Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

That just reminded me of a great bit from, Louis CK.I think raping Hitler would have been better, too. Please continue with your regularly scheduled debate. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Louis CK.Here's his youtube video links: Louis CK channelI'm going to post another video on the humor thread about Catholicism that he did.- Oni

So would you also be cool with creationist teaching creation 'science' in the public schools out in "the hills?"Or is that "keep your noses out of our business" just pertain to you and your guns?Seems like your attitude opens the door to any wacko with an idea, who lives far enough away from a big city, to carry on as if that idea is unquestionable. So would you say that this argument also works for the teaching of intelligent design in those places that see fit, or should there be a universal standard for all of the US when it comes to science?If you feel there should be a universal standard for science, then why should guns be exempt from a universal standard simply because a few have personal feelings about it?How is your argument different from creationist?Actually, your argument helps us understand how stubborn those who think they're right are, even when presented with evidence against their position.- Oni

Hi Bluejay, Right, but even in the case of drinking while driving, one could make the argument that it's safer to do so in a rural area rather than in a city. So, should the drinking and driving laws be dependent on that as well, simply because an area isn't yet as populated as another area?I think you'll agree that a universal drinking/driving law works best, right? In my opinion, the wiki article is showing the difference in population -vs- the crime rate, and not so much crime rates -vs- gun owner ship. It's not hard to imagine that an area that is more populated than another area, which is mixed racially and economically, is going to have a higher degree of crime. Simply put, population increase comes with crime increase, whether people own guns or not. I think in the case of gun control, note I'm not saying "gun removal," a universal law is the best plan and overall, will be effective when or if the area in question becomes as populated as the others.But I don't think the approach of "keep your noses out of our business" helps in any way.- Oni

Right, but those are now conditions within the universal law of drinking and driving, which is the same as the conditions that would be placed on the universal law of gun control.You're not saying that because you live in a rural area you should be allowed to drink and drive, you're saying that special cases can be made about the legal limit, but overall you still agree that drinking while driving, no matter what your legal limit may be, is still universally illegal, right?Or are you saying that you should be allowed to drink and drive? How exactlly is it not helping? What kind of difficulties is it placing on you?From your link:

quote:

---

The FOID card is issued by the Illinois State Police, who first perform a check of the applicant on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), an electronic database maintained by the FBI.

---

How is that a bad thing? Controlling the distribution of guns and who owns them.- Oni

Right, but no state in the US has no drinking and driving laws. That's what I meant by a universal law, maybe I didn't make that clear.Let me try like this, drinking and driving is universally considered wrong therefore each state has laws concerning it. But no one is making the case that we should not have some laws for it, even depending on where you live.In my opinion, this would be the same as gun control. There is a universal law that guns must be controlled, therefore each state has laws concerning it. No one should be making the case that no laws should exist. A better comparison of my position is drivers licenses. There is a universal law that concerns driving: you must have a license. Now, at that point each state places the parameters for people driving. The same with gun control. There should be a universal law to carry a license and register it. At that point each state can place the parameters for the gun owners.Would that be better? Then they can't legally buy a gun, can they? That's the point. To legally buy a gun you must have a license and register it, if not, you can try buying it illegally. Would this same gun shop allow a gang memebr to pick up that bullet if he/she didn't have the license? Every law does that. I don't think there are good gun control laws, so no, I don't think it's working. Remember, the laws are for the legal use of it, not for the illegal use of it.- Oni

Yea, I think Bluejay changed it to "universal law making" and I figure we were all on the same page. I'm cool with "rule," or as I put it a few posts back:

quote:

---

If you feel there should be a universal standard for science, then why should guns be exempt from a universal standard simply because a few have personal feelings about it?

---

I was just refering to a standard that we all agree should be in place, like the standard for science, or the standard for not drinking and driving. Now the specifics of these standards should be state issued and enforced, except of course for science. No, not at all. In fact I don't think there needs to be any federal laws when state laws are fine. I meant universal standard for guns, that standard being that there should be a form of gun control. Then the laws do no harm. The laws are in place for the legal use not for the illegal use. Anyone illegally using a gun, and uses it to harm someone, has many more charges or things to worry about than not carrying a license to use it properly.Gun control laws are not to stop crime or even reduce it slightly, they are only for gun control - sale and ownership. Oh come on, bro, don't tell me you're falling for that NRA propaganda crap? Oh wait, you are! Resistance against the government? Realllly... with what a Glock and a couple of shotguns?Waco Texas mean anything to you? Then what's your beef? You weren't allowed because the gun shop owner made a mistake, right? Same dude would make that mistake with anyone else. He had understood the law differently but he did follow the law, just not properly. Yes, every law, why, because people have different standards for what they consider their individual right. All laws in some way will shit on what certain people will feel is their "right." At least that's how I see it. Yes, and some people do. I wouldn't specifically for that case, but cigarette laws shit on what I feel are my rights. So do certain drug laws. That depends on what we consider "not working." I feel they're not working because there aren't many good laws to control guns. In my opinion every person who wants a gun should have a license, take a safety class and register the weapon with his/her county. That would be a start. Also age limits would work too, especially in Texas where minors can buy hunting rifles.Gun control laws are NOT to prevent crime or to reduce it in anyway, they simply place restrictions on the guns themselves and who can purchase one. I think that's a good thing.- Oni

Hi Bluejay, This is a good point, but remember we're talking about weapons, not iPods or TV's. There should be some control over who can purchase them don't you think? A simple FBI background check perhaps, and cross referenced with local and state police as well. To give some assurance that the one purchasing it is responsable. And a license that says you took a course in safety for the weapon you're about to purchase - it's often done even at hunting clubs.Also, registering the weapon actually benefits you. One, if it is stolen and used illegally it can't be traced back to you once you've reported it stolen. And two, it gives local law enforcement, the people you and I count on to protect the streets, a sense of how many weapons are out there, that way they can properly equip themsleves as well.I also think that there should be absolutely no sale of automatic weapons, in any case.- Oni

Wait, doesn't everyone else too?It's not that far off the mark I might add.

Well, what do you mean - or rather - can you be more specific as to what kind of death are the result of drinking alcohol? Isn't it drinking while driving that causes the thousands of deaths? According to RAZD's wiki link, only one state allows drivers to consume alcohol in a vehicle, so for the most part, it's completely illegal in the US except for one state. The reason being, as you stated, thousands of deaths result from that single action.What other deaths are the result of just the consumtion of alcohol that couldn't be avoided any other way?So I see no need to make alcohol illegal when making drinking while driving illegal takes care of the "thousands of deaths" part... Not completely, I know, but the other deaths resulting from alcohol are usually gun related and could have been avoided if the person didn't have a gun. Probabaly just a fist fight, maybe.Let me give you a hypothetical scenario:Say you weren't allowed to take guns into a bar, legally allowed, which means, aside from criminals, a regular guy like you or me (I use me losely ) who owns a gun. And you followed that law and went to a bar, got drunk and ended up face to face with a dude bigger than you. Not saying that you specifically would do this, but now lets change that original law and lets say you can take guns into bars... You're face to face, but in this case you notice you have the gun and pull it out to intimidate the bigger dude to avoid confrontation. But, since you've never been in the situation and he has, he manages to take the gun from you, maybe with the help of friends. Now you're fucked, can risk getting shot and it's all because you brought a gun.If you got shot and died as a result of both you and the other guy being completely wasted and handling a gun, which law do you think would have helped you more: a background check before you buy drinks, or a (hypothetical) gun control law that says "no guns in bars?" If the thousands of deaths are the result of drinking while driving or drinking then driving, I believe that is currently illegal (except for one state).If you want guns to be treated the same as drinking and driving, then guns would be illegal.But the gun control laws are not set up to avoid the accidental or willful deaths caused by gun use, it simple regulates who can buy them and registers who owns them. It's part of that products guildlines. Just as a drivers license and insurace are specifically required for driving. Or for selling alcohol in a bar. Or being an electrician. Each "thing" has a set of guildlines one must follow that is part of the product itself, and not the result of what it can do.- Oni

Hi Bluejay, Fair enough, then alcohol needs more control, or to be banned completely. I'm a pot man myself, no deaths at all in our camp. Well the above scenario happened to a friend of mine while I was with him and it's not that uncommon to be shot with your own gun. Neither I think. "No cars on this road" is too weak of a sign; a background check isn't relevant to the accident. If there are cars on the road and you're on it, the risk is unavoidable. Like during Prohibition? Look, I really see no point to guns. I personally find them boring. Hunting can be fun if that's what you were raised doing and enjoy, but humans have hunted long before guns; guns are just an easier way to do it. Gun exist now and many people enjoy them, whatever, but lets not act like it's a real right to own a gun. It's no more a right to own a gun then it is to own a TV. It's your right to defend yourself, guns again seem to be the easier way to do that (unless you're a Ninja).It's a made up right because we found a way to form metal to shoot a bullet and kill a potential attacker. Big deal. Guns deserve no special treatment, no special place in our society and definitely no law to protect them, other than because it's your property.You have the right to defend yourself, I think that's where it should end. We don't need guns to do that, we just use them because of they're the best way to do it in many circumstances (unless you were facing a Ninja).In my true opinion, it's a shitty product. It's caused nothing but harm to either people or animals, even to the point of hunting having to be regulated because it was just to easy shoot animals from 300 yards. Try over hunting an area with a bow & arrow, you'll be eaten by a bear long before you make it. It has no value to society other than an EBay sale. It's pointless and meaningless and has only now become something that people would actual die before giving up. And all because they think they have a right to have one.But I'm realistic. I know it exists and fear propaganda has driven people to believe they now need one for protection. Hey, if that's what you think, then own one. But the product should be regulated, registered and licenses required. I'd like to see an eventual ban on the product comepletely, but first we'd need to ban Republicans. - Oni

Where do you live that you're constantly having to shoot your way home?Seatbealts and helmets are worn when you're driving, not just for kicks. Are you always locked and loaded walking around waiting for danger? Is that the society you want to live in? I bet the dead ones see many reasons why the killer shouldn't have been carrying one.Also, your statement barely makes sense. Are you saying that a shoot-out between the attacker and the students whould have been better?I wonder how many people really have the balls to pull out a gun and get into a shoot-out like that. It's easy to play it up on a forum, it's a lot different when real bullets are flying by you.- Oni

And yet you're still alive and well, typing away about how dangerous society is when you don't have a gun. How do you do it? How do you survive your daily life without a gun? Should we expect you to be dead soon because you're not armed? How many tiimes this week did you have to flee a gun-man's attack?- Oni

I agree 100% with your post, Theo. People watch Die Hard and think they can do that stuff.People think, (I have personal friends who own guns and brag about this all the time), just because they have the gun, or even have shot it plenty of times and can handle the weapon, that they can actually get in a gun fight and maintain calmness throughout it, taking proper shots and being careful not hit bystanders.When in actuality that situation is so crazy and chaotic that it'll just be total mayhem - add to that a bunch of idiots firing off shots and you'll have a worse situation then intended.- Oni

People drive everyday, all day, 24 hours, just about every single adult does in the US. Gun ownership and usage pale in comparison to the amount of cars used.- Oni