• 83 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

I've been listening to all the anti-gun arguments. Clearly, many of you feel that if we just made dangerous guns illegal the crime rate would decrease. This led me to a major revelation; the comic book universes should just make superpowers illegal.

Think about it.

Batman should be forced to give up all his advanced tech and weaponry, mutants should be turned into humans, (or at bare minimum, they should be registered) Tony Stark should give up his armor, and Superman, if he will not cease using his powers, should be put in a kryptonite cage. Sure, these heroes might complain that they have rights and they might claim that they only want to use their powers for good, but why would any law abiding citizen need to be able to bust through a wall or shoot lasers from their face. Haven't we had enough Coast City's and Bludhavens? If we just make powers illegal, then all the super villains will give up their powers, and we can all feel safer.

If a hero insists on keeping his power, he or she can be registered and agree to work for the government and do exactly what they say, and all law abiding citizens can live securely knowing that if anybody dares disobey the law, they will be crushed. After all, no honorable person could possibly resit because they would have no powers.

It just makes sense.

Pro-Registration. Depowerment to the people!

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

#2 Posted by Super_C (710 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not giving up my powers =]

#3 Posted by CptPanda29 (211 posts) - - Show Bio

Watch The Incredibles.

#4 Posted by Super_C (710 posts) - - Show Bio

ii just wanna add that i know exactly why you wrote this. you're a genius.

#5 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27290 posts) - - Show Bio

guns are made only to kill

#6 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@CptPanda29 said:

Watch The Incredibles.

???@Super_C said:

ii just wanna add that i know exactly why you wrote this. you're a genius.

Thank you, sir.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

guns are made only to kill

Who is talking about guns? We are talking about powers which are used almost exclusively for violent purposes. Sure, they can be used for self-defense or even non-violent purposes, but we all know powers are really just about killing.

Down with freedom! Give up your power, I mean powers!

#7 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27290 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch: you are, hence "for the anti gun pepole"

#8 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@BatWatch: you are, hence "for the anti gun pepole"

Right, I wanted to praise the gun haters logic and apply it to a new scenario to show the gun haters how much sense their idea makes, but this is about super powers, silly, not guns. The point is that if you make it illegal for people to use their powers, then all the criminals will be powerless because criminals, as we know, love to follow the law. It's genius. Celebrate this with me. We will soon have a society where no one, criminal or hero, will have any power. Yaaaay!

#9 Posted by TheAmazingImmortalMan (2510 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch:

#10 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27290 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch: your first mistake was thinking comic books equate to real life your second is thinking having more "power" makes you safer

#11 Posted by LordMaverick (5186 posts) - - Show Bio
#12 Edited by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@BatWatch: your first mistake was thinking comic books equate to real life your second is thinking having more "power" makes you safer

Gosh, no. I don't know how you keep misunderstanding me. Clearly, comic books are not real, but of course they need to have some semblance of reality. However, you might be right in this case. For instance, I suspect, and I know this is crazy comic book stuff, but I think that if they made powers illegal, villains like Doc Ock, Joker, Dr. Doom, Parasite...I think in the comics, they might continue to use their powers and abilities for evil. (laughs) Clearly, that is just comic craziness because we all know that in real life, criminals have the utmost respect for the law. If they, just for example, made guns illegal, all the real life criminals would immediately turn in all their weapons! Only a crazy person would think they might continue to do bad things with weapons.

And as for power making you safer? Absolutely not! The safest place you can be is completely without power. History has never, ever shown that people with superior weapons and resources would abuse their power. The best way to ensure happiness and freedom is to have absolutely no way to defend yourself. Totally obvious!

Look at this quote I heard from a domestic terrorist! "Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Wow! What a nut job that guy is. The best way to preserve liberty is to have as little of it as possible...at least that is what I learned from the anti-gun crowd! Smart people!

@TheAmazingImmortalMan said:

@BatWatch:

Thank you, thank you kind sir. Hey, I'd love it if you would check out my site, BatWatch.net. All about Batman...not much on politics, but if you like my writing, hopefully, you will like BatWatch.

@Super_C:

Some thing as I said to Amazing Immortal Man above.

#13 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (27290 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch: right so pepole still rape murder and steal even though that's against the law so lets just make that legal shall we? anyway I'm done with this topic and your blogs

#14 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@BatWatch: right so pepole still rape murder and steal even though that's against the law so lets just make that legal shall we? anyway I'm done with this topic and your blogs

By gun-hater logic, we do not make anything that hurts an innocent person legal. That would be crazy! We just take away the power of everybody to use any sort of power for either good or evil. To prevent murder, we remove powers. To prevent rape, we remove genitalia. It's all quite logical.

In all sincerity, I find your unwillingness to follow this topic or my blog because of my politcal stance sad. Part of it is because I want as many people to enjoy BatWatch.net as possible, but a larger part is that it is evidence of general lack of tolerance that has become common in our society. I have demonstrated an opinion that you do not like, so you decide not to listen, but how can you ever grow as a person like that? I listen to all points of view, and I often learn from others. Not only do you not listen to this one train of thought, you have decided to boycott all my writings. This is as petty and silly as the people who stopped eating at the diner of the guy who bear hugged President Obama. You should be better than that, but if you are not, then I do not want you to be part of the BatWatch community.

#15 Posted by InnerVenom123 (29330 posts) - - Show Bio

I admire your capacity for lulz.

#16 Posted by lagoon_boy (10951 posts) - - Show Bio

If Superman didn't have powers, the criminals would retire from their antics? Genius! I applaud you good sir.

#17 Posted by Nefarious (17622 posts) - - Show Bio

What good would that be and do? A hero's powers and weapons make the hero.

#18 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@InnerVenom123 said:

I admire your capacity for lulz.

Gracias.

@lagoon_boy said:

If Superman didn't have powers, the criminals would retire from their antics? Genius! I applaud you good sir.

I know, it's so obvious its surprising it took us this long to figure it out. I blame it on the domestic terrorists who founded this country. (tongue in cheek) Those nut jobs believe in liberty for the individual or some such nonsense.

@Nefarious said:

What good would that be and do? A hero's powers and weapons make the hero.

Quite true. I believe there is some subtext in my OP that you might not have caught. However, I do agree in all sincerity that a hero without powers is not much of a hero...more like a victim.

#19 Posted by Nefarious (17622 posts) - - Show Bio
@BatWatch: Which part of your subtext?
#20 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@Nefarious said:

@BatWatch: Which part of your subtext?

(good natured grin) I was drawing a comparison between the idea of taking away everybody guns will solve gun crimes to taking away peoples superpowers to solve super crime. There are many things that can be learned from the example but three of my favorites are A. It is wrong to take away the rights of good people to try to fix problems with the bad people B. Criminals will continue to use guns whether or not they are illegal, and C. Taking away guns from good people remove the biggest obstacle to gun crime.

#21 Posted by Nefarious (17622 posts) - - Show Bio
@BatWatch: I see.
#22 Posted by _Cain_ (23368 posts) - - Show Bio

HA! Good Point.

As a Libertarian/Occasional Anarchist, I Believe in absolutely ZERO Restrictions on gun laws.

#23 Posted by lagoon_boy (10951 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch: I highly doubt Joker would continue his antics if Batman would deposit his gadgets to the government. Joker would probably help kids cross the street if this would happen.

#24 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@shadowknight666 said:

HA! Good Point.

As a Libertarian/Occasional Anarchist, I Believe in absolutely ZERO Restrictions on gun laws.

Agreed, and I am also a Libertarian though I have no interest in anarchy.

If you like my writing, you might like my blog dedicated to the Bat family, BatWatch.net. I hope you check it out.

@lagoon_boy said:

@BatWatch: I highly doubt Joker would continue his antics if Batman would deposit his gadgets to the government. Joker would probably help kids cross the street if this would happen.

I'm glad we have another reasonable person on board. (grins)

#25 Posted by StMichalofWilson (3403 posts) - - Show Bio

@CptPanda29 said:

Watch The Incredibles.

Well the movie kinda makes sense.

#26 Posted by JonSmith (3793 posts) - - Show Bio

TEMPLAR!

#27 Posted by nerdork (3481 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch: You, good, witty and intelligent sir, have earned a follower...both here and BatWatch.net.

Thank you for putting my aneurysm at ease...i cant stand the 16 y/o bleeding heart, that has no understanding of anything outside of their internet learned obtuseness (thats a word...right?).

