• 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!

Are People a Good Risk or Bad?

S

sanman

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2015
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
4,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
There are two main schools of thought on whether humanity is mostly good or mostly bad.

Romanticist: human beings are naturally mostly good, with the baddies being exceptions to the rule, and that the main threat to people comes from corrupt social institutions.

NeoClassicist: every human being has evil within them that's waiting to come if circumstances permit, and it's only social institutions which can keep that evil in check.


Gun Rights supporters believe that most of the citizenry are good responsible people deserving the right to bear arms, as a means of ensuring their own personal defense. They also believe that normally the good people outnumber the bad, and with the aid of firearms can keep the bad in check.

Gun Control advocates believe there are too many bad people who cannot be trusted with firearms, so that the presence of more firearms in society gives the bad an upper hand over the good. They also believe that freedom to bear arms makes unarmed people more vulnerable, and thus infringes on their freedom to not own firearms. (ie. you're forced into the 'arms race')
Gun Control advocates also believe only those from special social institutions like the Police/Military can be entrusted to carry/use guns, whereas ordinary people pose too great a risk of misusing them.

One side sees guns as chiefly being the facilitator of the good, while the other side sees guns as chiefly being the facilitator of the bad.

Is this a case of glass-half-empty vs glass-half-full?

Who's right and who's wrong - and does it really depend on which neighborhood you live in?
 
Last edited:
There are good and bad in the world...it all depends on who's holding the gun...there needs to be more regulation on WHO is holding the gun...we have to pass a test in order to drive, why not a mentality test on who buys a gun?
 
sanman said:
There are two main schools of thought on whether humanity is mostly good or mostly bad.

Romanticist: human beings are naturally mostly good, with the baddies being exceptions to the rule, and that the main threat to people comes from corrupt social institutions.

NeoClassicist: every human being has evil within them that's waiting to come if circumstances permit, and it's only social institutions which can keep that evil in check.


Gun Rights supporters believe that most of the citizenry are good responsible people deserving the right to bear arms, as a means of ensuring their own personal defense. They also believe that normally the good people outnumber the bad, and with the aid of firearms can keep the bad in check.

Gun Control advocates believe there are too many bad people who cannot be trusted with firearms, so that the presence of more firearms in society gives the bad an upper hand over the good. They also believe that freedom to bear arms makes unarmed people more vulnerable, and thus infringes on their freedom to not own firearms. (ie. you're forced into the 'arms race')
Gun Control advocates also believe only those from special social institutions like the Police/Military can be entrusted to carry/use guns, whereas ordinary people pose too great a risk of misusing them.

One side sees guns as chiefly being the facilitator of the good, while the other side sees guns as chiefly being the facilitator of the bad.

Is this a case of glass-half-empty vs glass-half-full?

Who's right and who's wrong - and does it really depend on which neighborhood you live in?
Click to expand...

Given a fraction of 1% of millions of gun owners ever use a firearm to harm or injure anyone, the answer is pretty obvious.
 
=Elvira;1067316356]There are good and bad in the world...it all depends on who's holding the gun
...there needs to be more regulation on WHO is holding the gun...we have to pass a test in order to drive, why not a mentality test on who buys a gun?
Click to expand...
"...there needs to be more regulation" Don't you think we have enough,or do you believe it can be legislated away?A " mentality test "? Do you really,really think that if someone wants a gun bad enough they won't get one?
Oh maybe the law abiding person would take a" mentality test "but that's about it.
What would a mentality test consist of,you must have something in mind.
 
Elvira said:
There are good and bad in the world...it all depends on who's holding the gun...there needs to be more regulation on WHO is holding the gun...we have to pass a test in order to drive, why not a mentality test on who buys a gun?
Click to expand...

because the people most likely to do harm with guns don't apply to buy guns through legal sources. its one of those placebos that sound good to anyone who really doesn't understand where criminals get guns
 
zsu2357 said:
"...there needs to be more regulation" Don't you think we have enough,or do you believe it can be legislated away?A " mentality test "? Do you really,really think that if someone wants a gun bad enough they won't get one?
Oh maybe the law abiding person would take a" mentality test "but that's about it.
What would a mentality test consist of,you must have something in mind.
Click to expand...

