Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:27 am

artisticsolution wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:08 am
The only rational argument for gun ownership is freedom. We all can cite reasons why should or should not be able to own guns, but those usually come from irrational fear, superior motives, i.e. ones own reasons for wanting a gun.
What about an argument that you're giving the black market more power?
However, i must warn you...being rational and fair minded comes with a price tag. You must pay with your own selfish ideas and instead think more about your fellow man. In order to be entrusted with being capable of thinking rationally and fairly you must first be willing to give in order to get. If we make argument based on the freedom our constitution allows us, we can clearly see how unfair , illogical, and childish we are when we say things like, "i want to own my gun, but i dont want you to smoke pot/drink alcohol' or 'I want to keep you from having an abortion but I want to abuse children by taking them from thier parents whenever i deem necessary .'
I..I'm pretty sure all that stuff is not a direct logical consequence which needs to follow from a libertarian argument of gun rights...
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:41 am

Greta wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:26 am
This whole "they are going to take our guns away!" is a myth perpetrated by those receiving fair sums from arms companies and swallowed by those whose fears are played upon by the companies and their representatives.
Well, there is a more progressive wing arising in american politics that would very much enjoy a flat ban on guns. People are wrong to think that politicians like Hilary Clinton want to do this, however.

But largely, when people have this mentality about gun legislature, they're afraid it's going to happen through a slippery slope. When it's solidified - by law - that gun control can help to reduce violent crimes, it sets a particular precedence that very few pro-gun advocates actually believe, and ironically, it's the very strawman that many gun-control advocates like to build up about the pro-gun advocates.

iolo
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:47 pm

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by iolo » Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:49 pm

America is a weird society, where it is believed that having the means to murder others somehow makes you 'free', so you can meanwhile kow-tow to your masters all day and chorus 'Have a good day now!' as they kick you. If there are enough people who believe the world is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese, they can, apparently, discuss it forever. Others, I fear, grow a little impatient.

Walker
Posts: 6686
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Walker » Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:59 pm

iolo wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:49 pm
America is a weird society, where it is believed that having the means to murder others somehow makes you 'free', so you can meanwhile kow-tow to your masters all day and chorus 'Have a good day now!' as they kick you. If there are enough people who believe the world is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese, they can, apparently, discuss it forever. Others, I fear, grow a little impatient.
There’s also the common greeting of, “How are you?”

This requirement to be constantly declaring self-assessments, vocally, in answer to a question, is rather obtrusive don’t you think? The very first thing out of someone's mouth is a question? Come on, who has control of this interaction, anyway.

Know any good humourous replies that would put an end to that particular insincerity of quizlinging salutation?

iolo
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:47 pm

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by iolo » Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:05 pm

I don't know of a humorous reply, but a long and detailed medical report should stop 'How are you?' For the other, I suppose, 'Too much effort, mate!' is about all I can come up with!

Walker
Posts: 6686
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Walker » Sat Jun 23, 2018 2:14 pm

I think they need not be curmudgeonly, although that works too.

For instance:

Q: How are you?
A: Better all the time, better than yesterday, better get a bucket, better get a gun, probably not as well as you … got 5 bucks friend I forgot my wallet, never better, sunny and blue skies ...

(If not quick and light on your feet, one can still plan ahead. Think of 52 responses, print them on coated playing card stock, sell it as pick-an-answer, think of a post-modern ironic name, make millions.)

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by artisticsolution » Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:14 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:27 am
artisticsolution wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:08 am
The only rational argument for gun ownership is freedom. We all can cite reasons why should or should not be able to own guns, but those usually come from irrational fear, superior motives, i.e. ones own reasons for wanting a gun.
What about an argument that you're giving the black market more power?
However, i must warn you...being rational and fair minded comes with a price tag. You must pay with your own selfish ideas and instead think more about your fellow man. In order to be entrusted with being capable of thinking rationally and fairly you must first be willing to give in order to get. If we make argument based on the freedom our constitution allows us, we can clearly see how unfair , illogical, and childish we are when we say things like, "i want to own my gun, but i dont want you to smoke pot/drink alcohol' or 'I want to keep you from having an abortion but I want to abuse children by taking them from thier parents whenever i deem necessary .'
I..I'm pretty sure all that stuff is not a direct logical consequence which needs to follow from a libertarian argument of gun rights...
I think you might be missing my point. It doesnt matter if the argument is strong, or if someone is libertarian, Republican, Democrat, British, American, white, black, etc, if it doesn't work in a practical way.

What makes an argument valid is it's fairness regarding equality and justice. Not many solutions are perfect. I believe it is the solution which harms the least amount of people while , hopefully, benefiting the most amount of people that has merit.

If one cannot make an argument from the standpoint of honesty and selflessness, then one ought not to make an argument, even if it is correct....simply because they have no idea why it's correct...they just got lucky that it is...

