TTI Forums

I had a traumatic event a little while ago. I tried to defend citizen ownership of rocket launchers and fully automatic weapons (and tanks). I was unable to adequately defend my position. His argument was that because a few psychos could do damage with said devices was justification to limit ownership. I tried the personal responsibility argument, but it failed to convince him. What are your thoughts on the issue?

Why not take it to the logical extreme; nukes should be legal. I'm sure that couldn't backfire at all. Neither could some crazy redneck getting their hands on a tank.

Two words.

Sour grapes.

Give him/her a rocket launcher & then see who goes psycho.

Why would you want to have an argument with someone about something you don't agree on?! Mix with people who already agree with you. That way, someone's already done the hard work (environment..& maybe some genetic coding, but hey, lets just combine the two and say Nature) of convincing the said people to have a similar view to yours. & then you two(or more) can talk about (or do) fun stuff.

Hey, this person someone from the opposite sex (or same if you roll that way)? I can then see the motivation behind all this. Not that it'll work. But, I can understand.

But really.....if someone disagreeing with you is causing you trauma.......you should..like....get help or something. Or join some mercenaries or starvation cult. Might change your perspective of things a bit.

depends on how intensively somebody tries to convince someone. not trying to convince people of something at all will not get us/you anywhere on a lot of topics. some beliefs simple ARE wrong, missunderstood or whatever and convincing might do some good.
but depending on the subject and depending on what has been done already, there might indeed be a point where you just should let go.

The first thing you have to recognize is that you are probably arguing with someone who places more value on utilitarian outcomes than on the infringement of rights. This is a major obstacle because utilitarians are more than willing to trample rights in order to prevent bad outcomes or the possibility of bad outcomes. This requires that you either convince them that nothing bad will happen, unlikely, or that the defense of natural rights is important enough to tolerate bad outcomes. Obviously, one argument is that crazy wackos dont obey laws so they would buy rocket launchers regardless of whether it is legal or not. Of course if they are unavailable the point is moot and unconvincing. Another tact would be to argue that there are already easily accessible means for wackos to cause loads of harm. People drive around in powerful bombs called cars every day. They are easily accessible but yet it is rare here that they are used to cause chaos. This probably means that there are way fewer wackos than normally believed and thus their potential to do harm is mitigated. Once the harm is reduced, and honestly these arguments probably wont be that effective, you have to show benefit to a utilitarian in order to outweigh risk. Good luck with that. Or you have to show harm from the policy of rights infringement. Slippery slope arguments are generally dismissed even though they should properly be referred to as incrementalism arguments where rights are gradually eroded.
I hope this isn't too rambling, I wrote it on my iPod and editing just isnt going to happen, lol.

Tell them that you think that they should not be able to 'insert something they find valuable here' because it could cause 'insert bad cause here'. i.e. 'I don't think you should be driving a car, because cars can kill people. This is obvious due to the fact that so many people die in car accidents every year.' You must personalize the retort so that it hits home. Let them empathize with people whom want to own rocket launchers. Help them to see it from their perspective. They want to do X, you want to deny them from doing X. You want to do Y, I want to deny you from doing Y. How does that make you feel? If they say they would gladly stop doing Y, then dig deeper. In the end, if they still don't comprehend, then they never will, walk away and write them off of the list of people that may have a clue.

Thanks for the tips. The result was more irritating than anything. (Thinking you are prepared to out-argue people and being proven wrong)

Default Name40 wrote:Thanks for the tips. The result was more irritating than anything. (Thinking you are prepared to out-argue people and being proven wrong)

It sounds to me like you went into this argument all wrong- you went in to "win" the argument not get to the truth or the logical outcome. The problem with trying to "win" is you are so consumed with the outcome you twist facts and relevant data to fit that. I would recommend that you leave your preconceived ideas at the door and try this talk again- A is A if you are getting a different answer from either his or your argument then try to find the right answer.

Btw a good argument is that every man has the right to defend his life and liberty from and by any means against his attacker. If you could show that a rocket launcher can be used without unintentionally hurting a bystander (such as many guns are proven to do) by someone with moderate knowledge then yes it should be legal. One cannot guarantee that a nuke will not have collateral damage on innocent lives hence it does not fall into the same argument (even if one were inclined to go down that slippery slope).

Rocket launchers can be necessary should that force be something that a PDW could not stop, such as a large tank etc... You still have a moral right to defend yourself and a standard handgun, bow and arrow, or rock and sling will not stop a tank.

Overall the argument comes down to mans right to defend his life and where the line comes in on hurting innocent people. Your logic needs to encompass both those facts.

I agree with Redhot, that there needs to be less focus on winning a debate or argument and more on the exchanging of facts until you come to a place of truth. Many times when trying to win an argument we put a slant on the facts, both as we offer them, in order to better our position or, on the facts as they are offered, in order to devalue the other parties point of view.

Back to your debate, if we lived in a perfect world where people were able to live in rationale and reasoned ways there be neither a need for or against weapons or the ownership of one. But since we don't I think that it is perfectly reasonable to possess a means of defending yourself. But you must respect other person's lives as you expect them to respect yours. So collateral damage must be assessed. Though there may be situations where owning a rocket launcher may be needed it is highly unlikely. I, from a position of logical thinking, have a couple of reasons why I would not want to own a rocket launcher.

First, the cost to effectiveness and necessity are imbalanced. I doubt I will ever need to use it and in that find that owning it is mute. This is not to say I think they should be banned but are impractical.

Secondly, it is more of a liability then a benefit. If I were to fire it, and injure or damage someone or something that I am not justified in harming then I could be subject to recompenses to offended or injured parties.

Thirdly, I can buy something with better risk to reward in the form of, as Redhot stated, a bow and arrow, firearm, etc etc. Though there is still a chance of secondary damages it is reduced from the use of a rocket launcher and in that makes more sense to me as ownerhip goes.

Fourth, a gun is far more accessible, I can get ammo for much less money and it is not illegal as long as certain criteria are met.

All in all ownership of a rocket launcher does not seem prudent to me, but far be it from me to deny you or anyone else owning one.

Even in a perfect world, posession of guns may be fine. You don't have to use guns only to shoot at other humans and/or defend yourself. You can also use them for sports, fun and joy (shooting on non-living things).

Jack Haydn wrote:You can also use them for sports, fun and joy (shooting on non-living things).

Well let's not forget the inevitable alien attacks

Jack Haydn wrote:Even in a perfect world, posession of guns may be fine. You don't have to use guns only to shoot at other humans and/or defend yourself. You can also use them for sports, fun and joy (shooting on non-living things).

I knew you were a soccer hooligan!

lol!

shooting-sports


but yeah, i do have my club... and it's called football around europe, just not american style!!

In such a discussion it is important to frame the issue correctly. You should not argue that rocket launcers should be allowed, you should argue that rocket launchers should not be forbidden. And you should make the case by what right he thinks he is allowed to use force to stop you from owning a rocket launcher.

The only underlying principle to forbid rocket launchers is: "People should not own items that can potentially be used to harm other people". I don't think that this is a principle that many people are willing to apply consistently.

Anyway, non-criminalized rocket launchers won't bring forth the apocalypse. There are non-violent ways to discourage their use, e.g. I won't rent you an appartment, sell you groceries, etc. if you own a rocket launcher.

A consoling thought: If your neighbor was determined enough to kill you, you'd already be dead. His lack of rocket launcers is not what is holding him back.