Me: Taken away by WHOM?
Him :By the federal gov't
Me: And what about the right to SELF DEFENSE??? The supreme court has ruled
that even with a restraining order the state has no OBLIGATION to defend you.
As for numbers: 11,600 firearms homicides in 2004.
Him: Statistics also show that you are more likely to get yourself killed when pulling out a gun in self defense than if you do not have a gun. Common sense should tell people this also.
Me: There were almost 4 times this amount in car accidents, and 2 times the amount due to alcohol.
there were 2.4 million deaths in 2004 in the US
Him: Uhhhh....not really sure what ur point is here. Yes lots of people die, this means that we should just ignore the deaths caused by gunfire? Why dont you tell that to the families of the victims
Me: If cars kill 4 times the number and alcohol kills twice the number can I make the same argument?? I.E. Think of how many people we could save by banning cars and alcohol!
Him: The difference is that guns are made forthe purpose of killing. They have no other purpose. Also the biggest difference is CHOICE. You do not have to get in the car if you do not want to take that risk of dying in a car accident. People have a choice when it comes to driving and drinking. On the other hand if you were a victim in a shooting you really didnt have much choice in that.
Me: Yes to the above, however if you think the federal government should have the power to "allow" something then it also has the power to take it away
Him: If the role of the federal gov't is to ensure that peoples individual freedoms are not taken away then they will not be able to take away the right of gay people to get married. They could try but that is why they must go through multiple branches in order to get a billed passed, and one of those branches would have to say "no, you cannot do this because it would be taking away personal freedoms" That is the only way to ensure someones individual freedoms. You claim to want to give people their freedoms but then you contradict yourself by saying that the state should have the power to tell people what they can and cannot do. I am not implying that the federal gov't should be deciding on these moral issues, I am saying that the federal gov't should enforce every individuals right to decide for themselves as opposed to letting the states decide for the individual.
Me: Use the process and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of trampling on it
Him: yes, I agree, amend the constitution and take out amendment #2.
Me: The constitution does not GIVE rights. They are INHERENT including the right to self defense.
Him: Yes rights are inherent but again, in order to protect everyones freedom and safety some times you have to ask people to make small sacrifices.
Me: Guns exist. Banning them completly will have the same effect as drug laws. They will still exist except only those people who have no regard for the law will have them. This is the unintended consequences. You can wish for a world without guns all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it does exist and criminals will have them.
Him: I am not under any illusions that implementing stricter gun laws will eliminate guns or the deaths attributed to them. I do however think that it can be dramatically decreased. It is not just the criminals that have guns that are the problem, it is ALL gun owners. You probably dont think of dick cheany as a criminal yet he very well could have killed his friend. The parents of the columbine children werent criminals yet their guns proved to be responsible for a trajegedy. Is it possible that those kids would have gotten their hands on some guns anyways despite strict gun laws?? Sure it is, but I believe that with smart, well-regulated gun control policies we have the ability to make incidents like columbine far less common.
Me: allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as funding those very abortions.
Him: I never said that they should be funded
Me: but the government must still abide by its laws. If the laws are wrong, the laws must be changed.
Him: I agree and I am saying that the laws need to be changed.
Me" What, then, is the purpose of state government?
Him: The purpose is, or should be, to allow its residents to vote on issues that effect that state only, such as increasing state taxes for some sort of state project. The state should not be leglislating morality, that is no better than the federal gov't leglislating morality. Moral issues should be left up to individuals and no one else( including state or federal gov't). The only involvement the gov't (state or federal) should have in moral issues is to protect an individuals right to decide for themselves.
Me: There was a situtation very similar to Virginia Tech, at the Appalachian School of Law. in this situation, 3 people were killed, not 32. He was taken down by 2 students, armed with their own personal guns. With this example in mind, I say that had a single person been armed in Virginia Tech, the possibility of a drastically different scenario was very possible. Keep in mind the shooter supposedly chained the doors shut from the inside. How can you expect the police to protect you in that situation? A simple case of "Every second counts, and the police are minutes away". Not to mention the fact that almost all mass shootings, including Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the recent mall shooting, are committed in GUN FREE ZONES. The second the shooter walks onto the property, he is virtually guaranteed to be the only person with a gun. This is why gun free zones are known as "Victim Disarmament Zones". I would also like to point out that most recent church shooting was stopped because a civilian gun owner, acting as a security guard, shot back.
