Justices Agree on Right to Own Guns

[M14 Shooter]

How many times have you had to think about killing someone? I'm serious, that's not a rhetorical trick or being difficult.

However many times I've thought about it, none or a thousand, there's no way you can say with any degree of certainty that I wont have to kill someone 1 minute from now.

How much of a need is there?

I am often told how violent thw US is, and how high our murder rate is.
Seems to me this demonstrates the need.

And, none of this asnewers my question:
Why limit ones self to a particular weapon when there are others that are far better suited to the job?
After all -- your life is on the line. You'll willingly take a lesser weapon when a better weapon is available?

 

[Diuretic]

How long are you guys going to keep up this circular dance of disagreement?

It's been something like 20 pages of everyone making the same tired points over and over and over and over again and nobody actually considering the points that aren't their own.

Just sayin...

The Car Wreck Syndrome, no-one wants to be in it but they'll slow down and take a look as they go past.

 

[Diuretic]

However many times I;ve thought about it, none or a thousand, there's no way you can say with any degree of certainty that I wont have to kill someone 1 minute from now.


I am often tols how violent thw US is, and how high our murder rate is.
Seems to me this demonstrates the need.

And, none of this asnewers my question:
Why limit ones self to a particular weapon when there are others that are far better suited to the job?
After all -- your life is on the line. You'll willingly take a lesser weapon when a better weapon is available?

What's the likelihood, roughly, of your needing to think about killing someone in say a drive to work or at work or going to the store, the regular activities we all carry out?

I don't know how violent the US is. I admit it seems more violent to me but then I might be lucky enough to live in a relatively peaceful (I say "relatively") social environment that doesn't have a lot of firearms.

I know I've only ever visited the US and I think my total time there is about six months (that's aggregated) but I have to say I haven't felt frightened of being attacked (except once where I took a wrong turn in San Francisco and ended up in the Tenderloin, it was about 8 am and I thought I was in a George Romero film, jeez there are some weirdos out there.

I would have felt quite comfortable with a handgun though. I admit to being somewhat hyper-aware walking around that morning (I got out of there asap) but I didn't feel I had to have a machine gun to protect myself.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The purpose of a fully automatic firearm is to kill people. That's what they're designed to do.

And so, since we have guns because we sometimes need to kill people, automatic weapons are exactly the weapons we need.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What's the likelihood, roughly, of your needing to think about killing someone in say a drive to work or at work or going to the store, the regular activities we all carry out?

I addressed this.

However...
None of this asnewers my question:
Why limit ones self to a particular weapon when there are others that are far better suited to the job?
After all -- your life is on the line. You'll willingly take a lesser weapon when a better weapon is available?

 

[Ravi]

And so, since we have guns because we sometimes need to kill people, automatic weapons are exactly the weapons we need.

Or nukes.

 

[Diuretic]

And so, since we have guns because we sometimes need to kill people, automatic weapons are exactly the weapons we need.

In the abstract that's so. For example, the military needs to kill people on a regular basis (I don't mean in terms of timing, I mean in terms of its purpose, which is to wage war) so they definitely have a need for automatic weapons. I want to make the point that the issue of self defence isn't in the mix when it comes to the military. The use of automatic weapons is legitimised because the military wages war and war needs no reference to civilian legal definitions such as self defence. Do you take that point?

 

[Diuretic]

I addressed this.

However...
None of this asnewers my question:
Why limit ones self to a particular weapon when there are others that are far better suited to the job?
After all -- your life is on the line. You'll willingly take a lesser weapon when a better weapon is available?

I missed it then.

On your question. This is where it gets a bit complex. I'm not looking at this issue as a sort of abstract, I'm looking at it from a policy point of view so that could be the reason for the disconnect.

Are we agreed that fully automatic weapons are designed to kill people?

 

[Bern80]

Bern....explain to me why the necessity argument doesn't work. I mean it would be useful for you to actually address my argument with your own counter-argument. You can claim it won't work but you have to show why you believe that, merely saying it isn't enough.

I have stated it several time now. Each time you ignore and refuse to answer the question that would offer some justification as why need is valid parameter for restricting ownership. Your argument has been that you are only arguing need. You are also trying to conveneintly stipulate that your need argument only applies to automatic weapons. That no justification of need needs to be meat for other things. Why is that? I know the answer to that and you know it. That answer is your real argument, not need. Why you remain so obuse in identifying it is beyond me.

The purpose of a fully automatic firearm is to kill people. That's what they're designed to do.

This is part of your problem. You're relying on a faulty premise and another counterpoint I guess you convenienlty forgot about or ignored. Any objects purpose is whatever the user gives it, period. And even though it's not even remotely accurate, let's take it as a given that an automatic's INNATE (cause that't really what your saying even though it makes not sense) purpose is to kill. SO FUCKING WHAT? That isn't what I'm going to use it for. So what difference does it make what you perceive it's innate purpose to be?

Fully automatic firearms aren't made for recreational purposes, they're made for killing people. True, they can be used for other things, such as spraying an old car body (and I have made the point that controlled recreational use of fully automatic weapons is reasonable use).

