Then I guess the whole debate against same-sex marriage is pretty pointless, as from what I understand, religious institutions aren't required to officiate same-sex marriage ceremonies (at least not in the UK or the US). — Michael

Some ministers/priests were obliged in the US.

It is strange to me that people have such strong convictions over a (supposed) misuse of a word. — Michael

Becuase the misuse of the word can have repercussions on their own freedom of religion, obviously. Ideas matter.

The religious prohibition against homosexuality is in truth the prohibition of rivalry because homosexuality is itself a fascination with the rival.

The lie is that happiness is all that important at all, which is psychologically just extroversion minus neuroticism, or there are plenty of drugs that will do the trick. Why should the highest conception of existence be a hedonic pleasure cruise? People care more about significance, reality, and meaning than happiness. If you could live in a hologram with artificial people that did nothing but tell you how great you are, with drugs keeping you in constant bliss, would you want that? Isn't that undesirable because it would be hollow?

There is something to be said about emotional maturity. The emotionally mature know how to regulate themselves, in most, hopefully all of the dimensions. They do grinding meticulous work to achieve that virtue, which is an uphill battle. It wouldn't be rare if it wasn't difficult, and suffered. One doesn't eat all the cookies because it feels good, or just do whatever they want for personal happiness. They eat right, exercise, sleep at regular intervals, restrain themselves from emotional outbursts, listen even when they don't like what is being said, and demonstrate the virtues they wish others to adopt.

I definitely don't have it all figured out or anything, but I do take culture and tradition seriously, the things that were maintained for centuries, even millennia were done so for damn good reasons, and not out of ignorance or stupidity.

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=.944a791e15bb — Thorongil

So 79% uses a fire arm that doesn't belong to them but rather someone else who was a legal owner. But if there were no legal owners because guns would be prohibited, wouldn't that suggest this percentage would be much lower as well?

Becuase the misuse of the word can have repercussions on their own freedom of religion, obviously. — Agustino

How so? I fail to see how giving same-sex couples the same legal protections as different-sex couples and referring to same-sex unions using the word "marriage" has any effect on freedom of religion.

If the issue is with being forced to officiate same-sex marriages, would it bother you if such unions weren't called "marriage" but were instead called "civil partnership"?

If so then the opposition has nothing to do with what is or isn't the definition of "marriage" and everything to do with same-sex unions, which makes the earlier remark on the "correct" definition of "marriage" a red herring.

If it wouldn't bother you then I repeat my earlier claim that I find it strange that one can be so deeply against semantic change. Why does it matter if the word "marriage" is appropriated for a new, albeit related, use? Does it bother you when people say such things as "her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip-hop"? Being opposed to officiating same-sex marriages but not same-sex civil partnerships on the grounds that the traditional definition of "marriage" is "a union of man and a woman" just doesn't make sense to me. It's just a word.

The religious prohibition of homosexuality... — Agustino

So this has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage being "a union of a man and a woman" and everything to do with opposing homosexuality? If the issue is with homosexuality and not the traditional definition of marriage then why does it matter if the word "marriage" is used to describe homosexual relationships or not? The use or non-use of the label doesn't change anything. They're a couple regardless.

Unless the real real reason for the opposition is being opposed to granting same-sex couples the same legal protections that marriage offers different-sex couples? Then this has nothing to do with freedom of religion at all, and everything to do with thinking that the law should discriminate based on sexuality.

homosexuality is itself a fascination with the rival

I have no idea what this means.

How so? I fail to see how giving same-sex couples the same legal protections as different-sex couples and referring to same-sex unions using the word "marriage" has any effect on freedom of religion. — Michael

Legal protection is not at issue.

If the issue is with being forced to officiate same-sex marriages, would it bother you if such unions weren't called "marriage" but were instead called "civil partnership"? — Michael

No.

If so then the opposition has nothing to do with what is or isn't the definition of "marriage" and everything to do with same-sex unions, which makes the earlier remark on the "correct" definition of "marriage" a red herring. — Michael

If you define that as marriage - which is the same word used to designate the religious institution - there's a problem. Sooner or later religious institutions will be forced to adopt the secular definition of marriage, which infringes upon freedom of religion. Ideas have consequences.

