*DISCLAIMER: The content of this article does not reflect the opinions of the poster "trigs". He is not affliated with nor does he have any relationship to the authors, editors, or sponsors of this article.*
didn't even know this was a thing. curious if the pro-guns people are okay with smart gun technology?
Various types of smart gun technology, which prevent anyone other than their owners from firing a given gun, exist as well. But gun lock requirements and smart guns have been vehemently opposed by the National Rifle Association and its allies.
lol wow is it really THAT bad? what about a gun that reads your specific fingerprints in order to be used? no extra crap to wear and no codes required. just don't let people steal your hands.
Would we save lives if we proactivley installed breath-lock devices in every car? Would it be reasonable, would it be enforcable, would you be willing yo install one, and if not, why?
Would we save lives if we proactivley installed breath-lock devices in every car? Would it be reasonable, would it be enforcable, would you be willing yo install one, and if not, why?
lol wow is it really THAT bad? what about a gun that reads your specific fingerprints in order to be used? no extra crap to wear and no codes required. just don't let people steal your hands.
*came back just to clarify my position:
If you think it is interesting tech, I agree.
If you want to build it, I encourage you.
If you want to buy it, I encourage you.
But if you want to force me to buy it, see above post re: GTFO
Would we save lives if we proactivley installed breath-lock devices in every car? Would it be reasonable, would it be enforcable, would you be willing yo install one, and if not, why?
my answers are yes.
HOWEVER, this question is quite off the mark of your position. the ONLY purpose for guns is for killing. cars are not made to kill, they are made for transportation. this is not a legitimate comparison. you could have, for example, went more to the point (i.e. alcohol and driving while impaired) and asked questions about banning alcohol or regulating the use of alcohol only in one's home, or something like that. however, despite that being closer to the point, it's still not the same as the purpose of alcohol is not to make a drunk killer.
for the record though, i'd be fine with making alcohol illegal (as long as marijuana is legalized ).
as far as who would have to pay for the new devices in cars - everyone who drinks alcohol and owns a car should have to pay for it obviously. otherwise, feel free to take the bus or a cab.
ALTHOUGH, i'm not sure what this money question has to do with anything. are you suggesting that the government is asking gun owners to spend their own money on gun regulation in some way? i don't know how they are or if they are, but i also don't see anything wrong with that.
If you think it is interesting tech, I agree.
If you want to build it, I encourage you.
If you want to buy it, I encourage you.
But if you want to force me to buy it, see above post re: GTFO
I don’t mean to push you, but I am interested in the why. Is it too annoying? Too expensive (I assume it would increase the cost of guns)? Too uncool compared to your non gun regulated friends? To unsafe (in that you are already killed by the home intruder and your wife can’t shoot him to death with your gun in order to save her own life)?
Just basically saying “from my cold, dead hands” doesn’t really do justice to your argument imho.
the ONLY purpose for guns is for killing. cars are not made to kill, they are made for transportation. this is not a legitimate comparison.
I own guns, use them regularly, and have never killed anyone. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
Mark and I even discussed this in my first post in this thread. You can prove, via stats, that alcohol has a net negative impact on society. I could argue that alcohol has no purpose other than to intoxicate, and it wouldn't be any more valid than your claim that mine are for killing. I could argue that since I don't drink, and since alcohol is bad overall, that it should be banned. But that would be ridiculous.
you could have, for example, went more to the point (i.e. alcohol and driving while impaired) and asked questions about banning alcohol or regulating the use of alcohol only in one's home, or something like that.
This fantasy land approach that you guys have is one of the things that ruins your argument. Regulate the use of alcohol in ones home? Ban alcohol? The idea that you can magically make something disappear by banning it is just ludicrous. Innocent people are impacted the most, and the flow to the rest continues virtually un-interrupted. See "prohibition" circa early 1900's.
however, despite that being closer to the point, it's still not the same as the purpose of alcohol is not to make a drunk killer.
Yes it is, cause I said so. (just using your logic back at you)
for the record though, i'd be fine with making alcohol illegal (as long as marijuana is legalized ).
