Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[GlyphGryph]

Gun laws affect crime.

All of them do? Positively or negatively?

You know, abortion effects crime too! (with a much stronger correlation than gun control, actually)
Heck, gay marriage probably effects crime. Everything that changes the way our society works probably effects crime to some extent or another.

What's your point?

It still doesn't change the fact that a guy, following the law and carrying his gun in the park, isn't going to effect you.

First off, it's affects, not effects.

Point? (And I kind of file like you should be pointing to ToonyMan here, since he was the one who wrote that. I simply responded working off the same definitions. Hell, I was even considering looking it up and emphasizing it if it was wrong. But then I realized that was stupid, and didn't add to the conversation. So, good job.)

Second, legal carry does not dictate legal use. Someone can use a legally purchased, legally owned firearm to commit an illegal act. IIRC, the dude down in Arizona who gunned down Rep. Giffords and her staff legally purchased his weapons.

Point?

Third, lest we forget that this has real-world implications, somebody went trigger-happy at a Nevada IHOP just a little while ago. 3 dead, 9 wounded + the shooter (self-inflicted). At least two of the dead were military. Was the gun legally purchased? Were the dead and wounded armed? Would it have made a difference? Is there any way to actually tell?

Point?

[Leafsnail]

Leafsnail, you or someone you know getting shot is probably still illegal. Imagine that.

I know.  That doesn't change the fact that I or someone I know was shot.  It can be pretty unpleasant or lethal even if the act was illegal.

Someone legally carrying a gun in the park DOESN'T effect you.

...Unless they shoot I or someone I know.

Heck, I very much doubt it even increases the odds of you getting shot. You getting shot does effect you, yes. Notice which one of those there is no disagreement over the illegality of? Why, yes, it's the one that effects you.

Bolded?  What you should be arguing.

You're created something of a false dichotomy - it's clear that the former could contribute to the latter.  I was trying to think of an example to help this point but you provided one later in your post.

Sure, you could argue that gun legalisation doesn't increase crime, but don't argue that it doesn't effect me.

If it doesn't increase crime, in other words if it doesn't increase the likelihood of people getting shot... exactly what is the basis of your "logic" that if effects you, exactly?

I'm saying that you could argue it, not that I agree with that position.  You can actually back up that view with statistics.

This is just good sense. The law is precise, tailored to what it's actually supposed to prevent. I'd support this sort of logic being extended to those with car keys as well.

But someone drinking and driving doesn't affect you, does it?  Them just driving home drunk out of their mind harms noone.

[GlyphGryph]

But someone drinking and driving doesn't affect you, does it?  Them just driving home drunk out of their minds harms noone.

Someone carrying a holstered weapon in a park does not effect me.
<similar situation to>
Someone drinking in a bar doesn't affect me.


Someone waving a gun around with their finger on the trigger? Yeah, that has a good chance of affecting me. That's why it is also illegal pretty much everywhere.
<similar situation to>
Someone driving on the road while drunk? Same thing.

We ban the behaviour that is ACTUALLY risky enough to have a chance of ACTUALLY affecting people, not the one that is overwhelmingly safe. Do you see the difference between these two?

As I've said before, I'm not opposed to gun laws that are based around logic - for example, laws against brandishing a weapon. There's an actual risk there, one where there is a chance of effecting other people while following the law if it were legal. Just having a gun on you does not imply the same risk - in fact, there is no chance of hurting people while following the law. It doesn't effect anyone else. Do you understand?

[DJ]

The way I see it guns are kind of like cars - they're highly dangerous bits of metal commonly used to compensate for something. To drive around in a car you need to go through mandatory car operating training who's main focus is safety, and you have to prove that you're sound mentally and physically. I don't really understand why anyone would be vehemently opposed to having the same measures apply to guns.

[Aqizzar]

We ban the behaviour that is ACTUALLY risky enough to have a chance of ACTUALLY affecting people, not the one that is overwhelmingly safe. Do you see the difference between these two?

I'll try to head this off by stating what I think his argument is.  This isn't my argument, it's just what I think he's going for.  Yes, the act itself of carrying a holstered gun in a public park is not dangerous.  However, it could turn into a person doing something dangerous with it in one second, with no way for the law (or anyone) to prevent that.  Therefor, if you can't carry the gun the safe way in the first place, it can't escalate into something unsafe.  I don't think it's a good answer, but it is a logically consistent one.