Banning any-'things' = law abiding citizens without said things and criminals still obtaining them illegally.

#28 Posted by SC (11937 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch said:

Clearly, many of you feel that if we just made dangerous guns illegal the crime rate would decrease. This led me to a major revelation; the comic book universes should just make superpowers illegal.

Is it really that clear? I honestly haven't seen many opinions where people are like "if only we make guns illegal or ban guns then everything will be hunky dory awesome with peaches and cream and gold butterscotch rain drops that massage your face" because even though I disagree with just ban on guns, its only one part of a multi part solution involving and this is important, reducing guns. As far as what opinions I see, excluding just assuming their stances. Since forgetting for the moment how to go about that, and just accepting that it would happen, in some way, less guns equals less problems.

Now if there are any people who just think that just signing a piece of paper will magically make things safe, then yeah, thats a pretty easy argument to knock down, almost too easy, sort of like a strawman argument in which case why not address the tougher arguments?

Moderator
#29 Posted by lagoon_boy (10951 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch: Ahahaha.

#30 Posted by redbird3rdboywonder (3611 posts) - - Show Bio

Guns are for ***** <censored> anyway

#31 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (19489 posts) - - Show Bio

The only thing that will achieve is no more Joker. It pales in comparison though compared to Darkseid, Doomsday, etc.

#32 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@nerdork said:

@BatWatch: You, good, witty and intelligent sir, have earned a follower...both here and BatWatch.net.

Thank you for putting my aneurysm at ease...i cant stand the 16 y/o bleeding heart, that has no understanding of anything outside of their internet learned obtuseness (thats a word...right?).

Banning any-'things' = law abiding citizens without said things and criminals still obtaining them illegally.

I know, and I have yet to have any progressive respond to that point.

Obtuteness if a word, and a quite fitting word in this case.

Let me know what you think of BatWatch.net. It's been a little slow recently with a no comic week and my computer giving me trouble, but things will be picking back up soon. @SC said:

@BatWatch said:

Clearly, many of you feel that if we just made dangerous guns illegal the crime rate would decrease. This led me to a major revelation; the comic book universes should just make superpowers illegal.

Is it really that clear? I honestly haven't seen many opinions where people are like "if only we make guns illegal or ban guns then everything will be hunky dory awesome with peaches and cream and gold butterscotch rain drops that massage your face" because even though I disagree with just ban on guns, its only one part of a multi part solution involving and this is important, reducing guns. As far as what opinions I see, excluding just assuming their stances. Since forgetting for the moment how to go about that, and just accepting that it would happen, in some way, less guns equals less problems.

Now if there are any people who just think that just signing a piece of paper will magically make things safe, then yeah, thats a pretty easy argument to knock down, almost too easy, sort of like a strawman argument in which case why not address the tougher arguments?

If there is a strong pro-gun argument you would like me to address, I will, but honeslty, I do not see a strong pro-gun argument. It is almost completley an instinctual, gut reaction to give up freedom for a hollow promise of increased safety. I don't believe that I ever said that banning guns would make things all better or that other people believe that though many people have stated that idea.

I feell like I missed part of your point. If there is anything you would like me to address, I will do so gladly.

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek said:

The only thing that will achieve is no more Joker. It pales in comparison though compared to Darkseid, Doomsday, etc.

No, no! Darkseid will not be a threat because he cannot use his powers in the U.S. because powers will be illegal.

#33 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17123 posts) - - Show Bio

This is a very false equivalency.

#34 Posted by mk111 (3136 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch said:

@nerdork said:

@BatWatch: You, good, witty and intelligent sir, have earned a follower...both here and BatWatch.net.

Thank you for putting my aneurysm at ease...i cant stand the 16 y/o bleeding heart, that has no understanding of anything outside of their internet learned obtuseness (thats a word...right?).

Banning any-'things' = law abiding citizens without said things and criminals still obtaining them illegally.

I know, and I have yet to have any progressive respond to that point.

Obtuteness if a word, and a quite fitting word in this case.

Let me know what you think of BatWatch.net. It's been a little slow recently with a no comic week and my computer giving me trouble, but things will be picking back up soon. @SC said:

@BatWatch said:

Clearly, many of you feel that if we just made dangerous guns illegal the crime rate would decrease. This led me to a major revelation; the comic book universes should just make superpowers illegal.

