Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will repeat my previous post since it seems to have been ignored by the anti-gun nuts
It's not an ethical question. It's a question posed on the basis of possibility and tries to determine ethics or morality based on that, and not a probability, which is more defining.
There's a possibility a 9 mile wide meteor will wipe out the earth next week, do you propose based based on the possibility, that all nations quadruple their nuclear arms to protect us from that?
The ETHICAL question on PROBABILITY would sound like this.
Your Question -
Quote:
: Would you give up your semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles if it would save one kids life?
Corrected format
Knowing that giving up your " semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles", would save the life of a child, would you give it up?
Quote:
if not then if it saved 10 kids life? and if not is there a number you would give them up for?
Again. corrected question
Knowing it would save the lives of 10 kids, would you give it up? If not, what number of lives to be saved would you base your decision to give up your " semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles".
There is a difference between possibility, or probability, and the decision making for those two are very different.
In fact more children die of unintentional drowning, than intentional shootings. Why would you go after guns, when pools are much more lethal to our population than guns?
Automobiles are the leading cause of children's deaths. Why are you not legislating for everyone to surrender their car for the sake of the children?
It's easy to get touchy feely with the subject of guns, especially after something so horrific as what just happened in CT, but reality shows that not only are guns low on the totem pole for killing children, but you also have neglected the alternative, and that is how many lives are saved because of legally armed citizens?
Now, what say you? If it's known that legally armed citizens save over 3 times as many people than are killed with firearms, would you deny those 25,000 people their lives to save the 8700 or so people?
How would me( a peaceful, law-abiding, compassionate, responsible) citizen save a child's life? Oh, wait it wouldn't because the problem is nut jobs who aren't getting the help they need. These nut jobs would still have access to guns even if an assault weapons ban were passed. There are thousands of assault rifles entering the US everyday via the wide open, unsecured border. Oh, wait, the left refuses to talk about border security. I guess guns are okay for the drug cartels but not okay for law-abiding citizens.
I will repeat my previous post since it seems to have been ignored by the anti-gun nuts
It's not an ethical question. It's a question posed on the basis of possibility and tries to determine ethics or morality based on that, and not a probability, which is more defining.
There's a possibility a 9 mile wide meteor will wipe out the earth next week, do you propose based based on the possibility, that all nations quadruple their nuclear arms to protect us from that?
The ETHICAL question on PROBABILITY would sound like this.
Your Question - Corrected format
Knowing that giving up your " semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles", would save the life of a child, would you give it up?
Again. corrected question
Knowing it would save the lives of 10 kids, would you give it up? If not, what number of lives to be saved would you base your decision to give up your " semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles".
There is a difference between possibility, or probability, and the decision making for those two are very different.
In fact more children die of unintentional drowning, than intentional shootings. Why would you go after guns, when pools are much more lethal to our population than guns?
Automobiles are the leading cause of children's deaths. Why are you not legislating for everyone to surrender their car for the sake of the children?
It's easy to get touchy feely with the subject of guns, especially after something so horrific as what just happened in CT, but reality shows that not only are guns low on the totem pole for killing children, but you also have neglected the alternative, and that is how many lives are saved because of legally armed citizens?
Now, what say you? If it's known that legally armed citizens save over 3 times as many people than are killed with firearms, would you deny those 25,000 people their lives to save the 8700 or so people?
ME, I am a Veteran, legally armed, with a CCP.
This isn't a gun debate or a debate about pools. The question was asked if gun control was proven to work would you give up your guns? But no one can seem to get past the if part, they just keep going on and on about how it won't work. But this thread is not a debate about that it's about whether you would give up a gun if it did make the world safer. The OP is trying to find the real agenda of gun owners. He's not saying a gun ban is going to make the world safer but if it did how would you react. It's like asking the question "if heroin was legal would you try it?" The proper way to answer would be yes or no not post a whole bunch of facts as why it shouldn't be legal, that's a different debate all together.
Some people are saying "no I wouldn't give up my gun to save one person because I could potentially down the line save more then one person with it". Again, that's not what the OP was getting at. They were saying "If it could somehow be proven that your gun wasn't going do as much good as it was bad would you give it up?" I don't believe a gun ban will work either but I believe this question was asked because many liberals believe the reason that gun owners don't want to give up guns has more to do with the fact that they like guns (i.e. gun collecting, or going to the range) then with safety (even if gun people are right about the safety aspect of it).
No, Scooter, you're the one who's not keeping up. I asked one of your fellow geniuses who lamented the "politicization" of this issue if they also whined about the politicization of the 9/11 attacks and the politicization of abortion. Will you step up the plate and defend politicizing those things, as well?
Well I can't speak for other geniuses but this genius first complained publicly about the Patriot Act in a letter to the editor which was published in 2003.
And abortion is legal. As long as no public tax dollars are used then you're free to murder away.
This isn't a gun debate or a debate about pools. The question was asked if gun control was proven to work would you give up your guns? But no one can seem to get past the if part, they just keep going on and on about how it won't work. But this thread is not a debate about that it's about whether you would give up a gun if it did make the world safer. The OP is trying to find the real agenda of gun owners. He's not saying a gun ban is going to make the world safer but if it did how would you react. It's like asking the question "if heroin was legal would you try it?" The proper way to answer would be yes or no not post a whole bunch of facts as why it shouldn't be legal, that's a different debate all together.
Some people are saying "no I wouldn't give up my gun to save one person because I could potentially down the line save more then one person with it". Again, that's not what the OP was getting at. They were saying "If it could somehow be proven that your gun wasn't going do as much good as it was bad would you give it up?" I don't believe a gun ban will work either but I believe this question was asked because many liberals believe the reason that gun owners don't want to give up guns has more to do with the fact that they like guns (i.e. gun collecting, or going to the range) then with safety (even if gun people are right about the safety aspect of it).
Would you give up your semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles if it would save one kids life?
if not then if it saved 10 kids life? and if not is there a number you would give them up for?
Where does it ask anything about proof of anything. It doesn't make comments about gun control or anything.
If you look at the end of MY response, I ask,
Quote:
Now, what say you? If it's known that legally armed citizens save over 3 times as many people than are killed with firearms, would you deny those 25,000 people their lives to save the 8700 or so people?
My question is a legitimate counter question to the OP.
Would you give up your semi auto rifles, AKA assault rifles if it would save one kids life?
if not then if it saved 10 kids life? and if not is there a number you would give them up for?
There is a far better chance that many kids' lives would be saved if I had my Ruger Mini-30 (which is a semiauto but is not an assault rifle, assault rifles are machine guns) with me when i needed it, than if I didn't have it with me when I needed it.
You'll have to describe what situation you have in mind, where giving it up would somehow "save" X number of kids' lives, before I can give an opinion on your question.
You might also do your homework before you try to put up another silly "poll" like this one, with so many errors and misstatements in it that it can't possibly produce any coherent conclusions.
"My question is a legitimate counter question to the OP."[/quote]
So let me see some hard facts that guns save 25,000 people a year in America. This is an impossible statistic to track because how do you figure that a gun actually "saved" someone in these instances? If someone breaks into your house and you have a gun on you and they don't kill you do you count that as the gun saving your life? Because even if you didn't have a gun there objective is most likely to steal not kill.
As I said earlier I do not think gun control will work, because there are already too many guns out there. But nor do I think that guns save more people then they kill. There are some instances were it is better to not have a gun. I had a friend who believed he was going to get robbed after he moved into a house in a rough neighborhood in South Philly. Some guys saw him carrying a TV into his house and started asking him questions about it. He was kind of nervous and was about to stay up all night with his gun. In a discussion with his neighbor, the neighbor specifically said "If something happens don't let them see your gun". A couple weeks later some guys broke into his house with guns and stole some things. He knew they weren't there to hurt him they just wanted his TV. If he had his gun out, theres a small chance he may have killed him but there was 4 of them and chances are it would of been a gun battle and he would've lost.
My old apartment was in the ghetto, did I have a gun? No. Did I still feel safe? Yes. Am I still living? Yes. I actually didn't even want a gun. Do you know what is one of the most thing stolen in home invasions? Guns. Furthermore, I guarantee gun owners are murdered at a higher rate then non gun owners. As I said earlier I do not think gun control will work but nor do I think more guns are better. Homicide is a societal problem not a gun problem but more guns do not help the cause. Do you really think putting more guns in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, or Detroit are gonna lower homicides? Because that's were most of these homicides are taking place.
A lot of gun owners have this fantasy where one day there gonna be called upon to save the world and there gonna come out and kill thousands of criminals and save humanity. How do I know? because I know many gun owners and I hear them talk like this. I just laugh.
"My question is a legitimate counter question to the OP."[/quote]
So let me see some hard facts that guns save 25,000 people a year in America. This is an impossible statistic to track because how do you figure that a gun actually "saved" someone in these instances? If someone breaks into your house and you have a gun on you and they don't kill you do you count that as the gun saving your life? Because even if you didn't have a gun there objective is most likely to steal not kill.
As I said earlier I do not think gun control will work, because there are already too many guns out there. But nor do I think that guns save more people then they kill. There are some instances were it is better to not have a gun. I had a friend who believed he was going to get robbed after he moved into a house in a rough neighborhood in South Philly. Some guys saw him carrying a TV into his house and started asking him questions about it. He was kind of nervous and was about to stay up all night with his gun. In a discussion with his neighbor, the neighbor specifically said "If something happens don't let them see your gun". A couple weeks later some guys broke into his house with guns and stole some things. He knew they weren't there to hurt him they just wanted his TV. If he had his gun out, theres a small chance he may have killed him but there was 4 of them and chances are it would of been a gun battle and he would've lost.
My old apartment was in the ghetto, did I have a gun? No. Did I still feel safe? Yes. Am I still living? Yes. I actually didn't even want a gun. Do you know what is one of the most thing stolen in home invasions? Guns. Furthermore, I guarantee gun owners are murdered at a higher rate then non gun owners. As I said earlier I do not think gun control will work but nor do I think more guns are better. Homicide is a societal problem not a gun problem but more guns do not help the cause. Do you really think putting more guns in cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, or Detroit are gonna lower homicides? Because that's were most of these homicides are taking place.
A lot of gun owners have this fantasy where one day there gonna be called upon to save the world and there gonna come out and kill thousands of criminals and save humanity. How do I know? because I know many gun owners and I hear them talk like this. I just laugh.
Here is the link that notes that of the approximately 2.5 million crimes yearly stopped by a legally armed citizen, they felt that 15.7% of them saved a life. I SIMPLY suggested using 1% instead if 15.7%. If I use 15.7% the number is actually over 375,000 people. Quite frankly I think that 15.7% is high, that's why I suggested 1% of the 2.5 million.
BTW, THIS gun owner, has already stopped a criminal. My neighbor's 18 year old niece came home after work in the middle of the night to find their front door open. She came and got me, and I went in armed. The end result, I stopped a burglar, and we were able to turn him over to the police. There is no telling what would have happened had this 18 year old 110 lb girl had walked in on this criminal.
So, this gun owner has no fantasy, that he stopped a potentially dangerous situation, and though you don't like my 25000 number, I am sure you probably didn't want to hear the 375,000 number. I am sure the real number is somewhere in between.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess guns are okay for the drug cartels but not okay for law-abiding citizens.
read the link
