another school shooting

[realibrad]

Cars are approaching being both clean and self-driving, so I'm not sure why you would argue they need to be banned.

They are not currently either of those things.

Sex? I'm not even sure what you're talking about there. As long as everyone consents to whatever happens, then what's the problem?

Sex can be used as a weapon.
Also, what about when guns are used by consenting people to not harm anyone?

Drugs: Already elaborated.

Drugs, like sex and guns can be used to not cause harm to others, or they can be abused.

But, your point is made which is that you do not want to really have a conversation about this. You just wanted to let everyone know your opinion.

 

[Younigue]

I have used many guns, and never once tried to kill something. How is that possible?

Let's hope that stays true. I'm not convinced it will. Life happens and sometimes in ways that are overwhelming. Easy access to guns combined with not thinking properly or healthily is far too frequently lethal.

 

[woolfe9998]

Like people are.

So what is something that should be banned in society like how you want with guns? I can think of many things that people use/do that are fine when responsible people do it, but sometimes they do bad things.

Cars. Sex. Drugs. ect.

Cars? The entire economy would collapse if we banned cars tomorrow. Currently, we rely on them as our primary means of transportation. Our infrastructure is built for them. Guns are not an essential part of our economy. That said, I'd much prefer to decrease the number of cars on the road by building more public transit.

Sex? Sex is essentially unbannable. It's instinct. There is no object to be banned here. People just use their own bodies. And of course it's needed for humans to reproduce. We also already ban the worse uses of it: rape, sexual assault, incest, child molestation, etc.

Drugs? We've banned many of them for going on 100 years now. Drug prohibition doesn't seem to work. People who want drugs seem able to get their hands on them. Perhaps a similar problem would occur with a gun ban, but guns are much harder to illegally manufacture than drugs are.

Not a gun banner here. Just not a fan of poor analogies.

 

[jackstar7]

They are not currently either of those things.

Sex can be used as a weapon.
Also, what about when guns are used by consenting people to not harm anyone?

Drugs, like sex and guns can be used to not cause harm to others, or they can be abused.

But, your point is made which is that you do not want to really have a conversation about this. You just wanted to let everyone know your opinion.

I'm sorry, were you asking conversational questions that I missed somewhere?

It looks like you think I need some kind of consistency between these various things you named. I don't hold that requirement, so sorry about that.

Also, I'm honestly alarmed by your "sex as a weapon" phrasing. Can you elaborate what you mean by that?

 

[realibrad]

There are many other guns to achieve their entertainment with.

Yes, but what does that matter?

They are designed to kill even if that is in defense of oneself.

No. Most times the guns are used in a test of skill. Target shooting is not about killing, but to test your ability to hit a target. There are many activities that people engage in that do the same thing, and many that also are a danger to the people engaging in them.

What I am looking for, is a coherent argument that excludes guns but not other things that should not be excluded. If you don't have one, that's fine. I don't either.

 

[realibrad]

Let's hope that stays true. I'm not convinced it will. Life happens and sometimes in ways that are overwhelming. Easy access to guns combined with not thinking properly or healthily is far too frequently lethal.

You are not convinced that I will not try to kill someone with a gun? Why?

 

[jackstar7]

What I am looking for, is a coherent argument that excludes guns but not other things that should not be excluded. If you don't have one, that's fine. I don't either.

Why that goal?

 

[Younigue]

Yes, but what does that matter?



No. Most times the guns are used in a test of skill. Target shooting is not about killing, but to test your ability to hit a target. There are many activities that people engage in that do the same thing, and many that also are a danger to the people engaging in them.

What I am looking for, is a coherent argument that excludes guns but not other things that should not be excluded. If you don't have one, that's fine. I don't either.

If it's for target practice go to a shooting range.

Your examples are absurd. Use examples having a huge impact on society that are specifically designed to kill and maybe you'll get the intellectual debate you're so eager (yet inevitably disappointed by the outcome based on the framing of how you present it) to engage in.