Is it really that clear? I honestly haven't seen many opinions where people are like "if only we make guns illegal or ban guns then everything will be hunky dory awesome with peaches and cream and gold butterscotch rain drops that massage your face" because even though I disagree with just ban on guns, its only one part of a multi part solution involving and this is important, reducing guns. As far as what opinions I see, excluding just assuming their stances. Since forgetting for the moment how to go about that, and just accepting that it would happen, in some way, less guns equals less problems.

Now if there are any people who just think that just signing a piece of paper will magically make things safe, then yeah, thats a pretty easy argument to knock down, almost too easy, sort of like a strawman argument in which case why not address the tougher arguments?

If there is a strong pro-gun argument you would like me to address, I will, but honeslty, I do not see a strong pro-gun argument. It is almost completley an instinctual, gut reaction to give up freedom for a hollow promise of increased safety. I don't believe that I ever said that banning guns would make things all better or that other people believe that though many people have stated that idea.

I feell like I missed part of your point. If there is anything you would like me to address, I will do so gladly.

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek said:

The only thing that will achieve is no more Joker. It pales in comparison though compared to Darkseid, Doomsday, etc.

No, no! Darkseid will not be a threat because he cannot use his powers in the U.S. because powers will be illegal.

But why would Darkside care about something like the law? And Doomsday is mindless, and he probably can't read.

#35 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3314 posts) - - Show Bio

This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!"
 
The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

#36 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3314 posts) - - Show Bio
@Glitch_Spawn said:

This is a very false equivalency.

This, too.
#37 Posted by SC (11937 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch said:

If there is a strong pro-gun argument you would like me to address, I will, but honeslty, I do not see a strong pro-gun argument. It is almost completley an instinctual, gut reaction to give up freedom for a hollow promise of increased safety. I don't believe that I ever said that banning guns would make things all better or that other people believe that though many people have stated that idea.

I feell like I missed part of your point. If there is anything you would like me to address, I will do so gladly.

Hi sorry. I thought you were pro guns? I was not talking about any strong arguments in either sense, but pointing out the idea of weak arguments and addressing weak arguments. Do you not think that its a weak argument that only, emphasis on only banning guns is anyones sole argument?

Thats like saying that a some of the best arguments for a person arguing against weight loss is that people trying to lose weight should only eat less (instead of say eat less and exercise more)

In your post you say that "Clearly, many of you feel that if we just made dangerous guns illegal the crime rate would decrease." and I am skeptical of this. I hardly see anyone so naive without it simply being a projection or assumption.

Hope that helps and thanks for the reply.

Moderator
#38 Posted by SC (11937 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kal'smahboi said:

This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!" The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

Great argument you make, water - if people drink an excess of water they can die. You can kill people with water. That doesn't mean people want to ban water. Water has much more value, and necessity and is utilized and functions in more ways than a gun. Similar relationship between any two objects or concepts. Like you could argue that there is more merit to banning a person from owning a nuclear bomb compared to owning a gun. A gun has more uses than a nuclear bomb. Cars and knives likewise have more functions relative to a gun. Anyway its more complicated than that obviously - good and fun for discussion.

Moderator
#39 Edited by BiteMe-Fanboy (7118 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kal'smahboi said:

This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!" The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

What about alcohol? Making alcohol illegal because it contributes to over 10,000 deaths a year (drunk driving) pretty much sh*ts on all the responsible drinkers of alcohol.

Same with responsible gun owners. Guns have way more purpose than alcohol does. Alcohol's sole purpose is to get drunk. Guns can be used for hunting, skeet shooting, and all others kind of shooting sports. I own my guns for those purpose, I didn't buy a gun for self defense.

#40 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3314 posts) - - Show Bio
@SC said:

@Kal'smahboi said:

This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!" The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

Great argument you make, water - if people drink an excess of water they can die. You can kill people with water. That doesn't mean people want to ban water. Water has much more value, and necessity and is utilized and functions in more ways than a gun. Similar relationship between any two objects or concepts. Like you could argue that there is more merit to banning a person from owning a nuclear bomb compared to owning a gun. A gun has more uses than a nuclear bomb. Cars and knives likewise have more functions relative to a gun. Anyway its more complicated than that obviously - good and fun for discussion.

