PDA

View Full Version : Need another reply to my friend




matratzac
01-26-2008, 01:16 PM
Me: Taken away by WHOM?

Him :By the federal gov't

Me: And what about the right to SELF DEFENSE??? The supreme court has ruled
that even with a restraining order the state has no OBLIGATION to defend you.
As for numbers: 11,600 firearms homicides in 2004.

Him: Statistics also show that you are more likely to get yourself killed when pulling out a gun in self defense than if you do not have a gun. Common sense should tell people this also.

Me: There were almost 4 times this amount in car accidents, and 2 times the amount due to alcohol.

there were 2.4 million deaths in 2004 in the US

Him: Uhhhh....not really sure what ur point is here. Yes lots of people die, this means that we should just ignore the deaths caused by gunfire? Why dont you tell that to the families of the victims

Me: If cars kill 4 times the number and alcohol kills twice the number can I make the same argument?? I.E. Think of how many people we could save by banning cars and alcohol!

Him: The difference is that guns are made forthe purpose of killing. They have no other purpose. Also the biggest difference is CHOICE. You do not have to get in the car if you do not want to take that risk of dying in a car accident. People have a choice when it comes to driving and drinking. On the other hand if you were a victim in a shooting you really didnt have much choice in that.


Me: Yes to the above, however if you think the federal government should have the power to "allow" something then it also has the power to take it away

Him: If the role of the federal gov't is to ensure that peoples individual freedoms are not taken away then they will not be able to take away the right of gay people to get married. They could try but that is why they must go through multiple branches in order to get a billed passed, and one of those branches would have to say "no, you cannot do this because it would be taking away personal freedoms" That is the only way to ensure someones individual freedoms. You claim to want to give people their freedoms but then you contradict yourself by saying that the state should have the power to tell people what they can and cannot do. I am not implying that the federal gov't should be deciding on these moral issues, I am saying that the federal gov't should enforce every individuals right to decide for themselves as opposed to letting the states decide for the individual.

Me: Use the process and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of trampling on it

Him: yes, I agree, amend the constitution and take out amendment #2.

Me: The constitution does not GIVE rights. They are INHERENT including the right to self defense.

Him: Yes rights are inherent but again, in order to protect everyones freedom and safety some times you have to ask people to make small sacrifices.

Me: Guns exist. Banning them completly will have the same effect as drug laws. They will still exist except only those people who have no regard for the law will have them. This is the unintended consequences. You can wish for a world without guns all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it does exist and criminals will have them.

Him: I am not under any illusions that implementing stricter gun laws will eliminate guns or the deaths attributed to them. I do however think that it can be dramatically decreased. It is not just the criminals that have guns that are the problem, it is ALL gun owners. You probably dont think of dick cheany as a criminal yet he very well could have killed his friend. The parents of the columbine children werent criminals yet their guns proved to be responsible for a trajegedy. Is it possible that those kids would have gotten their hands on some guns anyways despite strict gun laws?? Sure it is, but I believe that with smart, well-regulated gun control policies we have the ability to make incidents like columbine far less common.

Me: allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as funding those very abortions.

Him: I never said that they should be funded

Me: but the government must still abide by its laws. If the laws are wrong, the laws must be changed.

Him: I agree and I am saying that the laws need to be changed.

Me" What, then, is the purpose of state government?

Him: The purpose is, or should be, to allow its residents to vote on issues that effect that state only, such as increasing state taxes for some sort of state project. The state should not be leglislating morality, that is no better than the federal gov't leglislating morality. Moral issues should be left up to individuals and no one else( including state or federal gov't). The only involvement the gov't (state or federal) should have in moral issues is to protect an individuals right to decide for themselves.

Me: There was a situtation very similar to Virginia Tech, at the Appalachian School of Law. in this situation, 3 people were killed, not 32. He was taken down by 2 students, armed with their own personal guns. With this example in mind, I say that had a single person been armed in Virginia Tech, the possibility of a drastically different scenario was very possible. Keep in mind the shooter supposedly chained the doors shut from the inside. How can you expect the police to protect you in that situation? A simple case of "Every second counts, and the police are minutes away". Not to mention the fact that almost all mass shootings, including Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the recent mall shooting, are committed in GUN FREE ZONES. The second the shooter walks onto the property, he is virtually guaranteed to be the only person with a gun. This is why gun free zones are known as "Victim Disarmament Zones". I would also like to point out that most recent church shooting was stopped because a civilian gun owner, acting as a security guard, shot back.
Gun control is an ILLUSION of safety.

