1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

States act to shield gun holders

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 26 Apr 2008.

  1. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    381
    so if i am privately seeing kiddy porn alone on my private computer no one has the right to prevent me from doing so..... or if i can lure people to a peace of land that is my private property and then kill them privately, it is all ok, i have the right to my Privacy even if it causes problems for other people.
     
  2. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    The kiddy porn point you make opens a can of worms, as the internet is debatably private or public, and various parts of it may be both, or neither. It's a huge and very complex topic. I'm inclined to say that people on a 100% private network shouldn't be prosecuted for seeking kiddie porn, but rather that producers of it should be prosecuted. That's a whole other debate though.

    As for the my land = my rules argument. So long as it affects ones land, and only objects or entities that are on ones land, I generally lean towards allowing the land owner to do as they please.

    I'm not sure you're grasping my privacy argument though, frankly.
     
  3. Oclocker

    Oclocker What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    5
    I'm not sure you're grasping my privacy argument though, frankly.

    he/I/we may not be but do you?
     
  4. Sparrowhawk

    Sparrowhawk Wetsander

    Joined:
    14 Feb 2004
    Posts:
    584
    Likes Received:
    1
    Tell that to the licensed old fart that nearly drove into me the other day! Because apparently in her mind, having a license makes her a good and worthy driver. :wallbash:
     
  5. Oclocker

    Oclocker What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    5
    Tbh with us driving tests being erm easy i'd be just as worried about the lilo and britney drivers . not that we don't have loadsa old farts making our roads less safe ..
     
  6. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    I'm not entirely sure how I'm supposed to answer that.

    There's only a "yes" or a "no" - and obviously I wouldn't be arguing my case if I felt it was "no" - so there's your answer...
     
  7. walle

    walle Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    67
    Out of these two gentlemen he’s the only one that has been advocating privacy in this thread, which makes your question come across as somewhat foreign.
     
  8. Oclocker

    Oclocker What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    21 Jun 2001
    Posts:
    3,194
    Likes Received:
    5
    But surely a CCP is only appicable in a public enviroment & yet your argument seems to involve private scenarios. Hence the wondering about understanding the issues?

    Luckily ccps are not a problem here in UK - even in our own bible belt..
     
  9. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,540
    Likes Received:
    1,928
    What cpemma illustrates is that personal opinion can go both ways. You think owning a gun is your personal business; as your concerned neighbour I may think that it is mine as well, as I think your gun poses a potential risk to my safety.

    Reductio at absurdum is not a valid argument. Library cards have many peaceful applications. A gun is designed for one purpose only.
     
  10. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    381
    i am grasping your privacy argument, you are pro extreme privacy and freedom, but as you can see if you have to much privacy or to much freedom there can be bad effects.....

    if we go to the privacy extreme then i could build a big ass bomb if i wanted and blow up my neighbourhood, how?

    no internet, just books and several stores to go buy the ingredients and components for it.

    the store keeper should not tell anyone about the stuff you got, no one should try to figure out what are you doing in your garage with all of that stuff, that is covered with a peace of plastic and is on your land.

    i agree that everyone needs freedom and privacy, but when you refuse to make your ability to defend yourself public, and with that deter possible criminals, this only means that you want to be aggressive instead of defensive and want the gun to simply kill people and not to defend yourself or your family. this is at least my perspective on the problem.
     
  11. walle

    walle Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    67
    That one was sorted and cleared out by specofdust, there’s nothing to add really.

    The gun do not pose any potential risk to your safety, the user does. Very much the same with a car, if the driver is drunk he/her poses a potential risk to your safety…not the car itself.

    A: it was not at absurdum B: it was a accurate observation C: it was a point which conveniently brings me to D: the knowledge acquired by the help of (in this case) a library card could be used for malignant reasons.(in this example making a bomb) which brings me to E: user intent!, responsibility, understanding and so forth. Leaving us at that last point, namely that of where do you draw the line for intruding on rights and privacy? my example with tracking what people lend from the library is accurate, you might view that as absurd in its own right, I would agree, the govement would disagree since they apparently see a threat with people using their library cards (surely that must be the logical conclusion, why else would they track what people lend?) so what’s really absurd here?

    Fair enough, no argument there, but that still leaves us with intent and use. You have use within the police force, you have use within the army and you have private use; which could be for protection, for hunting or for sport.


    Cheers
     
    Last edited: 27 Apr 2008
  12. supermonkey

    supermonkey Deal with it

    Joined:
    14 Apr 2004
    Posts:
    4,955
    Likes Received:
    202
    OK, so what happens on your land stays on your land. For the sake of the argument I'd say that's fair enough, but I don't think that has anything to do with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Why would you be concealing your weapon on your own land?

    If I'm not mistaken, the idea behind the concealed carry permit is people can carry weapons, in public, without the weapon in plain view. Now that we've entered the public arena, whether or not you're carrying a weapon is my business.

    Of course, that brings a different side of the argument. If the permit is designed to allow a person to carry a weapon without everyone knowing about it, wouldn't a public registry work to defeat that purpose? Perhaps the whole idea of carrying a concealed weapon should be canned altogether.

    -monkey
     
  13. cpemma

    cpemma Ecky thump

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    12,328
    Likes Received:
    55
    Just remember that's so only in your picture of reality.
     
  14. walle

    walle Minimodder

    Joined:
    5 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,802
    Likes Received:
    67
    But of course, all being equal and all.
     
  15. specofdust

    specofdust Banned

    Joined:
    26 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    9,571
    Likes Received:
    168
    What if I think as a concerned citizen that your owning a knife or training in martial arts poses a potential risk to my safety? Part of living among people is recognising that your safety is at risk. That can not be controlled. It can be ineffectively limited at great cost, but that's it.


    You're right, reduction to absurdity isn't a valid argument. Yet you are arguing yourself absurdly. Guns are designed to fire bullets, bullets are designed to transfer lots of energy (damaging) to an object. How that gun is used is dependant on the user, and you can not legislate against the innocent simply because they may or may not do something which harms your safety. Otherwise we have to ban our own existance.

    Freedom does not have bad effects. Freedom is the natural state of existance, and it is perfect where the concept of it is naturally obeyed. Laws are introduced because many people do not naturally obey the idea of freedom, yet those laws should be as limited as possible, and even trading a tiny part of everyones freedom to ensure gross misdeeds do not happen must be done extremely carefully and only when it can be shown that it is definitely benefical to the individual in society.

    Totaly honestly, I think you understand neither freedom nor privacy. When you take part in an act in public, you have no right to privacy. When you act with other private individuals, they have a right to make your acts public. And freedom is the right to live your life as you please, so long as it does not impact upon other people's right to do the same.

    Why is that?
     
  16. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,136
    Likes Received:
    381
    maybe its because i live in a quasi dictatorship, but lets roll with that.

    if the bomb making stuff is in my private property, shielded from public eyes, then should anyone ask me what is all that crap for? should anyone ask what am i doing?

    here we have "liberdade" aka freedom and "libertinagem" aka similar to freedom , one is good and one is bad, as in one you are free and responsible and allow everyone to be free, the second is that you are free and that everyone else is not.... or something like that, in both cases you are free and, in the case of us humans, the latter is more probable that the first.... we are a very very selfish species...

    i would love to carry a gun with me.... hell yeah, that would be cool and very doable in a utopian world... BUT, in the present state of the world any person can flip out and have a bad case of "libertinagem" and start shooting innocent people just because he is free whatever he wants to do, as in he, as most humans do, did not read the "manual of civilization" or at least the first pages that say to you to not kill anyone.....

    me and you and most people in this forum know better, but what if you got all the chavs and rednecks and people with very bad mental problems (that have not been diagnosed or that their diagnose came out negative), with concealed weapons, one detects a wave of disturbance and then.... Mexican stand off..... followed by a blood bath, or not.

    concealed weapons should be only for law enforcement agents, no one else.
     
  17. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    so this attitude encourages people to carry illegal weapons just in case they are confronted by and angry middle aged podgy guy in the place they are going to burgle. congratulations, instead of burglary this guy has committed, hes also committed murder.

    the sooner you get guns off the streets the better your country will be. oh and this is coming from a guy with a gun license in the uk:)
     
  18. Shielder

    Shielder Live long & prosper!

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2007
    Posts:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kingred, you say you have an FAC yet you say get firearms off the streets?

    Edit: just reread this post and realised what you are saying. You mean illegal firearms don't you?

    Look what the ban on 'handguns' has done in this country. Anne Pearson >spit< claimed that we would be living in a gun free culture. When? At least one person a day is killed by firearms in this country. That is substantially higher than before the 1997 Amendment to the Firearms Act of 1968. How has the Firearms Act of 1997 made Britain a safer society?

    Why, in a country where firearms ownership is almost universal, does Switzerland have nowhere near the level of firearms crime that Britain has with our draconian firearms laws?

    The weapon is not the problem, people are the problem.

    Andy
     
  19. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    There is something of a matter of scale here. In Chicago last weekend there were 36 shootings resulting in 9 fatalaties. In Detroit, that's a normal weekend. One person a day in a nation of tens of millions isn't that bad.

    I agree that the problem is people, but I also agree that it's not going to get better (it will never go away) until we get rid of the guns. On the other hand, I don't support that course of action as I'll take the freedom to own a gun (even though I don't) over being safer because other people don't have them either.
     
  20. nigelleg

    nigelleg What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    223
    Likes Received:
    1
    The fact that you own and carry a gun is your own business
    The idea of carrying concealed is to give you the element of surprise which may just save your life
    People who carry with guns hanging out their pants are mainly showing off apart from that anyone wishing you harm can see you are carrying and plan their actions around that fact.
    I have carried concealed for 20 years if done correctly no one knows and it affects no one
    If some one is planning me or my family harm I DONT want them to be able to go look on a register to see what I have so they can plan in advance
    You also have the criminal who commits robbery to obtain fire arms to commit other crimes by making it available you are providing a shopping list for him to pick from.

    There is not and never will be any reason to make individual gun ownership public knowledge
     

Share This Page