You're probably right...bad idea...so what's the solution?
 
Elvira said:
There are good and bad in the world...it all depends on who's holding the gun...there needs to be more regulation on WHO is holding the gun...we have to pass a test in order to drive, why not a mentality test on who buys a gun?
Click to expand...

We do, i'f you have been involuntarily committed, you are prohibited, as well as a known addict/alcoholic or felon.
 
Elvira said:
You're probably right...bad idea...so what's the solution?
Click to expand...

as the number of guns in circulation has risen, the number of gun crimes have gone down. the reason why people are more "concerned" about this is a 24/7 news cycle that convinces many people that violent crime is getting worse. Its not and most of the mass shootings are not going to be stopped by the silly efforts anti gun politicians suggest.
 
TurtleDude said:
as the number of guns in circulation has risen, the number of gun crimes have gone down. the reason why people are more "concerned" about this is a 24/7 news cycle that convinces many people that violent crime is getting worse. Its not and most of the mass shootings are not going to be stopped by the silly efforts anti gun politicians suggest.
Click to expand...
But they feel good though and the anti gun people keep re-electing them.
 
sanman said:
There are two main schools of thought on whether humanity is mostly good or mostly bad.

Romanticist: human beings are naturally mostly good, with the baddies being exceptions to the rule, and that the main threat to people comes from corrupt social institutions.

NeoClassicist: every human being has evil within them that's waiting to come if circumstances permit, and it's only social institutions which can keep that evil in check.


Gun Rights supporters believe that most of the citizenry are good responsible people deserving the right to bear arms, as a means of ensuring their own personal defense. They also believe that normally the good people outnumber the bad, and with the aid of firearms can keep the bad in check.

Gun Control advocates believe there are too many bad people who cannot be trusted with firearms, so that the presence of more firearms in society gives the bad an upper hand over the good. They also believe that freedom to bear arms makes unarmed people more vulnerable, and thus infringes on their freedom to not own firearms. (ie. you're forced into the 'arms race')
Gun Control advocates also believe only those from special social institutions like the Police/Military can be entrusted to carry/use guns, whereas ordinary people pose too great a risk of misusing them.

One side sees guns as chiefly being the facilitator of the good, while the other side sees guns as chiefly being the facilitator of the bad.

Is this a case of glass-half-empty vs glass-half-full?

Who's right and who's wrong - and does it really depend on which neighborhood you live in?
Click to expand...

I don't think that gun control advocates see themselves as vulnerable due to the 2nd amendment; up until recently in our history that thought would not have entered anyone's mind. I think that the proliferation of guns and the crime rate with guns makes gun control advocates feel vulnerable. I mean look at what's been going on lately with mass shootings. I don't think anyway that armed robbery or assaults are really up that much in crime areas, gang activity not withstanding.

I think that gun advocates however, and their attitude of my way or the highway and "my right to carry over your right to safe streets" makes gun control advocates feel vulnerable, and mad. Conservative gun people are pitching and "arm yourself" society for purely political and industrial market reasons. Their hue and cry about the sanctity of the second amendment is really just stupid just on its face, never mind trying to analyse it any further along than that.

I was always raised around guns: we had them, we fired them when we wanted to; no big deal. I don't know why the conservatives can't just see them for what hey are.
 
jet57 said:
I don't think that gun control advocates see themselves as vulnerable due to the 2nd amendment; up until recently in our history that thought would not have entered anyone's mind. I think that the proliferation of guns and the crime rate with guns makes gun control advocates feel vulnerable. I mean look at what's been going on lately with mass shootings. I don't think anyway that armed robbery or assaults are really up that much in crime areas, gang activity not withstanding.

I think that gun advocates however, and their attitude of my way or the highway and "my right to carry over your right to safe streets" makes gun control advocates feel vulnerable, and mad. Conservative gun people are pitching and "arm yourself" society for purely political and industrial market reasons. Their hue and cry about the sanctity of the second amendment is really just stupid just on its face, never mind trying to analyse it any further along than that.

I was always raised around guns: we had them, we fired them when we wanted to; no big deal. I don't know why the conservatives can't just see them for what hey are.
Click to expand...

its because of the massive dishonesty from the BM and its members in the press and government. People who claim "weapons of war" should be banned and cannot tell us what makes a "weapon of war" unsuitable for citizens to own given many popular firearms used by citizens started off as military weapons. Even worse, those fame bannerrhoid movement members define firearms such as the AR 15 as weapons of war when in reality, the AR15-as it has been sold for the last FIFTY years, has never ever been issued to any branch of our military

so it is the seething lies and dishonesty of the BM that causes pro gun advocates to be distrustful of the assholes who want to ban guns
 
The idiocy of the gun nut crowd never ceases to amaze me and show how absolutely right my analysis is.
 
jet57 said:
The idiocy of the gun nut crowd never ceases to amaze me and show how absolutely right my analysis is.
Click to expand...

The dishonesty and lies of the Bannerrhoid movement proves why the BM is the most dishonest political movement in the USA and an enemy of our constitution. Its bad enough that the Bannerrhoid movement pretends its schemes will impede criminals, but what really sucks is that so many gun banners are actually supporters and enablers of violent criminals and seek to make the lives of violent criminals safer
 
jet57 said:
I don't think that gun control advocates see themselves as vulnerable due to the 2nd amendment; up until recently in our history that thought would not have entered anyone's mind. I think that the proliferation of guns and the crime rate with guns makes gun control advocates feel vulnerable. I mean look at what's been going on lately with mass shootings. I don't think anyway that armed robbery or assaults are really up that much in crime areas, gang activity not withstanding.

I think that gun advocates however, and their attitude of my way or the highway and "my right to carry over your right to safe streets" makes gun control advocates feel vulnerable, and mad. Conservative gun people are pitching and "arm yourself" society for purely political and industrial market reasons. Their hue and cry about the sanctity of the second amendment is really just stupid just on its face, never mind trying to analyse it any further along than that.

I was always raised around guns: we had them, we fired them when we wanted to; no big deal. I don't know why the conservatives can't just see them for what hey are.
Click to expand...

My right to carry does not violate your right to safe streets. Unfortunately you conflate my right to carry with criminals carrying. That is irrational and deserves no respect. How are any gun advocates saying my way or the highway? You don't want to carry? So what? No one says otherwise. Only fair that the millions or so that do without any issue at all deserve the same respect. To think otherwise is irrational ignorance.
 
jet57 said:
The idiocy of the gun nut crowd never ceases to amaze me and show how absolutely right my analysis is.
Click to expand...

The fact that you believe that in your mind does not reflect the real world. But if believing you are right helps your self esteem, knock yourself out.
 
=jet57;1067319123]The idiocy of the gun nut crowd
Click to expand...
So then any gun owner is an idiot,or just the ones(which is an abysmally small number)that are off their nut and shouldn't have them.
never ceases to amaze me and show how absolutely right my analysis is.
Click to expand...
How odd.We feel the same about the anti gun nuts.But here's the thing,we don't deal in absolutes because we know(most of us anyhow) there are lunatics,nuts and some a few fries short of a happy meal,but as I said the number is abysmally small and we aren't prepared to let a few rotten apples spoil the basket.
 
BretJ said:
My right to carry does not violate your right to safe streets. Unfortunately you conflate my right to carry with criminals carrying. That is irrational and deserves no respect. How are any gun advocates saying my way or the highway? You don't want to carry? So what? No one says otherwise. Only fair that the millions or so that do without any issue at all deserve the same respect. To think otherwise is irrational ignorance.
Click to expand...

I think you are slightly mistaken. Bureaucrats in California tell Jet they cannot trust him enough to LET him carry so instead of complaining about arbitrary power hungry scum bags denying citizens rights, he wants everyone else to be denied an ability to carry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom