Gun accidents? Guns are dangrous?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not. No cost has been externalized onto you. You can't get shot by me unless we have an interaction.


[/ QUOTE ] Bull. The risk I am forced to take on when you get a gun is a real cost. You don't get to decide that the risk doesn't count.


[/ QUOTE ]
What I think he's saying is that your only subjected to this risk if you interact with him. That is, if you don't want to take the risk of getting shot, don't deal with him.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just stay away from me and you don't have anything to worry about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear - you think that if I am having dinner in a restaurant and you walk in with a loaded gun and demand that I leave if I don't want the risk associated with you entering with a gun, that is not an interaction with me? I think it is very clearly an interaction, the only question is whether or not I find it to be acceptable. A resolution of the disagreement (that you think it's acceptable and I think it's not) is required.

[/ QUOTE ]
As mentioned above, the most effecient and beneficial way to resolve this is to have the resturant owner decide.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're implying everyone having a gun leads to less verbal abuse/conflict in a society, you just don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
switzerland disagrees with you.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're not. No cost has been externalized onto you. You can't get shot by me unless we have an interaction.


[/ QUOTE ] Bull. The risk I am forced to take on when you get a gun is a real cost. You don't get to decide that the risk doesn't count.


[/ QUOTE ]
What I think he's saying is that your only subjected to this risk if you interact with him. That is, if you don't want to take the risk of getting shot, don't deal with him.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just stay away from me and you don't have anything to worry about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To be clear - you think that if I am having dinner in a restaurant and you walk in with a loaded gun and demand that I leave if I don't want the risk associated with you entering with a gun, that is not an interaction with me? I think it is very clearly an interaction, the only question is whether or not I find it to be acceptable. A resolution of the disagreement (that you think it's acceptable and I think it's not) is required.

[/ QUOTE ]
As mentioned above, the most effecient and beneficial way to resolve this is to have the resturant owner decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the man is interested in fairness. I think he is intersted in his own personal happy thoughts. I think he has a long list of thoughts that make him happy and unhappy, just like the rest of us. And he wants you to change your behavior in order to increase his happy thoughts.

One difference seems to be that he 'expects' others to change their behavior to accomodate his happy thought preferences (no guns he has happy thoughts, gun somewhere he starts to loose his happy thoughts).

At first I thought he may be engaging others in a manner consitent with the way some small creatures who sometimes reside under bridges and associate with billy goats engage others.

Then someone pointed out that he may be a communist.

Is there a possibility he is unbalanced? (no offense but this concept of his preferences should control others on the other side of the galaxy because he might be mildly worried that someone who farts will emit methane gas that could float across the universe and a molecule of it could enter his house seems on the far end of the bell curve to me).

What is this guys political and philosophical affiliation, how does he identify himself?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
don't think the man is interested in fairness. I think he is intersted in his own personal happy thoughts. I think he has a long list of thoughts that make him happy and unhappy, just like the rest of us. And he wants you to change your behavior in order to increase his happy thoughts.

One difference seems to be that he 'expects' others to change their behavior to accomodate his happy thought preferences (no guns he has happy thoughts, gun somewhere he starts to loose his happy thoughts).

At first I thought he may be engaging others in a manner consitent with the way some small creatures who sometimes reside under bridges and associate with billy goats engage others.

Then someone pointed out that he may be a communist.

Is there a possibility he is unbalanced? (no offense but this concept of his preferences should control others on the other side of the galaxy because he might be mildly worried that someone who farts will emit methane gas that could float across the universe and a molecule of it could enter his house seems on the far end of the bell curve to me).


[/ QUOTE ]
The guy is just questioning ACist's conception of individual rights. Doesn't mean he's a horrible person.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
don't think the man is interested in fairness. I think he is intersted in his own personal happy thoughts. I think he has a long list of thoughts that make him happy and unhappy, just like the rest of us. And he wants you to change your behavior in order to increase his happy thoughts.

One difference seems to be that he 'expects' others to change their behavior to accomodate his happy thought preferences (no guns he has happy thoughts, gun somewhere he starts to loose his happy thoughts).