Gun control is an ILLUSION of safety.
Him: Of course there have been situations where guns have been the saving grace of a situation. However when looking at the overall picture, I still believe that we would all be much safer with strict gun control laws. Lets for a minute forget about those extreme situations of mass shootings and think about every day situations. Your walking down the street and you get into an arguement with a stranger. The arguement gets heated...do you want that guy to have a gun?? Yes the hard core criminals would probably still have guns no matter how strict the laws were but I am just as worried about the every day joe that owns as gun as I am the hard core criminal, and its the everyday joes that we could take the guns away from.
Me: Yet the constitution, written by rich white men, treats every American the same. We are all endowed with our God-given rights, be we black, white, tall, short, gay, straight, WHATEVER. What they wrote benefits us all
Him: You are right about that, the constitution in general is pretty good document. I was just trying to make the point that just because something is in the constitution does not neccessarily mean we should live and die by it. We still need to examine all of the issues, including gun control, and weigh out all of the pros and cons of both side of the issues, as opposed to simply saying "well its in the constitution so we already have our answer."
Me: What about the people that consider abortion murder?
Him: The belief that abortion is murder usually stems from a persons religous beliefs. These are people that believe that the fetus has some sort of a soul. There is something called separation of church and state. If abortions are murder what are misscariages? Suicide?
Me: Also, you should know that the states in the united states with the loosest gun laws also have the least amount of violence. Ironic?
Him: Ironic?, no, coincidence? probably. All states currently have pretty lax gun laws to where if you want a gun it will not be hard to get one regardless of where you live.
Him :By the federal gov't
Me: And what about the right to SELF DEFENSE??? The supreme court has ruled
that even with a restraining order the state has no OBLIGATION to defend you.
As for numbers: 11,600 firearms homicides in 2004.
Him: Statistics also show that you are more likely to get yourself killed when pulling out a gun in self defense than if you do not have a gun. Common sense should tell people this also.
Me: There were almost 4 times this amount in car accidents, and 2 times the amount due to alcohol.
there were 2.4 million deaths in 2004 in the US
Him: Uhhhh....not really sure what ur point is here. Yes lots of people die, this means that we should just ignore the deaths caused by gunfire? Why dont you tell that to the families of the victims
Me: If cars kill 4 times the number and alcohol kills twice the number can I make the same argument?? I.E. Think of how many people we could save by banning cars and alcohol!
Him: The difference is that guns are made forthe purpose of killing. They have no other purpose. Also the biggest difference is CHOICE. You do not have to get in the car if you do not want to take that risk of dying in a car accident. People have a choice when it comes to driving and drinking. On the other hand if you were a victim in a shooting you really didnt have much choice in that.
Me: Yes to the above, however if you think the federal government should have the power to "allow" something then it also has the power to take it away
Him: If the role of the federal gov't is to ensure that peoples individual freedoms are not taken away then they will not be able to take away the right of gay people to get married. They could try but that is why they must go through multiple branches in order to get a billed passed, and one of those branches would have to say "no, you cannot do this because it would be taking away personal freedoms" That is the only way to ensure someones individual freedoms. You claim to want to give people their freedoms but then you contradict yourself by saying that the state should have the power to tell people what they can and cannot do. I am not implying that the federal gov't should be deciding on these moral issues, I am saying that the federal gov't should enforce every individuals right to decide for themselves as opposed to letting the states decide for the individual.
Me: Use the process and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION instead of trampling on it
Him: yes, I agree, amend the constitution and take out amendment #2.
Me: The constitution does not GIVE rights. They are INHERENT including the right to self defense.