So this has nothing to do with the traditional definition of marriage being "a union of a man and a woman" and everything to do with opposing homosexuality? — Michael

No, that point was unrelated. It explained why the religious institutions have a moral prohibition against homosexuality. Has nothing to do with the law and with secular partnerships.

Unless the real real reason for the opposition is being opposed to granting same-sex couples the same legal protections that marriage offers different-sex couples? Then this has nothing to do with freedom of religion at all, and everything to do with thinking that the law should discriminate based on sexuality. — Michael

No, homosexual people should have the same legal protections as other people are granted.

I have no idea what this means. — Michael

I can see that.

If you define that as marriage - which is the same word used to designate the religious institution - there's a problem. Sooner or later religious institutions will be forced to adopt the secular definition of marriage, which infringes upon freedom of religion. Ideas have consequences. — Agustino

Right, so it's the bizarre commitment to being opposed to semantic change.

Besides, what does it mean to be forced to adopt the secular definition of marriage?

The religious prohibition against homosexuality is in truth the prohibition of rivalry because homosexuality is itself a fascination with the rival. — Agustino

Sounds vaguely Lacanian. I'd also ask for an explanation but we're veering off-topic. Might be worth a new discussion.

Prevention should always come before defense. 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. — Sapientia

"Prevention" is the consciously locked gate that has to be opened to get on the property. "Prevention" is silent Rottweiler's that have access to their people's bedroom as well as the property line fence. "Prevention" is the consciously locked solid wood front door.

People can't dodge bullets, no matter how well equipped they are. — Sapientia

You are correct to a degree. The degree being how good of a shot the shooter is and how quickly the target can move in an unpredictable way.

What is considered a reasonable amount of "Prevention" before self defense is acceptable in the eyes of Sapientia?

Nonsense rhetoric. Slippery slope fallacy. — Michael

Precisely. This was covered earlier, when I emphasised that we are talking about sensible restrictions, but he persists nevertheless. Time waster.

Qualifying things as already good or reasonable doesn't immediately gain my confidence. You can say it isn't a slippery slope, but at least where I come from the kitchen isn't considered an armory.

Strange how a dispute about guns can so easily become one about sex. Anyone ever see the 1970s film Zardoz? "THE GUN IS GOOD. THE PENIS IS EVIL" Thus spake Zardoz. Thus speaks....America? At least when not engaged in sex, shameful as it appears to be to some of us, at least when not expressly for the purpose of reproduction in a duly sanctified marriage, which makes it seem more a duty than anything else. Or we go to the opposite extreme, of course. We seem to be either mad or sad about sex.

As I noted, I'm a gun owner. But I don't feel the reverence for them so many of those against gun control seem to feel. "Reverence" is, I think, an appropriate word. To me, my shotguns are rather like tennis racquets or golf clubs, but subject to a need for greater care in their use. I take no pride in owning guns, I don't feel as if I'm more of an American for having them, I don't go about proclaiming all Americans should have one or two or even more, I don't feel I'm exercising some quasi-sacred right, I don't think it's good to own a gun, I don't go about wearing them in restaurants or stores. I certainly don't feel I need them in order to protect myself from the armed forces or law enforcement.

Guns seem to have a kind of sanctity in American culture, or so it seems from the example of the more vocal of those who oppose gun control. Those gun owners I know personally merely use them, primarily for hunting, with little or no pomposity. The fact that guns are revered inhibits their reasonable regulation, I believe. Perhaps if it was agreed reasonable regulation is necessary, things would be less contentious, but those who oppose gun control seem mostly to contend that it doesn't work. Even if that's true, though, that would merely relate to existing regulation, not all regulation. Too often it seems to me that those opposing gun control take the less than sensible position that there are so many guns available that it's necessary that we are able to get more.

The religious prohibition against homosexuality is in truth the prohibition of rivalry because homosexuality is itself a fascination with the rival. — Agustino

Pfft.

"Prevention" is the consciously locked gate that has to be opened to get on the property. "Prevention" is silent Rottweiler's that have access to their people's bedroom as well as the property line fence. "Prevention" is the consciously locked solid wood front door. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why are you listing forms of prevention? I don't dispute that gates, dogs, and doors can act as forms of prevention.

Prevention can also come in the form of gun control, which is the topic of discussion.

