"Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers)

[Sci]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

^ Umm - guns are dangerous.

Guns can be dangerous, but they are not inherently so. A gun has to be loaded and then pointed pointed at a person to be dangerous.

Now, that's not to say that they should not be treated as the weapons they are. They have to be used responsibly. But that's hardly something that is beyond the capacity of a responsible adult -- my mother grew up in a household were guns were present, and because everyone was taught gun safety, not once was anyone injured by a gun, and not once did a gun ever endanger anyone unintentionally.

There was one incident in which a gun had to be used, and it illustrates the point about the right to use a firearm defensively quite well. One evening, when my mother and aunt were teenagers, a young man who was high on meth had threatened a friend of my aunt's at a party. They both left and came home. The man followed them and attempted to break in; my grandmother called the police and they chased him away. A short time later, he returned; my grandmother called the police again, they chased him away, and they left. Then, a short time later, the young man returned again, attempting to break the door down and threatening everyone inside. My grandmother had everyone go upstairs, pulled out a firearm, stood at the top of the stairs, called outside to warn the young man that she had a gun, and phoned the police to inform them that this man was trying to break into her home for the third time that night, he was threatening everyone in the house, and that she had a gun and would use it to defend her family and guest if he attempted to go up the stairs. The police finally decided to show up and actually do more than just chase this guy off.

That was the only time anyone in my mother's family ever so much as threatened to use a gun on anyone, and it was completely responsible and completely just of them to do so in that situation. The man was a clear danger and they had a right to engage in self-defense if the police could not be relied upon.

Bottom line: A gun is not something that is inherently dangerous, and it can be used responsibly by the vast majority of citizens. I don't disagree that there are some people who should not be allowed access to guns and that gun control laws should be tougher. But let's not pretend that gun ownership is something that inherently violates other people's rights, either.

Starkers wrote:

---

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...with guns!

People can kill people with knives, too. People can kill people with their bare hands. But just as knife ownership does not inherently violate someone else's rights, neither does gun ownership. Owning a gun is not the same thing as assaulting someone; owning a knife is not the same thing as assaulting someone; knowing a martial art is not the same thing as assaulting someone.

If society is predicated upon the idea that people have a right to do anything that does not violate someone else's rights, then people have a right to own weapons and that's all there is to it.

captcalhoun wrote:

---

guns = gays. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

Insofar as homosexuality and gun ownership are both things which violate no one else's rights but which others try to restrict on the basis of personal dislike, yes.

[Captaindemotion]

^ A gun is DESIGNED to be dangerous. It's raison d'etre is to kill, maim and destroy.

With rights come responsibilities. The dangers inherent in widespread gun ownership - as shown by the ratio of US gun deaths when compared with the UK or other countries - outweigh any benefits the individual may derive from ownership.

[Neroon]

I am going to temporarily close and pin this thread so that everyone participating can see this note without excuse.

Please keep the discussion centered on the original topic of "Children of Earth" & the Right to Bear Arms (spoilers).
Diverging into gun control debates or what analogies are inaccurate or what have you is getting off topic.

This is a TEMPORARY closure and nothing more! Once I am convinced everyone has had adequate time to see this notice, then I will reopen the thread.

[Neroon]

Let's try this again.........

[Sci]

Neroon wrote:

---

Let's try this again.........

With respect, I'd suggest that if you will not allow the discussion to digress into a pure discussion of the issue of the right to bear arms, the thread should be locked. There is, in my view, simply no way to adequately address the interrelation between Children of Earth and the question of the right to bear arms without digressing into a pure discussion of the right to bear arms.

[Neroon]

Sci wrote:

---

With respect, I'd suggest that if you will not allow the discussion to digress into a pure discussion of the issue of the right to bear arms, the thread should be locked. There is, in my view, simply no way to adequately address the interrelation between Children of Earth and the question of the right to bear arms without digressing into a pure discussion of the right to bear arms.

While I definitely respect your respect ... ... that's the way things work in here. We have this forum for discussion of Doctor Who and its related material. If you feel a need to go in depth on the other issues - which is a profitable topic, mind you - then it needs to be in the other forums for them. There is no need to close this thread, thereby cutting off those who want to keep things centered on "Children of Earth". It helps in a number of ways, not the least of which is to keep tempers down that naturally flare when such topics are broached.

[captcalhoun]

personally, i think this topic is done. everyone's said their pieces, no one's minds will be changed. just kill it.

[Starkers]

Yeah I have to agree, none of us are likely to change our views over this discussion...although I have to say it's been a relatively easy going discussion (I feel anyway) and there hasn't been a lot of name calling or anything. Frankly given what happened in Texas yesterday I've lost any stomach to talk about this.

[captcalhoun]

yet another advert for gun control, since they weren't military issue weps, but his own...

[Sci]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

yet another advert for gun control, since they weren't military issue weps, but his own...

Pardon me, but I thought we weren't going to speak about gun control itself but only the relationship between CoE and the right to bear arms.

[The]

I would suggest just splitting the thread over into the Off-Topic Forum or Neutral Zone, and keep the discussion going in there...

[The Borgified Corpse]

^There's an "Off-Topic" forum?

[David cgc]

Shh. It's like the "nice farm family" that misbehaving dogs get sent to.

[The]

The Borgified Corpse wrote:

---

^There's an "Off-Topic" forum?

Isn't there?

Actually, The Neutral Zone would be a key place for this kind of discussion...

[Neroon]

The wrote:

---

Isn't there?

Actually, The Neutral Zone would be a key place for this kind of discussion...

Actually, I think Miscellaneous would love to have the topic.