I don't drink (aside from the odd beer every once in a while) and would disagree with you on that too. People enjoy drinking, and if they aren't hurting anyone, let them.
as far as who would have to pay for the new devices in cars - everyone who drinks alcohol and owns a car should have to pay for it obviously. otherwise, feel free to take the bus or a cab.
Got it. Agree with our point of view or take the fucking bus, bitch! Hail trigs!
edit - so I can opt out if I don't drink alcohol? honor system I guess?
ALTHOUGH, i'm not sure what this money question has to do with anything. are you suggesting that the government is asking gun owners to spend their own money on gun regulation in some way? i don't know how they are or if they are, but i also don't see anything wrong with that.
Gotta get back to work but consider how the average anti-gunner completely underestimates the simplicity of a firearm. It's literally a piece of metal. A tube and a pin. That's it. You would have them become a god damned computer, and that added cost is passed on to the consumer, obviously.
*sigh* it is with great apprehension that i will attempt to respond to this because it seems like you are getting a little upset with me despite you stating previously that we are just debating and it's nothing personal. on a side note, is it because i asked you to explain your opinion and why you felt a certain way? i have noticed in the past that people get upset when i ask them why they have their opinions as if it is an insult for them to have to explain it to someone else. kind of like a "i feel the way i feel, why should i have to justify it to you" sort of thing. i analyze everything to death and can't for the life of me understand why others don't. yeah, i'm weird like that.
I own guns, use them regularly, and have never killed anyone. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
simply because you have not killed someone with your gun does not change the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. believe it or not, guns were not created to go target shooting. and the same goes for alcohol not being invented to create drunk killers. it was invented to intoxicate people.
Mark and I even discussed this in my first post in this thread. You can prove, via stats, that alcohol has a net negative impact on society. I could argue that alcohol has no purpose other than to intoxicate, and it wouldn't be any more valid than your claim that mine are for killing. I could argue that since I don't drink, and since alcohol is bad overall, that it should be banned. But that would be ridiculous.
alcohol's original purpose was to intoxicate, i agree (it was also eventually used for healing purposes but whatever). that is not an argument. that is a statement of fact. just like guns were invented to kill people. also a fact. i can post sources for both of these if you wish. it takes a simple google search.
This fantasy land approach that you guys have is one of the things that ruins your argument. Regulate the use of alcohol in ones home? Ban alcohol? The idea that you can magically make something disappear by banning it are just ludicrous. All directly nnocent people are impacted the most, and the flow continues virtually un-interrupted. See "prohibition" circa early 1900's.
this was not my argument. you were the one who brought up the drinking and driving comparison. as i stated already, it is not an adequate comparison. yes i said i'm fine with banning alcohol but i never said that that is a good idea and that it would work. again, however, this comparison is not adequate so all this alcohol/drunk driving talk is pretty much nonsense to our gun debate imo.
Yes it is, cause I said so. (just using your logic back at you)
i don't quite understand this because i clearly explained how guns and alcohol were different. just because you disagree with my assessment of guns v alcohol doesn't mean that my argument was simply "because i said so". i clearly stated why i said so (i.e. guns were invented to kill people, cars were invented for transportation, alcohol was invented for intoxication), so again imho, comparing these things doesn't make sense as they have drastically different purposes.
(for the record, i've taken multiple logic classes in university. i'm not saying i'm a logic expert, but i do have a somewhat decent idea of basic logic. i have to admit that this comment was upsetting to me especially because i did nothing of the sort.)
I don't drink (aside from the odd beer every once in a while) and would disagree with you on that too. People enjoy drinking, and if they aren't hurting anyone, let them.
i agree with this. i simply said that i personally would be fine with alcohol being illegal. i never said alcohol SHOULD be illegal.
Got it. Agree with our point of view or take the fucking bus, bitch! Hail trigs!
this is in reference to YOUR argument about drinking and driving and who would have to pay for the device in the car, you do realize that right? i simply stated my opinion on what premises YOU provided. again, this is not what i actually think should happen in real life. this is what i think would be fine happening in YOUR scenario.
