The Consolidated White Wing Gun Control Debate

[White Wing]

Hey, guys... I hope this doesn't breake any rules...

I was challenged by one of your members to come here and have a debate
on the firearms issue. His challenge also went to "Can you hold a rational
and quiet one, without calling them names?"
-I did of course frown a little on his perception of me, so I did come. I'm
known as a good debater who never draws to name calling or insults in
any way; so you may know I am peaceful and I wish not to egnite this
forum.
I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self
defence.

Hope you are kind on me...

 

[HSMITH]

Your opinion is so ignorant it is un-debatable. This thread will be closed as soon as a moderator sees it anyway. Go find another place to bait for arguements.

 

[Wildalaska]

Whats an "instituionalized method of self defense", wht are you against it, and why are you against the right to carry arms?

WildtelluswhyfirstAlaska

 

[White Wing]

I am here for debate. My views that used to be radical left have been
swayed a bit by debates with those of your stand. I want to form an open
mind, and seriously, hear the views you guys have, and the reasons for it.

This might be the best place to do it

 

[OF]

Uhhhh...that's not the kind of welcome we give new members around here, hsmith. The guy wants to talk about the 2nd Amendment, he hasn't insulted anyone. You, on the other hand, did. If you don't feel like a discussion, maybe so you should go cool off somewhere.

I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self defence.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'institutionalized means of self defence'?

Welcome to The (almost all the time) High Road, WW.

- Gabe

 

[Wildalaska]

Your opinion is so ignorant it is un-debatable. This thread will be closed as soon as a moderator sees it anyway. Go find another place to bait for arguements.

I didnt know this was the Democratic Undertground Board..

WildithoughtonlytheycensoredAlaska

 

[New_comer]

This I gotta see...

 

[jsalcedo]

What about the "anti with questions" thread that lasted 3 weeks and had 6 pages of replies.

I say give white wing a chance and if the thread gets ugly the mods can close it.

White Wing:

Why are you against law abiding citizens carrying arms for defense against human predators?

Do you take the position that humans have no right to defend their lives
and must submit themselves to those who would commit violence against them?

 

[OF]

Don't we have some members from Norway around here? I'm not up on the weapons laws over there...maybe someone could clue us in.

- Gabe

 

[Oleg Volk]

Welcome to THR. If you could explain the specifics and the reasons for your position, we'd have more of a basis for a continued conversation. Usually, reasons for holding opinions are more enlightening than the opinions themselves.

 

[White Wing]

my view, alaska, is that with guns being so institutionalized within a community, the views of a gun's use is lightened so to speak. If everybody is familiar with guns, have them in their home, and it is a usual means of self defence; what also becomes natural is to carry one for a crime.

Where I live, the thing that a gun is a hazard stabilizer ("if he carrys a gun, and I carry a gun, he will realize his chances might not be very high, and will therefore not do it"), is sortof the same, but without the gun.
The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher. If he uses his own strength however, his chances are the same, but with less penalty if it goes wrong...

Oleg Volt... "Usually, reasons for holding opinions are more enlightening than the opinions themselves."
-Might be one of the best statements I have heard in my adult life...
(That's a compliment)

 

[Hkmp5sd]

White Wing,

Perhaps you should begin the debate by explaining why you are against the right to carry arms for sef-defense.

I've been carrying a concealed firearm for almost 20 years now and have never harmed anyone. Why should I not be allowed to carry a firearm? Why should you have any say into whether or not I carry a firearm?

I would also suggest you read The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr.

The purpetrator won't carry a gun, since if he's caught with a gun, the penalty will be higher.

And perhaps you could explain why England, in which there is a 100% ban on civilian gun ownership, is experiencing rapidly rising and rampant gun crimes?

 

[Edward429451]

I do believe in the right to carry arms. If I were to not take sides and just look at it pragmatically pro and con, I consider;

1) There are already Billions of guns in the world. If I gave mine up, potential is still high that almost anyone I meet may have one that they did not give up and may use against me or a loved one. We cannot dis-invent guns at this point.

2) Even if somehow magically, we could take everyones guns away except for law enforcement and the military, who could guarentee that they would not hold ulterior motives and abuse the power of the guns that they would have against those who do not? Most LE and Military people are honorable sorts, but what about the rest? The knowledge that lots of people are armed keeps a percentage of criminals and tyrants in check. A most wonderful deterrant.

Makes it a no brainer for me.

Welcome. Don't be thin skinned, some strong opinions here.

 

[White Wing]

Hehe... Yeah, maybe should make a new thread...
This was sortof my hello thread.

Thx for the welcomes, peeps! I hope I can have a good time here

 

[Werewolf]

White Wing Stated:

I am against the right to carry arms, and an institutionalized method of self
defence.

Hey...
That's a perfectly OK attitude to have. It sounds like based upon your other posts that there is a high likelihood that where you live Darwinization has a good chance of taking place and the gene pool will thereby be improved.

Oh - by the way - as trolls go - your's lacks in both subtlety and creativity - necessary features of any quality troll.

 

[boing]

Criminals are criminals, period. You don't make nice criminals by going unarmed and hoping they play fair. They don't play fair, that's why they're criminals. They deliberately seek out those who are weaker than they are, physically or by numbers.

www.a-human-right.com

 

[Betty]

HSMITH,
Check your PM please.

WhiteWing,
I do recommend you check out the older anti with questions thread. There was a great discussion there.

 

[kalibear45]

Hazard Stabilizer

Where I live, the thing that a gun is a hazard stabilizer

Now, I got a cool pet name for my guns. Thanks dude!

 

[Holly76201]

WW,
Welcome to The High Road. I am new here myself, but it is my understanding that this is a forum to discuss all gun related issues. I can't speak for everyone, but I am sure I'm not the only person here willing to try and bring you over to our side.
Perhaps a bit of personal history will help. When I was a child, there was a tragic shooting accident in my family. And I was terrified of guns from the age of 9 until about age 24. That was when I became a Mother.
The responsibility of keeping my children safe from all manner of danger changed my views about gun use. If someone were trying to enter my home I would have no way of knowing if they were there to steal the stereo or to rape and murder. I wasn't willing to take the chance that their intentions were strictly property related, and Idecided that I would be able to shoot another person who was trying to harm me or mine. In other words, I simply refused to be a potential victim. My life and my children's lives were too precious to be placed at risk by being unarmed.
AND, the weapons were kept out of their reach until they were old enough to understand how dangerous they could be. At an appropriate age I had a friend who is much more knowledgable and skilled than myself teach them gun safety and how to shoot.
Luckily, neither they nor I have ever had to actually use our weapons to defend ourselves. However, I am grateful that the Constitution gives me the right to bear arms to defend myself against any manner of aggression.
Holly

 

[Quartus]

Welcome, White Wing. Please disregard the two rude posts - that's not representative of most of us here. While we disagree vehemently with your position, most of use are glad to debate it politely. Speakiing only for myself, I think those who CAN'T do so do more harm to our cause than folks like you who honestly hold a different opinion.


I think we all need some more clarification - are you against self defense ITSELF, or just against using guns for that purpose?

 

[OF]

Hmmmm... Let me see if I understand the concept: Due to the fact that guns aren't really a 'part of life', criminals will be less likely to use guns to facilitate their crimes due to the fact that a gun is unnecessary in their line of work. They will be able to overpower their victims with other tools, thereby avoiding the increased jeopardy associated with using a gun to aid in the commision of their crimes. Is that about it?

Sucks to be the one overpowered, doesn't it.

A couple major problems with your method of crime control:

1. Reduction in the use of guns is not crime reduction. Perhaps if the goal was the reduction of the use of firearms in the commision of crimes, you may have something...but that isn't really the goal, is it. Crime reduction is the goal, firearms really have nothing to do with it. I would no more like to be robbed at gunpoint than I would at knifepoint. Women are no less raped when attacked by bare-handed scum than they are by pistol-wielding scum.

