Gun free zone

[myrkul]

Also, I found an interesting study:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/340507?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101467503853

Do you have access to the whole article? The abstract isn't very enlightening I'm afraid.

Sadly, no. And $14.00 is a bit excessive to prove a point on an internet forum. But your local library may have JSTOR access, and I believe someone released a torrent of a large quantity of those articles.

[organofcorti]

....... despite his claims he tends to ignore hard statistics and like many people in this world blame inanimate objects for the problems caused by human error.

He's religious then? Sounds like every religion I've ever met.

[Lethn]

....... despite his claims he tends to ignore hard statistics and like many people in this world blame inanimate objects for the problems caused by human error.

He's religious then? Sounds like every religion I've ever met.

It does seem like it is a religion sadly, I find myself better able to argue with the so called gun nuts than with gun control people

[augustocroppo]

It's highly amusing that you actually spent time in order to argue my point.

Of course it is amusing! It is funny to mock you. Tell me, should archery being part of the national curriculum for all teenagers, so they can defend themselves against child abusers, rapists, psychopaths and pimps with arrows?

What do you think about swords? Perhaps classrooms with Katana swords?

[myrkul]

It's highly amusing that you actually spent time in order to argue my point.

Of course it is amusing! It is funny to mock you. Tell me, should archery being part of the national curriculum for all teenagers, so they can defend themselves against child abusers, rapists, psychopaths and pimps with arrows?

What do you think about swords? Perhaps classrooms with Katana swords?

National curriculum? No. Seriously, it's like you don't know you're talking to an anarchist. But if a school wants to start a gun club, or an archery range, or a Kendo dojo, more power to 'em.

[organofcorti]

....... despite his claims he tends to ignore hard statistics and like many people in this world blame inanimate objects for the problems caused by human error.

He's religious then? Sounds like every religion I've ever met.

It does seem like it is a religion sadly, I find myself better able to argue with the so called gun nuts than with gun control people

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.

[Lethn]

I'm sorry, I'd try and debate, but I'm completely distracted by the cute asian chicks with Katana.

And zomg Organofcorti You're intelligent! Well, I think with the fear about accidents with guns we can definitely reduce the problem by educating people about them, I don't think just banning them is the answer because as you say it's going to scare the hell out of people more than protect them, then there's the fact that I'm terrified of what might happen here in the UK for example if I was attacked. I'd feel a lot more safer with a gun, I think if gun control people are going to call for a ban though they'd better station some police outside schools, but of course you can bet people would object to that too.

I think the difference is between gun control and people who want guns is that the people who want guns want to take responsibility for defence themselves rather than rely on others and I can't help but side with that idea really since that idea is going to be much more useful if you happen to be alone when attacked or even if you get corrupt police etc. trying to attack you.

[augustocroppo]

Also, I found an interesting study:
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/340507?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101467503853

Paid evidence from a journal published in 2001?

I guess you did not even understand the abstract.

Myrkul, you are fucked up...

[organofcorti]

.... Well, I think with the fear about accidents with guns we can definitely reduce the problem by educating people about them, I don't think just banning them is the answer because as you say it's going to scare the hell out of people more than protect them, then there's the fact that I'm terrified of what might happen here in the UK for example if I was attacked. I'd feel a lot more safer with a gun, I think if gun control people are going to call for a ban though they'd better station some police outside schools, but of course you can bet people would object to that too.

I think the difference is between gun control and people who want guns is that the people who want guns want to take responsibility for defence themselves rather than rely on others and I can't help but side with that idea really since that idea is going to be much more useful if you happen to be alone when attacked.

I think you missed my point, or I didn't make it well. I wasn't referring to fear about accidental firearm deaths -  live with any death dealing technology long enough and you become inured to the possibility. People still use cars and planes and motorbikes. Live with guns long enough and you'll probably not worry about accidental firearm discharges.

My point was that there are some societies in which people are in constant fear for their lives. In these societies, I think gun control is pointless - people will just find other ways to kill people. I think the root cause about the failure of that society needs to be investigated. Other developed nations don't have this constant fear that someone will take away everything they have because it rarely happens.

I'm all for gun control in my country, mostly because it hasn't created any adverse effects and also because if I had to carry a gun everywhere I'd have to go to shooting ranges to practice regularly and I honestly can't be arsed. Guns are incredibly boring things. There's nothing at all interesting about them from my point of view.

