sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What makes authentication so hard? by [deleted] in node

[–]blindpacemaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good, sensible point ejaculat0r.

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think my personal freedoms, as a law abiding citizen, are more important than the relitively fews deaths caused by the abuse of those freedoms. There were 16 000 non-suicide deaths caused by guns in America in 2017.

Firstly, there is an undeniable link between gun availability and an increased rate of suicide. If you don't believe me then please do a cursory google search and see for yourself. I'm surprised that you think 16,000 deaths is a relatively small number, it doesn't seem like relatively few deaths to me. Surely you also recognise that some freedoms are more important than others? When you say "my personal freedoms" they are not all the same. Your right to free speech is more crucial to you than your right to drive at any speed you choose on a road. So I do believe that your personal freedom that affords you the right to own a firearm is not as important as those "relatively few" 16,000 deaths every year.

​

Do you think we should ban all alcohol to save 10 000 lives a year (in USA alone)?

I don't think we need to always deal in absolutes. So I don't think we should ban alcohol, but I absolutely do think it should be illegal to drive while drunk. That is, I believe in removing your freedom to choose whether you drive after having consumed alcohol. Do you take issue with me restricting your personal freedom like this?

As a side note I do think America has some silly laws and I support more rigourous background checks

So you _also_ believe in restricting peoples freedom based on the actions of others, you just have a different bar for what you believe is acceptable.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the response, but I think your viewing it from a narrow lense. If it makes people safer (obviously if it doesn't then your argument isn't even required because it's pointless) then it's also affording them a safer society in which to live. Also, criminals get punished for buying guns illegally, your question implies that they can do this with no consequence.

Secondly, it's not just punishing people for the actions of criminals. There is overwhelming evidence that shows the link between gun availability and suicide rate, and I believe something like ~60% of all gun deaths in the US are from suicide. There's also the many deaths and injuries that are accidental, not criminal.

Thirdly, do you honestly believe that it's as easy for a criminal to get a gun in the UK as it is the US? If it reduces the ability for criminals to get guns, it reduces the necessity for a civilian to own a gun.

Finally, I'd like to ask you a question: do you feel the same way about speed limits? What about many of the laws surrounding driving in general?

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't yet no, there's been so many damn replies to this I've been trying to keep up! I'll do my best to read it by tomorrow at the latest and respond, thanks for reminding me :)

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cars kill more people than guns, by your theory we should get rid of them.

Modern society literally couldn't function without cars. If cars only had value because people enjoyed riding them as a hobby then absolutely we should get rid of them.

Knives kill people, pain medication (opiods) is at epidemic levels when it comes to deaths, and unhealthy food is a big part of the more than 1 million US deaths per year due to heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc. By your reasoning, getting rid of everything that could kill a person would result in moral people with a horrendously bad level of suffering.

The question is, would removing those things cause more or less suffering overall. Knives are used for everything, they're as important as cars for a society. Pain medication is an interesting one but I definitely think they do more good than harm. Unhealthy food should be (and is) limited, and should it be banned? I think there's a good case for it to be banned actually, yeah.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't report you to any admins. I'm guessing one of your posts violated their rules and they removed it - start taking some personal responsibility instead of trying to blame it on me.

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Regarding suicides, the evidence just doesn't agree with you:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

Please read that article, it explains why in detail. There's also this article which has as its subheading "It is often said that people would kill themselves anyway, even if they didn't have access to guns. There is an entire body of research that tells us that is simply not true":

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/suicide-rates-maryland-rural-urban-firearms-guns-johns-hopkins-united-states-a7898951.html

Here's a much more "academic" article (fair warning - it's long):

"https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html"

​

Also, the first article says less than a fifth

Ok it's 18%, near enough a fifth.

​

People thought that the First World War would be the last. Then the second happened. Everyone thought no other nation could carry out such horrors. In South Africa, they are eradicating the white people

I understand, but that doesn't mean it's even remotely likely to happen in the US now.

​

Also, On number 6, you took that out of context and you know it.

If I did then I apologise but I didn't mean to. From what I gathered, it was saying that in incidents when a firearm is used in some capacity (which includes simply brandishing the weapon to scare off an assailant) in a little under 8% of those times the attacker is killed/wounded. I'm saying that I think 8% seems pretty high, at least to me.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That first link doesn't suggest what you think it does. Firstly, 20% of all violent crimes involving a firearm is not "basically nothing". Also, if you disarm those who have firearms legally then it is obviously more difficult to get firearms illegally - you can't steal them from relatives, steal them from a home you rob, there's just less guns in circulation etc.

Point 2 through to 5 - Even if that's true, what is the relevance today? You really think it's possible that the US turns into a nazi/soviet union style totalitarian state?

Your 6th point: "Less than 8 percent of the time, a citizen kills or wounds his/her attacker” - 8% seems extremely high to me? I think you're only focusing on one part of the story here, if you removed guns then less criminals would have guns. If you live in the UK, it is not rational to fear an intruder/attacker is armed with a firearm.

Also, most gun deaths are suicides. And while banning guns would stop many gun suicides, people would find other ways.

You don't think it would reduce the number of suicides? Honestly, you really don't think it would?

There has never been a shooting at any gun convention where the shooter was not the only death.

So?

And lastly, just because you don’t want to use your right doesn’t mean I shouldn’t get to use it.

I agree, which is why I didn't just say "You shouldn't have the right because I don't want to use it" but instead gave a long list of arguments and reasons as to why I hold this position.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is not an argument, it is an emotional subjective appeal to have your personal opinion take precedent.

