[Politics]The Right to Arm Bears in a Crowded Theater

[Fuchs]

If you were not allowed to drink to excess we'd have a ton less violence. Yes, prohibition didn't work back then - but that doesn't mean we should not do anything against alcohol abuse. Are you really telling me that just because you can't keep everyone from drinking we shouldn't even try to prevent anyone from drinking? Doesn't that sound a lot like "some criminals will always have guns, so don't try to outlaw them"?

I know a fair number of places in the states that do try to inhibit some drinking; dry counties, not before or at work, not while driving or adjacent to driving, etc.

Emphasis on try. Just because it doesn't work all the time is no reason to ban all alchohol - or stop all preventive measures. Same for firearms. The vast majority of gun owners do not harm anyone. There's no reason to punish them just because a few abuse them.

[Fuchs]

but that doesn't mean we should not do anything against alcohol abuse. Are you really telling me that just because you can't keep everyone from drinking we shouldn't even try to prevent anyone from drinking? ... hypocrism.

At this point you are flat out ignoring what people have already told you.

It has been mentioned that alcohol IS restricted and limited successfully in various ways. People would ALSO like to restrict GUNS in various ways and those countries that do benefit.

You are flat out arguing the case against yourself despite the fact that someone already pointed that out to you. Why? Typing with one hand while wanking off your metal bullet dildo with the other. That's my theory.

Some restrictions? Sure. I don't get why you let criminals buy guns and gun shows. I don't get why you don't require better background checks for buying guns. But flat-out banning guns? That's not right.

If you're not mentally ill and are no criminal you shouldn't be prevented from owning a gun if you so desire.

[PhoneLobster]

But your example your own damn stupid example with alcohol was a case where people who werent mentally ill or criminal were restricted from accessing alcohol purely as an attempted measure to reduce violence in general.

That is in fact an example directly COUNTER to your desire to ONLY restrict GUNS based on those two things.

You don't get to use examples of something being restricted MORE than the restrictions you want as part of an argument for LESS restrictions. That's fucking insanity.

Or you know, really really intellectually dishonest. I don't think it especially matters at this point whether you are lying to yourself. What matters is that you are lying to everyone else too. And people are sick of that sort of shit and the piles of dead children it results in.

[Fuchs]

I don't give a damn about suicides. Want to kill yourself? Go ahead.

That's terrible. The vast majority of suicide attempts, and by vast I mean more than 95% are performed by people who feel very sad in an extremely transient fashion. Suicide is a public health problem. People get urges to kill themselves all the time, and if they have the opportunity to act on those urges at the moment they have them we have an entirely senselessly wasted life.

So what? People risk their life in various ways. If you own a gun and keep ammo at home and then kill yourself because you feel sad for an evening then that's your own fault. Darwin at work. Better that, though, than you blowing your house and your neighbours up by committing suicide by natural gas stoven.

I don't see why I should not be able to own a gun just so some idiot doesn't kill himself with his gun. Same as I don't see why private swimming pools should be outlawed just because some idiots drown in them.

Yes, people kill themselves. Yes, that's a tragedy - I still remember, 30 years later, the cry when a childhood friend staying with us for a vacation was told her mother threw herself in front of a train, we were around 10 years old or so. But I'd rather live in a country with more suicides and more freedom than in a country where, out of fear of people killing themselves, stuff gets banned. Because once you start that way, it's a slippery slope. If guns get banned to prevent suicides, what's next to keep people from dieing through their own faults? Cigarettes is a logical step. Alcohol too. Overeating too. Mountain climbing? Parachuting? Mandatory psych exams?

At which point do we realize that by keeping one idiot from a suicide we also prevent a lot of people from enjoying their life?

[Username17]

Emphasis on try. Just because it doesn't work all the time is no reason to ban all alchohol - or stop all preventive measures. Same for firearms. The vast majority of gun owners do not harm anyone. There's no reason to punish them just because a few abuse them.

Wat. Did you honestly just make the argument that whether or not something works is not an argument about whether or not to do it? Because that is some serious Kantian bullshit.

-Username17

[Fuchs]

Emphasis on try. Just because it doesn't work all the time is no reason to ban all alchohol - or stop all preventive measures. Same for firearms. The vast majority of gun owners do not harm anyone. There's no reason to punish them just because a few abuse them.

Wat. Did you honestly just make the argument that whether or not something works is not an argument about whether or not to do it? Because that is some serious Kantian bullshit.

-Username17

It's morally wrong to punish people who did no wrong just so you can prevent others from abusing firearms. Just because a few people kill others by driving recklessly doesn't mean cars are banned. It means you install measures to reduce those cases while still letting everyone who measures up drive. That's a driving license for cars, and better background checks for firearms, for example. There's also technical measures that can be taken - gun locks, speed limiters - and mandatory courses.

But telling me that I can't have a gun just so Asshole X over there doesn't go nuts with his gun? That's wrong. That's wrong on the same level as telling you, Frank, that you are not allowed to drink because your neighbour beats his family when he drinks.

[Username17]

But I'd rather live in a country with more suicides and more freedom than in a country where, out of fear of people killing themselves, stuff gets banned.

Uh... then why the fuck do you live in Switzerland? That's a country where the police can and do literally harass people for hanging their laundry outside. The idea that you live in a country with "more freedom" is fucking laughable.

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

Some restrictions? Sure. I don't get why you let criminals buy guns and gun shows. I don't get why you don't require better background checks for buying guns. But flat-out banning guns? That's not right.

I disagree with that for the same reason that I agree with traffic laws and driving on the right in the USA and on the left in the UK. There may not be anything morally wrong about sticking to one side or the other in a vacuum--it's a rather arbitrary distinction, when it comes down to it--but once you get out in the real world where there is other people and stuff you end up with a lot of senseless deaths if you ignore such things. And ignoring that fact is reprobate, imo.

Also, I'd be fine with ditching alcohol if I thought it'd actually work. If for whatever reason the US decides to give prohibition another go it won't be me keeping the bootleggers in business. I'd rather give guns a go though first--I've inherited a whole mess of them over the years and I could use the spare change I'd get from a buy-back program.

[Ancient History]

This isn't really hard: if guns are not present, then there is no possibility space where the guns can be fired and hurt or kill someone. If working guns are present, even if secured by any means possible, there exists the potential however minute for gun violence and death to occur. No guns, no gun violence. Guns, maybe gun violence.

So the argument is not whether or not guns kill and injure people - they very plainly do. The only argument is at what level is gun violence and death acceptable to the United States as a society - and sadly, that is pretty fucking high. Our continued tolerance for recreational firearms, up to and including assault rifles, is achieved despite high-media exposure mass shootings.

And pro-gun politics in the US pushes the idea that any restriction on firearms is to be fought against. This isn't a matter where reasonable discourse and middle ground has been found and agreed on, unless you count silenced shotguns. Because for all the possible legitimate needs for firearms - personal protection, hunting, recreational shooting at ranges - no one needs an assault rifle, or a concealed carry permit, or even a fucking elephant gun.

[Fuchs]

But I'd rather live in a country with more suicides and more freedom than in a country where, out of fear of people killing themselves, stuff gets banned.

Uh... then why the fuck do you live in Switzerland? That's a country where the police can and do literally harass people for hanging their laundry outside. The idea that you live in a country with "more freedom" is fucking laughable.

-Username17

Did you actually just try to make a case about the level of personal freedoms in Switzerland by dragging up some edge case without any detail, probably an urban legend or some distorted news bit?

Sheesh, how pathetic can you get?

I live in Switzerland because we have a semi-direct democracy, meaning we get to vote about a ton of laws and taxes. I don't have to choose every 4 years between the guys who hate women rights but like guns and the guys who like gay people being able to marry but also want to spend millions on erecting a deep harbor crane in a landlocked country for one year as some "Art project". I can vote on weapon laws, marriage laws, new taxes, and public building projects.

