Gun ownership thread #2323344

[DammitBoy]

Yes, the debate is whether or not this should be an inherent right or not.

You're just going 'Well it just is', which is good for you and it is the status quo in the USA, but doesn't actually make a meaningful contribution to the argument in any way.

My "IS TOO!" is as valid as your "IS NOT!".

So what is your idea of the basic human rights package?

Free speech? Does that make it in?

 

[Elissar]

Then by your own admission, you have and will never be in my shoes.. and just for your information, I've never murdered anyone.

Justifiable homicide isn't murder.

And not having ever walked in my boots. you have no right to judge me.

You're nothing but a troll, a bad troll at that... you parrot out the same simple Guns=bad bullshit that ibet your parents fed you..... I'm sorry your such a pussy that you'll never stand up and put your life on the line for something you believe in... enough of me apologizing though. If you dont love guns, and dont own guns, you dont belong in this thread... you belong in the anti-gun thread. This thread is titled "Gun Ownership Thread" NOT "Gun Ownership Debate" So, Either Get the fuck out of this thread, and start a debate thread.. Or shut the fuck up so us proud gun owners can discuss our firearms in peace. we don't interrupt your "nasty sandy eternally dry syphilis infected vagina's" threads... So, plese, stay the fuck out of our gun threads.

 

[RonPerlman]

Then by your own admission, you have and will never be in my shoes.. and just for your information, I've never murdered anyone.

Then you're not a proper member of the freedom corps

Justifiable homicide isn't murder.

"It was justifiable because he was swarthy and foreign and I wasn't"

And not having ever walked in my boots. you have no right to judge me.

That's specious, since it's akin to saying you can't judge a serial killer until you kill people yourself

You're nothing but a troll, a bad troll at that... you parrot out the same simple Guns=bad bullshit that ibet your parents fed you..... I'm sorry your such a pussy that you'll never stand up and put your life on the line for something you believe in... enough of me apologizing though. If you dont love guns, and dont own guns, you dont belong in this thread... you belong in the anti-gun thread. This thread is titled "Gun Ownership Thread" NOT "Gun Ownership Debate" So, Either Get the fuck out of this thread, and start a debate thread.. Or shut the fuck up so us proud gun owners can discuss our firearms in peace. we don't interrupt your "nasty sandy eternally dry syphilis infected vagina's" threads... So, plese, stay the fuck out of our gun threads.

I am not surprised you are a proud US citizen and a member of Operation Iraqi Ethnic Cleansing

Also, I don't think you can equivocate "stand[ing] up and put[ting] your life on the line for something you believe in" with playing "shoot the impoverished brown person" in Baghdad

 

[Elissar]

Then by your own admission, you have and will never be in my shoes.. and just for your information, I've never murdered anyone.

Then you're not a proper member of the freedom corps

You're right, i'm not am member of the peace corps.. I'm a soldier in the US Army... And i'm not sure how you got those confused....

Justifiable homicide isn't murder.

"It was justifiable because he was swarthy and foreign and I wasn't"

No It was justifiable because they shot at me. and that's as far as that conversation will go..

And not having ever walked in my boots. you have no right to judge me.

That's specious, since it's akin to saying you can't judge a serial killer until you kill people yourself

You're nothing but a troll, a bad troll at that... you parrot out the same simple Guns=bad bullshit that ibet your parents fed you..... I'm sorry your such a pussy that you'll never stand up and put your life on the line for something you believe in... enough of me apologizing though. If you dont love guns, and dont own guns, you dont belong in this thread... you belong in the anti-gun thread. This thread is titled "Gun Ownership Thread" NOT "Gun Ownership Debate" So, Either Get the fuck out of this thread, and start a debate thread.. Or shut the fuck up so us proud gun owners can discuss our firearms in peace. we don't interrupt your "nasty sandy eternally dry syphilis infected vagina's" threads... So, plese, stay the fuck out of our gun threads.