I agree. I'm not saying that it validates gun bans or anything, I just think that it negates the ridiculous "knives are dangerous, too!" argument.
 
@BiteMe-Fanboy: See above, please.
#41 Posted by nick_hero22 (6314 posts) - - Show Bio

This is silly

#42 Edited by nick_hero22 (6314 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch said:

@nerdork said:

@BatWatch: You, good, witty and intelligent sir, have earned a follower...both here and BatWatch.net.

Thank you for putting my aneurysm at ease...i cant stand the 16 y/o bleeding heart, that has no understanding of anything outside of their internet learned obtuseness (thats a word...right?).

Banning any-'things' = law abiding citizens without said things and criminals still obtaining them illegally.

I know, and I have yet to have any progressive respond to that point.

Obtuteness if a word, and a quite fitting word in this case.

Let me know what you think of BatWatch.net. It's been a little slow recently with a no comic week and my computer giving me trouble, but things will be picking back up soon. @SC said:

@BatWatch said:

Clearly, many of you feel that if we just made dangerous guns illegal the crime rate would decrease. This led me to a major revelation; the comic book universes should just make superpowers illegal.

Is it really that clear? I honestly haven't seen many opinions where people are like "if only we make guns illegal or ban guns then everything will be hunky dory awesome with peaches and cream and gold butterscotch rain drops that massage your face" because even though I disagree with just ban on guns, its only one part of a multi part solution involving and this is important, reducing guns. As far as what opinions I see, excluding just assuming their stances. Since forgetting for the moment how to go about that, and just accepting that it would happen, in some way, less guns equals less problems.

Now if there are any people who just think that just signing a piece of paper will magically make things safe, then yeah, thats a pretty easy argument to knock down, almost too easy, sort of like a strawman argument in which case why not address the tougher arguments?

If there is a strong pro-gun argument you would like me to address, I will, but honeslty, I do not see a strong pro-gun argument. It is almost completley an instinctual, gut reaction to give up freedom for a hollow promise of increased safety. I don't believe that I ever said that banning guns would make things all better or that other people believe that though many people have stated that idea.

I feell like I missed part of your point. If there is anything you would like me to address, I will do so gladly.

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek said:

The only thing that will achieve is no more Joker. It pales in comparison though compared to Darkseid, Doomsday, etc.

No, no! Darkseid will not be a threat because he cannot use his powers in the U.S. because powers will be illegal.

You can address me.

http://www.comicvine.com/forums/off-topic/5/obama-calls-for-assault-weapons-ban/717993/#265

#43 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@Glitch_Spawn said:

This is a very false equivalency.

Nobody said they were equivelant, but it is the same type of solution for violent crime and it illustrates how poorly it would work. There are many things that can be learned from the example but three of my favorites are A. It is wrong to take away the rights of good people to try to fix problems with the bad people B. Criminals will continue to use guns whether or not they are illegal, and C. Taking away guns from good people remove the biggest obstacle to gun crime.

It is easy to say it is a false equivalency, (which it is not since i never said they were the same thing just similar) but can you explain how any of my conclusions are wrong regarding either powers or guns.

@mk111:

Good poins. (grins) I was drawing a comparison between the fictional world and the real world substituting the progressive philsophy on gun control for powers control. None of us would believe a story that that the govenrment made powers illegal and super powered crime stopped, yet progressives want us to think that gun crime will stop by making guns illegal. Few people would root for a story which idealized a government that forced all people with powers to work for them, but many people celebrate the idea that government should be the only one with the power of firearms. I was just trying to take the scales off peoples' eyes a little.

@Kal'smahboi said:

This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!" The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

All of my friends own guns. All of them have used guns. None of them have killed anybody. Is your argument so faulty there are spring coming out of it?

However, I agree that guns are primarily designed to kill. The reason the second ammendment was put into the Constitution was to keep the power (yes, the power to kill) with the citizens and not the government, so that if the govenrment tried to abuse its power (as it always does) the citizens will be able to fight back by killing the tyrants.

However, that is not what the whole "powers" idea is supposed to represent. The purpose behind the second ammenment is a separate issue. This powers idea is designed to show A. It is wrong to take away the rights of good people to try to fix problems with the bad people B. Criminals will continue to use guns whether or not they are illegal, and C. Taking away guns from good people remove the biggest obstacle to gun crime.