2. It is immoral to sacrifice people on the altar of crime reduction. Your method of reducing the use of firearms by criminals leaves the victims to the mercy of the villains...only they will be villains without guns...most of the time. So, by sacrificing some members of your society (notably the weaker) to the 'wolves', so to speak, you are hoping to reduce the likelyhood, the chance, that you yourself will run into a criminal you can't overpower physically. I am not willing to sacrifice anyone to criminals, and there is absolutely no need to.

3. An unarmed population is at the mercy of those in power. By removing guns from the hands of the citizens you have opened a door that cannot be closed. A disarmed population lacks the means to resist oppression. A population that lacks the means will soon lack the will. And once they lack the will, it is over.

4. It is my right as a human being to defend my life. I will not be denied the tools to do so and it does not matter how other people may abuse those tools. I have no responsibility to bear the costs for the misdeeds of others.

- Gabe

 

[White Wing]

Lain out... (Some of it at least)

First I want to comment on a strong issue I haven't come across in a debate before... A comment by Edward...

1) There are already Billions of guns in the world. If I gave mine up, potential is still high that almost anyone I meet may have one that they did not give up and may use against me or a loved one. We cannot dis-invent guns at this point.

This has a strong ring of truth... How to dispose of guns is not an easy thing. In norway, there hasn't really been a gun issue. Last time there was an issue with weapons, the highest technology was still a sword...
I can't put my finger on *the* thing that will make the transition smooth. I can agrue why it should be done, but can't be done in an instant...
If the United States erased the 2nd amendment over night, criminals would still have them, and citizens would be greatly liable... But a thing that goes around europe is that somehow weapons aren't needed.

I won't give the cause. The cause is very much liable for debate, and I'm not gonna pretend to being able of giving the right answer.
-Philosphy isn't math...

I think that getting rid of guns is answered by a change of culture. That only if every man and woman says it's enugh, it can be over. Putting down a law doesn't stop opinion, and opinion steers a man. -Law maybe, but only of his dirction is to follow law.
Look at the southern states in the 50's and 60's... The white man there didn't stop hating the black man because a law said he couldn't...

But let's say Jesus went out to to save mankind, and he did it by saying "I am king, and the new law is to love"... He wouldn't get much response. It's like a man saying he's an emperor because some tart threw a scimitar at him... Or King Arthur because the lady of the lake blessed him with excalibur...
He had the tounge of wisdome. AND HE IS A FIRM PROOF OF THE POWER OF THE TOUNGE! They said the messiah would defeat the romans? Romans chrusified him, maybe... Rome is now the capital of the religion he started...
-Sortof strong, eh?

Only if the people is inspired, can the people lay away guns. Only if they truly change their views. People are different from sheep. The sheperd says that it cannot stray, and it doesn't... But a human needs a good reason...

(Maybe if there's reason enugh... Maybe criminals can stop using them?)
-Depends on how strong the leader is, and how much he impresses...

"Welcome. Don't be thin skinned, some strong opinions here"
-I won't...

 

[Holly76201]

Hey Quartus,
If we can't use guns, does that mean we get to use Swords?

 

[4v50 Gary]

Welcome to THR White Wing.

Why guns for self defense? Very few of us are like Jet Li, ackie Chan, Bruce Lee or Your-Favorite-Martial-Artist. Some of us are old, some have varying degrees of disability, or are weaker than those that prey upon society because they're too lazy, stupid or unwilling to work honorably for a living. For those of us who can't do a round house kick and disarm a knife wielding assailant, for those of us who are female and can't fight, for those of us who are small or frail, we can have guns. Sometimes the mere presence of a firearm deters commission of a crime and isn't that what we seek?

As for the "institutionalized method of self defense" I'm still a bit lost on your meaning.

 

[White Wing]

As a comment...

I'm not new to the issue of getting a gun. I have lived in the states for a portion of my life, and where? South chicago, that's where! My father is a socialist and a priest. Very much against guns. But in the chicago getho, he was very much tempted... Had we stayed for another year, he would have got one, and I support that choice. We were four kids in a chicago getho. Shootings on our doorsteps; during two years we heard six gunfights in our neighburhood. It was scary like the two towers...