Reality Check: Liberal handgun ban

[Ani_Ibi]

2shelbys:

We have reached a comprimise. Your country is going in one direction and ours is going in the opposite one.

How is that a compromise? That sounds like an impasse to me.

 

[2shelbys]

Ani Ibi:

How is that a compromise? That sounds like an impasse to me.

Could be. At least we are on the correct and safer side of that impasse.

 

[2shelbys]

Sir Knight:

I don’t have the time to go searching right now but I think that it was MUCH higher than 19 times.

I am not sure which year I am remembering but I am sure there were other years when the chance was higher.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

Originally Posted by the flip side
*
Anti-Gun Posters:* Guns, like automobiles, or indeed any other consumer product with the potential to cause serious injury or death, should be regulated. Regulation should be appropriate for the community.

Pro-gun Posters: Shooting people is a God-given right, trumping all other considerations including the right of communities to determine appropriate legislation and regulation.

Problem with your premise is that they are regualted. You guys just want them regulated to the point of non-existence. It seems several peoples ideas of self defense come from movies or even worse to just give in to criminals. When communities decide to ban guns everyone in the community suffers because the crime rate increases.

 

[Eireann]

Achatius:

But if you are giving the guns to the good guys legally, then the bad guys can get them too surely? So a disarmement of everyone would be the safest option wouldn’t it?

And yes they are rlg94086.

Well it obviously didn’t work, there was an amnesty for gun holders about 17 years ago, I saw the huge posters when I was working in London.

 

[Philip_P]

wabrams:

Problem with your premise is that they are regualted. You guys just want them regulated to the point of non-existence. It seems several peoples ideas of self defense come from movies or even worse to just give in to criminals. When communities decide to ban guns everyone in the community suffers because the crime rate increases.

“You guys” ought to be the community as a whole, and as the nature of different communities differs, the regulations will, and should, differ. In NYC, for instance, guns are very strictly regulated, and the vast majority of the populace supports these regulations. In other places, the populace prefers less strict regulations. If the citizens of, say, Cheyenne Wyoming decide they want to be able to carry concealed weapons, that’s fine. But if the citizens of NYC decide they do not want to allow concealed weapons, that’s their prerogative as well.

Some posters here, however, have tried to argue that any regulation of guns is somehow a violation of a basic human right, even if the community overwhelmingly supports such regulation. That’s unreasonable, just as a demand for a nationwide gun ban would also be unreasonable.

 

[wabrams]

“You guys” ought to be the community as a whole, and as the nature of different communities differs, the regulations will, and should, differ. In NYC, for instance, guns are very strictly regulated, and the vast majority of the populace supports these regulations. In other places, the populace prefers less strict regulations. If the citizens of, say, Cheyenne Wyoming decide they want to be able to carry concealed weapons, that’s fine. But if the citizens of NYC decide they do not want to allow concealed weapons, that’s their prerogative as well.

Some posters here, however, have tried to argue that any regulation of guns is somehow a violation of a basic human right, even if the community overwhelmingly supports such regulation. That’s unreasonable, just as a demand for a nationwide gun ban would also be unreasonable.

And what if a city decides no mexican immigrants within city limits? I guess that’s ok, too.

 

[Philip_P]

wabrams:

And what if a city decides no mexican immigrants within city limits? I guess that’s ok, too.

Now how am I supposed to take seriously a position that says that shooting people is a right comparable to not being discriminated against based on race?

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

Now how am I supposed to take seriously a position that says that shooting people is a right comparable to not being discriminated against based on race?

The 2nd Amendment states we all have a right to bear arms just as the 14th Amendment guarantees US citizens rights cannot be violated by individual states.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Philip P:

Originally Posted by the flip side

Anti-Gun Posters: Guns, like automobiles, or indeed any other consumer product with the potential to cause serious injury or death, should be regulated. Regulation should be appropriate for the community.

Pro-gun Posters: Shooting people is a God-given right, trumping all other considerations including the right of communities to determine appropriate legislation and regulation.

