Umpqua Shooting

admin: I don't think that is absurd. Good parents have a responsibility to teach their children self defense skills at as young an age as possible. This is hunting USA; it is initiation for manhood to go out into the wilderness and hunt a deer down with your father as young as seven.

Blackflag: Even if that were true, that's different from arming all 7-year-olds. And the suggestion that anyone who hasn't gone hunting by the age of 7 isn't "man" enough is misogynistic, myopic, and equally absurd.

admin: Even if that were true, that's different from arming all 7-year-olds.
Well, I am not in favor of force arming people, but I ain't much of a person for force to begin with,

And the suggestion that anyone who hasn't gone hunting by the age of 7 isn't "man"
Okay, but I wasn't trying to suggest this. It is just a ritual for father and son to go hunting that can be compared to other manhood initiation practices in other cultures.

The overlying point here is that a good father will teach his son self defense skills as young an age as possible, including with a firearm, which is a practical tool in which everyone should be educated on how to use.

Blackflag: a good father will teach his son self defense skills as young an age as possible, including with a firearm
So you believe without a firearm a male cannot defend themselves?

admin: I never said or implied that.

But... having good handling and knowledge of firearms is an essential self defense skill in today's age. It was essentially the same concept back when swords, bows, and muskets were the weapons of war.

Blackflag: Essential means you cannot do without it.

admin: Technically it means that, but essential is commonly used as a synonym for important, and in this instance, I am using it as a synonym for a very important skill,

Blackflag: To say that you "never said or implied" something that, quite literally, means exactly what I said it does, is extremely dishonest.

admin: If you say so, but what is your point?

My point are that firearms are a tool, which when used properly, can increase ones chances of survival. Therefore this becomes an important skill that I believe everyone should have knowledge of.

Blackflag: I think the proliferation of arms generally ends more lives than it saves. I for one just don't see the importance.

And that the point where you say everyone, as opposed to most people again, the argument just becomes absurd.

admin: I think the proliferation of arms generally ends more lives than it saves.
What is your argument though?

I for one just don't see the importance.
I see it as an issue of whether the government should or should not allow its subjects to possess a tool in which gives people the power to better defend themselves.

That is, in my book, pretty important.

And that the point where you say everyone, as opposed to most people again, the argument just becomes absurd.

To make what I was trying to say more clear; I would vouch for everyone's right to own a gun if it meant that my own ownership of firearms was not limited. Sure, you can make rules and regulations to control who recieves a firearm, but a policy of micromanaging people just creates precedent for the government to abuse its power in the future.

admin: Also I am totally fine if firearm proliferation ends more life than it saves, as long as I know I am more powerful with a firearm than without one.

Blackflag: I feel like the fact some people would defend a policy at the expense of other's lives is one of the strongest moral arguments against gun control.

admin: Well argue it then.

I think it is a pretty universal argument that I made. Alcohol prohibition definitely saved more lifes in the long run, but at the expense of liberty. Many people who use alcohol are educated on the risks and responcible for their consumption, therefore should not be punished on behalf of those lacking the same mental skillsets to survive in an Alcohol dominated world.

The same principle applies with firearms. I am more empowered, and better able to protect myself with a firearm. If other people are not, that is okay with me, but they cannot claim they did not have the same time and opportunity that I did to learn.

Blackflag: You know me. I nowadays save my arguing for debates. People have a way of ignoring my points on forums.

p.s all this is irrelevant anyways since gun control actually ends more lives than it saves, but just trying to show that my argument doesn't really take into account this to me it is also irrelevant

admin: That might be because you are not good at debating in this kind of setting.

Oh well, I am marking this as one of my victories.

Blackflag: Or it might because because the setting allows for bad debating. It's hardly a victory if the other side refused to compete.

ColeTrain: No, gun ownership doesn't cause the shootings.

But the proliferation of firearms, especially those assumed at shooting people rather than animals certainly facilitates it.

The cause is much more complex and is not my concern here. If people are going to get angry at society, it's far better to be in a place where it is harder for them to access firearms than a place where they're just everywhere

nzlockie: What about the concept of self defense? If guns are *too* hard to obtain, "normal" citizens would have a much harder time getting them and ultimately defending themselves against them.