Him: Yes rights are inherent but again, in order to protect everyones freedom and safety some times you have to ask people to make small sacrifices.
Me: Guns exist. Banning them completly will have the same effect as drug laws. They will still exist except only those people who have no regard for the law will have them. This is the unintended consequences. You can wish for a world without guns all you want but it doesn't change the fact that it does exist and criminals will have them.
Him: I am not under any illusions that implementing stricter gun laws will eliminate guns or the deaths attributed to them. I do however think that it can be dramatically decreased. It is not just the criminals that have guns that are the problem, it is ALL gun owners. You probably dont think of dick cheany as a criminal yet he very well could have killed his friend. The parents of the columbine children werent criminals yet their guns proved to be responsible for a trajegedy. Is it possible that those kids would have gotten their hands on some guns anyways despite strict gun laws?? Sure it is, but I believe that with smart, well-regulated gun control policies we have the ability to make incidents like columbine far less common.
Me: allowing people to get abortions is not the same thing as funding those very abortions.
Him: I never said that they should be funded
Me: but the government must still abide by its laws. If the laws are wrong, the laws must be changed.
Him: I agree and I am saying that the laws need to be changed.
Me" What, then, is the purpose of state government?
Him: The purpose is, or should be, to allow its residents to vote on issues that effect that state only, such as increasing state taxes for some sort of state project. The state should not be leglislating morality, that is no better than the federal gov't leglislating morality. Moral issues should be left up to individuals and no one else( including state or federal gov't). The only involvement the gov't (state or federal) should have in moral issues is to protect an individuals right to decide for themselves.
Me: There was a situtation very similar to Virginia Tech, at the Appalachian School of Law. in this situation, 3 people were killed, not 32. He was taken down by 2 students, armed with their own personal guns. With this example in mind, I say that had a single person been armed in Virginia Tech, the possibility of a drastically different scenario was very possible. Keep in mind the shooter supposedly chained the doors shut from the inside. How can you expect the police to protect you in that situation? A simple case of "Every second counts, and the police are minutes away". Not to mention the fact that almost all mass shootings, including Virginia Tech, Columbine, and the recent mall shooting, are committed in GUN FREE ZONES. The second the shooter walks onto the property, he is virtually guaranteed to be the only person with a gun. This is why gun free zones are known as "Victim Disarmament Zones". I would also like to point out that most recent church shooting was stopped because a civilian gun owner, acting as a security guard, shot back.
Gun control is an ILLUSION of safety.
Him: Of course there have been situations where guns have been the saving grace of a situation. However when looking at the overall picture, I still believe that we would all be much safer with strict gun control laws. Lets for a minute forget about those extreme situations of mass shootings and think about every day situations. Your walking down the street and you get into an arguement with a stranger. The arguement gets heated...do you want that guy to have a gun?? Yes the hard core criminals would probably still have guns no matter how strict the laws were but I am just as worried about the every day joe that owns as gun as I am the hard core criminal, and its the everyday joes that we could take the guns away from.
Me: Yet the constitution, written by rich white men, treats every American the same. We are all endowed with our God-given rights, be we black, white, tall, short, gay, straight, WHATEVER. What they wrote benefits us all
Him: You are right about that, the constitution in general is pretty good document. I was just trying to make the point that just because something is in the constitution does not neccessarily mean we should live and die by it. We still need to examine all of the issues, including gun control, and weigh out all of the pros and cons of both side of the issues, as opposed to simply saying "well its in the constitution so we already have our answer."
Me: What about the people that consider abortion murder?
Him: The belief that abortion is murder usually stems from a persons religous beliefs. These are people that believe that the fetus has some sort of a soul. There is something called separation of church and state. If abortions are murder what are misscariages? Suicide?
Me: Also, you should know that the states in the united states with the loosest gun laws also have the least amount of violence. Ironic?
Him: Ironic?, no, coincidence? probably. All states currently have pretty lax gun laws to where if you want a gun it will not be hard to get one regardless of where you live.
Good points? Where? Especially this gem:
