Gun Advocates: What Would it Take?

jimithyashford said:

I ignored your question because that is not the purpose of this thread. That is an interesting question and all, but I purposefully do not want this to get derailed into a general all-purpose gun control debate.

Click to expand...

So I answered your question...

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

Click to expand...

and asked you a simple question...

Now short of a complete ban... tell me what laws would have made a difference in the recent shootings?

So I want you to explain how my question had nothing to do with...

jimithyashford said:

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. If you don't know what gun control laws do... wtf is the point????

ajn678 said:

If people are out on the streets blasting away everyone, the last thing I would want to do is be banned from owning guns.

Click to expand...

I feel you missed a key phrase in my OP: "Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?"

I am not necessarily describing a situation of say, outright war in which of course you would then want a gun for your own protection, but also, potentially, a situation in which guns slay a massive number of people and save few to none. Is there a point at which the cost in lives would be so high, and the preservation of life so low, that the trade off just stops being worth it?

Captain Adverse said:

I fear you have a tendency to refuse any answer that does not meet the criteria imagined within your mind.

I read your post (quoted it too, didn't I?) and provided the answer appropriate to the question.

You'll note that this issue has come up many, many times in this Forum simply by glancing at the contents of the Sub-Forum.

Many of us have addressed this question ad nauseam. It all boils down to this. My right to self-defense trumps your desire to feel secure. That no examples of violence perpetrated by other actor(s) will ever suffice to convince me that depriving myself of access to the best tools available to insure my self-defense is a rational course of action.

Click to expand...

That is still not what I asked, but ok, if you would rather answer the question you wish I had asked then the one I actually did, I can't stop you obviously.

And yes, I craft very very specific questions because, if internet debate has taught me anything, if you leave the topic or the line of questioning even remotely loose or vague, it will quickly spin off in a dozen direction and become a gnarled mess. There are enough loose general conversations about Gun Control on the internet, I had no intention of creating a new one. I have every intention of asking a very very specific and tightly worded question to focus on a very specific and narrow point of this conversation, that point being: Is there any point of compromise whatsoever on gun control, or is gun ownership a basic core axiom that cannot be breeched no matter the cost. And then the second thrust of the conversation was to highlight the absurdity of such a notion.

And of course having numerous people reply that there is no hypothetical scenario that their minds can even conceive that would warrant gun restriction, having people say with no shame on their face that even if the ratio of people killed by guns to people who defended themselves with guns was 100 thousand to one, they still cling to their guns, because even in such a world, a world where it would be painfully obvious that having guns in the population was costing VASTLY more lives than it was saving, having their gun is still more important them; having all of you say that without any irony.....that lays painfully and clearly bare the unreasonableness of your situation.

Here is a good rule of thumb.....if you ask a person what would change their mind or what circumstance would lead them to believe differently, and their answer is nothing...literally nothing conceivably possible would change their mind or position...then you are dealing with an unreasonable person.

TurtleDude said:

Yeah to me. you seem to operate under the delusion that gun control is crime control. That is like asking how much blood loss would a patient have to have before I advocated giving them an enema.

Click to expand...

It's not like that at all. How many of these poor analogies do you have? Are they compelling to you? They are not compelling to me I'm afraid.

Casper said:

No, I did not miss it, the worse violence becomes the More reason I need my guns, what about that is difficult for you to grasp? Let me ask this; if gun violence became that extreme, meaning the police cannot handle it, and those criminals came for you and yours, would you want a gun or at least want to have a neighbor or friend with one that could save you and yours by using a gun? Honestly?

Click to expand...

Of course I would want a gun.

If you are asking me to answer my own hypothetical, here you go: it's actually quite easy.

If I lived in a circumstance where people were allowed to carry guns for self defense, but that over the course of decades, with good reliable long term data, we discovered that despite people being able to own guns to defend themselves, that the reality was that Gun were used to commit VASTLY more crimes, but orders of magnitude, than were ever prevented by guns, that thousands more women were raped at gun point than used a gun to ward off a rapist, thousands more homes were robbed at gun point than homes defended by guns, thousands more mugging committed at gunpoint that muggers warded off by guns, if I lived in such a world, I would conclude that guns, on balance, hurt far far far more than they help in terms of safety and personal defense, and that the society would be better off without them.

There....not so hard.

Henrin said:

Yes, it doesn't matter if a billion people die by guns I will still stand by the peoples right to defend themselves, their friends, their family, and their community with the best equipment available. I will also stand by the people right to own whatever the **** they please until the day I die.

Click to expand...

Hopefully not at gunpoint, right?

You're expecting us to accept multiple contrafactual hypotheticals in order to justify a position that we oppose. It's not rocket surgery to figure out why it's not working.

jimithyashford said:

Your answer did not answer the question, I am imploring you to actually answer the question. I understand that you do not currently think such action is warranted. I am asking you if there is any hypothetical situation under which it would be, and to elaborate on what that situation would be like.

Click to expand...

How long have you held the right protected by the Second Amendment is contempt? You could hardly make more clear that you do.

Korimyr the Rat said:

Nerve stapling. Nerve stapling is what it would take for me to support strict gun control measures.



You are begging the question. I do not agree with your unspoken assertion that strict gun control would reduce the level of violence in our society. No amount of violence justifies giving up the right to carry weapons, because taking away the right to carry weapons does not help.



Let us assume that I agree with you, that strict gun control would reduce the incidence of violence.

There is still no point at which I would surrender my gun rights, just like there is no point at which sedition would induce me to give up my speech rights, or cult activity would induce me to give up my freedom of religion. There is no point at which national security justifies the suppression of the freedom of the press or the right to due process. There is no point at which drug abuse justifies unreasonable searches and seizures. There is no point at which the unemployment rate or the size of the welfare rolls justifies involuntary servitude.

I will not give up liberty for security under any circumstances, because security is an illusion peddled by politicians who only want control.



What is it about the right to vote that is worth dying for?

Click to expand...

I wont reply to most of that, not that it's not well put, I've just replied to it already from other people, but I will reply to one point I found interesting....

"just like there is no point at which sedition would induce me to give up my speech rights, or cult activity would induce me to give up my freedom of religion."

I would argue that the right to bear arms is not the same kind of right as speech, religion, assembly, etc. There are some right that are, what shall we call them, properly basic right, those rights are the ends in and of themselves. Something like the right to bear arms is not a properly basic right. It is not an end, say you have a sword....ok...why is having this object important?

What I am getting at is the right to bear arms is not an end, it is a means. And in that sense rights can be divided into two categories, ends, and means to those ends.

I hope you agree with me so far.

Now, what does the sword do? It gives you the ability to ward off people who would seek to curtail or take away the rights that are actual ends. So having the sword is a means to defend the other rights.

So, do with that what you will, but I say if the Means, the sword, the gun, is actually far far far more likely to take away your properly basic rights than it is to ever preserve them, then in that scenario doing away with the swords would be for the best for everyone.

Hey OP,

Many of us own firearms for immediate self protection as a primary reason, and the secondary reason would be for people like you who continually nip away at personal freedoms while cowering behind your love of government control.

jimithyashford said:

That is still not what I asked, but ok, if you would rather answer the question you wish I had asked then the one I actually did, I can't stop you obviously.

Click to expand...

Really? Well good sir, let me refresh your memory: rof

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

Click to expand...

What was my original response to this question? Let's see:

Captain Adverse said:

1. There is no point at which violence caused by others using a firearm would justify "strict" gun control. On the contrary, an increase in such gun violence would argue all the more strongly for individual gun rights.

Click to expand...

You then tried to follow the "simple question" with a number of "qualifications" to encourage an answer you were seeking; i.e. "Of course at such and so point I might be able to accept strict gun control."

jimithyashford said:

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Click to expand...

Thus your "simple question" became burdened with an appeal to emotion disguised as "clarification." Now your next question was:

jimithyashford said:

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Also "clarified" with clearly biased terminology cloaked as "reason" in order to color the expected responses. Ignoring again your logical fallacies I responded:

Captain Adverse said:

2. The right to self-defense is the most basic right in existence, and being as well armed as possible to provide for self-defense is a corollary. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight; you bring a gun.

Click to expand...

Another simple answer to your basic question. Clear and to the point. You may have failed to see it through those rose-colored glasses you wear on this issue, but I provided a valid response to each of your two questions nonetheless.

jimithyashford said:

And of course having numerous people reply that there is no hypothetical scenario that their minds can even conceive that would warrant gun restriction, having people say with no shame on their face that even if the ratio of people killed by guns to people who defended themselves with guns was 100 thousand to one, they still cling to their guns, because even in such a world, a world where it would be painfully obvious that having guns in the population was costing VASTLY more lives than it was saving, having their gun is still more important them; having all of you say that without any irony.....that lays painfully and clearly bare the unreasonableness of your situation.

Click to expand...

Another appeal to emotion, citing an implausible extreme then waxing judgmentally about those who could possibly disagree with your righteous position. I don't know who you think you are, or what in your personal background creates such hubris; but that's no way to win an argument.

As for your last opinion?

jimithyashford said:

Here is a good rule of thumb.....if you ask a person what would change their mind or what circumstance would lead them to believe differently, and their answer is nothing...literally nothing conceivably possible would change their mind or position...then you are dealing with an unreasonable person.

Click to expand...

More Hubris.

Again, had you taken some time as a new member to peruse some of the threads in the Gun Control sub-forum, you would know that I have conceived of one possible situation in which my right to be armed with firearms would not exist. That would be if the whole technology based on gunpowder disappeared from the face of the earth along with all firearms technology. However, as long as it does exist, I will never allow anyone to disarm me when I might be faced with enemies who have access to it.

Remember my response? Don't bring a knife to a gun fight!

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Never. I say never because no matter how crazy individual private citizens can be, it's in oneses and twoses. The only entity that has any real capabilities to kill numbers of people that reach levels that are horrifying are governments. People who don't understand this, and advocate for the removal of guns (because that's what it's really about at the end of the day), are those who are meant to be ruled.

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

The ones that commit gun violence are the people that need to be handled , the gangs , drug dealers , etc. Why did Obama release thousands of drug dealers ? Every single one of them has an illegal gun and they are not charged with that crime only the drug offense . If you are caught with an illegal gun lock them up for 25 years , and watch the inner Cities become a ghost Town . Deal with the real problem and LEGAL gun owners are not the problem .

jimithyashford said:

I cannot seem to pick out a direct answer to my question in your reply. I am not asking you to give up on liberty or individual rights. Nobody think not being allowed to own a particular type of weapon is equivalent to giving up on liberty. I mean, mini-Guns are super restricted, but nobody equates that to giving up on liberty.

So, I don't want to misrepresent your reply, so I will simply ask for clarification: At what point would the cost, in lives, of gun ownership, OR the imbalance between lives killed with guns vs lives saved with guns, be great enough for you to feel ok placing guns along side a great many other types of arms in the "heavily restricted" category? Or is there no conceivable cost in life or imbalance between lives saved and lives taken, that would ever justify such action?

And I guess I would like to add a follow up question to you specifically. You accept, I am sure, that there are a great many kinds of arms that are heavily restricted, do you feel liberty has been given up on because those restrictions exist? If you are ok with those restrictions on those objects, then I assume you are ok with the general concept of SOME arms being too dangerous for the general population, if you are ok with that in concept, then presumably there is, in fact, a threshold at which putting arms in that restircted list is appropriate, and I would like you to elaborate on what that point is.

Click to expand...

'Mini guns'?

Never heard of one - maybe a shred of self-education by you before addressing a foreign concept.

jimithyashford said:

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

There is no level of violence or action that would make me support passing some kind of law that would severely restrict or ban guns. None. Because there is too great of a ramification to the entire foundation of our Constitutional Republic to allow that.

If we reached the point where there was basically non-stop, continual, nation wide regular violence occurring across all neighborhoods, ala a civil war style situation, I would perhaps at that point be open to the idea of supporting amending the constitution to allow for actions to be taken. However, it's likely at that point that such would be unnecessary.

Essentially, it would take a fundamental breakdown of what this country is to get to the point where I'd support the removal of a core right ingrained upon the foundation of this country, at which point it wouldn't really matter because the country would likely be beyond saving in it's recognizable form.

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

It's easy to tell that you are a head in the sand liberal. First, your whole premise is wrong. That's where liberals make their mistake, right at the very beginning. They think there is a formula of more gun control = less gun violence. Has that worked in Chicago? I must confess to not even being a second amendment or a gun advocate. I could care less about the second amendment or even owning a gun myself but you are grossly mistaken if you think that formula is correct. Just about every single incident that has ever happened would not have been changed if we had passed the very same gun control legislation that Democrats want. Just take the last major incident, Orlando. Do you seriously believe that if there had been a ban on assault weapons that this guy wouldn't have still done something? He not only could have still acquired an assault weapon anyway but, even if he couldn't, would it really have made you feel any better if he had killed 20-30 with other types of weapons, instead of killing 49? Do you not think he wouldn't have made pressure cooker bombs or fire bombed the exits, killing just as many or possibly even more? Liberals have to get rid of this mentality of not locking dangerous people up and even releasing them and then thinking they can pass laws keeping guns out of the hands of these people. Don't you understand that gun control laws actually do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of bad people who could care less about obeying gun control laws?

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

Funny, anyone could still ask such questions.

This is kinda of strange fishing expedition in which the intent is absurd. The more gun violence there is the less likely I am to be willing to disarm law abiding citizens and remove their best option for self defense.

jimithyashford said:

It's not like that at all. How many of these poor analogies do you have? Are they compelling to you? They are not compelling to me I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

The truth is never compelling to a liberal.

jimithyashford said:

It's not like that at all. How many of these poor analogies do you have? Are they compelling to you? They are not compelling to me I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Your silly assumptions demonstrate that you think Gun control is crime control which tainted your entire premise to star with. I doubt you really have any understanding of the topic nor do you probably understand the following

1) everything you can do with a gun that harms others (other than self defense) is already banned with felony prison sentences in store for most such actions

2) people with felony records, indictments, etc commit a federal felony by merely holding or possessing a firearm

3) Felons and others who cannot legally possess firearms cannot be indicted, charged, or prosecuted for failing to register firearms due to the fifth amendment

4) since felons etc cannot own firearms of any type

a)magazine limits only impact people who can lawfully own firearms

b) "assault weapon" bans only impact people who can lawfully own firearms

c) limits on how many guns you can buy a month or own only impact people who can lawfully own firearms


So tell me-what sort of laws can you think of that are not in place that actually target those who cause problems with guns?

matchlight said:

How long have you held the right protected by the Second Amendment is contempt? You could hardly make more clear that you do.

Click to expand...

and why is it that the Bannerrhoid movement is almost entirely made up of liberals, progressives socialists etc?

jimithyashford said:

I have a very simply question that I would like earnest replies from Gun Advocates on: What would it take for you to support strict gun control measures?

I understand that as of right now, today, the level of murder/violence/death committed at the end of a gun is NOT enough for you to feel further gun control is warranted, but my question is....at what point would it be?

Is there any point, even hypothetically, at which gun violence could be so prevalent, so extreme, so ever-present that you would finally sigh and say "ok, this has gone too far, guns do far more harm than good, and we should restrict or outright ban them."? At what point would that happen, how would that point be different than the status quo we live under now?

Or is there no level of gun violence, no matter how extreme, no unbalance between lives taken by guns and lives saved by guns, no matter how massive, that would ever warrant the restriction or banning of guns?

If that is the case, what is it about guns that makes the ownership of them so sacred as to be unassailable under any hypothetical no matter how extreme?

Click to expand...

There is no point.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint you cannot solve the violence problem by regulating the implement. There is a less than 0.2% chance that any particular firearm will be used to commit a murder over the course of the average human lifespan. Adding regulations on legal gun ownership when the vast majority of them clearly are not a problem doesn't solve anything. It's simply a feel good measure. Nothing more.

And then of course there are myriad of Constitutional issues.

TurtleDude said:

c) limits on how many guns you can buy a month or own only impact people who can lawfully own firearms

Click to expand...

Can someone please explain this one? Do they think someone is going to buy 10 ARs and arm a small assault team to commit a mass murder?

Because this happens all the time?

blaxshep said:

Can someone please explain this one? Do they think someone is going to buy 10 ARs and arm a small assault team to commit a mass murder?

Because this happens all the time?

Click to expand...

The Bannerrhoids think this will keep people who can legally buy guns from buying a ton and then driving to the South Bronx or the south side of Chicago and selling them out of the trunk of their car

Moderate Right said:

It's easy to tell that you are a head in the sand liberal. First, your whole premise is wrong. That's where liberals make their mistake, right at the very beginning. They think there is a formula of more gun control = less gun violence. Has that worked in Chicago? I must confess to not even being a second amendment or a gun advocate. I could care less about the second amendment or even owning a gun myself but you are grossly mistaken if you think that formula is correct. Just about every single incident that has ever happened would not have been changed if we had passed the very same gun control legislation that Democrats want. Just take the last major incident, Orlando. Do you seriously believe that if there had been a ban on assault weapons that this guy wouldn't have still done something? He not only could have still acquired an assault weapon anyway but, even if he couldn't, would it really have made you feel any better if he had killed 20-30 with other types of weapons, instead of killing 49? Do you not think he wouldn't have made pressure cooker bombs or fire bombed the exits, killing just as many or possibly even more? Liberals have to get rid of this mentality of not locking dangerous people up and even releasing them and then thinking they can pass laws keeping guns out of the hands of these people. Don't you understand that gun control laws actually do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of bad people who could care less about obeying gun control laws?

Click to expand...

I tend to remind them of Columbine, AR's were banned at the time, and CO had some of the strictest gun laws among states and guess what it still happened. Studies by impartial groups have shown banning AR's does not reduce gun violence because first off the AR's are already out there and that criminals that break the law have no problem breaking another, it is why the ban was lifted and with the support of law enforcement agencies across the Nation. I believe that if another ban were imposed again many States would simply not enforce them and the Feds themselves cannot enforce them, I know they would not be enforced here and for good reason, common sense.