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

[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.