@SC:

No problem. I think I see where we got confused in our back and forth. First, my OP was meant to mock the idea that more gun control equals less crime. Second, I am not saying that progressgives believe gun restrictions will end crime but that it will decrease crime. That is not to say that progressives believe that is the only step we should take to end crime, but that is certainly something they think will decease it, or they would have no reason to suggest it.

@nick_hero22:

Hey Nick, I poked around that thread a little, but I did not see any comment from you. If there is one in particular you want me to address, please tell me where it is in the thread or post it here.

#44 Posted by SC (11937 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch said:

No problem. I think I see where we got confused in our back and forth. First, my OP was meant to mock the idea that more gun control equals less crime. Second, I am not saying that progressgives believe gun restrictions will end crime but that it will decrease crime. That is not to say that progressives believe that is the only step we should take to end crime, but that is certainly something they think will decease it, or they would have no reason to suggest it.

Cheers.

Oh I understood your satire, I was just being hypercritical of your particular wording. I mean even now for example, what does "gun control" mean in your context? I mean you don't have to be on any side of the gun debate to know that depending what is meant by gun control that it could be a completely factual truth that gun control could/would equal less crime depending on what "gun control" entails.

For me it just seemed like setting up a strawman argument to knock it down. Which is a perfectly fine thing to do especially with satire but overall doesn't tend to advance the discussion for anyone. (not that I haven't noticed your much more substantial arguments on the subject) Cheers again.

Moderator
#45 Posted by Sideslash (5906 posts) - - Show Bio

You want my powers? You can't have them! They're mine!

#46 Posted by nick_hero22 (6314 posts) - - Show Bio

@BatWatch said:

@Glitch_Spawn said:

This is a very false equivalency.

Nobody said they were equivelant, but it is the same type of solution for violent crime and it illustrates how poorly it would work. There are many things that can be learned from the example but three of my favorites are A. It is wrong to take away the rights of good people to try to fix problems with the bad people B. Criminals will continue to use guns whether or not they are illegal, and C. Taking away guns from good people remove the biggest obstacle to gun crime.

It is easy to say it is a false equivalency, (which it is not since i never said they were the same thing just similar) but can you explain how any of my conclusions are wrong regarding either powers or guns.

@mk111:

Good poins. (grins) I was drawing a comparison between the fictional world and the real world substituting the progressive philsophy on gun control for powers control. None of us would believe a story that that the govenrment made powers illegal and super powered crime stopped, yet progressives want us to think that gun crime will stop by making guns illegal. Few people would root for a story which idealized a government that forced all people with powers to work for them, but many people celebrate the idea that government should be the only one with the power of firearms. I was just trying to take the scales off peoples' eyes a little.

@Kal'smahboi said:

This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!" The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

All of my friends own guns. All of them have used guns. None of them have killed anybody. Is your argument so faulty there are spring coming out of it?

However, I agree that guns are primarily designed to kill. The reason the second ammendment was put into the Constitution was to keep the power (yes, the power to kill) with the citizens and not the government, so that if the govenrment tried to abuse its power (as it always does) the citizens will be able to fight back by killing the tyrants.

However, that is not what the whole "powers" idea is supposed to represent. The purpose behind the second ammenment is a separate issue. This powers idea is designed to show A. It is wrong to take away the rights of good people to try to fix problems with the bad people B. Criminals will continue to use guns whether or not they are illegal, and C. Taking away guns from good people remove the biggest obstacle to gun crime.

@SC:

No problem. I think I see where we got confused in our back and forth. First, my OP was meant to mock the idea that more gun control equals less crime. Second, I am not saying that progressgives believe gun restrictions will end crime but that it will decrease crime. That is not to say that progressives believe that is the only step we should take to end crime, but that is certainly something they think will decease it, or they would have no reason to suggest it.

@nick_hero22:

Hey Nick, I poked around that thread a little, but I did not see any comment from you. If there is one in particular you want me to address, please tell me where it is in the thread or post it here.

Try the link again

#47 Posted by Agent9149 (2888 posts) - - Show Bio

Well yes, in a comic book world if you want everyone to be safe you should take away their powers but, if in a comic book world, if everyone is safe then it wouldn't be a good comic.

#48 Posted by Kal'smahboi (3314 posts) - - Show Bio
@BatWatch said:
@Kal'smahboi said:
This is the same dumb argument as "well, you should outlaw knives and automobiles, too, since both of them can be used to kill!" The difference is that, while knives and cars were invented for productive purposes, guns have no productive purpose. Knives are used in arts and crafts and in the kitchen. Cars are used to move people from place to place quickly. Guns are, always have been, and always will be used to cause bodily harm to the living. They have no other purpose. The argument (argument by comparison) is so faulty there are sparks coming out of it.

All of my friends own guns. All of them have used guns. None of them have killed anybody. Is your argument so faulty there are spring coming out of it?

However, I agree that guns are primarily designed to kill. The reason the second ammendment was put into the Constitution was to keep the power (yes, the power to kill) with the citizens and not the government, so that if the govenrment tried to abuse its power (as it always does) the citizens will be able to fight back by killing the tyrants.

However, that is not what the whole "powers" idea is supposed to represent. The purpose behind the second ammenment is a separate issue. This powers idea is designed to show A. It is wrong to take away the rights of good people to try to fix problems with the bad people B. Criminals will continue to use guns whether or not they are illegal, and C. Taking away guns from good people remove the biggest obstacle to gun crime.

All that my argument does is dismantle yours. What I said above does not validate anti-gun ideology or law changes. It just demonstrates that your specific anti-anti-gun argument is faulty.
 
I really could go on about how I disagree with the second amendment and think that it should be replaced with something more specific and how every single one of the recent mass shootings were done by people who obtained firearms legally OR took them from someone who did, whom we as a country entrusted with the great responsibility. In either case, the system failed or the "responsible gun owner" failed. Something needs to change. Stop bringing the argument to an all or none impasse, because few rational people and close to zero politicians are trying to destroy your precious right to bear arms completely. So PLEASE, stop being so defensive and understand that the argument needs to come to HOW WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THIS BROKEN SYSTEM.
#49 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22:

Ah, well, I did see some comments from you. I guess I will respond to this comment.

"The 2nd Amendment needs to be discarded because it is absolutely irrelevant to today's society and is completely out of touch with the modern world."

We will come back to this at the end of the analysis of your argument.

"The Police Department is well equipped with the necessary training and gear to prevent most criminal activity if reported,:

True. Of course if you are being attacked, you will almost certainly be dead before a police officer would be able to arrive at your home, but it is nice to know that the criminal would be arrested after you and your loved ones are dead.

"if you are fearful of a intruder in your home then buy an alarm which is like what $10 a month to have it uplinked to a local precinct and I could guarantee that 99.9% of the time an alarm going off would deter most criminals (most criminals would quickly flee the scene)"

I agree that most criminals would flee the scene if an alarm went off, and that you could buy a good alarm system for the same price as a decent gun. The problems I see with this off the top of my head are four fold. 1. Not all criminals would flee. 2. If someone's intent were to kill you, they could still easily get in, kill you, and leave before cops are likely to even be in the neighborhood. It only takes a few seconds. 3. There are professional criminals who would be able to beat the system. 4. This only protects your house when you are asleep. Nobody arms there house during the day when family is going in and out all the time.

"and you can also minimize the risk of a intrusion by properly securing you home."

Unless you are planning on eliminating windows, I don't see how you can keep people out.

"Just by having a gun doesn't always means that you are safe."

No, and just by having anti-venom doesn't mean that you are safe, but if the right situation arises such as being bitten by a snake, then you are much safer having the anti-venom than not.

"What if the robbers see you with the gun and shoots you first, which could be avoided if you had an alarm."

What if a robber sees a police officer with a gun and shoots first? By your logic, we should disarm cops so they will have no fear of being shot by robbers. If someone is intent to hurt you, it is always better to be armed than unarmed.

"Even if the government went rogue and turned on its citizen then the government went rogue and turned on its citizen, there nothing no one would be able to do about. To think that a group of hillbillies with shotguns could even be considered a nuisance to the most powerful Military to the world who has stealth bombers, tanks, high-tech assault weaponry, bulletproof armor and vehicle, drones, and smart missiles is retarded."

Al Qaeda stood up against the Russian milita and won. It stood up to the U.S. military and is still standing. They do not have any of the weapons you mentioned.

