Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Some idiot felt like it was a good idea to just toss her gun in her purse, without putting the safety on or even bothering to use a holster. So her two-year-old son finds the gun and kills her. I posted a link to the Facebook topic so you can see morons from both sides go at it in the comments section.

In my opinion, being allowed to own guns in the United States is fine because, well, guns are cool. There's also the fact that you'll never know what could happen when you leave your house (and sometimes even in your house). This isn't the gun's fault or the kid's fault. This is the mother's fault for being so careless. And, in my eyes, this is natural selection. But nobody will understand that. The anti-gun extremists will keep yelling "BAN GUNZ!!!1!11!", the pro-gun extremists will keep yelling "UR ALL COMMIEZ!!111!!!11!", and we'll get nothing accomplished socially.

What my freshman geometry teacher always say "Let the morons and natural selection do their thing." But this makes me sad that the child is now motherless because of it.
Jimmy right, we'll never get anything done when were yelling opinions at each other.

By that logic, we should withhold all treatments for STDs, since most of the people who have them could have avoided contracting them in the first place by using a condom.

Fact of the matter is, there are a lot of people out there who are reckless or just really fuckin' stupid. It's society's job to protect them from themselves.

Jesus Christ, what was she going to try next, scratching a bad itch on the surface of her jugular with the blade of a fucking foot-long butcher knife? Why don't we, instead of trying to ban guns, just ban whatever series of genes produced that deformed nightmare of a brain?

justThisFool wrote:

Jimmy right, we’ll never get anything done when were yelling opinions at each other.

Well then, I guess it's time to pack it in humanity, because we're clearly boned.

According to this, she was a nuclear scientist

That was entirely uncalled for.

Well… what would you say? What exactly is "called for"?
Okay, I will admit that the whole "nuclear research scientist" thing kind of threw me for a loop. But people like that aren't immune to profound stupidity, even the geniuses- Newton's alchemy, Einstein's cosmological constant and so on. Sure it sucks ass for her family, but to be perfectly honest, I'm kind of glad that she won't be hanging around dangerous radioactive devices anymore. Does that make me an asshole? Probably.

Personally I think that guns should be restricted. Over here, the ban works pretty well but I can see why there is opposition in the US. I think the solution should factor area and purpose, for example if you live in a big city or built up area and there is no reason for you to have a gun in that area (I don't think they should be for self defence against people either, there are better less dangerous alternatives) then guns should be banned in that location. However if you live in a distant location like a farm or those people who live in the wilderness, it is acceptable because you may need to hunt or defend yourself from bears or something.

Because who really needs a gun in Walmart?

First off, >implying criminals follow the law. Second, if you live in even a mediocre neighborhood, Wal-Mart is a pretty fucking dangerous place. I live in North Charleston, which isn't exactly the American dream. Gangs have a relatively strong presence around here, especially near the mall (despite that area being a relatively nice place otherwise). There's a Wal-Mart in nearby Goose Creek where shit happens all the time. It's commonly considered the worst place in the area to work. It's only a matter of time until shoplifting and sexual harassment turn into armed robbery.

Yes, there are a lot of people that have no business owning a gun. My point is, shit happens, and the only thing that can stop an idiot with a gun is a smart person with a gun.

I never implied criminals follow the law at all.

Also the dangers of those gangs come from the fact that they have those guns. Laws that would make them forbidden for them to have possession would mean they wouldn't be as dangerous if the law was properly enforced. Sure at the beginning there wouldn't be much of a difference, but over a longer period it should cut the criminals getting access to those weapons meaning outside the black market it would be impossible or very difficult to get those weapons and cause destruction with them. They maybe able to get other weapons but they wont be anywhere near as effective as guns.

"My point is, shit happens, and the only thing that can stop an idiot with a gun is a smart person with a gun."

This maybe true, but the argument shouldn't be about how you retaliate to these situations, but how we can prevent them. How do you ensure they go to the responsible people? Because in the end someone who kills someone else with a gun is either going to do it regardless or they think they will 100% get away with it. It's about making sure that you can prove you can handle that power and that you wont or it is highly unlikely you'll abuse it. It's not going to erase gun crime completely but it could significantly reduce it to a point where you wont need that many smart people with guns to stop the few who are stupid with them.

I'd just like to point out that the "criminals don't follow the law" argument is bullshit.
Saying that is saying that any law that is ever broken is ineffective and might as well not exist. People will always murder each other because lots of people are assholes, but just because some people murder doesn't mean that we shouldn't have laws against it. The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, because that's virtually impossible, it's to prevent as many bad things from happening as possible.
I really don't understand why or how people keep using that argument.

Do you realize what it would take to ensure that "the law was properly enforced", so that no one ever got their hands on a gun? Virtually a police state. And I don't think I even need to go into detail about the problem with that.

