Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The "Why do you need?" fallacy. (Re: gun control)

Page 3 of 5 [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

09 Jan 2013, 8:37 pm

Explain to me why it's not irrational that you can justify assault wheapons by the constitution and cannot justify nuclear wheapons by the constitution. I'm all ears and know when to recognise I've lost an argument.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

09 Jan 2013, 8:40 pm

Why should a nuclear weapon be acceptable for anyone? Our founders were actually quite clear about the dangers of a standing army, how do you think they would feel about them holding nuclear annihilation over our heads at any given moment.

But that argument is dumb one(both practically and rhetorically) and hardly original. You're wasting our time regurgitating such a tired argument.

We have the right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government just as the people of Libya, Iran, or Syria. People don't seem to have a problem arming the "rebels" in those countries.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

09 Jan 2013, 8:45 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
Explain to me why it's not irrational that you can justify assault wheapons by the constitution and cannot justify nuclear wheapons by the constitution. I'm all ears and know when to recognise I've lost an argument.


What is an "assault weapon"?


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

09 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm

I dont own a gun and I dont think I will need one unless I move back into a bad neighborhood, but I think people should still have the right to own a gun for self defense and use it with responsibility.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Last edited by AspieOtaku on 11 Jan 2013, 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Jan 2013, 9:15 pm

ModusPonens wrote:
Again you misinterpreted what I said. This isn't going to work if I have to write two posts for each thing I say.

I saw another day a member defending that people in general should have access to nuclear wheapons. I prefer that my time be well used and not wasted on these people. I'm not assuming that every gun lover defends this.

But, if you want to take it that way, we can go there: why do you think that a nuclear wheapon is not acceptable acording to the constitution, but an assault rifle is? If you don't feel inclined to respond, then just ignore.
i think the question your asking is:is the constitution absolute?and the answer is no,even the first amendment is not taken literaly.do we realy have freedom of speech in america,well no and every day freedom of speech is eroding.
20 years ago giving or getting the finger in traffic was normal,now thats considered road rage an arrestable offense.the things you could say in public 20 years ago young people wouldnt believe.america is only as free as americans want to be.

your your question of if we cant own weapons of mass destruction then where is the line drawn"is a semi auto rifle on which side of the ever so slippery slope.thats a profoundly difficult legal question.in the end politicians and the people can bend the constitution anyway they want,it was the fact that americans have always been rugged individualists that has kept us free for so long.the best legal minds in the world will spend the next several decades debating just that.
i personaly dont have a problem with a citizen owning an AR15, i have never owned one or even a handgun and i feel perfectly safe with my antique 1901 16gauge shotgun or bolt action 6.5-55 but i respect other people feelings too.

but where will america go,well thats the unanswered question sort of like the piece of music by charles ives tittled the unanswered question where he ended on a disonant note sort of saying where will music go next


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Danimal
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 268
Location: West Central Indiana

10 Jan 2013, 1:59 am

Having served in the US Army for 20 year, I had opportunities to fire a modest selection of weaponry. I enjoyed learning new rifles and pistols. One of the favorite sayings in the military is "safety first". In basic training we had multiple classes on the M16 rifle before we ever got the rifle range. My point is that if one is going to own a firearm, he or she had better damn well know how to fire it safely and securely store it. I hear constantly about everyone's right in the US to own firearms, but rarely about safety. You want to own a pistol, hunting rifle, shotgun, or an AR15? Fine. However, learn how to fire it, clean it, and store it securely. Find a firing range and and expert instructor. Purchase a secure gun cabinet and store your UNLOADED firearms in it. How many shootings are accidental? I read many times people who have been shot while cleaning a loaded weapon. How many times have small children found unsecured pistols?
The Second Amendment doesn't mean that firearm owners can be irresponsible. Modern firearms are highly dangerous and must be treated with respect. They must be meticulously cleaned and lubricated.
As far as the argument that private citizens should be allowed to own weapons in order to resist tyranny, remember this. Private citizens don't have the organization that the police and military do. Police and soldiers also have access to a wider array of weapons and virtually unlimited ammunition. If you shoot an intruder in your home, be prepared to deal with the realization that you killed another person. Most of us have never killed another person, and PTSD is a very real possibility.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

10 Jan 2013, 4:52 am

America f*ck yeah! Guns f*ck yeah if you don't like it you don't have to live here. *pulls out a burger and eats it and gets into a musclecar and does a burn out*


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

10 Jan 2013, 7:33 am

vermontsavant wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Again you misinterpreted what I said. This isn't going to work if I have to write two posts for each thing I say.

I saw another day a member defending that people in general should have access to nuclear wheapons. I prefer that my time be well used and not wasted on these people. I'm not assuming that every gun lover defends this.