Gotta get back to work but consider how the average anti-gunner completely underestimates the simplicity of a firearm. It's literally a piece of metal. A tube and a pin. That's it. You would have them become a god damned computer, and that added cost is passed on to the consumer, obviously.
i don't know how this is significant. how does the simplicity/complexity of a gun change the argument?
Really enjoying this debate, so far I lean slightly to trigs's side but f u trigs anyways. I have owned a gun and did at one time hunt (don't anymore) however I am definitely against "casual" ownership of guns because while the vast majority of gun owners will not use them for nefarious purposes some will and some of the rest do not carefully guard the use of said gun. As trigs said, guns primary purpose is to kill while cars and alcohol have non lethal primary purposes. Even one child or innocent person killed by guns is too many. Cars/alcohol combinations kill many more people and I am in favour of much heavier penalties there as well however we simply can't ban cars while we could guns. Life would no more difficult without guns but it would be without cars.
*sigh* it is with great apprehension that i will attempt to respond to this because it seems like you are getting a little upset with me despite you stating previously that we are just debating and it's nothing personal. on a side note, is it because i asked you to explain your opinion and why you felt a certain way?
I read through my response again and I don't see how you got that from it. Certainly wasn't the intention.
I might think you are completely wrong on some points and I might argue those points passionately, but it's never personal.
I will join you on the *sigh*. We're now multiple levels deep into hypothetical arguments, arguing "I didn't say that" or "that was YOUR argument," so at this rate we're at risk of getting stuck in a loop. We may also be pushing up against the limits of effective debate on an internet forum. I've got at least one more post in me though, I can't help it I guess - gun owners are basically getting freerolled as we have nothing to gain but can easily lose.
i analyze everything to death and can't for the life of me understand why others don't. yeah, i'm weird like that.
At risk of sounding like this is personal again, I think your analysis lacks perspective. Analyzing the issue from only your point of view I can understand that you feel like you don't, and will never, want a gun. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to recognize that there are others that don't share that perspective, and more importantly, that my perspective is just as valid - whether or not you agree with it. Relevant Quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"
simply because you have not killed someone with your gun does not change the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. believe it or not, guns were not created to go target shooting. and the same goes for alcohol not being invented to create drunk killers. it was invented to intoxicate people.
alcohol's original purpose was to intoxicate, i agree (it was also eventually used for healing purposes but whatever). that is not an argument. that is a statement of fact. just like guns were invented to kill people. also a fact. i can post sources for both of these if you wish. it takes a simple google search.
At risk of going into semantics, "purpose" in this discussion is what I use them for, not the reason why they were invented. Until you have spent a day with friends and family out target shooting, going out hunting and bringing home meat that wasn't grown in some factory farming torture chamber, or slept well at night living 45 minutes outside of police response time in the middle of nowhere, I don't care what you can pull up on google. You can put it in bold, italics, or even both, but you won't convince me that you know the purpose of MY guns better than I do, and MY guns are the ones I am defending here.
As for the other points, I have to be honest I am losing track of the multi-quotes and don't even know where we are in this argument. I think my connection between the alcohol problem and the gun problem was more than valid. Both are used responsibly and irresponsibly. To those who don't understand them, both can be seen as evil. Both kill people in the wrong hands. It can be argued that both serve no value. It can be argued that both are completely unable to be stopped.
Comp's point is somewhat more rational:
Cars/alcohol combinations kill many more people and I am in favour of much heavier penalties there as well however we simply can't ban cars while we could guns.
... but still falls short when you take it a level deeper: Banning guns would simply take ALL of the guns from the good guys, and NONE of the guns from the bad guys. Cures the emotional reaction and feels like victory, but really doesn't solve anything. More importantly, it affects ME the most - the guy who didn't do anything wrong.
The last point I should mention, and maybe part of why I get so riled up, is this "nerf the world" mentality that is completely out of control in our culture. In the context of the debate I think your side sometimes gets lumped in with the hippies, the same way our side gets lumped in with mass-murderers. For that I apologize. Too easy to argue the extremes when the solution lies in the middle.