I like living in a country where I can download a movie or a song for personal use without commiting a crime.

I like living in a country where members of the government and parliament use trains to commute, sitting in their seat like everyone else.

I like living in a country with a working mandatory health insurance.

I like living in a country where "compromise" is a political ideal.

I like living in a country where we can vote whether or not we have an army.

I like living in a country where the religious nuts have not much if any power.

I am not sure I like living in a country where a bunch of Mossad agents trying to bug an arab group where caught by the police because an old woman reported a car standing idle with the engine running, at night, but it sure was funny.

It's not a perfect country, not by any means, but it's good enough. And it would be a lot worse if we gave in to fear mongering and started banning all fun but risky activities just so we have a couple less idiots kill themselves each year.

[Fuchs]

Also, I'd be fine with ditching alcohol if I thought it'd actually work. If for whatever reason the US decides to give prohibition another go it won't be me keeping the bootleggers in business. I'd rather give guns a go though first--I've inherited a whole mess of them over the years and I could use the spare change I'd get from a buy-back program.

Banning alcohol would reduce the number of alcohol-related death and injuries. It would not reduce them to zero, but it would reduce them. I'd call that "working".

Banning guns would not reduce the gun-related killings to zero (too many guns in circulation, no central register, impossible to get them all confiscated), but it would reduce them. I'd call that "working" too.

The question is simply, as Ancient History pointed out, how many deaths do we accept so we can drink and own guns.

[Ancient History]

Aside -> the best way to discredit Rush Limbaugh is to quote Rush Limbaugh:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... im/266436/

[Fuchs]

This isn't really hard: if guns are not present, then there is no possibility space where the guns can be fired and hurt or kill someone. If working guns are present, even if secured by any means possible, there exists the potential however minute for gun violence and death to occur. No guns, no gun violence. Guns, maybe gun violence.

So the argument is not whether or not guns kill and injure people - they very plainly do. The only argument is at what level is gun violence and death acceptable to the United States as a society - and sadly, that is pretty fucking high. Our continued tolerance for recreational firearms, up to and including assault rifles, is achieved despite high-media exposure mass shootings.

And pro-gun politics in the US pushes the idea that any restriction on firearms is to be fought against. This isn't a matter where reasonable discourse and middle ground has been found and agreed on, unless you count silenced shotguns. Because for all the possible legitimate needs for firearms - personal protection, hunting, recreational shooting at ranges - no one needs an assault rifle, or a concealed carry permit, or even a fucking elephant gun.

Mass shootings are not the issue. They get media attention, but they are a drop in the bucket.

That the US can't find a middle ground is a problem of their political system. And maybe too many cases of what we call "salami tactic" over here - working on eradicating something piece by piece, "compromise" by "compromise".

I'd not be happy with any "sensible measures taken to make sure no abortion is done lightly" because I know the real goal of those behind that is to outlaw abortion totally.

I think gun owners in the US think the same with regards to gun control - they fear "the other side" won't stop until guns are outlawed, so why compromise at all if you think the other side is not negotiating in good faith?

[DSMatticus]

So what? People risk their life in various ways. If you own a gun and keep ammo at home and then kill yourself because you feel sad for an evening then that's your own fault. Darwin at work.

Please do not describe human deaths in terms of appeals to Darwinism. It tells us that you are a heartless human being who refuses to consider the well-being of individuals or society (and therefore have no place talking about what is better for individuals or society) and it also tells us you are a fucking idiot who doesn't understand anything about the topics (suicide or genetics) you are discussing (and as an idiot, you therefore have no place talking about what is better for individuals or society). It is a double whammy of self-invalidation.

Really, if you ever find yourself hearing about someone who died and would have otherwise gone on to live a happy, ordinary life your thoughts should not seriously be "Darwin strikes true, all is right in the universe!" That would make you an honest to god monster. The event that actually happened is a tragedy; someone is dead who would have otherwise lived an ordinary life. Now that tragedy is distant and impersonal to us, so it's hard to get worked up about on an emotional level. So things like the Darwin Awards exist, and can be funny in a "wow, really?' kind of way. But that is a joke. You are not supposed to actually believe anything that happened there is natural selection at work. That's stupid, because it isn't. That's terrible, because even if natural selection were happening; that's human suffering and "natural selection happening" is not morally superior to "alleviating human suffering."

[Fuchs]

So what? People risk their life in various ways. If you own a gun and keep ammo at home and then kill yourself because you feel sad for an evening then that's your own fault. Darwin at work.

Please do not describe human deaths in terms of appeals to Darwinism. It tells us that you are a heartless human being who refuses to consider the well-being of individuals or society (and therefore have no place talking about what is better for individuals or society) and it also tells us you are a fucking idiot who doesn't understand anything about the topics (suicide or genetics) you are discussing (and as an idiot, you therefore have no place talking about what is better for individuals or society). It is a double whammy of self-invalidation.

Really, if you ever find yourself hearing about someone who died and would have otherwise gone on to live a happy, ordinary life your thoughts should not seriously be "Darwin strikes true, all is right in the universe!" That would make you an honest to god monster. The event that actually happened is a tragedy; someone is dead who would have otherwise lived an ordinary life. Now that tragedy is distant and impersonal to us, so it's hard to get worked up about on an emotional level. So things like the Darwin Awards exist, and can be funny in a "wow, really?' kind of way. But that is a joke. You are not supposed to actually believe anything that happened there is natural selection at work. That's stupid, because it isn't. That's terrible, because even if natural selection were happening; that's human suffering and "natural selection happening" is not morally superior to "alleviating human suffering."

I don't actually think "Go, natural selection!", but I don't really care much about people who risk their life, and then lose it. Go mountain climing? You know the risk. Go skydiving? Base jumping? Diving? All risky. Not much empathy here for anyone who dies there. Same with guns. Keeping a gun and ammo at home is a risk if you have mental problems. No one forces anyone to keep a gun at home (apparently with the exception of some county in the US where that's a stupid law), so why should I care that much about it?

[Username17]

Did you actually just try to make a case about the level of personal freedoms in Switzerland by dragging up some edge case without any detail, probably an urban legend or some distorted news bit?

No. I chose the laundry issue because while a friend of mine was staying in Switzerland for a bike race, the police literally came to his door and forced him to take down his drying laundry. The idea that you live in a high freedom country in Switzerland is god damn laughable.

If I was going to cite a news story, I would probably bring up the fact that your vaunted direct democracy is literally and specifically capable of having the the majority decide that you are not allowed to build the kinds of roofs you want to build. Not for safety reasons, just because you don't have the personal freedom to decide that you want a minaret on your building if the majority of the country thinks it's too Turkish looking. That's not what personal freedom looks like. Personal freedom is when the individual has the right to choose what kind of roof they want to put on the building they are having built, rather than the government. But you don't live in a country like that. You live in a country where the state explicitly has the right to decide when, where, and how you are allowed to express yourself for any reason or no reason at all.

-Username17

[Whipstitch]

The question is simply, as Ancient History pointed out, how many deaths do we accept so we can drink and own guns.

Nah, sorry, I'd rather try to be like the UK and slash our suicide rate instead.

[Korgan0]

For fuck's sake, if someone has mental problems, you heartless shitbag, they honestly cannot be trusted to do anything rationally, let alone dispose of what they could well see as their only way out.

[The Vigilante]

So what? People risk their life in various ways. If you own a gun and keep ammo at home and then kill yourself because you feel sad for an evening then that's your own fault. Darwin at work.

Please do not describe human deaths in terms of appeals to Darwinism. It tells us that you are a heartless human being who refuses to consider the well-being of individuals or society (and therefore have no place talking about what is better for individuals or society) and it also tells us you are a fucking idiot who doesn't understand anything about the topics (suicide or genetics) you are discussing (and as an idiot, you therefore have no place talking about what is better for individuals or society). It is a double whammy of self-invalidation.

I am really not surprised that he would say such things. Most Swiss I have met are individualistic and uncaring to the point of being borderline sociopaths. I have met a few and I have never seen them or heard of them expressing compassion for a fellow human being. I don't really think they are all like him but it fits my experience with his countrymen.

[Kaelik]

It's morally wrong to punish people who did no wrong just so you can prevent others from abusing firearms. Just because a few people kill others by driving recklessly doesn't mean cars are banned. It means you install measures to reduce those cases while still letting everyone who measures up drive. That's a driving license for cars, and better background checks for firearms, for example. There's also technical measures that can be taken - gun locks, speed limiters - and mandatory courses.

You are an idiot. All those measures that we implement to limit reckless driving like licenses and speed limits are fucking punishments in the exact same way (to a different degree) as banning cars.

It is of course obviously morally right to impose a "punishment" also known as a limit (which includes a limit of zero driving) universally on all people because we can't determine which ones are going to be the ones that need it.

The FFA told pilots over 60 that they are all retired, because some of them might have heart attacks and die while flying, and they didn't want to deal with it. And when the old men sued because they were in great health and it was totally some other guy who was going to die of a heart attack they were told to go home and cry themselves to sleep in their forced retirement because it is morally fucking right to impose such restrictions on everyone when you can't tell who is what.

So the only possible relevant factors in deciding whether guns should be banned are:

1) What are the negative consequences of banning all the guns? (Not being specific here because team gun nut refuses to even claim any benefit of any kind in owning their guns.)
2) What are the positive consequences in reduced murders of banning guns?
3) How feasible is it?

And none of those is "it is wrong to not let me have a gun because my neighbor may shoot someone" because in fact, we don't know whether it is your neighbor or you that is going to shoot someone, but we do know that if neither of you has a gun the murder rate is drastically reduced and absolutely no negative consequences of any kind occur.

[DSMatticus]

I don't actually think "Go, natural selection!", but I don't really care much about people who risk their life, and then lose it. Go mountain climing? You know the risk. Go skydiving? Base jumping? Diving? All risky. Not much empathy here for anyone who dies there. Same with guns. Keeping a gun and ammo at home is a risk if you have mental problems. No one forces anyone to keep a gun at home (apparently with the exception of some county in the US where that's a stupid law), so why should I care that much about it?

You are a fucking moron. You cannot invoke THE MAGIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to argue that reducing needless deaths is unnecessary. Here, let me do it: we don't actually need vehicle safety regulations. People who choose to buy and use cars know the risks, so MAGIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY tells us that regulating vehicles is unnecessary. Saving those lives is unnecessary, because people could also just not take risky behaviors.

Another: we don't actually need food safety regulation. Who would eat food from someone they didn't trust? That's obviously a big risk. So MAGIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY tells us we don't need to stop companies from poisoning people with bad beef, those people can just die for taking such risks with their food.

Another: we don't actually need police to patrol the streets, just to respond to house calls. People who choose to go out into public know the risks of crime, so MAGIC OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY tells us we don't need to protect them from the results of that decision. And when they get mugged/murdered, well, they should have fucked off to the woods to live a life of solitude and safety away from their fellow man.

Your arguments leads to the conclusion that when someone decides to subject themself to dangerous circumstances, there is never ever ever ever any compelling reason to reduce the danger of the circumstances. All you actually have to do is point out that that person somewhere along the line made a decision that contributed to their death, even if they didn't intend for that decision to contribute to their death. So people who die in car accidents chose to drive. Since they chose to drive, there's no compelling reason to discuss car safety. Just how stupid they are for wanting to go places quickly.

And when someone has a really bad breakup or divorce and they're worried about how they might only ever get to see their kids once a month and they contemplate and attempt suicide for the first time in their life, and succeed because guns... They're the ones that made the decision to get married and buy a gun, so they're the ones that accepted the risk of life blowing up in their face and committing suicide in a fit of depression as a result.

And when some homosexual teen is being tormented at school everyday by jackasses, or some teenage girl has her boyfriend leak her nude photos everywhere, and they break into their parents' guns and kill themself, they're the ones that decided to... hm. This one's hard. Help me out, Fuchs. What did these two hypothetical people do wrong that justifies lack of concern over their death? (If you actually answer on the 'nude photo' one that "yes, teenagers should die for making poor decisions," that's dangerously close to advocating for the extinction of humanity. Also you're a monster.)

Trying to justify preventable deaths on the back of personal responsibility is fucking disgusting. It will always be disgusting. It's not even a coherent argument, because you can pretty much always point to some decision the victim made that contributed to the statistical likelihood of their death, so all you're really saying is "these are deaths I choose not to care about, so I want to blame them wholly on the victim in an entirely arbitrary, irrational way. All those other deaths I want prevented, I blame on the environment, so we can fix them."

[ishy]

I am really not surprised that he would say such things. Most Swiss I have met are individualistic and uncaring to the point of being borderline sociopaths. I have met a few and I have never seen them or heard of them expressing compassion for a fellow human being. I don't really think they are all like him but it fits my experience with his countrymen.

You are a dumbass.

["I'd not be happy with any "sensible measures taken to make sure no abortion is done lightly" because I know the real goal of those behind that is to outlaw abortion totally. "]

["I like living in a country where "compromise" is a political ideal."]

So is compromise being the political ideal a good or a bad thing?

Banning alcohol would reduce the number of alcohol-related death and injuries. It would not reduce them to zero, but it would reduce them. I'd call that "working".

Banning guns would not reduce the gun-related killings to zero (too many guns in circulation, no central register, impossible to get them all confiscated), but it would reduce them. I'd call that "working" too.

The question is simply, as Ancient History pointed out, how many deaths do we accept so we can drink and own guns.

That is stupid. Alcohol has many benefits even when we are not talking about drinking it.

And hell lets quote the BBC here:

BBC[/url]]It's still not entirely clear how alcohol reduces your risk of CHD, but it's now known a large proportion of the risk reduction is due to moderate alcohol intake raising 'good' cholesterol concentrations in the blood, so reducing the risk of blood clots.

What health benefits are there for owning a murder stick?

[RobbyPants]

And hell lets quote the BBC here:

BBC[/url]]It's still not entirely clear how alcohol reduces your risk of CHD, but it's now known a large proportion of the risk reduction is due to moderate alcohol intake raising 'good' cholesterol concentrations in the blood, so reducing the risk of blood clots.

What health benefits are there for owning a murder stick?

They keep you safe from other people with murder sticks! ...oh, wait.

[Koumei]

Not to divert from the topic, but given the topic is "The majority of people think Fuchs is a Fuching* moron/monster" I think it's okay.

Wat. Did you honestly just make the argument that whether or not something works is not an argument about whether or not to do it? Because that is some serious Kantian bullshit.

Can you explain this one? I thought Kant's thing was "You ought to do what everybody ought to do" and this would lead to "Everybody ought to go around not shooting people and denying others the ability to shoot people, so I shall not shoot people, and deny others the ability to (as an individual by not owning guns for others to use, as a society/policy maker by banning them)". What am I missing?

*See what I did there? How awesome was that!

[Username17]

Kant thinks that once you've derived your universal laws, you have to abide by them universally. And universally means universally. As in "without regards to whether it would work in the situation you are in". Kantians actually think that whether you are allowed to lie to Nazis about Jews hiding in your basement is a problem.

-Username17