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

[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.