Example, one makes the argument that abortion is wrong because it harms their sense of morality of the importance of life. They may be correct in their assessment. However, they want a law passed simply because it benefits them. Who on earth doesn't want the law to benefit them? We'd all love that! But we cant all have that.

Instead, if people could see that while one might not get everything their way, when the law,works for all people...fairly, then the chances they will end up having at least some of the laws in their favor are increased.

It is selfish childish understanding to think your way is best and laws should all benefit you. 1st...aint never going to happen and 2nd...since when did anybody ever really know what they want?

The law can always come back to bite you in the ass...Trump is learning this first hand.

My sis has always said, "Our country is so evil because they took prayer out of schools."

I believe they really never had prayer. It was one sided...sure they recognized Christian prayer...but when was there ever time made for Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, etc. Prayer ?

Maybe she is correct in thinking that the morality that religion bring to everyday life is a good thing to be kept in the forefront of those minds who lack a moral compass, but she is wrong in her selfish desire to just have her religion the focus.
The wrongness comes in to play when you think of how she would be horrified if they put prayer back in school...but only muslim prayer. She would flip a gasket!

No one ever considers what its like for other religions/atheists to have to endure a prayer that is not of thier own belief system.

It's torture for them i am sure. But who cares? I do...because i come from a position of fair mindedness. When i think of solutions to problems i dont think of what benefits me. I think of what the best possible solution could be...there is usually no perfect answer, but at least i can come up with an equitable split, so to speak, better than most.

Anyone else out there think along the same lines? I hope so...

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:07 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 5:14 pm
I think you might be missing my point. It doesnt matter if the argument is strong, or if someone is libertarian, Republican, Democrat, British, American, white, black, etc, if it doesn't work in a practical way.
And I think you are focusing way too much on one point I made; It was really more of a snide remark. I wasn't referring to the actual libertarian platform, I was trying to break down your break down of a very complicated thing. A collective care for society does not need to come along with an argument for gun freedom. That's absurd, and in truth the very antithesis of most of the arguments.
What makes an argument valid is it's fairness regarding equality and justice.
That's pretty adorable, but I'm going to go ahead and say that what makes an argument valid is 'having a sound basis in logic or fact'.
Example, one makes the argument that abortion is wrong because it harms their sense of morality of the importance of life. They may be correct in their assessment. However, they want a law passed simply because it benefits them. Who on earth doesn't want the law to benefit them? We'd all love that! But we cant all have that.
Well actually no, in that case the fact that they feel guilt isn't why they want abortion illegal. They would want it illegal because they see it as an immoral thing that harms other life. But this is just going off on a tangent

artisticsolution
Posts: 1932
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Contact:

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by artisticsolution » Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:59 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:07 pm
That's pretty adorable, but I'm going to go ahead and say that what makes an argument valid is 'having a sound basis in logic or fact.
What are the facts and logic of abortion, immigration, racism, sexism, freedom etc.? There are few facts when it comes to people's feelings about such things but it doesn't stop laws from being made.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sat Jun 23, 2018 10:29 pm

artisticsolution wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:59 pm
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 9:07 pm
That's pretty adorable, but I'm going to go ahead and say that what makes an argument valid is 'having a sound basis in logic or fact.
What are the facts and logic of abortion, immigration, racism, sexism, freedom etc.? There are few facts when it comes to people's feelings about such things but it doesn't stop laws from being made.
Well first of all, I wouldn't try to equivocate racism and sexism with all of those other things. That just seems like an attempt on your part to automatically paint a group of individuals who hold certain political beliefs under a certain light. That does not seem like making an argument from the standpoint of honesty.

But what you're asking me now doesn't really have much to do with what we were talking about. I wasn't trying to say that one could make a good argument for abortion or immigration - even though I do think that you can - what determines an argument's validity is not its 'fairness regarding equality and justice', it's actually its logical coherence. To be frank, the first thing just sounds like something a child would say. It's specifically problematic, because not everyone wants to see policies that focus on such a collective care for society.

I wish we could go back to the gun debate, though; Do you think law enforcement for hard drugs has helped to create a better america?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Greta » Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:52 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:41 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:26 am
I don't know of any societies that deny guns to law abiding citizens. In Australia, known for its "tough" gun laws, it's not hard to get a licence and buy guns, just as long as you aren't a crim, don't need to have a machine gun, don't need to keep heaps of lethal weapons at home and are prepared to store weapons safely, out of the reach of children.

This whole "they are going to take our guns away!" is a myth perpetrated by those receiving fair sums from arms companies and swallowed by those whose fears are played upon by the companies and their representatives.
Well, there is a more progressive wing arising in american politics that would very much enjoy a flat ban on guns. People are wrong to think that politicians like Hilary Clinton want to do this, however.
The "progressive wing" of the left who advocate a flat out ban on guns are equivalent to the "radical wing" of Republicans sympathetic with the KKK. They are outliers.

