E
Ender
Guest
What moral, life issue is involved in determining what policies best address our problems with gun violence?
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
You have an incorrect assumption. There are guns created to break flying clay Frisbees, and others that are created to put holes in paper. So at the very least, you have an overly broad generalization in play.Melodeonist:
I’m lost. The primary purpose of a chainsaw is to cut wood, a hammer to bang nails, an axe to cut wood. A gun’s primary purpose is surely to kill or maim? I guess you also support nuclear weapons? Are they just tools also?
And even in the case of self defense guns, the vast majority of those engineers would claim that if their product was used to keep a criminal at bay until the police arrived, that the purpose of their tool was fulfilled.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
as a matter of fact they are. i support them for the same reason i support guns. as a deterrent against rogue nations using them
how has banning north korea and iran from having them worked so far? nuclear control doesn’t work either.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The decision to do something about it versus the decision to do nothing about it. That is a moral life issue, and most people are doing the later.godisgood77:
What moral, life issue is involved in determining what policies best address our problems with gun violence?
L
Lemuel
Guest
Same can be said of a gun.
Let’s make sure, when we do something,it targets the problem, doesn’t interfere with the 2nd amendment rights of the law abiding, is effective, and enforced.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
by beefed I meant both one that had been properly updated by the DoD as well as one with more strength such as tracking purchases over time. And your last point, while it may be true in some circumstances, could possily save lives IMO.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that is indeed the only moral choice, but once that decision is made then all the other decisions are merely practical. Beyond that, the fact that nothing has changed does not indicate that nothing has been suggested, only that insufficient agreement has been achieved to make progress.
By your own explanation, however, you recognize that “gun control” is not a moral issue in that the bishops have advocated specific policies, and, as you say above, it is the decision to address the problem rather than proposals to resolve it that involves a moral choice.
T
Theo520
Guest
I appreciate your line of thinking but I still don’t see where it would have helped.
Suppose the guy in Vegas was flagged for multiple purchases and they checked deeper. My understanding is there were no red flags. He had financial means and didn’t appear mentally ill. He wasn’t advocating violence on social media nor was he a member of any watch groups. There is no evidence he became radicalized. Net, there was no trail of clues that were missed. Even now after extreme scrutiny, they find no indicators.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I was looking at a list here:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html
This does not seem to be true. The Orlando nightclub was gun-free because alcohol and guns are a stupid mix. Then there are two schools.
P
pnewton
Guest
Abortion is just one pro-life issue. Mass murder is another.
Last edited:
X
Xystus
Guest
i counted 5 schools on that list. I also saw Ft Hood and the Washington Navy Yard which which are places you cant bring a gun. I think i remember reading the movie theater where the shooting during batman was a gun free zone too. I dont know about all of those places but there are more gun free zones than the couple you pointed out.
P
pnewton
Guest
Not all colleges are gun free. There was no such designation in 1966 at UT, and I have no idea what VT’s policy is. I did not even thing anyone would consider a military base as a soft, gun-free target because they personally, as a civilian, cannot carry their side-arm to defend the military from a gunman. Really? The point is, the idea that almost all shootings take place in gun-free zones seems rather contrived.
Even at this latest shooting, the target was not chosen because it was gun free, but because of a domestic dispute.
Even at this latest shooting, the target was not chosen because it was gun free, but because of a domestic dispute.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Let’s look at the wisdom your unspoken conclusion: gun-free zones encourage mass shootings.
Is there any sense to that conclusion? It is flawed in the same way this argument is flawed: A large number of deaths occur in hospitals, so we should eliminate hospitals. which, of course, is nonsense.
Similarly it is nonsense to think that removing the gun-free designation around schools will reduce mass shootings there. On the contrary, there is every reason to think such a move would increase overall gun deaths, which already outnumber mass shootings and should be a greater concern than mass shootings.
X
Xystus
Guest
Yes, Really! the two people who did the shootings apparently knew them to be soft targets. Just because you don’t think of them as soft targets does not mean someone who has access to that area and knows the security posture thinks the same as you.
I was not counting the tower shooting at UT and i am pretty sure that (at least at the time) VT was gun free.
My point was there was more gun free zone shooting than the couple you pointed out
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I don’t follow your logic. Are you saying the Orlando shooting shouldn’t count as a ‘gun-free’ zone because of the reason you believe it was ‘gun-free’?
Sorta sounds like you are playing with the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy.
I think the facts show it’s broadly true that these shootings do occur in gun free zones. There may be an exception but it’s rare.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I mentioned it because it was gun-free. It was chosen as a gay bar, though, not because it was gun-free. What I am saying is the idea that shootings happen at gun free zones is not statistically significant. Furthermore, any causal relationships is dubious.
T
Theo520
Guest
Are you a mind reader, or speculating?
The correlation is strong that these people choose gun free zones.
B
Brendan
Guest
Military bases are generally considered to be gun free in that even the military personally are, (with few exceptions such as MPs), prohibited from carrying their sidearms.
M
Maximilian75
Guest
If the USAF had done its job this would not have happened.
- Status