I've always found dogs more appealing than roaches as well.

Time.

Sure, do stuff that interests you, but that only offers temporary distractions. Also, spending time with other people helps, but don't seek sympathy from them, as they will often as not say empty things that offer no value.

In the end, it's time.

Really? How is that working out for Japan?

Sorry to disappoint. Argue with Rassah for a year and get back to me.

Your misunderstanding arises from the fact that you don't get the following:

- More guns translates to more gun deaths.
- Gun advocates are the ones responsible for allowing the free flow of guns into criminals' hands.
- Ineffective laws enforced ineffectively put guns in criminals hands.
- Ineffective laws enforced effectively put guns in criminals hands.
- Effective laws enforced ineffectively put guns in criminals hands.
- Inconsistent and competing laws allow criminals to get guns.

You're not just a little confused. You're very confused.

Please demonstrate where I said such a formula has nothing to do with regulations.

Instead, at your manipulative and nonproductive form of debate, you asked what trophic cascades and other such topics have to do with coercion, and I firmly corrected you on the matter, telling you that such topics having nothing to do with coercion. Then, in your continued method of nitpicking and turning a discussion on its side to somehow appear that you are winning the debate, and without ever providing any substance, you then accused me of being off topic because I'm not mentioning coercion, and so I had to explain to you why such topics are relevant, at which point you compared them to juggling chainsaws, where once again, I had to point out that if you ask what 1 + 1 is, and get a response of 2, it's not your right to claim the answer was obvious and not necessary, again prolonging a debate that you lost long ago, and then we get this ridiculous continuation, where you're trying to save face by insinuating the path of the conversation has you somehow as being the insightful one.

Let me summarize everything for you so you will simply shut up.

It goes like this: if you wish to be willfully ignorant about your actions, then you should allow yourself to be coerced, and will most likely be coerced against your will, because it is necessary.

The end.

Fuck off.

The problem is you have no problem with it. How many times must I say: Ineffective laws (or even effective laws) ineffectively enforced put guns in criminals' hands? I specifically called for gun permits enforced at the federal level only precisely because Chicago residents can simply go elsewhere to get guns.

That is hilarious.

Also:

Where do you get off comparing the obvious dangers of juggling chainsaws to a complete ignorance of trophic cascades and edge effects?

You have the habit of not following the context of the dialog and then drawing conclusions that suit you based on your incomplete knowledge of the dialog, which, incidentally, is a nice metaphor for the subject at hand.

It's not my responsibility to explain the whole dialog to you.

But it definitely wasn't a no-brainer statement, given that you fucking asked me to explain it to you. If you ask what 1 + 1 is, and someone replies 2, don't come back with a stupid analysis such as you have just given. Sorry for getting riled, but you're the root cause of it.

Furthermore, within your own analysis here, it's evident that you still don't get it. Ownership of the land has nothing to do with it. Is this another example of you not understanding the material presented to you earlier? I think it is. Willful ignorance on display. Go back and read the long post that I made that is the subject of this current dialog.

And lastly: you're one of those forum individuals who just likes to go on with another by sniping small comments without actually addressing the larger issues, without actually aggregating new information and knowledge into the discussion. What you are is someone who argues from a philosophical standpoint, absent real world knowledge. That doesn't work, because of the vulnerability of your own premises, which have no foundation in the complex systems which make up the world.

Arguing with you is like a constant cycle of explaining and reexplaining to you why the whole context matters, not just the nitpick you like to make, which is often contradictory to a nitpick you made earlier.

That's the problem.


Who says I'm afraid? Can you point to any post I made indicating I'm afraid. Indeed, if I was afraid, wouldn't I want a gun? What I am is disgusted by people getting shot.


See above post to clarify the rebuttal of the premise of your conclusion.


Same here. So why did you bring it up?


How did you arrive at such an erroneous conclusion given the statistics?


You mean ineffective laws ineffectively enforced?


Much much less, since there is a linear relationship in the number of guns per capita vs. gun deaths. Pretty simple, isn't it?


You want less guns in the hands of the police? Then start advocating less guns per capita.


Guns don't lead to prosperity.

Did I say they directly did? Answer: no.

I said they are natural processes which play a role in ecosystems. I said that being willfully ignorant of those processes can make someone believe that their actions on land are not disrupting systems which provide services collectively known as ecosystem services. Ergo, thinking it is your moral right to do as you please because you don't think you're causing harm precisely because you're ignorant of those processes might be a reason for one of the following two:

1. Get educated on the processes so you can reevaluate how stupid your actions are.
2. Allow others to set the rules by which you should follow.

Yeah, there are people that dumb in this thread. Scroll back and find the post, or take my word for it. I believe it was Spendulus.


Funny how you also seem to say that tax is theft, and as a result, you advocate no tax dollars going towards elimination of crime or the social nets that would prevent people from falling into the world of crime. It seems that in almost every post you make, I have to call you out for your two faced positions, conveniently made by you to win a point.


Obviously a nation of 120 million plus people still has crime. Again, it's a matter of degree. How many times must I point that out?

As for a difference in culture, you mean like, the NRA? Maybe Japan's culture is just plain better if they have so much less crime? I can't say for certain, but they must be doing something right.


Do you see what you just admitted? I assume that you don't own a gun because you've determined that you don't in fact need one.

300 million guns is the result of the free flowing supply, as advocated by the NRA, and gun advocates such as yourself. The U.S., by virtue of its guns per capita, and its ineffective laws enforced ineffectively, has created that gun inventory.

I'm not to blame for the existence of 300 million guns in the U.S. Gun advocates, and gun buyers are to blame for it.

Also, are you aware that there is direct correlation between guns per capita and gun deaths, worldwide, when viewed on a 2d chart, depicting the position of each country on the intersection of guns per capita and gun deaths?

In this line of reasoning, you have only indicated that you prefer willful ignorance. Nothing is off topic if it demonstrates that added knowledge sheds light on the consequences of one's intentions, and whether they consider their actions moral or not, which is on topic.

And thus, we can see that you have once again attempted to use a twist of words, lacking in substance, to save any point you might have.

Please, I wish to debate with people who can assimilate new knowledge, and aggregate it into their positions. You're not meeting my expectations, and continually bounce back and forth as suits you to try and win an argument.

Knowledge and information is key. Both you and anon clearly can't move out of your boxed paradigms when presented new information.

Others in this thread seem to think they only get them from other criminals. The reality is they get them because people such as yourself (gun advocates) insist on allowing a free flowing path of guns into their hands.


You should ask yourself why we don't ban guns and knives. The answer is so obvious.


Review the statistics. We've already been over this.

Do you know where people who have committed armed robbery, murder, and other such actions get their guns? Do you know the path by which these guns get in their hands? Do you know why so many have them?

Let's focus on the last question: do you know why so many have them?

I explained them, period. Whether in the absence of presence of suggested solutions has no bearing on the fact that such concepts were presented, and have, apparently, by your own admission, left you enlightened, and by anon's admission, left him just as dumb for ignoring them.

You are incorrect.

Some here don't admit to #2.

Many here don't admit to #3, citing cars, knives, and spears as being, apparently just as effective. Funny how such who make such arguments never ask themselves why they argue so vehemently in favor of guns if other such tools were so effective.


I don't see Japan attempting a ban on gravity, do you? And yet they manage quite effectively with their ban on guns.

As for your BTC transactions, I really don't care. Nor do I care about those other things as well. It's all a matter of degree.

You're being obtuse as well. I have explained things in this thread that have nothing to do with coercion. Please explain how edge effects, trophic cascades, and species migration have anything to do with coercion.