Gun free zone

[organofcorti]

So you've decided that no one has the right to tell you what to do. That's rather egotistical of you, isn't it? You do belong to some society?  Or are you a unibomber-esque loner who enjoys only his own companies and does not care what society thinks of him?

Pardon? Are you suggesting someone has the right to tell me what to do? Wouldn't that imply that I have the right to tell them what to do? And then wouldn't that just make the whole thing bullshit?

So it's ok to do anything you want, just because you want to do it. No moral, legal, or societal code can encourage you do other than what you want? And that's ok for you?

I really do doubt that. I think, like most normal people, you really do care what your peers think of you. I'm certain your peers will sway your judgement when it comes to doing things you don't want to do, or not doing things you might feel like doing.

[organofcorti]

So it's ok to do anything you want, just because you want to do it. No moral, legal, or societal code can encourage you do other than what you want? And that's ok for you?

I really do doubt that. I think, like most normal people, you really do care what your peers think of you. I'm certain your peers will sway your judgement when it comes to doing things you don't want to do, or not doing things you might feel like doing.

Whoa! How did you make the leap from someone telling me what to do, to me doing whatever I want? You realize these are completely different things, right?

No, they aren't. If no one informs you of social norms, then you can only do what you think is right. Unless you have a masochistic moral code, then the things you want to do are the things that are right. Therefore, if no one informs you of social norms, you will only do things you want to do.

Edit: I don't need someone to tell me not to kill in order to keep me from murdering anyone. Is this what stops you from killing anyone, because someone tells you not to?

No, I wouldn't murder anyone because I think it's wrong. But I would like to dance down the street naked once in a while (who wouldn't?). I don't think it's wrong to be naked in public once in a while. However my neighbours wouldn't enjoy the spectacle, so I wont dance naked in public because I have to live with my neighbours.

Perhaps you're not following me or I've not been clear. Let's start with a simple example. Your mum tells you you'd better be nice to Aunt Maggie because, although she's a mean old tyrant she's part of the family. You think mean old Aunt Maggie shouldn't spend Christmas with your family because she causes trouble, and you don't want to fake being nice to her.

Do you do what your mum asks even though you think it's against what you think is the right thing to do? I hope you do what mum says because mum is family, and being in a family involves some give and take.

My point is that we all have to do things we don't want to do ( and not do things we'd like to do ) for the good of the society in which we live. If you act in a way that your society finds offensive, do you continue in that manner anyway and incur ostracism?

[conspirosphere.tk]

For me it implies that they were just gays.

So anyone who does not discriminate against gays is gay? Very poor logic there sonny. I am disappoint.

No: for me anyone for gun "control" (ban) is "gay" meaning illogical, emotional, brainwashed sheeple.

So you've decided that no one has the right to tell you what to do. That's rather egotistical of you, isn't it? You do belong to some society? Or are you a unibomber-esque loner who enjoys only his own companies and does not care what society thinks of him?
Or, more likely, is it that you're happy to be regulated by laws you agree with, but not by laws you disagree with?

You are mixing social and legal norms, making a mess and trying to be specious again. So its better to leave you trolling by yourself.

For the record, are you anti-homosexual?

No. Neither I am pro gay (I don't care if that is that mandatory according your politically correct party line).

[organofcorti]

For me it implies that they were just gays.

So anyone who does not discriminate against gays is gay? Very poor logic there sonny. I am disappoint.

No: for me anyone for gun "control" (ban) is "gay" meaning illogical, emotional, brainwashed sheeple.

No, earlier, when I said I couldn't find a pro-gay reference in the link, you pointed out in big letters "PRO HOMOSEXUAL".

Therefore you have already said you equate "gay" with "homosexual". Now you are equating "homosexual" with illogical, emotional, brainwashed sheeple.

Some logic would be good here, conspirosphere.tk.

For the record, are you anti-homosexual?

No. Neither I am pro gay.

I still don't know what pro gay means. Either you want to discourage homosexuality, or you don't care about other people's sexual habits, or you actively indulge in them.

