Do You Own a Gun?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluecuracao

It can't be that impossible--there are a lot of permit holders in Philly.

Not impossible, just difficult.

While murder and other violent crime rates are declining in many cities, they are still on the rise in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania liberalized its concealed carry law in 1989, but Philadelphia demanded and received an exemption.

The results are troubling.

Philadelphia has the highest firearms murder rate of the 10 largest U.S. cities.

Shootings accounted for 80 percent of the more than 400 murders that occurred in Philadelphia in 1997.

The city estimates that gun violence costs it approximately $50 million annually in additional policing and health care-related expenses.

[Radar]

States apply carry laws, cities don't. But if you want to talk about cities, let's start with the cities in America with the strictest gun laws.... Washington D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles. The rate of gun violence in the cities with the harshest gun laws is higher than anywhere else in America, and most certainly higher than any of the cities in America that have carry permits available for regular citizens.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Radar

States apply carry laws, cities don't. But if you want to talk about cities, let's start with the cities in America with the strictest gun laws.... Washington D.C., New York City, and Los Angeles. The rate of gun violence in the cities with the harshest gun laws is higher than anywhere else in America, and most certainly higher than any of the cities in America that have carry permits available for regular citizens.

That doesn't answer my question, but that's OK. I know the answer is "no," in many cities that allow concealed carry, such as Denver, Minneapolis, Philadelphia...

[Phil]

nice comebacks, excellent sources everyone.




youre still wrong.

[Aliantha]

No, you're wrong Phil!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

My point is that I/we recognize that a person has the right to live because that's the way we were socialized. Not everybody thinks that way, which means there are not universal "rights", they differ by society. I think your example of the jungle people shows that. Ask them if the children have a right to live. Ask a Saudi if a thief has the right not to have his hand cut off for stealing. As soon as you understand that rights differ by society, you have to acknowledge that they are determined by society.

But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

But it's not a discussion about the practical application of reality. "Human rights" is a philosophical question. If the jungle people are wrong, then they do not have the ability to determine the children's right to live. They have the ability to determine whether the child lives, but they are wrong when they do so. If they are wrong, there has to be a reason. The reason is that the child has an inherent right to be allowed to live, and no amount of societal tradition will make it okay for them to kill the child. It's not a legal or a practical question, it's a question of morality.

And morals are subjective.

[Clodfobble]

If you really believe that, then you have no business trying to tell anyone that killing a criminal is wrong.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

If you really believe that, then you have no business trying to tell anyone that killing a criminal is wrong.

Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have? Join my team! Come on in - the water's fine!

BTW, I think there are times when killing a criminal is right. When you can save someone from immediate physical harm, it's ok. It's not ok to kill someone over "stuff", and it's preferrable to let our legal system work the way it is intended. If there's a problem with the system, fix it, don't become a vigilante. And Capital punishment is ok for the worst, and repeat offenders.

edit - bars and spotlights are better and safer than guns - kids don't accidently shoot each other with spotlights.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have?

WOW, there is a non-open minded thought if I have ever seen one.

Someone please call the morality police.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

WOW, there is a non-open minded thought if I have ever seen one.

Someone please call the morality police.

Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.

Oh, that makes it right. You truly are the King of the Double Standard Gang. I never said that anyone should adopt my morals on any issue, only about how I felt about an issue.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Wow, you're not even smart enough to realize that you do the same thing, pops.

My mistake. You don't want to convince people who don't have your morals, you just want to ridicule them. Phwew, for a minute I thought we had something in common, but no, your still just stupid and foolish.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Why can't I want you to have the same subjective morals that I have? Join my team! Come on in - the water's fine!

Because that's an oxymoron. If morals are truly subjective, then you have to fully accept that mine are just as valid and correct as yours. We must both be right. If you're right and I'm wrong, then morals aren't completely subjective.

It's obvious that you have a sense of right and wrong. Morality is not subjective. Some things are always wrong, no matter how many people do them.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Because that's an oxymoron. If morals are truly subjective, then you have to fully accept that mine are just as valid and correct as yours. We must both be right. If you're right and I'm wrong, then morals aren't completely subjective.

It's obvious that you have a sense of right and wrong. Morality is not subjective. Some things are always wrong, no matter how many people do them.

Our individual morals don't have to be mutually exclusive, do they? Your morals are valid, in that they are what they are. We are both right, in our own opinion. Surely, morals can change. You don't feel the same way morally now as you did as a teenager, do you? If they can change, why can they change do to the influence of someone else?

Gotta log off for a while.