Before that it was car accidents. Maybe we should ban cars. — NOS4A2

A faulty argument. The purpose of cars is not to protect us. If cars were not a viable means of transportation we would not have them. If guns If guns are not a viable means of protecting our children then why still cling to them? The simple reason is that they give us the illusion of power, of being in control. Is there a point at which it would become clear that we need to protect ourselves from the very thing that is supposed to protect us?

Utilitarian concerns don’t mean much to me wherever we are speaking about basic human rights. Banning cars would be unjust. Banning guns is unjust.

It’s meant to be faulty. Guns and cars don’t just go out and start killing people. It leaves out the motives and reasons why one would pick up a gun and shoot someone in the first place.

Banning guns is unjust. — NOS4A2

How so? We have a basic human right to own firearms?

Why can I not own a firearm if I didn’t shoot anyone or do not intend to?

There should be armed guards at schools in the US ... — NOS4A2

But schools are not the only place where this happens. Should there be armed guards everywhere? Should there be armed guards protecting every church? Every grocery store? Every playground? Every beach? Is this how you want to live?

An armed guard may decrease the number of people murdered but what is the acceptable number? Not allowing guns in public places would help, but that is regarded as a gross violation of the sacred right to carry.

Why can I not own a firearm if I didn’t shoot anyone or do not intend to? — NOS4A2

Asking me a question doesn't answer mine. You said that banning guns is unjust, and prior to that referenced basic human rights. So are you saying that we have a basic human right to own guns? If not then that comment was a non sequitur.

It’s unjust to ban my weapons if I didn’t shoot anyone or do not intend to.

It’s unjust to ban my weapons if I didn’t shoot anyone or do not intend to. — NOS4A2

Why is it unjust? Is it unjust because you have a basic human right to own a gun?

Everyone should carry a weapon as soon as they are competent enough to do so, in my opinion.

It’s unjust because they are mine, I am entitled to them, and I have done nothing to justify taking them away.

It’s unjust because they are mine, I am entitled to them, and I have done nothing to justify taking them away. — NOS4A2

Why are you entitled to guns? Do you have a basic human right to own them?

I'm just saying, if your young'uns are massacring each other with assault rifles, your gun legislation is not the only thing that's rotten. — Tzeentch

Mental health problems exist all over the world. Rates are not higher in the United States than elsewhere. The reason we’re an outlier in mass shootings is that we’re an outlier in the amount of guns (and the ease of acquiring them).

Plenty to say about mental health, but this is not a mental health issue, it’s a gun control issue. When you have a country run by gun nuts and politicians bought by the NRA, it creates an environment where anyone can get a gun — including assault weapons.

Result: same rates of mental illness, but much higher rates of mass shootings. It’s not that complicated, despite efforts to make it seem so.

Is this a quiz? I am entitled to my guns because I own them. I have a basic human right to defend my life, liberty, and property, and owning weapons extends from this right.

Guns and cars don’t just go out and start killing people. — NOS4A2

Most people with cars do not just go out and start killing people, but it has become distressingly evident that more and more people with guns are going out to do just that.

There is a continuing effort to make cars safer for all involved. Can the same be said for guns? The evidence all points in the opposite direction, to increase the capacity to harm or kill.

I am entitled to my guns because I own them. — NOS4A2

So your argument against gun control is that it is unjust for the government to take away your property (without good reason)?

Firstly, the utilitarian concerns I mentioned before might be good reasons to take away your guns. Given that we don't live in the Minority Report and can't know who is going to shoot someone in the future, we ought to err on the side of caution, assume that anyone could be a potential shooter, and so take guns from everyone.

Secondly, what about only making it illegal to sell or trade guns and bullets? You're entitled to keep what guns and ammo you own, but you're not entitled to come into possession of more. Would that be just?

I have a basic human right to defend my life, liberty, and property, and owning weapons extends from this right. — NOS4A2

Are you saying that because you have the right to defend yourself, you have the right to defend yourself with guns? What about with dynamite or with tanks or with fighter jets?

If someone has the motive and desire to run people over they will do so. If they don’t, they won’t. The same is with guns or any other object that can be used as a weapon.

Indeed.

Gun worshippers have no real argument. So don’t expect much except motivated reasoning.

Anyway - we require licenses and training to drive a car. It’s not a human right to own one. It’s not a human right to own a gun either. This is true despite what years of gun manufacturing propaganda — linking guns with “freedom” that so-called libertarians lap up like slaves — has to say about it.

:rofl:

Everyone should carry a weapon as soon as they are competent enough to do so, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

So, you do think that children should be sent to school carrying guns as long as they are competent to do so! What kind of hell do you wish to live in?

If someone has the motive and desire to run people over people they will do so. — NOS4A2

But the fact of the matter is that the frequency and extent of damage is nowhere near comparable.

It’s hard to imagine continuing to hold beliefs that lead to laughable conclusions, over and over again.

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
“Government is the problem.”

Simple slogans for simple minds.

But the fact of the matter is that the frequency and extent of damage is nowhere near comparable. — Fooloso4

True, but also: it’s laughable to say people who want to do something WILL do something, and that having easy access to particular means is irrelevant. Yes, I suppose you could run someone over with a bicycle or try to kill people by knife…but the results are going to be much, much different than a truck or AR-15.

So the mental gymnastics is fun to watch, but don’t try to make sense of it.

What about with dynamite or with tanks or with fighter jets? — Michael

It stands to reason. Protecting yourself against guns with guns is not effective. Arming our children with guns won't work. At a minimum they need their own tank.

That’s why utilitarianism is unjust. You’ll punish people for things they haven’t done.

That is what I am going through right now. After a mass shooting the state moved to restrict more guns. In this country I am no longer able to purchase a handgun, though I already own one. I don’t think any group of men should possess the absolute monopoly on violence; I believe I have a right to defend myself, with weapons if necessary; and am a responsible owner of guns. Yes it’s unjust to punish me and others for crimes none of us committed.

Yes I believe I ought to be able to defend myself with whatever I want.

I'm currently teaching my five year old how to use hand grenades and bazookas in the hope that my government will get sense and start to respect our freedoms. If every competent child brought a hand grenade or bazooka to school, none would dare to mess with each other and we would have pure peace and freedom and possibly the libertarian utopia we all deserve.

I think murderers and criminals will think twice about harming others if they know everyone is packing. So I think the world I want to live in is a peaceful one.

That’s why utilitarianism is unjust. You’ll punish people for things they haven’t done. — NOS4A2

Often a necessary price we have to pay to live in a safer society. Judges and juries are not infallible. Sometimes they imprison innocent people. That's an unfortunate injustice that we just have to accept.

The same, I would say, with taking away people's guns. It's a necessary injustice to limit the far greater injustice of innocent children being killed at school.

Yes I believe I ought to be able to defend myself with whatever I want. — NOS4A2

On what grounds? You have a basic human right to defend yourself with the most powerful means available?

I would settle under protest for mere submachine guns though grenades and bazookas never killed anyone on their own and are no more dangerous than cars in that respect. As long as the government continues to give in to such irrational arguments we will continue to be punished for the crimes of others and our utopia must wait.

I think murderers and criminals will think twice about harming others if they know everyone is packing. — NOS4A2

Or they might think: "I'll kill you before you can kill me."

You have a basic human right to defend yourself with the most powerful means available? — Michael

If I have enough money to buy a tank, I should be allowed one. A tank never killed anyone on its own.