RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"?

RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 11:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: missturbation I'm not sure where i stand on the issue of bans exactly. I do know that some people take more pleasure out of doing something that is banned than something that is not. To use one of the examples given which is books, i originally began reading the marquis de sades work because he had been banned and was contoversial. I wanted to know what all the kerfuffle was about. Would i have read them if he did not have a reputation? Probably not. Have they done me any harm reading them? Definately not. It seems that the marquis books should never have been banned but i can understand to a certain degree with the times they were written in why they were. Guns, well to me a lot more dangerous than a book. Some of the fascination with carrying them for those who are not legally allowed to must be the fact they are not supposed to. The pleasure we all have at some time felt from doing something we shouldnt. This is exactly the point I was making, missturbation. I could make the same argument that information in certain books, read by unbalanced or uninformed people could be very dangerous. So should we ban all books (or even specific books and material) because certain people may misuse information or ideals and concepts in certain written material that make them dangerous to society at large? And who decides what is dangerous and what is infringing on people's personal choices to be infomed and/or well-read? The highest percentage of gun owners use these weapons for pleasure (target shooting, competition, etc.) hunting (providing food for themselves and family) or, when necessary, for defense of themselves and others. The few who criminally misuse guns get the big splash. And, suddenly, "Uh, oh...guns bad, guns dangerous, make guns go away, please!" Be careful! I have a copy of Huck Finn in My house, and it might fall into the wrong hands and send the wrong message to someone! Same difference.

mistoferin -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/23/2007 11:32:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold The silence is deafening, though, isn't? Why yes.....it is.

popeye1250 -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 12:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Celeste43 Being cochair of a school book fair, I am against banning books. Indeed my eldest's first high school lit class reading list came straight off the banned books list. A definitely eclectic selection. In NY State, people who have been treated for psychological disorders may not get a gun permit. Certainly a few people who have been hunting responsibly for years found themselves unable to get a permit the hunting season following 9/11 after responsibly seeking treatment for trauma. In this area, no one went unaffected, everyone knew or knew of someone who had perished. Towns nearby that had high police and firefighter populations were devastated. But to give a known stalker with severe problems a gun was irresponsible as is the ability to buy ammo on EBay which is what the Virginia Tech shooter did. He was also a "Resident Alien" and not a U.S. Citizen. He was in the country since he was 8 years old and still a resident alien at 22? Something wrong there. After five years they should either become a U.S. Citizen or be deported, no exceptions. Non U.S. Citizens should not be able to buy or posses guns. Just like that Jamaican National on the L.I. railway. Another nutso. I don't believe in bans or especially censorship. I do Boycott companies and products though.

NorthernGent -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 12:51:42 AM)
Mistoferin, I tend to look at limits rather bans. I reckon it's a fair enough statement to say that there are legal limits surrounding pretty much any activity. Having said this, if the extent of an activity is going to be limited, then the burden of proof falls on the person/people trying to limit that activity. For me, the line is drawn where the freedom of the rest of society is impeded. So, Shooting someone in the face is illegal for obvious reasons, but someone owning a gun in their own home? To restrict this, those putting the case forward shoulder the burden of proof to show it is socially irresponsible, and I don't think they can - it wouldn't stand up in court, put it that way. Plus, a small amount of crime isn't the justification for limiting the liberty of the majority. A person smoking in their own home - fine, their health, their call. But, smoking in a public place is rightly limited. The reason being, it is proven that this will knock years off peoples' lives - the burden of proof has been satisfied. Everything has limits attached to it, and the question for me is where the line is drawn, and that line is where it can be proven that other peoples' liberties are being impeded, but as said there is a heavy burden of proof and it needs to be a good case. Having said the above, I would say the brainwashing of society in order to serve people up as corporate slaves is the most worrying restriction on peoples' freedom - if there aren't limits put in place to sort this out, then in the grand scheme of things, the guns, smoking, books etc don't amount to very much.

deadbluebird -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 1:24:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin So I am wondering, do you feel that bans in general are wrong and you feel that competent and responsible adults should be allowed to make their own decisions or does it (for you) depend on what is being banned? For example....the banning of books vs. the banning of guns. Now some may say that the two are entirely different....but are they? Both can have positive or negative impact depending upon the hands in which they are found. in a way i believe that bans are wrong. however, i believe a state should have the right to vote against something. if the citizens of a state decide to vote and ban guns then i believe that state should ban guns. if guns are that important to you move to texas.

mnottertail -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 1:27:34 AM)
nah.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 2:25:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent A person smoking in their own home - fine, their health, their call. But, smoking in a public place is rightly limited. The reason being, it is proven that this will knock years off peoples' lives - the burden of proof has been satisfied. As will drink and drinking causes violence, look at any British town on Saturday night, that is proof enough and traffic fumes cause far more respiratory damage to third persons rather than smoking, yet I don't see anyone calling for the banning of private transport in cities and towns which by and large is unnecessary and would score a direct hit on improving public health. Calls for bans tend to be fashionable rather than rational. Except the call for a ban on guns for the simple reason every population possesses about 1% extreme psychopaths and its easier to do a mass killing with a gun than a baseball bat.

Pulpsmack -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 3:08:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Calls for bans tend to be fashionable rather than rational. Except the call for a ban on guns for the simple reason every population possesses about 1% extreme psychopaths and its easier to do a mass killing with a gun than a baseball bat. My, how I love a quote with the rebuttal impregnated within the original text. Suspending all disbelief for a moment and subscribing to the patented Meatcleaver "argument by arbitrary numbers" technique, You are left with a society regulating 100% of its population for the potential actions of 1%. Yes, rational indeed there meatcleaver. So, if 4% of the population is willing to get behind the wheel, drive recklessly (drunk or sober) and their actions kill 3 times as many as the 1% psycopaths who would commit these mass murders, then by your "rationale" we should ban vehicles due to their potential to be abused by the 4%. Or is the crux of your masterfully "rational" approach the fact that one is "deliberate" and the other is merely "reckless", so banning deliberate deaths makes sense, because it's evil, but banning reckless deaths does not? Wow... just, "wow".

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 3:47:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack So, if 4% of the population is willing to get behind the wheel, drive recklessly (drunk or sober) and their actions kill 3 times as many as the 1% psycopaths who would commit these mass murders, then by your "rationale" we should ban vehicles due to their potential to be abused by the 4%. Or is the crux of your masterfully "rational" approach the fact that one is "deliberate" and the other is merely "reckless", so banning deliberate deaths makes sense, because it's evil, but banning reckless deaths does not? Wow... just, "wow". Drinking and driving is banned (the lower limit is more to allow for natural accuring alcohol in the body), as for driving recklessly, there are large prison sentences available. However, transport is necessary in modern societies though most urban private transport could be easily replaced with political will for the benefit of all and the planet. So yes, I would ban private cars from urban areas once efficient public transport is in place. The benefits being, public transport is faster and cleaner than private transport in urban areas. I'm not for banning cars but like smoking or drunks, they should not be imposed on people who do not care for their dirty by-products. Yes, knives, baseball bats and a host of other things can be used to kill people but not efficiently as guns and it is doubtful all those mass murders would have happened should the killer only be able to obtain a knife or a baseball bat. If you have no intention of killing someone, why have a gun? Since there is more chance of a murder victim knowing their killer than not, guns in such cases tend to be irrelevent anyway.[:D]

Pulpsmack -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 4:02:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Drinking and driving is banned (the lower limit is more to allow for natural accuring alcohol in the body), as for driving recklessly, there are large prison sentences available. Strangely enough, so is murder. Interesting how you can make the instrumentality available to the public AND impose punishments against those who abuse it, isn't it? quote: However, transport is necessary in modern societies... As for the rest of this "argument", what you have not addressed was your original premise: that it is not rational to ban things, but it is rational to ban guns. I'm not interested in why you think a gun ban is a good idea (at the moment). I'm interested in you supporting your argument about how banning is an irrational measure in all things except for guns because (as you say) 1% of the population are potential psychos and it is rational to ban this for the other 99%. Try sticking to the argument you make, or maybe try making less of them in the future.

Asraii -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 4:55:54 AM)
I am of the opinion that responsible adults should be allowed to make their own decisions; but then you run into the arguement of 'what makes a responsible adult'. Personally, I don't support bans of any kind for any reason.

DiurnalVampire -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 5:03:13 AM)
I am against bans because they go against human nature. If that doesnt in and of itself make sense, I'l try and explain. If you ban something, it does not become unattainable. It becomes a challenge. People who would have had no interest in said item will now go out of their way to obtain it, simply becasue they are told they shouldnt. If something is banned, then the controls on who gets it are gone, becasue the authorities simply say no one gets it. The black market dealers in the items in question arent going to check out who they are selling to. The only way to keep any sort of control over the trade of something is ot to ban it. With that said, no I dont believe in bans. I do believe in controls placed on certain things, like weapons and automobiles. I also think that there should be spychological testing that go into the ablity to purchase a weapon, not just a 3 day wait and a background check. But thats just my opinion, becasue the number of violent crimes and the number of suicides might be a little easer to reduce if we weed out some of the unstable individuals who have been smart enough to keep their noses clean in teh public eye, but who a shrink could see through in a second. Someone who could potentially hurt themselves shouldnt be given a gun anymore tan someone who could potentially hurt others. My opinion, of course. DV

DiurnalVampire -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 5:09:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you have no intention of killing someone, why have a gun? Since there is more chance of a murder victim knowing their killer than not, guns in such cases tend to be irrelevent anyway. Shall we ban ropes and wires too? The majority of serial killings as i understand them (and I might be slightly off) are done by strangulation. So for that small a population, youd be for banning anything that can strangle someone? Murder victims tend to know their killers, and there are far more personal ways to kill than a gun. Why own a gun if you dont plan on killing SOMEONE? Hmm. Do you hunt? Do you know anyone who hunts? I have many friends who would never even consider turning a gun on a person, but they do routinely use that gun to bring home deer, game birds and other animals to put on the dinner table. DV

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:11:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack As for the rest of this "argument", what you have not addressed was your original premise: that it is not rational to ban things, but it is rational to ban guns. I'm not interested in why you think a gun ban is a good idea (at the moment). I'm interested in you supporting your argument about how banning is an irrational measure in all things except for guns because (as you say) 1% of the population are potential psychos and it is rational to ban this for the other 99%. Try sticking to the argument you make, or maybe try making less of them in the future. One psycho in charge of a gun can kill 32 people at a go. That is difficult to do in any other way other than with a bomb but the use of bombs are usually ideologically motivated because psychos like to see their victims die. Gun supply in the population encourages criminals to be armed with guns because they are more likely to be confronted by guns. There is no evidence that guns reduce crime or necessarily offer protection from crime as the US stats prove. There is evidence in Britain and the Netherlands that many criminals won't use guns because the chances are they won't be confronted by guns and carrying a gun will greatly increase their prison sentence should they be caught. Perfectly rational.

meatcleaver -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:14:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DiurnalVampire quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you have no intention of killing someone, why have a gun? Since there is more chance of a murder victim knowing their killer than not, guns in such cases tend to be irrelevent anyway. Shall we ban ropes and wires too? The majority of serial killings as i understand them (and I might be slightly off) are done by strangulation. So for that small a population, youd be for banning anything that can strangle someone? Murder victims tend to know their killers, and there are far more personal ways to kill than a gun. Why own a gun if you dont plan on killing SOMEONE? Hmm. Do you hunt? Do you know anyone who hunts? I have many friends who would never even consider turning a gun on a person, but they do routinely use that gun to bring home deer, game birds and other animals to put on the dinner table. DV Guns are designed to kill and killing is their sole raison d'etre. That and making inadequates feel powerful.

MellowSir -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:17:53 AM)
Bans don't work, as long as there's demand there will always be a supply. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because a law is passed that all abide by it, reality is what it is, better that everyone be armed so they can at least shoot back lol.

MellowSir -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:19:30 AM)
I live in missouri, and we allow ccw, and it hasn't turned into the wild west......

Asraii -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:19:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MellowSir Bans don't work, as long as there's demand there will always be a supply. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because a law is passed that all abide by it, reality is what it is, better that everyone be armed so they can at least shoot back lol. That kind of thinking is a bit skewed, don't you think? Why not instead learn to disarm them? It can be done.

MellowSir -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:41:43 AM)
If it can be done then why are americans still fighting a worthless cause in Iraq? Try disarming the factions there, oh that's right, already been tried.....demand=supply....

Asraii -> RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? (4/24/2007 6:47:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MellowSir If it can be done then why are americans still fighting a worthless cause in Iraq? Try disarming the factions there, oh that's right, already been tried.....demand=supply.... We are not talking about war. We are talking about guns for personal use. Your words said "better that everyone be armed so that they can shoot back"; which to me seems a bit skewed in thinking. If the only reason you want to own a gun is so that you can pull it on someone who pulls one on you; pretty ignorant in my thinking.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875