You are correct to a degree. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's a misleading statement. Yes, to a degree, and that degree is about as close to certainty as you can get. It's physically impossible to dodge a bullet that has been fired in your trajectory. We simply aren't fast enough. Manoeuvring to avoid that trajectory before a shot has been fired is not the same thing, and was not what my statement described - or at least meant to describe - and that should have been clear.

What is considered a reasonable amount of "Prevention" before self defense is acceptable in the eyes of Sapientia? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

The use of any kind of force should always be a last resort, and the kind of force used matters. If it's excessive force, then that's unacceptable. However, mitigating factors, if there are any, should be taken into consideration before passing judgement.

It's also very important to assess the risks involved, as well as to weigh the costs against the benefits.

It's physically impossible to dodge a bullet that has been fired in your trajectory. We simply aren't fast enough. — Sapientia

So why do the military need to produce so many millions of rounds of ammunition if the are crack shots. Would it not be easier to send someone to count the enemy and send the right amount of bullets with maybe a few extras?

and was not what my statement described - or at least meant to describe - and that should have been clear. — Sapientia

I know someone that claims to be a good grammar tutor if you are interested in improving the way you express yourself.

"Prevention" is the consciously locked gate that has to be opened to get on the property. "Prevention" is silent Rottweiler's that have access to their people's bedroom as well as the property line fence. "Prevention" is the consciously locked solid wood front door. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

And on top of that, prevention should also include the idiots thinking about what kind of trouble they are going to get into.
Why does prevention always have to be part of the good peoples lives.
If the bad guys what to stop their own deaths let them be preventive as well.

It is too quiet round here, time for another question.

Has anyone bothered to check out how many of the people that died because of guns were actually innocent nice people?

What do you mean, "innocent" or "nice"?

I didn't find clear statistics just now on "innocent victims". When in 1 year you have 3000+ injured by guns, and 600+ dead in Chicago, and where 75% of the murder cases are not "cleared" (solved), it is hard to say. 41 Chicago children under the age of 14 were killed last year. But there were also adult men and women who were killed in Chicago who are innocent of committing any crime whatsoever, and who's misfortune was to get in the way of a bullet.

Some people are involved in crimes, gangs, drug dealing, and so on, and happen to get shot as they walk down the street, say by rival gang members. Are they "innocent" and "nice"?

What do you mean, "innocent" or "nice"? — Bitter Crank

It was just a thought that stuck me, everyone seems to take for granted that all of the people that have died in gun incidents are people that are undeserving of dying. I have not had the time to do any research but it seems to me that a fair number of the people that have died, not in mass shootings of course, might actually have had something to do with their own death.

Some people are involved in crimes, gangs, drug dealing, and so on, and happen to get shot as they walk down the street, say by rival gang members. Are they "innocent" and "nice"? — Bitter Crank

That might be part of the total, but how many of the deaths are related to them carrying guns with intentions to use them?

Where do you stand on this debate? Do you support stronger gun laws in America? Why or why not? — Brian

I stand in support of gun ownership. The purpose of outlawing or restricting ownership of weapons does not make much sense in the long run. Outlaws and criminals are outlaws and criminals for a reason; simply because they do not follow the laws. They would get ahold of weapons one way or another, and I can be sure that most average criminals did not go through the legal process of obtaining weapons legally. By restricting gun ownership, one merely creates a crisis to law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves by causing it to be more difficult to obtain legal weapons.

My guess is that a lot of the guys who are shot, and maybe some of the women, and none of the children, were engaged in activities that increase the likelihood of one getting shot after a while. That would include drug dealing (it's a competitive business and shooting the competitor is routine and customary); gang membership; crime ring activities (see competition); and so on. According to one detective, a lot of police take a "one less rat to deal with" approach to many of these killings.

But the thing is, Ghettos & Slums, Inc. houses many people, not all of whom are engaged in crime. Not engaging in crime might be a crime by local norms. Also, your typical 'hood thug is not operating at a high level of sophistication. They often shoot first and ask questions later, shoot wildly, shoot vaguely identified people, don't really know what the fuck they are doing, and so on.

From the accounts I've read, a lot of the "innocent deaths" are due to the stupidity of the killers.

So why do the military need to produce so many millions of rounds of ammunition if the are crack shots. Would it not be easier to send someone to count the enemy and send the right amount of bullets with maybe a few extras? — Sir2u

I know someone that claims to be a good grammar tutor if you are interested in improving the way you express yourself. — Sir2u

When you want to have a serious discussion, let me know.