I never said "No one should get their hands on a gun.". I said in a place where it's not needed or alternatively have it so that at the minimum you have to have some sort of proof that you wont misuse the firearm your purchasing, for example people who have a recorded history of violence should have some way to prove they aren't gonna use it for violence.

Plus would you call all those countries that you can't purchase guns in 'Police States'? I can see where your coming from when I meant that the law was properly enforced, I meant that the police just do their jobs, which in that hypothetical situation meant taking illegal weapons off the person who has them in public.

Actually, this argument against that argument is bullshit, and I really wish people would stop using it.
First of all, it makes a false analogy, because a law against murder and a law against possessing firearms are very different in nature. The former is so inherent to human values that I'm not even sure if it's necessary to have a country's judicial system officially declare it, because no shit. Taking human life has pretty much always been considered the chief moral wrong, and we place great importance on our ability to catch and punish the individuals who do so. On the other hand, the purpose behind the latter is not direct/primary- in other words, most people on that side aren't saying that owning a gun is inherently evil- but indirect/secondary, in that it's theoretically supposed to reduce the levels of said murder, as well as theft etc. Because of this, the "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" argument is perfectly reasonable. It challenges the argument behind enacting it, and says that not only will it not make the situation better, but it'll actually make it worse, because normal citizens will be put at a disadvantage against criminals.
Also…
"The point of laws isn’t to eliminate crime…"
That statement is just utter nonsense. By the very definition of the word, something is not a "crime" until a law is put in place that makes it so. But you are right in the second part of that sentence, which makes me confused, because that's exactly what the so-called "pro-gun" people are saying- the legislation will not work at preventing bad things from happening. I'm not sure how you don't see that.

"Because of this, the “if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns” argument is perfectly reasonable. It challenges the argument behind enacting it, and says that not only will it not make the situation better,but it’ll actually make it worse, because normal citizens will be put at a disadvantage against criminals."

No that statement is not true because the justice system will have guns. Sure citizens will have a disadvantage, but they would anyway if they can't afford a gun and it shouldn't be everyone's responsibility to retaliate to criminals.And the difference between outlaws and the justice system is that 1) the justice system for the most part wont abuse it's use of guns (I know that there are cases but nothing's flawless) and 2) They are only going after outlaws and not innocents and 3) The justice system will be able to have access to the guns, while it would be extremely difficult for outlaws to obtain guns so there would be fewer of them.

Yes I know that the police and such are not flawless, but I think it's a better alternative then to whats going on now.

Uh… unless you're talking about the Judge Dredd universe, you don't mean to refer to the "justice system", because the only aspect of the police force that relates to that is their investigation of crimes, i.e. finding suspects and evidence and so forth, which is a whole different area.
But anyway, it's not just that "the police and such are not flawless", but that the very word "flawless" doesn't even belong in the same hemisphere. You see, the idea behind civilians being able to freely carry weapons goes back a long time, and it's not just about being able to defend against criminals- it's also the very government itself that's power needs to be checked. For all intents and purposes, the police are the "arms" of the State, and at the point that members of said police are free to utilize firearms and profoundly pervade civilian existence to ensure that no one else can, what you end up with is a police state.
And that's terrible.

@0.9999…=1

Alright, let's take a different example then. Say, possession of harmful drugs for personal use getting high. But the specific analogy doesn't really matter. There is no feasible way to eliminate illegal drug use and possession entirely, the same way there is no feasible way to eliminate all illegal firearm possession and use. But we have laws against having and using those substances because they are harmful. Just because people will abuse drugs doesn't mean we don't enact laws against their use.

Either way, the specific analogy doesn't really matter, so if you don't agree with the analogies, look at the argument itself. The way I interpret the "criminals don't follow the law anyway, so why make laws against it" argument is as "people do bad things, but because we cannot stop it completely, we should do nothing at all." And I think that is fundamentally illogical.

Allow me to rephrase my last statement. "The point of laws isn't to completely stop people from doing bad things, because that’s virtually impossible, it’s to prevent as many bad things from happening as possible." Also, I'm not saying that the legislation will not work, I'm saying it will work, but it will not completely eliminate gun crime because that's nearly impossible, but just because it will not be 100% effective doesn't mean that it shouldn't be instituted.

To address your second post…

First, let's try to not argue semantics, please. It seems that you know that by "justice system" he meant "law enforcement."

And I have a question about your "it’s also the very government itself that’s power needs to be checked" statement. Are you talking about some sort of full blow revolution, the people against the government (military + police)? Are you saying that if people are being oppressed by the police they have the right to fight back and kill police officers? Or are you saying something different?