Him: Of course there have been situations where guns have been the saving grace of a situation. However when looking at the overall picture, I still believe that we would all be much safer with strict gun control laws. Lets for a minute forget about those extreme situations of mass shootings and think about every day situations. Your walking down the street and you get into an arguement with a stranger. The arguement gets heated...do you want that guy to have a gun?? Yes the hard core criminals would probably still have guns no matter how strict the laws were but I am just as worried about the every day joe that owns as gun as I am the hard core criminal, and its the everyday joes that we could take the guns away from.

Me: Yet the constitution, written by rich white men, treats every American the same. We are all endowed with our God-given rights, be we black, white, tall, short, gay, straight, WHATEVER. What they wrote benefits us all

Him: You are right about that, the constitution in general is pretty good document. I was just trying to make the point that just because something is in the constitution does not neccessarily mean we should live and die by it. We still need to examine all of the issues, including gun control, and weigh out all of the pros and cons of both side of the issues, as opposed to simply saying "well its in the constitution so we already have our answer."

Me: What about the people that consider abortion murder?

Him: The belief that abortion is murder usually stems from a persons religous beliefs. These are people that believe that the fetus has some sort of a soul. There is something called separation of church and state. If abortions are murder what are misscariages? Suicide?

Me: Also, you should know that the states in the united states with the loosest gun laws also have the least amount of violence. Ironic?

Him: Ironic?, no, coincidence? probably. All states currently have pretty lax gun laws to where if you want a gun it will not be hard to get one regardless of where you live.

matratzac
01-26-2008, 01:17 PM
reply bc i forgot to subscribe

driller80545
01-26-2008, 01:27 PM
Both of you are making good points. For me, the bottom line on gun control is that if a criminal comes in my home with a gun, legal or not, I am going to shoot him. Whether my gun is legal or not.

Physics
01-26-2008, 01:48 PM
Your friend is very misguided, and needs to provide you some sources. This is because his "statistics" are bullshit. I can just spout shit too, here watch: "Chipmunks kill more people than alcohol." I can't provide a source for that, but it's true I swear.

Have him read the Harvard paper I posted in the other thread. That paper states that banning guns has no effect on murder and suicide. With just that, your friend's argument falls apart. People will kill people with whatever is available. Violent crime would go up with a gun ban. Also, how does your friend plan on getting rid of the guns on the street without a civil war? I think if you try to take people's guns, you will understand the true purpose of the second amendment.

Also about the drunk driving analogy. Your friend says that it's a matter of choice... what about the handicapped girl of 23 who was hit by a drunk driver in my hometown while crossing the street in a crosswalk, at a red light. Did she choose to drink and drive, or get into a car, and "risk her life"? It is the same thing.

Most of the things I see your friend saying as fact are just wrong. He really needs to do some research on these things. I know he won't because he is ignorant, I have debated these people time and again, and they all end up just getting angry. I gave you some good sources in the last thread, make him read them. See if he can provide you with reputable sources (ie:not from Brady).

My point with the law school and gun free zones was actually more inclusive. My point was that when a shooter opens fire in a gun free zone, more people die than if civilians could possibly have been armed. There is no possible way to eliminate the guns on the streets right now, there are too many people who have 30 AK's buried in the woods somewhere. Like I said, you can't eliminate the guns without a civil war.

As for taking everyday Joe's gun away? Why? What has Joe done wrong to need his right to bear arms taken away? Sure, we should take that right away from criminals, but why should we take Joe's away, when he's done nothing wrong?

I have a pretty good example for you. S. 1331: Long-Range Sniper Rifle Safety Act of 2007, look it up. It's a ban on .50 BMG rifles. Why would we ban .50 cal? Well, yeah, I guess it's a pretty big bullet, it's scary! I bet since they want to take it away, it must be used in crime a lot. I'm sure scared of the .50 cal! But wait, according to the Violence Policy Center, at
http://www.vpc.org/snipercrime.htm , there is virtually no use of .50 cal rifles in crimes. WAIT, WHAT?!?!?! They want to take away .50 cal because some guy shot a tree stump and started a fire? GUN CONTROL IS THE ILLUSION OF SAFETY!!

zakkubin
01-26-2008, 01:48 PM
Easy...

