The "Will kill" society!

[hazek]

I'd just love to see how you who are anti gun can possibly argue against this:

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_719_Will_Kill.mp3

[1715030510]

1715030510

[1715030510]

1715030510

[1715030510]

1715030510

[myrkul]

3...2...1...

Cue genetic fallacy!

[vampire]

I'd just love to see how you who are anti gun can possibly argue against this:

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_719_Will_Kill.mp3

So you don't want to argue, but here you are?

Video is silly. More like moronic beyond any belief.

a) Such a weapon doesn't exist.
b) His conclusions are silly. For an example he says you must know who the person is. But if you don't? Then what? If the image on TV is just a fake? What about they take your children (at early age, lets say 1y/o) and use them as a dead man switch? Again fail. Fail and more fails.
c) Moving from "will kill" to the gun debate is moronic.

Only brain fails believe this shit.

edit:

Lets add more fails:

Rape. Kill the woman first and have sex with the dead body. Guess what it happens a lot.
Since there is no way to know who killed who. Keep killing people for fun. A mass murder's dream.
Send an anonymous email to person to demand $10000 dollars or will kill his family. Since he doesn't know who emailed, he must comply.
Why do you think there is no list of american spec ops soldiers? So they wouldn't have any retaliation against their families.

[Rob E]

yeh great argument surrealistic some what . but great .took me a while to get in to it . . but great .

[myrkul]

Somebody got upset. 

Ignore the fact that it doesn't exist. That doesn't matter.
What happens when that "killswitch" kid grows up? betcha he willkills the guy who was keeping him.
Moving from the willkill to a gun is perfectly logical. Unless you contend that a gun is not an effective tool at killing someone?

[vampire]

Somebody got upset.  

Ignore the fact that it doesn't exist. That doesn't matter.
What happens when that "killswitch" kid grows up? betcha he willkills the guy who was keeping him.
Moving from the willkill to a gun is perfectly logical. Unless you contend that a gun is not an effective tool at killing someone?

Keep him in a dark cell with no way to see the captor forever. Who cares if he dies.


Anything else you can come up with? Let's wait for it.

[Rob E]

and after 20 minutes it only got better.

btw  .

[myrkul]

Somebody got upset.  

Ignore the fact that it doesn't exist. That doesn't matter.
What happens when that "killswitch" kid grows up? betcha he willkills the guy who was keeping him.
Moving from the willkill to a gun is perfectly logical. Unless you contend that a gun is not an effective tool at killing someone?

Keep him in a dark cell with no way to see the captor forever. Who cares if he dies.

And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

But all that is moot. This isn't about the Will Kill, because as you point out, it doesn't exist. But guns do, and they do have the power to kill. So the question is, do you want only a small, powerful elite to have the power to kill, or do you want everyone to have the power to kill? Stefan makes a powerful argument that everyone having the power to kill will result in a more peaceful society.

[vampire]

And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

How would he know that? Wait he would never know. Knowledge is power, not weapons. If the person doesn't know what controls him, he can't do anything against it. Then build a society on top of it, do you know all the people who control the world right now? Most likely not, you only see the PR heads at the rule. The real rulers are in the shadow.

But all that is moot. This isn't about the Will Kill, because as you point out, it doesn't exist. But guns do, and they do have the power to kill. So the question is, do you want only a small, powerful elite to have the power to kill, or do you want everyone to have the power to kill? Stefan makes a powerful argument that everyone having the power to kill will result in a more peaceful society.

I already proved that the silly will kill argument is a fail on many levels. Therefor your guns argument is a fail also. Thanks for simplifying the task for me.

[myrkul]

And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

How would he know that?

How did you know that would be a good solution? Do you think he would be incapable of making the same deductions you did?

"If my son sees his captors, he can Will Kill them later. They probably know that. So, they will most likely keep him locked away. They may even just kill him, to save the trouble of keeping him in a cell. Therefore, my son is already lost forever, even if he is still alive."

But all that is moot. This isn't about the Will Kill, because as you point out, it doesn't exist. But guns do, and they do have the power to kill. So the question is, do you want only a small, powerful elite to have the power to kill, or do you want everyone to have the power to kill? Stefan makes a powerful argument that everyone having the power to kill will result in a more peaceful society.