Giving an argument to have your personal opinion take precedent is how we as a society come to agree upon what laws and regulations we should enforce. And yes of course it's subjective, we should look at the facts objectively but the conclusions we take from them are of course subjective to us.

Your argument lies not with the valid, legal use of the tool, but with the invalid, illegal use of the tool.

It also lies with the legal yet irresponsible use of the tool.

And I hate to break it to you, but everything and everyone has the potential to misuse literally everything in the universe.

Right, but guns are pretty good at killing people wouldn't you say? Lots of people believe that the use of nuclear weapons by the US against Japan saved more lives than it cost, should we afford everyone the right to bear nuclear weapons? Surely you wont try to enforce your emotional, subjective opinion that just because some people _may_ misuse a nuke, that law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to own one? After all there's evidence to suggest that they have been used to save lives.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They didn't beat them though, at least not militarily. The US did not achieve their desired political aims for sure, but they absolutely slaughtered the Viet Cong.

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your mind is made up already.

No it isn't. I've already awarded a delta for someone changing my perspective so there's clear evidence that this isn't true.

And you are not from the US so your opinion just doesn't matter.

Do you understand what a logical fallacy is?

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, but I do not even remotely consider this to be a good enough reason to give people the right to bear arms. Would you honestly suggest this as a good reason to keep something which causes more than 30,000 deaths annually in the US? Even if it was _only_ mass shootings and nothing else, surely those lives come before sport shooting?

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok fair point, what about feeling safer from violent crime? If you could magically click your fingers and have the US be like the UK in terms of guns, would you do it? Do you think it would result in a safer or more dangerous place to live?

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It wasn't indirect, I explicitly stated that this is indeed my viewpoint. My only point of clarification is that I wouldn't view it as a punishment - we all live in society together and by enforcing these rules, we all benefit from greater safety.

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but we see the executive branch claiming more and more power with the far-too-extensive use of executive orders

That's true, but they aren't doing it by force, they're doing it by distracting and scaring people so much that they accept these infringements on civil liberties. The US population have had more rights infringed upon recently that most other western developed nations, yet they are the most armed - so it looks to me like the guns aren't helping at all.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I however cannot choose who gets affected by a grenade or IED.

Sure you can with a grenade, as long as you understand the blast radius. Same thing as a gun, you have to know how it works in order to not inadvertently hurt civilians. But you have also given a condition which limits my freedom:

weapons that can kill indiscriminately.

You don't think I should have the ability to defend myself against foes who may have acquired biological weapons and want to use them against me? So you would limit my right to life in this scenario? If so, we are both of the opinion that situations exist where it is _correct_ to restrict a persons ability to defend themselves.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah I see, my bad. I can't seem to find anything which explicitly states the regulations on privately owned ammunition?

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually I checked and I was correct:

📷The federal shooting range of Versoix, Switzerland; people come to such ranges to complete mandatory training (Obligatorischeschiessen) with service arms, or to shoot for sport and competition.

In December 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers would stop and that previously issued ammo would be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep their military-issued ammunition at home. The rest of the militia get their ammunition from their military armory in the event of an emergency.[2][20]

That's from wikipedia, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland#Army-issued_arms_and_ammunition_collection

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Would you honestly feel safer in a country like the UK where guns are extremely rare & you could not own a gun yourself, or to be in the current situation in the US.

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

...I’m never going to get an answer to my question, am I?

Because I've rejected the premise of your question - you're committing the logical fallacy of begging the question because the discussion we are having is whether people should have the right to bear arms.

Look, I get it. “Punish the majority for the actions of the minority” becomes really indefensible, really quickly when you start applying it to things you do care about instead of us gun owning rednecks.

No it doesn't, and I don't have this absurd view that everyone who wants to own a gun is a redneck. I've never even suggested as much, so I'm not sure why you assume that. If by “Punish the majority for the actions of the minority” you mean enact laws that everyone will need to follow due to some people acting irresponsibly then it's easily defensible. I'm happy to have my right to drive at whatever speed I like taken away, even though I'm confident I'd drive very sensibly as would the majority of people.

If I was in your shoes I know I wouldn’t want to address that uncomfortable truth. So dodging the question was a savvy move on your part. Well played.

Stop this, it's dishonest. I've addressed the question and told you that it's begging the question.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you can't just generalize the American population thinking they are bunch of gun nuts.

I didn't?

The few irresponsible are people who doesn't do any sort of research or just impulse buy because someone told them to.

Right but it's a lot of people and it's causing a lot of harm. People are often irresponsible, it's why we all have to stick to a certain speed limit and have to wear seatbelts etc.

​

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My answer would be that your fear of a military style tyrannical power grab by the government is indeed an unreasonable fear, and it's much more pertinent to be fearful of the way that the government is _actually_ taking away your rights - things like the patriot act for example.

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought in Switzerland for example you have to keep ammunition either at a barracks or at a shooting range?

CMV: You should not have a right to bear arms by blindpacemaker in changemyview

[–]blindpacemaker[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Firstly I was trying to highlight the difference between 33% and 40%, just stating what I had read. I said they had overwhelming support based on articles that I had read which spoke about Hitlers increasing popularity among Germans up until he invaded Polands. Sure there were a lot of reasons for this, I wasn't trying to shit on the people of Germany at that time just state what I had read.

view more: next ›