But the suggestion of a mandatory breathalyzer test, for everyone, every time you drive, forever... followed by two instant sign-ups with no questions asked? Honestly, to me that is way scarier than any gun I have seen.
The primary purpose of every firearm is to deliver a projectile at high velocity in the general direction that the user is aiming, once the trigger is squeezed.
It is up to the operator of said firearm to determine the lethality that results from that action. The firearm has no opinion.
The fact that thousands law abiding owners use their weapons regularly without killing anything renders the argument that the purpose of a firearm is to kill invalid on it's merit.
I would reject the notion of an ignition interlock on vehicle out of hand . . . I am a responsible adult who knows that driving and alcohol do not mix. As a responsible adult, I do not need the added cost such a device would add to the cost of my vehicle. The problem is not with the booze, it is with the drivers who lack the responsibility to handle said booze. Deal with them, and kindly leave the rest of us alone.
Anyone in the government funded life nowadays knows that the new "accountability and transparency" movement insists that people report / apply to programming have to specify the "outputs" (in this case projectiles of lead), and "outcomes" (in this case the obliteration of whatever said projectile is directed at).
So... stop trying to deny the origins of a gun. It's still a "pure" weapon
Why does your need to "feel" safer require that I give up so much as a scintilla of my enjoyment of a legal activity?
This is the dumbest thing you've said in some time.
"Hey, why do I need to not jerk off in public? I'm not hurting anyone.. why shouldn't I be allowed because you're a little uncomfortable"?
Seriously man...
Mark
And before you say it's illegal to jerk off in public, that's only because of the fact that people are uncomfortable.. TOTALLY not harmful to others
I simply want to know why your need to "feel" safer is justification for restricting the freedom of others? Answer the question.
Because banning guns will not actually make you . . . you know . . . safer.
I simply want to know why your need to "feel" safer is justification for restricting the freedom of others? Answer the question.
Because banning guns will not actually make you . . . you know . . . safer.
And, I'll ask again, what about knives?
What about knives? The output is to use it in a means to separate one whole into smaller pieces.. outcome is.. manageability?
Comments
How to Reduce Mass Shootings: Teach Young Men Philosophy -
i won't summarize this one.
*DISCLAIMER: The content of this article does not reflect the opinions of the poster "trigs". He is not affliated with nor does he have any relationship to the authors, editors, or sponsors of this article.*
Matthew Hagee: Stop Mass Shooting By Outlawing Video Games | Right Wing Watch
(i admit that i did not watch the video clip.)
my favourite quotation:
EDIT: i'm really not looking for these articles btw. just stumbling across them in my daily reading.
Maybe if he had the same video games, he would be able to better predict and prevent mass shootings?
Mark
This x1000 - were just debating here never personal!
and
Shooting in Oregon: So far in 2015, we’ve had 274 days and 294 mass shootings - The Washington Post
LOL, GTFO, and FU.
lol wow is it really THAT bad? what about a gun that reads your specific fingerprints in order to be used? no extra crap to wear and no codes required. just don't let people steal your hands.
Clearly these measure are also flawed.
Here's a link for proof and clearly it didn't work - check the 26:00 - 27:20... it's revealed later that they faked it.
Mark
Would we save lives if we proactivley installed breath-lock devices in every car? Would it be reasonable, would it be enforcable, would you be willing yo install one, and if not, why?
Yes, yes and yes.
*came back just to clarify my position:
If you think it is interesting tech, I agree.
If you want to build it, I encourage you.
If you want to buy it, I encourage you.
But if you want to force me to buy it, see above post re: GTFO
I think you would get some disagreement on that, but fair enough. let's say it costs $2000 extra for each vehicle, who pays?
my answers are yes.
HOWEVER, this question is quite off the mark of your position. the ONLY purpose for guns is for killing. cars are not made to kill, they are made for transportation. this is not a legitimate comparison. you could have, for example, went more to the point (i.e. alcohol and driving while impaired) and asked questions about banning alcohol or regulating the use of alcohol only in one's home, or something like that. however, despite that being closer to the point, it's still not the same as the purpose of alcohol is not to make a drunk killer.
for the record though, i'd be fine with making alcohol illegal (as long as marijuana is legalized
as far as who would have to pay for the new devices in cars - everyone who drinks alcohol and owns a car should have to pay for it obviously. otherwise, feel free to take the bus or a cab.
