Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Um... Er ... Guns don't cause damage to society any more than forks. Misuse either and you die prematurely.

Is the damage to society from forks worth the freedom to have forks?

Woody

"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear FORKS, but I am not A GLUTTON. I am merely prepared and determined in the defense of eating utensils. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer STARVATION." B.E.Wood
 
Damage comes to society from the misuse of many things...not just guns...and that misuse/abuse comes from human beings who refuse to follow the rules of common sense and decency. This class of people is well in the minority.

So, the question looms:

Do we restrict and/or deny liberty to the majority in order to (hopefully) forestall the potential actions of a few?

Mayor Bloomberg has proposed a ban on soft drinks sold and served in larger quantities than 16 ounces because a small percentage of Big Apple denizens are overweight, despite the overwhelming majority who aren't.

And what is to stop them from buying a 16-ounce drink...draining it...and then buying another, Mike? Do you really believe that your ridiculous legislation will deter people from doing exactly as they please? Do you think that people are too stupid to figure a way around your idiotic proposal? And what is the next step? Dr. Pepper ration stamps?

Congress can ban 30-round magazines easily enough, and probably will...but what difference will that make to a man bent on murder and mayhem? Find a You Tube clip of Travis Tomasie effecting a magazine change in scarcely more than an eye-blink. A little diligent practice in the art of mag-changing means that there is little if any practical difference in the destructive capability between one 30-round magazine and three 10-round magazines...

Unless...

There is an armed man in the crowd who isn't killed at the outset of the attack. The brief lull will give him the opportunity to kill the maniac before he can restart his weapon.
 
Keeping those previously found to be dangerous locked up would be where I would start. Stripping us law abiding citizens of our ability to defend ourselves from those dangerous people who have not yet been discovered and locked up is tantamount to making all of us helpless potential victims.

I would not be in favor of limiting or prohibiting our ability to arm ourselves in our own defense.

Woody
woody, you spoke well for me, thanks
 
OP, your premise is flawed and perpetuates the myth that guns are the problem. Criminals are the problem, not guns. The CO nut job wired his apartment with explosives. Should we ban electrical wire too? How about cars, since auto related deaths are so high?
 
Last edited:
@1911Tuner: It's not a small percentage. It's 57.9 percent:

NYS Department of Health.

The health care costs associated with obesity and other unhealthy choices like smoking kill far more people than guns or cars. Since most people aren't independently wealthy enough to support their choice-induced illness, the government often picks up the tab. It doesn't seem fair to charge the people who don't smoke or drink soda to pick up the tab for their own choices, does it? That's why I'm in favor of taxing the crap out of sugary drinks and cigarettes.

Guns, however, are a different issue altogether. It is a small minority of gun owners who break the law (either by having guns they aren't allowed to have, taking them places they aren't allowed to go or by using them in a way they should not be used).

If any gun legislation comes forward, I think it should be requiring training -- get this -- in school. Teach the laws, the moral responsibility and live-fire training. Call it a "national security" issue to have better marksmen available in times of war or something. That's about the only legislation I would support at this time.
 
1911Tuner: It's not a small percentage. It's 57.9 percent:

That many New Yorkers are fat?

Well...okay. If they say so.

Still, it seems that it should be up to those fat folk to decide whether they want more than 16 ounces...without assistance from Big Brother...or so it seems. No?

Maybe I'm just too deep into this liberty/self-determination thing.
 
I apologize, I'm unable to quote properly.

OP, your premise is flawed and perpetuates the myth that guns are the problem. Criminals are the problem, not guns. The CO nut job wired his apartment with explosives. Should we ban electrical wire too? How about cars, since auto related deaths are so high?

When I suggested that the authorities ought to consider training also, since a proficient shooter will do much more damage than any of the assassins in the US history with 10-round mags and a hundred year old pistol, it was considered too speculative and not worth a dialogue here.

I've no doubt that we eventually go there, once a single competitive shooter goes on rampage. There is nothing the banners would not consider banning.

BTW, the same people who cry for 14,748 murders and non-negligent manslaughter (2010 FBI), approve 1.21 million abortions yearly and that does not include CA's stats (highest) they decline to divulge.

This is not about saving American lives.
 
