is a chickenshit political ROE anyway, and is therefore likely to get you killed if you follow it. Because one night, you're not gonna be able to tell what kind of weapon they have, and your ass is gonna get shot, stabbed, hacked, et cetera, all because you didn't want to go weapons free until you VID'd their weapon.

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 30 April 2007 - 17:59.

[Athena]

LCPL Carrow, on 30 Apr 2007, 19:58, said:

I don't give a fourth a flying fuck about Europe,

Gee thanks, maybe we shouldn't care about you either .

[LCPL Carrow]

Don't recall asking you to, but that wasn't what I meant. I meant that I don't care if guns are outlawed in Europe because my Constitutionality argument doesn't apply there. I'da thought the context would have made that apparent, but I guess not.

[Athena]

The laws of countries do not matter in this discussion. Remember this is a philosophy forum, so country borders and laws have no meaning here.

[LCPL Carrow]

Laws are actually an integral part of this discussion. The whole argument is whether or not they shoud be legal or illegal. That's what people like Spidersag and I tried to tell y'all about closing down the Deep End, that politics, laws, and geopolitical boundaries/nationalism are inseperably intertwined in the in-depth discussion of any deep, serious, real-life issue.

Saying that [voice='nagging']"The laws of nations have no meaning here"[/voice] is just a way to circumvent an opposing argument that you can't refute.

Edited by LCPL Carrow, 30 April 2007 - 18:49.

[AllStarZ]

Politics is a philosophy in its own. We're discussing the relative moral merits of gun ownership.

[Golan]

LCPL Carrow, on 30 Apr 2007, 18:48, said:

Laws are actually an integral part of this discussion. The whole argument is whether or not they shoud be legal or illegal.

Yes, the issue is if they should be illegal. Not if they are.
It´s like saying one doesn´t support death penalty ´cause one lives in Iceland.

Edited by Golan, 30 April 2007 - 18:58.

[TehKiller]

LCPL Carrow, on 30 Apr 2007, 18:13, said:

I meant that I don't care if guns are outlawed in Europe because my Constitutionality argument doesn't apply there.

you my friend are ignorant because we stated in almost 3 full pages that guns are allowed almost everywhere and that some Euro countries allow the holding of an AK

[Sgt. Nuker]

AllStarZ, on 30 Apr 2007, 14:52, said:

Politics is a philosophy in its own. We're discussing the relative moral merits of gun ownership.

This is not to take a stab at you AllStar, I'm just using your quote to make a point.

This new forum, Philosopher's Corner, was created to get rid of politics, since that's what created a rift between some forum goers and those who frequented the now defunct Deep End. Yes, politics and philosophy are interwoven, but you CAN have a philosophical conversation without ever setting foot in the political realm. Therefore, topics and the discussion therein should concern that of a philisophical nature and have little to do with, if at all, politics.

So, if one country doesn't allow its citizens to own guns, and the country next to it does, that fact is irrelevant. Philosophy deals with morals, not laws.


Regards,

Nuker

[Eddy01741]

Yay, flame wars just like in the deep end. Anyways, people should be able to own guns, if they have proper training and a well checked. Also, concealable pistols are already a little out of hand over here, you don't see people being killed with hunting rifles, do you? THe thing here is, that you can't eliminate guns, and certainly not concealble pistols, considering how many people own already, not everybody will willingly hand over their gun, and also a hunting rifle for home defense=big no no. Also, the good thing about guns is that if your weak, you still have a way to defend yourself against a 8 foot tall guy taking steroids and armed with a switch. However, the bad thing is, you can use them to easily kill people.

Lastly, for all you guys saying you shouldn't be allowed to have an AK, right now you can't own any full auto guns over here, and a semi-auto ak is no more deadly than your normal hunting rifle, if not less (since it uses a 7.62mm intermediate instead of like a .30-06 or a .303 NATO). However, sniper rifles that are .50 BMG is just over doing it. I mean, maybe at a firing range it'd be okay, just to experience what it's like to fire one of those big guys, but other than that, it's pointless. A deer can be killed with a .22 pistol, you don't need a .50 cal rifle to kill it, not to mention you can do severe damage to even armored cars, which includes a humvee, so unless you want those USA haters that are living in the US to be picking off guys in Humvees in convoys, that's a bad idea. It also can pierce metal walls (or any other wall for that matter, it can pierce 2 cinderblocks and still retain lethal force).

So basically, my point of view:

Guns allowed: Yes, it's part of the 2nd amendment
Gun Control: We need more than what we have
AKs and full auto guns: Already been banned, semi-auto versions no more dangerous than a hunting rifle (except it has a larger magazine)
Huge hulking .50 cal sniper rifles: I'm not sure if they're already banned or not, but they should be, nobody needs that kind of power for hunting, and it's too much for anything else short of killing guys in armored transports.

