The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Necromancer » Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:47 am

Ethics: should all parents of the World have a duty to own at least one pistol or revolver?

I think we agree that the World is a dangerous place and that children (also by poverty of language) are exposed to hideous criminals continuously! What say you?

("Also to gun lobbyists and NRA!")

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

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Greta » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:15 am

My understanding is that many more children die from accidental gunshot wounds to those inflicted by attackers.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Necromancer » Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:58 am

But then there's the risk of torture. Maybe they survive, but who do they become? The small monsters...?

I say there's something due to the "terror of the red mask" that threatenes people's sanity. Yet children generally want to grow up as kind and loving people, doing good in the World, there's this terror of kind that shoves us daily into bigger and bigger crimes. Next thing we lose our humanity to moral depravation. Why not use pepperspray and revolvers/pistols against this problem? Why should one accept crime onto oneself for being morally good and law-abiding? My hypothesis is that the crimes become less severe and more people are willing to come to the aid if they have something to intervene with, like pepperspray or a pistol or revolver. The perverts/sodomistic people may not be able to handle guns or pepperspray properly.

https://www.childhelp.org/child-abuse-statistics/
- In 2014, state agencies found an estimated 702,000 victims of child maltreatment,[2] but that only tells part of the story.
- Individuals who reported six or more adverse childhood experiences had an average life expectancy two decades shorter than those who reported none.[5] Ischemic heart disease (IHD), Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), liver disease and other health-related quality of life issues are tied to child abuse.
- In 2014, state agencies identified an estimated 1,580 children who died as a result of abuse and neglect — between four and five children a day.[2] However, studies also indicate significant undercounting of child maltreatment fatalities by state agencies — by 50% or more.[10]
+++ from the reference, criminal overrepresentation etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficking_of_children
- Though statistics regarding the magnitude of child trafficking are difficult to obtain, the International Labour Organization estimates that 1.2 million children are trafficked each year.[2]

However, I do listen to your argument, Greta, and here is a reference: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN19A2HF saying that
- Nearly 1,300 U.S. kids die from gunshot wounds each year (JUNE 19, 2017 / 7:24 PM / 5 MONTHS AGO)

And so on and so on. "I'm not done with this yet!" 8) :!:

(Another link for future help. https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/sys ... atalities/)

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8073
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:05 pm

In the US it should be compulsory for every parent to own at least three guns, and to leave them loaded at all times and lying around the house in easily accessible places (kitchen table, living room floor, 'kids' bedrooms etc.).

Walker
Posts: 6693
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:38 pm

Well, if you’re Callyfornia the real danger is that the inherently evil gun might spontaneously fire.

Read ‘em and weep.

San Francisco’s Shame
https://www.city-journal.org/html/san-f ... 15590.html

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5634
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:47 pm

If the US had a proper justice system, there would be no need for anybody to have guns. And whatever you say about the US can be applied to other countries such as China or Australia. Also technology can help out here (e.g. fingerprints)

PhilX 🇺🇸

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Necromancer » Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:53 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:47 pm
If the US had a proper justice system, there would be no need for anybody to have guns. And whatever you say about the US can be applied to other countries such as China or Australia. Also technology can help out here (e.g. fingerprints)

PhilX 🇺🇸
They may say proper justice system, but what is meant by that? In Norway the legal system is surely advanced in terms of the words by laws and regulations and with procedures and everything, but without the many guns (at least pistols and revolvers) no one bothers to do what the words say. They remain just words and there's little real action.

So unless, people get the ability to convey the virtual threat, there's no real legal system either. Though, corruption and heroin is rife and "delivered to the whole country", that's much larger than compared to the 5 million odd number of people. :shock:

Walker
Posts: 6693
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Walker » Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:54 pm

If a moron is judged by a jury of his peers, 12 morons, is this not justice?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by -1- » Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:13 am

Necromancer wrote:
Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:47 am
Ethics: should all parents of the World have a duty to own at least one pistol or revolver?