Again your whole purpose argument is horribly flawed, but since you admit I can use it for something else, how is that relevant? Is the gun to take over my mind and make me use it for it's primary purpose or soemthing?

.22 semi-auto pistol - designed for target shooting - need is target shooting.
.223 bolt action repeater rifle – designed for recreational use – need is recreational use
M-240 machine gun – designed for military use – need is military use

Pretty straightforward I would think.

Again horribly flawed. I don't need to do any of those activities therefore I don't need the guns either. It also rests are innaccurate purpose of automatic weapons presumption. it is also completely contradictory by that argument I would not be able to establish need for .22 on the basis of self defense because according to you, that's not it's purpose and we're only allowed to weapons for Diuretic's completley, arbitrarily derived purposes.

Now if you want to get in to a debate over the various meanings of the word “need” that's fine but let's keep things in context. You may want a PS3 but you don't need one. In fact you probably don't need much of the stuff you have but your stuff meets your needs.

No, my stuff meets my desires. I don't need a PS3 but you will allow it. I don't need a an automatic, but you wont' allow it. Explain.

 

[Diuretic]

Bern - let's say you're planning a camping trip. What are some of the items you might bring with you?

 

[Bern80]

Bern - let's say you're planning a camping trip. What are some of the items you might bring with you?

How about u answer my questions first for a change. No more sidestepping.

But I do know exactley where you're trying to go with this, so if I'm planning to go shoot an automatic rifle, what might I bring?

 

[AllieBaba]

Rifle. Shovel. Paper, matches, lighter, flashlight, pan for cooking, pan for water, soap, tent or tarp, bedroll and tough shoes. Oh and a knife or two.

 

[Diuretic]

Rifle. Shovel. Paper, matches, lighter, flashlight, pan for cooking, pan for water, soap, tent or tarp, bedroll and tough shoes. Oh and a knife or two.

Why?

 

[Diuretic]

How abput u answer my questions first for a change. No more sidestepping.

Good sidestep.

 

[AllieBaba]

Why?

If you don't know, I'm not telling. Quit asking stupid one-word questions. It's moronic.

 

[Diuretic]

If you don't know, I'm not telling. Quit asking stupid one-word questions. It's moronic.

It's purposeful, not moronic, but never mind.

 

[Bern80]

Good sidestep.

I answered above. In Diuretic fashion no less. I have asked you the same question repeatedly and you have not answered. Why on earth should I oblige you? If you can't defend your argument just say so.

 

[Diuretic]

I answered above. In Diuretic fashion no less. I have asked you the same question repeatedly and you have not answered. Why on earth should I oblige you? If you can't defend your argument just say so.

I have defended my argument and I'm still defending it and my questions in the last few posts are part of that defence. Part of the problem is that the objectors are coming from different angles. You're focused on disproving my argument about need. M14 is looking at equal firepower. AB just wants to slap me around

I'm happy to continue to discuss my "need" argument. But frankly if you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, without explaining why, then it's going to be pretty sterile.

 

[Bern80]

I have defended my argument and I'm still defending it and my questions in the last few posts are part of that defence. Part of the problem is that the objectors are coming from different angles. You're focused on disproving my argument about need. M14 is looking at equal firepower. AB just wants to slap me around

I'm happy to continue to discuss my "need" argument. But frankly if you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, without explaining why, then it's going to be pretty sterile.

I have told you why repeatedly and yet each time you come back and say I'm just saying it's wrong. So for the upteenth time in plain simple english you can not argue this on the basis of need alone because:

1)You would have to justify how you can allow onwership of some thing one doesn't need while not allowing ownership of other things you don't need. This is why I keep saying your argument really isn't need. Because to allow some things over others on the sole basis of need alone is completely arbitrary.

2) You can't reside you're need argument to just automatic weapons and give everything else a pass becuae with no other justification than need such a distinction becomes completely arbitrary.

3) You have argued that i can be allowed to own other weapons because your perception of their purpose (incorrect as it may be) is an activity you would allow and thus could somehow establish a need for an object out of an activity I don't need to do in the first place. In short if I don't need to do the activity then I don't need the equipment that goes with it either.

4) Even though it is disingenous at best to state an automatic's purpose is to kill you have yet to answer why that is relevant in whether or not I should be allowed to have one.

 

[Diuretic]

I’ve put a case that there is no need for a civilian (other than certain police officers) to privately own a fully automatic weapon.

You've countered that argument by focusing on “need” as an abstract concept rather than taking my point.

I asked a question about what items would be taken on a camping trip and why. AB gave a list but then spat the dummy when I asked why those items were nominated. The answer is that they were “necessary”. That is, there was a need for them. Need in context.

Now, there would be no need for them if a camping trip wasn’t being planned. So while someone can choose to go camping, they will need certain items in order to be able to enjoy their camping trip.

Using your approach none of those items are “needed” in the abstract, true, but they are necessary in the camping context.

That’s why your PS3 as against fully automatic weapon point makes no sense.

If you want to play video games you’ll need a console, a PS3 is a console and can be used to play video games.

If you don’t want to play video games then you have no need for the PS3.

If you have a need to kill people efficiently then you need something like a fully automatic weapon to do so.

If you have no need to kill people efficiently then you don’t need a fully automatic weapon.