Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Trading liberty for safety is never a good plan. As Benjamin Franklin said, soon you will have neither liberty or safety.

Indeed, and now tell those 20 kids a day how they are so safe.

 

Explain to them that their safety is protected because unlike, say the UK or Spain, people haven't lost the liberty to carry a gun.

 

All laws are, broadly, a trade off between safety and liberty.

Because the law denies you the liberty to kill people, you have the safety of not being murdered.

Would you like to abolish that state of affairs- just to honour Franklin?

[waitforufo]

Because the law denies you the liberty to kill people, you have the safety of not being murdered.

 

I have never had the desire to kill anyone. Also murder is a crime punishable by death in most states. The other states have life in prison without parole which is a death sentence itself.

So, let me get this straight- you don'rt think it has anything to do with the citizens- armed or otherwise- not being dumb enough to elect a tyrant in the first place?

No, I don't.

[dimreepr]

So you simultaneously, demand the right to, potentially kill and acknowledge the states right to deny you that privilege?

Edited April 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

I have never had the desire to kill anyone...

No, I don't.

I never said you did.

You seem to distinguish that somehow from the fact that I have never had a desire to bear arms.

 

OK, so you don't think your country is collectively bright enough not to elect a dictator well...OK, I certainly can't prove you wrong.

 

Have you noticed that many countries, for example, the UK haven't elected one either- and it's not because we have guns.

Are you saying we are just a lot brighter or something?

[overtone]

All laws are, broadly, a trade off between safety and liberty.

Good laws increase both.

 

Because the law denies you the liberty to kill people, you have the safety of not being murdered.

Unless, of course, you don't. Because the original trade was a denial of the liberty to murder, in return for State protection from murder.

The expansion to "kill" seems to have been unconscious. Such triggers of intransigency often are.

 

Have you noticed that many countries, for example, the UK haven't elected one either- and it's not because we have guns.

Are you saying we are just a lot brighter or something?

Sure. Also: lucky. Luckier than, for example, your colonies.

 

 

Since this argument has already been addressed elsewhere, I'll just leave it at that:

Not only addressed, but debunked in its factual claims and invalidated in its strawman presumptions. Thoroughly. Yet you repost.

 

Why?

Edited April 7, 2016 by overtone

[waitforufo]

So you simultaneously, demand the right to, potentially kill and acknowledge the states right to deny you that privilege?

The states have the duty of arresting, convicting and punishing felonious criminals of all types. My possession of firearms, or any other bearable arms, for defensive purposes in not a felony. In fact it is a natural right of all people recognized by my local, state, and federal government. Why do you find this confusing?

 

Now I'm sure you and those like you would like to make it a felony. That's why we have the second amendment.

Edited April 7, 2016 by waitforufo

[John Cuthber]

Good laws increase both.

How?

Any law that forbids me doing something also saves someone from having me do that to them.

 

 

Sure. Also: lucky. Luckier than, for example, your colonies.

 

 

Damn, now if only I could find an example of a former colony that did not (at the time) have a law ensuring the right to bear arms, but which overthrew a tyrannical leadership.

In fact it is a natural right of all people recognized by my local, state, and federal government. Why do you find this confusing?

 

Because it's not clear that it it a "natural" right.

There are two problems with your claim; the first is that it is made without evidence (and can therefore be discarded without evidence).

The second is that it it were a "natural" right it would be recognised universally, and it isn't.

[waitforufo]

Because it's not clear that it it a "natural" right.

There are two problems with your claim; the first is that it is made without evidence (and can therefore be discarded without evidence).

The second is that it it were a "natural" right it would be recognised universally, and it isn't.

Do you think tyrants would ever recognize such a right? Your arguments are silly.

I'm sure Kim Jong Un is on your side.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/04/07/Kim-Jong-Un-assassination-suspects-arrested-source-says/9171460035491/

 

I wonder how many children die in North Korea every day?

[overtone]

 

 

Damn, now if only I could find an example of a former colony that did not (at the time) have a law ensuring the right to bear arms, but which overthrew a tyrannical leadership

And never wants to have to do that, ever again.

[John Cuthber]

Do you think tyrants would ever recognize such a right? Your arguments are silly.

I'm sure Kim Jong Un is on your side.

 

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2016/04/07/Kim-Jong-Un-assassination-suspects-arrested-source-says/9171460035491/

 

I wonder how many children die in North Korea every day?

My argument would be silly if all the world was ruled by tyrants.

But the population of Europe isn't- and yet they mostly understand that America has got it wrong.

 

I wonder if you understand that bad things happening in Korea are not a justification for letting bad things happen in America.

Kim Jong Un is very much in your camp- he keeps the population uninformed and scared of a largely imaginary enemy.

[waitforufo]

Damn, now if only I could find an example of a former colony that did not (at the time) have a law ensuring the right to bear arms, but which overthrew a tyrannical leadership.

Why stipulate "at the time?" The reason the US has the second amendment stems from our casting off, by force of arms, the tyrannical leadership of your country. No tyrants since then.

 

My argument would be silly if all the world was ruled by tyrants.

But the population of Europe isn't- and yet they mostly understand that America has got it wrong.

 

I wonder if you understand that bad things happening in Korea are not a justification for letting bad things happen in America.

Kim Jong Un is very much in your camp- he keeps the population uninformed and scared of a largely imaginary enemy.

No your arguments are silly because the fight or flight instinct is natural to all mammals including humans. That's why homicide in self defense is universally accepted. People like you simply think the weak or outnumbered should lose in a fight for their lives.

 

Bad people and bad things happen everywhere. Here in the US we simply error on the side of those defending themselves.

 

Kim Jong Un is a tyrant, who just like old King George wants his subjects unarmed so he can control them. Here in the US the people control the government and we keep our arms to insure it stays that way. We are willing to pay the price.

[dimreepr]

Bad people and bad things happen everywhere. Here in the US we simply error on the side of those defending themselves.

 

 

 

Your biggest difficulty and, I think, your entire fellow gun-loving advocates, is forgetting that “good people and good things happen” enormously outnumbers “bad people and bad things happen” which renders your arguments superfluous, real life isn’t a playground and requires grown up thinking.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Your biggest difficulty and, I think, your entire fellow gun-loving advocates, is forgetting that “good people and good things happen” enormously outnumbers “bad people and bad things happen” which renders your arguments superfluous, real life isn’t a playground and requires grown up thinking.

I know lot of good people that make good things happen who own firearms, so perhaps you are the one with a big difficulty.

[dimreepr]

How many bad people that make bad things happen who own firearms, that you know?

[waitforufo]

How many bad people that make bad things happen who own firearms, that you know?

I don't know any. That's why I'm not worried about firearms. Like I said many times on this topic before. This is a criminal problem. Who predominately murders? Criminals. Who predominately is murdered. Criminals. Firearms allow the criminal population to eliminate themselves.

[swansont]

 

Kim Jong Un is a tyrant, who just like old King George wants his subjects unarmed so he can control them. Here in the US the people control the government and we keep our arms to insure it stays that way. We are willing to pay the price.

 

 

Do you seriously think that the arms that the US citizens can carry would actually match up with the military, if a group decided they needed to "insure it stayed that way"?

[dimreepr]

I don't know any.

 

 

Enough said, LOL...

[John Cuthber]

Still waiting for a response to this

waitforufo, on 07 Apr 2016 - 2:24 PM, said:

 

 

Trading liberty for safety is never a good plan. As Benjamin Franklin said, soon you will have neither liberty or safety.

Indeed, and now tell those 20 kids a day how they are so safe.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Do you seriously think that the arms that the US citizens can carry would actually match up with the military, if a group decided they needed to "insure it stayed that way"?

This question seems to imply that citizens are going to form independent military forces to take on the US army, navy, and air force. No such thing needs to happen. Mass unorganized armed civil unrest will be enough to bring down any tyrant. The people serving in the US army, navy, and air force are not going to enter their home towns and start fighting the people they grew up around for standing up to a tyrant. They won't do it to cities that look like the one they grew up in either.

[dimreepr]

Only an idiot thinks a weaker force can defeat a stronger force, by force.

[waitforufo]

Only an idiot thinks a weaker force can defeat a stronger force, by force.

You would think by now that someone from the UK would appreciate that weaker forces often defeat stronger forces. How many colonies does the UK have left? The people occupy every city, town, farm, and factory. You really think the military is going to blow up their own country? What kind of victory would that be for them?

[swansont]

This question seems to imply that citizens are going to form independent military forces to take on the US army, navy, and air force. No such thing needs to happen. Mass unorganized armed civil unrest will be enough to bring down any tyrant. The people serving in the US army, navy, and air force are not going to enter their home towns and start fighting the people they grew up around for standing up to a tyrant. They won't do it to cities that look like the one they grew up in either.

 

 

Under that specific scenario, which adds a lot of caveats, sure. But if the military is going to stand up to the tyrant, that sort of makes the case for armed citizens meaningless, doesn't it? It just needs enough backbone in the military to not carry out unlawful orders.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Under that specific scenario, which adds a lot of caveats, sure. But if the military is going to stand up to the tyrant, that sort of makes the case for armed citizens meaningless, doesn't it? It just needs enough backbone in the military to not carry out unlawful orders.

I'm not counting on the generals. I'm counting on the privates. If ordered to shoot during armed civil unrest, many will simply join the patriots.

[dimreepr]

You would think by now that someone from the UK would appreciate that weaker forces often defeat stronger forces.

 

 

Indeed they do but the point is, they don’t do it through force. I.e. no guns are needed...

[swansont]

I'm not counting on the generals. I'm counting on the privates. If ordered to shoot during armed civil unrest, many will simply join the patriots.

 

 

Doesn't change my point. I said nothing about generals. But what's more likely to make that private refuse — being ordered to shoot an armed protester, or an unarmed one? (not that being unarmed would stop all of them)

 

The other gaping hole in your argument is the implied near-universality of recognizing someone as a tyrant.