Him- "You claim to want to give people their freedoms but then you contradict yourself by saying that the state should have the power to tell people what they can and cannot do. I am not implying that the federal gov't should be deciding on these moral issues, I am saying that the federal gov't should enforce every individuals right to decide for themselves as opposed to letting the states decide for the individual."

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

92 U.S. 542

UNITED STATES
v.
CRUIKSHANK ET AL.
Source:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=92&page=542

"was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens"

"has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Notice 1875... The supreme court has yet to make this topic any clearer.



"Him: I agree and I am saying that the laws need to be changed."

Well then he should ask his states legislature to pass laws to regulate guns.

The truth is no side is a clear winner based on the constitution. But what we do know is that the federal government does not have the authority to pass laws regarding guns restriction.

----------------------

Your friend likes "common sense" ask him to use it.

Criminals will get guns no matter what.
Any laws we pass will effect law abiding citizens. So yes there will be less guns in the hands of the very citizens that would use them in self defense.

As far as crime goes people will always murder people.Even if you took away all the guns people would murder people with knives or bats...




"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin,

coastie
01-26-2008, 01:49 PM
Both of you are making good points. For me, the bottom line on gun control is that if a criminal comes in my home with a gun, legal or not, I am going to shoot him. Whether my gun is legal or not.


:confused: Good points? Where? Especially this gem:


Him: Of course there have been situations where guns have been the saving grace of a situation. However when looking at the overall picture, I still believe that we would all be much safer with strict gun control laws. Lets for a minute forget about those extreme situations of mass shootings and think about every day situations. Your walking down the street and you get into an arguement with a stranger. The arguement gets heated...do you want that guy to have a gun?? Yes the hard core criminals would probably still have guns no matter how strict the laws were but I am just as worried about the every day joe that owns as gun as I am the hard core criminal, and its the everyday joes that we could take the guns away from.


:eek:
Read that ten times, and I PROMISE you'll have a headache. Your friend is an idiot, and I dont usually call people names. What he said makes no rational sense whatsoever, whether your for "gun control" or not....

Physics
01-26-2008, 01:53 PM
I agree with coastie... your friend seems to have had all logic removed from his brain.

coastie
01-26-2008, 01:57 PM
In the remote chance your friend is the victim of violent crime and is saved by a CCW holder such as myself, I dont even think that would change his mind...

I'd stay far, far away from that guy, if I were you. Seriously.

zakkubin
01-26-2008, 01:59 PM
Around Christmas time in Little Rock Arkansas something terrible happened that makes "our point"

A family was walking out of our local walmart to their car minding their own business. The father of the family noticed a young man trying to steal a purse from another citizen. He went over to help her but was SHOT by the kid who then quickly ran away and jumped in a car with his thug friends and drove off in broad day light with people in the parking lot watching...

Had there been someone with a gun this kid would not have been allowed to escape to kill again.

Yep I agree someone probably would have just shot him. I say GOOD.
He killed a father 10 feet away from his wife and young children...

ike
01-26-2008, 02:01 PM
Well, there's the argument that we may, one day (not yet)l eventually have to defend ourselves from the government by force, but some people think that's a loony argument, and likely won't work with your friend, who seems to think the government can do no wrong.

coastie
01-26-2008, 02:05 PM
Around Christmas time in Little Rock Arkansas something terrible happened that makes "our point"

A family was walking out of our local walmart to their car minding their own business. The father of the family noticed a young man trying to steal a purse from another citizen. He went over to help her but was SHOT by the kid who then quickly ran away and jumped in a car with his thug friends and drove off in broad day light with people in the parking lot watching...

Had there been someone with a gun this kid would not have been allowed to escape to kill again.

Yep I agree someone probably would have just shot him. I say GOOD.
He killed a father 10 feet away from his wife and young children...


This is one of the several reasons I carry...I refuse to let that happen in front of/or to my wife and children, and would not let it happen if I'm there to anyone else in the area, if I can help it.:D

matratzac
01-26-2008, 06:18 PM
thanks guys

Shavenyak
01-26-2008, 06:32 PM
Let me reinforce the above.

LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION TO RISK THEIR LIVES TO SAVE ANYONE!!!