NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, so you're equating someone who hasn't broken any laws w/ someone who is.

Drunk guy arrives at his house. Can't unlock the door. Knocks out one of the panels in the door and reaches through to grab the handle.

You put three rounds in his head.

He was 'guilty' of being drunk and at the wrong house.

You murdered him.

They do reduce the number of criminals with guns, the only problem is that they reduce the amount of innocent citizens with guns by a larger percentage. Which means that, in my opinion, the end result will be that the criminals have the upper hand in most situations.

then why, as a general trend, do nations with more restrictive gun laws have fewer gun related homicides, and fewer homicides in general?

Your contention does not match reality. As I said, my opinions are formed based on an understanding of real world facts. You should try that some time.

No, that's not what you said. You stated that we 'should' sacrifice all rights to the alter of safety.


No, I argued that we should.

Drunk guy arrives at his house. Can't unlock the door. Knocks out one of the panels in the door and reaches through to grab the handle.

You put three rounds in his head.

He was 'guilty' of being drunk and at the wrong house.

You murdered him.

Sorry GNI. Trying to dodge out of your claim w/ invented anecdotes isn't going to cut it.

It's not killing a law-abiding citizen. It's killing an antisocial violent criminal. He has voluntarily renounced his right to life and recognition as an equal human being the moment he started committing the crime.

Interesting argument.

If we were talking rape, serial abuse, torture, murder... etc... you might find me on your side.

Arguing that a person who commits ANY crime deserves death is a little beyond my ability to reason, I'm afraid, but you'll probably fit right in in Iran.

There's a reason for that. And that reason is...I tend not to make up my mind about something until I'm damn sure I know what I'm talking about. I research. I consider. I question, I evaluate my position and think it over, considering alternative answers and possible ways to defeat it. It's what I do, it's in the very nature of my profession.

And as such, I tend not to form those opinions until I'm pretty damned sure I'm right. Therefore, when I do have an opinion, yeah, you're correct, I'm pretty certain it's the accurate one. Now, of course, you can try to dissuade me from it by showing me how I'm incorrect.

You've done an utterly piss poor job at that, considering:



that you obviously didn't even read what I said because that's the fundamental opposite of my main contention. Basic understanding of the nuances of the language are a fundamental requirement of any debate, especially in a text based medium. If you can't even take five minutes to read and understand what I said how can you possibly hope to debate it?

If this were a real debate, you would have already lost, for failure to address the points raised, due to either your unwillingness, or inability to comprehend basic statements and logical constructs.



Here's a hint, when you want to actually debate someone, make "all you have to say" your actual ARGUMENT in response to the one given.

I'm not continuing with this. Oh, and if you want to talk about nuances of the English language, learn the definition of 'opinion'
# a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; "my opinion differs from yours"; "I am not of your persuasion"; "what are ...
# a message expressing a belief about something; the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof; "his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page"

No, I argued that we should.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Want to split that hair any finer?

Define safety.

Realisicly though any serious ban on guns would be impossible without something that would most cause an literal revolt in the United States, an revision of the bill of rights. Allowing for that guns are still only part of the problem, american culture and media glorifies violence. That would have to be dealt with to make any real impact on violent crime.

Sorry GNI. Trying to dodge out of your claim w/ invented anecdotes isn't going to cut it.

In an argument about an invented crime?

These alleged burglars are the boogeyman conjured up to try to justify the guns... and in real life... not everyone trying to get into a house is a burglar.

And even if it WAS a burglar... in what way does theft deserve a death sentence?

It's not killing a law-abiding citizen. It's killing an antisocial violent criminal. He has voluntarily renounced his right to life and recognition as an equal human being the moment he started committing the crime.

If rights are natural then you can no more renounce them than you can tell gravity to work upwards.

then why, as a general trend, do nations with more restrictive gun laws have fewer gun related homicides, and fewer homicides in general?

Your contention does not match reality. As I said, my opinions are formed based on an understanding of real world facts. You should try that some time.

"A general trend"? So now you're claiming that "restrictive gun laws " and lower gun crime do NOT necessarily go hand in hand?

You're admitting that there are other factors involved?

To answer this question : We've been having wars each other for yeeeeeaars and there's always some nutters about hating the French/Germans or whatever. Having loads of guns around could lead to trouble. Also here in Angleterre have no need for guns at all. You can't hunt, because someone owns all the land, and that's the only legit reason to have a weapon.
Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice
You can still go target shooting, or clay pigeon shooting if you really feel the need, even in the UK.
or hunting
Since our animals all died in the industrial age when we chopped down the forests, not really.
or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?
House invasions are a very rare crime. I'd rather have no guns and very rare home invasions, plus general-level assault or whatever, than loads of guns and perhaps less home invasions (or perhaps not, shooting criminals doesn't mean your house wasn't invaded) and violence staying at fists and the occassional blade rather than being scaled up to involve guns.

In an argument about an invented crime?

These alleged burglars are the boogeyman conjured up to try to justify the guns... and in real life... not everyone trying to get into a house is a burglar.

And even if it WAS a burglar... in what way does theft deserve a death sentence?

Hee Hee.

Sorry GNI. You're not going to get away from the fact that you equated a criminal activity w/ a non-criminal activity.

You ASSUME that someone breaking into your home is only there for 'minor property'.

I'm not continuing with this.

I'm truly not surprised. When you learn how to make an actual argument, come back and try again.

Oh, and if you want to talk about nuances of the English language, learn the definition of 'opinion'

My opinion on the matter is an opinion, rather than fact, because it is not falsifiable, because it's speculation on what might occur. However you make a common mistake in assuming that since an opinion can not be falsified, all opinions are of equal value. Opinions can be based on reality, and make educated assumptions with a fair degree of certainty or...they can do the exact opposite, and be essentially a "hunch", which runs counter to all evidence.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that one opinion is as good as another. Just because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's not based on objective realities.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Want to split that hair any finer?

Define safety.

It's not 'splitting hairs' to point out that you're misquoting my intention.

like the idea that ex-military people (for example) never end up involved in crime. Never get mixed up in drugs.
It's like the idea that meteorites never fall right on your head.
They do.
But I don't hide in the cave because of that, and account for the most typical case: a common junkie.


If you have an IR at the front of your house, they'll come in at the back.
I have sensors everywhere they're needed. All around. On uninterruptible power supply.


So your gun is irrelevent... and, as mentioned, just more crap to steal.
Yes, if I'm not home when someone's breaking into it, I don't need to defend myself. Was it ever a question? It wasn't.


Awesome. This is how innocent people get killed.
No, that's how we know that we won't be alone against the criminals.


No, it's up to them being prepared to commit the crime, and you being caught cold.
I repeat. Burglars ARE NOT intending to or prepared to break into a house with its inhabitants defending it. Most commonly, they avoid even breaking in when the owner is inside, much less when he's armed. They choose easy victims.


Yes. In the real world, there are no burglaries.
Around here, there aren't.


A good enough reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own one.
Not allowed by you? Maybe.
Good thing it's not up to you to decide.

It's not killing a law-abiding citizen. It's killing an antisocial violent criminal. He has voluntarily renounced his right to life and recognition as an equal human being the moment he started committing the crime.So, he renounced his 'natural' right to live by doing something illegal defined by the society in which you live? :rolleyes:

It's not 'splitting hairs' to point out that you're misquoting my intention.

Oh to funny. Now since GNI has been shown to be misrepresenting his own statements, he's trying to put me on the defensive and avoid defining his own subjective terms.

Fine GNI, you 'argued' that we should give up all rights for safety.

Now define safety.

Interesting argument.
If we were talking rape, serial abuse, torture, murder... etc... you might find me on your side. ,...burglary,...
It's a similarly serious crime.

Arguing that a person who commits ANY crime deserves death is a little beyond my ability to reason, I'm afraid, but you'll probably fit right in in Iran.
Read what you quote, please.
It's killing an antisocial violent criminal.

Antisocial, violent criminal. A professional burglar who is worthless for the society, and causes only harm. Violent, with his actions potentially causing death of law-abiding citizens.

Yes, such criminals fully deserve to be shot on spot.

"A general trend"? So now you're claiming that "restrictive gun laws " and lower gun crime do NOT necessarily go hand in hand?

You're admitting that there are other factors involved?

of course there are "other factors" everything in the universe has multiple factors associated with it. However, when we question whether developed nations, taken as a whole, have fewer gun related crimes and violent deaths, per capita, when they are more or less restrictive of guns, the answer is obvious. Those that are more restrictive, taken as a whole, have fewer gun related crimes and violent fatalities.

Are there exceptions to that rule? Of course there are. And an integral part of this debate is understanding and questioning WHAT those exceptions are and WHY they exist. But we can't even BEGIN to get into that debate as long as people cling to the notion that more gun control will lead to more innocent death when the overall evidence suggests that this is not true.

The second step of the debate is trying to go through and discuss why there are exceptions to this general rule, and what that means, but we can't move to step two when some stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the basics of the discussion.

Hee Hee.

Sorry GNI. You're not going to get away from the fact that you equated a criminal activity w/ a non-criminal activity.

You ASSUME that someone breaking into your home is only there for 'minor property'.

No, you ASSUME something. I'm taking the Devilled Avocado position here - I don't know WHY the person is in your house. But while you and Vault are pumping them full of lead (so to speak) I'm admitting we don't know why they are there, and I'm asking why we immediately jump to lethal solutions for someone fucking-off over the fence with the toaster.

of course there are "other factors" everything in the universe has multiple factors associated with it. However, when we question whether developed nations, taken as a whole, have fewer gun related crimes and violent deaths, per capita, when they are more or less restrictive of guns, the answer is obvious. Those that are more restrictive, taken as a whole, have fewer gun related crimes and violent fatalities.

Are there exceptions to that rule? Of course there are. And an integral part of this debate is understanding and questioning WHAT those exceptions are and WHY they exist. But we can't even BEGIN to get into that debate as long as people cling to the notion that more gun control will lead to more innocent death when the overall evidence suggests that this is not true.

The second step of the debate is trying to go through and discuss why there are exceptions to this general rule, and what that means, but we can't move to step two when some stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the basics of the discussion.

Yet some will stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the basics on both sides of the discussion.

Would you say that G8+5 nations are 'developed'? How many makes an 'exception to the rule' compared to there not being a 'rule' at all?

Antisocial, violent criminal. A professional burglar who is worthless for the society, and causes only harm. Violent, with his actions potentially causing death of law-abiding citizens.

Yes, such criminals fully deserve to be shot on spot. Society =/= natural. Therefore, you have taken away his 'natural right' to live. What gives you the 'right' to take away his 'natural right' to live? Society, that's right. The very same society which gives you that right.

,...burglary,...
It's a similarly serious crime.


No, it really isn't.

Theft and murder are not on the same page.

If you have some kind of moral compass that tells you it's equal to take a pen, or rape a woman to death, I have nothing more to say to you.


Read what you quote, please.


I did.


Antisocial, violent criminal.


'Antisocial' is a claim that could also be levelled at things you've said in this thread.

As could 'violent'.


A professional burglar who is worthless for the society,


In your in-expert estimation.


...and causes only harm.


An assumption you couldn't hope to prove.

And one I doubt you'd be willing to explain to his three now-fatherless children.


Violent, with his actions potentially causing death of law-abiding citizens.


Again, allegations that could similarly be levelled against you, based on the evidence of this thread.


Yes, such criminals fully deserve to be shot on spot.

A lot of fancy words to say that, yes, you value property over human life.

Society =/= natural.
Dunno about that, we're like penguins, we love to splash our pals into pools of water and suchlike.

Dunno about that, we're like penguins, we love to splash our pals into pools of water and suchlike.Eh, you may have a point there. ;)

This is my definition of natural: Not acquired; inherent. Society obviously isn't inherent. It's an acquired behavior.

No, you ASSUME something. I'm taking the Devilled Avocado position here - I don't know WHY the person is in your house. But while you and Vault are pumping them full of lead (so to speak) I'm admitting we don't know why they are there, and I'm asking why we immediately jump to lethal solutions for someone fucking-off over the fence with the toaster.

I 'assume' that someone is in my house for nefarious purposes. I'm not going to offer him a scone and ask him why and what for.

You've already assumed that they are just there for a 'toaster' or 'minor property'.

That's besides the fact that you equate legal gun ownership w/ criminal activity.

Would you say that G8+5 nations are 'developed'? How many makes an 'exception to the rule' compared to there not being a 'rule' at all?

well, the g8 certainly, I wouldn't call any of the 5 emergent economies developed. Developing, certainly. And even of the G8, Russia's a stretch

and of the G8, we have the second highest murder rate per capita, behind..yeah, Russia. The next closest of the 6 is France, which is about 40% ours.

well, the g8 certainly, I wouldn't call any of the 5 emergent economies developed. Developing, certainly. And even of the G8, Russia's a stretch

and of the G8, we have the second highest murder rate per capita, behind..yeah, Russia. The next closest of the 6 is France, which is about 40% ours.

Numerous of the ones are also members of the OECD. The ones that are not are recognized by them as 'developed'.

Their industries are very well developed. Just not their social structures.

Drunk guy arrives at his house. Can't unlock the door. Knocks out one of the panels in the door and reaches through to grab the handle.
Not all doors are wood behind the finish, just so you know.

The drunk guy would knock first, then shout, only then try to break the door. And here would also knock to the neighbor first, my neighbors for instance have my keys. Only then break the door. Not that he would succeed with any door that isn't rotten all through anyway.

Also, a drunk guy would realize his mistake after the warning shot, at least.

I 'assume' that someone is in my house for nefarious purposes.


Exactly. You assume that. And based on that assumption...


I'm not going to offer him a scone and ask him why and what for.


No, much better to just blow the fucker away.


You've already assumed that they are just there for a 'toaster' or 'minor property'.


No, I'm saying they could be. Or they could be drunk and breaking into their own house... just with very bad aim. Or they could be about to clear out all your valuable shit. Or they could be there to kill you and eat you.

Most house-breakings end up in low-value property theft.

I'm looking at averages, you're assuming the worst.


That's besides the fact that you equate legal gun ownership w/ criminal activity.

Not at all. I equate shooting people with criminal activity.

Indeed. Most backdoors are probably at least partly glazed, and you'd have thought most people would probably try to minimise the damage by tapping some of that out, rather than trying to bust through the main front door.
Not all glass can be easily broken, not all door windows are positioned in a way that you can open the door through them. Guns are the last precaution I have against break-ins, not the only.


Clearly you've never imbibed.
I wish I could say that, but, sadly, this vice is not unknown to me.

And for dead sure I know I'd start with knocking and shouting "Open! Tssme!", not trying to break the door.


So, you're shooting at an innocent that accidentally breaks your window, now?
What part of "warning shot" do you need explained?

Numerous of the ones are also members of the OECD. The ones that are not are recognized by them as 'developed'.

Their industries are very well developed. Just not their social structures.

well one would think that the social structures would be a valuable thing in, you know, reducing crime.

For me, development goes hand in hand, a developed industry with a lacking social structure can't be considered a truly "developed" nation.

Not all doors are wood behind the finish, just so you know.


Indeed. Most backdoors are probably at least partly glazed, and you'd have thought most people would probably try to minimise the damage by tapping some of that out, rather than trying to bust through the main front door.


The drunk guy would knock first, then shout, only then try to break the door. And here would also knock to the neighbor first, my neighbors for instance have my keys. Only then break the door. Not that he would succeed with any door that isn't rotten all through anyway.


Clearly you've never imbibed.


Also, a drunk guy would realize his mistake after the warning shot, at least.

So, you're shooting at an innocent that accidentally breaks your window, now?

See, this is why I'm anti-gun...

Exactly. You assume that. And based on that assumption...
No, much better to just blow the fucker away.
No, I'm saying they could be. Or they could be drunk and breaking into their own house... just with very bad aim. Or they could be about to clear out all your valuable shit. Or they could be there to kill you and eat you.
Most house-breakings end up in low-value property theft.
I'm looking at averages, you're assuming the worst.
Not at all. I equate shooting people with criminal activity.

Fine, you think about the 'averages'. I'll think about my family.

You did equate criminal activity w/ gun ownership. Now you're trying to deny it.

Also, a drunk guy would realize his mistake after the warning shot, at least.

I"m curious as to the strange fantasy land you live in where a "warning shot" is a perfectly harmless thing that can't go through walls. If I fired a "warning shot" in pretty much any direction, I have a fair odds of killing the people above, below, to either side, or across the street from me if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

How does a bullet suddenly stop being a fucking bullet just because you intended it to be "a warning"?

Armed burglary with accomplices is not taking a pen, sorry.


Neither is it rape, serial abuse, torture or murder.

I've not seen you qualify how much property it needs to be before you're comfortable murdering someone. I have seen you arguing that you should shoot at drunk people trying to open the wrong door.

I'm saying property crime doesn't compare to crimes of violence.


Be an expert, explain how is he useful.


I don't have to be an expert, you do. You've made a value claim based on knowing nothing.


Better prove me wrong, tell me what good comes from him.


Because anyone involved in any crime must be cartoonishly evil?


Yes. I would. They'll be better off in an orphanage than with their "father".


Based on... what exactly?


I don't value property over human life. I value property over violent criminal life.

Those two things contradict one another. Lying, or just can't hack logic?

Fine, you think about the 'averages'. I'll think about my family.


I'll think about my family, too.

But I'm not conjuring up imaginary baddies just so I can justify a gun.


You did equate criminal activity w/ gun ownership. Now you're trying to deny it.

Show me where I did it. I think you're getting hot and bothered over something you've read into something I've said.

I don't value property over human life. I value property over violent criminal life.But you can only call him a criminal because society tells you that he is a criminal. You're using the definitions of the society to which you belong to take away his uncompromisable "natural right." So, society gives you the right to take away his "natural" right? :rolleyes:
Unless you equate your financial life to that of a human life.

well one would think that the social structures would be a valuable thing in, you know, reducing crime.

For me, development goes hand in hand, a developed industry with a lacking social structure can't be considered a truly "developed" nation.

A good point. Now if you break down the US further, it's also nowhere near a universal in crime. Most urban areas have much higher murder rates that non-urban no matter the state gun control laws. A prime example of that is the Illinois numbers I posted earlier.

Chicago has a higher industry but a near collapse of its social structure in certain neighborhoods along w/ a near total gun ban. The rest of the state has crime numbers similar to Europe and more common firearm ownership.

Does the problem lie in guns or society?

Regarding restriction of firearms, Britain, I think, has never enjoyed an explicit provision ensuring the right to bear arms. Generally, it has always been a privelige or power granted when necessary, not a universal right.
1689 Bill of Rights gave it to protestants.

I'll think about my family, too.
But I'm not conjuring up imaginary baddies just so I can justify a gun.
Show me where I did it. I think you're getting hot and bothered over something you've read into something I've said.

So now home invasions are 'imaginary'? You're just hoping that if one happens, all they're after is your toaster instead of your daughter.

It's pretty sad that you have already been reduced to 'Show me where I did it.' and your other silly little attempts to try and put me on the defensive. That by itself pretty much shows you are aware of your false comparisons. Just like your avoidance of your safety/rights 'argument'.

Define safety.

Define safety.One of two defensive backs; a safetyman. ;)

A good point. Now if you break down the US further, it's also nowhere near a universal in crime. Most urban areas have much higher murder rates that non-urban no matter the state gun control laws. A prime example of that is the Illinois numbers I posted earlier.

Chicago has a higher industry but a near collapse of its social structure in certain neighborhoods along w/ a near total gun ban. The rest of the state has crime numbers similar to Europe and more common firearm ownership.

Does the problem lie in guns or society?

well I think first off, gun bans are more useful in lessening violent crime when it's a national and not local affair. Right now the only thing stopping me from bringing a gun from less restrictive south carolina to more restrictive massachusetts is a long car ride. When it becomes a matter of having to import them does it become easier to enforce

Secondly I think it is a cultural aspect, at least to an extent. I mean, certainly, while there is some resentment to the gun ban in Britain by some segments of the population, I think general attitudes run from "well it would be nice but I don't really NEED it" to "why would I want one of those damned things anyway?" It certainly lacks the pervasive "pry it out of my cold dead fingers" that the US has. I do think we have a perfect storm of over the top ramboesq machismo and good old fashion paranoia here, with lots of brawn and little brain, making the average American gun owner far, far more likely to hurt or kill himself, a loved one, or an innocent bystander than he is a criminal.

But then we're in a chicken and the egg scenario. Maybe a restrictive gun ban in the US, wholesale, might not be as effective in other countries because of our pervasive gun culture. But on the other hand, how do you reduce that gun culture without first doing something about the guns?

I've not seen you qualify how much property it needs to be before you're comfortable murdering someone.
It's not about the property's value. It's about the act: breaking in to rob the house.


I have seen you arguing that you should shoot at drunk people trying to open the wrong door.
No, you haven't. I said that I would not fire at an unknown without a warning shot.


I'm saying property crime doesn't compare to crimes of violence.
Burglary (which, BTW, in your description involves assault teams of armed and trained criminals ready to take me out) is a serious crime. It often involves physical harm to the inhabitants, and, as such, can be regarded as violent.


Because anyone involved in any crime must be cartoonishly evil?
Involved in an armed burglary into an inhabited house, with intent to kill the inhabitant? Whether cartoonishly evil or not, definitely earned the lead he might get.


Those two things contradict one another. Lying, or just can't hack logic?
They don't. Our definitions of what is human life that should be protected and what is violent criminal life that should be ended obviously differ.

One of two defensive backs; a safetyman. ;)

Probably the only definition I'm going to get. :)

They don't. Our definitions of what is human life that should be protected and what is violent criminal life that should be ended obviously differ.*repeats last five post on the contradictory stance that you are taking on this issue* You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
I'm sure I could post on this a thousand more times, and you would ignore it simply because you don't have a defense for it. You make me sad. I was looking for some sort of logical refutation. :(

I"m curious as to the strange fantasy land you live in where a "warning shot" is a perfectly harmless thing that can't go through walls. If I fired a "warning shot" in pretty much any direction, I have a fair odds of killing the people above, below, to either side, or across the street from me if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Well, I don't have people below. I have the basement, and just near the entry doors, I have ground.


How does a bullet suddenly stop being a fucking bullet just because you intended it to be "a warning"?
By being in the ground. Be it bullet or buckshot.

*repeats last five post on the contradictory stance that you are taking on this issue* You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Unless you rip it out of your stomach, which is quite painful. I should know.;)

Well, I don't have people below. I have the basement, and just near the entry doors, I have ground.



By being in the ground. Be it bullet or buckshot.Ever heard of ricochet?

Unless you rip it out of your stomach, which is quite painful. I should know.;)You are more of a man than I. ;)

You are more of a man than I. ;)

It was my grandmother's homemade sour cream coffee cake. What else was I supposed to do?!?:p

It was my grandmother's homemade sour cream coffee cake. What else was I supposed to do?!?:pSuffer, and be miserable. :wink:

Ever heard of ricochet?
What's better, know how to prevent it.

Soft lead, wood floor, ground below. Ricochets don't happen there.

well I think first off, gun bans are more useful in lessening violent crime when it's a national and not local affair. Right now the only thing stopping me from bringing a gun from less restrictive south carolina to more restrictive massachusetts is a long car ride. When it becomes a matter of having to import them does it become easier to enforce

Secondly I think it is a cultural aspect, at least to an extent. I mean, certainly, while there is some resentment to the gun ban in Britain by some segments of the population, I think general attitudes run from "well it would be nice but I don't really NEED it" to "why would I want one of those damned things anyway?" It certainly lacks the pervasive "pry it out of my cold dead fingers" that the US has. I do think we have a perfect storm of over the top ramboesq machismo and good old fashion paranoia here, with lots of brawn and little brain, making the average American gun owner far, far more likely to hurt or kill himself, a loved one, or an innocent bystander than he is a criminal.

But then we're in a chicken and the egg scenario. Maybe a restrictive gun ban in the US, wholesale, might not be as effective in other countries because of our pervasive gun culture. But on the other hand, how do you reduce that gun culture without first doing something about the guns?

1) Not if you're talking a legal sale. For a legal interstate sale, you need it transferred via FFL dealer not to mention the other MA licenses required. Now if you're talking a straw purchase or other illegal transfer, the law really doesn't matter then.

2) Statistically, criminal v criminal murders are more common. Even using the lowest numbers, the majority of defensive firearm uses do not involve actually shooting the gun while accidents or unintentional shootings are quite rare.

3) I see a difference in what you proclaim as a 'gun culture'. There's the one that involves families going out target shooting, hunting, safety courses, etc. Then there's the one glamorizing criminal activity, mass shootings and the like. Which 'culture' is the one causing the majority of problems? One statistic (Chicago again) is that 90% of murders are committed by prior criminals.

Suffer, and be miserable. :wink:

Oh cruel, cruel world, when will I be able to enjoy my acid soaked coffee cake in peace?:)

What's better, know how to prevent it.

Soft lead, wood floor, ground below. Ricochets don't happen there.So you're going to discharge a firearm in a confined space in your house while this supposed criminal is outside? o_0;

Ever heard of ricochet?

Certainly, and there are ways around it.

I use frangible ammo for my home defense and carry firearms. No blow through.

I'm saying property crime doesn't compare to crimes of violence.In the transatlantic capitalist worldview it’s worse. The social hierarchy is maintained primarily not through force or coercion but economic domination of the many by the few.

But I'm not conjuring up imaginary baddies just so I can justify a gun.You’ve hit the nail on the head. Europe, with its greater emphasis on social welfare, community and collectivism, lacks the siege mentality so prominent in the United States. If the world is a jungle and every man is an island, of course one needs to own a gun. If instead one lives in something like a society, guns are not only unnecessary but also antisocial.

People create their own realities. Personally I’d chose the latter.

I use frangible ammo for my home defense and carry firearms. No blow through.Ah, okay. That's an acceptable precaution.

So you're going to discharge a firearm in a confined space in your house while this supposed criminal is outside? o_0;
I'm going to come to the door, check that the outer door is still secure, open the inner door, and ask what the fuck does he need. If there's suspicion that he doesn't have good intents, discharge a bullet into the floor by the outer door. Which does not generate ricochets. The basement starts a bit further inside, there's just wood and ground.

I'm going to come to the door, check that the outer door is still secure, open the inner door, and ask what the fuck does he need. If there's suspicion that he doesn't have good intents, discharge a bullet into the floor by the outer door. Which does not generate ricochets. The basement starts a bit further inside, there's just wood and ground.It's legal to discharge a firearm in the city that you live in? Because a possible threat is not an actual threat. Which means you wouldn't be the defender, you would be the aggressor.

Well here we concentrate more on collective defence, community and state centred.

And what do you do when it's time to revolt against the state?

There are no 'sacred' rights. That's wishful thinking to cover for the fact there's no REAL argument for rights EXCEPT as granted by the societies into which we are born/migrated.
Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively, from the first principles of the Universe, that I am right and you are wrong.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Europe, with its greater emphasis on social welfare, community and collectivism, lacks the siege mentality so prominent in the United States. If the world is a jungle and every man is an island, of course one needs to own a gun. If instead one lives in something like a society, guns are not only unnecessary but also antisocial.

People create their own realities. Personally I’d chose the latter.

So you'd choose slavery and dependence or freedom and independence?

That's...disgusting.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

Oh god it's you again. It's been a while since you tarted out the old bitch, hasn't it?

It's legal to discharge a firearm in the city that you live in? Because a possible threat is not an actual threat. Which means you wouldn't be the defender, you would be the aggressor.
Well, I don't exactly live in a city, rather an exurb.
Yes, fully legal.

Also, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't need an actual threat. It would be sufficient that a reasonable person could honestly believe that there is an actual threat. Alarm activation is quite sufficient for that.

I don't know much about the differences between US and European gun laws, but as logical as the mainstream arguments against gun control (ie. if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns) seem, I think this issue reflects core social values. You say you want a gun to protect yourself from a criminal who breaks into your home, and indeed you have that right. But criminals are people too, and it's important to remember that often times criminals are motivated by the circumstances they're in, and rather than just thinking of it in terms of how to better protect yourself, it might also help if society were to try to better address these circumstances.

I remember watching the Penn&Teller episode about gun control, though, and they made some rather appealing points, especially in terms of the "who do you call against the police" argument; earlier on in the episode they were saying about one of their interviewees "he thinks the only people who should be allowed to carry guns are the police; perhaps he might see a different perspective if he were black or hispanic in south-central L.A."; the notion of government power quickly reaching totalitarian levels in the western world might sound a bit far-fetched, but references to police brutality give a more down-to-earth example of government oppression in our society...

Also, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't need an actual threat. It would be sufficient that a reasonable person could honestly believe that there is an actual threat.

Sure, firing a "warning shot" is a pretty good way to show someone that there's an actual threat. Of course, the two options being "fight or flight", he MIGHT run away, or he might shoot back, with the gun he has thanks to no gun control.

And maybe he doesn't shoot to warn. it's the constant failure of the pro gun nuts, the unwavering assumption that if it comes to a gun fight, they win.

And I understand your disagreement, but I am simply saying that rights provided to you are only provided to you as long as you meet standards provided to you by the society of which you are part.

And you're wrong.

The existence of my rights is not metaphysically contingent upon them being recognized by some so-called "society" or "government."

I have them regardless, and if the so-called "society" or "government" chooses to deny that fact then I am entitled to revolt.

My existence as a human being--which is more than mere biological existence--is not conditional upon someone else's word. I am I.

The greatest word in existence, the greatest concept: I.

I.

And you're wrong.

The existence of my rights is not metaphysically contingent upon them being recognized by some so-called "society" or "government."

I have them regardless, and if the so-called "society" or "government" chooses to deny that fact then I am entitled to revolt.

You go ahead and have your little revolt. They'll bury you next to the rotted carcass of Ayn Rand.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively, from the first principles of the Universe, that I am right and you are wrong.Oh my, that you come in with a statement that does nothing to refute the argument, and then you claim that you've refuted it and go on to announce your victory certainly tells me something about the way this conversation is going to go. :rolleyes:

3) I see a difference in what you proclaim as a 'gun culture'. There's the one that involves families going out target shooting, hunting, safety courses, etc. Then there's the one glamorizing criminal activity, mass shootings and the like.And which is the one where fear and suspicion become underlying currents of what’s left of the community, where self-sufficiency takes the place of social interaction and the importance of relationships, and where people fantasise elaborate scenarios where they defend their figurative homesteads from the nameless ranks of society’s (ever present, naturally) rapscallions and ne’er-do-wells?

It's a decent rifle, too bad there aren't more suppliers of ammunition for it in the U.S., though. (although, on the upside, the lack of ammo makes it cheaper than the quality of the rifle would otherwise demand).

7.5 Swiss is hard to find good components for as a reloading round, too...most of the stuff on the market is berdan primed, and those're a royal pain to re-load.

From what I've read, .284 Winchester brass can be resized for 7.5 Swiss use, and the bullets are the same as what's used in .308 cartridges.

Oh my, that you come in with a statement that does nothing to refute the argument, and then you claim that you've refuted it and go on to announce your victory certainly tells me something about the way this conversation is going to go. :rolleyes:

no, you're wrong.

No, it really isn't.

Theft and murder are not on the same page.

Yes, they are.

I have a couch that cost me $100. If I make $10/hour, then that couch is literally equivalent to ten hours of my life, and stealing it is literally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would have otherwise died.

Property and life are morally indistinguishable.

And you're wrong.

The existence of my rights is not metaphysically contingent upon them being recognized by some so-called "society" or "government."

I have them regardless, and if the so-called "society" or "government" chooses to deny that fact then I am entitled to revolt.

My existence as a human being--which is more than mere biological existence--is not conditional upon someone else's word. I am I.

The greatest word in existence, the greatest concept: I.

I....Right, please, apply your theory to life if you wish. I wish you the best of luck.

But you can only call him a criminal because society tells you that he is a criminal. You're using the definitions of the society

Not speaking for him, just for myself, but:

No.

He is a criminal because he is violating the laws of objective moral principle. So-called "society" has nothing to do with it--nothing at all.

Yes, they are.

I have a couch that cost me $100. If I make $10/hour, then that couch is literally equivalent to ten hours of my life, and stealing it is literally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would have otherwise died.

Property and life are morally indistinguishable.

you're just so cute. Go on, talk about Ayn Rand some more, it's hilarious.

So is your inability to understand the difference between "labor" and "life".

And which is the one where fear and suspicion become underlying currents of what’s left of the community, where self-sufficiency takes the place of social interaction and the importance of relationships, and where people fantasise elaborate scenarios where they defend their figurative homesteads from the nameless ranks of society’s (ever present, naturally) rapscallions and ne’er-do-wells?

And where would that be? Are you denying that there are different 'cultures' involved or do you want to lump them all into your pre-generated stereotypes in order to maintain your own sense of self-worth?

no, you're wrong.Of course I am, because his philosophy on life demands that I be wrong.

you're just so cute. Go on, talk about Ayn Rand some more, it's hilarious.

So is your inability to understand the difference between "labor" and "life".

True or false: time of my life passes when I engage in labor.

So you'd choose slavery and dependence or freedom and independence?
Thank you for illustrating my point. Behind every justification for gun ownership supposedly idolising individualism and liberty, there is the reality of irrational fear. Fear of society, fear of people, fear of the other.

Not speaking for him, just for myself, but:

No.

He is a criminal because he is violating the laws of objective moral principle. So-called "society" has nothing to do with it--nothing at all.Right, right. Please, continue.

But criminals are people too

Incorrect.

The primary defining aspect of being human, in the philosophical sense, is the use of reason as a means to deal with other humans.

When he chose to violate the rights of another, he chose to renounce reason for violence; therefore, he renounced his own humanity.

And so it's perfectly OK to deal with a criminal with violence; and since the violence is not being used against a human, one does not renounce his own humanity in doing so.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Behind every justification for gun ownership supposedly idolising individualism and liberty, there is the reality of irrational fear. Fear of society, fear of people, fear of the other.

That's nice.

Thank you for illustrating my point. Behind every justification for gun ownership supposedly idolising individualism and liberty, there is the reality of irrational fear. Fear of society, fear of people, fear of the other.

Please stop pretending you know about my own motivations and the workings of my own mind than I myself do.

Sure, firing a "warning shot" is a pretty good way to show someone that there's an actual threat. Of course, the two options being "fight or flight", he MIGHT run away, or he might shoot back,
99 to 1, run away.


And maybe he doesn't shoot to warn.
Blows a hole in the outer door, dents the inner one. May happen. But cops are on their way, everyone has heard two shots, neighbors are getting out to see what's going on. Time's on my side.

Then it's down to chances and variables. Whether I can close and lock the door in time, how much time it takes for the perp to break in through the windows, whether I can stop it in time. Well, better chances than begging for mercy on your knees (and for women possibly while being raped), at least.

99/100, though, the perp will simply flee.

True or false: time of my life passes when I engage in labor.

quite irrelevant. I fear your life shall pass by quite irrespectively of whether your labor or not.

Incorrect.

The primary defining aspect of being human, in the philosophical sense, is the use of reason as a means to deal with other humans.

When he chose to violate the rights of another, he chose to renounce reason for violence; therefore, he renounced his own humanity.

And so it's perfectly OK to deal with a criminal with violence; and since the violence is not being used against a human, one does not renounce his own humanity in doing so.So, if I can reasonably convince myself that someone is not human through the use of logic, I can justify killing this not-person?

99:1.



Blows a hole in the outer door, dents the inner one. May happen. But cops are on their way, everyone has heard two shots, neighbors are getting out to see what's going on. Time's on my side.

Then it's down to chances and variables. Whether I can close and lock the door in time, how much time it takes for the perp to break in through the windows, whether I can stop it in time. Well, better chances than begging for mercy on your knees (and for women possibly while being raped), at least.

99/100, though, the perp will simply flee.

Yes I'm so very very sure that the statistics pulled magically from thin air match your claims. I mean, it's not surprising, you've already constructed magic fantasy land, might as well create some magic fantasy fact to validate your quite mistake presumptions.

So, if I can reasonably convince myself that someone is not human through the use of logic, I can justify killing this not-person?

no no, it only works when some dead Russian bitch and her disciples do it. Don't you know anything?

So, if I can reasonably convince myself that someone is not human through the use of logic, I can justify killing this not-person?

The standard is not "convincing yourself"; the standard is "being objectively correct."

no no, it only works when some dead Russian bitch and her disciples do it. Don't you know anything?I suppose I don't. I mean, from the air of his previous statements, my entire view of life is completely, unjustifiably wrong. :rolleyes:

the standard is "being objectively correct."

give us a shout when you start with that, k?

The standard is not "convincing yourself" the standard is "being objectively correct."But I am the only one that defines this, not you, or anyone else, I. Therefore, I can be objectively correct no matter what you say, as long as I believe it to be objectively correct.

I suppose I don't. I mean, from the air of his previous statements, my entire view of life is completely, unjustifiably wrong. :rolleyes:

see? now you're learning. Now go masturbate on a copy of Atlas Shrugged

ITT: Egos clashing. Violently.

Not ITT: Valid points. For either side.

I approve of this. Much lulz have been had.

*sits back grabs popcorn, and enjoys the madness*

Full auto's are almost never used in crimes in the US. Legally owned ones used in crime are usually be LEO's gone bad.

When you hear about "AK-47's" or "Uzi's" being used, they're usually just semi-autos that look like military firearms.

Or illegally imported/modified weapons.

ITT: Egos clashing. Violently.

Not ITT: Valid points. For either side.

I approve of this. Much lulz have been had.*sits back grabs popcorn, and enjoys the madness*Hey, neither of you paid! :eek:
...Damn, I forgot to say that my shows weren't free. Curses, foiled! :(

But I am the only one that defines this, not you, or anyone else, I. Therefore, I can be objectively correct no matter what you say, as long as I believe it to be objectively correct.

I was referring to one's standard of being.

Clearly, it is absurd to claim that one determines objective truth for oneself.

Objective truth is merely discovered.

That is, after all, what "objective" means.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough there.

Hey, neither of you paid! :eek:
...Damn, I forgot to say that my shows weren't free. Curses, foiled! :(

I never pay for a show. I always sneak in the back door.

Yes I'm so very very sure that the statistics pulled magically from thin air match your claims. I mean, it's not surprising, you've already constructed magic fantasy land, might as well create some magic fantasy fact to validate your quite mistake presumptions.
If you personally were the perp, would you start shooting in order to break into a house, when you know you'll only leave it in a police car (to be promptly executed later), because the cops will arrive by the time you're done?

Or would you rather leave and try another house?


What possible reason do you see there for a perp to still try to break into a house, when he's been spotted, everyone knows what's going on, and cops are on the way?

Thank you for illustrating my point. Behind every justification for gun ownership supposedly idolising individualism and liberty, there is the reality of irrational fear. Fear of society, fear of people, fear of the other.
Fear of society isn't irrational, nor is it unusual. "Man vs. Society" is one of the Classic conflict-types, right up there with "Man vs. Himself," "Man vs. Man," and "Man vs. One of those Bags of Chips that You Just Can't Get Open No Matter How Hard You Try, Until Suddenly the Whole Damn Bag Explodes and Sends Chips Everywhere."

Fear of society isn't irrational, nor is it unusual. "Man vs. Society" is one of the Classic conflict-types, right up there with "Man vs. Himself," "Man vs. Man," and "Man vs. One of those Bags of Chips that You Just Can't Get Open No Matter How Hard You Try, Until Suddenly the Whole Damn Bag Explodes and Sends Chips Everywhere."


...and that's why I always have a knife on me.

There are too many posts in this thread in which a poster decries his opponent's intellectual abilities because they don't agree with him, he doesn't agree with them or their opinions don't chime with his.

Quite often that poster is Neo Art -- so cut it out , Neo -- but he's by no means alone. So everybody cut it out.

Someone who disagrees with you is not automatically stupid. Argue the post, not the poster. Play nice. *Insert similar messages with which you're all already familiar* and act on 'em.

http://www.forumspile.com/Needs-More-Wookie.jpg

I was referring to one's standard of being.

Clearly, it is absurd to claim that one determines objective truth for oneself.

Objective truth is merely discovered.

That is, after all, what "objective" means.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough there.Thank you for proving me right. As long as it is believed to be objectively true by myself, then it is, in fact, true. Because I am what matters, not society. Ipso facto.

and "Man vs. One of those Bags of Chips that You Just Can't Get Open No Matter How Hard You Try, Until Suddenly the Whole Damn Bag Explodes and Sends Chips Everywhere."

ooooh I hate that one.

I was referring to one's standard of being.

Clearly, it is absurd to claim that one determines objective truth for oneself.

Objective truth is merely discovered.

That is, after all, what "objective" means.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough there.

The problem with objectively true things is that they tend to be demonstrably true. You..um...well you haven't actually done that, have you?

You managed to paraphrase some lines out of what I am sure is a well thumbed and earmarked edition of The Fountainhead but it doesn't, you know...PROVE anything.

Are you denying that there are different 'cultures' involved or do you want to lump them all into your pre-generated stereotypes in order to maintain your own sense of self-worth?Maybe where you live every gun owner is a sporting enthusiast, big game hunter or historical hobbyist. If that was the universal case then why is this thread full of paranoid daydreams where the square-jawed Ayn Randian everyman fends of crooks and robbers, an act simultaneously justifying the cornerstone pillars of Western individualism and independence while vindicating ones own masculinity with a single squeeze of the trigger?

http://www.forumspile.com/Needs-More-Wookie.jpg

You're completely wrong.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8811/owlbell1aw.jpg

Maybe where you live every gun owner is a sporting enthusiast, big game hunter or historical hobbyist. If that was the universal case then why is this thread full of paranoid daydreams where the square-jawed Ayn Randian everyman fends of crooks and robbers, an act simultaneously justifying the cornerstone pillars of Western individualism and independence while vindicating ones own masculinity with a single squeeze of the trigger?

Please point out where I'm a paranoid firearms owner, according to this thread. I talked about target shooting in this thread, and once mentioned hunting (which I currently don't do, as I'm a bit squeamish in regards to blood and guts).

You're completely wrong.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8811/owlbell1aw.jpgWrong!
http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/Needs-More-Giant_robots.jpg

You're completely wrong.

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8811/owlbell1aw.jpg


We're both wrong...

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/1-14-05/this_thread_needs.jpg

We're both wrong...

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/1-14-05/this_thread_needs.jpg
What this thread really needs is the Hoff, but we're not allowed to post that gif anymore . . .:(

What this thread really needs is the Hoff, but we're not allowed to post that gif anymore . . .:(

wait we cant post the hypnotizin' hoff pic anymore?

What this thread really needs is the Hoff, but we're not allowed to post that gif anymore . . .:(

Thankfully.

or is it the hoff nude pic with the dogs...

Maybe where you live every gun owner is a sporting enthusiast, big game hunter or historical hobbyist.
A lot of them are, if you include plinking under sporting and remove "big" clause for game.


If that was the universal case then why is this thread full of paranoid daydreams where the square-jawed Ayn Randian everyman fends of crooks and robbers,
Because it only takes an everyman who doesn't know what Ayn Rand is to protect themselves against burglars.

Just the most basic measures, such as an alarm system with UPS, steel doors, armor film for windows, locking sensors, and of course a gun for self-defense can make breaking into your house too difficult, time-consuming and dangerous to be possibly worth it for any burglar.

Just the most basic measures, such as an alarm system with UPS, steel doors, armor film for windows, locking sensors, and of course a gun for self-defense can make breaking into your house too difficult, time-consuming and dangerous to be possibly worth it for any burglar....And the price for these most basic of measures is...?

...And the price for these most basic of measures is...?
Very low.

Our doors have cost my father less than a grand each, and they're very solid, don't even imagine what it would take to break through one before the sunrise. Pneumatic hinges, so they open about as easy as any other.

Bulletproofing the windows took on the order of a hundred bucks and a couple hours for each. Note the film is one-way, so you can shoot right through them from the inside, and they still stop any shots from the outside. More value for money than proper multilayer armor glass, and stops everything short of AP rifles. Plus, the leftover film is great for the car, protects against vandals (wouldn't count on bullet protection unless the glass itself is also replaced).

Alarms and locking sensors are very cheap and effective, I'm not sure about the exact price, but nothing significant. I guess three, maybe four grand in total, including independent power. And could be even less if only covering the ground floor.


Some less basic measures are not very expensive either. And that's not the limit. Just that around here there's no need for more.

It's all really easy and cheap, you just need spare a bit of thought for it, instead of insuring your socks.

I don't get the whole self-defence/ murder/ sports/ whatever argument. Ultimately, self-defence is unlikely to be necessary, relatively few people actually commit murders, and sports - as in, hunting - aren't really a sport as such (Not really all that taxing to sit in your hideout and blast some deer from a hundred metres away. Every fatarse can do that), but more, well... A penis-enlarging measure.

Guns are awesome not for their utility - which, unless you happen to live in the middle of nowhere or a random ex-soviet Republic, with bears or Mudjahedin all around you, is close to non-existant -, but because of that feeling of power they give, because of the masculinity associated with them, because of their sheer style (Beauty in simplicity, folks! Form follows function), that ego-boosting 'WOW! A GUN! AWESOME' effect. Get two CZ-75 and a long, black leather coat, and YOU TOO can play Neo. Or Rally Vincent. Whichever.

Guns are fascinating because of the killing they're ultimately made for, the killing that, to no small part due to our evolutionary heritage involving copious amounts of gratuitous violence, still has an aura of epicness, of heroism, of struggle between hot, muscled, sweating men in loinclothes wrestli-

...Sorry, I went off on a tangent.

Anyway. Usually, people like to own guns not because they're useful for them - that's only true for a very, very small minority -, but because of their sexiness.

Hell. If I had the spare money and could be bothered with the bureaucratic mess associated with getting a licence, I'd have one or two, too. I don't foresee to ever need them for anything other than looking at them lovingly as if they're two cute girls with very little covering on them, and imagining myself to be some sort of postmodern villain facing off against the hero who just so happens to look like an old school-nemesis of mine, but that alone is good enough, 'cause those guns would basically give me a boner in essentially the same fashion as the swords I do happen to own (No licence, and therefore no bureaucratic mess required for them).

Is this primitive? Yes.

But it's awesome. And it doesn't bother with making flimsy excuses for what is in essence a means to live out the MAN in you.

---

Incidentally, I want to make love to Vault 10 & Xirnium. 'cause they're by far the two most fun posters in this thread.

1993:

23,000 deaths by handgun in the US. In England, 14.

Yet there's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone with it, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one.

Okay, okay, I know it isn't that simple, and I know we're "not there yet" as a species with regard to needing guns, but it gets old, this need for gun ubiquity. The combination of paranoia and patriotism that passes for rational argument is truly dizzying. Casual gun sales need to be addressed, not licensed, regulated gun sales.

what anyone with more then half a brain has against guns is common sense.

you're not going to topple a tyrannical government, which is what the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be about, with a hand gun, or even a sniper rifle with a scope.

that's why its intent encompasses, and ought to be interpreted as doing so, the right to keep and 'bear' nuclear tipped cruse missiles and armored mobile launch vehicles for them.

people's uses for them are.

Therefore they are bad.

Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting

Sure, keep a rifle or shotgun, lock it in the attic, keep it on safety, then take it out into the country in hunting season. That's legal in my country at least.


or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

Do you really think you have it in you to shoot someone? You're more likely to panic and get shot yourself, or shoot someone you love.

Stupid argument is stupid.

Maybe I'm free to move around without carrying a passport?

Yes, you go go into England, France, any EU country from Wales without a passport.

Yes, you go go into England, France, any EU country from Wales without a passport.Nyeh. I can, because I have German ID, which counts as a passport for a lot of places, but you need ID to get to the UK, as they are not members of the Schengen area (unlike, oh, I dunno, Switzerland of all places).

If you don't have a gun, burglars will arm themselves anyway.

No. People who break in in England, Scotland, Wales etc almost always tend to be armed with, at most, a baseball bat/club of somekind.

Ridiculous anti-gun laws??

Firstly, what have europes anti-gun laws got to do with americans anyway? If europeans wanted guns, then they would vote for someone who wanted to legalise guns.
So maybe, and this is a wild stab-in the dark (a stab because we can't shoot), europeans have anti-gun laws because WE LIKE IT THAT WAY.

Someone raised a point earlier that knives kill people just as dead as guns do!?
Wow, what a narrow-minded and blinkered viewpoint. Knives are pretty much useless against someone who is running away, but guns are not. You do not have to be very close to a victim to shoot them, but to stab them you have to be very close indeed. This makes a HUGE difference to the threat of firearms vs the threat of stabby things.
Also I would like to see some statistics which prove that gunshot wounds are not more or less fatal than stab wounds before I swallow that argument.

Speaking about Britain here, as it is where I live and the only place I feel knowledgeable enough to speak about...
With less guns in circulation, we have less incidents of women discovering their husbands cheating and shooting them dead (or vice versa). I do, however, know of 3 local cases where 1) a man wrongly believed his wife was cheating so he bashed her head in with a hammer (killing her). 2) a woman witnessing her husband speaking to another woman (seriously, that was all she did it for. He spoke to a woman) and stabbing him to death in a jealous and vicious frenzy. 3) A man wrongly believed his wife was having an affair, and upon seeing her in a phonebox.... he drove his car into the phonebox and put her in hospital.
So, what is my point here? My point is that people, if they want to hurt people for whatever reason, can use anything as a weapon. It does not have to be something designed as a weapon for it to be effective. However, if these people had owned a gun.... what do you think they would have used? Also, paranoia can drive people to do things completely out of character.... and I would rather not see a paranoid person with a gun, thankyou.

I really do not care if americans want to have guns so they can shoot other americans. What I do care about is when americans with guns go on killing sprees and shoot unarmed people, such as students for example. I can think of two relatively (in)famous incidents where this has happened in Britain, one in a high street and one in a primary school (kindergarden). I can think of many more cases of examples like this in america. Sure, someone will probably say that america has a larger population so the possibility of nutcases having guns is proportionatly higher.... but then that argument falls on its face when the fact that guns are freely available is added to the equation.

So, to finish up...
As a Brit, I do not want guns freely available, and I do not view anti-gun laws as ridiculous at all.
As a Brit, I stand by americas right to have guns (and imho ridiculous pro-gun laws). However, when someone shoots your daughter or your mother or you.... don't expect any surprised expressions from me.

I've always found the notion that an armed populace is a good thing silly. There's three historical examples where it didn't end in disaster (well, two historical examples, actually, since the French Revolution led to a couple of disasters). Right, three historical examples (US, Switzerland, France) that led to more or less favorable results at the very end. All other armed uprisings of the free populace have brought suffering and agony.

Has anybody else heard the old quote.

'If you give food the poor your a saint, if you ask why the poor have no food your a communist'

Gun Control is needed. Sure bad people use them for bad purposes but I prefer somebody chasing me with a steel pole other than somebody shooting me with a gun any day.

'If you give food the poor your a saint, if you ask why the poor have no food your a communist'

You mean you're, and what does that have to do with guns?

You mean you're, and what does that have to do with guns?Actually, he means "When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Halder Caldera

Actually, he means "When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." - Dom Halder Caldera

Still has nothing to do with guns.

The Criminals vs Police argument that I read about earlier. Here are my views.

In the UK only 9% of officers carry guns. Those that do usually carry G36 Variants, or MP5's. Very very few criminals in the UK have access to military fire-power. although it has happened before. So the police out gun most. In London you are never more than 4 minutes from an armed policeman, and there are CO19, and "Trojans" (Like SWAT) available as well. And ultimately, as we have seen before at Princes Gate, SAS CT teams. Criminals couldn't compete with that even if they had the fire-power.

The point is, even though there is a highly visible armed section, it's a deterrent for a problem that is made out to be much much larger than it actually is, I feel most UK police officers aren't armed because if the police arm themselves with guns, criminals feel they need to arm themselves with guns. Don't give me all that shit about criminals are all armed blah blah. Because to be frank, very few are.

A lot of shootings do not even involve gang crime or the criminal underworld in that way, take the most recent shooting I know off, Man gets drunk, takes pot-shots out of his window with a shotgun. Police come and shoot him. The point is, he was not in a criminal gang, it was a one off event that he paid for with his life (British armed police pretty much shoot anything that moves.) He was not part of a gang, his gun wasn't a big snazzy SA80 or anything, it has nothing to do with the gun crime most of you lot imagine.

Gun crime isn't a problem enough in the UK to arm police. Nor needed, nor wanted.

A lot of people in the UK do not want guns. There are legal options if they do. Most shotguns and rifles are legal. (obvious exceptions to the rule, I shan't list them)

I've had my say, so I'll now leave this thread.

By the way, I favour limited gun control, like we operate already.

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively, from the first principles of the Universe, that I am right and you are wrong.

Certainly. Now, lay out this proof, because I call bullshit. The first principles of the universe are mathematics, and you can't prove the right to gun ownership from set theory.

Oh god it's you again. It's been a while since you tarted out the old bitch, hasn't it?

Exactly what I thought.

Yes, they are.

I have a couch that cost me $100. If I make $10/hour, then that couch is literally equivalent to ten hours of my life, and stealing it is literally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would have otherwise died.

Property and life are morally indistinguishable.

Aha! That is an argument with a fatal flaw.

Presume I am hired by someone else to make a couch. I work for 5 hours, at a rate of $10 an hour. Since this couch is worth $100, they have extracted $50 worth of extra value from it. As that value is from my labour, they have robbed my of the full fruits of my labour, to the tune of $50, or 5 hours of my life.

In other words, that logic can be used to justify communism. You may wish to rethink it.

But I am the only one that defines this, not you, or anyone else, I. Therefore, I can be objectively correct no matter what you say, as long as I believe it to be objectively correct.

Ooh, stylish. That's a nice attack I haven't seen before. You're doing well, grasshopper.

Wow, what a narrow-minded and blinkered viewpoint. Knives are pretty much useless against someone who is running away, but guns are not. You do not have to be very close to a victim to shoot them, but to stab them you have to be very close indeed. This makes a HUGE difference to the threat of firearms vs the threat of stabby things.
Also I would like to see some statistics which prove that gunshot wounds are not more or less fatal than stab wounds before I swallow that argument.

This.
Speaking about Britain here, as it is where I live and the only place I feel knowledgeable enough to speak about

Which country? Britain's too much of a generalisation.

In other words, that logic can be used to justify communism. You may wish to rethink it.

Logic can be used to justify communism. Please refrain from using it in the future. Otherwise you will be shot by ACTO. Thank you.

What kind of sh1t is this?

Funnily enoguh I prefer to live in a country where every maniac with a grudge can go out and get a gun. I prefer not to have to worry about things such as the Virginia Tech massacre happening in my home town.

Yes, guns are neither good nor bad but if people have access to them hen the odds are you will end up with a lot of unpleasant people with weapons. Besides we don't even need them. The only people who use them are hunters and sportsmen and they can get a license to do so. A proper license including things like inspection of their security methods to ensure no one else can access the gun, etc.

And before any yank nut jobs start calling me a commie-hippie-leftie-illiberal-bastard, I would like to point out that I do target shooting myself and keep a rifle in the house for that purpose so I do have some idea of what I'm talking about.

We're both free from gang crime, but I also can have some good fun and good supper - thus, I'm better off.

So... My block is disarmed and crime free, your block is armed and crime free. So what's the point of your guns again? Protection-wise?

P.S. "What do Europeans have against guns?" - yeah, let's not make any sweeping generalisations shall we. Or should I say that all americans are fat ignorant hicks who live off of junk food, weigh as much as a small car, and think that the world ends just beyond Ellis Island.

Ooh, stylish. That's a nice attack I haven't seen before. You're doing well, grasshopper.Thank you. :p

So... My block is disarmed and crime free, your block is armed and crime free. So what's the point of your guns again?
I have more guns than your entire block! HAHAHAHA!!!


Protection-wise?
Well, I know that if our neighborhood suddenly changes and crime levels go on the rise, I'll still have some safety to fall back on. The plan /b/. I don't have to rely solely on the hope that no one would ever want to do any harm to me.

P.S. "What do Europeans have against guns?" - yeah, let's not make any sweeping generalisations shall we. Or should I say that all americans are fat ignorant hicks who live off of junk food, weigh as much as a small car, and think that the world ends just beyond Ellis Island.I could raise several points questioning those statements, but I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to be funny or not. Are you?

I could raise several points questioning those statements, but I'm trying to figure out if you're trying to be funny or not. Are you?
I've got nothing against americans. I'm just trying to show how stupid it is to make sweeping generalisations. You know like: all americans are fat, all british people drink tea, all europeans hate guns, etc.

I've got nothing against americans. I'm just trying to show how stupid it is to make sweeping generalisations. You know like: all americans are fat, all british people drink tea, all europeans hate guns, etc.Alright. :p

Which country? Britain's too much of a generalisation.

You quoted me twice. The first quote, asking for proof that gunshot wounds were not more (or less) fatal than stab wounds, you just responded with "This." which made no sense at all. Was there supposed to be a link there?

The second quote you responded with the above, and I have to disagree that Britain is 'too much of a generalisation'. I was merely narrowing down the field from Europe to Britain as I did not want to speak about european opinions and lifestyles which I know nothing (or little) about.
Please note that the OP refers to 'ridiculous' european anti gun laws, which is a far larger generalisation than the boundaries of the British Isles, and cripples itself when presented with the european countries which do NOT have anti-gun laws.

My point was purely that the 'general' opinion of Britain is that anti-gun laws are not ridiculous, but in fact necessary and sensible. Of course, if we want to avoid generalisations, then the NSG section is a generalisation in itself. Shock horror, someone has used a generalisation in the general section of nationstates forums. Someone call the anti-generalisation militia... (or as they prefer to be known, Hugh, Pew, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert ,Dibble and Grubb as it avoids them being generalised.)

Now, maybe we could return to the topic of european gun laws rather than focusing on where I live?

Well bloody said.

Ridiculous anti-gun laws??

Firstly, what have europes anti-gun laws got to do with americans anyway? If europeans wanted guns, then they would vote for someone who wanted to legalise guns.
So maybe, and this is a wild stab-in the dark (a stab because we can't shoot), europeans have anti-gun laws because WE LIKE IT THAT WAY.Okay... Maybe one... Just one serious post (Not directly concerning the quote, but related).

Laws concerning the possession & availability of firearms do in fact vary between different EU countries. Which among other things, means that although they do, as a rule, tend to be tightened every time there's a killing spree in some school somewhere, a fairly wide assortment of firearms is, in fact, available in a largish number of countries - Finland and Germany come to mind.

And if certain people think that 'Obtaining a Licence', 'No Automatics', 'Be 18/ 21 years of age', 'No History of Substance Abuse/ Felonies' and the likes as requirements for purchasing a firearm are ridiculous, they need their heads soundly examined.

This is all.

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

What the hell are you talking about?
I'm European (Italian and Czech citizen) and I don't feel these restrictions you speak of.

I have no problem at having a weapon permit that allows me to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home.

I think you don't know what you are speaking about. Weapon permits are not that impossible to have things that U.S. Americans think. Actually it's quite easy to obtain one (unless you are a criminal or a madman).

And for the "criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to" part.
The fact that a known criminal cannot get lawfully a weapon permit means that the police can detain him if they catch him with a weapon anywhere and anytimes.

You quoted me twice. The first quote, asking for proof that gunshot wounds were not more (or less) fatal than stab wounds, you just responded with "This." which made no sense at all. Was there supposed to be a link there?

Saying "This" means someone agrees with you. It's widely use all over the internet.


snip

I meant which country in Britain do you live, as each have different crime rates.

And what do you do when it's time to revolt against the state?

Can you explain to me how you with your puny arsenal intend to take on the US Army, Navy and Airforce?

Just out of curiosity...
Does anyone have a link to a news story about a guy like the Virginia Tech shooter being stopped because other (non-police) citizens were armed? I'm sure it must have happened somewhere, but I can't find anything.

what anyone with more then half a brain has against guns is common sense.

you're not going to topple a tyrannical government, which is what the right to keep and bear arms was intended to be about, with a hand gun, or even a sniper rifle with a scope.
Which is why we have the right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms.

Certainly. Now, lay out this proof, because I call bullshit. The first principles of the universe are mathematics, and you can't prove the right to gun ownership from set theory.
Check your premises.

Aha! That is an argument with a fatal flaw.

Presume I am hired by someone else to make a couch. I work for 5 hours, at a rate of $10 an hour. Since this couch is worth $100, they have extracted $50 worth of extra value from it. As that value is from my labour, they have robbed my of the full fruits of my labour, to the tune of $50, or 5 hours of my life.
Incorrect.

The value of an article is indepdent of the labor that went into it. At best, there are other factors--the raw materials, the distribution and marketing capacity, etc.--for which I am not responsible that also provide it with value.

But really, when I go to work for an employer and we agree on a wage, I'm not concerned with the value of what I produce. I'm only concerned with the value of my time to me.

And if certain people think that 'Obtaining a Licence', 'No Automatics', 'Be 18/ 21 years of age', 'No History of Substance Abuse/ Felonies' and the likes as requirements for purchasing a firearm are ridiculous, they need their heads soundly examined.

Why?

Since the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can revolt against the government if it becomes necessary, do you not see the absurdity inherent in letting government regulate weapons ownership?

It's letting the inmates run the prison!

Can you explain to me how you with your puny arsenal intend to take on the US Army, Navy and Airforce?

Who said it was puny?

Just out of curiosity...
Does anyone have a link to a news story about a guy like the Virginia Tech shooter being stopped because other (non-police) citizens were armed? I'm sure it must have happened somewhere, but I can't find anything.

"Dog Bites Man" never makes the news; "Man Bites Dog" does.

"Dog Bites Man" never makes the news; "Man Bites Dog" does.
Only because we see nothing remarkable about a dog biting a man. A person who stopped a maniac would be a hero; there would at least be mention of them in a paper.

Thank you for proving me right. As long as it is believed to be objectively true by myself, then it is, in fact, true. Because I am what matters, not society. Ipso facto.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

You're making an absurd jump from something I did say, concerning a matter related not to epistemology but to ethics, and from it drawing a completely absurd and unsupported conclusion.

So now home invasions are 'imaginary'?


Are we talking about a real home invasion? Or - is this a thought exercise we are using to justify the ownership of guns?

I'm not currently having any kind of home invasion, and haven't had. So... yes, it's imaginary.


You're just hoping that if one happens, all they're after is your toaster instead of your daughter.


No - I'm just not assuming it's happening at all, because I'm not looking for excuses to have a lethal weapon.


It's pretty sad that you have already been reduced to 'Show me where I did it.' and your other silly little attempts to try and put me on the defensive.


You said I said something.

I said I didn't.

Asking you to show me where I said the things you CLAIM I said is not a silly attempt to try to put you on the defensive - it's a perfectly reasonable request for you to back up your claims.


That by itself pretty much shows you are aware of your false comparisons.


No - it shows that I'm not content to let you make up arguments for me, and then pretend they were mine.


Just like your avoidance of your safety/rights 'argument'.

Define safety.

No - you missed the point. The definition of 'safety' wasn't the important part.

Who said it was puny?

Compared to the USA arsenal?

It's not about the property's value. It's about the act: breaking in to rob the house.


You already said you'd fire shots before you knew the act was a deliberate break-in, and even in the case that it WASN'T a burglary.


No, you haven't. I said that I would not fire at an unknown without a warning shot.


That's not what you said at all.

If you can't argue honestly, I'm done wasting time with you.


Burglary (which, BTW, in your description involves assault teams of armed and trained criminals ready to take me out) is a serious crime. It often involves physical harm to the inhabitants, and, as such, can be regarded as violent.


Strawman. I didn't say burglary involves 'assault teams of armed and trained criminals ready to take me out'. You made the inane assertion that you must automatically be better trained than anyone breaking into your home.

Again, if you can't argue honestly, stop wasting my time.


Involved in an armed burglary into an inhabited house, with intent to kill the inhabitant? Whether cartoonishly evil or not, definitely earned the lead he might get.


Where did this 'intent to kill' bullshit come from?


They don't. Our definitions of what is human life that should be protected and what is violent criminal life that should be ended obviously differ.

So - it's the lack of logic that's the problem then? 'Violent criminal life' is still 'human life'.

In the transatlantic capitalist worldview it’s worse. The social hierarchy is maintained primarily not through force or coercion but economic domination of the many by the few.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Europe, with its greater emphasis on social welfare, community and collectivism, lacks the siege mentality so prominent in the United States. If the world is a jungle and every man is an island, of course one needs to own a gun. If instead one lives in something like a society, guns are not only unnecessary but also antisocial.

People create their own realities. Personally I’d chose the latter.

This ^^

Incorrect. You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively, from the first principles of the Universe, that I am right and you are wrong.

Ayn Rand 'proved' no such thing, though she makes a whole lot of assertions that are heavy on rhetoric, and light on reality.

If you can't make a real argument, stop wasting my time.

The existence of my rights is not metaphysically contingent upon them being recognized by some so-called "society" or "government."


The 'existence of rights' IS a metaphysical concept, and has no real-world application. As such, it is ENTIRELY about recognition by 'society', at least.


I have them regardless, and if the so-called "society" or "government" chooses to deny that fact then I am entitled to revolt.


You have no 'rights' outside of society. 'Revolt' all you like.


My existence as a human being--which is more than mere biological existence


No - that's EXACTLY what it is - a mere biological existence.


--is not conditional upon someone else's word. I am I.

The greatest word in existence, the greatest concept: I.

I.

The greatest word in YOUR existence might be 'I' - but that's kind of self-definining. If it IS the most important word to you... it will be only in your existence.

Yes, they are.

I have a couch that cost me $100. If I make $10/hour, then that couch is literally equivalent to ten hours of my life, and stealing it is literally equivalent to killing me ten hours before I would have otherwise died.

Property and life are morally indistinguishable.

So - borrowing five bucks from you literally gives some of your remaining life to me... until I give it back, when you will miraculously live slightly longer again?

No - because the 'property is life' bullshit is... well, bullshit.

Not speaking for him, just for myself, but:

No.

He is a criminal because he is violating the laws of objective moral principle. So-called "society" has nothing to do with it--nothing at all.

Which is crap, because 'laws' (as in - those things that determine whether or not an act is a crime, and thus - whether or not you are a criminal) are local, and specific to societies.

There are no objective moral laws. Typing on the internet could be a crime, in which case you are now a criminal. How do you feel about your arguments regarding criminals, now?

True or false: time of my life passes when I engage in labor.

Time of your life also passes while you take a dump. That doesn't mean life is shit. The mere passage of time is in no way definitive.

see? now you're learning. Now go masturbate on a copy of Atlas Shrugged

Best use for it. Nice absorbent pages.

America has gun control, so does Europe. Europeans just don't buy into the idea that guns are somehow needed to protect you from the government you elected. Judging by some of the changes brought in the US in the name of the war on terror, guns really don't help.

Very low.

Our doors have cost my father less than a grand each,

Everything's cheap if someone else is paying for it FOR you...

I meant which country in Britain do you live, as each have different crime rates.

Well, which country I live in is really rather inconsequential. The initial question I raised was for proof that gunshot wounds are just as deadly as stab wounds. As far as I am concerned, places which have looser gun restrictions would probably provide better statistics. It does not matter if I am in england or scotland or wales... or even the outer hebrides.
The question is asking for a proportional representation of fatalities from each of the methods of injury, so as to ascertain if guns are just as deadly as knives.
Crime statistics are nothing to do with it. Also, crime statistics vary throughout region, not just what country I live in. London, for example, would have completely different statistics to Gloucestershire.

I am not trying to compare fatal gunshot stats between different countries.
I was trying to get the person who claimed 'guns kill just as dead as knives do' to back up his claim. Sure, a dead person is a dead person no matter how they were killed, so with his analogy, gumballs kill just as dead as guns do. Pianos kill just as dead as frozen bananas.... (but the banana wins because you can eat the evidence)... the list could go on with as many objects you can think of. Thus the actual point would be better served with statistics that show the proportionate differences between the survival rate of both injuries rather than the frequency of such injuries. Of course, no statistical results can ever be truly representative of all the facts, of which I am fully aware. I was generalising.:eek:

No Names Left.... I understand you are agreeing with me on principles, but I think you are focusing on the wrong part of my question and thus completely missing the point of the question. I hope my question is clearer now.

Wow, NSG is hard work. This is exactly why I have only posted 63 messages in the 18 months I have been on NSG.

On a seperate note... the whole 'self defence' reason for owning a gun was 'implied' to be an excuse by the words of one particular american car dealer on a popular British TV show. In the show, three presenters were told to buy second-hand cars for a very small budget and drive across america. When they couldnt find any cars in their price range, a car dealer told them to head into the rougher neighbourhood for cheaper prices. He then warned them that they would probably be shot or robbed or both. (Nice bit of advice to a tourist). One presenter asked the car dealer if he had a gun, and the dealer proudly showed off a tiny handgun and a huge rifle with telescopic sights. The handgun, sure that could be used for self defence, but when asked why he had such a powerful sight on his rifle he replied "Its so I can shoot them when they run away!".
How does the plea of self-defence apply to someone who shot a fleeing suspect?

On a sidenote, the program with the three presenters went on to give away the three cars to some people who were struggling to rebuild their lives after the Hurricane Katrina.... and one woman tried to sue them for mistakenly telling her the wrong year of manufacture for one of the cars. :confused:
But that is completely off topic.

You already said you'd fire shots before you knew the act was a deliberate break-in, and even in the case that it WASN'T a burglary.
Only if I seriously suspect there's a threat. If there's a drunk knocking on the door, I would just shout at him. Shout. Not shoot.

Although the reason I wouldn't fire a warning shot without serious suspicion is not because I think it's bad, but rather to avoid raising false alarm.


That's not what you said at all.
Also, a drunk guy would realize his mistake after the warning shot, at least. I thought the term "warning shot" is pretty clear at that.


You made the inane assertion that you must automatically be better trained than anyone breaking into your home.
Not automatically, but likely - more able criminals tend to engage in better paying crimes. Plus, in my house, I have some "terrain" advantage, and time's on my side.


Where did this 'intent to kill' bullshit come from?
Right from you.
Which is why, if they find you awake and/or armed, they'll shoot you dead, to avoid one.
And it's pretty obvious that hostiles intending to shoot me for merely being awake (even if not armed, as you've put "or" there) do not deserve any mercy.


So - it's the lack of logic that's the problem then? 'Violent criminal life' is still 'human life'.
We seem to have an axiomatic disagreement on this point.
While I agree it is still life, it's not quite on the same level of value as the life of a law-abiding citizen.

Everything's cheap if someone else is paying for it FOR you...
These doors were installed long before I was in any position to pay for anything.

But for the new windows and window film, I chipped in. And I'd pay for the doors and alarm myself too if I had to. My job doesn't exactly require me to count each hundred.

Which is crap,
The Internet is not an excuse for incivility and verbal bludgeoning. Please participate as a fellow intellectual, in an appropriately intellectual manner, or do not participate at all.

There are no objective moral laws. Typing on the internet could be a crime, in which case you are now a criminal. How do you feel about your arguments regarding criminals, now?
Could you clarify what you're getting at here?

Ayn Rand 'proved' no such thing, though she makes a whole lot of assertions that are heavy on rhetoric, and light on reality.

If you can't make a real argument, stop wasting my time.

I defy you to find a single instance of a false premise or flawed logic in all of her work.

The 'existence of rights' IS a metaphysical concept, and has no real-world application. As such, it is ENTIRELY about recognition by 'society', at least.
You do realize that metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of reality, right?

So - borrowing five bucks from you literally gives some of your remaining life to me... until I give it back, when you will miraculously live slightly longer again?
Philosophically, morally speaking, correct.

Time of your life also passes while you take a dump. That doesn't mean life is shit. The mere passage of time is in no way definitive.
Your choice of language belies your suitedness for intellectual discussion. I use way more than my share of foul language; but there's a time and a place for everything, and this isn't it. Aggressive and condescending language is not a substitute for an actual argument.

I have no problem having my ideas and thoughts challenged, and engaging in insightful discussion about them. There are several here who appear willing to do quite that. But I will not encourage, through response, your childish, immature, and wholly inappropriate behavior. I'm done with you, until such time as you demonstrate your ability to engage in intellectual discussion in a proper manner.

I defy you to find a single instance of a false premise or flawed logic in all of her work.


You do realize that metaphysics is the study of the fundamental nature of reality, right?

Present the proof, sir, present the proof. You are the one making claims, without you presenting these claims, we cannot shoot them down.

Thus it is actually to your advantage to not present the proof, because there is no way the first principles of the universe can be used to justify any sort of moral position. But I may be surprised, so please show me the proof, the premises it works from and the logic it uses.


Philosophically, morally speaking, correct.

How about another tack. If theft is wrong because you are robbing me of the time I laboured for that item, why is theft of gifts wrong?

Top Gear snip

Yeah, that's a good point, also on that episode they were shot at (yes, shot at, for those of you that haven't heard of this) for pretending to be gay. Is that self defence then or what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiry7ysVA9Y

Which is why we have the right to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms.

Tried buying nukes lately?

I tried buying some nukes 30 years ago.

They only just let me out of prison last week, though.

Present the proof, sir, present the proof. You are the one making claims, without you presenting these claims, we cannot shoot them down.
OK, from the beginning: do you accept that A is A?

How about another tack. If theft is wrong because you are robbing me of the time I laboured for that item, why is theft of gifts wrong?

Because it denies the right of the gift-giver to dispose of his property/life as he pleases.

If I give you something equivalent to five hours of my life, it is because I wanted it to go to you specifically. But if someone else then steals it, it is no longer going to you; therefore, I have lost those five hours.

Contrast that with the scenario of "regifting" (because I have a hunch that that's what your next example will be): I gave you those five hours, meaning you may dispose of them how you please; if you turn around and give that gift to a third person, you are doing just that--so I am not denied my right to dispose of my property/life as I please.

Tried buying nukes lately?

What's your point?

If you have the right to do something, that the government in power prevents you from doing it does not change that fact; it simply means that the government is violating that right, and therefore is illegitimate.

What's your point?

If you have the right to do something, that the government in power prevents you from doing it does not change that fact; it simply means that the government is violating that right, and therefore is illegitimate.

Are you actually arguing that there is a basic human right to own nuclear weapons and because democratically elected governments don't allow this that they are illegitmate and should be overthrown by an armed citizenry?

OK, from the beginning: do you accept that A is A?


Yes, presuming that both As are the same.


Because it denies the right of the gift-giver to dispose of his property/life as he pleases.

If I give you something equivalent to five hours of my life, it is because I wanted it to go to you specifically. But if someone else then steals it, it is no longer going to you; therefore, I have lost those five hours.

Contrast that with the scenario of "regifting" (because I have a hunch that that's what your next example will be): I gave you those five hours, meaning you may dispose of them how you please; if you turn around and give that gift to a third person, you are doing just that--so I am not denied my right to dispose of my property/life as I please.

Your hunch is wrong.

If you give me something equivalent to five hours of your life, you have accepted the loss of five hours of your life. The fact that someone then takes it from me makes no change to the loss you experienced, and thus it cannot be wrong. To deny that, you have to assert that I maintain rights over property that I have given to someone else, but if that is the case, they should not be allowed to pass it on further without my consent.

You can't have it both ways.

And what is the problem with our laws? We don't all the loonies that reside in our countries to get a hold of guns. Not all people possess the mental stability to carry a weapon. One may posses the right to defend oneself, but others also posses the right to be safe from unstable people who, while holding a gun in their hands, could endanger the life of those around him or her. What's more, I am pro sterner laws regarding weapong in Europe. And if someone's to apply to carry a weapon, rigurous psychological tests must be performed in this person to make certain he/she is not wrong in the head. If the person fails the tests, a licence to carry a gun should be denied, for all time. No reconsidering after some time has passed or anything. That person should be rendered inadequate to carry a wepon for the rest of his/her life.

And what is the problem with our laws? We don't all the loonies that reside in our countries to get a hold of guns. Not all people possess the mental stability to carry a weapon. One may posses the right to defend oneself, but others also posses the right to be safe from unstable people who, while holding a gun in their hands, could endanger the life of those around him or her. What's more, I am pro sterner laws regarding weapong in Europe. And if someone's to apply to carry a weapon, rigurous psychological tests must be performed in this person to make certain he/she is not wrong in the head. If the person fails the tests, a licence to carry a gun should be denied, for all time. No reconsidering after some time has passed or anything. That person should be rendered inadequate to carry a wepon for the rest of his/her life.
Since when does the US allow all the crazies over here get guns? And if someone really is mentally unstable, it doesn't matter if he has a gun or a steak knife, he could go after someone. By imposing stricter gun laws, you're disarming someone who might be able to stop the madman before he kills someone.

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u291/TyDyeArt/Aw-Jeez.jpg

On a more serious note, I've become fascinated with the Swiss K-31. Eventually, I shall own one. :D

Hey that's my favorite pic to use!

Hey, the more who use it, the merrier.

Concerning guns, while I am more anti-gun control (Although I believe people who use guns must be checked more thoroughly and be educated well on how to use guns.), it is not surprising that Western Europe is more pro-gun control. Western Europe is probably the most socially liberal area on Earth (Although definitely not the most economically liberal, while they do tend to be more socialist).

One thing that must be brought up (If it has been previously brought up, I apologize), is that socialism is NOT a political philosophy, it is merely an economic philosophy that says the government should have a large (although not total) role in economic affairs, both intranational and international.

Since when does the US allow all the crazies over here get guns? And if someone really is mentally unstable, it doesn't matter if he has a gun or a steak knife, he could go after someone. By imposing stricter gun laws, you're disarming someone who might be able to stop the madman before he kills someone.
While that is completely possible, I have never heard of it happening. Is there any story of it occurring? Somewhere?

Here we go...

30 pages later and i think this is the best prediction for a thread i've seen in a while.

And what is the problem with our laws? We don't all the loonies that reside in our countries to get a hold of guns. Not all people possess the mental stability to carry a weapon. One may posses the right to defend oneself, but others also posses the right to be safe from unstable people who, while holding a gun in their hands, could endanger the life of those around him or her. What's more, I am pro sterner laws regarding weapong in Europe. And if someone's to apply to carry a weapon, rigurous psychological tests must be performed in this person to make certain he/she is not wrong in the head. If the person fails the tests, a licence to carry a gun should be denied, for all time. No reconsidering after some time has passed or anything. That person should be rendered inadequate to carry a wepon for the rest of his/her life.
I agree...on the most part. I do believe that anyone who wishes to purchase a gun should be evaluated, have background checks, etc. However, there should be notable exceptions. I have a personal experience that I believe will show a flaw in your plan (I do not disagree with your plan overall, no plan is perfect).

I have ADHD and anxiety. I currently take Zoloft and Concerta. Without these medications, I am merely more jumpy, inattentive, and goofy. I am not dangerous.

However, there was a time when I was dangerous, but not because of my disorders. It was because of one my old medications: Paxil.

It is now known that Paxil, when used on pre-teens and teenagers, can produce terrible results: rage issues, behavioral changes, suicidal thoughts. Unfortunately, I experienced all three, which got me in trouble(I did not harm anyone, mind you, but I did threaten someone close to me with a knife. To this day, the memory of that haunts me.)

I was placed in one of my city's hospital's teenager mental health facilities. I stayed for about a week, and they found the problem: Paxil.

Paxil was the cause of all my rage and anger issues. It had nothing to do with my actual mental stability or behavior. It was completely out of my control. Therefore, my doctors called the police, told them that my problems were not at all a cause of my mental stability (which is very healthy) or my behavior (which is quite average). The police took my run-ins with them off my criminal record, leaving me with an unblighted record.

Since then, I have not even had anything close to an outbreak of rage (Do I have a temper, yes. But I do not harm people because of it.)

Now, I do use guns (Nothing major, just a Red Ryder BB gun.) Am I too dangerous to use guns? I may have been in a mental facility, but it was due to medication I was being given, not an inherent mental problem.

While that is completely possible, I have never heard of it happening. Is there any story of it occurring? Somewhere?

Here, I think, is the most famous case (http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm)

Here, I think, is the most famous case (http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm)

Unsurprisingly, I hadn't heard of that until you just showed me it. I'm sure there are plenty more situations where a gun has prevented a crime.

Are we talking about a real home invasion? Or - is this a thought exercise we are using to justify the ownership of guns?

I'm not currently having any kind of home invasion, and haven't had. So... yes, it's imaginary.

So because a home invasion has not happened to you, they do not happen? There's logic for you.

No - I'm just not assuming it's happening at all, because I'm not looking for excuses to have a lethal weapon.

That's nice.


You said I said something.

I said I didn't.

Asking you to show me where I said the things you CLAIM I said is not a silly attempt to try to put you on the defensive - it's a perfectly reasonable request for you to back up your claims.

All one needs to do is go back a few pages to show how disingenuous you're being. I'm not going to play your game. You equated legal firearm ownership to criminal activity. Denying it just make you look more like a fool.

You want the original quote? Fine:

"Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Isn't that the argument being used as for why it's okay for random dipshits to have guns?

"You can't take my guns away, I never hurt anyone".

Well, in this case, you're apparently prejudging the 'burglar', and executing him for it... which is a harsher punishment than just taking someone's guns away, no?"

There you go. Keep denying it.

No - it shows that I'm not content to let you make up arguments for me, and then pretend they were mine.

I posted your exact statement. You decided to play word games instead of defending your claims.

No - you missed the point. The definition of 'safety' wasn't the important part.

Oh it's quite important. You 'argue' that one should give up rights for safety.

You then refuse to define your subjective view of 'safety' because you cannot. You claim that rights are an 'amorphous concept' but are unable to quantify what you 'argue' we would get in return for giving them up.

I think out gun laws here in the UK are good enough. I have a shotgun for sport and pest control, had to get a licence for it and every year the police come and check the house is safe to keep firearms. A fair proportion of the people round here have firearms and I have never heard of a single serious gun crime in the area.

What our laws do ensure is our police don’t require firearms, and they don’t want them. You only have a gun if you need one, and the "I need a gun to protect myself" doesn’t really apply unless you live in a very dodgy part of the city because the general populace doesn’t have guns. Also the UK is much smaller than the US so the armed police can be there in much a quicker time over here.

In the US the right to bear arms makes sense, but not here in the UK where the only people with illegal guns are a minority of “gangsters”. Even the IRA have given up there weapons

European police forces operate on the basis that they have a duty to protect people, I seem to remember people saying this was not the case in the US.

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

Guns often have the tendency to hurt people.
Also less guns give criminals less leverage.
To solve the burglar issue: good police coverage, education and good security of doors and windows.

Tybra;14321707']Guns often have the tendency to hurt people.
Also less guns give criminals less leverage.
To solve the burglar issue: good police coverage, education and good security of doors and windows.
What about Corrupt Police? Less guns also give innocent law-abiding citizens less leverage when faced with a armed criminal. (Whether the criminal's weapon be a knife, a chain, or a gun)

What about Corrupt Police? Less guns also give innocent law-abiding citizens less leverage when faced with a armed criminal. (Whether the criminal's weapon be a knife, a chain, or a gun)

Is the US full of corrupt police officers?

Tybra;14321707']Guns often have the tendency to hurt people.
Also less guns give criminals less leverage.
To solve the burglar issue: good police coverage, education and good security of doors and windows.

Police, education, and house security only can go so far. There will always be people desperate or evil enough to procur an illegal firearm for use in a crime, and there will always be crime.

Outlawing firearms doesn't take away guns from the outlaw. The outlaw will merely give the law the finger, get a gun, and commit a crime anyway.

Guns do have the tendency to hurt people when people are stupid or evil. Guns, by themselves, will not commit a crime (They may accidentally go off, but they should be put in a gun safe anyways.) I have yet to see a pack of rifles going around shooting up a town.

Less guns give law-obiding citizens less leverage, not criminals.

Is the US full of corrupt police officers?

Most police officers in the United States are good people who serve the people with honor and morality.

Nonetheless, there are still some bad apples out there.

Most police officers in the United States are good people who serve the people with honor and morality.

Nonetheless, there are still some bad apples out there.

aye but there's bad apples in any service or job you might wish to encounter.

I have more guns than your entire block! HAHAHAHA!!!
Any yet, even if you're living in la Zona (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039652/) you're not safer, and it seems like you live in more fear...


Well, I know that if our neighborhood suddenly changes and crime levels go on the rise, I'll still have some safety to fall back on. The plan /b/. I don't have to rely solely on the hope that no one would ever want to do any harm to me.
Hmm... So the gun is more as a safety blanket for you to cling to when you worry about the possibility of change in the future.

I guess it's how it has to be though. After all, if the crime levels in your neighborhood go up, you know that the people who might turn to crime (your neighbors) are armed.

I'm a European and I want the right to own a gun. But then I also want to mate with my cousin and have a sofa on my front lawn.

aye but there's bad apples in any service or job you might wish to encounter.

Precisely.

I'm a European and I want the right to own a gun. But then I also want to mate with my cousin and have a sofa on my front lawn.

Not all people who want the right to own a gun are rednecks.

Not all people who want the right to own a gun are rednecks.

Tackleberry? (http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=tackleberry+pictures&FORM=BIRE#)

Unsurprisingly, I hadn't heard of that until you just showed me it.
In this case, it's probably because of this part:

Woodham was fleeing from the high school when an assistant principal rammed his car into Woodham's mother's vehicle to stop him.
Linky (http://edition.cnn.com/US/9710/02/miss.shooting.folo/)

Hence, I'm not sure if the case fits the criterias of your query.

Is the US full of corrupt police officers?

Not full of, no.

*watches Hot Fuzz*
good movie.

In this case, it's probably because of this part:


Linky (http://edition.cnn.com/US/9710/02/miss.shooting.folo/)

Hence, I'm not sure if the case fits the criterias of your query.

interesting... Two seperate accounts. one has the kid crashing the truck while the other has the VP not aiming the gun at the kid, but ramming the kid's truck.

Any yet, even if you're living in la Zona (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1039652/) you're not safer, and it seems like you live in more fear...
What do I have to fear, short of a war? I have taken precautions against virtually everything. I have a solid house, with proper doors and windows, with a full basement and a small shelter, fire extinguishers in every room, an emergency power generator. There is some fuel reserve in case it runs out at the pump, storable supplies of food and medicine, regular and protective clothing, finally I have my guns and ammunition. I'm pretty well prepared to the most likely emergencies. So I don't need to fear anything, I've done all I reasonably could to prepare myself, the rest is up to God.


Hmm... So the gun is more as a safety blanket for you to cling to when you worry about the possibility of change in the future.
The gun for me is a device for having fun. The rest is merely side benefits.


I guess it's how it has to be though. After all, if the crime levels in your neighborhood go up, you know that the people who might turn to crime (your neighbors) are armed.
These? No, they won't. My neighbors are all very good, solid conservatives. They have steady income or military pensions. They have no need to turn to crime. And we're a very close-knit community, so if something extreme happens that they have to turn to crime, say a revolution or a nuclear war, I will be with them, not against.

Only if I seriously suspect there's a threat. If there's a drunk knocking on the door, I would just shout at him. Shout. Not shoot.


Then you've already proved your own earlier statements to be hyperbole. How can you expect to be taken seriously?


Although the reason I wouldn't fire a warning shot without serious suspicion is not because I think it's bad, but rather to avoid raising false alarm.


So firing warning shots, based on nothing, isn't 'wrong'?


I thought the term "warning shot" is pretty clear at that.


Yes. You would discharge a firearm in the vicinity of another person.


Not automatically, but likely - more able criminals tend to engage in better paying crimes. Plus, in my house, I have some "terrain" advantage, and time's on my side.


More rubbish. You just make this shit up and expect not to get called on it?


Right from you.


If you can't argue honestly, don't use my words.

I didn't say anything about 'intent to kill'.

Indeed, of the two of us, the only person who has even suggested an intent to kill, has been you, saying words to the effect of how you 'intend to kill' anyone that breaks into your house.


And it's pretty obvious that hostiles intending to shoot me for merely being awake (even if not armed, as you've put "or" there) do not deserve any mercy.


You don't seem to be able to keep separate thoughts... separate. You're conflating three or four different ideas.


We seem to have an axiomatic disagreement on this point.


Yes. I'm right, and you're wrong.


While I agree it is still life, it's not quite on the same level of value as the life of a law-abiding citizen.

Which is irrelevent, because that wasn't mentioned, and certainly wasn't what you said. What's with all your dishonesty on this subject?

These doors were installed long before I was in any position to pay for anything.

But for the new windows and window film, I chipped in. And I'd pay for the doors and alarm myself too if I had to. My job doesn't exactly require me to count each hundred.

So now you're shooting people... for damaging someone else's property...

The gun for me is a device for having fun. The rest is merely side benefits.
You know what else is a device for having fun? A pool table.

These? No, they won't. My neighbors are all very good, solid conservatives.
Bigot.

The Internet is not an excuse for incivility and verbal bludgeoning.


The Internet is not an excuse for hollow rhetoric and inane preaching.

It seems we have reached an impasse.

You don't like me using the word 'crap' to describe your bullshit arguments, and I don't like the fact you present bullshit arguments as though they were in any way meaningful.


Please participate as a fellow intellectual, in an appropriately intellectual manner, or do not participate at all.


Interestingly, my responses tend to gear themselves to the level of the poster I'm responding to. If I'm dismissing your argument as pointless 'bullshit', it's probably because you've wasted my time by preaching your Randroid mantra without any attempt to support it.

If you want me to step up my game, you've got a long way to go to be able to demand it.


Could you clarify what you're getting at here?

Sure. Your argument concerned criminal activity as though it were regulated by some overarching objective measure, and you can allocate punishment based on that.

'Law', quite transparently, is a cultural artifact... so how do you feel about having your own punishments administered by others for crimes which we could choose to declare.

Then you've already proved your own earlier statements to be hyperbole. How can you expect to be taken seriously?
I didn't use hyperboles. You might have read me wrong. I've written "shout" all along.


So firing warning shots, based on nothing, isn't 'wrong'?
Yes. You would discharge a firearm in the vicinity of another person.
What's wrong with that? I regularly discharge firearms in the vicinity of another person, for instance during plinking.


You just make this shit up and expect not to get called on it?
I don't make this up. I have already explained why the situation is in my favor. I just need to hold until the cops arrive. I don't need to break into a house, clean it out, and escape under the nose of the police.


I didn't say anything about 'intent to kill'.
Which is why, if they find you awake and/or armed, they'll shoot you dead, to avoid one.
How is this not intent to kill?


Yes. I'm right, and you're wrong. You're a bigot, nothing else.

Your sole argument relies on "I like A so A is right and B is wrong".
I knew you'd eventually fall this low, but didn't expect it so soon.

I defy you to find a single instance of a false premise or flawed logic in all of her work.


It's the other way. Her entire logic is based on false premises.


Philosophically, morally speaking, correct.


Rubbish. Your amount of life doesn't change because I borrow money from you. You don't live a shorter time for lending it to me, and you don't gain any extra for me repaying you.

The 'argument' is trash.


Your choice of language belies your suitedness for intellectual discussion.


Not at all.

My choice of language belies my perspective on the same recycled old Randroid mantra being regurgitated onto the forum.

It is no referendum on my aptitude - only my attitude.


I use way more than my share of foul language; but there's a time and a place for everything, and this isn't it. Aggressive and condescending language is not a substitute for an actual argument.


If you'd presented an actual argument, you might have a point. But you haven't. You've claimed that someone else has an argument... and you've not even presented that.


I have no problem having my ideas and thoughts challenged,


You have no ideas or thoughts, based on the evidence of the thread.


...and engaging in insightful discussion about them. There are several here who appear willing to do quite that. But I will not encourage, through response, your childish, immature, and wholly inappropriate behavior. I'm done with you, until such time as you demonstrate your ability to engage in intellectual discussion in a proper manner.

Acting like you have some sort of moral highground doesn't hide the fact that you have no argument, and are just preaching Ayn Rand like religion.

You think you're what? Depriving me of the wisdom of your arguments? You haven't presented anything substantive yet.

So - telling me that my choice of verbiage is going to cause you to opt out... is kind of like threatening that you're going to stop shitting on my doorstep.

The gun for me is a device for having fun. The rest is merely side benefits.
:(

sorry, but a Gun is not a toy. please do not handle a gun untill you no longer consider a gun as a device for having fun.

Because it denies the right of the gift-giver to dispose of his property/life as he pleases.


Rubbish. The gift has been given. The gift-ee has expended no labour, thus - by your 'logic' the property has no 'value' for them. Why, then, is it wrong to steal it from the gift-ee?

So now you're shooting people... for damaging someone else's property...
If I live in a house, owned by my family, it's my house. If someone is breaking into it, they commit a severe crime. Additionally, I can have reasonable suspicion that they might not merely rob me, but torch the house and murder my family to cover their tracks. That's a very solid reason to take every possible measure to put the perps six feet under.

So because a home invasion has not happened to you, they do not happen? There's logic for you.


No, bec ause we're talking about an imagined event, for the sake of argument... it is an 'imaginary' home invasion.


All one needs to do is go back a few pages to show how disingenuous you're being. I'm not going to play your game. You equated legal firearm ownership to criminal activity. Denying it just make you look more like a fool.

"Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Isn't that the argument being used as for why it's okay for random dipshits to have guns?

"You can't take my guns away, I never hurt anyone".

Well, in this case, you're apparently prejudging the 'burglar', and executing him for it... which is a harsher punishment than just taking someone's guns away, no?"


Which shows that I equated the ARGUMENTS, nothing more.


I posted your exact statement. You decided to play word games instead of defending your claims.


You called my mother a fat whore?

You're saying you didn't? Why are you playing word games instead of defending your claim?


Oh it's quite important. You 'argue' that one should give up rights for safety.


Context, my dear. Look at the context.


You then refuse to define your subjective view of 'safety' because you cannot. You claim that rights are an 'amorphous concept' but are unable to quantify what you 'argue' we would get in return for giving them up.

That's because 'safety' is not the point of the statement. Again, look to the context.

So, america has thousands of gun crimes every week, not to mention deaths.

Now, if you combine the populations of germany, france, UK, australia, japan, i could go on, until u got the size of population that US has, we, combined, had about 50 or so gun deaths, are americans more homicidal? OR Is it because we have GUN CONTROL LAWS!!!

The 2nd amendment in US gives "a well regulated militia" rights to bear arms, do u think it was talking about gangs of 5 people in the ghetto, i think not, owning a gun means you're more likely to use it, don't be stupid and say it's nothing to do with gun, it's everything to do with the gun.

I didn't use hyperboles. You might have read me wrong. I've written "shout" all along.


Obviously.

The first time I mentioned it, you responded by explaining how you would fire a warning shout. That makes so much more sense.


What's wrong with that? I regularly discharge firearms in the vicinity of another person, for instance during plinking.


Discharging firearms during plinking is inherently dangerous. Guns and sex just don't mix.


I don't make this up. I have already explained why the situation is in my favor. I just need to hold until the cops arrive. I don't need to break into a house, clean it out, and escape under the nose of the police.


You're right. You don't NEED to make this shit up, which makes me wonder why you do. I've lost track of the number of bullshit claims about 99.9% of this, 9 out of ten of that, you've made up without any evidence. And now 'more able criminals' commit 'better paying' crime... it's more of the same baseless crap.


How is this not intent to kill?


Because action and intent aren't indentities?


You're a bigot, nothing else.


No - me being right and you being wrong doesn't make me a bigot - it just makes you wrong.


Your sole argument relies on "I like A so A is right and B is wrong".
I knew you'd eventually fall this low, but didn't expect it so soon.

That's not my argument at all, as well you know.

You made a statement which wasn't true, I've called you on it, and now your PRETENDING it's about what I like or don't like.

It is either true, or false, depending on whether a 'criminal' (or, in your examples, someone you THINK is a criminal) is 'human'.

That's why I say you are wrong - nothing to do with whther or not I 'like' it.

If I live in a house, owned by my family, it's my house. If someone is breaking into it, they commit a severe crime. Additionally, I can have reasonable suspicion that they might not merely rob me, but torch the house and murder my family to cover their tracks. That's a very solid reason to take every possible measure to put the perps six feet under.

So - you want to kill people based on what you project they might do? At least the death penalty - whether you agree with it or not - is only applied AFTER the crime is committed.

interesting... Two seperate accounts. one has the kid crashing the truck while the other has the VP not aiming the gun at the kid, but ramming the kid's truck.

All accounts have him trying to get away at that point though, right?

Additionally, I can have reasonable suspicion that they might not merely rob me, but torch the house and murder my family to cover their tracks. That's a very solid reason to take every possible measure to put the perps six feet under.

Wait, didn't you spend the early part of this thread arguing that burglars weren't marine assault teams and were likely to run at the first sign of trouble?

No, bec ause we're talking about an imagined event, for the sake of argument... it is an 'imaginary' home invasion.
Which shows that I equated the ARGUMENTS, nothing more.
You called my mother a fat whore?
You're saying you didn't? Why are you playing word games instead of defending your claim?
Context, my dear. Look at the context.
That's because 'safety' is not the point of the statement. Again, look to the context.

Aw, Isn't that cute. GNI doesn't like it when his words are taken as they are posted.

Why don't you show anywhere where I even reference your 'mother'? That's completely legitimate, right? Oh, wait, you can't because you're just making crap up to try and distract from the facts of your own posts. Not a real surprise.

The 'context' is that you have 'argued' that one subjective form be completely removed because it is subjective and be replaced w. something else which you are unable to define in any way, shape, or form.

That is the 'context'. Just because you don't like being called on it doesn't mean it's not there. Come on GNI. What is this 'safety' you 'argue' should completely replace rights?

Welcome to 'real life'.

The first time I mentioned it, you responded by explaining how you would fire a warning shout. That makes so much more sense.
I would SHOUT at him to leave, and if it doesn't work, fire a WARNING SHOT. What's not clear?


Discharging firearms during plinking is inherently dangerous. Guns and sex just don't mix.
Welcome to the real world. I don't know what they call plinking in the libereality, but out here it's entertainment target shooting.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plinking


And now 'more able criminals' commit 'better paying' crime... Burglary doesn't pay well. The selling price of the stuff taken is a small fraction of its original value.


Because action and intent aren't indentities?
Stop your semantics BS. If people are breaking into my house and there's as much as a small chance that they might try to kill or injure me or my family, it's enough of a reason to disable them preemptively. End of story.


You made a statement which Which expresses my moral beliefs, and inherently relies solely on personal beliefs.
As you admit yourself.
It is either true, or false, depending on whether a 'criminal' (or, in your examples, someone you THINK is a criminal) is 'human'.
If it's a violent criminal who is committing burglary, I do not accept him to deserve the title of a Human, so, as far as I'm concerned, he's not.

What do I have to fear, short of a war?
You tell me. Your posts seem to hold a lot of fear, you seem to imagine the worst case scenario for any hypothetical, you live behind bulletproof glass and steel doors even in a neighborhood that you say is safe and where "gang crime" doesn't happen. Why are you so afraid?

So I don't need to fear anything, I've done all I reasonably could to prepare myself, the rest is up to God.
Preparation is always good. Paranoia... not necessarily so.


The gun for me is a device for having fun. The rest is merely side benefits.
So you really don't need it to stay safe, it's just an item that you can amuse yourself with that has some "side effects" as well.

Thank you for conceding the debate.


These? No, they won't. My neighbors are all very good, solid conservatives. They have steady income or military pensions. They have no need to turn to crime.
"He was always so quiet and polite. Kept to himself mostly, and never bothered anybody."

You're making an absurd jump from something I did say, concerning a matter related not to epistemology but to ethics, and from it drawing a completely absurd and unsupported conclusion.How is it absurd and unjustified when I am the only one that defines what is morally justifiable to myself? Because what may be morally incorrect to you has no bearing on myself.
You're not used to having you own philosophy used against you, are you? :rolleyes:

So - you want to kill people based on what you project they might do? At least the death penalty - whether you agree with it or not - is only applied AFTER the crime is committed.
That's because it's a penalty.
Killing a burglar is not penalty. It's self-defense.

Yes, if I have reasonable suspicion that they might try to kill me, I have to defend myself with lethal force. I don't have a choice. I can't wait until they pull out a knife, it can be to late. My life is infinitely more valuable than a burglar's.


Wait, didn't you spend the early part of this thread arguing that burglars weren't marine assault teams and were likely to run at the first sign of trouble?
And it remains true.

But if you lets them to tie yourself and rob the house, there's no telling what they might do next. If you're lucky, they'll just leave. If you're not, they might torch the house to cover their tracks, and let you and your family burn down with it, tied up, so that no one can report them.

I don't want to take that risk. The lives of law-abiding citizens should be protected at any cost, and burglars belong six feet under.

That's because it's a penalty.
Killing a burglar is not penalty. It's self-defense.

Yes, if I have reasonable suspicion that they might try to kill me, I have to defend myself with lethal force. I don't have a choice. I can't wait until they pull out a knife, it can be to late. My life is infinitely more valuable than a burglar's.



And it remains true.

But if you lets them to tie yourself and rob the house, there's no telling what they might do next. If you're lucky, they'll just leave. If you're not, they might torch the house to cover their tracks, and let you and your family burn down with it, tied up, so that no one can report them.

I don't want to take that risk. The lives of law-abiding citizens should be protected at any cost, and burglars belong six feet under.

Starring Clint Eastwood as Flint McCormick and Playmate Karen Christy
as Rebecca Anne Thomas.

Nah, I agree. Anyone who goes onto someone else's property with criminal intent can die and I don't mind.

You tell me. Your posts seem to hold a lot of fear, you seem to imagine the worst case scenario for any hypothetical, you live behind bulletproof glass and steel doors even in a neighborhood that you say is safe and where "gang crime" doesn't happen. Why are you so afraid?
It's not that I'm afraid, just better safe than sorry. Plus, if a burglary does someday happen, by some remote gang, my house is likely to be one of the first targets, there's a lot to take inside. As a result, I try to keep it the best protected one as well, to counterweight that. With the modern technology, it's not particularly difficult or expensive for a private citizen to protect his home to a sufficient degree to discourage the potential offenders. So why not make use of it.


Preparation is always good. Paranoia... not necessarily so.
It's not paranoia. If I were paranoid, I'd run into the woods in some remote region. I'm not doing that, in fact, I'm not even causing myself any discomfort. I merely spend some spare time and money on improving my safety against possible emergencies.


So you really don't need it to stay safe, it's just an item that you can amuse yourself with that has some "side effects" as well.
It's not that I exactly *can't* stay reasonably safe without it, but it makes me even safer. Even having bullet-resistant doors and windows is of little use when you don't have a weapon of your own - given enough time, any passive defense can be breached. Brick and cement can be hammered out, then the frame hinges can be cut with a cutting torch or an abrasive saw. Passive protection just gives you the time to defend yourself while having an advantage.


"He was always so quiet and polite. Kept to himself mostly, and never bothered anybody."
Insanity happens, but in practice, gangs are formed by lowlifes.

Nah, I agree. Anyone who goes onto someone else's property with criminal intent can die and I don't mind.

"say... this 'business plan' you're trying to sell me looks like... a ponzie scam!" *BAM* :p

Wait, didn't you spend the early part of this thread arguing that burglars weren't marine assault teams and were likely to run at the first sign of trouble?

Exactly.

It's a sort of hit-and-run tactic. They hope you won't remember where the argument started.

So - Vault says something about burglars being easily whipped pussies... and when you aregue that that assumption is baseless, and they might just cap your ass... Vault starts areguning that they're all merciless killing machines bent on rapine and destruction.

The technique - I believe - is an attempt to make you argue against both extremes, so that you can be seen as not holding to either 'side' of the argument. It is irrelevent in that model, that 'reality' lies somewhere in the middle.

How is it absurd and unjustified when I am the only one that defines what is morally justifiable to myself?
You're not. Morality is objective, and is not something you can define for yourself.

Because what may be morally incorrect to you has no bearing on myself.
You're not used to having you own philosophy used against you, are you? :rolleyes:

Except that's not the case here; you're simply building a strawman that bears no relation to what my philosophy actually is.

Perhaps the fault is mine for not being clear enough, but regardless, if you're willing to accept that what you are claiming is nowhere near what my philosophy actually is, I'd be more than happy to try and explain it to you again so we can avoid this.

Aw, Isn't that cute. GNI doesn't like it when his words are taken as they are posted.


I don't mind, actually. I just don't think you should be presenting my arguments as something other than they were - if for no other reason than that it is a logical fallacy.


Why don't you show anywhere where I even reference your 'mother'? That's completely legitimate, right? Oh, wait, you can't because you're just making crap up to try and distract from the facts of your own posts. Not a real surprise.


You didn't mention my mother. That was an illustrative example.

You are arguing that I am quibbling over the semantics rather than defending my argument. I'm showing you that INVENTING something for me to have said, and then me saying 'errr... I didn't SAY that' ISN'T quibbling semantics.


The 'context' is that you have 'argued' that one subjective form be completely removed because it is subjective and be replaced w. something else which you are unable to define in any way, shape, or form.

That is the 'context'.


No. It's not.

The context was that someone made an assertion about how the only answer was to sacrifice subjective concepts for a subjective concept.

I reversed the concepts.

If you really REALLY have a bug in your diaper about it, the person that cited 'safety' wasn't me. THAT is the context.


Just because you don't like being called on it doesn't mean it's not there. Come on GNI. What is this 'safety' you 'argue' should completely replace rights?


There are no 'rights', thus - nothing to replace.


Welcome to 'real life'.

It's nice here. I'll save you a space.

Tackleberry? (http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=tackleberry+pictures&FORM=BIRE#)

lmao


Seriously, though, the absence of legal guns does not equal an absence of illegal guns.

You are merely taking away guns from the law-abiding citizens.

So, america has thousands of gun crimes every week, not to mention deaths.

Now, if you combine the populations of germany, france, UK, australia, japan, i could go on, until u got the size of population that US has, we, combined, had about 50 or so gun deaths, are americans more homicidal? OR Is it because we have GUN CONTROL LAWS!!!

The 2nd amendment in US gives "a well regulated militia" rights to bear arms, do u think it was talking about gangs of 5 people in the ghetto, i think not, owning a gun means you're more likely to use it, don't be stupid and say it's nothing to do with gun, it's everything to do with the gun.

It isn't true that it has nothing to do with the gun, but it is also wrong to say that it is everything to do with the gun. You are blind to the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Also, your reasoning is fallacious, you assume that the only reason there are more gun deaths in the U.S. is because of a lack of gun control laws and the only reason there are less gun deaths in other nations is because of gun control laws. There are other factors: Culture and crime reporting rates, just to name a couple, not to mention there might be more homicides of different types in different nations.

I would SHOUT at him to leave, and if it doesn't work, fire a WARNING SHOT. What's not clear?


It's perfectly clear.

It's also not what you said... so pretending it is makes you a liar.


Welcome to the real world.


Oh, the irony.


I don't know what they call plinking in the libereality


Rural Georgia is 'libereality'? Clearly, you've never been there.


...but out here it's entertainment target shooting.
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plinking


It sounds like it would be a euphemisim for blowing a guy while he took a dump.


Burglary doesn't pay well. The selling price of the stuff taken is a small fraction of its original value.


Yes. Well done. But that's not it's defining characteristic as a crime. Burglary is a crime of opportunity. So - someone who needs access to quick money for... say... a fix, is more likely to burglarise than to stage an extensive campaign of wire fraud.


Stop your semantics BS.


Semantics?

Pointing out that 'intent' (which you cited) is only an appropriate term to describe something that is.. well, intended... isn't 'semantic bullshit'.

It's expecting you to use the language in a coherent fashion.

Are you telling me that's too much to ask?


If people are breaking into my house and there's as much as a small chance that they might try to kill or injure me or my family, it's enough of a reason to disable them preemptively. End of story.


I wonder what the state laws say?


Which expresses my moral beliefs, and inherently relies solely on personal beliefs.


There is nothing 'moral' about your belief.


As you admit yourself.



If it's a violent criminal who is committing burglary, I do not accept him to deserve the title of a Human, so, as far as I'm concerned, he's not.

Which is irrelevent... because they will still be human, whether you delude yourself or not... and that would be a rather weak excuse to try to use in your trial.

Your hunch is wrong.

If you give me something equivalent to five hours of your life, you have accepted the loss of five hours of your life. The fact that someone then takes it from me makes no change to the loss you experienced,

Sure it does.

When I give someone a gift, it's because I want that person to enjoy it. HOW he enjoys it--through using it himself, transferring it to someone else, etc.--is his business, but I am transferring the enjoyment to him particularly.

If I didn't care who got the enjoyment out of it then I'd just set it on the side of the road with a sign saying "Free - take it!"

Morality is objective...

No, it isn't.

So - Vault says something about burglars being easily whipped pussies... and when you aregue that that assumption is baseless, and they might just cap your ass... Vault starts areguning that they're all merciless killing machines bent on rapine and destruction.
I wish it were so, but you make some incorrect assumptions here, by missing the duality of ability and intent.

Ability-wise, they fail. I don't live in a cardboard box, you can't simply punch a hole in the door with your fist and enter. I can shoot, so can my father, and even my significant other. I wouldn't bet on the burglars unless they're really well prepared. I can shoot them from any point I like, they can't shoot me until they break in, which takes time.

But intent-wise, I can have reasonable suspicion that their intent might involve causing lethal harm to the inhabitants. It's my right to assume the worst-case scenario. And so me/we should defend myself/ourselves with lethal force. Better safe than dead.


So you see, I assume that their intent is the worst possible, but I know I most likely can stop them from carrying it out.

lmao


Seriously, though, the absence of legal guns does not equal an absence of illegal guns.

You are merely taking away guns from the law-abiding citizens.

No, not 'merely'... by reducing the number of legal guns, you actually make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons, also. Seems like a good enough reason to do it.

I wish it were so, but you make some incorrect assumptions here, by missing the duality of ability and intent.


Seriously?

After telling me that the difference between 'inent and ability' was semantic BS, you're going to say I'M missing the point...?


Ability-wise, they fail. I don't live in a cardboard box, you can't simply punch a hole in the door with your fist and enter. I can shoot, so can my father, and even my significant other. I wouldn't bet on the burglars unless they're really well prepared. I can shoot them from any point I like, they can't shoot me until they break in, which takes time.


Aren't you the lucky one?

Not everyone has bulletproof glass in their windows.


But intent-wise, I can have reasonable suspicion


Nothing reasonable about it.


So you see, I assume that their intent is the worst possible, but I know I most likely can stop them from carrying it out.

Yes, by killing everyone. You probably even think it's original.

No, not 'merely'... by reducing the number of legal guns, you actually make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons, also. Seems like a good enough reason to do it.

Keyword is "seems".

The idea of taking legal guns of the street is the wrong way to go about fighting crime. Yes, it will be harder for criminals to get guns, but they'll get them anyway, because they don't care about the law, otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.

What should be done is not to take away guns, but merely educate the masses on the proper use. A man who knows his gun, how to use it, how to hold it, and what dangers are inherent with his gun, is a very responsible man who is more beneficial to safety than harmful.

No, not 'merely'... by reducing the number of legal guns, you actually make it harder for criminals to obtain weapons, also. Seems like a good enough reason to do it.

Yes, but law-abiding citizens will then have zero guns, while the criminals, although it will be harder to obtain them, will inevitably have some anyway. the people will now be more defenseless.

Guns need to stay out of the hands of minors, felons, the mentally ill, and the rest of that irresponsible/excessively dangerous group, but they should be open to others.