Started By
Message
re: Guns save lives
Posted on 9/25/14 at 10:28 am to WheelRoute
Posted on 9/25/14 at 10:28 am to WheelRoute
quote:
Analogies aren't perfect
And some are so poor, they really aren't analogies.
1
Posted on 9/25/14 at 10:41 am to Alahunter
quote:
And some are so poor, they really aren't analogies.
Shame we can't find an instance of such a thing in this thread. On the contrary, my analogy does everything I intend it to: ask gun rights advocates to reconcile their domestic policy assumption that arming everyone makes us all safer w/ their (assumed) foreign policy assumption that no one (but us, the world's policeman) should be armed so we'll all be safer.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 10:42 am to Alahunter
quote:
Guns save lives
Strange thread title for a story about how two people died from guns.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 10:58 am to WheelRoute
If you want to try to make the correlation between more people being armed to that of more countries having nukes, then take the Cold War and the proliferation of nukes between the U.S. and Russia as that example. Mutual destruction ensured, has helped avert nuclear war.
But it's still a bad analogy. Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right and that Right has helped many, such as the clerk in the OP, protect themselves. A great byproduct of that individual utilizing the Right guaranteed him under the Constitution.
But it's still a bad analogy. Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right and that Right has helped many, such as the clerk in the OP, protect themselves. A great byproduct of that individual utilizing the Right guaranteed him under the Constitution.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:01 am to Alahunter
quote:
has helped many, such as the clerk in the OP, protect themselves.
Or got him shot when he might not have been.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:01 am to Duke
Or dead, had he not been.
eta - It should be a logical assumption, that someone who invokes lethal and deadly force in the commission of a crime isn't someone who can be trusted and at that point, reacting with deadly force is not only logical, but necessary. One shouldn't have to rely on, maybe if I capitulate completely and cower, MAYBE then, I'll be safe.
eta - It should be a logical assumption, that someone who invokes lethal and deadly force in the commission of a crime isn't someone who can be trusted and at that point, reacting with deadly force is not only logical, but necessary. One shouldn't have to rely on, maybe if I capitulate completely and cower, MAYBE then, I'll be safe.
This post was edited on 9/25/14 at 11:04 am
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:12 am to WheelRoute
There is no Constitutional analogy between domestic gun ownership and nuclear proliferation. At All. BUT, if you want to take the realities of the two on a global scale, here you go:
Ukraine=Clerk
Russia=Thugs
In 1994 Ukraine, in exchange for giving up all of its nuclear weapons (left over from when it was a member of the USSR),received tacit promises of protection from the West in the Budapest Memorandums.
In 2014, Russia invaded and took the Crimea, and is now probably going to either take Eastern Ukraine wholesale or assert a protectorate over it.
Russia knew that the West wasn't going to do anything if it marched in to Ukraine, and since Ukraine did not have the capability to defeat Russia on a large scale, or inflict enough pain (via a nuclear response) on Russia to stop the invasion, we now have the Ukraine crisis: thousands of dead innocents, hundreds of thousands of refugees, a belligerent former superpower, etc.
Ukraine=Clerk
Russia=Thugs
In 1994 Ukraine, in exchange for giving up all of its nuclear weapons (left over from when it was a member of the USSR),received tacit promises of protection from the West in the Budapest Memorandums.
In 2014, Russia invaded and took the Crimea, and is now probably going to either take Eastern Ukraine wholesale or assert a protectorate over it.
Russia knew that the West wasn't going to do anything if it marched in to Ukraine, and since Ukraine did not have the capability to defeat Russia on a large scale, or inflict enough pain (via a nuclear response) on Russia to stop the invasion, we now have the Ukraine crisis: thousands of dead innocents, hundreds of thousands of refugees, a belligerent former superpower, etc.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:14 am to Alahunter
I don't disagree there's a tough choice to be made. However, in the fear of the moment anyone with a gun will likely try to use it. Unless you assume every robber with a gun will kill everyone they rob, you end up with more death and injury with everyone firing in defense.
It's a high price for ease of gun ownership. Is it worth it? That's much harder to say.
It's a high price for ease of gun ownership. Is it worth it? That's much harder to say.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:18 am to Duke
quote:
I don't disagree there's a tough choice to be made. However, in the fear of the moment anyone with a gun will likely try to use it. Unless you assume every robber with a gun will kill everyone they rob, you end up with more death and injury with everyone firing in defense. It's a high price for ease of gun ownership. Is it worth it? That's much harder to say.
If more people were armed and more criminals initially injured or killed, the likelihood of continued high crime rates would probably diminish. If someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, I think you should assume they are prepared and likely to use it. I sure don't want to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they are threatening death or grievous bodily harm.
As far as the high price... it's not only about crime. It's about keeping Gov't in check and many other byproducts of it. Hunting, target shooting.. etc.
In the end, no price is too high for anyone to retain their Rights, imho of course.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:36 am to Duke
quote:
Unless you assume every robber with a gun will kill everyone they rob
I think any rationale person thinks this.
quote:
It's a high price for ease of gun ownership. Is it worth it?
Yes. We can't hold a probable cause hearing for the criminals on the street before the crime to discover their intent with the gun in their possession, and then hold a similar hearing for the putative victim to discover his fear level and intent to act.
If thieves have a gun, their intent to cause great bodily injury or death is assumed, and that intent is assumed to have been conveyed to the putative victim by the brandishing of the weapon. Further, this intent, and the risk inherent therein, is assumed under the law, as well, and that's why armed robbery carries a higher penalty than simple robbery.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:41 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
The title of this thread is "Guns Save Lives" and it links to an article where two people are dead and one is injured. But, yeah, it's the other guys who are illogical.
quote:
You are being disingenuous.
Maybe the title should have said, "innocent lives," but the premise is correct and you know it.
I'd even argue that some lives are worth protecting more than others.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 11:43 am to DownSouthJukin
quote:
There is no Constitutional analogy between domestic gun ownership and nuclear proliferation. At All. BUT, if you want to take the realities of the two on a global scale, here you go:
Ukraine=Clerk
Russia=Thugs
In 1994 Ukraine, in exchange for giving up all of its nuclear weapons (left over from when it was a member of the USSR),received tacit promises of protection from the West in the Budapest Memorandums.
Nailed it
Posted on 9/25/14 at 12:12 pm to Alahunter
quote:
In the end, no price is too high for anyone to retain their Rights, imho of course.
That's not unreasonable.
It's just important to remember the responsibility of those rights.
Posted on 9/25/14 at 12:31 pm to Duke
Guns are like a Veyron. Utterly insane and can't be used by everyone.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News