What is your viewpoint on Guns?

[jbark]

you guys are right, this is a volatile subject; but to most, it's more than a freedom, it's a choice. choose to own arms or don't...but don't support legislation taking that choice from people who do. that's not what a 'free' society is supposed to be.

I couldn't agree more.

Which of the two people lives freely:

The one who owns the gun, or the one who is shot by one?

Not only is the subject volatile, but as much a conundrum as the idea of freedom itself: the underlying irony behind freedom is that the more there is of it, the more rules are required to assure its persistence. IOW, you cannot have freedom without taking freedom away, and I will gladly support the removal of the "right" to firearms if it assures my right to the freedom to live without the fear of being shot by someone with a lethal & legal, registered weapon.

So the choice, obviously, is whose freedom do you support removing?

Put that in your barrel and smoke it.8)

JBArk

ahh jbark, the king of circular arguments.
so you suggest, that if everyone has the right to posess a firearm, that automatically means he/she is going to use it against someone else?

you do know that people kill more people with automobiles than guns, eh?

And automobiles are manufactured for the sole purpose of relieving a living thing of life? Your life, and everyone else's on the planet who relies on transportation for goods and services and livelihood, NEEDS combustion engine transportation (or its next novel manifestation), whether they like it or not. Is the possession of a gun a need? And what TRULY suffers, on the level of the abolition of the combustion engine vehicle (your analogy, not mine), if guns are prohibited? Are the two truly analagous?

And how exactly is this "circular", Benzyme? Because you cannot logically oppose it?

And out of the sincerest curiosity, can you name some uses of a gun that are not (even indirectly) related to the killing of a living being?

JBArk the stickinthemud:wink:

 

[benzyme]

it's circular because you cannot show any evidence supporting your "have gun, will kill someone" hypothesis
instead, you counter with fallacious logic

the statistics don't support your claim. as has already been pointed out, some cities with the strictest gun control laws, are also the most dangerous.

 

[jbark]

it's circular because you cannot show any evidence supporting your "have gun, will kill someone" hypothesis
instead, you counter with fallacious logic

the statistics don't support your claim. as has already been pointed out, some cities with the strictest gun control laws, are also the most dangerous.

"Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises."

A person with a gun can kill something with a gun. A person without a gun cannot kill something with a gun.

No logical fallacy, no assumptions in the premises, and no circular argument.:d

JBArk:twisted:


Edit: actually, the stats do support the claim.

 

[Autodidactic]

you guys are right, this is a volatile subject; but to most, it's more than a freedom, it's a choice. choose to own arms or don't...but don't support legislation taking that choice from people who do. that's not what a 'free' society is supposed to be.

I couldn't agree more.

Which of the two people lives freely:

The one who owns the gun, or the one who is shot by one?

Not only is the subject volatile, but as much a conundrum as the idea of freedom itself: the underlying irony behind freedom is that the more there is of it, the more rules are required to assure its persistence. IOW, you cannot have freedom without taking freedom away, and I will gladly support the removal of the "right" to firearms if it assures my right to the freedom to live without the fear of being shot by someone with a lethal & legal, registered weapon.

So the choice, obviously, is whose freedom do you support removing?

Put that in your barrel and smoke it.8)

JBArk

ahh jbark, the king of circular arguments.
so you suggest, that if everyone has the right to posess a firearm, that automatically means he/she is going to use it against someone else?

you do know that people kill more people with automobiles than guns, eh?

And automobiles are manufactured for the sole purpose of relieving a living thing of life? Your life, and everyone else's on the planet who relies on transportation for goods and services and livelihood, NEEDS combustion engine transportation (or its next novel manifestation), whether they like it or not. Is the possession of a gun a need? And what TRULY suffers, on the level of the abolition of the combustion engine vehicle (your analogy, not mine), if guns are prohibited? Are the two truly analagous?

And how exactly is this "circular", Benzyme? Because you cannot logically oppose it?

And out of the sincerest curiosity, can you name some uses of a gun that are not (even indirectly) related to the killing of a living being?

JBArk the stickinthemud:wink:

I don't know man, maybe you just have had different life experiences then some of us, I honestly don't understand what the relevance of you pointing out that a gun is made to kill, when a knife, a bow, or even a rock can do the same thing. If I couldn't get a gun to protect myself and loved ones, then it would be a bow, if not a bow then a knife, if not a knife then a rock. Protecting yourself is IMO a part of your biological makeup. I'm not a person that likes to be defenseless, though I'm not weak or anything like that, a person with a gun has power over a person with a knife. I'd like to be on as level as a playing field as possible,in any situation. And making a law to disarm everyone isn't a level playing field as I said only the good decent law abiding people would not have guns.

 

[endlessness]

oh yeah, there is no relationship between guns and firearms deaths .....:?

 

[benzyme]

it's circular because you cannot show any evidence supporting your "have gun, will kill someone" hypothesis
instead, you counter with fallacious logic

the statistics don't support your claim. as has already been pointed out, some cities with the strictest gun control laws, are also the most dangerous.

"Circular reasoning is a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises."

A person with a gun can kill something with a gun. A person without a gun cannot kill something with a gun.

No logical fallacy, no assumptions in the premises, and no circular argument.:d

JBArk:twisted:


Edit: actually, the stats do support the claim.

i see what you're getting at, stating the obvious, that a person with a gun is more likely to use it against someone than a person who doesn't have one.

however, you don't have any statistical evidence showing that a person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone.

 

[jbark]

Here you go, after 4 minutes of research:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221032/international_gun_laws_show_firearm.html?cat=17

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

http://www.videojug.com/interview/international-gun-law-comparisons-2

But I am certain this will not convince you, for your argument is (also?) circular... Have your guns, but for god's sake, acknowledge that statistically people with guns are more likely to kill with guns than those who have no guns, and that gun ownership creates a freedom at the expense of another ( EDIT: and hence, the argument that banning guns is a violation of freedom is TRULY circular). My only two points.

JBArk

 

[benzyme]

oh yeah, there is no relationship between guns and firearms deaths .....:?

10 deaths in 100,000? for a population of over 300,000,000?

 

[Autodidactic]

oh yeah, there is no relationship between guns and firearms deaths .....:?

how could guns and firearms deaths be separate? Statistics are also misleading look into per capita deaths associated with firearms.

 

[benzyme]

Here you go, after 4 minutes of research:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/221032/international_gun_laws_show_firearm.html?cat=17

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

http://www.videojug.com/interview/international-gun-law-comparisons-2

But I am certain this will not convince you, for your argument is (also?) circular... Have your guns, but for god's sake, acknowledge that statistically people with guns are more likely to kill with guns than those who have no guns, and that gun ownership creates a freedom at the expense of another ( EDIT: and hence, the argument that banning guns is a violation of freedom is TRULY circular). My only two points.

JBArk

no, my argument is relative; as your argument doesn't take population into account.



and again, it's easy to point fingers in a society where the gov't babies you with social programs. even the homeless get free health-care in Canada.

 

[jbark]

however, you don't have any statistical evidence showing that a person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone.

I don't have any evidence that states that a given person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone, but I can prove that "statistically", they are far, far more likely to. (see above) Please don't make me explain stats to you Benzyme - they are NEVER about individual instances, but rather about graphing probability.

JBArk

 

[benzyme]

you should work for an automobile insurance company.
that's pretty much their line of thinking

 

[endlessness]

10 deaths in 100,000? for a population of over 300,000,000?

Ahm what?

That graph is just one example of the very obvious relationship between more guns = more gun related violence, which I cant see how you can deny. And notice it is about 'intentional deaths', the accidental ones are not counted, so obviously the numbers are higher.

But no matter what the numbers are in absolute terms, the interesting fact is the comparative relationship. I dont see how you talking about USA having a big population changes the basic facts, it is a proportional number not absolute, hence the 'per 100,000'

 

[jbark]

you should work for an automobile insurance company.

Maybe I do.:shock: :d :? 8)

 

[Autodidactic]

however, you don't have any statistical evidence showing that a person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone.

I don't have any evidence that states that a given person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone, but I can prove that "statistically", they are far, far more likely too. (see above) Please don't make me explain stats to you Benzyme - they are NEVER about individual instances, but rather about graphing probability.

JBArk

wow man, so you are basically saying if a person has a toilet seat they are far more likely to kill someone using that said toilet seat then someone that doesn't own a toilet seat.

 

[benzyme]

a person with alcohol under the influence of alcohol is more likely going to kill someone without alcohol who drank no alcohol, than a person without alcohol who drank no alcohol.

 

[benzyme]

 

[jbark]

however, you don't have any statistical evidence showing that a person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone.

I don't have any evidence that states that a given person in legal possession of a firearm is likely going to go shoot someone, but I can prove that "statistically", they are far, far more likely too. (see above) Please don't make me explain stats to you Benzyme - they are NEVER about individual instances, but rather about graphing probability.

JBArk

wow man, so you are basically saying if a person has a toilet seat they are far more likely to kill someone using that said toilet seat then someone that doesn't own a toilet seat.

NO. But good point. But in making that point, are you somehow asserting that a toilet seat is as dangerous as a gun? Because I might disagree with that. But then you'd disagree with me. And I would disagree with you. And one of us would get so frustrated they would rip the seat from their porcelain throne and bash the closest person's head in with it. So maybe we should just quit while we're ahead.

JBArk

 

[jbark]

Good thing I am thick-skinned, or I might take these personal jibes personally.:d Love y'all anyway, even if you mistake thick skin for being thick.

JBArk

 

[Cheeto]

A person with a gun can kill something with a gun. A person without a gun cannot kill something with a gun.

so take away the gun and you have the knife, take away the knife and you have any object you can kill someone with. I made some good points which got completly ignored by the ones claiming guns should be banned.

what you fail to understand is that criminals don't care about gun laws, they will have a gun anyway. Then you also have a government which can easily control a population that can't fight back at all. So really, your saying ban the guns, make it easier for everyone to become slaves by thier governments, and victoms by criminals.


would you rather get shot and killed by a criminal breaking into your house because you don't have a gun, or shoot back at the criminal and have a chance for survival?

im glad i don't have to worry about this though, this is my last statement on this topic. Where i stand now is, i would rather die than kill....and though i would like to see the human race succeed, its not the most important thing to me, life will exist without earthlings.