As far as I can tell, it's an illogical term unless one is gay in which case it's simpler to say "gay".

As I've said many many times, I'm not anti gun control in the US. I am however very much anti wooly and illogical thinking.

[organofcorti]

So you've decided that no one has the right to tell you what to do. That's rather egotistical of you, isn't it? You do belong to some society? Or are you a unibomber-esque loner who enjoys only his own companies and does not care what society thinks of him?
Or, more likely, is it that you're happy to be regulated by laws you agree with, but not by laws you disagree with?

You are mixing social and legal norms, making a mess and trying to be specious again. So its better to leave you trolling by yourself.

Sorry, missed this gem.

I didn't mix anything. I asked if you were as influenced by laws that you agree with as laws with which you disagree. Well done avoiding the question, though. You start by making a non-sequitur, and procede with an ad-hominem attack, all so you hope no one notices you've avoided the question.

I've had rational discussions with both the pro and anti gun forum members. I am enjoying one with Holliday right now. If someone questions you about your views, it's much better to think about the question than react emotionally. If someone asks a question you simply can't answer, why not sit back, think about it for a while and make sure the other person hasn't misunderstood you or that you haven't written clearly. Address issues you think need addressing and then write your response.

If you want to present your own moral code in a way that others can understand, then don't quit because the discussion gets difficult.

On the other hand if nothing on earth can make you change your mind, then you don't want a discussion - you want a back slap for being "one of us". In this case it's better not to post.

[Lethn]

You know it's interesting, I'm looking at countries other than the U.S which allow for gun ownership and Serbia of all places has almost 3,000,000 guns in civilian hands despite being a small country, the homicide rate seems to be much lower there than in the U.S if the data on this site is to be believed, the amount of guns held in government hands? 789,000, yep they barely have 1,000,000 you'd think with the logic you guys keep pulling the government would have rounded the civilian weaponry up but nope.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/serbia

I don't hear news about mass murder-suicide happening constantly over there so maybe the problem isn't guns, the problem is Americans.

Firearm Marking
In Serbia, a unique identifying mark on each firearm is required by law

Firearm Tracing
In Serbia, state authorities do not carry out recognised arms tracing and tracking procedures

Ballistic Marking of Firearms and Ammunition
In Serbia, state authorities employ ballistic fingerprinting technology to trace guns and ammunition

Interesting no?

[organofcorti]

I don't hear news about mass murder-suicide happening constantly over there so maybe the problem isn't guns, the problem is Americans.

I agree. What works for one country is not guaranteed to work for another. However I'm still not sold on which strategy - stringent gun control, no gun control, or somewhere in between -  will work best in the US.

[Lethn]

I don't hear news about mass murder-suicide happening constantly over there so maybe the problem isn't guns, the problem is Americans.

I agree. What works for one country is not guaranteed to work for another. However I'm still not sold on which strategy - stringent gun control, no gun control, or somewhere in between -  will work best in the US.

If I were the U.S President I would have a nationwide referendum on it or get the states to have a vote but America and the UK etc. have to be the most undemocratic countries I have ever seen, every election it's a matter of which dictator you hate the least rather than just voting for someone who you like and you can't do anything to overturn stupid laws they pass either. I'm seriously considering moving to Switzerland if I can ever get the money to and I won't care if I have to learn a second language either.

[Luno]

Haven't you gun-loving libertarians considered that right to own a gun is a government conspiracy to get rid of free Americans?

[Lethn]

Haven't you gun-loving libertarians considered that right to own a gun is a government conspiracy to get rid of free Americans?

lol Are you one of those people like the Republicans who think there is only a portion of 'real' America left in the world? lololololololollololool

[Luno]

No, I'm not even American. Had to joke about the right to kill they neighbour in the most efficient way possible.

[organofcorti]

So it's ok to do anything you want, just because you want to do it. No moral, legal, or societal code can encourage you do other than what you want? And that's ok for you?

I really do doubt that. I think, like most normal people, you really do care what your peers think of you. I'm certain your peers will sway your judgement when it comes to doing things you don't want to do, or not doing things you might feel like doing.

