Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
A law-abiding citizen has no problem getting a gun under any of the proposed regulations to my knowledge (except for outright banning of all guns which is never gonna happen in the US anyway).

[/ QUOTE ]

It happened at Virginia Tech. Law abiding citizens could not have guns and the results were predictable.

Please show me one case in American--no, strike that--in world history of a mass shooting where citizens could legally carry concealed firearms. Bonus points for one where the shooter killed himself (meaning no more victims would have been shot) before someone else got to him.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
By your definition of "interacting" (anything that potentially creates any risk for you), anything anyone does is "interacting" with you: from driving their own car, to having a cookout in their backyard, to even staying home, because it is always possible to contrive some scenario in which something they do indirectly affects you or indirectly places you at risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
That is not "interaction"; it's just the way the world works:

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the world works by all of us interacting with each other. pvn doesn't want some of those interactions to "count" in his rules because he doesn't like the consequences of that.

[ QUOTE ]
You might have a good argument if you could show that pvn's purchase of a gun significantly affects your chances for safety

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely the point. I am not saying that pvn's gun should be taken away because I think there is some impact on me of his owning a gun. I am saying that he doesn't get to decide whether the impact on me is significant enough that it violates my rights. The consequence of letting the person taking the action decide if the action violates someone else's right is that there would end up being NO rights.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, it doesn't. We can objectively determine if I have three frozen pizzas delivered to my door every morning. They are either there or they are not. That quality, for us to be able to objectively determine if the condition is violated or not, is a *necessary* criteria for rights. It is not a *sufficient* one, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised that you don't see the consequence of your statement. For any right that you claim, it only takes one person to claim that it is not your right for you to "lose" that right under the necessity of "objectivity".

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I didn't say that what is and is not a right is objective. I said that rights must have objective criteria.

Read it again:

[ QUOTE ]
There may be some disagreement on what is a right and what isn't, but whatever the particular right is, there *must* be a way to *objectively* determine if the right is being violated. If there isn't, it can't be a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being the winner of a head-to-head 100-meter dash is objective. The rules are laid out, if you start after the gun and cross the line first, you win. This doesn't mean you have a right to win 100-meter dashes.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you telling me that there can be disagreement about what is objectively observable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there can be *disagreement* about a lot of objective things. People are flat-out wrong about all sorts of factual, provable stuff all the time.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though you have a much higher chance of getting killed by a car than a gun?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only half of the equation. I may value the production that cars generate more than the risk.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm intrigued that my rights are contingent upon your irrational personal preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of how I get to be danger of being shot by your gun due to your irrational personal preferences?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
People are flat-out wrong about all sorts of factual, provable stuff all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Factual, provable stuff like what their rights are? Thankfully you're around to tell people what their rights are without consulting them. Your brand of freedom is an inspiration to us all.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
People against gun control:


3) You keep talking about the need to protect yourselves from complete mayhem and anarchy, as if it was imminent. Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.
.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right, just like in 1775, 1861, 1933 to name just a few instances....

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong. Every step that must occur before you get shot is one without which there is 0% chance you'll get shot by pvn. You're picking one arbitrarily.

If he doesn't order the gun (who says it won't be produced until pvn orders it, most guns are mass produced not made to order) there is a 0% chance he will shoot you. (but there's a chance he will order a gun!)

If he leaves it in a gun safe in his basement and you avoid his house there is a 0% chance he'll shoot you still.

If he carries it around on his property and you avoid his house there's still a 0% chance.

If he takes it with him to work in his car and keeps it in his office desk drawer there is still a 0% chance unless you spend your time at his house, work, or the roads he chooses to use which allow guns in cars.

If he runs into you at work with his hip holster on there's a 0% chance unless he takes it out of the holster.

etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that if you threaten pvn or his family with violence there would be a 100% chance he would use his weapon (and effectively)

[pyedog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be much more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now the obvious follow-up: Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the weak would have no defense against the strong.

The people would have no check on the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just ignorantly wrong. You already have no check on the government, other than voting. If the government decides to put you away you will be gone forever, no matter how many guns you have. The only difference is that you might kill a few cops before they kill you.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

Should he not be able to have a car because of this increased risk?


[/ QUOTE ]

No but there should be laws to deter him from drinking and driving, just as there should be laws to deter felons stalkers and the insane from buying guns.

All this talk of how laws don't help and red lights don't stop cars is silly. Yes, some people will always break the law. But I'm sure for every idiot who gets drunk and runs over an innocent victim, there's many more who don't because they don't want to go to jail, lose their license, etc.

I just think the "criminals break laws anyway" argument is useless and defeatist. It assumes enforcement and punishment can't deter criminal behavior at all. Which you'll realize is wrong the next time you slow down to the speed limit when you see a cop car alongside the highway.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, there is great distrust in your government. People with this kind of paranoia are the ones I don't want to see carrying a gun.



[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, paranoia???

Go take a poll of american people. Ask them if they trust politicians, YES or NO.

I actually put up a poll her in politics with that very question (along with do you trust police).

It is very very mainstream to not trust politicians. Wake up buddy.