Because you referred to me specifically, I guess I should respond (DM= DN I guess, I mean no offense
)
Apologies for the typo.
"This person could be motivated by cold greed, or fiery passion. You just can't slap them all together and say that "only they" have the "mind set" to kill. Criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY KILL, not the other way around."
I particularly like this quote, Redshirt, because it illustrates the cost of arming every civilian. If every civilian is potentially a violent criminal, why would you seek to arm everyone, rather than limit potential liability?
Glad you appreciate it.
Your question seems rather rhetorical, so I will answer with a query: do you believe that guns possess an aspect of deterrence as well?
I fail to see, however, this direct connection between the categorization of people and what effects arming
everyone [??] would have on the state of peace in our nation.
You do, however, raise a question afterwards. This statement does have a fundamental flaw, however. Rather then simply rebuffing one faulty categorization, it rests on a foundation of absolute generalization. Indeed, it makes room for
no gun control whatsoever. I don't recall anyone over the course of this debate actually advocating a
suspension of all gun control, or, more alarmingly,
arming f*cking everyone. These would be properly classified as 'strawmen'.
Every time a criminal/offender is mentioned, it is assumed that that person armed themselves illegally. I would have you think about this: an honest citizen, armed to the teeth motivated by “fiery passion” pulls out his revolver, and whether it fires accidently or on purpose, kills. In any case, you yourself state that criminals are not their own special breed, and thus I postulate to you that a so-called “criminal” may just as likely purchase a gun legally as a so-called “civilian” (even if the criminal was not an offender until after committing the crime with that gun)
If you confine this conclusion to acts of passion, then you are correct. If, however, you include premeditated violation of the law, then I must disagree. Anyone who bothers to properly plan out a crime would be foolish to use a licensed firearm.
The lack of restraint was more what I was arguing against, than anything else Red (I am sorry I did not make that clear enough in my response, but that is what I stated my ideas to be for. Also, I am sure all of us were discussing firearms in the sense of those that are designed to kill or wound). The contention was also, started by PD, that the allowance of arms anywhere and everywhere is permissible. I think this is foolhardy. Without set limits on these so-called freedoms, anyone has the ability to oppress another’s freedoms. I personally like using firearms… but I believe they belong at the range (or hunting park if you so choose), or at home (when not in use) when they are completely inert. I think it would be foolish to arm everyone regardless of weapon type or the ilk given the above and below reasons. I still believe that even the most highly experienced and calm citizen, given good training with a firearm, is still liable to act selfishly with that weapon. Our police and military are not perfect and have many accidents, and I thus think it would be unwise to expect otherwise from a civilian (and in fact we can expect much worse). Likewise, it is not our (a civilian’s) job description, and we are not trained in our life’s work to wield a weapon and protect the peace, so what gives a civilian the same right as a police officer to discharge a weapon against another individual?
Intriguing. I agree with much of what you say (though I admit the urge to tl;dr it), though I find it interesting that you would abridge "so-called" freedoms in accordance to how they infringe upon the freedoms of others.
That's the trouble with freedom, though; when everyone acts according to their own will, you get anarchy.
Yet we protect this freedom with our lives. This is probably a symptom of our addiction; we indulge ourselves in ways that could be deemed 'excessive'.
Anyway, back on topic. I'm curious to see where you would draw the line between freedom and "so-called freedom" in this case. It seems that you don't actually suggest a gun ban at all: indeed, you speak well of both shooting for sport and self-defense.
So where, exactly, would you 'line' differ from those that are already in place?
What you must ask yourself Redshirt, as well as any well-intentioned gun-advocate or anybody in general, is how much you truly value your life. Are you more important than your parents, your child, your wife/husband, your girlfriend/boyfriend, your children, your nephew, your neighbor, or the guy in the country next to yours? You surely agree that these firearms, more often than not, kill or maim. Are you willing to kill another human being? …and what are you willing to kill that fellow human for? Is his/her life worth it to protect your chair or your computer or your car or your life or the life of someone you know? This is no gray line fallacy. When you carry a weapon and are prepared to use it to give yourself so-called self-protection, you probably have already thought about what you would do when confronted by a criminal, with or without a weapon. You may claim you won’t shoot to kill, or that you only will do so when your life is threatened, but you can never be sure what will happen, how you will react when someone waves something in a seemingly threatening manner. Again, Red, you seem to concur on this point as you state “You will certainly agree that a man is far too often guided by events unfolding around him, and unrelated to the man himself”. You can never know what your confronter’s intentions are: if he/she pulls a gun/weapon/mistake on you, you will shoot to kill (or put him/her out of the way), regardless of whether there was honest murderous intention. Your attacker may just as well be your child, your friend, your girlfriend … or someone you don’t know. Who will you chose to murder?
You raise valid questions.
To answer one of them, I would not shoot to kill if I could avoid it. If it was someone else's life on the line, however, I would be less lenient. If your children were threatened, DN, I'd image you'd do anything to ensure their safety.
You seem to claim, though, that we lose control of our actions if we wield guns. You ask me my plans for dealing with criminals, and then turn around and say those plans don't really matter.
If you read my quote, it says "all to often guided by", not "always morphed into a mindless killer by". You claim that there is no "moral grey line" fallacy represented in your remarks, yet every sentence is aimed at casting doubt as to what moral choice you would make. If there was ever a line there, you smudged it.
I will not pretend that I can change any of your minds. But I can at least, perhaps, let you think about what the actions you would have done, can and WILL cause. Even if there is only possibility to murder, or to cause bloodshed, that is reason enough to consider ones course of action unthinkably inhuman and horrendous.
Can't change our minds? With proper evidence documenting consistent reduction in crime following gun bans, you very well could. Granted, this information probably doesn't exist, and may be difficult to obtain if it does, but it would force me to seriously reconsider my position.
I will be afk until late Sunday.
Enjoy your time away from the brain-rotting computer!