There is no realistic chance of a ban or a "slippery slope". These are ungrounded fears, not in evidence anywhere in the western world. As I say, Australia is a "poster child" for tough gun laws yet we have numerous legal gun owners and shooters, including a family member.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:44 pm

Greta wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:52 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:41 am
Greta wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:26 am
I don't know of any societies that deny guns to law abiding citizens. In Australia, known for its "tough" gun laws, it's not hard to get a licence and buy guns, just as long as you aren't a crim, don't need to have a machine gun, don't need to keep heaps of lethal weapons at home and are prepared to store weapons safely, out of the reach of children.

This whole "they are going to take our guns away!" is a myth perpetrated by those receiving fair sums from arms companies and swallowed by those whose fears are played upon by the companies and their representatives.
Well, there is a more progressive wing arising in american politics that would very much enjoy a flat ban on guns. People are wrong to think that politicians like Hilary Clinton want to do this, however.
The "progressive wing" of the left who advocate a flat out ban on guns are equivalent to the "radical wing" of Republicans sympathetic with the KKK. They are outliers.
Well, I certainly think people don't go after them like they're a similar thing.
There is no realistic chance of a ban or a "slippery slope". These are ungrounded fears, not in evidence anywhere in the western world. As I say, Australia is a "poster child" for tough gun laws yet we have numerous legal gun owners and shooters, including a family member.
So has Australia loosened its gun laws since the 1996 legislation, or has it been continuously fleshed out and there's been more regulation? Again the main problem that I see is establishing a precedent going forward, because very few pro-second amendment congressmen actually believe that gun laws would work to reduce violent crimes. If federal law suddenly made a statement affirming that position, a much more cogent argument could be made that anyone who doesn't want more gun control is a monster. But in itself, it's also pretty inevitable that more regulations would follow from this alone.

Let's just look at what happened after Nixon established the DEA. Even though drug enforcement doesn't work by any reasonable assessment, and that is something which is becoming more apparent as time goes on, every president since then has been stuck in the aftermath of a system that never worked to begin with - pretending that it does. What we have to show for it, in present day, is an exponential crackdown on drugs, with just about every single known psychoactive substance federally scheduled in some way.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Greta » Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:26 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:44 pm
Greta wrote:
Sun Jun 24, 2018 12:52 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 12:41 am
Well, there is a more progressive wing arising in american politics that would very much enjoy a flat ban on guns. People are wrong to think that politicians like Hilary Clinton want to do this, however.
The "progressive wing" of the left who advocate a flat out ban on guns are equivalent to the "radical wing" of Republicans sympathetic with the KKK. They are outliers.
Well, I certainly think people don't go after them like they're a similar thing.
There is no realistic chance of a ban or a "slippery slope". These are ungrounded fears, not in evidence anywhere in the western world. As I say, Australia is a "poster child" for tough gun laws yet we have numerous legal gun owners and shooters, including a family member.
So has Australia loosened its gun laws since the 1996 legislation, or has it been continuously fleshed out and there's been more regulation?
Actually, Australia has loosened the gun laws a little since. In fact, those don't want guns to proliferate in Australia as has happened in the US have expressed concerns about a slippery slope ...

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:05 pm

Greta wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:26 am
Actually, Australia has loosened the gun laws a little since. In fact, those don't want guns to proliferate in Australia as has happened in the US have expressed concerns about a slippery slope ...
Well, to be honest, I don't know enough about the situation to say how it compares to the US. When I look at places like the UK and Germany, it certainly seems like there has been continuous regulation to firearms, although I recognize that there are a lot of local factors that come into play. I'm not nearly acknowledged enough about foreign policies to say. But I think this idea of comparing two countries and expecting them to have the same result to similar legislation, isn't always a model that works. The drug war, as an example, works in China and the Philippines to reduce drug use, but it clearly hasn't worked in the US.

I try to use more localized models that are, in principle, comparable. A more obvious one than drug policies would be the situation in Illinois, where gun laws have definitely escalated since their most notable introduction.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Gun Control Advocates are Immoral

Post by Greta » Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:36 pm

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:05 pm
Greta wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 12:26 am
Actually, Australia has loosened the gun laws a little since. In fact, those don't want guns to proliferate in Australia as has happened in the US have expressed concerns about a slippery slope ...
Well, to be honest, I don't know enough about the situation to say how it compares to the US. When I look at places like the UK and Germany ...
I believe that you claimed a slippery slope towards greater regulation. Australia's example proves that not necessarily to be the case. QED.

If you are seeking to argue in a philosophically valid way then you would do better to skip slippry slope conjectures and fortune telling and focus more on actual slippery slope events happening now such as Trump's removal of US governmental checks and balances on Presidents. Never again will a US President need to declare their finances for tax purposes or offload their assets to prevent conflict of interest. Never again need a President worry about inquiries - all they need do is sack the investigators. I can't see that removal of accountability from the position of President leading anywhere good in the long term.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests