Argument that decimates the pro gun position

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Agree. And I think it's an important distinction you point out when you say "in relatively stable societies". I'm quite sure we'll be entering a period of instability, if we haven't already crossed over into it.
Well I thought it unfair to include areas of civil war or the like.
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Well I thought it unfair to include areas of civil war or the like.

I wasn't being that drastic, but I think as people find themselves up against a government and an economy where they feel helpless, they may feel they have no choice but to lash out accordingly. I'm not condoning the behavior, but when a man who's family is being evicted because he's lost his job, had his house foreclosed on, and is seeing his kids go hungry, pressures mount.
 
Read this again for some odd reason, all I can think is that this is such a waste of money to pay this guy and to teach of all things, philosophy.

The left has such a chokehold on academics that critical thinking isn't taught anymore because all that's left are these religious types. What a shame, the kids are not being taught, they are being indoctrinated.

just to take an example he says this

Gun advocates will object that a prohibition of private gun ownership is an impossibility in the United States. But this is not an objection they can press in good faith, for the only reason that a legal prohibition could be impossible in a democratic state is that a majority oppose it. If gun advocates ceased to oppose it, a prohibition would be possible.

So if everyone who possesed a firearm ceased wanting to have it, then all is well since prohibition would work.

I can't believe this man is a professor. He is supposed to have deep thoughts, be creative, and most importantly be a critical thinker since he teaches philosophy. This tortured wishful thinking is something out of a Koran.

The roots of liberalism are rotten
 
Quote from Mav88:

So if everyone who possesed a firearm ceased wanting to have it, then all is well since prohibition would work.


Yes, I noticed this same fallacy when he stated something like: guns were unlike drugs in being highly desired. Not paying much attention to the evidence all around us, is he?

He later bemoans how democracy must be failing, because guns haven't been banned yet. Never even once considering that maybe democracy is working exactly as intended.


The roots of liberalism are rotten

Yes. I propose that we nationally reframe the whole debate to be more dedicated to what I like to call gun-control-control. I'll help break ice on that: When emotions are running high and calm clear heads are running low is the time when it is best to make and implement a big decision, true or false?
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

From the article:
"But, as with nuclear weapons, we would all be safer if no one had guns — or, rather, no one other than trained and legally constrained police officers."
Weapons in the hands of the State(Government) have caused much more death on society then the private gun holder.
 
Quote from mostlysilent:

Yes, I noticed this same fallacy when he stated something like: guns were unlike drugs in being highly desired. Not paying much attention to the evidence all around us, is he?

He later bemoans how democracy must be failing, because guns haven't been banned yet. Never even once considering that maybe democracy is working exactly as intended.




Yes. I propose that we nationally reframe the whole debate to be more dedicated to what I like to call gun-control-control. I'll help break ice on that: When emotions are running high and calm clear heads are running low is the time when it is best to make and implement a big decision, true or false?

this is a professor at a major university, and he does not understand that the second amendment was written precisely so a majority could not take it away. the entire bill of rights is to protect the individual from the majority. he doesn't even know what form of government we have
 
Quote from Mav88:


What professor jackwagon fails to comprehend is that the homicie rate among nonhispanic whites is about 3 per 100,000, while that of blacks is about 27 per 100,000.

The other leg to this debate would be to find how many random murders were committed by licensed gun owners with their own guns.
 
Quote from Mav88:

"So if everyone who possessed a firearm ceased wanting to have it, then all is well since prohibition would work."

Obviously the requirements for being a academic these days are pretty low.


I wonder why this didn't work during prohibition, or isn't working now when so many drugs are banned?
 
Quote from trendlover:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are very angry and mean when you talk. Tell me why YOUR country is very advance, very wealthy, and lead in the world when they always have minorities in their country.
Stop your blame of minoritys. You are superpower.

What you say is true and most would agree that Mav88 could benefit to practice control over his temper and his demeanor, especially when talking to women.

In regards to your question as to Why America is very advanced and wealthy, even though we have always had minorities, the answer is not so simple.

Guns are one of the reasons why we have been a powerful nation from the gate- just ask the Native Americans who were widely slaughtered, then rounded up and sent to reservations. Many were willing to fight, but they lacked organizational skills, and their arrows and war clubs could not compete with the white man's firearms.

Another reason for America's power and wealth, is the white man's use of slaves helped to jump start our economy early on. I mean, just think about it; it's hard for business to fail when you have an adequate supply of free labor, working long hours, with little or no benefits. Even now, there are many powerful companies, that rely on making large profits off of cheap labor from minorities, particularly of the Hispanic origin.

But perhaps the most important reason for America's ability to rise, is due to our ability to unite as a whole, and to aspire to be great. There were enough people who saw the inhumanity of slave trading, and they fought bloody and hard to put an end to our shameful ways.

When we realized we were in danger of losing many of our large tracts of untamed wilderness, we defined areas that were to remain unadulterated, and we implemented laws to protect our forests and animals.

So in large, it has been our ability to adapt to changes, and new situations as they arise. There is now a need for gun control- not gun abolition, and we will unite and come up with a solution that allows us to remain relatively safe, while still giving us the strength to defend ourselves.

Many will resist these forgone changes, but their resistance will be futile in the larger scheme of things.

We will do the right thing, eventually- even if it's too late.
 
Back
Top