ALTHOUGH, i'm not sure what this money question has to do with anything. are you suggesting that the government is asking gun owners to spend their own money on gun regulation in some way? i don't know how they are or if they are, but i also don't see anything wrong with that.
I don’t mean to push you, but I am interested in the why. Is it too annoying? Too expensive (I assume it would increase the cost of guns)? Too uncool compared to your non gun regulated friends? To unsafe (in that you are already killed by the home intruder and your wife can’t shoot him to death with your gun in order to save her own life)?
Just basically saying “from my cold, dead hands” doesn’t really do justice to your argument imho.
I own guns, use them regularly, and have never killed anyone. Therefore, this argument is invalid.
Mark and I even discussed this in my first post in this thread. You can prove, via stats, that alcohol has a net negative impact on society. I could argue that alcohol has no purpose other than to intoxicate, and it wouldn't be any more valid than your claim that mine are for killing. I could argue that since I don't drink, and since alcohol is bad overall, that it should be banned. But that would be ridiculous.
This fantasy land approach that you guys have is one of the things that ruins your argument. Regulate the use of alcohol in ones home? Ban alcohol? The idea that you can magically make something disappear by banning it is just ludicrous. Innocent people are impacted the most, and the flow to the rest continues virtually un-interrupted. See "prohibition" circa early 1900's.
Yes it is, cause I said so. (just using your logic back at you)
I don't drink (aside from the odd beer every once in a while) and would disagree with you on that too. People enjoy drinking, and if they aren't hurting anyone, let them.
Got it. Agree with our point of view or take the fucking bus, bitch! Hail trigs!
edit - so I can opt out if I don't drink alcohol? honor system I guess?
Gotta get back to work but consider how the average anti-gunner completely underestimates the simplicity of a firearm. It's literally a piece of metal. A tube and a pin. That's it. You would have them become a god damned computer, and that added cost is passed on to the consumer, obviously.
simply because you have not killed someone with your gun does not change the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. believe it or not, guns were not created to go target shooting. and the same goes for alcohol not being invented to create drunk killers. it was invented to intoxicate people.
alcohol's original purpose was to intoxicate, i agree (it was also eventually used for healing purposes but whatever). that is not an argument. that is a statement of fact. just like guns were invented to kill people. also a fact. i can post sources for both of these if you wish. it takes a simple google search.
this was not my argument. you were the one who brought up the drinking and driving comparison. as i stated already, it is not an adequate comparison. yes i said i'm fine with banning alcohol but i never said that that is a good idea and that it would work. again, however, this comparison is not adequate so all this alcohol/drunk driving talk is pretty much nonsense to our gun debate imo.
i don't quite understand this because i clearly explained how guns and alcohol were different. just because you disagree with my assessment of guns v alcohol doesn't mean that my argument was simply "because i said so". i clearly stated why i said so (i.e. guns were invented to kill people, cars were invented for transportation, alcohol was invented for intoxication), so again imho, comparing these things doesn't make sense as they have drastically different purposes.
(for the record, i've taken multiple logic classes in university. i'm not saying i'm a logic expert, but i do have a somewhat decent idea of basic logic. i have to admit that this comment was upsetting to me especially because i did nothing of the sort.)
i agree with this. i simply said that i personally would be fine with alcohol being illegal. i never said alcohol SHOULD be illegal.
this is in reference to YOUR argument about drinking and driving and who would have to pay for the device in the car, you do realize that right? i simply stated my opinion on what premises YOU provided. again, this is not what i actually think should happen in real life. this is what i think would be fine happening in YOUR scenario.
i don't know how this is significant. how does the simplicity/complexity of a gun change the argument?
I read through my response again and I don't see how you got that from it. Certainly wasn't the intention.
I might think you are completely wrong on some points and I might argue those points passionately, but it's never personal.
maybe this I guess? this was just an FU trigs, lol!
I will join you on the *sigh*. We're now multiple levels deep into hypothetical arguments, arguing "I didn't say that" or "that was YOUR argument," so at this rate we're at risk of getting stuck in a loop. We may also be pushing up against the limits of effective debate on an internet forum. I've got at least one more post in me though, I can't help it I guess - gun owners are basically getting freerolled as we have nothing to gain but can easily lose.
At risk of sounding like this is personal again, I think your analysis lacks perspective. Analyzing the issue from only your point of view I can understand that you feel like you don't, and will never, want a gun. Nothing wrong with that, but you need to recognize that there are others that don't share that perspective, and more importantly, that my perspective is just as valid - whether or not you agree with it. Relevant Quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote"
At risk of going into semantics, "purpose" in this discussion is what I use them for, not the reason why they were invented. Until you have spent a day with friends and family out target shooting, going out hunting and bringing home meat that wasn't grown in some factory farming torture chamber, or slept well at night living 45 minutes outside of police response time in the middle of nowhere, I don't care what you can pull up on google. You can put it in bold, italics, or even both, but you won't convince me that you know the purpose of MY guns better than I do, and MY guns are the ones I am defending here.
As for the other points, I have to be honest I am losing track of the multi-quotes and don't even know where we are in this argument. I think my connection between the alcohol problem and the gun problem was more than valid. Both are used responsibly and irresponsibly. To those who don't understand them, both can be seen as evil. Both kill people in the wrong hands. It can be argued that both serve no value. It can be argued that both are completely unable to be stopped.
Comp's point is somewhat more rational:
... but still falls short when you take it a level deeper: Banning guns would simply take ALL of the guns from the good guys, and NONE of the guns from the bad guys. Cures the emotional reaction and feels like victory, but really doesn't solve anything. More importantly, it affects ME the most - the guy who didn't do anything wrong.
The last point I should mention, and maybe part of why I get so riled up, is this "nerf the world" mentality that is completely out of control in our culture. In the context of the debate I think your side sometimes gets lumped in with the hippies, the same way our side gets lumped in with mass-murderers. For that I apologize. Too easy to argue the extremes when the solution lies in the middle.
But the suggestion of a mandatory breathalyzer test, for everyone, every time you drive, forever... followed by two instant sign-ups with no questions asked? Honestly, to me that is way scarier than any gun I have seen.
It is up to the operator of said firearm to determine the lethality that results from that action. The firearm has no opinion.
The fact that thousands law abiding owners use their weapons regularly without killing anything renders the argument that the purpose of a firearm is to kill invalid on it's merit.
I would reject the notion of an ignition interlock on vehicle out of hand . . . I am a responsible adult who knows that driving and alcohol do not mix. As a responsible adult, I do not need the added cost such a device would add to the cost of my vehicle. The problem is not with the booze, it is with the drivers who lack the responsibility to handle said booze. Deal with them, and kindly leave the rest of us alone.
Same goes for firearms.
Anyone in the government funded life nowadays knows that the new "accountability and transparency" movement insists that people report / apply to programming have to specify the "outputs" (in this case projectiles of lead), and "outcomes" (in this case the obliteration of whatever said projectile is directed at).
So... stop trying to deny the origins of a gun. It's still a "pure" weapon
Mark
Why does your need to "feel" safer require that I give up so much as a scintilla of my enjoyment of a legal activity?
This is the dumbest thing you've said in some time.
"Hey, why do I need to not jerk off in public? I'm not hurting anyone.. why shouldn't I be allowed because you're a little uncomfortable"?
Seriously man...
Mark
And before you say it's illegal to jerk off in public, that's only because of the fact that people are uncomfortable.. TOTALLY not harmful to others
I simply want to know why your need to "feel" safer is justification for restricting the freedom of others? Answer the question.
Because banning guns will not actually make you . . . you know . . . safer.
And, I'll ask again, what about knives?
What about knives? The output is to use it in a means to separate one whole into smaller pieces.. outcome is.. manageability?
Mark