By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

I never said the individual get's uncontrolled freedom, I just said the individual comes first. Kind of like how Trump never said the rest of the world can suffer needlessly, he just said America comes first. One way or another, no matter what stance you take, someone ends up better off than someone else period. There's no way around it, it just depends on who you decide get's the upper hand. When the upper hand goes to the individual, it tends to help the collective overall as well. Just look at how long the U.S. and it's documents have lasted and where America stands today as a whole.

So what you are saying is that the individual comes first....except when it doesn't. The problem I have with your argument is that it is entirely arbitrary and subjective. Like, you agree that individual freedom needs to be limited in some circumstances, but the only thing that makes those circumstances fundamentally different than the others is that you kinda feel like drawing a line there and not somewhere else. As soon as you insist that you are willing to throw out massive benefit in the face of a minor cost, you have invalidated all objectivity in your standards unless you advocate for uncontrolled freedom which you have made clear you don't wish to do.

This has ceased to be an argument. It is just you talking about how you feel...

sundin13 said: 

"I personally find your opinion to be ridiculous, but that is really all we have here. Your opinion is that you think we should put individual rights above the safety of our citizens. Sure, thousands of people get murdered every year, but that is a small price to pay. Typically when I have discussions with people who are anti-gun control, they aren't quite as honest about the fact that they value guns over lives."

"That said, I think you have realize that this argument is inherently flawed, as it is not upheld as a standard in most areas. Some degree of restriction of individual rights is seen in virtually every aspect of life, including gun ownership. To apply this concept evenly, you would have to remove scores of laws which few people would oppose such as restricting firearm access to those with criminal convictions or mental illness, or even removing things like speed limits. Both of which are restrictions of individual freedoms which benefit the collective so I have to say that your final point is far too reductive to be of value."

What I'm saying, is what you were saying, and what you're now saying, is what I said was arbitrary and subjective, which can only mean...  WTF?



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:

What I'm saying, is what you were saying, and what you're now saying, is what I said was arbitrary and subjective, which can only mean...  WTF?

How is my argument anything like your argument? Please rephrase.

This may be a misunderstanding, but I find that hard to believe when you opened with that "It doesn't matter how many people it helps if it hurts one person" argument.



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

The U.S. and other strong nations try to keep any weapons that could be a significant threat out of the hands of enemies who may very well want to use them against her or her allies.

Non-proliferation isn't simply something that the US imposes on its enemies, it also attempts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of its allies. The issue is that nukes are too dangerous even in the hands of our allies and there is too high of a probability of something going wrong either with an accident or with the escalation of conflicts.

Well if you go deep enough, then yes, America would rather nobody else have nukes, but that still means America thinks very highly of itself when it comes to being capable of handling a ridiculous amount of power, and since the country is run by its people as a whole, why not trust them with guns, within reason? If your country can handle the power of potentially destroying the entire world twice over, then it should easily be able to handle guns in it's people hands.



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Non-proliferation isn't simply something that the US imposes on its enemies, it also attempts to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of its allies. The issue is that nukes are too dangerous even in the hands of our allies and there is too high of a probability of something going wrong either with an accident or with the escalation of conflicts.

Well if you go deep enough, then yes, America would rather nobody else have nukes, but that still means America thinks very highly of itself when it comes to being capable of handling power, and since the country is run by its people as a whole, why not trust them with guns, within reason? If your country can handle the power of potentially destroying the entire world twice over, then it should easily be able to handle guns in it's people hands.

First of all, I'd like to share an obligatory "Gun Control does not mean banning all guns".

Second, I have to say, that is one bizarre take. Like, the logic breaks apart as soon as you realize that the US doesn't just randomly select people to watch the nuke button. Nukes are highly controlled and made virtually impossible to actually fire. It would be just as logical to say "The US understands the importance of nukes but heavily regulates them to make sure they are only put in the hands of those who are proven to be responsible with them, so why not do the same with guns?". I am not making that argument, but the comparison between nukes and firearms is so shoddy you could equally make an argument for just about anything. A bad argument, but still...



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

What I'm saying, is what you were saying, and what you're now saying, is what I said was arbitrary and subjective, which can only mean...  WTF?

How is my argument anything like your argument? Please rephrase.

This may be a misunderstanding, but I find that hard to believe when you opened with that "It doesn't matter how many people it helps if it hurts one person" argument.

I'm paraphrasing here.

You said it's about the majority. I said it's about the individual. You said but individuals require restrictions. I said correct, they don't require unlimited freedom. You said having restrictions in certain cases makes no sense. I said, you already said, individuals require restrictions, so WTF?.

My argument is by allowing the individual to be a free as possible within reason, it tends to also help the majority overall. That in no way means it's perfect, but it's better than just about anything else out there. History and legacy attest to this.



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Well if you go deep enough, then yes, America would rather nobody else have nukes, but that still means America thinks very highly of itself when it comes to being capable of handling power, and since the country is run by its people as a whole, why not trust them with guns, within reason? If your country can handle the power of potentially destroying the entire world twice over, then it should easily be able to handle guns in it's people hands.

First of all, I'd like to share an obligatory "Gun Control does not mean banning all guns".

Second, I have to say, that is one bizarre take. Like, the logic breaks apart as soon as you realize that the US doesn't just randomly select people to watch the nuke button. Nukes are highly controlled and made virtually impossible to actually fire. It would be just as logical to say "The US understands the importance of nukes but heavily regulates them to make sure they are only put in the hands of those who are proven to be responsible with them, so why not do the same with guns?". I am not making that argument, but the comparison between nukes and firearms is so shoddy you could equally make an argument for just about anything. A bad argument, but still...

Donald Trump has a portion of the authority over this. I've heard nothing but good things about him from the start, especially his relations with Russia, another friendly nuclear giant, so I'll actually have to agree with you here...



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

How is my argument anything like your argument? Please rephrase.

This may be a misunderstanding, but I find that hard to believe when you opened with that "It doesn't matter how many people it helps if it hurts one person" argument.

I'm paraphrasing here.

A) You said it's about the majority.
B) I said it's about the individual.
C) You said but individuals require restrictions.
D) I said correct, they don't require unlimited freedom.
E) You said having restrictions in certain cases makes no sense. I said, you already said, individuals require restrictions, so WTF?.

My argument is by allowing the individual to be a free as possible within reason, it tends to also help the majority overall. That in no way means it's perfect, but it's better than just about anything else out there. History and legacy attest to this.

I think you are pretty close (for the most part) until part E.

That isn't what I said.

What I said is that your argument in Part D draws an arbitrary line based solely upon your feelings. We are essentially disagreeing about where the line in Part D should be placed. I advocate for the use of a Cost/Benefit analysis (and other types of logical frameworks) to determine whether the benefits of a proposal outweigh the costs. You instead proposed that the benefits are meaningless if any costs whatsoever exist. That position is untenable as it cannot be held evenly without removing all of the restrictions that you claim to support. As such, I am led to assume that the line between what you do support and what you don't support is purely arbitrary and subjective and as such, it is not worth arguing. That said, feel free to correct me and tell me how exactly you draw a line that both invalidates any gun control that may have any cost (regardless of benefit), but maintains laws such as banning criminals from owning firearms.

tldr: You say "the individual should be as free as possible within reason". Where do you draw the line between what is reasonable and what isn't?



CaptainExplosion said:

This little girl just did something amazing.

Quick fact check and context:

This happened over two years ago and the man in the video is not Trump, but a man playing Trump (fairly convincingly) for a comedy show. He claims that this moment is unscripted, but there is no way to know for sure



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

I'm paraphrasing here.

A) You said it's about the majority.
B) I said it's about the individual.
C) You said but individuals require restrictions.
D) I said correct, they don't require unlimited freedom.
E) You said having restrictions in certain cases makes no sense. I said, you already said, individuals require restrictions, so WTF?.

My argument is by allowing the individual to be a free as possible within reason, it tends to also help the majority overall. That in no way means it's perfect, but it's better than just about anything else out there. History and legacy attest to this.

I think you are pretty close (for the most part) until part E.

That isn't what I said.

What I said is that your argument in Part D draws an arbitrary line based solely upon your feelings. We are essentially disagreeing about where the line in Part D should be placed. I advocate for the use of a Cost/Benefit analysis (and other types of logical frameworks) to determine whether the benefits of a proposal outweigh the costs. You instead proposed that the benefits are meaningless if any costs whatsoever exist. That position is untenable as it cannot be held evenly without removing all of the restrictions that you claim to support. As such, I am led to assume that the line between what you do support and what you don't support is purely arbitrary and subjective and as such, it is not worth arguing. That said, feel free to correct me and tell me how exactly you draw a line that both invalidates any gun control that may have any cost (regardless of benefit), but maintains laws such as banning criminals from owning firearms.

tldr: You say "the individual should be as free as possible within reason". Where do you draw the line between what is reasonable and what isn't?

I see now. Gotcha. All cleared up.

If a past gun owner can be killed with a gun, aside from war or the cops, that's a problem. Solve that problem and I'm likely on board. Being safe from being stabbed, etc, really should also be part of the plan as well.



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

I think you are pretty close (for the most part) until part E.

That isn't what I said.

What I said is that your argument in Part D draws an arbitrary line based solely upon your feelings. We are essentially disagreeing about where the line in Part D should be placed. I advocate for the use of a Cost/Benefit analysis (and other types of logical frameworks) to determine whether the benefits of a proposal outweigh the costs. You instead proposed that the benefits are meaningless if any costs whatsoever exist. That position is untenable as it cannot be held evenly without removing all of the restrictions that you claim to support. As such, I am led to assume that the line between what you do support and what you don't support is purely arbitrary and subjective and as such, it is not worth arguing. That said, feel free to correct me and tell me how exactly you draw a line that both invalidates any gun control that may have any cost (regardless of benefit), but maintains laws such as banning criminals from owning firearms.

tldr: You say "the individual should be as free as possible within reason". Where do you draw the line between what is reasonable and what isn't?

I see now. Gotcha. All cleared up.

If a past gun owner can be killed with a gun, aside from war or the cops, that's a problem. Solve that problem and I'm likely on board. 

I'll ask you again, where do you draw the line between what is a reasonable restriction and what isn't (that both allows you to be against gun control as described above, but for removing firearms from criminals)