I already proved that the silly will kill argument is a fail on many levels. Therefor your guns argument is a fail also. Thanks for simplifying the task for me.

No, you stated that it was silly. A statement is far from proving anything. So, are you denying that a gun is an effective tool to kill someone? Or are you basing your argument solely on the fact that I cannot kill someone with my mind?

[vampire]

And then, your bargaining chip is lost. And if your victim knows this, knows that the kid will be locked in a dark cell, and never let out, he knows his son is already lost. And now, he has nothing to lose. I don't think you want that.

How would he know that?

How did you know that would be a good solution? Do you think he would be incapable of making the same deductions you did?

"If my son sees his captors, he can Will Kill them later. They probably know that. So, they will most likely keep him locked away. They may even just kill him, to save the trouble of keeping him in a cell. Therefore, my son is already lost forever, even if he is still alive."

Are you sure he's lost? A lot of people would have HOPE. There are also other ways of controlling people. With a perfect anonymous weapon, you can control the world.

Also a perfect mass murderer, just keep piling bodies of dead people. I mean we would see what happened in CT a lot more.

Just go to a school and keep killing random people and act terrified yourself.

The gun requires you to actually shoot a person, with will kill you can just do from behind. Noone would ever know.

[myrkul]

No, you stated that it was silly. A statement is far from proving anything. So, are you denying that a gun is an effective tool to kill someone? Or are you basing your argument solely on the fact that I cannot kill someone with my mind?

Are you sure he's lost? A lot of people would have HOPE. There are also other ways of controlling people. With a perfect anonymous weapon, you can control the world.

Also a perfect mass murderer, just keep piling bodies of dead people. I mean we would see what happened in CT a lot more.

Just go to a school and keep killing random people and act terrified yourself.

The gun requires you to actually shoot a person, with will kill you can just do from behind. Noone would ever know.

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

[vampire]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

Personally I dont even care about the guns, but when I see this idiotism around. I see what's wrong in USA. How can you even listen to this crap.

[myrkul]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

[vampire]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

You're misdirecting away from an idiotic idea. Because you would need to acknowledge that you believe an idiotic idea.

I dont want to talk about guns, since I already went through this exercise. Now you're also forcing people to train? A great change since the last time I saw your posts, mr. liberty.

Let me find old posts of mine, where you were against training.

[myrkul]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

You're misdirecting away from an idiotic idea. Because you would need to acknowledge that you believe an idiotic idea.

I dont want to talk about guns, since I already went through this exercise. Now you're also forcing people to train? A great change since the last time I saw your posts, mr. liberty.

Let me find old posts of mine, where you were against training.

And you're refusing to answer, because you know you've already lost. This discussion is over.

[vampire]

And you're refusing to answer, because you know you've already lost. This discussion is over.

So am I supposed to answer this question:

So, are you denying that a gun is an effective tool to kill someone?

Yes, it can be used to kill someone. Effective its up to interpretation, didn't you just claim yourself that the guns were very ineffective in WW2?

Now since I answered your question, answer mine.

Do you agree that "will kill" is an idiotic idea.

[TheButterZone]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

20 rounds after the training? That's not a lot of live fire...

[vampire]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

And to answer this one. That's where I stand more or less. I don't believe it will reduce crime, but I dont think it would increase with mandatory training from age of 13.

My very old answer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=90086.msg1069177#msg1069177

[myrkul]

So, you're refusing to bring the analogy home? Do you not see the comparison to a gun, or are you simply acknowledging defeat?

I see that "will kill" is an idiotic idea. If you bring the analogy home, the guns are an idiotic idea.

I see. acknowledging defeat.

Tell me, what do you think the effects on crime would be if every single person in New York over the age of, say, 18, were given (and, of course, trained in the use of) a pistol, 20 rounds of ammunition, and concealed carry permit?

20 rounds after the training? That's not a lot of live fire...

Yes, after the training, including probably some practice shots. The 20 rounds are just to carry around. Besides, these things are being given. You want more rounds for more training, buy 'em yourself. These things aren't free.

Even so, I bet it would be more cost-effective than hiring more cops.