• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do firearms empower people?

Do firearms empower people?


  • Total voters
    52
Put a gun to someone's head, then ask them to do something they would not ordinarily and find out.

;)
 
I voted Right Leaning and Yes. By "people"? I mean a gun empowers ME. In certain situations, it can be "the great equalizer." And, as one of our poster's signatures says, paraphrased, "It's so much easier to carry around than a 225# buff and brave LEO."

Agreed but I think and refer to either the individual or to a certain demographic. The fact that you can use that weapon when you are physically less able to protect yourself than a man but are now made equal, and that women are over 50% of the population says this quite well..
 
The ideology in and of itself is not a problem. It promotes order, equity amongst people with free access to services, preventing poverty. Problem is, this is idealistic to the max and cannot happen because of human nature. The ideology is not the issue; it's incompatibility with how humans operate is.

The ideology IS itself a problem, if it can never actually exist or be achievable, and yet hundreds of millions die, Im comfortable saying there is something wrong with the ideology.
 
From what I saw he completely acknowledges that it is fatally flawed precisely because it doesn't take true human nature into account. On paper though, it can look plausible and even good (nobody lacking for anything, everyone working for the "common good", etc) if you're into that kind of thing (to me, even if communism could be implemented exactly as envisioned it still sounds incredibly dull and stagnant).

So being fatally flawed is being fatally flawed. Thats something wrong. Marxists might as will wish for unicorns and chocolate watermelons.
 
I agree that those notions appeal to many people (understandably) but, as I said, even if communism could be implemented exactly as intended, it still sounds like some sort of utopian nightmare to me, like you completely lose your individuality and identity and become nothing more than a worker bee completely indistinguishable from all the others.

It is hell on earth. Its one reason alcoholism is so rampant in former soviet nations, it didn't matter what they did all day, produce more or less-no difference. The wife got to stand in line for food all day. It slowly bleeds the life from people while also they aren't even able to maintain a population.
 
If someone ever comes up with a system that is both compatible with human nature and able to control it that is a man I want to meet. No system for governance that I have found avoids the same ends. All the different systems appear to just vary in how long they last and how the authoritarianism is applied in the end. Nothing else about it is really all that different. It seems as if the basic human nature to abuse a position of authority is the nail in every last coffin of every last ideology in existence.

Its one size fits all, top down, and it is inefficient. Not a recipe for success.
 
Much the same as turtledudes claim that the application of communism by people leads to the mechanism by which genocide can occur, I believe that it is the application of the second amendment by people that creates the mechanism by which more gun homicide takes place. Much like in the 2A, there is also nothing in communism which says it is ok to kill people (you don't have to think communism is a good thing to realize this). There is some serious cognitive dissonance going on if you claim that communism causes genocide but the 2A doesn't cause more gun deaths.

If you disagree with me, that is fine. It is far from clear cut, I don't think the 2A is directly responsible for any deaths, and this isn't me being a 'dim gun hater':

More guns are available now than ever, crime is down. When gun bans kick in they dont lower crime. When they expire, gun crime does not go up. Most of these gun deaths are drugs of suicide, and we know in nations where guns were banned suicide rates didn't drop, they just used different means. That leaves us with drugs and gang violence-the problem there is these people dont listen to the law by definition-and therefore any ban will only effect those that wish to protect themselves and their families. But thats all besides the point that its a natural right.
 
A) The wikipedia entry on that book is almost as heavily dedicated towards criticism of the book's methodology as it is describing the author's work. Not a good sign the work is particularly well respected.
No. You dont GET to be intellectually lazy and use that weak excuse. Over 100 million people died show some respect and stop hiding behind your compensatory mechanisms.

B) You're still not demonstrating that Marxism killed anyone, you're still merely demonstrating that malevolent dictators are bad for the safety of their citizens --a point which we're already in agreement.

EVERYONE MENTIONED IN THOSE LINKS WERE MARXISTS. Own it.
 
Guns are a machine for killing. They make killing easier and less personal. Like any good machine, it empowers the operator.

Like many tools, it depends on how they are used. Many of mine are for punching holes in paper and knocking steel and long ranges.
 
It's about some old white men fighting for their freedom and rights (But not for the freedom and rights of blacks and women.)

And yet American led the way for both. No other nation resolved slavery without one side being killed or expelled, we did. And women have always been treated fairly well here. Lets not forget zeitgeist.
 
Is it turns out, the only answer to that question is "kill other people". And when it comes to Americans carrying weapons, those other people are usually other Americans. Unarmed other Americans who they feel they have the right to kill. Guns empower people to create a little bit of tyranny in their immediate vicinity. It's pretty sad to hear people raise a fuss about government tyranny and then celebrate their ability to kill their fellow citizens on a whim.

Guns in our own past were a vital tool, it allowed defense but not just from people, and it was also needed for food. In much of the world they still are. Lets not foget this.
 
The ideology IS itself a problem, if it can never actually exist or be achievable, and yet hundreds of millions die, Im comfortable saying there is something wrong with the ideology.

You can be comfortable, but you'd be wrong. Killing is not part of the ideology. That's man's doing and what happens when an idealistic and impossible ideology is attempted to be applied.
 
Last edited:
There are varying numbers, all of which are huge.
The numbers vary from 2.5 million to 80,000 DGUs per year. That is either orders of magnitude bigger, or smaller, than the number of gun-related crimes per year, depending on numbers you choose to use.

Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of TYRANNY

1
: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
& b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>


"Tyranny" by any definition is evil!
Like I said, it depends on your definitions.

#1 and #4 here does not define 'oppressive'. #2 applies to neither UK or US governments. #3 does not define 'rigorous'. All are subjective terms.
 
The numbers vary from 2.5 million to 80,000 DGUs per year. That is either orders of magnitude bigger, or smaller, than the number of gun-related crimes per year, depending on numbers you choose to use.

Like I said, it depends on your definitions.

#1 and #4 here does not define 'oppressive'. #2 applies to neither UK or US governments. #3 does not define 'rigorous'. All are subjective terms.

The specific stat was that guns are at least as likely to be used for lawful defense as for crime. And since prevented crime often isn't reported its probably much higher.
 
Tyranny - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of TYRANNY

1
: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
& b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3 : a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4 : an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>


"Tyranny" by any definition is evil!

Empirica-you are what Willis was talking bout.
 
I'm sure someone has said this by now but "God made all men different, Samuel Colt made all men equal".
 
Back
Top Bottom