Would you turn in your guns if...

If it could be proven that turning in your guns would make society safer, would you?

  • Yes... public safety is more important than my desire to own a gun.

    Votes: 7 4.7%

  • No... even though it is a proven danger to society, I want my gun.

    Votes: 141 95.3%
  • Total voters
    148
Status
Not open for further replies.
Regardless, We Still Need To Protect...

...the country from tyrants, and the Second Amendment is still in effect. Even if the crime rate would go down 95%, there would still be the 5% to deal with. Even if the crime rate would go to 0%, the right and need for arms still exists.

The only way to "eliminate" all crime would be to remove any and all laws making any act unlawfull, or to kill everyone but yourself.

Woody
 
Although I read and understood the question, I voted no. What kind of men would a perfectly safe society breed? Complete safety is as unnatural as can be.

Biker
 
The desire for safety, carried to an extreme, is a longing for spiritual self-annihilation. No thanks.

I voted NO. You can underscore that. No way, no how.

"I voted yes because suddenly a perfect world has been created
where it's always sunny outside, everyone is happy, and the lamb
and the lion are resting together......oh, good, now I can relax...."

The trouble with a peaceable kingdom is it's still a kingdom and its peace is oppressive. (I know the response was tongue-in-cheek.)
 
Define crime. I am sure that taking a shot at Hitler during the 1930's in Germany would have been considered a "crime" and a threat to "public safety."
 
I don't care if banning them saves Bambi, some kid, some gang banger or 5000 victims of some terrorist shooting spree, The RKBA is not about combating crime, or surviving a rape or hunting deer or hogs, the Second Amendment serves to provide a means to counter the inequity in power between federal powers with a standing federal army and the common citizen of this country. All other benefits such as defending against assault or rape or hunting are purely secondary.

As HL Mencken once quipped "the urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it". (I like that I've been able to use that quote twice in the past week hehe :) ).
 
No.

Want a second opinion?

:cuss: no. :neener:

To me, the phrasing of the poll's question makes it seem like the answer was in mind already.

Even if every gun in existence got magically obliterated overnight, the very next morning, machinists would be forging new ones with their industrial presses.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

My father told me back in his day, Roy Rogers had a TV show for kids. On one episode he showed how to make your own rifle. Can you imagine what would happen if they showed that episode today? In that same context?

The problem is never the inanimate object.
 
Thank you

...to everyone who replied.

A special thank you to those who actually attempted to read and understand the question.

Now for some clarification:

1. No. I am not anti-gun. I am an avid shooter and gun owner who believes in nearly unilateral deregulation of firearm ownership. I come from a country where registration and confiscation is not theoretical. I have seen it first hand. I take the cause very seriously as a result, and I prize my right more than most. I believe that a well-orchestrated and effective fight requires us to understand both ourselves and our opponent..

2. My motive for asking the question: I am in regular contact by virtue of my work with people who oppose gun ownership. They do so in a sophisticated, educated, articulate and intelligent fashion. They are a very serious threat to gun rights in this country... and they know where to hit to cause damage. They regularly submit that gun owners regularly and falsley support their right under the guise of concern for public safety. They state further that many/most gun owners are self interested to the extent that even if you could prove that their firearms were a detriment to society, they wouldn't give them up. I have always opposed this, stating my belief that the majority of gun owners would readily give up their guns if they honestly felt that it would better society. This question was a very informal and unscientific attempt to better guage my accuracy in that regard.


Folks... Your opponents in this issue are no joke. If you can't handle being asked a question like this, if it offends you, you aren't even close to ready to fight the kind of fight these people are bringing you. Y'all can type "molon labe" all you want, but if that's as far as you can go... well... someday there is going to be a group of fellows with badges at your door to answer that invitation.
 
I am in regular contact by virtue of my work with people who oppose gun ownership.
Click to expand...

Guess you have an education project every day. Do a good job and they will change sides.
 
Guess you have an education project every day. Do a good job and they will change sides
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point... and I'm trying.
 
A similar question is "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

The Buddhists have a unique response questions of this type (Buddhists looooove hypothetical questions), and the answer is "Mu", which indicates "the premise of the question is invalid."

So: "Mu."
 
I know the question / premise is invalid. Please thoroughly read and contemplate the post which accompanies the poll. Buddhists support careful consideration.
 
The question has a fundamentally false premise, and I refuse to answer on those grounds.

It is exactly equivalent to:

"If, by taking your own life in the most disgusting and painful way possible, to suffer a lingering, agonizing death lasting for years, ultimately resulting in your eternal damnation in hell, you could be absolutely guaranteed to cure all diseases, solve all world problems, and usher in an eternal era of world peace and prosperity, would you?"

Of course, failure to answer into the affirmative is proof positive of your selfishness, whereas to answer in the affirmative concedes the primacy of the utilitarian arguments for RKBA, which are at best secondary.
 
Last edited:
No, I wouldn't turn them in, and not because of false premises or any logical issues with your question.

I wouldn't turn 'em in because I like them too much.
 
