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

Gun Laws- Positive or Negative?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by littlea53, Apr 30, 2011.


Do you think Gun Laws are a positive thing?

  1. Yes

    108 vote(s)
  2. No

    72 vote(s)
  1. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    The Second Amendment doesn't just do that. It's about enshrining the long recognized within natural law the right to life, which is kept by the ability to defend one's self against aggressive attacks.

    I think if someone wants to infringe on a long recognized right, they better have a damn good reason to. So what that someone is walking around with a gun securely holstered? How is that affecting you in any way, shape, or form?

    This, from Justice Scalia's majority opinion in District of Columbia V Heller,

    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  2. Ununoctium

    Ununoctium Well-Known Member

    You said "they better have a damn good reason" but really there is never under any circumstances a legitimate reason to take away the rights of the American people.
  3. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    How about when said American can not respect the rights of others. For instance, murder. Is that not a circumstance where the rights of lets say, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness of one individual(the murder) should be taken away?

    Or how about in the case of a child molester not being permitted anywhere near children whether that be near a school, a PUBLIC playground or even on their own property. You're essentially limiting someones right to be in the public domain.

    There are indeed a number of valid circumstances where the rights of a person can and should be taken away.
  4. Qmaz246

    Qmaz246 Disney Trainer

    They're good in the sense that they help protect us. Most of the people fighting against these laws aren't thinking about what some people might do without restrictions.
  5. chuboy

    chuboy <- It was THIS big!

    You should clarify your position. On one hand you can barely advocate removing the right to bear arms to any person, whatever the situation. On the other, you don't seem to take issue with permits being required for 'Americans' in general to carry guns in public.

    So which is it?
  6. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    I've stated several times in this thread what my answers to those are. Either you need to read them, or learn some comprehension. Or you're being intentionally obtuse.

    These are not contradictory positions. They're sensible and logical.The right to keep and bear arms derives from the natural right to life. Therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed.

    This doesn't preclude background checks, or keeping guns away from people who are mentally unstable or any other sensible regulation. It does preclude, for example, the mass confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens. It does preclude punishing citizens for defending themselves in life-or-death situations. It does preclude the government from punishing citizens who defend their family, their home, their castle, from unwanted, aggressive intruders.
  7. chuboy

    chuboy <- It was THIS big!

    What you're really saying here is that people who are denied the right to bear arms are denied their natural right to life. You are saying that because someone is mentally unstable they have no right to defend themselves with a gun in a life or death situation.

    Can it be argued that somebody who would use a gun to a harm a person is by definition mentally unstable or otherwise an undesirable candidate for acquiring a firearm?

    Before you say it, no that is no a straw man argument. It is your logic, reversed.
  8. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    More precisely, they lack the method of defending their right to life.

    Just as "Your right to swing your fists ends at my face", a mentally unstable person can't be trusted with a firearm due to their mental problems.

    I'm certainly not going to argue that. Do you want to argue that? Is it going to consist of anything more than "guns are eeeeevil" rhetoric that you and Manafi's Dream have been spouting for several pages?

    While you're at it, care to respond about how I completely destroyed your lie that there's an epidemic of people getting shot and killed by legal gun owners?
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2011
  9. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    I'm not sure if I've missed the explanation of this, but I'm curious about it. How, exactly, is this link made? (If you did already detail it, do you remember which page it's on?)

    I just need to check - do you mean "they lack a method"?

    Because if keeping a firearm is the method of defending one's right to life, then this really does say that mentally unstable people do not have the right to defend their life. And if we are to assume that in addition to assuming the right to keep a firearm is a sound derivative of the right to life, then what does this conclude about their right to life?
  10. DestricBW

    DestricBW OU Trainer

    If we are to assume that without gun laws, somebody would shoot somebody else, what difference does it make to have them? NONE!
    If people are going to be stupid, they will either way. there's nothing you can do. Except, of course, allowing people to carry their own weapons for self defensive purposes.
  11. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    People are naturally compelled to advocate, and even fight, for their continued existence.

    In modern society, we typically have public and private methods available for those who can't operate in the day-to-day world independently such as mental hospitals and other such facilities. In doing that, we as a society provide ample security on their behalf.

    As for a vs the, it's really both. A gun was specifically the method of defense the founders had in mind in almost all situations, and hundreds of years later, it's still used in the military, in hunting and sport, and in self defense. Sure, there are other weaposn, but a gun is by far the easiest to use. So if you disarm a population, you basically take away the ability to effectively fend off aggressors especially if they're physically overpowering you or...well, have a gun.
  12. chuboy

    chuboy <- It was THIS big!

    So you haven't really disproved the statement "removing a mentally-unstable person's right to bear arms is removing their right to defend their life". Just saying.

    Oh, and if you think every mental person is safely locked up in a padded cell you are deluded.
  13. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    I clearly explained why I think they should be disarmed and what we, as a society, have to do to compensate for that because they can't be reasonably expected to defend themselves.

    What's that saying about assumptions again?

    So now that I've defused your argument that legal, responsible gun owners are the causes of mass killings and injuries (less than 1%, way less than 1%, of legal gun owners have children that get injured from gun related injuries), you're just going to blatantly lie about my posts? You can't effectively argue so you're just going to lie?
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  14. chuboy

    chuboy <- It was THIS big!

    What?! Responsible gun owners don't cause mass killings and injuries?! Since when? Next they'll be saying safe drivers are under-represented in single-car traffic accidents!

    I have no problem with a responsible person using a firearm. I have a problem with assuming everyone is responsible, when humanity repeatedly proves the opposite.

    Spending a lifetime in a mental hospital is an awful sentence for someone who shouldn't use a gun but can function normally otherwise. Making them stay locked away 'for their safety' is surely an infringement of their rights as well? Surely there must be some way they can defend themselves, even without a gun, so that they can venture outside into the big scary world?
  15. Ioneos

    Ioneos Well-Known Member

    Many factors could effect this. Weather is a major one, as well as things like car problems and just plain old accidents. But the same doesn't neccessarily hold to guns. It's pretty hard to accidentally kill someone with a gun, save mental issues, young age, drunkeness, etc.

    Hell, there are hundreds or thousands of martial arts styles which are completely effective, sometimes moreso than a gun (depending on range). Not to mention mace, pepper spray, etc.
  16. randomspot555

    randomspot555 Well-Known Member

    ^^^Mace and pepper spray both require being at close range and have the huge risk of affecting your immediete area, including yourself. Having those is better than nothing, but I'd bet on the guy with the gun over the guy with the mace every time.

    Well I saw that study you posted, crunched the numbers, and way less than 1% of them ever had an injured childhood get ahold of their gun. So yes, those way less than 1% shouldn't have guns. The 99.9% were responsible gun owners and their rights shouldn't be infringed.

    Which is why we have background checks in place that take into account how competent they are mentally and criminal activity.

    I specifically said "those who can't operate in the day-to-day world independently" to Profesco. Please read my posts before commenting on it.
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
  17. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    I guess I could assume that, too. I don't exactly think that, for example, every person confronted with an aggressor, a threat to their life, is naturally (or even mainly) compelled to launch into a fight to protect themselves. It's probably more a case of personality and circumstance, but I'm just hypothesizing here. I think you'd be the one to technically have the burden of proof, since it's your positive claim we're considering. ;0

    But in any case, we began with the mutually agreed-upon premise that people have a natural right to be alive. I was hoping you'd explain the transition from that premise to the right to bear arms, randomspot.
    The above doesn't exactly bridge that stream just yet.

    But they still don't have the right to defend themselves? Remember, we were talking about right, not capacity.

    Well, that's still kind of confusing. Either using a gun is the only effective way to defend oneself from harm, or there are other effective ways to defend oneself from harm. And I do honestly think that there are other possible ways to effectively defend oneself. A responsive public law enforcement force, tasers, martial arts, security systems and cautious/preventative habits, etc: all of the things law enforcement and security professionals go to great lengths to describe and advocate before resorting to the use of lethal weaponry, in fact.

    I also think that the risk of needing to fight off heavily-armed aggressors in a government coup is sort of an unrealistic (at least these days) situation to use, if the argument is featuring the average individual's right to defend his or her life or property. And that describing the situation always as a case of the harmless, innocent, patriotic man being denied any and all weapons while the insurgent criminals have only to snap their fingers and be granted any and all weaponry they want, while every aforementioned defense is assumed useless or unavailable, is kind of like stacking the deck. >_>
  18. Hox

    Hox Banned

    The fastest law enforcement in the world won't do you much good if someone's breaking into your house wanting to kill you. Tasers? That's actually...practical. No beefs there. Do you advocate tasers for personal use though? They can still kill someone, and are still designed to harm like a gun is. Martial arts? A lot of good that does when your opponent has a gun. "Excuse me, wait! I have a blackbelt you know!" ....*bang* So much for that. Security systems also cost money. If you can afford to deck out your house with cameras and stuff, awesome. I can't. ;_;
  19. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    Oh, I don't doubt a couple variations of those things can maybe be impractical too. I suppose the point of my referencing security/law enforcement/safety habits was to emphasize preventative measures. I'd wager there are ways to lock one's doors and windows that make burglary and the like a reasonably distant possibility without using cameras and gadgets and stuff that cost a second mortgage, though.

    As for martial arts or other physical defense practices, there have been fair points made about the potential superiority of those methods to gun usage in tight, personal situations. I'm not well-versed enough to make the points myself, unfortunately. ^_^;

    Tasers being fatal is news to me, though. I guess the occasional conflict with heart disease or cardiac medical technology isn't surprising, but what I'd really be concerned with are tasers' fatality level as compared to that of guns. If they're really comparable in that regard, I've a lot of rethinking to do. :p
  20. Hox

    Hox Banned

    Well, usually a criminal that wants to get into a house doesn't come a long knocking on the front door. Baseball bats, crobars, etc. These are all tools that can be used to get into a house, if you're dead set on getting in.

    There is also less conventional ways, like digging a tunnel with a tea spoon.

    I'll definitely agree that those are fair, but what kind of idiot criminal let's his victim get within arms length of his gun, his only advantage? Plus, even if you are a skilled martial artist, is that a risk you want to take? What if you mess up? What if he pulls the trigger to soon?

    Oh, they're definitely less fatal than guns, but they can still be deadly. Especially if the person wielding it doesn't know how to use it properly, or know when to relinquish. Sending a person into cardiac arrest, etc. Heart problems like you mentioned. They can kill. Not as readily or as handily as a gun can, but they can. Now my point is, how do you differentiate between how certain tools should be more strictly regulated, or even further, banned, when we don't really have a line drawn in the sand? Is there a point where we say "No this weapon is too deadly." Now obviously, we know this line is drawn somewhere. Average Joe's aren't allowed to own nuclear warheads. When it comes to guns though, where and how do you draw the line? What's the criteria that has to be met?

    Edit: Oh I forgot! Dude, what about people that own some seriously brutish looking guard dogs, that it's common sense not to screw with? Guard dogs like German shepards, etc attack, maim, and kill intruders every year. No one seems to want them illegalized though.
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2011

Share This Page