I am not surprised you are a proud US citizen and a member of Operation Iraqi Ethnic Cleansing

Also, I don't think you can equivocate "stand[ing] up and put[ting] your life on the line for something you believe in" with playing "shoot the impoverished brown person" in Baghdad

i'm sorry that you are so uninformed about the situation in iraq, and so easily led by your local media that you believe all us soldiers are out for nothing other than to kill iraqi's ... you're sad and uninformed....

 

[RonPerlman]

I believe soldiers who willingly went to Iraq are fucking morons who deserve no respect or sympathy

 

[Elissar]

And i respect your right to say that.


Asshole or not.

 

[RonPerlman]

Then you sir. Are an asshole.

How am I an asshole? Why should DA TROOPS deserve anything when they saw the situation of Iraq and said "yeah, even though there's no evidence showing Iraq's a national security threat, BUT I WANNA BAG ME SOME MOOSLEMS"?

 

[Elissar]

??

 

[RonPerlman]

??

I was responding to your post before you edited it into a different statement.

 

[Elissar]

Right. And since your now putting words into my mouth.. I'm done.

 

[RonPerlman]

maybe you should shoot me, that'd solve your problem

 

[Demetrious]

Then you sir. Are an asshole.

How am I an asshole? Why should DA TROOPS deserve anything when they saw the situation of Iraq and said "yeah, even though there's no evidence showing Iraq's a national security threat, BUT I WANNA BAG ME SOME MOOSLEMS"?

Yeah, about that.

Saddam Hussein was, ah, an unpleasant person. Rape, murder, mass slaughter of ethnic minorities with poison gas shells, shooting at NATO aircraft patrolling the No Fly Zone, threatening the UN, US, NATO, and everybody else, paying thousands of dollars to families of suicide bombers, fucking around with the UN, be it their weapons inspectors or their Oil For Food program... he was a complete and total pain in the ass, any way you look at it.

So, I can understand people whining about Saddam not having WMND or Saddam not being a remarkable threat or this or that- but are you really sad he's gone?

I am not surprised you are a proud US citizen and a member of Operation Iraqi Ethnic Cleansing

Right, so. Considering the fact that you're clearly batfuck insane, and the fact that you're directing your batfuck insanity at a war veteran who is also a moderator... I have to ask. What does it take to get banned around here? People shouldn't have to tolerate the presence of primates like you.

 

[SuAside]

ah, so since you're not a cop, you have no duty to your fellow man then?

This is an obvious nonsensical argument. If you're not a cop, you're not supposed to go around carrying guns for self-defense. It doesn't say anywhere that you're not supposed to help other people. It only restricts the objects you can use.

the comment was more aimed at his total reliance on cops. but cops just aren't always there... he acted as if being a citizen means that you should be restricted in your abilities by default. personally, i have a rather big sense of duty. while i personally view concealed carry in Belgium to be unnecessary for myself, it doesn't mean that that translate into the fact that no citizen should be allowed to conceal carry (with the right checks and training).

"you're not supposed to go around carrying guns for self-defense", that's a political statement, not a fact btw. you do realise that people were carrying guns a lot up to the second world war in both our countries, right?

of course, that's a fact often hid by historians and politicians, but it wasn't the wild west back then... there were really big problems with wild dogs attacking people, so many citizens were armed with (unlicensed) small cheap revolvers "VéloDogs". but was crime that much higher? did we go around killing eachother in a drunken rage?

no, actually we did save or help quite a few people by doing so because "den gendarme" couldn't always be there.

To take this to extremes, you could easily advocate private ownership of tanks because hey, if the military can use tanks to protect people, shouldn't private citizens?

i know it's not what you want to hear, but private ownership of tanks is allowed if you have the correct permit. it of course requires your tank gun to be de-activated though.

but lets just say it's an unwieldy tool for self-defense, save a zombie outbreak.

No, that's not what he said.
Your hypothesis is that if gun ownership saves 1 more person than it kills, then it was worth it. But practically speaking, most people and governments utilise a utlitiarian morality with an emphasis on the importance of human life.
What this means, is that the total cost to society is what is most important, and although deaths do figure in pretty heavily, this is not the sole determining factor.

but what other cost is this you're talking of then?

legally owned firearms are overall pretty safe, owners pay heavy taxes when buying them (and the ammo to feed them), they pay again for licenses and permits and so on.

and don't go saying "yeah but illegal firearms are just stolen legal firearms" because that's just not true. it's only true in a very small percentage of cases.

This is a silly argument. I can think of a ton of things I could do recreationally that are forbidden because they're dangerous, require illegal substances or whatnot.
Like, for instance, blowing up cans of paint in my backyard with high explosives. Whoo-boy, that would be fun.

The fact that you need something for a specific recreational activity isn't a very good argument in favour of it contributing positively to society.

you say recreational shooting should be forbidden because it's dangerous? did you miss the comment about the insurrance?
there's a reason why it costs 15 times less than what a footballer pays (soccer btw, not american football)... recreational and sport shooting is amongst the safest sports around.

Apparently, Europeans hold firearms in such awe and dread that the mere possession of one speaks of a great and terrible danger on the horizon.

i'm a european, ye know. so please don't generalise so much.

Yet it is the main reason why private ownership of firearms are defended *is* the idea that someone might come into your home and rape you or assault you.

This is simply not a problem in most Western European countries, at all. Hence, the idea that you need a firearm to defend yourself speaks of paranoia to most Western Europeans, because using that reason here *would* be very paranoid.
Apparently, the USA is simply so much unsafer that it is needed there.

only because Mikael keeps pushing the conversation that way.

very little western european firearms owners can state that reason as the prime reason for owning a gun. for many european shooters, such as myself, that reason is actually of very little relevance.

 

[Demetrious]

i'm a european, ye know. so please don't generalise so much.

Sadly, you seem to be the exception to the rule. And that's an observation drawn from several forums, IRC chatrooms, and other places; not just here.

It might seem overly harsh to so freely paint "Europeans" with such a wide brush, but after I heard that European newspapers- and their letter to the editor columns- were blaming America for Russia's invasion of Georgia, I lost any hope of fair and balanced conceptions of the 'states existing on that side of the pond. In any force, at least. This thread has done little to change my viewpoint on that.

I certainly don't gain much by maligning Europe. Hell, I'm only second generation American, myself. My mother's side of the family emmigrated from Belgium after the first World War, so...

 

[Sander]

Ah, I see! So it's not Americans who are nutty, fanatical, deluded lunatics. Just anybody who owns a gun is automatically a nutty, fanatical, deluded lunatic. Thanks for clearing that up! It's good to know that only a particular kind of American is subject to your blatant stereotyping.

See, that's why these conversations always turn out so well- because you lovely Europeans have such a open-minded respect for the position and arguments of gun owners. We aren't marginalized and branded as knuckle-dragging mouth breathing barbarian cobwoys at all.

Aaaaaaand strike one for trolling.
I never said any of these things, perhaps you should learn to read.

All I have said is that they portrayed nutty, fanatical deluded Americans as being nutty, fanatical and deluded. I have not said, nor have they, that all (American or otherwise) gun owners are nutty, fanatical and deluded.

Do you have a fire extingusher or fire alarm in your house? Congratulations, you're paranoid!

No, because fires are a lot more common than situations where a gun would be needed.

See, Americans tend to keep guns for home defense just in case the .5% chance of a home invasion should happen to them, just like most people keep a few fire extinguishers around the house, just in case. Europeans think this is paranoid, because they seem to view a handgun to be about as dire a defensive measure as a tank and a platoon of marines, while Americans consider a revolver to be a revolver. Same principle as a fire extinguisher, and about as remarkable.

And more straw men there.
You're grouping together all Europeans and then attributing a property to them which is completely bullshit.

I'll say this again: home assault, burglary and the like are extremely uncommon. They are so extremely uncommon that no one even thinks of having a personal defense weapon in the form of a bat or knife, let alone a gun. This has nothing to do with preparing for an eventuality, but it is a simple fact that in most of Western Europe, being afraid of home assault and burglary is seen as about as sensible as being afraid of aliens to come and abduct you.
Why? Because it is simply not a reality in any way. This may be different in the USA and I am not attacking this as a real defense measure in the USA, but to claim that it is useful as a home-defense weapon in most of Western Europe is ridiculous and shows that you're probably not familiar with this part of the world.

Aren't there always? It's an old problem, to be sure. However, Kleck's study has stood the test of time well enough to be cited by the Supreme Court of the US, which is a fairly big endorsement of it's veracity. That's the main reason I decided to cite Kleck, really. Few of those numerous studies receive such validation, which is why I hesitate to begin endless, fruitless cite wars with them.

Being cited in a Supreme Court isn't actually as big of an endorsement as you make it, since the Supreme Court does need to choose between several points of view when there is equal merit. It is much more sensible to look at the reaction within the scientific (hopefully unbiased) community, or similar communities that rely on peer review by fellow experts.

As an example with which I am more familiar, in a 1998 Supreme Court case in the Netherlands the status of poker as a game of chance was evaluated. The conclusion there was that poker was not a game in which a participant can have a big influence on the outcome of the game, and should therefore be classified as a game of chance. However, they based this ruling off of mostly a casino table-game variant of poker, and only one of the two experts they heard.
There are a lot of people who make a living playing poker. They can all tell you very conclusively that the Supreme Court was very, very wrong.
Moral of the story: Supreme Courts get things wrong too, and choose the expert they want to listen to in cases of conflicting opinions.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what that case was about. The Supreme Court found the Second Amendment to grant an individual right to firearm ownership. It wasn't about changing it, it was about deciding what it meant, conclusively.

You needed a Supreme Court ruling to decide what the right to keep and bear arms means? That's pretty weird.

But, in any case, Kleck's study should actually be irrelevant in such a court case and really only be brought up in congress if ever they decide to have a debate on changing the amendment. As is, the right to bear arms is universal in the USA and I'm not trying to argue it shouldn't be.

Ah, you accuse me of using a strawman and seamlessly switch to attacking a strawman. Classic. It's clearly a strawman because anybody with two ounces of brains is aware of the fact that heavy artillery and nuclear weapons are crew-served weapons that are not employed against a target in the immediate vicinity presenting a threat. Thus it is an intensely laughable thing to suggest, isn't it?

Actually, I was demonstrating a slippery slope argument and not a straw man.
And whereas a Straw Man is never a valid argument, a slippery slop argument can be.

But say, for the sake of argument, that any weapon, any weapon at all, was legal. No civilian would have them, simply because nobody has twenty million dollars to buy a Main Battle Tank. Perhaps rich people would buy them and drive them around their ten thousand acre private ranches or whatever.

It's more likely that people like David Koresh or Don Black (neo-nazi who tried to invade the Dominica at one point and now runs the infamous Stormfront) would utilise these battle tanks and that would be a serious threat to the USA's national security.

But that is beside the point. My argument was an example where it is obvious to everyone that these weapons are not relevant for use a personal defense weapon.
Now my point was that this is the case for handguns in most of Western Europe, where both the culture, security situation and mindset have eliminated handguns as a relevant personal defense weapon.

Yes, I'm well of aware of the reason and mindset behind the USA's second amendment. Funny fact: we weren't talking about the USA.

Gee, you sure fooled me!

We were talking about inherent merits of gun ownership. This is actually largely seperate from the USA as an individual case.

Considering that I didn't breathe a word in judgment of the American Idea, and was in fact careful not to, your petulant outburst against "the USA is superior" idea seems like a case of the man doth protest too much. Did I rub any inferiority complexes the wrong way? So sorry.

You wrote, and I quote:"In short, American firearm ownership is the result of a particular mindset that has always held that Joe Citizen, does, in fact, have a brain, and is capable of safely and responsibly operating a personal firearm. We have a lot more trust in the capacity of the individual."

This is not a case of me protesting too much, it is a case of me reading what you write. My response to this was relatively simple, in that I attacked the notion that the USA puts more stock in an individual than other countries do.