[Whitey]

Morally? Morally, owning a gun is just fine. It is a static object, nothing more. The only place they can be wrong is under law... so...

[LCPL Carrow]

...we come back to my argument. The legality of guns IS what's at issue, since it can't be immoral to own a gun unless it's immoral to own any other inanimate object. I can kill you with a notebook, too.

[Athena]

The difference is, you can't kill someone a hundred metres away in a second with a notebook. You can with a gun.

[Golan]

LCPL Carrow, on 2 May 2007, 16:57, said:

...we come back to my argument. The legality of guns IS what's at issue, since it can't be immoral to own a gun unless it's immoral to own any other inanimate object. I can kill you with a notebook, too.

Then get yourself a notebook to defend your house. Why bying a gun that can´t even run Excel?
Also, this again leads us to the question: Why not owning nukes? "End-of-the-world"-devices? Anthrax? Bretzels? RPGs? AP-mines?

Edited by Golan, 02 May 2007 - 17:24.

[LCPL Carrow]

@ Blaat: Then owning a gun is not immoral, killing someone with it is. Owning a notebook is not immoral, but killing them with one is. Having possesion of an inanimate object is not immoral, commiting the act of taking someone's life is. You can do that with things other than guns. At range? Ok, take away my guns. I'll get a longbow and kill you just as dead at 120 yards as I will with a gun. Or are you gonna try and outlaw archery, too? And then swords, and shields, and horses, and knives, and forks, and axes, and - let's just keep going back through the epochs - slings, and spears, and pointy sticks, and rocks, and clothes, and hands, and feet, right back until we're in prehistoric times, because you can kill someone with all of those things.

@ Golan: You're being ridiculous. My notebook can run a pencil on paper and that's about it, and how the hell are you gonna hunt deer or target shoot with a nuke, anthrax bomb, RPG, or land mines? What, are you trying to live GTA?

Ammu-Nation commercial said:

...or every sportsman's favorite, the anti-tank missile! You don't need to clean the deer when it's already been minced!

The difference between pistols, hunting rifles, and even assault rifles are that you don't have to kill someone with them, you can hunt or target shoot with them. You're not gonna do anything but kill someone - a lot of someones, actually - with WMDs, RPGs, or land mines.

[Athena]

LCPL Carrow, on 2 May 2007, 20:22, said:

@ Blaat: Then owning a gun is not immoral, killing someone with it is. Owning a notebook is not immoral, but killing them with one is. Having possesion of an inanimate object is not immoral, commiting the act of taking someone's life is. You can do that with things other than guns. At range? Ok, take away my guns. I'll get a longbow and kill you just as dead at 120 yards as I will with a gun. Or are you gonna try and outlaw archery, too? And then swords, and shields, and horses, and knives, and forks, and axes, and - let's just keep going back through the epochs - slings, and spears, and pointy sticks, and rocks, and clothes, and hands, and feet, right back until we're in prehistoric times, because you can kill someone with all of those things.

The difference is that guns are made for killing. A notebook isn't made for killing. My reply had nothing to do with immorality, I was merely saying that you cannot compare the two.

[Golan]

First of, it´s not immoral to own a gun. That´s bullshit and noone seriously argues on this point here. Guns are a threat , much greater then any every-day tools you compare them to, which is what us "guns should be outlawed"-fanatics are argueing on mainly.

LCPL Carrow, on 2 May 2007, 18:22, said:

@ Golan: You're being ridiculous. My notebook can run a pencil on paper and that's about it, and how the hell are you gonna hunt deer or target shoot with a nuke, anthrax bomb, RPG, or land mines? What, are you trying to live GTA?

Shure I´m beeing rediculous. But I´ve just aswell been quoting your reasoning for your "owning an inanimate object can´t be wrong"-babbling.
Which, now again, leads me to the question: Why not owning nukes? "End-of-the-world"-devices? Anthrax? Bretzels? RPGs? AP-mines? Afterall, they´re inanimate objects (Anthrax left aside...).

LCPL Carrow, on 2 May 2007, 18:22, said:

The difference between pistols, hunting rifles, and even assault rifles are that you don't have to kill someone with them, you can hunt or target shoot with them. You're not gonna do anything but kill someone - a lot of someones, actually - with WMDs, RPGs, or land mines.

I can put these just aswell at my fireplace to impress whoever I´d like to impress. Targetshooting with RPGs isn´t that difficult either, just make shure there are no bystanders. WMDs... well... just by some caribbean islands, evacuate them and you can target practice as much as you want. Or hunt for fish, explosions are quite usefull on these...

Edited by Golan, 02 May 2007 - 18:40.