 

[realibrad]

Cars? The entire economy would collapse if we banned cars tomorrow. Currently, we rely on them as our primary means of transportation. Our infrastructure is built for them. Guns are not an essential part of our economy. That said, I'd much prefer to decrease the number of cars on the road by building more public transit.

So we don't ban cars because they are important to the economy? What about sports cars? They are not an essential part of the economy.

Sex? Sex is essentially unbannable. It's instinct. There is no object to be banned here. People just use their own bodies. And of course it's needed for humans to reproduce. We also already ban the worse uses of it: rape, sexual assault, incest, child molestation, etc.

How is sex unbannable, yet we ban it in many different ways?

Drugs? We've banned many of them for going on 100 years now. Drug prohibition doesn't seem to work. People who want drugs seem able to get their hands on them. Perhaps a similar problem would occur with a gun ban, but guns are much harder to illegally manufacture than drugs are.

So you are saying you can ban something, spend billions trying to keep them out of society, and fail. Guns are different how? Also, I would consider the war on drugs to be a net negative to society and I would never want to have us do anything like that again.

Not a gun banner here. Just not a fan of poor analogies.

You may want to reexamine your counter points.

 

[Younigue]

You are not convinced that I will not try to kill someone with a gun? Why?

Because I don't know you and you own guns. That's not difficult math.

 

[realibrad]

I'm sorry, were you asking conversational questions that I missed somewhere?

It looks like you think I need some kind of consistency between these various things you named. I don't hold that requirement, so sorry about that.

Also, I'm honestly alarmed by your "sex as a weapon" phrasing. Can you elaborate what you mean by that?

You will have to go back to a very old post, but here it is.

Like people are.

So what is something that should be banned in society like how you want with guns? I can think of many things that people use/do that are fine when responsible people do it, but sometimes they do bad things.

Cars. Sex. Drugs. ect.

The consistency is that those are all things that can be used responsibly or not, and how you think those things different from guns.

Sex used as a weapon is a sad part of humanity. Its a regular tool used by horrible people in places like Africa. Its also used by individuals in abusive relationships. So it seems weird that you are alarmed and think that its somehow owned by me as a concept.

 

[realibrad]

Why that goal?

Because I have a mind that often has trouble remembering small details, and having a coherent perspective allows me to bypass that problem. It also allows me to make better decisions when I have a foundation of logic that I can apply to other things. I personally find it far more productive to have coherent ideas vs trying to come up with something unique for every situation as life is very fluid.

 

[Younigue]

Younigue said: ↑
There are many other guns to achieve their entertainment with.

Yes, but what does that matter?

That guns with less power, and no ability to kill huge amounts of people in the space of a single minute will be out of the hands of civilians.

Stop pretending you can't do simple math.

 

[realibrad]

If it's for target practice go to a shooting range.

Interesting. You seem to be under the idea that is not where I have done my shooting. Why?

Your examples are absurd. Use examples having a huge impact on society that are specifically designed to kill and maybe you'll get the intellectual debate you're so eager (yet inevitably disappointed by the outcome based on the framing of how you present it) to engage in.

So the difference is that you believe a gun is first and foremost made to kill, and that mixed with the fact that they used so often to cause harm, that they are different. Would that be an accurate articulation of your position?

 

[realibrad]

Because I don't know you and you own guns. That's not difficult math.

What? Who said I own guns? I have not and do not own a gun. Why did you think I owned a gun?

 

[Younigue]

Interesting. You seem to be under the idea that is not where I have done my shooting. Why?



So the difference is that you believe a gun is first and foremost made to kill, and that mixed with the fact that they used so often to cause harm, that they are different. Would that be an accurate articulation of your position?

Then let me clarify. Target practice not with your own guns but with guns provided by the range. Does that help you out?

Yes, guns ARE first and foremost for killing. Any other reason people own them (especially wagons of war) are secondary.

 

[Younigue]

What? Who said I own guns? I have not and do not own a gun. Why did you think I owned a gun?

*SIGH* if you don't own the guns and you don't have easy access to guns then what the fu*k are you doing trying to engage in a conversation based on gun owners in possession of guns that are completely unnecessary to own? But never mind you needn't answer, you've exhausted me again.