Whoa! How did you make the leap from someone telling me what to do, to me doing whatever I want? You realize these are completely different things, right?

No, they aren't. If no one informs you of social norms, then you can only do what you think is right. Unless you have a masochistic moral code, then the things you want to do are the things that are right. Therefore, if no one informs you of social norms, you will only do things you want to do.

If I followed "social norms", I would have to accept that it's OK to pay someone to murder, rob, or kidnap another human being. I can't accept that, so "social norms" are out the window for me.

I start with the concept of self ownership and go from there.

Luckily I don't live somewhere that social norms such as these exist. Unless you're taking about soldiers,  there has been plenty of social dissent and ostracism over the matter.

Edit: I don't need someone to tell me not to kill in order to keep me from murdering anyone. Is this what stops you from killing anyone, because someone tells you not to?

No, I wouldn't murder anyone because I think it's wrong. But I would like to dance down the street naked once in a while (who wouldn't?). I don't think it's wrong to be naked in public once in a while. However my neighbours wouldn't enjoy the spectacle, so I wont dance naked in public because I have to live with my neighbours.

Perhaps you're not following me or I've not been clear. Let's start with a simple example. Your mum tells you you'd better be nice to Aunt Maggie because, although she's a mean old tyrant she's part of the family. You think mean old Aunt Maggie shouldn't spend Christmas with your family because she causes trouble, and you don't want to fake being nice to her.

Do you do what your mum asks even though you think it's against what you think is the right thing to do? I hope you do what mum says because mum is family, and being in a family involves some give and take.

My point is that we all have to do things we don't want to do ( and not do things we'd like to do ) for the good of the society in which we live. If you act in a way that your society finds offensive, do you continue in that manner anyway and incur ostracism?

Why do you think murder is wrong? Because society tells you so? That's not the case where I live. Our society pays men (and women) to travel all over the globe killing people for countless reasons.

I think murder is morally wrong. My social peers agree with me. We show our dissent. Unfortunately the ostracism of our political leaders seems to have had little effect.

I'm following you OK. I would treat old Aunt Maggie exactly how she treats me, regardless of what mum says. Maybe if mum hadn't walked on eggshells around Maggie all her life, Maggie wouldn't be such a tyrant. It's past time for mum and Maggie to learn some lessons about how to interact with others in a civilized manner. Respect is earned, and that applies to family as well.

Your last paragraph contradicts your example. You talk about ostracism, yet you yourself are afraid to use it in the case of mean old Aunt Maggie, so you are stuck with her. I think ostracism is a valid tool that can have positive results, but you have to use it if you want to see those results.

Maybe it wasn't a good example. My family is close knit, and I have no Aunt Maggies. There have been many times I've done something I didn't want to do for the good of the family though. Also, my elders are often wiser than I am, and I've avoided poor choices because I put family before my own preferences and taken their advice. I know I'm not always (or even  often) right, which is one reason I like to get feedback from people who face issues with which I'm completely unfamiliar - like you.

So, getting back to the original point - do you only do what you want to do (assuming you want to do only things that adhere your your own moral code) or do you not do some of them because you want stay where you are and not deal with social backlash? Do you enjoy naked dancing in public?

Making the choices a little simpler (simplistic maybe):
1. The cost of accepting any social norm is too high: You do only what you want to do, assuming you're a rational person and a) the things you want to do and b) the things you think are ok to do from the standpoint of your moral code, are one and the same. No one can tell you what to do.

2. Accept social norms only if the cost is not too high. You do mostly what you want to do (with the proviso above) but if what you want to do is not acceptable to others and not doing it will have no significant effect on the quality of your life, you do what is acceptable. Others can tell you what to do if it does not have a significant impact on your quality of life or your moral outlook.

3. Accept only social norms; the cost of any individual opinion is too high: You either never do what you want, or you change your moral standards so they mesh with the majority opinion. You accept that others will always tell you what to do, how to behave, and probably how to think.


