In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

[Lethn]

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match with blatantly flawed statistics being constantly cited and silly hypothetical arguments taking place on both ends. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other people who felt the same way really and the paranoid side of me does make me think this is the most obvious case of political opportunism towards a massacre I have ever seen.

I'm sure the two sides are bound to try swarming this thread but tell me, what do you think of the whole mess? I'm personally looking forward to laughing at their arrogance and stupidity along with Jon Stewart next year especially with the automatic tax rises and spending cuts around the corner.

[1715501126]

1715501126

[Anon136]

There is no anti-gun position in this debate. Both sides are pro gun the difference being that one side wants the decentralization of gun ownership into the hands of the people and the other side wants the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of a small political elite. Undoubtedly both situations present their own dangers but when put in the proper perspective it becomes clear, at-least to reasonable people, which one of these two situations presents the greater danger.

[Lethn]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

[SgtSpike]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

[FirstAscent]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? Switzerland adheres to our second amendment to be honest. We aren't in any way regulated like they are. And where is our militia anyway, let alone a well regulated one? Do you mean our National Guard? Are you a member of the National Guard?  

[MoonShadow]

I believe that the right to defend myself and my family is a basic human right, and that the possession of the most effective tools to that end (by my own perspectives) are an extension of that right.  The 2nd does not grant such a right, it only recognizes that one exists.  Therefore, the truth of the statistical risks or advantages of private gun ownership are irrelevant.  Human rights are not dependent upon the practical argument.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

Furthermore, there really is no debate in this country on gun ownership.  If the attempt to repeal the 2nd were ever to gain traction politically, Texas would secede and several plains states would follow.  Texas still has the right of secession written into their state constitution, and is one of the largest economies on Earth independently of the US at large. The US gun culture is very real, and would not settle for public debate as failed to work in Britain and Australia.  The final argument against repeal of the 2nd is a civil war, and we've still got the weapons.  And don't tell me that US citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the US military, for there are more former US trained military in America just on the pro-gun side than there are active military everywhere in the service of the US government; and we know their capabilities and tactics because we taught them.  A modern civil war in the US would be as bloody as if the Taliban in Afganistan had been trained & equipt by the United States Marine Corps.

[MoonShadow]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? 

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

[FirstAscent]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia? 

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

1. Do you support the Selective Service? Are you of an eligible age for the Selective Service?
2. The government will provide you arms in the event of being drafted. So in such a case, it seems you don't necessarily need any yourself.

[MoonShadow]

You make a fair point actually, it's not just political elite though, they're just simply pawning off responsibility to soldiers and police officers, I always wondered why they didn't make any mention of that.

...whom they control.

I couldn't care less about the stats myself.  The second amendment of the constitution is all I need.    I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as much as we can, but the right to bear arms is just that - a right.

Depends on how you read the second amendment, I guess. Do you consider yourself a member of a well regulated militia?

Based upon the common understanding of the terms "well regulated" and "militia" as they existed at the time of the 2nd's writing, we are both members of such, whether or not you believe that or not.  That is the legal justification for the Selective Service registration system.

1. Do you support the Selective Service? Are you of an eligible age for the Selective Service?

1) I do not support the Selective Service, but I understand the need for it.  I am too old to register, and never needed too because I was enlisted at 17.  No, I was not drafted.

2. The government will provide you arms in the event of being drafted. So in such a case, it seems you don't necessarily need any yourself.

You didn't bother to look up the legal meanings of those terms, did you?  Let me help you.  "Well regulated" means well trained or well practiced.  There is no doubt that the framers believed that marksmanship training should begin in early childhood and be performed by the family.  Anyone who tells you differently is uninformed.  The term does not refer to the "regular" army as we understand it today, as even the "regulars" during and after the revolutionary war were local and state militia, trained by whomever was willing and none were 'issued' arms by any government at any level.  A militiaman owns his own weapon.  This remained true up until the civil war.

The term "milita" did have a military context to it, but legally refered to, and still does in most states (including Kentucky and Texas) to any able bodied male citizen of the state between the ages of 16 and 55.  Any of them.  If they didn't own a weapon, or know how to use them, they were simply not "well regulated", it did not mean that they were not part of the militia.

And this is the legal justification of the Selective Service.  Not that the federal government actually has a right to draft citizens into combat against their own will, but that it has the obligation to know who the milita actually consists of.

[MoonShadow]

http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/guncontrol.htm

Gun control supporters often assume that the acceptability of gun control laws turns on whether they increase or decrease crime rates. The notion that such laws might violate rights, independently of whether they decrease crime rates, is rarely entertained. Nor are the interests of gun owners in keeping and using guns typically given great weight. Thus, a colleague who teaches about the issue once remarked to me that from the standpoint of rights, as opposed to utilitarian considerations, there wasn’t much to say. The only right that might be at stake, he said, was “a trivial right—‘the right to own a gun.’” Similarly, Nicholas Dixon has characterized his own proposed ban on all handguns as “a minor restriction,” and the interests of gun owners in retaining their weapons as “trivial” compared to the dangers of guns.


I believe these attitudes are misguided. I contend that individuals have a prima facie right to own firearms, that this right is weighty and protects important interests, and that it is not overridden by utilitarian considerations. In support of the last point, I shall argue that the harms of private gun ownership are probably less than the benefits, and that in any case, these harms would have to be many times greater than the benefits in order for the right to own a gun to be overridden.

[Herodes]

I think there's no point in pointing fingers and telling who's most stupid in the gun control debate in the us.

I think looking at the core of the issue would give better results, mainly - who is it that commits this awful crimes ?

I think you will find that more often than not, it's the students that are not socially successful. If all teachers paid attention
to their students, they would be able to spot who's falling outside the social circles and give these students some extra
attention and follow up.

Someone that loves to go to school, have a nice family, do a lot of leisure activities, and in general have a good life, has
no incentive to go around killing anyone, on the contrary if you're getting picked on, live in a sucky home, and life in general
just sucks, the chances for mischief are much bigger.

Also, if we see at the incident where a man put a barn on fire and shot the fireworkers when they came rushing to help, he
apparently killed his mother with a hammer some years ago. People who do things like that, perhaps they should just be kept
away from society for the entire reminder of their lives, at least they should be kept in check and receive treatment.

It seems to be that everybody is treating the symptoms and not the root cause. Of course it could be beneficial to upgrade
physical security in all schools, but this will never happen, it's too costly.

Parents and teachers that do care about students however, that can significantly help in preventing things like this happening.

[MoonShadow]

Of course it could be beneficial to upgrade
physical security in all schools, but this will never happen, it's too costly.

Well, there are some things that can be done that shouldn't cost too much.  For example, I have a modern security system for my home that can detect the sound of glass breaking.  Sound sensors placed in most rooms and halls in a public school could be tuned to detect the sound of gunfire.  If you've ever heard real gunfire, it's more distinct than is shown in the movies.  It's got a sharp tone, and an abruptness that firecrackers cannot really approximate; so sound sensors should be able to identify most common firearm reports from 22's up to high powered rifles, although shotguns might be more difficult.  If a security system can rapidly identify gunfire, (or air sniffers can identify the presence of gunpowder, but that would trigger anytime a police officer entered the building) electronic fire doors could be closed and potentially locked in one direction.  I.E. fire doors can let you out of a building on fire, but not let you come back in.  Also, the ability of the automatic security system to call the police computers and inform the dispacter that a firearm has been discharged in the school would shave minutes off of the response time of the police.

The reality is that every gun rampage ends early only one way, with the use of a gun in another person's hands.  The debate really isn't whether or not such guns are necessary in as diverse a society as the United States, the debate is on who should be trusted with said firearms.  If you believe that only agents of the state should be trusted with firearms, then let me ask another question.  Do you also believe that a badge makes a man act morally, or is the badge a recognition (by the state) that the man acts in the state's own interests?

[MoonShadow]

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/fetish_flogger_vz58_9804web.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1

Hey Lethn, is this the kind of intelligent debate that you intended that a UK subject could interject?

[farlack]

I would not be surprised if its all a tactic to make some money  

I went thru a 50 mile radius of my house in search of guns, and all the stores are empty.

You know how much the government made from people being scared guns are going away?

Edit:
Id like to point out that even though the stores were all empty, before they opened it was like a black Friday buy one get one free. The lines were stupid crazy.

[JoelKatz]

The term "milita" did have a military context to it, but legally refered to, and still does in most states (including Kentucky and Texas) to any able bodied male citizen of the state between the ages of 16 and 55.  Any of them.  If they didn't own a weapon, or know how to use them, they were simply not "well regulated", it did not mean that they were not part of the militia.

See 10 USC 311 for the composition of the militia of the United States:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[deus-ex-machina]

A sociopath managed to legally obtain assault weapons despite his documentation and opened fire on a theatre. That really is the only argument needed.

Second, the Amendment in question only allows a well-regulated militia the right to bear arms. Not people who will just shoot first and ask questions later (though I admit the militia in question does that as well). In fact, if you look closely, it doesn't even restrict the use of said arms for that militia, meaning it either allows for full military dictatorship, or legalizes vigilantism, both of which are among the worst concepts ever thought up.

[farlack]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

[deus-ex-machina]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

[JoelKatz]

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Isn't killing inherently just as ethically neutral as cutting things into useful shapes or eating? Antibiotics are designed specifically for killing.

[MoonShadow]

A sociopath managed to legally obtain assault weapons despite his documentation and opened fire on a theatre. That really is the only argument needed.

First, he did not legally obtain them.  He succeded in defrauding the dealers into believing that he was not prohibited by law, which is itself an illegal act.  Point in case that laws do not compel moral behavior, and therefore cannot be depended upon to have the effects intended by their proponents.

Second, even if that were not so and he actually did purchase his weapons within the legal framework of the state he lived within, that would still not an argument make.  Such people are aberations, for there are at least 10K other law abiding gun owners for every nutter.  Such high profile cases do not make for sound laws.

Second, the Amendment in question only allows a well-regulated militia the right to bear arms. Not people who will just shoot first and ask questions later (though I admit the militia in question does that as well). In fact, if you look closely, it doesn't even restrict the use of said arms for that militia, meaning it either allows for full military dictatorship, or legalizes vigilantism, both of which are among the worst concepts ever thought up.

The second amendment does not effect the government's ability to possess arms in any fashion.  There is no need for the 2nd if that were it's purpose.  Even the hardest anti-gun historian will not claim this.  If you are going to enter into a debate on a topic for which you do not understand, you would be well behoved to read up on the topic.

[myrkul]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Nope, guns are designed to project lead (or paint or plastic) pellets where the barrel is pointed. The pointing of the barrel, and the decision of when (or if) to pull the trigger is what decides the use case of a gun. Statistically, it's almost never to actually kill something.

Knives are designed to slice things. Forks are designed to pierce (and typically, hold) things. Unless you eat with one of these?

[MoonShadow]

I'm sure the two sides are bound to try swarming this thread but tell me, what do you think of the whole mess? I'm personally looking forward to laughing at their arrogance and stupidity along with Jon Stewart next year especially with the automatic tax rises and spending cuts around the corner.

One thing is certain, neither the gun dealers nor the government are worse off because of the stupidity of the debate.  The gun sales have never been higher than they have been over the past couple of weeks.  The taxes alone would be a perverse incentive for certain persons in government to stoke the anti-gun elements into saying stupid things, just to light a fire under the fear-of-a-ban sales.  It's working in that respect, as many people that I've talked to say that the gun shops are literally sold out of everything.

[Beans]

That guy could have easily killed even more people if he had taken a sword instead. People probably would have ran towards the screams instead of away from the gunshots. People living in cities have just been to busy sipping their lattes. They seem to forget a lot of people still enjoy hunting and sports. There is also no guarantee that a war inside are border will never happen. I would say it's inevitable, even if it doesn't happen in our life time. There are also a lot of situation where calling the police for help is not a solution. People are just becoming far to comfortable, and start to fear anything that could harm them while living their cozy lives.

[augustocroppo]

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US1512026?printsec=abstract

Be it known that we Charles Le Holden and William Knedler citizens the United States residing at Kings Mills in the county of Warren and State of Ohio have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Bullets of which the following is a specification.

Our invention relates to bullets or balls for cartridges such as are used in rifles pistols and the like and has for one of its objects the provision of simple and efficient means for rendering a bullet highly effective for holding itself intact and in shape during flighty.

(...)

The fluid will tend to be driven through the core 1 thus giving a maximum flattening or mushrooming effect to the bullet when the latter engages a target This gives great killing power to the bullet when the latter is used for hunting game and the like.

(...)