I wouldn't. I know that my own personal guns will never be used in crime (excepting that they get stolen) so there's no way my owning or not owning a gun can affect any crime level.
 
Folks... Your opponents in this issue are no joke. If you can't handle being asked a question like this, if it offends you, you aren't even close to ready to fight the kind of fight these people are bringing you.
Click to expand...
The problem is that this is one of the "Do you still beat your wife?" questions. There is no good way to answer it.

If you answer "yes" to the gun question in order to be a reasonable, altruistic person, you have willingly accepted the first punch of the one-two that is intended to take away your right to firearm ownership. If you answer "no," you are confirming the stereotype of intransigent, unreasonable gun owners.

A ground rule of hypothetical argument is that the hypotheses have to be mutually accepted as within the realm of possibility. Otherwise there's no point. What you're saying is that the pro-gun side has to accept the hypotheses of the anti-gun side if they're going to effectively argue the point. That makes no sense. Why does one side get to define the scope of the argument?
 
The question assumes a different universe. In said universe, less weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens does in fact = a safer society. So if I lived in that universe, yes, I would turn them in. But that is not the universe we live in.
 
Feh !

CFriesen:

Folks... Your opponents in this issue are no joke. If you can't handle being asked a question like this, if it offends you, you aren't even close to ready to fight the kind of fight these people are bringing you. Y'all can type "molon labe" all you want, but if that's as far as you can go... well... someday there is going to be a group of fellows with badges at your door to answer that invitation.
Click to expand...

I still find the original post/poll pointless and definitely sophomoric, and the above quote smacks mightily of a post-hoc "justification" for it after reading the reactions.

I've often said that Generals win battles by putting the other General's head on their own shoulders, and our own "Generals" are thinking strategically about what the anti-gun "Generals" might be up to, but I'll guarantee you that "our" Generals are not discussing these things in open forums.

If you want to engender a discussion of "what we can do?" or "how can we counter this tactical advantage which the antis might use against us," fine.

But it would have been far better to approach the question directly instead of with an absurdly hypothetical situation such as that one --which, because of its absurdity, has only served to muddy the waters.

Somehow, this whole thread generates a pitiful image of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin arguing endlessly over whether to serve tea or coffee at the Yalta conference instead of hammering out strategic and tactical details.

Thus spake 230RN.

Mr. La Pierre, are you listening?
 
How did you get away with shooting seven deer? Good Lord, wish I could.:)

Biker
 
But it would have been far better to approach the question directly instead of with an absurdly hypothetical situation such as that one --which, because of its absurdity, has only served to muddy the waters.
Click to expand...

The question may be absurd to you; much in the same way the entire premise of gun control as a means toward public safety is absurd to me. Nevertheless, questions and premises such as these are indicative of the type of inquisitive analysis that gun owners are subject to at the hands of anti-gun activists. The underlying basis of the question is "in a vacuum, all things being equal, if it could be proven, would you change your mind?". Simply sticking fingers in one's ears and saying "it's a stupid question that I refuse to answer" is not going to appease your opponents, and it is not going to sway public support in your favor.

It is incumbent upon us to launch a reasonable and intelligent response to such a question; to demonstrate a HIGHER level of reason than those who are asking the question - not by impugning their statement, but by demonstrating at least an equal or higher level of concern for the issues that motivate them. Calling your opponents' concerns stupid, misguided or pointless is succesful only in alienating them. You want these people on your side folks. That is the key to success.
 
The underlying basis of the question is "in a vacuum, all things being equal, if it could be proven, would you change your mind?"
Click to expand...
It's a fundamentally dishonest question. It asks you to imagine a reality that is contrary to the one that we live in, and then asks you how you would choose to live in that reality. What is the intention of the question? I believe the intention is to slander the responder.

In a class I once took, we were asked to look at several photos of faces of various races--white, black, Asian, Hispanic, etc.--and then match them with a list of jobs: professor, janitor, waiter, CEO, etc. I refused to do the exercise. My response was that there was insufficient information given, re skills, education, etc. I was told to do it anyway, to imagine a situation where I had to make that decision on the basis of the face shots only. The purpose was to force the respondent (me) to commit acts of crude racial stereotyping. I refused to choose. I would refuse to answer this question on similar grounds.

Again, a pointless and impossible hypothetical yields a worthless exercise. No truth can be revealed from this line of inquiry.
 
BGs will always find a way to be bad,

No way, will i give up mine. A 95% decrease means there is still a chance,
100% complete nonviolence Will NEVER happen,
Plus Being a owner of firearms is fun and exciting, and is the only sport I like
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
  • Poll
What would you do...livin in the PRK
Replies
13
Views
510
Standing Wolf
S
R
  • Locked
  • Poll
Would you turn in a tax cheat?
2 3 4
Replies
97
Views
3K
Soap
S
D
  • Locked
The Law Vs. Your Morals: What Would You Do?
Replies
13
Views
650
Don Gwinn
D
2
  • Locked
U.N. vs. Guns
Replies
0
Views
306
2dogs
2
T
  • Locked
Would you support these gun control laws
Replies
9
Views
922
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top