Oh Thoron I don't think you're evil, I think you're fascinating. — StreetlightX

How condescending of you.

I also like how it's three against one and not one of you has refuted anything I've said. — Thorongil

I did. You said "Baden in the Shoutbox the other day said that he wouldn't wish to repeal the second amendment or ban all guns, but just now had the balls to admit that, "no," he would not shed a tear if all guns were banned. So he clearly sees minimal restrictions as hopefully leading to guns being banned." That's a non sequitur, as I've shown.

Not wishing for something and not caring if that thing happens aren't incompatible positions to have.

See, the problem with lying as a strategy is that sooner or later nobody believes you anymore. That's the corner the left has got itself into.

I hate this term "leftist" that keeps getting thrown around. I much prefer the term "decent human being".

Let's read this together to find out about the roots of the left.

https://www.scribd.com/document/267470669/Voegelin-Eric-on-Hegel-a-Study-in-Sorcery-1

That's just what the lefty underground conspiracy biders-of-time would say wouldn't they, you lefty underground conspiratorial time bider.

From Star Trek to Harry Potter in a page of posts. Nice.

I wish you'd stick to the topic instead of using this discussion as a platform to spout your pet theories about "the left".

Not wishing for something and not caring if that thing happens aren't incompatible positions to have. — Michael

A distinction without a difference. Baden both does wish for the second amendment to be repealed as well as for guns to be banned. The reason he didn't state his opposition to the second amendment earlier, he now tells us, is because it's "not going anywhere." So he's pretending to be a pragmatist.

Moreover, I can merely repeat the question I asked you in the Shoutbox: why repeal the second amendment if not because one wants to ban all guns or make them virtually impossible to own? Again, you're not really fooling anyone here. Anyone with half a brain would make that inference (which may exclude most leftists, but not all of them).

That's just what the lefty underground conspiracy biders-of-time would say wouldn't they, you lefty underground conspiratorial time bider. — StreetlightX

Hey @Baden, what was that about feeling persecuted?

Why ask? You apparently can read my mind.

Moreover, I can merely repeat the question I asked you in the Shoutbox: why repeal the second amendment if not because one wants to ban all guns or make them virtually impossible to own? — Thorongil

State rights.

Baden both does wish for the second amendment to be repealed as well as for guns to be banned. The reason he didn't state his opposition to the second amendment earlier, he now tells us, is because it's "not going anywhere." So he's pretending to be a pragmatist. — Thorongil

I don't believe the second amendment is a right worth having if it means it increases the chance of people being killed or injured as opposed to the average risk in other developed countries that don't offer such a right. If there were a way to keep the second amendment and not have such obviously adverse consequences then I would not consider it such (I'm not closed to the possibility). Apart from which, as I said, no proposal relying on its repeal is realistic. The fact that this seems even remotely unreasonable or difficult to understand for you is something I can't help you with.

State rights. — Michael

Ordinarily, this might be a good reason (one I doubt you sincerely hold), but it's not in this case, because the second amendment is grounded in the natural right to self-defense. It's not something that can be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right.

It's not something that can be repealed without infringing on an inalienable right. — Thorongil

So not allowing civilians to buy grenades and fully-automatic machine guns infringes on an inalienable right?

I don't believe the second amendment is a right worth having if it means it increases the chance of people being killed or injured as opposed to the average risk in other developed countries that don't offer such a right. — Baden

Why do you assume that it's the second amendment that causes gun deaths? Take a look here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.085b6df2f17f

The fact that this seems even remotely unreasonable or difficult to understand for you is something I can't help you with. — Baden

I understand that you lied and are now covering your tracks.

So not allowing civilians to buy grenades and automatic machine guns infringed on an inalienable right? — Michael

Banning such weapons doesn't infringe on said right, correct.

Banning such weapons doesn't infringe on said right, correct. — Thorongil

But banning semi-automatics and handguns would?

Yes.

Why the difference?

Also, I hardly see this as a left or right issue. I see this as a uniquiely American issue, where the American attitude - so nicely distilled in the specimen that is Thoron - is basically pathological, as I think Baden put it. It can deal only in extremes, or else in invented scenarios, or conspiritorial paranoia, without any sense of proportion or reality. Again our exhibit is Thoron who repsonded to the suggestion that regulation is not infringement on constituional rights - perhaps the opposite - with the hysterical notion that this entails the banning of all guns or the 'intention' to make buying guns impossible. Apologies to those Americans here who think differently, but as far as I can tell you're essentially a minority with little to no political sway (except in the underground, conspiratorial way, which, y'know, has been so wildly sucessful thus far. You're the REAL problem we ought to prioritize in this debate, not real, disporportionate and actual deaths by gun - again a testament to the fantastic sense of priority and proportion that only Americans possess).