Actually, the specific analogy most certainly does matter, because it's something you're utilizing to make your argument. And as someone who personally believes that people ought to have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, and therefore thinks that the idea of legalizing, regulating and taxing all recreational drugs has some merits, I don't buy that one either. But at the very least, I see where you're coming from.
So I'll clarify. These are the two realistic possibilities I see occurring if such sweeping legislation gets passed.
1. The police force is not given enough power to fully enforce the gun ban. Due to the pervasive nature of the black market and the ingenuity and clout of criminal organizations, the only people who are truly affected are law-abiding citizens, who (as I said before) are left at a disadvantage against said criminals until the police can respond.
2. Police power is significantly expanded for the purpose of ensuring that the former scenario does not occur. But now we have "sacrificed liberty for security", as this "elite class" can impose their will for their own gains and the gains of the governments that control them, far beyond the basic and just goal of maintaining law and order. Again, for the third time- a police state.
Of course police forces need to have some abilities greater than normal civilians, because otherwise there's no point in having one at all. But too much, and we could very well see the rest of our freedoms fall away.

(BTW, the semantics thing was just an aside. Sorry if I came across like a dick.)

Jesus Christ, what was she going to try next, scratching a bad itch on the surface of her jugular with the blade of a fucking foot-long butcher knife?

Mistakes happen, no matter who or what you are. Calling the deceased "stupid" for making one oversight is uncouth in the extreme.

Why don’t we, instead of trying to ban guns, just ban whatever series of genes produced that deformed nightmare of a brain?

The suggestion of butchering an entire family line is in poor taste no matter what stance you're taking.

Does that make me an asshole? Probably.

Admitting to being "an asshole" does not excuse or justify behaving so.

I posted a link to the Facebook topic so you can see morons from both sides go at it in the comments section.

I think we're beginning to see this effect here too. Whenever a preventable gun related incident occurs, it always causes an eruption of arguments.

Mainly hypothetical ones regarding 'what ifs' and 'whos fault' and comparisons to other countries.

I think that's because everyone knows that each of these small different cases are all part of something bigger: the fact that if you let guns become commonplace, then statistically you're going to get a lot more mishaps involving them.

That's not going to get better by itself and people know it. It's a big concern that needs more urgent addressing as guns get more popular. So they take any chance to bring it up.

If these gun control arguments keep cropping up, then that just tells me that the current system isn't adequate, it needs improvement. Either reduce the guns to reduce that statistic, or devise better ways to keep guns in check if you want to keep them without incident. But there's pros and cons to either option and the problem, it seems; is that we just can't decide what option to take

But I'd like to see discussion get to the real root of the problem though. Fact of the matter is, someone who probably didn't need a gun, and clearly didn't know how to use one responsibly, had a gun and brought it to a location where it probably wasn't needed or appropriate and left it in too easy reach of minors

Now how do you prevent that? Is that a matter of more gun restrictions and control or is it about education, safety and responsibility?

I think this particular case is a better proponent for the latter. None of this would have happened with only a touch of extra safety precaution…like all good gun owners should do: things like checking her guns before she left the house, or not letting her kids near a purse which she knew contained a prepared firearm….or maybe just not taking your damn guns to a walmart.

I don't think this is a question so much about law…not for this case, anyway…

…and really I think trying to expose each other's logical fallacies in hypothetical armed felony scenarios is a bit off-topic for this thread…

…I think this is more about handling and safety. I'd say that if law has a place in this discussion, then it's laws about personal gun safety to help gun owners

What do you think, guys?

Imposing stringent background checks nationwide is favored by over 90% of the US population, including many pro-gun advocates. The real problem is the NRA lobbiests, who act mainly for the interests of the manufacturing companies who see that as a threat to their buisness. That, BSoD, I think will make the situation improve almost immediately.

Reminds me of this gif

Spyder-bite said:

No that statement is not true because the justice system will have guns.

Daily reminder it takes Detroit police 18 minutes to respond to a "life threatening" 911 call, and police are not legally required to help you.

0.9999…=1 said:

…who act mainly for the interests of the manufacturing companies…

That's actually a common misconception. Gun manufacturers have a separate lobbying group--the National Sports Shooting Foundation. Somewhat ironically, their headquarters is three miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary School.

You can say it's natural selection, but what if that kid shot somebody else?

You can say the only victim here was the woman who was dumb enough to keep her gun like that, but that kid has to live his life knowing he killed his mother.

You can say with teaching more about responsibility, but there will still be people who don't bother with it or don't care.

There are pros to being allowed to own guns, but the cons far outweight them, in my opinion, and I would feel more unsafe in a country that allows guns like in America, than safer.
Maybe it's because I'm European, but the idea that in order to feel safe, I need to carry a gun with me, is absurd to me. I wouldn't feel safe at all if people around me were allowed to carry guns.

America is a great country, but something went wrong if the right to put a gun in your purse is put above the rights of gays.

xTCSx said:

Daily reminder it takes Detroit police 18 minutes to respond to a “life threatening” 911 call, and police are not legally required to help you.