If you increase gun control in society of people who already think you're out to get them, it's not going to reduce violence. The fear needs to be address first.

[organofcorti]

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.

History has a tendency of showing that the armed will enslave and/or kill the unarmed. I don't think we yet have the technology for perfect defense from this. And pretending it can't happen in the modern world is simply wishful thinking.

Are you pro- or con- gun control? I can't tell from your post.

[myrkul]

I'm sorry, I'd try and debate, but I'm completely distracted by the cute asian chicks with Katana.

And zomg Organofcorti You're intelligent!

I find Mr. Trump's hair to be one of the more cogent debaters on here. That probably explains why you don't see him in here often.

I think the difference is between gun control and people who want guns is that the people who want guns want to take responsibility for defence themselves rather than rely on others and I can't help but side with that idea really since that idea is going to be much more useful if you happen to be alone when attacked.

Yup. We recognize that ultimately, you're the one responsible for your own defense. The courts agree with us. Unless you want to pay to have a bodyguard at all times, your safety is, ultimately, your duty.

[bb113]

.... Well, I think with the fear about accidents with guns we can definitely reduce the problem by educating people about them, I don't think just banning them is the answer because as you say it's going to scare the hell out of people more than protect them, then there's the fact that I'm terrified of what might happen here in the UK for example if I was attacked. I'd feel a lot more safer with a gun, I think if gun control people are going to call for a ban though they'd better station some police outside schools, but of course you can bet people would object to that too.

I think the difference is between gun control and people who want guns is that the people who want guns want to take responsibility for defence themselves rather than rely on others and I can't help but side with that idea really since that idea is going to be much more useful if you happen to be alone when attacked.

I think you missed my point, or I didn't make it well. I wasn't referring to fear about accidental firearm deaths -  live with any death dealing technology long enough and you become inured to the possibility. People still use cars and planes and motorbikes. Live with guns long enough and you'll probably not worry about accidental firearm discharges.

My point was that there are some societies in which people are in constant fear for their lives. In these societies, I think gun control is pointless - people will just find other ways to kill people. I think the root cause about the failure of that society needs to be investigated. Other developed nations don't have this constant fear that someone will take away everything they have because it rarely happens.

I'm all for gun control in my country, mostly because it hasn't created any adverse effects and also because if I had to carry a gun everywhere I'd have to go to shooting ranges to practice regularly and I honestly can't be arsed. Guns are incredibly boring things. There's nothing at all interesting about them from my point of view.

If you increase gun control in society of people who already think you're out to get them, it's not going to reduce violence. The fear needs to be address first.

I agree with the rest of your post, but guns and money make the world go round these days, and have since the advent of both. Calling them "boring" is either ignorant or some rhetorical strategy.

[notme]

I'm sorry, I'd try and debate, but I'm completely distracted by the cute asian chicks with Katana.

And zomg Organofcorti You're intelligent!

I find Mr. Trump's hair to be one of the more cogent debaters on here. That probably explains why you don't see him in here often.

I think the difference is between gun control and people who want guns is that the people who want guns want to take responsibility for defence themselves rather than rely on others and I can't help but side with that idea really since that idea is going to be much more useful if you happen to be alone when attacked.

Yup. We recognize that ultimately, you're the one responsible for your own defense. The courts agree with us. Unless you want to pay to have a bodyguard at all times, your safety is, ultimately, your duty.

Those who pound their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.

[augustocroppo]

Yup. We recognize that ultimately, you're the one responsible for your own defense. The courts agree with us. Unless you want to pay to have a bodyguard at all times, your safety is, ultimately, your duty.

'We' who? You and other delusional compulsive liars?

I thought you were arguing that self-defense was a right, not a duty.

[organofcorti]

....... I'm all for gun control in my country, mostly because it hasn't created any adverse effects and also because if I had to carry a gun everywhere I'd have to go to shooting ranges to practice regularly and I honestly can't be arsed. Guns are incredibly boring things. There's nothing at all interesting about them from my point of view.

I agree with the rest of your post, but guns and money make the world go round these days, and have since the advent of both. Calling them "boring" is either ignorant or some rhetorical strategy.

You're writing about the concept of a gun, or the effect guns in general have on society. I'm writing about personal experience with the use of and practice with guns. I thought that was clear from context but if not, that's what I meant.

