DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> second amendment vs first amendent
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 133, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/26/2015 09:26:41 AM · #1
spoiler : second amendment wins.

08/26/2015 09:48:04 AM · #2
The obvious next step is to create video cameras and microphones with built in guns to prevent such things.
08/26/2015 10:14:24 AM · #3
I suspect that if we had no guns this man would have just went and had coffee instead of killing two people.

Or not.
08/26/2015 10:19:16 AM · #4
Originally posted by Cory:

I suspect that if we had no guns this man would have just went and had coffee instead of killing two people.

Or not.


or maybe we'd have just one injured person and not any one dead.
08/26/2015 11:23:21 AM · #5
Gun fantasy dispelled on live TV: If only the victims had been armed to the teeth they could have called a timeout, put down their mics and cameras, unholstered concealed handguns, switched off the safeties, turned around to face the attacker who snuck up behind them, checked the surroundings for bystanders in the line of fire...
08/26/2015 11:27:59 AM · #6
Originally posted by scalvert:

Gun fantasy dispelled on live TV: If only the victims had been armed to the teeth they could have called a timeout, put down their mics and cameras, unholstered concealed handguns, switched off the safeties, turned around to face the attacker who snuck up behind them, checked the surroundings for bystanders in the line of fire...


No one has ever claimed it was 100% effective to be armed, as that would be a pretty stupid claim. The argument is that it gives you a somewhat improved chance of living should you find yourself under fire. This was a particularly brutal and effective killing.
08/26/2015 11:32:42 AM · #7
Originally posted by Cory:

No one has ever claimed it was 100% effective to be armed, as that would be a pretty stupid claim.

And yet you've made that exact argument to dismiss gun control:

Originally posted by Cory:

guns are simply convinent, the lack of them will not prevent homicides.

No one has ever claimed reasonable gun control measures were 100% effective, either. The argument is that it has been proven around the world to give you a much better chance of not finding yourself under fire in the first place.

Message edited by author 2015-08-26 11:44:20.
08/26/2015 11:33:39 AM · #8
Originally posted by Cory:

This was a particularly brutal and effective killing.


because the guy had a gun.

yeah, we can go on all day. but he truth is the more guns that you introduce into society increases the odds that they will be used in an illegal situation, with people ending up dead.

Message edited by author 2015-08-26 11:34:24.
08/26/2015 11:39:23 AM · #9
Gun ownership for anything other than hunting and target/sport shooting is corrosive to society. When it starts seeping into your mind that you should have a weapon because it might be OK to take another person's life -- and that belief is replicated millions of times within a culture -- things go wonky. Once that first moral bar is lowered, it's only a matter of time before some percentage of weapons owned for self defense are instead used as weapons of frustration, anger, revenge, etc. Those are basic human emotions and we cannot reprogram ourselves. But we should be intelligent enough to be able to identify the things we can change to make us safer, and have the courage to change them.
08/26/2015 12:13:25 PM · #10
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

No one has ever claimed it was 100% effective to be armed, as that would be a pretty stupid claim.

And yet you've made that exact argument to dismiss gun control:

Originally posted by Cory:

guns are simply convinent, the lack of them will not prevent homicides.

No one has ever claimed reasonable gun control measures were 100% effective, either. The argument is that it has been proven around the world to give you a much better chance of not finding yourself under fire in the first place.


Talk about misreading what someone has written. I would NEVER claim such a thing, it would be incredibly stupid to think that someone packing a gun is now 100% immune to being killed by someone with a gun. The math says one must die, and each have guns, and the attacker has inertia in his(or her) favor. I'd claim AT BEST it's a 25% chance, probably more like 10%. Still, 10% is a hell of a lot better than 0%.

Your second statement is probably at least mostly true - the question is "Is the USA different and more violent in general?" I really do think we are, and the fact remains that there are SO MANY illegal guns out there that removing even a significant portion of them will take decades, not to mention the even larger number of guns owned by individuals who will do everything possible to not give them up. As such, I think the argument that the US is unique is pretty solid. Aside from that, even though I could really give a shit less about my guns, the idea of giving one bloody inch on any freedom is distasteful to me, although, so is the violence, so if I really thought that giving up freedom would stop the violence I'd be more open to the idea.
08/26/2015 12:14:33 PM · #11
Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:

This was a particularly brutal and effective killing.


because the guy had a gun.

yeah, we can go on all day. but he truth is the more guns that you introduce into society increases the odds that they will be used in an illegal situation, with people ending up dead.


That much is almost certainly true.

The real question is "Is gun violence prevalent because guns are prevalent, or because violence is prevalent?"
08/26/2015 12:40:16 PM · #12
Originally posted by bohemka:

Gun ownership for anything other than hunting and target/sport shooting is corrosive to society.


In your "humble" opinion?

Originally posted by bohemka:

When it starts seeping into your mind that you should have a weapon because it might be OK to take another person's life -- and that belief is replicated millions of times within a culture -- things go wonky.


So...... let me get this right, you believe things are wonky if people think they can defend themselves?

Originally posted by bohemka:

Once that first moral bar is lowered, it's only a matter of time before some percentage of weapons owned for self defense are instead used as weapons of frustration, anger, revenge, etc.


No moral bars needed, some percentage of almost any tool are used to kill and injure.

Originally posted by bohemka:

Those are basic human emotions and we cannot reprogram ourselves.


Thanks goodness the vast majority of us don't respond with violence when we have these emotions.
I don't need to reprogram as I was raised to find alternatives to violence in response to emotions.

Originally posted by bohemka:

But we should be intelligent enough to be able to identify the things we can change to make us safer, and have the courage to change them.


Now this I agree with completely, although probably not in the same manner as you. ;)
08/26/2015 12:41:58 PM · #13
Originally posted by Cory:

Talk about misreading what someone has written.

Review the posts, ya' hypocrite. You said claiming 100% success for armed defense would be stupid, yet have repeatedly dismissed gun control because it wouldn't prevent all homicides (a claim nobody ever made because it would be just as stupid). This is the inescapable reality you refuse to face: you are FAR more likely to be shot in places with lots of guns around for "self-defense" than in places with strict gun control measures. This correlation holds true even within America so, it's definitely the prevalence of guns, not the violence.

Message edited by author 2015-08-26 12:44:05.
08/26/2015 12:44:02 PM · #14
Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:

This was a particularly brutal and effective killing.


because the guy had a gun.

yeah, we can go on all day. but he truth is the more guns that you introduce into society increases the odds that they will be used in an illegal situation, with people ending up dead.


That much is almost certainly true.

The real question is "Is gun violence prevalent because guns are prevalent, or because violence is prevalent?"


Violence is prevalent, prevalent violence and easy gun ownership combined can't be good.
08/26/2015 12:48:27 PM · #15
Originally posted by jagar:



Violence is prevalent, prevalent violence and easy gun ownership combined can't be good.


Might depend on which side of the violence equation you are on.....
08/26/2015 12:55:43 PM · #16
Originally posted by Erastus:

Originally posted by jagar:



Violence is prevalent, prevalent violence and easy gun ownership combined can't be good.


Might depend on which side of the violence equation you are on.....


The side that doesn't want to get shot.

Message edited by author 2015-08-26 12:56:09.
08/26/2015 01:27:18 PM · #17
I like the title of this thread. Because the 2nd amendment remains ambiguous and is most certainly less relevant to our daily lives than the first IMHO of course. Now, the 2nd amendment is used to justify anything from killing exotic animals for fun to walking into a Target with a semi-automatic rifle.

It truly has become ironic in a way because people who are "anti-government" always refer to the "framers" ... yet are so scared of an over-involvement of people elected to office. Fear seems to be the common theme, strangely enough.

The added tragedy of events like this is that it pushes the 2 sides further apart ...

One side always takes the fear-mongering side saying either saying "see - this is why we need more guns ! to protect ourselves" ... or "buy up all the guns, the gummint's gonna take 'em away" ...

Now we have to ask ourselves if that is REALLY true. My thinking that it is about as real a possibility as the zombie apocalypse. WHich, I'm guessing is NOT an entirely different discussion, sadly enough.

08/26/2015 01:46:01 PM · #18
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Talk about misreading what someone has written.

Review the posts, ya' hypocrite. You said claiming 100% success for armed defense would be stupid, yet have repeatedly dismissed gun control because it wouldn't prevent all homicides (a claim nobody ever made because it would be just as stupid). This is the inescapable reality you refuse to face: you are FAR more likely to be shot in places with lots of guns around for "self-defense" than in places with strict gun control measures. This correlation holds true even within America so, it's definitely the prevalence of guns, not the violence.


Again a misunderstanding. I claim that it will stop very few mass homicides, under the unproven premise that those with a will will find a means. Accidents and crimes of passion would be where the big positive impact would occur, and those events are rarely, if ever, the impetus for these discussions.
08/26/2015 01:50:35 PM · #19
Originally posted by Cory:



I claim that it will stop very few mass homicides,


i'll settle for reducing the number and frequency.

people are way too brazen with guns. make people get their hand dirty and I'll be willing to bet they think twice about committing an act, and if they still go through with it at least they thought about it.

08/26/2015 02:30:50 PM · #20
looks like he was a disgruntled employee for some reason, so glad he had access to firearms to help alleviate his stress.
08/26/2015 03:03:08 PM · #21
Just another law abiding citizen exercising his constitutional right because defending the country miltia government tyranny word salad.
08/26/2015 03:06:26 PM · #22
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

Talk about misreading what someone has written.

Review the posts, ya' hypocrite. You said claiming 100% success for armed defense would be stupid, yet have repeatedly dismissed gun control because it wouldn't prevent all homicides (a claim nobody ever made because it would be just as stupid). This is the inescapable reality you refuse to face: you are FAR more likely to be shot in places with lots of guns around for "self-defense" than in places with strict gun control measures. This correlation holds true even within America so, it's definitely the prevalence of guns, not the violence.


Yesssssss. Brains over Brawn.
08/26/2015 03:09:51 PM · #23
Originally posted by Cory:

I claim that it will stop very few mass homicides, under the unproven premise that those with a will will find a means.

Did Australia see a sudden surge in knife attacks or intentional car crashes? Nope. Your premise has been DISproven by [pick any other advanced nation] unless you're going right back to the "won't stop 100% of homicides" bit.
08/26/2015 04:09:53 PM · #24
Originally posted by scalvert:

Just another law abiding citizen exercising his constitutional right because defending the country miltia government tyranny word salad.


No offense, but that just makes you look stupid.

Law abiding citizens do not murder people. Period. Ever.
08/26/2015 04:12:18 PM · #25
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Cory:

I claim that it will stop very few mass homicides, under the unproven premise that those with a will will find a means.

Did Australia see a sudden surge in knife attacks or intentional car crashes? Nope. Your premise has been DISproven by [pick any other advanced nation] unless you're going right back to the "won't stop 100% of homicides" bit.


You must have missed the part where I questioned American exceptionalism. I figure we have a more violent culture overall, with a few groups that absolutely WORSHIP violence. Removing guns does very little to deal with the actual problem, but the fact is that we'll never know if you're right until it's too late to get back the rights we've lost, and we'll never know if I'm right unless we lose our rights. Pretty much a bitch no matter how you slice it.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:35:25 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 10:35:25 AM EDT.