Correction …

Pro-gun Posters: Defense of self & family is a God-given right, trumping all other considerations including the right of communities to determine appropriate legislation and regulation.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

PhilipP:

Pro-gun Posters: Shooting people is a God-given right, trumping all other considerations including the right of communities to determine appropriate legislation and regulation.

I am dumbfounded that anyone would have the nerve to post such a blatantly unfair bad-faith mischaracterization of the opposing position.

I conclude that the anti-gun lobby has exhausted its supply of reasonable claims and that they therefore concede the argument.

 

[Philip_P]

Ani Ibi:

I am dumbfounded that anyone would have the nerve to post such a blatantly unfair bad-faith mischaracterization of the opposing position.

I conclude that the anti-gun lobby has exhausted its supply of reasonable claims and that they therefore concede the argument.

That would be a bit more credible had you expressed similar outrage at post 270:

wabrams:

Let’s sum up this whole debate thus far:

Anti-Gun Posters: We don’t like them no matter how much gun accidents have gone done, therefore they should be banned. Furthermore, several are from countries that don’t allow firearms; they don’t care that their crime rate went up after the ban.

Pro-gun Posters: have a state given and God given right to defend themselves. Statistics prove that legally owned firearms coupled with conceal/carry laws reduce crime. When handled properly, the chances for accidents from firearms are extremely slim. Through public campaigns, accidental deaths have dropped.

If you’ll notice, my response was entitled “the flip side.” Take it as seriously or facetiously as you took Wabrams.’

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Now how am I supposed to take seriously a position that says that shooting people is a right comparable to not being discriminated against based on race?

Now how are the rest of us supposed to take seriously a position that says that the right to self defense is a right to “shooting people?”

That’s a false characterization of our positions and you ought to apologize.

 

[2shelbys]

Philip P:

Now how am I supposed to take seriously a position that says that shooting people is a right comparable to not being discriminated against based on race?

No one is talking about a right to simply shoot people. You do not have to shoot someone to successfully defend yourself and in the overwhelming majority of defensive uses of firearms (roughly a million times a year in the U.S.) no one is hurt. If the situation escalates to the point that the criminal is shot it is their own fault.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

That’s a false characterization of our positions and you ought to apologize.

Again, I offered that post in the spirit of Wabrams’. If we as a forums community agree that this type of post is inappropriate, I will gladly withdraw mine, as I am sure Wabrams will his.

 

[2shelbys]

Philip P:

Some posters here, however, have tried to argue that any regulation of guns is somehow a violation of a basic human right, even if the community overwhelmingly supports such regulation. That’s unreasonable, just as a demand for a nationwide gun ban would also be unreasonable.

You are mischaracterizing. No one here has said they have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons and other dangerous people. No one is against ALL regulation but we are not discussing ALL regulation in this thread we are talking about bans.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

Again, I offered that post in the spirit of Wabrams’. If we as a forums community agree that this type of post is inappropriate, I will gladly withdraw mine, as I am sure Wabrams will his.

I won’t withdraw mine. but of course my post has abundant facts to back it up.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

2shelbys:

You do not have to shoot someone to successfully defend yourself and in the overwhelming majority of defensive uses of firearms (roughly a million times a year in the U.S.) no one is hurt.

Over 90% of cases: no shots are fired. But we’ve posted that figure more than a few times already. A person would have to read it to actually take it in, to actually acknowledge it, to actually respond to it responsibly. Instead what we are presented with are strawmen, grasping at straws, and wishful thinking.

 

[2shelbys]

Ani Ibi:

Over 90% of cases: no shots are fired. But we’ve posted that figure more than a few times already. A person would have to read it to actually take it in, to actually acknowledge it, to actually respond to it responsibly. Instead what we are presented with are strawmen, grasping at straws, and wishful thinking.

Absolutely correct.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

Again, I offered that post in the spirit of Wabrams’. If we as a forums community agree that this type of post is inappropriate, I will gladly withdraw mine, as I am sure Wabrams will his.

First you falsely represent our positions, and then you attack another poster? What kind of gentlemanly debate is that?