Gun control with brains

[elohiym]

...that your comprehensive skills are sharp as a marble.

You punted as I expected you would.

I'm hopping over to CM's thread, bring your sidewalk chalk if you like.

To draw around another of your dead arguments? I'll pass.

 

[chair]

The U.S. Army only discontinued bayonet training in 2010. Not sure about the Marines. Doesn't make a difference to my point.

US Army?
Guess what- not everybody on this forum is from the US, and there are other armies in the world.

 

[elohiym]

Right, but firearms are at the top. There is no contest, at all. No one can debate that statistic. So, to compare the #1 killing instrument in the world to a hammer/shovel/knife is not even close to a fair comparison.

Where is the evidence for your claim? Prove that more people are murdered with guns than knives in the U.S.

 

[elohiym]

US Army?
Guess what- not everybody on this forum is from the US, and there are other armies in the world.

Well, I served in the largest military in the world; I was speaking about my personal experience and defending my claims. You brought up your military experience, so maybe I should have just pointed out to you that there are other armies in the world and many of us on TOL are from the U.S.

 

[Quetzal]

Where is the evidence for your claim? Prove that more people are murdered with guns than knives in the U.S.

Gladly!

Here you go.

 

[Yorzhik]

Ah. Since you said so, it must be true.

It's true because the contrary is impossible. If rights are not given by God, then logically there are no such thing as human rights.

Said another way; if mankind is the highest moral authority, then each man only has rights insofar as he can defend them physically and impose them violently which falls short of the scope of human rights.

 

[chair]

It's true because the contrary is impossible. If rights are not given by God, then logically there are no such thing as human rights.

Said another way; if mankind is the highest moral authority, then each man only has rights insofar as he can defend them physically and impose them violently which falls short of the scope of human rights.

Not necessarily. In the Biblical view, it seems that there is an absolute morality that is independent of God. See the discussion between Abraham and God about the destruction of Sodom.

 

[PureX]

If the Declaration of independence says that " they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", it is very nice, but that still doesn't make anything "God-given", unless the Founders were prophets.

Well, the text literally says, "… Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". So I'm not sure how else we could interpret this. I interpret it to mean 'existential rights'; rights that are ours by the fact of our existing.

But I don't see any reason to mix the authors up in that statement. They are not claiming themselves to be part of that endowment. They are simply acknowledging the endowment of rights that already belong to us, because we exist.

 

[elohiym]

Gladly!

Here you go.

Thank you. It helps make my point. We see that 12.43% of the murders in 2014 were committed with knives. Why should gun buyers be discriminated against when so many murders are committed with knives?

 

[Quetzal]

Thank you. It helps make my point. We see that 12.43% of the murders in 2014 were committed with knives. Why should guns buyer be discriminated against when so many murders are committed with knives?

Is this a joke? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with such a stupid argument that you are giving me a hard time. Trying to get a few yuks out of ol' Q. Please tell me you are kidding when the first thing that came to your mind when you looked at that table was 'Well, would you look at all of those knife murders.'

 

[bybee]

Well, the text literally says, "… Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". So I'm not sure how else we could interpret this. I interpret it to mean 'existential rights'; rights that are ours by the fact of our existing.

But I don't see any reason to mix the authors up in that statement. They are not claiming themselves to be part of that endowment. They are simply acknowledging the endowment of rights that already belong to us, because we exist.

I agree.

 

[elohiym]

Is this a joke? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with such a stupid argument that you are giving me a hard time. Trying to get a few yuks out of ol' Q. Please tell me you are kidding when the first thing that came to your mind when you looked at that table was 'Well, would you look at all of those knife murders.'

Is this a joke? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with such a stupid argument that you are giving me a hard time. Trying to get a few yuks out of ol' Elo. Please tell me you are kidding when the first thing that came to your mind when you looked at that table was 'Well, would you look at all of those knife murders I'll have to ignore to miss elo's point.'

 

[PureX]

It's true because the contrary is impossible. If rights are not given by God, then logically there are no such thing as human rights.

Said another way; if mankind is the highest moral authority, then each man only has rights insofar as he can defend them physically and impose them violently which falls short of the scope of human rights.

That's an intriguing concept, but I think it's being confused by the idea that rights require "authority". I think all they require is possibility, and then defense against those who would deny us their possibilities. Those possibilities are our "right" because we exist and we are capable of recognizing them as such, and because we will defend them as valid and valuable. There is no external "authority" necessary.

 

[Quetzal]

Is this a joke? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt with such a stupid argument that you are giving me a hard time. Trying to get a few yuks out of ol' Elo. Please tell me you are kidding when the first thing that came to your mind when you looked at that table was 'Well, would you look at all of those knife murders I'll have to ignore to miss elo's point.'

Your point is off topic. We are talking about firearm regulation because they make up the largest percentage of murders in the US. What is your point, again?

 

[elohiym]

Why does 69% of murders being committed with guns justify psychological testing for purchasers when 12% of murders being committed with knives doesn't? If a psychological test precludes someone from owning a firearm, why shouldn't it preclude them from owning other things, like knives?

 

[bybee]

That's an intriguing concept, but I think it's being confused by the idea that rights require "authority". I think all they require is possibility, and then defense against those who would deny us their possibilities. Those possibilities are our "right" because we exist and we are capable of recognizing them as such, and because we will defend them as valid and valuable. There is no external "authority" necessary.

Except that men being men, once a certain type of man tastes power he is corrupted and will inflict his control over those who simply wish to exist in peace. Metaphorically, when Cain felt anger because his brother showed a more generous nature, he picked up a weapon and bashed his brother's brains out. Thus began the saga of man.

 

[Quetzal]

Why does 69% of murders being committed with guns justify psychological testing for purchasers...

Really?

 

[elohiym]

Your point is off topic. We are talking about firearm regulation because they make up the largest percentage of murders in the US. What is your point, again?

That's not true. My point about discrimination addresses the OP stating:

What I mean is that the gun isn't the problem and laws will never fix the problem of gun violence. So, what I advocate is that those who want to buy a gun should take a psych evaluation and go through an in depth background check (obviously political and religious views would not be involved.) If they do not pass either of these they should be rejected. But those who can pass these should be able to buy any kind of gun and as many as they want.

He is essentially advocating that a person's constitutional right to privacy should be violated in order to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms.

 

[PureX]

Except that men being men, once a certain type of man tastes power he is corrupted and will inflict his control over those who simply wish to exist in peace. Metaphorically, when Cain felt anger because his brother showed a more generous nature, he picked up a weapon and bashed his brother's brains out. Thus began the saga of man.

Sadly, yes. Which is why we have had to fight to defend those "unalienable rights" ever since: to live, to live according to our own will, and to pursue our own well-being and happiness.

And it's those same "decedents of Cain" living among us, today, that are still trying to usurp our unalienable rights, so as to impose their will on us, and on everyone and everything … so as to become like gods, themselves.

This was mankind's original sin, and it is still the sin hidden within all the others.

 

[elohiym]

Really?

If you have an answer or rebuttal, please get to it.