But, if you want to take it that way, we can go there: why do you think that a nuclear wheapon is not acceptable acording to the constitution, but an assault rifle is? If you don't feel inclined to respond, then just ignore.
i think the question your asking is:is the constitution absolute?and the answer is no,even the first amendment is not taken literaly.do we realy have freedom of speech in america,well no and every day freedom of speech is eroding.
20 years ago giving or getting the finger in traffic was normal,now thats considered road rage an arrestable offense.the things you could say in public 20 years ago young people wouldnt believe.america is only as free as americans want to be.

your your question of if we cant own weapons of mass destruction then where is the line drawn"is a semi auto rifle on which side of the ever so slippery slope.thats a profoundly difficult legal question.in the end politicians and the people can bend the constitution anyway they want,it was the fact that americans have always been rugged individualists that has kept us free for so long.the best legal minds in the world will spend the next several decades debating just that.
i personaly dont have a problem with a citizen owning an AR15, i have never owned one or even a handgun and i feel perfectly safe with my antique 1901 16gauge shotgun or bolt action 6.5-55 but i respect other people feelings too.

but where will america go,well thats the unanswered question sort of like the piece of music by charles ives tittled the unanswered question where he ended on a disonant note sort of saying where will music go next


Thank you. So in your country the constitution isn't a collection of absolute statements. And just as you regulate free speech in order to protect the liberties of those who are offended, you can outrule nuclear wheapons from the public. Is this right?

Ok, so since there are lines to be drawn, where do you draw the line? If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the american people from tyrany, the army is much more well equiped to win a civil war than civilians. If this is the purpose how do you draw the line? Can you make a circunstantial law, such as for example, guns are forbiden, unless there is a civil war?



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

10 Jan 2013, 7:59 am

ModusPonens wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Again you misinterpreted what I said. This isn't going to work if I have to write two posts for each thing I say.

I saw another day a member defending that people in general should have access to nuclear wheapons. I prefer that my time be well used and not wasted on these people. I'm not assuming that every gun lover defends this.

But, if you want to take it that way, we can go there: why do you think that a nuclear wheapon is not acceptable acording to the constitution, but an assault rifle is? If you don't feel inclined to respond, then just ignore.
i think the question your asking is:is the constitution absolute?and the answer is no,even the first amendment is not taken literaly.do we realy have freedom of speech in america,well no and every day freedom of speech is eroding.
20 years ago giving or getting the finger in traffic was normal,now thats considered road rage an arrestable offense.the things you could say in public 20 years ago young people wouldnt believe.america is only as free as americans want to be.

your your question of if we cant own weapons of mass destruction then where is the line drawn"is a semi auto rifle on which side of the ever so slippery slope.thats a profoundly difficult legal question.in the end politicians and the people can bend the constitution anyway they want,it was the fact that americans have always been rugged individualists that has kept us free for so long.the best legal minds in the world will spend the next several decades debating just that.
i personaly dont have a problem with a citizen owning an AR15, i have never owned one or even a handgun and i feel perfectly safe with my antique 1901 16gauge shotgun or bolt action 6.5-55 but i respect other people feelings too.

but where will america go,well thats the unanswered question sort of like the piece of music by charles ives tittled the unanswered question where he ended on a disonant note sort of saying where will music go next


Thank you. So in your country the constitution isn't a collection of absolute statements. And just as you regulate free speech in order to protect the liberties of those who are offended, you can outrule nuclear wheapons from the public. Is this right?

Ok, so since there are lines to be drawn, where do you draw the line? If the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the american people from tyrany, the army is much more well equiped to win a civil war than civilians. If this is the purpose how do you draw the line? Can you make a circunstantial law, such as for example, guns are forbiden, unless there is a civil war?
i will be honest,i am not a lawyer and these are deep legal questions.
1.i doubt anyone want private citizens to own any military grade weapons of mass destruction
2.yes part of the second amendment is to protect america from enemies home or abroad.invasion of foriegn countries,self defense from criminals and tyranical goverments.back in world war 2 they said:" no country would ever launch a full out ground attach on mainland U.S because"there would be a rifle under every blade of grass".
3.if you made a law that guns were banned unless of civil war then do you realy think the goverment would actualy give them back in case of a civil war.
4.exactly where would you draw the line is very hard,personaly growing up in massachusetts where gun laws are so strict yet places like boston,springfield,holyoke,lowell and even worcester had so much gun violence.this does not make me think that gun control works.but from a strictly legal perpective im not really sure about these slippery slopes and grey areas and such


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

10 Jan 2013, 11:20 am

PM wrote:
However, what would be a good counter for this fallacy? (just in case I care to debate it again in the future)


You don't need anything beyond fundamental sustenance, so we shall ban all fast food places. Tofu and bean sprouts for all.