Right, breathing "anarchy" in the same breath as "USA" reveals a fundamental lack of understanding as regards Federalism.

No, it doesn't. I never claimed the USA should or would go back to anarchy, nor that it is anywhere near the ideal of the USA or the American Dream.

It was an offhand remark relating to your rant on the trust in individual responsibility.

This thread is titled "Gun Ownership Thread" NOT "Gun Ownership Debate" So, Either Get the fuck out of this thread, and start a debate thread.

Ehm, Eli, this *is* the debate thread. The thread for gun owners counts 43 pages and is a bit down from here.

My "IS TOO!" is as valid as your "IS NOT!".

So what is your idea of the basic human rights package?

Free speech? Does that make it in?

I never claimed it wasn't a basic human right. But the point here was to discuss the merit of
We can discuss free speech as a basic human right or a right to housing as a basic human right or many other human basic rights. But those are all seperate from gun ownership.

Moreover, I have discussed several reasons while you go no further than 'IS TOO!' which is neat for you, but I really don't care to get into a back-and-forth here.

Right, so. Considering the fact that you're clearly batfuck insane, and the fact that you're directing your batfuck insanity at a war veteran who is also a moderator... I have to ask. What does it take to get banned around here? People shouldn't have to tolerate the presence of primates like you.

Elissar isn't a site moderator, he's a moderator for the The Order subcommunity.

That said, RonPerlman gets his third strike and is banned for trolling.

It might seem overly harsh to so freely paint "Europeans" with such a wide brush, but after I heard that European newspapers- and their letter to the editor columns- were blaming America for Russia's invasion of Georgia, I lost any hope of fair and balanced conceptions of the 'states existing on that side of the pond. In any force, at least. This thread has done little to change my viewpoint on that.

The fact that you are even considering painting Europeans with such a wide brush shows you don't really understand how Europe works.
It's similar to throwing in people living in DC with people living in Utah and claiming they're all the same and believe the same things because they're both Americans, 'cept that the differences are significantly bigger here.

That said, there is certainly a large sentiment of anti-Americanism largely spawned by the invasion of Iraq, the loud-mouthed behaviour of some American tourists and the perception of George Bush as a complete moron.

Also, the idea that Europeans are blaming the USA for Russia's invasion is pretty..ehmm....misguided and untrue.
I mean, undoubtedly there are retards over here who do that. But they're not common and it certainly isn't what 'the media' pushes.

Your general attitude to Europeans is as misguided as the Europeans you are complaining about.

the comment was more aimed at his total reliance on cops. but cops just aren't always there... he acted as if being a citizen means that you should be restricted in your abilities by default. personally, i have a rather big sense of duty. while i personally view concealed carry in Belgium to be unnecessary for myself, it doesn't mean that that translate into the fact that no citizen should be allowed to conceal carry (with the right checks and training).

"you're not supposed to go around carrying guns for self-defense", that's a political statement, not a fact btw.

Yes. It was a comment based on the status quo.

you do realise that people were carrying guns a lot up to the second world war in both our countries, right?

of course, that's a fact often hid by historians and politicians, but it wasn't the wild west back then... there were really big problems with wild dogs attacking people, so many citizens were armed with (unlicensed) small cheap revolvers "VéloDogs". but was crime that much higher? did we go around killing eachother in a drunken rage?

no, actually we did save or help quite a few people by doing so because "den gendarme" couldn't always be there.

Different times, SuA. I also know that ze Germans and a more totalitarian institution were largely responsible for the abolishment of the right to carry arms. This isn't really relevant in today's society.

but what other cost is this you're talking of then?

legally owned firearms are overall pretty safe, owners pay heavy taxes when buying them (and the ammo to feed them), they pay again for licenses and permits and so on.

and don't go saying "yeah but illegal firearms are just stolen legal firearms" because that's just not true. it's only true in a very small percentage of cases.

I'm not saying Mikael was right, just that your accusation of him being stubborn for the sake of hating guns was unjustified.
I have no clue as to what the cost to society of gun ownership is.

you say recreational shooting should be forbidden because it's dangerous?

No, I said that the fact that something can be used for a recreational sport doesn't make for a very good reason to make it a freely and legally available item.
I was attacking your reasoning, not the actual individual practice here.

EDIT: Don Black tried to invade Dominica, not the Dominican Republic

 

[DammitBoy]

My "IS TOO!" is as valid as your "IS NOT!".

So what is your idea of the basic human rights package?

Free speech? Does that make it in?

1. I never claimed it wasn't a basic human right. But the point here was to discuss the merit of.

2. We can discuss free speech as a basic human right or a right to housing as a basic human right or many other human basic rights. But those are all seperate from gun ownership.

3. Moreover, I have discussed several reasons while you go no further than 'IS TOO!' which is neat for you, but I really don't care to get into a back-and-forth here.

1. The point is to discuss the merits of basic, inalienable rights? Okay.

2. Wrong. The is no difference between any of the rights the founders of our nation listed as rights that could not be infringed upon. That's why we should no more have gun permits than we have free speech permits.

3. This is a specious lie or at the very least a statement of complete ignorance of my posts in this thread. I've listed many reasons for gun ownership, beyond my basic right as an american citizen.

I've also contributed to this thread in a positive fashion for more than a year. Try to use facts in your posts, instead of ignorant hearsay and we won't have a 'back and forth'...

 

[Sander]

1. The point is to discuss the merits of basic, inalienable rights? Okay.

Oh, quit your trolling.

You're equating gun ownership with other 'inalienable rights', while one of the few places to have gun ownership as an inalienable right is the USA, and moreover 'it's an inalienable right' isn't exactly a valid argument.

My point was that we *can* go and discuss the merits of other inalienable rights if you want, and I can find a few reasons why some inalienable rights shouldn't or should be inalienable rights.

2. Wrong. The is no difference between any of the rights the founders of our nation listed as rights that could not be infringed upon. That's why we should no more have gun permits than we have free speech permits.

I don't give a shit what the founding fathers of the USA said about the rights of their citizens. When it comes to the merits of that right, their opinion is as valid as anyone else's, except that they got to embed into a nation's constitution.

Again: I'm not saying that the USA should give up this right, but you're *still* just going 'but it's a right fuck you' which is *still* not useful or contributing to the debate that is going on now.

3. This is a specious lie or at the very least a statement of complete ignorance of my posts in this thread. I've listed many reasons for gun ownership, beyond my basic right as an american citizen.

I've also contributed to this thread in a positive fashion for more than a year. Try to use facts in your posts, instead of ignorant hearsay and we won't have a 'back and forth'...

You've contributed to a thread for over a year while it's only been in existence for two weeks?
Also, good for you that you contributed to a gun debate a while back. The contribution of your conversation with me right now goes no further than "It's a right, live with it".

 

[SuAside]

Sadly, you seem to be the exception to the rule. And that's an observation drawn from several forums, IRC chatrooms, and other places; not just here.

It might seem overly harsh to so freely paint "Europeans" with such a wide brush, but after I heard that European newspapers

the gunowners in the EU are mostly recluse in the hope that they'll be left alone. they keep a low profile.

personally i think that's a bad strategy. but sadly we can't seem to allign gun owners politically (which shouldn't be surprising since gunownership does not imply following any specific political belief). last election we tried to get the recreative and sportshooters to put their weight behind a particular member of the VLD (flemish liberals & democrats) which helped us greatly in our struggle for a more realistic and useful gunlaw, but we failed misserably.

the media however is our greatest enemy. for some reason, there is no fucking way that the media will actually tell any sotry involving guns correctly. this is a domain i know, yet every supposedly qualitative newspaper (like De Standaard, De Morgen, ...) screws the pooch on gun related stories. going from full automatic 22mm pistols to lethal airsoft.

I certainly don't gain much by maligning Europe. Hell, I'm only second generation American, myself. My mother's side of the family emmigrated from Belgium after the first World War, so...

high five!

i bet you miss the kickass beer and the chocolat!

And more straw men there.
You're grouping together all Europeans and then attributing a property to them which is completely bullshit.

I'll say this again: home assault, burglary and the like are extremely uncommon. They are so extremely uncommon that no one even thinks of having a personal defense weapon in the form of a bat or knife, let alone a gun. This has nothing to do with preparing for an eventuality, but it is a simple fact that in most of Western Europe, being afraid of home assault and burglary is seen as about as sensible as being afraid of aliens to come and abduct you.
Why? Because it is simply not a reality in any way. This may be different in the USA and I am not attacking this as a real defense measure in the USA, but to claim that it is useful as a home-defense weapon in most of Western Europe is ridiculous and shows that you're probably not familiar with this part of the world.

then one would wonder why belgians have the right to shoot everyone who climbs over their fence at night.
all in all, we have pretty strict but fair gunlaws. yet, we get to shoot any motherfucker posing a threat by climbing over my fence at night.

i'll grant you that happens relatively little, but there it is that you make your error, Sander. I think it's irrelevant that it happens little. i find it more important that i have that right to do so, WHEN it happens. because it does happen.

(mind you, not that i'd shoot anyone climbing over my fence at night, but she'd sure realise i'm not too happy about what he's doing if i notice)

Actually, I was demonstrating a slippery slope argument and not a straw man.

personally i think the slippery slope argument is a valid one, if it's any consolation. personally, i draw the line at full automatic weapons and such. though purely rationally, there is no specific good reason not to allow them if you allow high power hunting rifles and sport shooting weapons.

Different times, SuA. I also know that ze Germans and a more totalitarian institution were largely responsible for the abolishment of the right to carry arms. This isn't really relevant in today's society.

but you recognise that man was once 'civilized' enough to carry guns responsably. why wouldn't they still be today?

No, I said that the fact that something can be used for a recreational sport doesn't make for a very good reason to make it a freely and legally available item.
I was attacking your reasoning, not the actual individual practice here.

then let me just argue that pretty much everything can be identified as a threat and could as such be banned. internet for instance.

my point is rather that the negative impact of legal gunownership is negligable. even more so than many other 'rights' we've acquired over the years. such as alcohol, smoking, driving licenses,...

i'd wholeheartedly grant you that it's nigh impossible to argue for or against the "right" of owning firearms. it's something like the right to free speech as far as i'm concerned. you don't actually need free speech to live.

 

[Sander]

then one would wonder why belgians have the right to shoot everyone who climbs over their fence at night.
all in all, we have pretty strict but fair gunlaws. yet, we get to shoot any motherfucker posing a threat by climbing over my fence at night.

i'll grant you that happens relatively little, but there it is that you make your error, Sander. I think it's irrelevant that it happens little. i find it more important that i have that right to do so, WHEN it happens. because it does happen.

(mind you, not that i'd shoot anyone climbing over my fence at night, but she'd sure realise i'm not too happy about what he's doing if i notice)

Must be 'cause of Belgium's ass-backwardness.
Nah, but the fact that that law exists doesn't make it a reality. To use home defense as a major argument in most Western European countries to instate a free right to own guns doesn't make much sense from a realistic sense, although from a theoretical point of view it might.

but you recognise that man was once 'civilized' enough to carry guns responsably. why wouldn't they still be today?

I never acknowledged that. I acknowledged that in previous times, it was a more necessary evil.
That said, I have no problems with private gun ownership provided that certain groups are excluded (violent criminals, people with serious psychological illnesses etc), and they follow a gun safety course.

then let me just argue that pretty much everything can be identified as a threat and could as such be banned. internet for instance.

Ah, but then there's the utilitarian argument of total cost/benefits to society.

Again, I have no idea and frankly I don't think it'll matter much one way or the other.

 

[DammitBoy]

Also, good for you that you contributed to a gun debate a while back. The contribution of your conversation with me right now goes no further than "It's a right, live with it".

Thanks for admitting to not reading a thread before commenting in it.

Especially when you claim I've made no contribution in that thread.