 

[woolfe9998]

So we don't ban cars because they are important to the economy? What about sports cars? They are not an essential part of the economy.

How would you define "sports car" for purposes of imposing a ban? Doesn't sound workable to me.

How is sex unbannable, yet we ban it in many different ways?

I mean you can't expect anything close to a effective ban on sex. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that legally banning sex probably wouldn't reduce the occurrence of it much at all. I can't think of a single thing that would be more difficult to effectively ban. If you need me to explain why, then you are totally clueless. But hey, if you think banning the behavior which is literally the entire reason for the existence of the human race is a good analogy with banning guns, knock yourself out.

So you are saying you can ban something, spend billions trying to keep them out of society, and fail. Guns are different how? Also, I would consider the war on drugs to be a net negative to society and I would never want to have us do anything like that again.

I told you one reason it is different but you ignored it. The illegal drug trade thrives because drugs can be grown (pot) easily, even in people's own homes, and of course they can be illegally manufactured with a little chemistry. Other drugs are legal by prescription (Oxy) and find their way into the wrong hands.

If you actually banned the manufacture of firearms except for military or police purposes, people who wanted them would have to manufacture them on their own or find an illegal manufacturing operation. Guns are manufactured in factories with complex machinery, no?

That being said, I WOULD expect some problems here, especially with emerging 3D printing technology.

I'm not big on banning much of anything, but I still think your analogies suck.

 

[realibrad]

Younigue said: ↑
There are many other guns to achieve their entertainment with.



That guns with less power, and no ability to kill huge amounts of people in the space of a single minute will be out of the hands of civilians.

Stop pretending you can't do simple math.

The school shooting that has caused the most death was done with a hand gun. Many times handguns can be easily modified into automatics.

 

[Younigue]

The school shooting that has caused the most death was done with a hand gun. Many times handguns can be easily modified into automatics.

Are you truly not understanding that the equipment involved in making hand guns in to rapidly firing guns should also be banned?

 

[realibrad]

*SIGH* if you don't own the guns and you don't have easy access to guns then what the fu*k are you doing trying to engage in a conversation based on gun owners in possession of guns that are completely unnecessary to own? But never mind you needn't answer, you've exhausted me again.

I suppose for the same reason you have engaged in the conversation and yet you also do not own guns. Enjoy your night.

 

[realibrad]

How would you define "sports car" for purposes of imposing a ban? Doesn't sound workable to me.

The way that all the insurance companies to I suppose.

I mean you can't expect anything close to a effective ban on sex. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that legally banning sex probably wouldn't reduce the occurrence of it much at all. I can't think of a single thing that would be more difficult to effectively ban. If you need me to explain why, then you are totally clueless. But hey, if you think banning the behavior which is literally the entire reason for the existence of the human race is a good analogy with banning guns, knock yourself out.

This is an interesting position (lol) where you both want to ban it and think banning it does not work. This is why I like coherent arguments.

My position (lol again) is that you ban sexual acts when one or more party(s) cannot give consent. This prohibits children that may have the biological drive, but not the emotional maturity to consent. That does not stop sex of course, but it likely reduces the numbers somewhat. If you have a better argument though, I'm all ears.

I told you one reason it is different but you ignored it. The illegal drug trade thrives because drugs can be grown (pot) easily, even in people's own homes, and of course they can be illegally manufactured with a little chemistry. Other drugs are legal by prescription (Oxy) and find their way into the wrong hands.

Not all drugs are easy to make. Meth is not actually all that easy. And, making some legal by prescription simply means you have somewhat reduced the drugs, but as we well know, it has still not done an effective job.

If you actually banned the manufacture of firearms except for military or police purposes, people who wanted them would have to manufacture them on their own or find an illegal manufacturing operation. Guns are manufactured in factories with complex machinery, no?

No. We have seen many 3D printed guns, and as the technology grows, its all but impossible to stop.

That being said, I WOULD expect some problems here, especially with emerging 3D printing technology.