Besides, I never like analogies to drunk driving or any other kind of activity, since every situation is it's own being.  Especially in this case, since getting drunk takes a little while and people can stop you from getting in your car, while it takes one moment to pull out (or drop) a holstered gun.

[RedKing]

First off, it's affects, not effects.

Point? (And I kind of file like you should be pointing to ToonyMan here, since he was the one who wrote that. I simply responded working off the same definitions. Hell, I was even considering looking it up and emphasizing it if it was wrong. But then I realized that was stupid, and didn't add to the conversation. So, good job.)

Fine. Toony? It's affects. Carry on.

Second, legal carry does not dictate legal use. Someone can use a legally purchased, legally owned firearm to commit an illegal act. IIRC, the dude down in Arizona who gunned down Rep. Giffords and her staff legally purchased his weapons.

Point?

Do I actually have to explain this one? You stated that the right of legal carry in a public place has absolutely no effect on anyone else, because shooting someone is illegal. I'm pointing out that B does not necessarily follow A. Legal carry does not guarantee legal use.

Hypothetical situation: Person A goes to the park legally armed. Gets into a heated argument with person B. Shoots person B, not premeditated. If weapons were barred from the park, this would not have occurred. Ergo, a crime occurred which would have been prevented by a no-carry law.

I realize that this is not a common situation, and this one has been tailored to fit the point, but the fact remains that you cannot argue that an individual's right to carry has no bearing on the public around them, or that only people who are already criminals shoot other people.

Third, lest we forget that this has real-world implications, somebody went trigger-happy at a Nevada IHOP just a little while ago. 3 dead, 9 wounded + the shooter (self-inflicted). At least two of the dead were military. Was the gun legally purchased? Were the dead and wounded armed? Would it have made a difference? Is there any way to actually tell?

Point?

My point is that this isn't some abstract, pie-in-the-sky debate. This shit matters, because people get shot in this country every single day. In many cases, laws wouldn't have helped. But certainly there are a significant portion that deserve to be examined because they could have been prevented. More stringent background checks. Waiting periods. A unified, computerized database system.

Hell, I have to wait longer to adopt a fucking puppy and take it home than I do to purchase a .44 Magnum and take it home.

[GlyphGryph]

My point is that this isn't some abstract, pie-in-the-sky debate. This shit matters, because people get shot in this country every single day.

I agree. I still don't understand the point of what you said, or why you said it.

Two years ago, a man knifed dozens of people on the subway, killing seven. Clearly, there is a direct logical connection between this and the fact that knives must be highly regulated. I mean, I've got a longer waiting period for adopting a puppy than I do for buying a knife! In fact, I could walk across the street and buy one right now.

You are certainly saying a lot of things, that is true, though. But damned if I can figure out if there's actually somewhere where you are disagreeing with me.

Yes, the act itself of carrying a holstered gun in a public park is not dangerous.  However, it could turn into a person doing something dangerous with it in one second, with no way for the law (or anyone) to prevent that.  Therefor, if you can't carry the gun the safe way in the first place, it can't escalate into something unsafe.  I don't think it's a good answer, but it is a logically consistent one.

I'm going to have to think on this for a little while. I'm not sure if I think its an argument that the original act can be said to cause an affect so much as enable another act that does, but that may not be meaningful. Toony, is this in fact what you are arguing?

[Leafsnail]

Firstly: I'm not Toony.

Someone carrying a holstered weapon in a park does not effect me.
<similar situation to>
Someone drinking in a bar doesn't affect me.

Someone waving a gun around with their finger on the trigger? Yeah, that has a good chance of affecting me. That's why it is also illegal pretty much everywhere.
<similar situation to>
Someone driving on the road while drunk? Same thing.

I'm not saying they're analagous.  I am pointing out that the fact that an action doesn't always affect someone doesn't mean you absolutely cannot control it by law (in this case: it's possible to drive home safely in spite of being blind drunk, but we regulate this behaviour anyway due to the possibility of people being hurt by the drunk driver).