It was just a thought that stuck me, everyone seems to take for granted that all of the people that have died in gun incidents are people that are undeserving of dying. I have not had the time to do any research but it seems to me that a fair number of the people that have died, not in mass shootings of course, might actually have had something to do with their own death. — Sir2u

That's a strange relation you've suggested there. Having had something to do with their own death means not undeserving of dying?

What do you mean, "innocent" or "nice"? — Bitter Crank

An insidious question. He's suggesting that there are people who deserve to be shot.

By restricting gun ownership, one merely creates a crisis to law-abiding citizens seeking to protect themselves by causing it to be more difficult to obtain legal weapons. — Lone Wolf

No, you can't leap from the particular to the general like that. It's fallacious and misleading. Restricting gun ownership poses no obstacle whatsoever to seeking other weapons or other means of protection.

People like you are contributing to the spread of harmful myths.

I found a study here with some data on the victims. Unfortunately it only provides breakdowns on age, sex, and race, so nothing on the motive (in assault cases).

What's interesting (and not seemingly talked about) is that whereas suicide accounts for 63% of gun-related deaths, self-harm only accounts for 6% of gun-related injuries. I suppose that's obvious as it's harder to fail to kill yourself with a gun. If we add deaths and non-fatal injuries together, intentional self-inflictions account for 25%.

Another interesting fact is that "firearm injuries result in over $48 billion in medical and work loss costs annually", and that according to this, the gun industry is worth $16.6 billion annually. I wonder how much the medical and work loss costs will change if the gun industry went away (except for manufacturing for the military/armed police).

Why are you listing forms of prevention? I don't dispute that gates, dogs, and doors can act as forms of prevention. — Sapientia

I am listing the multiple forms of MY proactive measures taken to ensure my safety as well as the living creatures I call family from those that wish to do us harm, man or beast.

Prevention can also come in the form of gun control, which is the topic of discussion. — Sapientia

Thank you Sapientia, I am aware of the topic of the thread and YOU were the one who spoke of prevention. If you could please back off the condescending attitude and I am asking you to do so, it's your choice to do what you want but know that it is offensive and makes me not want to interact with you.

If someone, after encountering all MY conscious decisions to "Prevent" harm to myself and my family, still wishes to enter without consent, attempts to cause malice to my livestock or theft of property?

No, you can't leap from the particular to the general like that. It's fallacious and misleading. Restricting gun ownership poses no obstacle whatsoever to seeking other weapons or other means of protection. — Sapientia

Sure, there are other ways to protect against thugs breaking into your home. Maybe try hand grenades? Perhaps it would be more efficient to evaporate them with some fancy laser. Mustard gas anyone? Personally, I would opt for a pistol because it is better controlled and effectively eliminates the threat while keeping a distance. If you chose to heavily regulate the victim's ability to defend him or herself, then they will likely be hurt by following those laws more so than by the criminal activity.
For instance, if the security guard in the Los Vegas hotel had possession and trained in the use of firearms, then perhaps those 59 people wouldn't have died. But with heavy regulation, then more and more law-abiding people will lack this opportunity to defend themselves and others. Criminal activity will never cease as long as this world exists as we know it.

I am listing the multiple forms of MY proactive measures taken to ensure my safety as well as the living creatures I call family from those that wish to do us harm, man or beast. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, and I asked you why you were doing that, since it wasn't requested, and it doesn't seem to really add anything to the discussion.

Thank you Sapientia, I am aware of the topic of the thread and YOU were the one who spoke of prevention. If you could please back off the condescending attitude and I am asking you to do so, it's your choice to do what you want but know that it is offensive and makes me not want to interact with you. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm trying to keep things on track. That's more important to me than how I come across to you or whether you're offended. If you don't like arguing with me, you could always argue with someone else - Aristotle, perhaps.

I spoke of prevention because I think that it's of relevance to the topic, i.e. gun control. It wasn't an invitation to share aspects of your personal life, but if they're relevant to the topic, then by all means, be my guest. Although, if so, then I'd ask that you kindly spell out the relevance.

If someone, after encountering all MY conscious decisions to "Prevent" harm to myself and my family, still wishes to enter without consent, attempts to cause malice to my livestock or theft of property? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's an incomplete question. How should it end? Are you suggesting that you believe that you'd be justified in shooting them?