However, I agree that the govenrment would trounce the U.S. citizenry if it came to a straight up war between the people vs. the U.S. army. That is why the people should be better armed so we are not all at the mercy of govenrment overlords. You have just made a great case as to why the Second Amendment is even more important than ever because now the govenrment has much more military might.

"This Amendment was relievant during the time of its creation"

The second amendment was always about keeping the power with the people and not the govenrments. Nothing more. Nothing less.

"when people were a lot more isolated"

Not relevant in the slightest to keeping the power with the people rather than the government.

"and didn't have police departments,"

Not relevant in the slightest to keeping the power with the people rather than the government. Also, untrue.

"modern technology,"

If anything, the amount of technology that the government has exclusive access to just increases the need for people to be able to resist abuse.

"and the government had much less power in terms of military force, during that time a band of citizens who were armed could cause a problem to there government,

That is true, and that is all the more reason for people to be more armed so that the govenrment does not take over the people.

"but that is virtually impossible now."

Nonsense. If the American people all had access to the same weapons as the U.S. government, they would be able to overwhelm government forces easily.

"This Amendment needs to be discarded in favor of another Amendment that would allow the citizens of the United States to exert more influence in terms of the way they are governed, so people can have a much bigger say so in terms of the laws that are created by Congress."

That is a goal not a plan. What is your plan to give people better say in the government? Furthermore, how does this do anything to fix the gun violence problem?

"Guns cause way more problems then what they actually fix, this should be very obvious based off previous news."

Just the opposite is true. A gunman shot up a school in the past month. Every citizen there was denied their right to defend themselves. Twenty-six died. A gunman shot up a police station in the past month, a place full of armed citizens. Only three died. You can't stop evil people from doing evil things, but you can stop them a lot faster if people are armed. Gun control really started in the 1960's. Number of school shootings before 1960's? Zero. When people were free to carry guns wherever they chose, there was almost no gun crime.

The facts are not on your side.

Coming back to your original statement, "The 2nd Amendment needs to be discarded because it is absolutely irrelevant to today's society and is completely out of touch with the modern world."

Essentially, you said that the 2nd Amendment needs to be thrown away because 1. You can protect yourself better without a gun. Can you take measures to keep yourself safe without a gun? Yes. Are these measures better than a gun, no. Sure, alarms can be helpful, but you can get those with a gun too. You are safer with the extra protection.

You said that the 2nd Amendment needs to be thrown away because 2. the police will protect you. Sure, once they get there, police would protect you, but that will be five minutes later if you are extremely lucky which is about four and a half mintues longer than it would take to break in and stab or shoot you and four minutes longer than it would take for a man to break in and simply beat a woman or child to death. Police will catch the bad guy for you, but they will not protect you.

You said that the 2nd Amendment needs to be thrown away because 3. the government could never be resisted anyway because it is too powerful. If that is true, then we need to fix that by giving more power to the people which is exactly what guns do.

Conclusion: The 2nd Amenment is just as important now as it ever was. It is the right of the individual to have the power to defend themselves against all enemies foreign and domestic, and guns allow citizens to do just that.

#50 Posted by BatWatch (2332 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kal'smahboi:

Notice that you are yelling at me, yet you are blaming people like me for not being willing to solve the problem.

Kal, fact are not on your side. Gun control was really started in the 1960's. Before that, there were no mass shootings at schools, and as far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong) no mass shootings of inncoent civilians in all the United States history. When people were allowed to have guns with them at all times, criminals were not able to kill a bunch of people before someone put them down, and most of the time, those nuts didn't even try it. So far, no gun hater has ever even attempted to address this point. Since gun control was enacted, mass shootings have soared.

You asked of a solution and here it is. Let people be free. Specifically, let people be free to defend themselves with their second amendment right. There are never any mass shootings at police precints or NRA meetings because if anybody tries them, they get put down quickly, and most criminals will not even try in these situations. Let people be free. It saddens me that people are arguing to have their rights stripped away.

You did not dismantle my point. You dismanted the point you thought I was making in the OP. When I explained the points I was really making, you ignored them and bragged about how you dismantled my argument so successfully. Think man! Actually listen and respond. I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but have the intellectual honestly to reason. God man! Are country is screwed if we don't try to listen to each other.