I think most people have experienced all of these at some point in their lives, especially as children or teenagers. I tend to go mostly option 2. If you really think that no one can tell you what to do, then option 1 is for you (you lone wolf, you!).

[FirstAscent]

I disagree with the idea of public property altogether.

[sarcasm]
Yes. Let's divide up the oceans as well. And the atmosphere. Homestead it! No mountain shall be open to the public. Let's put up fences for all to enjoy. Build walls all around. Let's be sure animal migrations cannot occur due to barriers.

Public property is disgusting. The statists, the sociopaths, the fascists, the socialists, the whole lot of you! Pointing guns at me! 

Global warming. It's all a lie! Why! Because S.M. told me anything that is paid for by stolen money is not true!
[/sarcasm]

[ktttn]

Contact Gun Owners of America to see if they will accept Bitcoin contributions:
http://www.gunowners.org/j-contribute.htm

While the NRA was silent, the GOA rep on CNN Piers Morgan show had the best anti-ban arguments I've seen:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/19/pmt-ct-shooting-larry-pratt-heated-gun-debtae.cnn

He is actually the only one I've seen on TV who correctly answered the popular gun-ban question: "Give me one, JUST ONE, good reason why anyone needs an 'assault rifle' with a high-capacity magazine?"

I'd rather not sit through the whole thing... What was the answer given?

I'm barely getting involved in these stupid debates any more, but I would only feel comfortable with an assault weapons ban if the police and army couldn't use them either, however as has been shown by the state, they want everyone to not have them but themselves. This is actually a much wider topic of discussion than you might think especially if you look at the situation with Nuclear Weapons for example, all the superpowers are calling for disarmament and a ban, but do they actually do it? Of course not, I don't want to see this happen but I bet you if there was any sort of armed and organised rebellion in modern countries with modern fire power they wouldn't hesitate to use them on anyone they think is a threat.

No one does need assault rifles, it's true, governments don't need them either, but they still cling to them and they immediately attack anyone else who 'might' have them and that's what this is really all about in my view, they are doing nothing but being the opportunistic cunts and taking advantage of the situation just like with 9/11.

BUMP for interest.
...and also to crap on myrkul.

I've ignored and reported myrkul. Apparently my post about how anarchy works for me in my lifestyle as well as the lifestyles of several easily marginalized anarchist countercultures has rustled some serious capitalist trolljimmies.
Was report to mod inappropriate here? You tell me.
********
EDIT: Unignored to doublecheck for uncontributing troll to find only an implication that my flags aren't black and pink and solid black.
2 confirmations for shitposting troll.
********

[Richy_T]

I've [...] reported myrkul.

How very anarchist of you. Your shirt is looking very neat and ironed and black.

[myrkul]

I've [...] reported myrkul.

How very anarchist of you. Your shirt is looking very neat and ironed and black.

Don't you mean brown?

[RodeoX]

Gun free zones? Like NYC or LA? Like schools or movie theaters? No thanks, gun free are good place to get shot. I would not set foot in such unsafe places.

Murder rate in New York (The most restrictive gun laws):                                    Homicide:    6.4
Murder rate in Madison   (Guns are carried by anyone with a background check)   Homicide:    0.08
2010 per 100,000

If you leave out places where guns are not allowed then America does not have a gun death problem.

[Richy_T]

I've [...] reported myrkul.

How very anarchist of you. Your shirt is looking very neat and ironed and black.

Don't you mean brown?

Either way.

[Richy_T]

Gun free zones? Like NYC or LA?

Like London



Edit: My bad. The other terrorist had a gun. Though I do believe we are talking "gun free" for law abiding people only, right?

[RodeoX]

...
Edit: My bad. The other terrorist had a gun. Though I do believe we are talking "gun free" for law abiding people only, right?

There is the rub. There is no such thing as a gun free zone for criminals. By definition gun free zones are only free of legal guns held by responsible citizens.
If you are a criminal you should check it out.  It's a perfect environment to operate in. None of the suckers is armed! How awesome is that!! You can do what you like with them. Rape them, murder them... It's all good. And your safety is practically guaranteed by the government.