I understand that you lied and are now covering your tracks. — Thorongil

*Adjusts microscope* Hmm, bacillus paranoias... ;)

I have no reason to lie about my views on gun control. I can't even think one up. Feel free to enlighten me. Why am I lying about what I think about gun control and what do I really think?

Edit: Actually, you've done the second part. Just the first then.

There's been a lot of people political back and forth, but this is a philosophy forum. What does philosophy have to say about gun control?
Plato, in think, would be in favor of strict gun control. Only the guardians would own and use guns and they would only use weapons in the best interest of the state, which they would be selected, trained for, and indoctrinated in. Common people would only be allowed firearms if it is was necessary for their chosen occupation (professional hunters, Olympic sports shooters) but everyone would focus on their chosen profession. Bankers would not also be hunters.

John Locke, would be for limited and reasonable restrictions. We have freedoms of our own bodies given to our souls by God. These freedoms include purchasing and using a firearm. However we loose this right when it infringers on others rights (to live and to be free from violence). We also forfiet some of our rights and power in a social contract to the police and military.

I think both these perspectives are helpful. Firearms belong mostly in the hands of the professionals (military, police). They may be used for recreation or hunting but their danger to human life far outweighs these uses. It's a very different hobby than golf. Golf clubs are seldom murder weapons. I don't think practically an armed populace protects freedom. The police are armed to the point and purposefully have SWAT teams for the express purpose of taking down armed criminals. Having guns won't stop you from being arrested. Likewise in a theoretical revolution to a tyrannical state, willing rebels would much harder to recruit than it is to obtain firearms. Preventing dictatorship by political means seems much more productive than stockpiling weapons. Then it's too late because you can't stockpile armored vechiles or military grade weapons. A bunch of small arms won't really help. Everyone will all different kinds of guns will run out of ammo very quickly in actual war situation.
I'd be willing to sacrifice my theoretical ability to keep a gun for the possible revolution in order to reduce the real and actual gun deaths in the country now.

Why the difference? — Michael

Well, when interpreting the second amendment, one has to bear in mind the historical context in which it was written. The only guns that existed at the time were single shot pistols and rifles, so the second amendment is meant to apply to weapons of that sort, which would exclude things like the examples you gave. In other words, the right to self-defense entails the right to the appropriate means of self-defense, but such weapons are clearly inappropriate. One doesn't need a tank to protect one's ranch from coyotes or a grenade launcher to protect one during the commute home along a dangerous road. However, a rifle and a pistol might be prudent to have respectively in such cases. And there are hundreds of thousands of cases each year where people have saved their own lives, the lives of others, and private property by the use of guns.

A case in point concerning my comments about leftist tactics:

the specimen that is Thoron — StreetlightX

pathological — StreetlightX

without any sense of reality — StreetlightX

hysterical — StreetlightX

underground, conspiratorial — StreetlightX

You're the REAL probelm we ought to be dealing with — StreetlightX

The last one sounds like a threat. Maybe I should buy a gun to protect myself.

And there are hundreds of thousands of cases each year where people have saved their own lives, the lives of others, and private property by the use of guns. — Thorongil

Oh, well why didn't you say so sooner? I guess that makes it okay, then. I'll bear that in mind in the case that I'm shot by some idiot who was able to get his hands on a gun far too easily. It might be of some solace.

I have no reason to lie about my views on gun control. I can't even think one up. Feel free to enlighten me. Why am I lying about what I think about gun control and what do I really think? — Baden

How should I know? I hate to break it to you, but I'm not actually a mind reader.

Err, 'the last one' was about the threat of undergroud conspiratorial lefties, who are the real probelm according to your kind. I was agreeing with you! Although please don't make me spell out thr nature of that agreement, that'll ruin the fun. It's not all about you, you know.

Err, 'the last one' was about the threat of undergroud conspiratorial lefties. It's not all about you, you know. — StreetlightX

Oh, I see. Looked at in that light, it seems I was right about the persecution complex.

Prevention should always come before defence. It's better to do what you can towards preventing these kind of situations from occurring in the first place than to be well equipped when they do. People can't dodge bullets, no matter how well equipped they are.