Guns don't kill people ....

[henry quirk]

"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an *American with anything but a gun."

9/11: Twin Towers.

*shrug*

Not relevant to my question.









*yes, not Americans, I know, but living here, working here, etc.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun."

9/11: Twin Towers.

*shrug*

Not relevant to my question.

Not an American. Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Explosives are illegal.

Nope, not illegal. Explosives are restricted to licensed users.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

>If Joe does something stupid, bad, or inhumane with an item, why should Jack be punished by way of restrictions on that kind of item?<

Jack is not being punished any more than he's being punished by having to stop at a stop sign. People like those Columbine students, Aurora movie goers, Wisconsin Sikhs are being protected.

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?

Stupid: masturbation doesn't kill masses of innocents.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Nope, not illegal. Explosives are restricted to licensed users.

My mistake. I was wrong

[Spexxvet]

Gun owner think and state that they have guns to protect themselves in their homes. Let's see if it's true. In the next month, I'm going to infiltrate Classicman's home, unarmed, and kiss him on his ear. Let's see if he can shoot me before I can do it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Gun owner think and state that they have guns to protect themselves in their homes. Let's see if it's true. In the next month, I'm going to infiltrate Classicman's home, unarmed, and kiss him on his ear. Let's see if he can shoot me before I can do it.

Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Gun owner think and state that they have guns to protect themselves in their homes. Let's see if it's true. In the next month, I'm going to infiltrate Classicman's home, unarmed, and kiss him on his ear. Let's see if he can shoot me before I can do it.

I was gonna say bring your camera/pics or it never happened...something, but bruce's reply was far more betterer.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Spexx is gonna get buttfucked in the mouth, then shot.

Only if Classic packs 100% of the time, including when he answers the door. If he answers the door without pointing the gun at me, I'll get him.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an *American with anything but a gun."

9/11: Twin Towers.

*shrug*

Not relevant to my question.









*yes, not Americans, I know, but living here, working here, etc.

How about the happy practice of giving the Native Americans blankets infested with small pox?

[henry quirk]

"Not an American."

Yeah, I said that.

#

"Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal."

Wasn't going for 'the win', was answering your question, "Please cite an incident in the US where a mass of innocent people have been massacred by an American with anything but a gun.” The legality of the instrument was not part of the question. However, since you bring it up: yes, explosives are illegal...fat lot of good that did for OK City...

Again: all irrelevant to my question which I'll rephrase since I think it's poorly constructed.


>If Joe does something stupid, bad, or inhumane with an item, why should Jack be punished by way of restrictions on that kind of item?<

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You're right. Better get those handguns away from "overzealous neighbor"s. I guess they didn't have guns, or they would have shot, instead of calling the cops.

You think he would have been the first? Perhaps your attitude would be different... or not.

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Not an American. Should have gone McVeigh/OK city for the win. Explosives are illegal.

Not the Ammonium nitrate he used. Its a common fertilizer. The rest, maybe.


from Wiki ...
" The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6 and injured more than 680 people.
The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius,
destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.
The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage."

AND NOT ONE GUN USED.

[henry quirk]

ph45,

You really think your rephrasing is less biased that either of my versions?

My iterations are neutral; yours drips with bias.

#

"Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual."

Demonstrably not the case.

If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?

Your rephrasing trades precision and accuracy for bias.

#

"At what point should society decide that restricting an individual's action benefits society more than not restricting the action?"

I'd say you restrict the individual when the individual does something worth being restricted for...that is, when he or she commits a crime. To restrict (action, ownership, etc.) before hand, in anticipation of a crime, well, defend that position if you can.


>And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again): If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun, why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s ownership of a gun?<

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

My iterations are neutral; yours drips with bias.

Neutral? C'mon. You are just saying why should Person 2 get punished for the stupid actions of Person 1.

This is an extremely libertarian way of thinking. I'm pretty sure no one else but libertarians or traditional small government conservatives solely think this way.

"Every action an individual takes, no matter how large or small, affects the environment around that individual."

Demonstrably not the case.

If Joe, who lives alone, masturbates himself to sleep every night, how does this affect anything (other than his bedsheets)?

Your rephrasing trades precision and accuracy for bias.