Still, even with a gun, if the other person with a gun can afford or has obtained a bigger and more effective gun, or they think they can take you and get away with it, it's not unlikely you get shot and die. You may be able to take them with you. That firefight could end your lives in probably under 5 minutes. Hypothetically if you both didn't have guns then those planning to commit violent crime would have to use something else (likely a knife) which would be considerably less dangerous and you'd have a much better chance at defending yourself. Because if someone wanted to, they could be armed to the teeth and you might not be.

Also there is the problem in which if you don't know and suspect someone has a gun and they want to kill or even mug you, your at such a severe disadvantage because if they wanted straight up murder and you don't see them you could be dead before you know it. If someone came up behind you and got extremely close and is pointing there gun at you first while yours is concealed, there is not much opportunity to even use your gun.

That could be applied here, if she turned the safety on and kept it out her kids reach and then on her trip home she is robbed at gunpoint, she'd have to pull out her gun and turn the safety off at which point she may have been shot because they saw her pull it out. Completely different news story. Or maybe she just goes home and is fine, but then the gun didn't really help her.

The problem I see is that having a gun doesn't always give you such a strong advantage over other people using them against you and it doesn't always level the playing field.

Well… you know… close enough.

Jimmy Lethal wrote:

In my opinion, being allowed to own guns in the United States is fine because, well, guns are cool.

This deserves a medal for how shit of a reason this is to allow guns.

Jimmy Lethal, justThisFool & 0.9999=1 wrote:

Natural Selection

If natural selection is at work here, how are people like you still amongst society? You're pretty much saying people deserve to die because they did something dumb. If there's any twisted mindset that should stop existing in the human genes, it's mindsets like those.

I don't think anyone said that she deserved to die- we're not sociopaths. I did go too far with my first post, though.
Also, that's a pretty harsh misrepresentation of Jimmy. You're acting like that's the only argument he made, when I can see that he said a whole lot more. In fact, if I had to guess I'd say that part of his post was just a joke.

Well it's good to see you accept that you went too far in your post.

I read through his OP post and tbh all his points were pretty bad. Let's list them:
-"Guns 'r cool."
-"Leaving the house is scary so you should always carry lethal weapons with you."
-"She was careless so she deserved it."
-"Natural selection."
-"Nobody will understand."
-"Lol fuck both sides we'll never get anything done anyways."

I live in a country where guns are controlled extremely well. Despite all of this, I don’t feel like my freedoms are being impinged upon whatsoever. If you grow up in a culture where nobody has access to guns, you don’t feel like they’re necessary. I can do everything I want to in my life without them. So I will never understand people who say carrying a concealed gun is fine because of the dangers. The fact that any passerby can basically carry a lethal gun in the US because carrying is legal is what I find more scary, a worry I have never dealt with in my country.

That's a moot point though, because this isn't the Netherlands we're talking about, or any other country for that matter. These considerations absolutely have to be made with context in mind. And by context, I mean the people, the culture etc. Something that works for one nation is not necessarily going to work for another on the other side of the world with a very different history and people.
What we really need to do is start with the background checks- which again, virtually everyone here agrees with- and see how much things improve.

Tbh, I think the US already went down way too deep into the shitter with their gun 'control' and that there's not much to save anymore. They fucked up and are now dealing with the consequences, each. shooting. again.

I gave a comparison, which is a fair point. If you live in a society that thinks lethal weapons are necessary, your society is pretty fucked up.

Gun debate? yay!

Okay. How many times have people genuinely stopped a Robbery, murder, ect ect, with a personal gun?
Or how many crimes are caused by guns which were purchased legally?

I also with what has been going on with the cops recently. I think trying to stop a crime with a gun is stupid, because when the cops show up to a "shooting" and they see 2-3 hill billies running around with assault rifles, who do you think they are going to shoot at first?!

I think we need to limit what guns people can buy at all. Not totally ban, but much greater control.

All these "gun protests" where people walk around with assault rifles and shotguns is incredibly stupid. Seriously, why would you want to do that? you don't look like a hero, you look like someone who is going to murder 30 people.

I don't understand any argument against gun control. Someone is pointing a gun at you? you don't have time to pull a gun back before you get shot. You aren't some hero, most gun people are collectors. they just want to collect guns, which is fine, collecting can be fun. So why not just ban bullets? I mean its not the gun that kills, its the bullet. There would be no illegal gun trade created. Then just implement heavily protected shooting ranges where people can actually shoot them.

You can go to the gun range to shoot, business increases at gun ranges, more tax money, no illegal market created because you can still shoot your guns just in heavily controlled areas, means less shootings, then they can legalize the sale of any gun at any shop with a license for it. which means its even MORE profitable for every company that could sell them.