Senate Gun Control

My Facebook newsfeed is currently cluttered with this argument. It's a sad thing, imo, that even here in Orlando, people are bickering like this. Yes, I'm troubled by all the pro-gun sentiments I'm seeing on my Facebook, especially since it seems like these friends of mine hadn't bothered to do much research before posting their pro-gun rhetoric: "There are X-number of legal gun owners in this country--you'd know if we were a problem," "Disarming us makes the terrorists win," "You can cry in a heap on the floor, begging for mercy for you and your child from a shooter while I defend myself--and you and your kid--with my gun."

If I'm not wrong, something like 80% of mass shootings in the US were done with legally obtained firearms. There are even videos of Al-Qaeda trying to convince American sympathizers to go out and buy a gun legally from a store or gun show because of how frail gun legislation is in the country. No one is talking about disarming the American public or implementing a total ban on all guns. And the last one...wow. Just wow.

Not enough people are talking about the good things going on in Orlando. The volunteer work. The donations. The efforts to uplift the city's spirit. Everything is drowned out by this stupid noise.

 

You call it murder, I call it defending property.

 

In every society where people harm other people it is because of some socially constructed notion that the "other" has no value. Look at the history of genocides throughout the world, look at the way religion has de-humanised people of other religions or no religion, how people with different skin colours have been treated as sub-human, look at the way homosexual people are treated. The poor, the homeless, the mentally ill. The most vulnerable people in society become faceless, meaningless, worthless debris. This Scapro chap is just voicing a socially constructed norm of American society - your life is forfeit if you **** with my stuff. If you are not me then you have no value. Gun massacres are a symptom of this successful indoctrination that not all people are actually born equal nor do their lives matter. The measure of a successful country is how it treats its most vulnerable. Fix that **** and guns become like playing cards, an innocuous hobby.

 

still just stuff. as others have said, if you are robbed you probably aren't going to be home to kill the robber. don't place too much importance on things.

 

You aren't wrong. We should be talking about this. But this is a gun control topic discussion.

 

Awesome post Hoth.

 

It really does seem like a substantial percentage of pro-gun folks (by which I mean those adamantly opposed to just about any regulations on guns) believe that it's important to have them in case the government goes after them, or if there's a war, or something in between the two. Anyone who thinks that they or any group of civilians (no matter how heavily armed they are) would stand a chance against U.S. Army regulars or even just the national guard is deluded. They would be crushed.

 

You're right. It was also the only thread discussing what happened here. But yeah, that's a fair point. It's a debate thread.

 

The bigger issue is we don't teach anyone morals anymore or ethics.

Schools are teaching to the test thanks to things like "No Child Left Behind" and the like. When teaching to the test you don't have a lot of room left over for the things that really matter. Families don't raise their children anymore so instead it is done in the school and when the school doesn't teach morals, where do you get it? Role models! Sports stars, musicians, actors/actresses. TV, movies, etc. The best of places to get ideas for what to become.

You all may think I am "immoral" or a "monster" because if someone broke into my house I would defend my property to the fullest extent of the law.

The bigger issue is the society that either A.) Makes it impossible for people to get by without breaking the law or B.) Makes it seem like breaking the law is an acceptable norm.

I would lay down my life to save others. I have gone in harms way. I have been assaulted on the job. But damn it if I am not going to defend whats mine.

 

Let's start up a thread about the good thats going on and I will gladly support you and take part! We need more positive information and energy in the world.

 

Two things;

1. I think we're voicing the same observations
2. Scarpo doesn't know what mens rea is

 

Edit: eh, nevermind.

 

You aren't wrong. I think that was the original intent of the founding fathers but they also did not expect to ever have a significant standing army, regardless of weaponry.

 

When you teach your values, which I am sure you do, that you would essentially sympathize with someone killed committing a crime than the person who has the crime committed against them then you are the core of the problem. That emboldens people. That is the type of thing their formative minds hear and recognizes its okay.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Oh man... I hope we get another epic meltdown...


... on topic, who the **** do you think you are, talking to anakinfan like that?

 

I don't care if she was POTUS or the Queen of England. When you are part of the problem I am not going to baby or coddle you.

 

Now, as a school librarian, how exactly is she a part of the problem. Also, which problem are you referring to, gun crime?

 

It's not about sympathy. It's about the value of human life over the value of a possession, a chattel, a thing. If your life is threatened then you have the right to defend yourself and if that results in your assailant getting killed then that is a catastrophe but you have acted morally. However, if your possessions are threatened then you are acting immorally by killing the thief. Human life trumps possessions. Simple as that. No possession is worth a human life. The thief can be a complete scumbag, piece of **** but their life is worth more than your game console or your microwave not matter how hard you worked to buy those things. They are just things. How hard is that to understand?

 

Word of the day: heirlooms

 

He has me on ignore so someone will need to paraphrase here but:

This is the problem with America's entire founding principle, a rights based culture.

Having a right means having a responsibility, and having the judgement to determine when it is appropriate to exercise it.

That you can do something, in other words, is not the same thing as saying you should do something.

The statistics for home invasions where the invader uses significant or deadly force against the occupant only lead to one conclusion: you are not at significant or material risk of being harmed by someone who breaks into your home.

In fact, an entire industry exists to ensure that in the event you are robbed - itself a biproduct of socio-economic factors - and you are home or you are out, your items can be replaced. The intent, the proper intent, is clear. Your stuff is just stuff and can be replaced.

Use of force should be a last result where a reasonable fear to one's safety can be demonstrated. If someone is on the ground floor of a two story residence, unplugging your TV, your confronting them escalates the situation. Rightly or wrongly, it doesn't matter - the course of events was dictated by your actions.

Unless they come at you visibly wielding a weapon capable of deadly force, you have no moral justification for using a force multiplier like a gun on them. No good comes of it.

But, America indoctrinates people to believe it is a moral imperative to use force. That is a duty required of Good and Honest Citizens to have a gun to protect their things. Their family.

Poppycock.

It's an economic argument. The NRA, as first and foremost an industry body for American, German, Austrian, Swiss, French and Israeli arms makers (plus others) who profit from keeping Americans afraid and consuming their products. If you believe that the 100 incidents of homicide a year resulting from an intruder breaking into a house, stealing stuff and killing the occupant could be you next! you will of course buy a few guns as a mitigant against that risk. And if you're susceptible to that kind of insipid propaganda in the first place, calculating the odds of you, one in 300+ million people, being one of that hundred isn't going to even enter the outer limits of your consciousness. You need to be safe. It's your right to be safe. It's your right to be armed, to have your stuff, have it be safe, to protect it.

"But what about the right to life of the person you're about to shoot who hasn't infringed on your right to life?"

Well, the 2nd amendment, you see...

"But didn't the declaration of independence conclude, firmly (and on the flimsiest philosophical grounds imaginable), that everyone had the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?"

Yes, but, the 2nd amendment. My rights, dammit.

"You have a right to life, so do they. Nothing I can see here gives you permission to assert the primacy of your 2nd amendment rights over their 'alienable' right to life?"

Yes, but guns!

 

As I outlined earlier. A simple mugging should never result in a loss of life unless the mugged person feels in imminent threat of their life.

If someone is breaking into your house, you have no idea if their intent is to steal your "game console or grandmothers china" or to cause you and your family bodily harm. In most, if not all states, if someone has broken into you home you can consider that a threat on your life.

Again I am not talking about someone walking on my property "Ah, **** him! I am going to shoot him for being on my property!" I am talking about an act of breaking into ones home.