1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

American Gun Control

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by chess-z, Oct 3, 2017.

  1. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

  2. Spock

    Spock Live Long & Prosper

    By your logic we ought to be able to own tanks and WMD too.
  3. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    I'd love to own a tank, but the fuel and parking fees for such a vehicle would likely be astronomical.
  4. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  5. Spock

    Spock Live Long & Prosper

    Disingenuous. Your own article points to how it isn't as easy as buying a gun:

    You also ignored the point about WMDs. Why should the government have them but not the people?
  6. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    You didn’t say anything about the ease of acquiring one. Even old, military equipment is expensive.

    I ignored it because it’s a stupid argument dragged out to try and justify limits on the Second Amendment. How many people can afford to purchase or make and then safely store a WMD? Is anyone willing to sell a WMD to the average citizen?

    Edit: it’s also a common trap. I say yes to wmds being restricted then I’m labeled a hypocrite for supporting this restriction and not others. I say no and I’m the madman that wants people running around with pocket nukes. Not playing that game.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  7. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    Argument from Insanity:

    Technically speaking the second amendment gives the right to bear arms, not firearms. Assuming we don't take that literally to mean the right to keep your arms attached and instead to mean weaponry, why can I not currently open-carry a sword, own a predator drone, own a fully operational tank, or a nuke? These are all arms that, by being an American citizen, I should have a right to bear. Why is the distinction firearms and not any and all weaponry? The entire argument behind the second amendment is that the citizenry needs the power to overthrow a government or invading force, yet it would be hard to argue that firearms alone are an effective countermeasure to death robots shooting missiles from the sky.

    So where's my nuke? My tank? My drone? Why are these products not commercially available, yet somehow firearms specifically are considered a right? This isn't some nonsensical request, this is literally following the "intention" that is used as a justification for firearms being a right.

    Is it maybe because instruments of death shouldn't be commonly available tools that you can pick up at your local Wal-mart?
  8. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Oh please, the sheer cost of those items would prevent most retailers from selling them. Millions of dollars. It’s a nonissue only dragged out to make absurd arguments. I can see the very wealthy being able to buy those items, not the average citizen.
  9. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    That is by definition a non-response that skirts the issue at hand. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, not specifically firearms. Why are effective weapons that would be capable of carrying out the second's intention be banned, while firearms which are relatively useless in modern warfare be protected under it? Last I checked, the right was full of Constitutionalists that want to take the Constitution at its word. Word for word, any and all weaponry should be considered a right as long as it is "well-regulated". Whether that weaponry is affordable for the average consumer is a non-issue. It should be available for purchase to non-military personnel, otherwise the entire point of the second amendment is bunk.

    (Note: I'm not saying swords would be effective per se, but I'm a weeb so I'm really pissed off that open-carrying guns is a right but a bad-*** sword isn't.)
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  10. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Firearms are relatively useless in modern warfare? Really? How odd that soldiers are issued firearms then.
    If you want to argue re nukes or other WMDs, go right ahead. Those items are expensive and require special storage to render them safe and non lethal to the owner. The vast majority of gun owners see them as too risky to keep around. Sure I agree that I could own a nuke as an “arm” but who would sell me one? Where would I put it? How would I deploy it without killing myself? It’s a stupid argument about an extremely unlikely event. Like I start shitting gold, unlikely.

    See! You pull an absurd argument out that if a citizen can’t own a nuke, then he can’t really defend himself and the 2nd is useless. Bull crap. That assumes that whoever is attacking is willing to use nukes everywhere for any reason. It also ignores the other reasons people have guns that don’t involve total nuclear warfare.

    I don’t see a problem with people owning tanks and other military hardware. Nor do I see an issue with people carrying swords around. Blame people worried about gangs for restricting those.

    Edit: similar analogies. Fire extinguishers in the home. You can’t stop a fully engulfed house or forest fire. Why have an extinguisher?
    First aid kits. Can’t stop cancers, why have the first aid kit?

    The 2nd is to help prevent a govt that would use nukes on its people from coming to power. It doesn’t just happen over night.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2017
  11. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    First, the argument from absurdity is a valid logical argument that points out the flaws in a premise by taking said premise to its extremes. Clearly you aren't for the second amendment in its current wording if you think that there should be some limit at which owning an arm is either deemed unnecessary or too dangerous. Word for word, the second amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms. With the only restriction being "a well-regulated militia" there is no single instrument of war that should be wholly unavailable to the public under that "right". That happens to include nukes. Second, at the point where a tyrannical government is oppressing its people, it would be safe to argue that guns would be ineffective against an army that has tanks, jets, drones, military-grade ballistic armor, and more.

    And ooooh that edit. So are you arguing that liberals have a fundamental right to overthrow Drumpf and the gerrymandered Republican Congress? It's an at least feasible argument that they are showing clear signs of progressing towards a state of tyranny in how they've governed so far. For what is tyranny if not a gross over-taxation of the many to pay the few? To ignore the opinion of the vast majority of your citizenry to pass legislation that actively hurts them? A tyrannical government is by definition a cruel or oppressive government. I could make a multitude of logical arguments for why taking away healthcare from millions to fund tax cuts for the rich expressly against the interests of the vast majority of American citizens could be considered a form of tyranny worthy of being overthrown.

    See, the fundamental problem with the second amendment is that its entire premise is hogwash. What some consider tyranny others consider good stewardship. Where you might consider tyranny to be the taking of your guns, I would consider it a common-sense solution to a very serious problem causing thousands of deaths per year. Where I might consider tyranny to be the oppressive judiciary system that actively discriminates against people with differently colored skin, you might consider it to be a fair and just system punishing those that do wrong. Sure, there are very clear cut examples of tyranny like Mao or Stalin. But there are many softer forms of tyranny that are much more insidious in that you can get a large portion of the population to support it. Slavery was a form of tyranny - and that ended up causing a civil war.

    So when you argue for the second amendment, are you not also arguing that you, as a citizen, have the right to overthrow a government that the majority of citizens may agree with? Is that not exactly what the shooter at that congressional baseball game was doing? Is that not what any "domestic terrorist" - as it were - does? Where do you draw the line between overthrowing tyranny and domestic terrorism? When do you say "My opinions are not the norm, so what I'm doing is an act of terrorism"? Is it only acceptable to "overthrow tyranny" when it oppresses all? Most? Many? A few? Just you?

    It's possibly the most idiotic concept in American history - that any single person or small group of people get to decide when people need to die for what they believe is right.
  12. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    You've actually created a straw man by arguing that a tyrannical gov't would use nukes therefore owning guns is useless. Nice try.

    All of those things require people to operate them. Those people will be outside at some point.

    Go ahead and try to convince people that you have no recourse via the courts or even the next election and that a revolution is needed right now! After all the conservative gun owners (most of the gun owners in the US) decline to help you, you'll be on your own. Tell me, will you be using "assault rifles" or will you stick to the muzzle loading, one shot weapons that a lot of antigunners state that the 2nd Amendment covers?

    Well depriving people of property without due process due to the criminal behavior of other people is certainly a form of tyranny. If you see tyranny, work to eliminate it. Reform the judiciary if you think its screwed up.

    I have the right to try. Even the obligation to stand up against injustice. Ideally, the shooting portion comes after "the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box." Did the people who fought against slavery when it was legal have that right? If I fail, I get punished for it. If I win, I'm a hero.

    No. He wasn't reacting to specific events of actual tyranny. He hated Republicans, possibly due to how other groups portray them.

    Nope. Terrorism is directed at random people in an effort to install fear. Resisting acts of tyranny is different.

    An actual tyranny would need to exist. People being imprisoned for any reason or no reason. People being silenced for their viewpoints when they disagree with the gov't line. Despite your viewpoints, the US is nowhere near a tyranny. DT is random and meant to terrify the people into supporting a change. Overthrowing tyranny would be aimed at the gov't while trying to avoid civilian casualties. Being the good guy to the gov'ts bad guy.

    Good question. Also depends on your actions. And who wins. Victor decides what was treason and what was resisting an oppression.

    Just me? No. Good chance that the oppression may be nothing of the sort if only one person is complaining.

    The rest sounds like a quote from WW2 would be apt. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

    Stand up against oppression. Start vocal objections, follow up with voting objections, go to legal objections, then move to shooting objections. Can't do that if only the military has guns. Then it's "They came for my neighbor but I was unarmed and could not stop them."
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  13. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    That's not the point Teruhn was making, but feel free to believe that. LDSman, my guy, my pal, my dude, my friend, you aren't engaging with Teruhn's rhetoric.
  14. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    I get what his point/rhetoric is. It’s a variation of the “you can’t beat the US army” anti 2nd Amendment claim. It’s a straw man argument. “Can’t beat nukes so give up your guns!!”


    . Yeah, don’t do that. I’m not your guy, pal, dude or friend.

    Any chance you want to debate the myriad of other progun things I’ve mentioned?
  15. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    My point isn't that you can't beat the US military, it's that if you're really wanting guns to overthrow an oppressive government, you're choosing the wrong tool to consider a right in this day and age.

    Drones, tanks, jets, missiles, and more are much more effective and would limit civilian casualties greatly (In the right hands). So why are guns specifically so necessary for such a defense? Furthermore, can you name a single instance where guns beat drones, tanks, jets, missiles, etc. in a lopsided battle where a popular uprising of untrained rednecks attempts to overtake the well-trained, heavily-armed military that is somehow loyal to a somehow tyrannical US government?

    It's not the right to guns that the second amendment is positing - it's the right of civilians to form and maintain their own militia separate from the U.S. government. That requires all sorts of arms - none of which are currently protected under the second amendment - while the key protection endowed by the second amendment is being all but forgotten. Where is our well-regulated militia? Where is our civil defense force? I'm all for a well-armed, well-trained, well-regulated civilian militia. I am not, however, for lone individuals with almost no training with the most lax of background checks having the right to a deadly weapon capable of killing hundreds.

    Meanwhile, your need to feel like you have explicit control over your life in the most infantile of ways is contributing to the deaths of thousands per year.
    Yet this will mean nothing to half of America. Thousands more will die and we will say nothing. How many years of thousands of people dying do we go through before finally someone you love or care about is unjustly killed by some idiot with a gun? What will you say then? "Oh well, my gun is more important"?

    Finally, your argument here is that you've got to stop something bad from happening before it starts. You are arguing that any idiot with a gun has the right to stop what they believe to be a travesty - whether you or I agree or not. That includes a lone gunman shooting at republican senators because he believes them to be evil. That includes a domestic terrorist inciting violence to prevent what they believe to be a tyrannical law. You argue that first speech, electoral, and judiciary means should be attempted before resorting to shooting. Yet your own statement belies the fact that you believe that at some point you have to act in immediacy to prevent tyranny from forming. I posit that this is exactly what a domestic terrorist does.

    Side note: Terrorism by definition is inciting violence or intimidation to enact your desired political or ideological change. A armed citizen causing violence in the name of political change is by definition terrorism to anyone not agreeing with them. Not saying that's necessarily right or wrong, but the definition of terrorism has been heavily skewed since 9/11 to an almost ironically twisted version of what it used to be.

    Do tell me, though, what are the policies you would push for to prevent further gun violence? Because there is one underlying fact that is constantly skated around by the pro-gun side of this debate that I would really like to see a response to: Tens of thousands of preventable deaths is unacceptable. Full stop.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2017
  16. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    Nope. Guns are easier to use than the items you list. I can get more ammo for a gun. Replacement tanks, missiles etc, not so much.

    Citation please.

    With guns you can arm and train the populace. They are easy enough to make in a garage and can be hidden away if necessary.

    What a really specific question. SO specific, it postulates a scenario that has never happened.
    Tell me, how well did the US Army do in Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? If guns can't defeat the army, how come there is still fighting in the Middle East?

    Supreme Court disagrees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    Go fight for people to make up militias without being harassed by the gov't or labeled kooks by the media.

    Yeah, you'd be surprised by how well trained some gun owners are. And do you see the catch 22? Guy wants a gun to train with but can't get it due to a lack of training.

    Oh ********. Nothing I've done or not done has contributed to deaths of thousands per year anymore than you owning a car has contributed to the thousands that die on US roads.

    More like "what happened? I wish I had been there to help them!" Why would I blame my owning a gun for something someone else did?

    What, you'd stand back and let the gov't haul people away first?

    Nope. Resorting to violence is the last step, not the first.

    Again, nope.

    Random violence aimed at civilians. The winners usually decide what was terrorism and what wasn't.

    Mental health services increased. 2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides. Increase funding for background checks. Fix the issue that allows a guy expelled from the air force to not get his name added to the denied list. Figure out why homicides are higher in some areas than others. (see earlier link) See what could be done to eliminate or reduce those deaths.

    2/3rds are suicides. The remainders include justifiable homicides. Of the ones not justifiable, a decreasing number are accidents. the rest are related to gang activities involving people already prohibited from owning guns due to age or convictions. That doesn't even address that firearm fatalities aren't even in the top 15 ways to die in the US or that cars kill more people on accident! Are you going to push to restrict or remove cars?

    Something I'd like to see antigun people answer. What about the people that defend themselves and their loved ones by using a firearm in some manner?
  17. Basic reasoning?

    Under armed resistance will have a difficult time going up against a better armed foe.

    I don't really want to dedicate myself to a full point for point match up, but I will add that you're not faithfully engaging with Spock's argument regarding WMD's and tanks. When you pointed out that tanks are already legal, you've missed the point. The question you're really being asked is whether you think it's everyone's right to own a tank. Likewise, regarding WMD's, whether or not everyone has the resources to acquire WMD's is irrelevant. The question you're being asked is, do you think it would be better if more people owned WMD's, or not? Would it be better if it were easier for everyone to get them, or not? And you're right, it is a trap. But that's the point. Trap =/= fallacy. The trap has to be disarmed, not ignored, as you've chosen.

    If you don't believe that military grade weaponry like tanks, drones, stealth bombers, etc. should be available for purchase and ownership to the average citizen, you must justify why semi automatic and automatic weapons are where we should draw the line.

    If you do believe all those things should be able to be acquired, up to and including WMD's, that's very clearly ludicrous. The obvious conclusion is that if people had things like RPG's to shoot down planes with, they absolutely would. We could not have anywhere near a functioning and healthy society.

    As an aside, please don't do this. Unless you would like to quote the specific parts of the majority opinion that you think best buttress your point, this is an appeal to authority. Despite the fact that "Supreme" is in the name, they've made plenty of shitty decisions.
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2017
  18. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    It should be noted that in these hypothetical situations, things need to lead to those hypothetical situations. I'm all for talking about that stuff casually, but to talk about them while ignoring the actual things going on now has always been kinda weird to me. It's like "I'd rather be right in a hypothetical situation than help an existing problem", but honestly the more I study the more I find that humans are stupidly stubborn. By that I mean in an armed hostile government situation, because to me the issue isn't what we would do, but what lead to this and the million other problems that would be at hand.

    What's the old Onion headline? "Leopard eating faces party surprised leopards ate their face"?
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
  19. Teruhn

    Teruhn Member

    Two points I would make while I'm on my phone:

    1) To people defending themselves via guns - how many documented cases are there? How many actually lead to further gun violence? What would the largest non-conspiratorial threat be to you in a gun-free society? You might have a point if they are statistically a means of safety that outweighs their massive death toll, but it's kind of hard to know because gun research is effectively banned.

    2) What number of gun homicides is an acceptable number for you? How many mass shootings per year is considered tolerable? I'm legitimately curious.

    Now that I'm on a keyboard...

    That's a disingenuous argument. They're difficult to train for because the training isn't readily available - not because they are particularly complex to operate. Given a capitalist spin drones, tanks, missiles, etc. could be easily gamified to the point of being operable by a toddler.

    Make in a garage? Really? How many american homes have smithing and/or factory capabilities, precisely? I mean, if you have all the pieces of a gun, sure. But no average American owns the means of production for a gun. As far as training, see above.

    I would be inclined to agree with the values of guerrilla warfare if not for two specific reasons that correlate.
    1) The advent of drone strikes means there is virtually zero risk in most military offensives. Coupled with the relatively easy terrain of the majority of America, espionage becomes the more likely recourse as opposed to guerrilla tactics.
    2) At the point at which a popular uprising occurs that pits civilians against the military, we are clearly dealing with a government that has long since abandoned its morality. The reason the Middle East has gone on for so long? We actually care about killing civilians.

    This is patently false from a legal perspective. The training to legally purchase a firearm is minimal. I will not deny that responsible gun owners and enthusiasts generally have much more training, but the base training does not include mental health discipline, tactical and situational awareness, or situation diffusal. All of which should be common sense requirements for owning a gun. And there is no catch 22 - you obviously supervise training with a firearm before sending someone out into the world on their own with one.

    So if I have a legal challenge in the system, or an election is being held tomorrow, and my family is taken away from me today, do I...wait? Because that goes against your entire premise of stopping the tyranny before it happens while at the same time following your rule of Speech>Vote>Judge>Violence.

    The Rohingya are on the losing side in Myanmar. Is that not terrorism (and ethnic cleansing) aimed at them from a brutal government? It's violence with an express political motivation - the literal definition of terrorism. There is no Monday morning quarterbacking on terrorism. Terrorism is terrorism no matter who wins or loses.

    Look, I quite vehemently agree with these measures. But I'll circle back to the point I was making earlier - at what point do we consider gun deaths to be "acceptable"? At what point do we look at the work we've done and say "This is good enough to be worth keeping the right to bear arms"? My point isn't that your measures are wrong, it's that they don't do enough. Any premature death we can prevent via policy should be. This goes for healthcare, food quality, air quality, gun control, you name it - my guiding principle is if there is death, what could we do to prevent that death? And you may ask - why guns specifically then? Because it's considered a fundamental right - while healthcare or vehicles aren't. Because those people that survived the Las Vegas shooting? They were left with thousands of dollars in medical expenses and devastating trauma that doesn't affect just the people injured or killed but their families and communities because one person who appeared to be mentally stable decided his decision was more important than their lives and guns facilitated his actions. Because the utter pervasiveness of guns in American society has instilled in you an inherent fear that without a gun, you are not safe. And let's be frank - it's only because other people have guns that you feel that fundamental need to own a firearm. Guns may not be the leading cause of death in America, but that isn't entirely the point anyways. Guns are ruining our society by making us belligerent and distrusting. How can I be friendly to a stranger on the side of the road when they may be packing? When should I feel threatened by a skinhead on the sidewalk open carrying an instrument of mass destruction? While the physical toll of guns is staggering as-is, the societal toll is a threat to our stability as a nation that purports to be the best nation in the world. And most of all, because your argument of deterrent by giant stick is literally just a less bombastic version of mutually assured destruction.

    And please do show a statistic and reasoning on "Justifiable homicides". Was Trayvon Martin a justifiable homicide? If I'm quaking in my boots because someone is yelling at me, is that a "justifiable homicide"? If someone wanders on to my property, accidentally or otherwise, is that a "justifiable homicide"? What, precisely, is a justifiable homicide?

    And I know this will be labeled an emotional argument but you know what? Logically speaking, the cost of supporting the gun industry is about $310 billion in human life cost alone (At ~9m per life, for government statistical purposes). How do you justify that cost?
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2017
  20. LDSman

    LDSman Banned

    . Yeah, that’s not an answer. How are tanks, planes, missiles, etc more precise to the point that they have lower civilian casualties than a handgun or rifle?

    . That’s always going to be true. Doesn’t mean you give up and surrender any chance of resisting.

    yes. If you can afford it, go buy one.
    Does the 2nd Amendment cover WMDs. In part I believe it does. Citizens used to own warships with cannons, artillery and even stockpiles of explosive materials. The problem is that chemical, biological and radiological weapons aren’t good personal defensive weapons. If you set off one of those, you do a lot of damage to the neighborhood and could even kill your self. If this was actually an issue rather than an attempt to argue gun restrictions by comparing limits on WMDs to guns, I could see allowing ownership provided the owner has a vault capable of preventing leakage of whatever is in it along with regular checks on the owner and the items in question. Would it ever be an issue? No. The number of people that could afford the items and afford to maintain and store them would be only a few in the country.

    It’s a dishonest debate tactic akin to “do you still beat your wife?” The topic is “American Gun Control” not the limits of the 2nd or should people own WMDs.

    . You know, I don’t believe I ever said that. I merely pointed out the cost.
    Well, there’s a matter of scale and portability.

    . Your belief is that citizens would automatically be shooting down planes if they had RPGs? Doesn’t sound like a healthy society if people aren’t committing massmurder simply due to a lack of a weapon.

    If you have an issue with the court decision, please mention that instead of trying to dismiss my point by claiming it’s an “appeal to authority.” Throwing that one out could be a way to argue against any expert. “Well, these scientists say..”. Appeal to authority

    . I’m amused that you didn’t answer the question before to limit it.

    Does it matter? CDC study linked earlier. DGU ranges from 60,000 a year (antigun numbers) to 2.5 million a year (pro gun numbers). CDC still admits that DGU is substantial and that those who defend themselves with guns suffer fewer injuries than those that defend themselves without guns.

    clarify? Do you mean revenge shootings? Gun battles in the street? Few if the first. Seems to be an inner city gang issue.

    . Nice qualifier. Criminals who break the law. Crooked cops. Wild animals.

    . Once again, gun deaths aren’t even in the top 15 causes of death in the US. 2/3rds are suicides. Last set of numbers was about 30,000 gun deaths. So nonsuicides are about 10,000. That’s not even 1 percent of the population. Blame the CDC for the research issue. If they hadn’t been running blatantly flawed and biased studies, there would be more research on the issue.
    homicide numbers include self defense shootings. If it’s self defense, then any number. If it’s murder, then zero. Put the shooter in prison. If they acquired a gun illegally, straw purchase, black market, given by a relative, then that person should go to jail as well.
    Mass shootings? Zero. Figure out what allowed the issue to happen. CA shooter was breaking the law after his RO. Why did the police not address that? Texas shooter was ineligible to own a gun. Name not entered in system by Air Force. Fix that.
    Vegas shooter was a law abiding citizen up till he started shooting people. Current cause unknown. Was it the Valium he was taking? How do you predict that?
    Other shooters had a history of mental issues that they didn’t get help for.

    I’ll address the updated updated comment later.

Share This Page