Moreover the bullet in preserving its unity on despite high velocities and not broken has greater penetration after mushrooming thus greatly enhancing its killing power.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/rifle_killing_power.htm

Bullet terminal performance

A factor that has become more and more prominent in discussions of killing power is the terminal performance of hunting bullets. Assuming a rifle of reasonably adequate caliber, selecting the right bullet for the job can play a big role in killing power. Big game should be hunted only with bullets designed for the purpose. Frangible varmint type bullets and FMJ military type bullets are unsuitable for any type of big game hunting, and are illegal in most jurisdictions.

http://www.ncmuseumofhistory.org/collateral/articles/f06.david.carbine.williams.pdf

David “Carbine” Williams and the Invention of the M1 Carbine*

When World War II broke out, the U.S. military needed a weapon to combat the new fighting tactics of German forces. Support troops needed guns that were lighter than standard service rifles so that they could go about their normal duties. But they also needed guns that were more effective in combat than the pistols they had been using. The Ordnance Department asked for design proposals from both military and civilian designers.
 
Williams at the time was working for Winchester Repeating Firearms Company in Connecticut. Winchester decided at the last minute to enter a light rifle prototype in the competition. An important part of this rifle was Williams’s short-stroke gas piston, which he had worked on in prison. After several weeks of tests and a number of modifications, Winchester’s entry, the Carbine Caliber .30 M1, was adopted as the standard rifle for military service. 

The M1 carbine, as it came to be known, went from a design on paper to a weapon in the hands of soldiers in less than a year.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing.

Nope, guns are designed to project lead (or paint or plastic) pellets where the barrel is pointed. The pointing of the barrel, and the decision of when (or if) to pull the trigger is what decides the use case of a gun.

The decision of pull the trigger is not what determine the primary purpose of the weapon design, therefore your statement is fallacious (and stupid, as you like to be).

Statistically, it's almost never to actually kill something.

What statistics are you talking about? Did you not know that a vast number of people died in the Second Word War from firearm shots?

[myrkul]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

[augustocroppo]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

In accordance with what reference?

The number of bullets fired by a firearm do not change the main purpose of the firearm design. Hence bullets were designed to increase the firearm killing power, even if was necessary to waste a hundred bullets in one single shot. Machine guns were extensively used (and designed) in the Second World War due its high killing power, not due its capacity to waste bullets.

Mauzer K98, Sten Gun, MP44, MG42, M1 Garand, Grease Gun, Walther P38, TT-31, DP-27, STV-40, etc. All designed to kill, whatever number of bullets were necessary.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot,

Yes, firearms are designed to perform a task, 'only kill for their intended purpose'.

So, why you like to delude yourself by denying the primary design purpose of firearms (including bullets) is to kill since it have been invented?

Wait? Let me guess what will be your next argument? Bows were only designed to throw arrows?

as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

I do not see any statics in your post.

You are implying that firearms were designed to hit targets eventually and because of that, killing power was not regarded by the designer. In accordance with your logic, hand grenades are not designed to kill, but only to disperse fragments able to penetrate human flesh in all directions. If the fragments fail to kill the target, this means the hand grenade was not designed to kill.

[myrkul]

Let me guess what will be your next argument? Bows were only designed to throw arrows?

Yes, as a matter of fact.

There is a Marvel character who uses a bow for numerous special purposes, which killing is but one of. In one scene of the recent Avengers movie, he uses it to download a virus onto a computer by firing a specially designed arrow into a dataport. So you see, it is the intent of the user that determines the use of a weapon.

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. It is the intent of the person behind the gun that determines it's purpose.
Take, for instance, these:

Fired from a standard shotgun, these projectiles are designed not to kill.
If a gun is designed only to kill, why then, do these projectiles even exist?

[laughingbear]

If you dont like guns, dont buy one.  If you want to take guns away from people, and ban them... you come and get mine personally.  Debate over.

[Littleshop]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

Like almost all items, guns are not monolithic.  There are many kinds of guns for many kinds of purposes.  99% of them are for killing (people or animals).  Of those 99% there are some that are dual purpose and some that are intended mostly to kill people.  While you can hunt deer with a handgun, it is a poor tool for the job. 

It is stupid to derail a conversation about guns by arguing what they are used for.  The purpose is obvious.   


It would be great if we could wave a magic wand and make all of these killings end with a law.  This can not happen.  The guns exist, will not go away and for the most part gun control laws will not prevent these killings.  NOTHING will totally stop these killings, they can only be reduced.

Upping security in schools will also do little or nothing.  The amount of money spent could be simply spent in upgraded auto safety and far more child lives would be saved. 

My choice:

Better mental health care.  More education on gun safety with an emphasis on keeping guns secured and only accessible by the rightful owner.  Letting people know there are hard facts that having an unsecured gun is more dangerous in most cases then not owning one at all but KEEPING IT ONES CHOICE as to what to do. 

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light. He thinks his arguments deserve merit.

[myrkul]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

[Littleshop]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

[myrkul]

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

You are not the best judge of such things.

[MoonShadow]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks.  It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder.  I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.

[farlack]

If guns are banned, swords should be too. Knives and forks, and later on leaving your house without a protective bomb proof bubble.

Except guns are designed specifically for killing. Knives are designed to cut things into a more usable shape. Forks are designed specifically to eat.

One of these things just doesn't belong.

Wow, and I though the 10,000 rounds of ammo I shot this year was for fun, shit..

I guess you have never heard of a bayonet.

[Littleshop]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks.  It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder.  I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.

Nothing is new about those arguments.   We have seen them time and time again.  Almost anything can be used to kill (car, knife, chemical) and those things are not regulated. 

As I have said, I do not believe any any proposed gun control law would have a big impact on these types of shootings.  There are changes to America that could be made to reduce gun violence but I do not believe the political will exists to do them.  There are a lot of voluntary changes that could be made in media and reporting (the coverage of these events probably drives more of these events to happen) but this is also very unlikely to happen.  Big media makes too much money off of these events. 

[Lethn]

Like I said guys, stupid hypothetical arguments that I refuse to take part in any more, it's like having an argument on the internet about whether someone could kick your arse, it's never going to end

[farlack]

I feel the media is to blame, if they don't blow things up, no one else will want their name to be remembered in history.  I don't think we went a few days without some sort of shocking shooting being blown all over the media after the school shooting even though it happens all the time.

[organofcorti]

Like I said guys, stupid hypothetical arguments that I refuse to take part in any more, it's like having an argument on the internet about whether someone could kick your arse, it's never going to end

I agree. The question of gun control in the US is moot. There are plenty of unregistered illegal weapons available in that country, and gun control won't prevent them from being sold on. Plus it's not impossible to print your own weapon if you have access to a 3D printer.

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated. In this context arguing about gun control is like arguing about the relative safety of fallout shelters during a nuclear war.

[kneim]

As a younger man I heard about a person shooting 3 other people and then himself at a day, here in Germany.

Some days later I heard he was a member of my own school class some years ago.

I remember him as a GOOD guy in our class, but later he decided to be a BAD one.

It became known he was in a shooting club, he shooted thousands of bullets in peace, but needed only 4 bullets for 4 people shooting them to death. He selected his victims arbitrarily. In his farewell letter he wrote: I didn't know how easy it is to shoot people to death.

[Herodes]

...as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

Yes, did you consider partaking in a combat zone ? After all, the chances of getting hit by a bullet and killed ain't that big..

[Lethn]

If the more realistic war films etc. are anything to go by all you do is just stand around for ages taking shit from officers lol

[vampire]

Fun fact: Over 5000 bullets were fired for each soldier killed in WWII. It took over 12000 to take down a plane.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. They do that every time they are used. They only kill when the user points the barrel at another human being and uses them for their intended purpose: to fire a bullet, and that bullet strikes the other human being in a lethal spot, as you can see, a statistically rare event, even in wartime.

You had a chance of survival of 10% if you were a soviet soldier on June 22nd 1941.

Let me make it clear: 90% chance of being dead by 1947.

[augustocroppo]

Yes, as a matter of fact.

There is a Marvel character who uses a bow for numerous special purposes, which killing is but one of. In one scene of the recent Avengers movie, he uses it to download a virus onto a computer by firing a specially designed arrow into a dataport. So you see, it is the intent of the user that determines the use of a weapon.

The discussion is about REAL weapons, not FICTIONAL weapons. If bows were not designed to kill, for what purpose bows were designed for? Which results the bow designer intended to obtain with an arrow thrown from his invention?

Guns are designed to fire projectiles. It is the intent of the person behind the gun that determines it's purpose.

You are confusing the purpose of the designer with the purpose of the final user. These are two different subjects. The purpose of the final user does not determine the purpose of the designer (or the purpose of the design). Most of all firearms were invented (and are invented) to kill. In other words, the intention of the final user have no influence over the intention of the designer. The purpose of the designer come first than the purpose of the final user.

purpose
noun
1 the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

design
noun
1 a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.

The fluid will tend to be driven through the core 1 thus giving a maximum flattening or mushrooming effect to the bullet when the latter engages a target. This gives great killing power to the bullet when the latter is used for hunting game and the like.

'A plan produced to show the function of a bullet, for which something is done' to 'gives great killing power to the bullet when the latter is used for hunting game and the like.'

Take, for instance, these:

Fired from a standard shotgun, these projectiles are designed not to kill.
If a gun is designed only to kill, why then, do these projectiles even exist?

You are again confusing the intent of the final user with the intent of the designer. These projectiles were designed for a specif purpose which is determined by the final user, not by the designer.

e.g.

Paintball guns were invented to NOT kill. The purpose of the weapon design is to mark the target with paint. If a paintball gun ammo is invented to kill, the main purpose of the weapon design will not change. Paintball guns are weapons designed to NOT kill. The purpose of the designer come first than the purpose of the final user.

By the way, I am not arguing that most firearms are only useful to kill. I am arguing that most firearms were (and are) specially designed to kill. That is the main purpose of the firearm design. As the final user intent have no influence over the designer intent, the designer intent also have no influence over the final user intent. Thus the final user is free to employ the firearm for whatever purpose he/she deem necessary.

[Lethn]

and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.

[organofcorti]

and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.

Way to piss off both myrkul and augustocroppo

[MoonShadow]

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe.  Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe.  (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now)  This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective.  Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others.  Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license.  This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result.  However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased.  There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982.  That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.

[Lethn]

and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.

Way to piss off both myrkul and augustocroppo

When I see complete stupidity I can't help myself, it's just too easy

[organofcorti]

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe.  Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe.  (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now)  This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective.  Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others.  Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license.  This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result.  However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased.  There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982.  That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.

I live in Australia and feel safe. We have twice as many assaults but only one-fifth the murders that occur in the US. Our fights tend to be non-lethal.

Regardless, why is it that so many Americans feel unsafe? If you read the "gun control" threads, you'd think all US citizens were under constant threat of annihilation from their fellow citizens or their government. If the average law abiding US citizen is as safe as I am, why don't they think they are?

[iCEBREAKER]

Except guns are designed specifically for killing.

Well that settles it.  Guns are Evil objects, imbued with malevolent powers by their very nature.  Humans are powerless to prevent harm in their presence.

Even worse than drugs!

/enjoy your gun fetish

[organofcorti]

......
/enjoy your gun fetish

Hey, that's rude! I dont think anyone here actually has sex with guns, no matter how much they fancy them.

[iCEBREAKER]

In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

That's an easy one.  FirstAssScent is obviously the most stupid in the gun debate.

The poor thing doesn't even realized that only individuals have rights.  It's very sad, so I ignore it.

[myrkul]

and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.

Way to piss off both myrkul and augustocroppo

When I see complete stupidity I can't help myself, it's just too easy

I'm not pro guns. I'm anti-gun control. I'm just pointing out that these things are tools. Guns are rarely used to shoot someone. Much more often, they are used to prevent crime. This doesn't make the news, though, because it's much less exciting than when a gun is used to commit a crime. Often, a gun doesn't even need to be fired to be used in defense, and even more often, it doesn't even need to be drawn. Criminals avoid armed citizens. That's a fact. If guns are made illegal, by definition, only criminals will have guns.

The gun control argument isn't anti-guns, As has been pointed out, they'll need guns to take them from the average Joe. They just want the guns concentrated in the hands of government agents. I even heard one proponent say that "Government employees don't go on rampages with their guns." Which is patently false. Even discounting the "going postal" phenomenon, there is a specific group of government employees whose job it is to go on murderous rampages with their guns. At the moment, they are being primarily used overseas, but historically, once the citizenry is disarmed at home, this group is turned upon them:

[iCEBREAKER]

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe. 

I live in Australia and feel safe.

Regardless, why is it that so many Americans feel unsafe? If you read the "gun control" threads, you'd think all US citizens were under constant threat of annihilation from their fellow citizens or their government. If the average law abiding US citizen is as safe as I am, why don't they think they are?

The threat of annihilation or oppression needn't be "constant" (that's merely your strawman).

Life is intrinsically unsafe, and the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. 

In America, we are willing to pay that price because we are free and sovereign individuals.

In Europe and Australia, the slavish rabble have never risen up to secure their liberty and are unwilling to be eternally vigilant. 

Magna Carta was a good start but unfortunately there was no real follow through.  The French Revolution was admirable but they bungled it with Egalitarian Statism.

Enjoy your child-like feelings of safety, all warm and snuggly and resonsibility-free, protected by your benevolent owner, the Queen. 

Wasn't her Christmas speech lovely?   

I prefer Freedom and its concomitant responsibility, danger, and stress.

[SgtSpike]

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe.  Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe.  (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now)  This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective.  Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others.  Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license.  This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result.  However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased.  There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982.  That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.

I live in Australia and feel safe. We have twice as many assaults but only one-fifth the murders that occur in the US. Our fights tend to be non-lethal.

Regardless, why is it that so many Americans feel unsafe? If you read the "gun control" threads, you'd think all US citizens were under constant threat of annihilation from their fellow citizens or their government. If the average law abiding US citizen is as safe as I am, why don't they think they are?

Where do you get the idea that Americans feel unsafe?  I feel much safer than I would if I lived in a country where I was not allowed to own a gun.

[iCEBREAKER]

......
/enjoy your gun fetish

Hey, that's rude! I dont think anyone here actually has sex with guns, no matter how much they fancy them.

You are confusing the word "fetish" with the word "kink."  Don't feel too bad, it's a common mistake.  Even the smarty-pants liberals on DailyKos do it all the time.

But once you know the actual, completely non-sexual, definition of fetish (an power object imbued with mystical substances) you start to realize how foolish (and perverse) misuse of the term makes one appear to those with error-free vocabularies.

Now stay off those naughty websites before they further corrupt and degrade your powers of articulation.   

[Lethn]

.... I admit... Girls with weapons I actually find quite hot I can't help myself.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=352596&stc=1&d=1333127166

FAPFAPFAPFAPFPAPFAPFPAPP

[organofcorti]

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe.  Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe.  (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now)  This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective.  Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others.  Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license.  This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result.  However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased.  There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982.  That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.

I live in Australia and feel safe. We have twice as many assaults but only one-fifth the murders that occur in the US. Our fights tend to be non-lethal.

Regardless, why is it that so many Americans feel unsafe? If you read the "gun control" threads, you'd think all US citizens were under constant threat of annihilation from their fellow citizens or their government. If the average law abiding US citizen is as safe as I am, why don't they think they are?

Where do you get the idea that Americans feel unsafe?  I feel much safer than I would if I lived in a country where I was not allowed to own a gun.

Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe. That's what that comes to mind when I read many posts.

This is the point I suppose, and I'll be the first to admit it's not a very good one. I'm not attempting to prove anything, I just want more (sensible) explanations of how you think about your freedoms, guns and so forth.

[myrkul]

.... I admit... Girls with weapons I actually find quite hot I can't help myself.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=352596&stc=1&d=1333127166

FAPFAPFAPFAPFPAPFAPFPAPP

You should see the videos of them actually shooting the things.

Much jigglage.

[organofcorti]

.... I admit... Girls with weapons I actually find quite hot I can't help myself.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=352596&stc=1&d=1333127166

FAPFAPFAPFAPFPAPFAPFPAPP

You should see the videos of them actually shooting the things.

Much jigglage.

I spent many teenage hours watching "Bikini girls and machine guns" ,"Bikini girls and machine guns2" etc (apologies if I got the name wrong).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e6n1ODDth4

[Lethn]

I want one LOL

[SgtSpike]

The debate should be about what makes the US such an intrinsically unsafe and fear ridden society, and how that could be alleviated.

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Taken as a whole, the United States is safer than Europe.  Although this article doesn't touch it, this is also true for murder unless you are someone who has first hand contact with criminal elements, as roughly 80% of murders in this country can still be connected to people with a prior criminal history; and that stat is actually much lower in Europe.  (I admit, I do not have access to those stats right now)  This is not to say this is acceptable, since many of those people are simply drug addicts or family members and not otherwise inclined toward criminal activity themselves, but it does put the murder rate into perspective.  Furthermore, as is true in Europe, some individual states (and particular cities) are safer than others.  Generally speaking, those US states with lower crime rates also have lower legal barriers for a citizen to obtain a firearms license.  This may not be cause & effect, admittedly, as states with higher crime rates might be more inclined to pass weapons restrictions as a result.  However, in every case wherein gun laws were relaxed for the law abiding, crime rates have decreased.  There is one city in Georgia that famously passed a law compelling all households to buy and keep a weapon, due to a very high local crime rate in 1982.  That law is still in effect, and that city has the lowest crime rate in Georgia today.

I live in Australia and feel safe. We have twice as many assaults but only one-fifth the murders that occur in the US. Our fights tend to be non-lethal.

Regardless, why is it that so many Americans feel unsafe? If you read the "gun control" threads, you'd think all US citizens were under constant threat of annihilation from their fellow citizens or their government. If the average law abiding US citizen is as safe as I am, why don't they think they are?

Where do you get the idea that Americans feel unsafe?  I feel much safer than I would if I lived in a country where I was not allowed to own a gun.

Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe. That's what that comes to mind when I read many posts.

This is the point I suppose, and I'll be the first to admit it's not a very good one. I'm not attempting to prove anything, I just want more (sensible) explanations of how you think about your freedoms, guns and so forth.

Na, I'd still feel plenty safe without a gun as well.  The stats MoonShadow has posted (and admittedly not verified) above only further prove my point, assuming their validity: criminals with guns generally leave the average US citizen alone moreso that criminals in other countries (who know that those average citizens do not carry weaponry).  So, I feel safer in the knowledge that a criminal might think that I have a gun, even if I do not, and will leave me alone for that reason.

[myrkul]

.... I admit... Girls with weapons I actually find quite hot I can't help myself.

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=352596&stc=1&d=1333127166

FAPFAPFAPFAPFPAPFAPFPAPP

You should see the videos of them actually shooting the things.

Much jigglage.

I spent many teenage hours watching "Bikini girls and machine guns" ,"Bikini girls and machine guns2" etc (apologies if I got the name wrong).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e6n1ODDth4

Quality entertainment, right there. They kept nearly falling over. Maybe they should have been firing from the hip. It's not like they're going to hit anything anyway.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks.  It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder.  I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.

It didn't backfire because myrkul was serious. And he needs to be serious to back up his claims about what he thinks guns are for. Myrkul's response is exactly what I expected and predicted. His strange views are, well strange. And that makes his arguments weak, especially about the usage of guns.

[myrkul]

Myrkul thinks drills are to spin a chuck. He thinks lamps are used as a stand for lampshades. He thinks monitors are used to emit light.

Close. Lamps are used as a stand for a lightbulb. They're also a convenient place to put a switch. That they also offer a way to hold a lampshade is an added bonus, since it makes a lamp a much nicer thing to have in your room, rather than just a bare bulb.

Drills are indeed used to spin things. Often drillbits, but not always. I have a bit that makes the drill into a saw. I have another whole set that turn it into a screwdriver. I don't have, but you can buy, "bits" that turn a drill into pretty much any power tool. It is, after all, just a motor attached to a chuck.

A monitor is indeed designed to emit light. Light of specific colors, in specific patterns. The light from my laptop often lights my way across my bedroom in the dark. More often, of course, I use it to look at those patterns of light and derive information from them.

Don't you just hate it when your attempt at ridicule backfires?

It didn't backfire. 

Maybe it didn't actually backfire, but you were definately shooting blanks.  It's not like Myrkul and I see things level, so I wish some of you guys would try harder.  I might be entertained if some of you were on his level, but so far I think that most of you guys are engaging in a battle of wits unarmed.

It didn't backfire because myrkul was serious. And he needs to be serious to back up his claims about what he thinks guns are for. Myrkul's response is exactly what I expected and predicted. His strange views are, well strange. And that makes his arguments weak, especially about the usage of guns.

Just because you can't wrap your stunted mind around the concept that a tool is morally neutral and the user determines the use of it, doesn't make my arguments weak. Rather, it makes yours weak.

Try to understand:
A gun shoots projectiles. That's all it does, that's all it's designed to do.
A club hits things. That's all it does, that's all it's designed to do.
A knife cuts things. That's all it does, that's all it's designed to do.

Some people use guns to kill people. Some people use guns to protect their families.
Some people use clubs to kill people. Some people use clubs to hit leather-wrapped balls.
Some people use knives to kill people. Some people use knives to cut their meat.

[FirstAscent]

Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe. That's what that comes to mind when I read many posts.

Perhaps the gun nuts feel unsafe without a gun in America. I don't have a gun, nor do most people I know have a gun, and we feel very safe. And I mean, very very safe.

[iCEBREAKER]

a tool is morally neutral and the user determines the use of it

Try to understand:
A gun shoots projectiles. That's all it does, that's all it's designed to do.
A club hits things. That's all it does, that's all it's designed to do.
A knife cuts things. That's all it does, that's all it's designed to do.

Some people use guns to kill people. Some people use guns to protect their families.
Some people use clubs to kill people. Some people use clubs to hit leather-wrapped balls.
Some people use knives to kill people. Some people use knives to cut their meat.

This is hopeless.  You're not dealing with a rational post-enlightenment mind capable of being persuaded by facts and logic.

FirstAssScent is a superstitious primitive, living a demon-haunted world where inanimate objects possess intentions and control human behavior.

[myrkul]

This is hopeless.  You're not dealing with a rational post-enlightenment mind capable of being persuaded by facts and logic.

FirstAssScent is a superstitious primitive, living a demon-haunted world where inanimate objects possess intentions and control human behavior.

I believe you're right. I just hope another gun doesn't drag an innocent civilian out into a public place to shoot up a bunch of unarmed people again.

[augustocroppo]

and here they are folks, arguing over made up scenarios and fake or poorly thought out statistics blatantly designed to help one side or the other.

Way to piss off both myrkul and augustocroppo

When I see complete stupidity I can't help myself, it's just too easy

Yes, I agree, it is too easy do not take part in the debate and then mock people without present any meaningful argument. I am inclined to think that 'in the gun debate' you are both more stupid than Myrkul. If you have anything substantial to debate rather than the thread question, you are welcome to present it as you wish.

No... No, I am not pissed off. If I did not enjoyed what I am doing, I would not participate in the debate or reply to you both.

[augustocroppo]

Just because you can't wrap your stunted mind around the concept that a tool is morally neutral and the user determines the use of it, doesn't make my arguments weak. Rather, it makes yours weak.

There is not such thing as 'morally neutral' tools as there is not such thing as "morally right" or "morally wrong" tools. This is a pathetic fallacy. You are assigning a human quality to an inanimate object. It is not the object itself which determines principles for proper conduct (or rather how principles for proper conduct should be), but the action performed with the object.

Moreover, no one is contesting that the final user do not determine the use of (or his purpose to use) the firearm. You are arguing that guns (which includes firearms) are not designed to kill and only the final user determines the main purpose of the design. The premise of your argument is false because you are denying the intent of the designer.

By the way, where is the reference for the statistics you published?

[augustocroppo]

This is hopeless.  You're not dealing with a rational post-enlightenment mind capable of being persuaded by facts and logic.

FirstAssScent is a superstitious primitive, living a demon-haunted world where inanimate objects possess intentions and control human behavior.

I believe you're right. I just hope another gun doesn't drag an innocent civilian out into a public place to shoot up a bunch of unarmed people again.

Wow... A delusional user agreeing with another very delusional user.

This is beyond stupid and it is quite funny!

[MoonShadow]

Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe.

I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms.  That's simply statisticly untrue in general.  I'm much more likely to die in a auto accident, and I know it.  All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable.  The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper.  I don't hunt, myself.  I do have a concealed carry license, but rarely carry at all.  I have the weapons, and the license, in the event that I ever do feel that I should need to carry.  I've never seen civil unrest in this city, but my father has, and I strongly suspect that he participated.  My father is actually fairly anti-gun, being a product of the 60's peace/love culture.  I'm not anti-gun because I joined the USMC at 17, partialy out of rebellion to my childhood.  The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.  Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.  You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.

That said, you are no more "safe" in a society that prohibits you, as a common civilian, from owning or carrying personal weaponry than I am in a society with a long and deep gun culture.  However you might feel about that is actually quite irrelevant.

http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

[myrkul]

You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.

And if you knock the teeth out of every sheepdog except the ones in uniform, then the wolves won't be content to hide in sheep's clothing. They'll want sheepdog's clothing.

"A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." - Edward R. Murrow.

Wonder what sort of government a nation of sheepdogs would engender.

[MoonShadow]

In support of my prior claims....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9875875

 Handgun purchasers with at least 1 prior misdemeanor conviction were more than 7 times as likely as those with no prior criminal history to be charged with a new offense after handgun purchase (RR, 7.5; 95% confidence interval. Among men, those with 2 or more prior convictions for misdemeanor violence were at greatest risk for nonviolent firearm-related offenses such as weapon carrying, violent offenses generally, and Violent Crime Index offenses (murder or non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, or aggravated assault). However, even handgun purchasers with only 1 prior misdemeanor conviction and no convictions for offenses involving firearms or violence were nearly 5 times as likely as those with no prior criminal history to be charged with new offenses involving firearms or violence.

Looking into the methods, misdemeanor traffic violations were generally excluded from the study, as some states consider moving violations to be misdemeanors and others do not.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

This last one...

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

...focuses mostly upon the race of the victim and the assailant, but is also useful for pointing out a related stat.  That certain subcultures (I don't believe that the actual concentration of melatonin has anything to do with this) are more prone to produce violently inclined adults than others.  While race is a general indicator of sub-cultural background, it's certainly not absolute.

Still, if you exclude all minorities from these statistics, a white adult is less likely to be murdered, per capita, in the United States than in Europe.  That is not to say that either is at all likely, nor that either is actually more safe generally; but the argument that the gun culture in the US contributes to an increased risk for any particular person (of European decent or cultural background) is without any statistically significant merit.

As an aside, white people are much more likely to be murdered by poisoning in the United States than by firearm.

EDIT: I might be reading that last stat incorrectly, but it's certainly a lot more likely than I would have assumed, myself.

[MoonShadow]

Wonder what sort of government a nation of sheepdogs would engender.

I know where you want to go with this, and ancap is off-topic in this thread.  Still, I don't disagree with your conclusions, I just don't see a way to get there from where we are.

And I think that there would always be a percentage of the population that would simply prefer to be sheep.  Ignorance is truely bliss.

[myrkul]

Wonder what sort of government a nation of sheepdogs would engender.

I know where you want to go with this, and ancap is off-topic in this thread.  Still, I don't disagree with your conclusions, I just don't see a way to get there from where we are.

And I think that there would always be a percentage of the population that would simply prefer to be sheep.  Ignorance is truely bliss.

Well, I don't want to derail this scintillating discussion, so I'll just state that AnCap was not my goal in stating that, though it certainly does make sense that you would go there.

In response to the "no path from here to there," we have that covered, and those that are content to be sheep are welcome to select their own sheepdogs, so long as they do not attempt to force that decision on others.

Now back to our regularly scheduled bickering.

[augustocroppo]

All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable.  The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.

No, 'they' do not because 'they' are not 'they', but "it". Like Myrkul, you are assigning a human quality to an inanimate object (pathetic fallacy)

You are trying to free yourself from criticism by transferring the moral conduct from yourself to the firearm. So, to avoid criticism, you typed 'the rest of the time, they are shooting at paper', which implies the intention to shoot at papers come from the firearm and not from you. Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.

I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.  Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.  You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.

A "sheep" society can exist without "sheepdogs". The "sheepdog" is not an essential element for the "sheep" society to exist. Your analogy is based on the false premise that without "sheepdogs", a "sheep" society would cease to exist. This is untrue and do not serve as argument to justify the right to own a gun for personal use.

The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.

That is the only part where you properly justify your right to own a gun.

It is reasonable to own a gun to enjoy shoot at papers?

Yes, its is quite reasonable.

It is reasonable to own a gun because a "sheep" society could not exist without a "sheepdog" shooting at papers?

No, it is quite unreasonable and fallacious.

[myrkul]

AugustoCroppo has lapsed past argumentation, and into comedy.

If you're going to debate the meaning of words, you might want to learn them, first.

[augustocroppo]

AugustoCroppo has lapsed past argumentation, and into comedy.

If you're going to debate the meaning of words, you might want to learn them, first.

Myrkul, you should suggest this to yourself due your constantly subversion of established concepts. A dictionary was not designed to merely display words and numbers, but to inform readers of correct definitions. It main purpose is to preserve the meaning of the words, not to rest in a shelf. You should try one, it will not hurt you.

[myrkul]

You mean like this?

they
plural pronoun, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.

[MoonShadow]

All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable.  The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.

No, 'they' do not because 'they' are not 'they', but "it". Like Myrkul, you are assigning a human quality to an inanimate object (pathetic fallacy)

You are trying to free yourself from criticism by transferring the moral conduct from yourself to the firearm. So, to avoid criticism, you typed 'the rest of the time, they are shooting at paper', which implies the intention to shoot at papers come from the firearm and not from you.

That was literary license, since I'm not the only one who utilizes my firearms to sling lead and copper at paper.  I was not anamorphasizing, get past it.

 Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.

No, seriously.  You are really reaching here.  You are actually accusing me of what Myrkul was calling you guys out for, that you seem to have entirely misunderstood.  The weapon is a tool.  It is only a tool.  It has no moral capacity of it's own, cannot decide it's own intent.  Even it's designer can only assume it's intended use.  Myrkul was mocking you, and he still is.  You guys really aren't up for this, and are entirely unprepared for any real debate.

I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.  Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.  You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.

A "sheep" society can exist without "sheepdogs". The "sheepdog" is not an essential element for the "sheep" society to exist. Your analogy is based on the false premise that without "sheepdogs", a "sheep" society would cease to exist. This is untrue and do not serve as argument to justify the right to own a gun for personal use.

It's not at all untrue.  It's provablely so, both today and across history.  No matter where you live, sheepdogs surround you, protect you, watch your borders & city streets while you sleep.  There is not now, and there never has been, an exception to this at any point across human history.  None.  Perhaps someday the wolves can be purged from human nature forever, and the sheepdogs will no longer be necessary, but I doubt it.  It's more likely, as Murkul pointed out, that a society dominated by sheepdogs develops that doesn't require a coordinating force (governments) to direct and monitor the sheepdogs; and doesn't suffer wolves to live.

The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.

That is the only part where you properly justify your right to own a gun.

I did not even attempt to justify my right.  I do not require your approval or your concent to excersize any of my rights.  That's what makes them rights.

It is reasonable to own a gun to enjoy shoot at papers?

Yes, its is quite reasonable.

No, it's not.  It's reasonable because I have the right.  Period.  So do you, BTW; even though you are prevented from your rights by threat of force.

It is reasonable to own a gun because a "sheep" society could not exist without a "sheepdog" shooting at papers?

No, it is quite unreasonable and fallacious.

Again, that is not why I have the right.  I have the right because I have the right to self-defense; and the right to the most effective means of same.  Whether or not society at large benefits or not from that is entirely irrelevant.

[organofcorti]

I go to bed and wake up and now it's sheep dogs and sheep? In a thread about how crazy the gun control discussions yet? Comedy gold!

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer. Or better yet, someone only related to farm activities. The local vet maybe. Anyone here not been fixed yet?

[myrkul]

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer.

Running for office, then?

[MoonShadow]

I go to bed and wake up and now it's sheep dogs and sheep? In a thread about how crazy the gun control discussions yet? Comedy gold!

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer. Or better yet, someone only related to farm activities. The local vet maybe. Anyone here not been fixed yet?

Perhaps you should consider reading the link I provided that explains that analogy, before you go and make a fool of yourself?

Just a thought.

[organofcorti]

I go to bed and wake up and now it's sheep dogs and sheep? In a thread about how crazy the gun control discussions yet? Comedy gold!

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer. Or better yet, someone only related to farm activities. The local vet maybe. Anyone here not been fixed yet?

Perhaps you should consider reading the link I provided that explains that analogy, before you go and make a fool of yourself?

Just a thought.

No, my point was that it has nothing to do with the OP.

[MoonShadow]

I go to bed and wake up and now it's sheep dogs and sheep? In a thread about how crazy the gun control discussions yet? Comedy gold!

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer. Or better yet, someone only related to farm activities. The local vet maybe. Anyone here not been fixed yet?

Perhaps you should consider reading the link I provided that explains that analogy, before you go and make a fool of yourself?

Just a thought.

No, my point was that it has nothing to do with the OP.

It certainly does.  Try reading the link.

[Richy_T]

Back to the topic of the thread...

Gun owners mostly want to be left alone. By immediately trying to use a tragedy to push their agenda, gun control advocates have incited gun owners to respond and, perhaps more importantly, caused gun owners, in anticipation of restrictive legislation, to purchase guns and ammunition to the point that many stores are low on stock. Thus, by their actions, they have caused more of what they oppose.

So...



I didn't vote

[organofcorti]

I go to bed and wake up and now it's sheep dogs and sheep? In a thread about how crazy the gun control discussions yet? Comedy gold!

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer. Or better yet, someone only related to farm activities. The local vet maybe. Anyone here not been fixed yet?

Perhaps you should consider reading the link I provided that explains that analogy, before you go and make a fool of yourself?

Just a thought.

No, my point was that it has nothing to do with the OP.

It certainly does.  Try reading the link.

Perhaps later when I'm not racing out the door to work, and when I have more time for rhetoric.

I did give it another quick glance though, and there's no mention of who the farmer is. Seriously, if you're going to be a sheepdog you're protecting sheep on someone's behalf, usually a farmer. Who is the farmer? Is this another religious thing that I'm just not going to get?

[Richy_T]

Perhaps later when I'm not racing out the door to work, and when I have more time for rhetoric.

I did give it another quick glance though, and there's no mention of who the farmer is. Seriously, if you're going to be a sheepdog you're protecting sheep on someone's behalf, usually a farmer. Who is the farmer? Is this another religious thing that I'm just not going to get?

Hmm, benefits from the labor of the sheepdog and slaughters the sheep? Gotta be a politician.

[myrkul]

I go to bed and wake up and now it's sheep dogs and sheep? In a thread about how crazy the gun control discussions yet? Comedy gold!

Not that it matters, but if we're all going to be sheepdogs or sheep, I'm going to be the farmer. Or better yet, someone only related to farm activities. The local vet maybe. Anyone here not been fixed yet?

Perhaps you should consider reading the link I provided that explains that analogy, before you go and make a fool of yourself?

Just a thought.

No, my point was that it has nothing to do with the OP.

It certainly does.  Try reading the link.

Perhaps later when I'm not racing out the door to work, and when I have more time for rhetoric.

I did give it another quick glance though, and there's no mention of who the farmer is. Seriously, if you're going to be a sheepdog you're protecting sheep on someone's behalf, usually a farmer. Who is the farmer? Is this another religious thing that I'm just not going to get?

The analogy breaks down if you try to stretch it too far. but the best analog for the farmer would be the government/politicians.

Where it really breaks down, though, is that the "sheep" can provide the sheepdogs with kibble directly, and there's no real need for a farmer. In fact, that's a lot better than trusting a farmer, who might mistake a wolf for a sheepdog, thus endangering the whole flock.

[Richy_T]

Where it really breaks down, though, is that the "sheep" can provide the sheepdogs with kibble directly, and there's no real need for a farmer. In fact, that's a lot better than trusting a farmer, who might mistake a wolf for a sheepdog, thus endangering the whole flock.

Where it really breaks down is that without the breeding and training from the farmer, the sheepdog is just a wolf himself. But the metaphor really isn't meant to be stretched that far.

[organofcorti]

Ta for that, myrkul.

[myrkul]

Where it really breaks down, though, is that the "sheep" can provide the sheepdogs with kibble directly, and there's no real need for a farmer. In fact, that's a lot better than trusting a farmer, who might mistake a wolf for a sheepdog, thus endangering the whole flock.

Where it really breaks down is that without the breeding and training from the farmer, the sheepdog is just a wolf himself. But the metaphor really isn't meant to be stretched that far.

Good point. Human "sheepdogs" are self-selected, and don't really need a "farmer" to breed them.

[augustocroppo]

That was literary license, since I'm not the only one who utilizes my firearms to sling lead and copper at paper.  I was not anamorphasizing, get past it.

No, you literally used 'they' as pronoun for the noun 'firearm', not 'who utilizes my firearms'

'All my firearms (...) their (...), because they (...). they are (...) I (...).'

You mean like this?

they
plural pronoun, possessive their or theirs, objective them.
1. nominative plural of he, she, and it.

(Thank you Myrkul, I stand corrected. I am glad that you agreed to use a dictionary for the purpose it was originally designed.)

No, seriously.  You are really reaching here.  You are actually accusing me of what Myrkul was calling you guys out for, that you seem to have entirely misunderstood.

I beg your pardon, but what are you talking about? What is exactly the accusation?

So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.

The weapon is a tool.  It is only a tool.

Yes, a tool specially designed to kill.

It has no moral capacity of it's own, cannot decide it's own intent.

Of course a tool do not have moral capacity. That is why your premise is misleading.

Even it's designer can only assume it's intended use.

The tool you own was designed to kill. It was not design to merely shoot at papers or rest in locked safes.

Myrkul was mocking you, and he still is.  You guys really aren't up for this, and are entirely unprepared for any real debate.

Argument ad hominem...

What a shame coming from you, Moonshadow.

It's not at all untrue.  It's provablely so, both today and across history.  No matter where you live, sheepdogs surround you, protect you, watch your borders & city streets while you sleep.  There is not now, and there never has been, an exception to this at any point across human history.  None.  Perhaps someday the wolves can be purged from human nature forever, and the sheepdogs will no longer be necessary, but I doubt it.

"Sheepdogs" are more dangerous to a "sheep" society than would be the "wolves". There are "sheepdogs" to protect people from other "sheepdogs". Not all "sheepdogs" are really protecting the "sheep" society.

It's more likely, as Murkul pointed out, that a society dominated by sheepdogs develops that doesn't require a coordinating force (governments) to direct and monitor the sheepdogs; and doesn't suffer wolves to live.

A society only made of "sheepdogs" would eventually lead to a "sheepdog" war. Peace and lack of violence is an aspect of a "sheep" society, not an aspect of a "sheepdog" society. A society only made of "wolves" would result in almost self-extinction. No "sheep", no food. "Wolves" are know for attack their own specie to survive. A society only made of "sheep" would result in lack of technical progress, which could endanger the survival of the specie.

What will likely to happen is that a "sheep" society will always choose their "sheepdogs" because there will be always other "sheepdogs" and "wolves" threatening the welfare of the "sheep" society.

I did not even attempt to justify my right.  I do not require your approval or your concent to excersize any of my rights.  That's what makes them rights.

That is true.

So why do you think your right to own a firearm should never be refused (or prevented) by the society where you live?

No, it's not.  It's reasonable because I have the right.  Period.  So do you, BTW; even though you are prevented from your rights by threat of force.

No, I do not have the right to own a firearm in the society where I live.

I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.

Again, that is not why I have the right.  I have the right because I have the right to self-defense; and the right to the most effective means of same.

So, you also own the firearms to efficiently defend yourself from an physical threat posed by a living entity (kill the attacker before it harms or kill you)? Why did you choose firearms? The main purpose of the firearm design was a factor in your choice? How efficient is your tool of self-defense against living entities? Did you regarded non-lethal weapons to exercise your right to own a firearm?

[MoonShadow]

That was literary license, since I'm not the only one who utilizes my firearms to sling lead and copper at paper.  I was not anamorphasizing, get past it.

No, you literally used 'they' as pronoun for the noun 'firearm', not 'who utilizes my firearms'

'All my firearms (...) their (...), because they (...). they are (...) I (...).'

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, seriously.  You are really reaching here.  You are actually accusing me of what Myrkul was calling you guys out for, that you seem to have entirely misunderstood.

I beg your pardon, but what are you talking about? What is exactly the accusation?

The accusation is that, generally speaking, gun control advocates consider the tool to be the part of the equation to be controlled.  This implies, and for some is literally so by their own admission, that they consider the tool to be fundamentally evil/bad/harmful etc.  That is the anamorphasizing that your side of the debate is accused of, for which Myrkul was openly & plainly mocking you for.

Again, is English your first languge? Perhaps this is simply a misunderstanding?

So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.

No.  You made an observation for which you believe I were justifying my intent.  I have already explained your error of observation.  I have made zero attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  Again, I do not require your consent.

The weapon is a tool.  It is only a tool.

Yes, a tool specially designed to kill.

The majority of them, yes.  And yet, the vast majority of them are never employed in that purpose.  At least not in this country.  Punching holes in paper is, by a wide margin, the most widely intended purpose of those who buy them.  This is particularly true with regard to rimfire caliber firearms, many of which are specifically designed to maximize their effectiveness for this particular purpose.  All you have to do to find those is google 'target pistol' or 'target rifle' and you will immediately notice that they have features that make them particularly poor choices for self-defense or hunting.

This alone puts the lie to your line of thought.

It has no moral capacity of it's own, cannot decide it's own intent.

Of course a tool do not have moral capacity. That is why your premise is misleading.

Once again, I didn't present a premise.  You are projecting.  You seem to believe that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  I do not require your approval.

Even it's designer can only assume it's intended use.

The tool you own was designed to kill. It was not design to merely shoot at papers or rest in locked safes.

Not less than three of my firearms were specifically designed to sling projectiles at paper targets, and would have a limited usefulness in the role of self-defense.  I literally have other firearms that were bought to serve that role, and designed for that purpose.

Myrkul was mocking you, and he still is.  You guys really aren't up for this, and are entirely unprepared for any real debate.

Argument ad hominem...

What a shame coming from you, Moonshadow.

Once again, you presume that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  You are being mocked.  Accusing me of a falacy of logic has no mening if I'm not engaged in a debate.  I am not, and I don't believe that Myrkul is either.  There is no debate here; neither concerning this topic generally (with non-citizens of the United States) nor in this thread specificly.  You have no more say about how I live or act than Piers Morgan does.  And like him, you are welcome to your opinion; but you can keep it.  Your opinion on my rights is inmaterial.  You don't have an argument you even have the standing to compel me to respond to.

It's not at all untrue.  It's provablely so, both today and across history.  No matter where you live, sheepdogs surround you, protect you, watch your borders & city streets while you sleep.  There is not now, and there never has been, an exception to this at any point across human history.  None.  Perhaps someday the wolves can be purged from human nature forever, and the sheepdogs will no longer be necessary, but I doubt it.

"Sheepdogs" are more dangerous to a "sheep" society than would be the "wolves". There are "sheepdogs" to protect people from other "sheepdogs". Not all "sheepdogs" are really protecting the "sheep" society.

There is no need that all sheepdogs are protecting socity at any given time.  The only requirement is that the sheepdogs exist, or the sheeps' civilization cannot continue to exist.  That is the premise of the analogy.  Again, did you bother to read ithe link I provided?  Or did you simply not understand it?

It's more likely, as Murkul pointed out, that a society dominated by sheepdogs develops that doesn't require a coordinating force (governments) to direct and monitor the sheepdogs; and doesn't suffer wolves to live.

A society only made of "sheepdogs" would eventually lead to a "sheepdog" war. Peace and lack of violence is an aspect of a "sheep" society, not an aspect of a "sheepdog" society. A society only made of "wolves" would result in almost self-extinction. No "sheep", no food. "Wolves" are know for attack their own specie to survive. A society only made of "sheep" would result in lack of technical progress, which could endanger the survival of the specie.

]You really are trying to stretch the analogy beyond it's limits, but what if a sheepdog society would lead to warfare?  What difference would it make to the sheep?  They are no longer around.  BTW, you're a sheep, in this analogy.  Don't take that as an insult, but you wouldn't be around to complain about the vilent nature of society if only the sheepdogs remained.  I think that it's an irony that you are falling right in line with the predictions of the author of that analogy.  Maybe you would see it if you bothered to read the link.

I did not even attempt to justify my right.  I do not require your approval or your concent to excersize any of my rights.  That's what makes them rights.

That is true.

So why do you think your right to own a firearm should never be refused (or prevented) by the society where you live?

http://a-human-right.com/

No, it's not.  It's reasonable because I have the right.  Period.  So do you, BTW; even though you are prevented from your rights by threat of force.

No, I do not have the right to own a weapon in the society where I live.

You have the right, but not the ability.  What you don't understand that your government does not grant you rights; it can either respect them and provide a legal structure that standardizes the social rules, or refuse to honor your rights and deny any practical utilization of your rights.  I live in the former, you live in the latter.

I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.

You are comfortable with it because you have been conditioned to believe that you are safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs.  This is understandable.  But on some level, even you understand that weapons cannot be removed from your society and expect that it will continue to remain "civil".  You may not be wiling to admit it to yourself, and the presence of weapons my be hidden from view most of the time, but they are there and you know it.

"Baaaa"

Again, that is not why I have the right.  I have the right because I have the right to self-defense; and the right to the most effective means of same.

So, you also own the firearms to efficiently defend yourself from an physical threat posed by a living entity (kill the attacker before it harms or kill you)? Why did you choose firearms? The main purpose of the firearm design was a factor in your choice?

Sometimes, othertimes it was not.   You speak of a topic for which you have already admitted you have no first hand knowledge.

How efficient is your tool of self-defense against living entities?

That varies significantly. The majority of my own firearms are rimfires, so they would be particulary ineffective if self-defense was their primary design consideration.  Excellent at small game hunting, though.  A rabbit doesn't leave much meat if you use a caliber actually intended for self-defense levels of energy.

Did you regarded non-lethal weapons to exercise your right to own a firearm?

If you are trying to ask if I have considered "less lethal" weaponry for self-defense, then the answer is yes.  I actually have such weapons, including but not limited to, a 12 gauge shotgun that is designed to fire a shorter than normal shotgun shell, packed with rock salt and pepper powder.   The explicit design goal is to inflict pain without great risk of lethal tissue damage, and without the risk of a projectile with enough kinetic energy to be able to pass through standard gysum board home walls and (potentially) harm my neighbors.  This is an escalation of force method, since (should my invader not get the idea) later shells in the line up do include harder and heaver projectiles.  A 12 gauge shotgun is very versitile.

[myrkul]

http://a-human-right.com/

That's a great site. I particularly like the survey if you click "a liability." If any of the pro-centralization of gun ownership people here would like to share their answers, I think it would be illuminating for all of us.

[MoonShadow]

http://a-human-right.com/

That's a great site. I particularly like the survey if you click "a liability." If any of the pro-centralization of gun ownership people here would like to share their answers, I think it would be illuminating for all of us.

Check out his posters.  Notice, also, that many of them are sub-texted in Russian.  The owner & author of that website, and photographer of the many photos, was born in the former USSR.  He has, more or less, dedicated his adult life to highlighting the BS to his own former countrymen.

I have never met anyone who was more passionate about their own individual rights than those who were not born in the United States.  Most seem to take their newly respected rights to heart, and any threats to those rights very personally.

[myrkul]

This is a great one:

[MoonShadow]

http://cogitansiuvenis.blogspot.com/2012/07/is-america-really-more-violent-than.html

Here's the last paragraph...

One final point needs to be made. The argument over which nation is more violent is largely academic. The point is that in most parts of Western Europe and the US you do not have to fear harm coming to your person. There are parts of cities across both sides of the Atlantic that would be foolish to reside in for very long after dark, but the fact is that the violence levels in both continents are far lower than they are in other parts of the world (save parts of East Asia). Either way, whether the US is relatively more violent than the EU or vice versa, I wouldn't be in a rush to install iron grates in your windows in either parts of the world.

What I find most ironic about that last sentence, is that the home that I own is "hardened"; including (but not limited to) the use of wrought iron grating on the ground level windows.  A further irony, is that I didn't do it.  It's a 'historical' home, built in 1905, and protected in it's current form by zoning laws that limit what I can do to alter the house itself.  Whoever built it, however, was very concerned about the physical security of the second & third floors.  I would not be surprised at all to eventually discover a well hidden safe in here someday.  Even the choice of construction materials favors a secure home, as the method of wall plaster is one that used an expanded steel meshing, but a mesh gauge that is thicker than was the norm, thus making a hammer hole access to circumvent a locked door very difficult when compared to modern construction techniques.  The stairwell is enclosed, offering zero access to the upper floors without passing through an internal security door with it's own deadbolt, that we use nightly.  The stairwell is straight, and there is a door immediately to one side at the top of the stairwell, offering a right handed shooter the ability to fire down the stairwell from the cover of the heavy wooden doorjam, and the ability to lock an intruder out of two of the second floor bedrooms and prevent ready access to the third floor stairwell with another lockable security door.  If the concept of a "panic room" had been invented by 1905, I have no doubt that this house would have had one.

The house's inherently designed security features are one of the reasons that I bought it, and was apparently one of the reasons that the last owner bought it also; for I was told after buying it (both by an old neighbor and a veteran beat cop) that the last owner (who died in the house) was a notorious pimp, and the cops were aware of the difficulty in raiding the home fast enough to aquire any actionable evidence of prostitution, and would not bother most of the time.  I imagine the idea of a forced entry raid into that home, considering the nature of the stairwell, wasn't a particularly inviting idea either; should the crazy old pimp decide that suicide-by-cop was preferable to natural causes.  In the end, he died of smoke inhalation from a fire, which may have actually been suicide by arson.  Fortunately for the firemen, he was considerate enough to leave the doors unlocked.

[hazek]

You got to love the stupidity of the position that some words on a piece of paper will stop evil people from getting the tools they want to do evil shit with. Not to mention they need a whole other group of thugs armed precisely with the tools they want to get rid of to enforce those words.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

[organofcorti]

You got to love the stupidity of the position that some words on a piece of paper will stop evil people from getting the tools they want to do evil shit with. Not to mention they need a whole other group of thugs armed precisely with the tools they want to get rid of to enforce those words.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

[myrkul]

You got to love the stupidity of the position that some words on a piece of paper will stop evil people from getting the tools they want to do evil shit with. Not to mention they need a whole other group of thugs armed precisely with the tools they want to get rid of to enforce those words.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

[organofcorti]

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

From the OP:

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match .......

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

[myrkul]

You've gotta love the stupidity of someone who makes inflammatory posts in a thread about the stupidity of making inflammatory posts.

It doesn't get more stupid than that. 

The topic is which side is more stupid. He made a clear argument that the "anti-gun" side is the stupid one, specifically that rather than eliminate the tools they seek to eliminate, what they will be doing is concentrating the ownership of those tools in the hands of a political elite, and that the idea that a piece of paper can stop someone from acquiring a tool is absurd.

From the OP:

I thought as someone from the UK I could have a different take on this gun 'debate' which seems to have devolved at least on the official places like mainstream news into nothing more than a shouting and insult match .......

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. To understand the anti-gun control position, ask Thomas Jefferson:

 "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

[FirstAscent]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

[organofcorti]

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. ...

Of course it was. And this thread is about poking fun at emotional slanging matches that don't add anything useful to the debate. Don't misconstrue my comment as being pro gun control, it was solely that hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

Unless it was a piss-take and hazek is actually pro gun control?

[augustocroppo]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

The accusation is that, generally speaking, gun control advocates consider the tool to be the part of the equation to be controlled. This implies, and for some is literally so by their own admission, that they consider the tool to be fundamentally evil/bad/harmful etc. That is the anamorphasizing that your side of the debate is accused of, for which Myrkul was openly & plainly mocking you for.

Let me understand, you are saying that I accused you to posses an 'evil/bad/harmful' weapon because users are arguing for the benefits of gun control?

At no moment I even came near to suggest that.

Let me remind you the premise from organofcorti: 'Sure. But if you didn't own a gun, you wouldn't feel safe.'

This is your premise: 'I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms. All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable. The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.(...) and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.'

My observation: 'Then, because you do not hunt (and therefore, you do not kill), you can safely transfer back to you the moral conduct and avoid any criticism. In other words, when your premise can become target of criticism you assign your conduct to the firearm, when your premise cannot become target of criticism you do not assign your conduct to the firearm.'

I did not said that you "has done something illegal or wrong", even less that you firearms are 'evil/bad/harmful'. I am showing off how you act in the debate to avoid criticism. You even proclaimed that a weapon is 'the king of personal weapons'.

So, yourself assigned human or moral qualities to the firearms, not me.

Get it over!

Again, is English your first languge? Perhaps this is simply a misunderstanding?

Ad hominem is your preferred logical fallacy? There was not a misunderstanding.

No.  You made an observation for which you believe I were justifying my intent.  I have already explained your error of observation.  I have made zero attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  Again, I do not require your consent.

You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'

The majority of them, yes.  And yet, the vast majority of them are never employed in that purpose.  At least not in this country.  Punching holes in paper is, by a wide margin, the most widely intended purpose of those who buy them.  This is particularly true with regard to rimfire caliber firearms, many of which are specifically designed to maximize their effectiveness for this particular purpose.  All you have to do to find those is google 'target pistol' or 'target rifle' and you will immediately notice that they have features that make them particularly poor choices for self-defense or hunting.

This alone puts the lie to your line of thought.

Once again, I didn't present a premise.  You are projecting.  You seem to believe that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  I do not require your approval.

This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here. At no moment I demanded you to present any justification to approve your right to own a firearm. You presented yourself a justification why you own a firearm and I made an observation of your premises.

I said: 'So far I made an observation of how you justify your intent to use the firearms you own.'

You said: 'The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I do have a concealed carry license, but rarely carry at all.  I have the weapons, and the license, in the event that I ever do feel that I should need to carry.'

You implied that you have the intent to shooting at papers to entertain yourself. You are showing "to be right or reasonable" your intent to use the firearms you own.

Definition of justify
[with object]
1 show or prove to be right or reasonable:

Not less than three of my firearms were specifically designed to sling projectiles at paper targets, and would have a limited usefulness in the role of self-defense.  I literally have other firearms that were bought to serve that role, and designed for that purpose.

Once again, you presume that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  You are being mocked.

Oh, you are in the debate, but I am not? So the "sheepdog" metaphor is just a joke?

Accusing me of a falacy of logic has no mening if I'm not engaged in a debate.

Really? So you are just fooling around?

'I'm not anti-gun because I joined the USMC at 17, partialy out of rebellion to my childhood.'

I am not, and I don't believe that Myrkul is either.  There is no debate here; neither concerning this topic generally (with non-citizens of the United States) nor in this thread specificly.

You have no more say about how I live or act than Piers Morgan does.  And like him, you are welcome to your opinion; but you can keep it.  Your opinion on my rights is inmaterial.  You don't have an argument you even have the standing to compel me to respond to.

I still have the right to criticize your actions and arguments in this forum. Do you have a problem with that?

There is no need that all sheepdogs are protecting socity at any given time.  The only requirement is that the sheepdogs exist, or the sheeps' civilization cannot continue to exist.  That is the premise of the analogy.  Again, did you bother to read ithe link I provided?  Or did you simply not understand it?

You really are trying to stretch the analogy beyond it's limits, but what if a sheepdog society would lead to warfare?  What difference would it make to the sheep?  They are no longer around.  BTW, you're a sheep, in this analogy.  Don't take that as an insult, but you wouldn't be around to complain about the vilent nature of society if only the sheepdogs remained.  I think that it's an irony that you are falling right in line with the predictions of the author of that analogy.  Maybe you would see it if you bothered to read the link.

An article with self-prediction elements... How pathetic. I should write one of these one day and then use in a debates here:

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial.

Hilarious: 'On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior.'

By the way, do not think the entire existence of the article is valid to support your analogy. You did not even bothered to present the relevant quotes.

http://a-human-right.com/

You have the right, but not the ability.  What you don't understand that your government does not grant you rights; it can either respect them and provide a legal structure that standardizes the social rules, or refuse to honor your rights and deny any practical utilization of your rights.  I live in the former, you live in the latter.

There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.

You are comfortable with it because you have been conditioned to believe that you are safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs.  This is understandable.

I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.

How funny you are!

I still have the right of self-defense and I voluntary agree with society that men and women in uniforms can protect me.

You know what is really funny?

'You might not like the idea that we are around, but we are necessary for your peaceful society to continue to exist; whether or not we may be wearing a uniform.'

So, what is what, Moonshadow? Is the individual entitled or not entitled to feel 'safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs'?

But on some level, even you understand that weapons cannot be removed from your society and expect that it will continue to remain "civil".  You may not be wiling to admit it to yourself, and the presence of weapons my be hidden from view most of the time, but they are there and you know it.

"Baaaa"

Of course I understand! I am full aware that a civilian society cannot be fully disarmed!

By the way, do you like to imitate a sheep often?

Sometimes, othertimes it was not.   You speak of a topic for which you have already admitted you have no first hand knowledge.

Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.

That varies significantly. The majority of my own firearms are rimfires, so they would be particulary ineffective if self-defense was their primary design consideration.  Excellent at small game hunting, though.  A rabbit doesn't leave much meat if you use a caliber actually intended for self-defense levels of energy.

If you are trying to ask if I have considered "less lethal" weaponry for self-defense, then the answer is yes.  I actually have such weapons, including but not limited to, a 12 gauge shotgun that is designed to fire a shorter than normal shotgun shell, packed with rock salt and pepper powder.   The explicit design goal is to inflict pain without great risk of lethal tissue damage, and without the risk of a projectile with enough kinetic energy to be able to pass through standard gysum board home walls and (potentially) harm my neighbors.  This is an escalation of force method, since (should my invader not get the idea) later shells in the line up do include harder and heaver projectiles.  A 12 gauge shotgun is very versitile.

Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

[myrkul]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

...hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

And did so to answer the question posed in the title. See the top part of this post for further evidence of Hazek's position, that the gun control nuts are not just the most stupid participants in the debate (or even just the only stupid participants) but are actually insane.

[hazek]

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. ...

Of course it was. And this thread is about poking fun at emotional slanging matches that don't add anything useful to the debate. Don't misconstrue my comment as being pro gun control, it was solely that hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

Unless it was a piss-take and hazek is actually pro gun control?

There is no debate because one side doesn't have a leg to stand on. That was my point. There is nothing to understand here except that one side sees the reality for what it is and acts accordingly and the other side doesn't and instead clings on to some sort of a fantasy and acts irrationally and I call that the most stupid thing one can possibly do.

I never said the pro gun side on the other hand isn't stupid. No the vast majority of them are stupid too because they let themselves being goaded into arguing with irrational people instead of just standing their ground and may the irrational do whatever.

Eventually that is what it will come down to. Either the pro gun stand their ground and defend their position even if it means by any means necessary or the irrational side will win and force the pro gun side to give up their weapons. There's no other way to resolve a dispute with irrational people, cause they're irrational. You defend yourself against them or they win.

[FirstAscent]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

[myrkul]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

[FirstAscent]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

In your society, one cannot tell if the nuclear bomb is armed and ready to blow anymore than if the gun is loaded and ready to fire.

[myrkul]

To understand the pro-gun control position, imagine that everyone is carrying around an armed, ready to blow, rain-triggered nuclear explosive strapped to their hip. That should get you close to the level of fear.

Is that your dream?

You cannot be this stupid and still dress yourself in the morning. This was intended to illustrate to a rational person the level of fear which you live in that someone, somewhere, owns a pistol.

We have it on record in this forum (unless you go delete your posts) that you indeed favor an AnCap society in which everyone may keep nuclear bombs with zero regulation.

Indeed I do. But that is not the same as the scenario I posited there, now is it?

In your society, one cannot tell if the nuclear bomb is armed and ready to blow anymore than if the gun is loaded and ready to fire.

Which is why a smart person always assumes that the gun is loaded. In fact, the "1st law" of gun safety is "The gun is always loaded." However, you can most definitely tell if a firearm is ready to fire, there's a very easy way: it's pointed at someone. So even a loaded pistol, in a holster, harms nobody.

Likewise, unless there are obvious telltales, one would assume that the bomb is armed. And I've repeatedly stated that your right to own something does not include the ability to threaten someone with it, and that includes a nuclear device. An armed nuke is equivalent to a drawn and pointed firearm, pointed at everyone in range. So while they would certainly have the right to own a nuclear weapon, they would not have the right to carry it around armed, no more than anyone has the right to walk around pointing a gun at people.

So you (and the other gun control wackos) are ruled by fear, and I am ruled by reason. And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. MOΛΩN ΛABE.

[hazek]

And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. MOΛΩN ΛABE.

Stop engaging with them then.


“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the differance”

― Mark Twain

[myrkul]

And I'm tired of listening to wackos who are ruled by fear. MOΛΩN ΛABE.

Stop engaging with them then.


“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”

― Mark Twain

Good advice.

[bitster]

Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.

[FirstAscent]

Likewise, unless there are obvious telltales, one would assume that the bomb is armed. And I've repeatedly stated that your right to own something does not include the ability to threaten someone with it, and that includes a nuclear device. An armed nuke is equivalent to a drawn and pointed firearm, pointed at everyone in range. So while they would certainly have the right to own a nuclear weapon, they would not have the right to carry it around armed, no more than anyone has the right to walk around pointing a gun at people.

Could you be any dumber? Just by virtue of it being in their garage means they don't have to carry it around with them. It's already a threat in their garage.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

Look up the term, "Literary license"; because it's a useful thing to know.  I'm not really interested in what you know, however.

This is your premise: 'I don't believe that is generally true.  It's certainly not true for myself.  I've never felt unsafe, before or after owning firearms. All my firearms spend the vast majority of their time locked in a rather large safe, because they are valuable. The rest of the time, they are shooting at paper. I don't hunt, myself.(...) and the rifle is the king of personal weapons.  I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that.'

That was not a premise, that was an expression of my own opinions and experience.  I offered no argument and no premise.

Get it over!

I'm pretty sure that might be physically impossible within context.

Again, is English your first languge? Perhaps this is simply a misunderstanding?

Ad hominem is your preferred logical fallacy? There was not a misunderstanding.

It wasn't an ad hominem, it was an honest question; and it is now pretty apparent that there has been many misunderstandings, which persist.

No.  You made an observation for which you believe I were justifying my intent.  I have already explained your error of observation.  I have made zero attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  Again, I do not require your consent.

You indeed made an attempt to justify your firearm ownership: 'The military culture was not for me either, but I do enjoy shooting, and also understand that the judicious use of force is a cornerstone of civilization; and the rifle is the king of personal weapons. I'm a sheepdog among a flock of sheep, and I'm fully aware of that. Many of those here that defend the personal ownership of weaponry are also sheepdogs.'

That was not an attempt to justify my firearms ownership.  I wouldn't consider recreational shooting to be a rational justification to possess a (presumed by others) dangerous tool.  I wouldn't consider personal entertainment an acceptable cause for a untrained and unlicensed person to make and store fireworks in an old wood shed next to a city park.  Even professionally sometimes blow themselves up.  There would have to be a different, overriding reason to posses a firearm than simply "it's fun to shoot".  Fortunately, there is, and I've presented data to support that concept.  A neighbor would require my consent to start packing dynamite next to where my kids play, he would not require my consent to own a firearm.  If he started using my fence as a target support, however, we'd have words over that.

The majority of them, yes.  And yet, the vast majority of them are never employed in that purpose.  At least not in this country.  Punching holes in paper is, by a wide margin, the most widely intended purpose of those who buy them.  This is particularly true with regard to rimfire caliber firearms, many of which are specifically designed to maximize their effectiveness for this particular purpose.  All you have to do to find those is google 'target pistol' or 'target rifle' and you will immediately notice that they have features that make them particularly poor choices for self-defense or hunting.

This alone puts the lie to your line of thought.

Once again, I didn't present a premise.  You are projecting.  You seem to believe that you are engaged in a debate.  You are not.  I do not require your approval.

This is a forum, do you know that? There is a debate going on here.

There are many debates going on around this forum, but not in this thread.

At no moment I demanded you to present any justification to approve your right to own a firearm. You presented yourself a justification why you own a firearm and I made an observation of your premises.

Once again, I presented no arguments, and offered no premises.  Whatever observations you believe yourself to have made were based upon erroneous assumptions.  We are not having a debate.  There is nothing here to debate. 

Oh, you are in the debate, but I am not? So the "sheepdog" metaphor is just a joke?

I'm not the one who was mocking you.  You are not in a debate with anyone in this thread.  No one really cares what your position is.  And the sheepdog metaphor was not a joke, it was a metaphor. 

I still have the right to criticize your actions and arguments in this forum. Do you have a problem with that?

If I did, you wouldn't be speaking.  Notice the 'global moderator' tag to the left.  I just find it sad that, even after pointing out to you that you are not actually engaging in a debate with anyone, you assume that I'm making an argument.

An article with self-prediction elements... How pathetic. I should write one of these one day and then use in a debates here:

Go ahead.  I might even read it, but probably not.

By the way, do not think the entire existence of the article is valid to support your analogy. You did not even bothered to present the relevant quotes.

Why do you think that is?

http://a-human-right.com/

You have the right, but not the ability.  What you don't understand that your government does not grant you rights; it can either respect them and provide a legal structure that standardizes the social rules, or refuse to honor your rights and deny any practical utilization of your rights.  I live in the former, you live in the latter.

There is no such thing of 'practical utilization of your rights'.

I do not require your approval to honor rights which you pretend I have. You are not in a position to dictate what rights I have.

No, I'm not.  Neither are you, nor anyone else.  That's an irony that is not lost on myself, but I'm fairly certain you have no idea what I just said.

You are comfortable with it because you have been conditioned to believe that you are safe and protected by the uniformed sheepdogs.  This is understandable.

I said: 'I am comfortable with this lack of right because it is not just applied over me.'

So from this premise, you made a whole straw man argument.

Wait, do you actually know what it means to "make an argument"?

How funny you are!

I still have the right of self-defense and I voluntary agree with society that men and women in uniforms can protect me.

There is nothing voluntary about submitting to coercion.  And the first eight words and the rest of that sentence are a logical contradiction.

You know what is really funny?

Something lost in translation?

Sometimes, othertimes it was not.   You speak of a topic for which you have already admitted you have no first hand knowledge.

Well, I did not admitted that. Moreover, I still can argue with basic knowledge about a subject.

You don't have a basic knowledge on the subject.

That varies significantly. The majority of my own firearms are rimfires, so they would be particulary ineffective if self-defense was their primary design consideration.  Excellent at small game hunting, though.  A rabbit doesn't leave much meat if you use a caliber actually intended for self-defense levels of energy.

If you are trying to ask if I have considered "less lethal" weaponry for self-defense, then the answer is yes.  I actually have such weapons, including but not limited to, a 12 gauge shotgun that is designed to fire a shorter than normal shotgun shell, packed with rock salt and pepper powder.   The explicit design goal is to inflict pain without great risk of lethal tissue damage, and without the risk of a projectile with enough kinetic energy to be able to pass through standard gysum board home walls and (potentially) harm my neighbors.  This is an escalation of force method, since (should my invader not get the idea) later shells in the line up do include harder and heaver projectiles.  A 12 gauge shotgun is very versitile.

Wow.. Now at least you presented logical explanations for simple questions.

I am glad for your choices and for your knowledge of firearms.

Well done.

Or you are just mocking me?

Both, but not at the same time.

[myrkul]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

I discovered that he was not a native speaker of English months ago, and concluded that due to his lack of fluency in the English language, and my complete lack of knowledge of Portuguese, we would be unable to have a cogent conversation. I believe, at the time, you called me out for an ad hominem attack based on that observation.

It was in the middle of our "debate" regarding child-rearing methods, so I suppose it can be forgiven that you would object to the message based on the messenger.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, literally.  Do you know what the term 'literary license' means?  Is English your first language?

No, I do not know exactly. No, it is not my first language. Do you have a problem with that?

I don't care, really.  It does clarify some things, though.

I discovered that he was not a native speaker of English months ago, and concluded that due to his lack of fluency in the English language, and my complete lack of knowledge of Portuguese, we would be unable to have a cogent conversation. I believe, at the time, you called me out for an ad hominem attack based on that observation.

It was in the middle of our "debate" regarding child-rearing methods, so I suppose it can be forgiven that you would object to the message based on the messenger.

<sigh> My apologies if I was incorrect.

[myrkul]

<sigh> My apologies if I was incorrect.

Accepted, and forgiven. That you would offer it at all shows you to be more mature than most on here.

[iCEBREAKER]

Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.

You are of course correct.  That's why the poll is 2-1 in favor of recognizing the stupidity of the asinine gun-grabbers.  They should go to DailyKos or something.

[FirstAscent]

Its crazy to blame an inanimate object and not the individual. I also don't see why anyone would want to give up anymore rights to the state.

You are of course correct.  That's why the poll is 2-1 in favor of recognizing the stupidity of the asinine gun-grabbers.  They should go to DailyKos or something.

Two to one is not a very good showing considering the gun nut crowd here. If inanimate objects played no role, then nobody here would mind if guns were no longer available. Why, the military would simply use cotton balls for weapons.

[myrkul]

And carpenters would use cotton swabs to drive nails.

A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

[FirstAscent]

A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

So? Hammers do get swung. And guns do get fired.

[myrkul]

A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

So? Hammers do get swung. And guns do get fired.

So they do. By people. When a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house, we don't say the hammer built the house, do we?

[FirstAscent]

A hammer don't swing itself, and a gun don't shoot itself.

So? Hammers do get swung. And guns do get fired.

So they do. By people. When a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house, we don't say the hammer built the house, do we?

I don't care if we say the hammer built the house or not. He didn't, nor would he, pound the nails with his nose.

Guns are made to counteract the fact that shooting bullets doesn't work well with your mouth. A human without a gun is not a man with a gun. You're a fucking idiot playing word games.

[myrkul]

You're a fucking idiot playing word games.

And you've conceded defeat by abandoning logic in favor of insults.

I am glad, though, that you've finally realized that a gun is merely a tool for firing bullets, just like a hammer is merely a tool for driving nails. Progress!

[FirstAscent]

You're a fucking idiot playing word games.

And you've conceded defeat by abandoning logic in favor of insults.

No. One can logically argue, and then top it off with a truth about the person one is arguing with. That makes you a double idiot for attempting to infer something with no logical basis.

[myrkul]

lol... coming from you, "double idiot" is a compliment. And you've further abandoned any hope of logical debate by trying to change the subject.

I think we're done here. 

[FirstAscent]

lol... coming from you, "double idiot" is a compliment. And you've further abandoned any hope of logical debate by trying to change the subject.

I think we're done here. 

I didn't change the subject. I merely made an observation about you.

You keep going on how a gun is just a tool. That's like saying a tank is just a vehicle. To generalize something is to say less about it - not more. Try saying more about a gun, rather than less. It's pathetic that your arguments rely on saying less about something (which is to reduce information, eliminate information, hide information), rather than getting more specific.

[myrkul]

You've already dropped the F-bomb in this discussion, indicating a level of emotional involvement well past the ability to make rational debate. Why don't you take a breather, try again in a few hours, when you're less riled up?

Maybe watch some birds in their nest?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~ospreynest/autoupdate.htm

[FirstAscent]

You've already dropped the F-bomb in this discussion, indicating a level of emotional involvement well past the ability to make rational debate. Why don't you take a breather, try again in a few hours, when you're less riled up?

Maybe watch some birds in their nest?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~ospreynest/autoupdate.htm

You don't have a rebuttal to what I said in the last post, do you?

Tell me now, suppose we were arguing about the merits of applying the computer language Perl to a problem, such as a large N-body problem. And I kept saying "Perl is just a computer language" to counteract objections you may have. Would my argument have substance?

What if we were having an argument about politics and what methods are better for societies? And I kept saying "Democracy is just a political ideology" to indicate that it's clearly appropriate?

Please think about the memes you keep reciting, and indicate some level of intelligence above a parrot in the future.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe watch some birds in their nest?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~ospreynest/autoupdate.htm

Furthermore, why are you linking to sites designated as malicious? Are you unable to hold your own in this discussion?

[myrkul]

Maybe watch some birds in their nest?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~ospreynest/autoupdate.htm

Furthermore, why are you linking to sites designated as malicious? Are you unable to hold your own in this discussion?

It's a webcam. The security warning is in error, as quite a few of them are, especially when dealing with sites such as this, which is an ISP's user domain. One bad apple will mark the whole domain as bad. Or do you just listen to every external authority without question?

And yes, I do have a rebuttal. I choose not to discuss anything with you until after you have calmed down. That's why I suggested you watch a nest cam. Figured it would relax you.

[FirstAscent]

Maybe watch some birds in their nest?
http://home.roadrunner.com/~ospreynest/autoupdate.htm

Furthermore, why are you linking to sites designated as malicious? Are you unable to hold your own in this discussion?

It's a webcam. The security warning is in error, as quite a few of them are, especially when dealing with sites such as this, which is an ISP's user domain. One bad apple will mark the whole domain as bad. Or do you just listen to every external authority without question?

And yes, I do have a rebuttal. I choose not to discuss anything with you until after you have calmed down. That's why I suggested you watch a nest cam. Figured it would relax you.

Since you seem to think you've got a couple of hours to wait, I suggest you watch a movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLz0_MOjDI0

[myrkul]

Since you seem to think you've got a couple of hours to wait, I suggest you watch a movie:

I believe we've established the weight your suggestions, especially unsolicited ones, have with me. I prefer books, anyway.

[FirstAscent]

Or try this one. You'll probably like it better, as it explores the consequences of freedom in society, as attenuated by one's own identity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0bfPBmjlAg

[myrkul]

You really are nuts, aren't you?

[FirstAscent]

You really are nuts, aren't you?

I am not a gun nut, no. Did you watch The Face of Another? Great movie. Very famous, as is its director. Fantastic movie.

[myrkul]

You really are nuts, aren't you?

I am not a gun nut, no.

 

[FirstAscent]

You really are nuts, aren't you?

I am not a gun nut, no.

 

Didn't watch it? You're missing out on some of cinema's greatest films. Try this one then - it's a very powerful and beautiful film about a mother and her children, slavery, and government. It's called Sansho the Bailiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FCroa97mEg

[DiCE1904]

Anti-Gun Activists

[myrkul]

You really are nuts, aren't you?

I am not a gun nut, no.

 

Didn't watch it? You're missing out on some of cinema's greatest films.

I don't recall asking for movie recommendations. In fact, I distinctly recall asking you to stop. Yet you keep it up. You're starting to get really creepy.

[Rob E]

Anti-Gun Activists

Why  .

[FirstAscent]

You really are nuts, aren't you?

I am not a gun nut, no.

 

Didn't watch it? You're missing out on some of cinema's greatest films.

I don't recall asking for movie recommendations. In fact, I distinctly recall asking you to stop. Yet you keep it up. You're starting to get really creepy.

Today's a holiday. Relax. Take a break from your obsessive toy political ideologies.

Point #1: you're the one who provided a link to watch birds in the midst of a debate.
Point #2: you're the one who said to take a break from gun debates.
Point #3: you're the one has not yet answered my take on the meme you keep reciting.
Point #4: continue to wallow in your uncultured ignorance, as you're actually getting great movie recommendations.
*Point #5: I warned you that if you start to misbehave or make a reference to movies, you're going to get it thrown back at you.

* I'm counting your ridiculous bird clip as a video/movie/clip/off topic reference.

And lastly, since when do I feel the need to follow your directives? Did you actually think I would?

[myrkul]

Anti-Gun Activists

Why  .

This link should give you all the evidence you need to answer that question.

[Rob E]

The whole pole is ridiculous .  There are gun no "Activists" Just people who think they have a right to own a gun .  And i think they are right . . That doesn't make them an activist . This is just incredibly poor journalism. Just ridiculously poor . Gossip journalism approved.    

[FirstAscent]

Anti-Gun Activists

Why  .

Beware users providing you answers to the above question whose username begins with an 'm' and ends with an 'l'. Some are rather delusional. Witness their lending credence to conspiracy theories in regard to recent mass murders: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94471.msg1046661#msg1046661

[myrkul]

And lastly, since when do I feel the need to follow your directives? Did you actually think I would?

If you want to have polite conversation and debate with me, you will.

[FirstAscent]

And lastly, since when do I feel the need to follow your directives? Did you actually think I would?

If you want to have polite conversation and debate with me, you will.

I'm still awaiting your reply relating to guns as tools. Until you choose to answer it, you can quietly accept my polite movie recommendations, which have been nothing but polite. Especially in light of the fact that you wished to change the topic and requested a break. Your choice.

[myrkul]

And lastly, since when do I feel the need to follow your directives? Did you actually think I would?

If you want to have polite conversation and debate with me, you will.

I'm still awaiting your reply relating to guns as tools. Until you choose to answer it, you can quietly accept my polite movie recommendations, which have been nothing but polite. Especially in light of the fact that you wished to change the topic and requested a break. Your choice.

Have you calmed down now? Can you converse without insults? If so, then we can continue.

[organofcorti]

I was referring to the fact that hazek was not adding anything new to the debate, and he was doing it in a rude and shouty manner. Do you honestly think that sort of post helps anyone understand either point of view?

Not really, but it wasn't meant to add anything new, or really explain anything to anyone. It was ridicule, pure and simple. ...

Of course it was. And this thread is about poking fun at emotional slanging matches that don't add anything useful to the debate. Don't misconstrue my comment as being pro gun control, it was solely that hazek made the type of comment the OP created the thread to ridicule in the first place.

Unless it was a piss-take and hazek is actually pro gun control?

There is no debate because one side doesn't have a leg to stand on. That was my point. There is nothing to understand here except that one side sees the reality for what it is and acts accordingly and the other side doesn't and instead clings on to some sort of a fantasy and acts irrationally and I call that the most stupid thing one can possibly do.

I never said the pro gun side on the other hand isn't stupid. No the vast majority of them are stupid too because they let themselves being goaded into arguing with irrational people instead of just standing their ground and may the irrational do whatever.

Eventually that is what it will come down to. Either the pro gun stand their ground and defend their position even if it means by any means necessary or the irrational side will win and force the pro gun side to give up their weapons. There's no other way to resolve a dispute with irrational people, cause they're irrational. You defend yourself against them or they win.

Thanks for a more measured response, hazek.

[Rob E]

Anti-Gun Activists

Why  .

This link should give you all the evidence you need to answer that question.

That's it? You refer me to some sort of biblical size discussion and say there you go its in there? Are you fuckin high or somethin a bad joke a silly joke a really weak joke.. are you slurping on a soda right now? Eating french fries? Great you just made my ignore list. Doucebag.

couldnt answer a simple question " because i think guns induce voilence - my mom got killed by a gun - i was in the war and ive seen enough guns - im doing time for murder no more guns for me- i'm a peace activist and guns dont fit my ideals" or the countless of other answers that could have possibly applied and you refer me to some sort of biblical sized dialogue and say" this is why..?

youre like reall fucking stupit .. arent you.

[Wekkel]

Be against gun ownership but protect yourselves by means of ..... (hired) gun ownership.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-04/guest-post-anti-gun-newspaper-hires-armed-guards-%E2%80%93-reveals-its-own-hypocrisy

[Lethn]

That article could have been making intelligent points if it wasn't using so many bolded sentences.

[myrkul]

Rob, that was the post history of one of the posters on the anti-gun side. It's not a "biblical sized discussion," It's not a discussion at all. You asked for evidence why the anti-gun activists are the stupid ones, that link will provide it, and then some.

And it's spelled "douchebag." If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

[Lethn]

Rob, that was the post history of one of the posters on the anti-gun side, it's not a 'biblical sized discussion' It's not a discussion at all. You asked for evidence why the anti-gun activists are the stupid ones, that link will provide it and then some, and it's spelled "douchebag" If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

Fixed that for you

[myrkul]

Rob, that was the post history of one of the posters on the anti-gun side, it's not a 'biblical sized discussion' It's not a discussion at all. You asked for evidence why the anti-gun activists are the stupid ones, that link will provide it and then some, and it's spelled "douchebag" If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

Fixed that for you

lol.. no, it's enough of a separate sentiment that it deserves it's own sentence and paragraph, grammatical error of starting a sentence with "and" notwithstanding.

So, perhaps this would be better:

Oh, and it's spelled "douchebag." If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

[Rob E]

Rob, that was the post history of one of the posters on the anti-gun side. It's not a "biblical sized discussion," It's not a discussion at all. You asked for evidence why the anti-gun activists are the stupid ones, that link will provide it, and then some.

And it's spelled "douchebag." If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

Right. Just like "Google" will provide it 

Youre not making a clear point. And either case i was asking you. And i understood by your earlier post that "You" where an " anti gun activist" maybe that is where the misunderstanding was. On my part.

[myrkul]

Rob, that was the post history of one of the posters on the anti-gun side. It's not a "biblical sized discussion," It's not a discussion at all. You asked for evidence why the anti-gun activists are the stupid ones, that link will provide it, and then some.

And it's spelled "douchebag." If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

Right. Just like "Google" will provide it 

Youre not making a clear point. And either case i was asking you. And i understood by your earlier post that "You" where an " anti gun activist" maybe that is where the misunderstanding was. On my part.

Are you referring to this post, that you were originally responding to?

Anti-Gun Activists

Keep in mind, that without context, it's reasonable to assume that this is in response to the post title and question posed in the OP:

In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

So, yes, I'd say the misunderstanding was entirely on your part, and most likely from the very beginning.

And then, as a sort of punch line, you call me "like reall fucking stupit." 

[myrkul]

Oh, and Rob, this^ moron's posts are more evidence. This one is representative, no need to browse his post history, they're all that sort of mixture of idiocy and dictionary definition, peppered with time-wasting graphics.

[Rob E]

Rob, that was the post history of one of the posters on the anti-gun side. It's not a "biblical sized discussion," It's not a discussion at all. You asked for evidence why the anti-gun activists are the stupid ones, that link will provide it, and then some.

And it's spelled "douchebag." If you're going to insult someone, at least do it right.

Right. Just like "Google" will provide it 

Youre not making a clear point. And either case i was asking you. And i understood by your earlier post that "You" where an " anti gun activist" maybe that is where the misunderstanding was. On my part.

Are you referring to this post, that you were originally responding to?

Anti-Gun Activists

Keep in mind, that without context, it's reasonable to assume that this is in response to the post title and question posed in the OP:

In the gun debate who do you think is the most stupid?

So, yes, I'd say the misunderstanding was entirely on your part, and most likely from the very beginning.

And then, as a sort of punch line, you call me "like reall fucking stupit." 

* face palm *

hmmmm m. .  ok i understood you where saying you where a anti gun activist my bad . . don't shoot me. .  Ok i will take full responsibility for being a "Douchebag" . Sorry.

[myrkul]

Sorry.

Accepted. Thank you for showing enough intellectual integrity to understand when you've stepped in it, and not continue to track it around the thread.

[Rob E]

[myrkul]

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, we have both an excellent example of how to be a good person, and how to be a douchebag. I'll leave it to the reader to determine which of the previous two posters is doing which.

[Rob E]

Well i think the whole premise of the gun debate wether who is more stupid is wrong  i think a better question to answer is "Who is more right". I actually think that is more constructive question to ask as people can come forth with an argument. . I think the most imortand reason why people should beable to bear arms or own a gun is to beable to defend themselfs or be able to fight back from a government  if it  becomes too tyranical.  What i understand it is  the reason  the second amendment was put there in the first place .
 I think the right of the american people to practice the 2nd amendment  has  has never had more value meaning or importance  in the whole history of the American time period.  

[Transisto]

Sorry but what gun debate ? I only see a fight.

The government wanting it's population to disarm themselves is all what it is.

Only the naive sheeples watching main stream news think it's worth debating.

Please stop feeding these gun vs no gun threads.

[iCEBREAKER]

Well i think the whole premise of the gun debate wether who is more stupid is wrong  i think a better question to answer is "Who is more right". I actually think that is more constructive question to ask as people can come forth with an argument. . I think the most imortand reason why people should beable to bear arms or own a gun is to beable to defend themselfs or be able to fight back from a government  if it  becomes too tyranical.  What i understand it is  the reason  the second amendment was put there in the first place .
 I think the right of the american people to practice the 2nd amendment  has  has never had more value meaning or importance  in the whole history of the American time period. 

All of this is true.  But the OP doesn't want a better question or a constructive argument.  It's just a cowardly way to replace discussion of important matters with mere ridicule.  Very Jon Stewart, as he stated.

The most ridiculous idea is that free, rugged individual Americans would care about our UK/Euroweenie cousins' worthless bien pensant opinions regarding personal liberty and the force multiplying hardware that originally won and ultimately defend it.

When they see fit to stand on their own as sovereign people instead of subjects to hereditary Monarchs, we can have a worthwhile conversation.

Meanwhile, it is an exercise in futility to attempt explaining concepts so far beyond their experience and comprehension.

All they have ever known is generations lived as serfs or vassals controlled by their owner, the Queen, and master, the State.  You'd have better luck teaching quantum cosmology to a jellyfish!

Here is their ruler, resplendent in Her Royal Crown and Scepter:

"Thou Shalt Not Bear Arms, you spineless bloody peasant worm.  Off with your head!"

Here is our ruler, resplendent in its Bill of Rights:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

In conclusion,

[Richy_T]

Nice one. Though I'd just like to point out that not all British citizens are quite as hopeless as you make out (in the same was that many US citizens actually are). Worth bearing in mind that Washington was, at one point, a colonel in the British army.

[iCEBREAKER]

Nice one. Though I'd just like to point out that not all British citizens are quite as hopeless as you make out (in the same was that many US citizens actually are). Worth bearing in mind that Washington was, at one point, a colonel in the British army.

Yes, many Brits resent their gormless peers and envy the freedom enjoyed across the pond.  Some even move here, acquire citizenship, and appear on American Guns.     Good for them!

Also, many Americans are as pitiful as any helpless Euroweenie and spend their time strenuously objecting to the Liberty secured by their forefathers.  It's sad.

Good point about Gen. Washington, it really emphasizes how important it is for individuals to choose rebellion to tyrants and fight until free, or die trying.

Here a couple more memes for ya: