Are You For Or Against Guns?

[JustTooDank]

This is what's called a straw man. You're trying to misrepresent the original topic (the purpose of civilian owned firearms pertaining to the second amendment) by attempting to shift focus to an unrelated topic (heavy artillery and missiles) in hopes that it's easier for you to argue that side. You then try to discredit the argument by calling it "subjective" and "dehumanizing," both are incorrect (unless you're referring to the dehumanization of a gun, in which case - guns aren't humans). It's objective because it's a view of a firearm's purpose without being influenced by the emotional appeals of all the senseless killings in which a firearm is used.

Yeah I don't understand why people can't see that the 2nd Amendment says "arms", not "weapons". Definition of arms, straight from Black's Law Dictionary:

What is ARMS?

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154. Arms, or coat of arms, signifies insignia, i. e., ensigns of honor, such as were formerly assumed by soldiers of fortune, and painted on their shields to distinguish them; or nearly the same as armorial bearings, (q. v.)

Covers holster-able pistols and carbines. There really is no argument.

[nicehat]

This is what's called a straw man. You're trying to misrepresent the original topic (the purpose of civilian owned firearms pertaining to the second amendment) by attempting to shift focus to an unrelated topic (heavy artillery and missiles) in hopes that it's easier for you to argue that side. You then try to discredit the argument by calling it "subjective" and "dehumanizing," both are incorrect (unless you're referring to the dehumanization of a gun, in which case - guns aren't humans). It's objective because it's a view of a firearm's purpose without being influenced by the emotional appeals of all the senseless killings in which a firearm is used.

 

 

Here's another straw man, right out of the gate. You insert your own argument (everyone should be armed) and dismiss it as ridiculous, without that argument having ever been made. That's followed up with some unsubstantiated claims. And more unsubstantiated claims. And an appeal to emotion to round it off. This is why people become frustrated - not because you're delivering a scathing argument, but because debating you is like a bullet hell of red herrings.

 

No, again, your attention to detail is...shall we say lacking. I was rebutting some other guy who was telling me that we should group firearms with pencils and keyboards since those can also be used to kill or injure, or cause spelling mistakes. He was implying the addage that guns dont kill people, people kill people. I cant argue with you if you cant understand context. That whole discussion stemmed from another user's comment, for which you pipped in that guns merely fire projectiles.

 

I then stated ok with your logic (and I am using 100% of your incoherent logic here, make no mistake), howitzers, mortars, and missiles are not tools to kill or injure, but actually means of firing projectiles or projectiles themselves. I would add that alot of weapons are civilian versions of military issue. That is clear as day to anyone. If you want to talk about inanimate objects without their intended purpose of design, it sounds absolutely ridiculous (a gun as a bottle opener, are you kidding me). You didnt buy a gun to open bottles, just as I didnt buy a car with AC to be a beer cooler.

 

You knew damn well why you bought your gun. Why didnt you buy a cell phone to defend yourself? Or a mouse pad? Or a sling shot? All of those things are inanimate objects that can be projectiles themselves or means to fire projectiles? Why not a taser? What made you consider a gun for self defense? Inanimate objects without regard to purpose..... please Thats a ridiculous cop out and Triceratops load of utter b.s. I am illustrating exactly that point with my examples of military weapons. There is no straw man argument, because you have no idea what my original comments were in response to. You, took some comments relating to my argument out of context, not me. Go look up what I said, and in response to what. 

 

Most gun advocates want a country where everyone is armed. Even if a portion of the country is armed, statistics dictates that the occurances of accidents, and massacres are increased by the probability of it happening to a given person multiplied by the population pool of gun owners. To top it off, NRA talking heads and GOP lawmakers want a country where there are less background checks and not more. This increases the probability of putting guns in bad hands even more. 

 

Again there is no misinterpretation, there is no fallacy of argument. You just need to put in a couple of mins of effort to figure out what I wrote, and why before blasting off about red herrings. 

[cae]

You: Firearms are designed to kill or injure. (Let's focus on the purpose of firearms.)

Other guy: [red herring] Pencils and keyboards and misspellings! (Why you wanted to respond to this guy, I don't know.)

Me: Firearms are designed to fire projectiles. (Let's refocus on firearms and their purpose.)

You: [red herring] Heavy artillery and missiles also do that. (Losing focus on firearms again.)

You: Claiming that firearms are designed to fire projectiles is ridiculous. (You don't substantiate why or how the claim is ridiculous.)

 

Rinse and repeat. Propose a coherent argument for your claim, or concede that you were incorrect. I'm not trying to attack here, I'd like to entertain a debate. Before that can happen, you need to understand what you're writing, and why it's being dismissed as a non-argument.

[Cronus97]

Judge, jury and executioner, nice!

Honestly, do people actually think that you can protect yourself from the government with guns?

1. Its self defense and saves innocent lives at the cost of a criminal

2. Do you expect us, the people, to just lay down and get stomped on because were outgunned? Fuck you and your antics. While your running away send the brave people who stay a pleasant goodbye.

If America can't be regulated and defended by the people then how can we liberate other oppressed people? Its a cycle that must exist because everything comes to an end.

[Tech_Dreamer]

guns arent hazardous, people arent hazardouz, their minds are..

 

weather they're thugs,protectors,defenders,cops,offenders,teens,the weak,the strong, the poor  .  you name it ,

it's human nature otherwise known as irony. whoever they are or whatever they are protecting in the end someone already pulled the trigger and started thinking maybe you're not so different from those others after all.. but its human nature, law or not

the price of freedom or safety comes at a cost. only that person can deal with it ,

 

perspective(s) is(are) confusing, once you realise you're not the one to make the choice in the first place regardless of what happens, both ways if you cant tell the difference between it and weight of it is too huge to scale on our minds and cant compare

 

you know what needs controling..

 

until then we all hide beneath this confused chaos.because no one knows what's right , everyones just pretending to know whats wrong..

 

 

 

regarding the topic: i'm for and against it. riddle me that

 

 

 

deep thought ninja

[Maxibonbits]

I personally believe that people should be allow to posses guns, however there need to be strict laws relating to acquiring and possession of guns.

 

I don't believe that guns cause catastrophic events, people can find other means to perform violent acts. many of which I believe could be more horrific then gun related incidents.

[TachiGamer96]

I think the question should be "Why shouldn't we have guns?" Not why should we have guns.

In the US the mental health of her citizenry should be a MUCH bigger concern than should we let responsible people own a firearm for self defence and recreational use. Just let responsible sane people have firearms.

[Toasted Waffles]

Vote: Here http://strawpoll.me/15861

UPDATE: I would like to thank everyone for being mature and not making this a go nowhere argument.

 

I was asked to add context so here it is:

Should we be allowed to have this freedom

 

And please don't bring up hunting. The second amendment is talking about security of free state not whether or not you can have venison.

I'm doing a debate on this same topic currently for a function. The idea of the 2nd amendment was to express the idea of the minutemen during the Civil War. To this very day we still have minutemen at a notice call. I know a lot of people whom "carry" and I trust them all with my life, If need be. This country was founded upon believes and freedoms - stating that anyone should have the right to do anything they wish within some reason. Guns are not harmful, It is the people who use them that affect the world and change the people's mindset about them. People don't seem to understand, people can get a hold of guns from black markets or other such means.  I do believe that we should have a tighter control of guns, however I do not think it should go as far as taking them away.

 

I'll post more later, when I have a chance.

[nicehat]

You: Claiming that firearms are designed to fire projectiles is ridiculous. (You don't substantiate why or how the claim is ridiculous.)

 

Rinse and repeat. Propose a coherent argument for your claim, or concede that you were incorrect. I'm not trying to attack here, I'd like to entertain a debate. Before that can happen, you need to understand what you're writing, and why it's being dismissed as a non-argument.

 

Do me a favor, and quote me next time you address my post. its not too hard

 

Actually do me another favor. Answer this question, and re-read why I posed that question in regard to your assertion that I dont substantiate why or how my claim that talking about an object without regard to its intended purpose as it relates to firearms is preposterous. The fact is that you lost focus on firearms by asserting that they "simply fire projectiles". Rubber bands dont kill as many people as guns do, although they also fire projectiles. Hmmmm I guess if we arnt talking about the object's intended purpose, there must me some weird reason that is so. Ill let you figure it out.

 

 

You knew damn well why you bought your gun. Why didnt you buy a cell phone to defend yourself? Or a mouse pad? Or a sling shot? All of those things are inanimate objects that can be projectiles themselves or means to fire projectiles? Why not a taser? What made you consider a gun for self defense? Inanimate objects without regard to purpose..... I am illustrating exactly that point with my examples of military weapons

 

Dont tell me about military weapons vs civilian. Again, you are now talking about intended purpose, Which is something that you are unable to do based on "guns simply fire projectiles". All those things do the same thing by your observational arguments. This isnt just my view point. There is a reason why there is gun, and military weapon legislation. Society sees guns and cruise missiles as objects designed with the express intent to kill or injure. That is why they are regulated. That is why rubber bands are not. That is reality, whether you live in it or not. 

[FireFox]

Wow, this is still going on, I'm surprised.

[Guest]

Wow, this is still going on, I'm surprised.

You and me both

[Toggle]

I'm for them if they are used properly.

[cae]

Do me a favor, and quote me next time you address my post. its not too hard

 

Actually do me another favor. Answer this question, and re-read why I posed that question in regard to your assertion that I dont substantiate why or how my claim that talking about an object without regard to its intended purpose as it relates to firearms is preposterous. The fact is that you lost focus on firearms by asserting that they "simply fire projectiles". Rubber bands dont kill as many people as guns do, although they also fire projectiles. Hmmmm I guess if we arnt talking about the object's intended purpose, there must me some weird reason that is so. Ill let you figure it out.

 

I say their intended purpose is to fire projectiles. This is evidenced by them having a barrel, out of which a projectile may be fired. This is something all functioning firearms have in common. You say that this is either incorrect or less accurate than your assertion that firearms are intended to kill or injure. But that is not something all firearms have in common, because so many firearms exist without ever having killed or injured. I thought that was addressed several posts ago. Apparently not since you continue to throw strawmen out about rubber bands or whatever. Please make your point, if you have one, with firearms.

 

Dont tell me about military weapons vs civilian. Again, you are now talking about intended purpose, Which is something that you are unable to do based on "guns simply fire projectiles". All those things do the same thing by your observational arguments. This isnt just my view point. There is a reason why there is gun, and military weapon legislation. Society sees guns and cruise missiles as objects designed with the express intent to kill or injure. That is why they are regulated. That is why rubber bands are not. That is reality, whether you live in it or not. 

 

My observations were not regarding artillery and cruise missiles, they were regarding firearms. Society (and you, obviously) might see firearms as objects designed to kill or injure, but that is not an argument. I'm asking you to present an argument to support your claim without going off on tangents.

 

You knew damn well why you bought your gun. Why didnt you buy a cell phone to defend yourself? Or a mouse pad? Or a sling shot? All of those things are inanimate objects that can be projectiles themselves or means to fire projectiles? Why not a taser? What made you consider a gun for self defense? Inanimate objects without regard to purpose..... please Thats a ridiculous cop out and Triceratops load of utter b.s. I am illustrating exactly that point with my examples of military weapons. There is no straw man argument, because you have no idea what my original comments were in response to. You, took some comments relating to my argument out of context, not me. Go look up what I said, and in response to what. 

 

I bought a firearm because it is the best option for self defense in a variety of scenarios. Because a firearm fires projectiles that can stop a threat (by killing, injuring, or by deescalating the situation entirely). Some may buy a firearm for recreational purpose, to fire projectiles at inanimate targets. Some others may buy a firearm for hunting or sporting purposes, to fire projectiles at their targets.

[nicehat]

 

My observations were not regarding artillery and cruise missiles, they were regarding firearms. Society (and you, obviously) might see firearms as objects designed to kill or injure, but that is not an argument. I'm asking you to present an argument to support your claim without going off on tangents.

 

My argument deals with regulation and can be found as it was made against another member. You interjected with your statement. My argument was actually a rebuttal to his. If you want to know it, it can be found a couple of pages prior to this one. You can follow what happened and go through it yourself to see how this came up.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/144897-are-you-for-or-against-guns/?p=1949513

 

(hint Guns exist for the sole purpose to kill or injure, therefor should be regulated heavily... They already are regulated because society understands the express intent of design and purpose and potential lethality of civilian firearms. I have zero idea why you are arguing otherwise. Its already an agreed upon assertion. Guns are regulated because people understand that there is another purpose to a gun, rather than just to fire projectiles)  :rolleyes:

 

 

[cae]

My argument deals with regulation and can be found as it was made against another member. You interjected with your statement. My argument was actually a rebuttal to his. If you want to know it, it can be found a couple of pages prior to this one. You can follow what happened and go through it yourself to see how this came up.

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/144897-are-you-for-or-against-guns/?p=1949513

 

(hint Guns exist for the sole purpose to kill or injure, therefor should be regulated heavily... They already are regulated because society understands the express intent of design and purpose and potential lethality of civilian firearms. I have zero idea why you are arguing otherwise. Its already an agreed upon assertion. Guns are regulated because people understand that there is another purpose to a gun, rather than just to fire projectiles)  :rolleyes:

 

I don't care if you don't like that I jumped into an argument in an attempt to rein it back on topic. Instead of addressing points, you seem content in parroting that which is a fallacious argument. I'm wondering why I bother too, I feel like I'm arguing with a Furby.

[JustTooDank]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDpvkwBBu6U

[DLM_012]

I think they're fun and have their place in society. I miss my Rem 870 and NPAP AK47. I never got around to shooting the 870 and only took my AK to the range once before selling it

[nicehat]

I don't care if you don't like that I jumped into an argument in an attempt to rein it back on topic. Instead of addressing points, you seem content in parroting that which is a fallacious argument. I'm wondering why I bother too, I feel like I'm arguing with a Furby.

 

I was responding to his post. It wasnt off topic, unless you misunderstand what on-topic means. Paradoxically we are in the off topic section, so let that brew. Never said I cared about you doing anything (in fact, I really couldnt care less). Its you that was crying for a formal argument where I gave one (if you followed my original response link). So I dont really need to restate myself, the burden is on you to put what I wrote and link it to regulation (which you didnt do or seem to be incapable of).  I explained why I, and 99.9% (or whatever the majority is) of society thinks you are wrong. Society agrees by consensus based on reason (as has been done in this country and most other first world nations). That turns into law. If you want to get up and call that a popular fallacy, dont tell me what your version of truth is. 

 

See what you dont dont understand by calling my statement a fallacy is that the popularity of regulation is actually backed by statistics and hard evidence associated with gun violence hence leading to regulation. It adds leverage to truth. Your presumption is unfortunately for you, not. The truth is that guns have a designed purpose that is different from other projectile launchers, that cant be left out of their description. It is the primary reason why you bought one to defend yourself. Your supposition and rationalism is the fallacy here. Society understands this and it has led us to make laws to regulate them. But whatever, if you want to keep thinking of them as objects without explicit purpose to harm others (easily concealable, high rate of fire, velocity, low recoil, various ammunition types to maximize flesh damage) and instead focus on them being tools to hit cans with, you cant be argued against. I might be a furby, but I would rather be that than have your level of logic. There's something called being in denial and minimisation, look it up. Again, I dont care if you dont. Its your problem, not mine. Good luck!

[cae]

I was responding to his post. It wasnt off topic, unless you misunderstand what on-topic means. Paradoxically we are in the off topic section, so let that brew. Never said I cared about you doing anything (in fact, I really couldnt care less). Its you that was crying for a formal argument where I gave one (if you followed my original response link). So I dont really need to restate myself, the burden is on you to put what I wrote and link it to regulation (which you didnt do or seem to be incapable of).  I explained why I, and 99.9% (or whatever the majority is) of society thinks you are wrong. Society agrees by consensus based on reason (as has been done in this country and most other first world nations). That turns into law. If you want to get up and call that a popular fallacy, dont tell me what your version of truth is. 

 

You did not provide a formal argument or any sort of counter to mine, I'm not sure you know how, at least with regards to firearms. Am I supposed to follow your "Guns have killed and injured people, therefore all guns are solely designed with the intent to kill or injure" logic? That's not happening. I thought you'd recognize that mistake, but you keep repeating it even after I point it out. Same goes for "The majority agrees with me, therefore I am right" or "Regulation has taken place, therefore it was the correct action to take." This is not sound logic.

 

See what you dont dont understand by calling my statement a fallacy is that the popularity of regulation is actually backed by statistics and hard evidence associated with gun violence hence leading to regulation. It adds leverage to truth. Your presumption is unfortunately for you, not. The truth is that guns have a designed purpose that is different from other projectile launchers, that cant be left out of their description. It is the primary reason why you bought one to defend yourself. Your supposition and rationalism is the fallacy here. Society understands this and it has led us to make laws to regulate them. But whatever, if you want to keep thinking of them as objects without explicit purpose to harm others (easily concealable, high rate of fire, velocity, low recoil, various ammunition types to maximize flesh damage) and instead focus on them being tools to hit cans with, you cant be argued against. I might be a furby, but I would rather be that than have your level of logic. There's something called being in denial and minimisation, look it up. Again, I dont care if you dont. Its your problem, not mine. Good luck!