Yes, I find them dull. Deadly dull. And loud, even with earmuffs. Autos are kind of fun the first time I guess, but by the time you can strip and reassemble one blindfolded in sixty seconds all the fun is gone. And even when it was fun, was never the kind of rush you get when you finally understanding a provable statement about the nature of reality.

Maybe I'd change my mind if my life was in danger from a threat I could only remove with a gun, but it's not and so gun ranges are just noisy boring places to me.

[organofcorti]

I'm sorry, I'd try and debate, but I'm completely distracted by the cute asian chicks with Katana.

And zomg Organofcorti You're intelligent!

I find Mr. Trump's hair to be one of the more cogent debaters on here. That probably explains why you don't see him in here often.

I think the difference is between gun control and people who want guns is that the people who want guns want to take responsibility for defence themselves rather than rely on others and I can't help but side with that idea really since that idea is going to be much more useful if you happen to be alone when attacked.

Yup. We recognize that ultimately, you're the one responsible for your own defense. The courts agree with us. Unless you want to pay to have a bodyguard at all times, your safety is, ultimately, your duty.

Those who pound their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.

... and I'm starting to understand why everyone in the US is afraid of everyone else in the US (gross generalisation notwithstanding).

[myrkul]

Those who pound their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.

This is essentially the same point made by Holliday:

History has a tendency of showing that the armed will enslave and/or kill the unarmed. I don't think we yet have the technology for perfect defense from this. And pretending it can't happen in the modern world is simply wishful thinking.

But yours is more pithy. Either way, it is the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

I thought you were arguing that self-defense was a right, not a duty.

It is both.

[organofcorti]

Those who pound their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.

This is essentially the same point made by Holliday:

History has a tendency of showing that the armed will enslave and/or kill the unarmed. I don't think we yet have the technology for perfect defense from this. And pretending it can't happen in the modern world is simply wishful thinking.

But yours is more pithy. Either way, it is the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

I'd like to understand that point of view a bit better since it's alien to me. Are people who believe this to be true concerned with some other citizen enslaving/stealing from them, or their own government or some other government doing the same? If the latter case why is it thought the armed forces can't do their job? If one of the first two, what makes you think it's likely to happen? Does anyone know the probability of a western developed nation falling?

I'm not being facetious. I'd like to be able to compare the combined probability of
1. a government without hostile neighbours enslaving the inhabitants of their own or another developed nation
2. a citizen of a developed nation being killed when owning a gun might have saved him

with

1. surviving to old age without ever having owned a gun, in a developed nation.

If the first two are exceedingly remote compared to the second, then I would tend to consider them to be in the same category as plane crashes - possible, but we don't factor them in to our everyday lives. In which case the "strongest argument for the right to bear arms" would be a pretty poor kind of argument based on the fear of the improbable occurring.

The the former two are more likely than the latter, then I think that fact would be the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

[myrkul]

[If] the former two are more likely than the latter, then I think that fact would be the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

Ask the JPFO what they think.

[bb113]

Those who pound their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.

This is essentially the same point made by Holliday:

History has a tendency of showing that the armed will enslave and/or kill the unarmed. I don't think we yet have the technology for perfect defense from this. And pretending it can't happen in the modern world is simply wishful thinking.

But yours is more pithy. Either way, it is the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

I'd like to understand that point of view a bit better since it's alien to me. Are people who believe this to be true concerned with some other citizen enslaving/stealing from them, or their own government or some other government doing the same? If the latter case why is it thought the armed forces can't do their job? If one of the first two, what makes you think it's likely to happen? Does anyone know the probability of a western developed nation falling?

I'm not being facetious. I'd like to be able to compare the combined probability of
1. a government without hostile neighbours enslaving the inhabitants of their own or another developed nation
2. a citizen of a developed nation being killed when owning a gun might have saved him

with

1. surviving to old age without ever having owned a gun, in a developed nation.

If the first two are exceedingly remote compared to the second, then I would tend to consider them to be in the same category as plane crashes - possible, but we don't factor them in to our everyday lives. In which case the "strongest argument for the right to bear arms" would be a pretty poor kind of argument based on the fear of the improbable occurring.

The the former two are more likely than the latter, then I think that fact would be the strongest argument for the right to bear arms.

I don't have the answers to your questions. But I have a question for you.

If statistics prove that the "strongest argument for the right to bear arms" is indeed a poor argument, would you force people to disarm?

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.