I think we agree that the World is a dangerous place and that children (also by poverty of language) are exposed to hideous criminals continuously! What say you?

("Also to gun lobbyists and NRA!")

There is also other great dangers to kids: they can fall off threes, they can walk in front of speeding cars, they can fall off cliffs, they can drown in rivers and other bodies of water, they can listen to their moronic parent's ethicising, they can electrocute themselves, and they can hang themselves by accident on telephone cords. They can eat rat poison, they can put a plastic bag over their heads and suffocate, and they can burn themselves or freeze to death.

So how do you suppose each household owning a firearm would prevent these children's deaths? Because, believe me, there are much more many deaths due to these than due to being abducted, raped, tortured by human monsters.

Name the number of children in the United States that get abducted, raped, and/or tortued to death by complete strangers every year, and I'll somehow produce the statistics for all child deaths that are not preventable by gun ownership by the parents for the same period.

Oh, and also consider illnesses. I nearly forgot. What you gonna do, shoot each polio bacterium, pick them out of the air as they float around with sharpshooting genius?

User avatar
Seleucus
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 3:53 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Seleucus » Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:48 am

Can it be a long gun instead of a pistol? I'm pretty handy with a rifle but have only a few time used a pistol.

User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Necromancer » Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:36 am

-1- wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:13 am
So how do you suppose each household owning a firearm would prevent these children's deaths? Because, believe me, there are much more many deaths due to these than due to being abducted, raped, tortured by human monsters.
You should know that "natural deaths" have a different standing in the World than the torturing-to-death a child. The issue isn't child deaths in general. It's rather to prevent gruesome deaths to children. To prevent immorality in the worst form. These deaths may do harm in other ways too, such as to lay a fog of terror over society in general. To die in torture isn't really the dream of anybody, is it?

It seems almost you want to include gruesome deaths to children "because they are not so many". This seems to me to be a weird logic.

:roll:

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:21 pm

I am a cop. I used to visit my parents when they were alive, and I didn’t care much where I’d put my gun when I’d stay there for an extended duration. One day, I left it behind a pillow on the chair I was using while talking to my dad. After more than an hour, suddenly, my brother showed up to pay them a visit too. He brought my nieces with him: 2 and 5 years old, at the time. We chatted and had lunch together. Suddenly, while I was talking and having a glass of wine by the table, I hear a scream. It was by the chair I had been sitting. I got up immediately and saw my wife, holding my gun with one hand and my older niece with the other, her (my wife’s) eyes wide open and her skin white as a cadaver’s. For no reason, she had (thankfully) walked there after eating a lot, when she saw my niece holding the gun with the barrel pointing to her face. BTW, this is a reflex I’ve noticed people who are not used to guns have: to point the gun to oneself. Anyway, my first point here is: if you want to have guns in your home or even carry guns, you MUST be EXTREMELY careful ALL THE TIME. People will probably respond to this with a simple “Sure”, but that’s not enough. To imagine my niece lying dead on the floor of my parent’s home, with a gunshot in her mouth (my gun!) was the scariest thought I ever had.

My second point is: if we accept that it should be compulsory for parents to have guns (which I disagree), it should also be compulsory for them to have proper training and proper mental evaluation, routinely. To use a gun properly is not easy. I don’t mean here to fire at a paper target and hit the bullseye: any old one-eyed retarded can do that after little training. I mean acting safely and effectively in a life-threatening situation where you’ll probably have a split-second to react — and a target who might be shooting back. You also need to make sure (as much as possible) that your gun will work properly when needed, so you need to know how to maintain it, and this should be also guaranteed by the enforced routine training you should receive. Moreover, it makes no sense to demand the right to have a gun to defend your family if, in the case they get hurt, you don’t know what to do. So, as a corollary to the right to have a gun, you must receive proper first-aid training as well. I don’t know if the majority of the people who claim the right to carry guns would be willing to put the right effort into it.

All that said, I don’t agree with the OP. It is the saddest fact that children must pay for our vices, but the need for the citizens to carry guns is a failure of the state. I understand your reaction to it — we feel the same way in my country (in Latin America). Almost everybody here claim they should be allowed to carry guns, and I totally see why. The government is a total failure. The police is a failure. And I, being a cop, feel the utmost shame for being a part of it, in spite of all I and my men try to do — unfortunately, we are barred from doing our job. But I digress. My point here is that the solution, just like the solution to poverty as a whole, is not a reactionary measure based on despair for the current defeat status of a giving society: the solution must come from the bottom up. In an extremely simplistic view (also, because I lack the vocabulary), you (government) provide decent education and work opportunity, you avoid poverty; you uphold the law, make justice count, and properly apply your police power, you avoid violence. If you (citizen) tell me the situation RIGHT NOW is too bad to allow you to wait for such long-term improvements, and if you would promise you would let go of the guns as soon as the situation is controlled, and if you would abide by all the laws concerning its proper use and associated training and routine evaluations, I might accede to the use of guns by you temporarily, but I know you won’t do that, because you will argue that the situation is controlled exactly because you have guns. So I, as your government, have no other choice than to allow the police to do their job, to hasten with the aforementioned basal changes, and to do my best to care for the wounded, especially the children.
Necromancer wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:36 am
My hypothesis is that the crimes become less severe and more people are willing to come to the aid if they have something to intervene with, like pepperspray or a pistol or revolver.
I tend to agree with that. But this solution is like indulging in short-term pleasures while knowingly jeopardising long-term improvements. It is definitely our normal tendency as humans — but a flawed one.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by DPMartin » Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:14 pm

Mnemoriam wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:21 pm
I am a cop. I used to visit my parents when they were alive, and I didn’t care much where I’d put my gun when I’d stay there for an extended duration. One day, I left it behind a pillow on the chair I was using while talking to my dad. After more than an hour, suddenly, my brother showed up to pay them a visit too. He brought my nieces with him: 2 and 5 years old, at the time. We chatted and had lunch together. Suddenly, while I was talking and having a glass of wine by the table, I hear a scream. It was by the chair I had been sitting. I got up immediately and saw my wife, holding my gun with one hand and my older niece with the other, her (my wife’s) eyes wide open and her skin white as a cadaver’s. For no reason, she had (thankfully) walked there after eating a lot, when she saw my niece holding the gun with the barrel pointing to her face. BTW, this is a reflex I’ve noticed people who are not used to guns have: to point the gun to oneself. Anyway, my first point here is: if you want to have guns in your home or even carry guns, you MUST be EXTREMELY careful ALL THE TIME. People will probably respond to this with a simple “Sure”, but that’s not enough. To imagine my niece lying dead on the floor of my parent’s home, with a gunshot in her mouth (my gun!) was the scariest thought I ever had.

My second point is: if we accept that it should be compulsory for parents to have guns (which I disagree), it should also be compulsory for them to have proper training and proper mental evaluation, routinely. To use a gun properly is not easy. I don’t mean here to fire at a paper target and hit the bullseye: any old one-eyed retarded can do that after little training. I mean acting safely and effectively in a life-threatening situation where you’ll probably have a split-second to react — and a target who might be shooting back. You also need to make sure (as much as possible) that your gun will work properly when needed, so you need to know how to maintain it, and this should be also guaranteed by the enforced routine training you should receive. Moreover, it makes no sense to demand the right to have a gun to defend your family if, in the case they get hurt, you don’t know what to do. So, as a corollary to the right to have a gun, you must receive proper first-aid training as well. I don’t know if the majority of the people who claim the right to carry guns would be willing to put the right effort into it.

All that said, I don’t agree with the OP. It is the saddest fact that children must pay for our vices, but the need for the citizens to carry guns is a failure of the state. I understand your reaction to it — we feel the same way in my country (in Latin America). Almost everybody here claim they should be allowed to carry guns, and I totally see why. The government is a total failure. The police is a failure. And I, being a cop, feel the utmost shame for being a part of it, in spite of all I and my men try to do — unfortunately, we are barred from doing our job. But I digress. My point here is that the solution, just like the solution to poverty as a whole, is not a reactionary measure based on despair for the current defeat status of a giving society: the solution must come from the bottom up. In an extremely simplistic view (also, because I lack the vocabulary), you (government) provide decent education and work opportunity, you avoid poverty; you uphold the law, make justice count, and properly apply your police power, you avoid violence. If you (citizen) tell me the situation RIGHT NOW is too bad to allow you to wait for such long-term improvements, and if you would promise you would let go of the guns as soon as the situation is controlled, and if you would abide by all the laws concerning its proper use and associated training and routine evaluations, I might accede to the use of guns by you temporarily, but I know you won’t do that, because you will argue that the situation is controlled exactly because you have guns. So I, as your government, have no other choice than to allow the police to do their job, to hasten with the aforementioned basal changes, and to do my best to care for the wounded, especially the children.
Necromancer wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 11:36 am
My hypothesis is that the crimes become less severe and more people are willing to come to the aid if they have something to intervene with, like pepperspray or a pistol or revolver.
I tend to agree with that. But this solution is like indulging in short-term pleasures while knowingly jeopardising long-term improvements. It is definitely our normal tendency as humans — but a flawed one.

your point is noted, but your a cop correct? why didn't you have the habit of securing your firearm?

though compulsory ownership of weapons like fire arms may not make sense to some, but how many legal firearms are there in the US owned by family members and nothing unfortunate happens, for generations. the thing is the majority of fire arm owners do have the sense to always secure their weapons don't they? like most people secure their wallets, or kitchen knives in the house. so stupidity and negligence of the few are always used as justification to control or deny the many, not because they care about the few, its because they want to control the many.

Mnemoriam
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 2:20 pm

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by Mnemoriam » Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:18 pm

DPMartin wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:14 pm
your point is noted, but your a cop correct? why didn't you have the habit of securing your firearm?
Yes, I am a cop.

If you mean having the safety on, this is as secure as any light switch prevents a kid from turning the lights on or off. If you mean not having a cartridge in the chamber and having the safety on you don’t live in the same world I do. Every time I step out of my home I am in a war zone. If during the few times I ever take my gun off, I decide to clean my gun, eventually, I’ll forget. And that’s when the trouble comes. I am human. I fail. And that’s what the story was about: I, failing. Bad. But that never happened again, and never will. But my gun is never in safe mode. That’s why I am alive. It’s just a fraction of a second that separates you from death in a real situation. I don’t ever use my gun’s safe; and, of course, I don’t clean it, ever (I mean, remove the cartridges from the chamber).
DPMartin wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:14 pm
[...] the thing is the majority of fire arm owners do have the sense to always secure their weapons don't they? like most people secure their wallets, or kitchen knives in the house. so stupidity and negligence of the few are always used as justification to control or deny the many, not because they care about the few, its because they want to control the many.
I don’t know anything about the majority. The difference from the majority to 100% might be thousands of kids. All I know is that if I, a trained special ops cop, failed in this matter, anyone can. BTW most people secure their wallets and get robbed all the time. Same thing with kitchen cuts. We are all stupid and negligent at times. But if your wallet is stolen, you’ll have just a headache and, possibly, a little financial discomfort. To kill or get killed by a knife wound isn’t that easy, and it takes quite a lot of effort in normal situations. To kill someone or oneself using a gun is almost as easy as answering your phone.

But my point isn’t as superficial as “you can’t have guns because you might kill someone because of your negligence or stupidity”. This is a given. What I ask is: Where will it stop? You carry guns to defend yourself. Something bad happens anyway and you go after revenge. You become a killer (and most people think this is just like in the movies, nothing much at all...). One day, someone you love gets beaten up. If the government doesn’t defend you from the criminals, what will it do because of this simple beating? You go there and do what you have to do. Soon enough, you feel that your neighborhood pays too much for garbage collection or whatever. You decide to do that yourself and charge a much smaller fee. You have a gun, after all, and friends with guns, so what will they do anyway? If they didn’t do anything because of the criminals, what will they do because of family men providing for their families? And, now you have a militia, and soon you have chaos. I live this chaos, exactly. I know the example was crude and I apologize for that. But I hope you get my point.

OK, you can argue that guns are prohibited in my place, so maybe that’s the reason. Maybe so. I don’t know. All I know is that both governments have failed if you need to carry guns.

DPMartin
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: The duty of parents to own at least one gun?

Post by DPMartin » Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:20 pm

Mnemoriam wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:18 pm
DPMartin wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:14 pm
your point is noted, but your a cop correct? why didn't you have the habit of securing your firearm?
Yes, I am a cop.

If you mean having the safety on, this is as secure as any light switch prevents a kid from turning the lights on or off. If you mean not having a cartridge in the chamber and having the safety on you don’t live in the same world I do. Every time I step out of my home I am in a war zone. If during the few times I ever take my gun off, I decide to clean my gun, eventually, I’ll forget. And that’s when the trouble comes. I am human. I fail. And that’s what the story was about: I, failing. Bad. But that never happened again, and never will. But my gun is never in safe mode. That’s why I am alive. It’s just a fraction of a second that separates you from death in a real situation. I don’t ever use my gun’s safe; and, of course, I don’t clean it, ever (I mean, remove the cartridges from the chamber).
DPMartin wrote:
Tue Dec 05, 2017 8:14 pm
[...] the thing is the majority of fire arm owners do have the sense to always secure their weapons don't they? like most people secure their wallets, or kitchen knives in the house. so stupidity and negligence of the few are always used as justification to control or deny the many, not because they care about the few, its because they want to control the many.
I don’t know anything about the majority. The difference from the majority to 100% might be thousands of kids. All I know is that if I, a trained special ops cop, failed in this matter, anyone can. BTW most people secure their wallets and get robbed all the time. Same thing with kitchen cuts. We are all stupid and negligent at times. But if your wallet is stolen, you’ll have just a headache and, possibly, a little financial discomfort. To kill or get killed by a knife wound isn’t that easy, and it takes quite a lot of effort in normal situations. To kill someone or oneself using a gun is almost as easy as answering your phone.

But my point isn’t as superficial as “you can’t have guns because you might kill someone because of your negligence or stupidity”. This is a given. What I ask is: Where will it stop? You carry guns to defend yourself. Something bad happens anyway and you go after revenge. You become a killer (and most people think this is just like in the movies, nothing much at all...). One day, someone you love gets beaten up. If the government doesn’t defend you from the criminals, what will it do because of this simple beating? You go there and do what you have to do. Soon enough, you feel that your neighborhood pays too much for garbage collection or whatever. You decide to do that yourself and charge a much smaller fee. You have a gun, after all, and friends with guns, so what will they do anyway? If they didn’t do anything because of the criminals, what will they do because of family men providing for their families? And, now you have a militia, and soon you have chaos. I live this chaos, exactly. I know the example was crude and I apologize for that. But I hope you get my point.

OK, you can argue that guns are prohibited in my place, so maybe that’s the reason. Maybe so. I don’t know. All I know is that both governments have failed if you need to carry guns.

ah come on now its the people and you know it. simple as that, its mentality of the society. this issue wasn't a political issue until maybe the past 40 or so years.

and the logic to eliminate personal use of weapons is the same as people are killed with automobiles all the time therefore were should eliminate automobiles. people do use them intentionally to harm others don't they? they use them negligently don't they? DUI's for example. chaos huh? what world are you living in? human nature is the same as animal nature it can fear and respect no mater the mentality of the animal. if it doesn't fear you or respect you then what?

I personally have no guns never felt the need for them, and like your example if I did, I'd probably be in jail by now (how did Eastwood say it, a man must know his limitations). but a society under the false sense of the police should and can do it all ain't going to happen here in the US never will. there is no way you can be where the crime is being committed.

anyway, stay safe

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests