I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.
I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. For starters, which "worsening problem" might you be talking about? More guns over time in the US. How is this a problem? If you can't figure out why, then I think you need to take off your 'I love guns' sunglasses. Let's start with some data: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/opinion/blow-on-guns-america-stands-out.html?_r=0 |
|
|
|
I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.
I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.
Perhaps you should take your own advice. For starters, which "worsening problem" might you be talking about? More guns over time in the US. |
|
|
|
I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem.
I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs.
I agree completely. That's how I got here from being a gun control advocate. And the process from A to B was... ? |
|
|
|
I see no similarity to the US' f**ked-up attitude.  Yes, attitude is the key word here, not deadly inanimate objects. Indeed. It's attitude which creates policies which allow an unhealthy and unnecessary quantity of guns in the US. |
|
|
|
the word duty shouldnt even be in the vocabulary of any ancap-believer.
Nonsense. +1. And particularly in reference to the moral duty of self defense, I would say that I have a moral duty to do what I can to return home at night and keep providing for my family. I guess a single guy with no family has no moral reason not to stand there and be beaten out of this world with an iron pole. I think you have a moral duty to not let your opinion on gun control, anarchy, taxes, etc. get in the way of taking an honest look at society, death rates, accidents, and other factors which influence society. I think you have a moral duty to listen to people opposed to you, and think (from a blank slate) about methods, proposals, and competing paradigms. I think you have a moral duty to evaluate the reality of your own fears, and how your actions and beliefs might be contributing to a worsening problem. I think you have a moral duty to not be so blindsided by your own personal beliefs. |
|
|
|
I'm gun control people. But I tend to think there are countries for which it won't work, and countries for which it will.
The responses in this thread show clearly that for some US citizens, giving up guns is as good as stepping in front of a bus. While it's possible that not having a gun is not fatal, it does seem to be a real fear. Removing guns for these people isn't going to make them feel more secure, but just the reverse.
Any country where people feel the need to have weapons to protect themselves from other citizens or from the government should probably work on that lack of security before they advocate gun control.
I think you are seeing things slightly from the wrong perspective. It's not that gun owners are "scared" of being attacked by citizens or government. These things do happen, even in countries with near absolute gun control such as the UK. My perspective is that gun owners are not afraid of guns. They see them as tools that perform a function. Owning guns is therefore simply a freedom whose abridgement should be opposed as that of any other freedom. I speak as an emigrant from the UK and former gun control advocate. Shortly after moving to the US, events happened in my life (unrelated to guns or violence) that opened my eyes to the fact that bad things happen to good people. Sometime after, analysis of my situation suggested that owning some kind of firearm might be a good idea (where we lived was a prime spot for people dumping their unwanted dogs). When I got it home, I was somewhat nervous. I had handled a rifle before in the ATC but here was one of those evil handguns in my possession. Within seconds of picking it up, it was clear that it was just metal and plastic, incapable of harming anyone by itself nor inducing some primal urge to kill. Just a thing. Kind-of boring in-and-of itself. I've never had to use it but it's fun to shoot holes in paper and there have been times I've been glad to have it around. I've never had to use it
Ahh. The truth comes out. The norm. The reality of life in our violent country. I've never had to use it
|
|
|
|
This majority of users in this forum are not only from USA. From what I read, few proposals were made to CONTROL the access to guns, not to BAN the access to guns.
The majority of users in this thread are not a reasonable cross-section of the US populace. In fact, the majority of users in this thread are fringe on the cusp of believing in conspiracies, anti-government, gun toting, see villains in all the shadows, anti-regulation, pseudo anarchists. They do not represent the US. I suggest you be careful in soliciting their opinion to get a valid take on US culture. However, it is noted that gun culture is rampant in the US, but querying the extreme right end of that group alone will only yield the beliefs of that extreme right end. |
|
|
|
Honestly unless you know what you are doing with statistics ( you love math) better to use your personal opinion and experiences with a dash of some expert dude who used statistics said this. Most who collect and analyze then publish the data fuck it up somehow. 8 times out 10 at least. +100000 Many statistics are pushed by propaganda and not presented properly or people outright lie using them, so for instance, they'll present you with a poll from about 5000 people or something and then claim because 5000 people said this that automatically represents the majority of the people when that's barely going to be even a small portion of the actual country they are in. Bitcoinbitcoin113 you don't even need to understand math particularly well to understand bogus statistics when you see them, usually it's just a matter of reading through the fine print rather than just believing the simple percentages these dick heads come up with to fool people who don't know better. It's much worse than even that. Really I got my data and actually tried to understand how to analyze it,(apparently this is rare amongst scientists these days) then found out pretty much no scientist knows what they are doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing#ControversyIt gets even worse when John Lott is the one analyzing the data. |
|
|
|
Guy walks in and starts beating kid. All the other kids run out door. Teacher screams, calls 911. Other teachers come in and wrestle offender off of kid. If you seriously think that unarmed teachers are going to be able to do anything when people decide to get violent in a school you definitely haven't been to my previous schools, I hope all the other gun control advocates are as stupid as you are because once the initial shock of the Connecticut wears off people are all going to think you're morons. If you wish to move beyond speculation and proceed to hard numbers, feel free to do so. |
|
|
|
But I bet they sure wished somebody besides the crazy fucker were armed.
I bet they wished that crazy fucker wasn't armed at all. I'm sure being beaten to death is much preferable to being shot. If you can't think through your hypothetical scenario to the end, then you're an idiot. Go ahead and walk through it for me. You already think I'm sub-moronic, so I don't think this will much change your attitude. Guy walks in and starts beating kid. All the other kids run out door. Teacher screams, calls 911. Other teachers come in and wrestle offender off of kid. Duh! Guy walks in and shoots a kid. All the other kids run out the door. Teacher shoots the offender. Duh! The reality is that attackers like this will get weapons. Whether they use baseball bats, knives, or farm implements (fun fact: almost all melee weapons are modified farm implements), they will have something to put them at an advantage to an unarmed defender. Your little fantasy of teachers swarming the guy to take him down doesn't even hold much water even if everyone (attacker included) is unarmed. Academics are not known for their fighting ability. I'm not sure the offenders in these scenarios were known for their fighting abilities either. Nor would I be so naive as to convince myself that teachers cannot be brave. Even if everything played out the way you describe it above, I'd take any and all scenarios above over assault rifle armed offenders. Are you too blindsided by your sick desires for a anything goes society to see that? It's obvious you are. |
|
|
|
I had a friend in school who died in a car crash, the reality is that these kind of deaths that you talk about don't happen as often as mainstream media claim...
Couldn't get past the quoted part. You're basing your claims from data taken from a world where there are speed limits and people get tickets for speeding. You sound somewhat immature, and you're the last person I'd like to have driving down the road near me sans speed limits and speeding tickets. lol I am immature, but not in the way you think, I'm not the one who's being an opportunistic twat like a number of other people on this forum and trying to politically stampede people because of a certain recent events, I think both sides are being pathetic. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/14/mortality-statistics-causes-death-england-wales-2009While this is 2009, it's still pretty damn recent, I'm sure you could find more recent data, but it shows that we die here in the UK more from disease and GASP! mental health disorder and disease than a bloody car or even inanimate objects in general, maybe we should be doing more about mental health than speeding etc.? Anyway, that's as much as I want to talk about the subject on an unrelated thread, go make your battleground some place else, but I suspect you're running around in other threads because you're getting your arse kicked by Science and Math. So you present a case where you want deaths reduced, and simultaneously argue against effective measures to reduce deaths through speed limits. Very strange. Here's a hint: Explore methods to reduce deaths. That's a good thing. But don't be counterproductive at the same time. |
|
|
|
But I bet they sure wished somebody besides the crazy fucker were armed.
I bet they wished that crazy fucker wasn't armed at all. I'm sure being beaten to death is much preferable to being shot. If you can't think through your hypothetical scenario to the end, then you're an idiot. Go ahead and walk through it for me. You already think I'm sub-moronic, so I don't think this will much change your attitude. Guy walks in and starts beating kid. All the other kids run out door. Teacher screams, calls 911. Other teachers come in and wrestle offender off of kid. Duh! |
|
|
|
I had a friend in school who died in a car crash, the reality is that these kind of deaths that you talk about don't happen as often as mainstream media claim...
Couldn't get past the quoted part. You're basing your claims from data taken from a world where there are speed limits and people get tickets for speeding. You sound somewhat immature, and you're the last person I'd like to have driving down the road near me sans speed limits and speeding tickets. |
|
|
|
But I bet they sure wished somebody besides the crazy fucker were armed.
I bet they wished that crazy fucker wasn't armed at all. I'm sure being beaten to death is much preferable to being shot. If you can't think through your hypothetical scenario to the end, then you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)
It appears you can't fit the discussion to reality. Try thinking about your question again. |
|
|
|
But I bet they sure wished somebody besides the crazy fucker were armed.
I bet they wished that crazy fucker wasn't armed at all. |
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but all the dumbasses out there think they can do this and that and it won't hurt anybody else, because, by gosh, they know what they're doing. But then how come these accidents happen where innocent people get killed? Such as speeding, or fucking around with a gun, or failing to follow building codes, etc.
It's bad enough as it is, because the above references are with laws. Imagine them without laws and total freedom for the dumbasses to do as they want, because they think they know what they're doing (which they don't).
|
|
|
|
They will not find me such easy prey  I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Being able to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt others in the process. I guess I take a simpler view on it Lots of people get killed accidentally by others who hold beliefs such as yours. It sucks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