 

Truth requires no leverage. "We've looked at statistics and evidence, and a majority has decided to enact regulation, therefore it is the correct action to take" is still not sound logic. 

 

Some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_(tool)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

[nicehat]

You did not provide a formal argument or any sort of counter to mine, I'm not sure you know how, at least with regards to firearms. Am I supposed to follow your "Guns have killed and injured people, therefore all guns are solely (Really???? I said that where?) designed with the intent to kill or injure" logic? That's not happening. I thought you'd recognize that mistake, but you keep repeating it even after I point it out. Same goes for "The majority agrees with me, therefore I am right" or "Regulation has taken place, therefore it was the correct action to take." This is not sound logic.

 

I dont need to counter your argument (whatever that may be). You came in and mentioned something. That isnt an argument. Thats a statement. I disagreed by illustrating how you are wrong, and it went back and forth. Thats a summery of what happened.

 

I never said they are "solely" used to do anything. I said that firearms have a primary purpose, a weapon. Any other half baked secondary function you want to talk about (like being a can opener), or describing them as mere projectile launchers is not a reason why they shouldnt be regulated. Car emissions are regulated because thats what cars primarily do, they emit pollution. If you want to use the muffler and gas tank to stuff cocaine, or peanuts in, that happens to be a secondary function and cars will still be regulated based on their primary purpose. Apply that logic to guns. Because everyone and their mother knows that guns are weapons first, everything else later. In fact, ask your mother

 

Whatever the truth is, regulation is better than your truth. You have nothing to back your utopian world of firearm deregulation with? What have you presented to back this? Anything? You havent said anything other than say that guns are projectile shooters. Your arguments and reasons are no where to be found. 

 

Heres a link for you 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

[cae]

 

(hint Guns exist for the sole purpose to kill or injure, therefor should be regulated heavily... They already are regulated because society understands the express intent of design and purpose and potential lethality of civilian firearms. I have zero idea why you are arguing otherwise. Its already an agreed upon assertion. Guns are regulated because people understand that there is another purpose to a gun, rather than just to fire projectiles)   :rolleyes:

 

Here's where you said it. 

[cae]

I said that firearms have a primary purpose, a weapon. Any other half baked secondary function you want to talk about (like being a can opener), or describing them as mere projectile launchers is not a reason why they shouldnt be regulated.

 

Whatever the truth is, regulation is better than your truth. You have nothing to back your utopian world of firearm deregulation with? What have you presented to back this? Anything? You havent said anything other than say that guns are projectile shooters. Your arguments and reasons are no where to be found.

 

From the Wiki:

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used in order to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

 

A firearm's use as a weapon (to inflict damage or harm) is what classifies it as such. So what of the times when a firearm is not used as a weapon? (You're still going on about my bottle opener joke?)

I'm against firearm regulation because I feel everyone has the right of self defense, even against an armed attacker, unless those rights are forfeit.

[Mooshi]

Jesus Christ, you guys are still on about the topic of guns?

 

[nicehat]

Here's where you said it. 

 

You're right, I guess I did. I was wrong. I should have said primarily instead of sole. 

 

 

A firearm's use as a weapon (to inflict damage or harm) is what classifies it as such. So what of the times when a firearm is not used as a weapon? (You're still going on about my bottle opener joke?)

I'm against firearm regulation because I feel everyone has the right of self defense, even against an armed attacker, unless those rights are forfeit.

 

There you go. Thats your argument, out at last. You dont want guns regulated because you see regulation as at least partial forfeiture of your right to bare arms. I would say to that, that you should know who is buying firearms and if they are mentally stable enough to to do so. A wrong move, a bad sale, or no oversight with your second amendments could infringe on a natural inalienable right as detailed in the declaration to one's life, which holds most importance.

[cae]

What determines one as mentally unstable? Who makes that call? When is that call made? Does a mentally unstable person not deserve the right to defend themselves?

 

Just because something could happen does not mean it will, or that we should regulate it further based on that chance. Let me try an analogy.

 

Should we regulate someone's (let's say they're mentally unstable as well) right to free speech (another right) because of the chance they might yell "Fire!" in an auditorium, possibly resulting in innocents' death by trampling? To the point where they forfeit that right entirely? Because of a possible outcome?

 

I say no. We just say "Don't falsely yell 'Fire!' in an auditorium." And we say "Don't let your muzzle cover anything you aren't willing to destroy." We already have laws covering negligent use of firearms.