Gun control

[UserGoogol]

Do you not believe in the concepts of responsibility and consequences?

Up to a point, but not as ends in themselves.

You're not thinking of anyone who belongs to a culture where being raped is an automatic death sentence

I suppose so, but I don't think the original example was about such a culture.

But I'm willing to admit I may have spoken too hastily, so if you're okay with it, I might prefer to just pull out of the discussion and try to think things over on my own.

 

[slingblade]

But I'm willing to admit I may have spoken too hastily, so if you're okay with it, I might prefer to just pull out of the discussion and try to think things over on my own.

I'm so good with that idea, I suggested it a few posts ago.
I sincerely admire your willingness to reconsider, however.

 

[Freakshow]

Up to a point, but not as ends in themselves.

It isn't a matter of them being "ends in themselves". It is just a natural conclusion.

If someone steps in front of a moving train, they die. It doesn't have any cosmic significance as to their good and evil, whether or not they deserved to have their life ended, whether or not the train harbored some sort of bad feelings for them, etc. It is just is. Action, consequences. News flash: you step in front of a moving train, you die. Its just the way things are.

Here's another news flash: you commit crimes against people, you run the risk of someone violently defending themselves. It just is. You can debate all you want about good, evil, means, ends, whatever. It isn't relevant. There are actions, there are risks, there are consequences. S*** happens.

These are the choices we make in life. Don't step in front of moving trains. Don't commit crimes against people. If you choose to, you have to accept the risks of your choices. Its life.

 

[RandFan]

These are the choices we make in life. Don't step in front of moving trains. Don't commit crimes against people. If you choose to, you have to accept the risks of your choices. Its life.

Agreed.

 

[UserGoogol]

Well in that sense yes, consequences exist. When you walk in a dangerous neighborhood, you have the likely consequence of getting mugged. When you walk in front of a train, you have the likely consequence of getting hit. When you try to rape someone, you have the likely consquenece of getting killed in self-defense. But "responsibility" is a very different matter. People generally treat walking in a dangerous neighborhood as a very different situation from trying to rape someone. In the first example, people generally consider it to be unjust when a person faces the consequences of their actions. Why do people consider it just in the third example? Perhaps because that person was trying to harm some other person, and fighting back tends to minimize the suffering. Or perhaps fighting back doesn't minimize the suffering. I'm not sure.

At any rate, all I'm saying is that you cannot dismiss "the argument that it would have been better to simply let the woman get robbed/raped than to have killed the attacker" by saying that the attacker started it, so it's his responsibility. Because responsibility isn't black and white.

 

[Freakshow]

At any rate, all I'm saying is that you cannot dismiss "the argument that it would have been better to simply let the woman get robbed/raped than to have killed the attacker" by saying that the attacker started it, so it's his responsibility.

Yes, I can. Because I think exactly that.

ETA: So who do YOU think has the responsibility when a man tries to rape a woman?

 

[Ranb]

.....And by the way, I never favored an outright ban on firearms. I pointed out that only some weapons, such as military hardware and automatic-fire weapons should be banned......

Since automatic (machineguns) weapons not registered in accordance with the NFA 1934 are already banned, and legally owned machineguns in the USA have never (with one exception) been used by their owners to commit murder in the last 70 years, why should we ban them?

Ranb

 

[UserGoogol]

As much as responsability can be said to exist, the man certainly holds a responsability for the rape itself, but I'm not sure that he can be held completely responsable for any retribution which he recieves. After all, there is such a thing as going too far, or else we would have no concept of cruel and unusual punishment.

To repeat, all I have been claiming was that Mycroft's refutation of the argument was less than rigorous. He said "!X because Y," but he didn't actually prove that Y was true.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Since automatic (machineguns) weapons not registered in accordance with the NFA 1934 are already banned, and legally owned machineguns in the USA have never (with one exception) been used by their owners to commit murder in the last 70 years, why should we ban them?

Ranb

Because they get stolen, or sold illegally, and then they can be used in crimes.

 

[Freakshow]

As much as responsability can be said to exist, the man certainly holds a responsability for the rape itself, but I'm not sure that he can be held completely responsable for any retribution which he recieves. After all, there is such a thing as going too far, or else we would have no concept of cruel and unusual punishment.

To repeat, all I have been claiming was that Mycroft's refutation of the argument was less than rigorous. He said "!X because Y," but he didn't actually prove that Y was true.

"...can be said to exist"? I'm not following you. What exactly do you mean by that? And what do you mean by "a" responsibility? Why not "the" responsibility?

 

[Freakshow]

Because they get stolen, or sold illegally, and then they can be used in crimes.

Or imported, regardless of their legal status in the US.

 

[Ranb]

Because they get stolen, or sold illegally, and then they can be used in crimes.

And this has happened when? Take a look at machinegun prices at www.gunbroker.com or www.subguns.com . Why sell illegally when a $500 M16 can fetch $12000?

Ranb

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Or imported, regardless of their legal status in the US.

Freakshow, just because there's another source for illegal weapons, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce what we can. Now you'll say that I shouldn't lock my door, because burglars can come in through the window. Or, we can secure all points of access.

 

[Freakshow]

Freakshow, just because there's another source for illegal weapons, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce what we can. Now you'll say that I shouldn't lock my door, because burglars can come in through the window. Or, we can secure all points of access.

Sometimes, you work at reducing an attack surface, realizing that you cannot make a perfectly secure solution. But other times, you realize that the situation is hopelessly futile, and you focus on coming at the problem from a different angle. I evalute these sorts of things on a case-by-case basis. How do you do it?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Sometimes, you work at reducing an attack surface, realizing that you cannot make a perfectly secure solution. But other times, you realize that the situation is hopelessly futile, and you focus on coming at the problem from a different angle. I evalute these sort of things on a case-by-case basis. How do you do it?

Case by case? In a country with more than 200 million people? I use statistics. I do not describe gun regulation as "hopelessly futile" I view it as "difficult, and impossible to fully control", but doing so will save lives.

 

[Freakshow]

Case by case?

Meaning, topic-by-topic. Not incident-by-incident.

ETA: When I say "not incident-by-incident", I am referring to my use of it here. Of course, there are times that it is necessary and practical to evaluate things on a per-incident basis.

I use statistics.

What statistics?

I do not describe gun regulation as "hopelessly futile" I view it as "difficult, and impossible to fully control", but doing so will save lives.

How do you know this?

 

[UserGoogol]

"...can be said to exist"? I'm not following you. What exactly do you mean by that? And what do you mean by "a" responsibility? Why not "the" responsibility?

Saying "a" instead of "the" was probably a mistake, and by "can be said to exist," I mean to the extent that the concept of "reponsibility" can be said to define right and wrong. Right and wrong are merely the names for actions which lead to happiness and unhappiness respectively. Responsibility thus is only a valid concept in that it produces happiness. I am not fully convinced that responsablity leads to happiness in all possible situations, therefore it is only true up to a point. And I really have no idea where that point is.

 

[Mephisto]

I might add, for all the high falutin talk about passing on tradition and so on, that hunting is fun and it is in our bones. There I have said it, it is fun to track down animals and it is fun to shoot at them. I haven't hunted for many years, but when I did, it was very exciting. It's great to make a good shot. It's cool to be able to trick a deer or to have your patience and stealth rewarded with a sack full of squirrels. I do have to admit, as a kid, I would often feel guilty and bad after I shot a little bunny or a duck, but, you know, killing is part of life and the fact is that everything that lives, lives off the death of other life.

Yes, there is an excitement to any hunt, but I was always taught that a hunt isn't a celebration of male-bonding, it isn't an excuse to pack up loads of alcohol and get away from the wives, it's not an excuse to obtain bragging rights about your skill or your kill - as a matter of fact, I was always taught that hunting was a fairly somber affair, if it went well an animal would die, but the animal's death was necessary to continue our own lives (not quite so today, but I don't think even Wal-Mart sells deer meat).

 

[Mephisto]

No, you need to have actually had some exerience with shooting with a parent to state whether or not it is a good experience for parents and children to share. You are speaking from ignorance. Because YOU don't like guns, you think it is not a good experience for parents and kids to go shooting together. But you don't know what you are talking about, do you?

You could go on the offensive and make the same claims about RUGBY. It's a good (and feasible) tactic to turn the whole thing about and have Miggins be defensive about his sport.

After all, isn't rugby a dangerous sport with many injuries?

 

[Mephisto]

But it is cool for the woman to make the choice of whether the attacker shall live or die? In both situations, a person is making a choice on behalf of another person. And being killed is vastly worse than being raped.

I'm not neccesarily saying that lethal self-defense is always unacceptable, but the argument seems to make sense to me.

What a ridiculous assertion! The person making the initial choice of aggression determines what happens next and will suffer the consequences if his prey is armed.

As for the last assertion in your first paragraph, you're pretty off the mark there! I worked in a hospital emergency room for nine years and I've seen several rape victims come in with everything from defensive knife wounds to internal injuries from bludgeoning to SEVERE emotional/psychologial trauma. How would you feel if that were your sister, or mother, or wife? I'll bet that you (just like all the victim's fathers, mothers, brothers, husbands, etc.) would be calling for the blood of the rapist/s.

As for the argument making sense, I'll meet you halfway, if you ever attack me, I'll hold you at bay with my handgun and let passers-by "have a go at you" as you remain poised over a barrel. Does your argument still make sense to you?