Agreed.

I'm not big on banning much of anything, but I still think your analogies suck.

I disagree obviously.

Make no mistake, I too would like to see gun violence go down. I do not personally own a gun because I think it would likely increase my own personal risk. I also don't know of an effective way to accomplish what people want to accomplish.

 

[woolfe9998]

The way that all the insurance companies to I suppose.

No. Insurance companies set their rates based on the safety track record of existing cars. To ban dangerous cars by law you'd have to establish objective criteria for what makes a car dangerous. Like too much acceleration or not enough protection in a crash. The thing is, we DO have laws which require safety features, for example. So you wouldn't ban "sports cars." You might ban certain features on cars and you might even require certain features. I have no problem with this so long as it actually promotes safety.

This is an interesting position (lol) where you both want to ban it and think banning it does not work. This is why I like coherent arguments.

Er, what? No, I don't "want" to ban sex. I also think there is no way to effectively ban it. I see no logical inconsistency here.

My position (lol again) is that you ban sexual acts when one or more party(s) cannot give consent. This prohibits children that may have the biological drive, but not the emotional maturity to consent. That does not stop sex of course, but it likely reduces the numbers somewhat. If you have a better argument though, I'm all ears.

Yes, we already do that.

A better argument than what exactly? You're making no sense here.

Not all drugs are easy to make. Meth is not actually all that easy. And, making some legal by prescription simply means you have somewhat reduced the drugs, but as we well know, it has still not done an effective job.



No. We have seen many 3D printed guns, and as the technology grows, its all but impossible to stop.

Strict gun laws seem to work to keep guns out of the hands of most citizens in other countries. Drug prohibition, by contrast, doesn't seem to work pretty much anywhere.

I disagree obviously.

Make no mistake, I too would like to see gun violence go down. I do not personally own a gun because I think it would likely increase my own personal risk. I also don't know of an effective way to accomplish what people want to accomplish.

The reasons I personally do not support banning guns, or even restricting them to the degree they are in Europe is 1) too much resistance from fanatics on the right. If the state tried to take their guns away, we'd have civil unrest to make Waco and Ruby Ridge look like minor skirmishes. 2) our culture is so violent that I think the ban wouldn't reduce violence to the extent it seems to in other countries.

 

[realibrad]

No. Insurance companies set their rates based on the safety track record of existing cars. To ban dangerous cars by law you'd have to establish objective criteria for what makes a car dangerous. Like too much acceleration or not enough protection in a crash. The thing is, we DO have laws which require safety features, for example. So you wouldn't ban "sports cars." You might ban certain features on cars and you might even require certain features. I have no problem with this so long as it actually promotes safety.

It appears you do not know what you are talking about. Insurance companies define sports cars. For example, the Scion tC is considered a sports car, even though it has very little power and got a very high crash test rating. The reason was because it had two doors. Neat right?

Er, what? No, I don't "want" to ban sex. I also think there is no way to effectively ban it. I see no logical inconsistency here.

Oh, you don't? So you are okay making it legal with two kids age 12 having sex? I personally think that is below any reasonable age, but you do not?

Yes, we already do that.

A better argument than what exactly? You're making no sense here.

No we do not. There are plenty of people age 17 that could give consent, yet it is still illegal at the federal level for that person to have sex. But, you brought up biological drive, and I promise you that people are biologically driven to sex long before they are emotionally mature to have sex.

Strict gun laws seem to work to keep guns out of the hands of most citizens in other countries. Drug prohibition, by contrast, doesn't seem to work pretty much anywhere.

Other countries do not have the same violent culture the US has. Different strokes.

The reasons I personally do not support banning guns, or even restricting them to the degree they are in Europe is 1) too much resistance from fanatics on the right. If the state tried to take their guns away, we'd have civil unrest to make Waco and Ruby Ridge look like minor skirmishes. 2) our culture is so violent that I think the ban wouldn't reduce violence to the extent it seems to in other countries.

Agreed there.

 

[jackstar7]

Brad, you're being an asshole.