Odd Discussion

You know I am new to this forum, and I don't want to offend anyone, but this seems to be an awfully odd discussion to even be having today. I mean even if you were brand new to America, fresh off the boat as it were from some small third world no where country, you would have to look around and say that you were in the freest place anywhere on the planet. Nowhere else in the world is quite like America where every citizen is not only free to be who they choose to be, work where they choose to work, eat what they choose to eat, love who they choose to love, worship what ever God they choose but at the same time is an equal owner of their own country.

Yes, we as citizens are owners of this country, not it's guest and here in is the answer to your argument. We as owners are responsible for it's upkeep and protection just as you yourself are responsible for the upkeep and protection of your own property. True, just as with your home, we hire police to help protect our property; but that does not take away our own responsibility to secure and defend it ourselves. The same is true with our nation. Who among us, if our nation was invaded, would not defend her in any way we could? As owner/citizens it is not only our right but our duty to protect what is ours both in our nations defense and in the defense of our own homes and lives.

Our founders understood this. In fact, i many of the colonies it was against the law for a grown man to go unarmed lest he be unable to come to the defense of himself or his neighbor.

The Nazis, the communist and now the progressives in our own country always want to disarm the citizens with the false argument that it is for their own protection and that the nation state can and should be all the protection they need. Yet we have seen what happens in countries that assume that role; all too soon they feel it best to assume more and more authority and usurp more and more of what is by right the freedoms of those that trust them until nothing is left.

I don't think criminals are the real argument here. Crime never really is the reason for honest citizens to be disarmed; it is always the transfer of power and control from the people to the government that takes them.

In my faith we are taught of the war in heaven before the world was created; where Lucifer had one plan and Jesus had a better plan. Lucifer wanted to come down and control everything leaving no soul free to choose for himself and thus insuring that all would return to a heavenly reward. Jesus wanted all to be free to choose and thus we could all learn and grow from our own mistakes. I wont bore you with the dogma of my faith, but I will say this, we all chose to follow Jesus or we wouldn't be here today; why then would you choose to go the other way now and throw away your freedom now?

Just my two cents worth.
 
I apologize, I'm unable to quote properly.



When I suggested that the authorities ought to consider training also, since a proficient shooter will do much more damage than any of the assassins in the US history with 10-round mags and a hundred year old pistol, it was considered too speculative and not worth a dialogue here.

I've no doubt that we eventually go there, once a single competitive shooter goes on rampage. There is nothing the banners would not consider banning.

BTW, the same people who cry for 14,748 murders and non-negligent manslaughter (2010 FBI), approve 1.21 million abortions yearly and that does not include CA's stats (highest) they decline to divulge.

This is not about saving American lives.
Go to the little box in the bottom right corner and you can quote the entire message under the text box where it says "options." Quote message in reply. Took me a while to find it as well.
 
You know I am new to this forum, and I don't want to offend anyone, but this seems to be an awfully odd discussion to even be having today. I mean even if you were brand new to America, fresh off the boat as it were from some small third world no where country, you would have to look around and say that you were in the freest place anywhere on the planet. Nowhere else in the world is quite like America where every citizen is not only free to be who they choose to be, work where they choose to work, eat what they choose to eat, love who they choose to love, worship what ever God they choose but at the same time is an equal owner of their own country.

Yes, we as citizens are owners of this country, not it's guest and here in is the answer to your argument. We as owners are responsible for it's upkeep and protection just as you yourself are responsible for the upkeep and protection of your own property. True, just as with your home, we hire police to help protect our property; but that does not take away our own responsibility to secure and defend it ourselves. The same is true with our nation. Who among us, if our nation was invaded, would not defend her in any way we could? As owner/citizens it is not only our right but our duty to protect what is ours both in our nations defense and in the defense of our own homes and lives.

Our founders understood this. In fact, i many of the colonies it was against the law for a grown man to go unarmed lest he be unable to come to the defense of himself or his neighbor.

The Nazis, the communist and now the progressives in our own country always want to disarm the citizens with the false argument that it is for their own protection and that the nation state can and should be all the protection they need. Yet we have seen what happens in countries that assume that role; all too soon they feel it best to assume more and more authority and usurp more and more of what is by right the freedoms of those that trust them until nothing is left.

I don't think criminals are the real argument here. Crime never really is the reason for honest citizens to be disarmed; it is always the transfer of power and control from the people to the government that takes them.

In my faith we are taught of the war in heaven before the world was created; where Lucifer had one plan and Jesus had a better plan. Lucifer wanted to come down and control everything leaving no soul free to choose for himself and thus insuring that all would return to a heavenly reward. Jesus wanted all to be free to choose and thus we could all learn and grow from our own mistakes. I wont bore you with the dogma of my faith, but I will say this, we all chose to follow Jesus or we wouldn't be here today; why then would you choose to go the other way now and throw away your freedom now?

Just my two cents worth.
Howdy anonymous, please introduce yourself to the forum.

I agree that disarmament is the goal not of just the progressives, but big government in general that is seeking ultimate power over the people. Indeed, you can see a wide spectrum of examples of different forms of government who have done or attempted to do this.
 
You know I am new to this forum, and I don't want to offend anyone, but this seems to be an awfully odd discussion to even be having today.

Just my two cents worth.
Spend enough time with those who are anti-gun and you'll hear this argument over and over again -- the freedom to have guns is not worth the harm (they feel) it causes society.

You have several choices in answering that question.

You can yell at them that they are stupid and don't understand freedom, or guns, or the 2nd amendment or whatever.

You can give them an answer that impresses YOU, and hope that it impresses them.

Or... you can give them an answer that helps them see where their own reasoning might be in error, and with a little reflective thought they can see how freedom should never be measured out by the actions of those who would abuse it.

I am not responsible for the feedback and/or misinterpretation of the article by those who didn't read it. :rolleyes:
 
I don't know about how the rest of you feel but my personal safety comes ahead of "what is best for society".
 
Rule number one:
Statistics never lie, but you can lie with statistics.


When I was a cop / investigator for 20 years, we were often pressured into involving firearms into our statistical data to make the FBI happy.
A guy hits his brother-in-law with a creme pie, but has a shotgun in his truck out in the yard. The firearms box was supposed to be checked...


High-school kid with a bag of pot in his car, has a half box of 22s under the seat,,,,, once again check the box...


There have been written laws on the books since around 2,100 BC.... ( Ur and Sumer) Well before firearms...
Violent acts were the first to be mentioned, yet 4,100 years later people still commit violent crimes....
 
Using the authors coat analysis as a base we should outlaw cars, based on the cost of auto accidents, or loud music based on the cost of hearing loss, perhaps we should outlaw swimming pools, the cost of drowning’s’ not to mention the long-term costs of skin cancer, Etc, Etc, Etc.
 
I don't know about how the rest of you feel but my personal safety comes ahead of "what is best for society".

I don't consider myself so much as the Americans as whole when it comes to firearms. That is why I'm against any 'sensible" gun control device. Either we have the Second Amendment protected rights or we don't.

The Second Amendment was composed and added to the Constitution for a reason, and that reason was not any individual's personal safety - no disrespect suggested.

(Darn, I like this quote thingy :) )
 
yes, indeed the title does. That is because it is setting up the anti gun argument to then later show the anti gun believer why it is in error. One can start an article whit a pro gun title but then the chances of an anti gun person reading it becomes much slimmer.
 
You're beginning to get it, oldbear. So how do you communicate that thought effectively to those who believe that the damage to society from guns is not worth the freedom to have guns?

I used alcohol as the go-to example because we did try to outlaw it. There was no "might as well" about it. Since we haven't tried to outlaw any of the examples you gave what else do you suggest to make the argument?
 
Is the damage to society from guns worth the freedom to have guns?

I'd look at it from a different perspective ie; has anyone considered the deleterious effects upon our society if good citizens are denied access to arms.
 
I don't know about how the rest of you feel but my personal safety comes ahead of "what is best for society".
Unfortunately, we have moved into an era where the state puts the survival of the herd way ahead of survival of the individual. I saw this happen in the last 20 years in medicine with different public health policies and it is applicable to much of political policies as well.

That is 180 degrees in opposition to our founding documents which upheld and celebrated the rights of the individual. That in a nutshell is the battle we are facing not just for the 2A, but most of the political issues at hand between "conservatives" and "liberals."
 
My plate and fork made me fat.
Being overweight can kill you.
Therefore, we should ban forks and plates since they are evil.


Logic is like silly putty; even the mentally retarded can stretch it.
 
New York city is banning all soft drinks over 16 oz. Many cities have banned trans-fats used in restaurants.

A city in California has banned all fast food restuarants.Countless schools have banned candy and other snacks in vending machines.

All this is done in the name of forcing you to be "healthy".

Why do you think that all people value freedom as highly as you do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top