You don't need anything more than a 8 x 10 cell for living in. Communal bathrooms are good enough. No homes/apartments/condos above this standard.

The list could go on, but you really don't NEED a lot of things we'd shoot someone in the face if they demanded we give them up...and they aren't even enumerated in the US Constitution.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

10 Jan 2013, 12:09 pm

Evinceo wrote:
Can you point out the part about self (personal?) defense? I can't seem to find it.


It's the part about the well regulated militia (which isn't a state or government body). A militia is there for defense, which is made up of individuals (self-). Then it goes on for the right of the people to bear arms.

Though it doesn't matter what's written anywhere; if most people don't like it, they'll change it.

RE: nuclear weapons. What makes people think the government will be any safer with them than say...Bill Gates? There's more people in the process? More people can expose a higher incidence of people who'd misuse them to come in contact with such.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

10 Jan 2013, 1:23 pm

Danimal wrote:
Having served in the US Army for 20 year, I had opportunities to fire a modest selection of weaponry. I enjoyed learning new rifles and pistols. One of the favorite sayings in the military is "safety first". In basic training we had multiple classes on the M16 rifle before we ever got the rifle range. My point is that if one is going to own a firearm, he or she had better damn well know how to fire it safely and securely store it. I hear constantly about everyone's right in the US to own firearms, but rarely about safety. You want to own a pistol, hunting rifle, shotgun, or an AR15? Fine. However, learn how to fire it, clean it, and store it securely. Find a firing range and and expert instructor. Purchase a secure gun cabinet and store your UNLOADED firearms in it. How many shootings are accidental? I read many times people who have been shot while cleaning a loaded weapon. How many times have small children found unsecured pistols?
The Second Amendment doesn't mean that firearm owners can be irresponsible. Modern firearms are highly dangerous and must be treated with respect. They must be meticulously cleaned and lubricated.
As far as the argument that private citizens should be allowed to own weapons in order to resist tyranny, remember this. Private citizens don't have the organization that the police and military do. Police and soldiers also have access to a wider array of weapons and virtually unlimited ammunition. If you shoot an intruder in your home, be prepared to deal with the realization that you killed another person. Most of us have never killed another person, and PTSD is a very real possibility.


Interesting post. You seem to know what you're talking about.



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

10 Jan 2013, 6:16 pm

Raptor wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Explain to me why it's not irrational that you can justify assault wheapons by the constitution and cannot justify nuclear wheapons by the constitution. I'm all ears and know when to recognise I've lost an argument.


What is an "assault weapon"?


Political term for anything that looks scary to the anti-gun lobby.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

10 Jan 2013, 6:49 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
Tequila wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
What needs to be answered is how many inocent people die a year by fire arms in a country with gun control (say Japan) and how many inocent people die a year in the US? That's the question relevant to a government. If the difference was little, maybe your trap argument would work, but it isn't.


You could also argue the rate of deaths in a country like Switzerland versus the amount of deaths and murders in the U.S.

Face facts: it ain't the guns that are the problem but the a**holes who use them.
Ding ding ding ding ding we have a winner. You take the guns away you will still see mass murders in America on the news. It wont make a difference.


The difference is it'll make it a hell of a lot harder for potential mass murderers to mass murder. Not everyone has the brains to build bombs and i've never seen or heard of a massacre carried out at knifepoint.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

10 Jan 2013, 6:54 pm

PM wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Explain to me why it's not irrational that you can justify assault wheapons by the constitution and cannot justify nuclear wheapons by the constitution. I'm all ears and know when to recognise I've lost an argument.


What is an "assault weapon"?


Political term for anything that looks scary to the anti-gun lobby.


not at all. The term "assault rifle" is used even by firearms circles.

The M4 bushmaster used in the most recent shootout was an example of a assault rifle. From my understanding it applies to any magazine fed, semi automatic or automatic rifle. Basically anything that could be a standard issue weapon to infantry soldiers. Its a well defined group of guns.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


ModusPonens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jan 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 715

10 Jan 2013, 7:11 pm

PM wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Explain to me why it's not irrational that you can justify assault wheapons by the constitution and cannot justify nuclear wheapons by the constitution. I'm all ears and know when to recognise I've lost an argument.


What is an "assault weapon"?


Political term for anything that looks scary to the anti-gun lobby.


Had you read my posts here and you would know I'm not even american, so how can I be a lobbyist?

And I don't know the technical terms because of the same reason. I'm not an english native speaker.

And finaly, I'm not the one who is scared enough to need a gun to feel safe.