[Whitey]

This "By using your reasoning" idea is also bullshit. Because by using your reasoning, we should outlaw everything, becasue they can be used to kill. Therefore, how about we just shut the fuck up with the "Using your reasoning" crap? It won't get this argument ANYWHERE because it is ridiculous shit. So no, don't bring up nukes or outlawing everything.

In which case, guns ARE inanimate and only as harmful as the owner of it. Less harmful than a police spike-strip or barbed wire fence, mind you.

If I want to use a .50 BMG rifle as personal defense, what is the problem with it? Don't mess with me and I won't mess you over the sidewalk.

But no, I guess we must be against RANGED personal defense. So I just have a knife while the bank I am at is being robbed by an armed gunman. He doesn't care about the law because he is an outlaw. So in other words, I'm screwed.

Now here's some food for thought: The "do-gooder" people vastly outnumber those with the intent to kill. So by issuing EVERYBODY a gun, gun-related crime would be prevented inevitably, no?

[Eddy01741]

Um, whats the point of having a .50 BMG gun? It can pierce any body armor ever put on man (that's still movable), and pierces APC armor, that's pointless. I mean, a .30-06 is already overkill for defense purposes, it can penetrate a NATO issue helmet and a military bullet proof vest (not sure about the new armor like Dragonskin or something like that).

Anyways, by issuing everybody a gun, the crime rates will go up, if you own a gun, and another guy owns a gun it's still not a fair fight. Unlike fighting with swords, for which whoever has better technique wins, or like a fist fight, with a gun, for most instances, if you shoot htem in the chest or head, they're dead, doesn't matter if they have a assault rifle on them, if you can get a first shot off, they're dead. And oh, for archery, I'd like to see even 5% of the population shoot a longbow at a distance even close to what a pistol could shoot at, a longbow is 6 feet tall, so anybody that's shorter than 6 feet can't wield one already, that eliminates 50% of the American population, and did I mention that you need good technique? It takes a lifetime to become a good marksman with a bow. with a gun, it's simple, line up the sights, make sure no obstacles in the way, and shoot. Why do you think Europe adopted Crossbows over longbows for most coutries (with the exception of archer intensive countries like Britain), because a crossbow doesn't take nearly as much strength (Kudos to anybody who can even pull the string to their chin, much less their ear like they had to back in the day), the crossbow is like a gun, you load it, you arm it (by pulling the string back, but you dont' have to keep the string held back), aim and shoot, simple as that, and you could put a windlass and make it simple to arm. The only people that could use a longbow were those of considerable size and strength, any man can use a crossbow, and I believe a pope even tried to ban them since they were such a "cheap" way of killing. Well a gun is just like the crossbow, any person with basic knowledge knows for a gun, you point and shoot, no techniques, you don't need to know the angle to shoot at unless your shooting at extreme ranges (which you won't be with a pistol), you don't need to take wind into account much at all for "personal defense" or shooting at 120 yards.

The thing is, it's so EASY to kill with a gun, not saying that everybody will kill with a gun, but it's easy, you shoot first, you kill them unless you aim for the limbs or they are lucky, you don't have to risk lunging at them with a dagger/knife, you don't have to duel with them and win/lose based on fencing technique, just point and shoot, heck you don't even need to have shot a gun ever before in your life to know that you point the gun in teh general direction of the enemy, pull the trigger, and they are dead or severely injured. Also, hot heads with guns=big nono, they overreact a lot, and will use a gun for the stupidest reason, and also, imagine, if everybody has a gun, if people got into arguments, it wouldn't be just a war of words, or maybe a fistfight, with a gun, you don't need to beat their face down, you can just shoot them.

Also, try to kill an intended target using barbed wire or a spike strip, you'll more likely injure others than your target.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if I have a gun, and some crazy lunatic murderer has a gun, if he gets the jump on me and shoots first, I'm dead or unable to defend against a fatal shot, if it were two people with swords, not quite the case, and you can hit people when they don't even know your there.

Basically, the reason the gun is so good as a killing weapon is because:
Takes little or no skill to use
It's easily available to anybody
If you take the first shot, and you hit, you win
Doesn't matter what the other guy is defending himself with
Amazing accuracy compared to other ranged weapons (I'd like to see a normal person get anywhere near a bullseye with a longbow, much less even get the arrow on the target)

[Whitey]

So yes, guns are the "noob weapons"

Or perhaps you fail to realize that if someone shoots at you, they are going to have 20 guns pointed right at them.

Kennesaw and Israel have incredibly low crime rates, don't they?

Besides, who is gonna jump you when you have a gun? I sure as hell wouldn't. There might be a few cases right after the law is in position, but afterwards, rates would decrease drastically due to the elimination of prior threats and the fear of getting shot...