At first I thought he may be engaging others in a manner consitent with the way some small creatures who sometimes reside under bridges and associate with billy goats engage others.

Then someone pointed out that he may be a communist.

Is there a possibility he is unbalanced? (no offense but this concept of his preferences should control others on the other side of the galaxy because he might be mildly worried that someone who farts will emit methane gas that could float across the universe and a molecule of it could enter his house seems on the far end of the bell curve to me).


[/ QUOTE ]
The guy is just questioning ACist's conception of individual rights. Doesn't mean he's a horrible person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that. I'm simply trying to figure out what kind of person he is.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you point me to the posts where I am advocating that felons be given guns?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not be advocating that felons be given guns, but you (and others) seem to dismiss any attempt the government might make to PREVENT felons from getting guns. Either because it won't work, or because it violates personal liberty. So the end result is the same: easier access to guns for everyone, including felons.

For ex I asked pvn straight out:


[ QUOTE ]
So you think a criminal background check on a potential gun buyer is a violation of liberty?



Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this not an argument that felons should be able to buy guns without so much as a background check?


And you yourself also said:


[ QUOTE ]
What about access to something I could slip into the water cooler at work and kill dozens?

What about ingredients I could mix at home and throw in my trunk and kill hundreds?

See how silly your logic is? (hint: you can't stop a madman intent on murder)



I can make it harder



I think that just makes it more applealing to people with a proclivity toward such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

and most tellingly:


[ QUOTE ]
The 'rationale' of preventing violence is a feel good pipe dream, people who want to do bad things, do bad things.

[/ QUOTE ]


[Translation: why bother?]

I think this last sentence of yours is a sad statement, to be honest. I do think violence and crime can be reduced (although not eliminated, of course). And facts bear out that it can. It happened in NYC under Giuliani after Dinkins let the thugs run the city for years. And Australia used to have mass shootings on a fairly regular basis (100 killed between 1987 and 1996) but passed significant gun control reforms. Since then, 0 people killed in mass shootings in Australia. Maybe you attribute this to good luck - but at least Australians didn't just say, "Oh well what are you gonna do, nutjobs will always be able to get hold of guns. Guess we should just forget about laws and all arm ourselves, and hope we can get a shot off before the nutjob."

[BCPVP]

Revots, think about how a criminal could get around a background check? They can have a friend that has no record buy a gun for them if they really wanted to get one.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Revots, think about how a criminal could get around a background check? They can have a friend that has no record buy a gun for them if they really wanted to get one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this seems like defeatist thinking to me. I'm sure many people told Giuliani all the reasons why the crime rate in NYC would never go down - too easy for criminals to circumvent the law and all that. Giuliani said f-that and focused on enforcement.

The purpose of a background check is to keep criminals from buying guns easily from a gun shop. Stopping them from getting guns by some other illegal method is another issue and again that's a matter of enforcement.

But, if a criminal is denied a handgun by a gun shop because he's a convicted felon, then that law worked as it was desgined.

[slickss]

[ QUOTE ]
Revots, think about how a criminal could get around a background check? They can have a friend that has no record buy a gun for them if they really wanted to get one.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is impossible to make it so that certain people (criminals) have absolutely no chance of getting a firearm, as long as there are firearms in the world. I think that's obvious. However, strict gun control makes it more difficult. I think that's obvious, as well. Finally, when something is more difficult, it is less likely to occur, namely that a criminal acquires a firearm.

Just like we don't want criminals to have guns, we don't want terrorists to have nuclear weapons. It's not impossible for a terrorist to get his hand on a nuclear weapon, but it is difficult enough to make it less likely to happen.

Do you disagree with this logic?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Again this seems like defeatist thinking to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's called reality.

[ QUOTE ]
But, if a criminal is denied a handgun by a gun shop because he's a convicted felon, then that law worked as it was desgined.

[/ QUOTE ]
So he calls up a friend who gets the gun for him. Sounds like the law failed to keep a gun out of a felon's hands and there's nothing you can do to stop this unless you ban the sale of guns or spy on everyone who buys a gun. Are you for either of those? So while you passed a "feel good" law that now has to annoy all the law-abiding citizens, the criminals can still get guns.