You're saying that lax gun laws wouldn't increase crime, and that therefore it is analagous to drinking in a bar - I am saying this is the point you should be arguing and backing up with evidence, not your blanket "We can never regulate an action unless it's already hurt someone".

As I've said before, I'm not opposed to gun laws that are based around logic - for example, laws against brandishing a weapon. There's an actual risk there, one where there is a chance of effecting other people while following the law if it were legal. Just having a gun on you does not imply the same risk - in fact, there is no chance of hurting people while following the law. It doesn't effect anyone else. Do you understand?

Bolded?  I agree mostly.

On the other hand, not everyone follows the law, especially if their judgement is being impaired in some way.  IE someone can be legally owning a gun and break the law in order to shoot me or someone I know.  So this very much does affect me, and I'll again ask you to support your point that lax guns laws reduce crime instead of this argument.

[GlyphGryph]

So this very much does affect me, and I'll again ask you to support your point that lax guns laws reduce crime instead of this argument.

I don't support lax gun laws. I support very tight, strictly enforced but narrowly targeted gun laws, that seek primarily to discourage or minimize gun crime. I believe such policy should be developed after extended research and study, and I do not pretend to know which policies are most likely to work in that regard.

I also feel the culture and traditions around gun ownership are important, and that the danger of an activity isn't the sole factor to be considered when coming up with a reasonable approach for dealing with the safety issues inherent with dangerous tools. I treat the issue the same way I trait pools and cars, but with the added consideration that it is a constitutional right, and I believe that if we decide that we are better off with the right removed, we should do it the proper way.

I do NOT approve of demonizing guns and gun-owners, eliminating guns completely because some people don't like them, or a wide variety of specific gun legislation. I don't particularly approve of the NRA or any of the various anti-gun lobbies. I think both sides spread emotionally laden misinformation.

If I were to support, say, disallowing public carry of handguns, I would do so not because the public carry affected you, which I still believe it does not, but because it makes it harder to enforce other laws that are worth enforcing. But this is a dangerous precedent, and one I wouldn't take lightly - there would have to be good evidence in your favour before I consider it worthwhile.

[DeathsDisciple]

Plus the stuff your grandfather earned, plus the gains it has made since his time through no effort or risk on your behalf. Yeah, I do disagree, but that's fine, I just want to get a better understanding of where modern objectivists stand on a few things, since traditional objectivism contradicts itself in its most basic premises. So I'm asking a few of the key questions that stand out as being extremely naive and slightly schizophrenic in Rands works to see if fifty plus years has advanced objectivism towards becoming an actual philosophy at all.

So the list now would be:
Do you agree with taxation?
Should the state provide legal services, police forces, and armed forces?
(Modified)Should the state force people to be truthful?
Should pornography be regulated?
Should employment standards be regulated?
Should the state protect the individuals freedom to spend their currency, goods, or services however they wish?
Should socioeconomic status be determined by talent and effort, or birth?

Are you religious?
If yes, should usury be legal?

Are you an objectivist?
If yes, do you acknowledge that forces other than physical compulsion exist?

And another new one: Do you acknowledge that there is a finite amount of wealth in circulation at any given moment in time (and a limit to how quickly new wealth can be created at that point)?

Taxation: Flat Tax; abolish IRS
If by "state" you mean Government, then yes. If you mean each individual (i.e. Alaska), then no.
The state should NOT force people to be truthful. 'Tis impossible. It impairs the 1st Amendment.
Pornography: You may see whatever you like. It is your choice, not the Government.
Employe Standards: The worker and the Boss must agree to the standards they agree on.
Should Gov. protect freedom?: Yes.
Socio-Status: Effort and talent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                       Personal Opinions:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Am I religious?: I am straying from the faith.
Am I an Objectist?: Yes.

 

[Aqizzar]

Taxation: Flat Tax; abolish IRS

Any tax system requires an agency to enforce it.  You can have your flat tax if you want, there would still need to be an IRS to collect it.

[DeathsDisciple]

So this very much does affect me, and I'll again ask you to support your point that lax guns laws reduce crime instead of this argument.

I don't support lax gun laws. I support very tight, strictly enforced but narrowly targeted gun laws, that seek primarily to discourage or minimize gun crime. I believe such policy should be developed after extended research and study, and I do not pretend to know which policies are most likely to work in that regard.

