Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 23, 2017, 09:53:58 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . AB Arms . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  Desert Tech MDR
| | |-+  Opinions? Desert Tech vs Orlando: Release vs Legislation
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: Opinions? Desert Tech vs Orlando: Release vs Legislation  (Read 17286 times)
EWTHeckman
.
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 464


« Reply #80 on: July 30, 2016, 12:26:29 PM »

Sadly I'm surrounded by liberals who think that self-defense is equal to murder, and I've met them all in person.  Angry

My argument was in the context that such a ridiculously stupid idea is what was being preached from the DNC stage.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #81 on: July 31, 2016, 08:16:46 PM »

Sadly I'm surrounded by liberals who think that self-defense is equal to murder, and I've met them all in person.  Angry
j

What the hell? I've never met even a hardcore liberal who equates self-defense with murder.  I would ask them what their course of action would be if they witnessed someone assaulting their child.  I wonder how their stance against self-defense would hold up in such a situation.
Logged
Sdevante
^
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


« Reply #82 on: July 31, 2016, 09:28:47 PM »

What the hell? I've never met even a hardcore liberal who equates self-defense with murder.  I would ask them what their course of action would be if they witnessed someone assaulting their child.  I wonder how their stance against self-defense would hold up in such a situation.

I'm sure it would be something brilliant along the lines of "call 911."
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #83 on: April 20, 2017, 12:38:10 AM »

Here is my main issue with the argument firearms rights advocates make, saying "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" :

It's a flawed argument that really makes no real sense.

I could say that "Crystal Meth and Crack Cocaine doesn't cause robbery and other crimes; people cause robbery and other crimes."

See the logical error here? If we are to be taken seriously about our 2nd Amendment rights, this is one piece of mantra we need to relinquish in favor of more intellectually astute arguments. 

My main issue with those that argue for 2nd Amendment rights is most of us use logically faulty reasoning when arguing with antis. 

I know many people here will state that the left wing antis cannot be reasoned with. Luckily for me, I have many friends, both conservatives and liberals, and both sides make the same accusation of the opposition.  Interestingly the few times I have actually witnessed both sides use logically coherent arguments, minds were changed.  The main issue is many on our side don't effectively use logical arguments.
Logged
Ouborat7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #84 on: April 20, 2017, 12:50:41 AM »

I'm not seeing how either argument is illogical. Explain further.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #85 on: April 20, 2017, 02:45:26 AM »

I'm not seeing how either argument is illogical. Explain further.

Because the argument in its essence is that we should blame the perpetrator rather than the tool. Which makes sense technically. But in practice, it really is kind of ineffectual when discussing violence reduction. It is true that a tool should not be blamed for the action of the individual. But should we allow Nuclear weapons to be sold to every Joe Blow at the local Walmart provided the buyer can show a valid driver's license? Should we allow the sale of crystal meth? A certain amount of common sense should show this argument is nonsense. It only serves to allow the antis to conclude that we're a bunch of unthinking, blind, mantra repeating buffoons.

I wrote an article on defense of gun rights for my college, and I certainly never gave credence to this argument. We can do much better than that.  

« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 02:47:44 AM by Frostburg » Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #86 on: April 20, 2017, 02:52:41 AM »

All I'm saying is we're not trying hard enough.

I clearly put forth well constructed arguments offensively as well as defensively, and can count on atleast one or two hands antis I've argued with have admitted to me, "Okay, you win this round, but I'll be back."

« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 02:57:44 AM by Frostburg » Logged
HunterDiver
New Posting Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #87 on: April 20, 2017, 04:27:16 PM »

Firearm - protected under the Second Amendment

Mind/behavior altering drugs - no Constitutional protection

Weapons of Mass Destruction - no Constitutional protection.

I'm not following your comparisons.  Please explain further.
Logged
Ouborat7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #88 on: April 20, 2017, 09:07:15 PM »

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"
It's a flawed argument that really makes no real sense.
I'm still not seeing the flaw here. It makes sense to me. Guns are not living breathing objects. They cannot go out and murder people on their own. The only way a gun kills if is a person is using it to kill. The person holding the gun is responsible for their actions. If they shoot someone, they can't come back and say, the gun did that. I do agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Also who created guns? People, so guns would not exist without being created by people. Both parts of the statement make sense to me. Guns do not kill people on their own. People kill people. Murder and killing have been going on for a long time. Saying that a gun killed someone, instead of a human being takes the responsibility away from the person and blames it on an object.
If a close family member were robbed, and then shot at gunpoint. Would you say to the murderer? Oh man, that evil gun you were holding is so bad that it killed them. We got to give that gun the death penalty because it's responsible. Or would you say, Iím sorry that someone gave you that evil gun and that made you go through this horrible event where you had to watch it kill my family. Or would you say...I don't hold you responsible for you actions because guns kill people not people.....Okay, so this is probably not exactly what you are saying, but I don't see anything illogical about this statement. I saw a Forensic Files the other day where a murderer/rapist/sex offender was killing all these people. He said he was not responsible at all, and that it was the fault of the system and he holds no responsibility. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks he was not responsible. If you want to make an argument that guns make it easier to kill people. Well that is obvious. But it depends on what you compare it to. They also make it easier to protect people as well. There are all kinds objects that can be used to kill people with varying degrees of how easy it is. Bare hands, a rock, knife, poison, guns...The list goes on and on. Some are easier to kill with than others, but none of these objects are the killers.
I could say that "Crystal Meth and Crack Cocaine doesn't cause robbery and other crimes; people cause robbery and other crimes."
See the logical error here?
I do not see the error at all. As it has been pointed out this is an apples to oranges comparison, but for the sake of argument. These judgment/mind altering drugs may cause a person to do things that they may not normally do after they made the decision to take them, but that does not make the drugs at fault. The person had the choice to take these drugs and when they did, they take on all the responsibility that goes along with it. They are at fault to take the drugs in the first place knowing that when they do they may do bad things while high. The responsibility falls squarely on the person who took these drugs. It was their decision to take them, and they are responsible for everything that goes along with it. I agree that people cause robbery and crimes and not the drugs. Also people created these drugs. These drugs are not living breathing objects with minds and brains and they hold no responsibility for these actions. The people who take them are fully responsible. If you were to argue that when people take drugs, they are more likely to commit crimes, I would agree. But the people are responsible not the drugs.
Logged
Ouborat7
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 99


« Reply #89 on: April 20, 2017, 09:36:27 PM »

I'm not seeing how either argument is illogical. Explain further.
Because the argument in its essence is that we should blame the perpetrator rather than the tool. Which makes sense technically. But in practice, it really is kind of ineffectual when discussing violence reduction. It is true that a tool should not be blamed for the action of the individual. But should we allow Nuclear weapons to be sold to every Joe Blow at the local Walmart provided the buyer can show a valid driver's license? Should we allow the sale of crystal meth? A certain amount of common sense should show this argument is nonsense. It only serves to allow the antis to conclude that we're a bunch of unthinking, blind, mantra repeating buffoons.
I wrote an article on defense of gun rights for my college, and I certainly never gave credence to this argument. We can do much better than that. 
I'm glad you agree this makes sense that the perpetrator and not the tool is responsible after I just spend 10 minutes writing why this is true...hahaha.
As far as violence reduction goes. The true form of violence reduction is a change in people's hearts and minds. As Jesus has said loving one another. Loving your neighbor as yourself. Loving God. Loving your enemies. What Jesus taught and true changes in hearts and minds and ideas is what will reduce violence. Belief in God and morals will reduce violence. Belief that their is no God and we have evolved from matter and that there are no real morals or meaning or right and wrong, belief in evolution, and those ideals mean that who is to say murder is wrong or that there is even right and wrong.  These ideals lead to violence.

I donít believe nuclear weapons are the same thing as guns, but I know you donít mean this literally, but nuclear weapons cannot be sold to every joe blow at walmart. They take years and tons of money for countries to develop. They just like guns can be used for good or bad. The USA having nuclear weapon might prevent some counties from doing some very evil things. But obviously nuclear weapons can cause massive destruction as well. Letís hope they are never used. Guns can be used for good or bad. Maybe the good is having fun with target practice or for sell defense, and the bad is robbery and murder.

I donít think we should allow the sale of meth. That is my opinion. That is a drug. I donít think it relates to the gun argument.

I appreciate your opinions and you got me thinking. I fully admit Iím not an expert on all the matters I have spoken about. But at this time, what I said makes sense to me. Anyways, no hard feelings. I really just came on here to read about the MDR, but the wait has caused some of these threads to go off on a tangent. At this point, I think Iím done taking about this issue, as I just want to read about the MDR.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #90 on: April 20, 2017, 11:10:59 PM »

Firearm - protected under the Second Amendment

Mind/behavior altering drugs - no Constitutional protection

Weapons of Mass Destruction - no Constitutional protection.

I'm not following your comparisons.  Please explain further.

Unfortunately, reasserting constitutional rights does not always construe an argument in this instance; it lacks substance. We are not arguing the virtue of the constitution here, but are debating whether or not people should be allowed to own guns, irrespective of our constitutional documents.  This has become a moral and philosophical argument, not a legalistic one.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 11:44:18 PM by Frostburg » Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #91 on: April 20, 2017, 11:14:19 PM »

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people"
It's a flawed argument that really makes no real sense.
I'm still not seeing the flaw here. It makes sense to me. Guns are not living breathing objects. They cannot go out and murder people on their own. The only way a gun kills if is a person is using it to kill. The person holding the gun is responsible for their actions. If they shoot someone, they can't come back and say, the gun did that. I do agree that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Also who created guns? People, so guns would not exist without being created by people. Both parts of the statement make sense to me. Guns do not kill people on their own. People kill people. Murder and killing have been going on for a long time. Saying that a gun killed someone, instead of a human being takes the responsibility away from the person and blames it on an object.
If a close family member were robbed, and then shot at gunpoint. Would you say to the murderer? Oh man, that evil gun you were holding is so bad that it killed them. We got to give that gun the death penalty because it's responsible. Or would you say, Iím sorry that someone gave you that evil gun and that made you go through this horrible event where you had to watch it kill my family. Or would you say...I don't hold you responsible for you actions because guns kill people not people.....Okay, so this is probably not exactly what you are saying, but I don't see anything illogical about this statement. I saw a Forensic Files the other day where a murderer/rapist/sex offender was killing all these people. He said he was not responsible at all, and that it was the fault of the system and he holds no responsibility. I don't think anyone in their right mind thinks he was not responsible. If you want to make an argument that guns make it easier to kill people. Well that is obvious. But it depends on what you compare it to. They also make it easier to protect people as well. There are all kinds objects that can be used to kill people with varying degrees of how easy it is. Bare hands, a rock, knife, poison, guns...The list goes on and on. Some are easier to kill with than others, but none of these objects are the killers.
I could say that "Crystal Meth and Crack Cocaine doesn't cause robbery and other crimes; people cause robbery and other crimes."
See the logical error here?
I do not see the error at all. As it has been pointed out this is an apples to oranges comparison, but for the sake of argument. These judgment/mind altering drugs may cause a person to do things that they may not normally do after they made the decision to take them, but that does not make the drugs at fault. The person had the choice to take these drugs and when they did, they take on all the responsibility that goes along with it. They are at fault to take the drugs in the first place knowing that when they do they may do bad things while high. The responsibility falls squarely on the person who took these drugs. It was their decision to take them, and they are responsible for everything that goes along with it. I agree that people cause robbery and crimes and not the drugs. Also people created these drugs. These drugs are not living breathing objects with minds and brains and they hold no responsibility for these actions. The people who take them are fully responsible. If you were to argue that when people take drugs, they are more likely to commit crimes, I would agree. But the people are responsible not the drugs.


While I agree that the gun is not to blame and most antis would also agree (believe it or not), their rationale is to remove the tool which makes murder easier. We can blame the murderer all we want, while still wishing to remove the implements he may use to conduct his murders.

If I were an anti, I would say, "Sure, I blame the killer, not the gun. But why let the killer have access to guns which make the killing easier?"  This is the counter to the whole, simplified, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #92 on: April 20, 2017, 11:32:22 PM »

Here is a simple analogy.

Kim Jong Un may very well have nuclear weapons. Most of us would probably agree that he should not
possess nuclear weapons.  Now sure, we could argue that the nuclear weapon itself should not be blamed for millions of deaths but rather we should blame Kim Jong un, the man with his finger on the red button, instead.   "Nukes don't kill people, maniacal dictators kill people."  This fact would be technically true.

Should that be an argument in favor of allowing Kim Jong Un to possess nukes? (this is a hypothetical scenario assuming we have a choice in the matter of course)

The formula is the same as the "guns don't kill; people kill.." mantra.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 11:37:26 PM by Frostburg » Logged
Chief Master
.
Sr. Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2017, 12:08:47 AM »

Frostberg, to make a policy/moral argument here, let me take a two pronged approach:
First, policy and practicality. Having a gun does not make you more likely to commit an illegal or violent act. Using drugs like crack cocoon or heroin, however, (to my understanding) does make people more likely to commit other crimes. Also, prevalent civilian possession of arms has positive impacts on society (such as lowering crime) that the use of mind-altering drugs does not. Nuclear weapons also lack this type of positive impact. There are differences in the expected harm, as well as the anticipated benefit, in these actions. So hard drugs and nuclear weapons should not be considered alike to guns from a policy perspective.

Second, the moral perspective. You posed the issue like it is crazy to think that hard drugs like cocaine should be legal. However, I don't believe it's a crazy position to hold. In fact, I believe that, morally, the government should not regulate any action unless such action damages someone else's person or property. I believe in such limitations on government because every governmental law/regulation is a reduction in freedom by the threat of force. So if Joe Blow wants to sit in his basement, snort crack, and keep to himself, the government should leave him alone. Now, if Mr. Blow emerges and hurts someone or steals/breaks something, he should absolutely be punished for that. But actions that don't themselves infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property (such as owning a gun or doing drugs) should not be made illegal.
Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #94 on: April 21, 2017, 12:26:00 AM »

Frostberg, to make a policy/moral argument here, let me take a two pronged approach:
First, policy and practicality. Having a gun does not make you more likely to commit an illegal or violent act. Using drugs like crack cocoon or heroin, however, (to my understanding) does make people more likely to commit other crimes. Also, prevalent civilian possession of arms has positive impacts on society (such as lowering crime) that the use of mind-altering drugs does not. Nuclear weapons also lack this type of positive impact. There are differences in the expected harm, as well as the anticipated benefit, in these actions. So hard drugs and nuclear weapons should not be considered alike to guns from a policy perspective.

Second, the moral perspective. You posed the issue like it is crazy to think that hard drugs like cocaine should be legal. However, I don't believe it's a crazy position to hold. In fact, I believe that, morally, the government should not regulate any action unless such action damages someone else's person or property. I believe in such limitations on government because every governmental law/regulation is a reduction in freedom by the threat of force. So if Joe Blow wants to sit in his basement, snort crack, and keep to himself, the government should leave him alone. Now, if Mr. Blow emerges and hurts someone or steals/breaks something, he should absolutely be punished for that. But actions that don't themselves infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property (such as owning a gun or doing drugs) should not be made illegal.

ChiefMaster, you are correct about drugs being a motivator for crime rather than a neutral tool. The drugs is a bad example on my part (although I do believe they should remain illegal). The nuclear weapons is a better example.  The purpose of that example is not to argue a major point, or finer details. I use it to merely to demonstrate the logical flaw of the typical rhetoric "Guns don't kill people; people do.." quote.  I always felt like needing to assert that a gun is not sentient only makes us look dim. No prominent anti is arguing that guns are sentient creatures with thoughts of their own. They are arguing that they are lethal tools, and they want them restricted for that reason (not because they are capable of independent decision making).

As for your other arguments that guns do have practical use. I agree. I am just trying to demonstrate the fallacy of blindly repeating such dogma without any critical examination. Something our side does ALOT, unfortunately (so do the antis, however).
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 01:08:04 AM by Frostburg » Logged
Frostburg
^
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,464


« Reply #95 on: April 21, 2017, 01:28:36 AM »

Frostberg, to make a policy/moral argument here, let me take a two pronged approach:
First, policy and practicality. Having a gun does not make you more likely to commit an illegal or violent act. Using drugs like crack cocoon or heroin, however, (to my understanding) does make people more likely to commit other crimes. Also, prevalent civilian possession of arms has positive impacts on society (such as lowering crime) that the use of mind-altering drugs does not. Nuclear weapons also lack this type of positive impact. There are differences in the expected harm, as well as the anticipated benefit, in these actions. So hard drugs and nuclear weapons should not be considered alike to guns from a policy perspective.

Second, the moral perspective. You posed the issue like it is crazy to think that hard drugs like cocaine should be legal. However, I don't believe it's a crazy position to hold. In fact, I believe that, morally, the government should not regulate any action unless such action damages someone else's person or property. I believe in such limitations on government because every governmental law/regulation is a reduction in freedom by the threat of force. So if Joe Blow wants to sit in his basement, snort crack, and keep to himself, the government should leave him alone. Now, if Mr. Blow emerges and hurts someone or steals/breaks something, he should absolutely be punished for that. But actions that don't themselves infringe on someone else's life, liberty, or property (such as owning a gun or doing drugs) should not be made illegal.

I want to make a more detailed comment regarding your second point, since you dedicated an entire paragraph to it.  I don't affiliate myself with any particular political ideology, however I would probably most accurately be described as libertarian. So I like the idea of maximum human freedom for the individual, provided you are not harming someone else or stepping on anyone else's rights.
I would have to disagree about the legalization of most drugs. If someone wants to harmlessly smoke pot in their own home and never bother anyone, then they should have that right. But I draw the line at more serious drugs such as amphetamines, opiates or other serious classes of drugs that are severely addictive.

The issue is that once addiction fully sets in, the user no longer has direct control and freedom in regards to their actions. I am against anything that limits a person's freedom. There is plenty of scientific evidence of how chemical dependency affects the brain and how addiction works. Drugs are a severe enough threat to any society to warrant them being banned. I would even go as far as to argue this point in regards to alcohol, although I admit to having a few drinks here and there socially. In my opinion, pot is comparatively harmless, but even that has a certain amount of risk in terms of addiction.

Anyhow, I don't really want to debate the aspects of drug use or their legal status. I just wanted to make that one response. Let's get back to discussing 2nd Amendment issues.
Logged
Aussie E
.
Bullpup Fanatic
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 997



« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2017, 09:23:54 AM »

AE
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!