How old are you? First of all, to be nitpicky (since you were), you affect take in electricity, water, and produce wastewater when washing your sheets. Second, I assumes we were mature enough not to be nitpicky when making generalizing statements.

Back to my point. Almost everything we do affects someone else somehow. If I smoke a cigarette I exhale toxic chemicals that can be inhaled by someone else. If I get drunk I can break other people's properties, commit crimes, verbally and physically abuse people, etc. If I use electricity I am getting that from some energy source which most likely releases CO2 and toxic gas into our environment. If I preach hate I can potentially get other people to act on my beliefs, hurting and killing people. If I vote for a politician, I have some responsibility for the politician's votes. I can go on forever.

The point is that we as a society are constantly trying to find an equilibrium between individual rights (right to smoke, drink, use electricity, speech, vote, etc.) and social rights (rights not to inhale toxic chemicals, not to be a victim of someone's misuse of alcohol, not to be affected by man-made climate change, not to be a target of hate, etc.).

There is no formula or line where we can put actions into "allowable" and "not allowable" because we feel differently about them. We recognize electricity is a necessity so we don't ban its use even though the negative consequences can be great. We failed at banning alcohol because our culture will not allow for it and we feel the positive personal effects outweigh the negative personal and social consequences. We banned weed because there is a social stigma against it even though its positive consequences are greater and negative consequences are much less than alcohol.

This leads me to your quote:

And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again): If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun, why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s ownership of a gun?<

You see gun laws are not enacted because the actions of one person. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. People try to ban guns because there is a history of gun owners using guns for violence. If both Joe and Jack try to get guns, it is very difficult to determine that Joe will use it for violence while Jack will not. There is that uncertainty so it leads people to try to ban them all together.

I disagree with banning guns and support tougher regulation but, once again, it largely comes down to culture. Also, to complicate it, if Joe has a nuclear weapon, he has the power to kill millions of people and we as a society do not trust that power with any non-government official. The power of the weapon has a large influence in regulation as well.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Neutral? C'mon. You are just saying why should Person 2 get punished for the stupid actions of Person 1.

This is an extremely libertarian way of thinking. I'm pretty sure no one else but libertarians or traditional small government conservatives solely think this way.


How old are you? First of all, to be nitpicky (since you were), you affect take in electricity, water, and produce wastewater when washing your sheets. Second, I assumes we were mature enough not to be nitpicky when making generalizing statements.

Back to my point. Almost everything we do affects someone else somehow. If I smoke a cigarette I exhale toxic chemicals that can be inhaled by someone else. If I get drunk I can break other people's properties, commit crimes, verbally and physically abuse people, etc. If I use electricity I am getting that from some energy source which most likely releases CO2 and toxic gas into our environment. If I preach hate I can potentially get other people to act on my beliefs, hurting and killing people. If I vote for a politician, I have some responsibility for the politician's votes. I can go on forever.

The point is that we as a society are constantly trying to find an equilibrium between individual rights (right to smoke, drink, use electricity, speech, vote, etc.) and social rights (rights not to inhale toxic chemicals, not to be a victim of someone's misuse of alcohol, not to be affected by man-made climate change, not to be a target of hate, etc.).

There is no formula or line where we can put actions into "allowable" and "not allowable" because we feel differently about them. We recognize electricity is a necessity so we don't ban its use even though the negative consequences can be great. We failed at banning alcohol because our culture will not allow for it and we feel the positive personal effects outweigh the negative personal and social consequences. We banned weed because there is a social stigma against it even though its positive consequences are greater and negative consequences are much less than alcohol.

This leads me to your quote:



You see gun laws are not enacted because the actions of one person. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. People try to ban guns because there is a history of gun owners using guns for violence. If both Joe and Jack try to get guns, it is very difficult to determine that Joe will use it for violence while Jack will not. There is that uncertainty so it leads people to try to ban them all together.

I disagree with banning guns and support tougher regulation but, once again, it largely comes down to culture. Also, to complicate it, if Joe has a nuclear weapon, he has the power to kill millions of people and we as a society do not trust that power with any non-government official. The power of the weapon has a large influence in regulation as well.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

ph45,

<snip>
And 'my' question stands (rephrased yet again):
If Joe does wrong, with bare hand or with gun,
why should Joe’s actions affect Jack's hands or Jack’s
ownership of a gun?<

A coincidence of postings....