I also feel the culture and traditions around gun ownership are important, and that the danger of an activity isn't the sole factor to be considered when coming up with a reasonable approach for dealing with the safety issues inherent with dangerous tools. I treat the issue the same way I trait pools and cars, but with the added consideration that it is a constitutional right, and I believe that if we decide that we are better off with the right removed, we should do it the proper way.

I do NOT approve of demonizing guns and gun-owners, eliminating guns completely because some people don't like them, or a wide variety of specific gun legislation. I don't particularly approve of the NRA or any of the various anti-gun lobbies. I think both sides spread emotionally laden misinformation.

If I were to support, say, disallowing public carry of handguns, I would do so not because the public carry affected you, which I still believe it does not, but because it makes it harder to enforce other laws that are worth enforcing. But this is a dangerous precedent, and one I wouldn't take lightly - there would have to be good evidence in your favour before I consider it worthwhile.

I don't understand the argument with holsters and shit. I believe you can carry a concealed handgun. Don't shoot anybody (unless it is for self-defense), and we'll get along fine. Don't threaten people with it, and we'll get along fine. And think about the situations about where there is a damn Psychopath shooting everyone in sight. Don't you think it would be a little better outcome if someone had a gun to defend themself?

@Aquizzar:
The IRS is Illegal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

[Leafsnail]

If I were to support, say, disallowing public carry of handguns, I would do so not because the public carry affected you, which I still believe it does not, but because it makes it harder to enforce other laws that are worth enforcing.

Tautology.  An indirect effect is still an effect.

But this is a dangerous precedent, and one I wouldn't take lightly - there would have to be good evidence in your favour before I consider it worthwhile.

My point was just about shifting the nature of the argument, nothing else.  Most of your other points are too US centric for me to meaningfully respond.

I don't understand the argument with holsters and shit. I believe you can carry a concealed handgun. Don't shoot anybody (unless it is for self-defense), and we'll get along fine. Don't threaten people with it, and we'll get along fine. And think about the situations about where there is a damn Psychopath shooting everyone in sight. Don't you think it would be a little better outcome if someone had a gun to defend themself?

I believe you can not carry a concealed handgun.  Don't shoot anybody and we'll get along fine.

...Yeah if the world was perfect then the world would be perfect.

I'm not sure how often the psychopath situation arises nor how helpful mass armament would be in preventing it, but it clearly isn't the only possible situation that needs to be considered.

@Aquizzar:
The IRS is Illegal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Please summarise that two hour video.  I'm assuming you've watched it unlike the other sources you posted (y'know, like the one that contradicted your point).

As far as I can tell it's saying that all income tax is illegal.  Including the flat rate tax you're suggesting.

[DeathsDisciple]

I don't understand the argument with holsters and shit. I believe you can carry a concealed handgun. Don't shoot anybody (unless it is for self-defense), and we'll get along fine. Don't threaten people with it, and we'll get along fine. And think about the situations about where there is a damn Psychopath shooting everyone in sight. Don't you think it would be a little better outcome if someone had a gun to defend themself?

I believe you can not carry a concealed handgun.  Don't shoot anybody and we'll get along fine.

...Yeah if the world was perfect then the world would be perfect.

I'm not sure how often the psychopath situation arises nor how helpful mass armament would be in preventing it, but it clearly isn't the only possible situation that needs to be considered.

@Aquizzar:
The IRS is Illegal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Please summarise that two hour video.  I'm assuming you've watched it unlike the other sources you posted (y'know, like the one that contradicted your point).

As far as I can tell it's saying that all income tax is illegal.  Including the flat rate tax you're suggesting.

Leafsnail, Leafsnail, Leafsnail. The Psychopath part was an exaggeration; but I hope you understand my point. Not to be rude, but watch the video Leafsnail: you might learn something. And what link contradicted my point?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have found the link and removed it. Official Apology is in that post.

[GlyphGryph]

Leafsnail:
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on several issues. Among this, apparently, the meaning of the word effect.
(Also, RedKing, I looked it up. Effect is, in fact, the word we were looking for, and affect does, in fact, mean something completely different)