|
On January 19 2012 00:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 00:38 mcc wrote:On January 19 2012 00:19 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:15 mcc wrote:On January 19 2012 00:00 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 23:39 Velr wrote:
Things are indeed strange when a eastern european corruption paradise is blaming the (western european countries or the EU alltogether for taking their money.
ROFL. If anythign your "rulers" are screwing with europe, not the other way around.
@Hider
1: When everyone is telling you that your example/claim/comparison is wrong/terrible it probably is. It's not everyone else not getting it.
2: Guns don't kill people. Agree. But guns tend lead to unneeded deaths and thats why i have a problem with them. Shooting an intruder with your gun, which never wanted to hurt/kill you, he was there to rob you, is not really self defense in my book. Thats protection of my property... Which should not justify me killing someone, now if he attacks me thats a whole diffrent story. But just for "defending my property"? Nah, we got the Police for that. If everybody told you to jump from a cliff would you do it? Oh i guess above example is too extreme as well. No you cant argue like that. My comparsion made perfect sense as I wanted to illustrate that i throught that you have been serisouly manipulated through governement. Whether ppl (i guess like 4 people or something commented my comparsion, which = everybody to you? I guess you like to manipulate facts to make your point stronger) agree with that is irrelevant, but that was my opinion of your logic. 2.) Two things here. First of all. Is your prefered system a "utility-maximising" society where the utility of the of the citzens is more important than their individual rights? So if you could kill 1.000 innocent people, to make the rest of the world much more happy would you do that? If you dont want to do that, then what kind of uniserval rule do you use to justfity that minimzy "unneeded" death and take away peoples individual rights. What is unneeded btw, how do you define that? Not gonna change anything, but I would still like fact that guns decreases unneeded kills (though I guess it depends on your definition). How do you know if someone will attack you or not if soembody is robbing your house.If your face to face with a robber in your house would you A) rather have a gun (with ammo), or b) Not have a gun. Even though you may for some (irrational) reason answer b, how can you justify allowing your personal preferences to deny other people their right to defend them self against the potential risk of the robber trying to attack them (I guess this answer will be indrectly anwered by your universal rule which I am looking forward to). Your understanding of utilitarianism is pretty skewed. In any practical implementation of utilitarianism killing 1000 innocents would be permitted only if by doing so you would save more than 1000 other innocents. Not even mentioning that you can modify utilitarianism to even prohibit killing of bystanders to save people. But in no serious version of utilitarianism could you kill 1000 people just so others can live somewhat better. Im not even talking about practical implementation. IM just talking about theoretical uniserval rules. And I asked him what his "rules" were. I guess tehre are a lot of modificated utilitarinistisc rules that depends on subjective values. Actually there is only one rule in most cases, maximizing utility. They differ in how you measure the utility and what weights do you assign to different things. As for your specific question, increased gun ownership leads to increased number of deaths and other bad societal effects so if there is a way to decrease gun ownership (including criminals) it should be undertaken as utility will be maximized in the medium and long term. Note that it has assumptions that are satisfied in some place and not in other (US). From utilitarian point of view thousands of dead people are not worth it just so you can defend yourself in one rare case. On the other hand if the cases are not rare (again US maybe) it might be worth it. Yeh thats kinda my point. There are a lot of different ways of utility maximizing depending on peoples subjective values. But I guess we could find some situations where you would have to decrease the freedom of an individual for the greater good. Because this could be by experimenting on him? Maybe just force him to be put into a specific program taking away his liberty, etc. My point is, (lets assume the data backs up that owning guns is actually bad in the utilitiarian approach) would that justify taking away peoples individual rights? And does it justify taking away every individual rights for the greater good (given that we can measure utilty in a reliable way)?
I would start by saying that in utilitarian approach rights are not basic principles. Rights are just useful rules of thumb for practical use that have in 99.9% (or some other high percentage) of situations the same outcome as you would get by calculating utility. For example right to free speech means just that by observing this rule in most situations you are maximizing utility. Point of rights is that calculating utility is hard and might not be possible in real-life scenarios so we have these rules of thumb that have been tested through history to be a good approximations of the utility-maximizing approach. If you look at rights this way (and it is hard to justify them in any other way) you see that limiting rights is not a problem as they are just rules of thumb and some situations might require their suspension. You are also willing to suspend right to life of the burglar so...
As for saying that utility calculation is subjective. It might, but does not have to. There are a lot of quite objective measures of utility. And I would even say there are objective definitions of utility.
As for your final question. It follows from what I wrote about what rights actually are that utilitarianism cannot justify to take away too much of your rights as protecting your rights is in most situations the same as maximizing utility. Theoretically there might come a time where possibilities of calculating the utility will be so advanced and precise that we will be able to find out that maybe "rights" as we know them are actually bad approximations of real utility, but that is purely hypothetical scenario and nothing is suggesting that this is the case. Of course we should clarify what rights are we talking about, but most(a lot) of them we probably agree on.
On January 19 2012 00:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 00:26 mcc wrote:On January 19 2012 00:16 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:08 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 23:21 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 23:16 darthfoley wrote:On January 18 2012 23:12 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 19:19 Velr wrote:
If i would have been born in 1930 i would have been ~10 around the time that the holocaust actually happened.
Therefore i would probably have believed what my parents told me.
Are you really that bad at making absolutely retarded examples?
Oh, and in 1930 a big part of all the german grown ups actually beleived that or at least did not opposed it.. I guess they were alle just stupid morons that believe everythign the goverment told them.
SERIOUSLY? Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it. Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option. The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons... That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim. Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there: "People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed." No, i think it's just plain stupid to let everyone and anyone own a gun. Guns kill people. Robes kill people? (robs should not be allowed). Hands kill people (hands not allowed). Big muscles...... Whats your point. WHat kind of universal rule can you apply that disallow private persons to be allowed to own guns, but still be allowed by own knifes and other stuff. An pointing out the specific stuff that is allowed is not a an unisveral rule. Easy, unless you are a hunter guns can be used only for entertainment and killing, knifes have other practical uses. So the universal rule would be based on the utility of the thing in question. The threat of defending your self (hence maximising your survival probability) is not an utility? I mean according to you we can use guns if we are hunters to kill animals. But we cant use guns if we are humans who fear for our lifes and want to survive? Note that your self-defense using guns is included in my post under killing. Anyway you demanded a rule about ownership not usage. Hunters do not need to privately own the guns for hunting, similarly like policemen. My rule uses the level of practical utility, guns might have practical utility, but it is lower than knifes and a lot of other stuff. I would say they actually have negative practical utility all things considered, but I do not really claim this and I am not trying to say anything about gun ownership laws or whatever. I am just providing you with an quite easily constructed rule that prohibits guns and allows knifes and is actually pretty good at prohibiting things that are universally prohibited and allows things that are allowed. That means it is not an arbitrary rule. So your rule is that: "weapons" with a limited usage utility of below XX % should be illegal to own?
Following what I wrote , anything that has big negative utility in a lot of scenarios, even if the aggregate utility is positive, but low enough, can be made illegal.
EDIT:typo
|
Maybe we should have a mod in here to close this fruitless and exhausting debate about pro/con Gun Control/Rights to bear Arms... and actually come back to the topic the thread is named after.
Nobody will give up their views(rightfully so) it seems and now bringing South America into the equation... will only prolong it even further.
|
On January 19 2012 01:30 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 00:59 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:49 Velr wrote:If 4 people disagree with you and none seems to agree. Then yes, everyone disagrees. Ok? 2.) Two things here. First of all. Is your prefered system a "utility-maximising" society where the utility of the of the citzens is more important than their individual rights? So if you could kill 1.000 innocent people, to make the rest of the world much more happy would you do that? If you dont want to do that, then what kind of uniserval rule do you use to justfity that minimzy "unneeded" death and take away peoples individual rights.
What is unneeded btw, how do you define that?
Not gonna change anything, but I would still like fact that guns decreases unneeded kills (though I guess it depends on your definition). WTF has what you just asked me to do with me thinking that shooting someone, which broke the law, that is most likely not wanting to hurt me phsyically is way to harsh and I therefore think guns aren't necessary? But funny how you jump to conclusions. I also just don't get the direct connection of "the right to own arms" and "freedom"... Plenty of other stuff is forbidden and almost no one is crying about his freedom... But with the one tool most usefull to actaully take someone else freedom away it's suddenly really important?... Yeah, right. How do you know if someone will attack you or not if soembody is robbing your house.If your face to face with a robber in your house would you A) rather have a gun (with ammo), or b) Not have a gun.
Even though you may for some (irrational) reason answer b, how can you justify allowing your personal preferences to deny other people their right to defend them self against the potential risk of the robber trying to attack them (I guess this answer will be indrectly anwered by your universal rule which I am looking forward to). I actually can answer this: Robber has a gun, I don't: I would likely try to get away asap.. What else is there to do  Robber has a gun, me too (and I decide to face him): The likely outcome is that me or the robber get shot. I most probably don't really want to kill someone so I probably would pull the trigger later/not at all. So the gun would actually give the robber more reason to shoot me while not granting me more protection than "running/hiding". Why should I want a gun again? I have a gun, the robber not: --> He runs. Most robbers do this anyway when they encounter the owner (they are robbers, not psychokillers). I won't shoot him when he runs.. Obviously... So what did I gain by having a gun? --> He stays until the police arrives because he's afraid of me shooting him (what a retard). Well, that's actually a nice outcome but I'm not even sure if that could not be called "taking him hostage" which is a crime and I probably would get into trouble? (I think there are cases like this). --> I shoot him. I just killed a human being, most likely a stupid kid, because he wanted to steal something from me that is assured anyway... EXCELLENT, i'm a hero! Yay, me! Call me Mr. Awesome! See.. My problems are: 1. I'm not really willing to shoot someone just because he is entering my house whiteout my permission stealing something from me. 2. By drawing a gun I give the other guy a reason to actually shoot me which he probably is more likely to do than me (he is the criminal...). 3: To really be "safe" thanks to my gun I would have to shoot before asking/encountering the guy... Which I would call murder. Would I shoot someone in self defense? Yes... But that would probably mean I already catched a bullet (or I just killed someone cold blooded). Guns create more harm than good in most scenarios. That’s why I am against guns and self defense with guns. Btw: Robbers in Switzerland normally don't carry guns... Why would they?... They are robbers, not psycho killers entering random houses killing the inhabitants for fun.... First of all I dont like how you do math... lol (so bad way of counting. Sure a few ultrasocialists has disagreed with me directly. Other more rational people has disagreed with you). But anyway who agrees who is ireelevant, so lets ignore this debate. One question: Do your situation on whether you want to have that gun fully depend on you optimizing your probability of surviving? So as I see your logic you think you would survive more often than not by not owning a gun. Right? Boy, Denmark seems to be a tough place when you are into Freedom and stuff. I wish you all the best luck to defend yourself against the Comrade Hordes that want to rob you (maybe even TAX you) - preferably with guns. //sarcasm Regards, a non-socialist.
Well taxes = robery.
Why do you make that comment btw. This has absolutely no relevance, and Denmark is definitely a somewhat decent place to live in compared to most of the alternatives.
|
On January 19 2012 01:40 Keniji wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 01:23 Hider wrote:
[...]If you find some statistics that takes into account a lot of disturbing variables, then (while it wouldn't change my mind) it would be a fairly interesting read. [...] I don't care so much about the discussion (we already had that so often) but how close minded can you be? It's really useless to discuss anything when you have the mindset that even if the other person proves you wrong you still doesn't change your mind.
I dont think you have read (or at least understood all my post). It should be clear that I am against everything takes away peoples individual right. And not allowing them to buy a specific post = less freedom. Hence I am against the utilitiaran "ideology", so statistics isn't relevant in deciding my opinion (it never is). However logic is.
|
On January 19 2012 01:56 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 00:53 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:38 mcc wrote:On January 19 2012 00:19 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:15 mcc wrote:On January 19 2012 00:00 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 23:39 Velr wrote:
Things are indeed strange when a eastern european corruption paradise is blaming the (western european countries or the EU alltogether for taking their money.
ROFL. If anythign your "rulers" are screwing with europe, not the other way around.
@Hider
1: When everyone is telling you that your example/claim/comparison is wrong/terrible it probably is. It's not everyone else not getting it.
2: Guns don't kill people. Agree. But guns tend lead to unneeded deaths and thats why i have a problem with them. Shooting an intruder with your gun, which never wanted to hurt/kill you, he was there to rob you, is not really self defense in my book. Thats protection of my property... Which should not justify me killing someone, now if he attacks me thats a whole diffrent story. But just for "defending my property"? Nah, we got the Police for that. If everybody told you to jump from a cliff would you do it? Oh i guess above example is too extreme as well. No you cant argue like that. My comparsion made perfect sense as I wanted to illustrate that i throught that you have been serisouly manipulated through governement. Whether ppl (i guess like 4 people or something commented my comparsion, which = everybody to you? I guess you like to manipulate facts to make your point stronger) agree with that is irrelevant, but that was my opinion of your logic. 2.) Two things here. First of all. Is your prefered system a "utility-maximising" society where the utility of the of the citzens is more important than their individual rights? So if you could kill 1.000 innocent people, to make the rest of the world much more happy would you do that? If you dont want to do that, then what kind of uniserval rule do you use to justfity that minimzy "unneeded" death and take away peoples individual rights. What is unneeded btw, how do you define that? Not gonna change anything, but I would still like fact that guns decreases unneeded kills (though I guess it depends on your definition). How do you know if someone will attack you or not if soembody is robbing your house.If your face to face with a robber in your house would you A) rather have a gun (with ammo), or b) Not have a gun. Even though you may for some (irrational) reason answer b, how can you justify allowing your personal preferences to deny other people their right to defend them self against the potential risk of the robber trying to attack them (I guess this answer will be indrectly anwered by your universal rule which I am looking forward to). Your understanding of utilitarianism is pretty skewed. In any practical implementation of utilitarianism killing 1000 innocents would be permitted only if by doing so you would save more than 1000 other innocents. Not even mentioning that you can modify utilitarianism to even prohibit killing of bystanders to save people. But in no serious version of utilitarianism could you kill 1000 people just so others can live somewhat better. Im not even talking about practical implementation. IM just talking about theoretical uniserval rules. And I asked him what his "rules" were. I guess tehre are a lot of modificated utilitarinistisc rules that depends on subjective values. Actually there is only one rule in most cases, maximizing utility. They differ in how you measure the utility and what weights do you assign to different things. As for your specific question, increased gun ownership leads to increased number of deaths and other bad societal effects so if there is a way to decrease gun ownership (including criminals) it should be undertaken as utility will be maximized in the medium and long term. Note that it has assumptions that are satisfied in some place and not in other (US). From utilitarian point of view thousands of dead people are not worth it just so you can defend yourself in one rare case. On the other hand if the cases are not rare (again US maybe) it might be worth it. Yeh thats kinda my point. There are a lot of different ways of utility maximizing depending on peoples subjective values. But I guess we could find some situations where you would have to decrease the freedom of an individual for the greater good. Because this could be by experimenting on him? Maybe just force him to be put into a specific program taking away his liberty, etc. My point is, (lets assume the data backs up that owning guns is actually bad in the utilitiarian approach) would that justify taking away peoples individual rights? And does it justify taking away every individual rights for the greater good (given that we can measure utilty in a reliable way)? I would start by saying that in utilitarian approach rights are not basic principles. Rights are just useful rules of thumb for practical use that have in 99.9% (or some other high percentage) of situations the same outcome as you would get by calculating utility. For example right to free speech means just that by observing this rule in most situations you are maximizing utility. Point of rights is that calculating utility is hard and might not be possible in real-life scenarios so we have these rules of thumb that have been tested through history to be a good approximations of the utility-maximizing approach. If you look at rights this way (and it is hard to justify them in any other way) you see that limiting rights is not a problem as they are just rules of thumb and some situations might require their suspension. You are also willing to suspend right to life of the burglar so... As for saying that utility calculation is subjective. It might, but does not have to. There are a lot of quite objective measures of utility. And I would even say there are objective definitions of utility. As for your final question. It follows from what I wrote about what rights actually are that utilitarianism cannot justify to take away too much of your rights as protecting your rights is in most situations the same as maximizing utility. Theoretically there might come a time where possibilities of calculating the utility will be so advanced and precise that we will be able to find out that maybe "rights" as we know them are actually bad approximations of real utility, but that is purely hypothetical scenario and nothing is suggesting that this is the case. Of course we should clarify what rights are we talking about, but most(a lot) of them we probably agree on. Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 00:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:26 mcc wrote:On January 19 2012 00:16 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 00:08 mcc wrote:On January 18 2012 23:21 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 23:16 darthfoley wrote:On January 18 2012 23:12 Hider wrote:On January 18 2012 22:07 Doublemint wrote:On January 18 2012 19:25 Hider wrote:
[quote]
Government is kinda creating the culture (unfortunately), which impact your raising. What your hear in school or from your parents is just an end product of heavy manipulation through centuries. When you think your not supposed to defend your self its almost as bad as thinking jews deserve to die. Of course your allowed to defend your self. If you optimize your probablity of surviving by having a gun, then its a good idea, and your allowed to do it.
Sure if you have the possiblity of calling the police and letting them defend you would be a good option if there was time for that. But some times that is not an option.
The reason you ahve been getting this manipulated is probably that you have been taugh through the years that governemnt is supposed to take care of all your needs. you sure are terrible at making sound comparisons... That wasn't even a comparasion (what you just highlighted). It was a claim. Regarding my 1930 comparasion, it was a fine example. Some people (obv. those wh ohave been manipulated) will probably dont get it, as it is very extreme. But just becasue I use an extreme comparsion doesn't mean it isn't sound. The pricniple is still there: "People who think your not allowed to use self defense (that governemnt is supposed to do it) have been brain washed." No, i think it's just plain stupid to let everyone and anyone own a gun. Guns kill people. Robes kill people? (robs should not be allowed). Hands kill people (hands not allowed). Big muscles...... Whats your point. WHat kind of universal rule can you apply that disallow private persons to be allowed to own guns, but still be allowed by own knifes and other stuff. An pointing out the specific stuff that is allowed is not a an unisveral rule. Easy, unless you are a hunter guns can be used only for entertainment and killing, knifes have other practical uses. So the universal rule would be based on the utility of the thing in question. The threat of defending your self (hence maximising your survival probability) is not an utility? I mean according to you we can use guns if we are hunters to kill animals. But we cant use guns if we are humans who fear for our lifes and want to survive? Note that your self-defense using guns is included in my post under killing. Anyway you demanded a rule about ownership not usage. Hunters do not need to privately own the guns for hunting, similarly like policemen. My rule uses the level of practical utility, guns might have practical utility, but it is lower than knifes and a lot of other stuff. I would say they actually have negative practical utility all things considered, but I do not really claim this and I am not trying to say anything about gun ownership laws or whatever. I am just providing you with an quite easily constructed rule that prohibits guns and allows knifes and is actually pretty good at prohibiting things that are universally prohibited and allows things that are allowed. That means it is not an arbitrary rule. So your rule is that: "weapons" with a limited usage utility of below XX % should be illegal to own? Following what I wrote , anything that has big negative utility in a lot of scenarios, even if the aggregate utility is positive, but low enough, can be made illegal. EDIT:typo
This is kinda the way I think that the utilitiran approach is practiced. As a rule of thumbs, like some times we take the utilitiran approach but somethings we cant do (like killing people). Some indivudal rights cannot be broken, but some can (like disallowing ownership of drugs, guns etc.).
However I kinda disagree that any of these approaches can be measured objectively. How do you measure peoples value of "feeling more safe". Another example is me wearing a mobil phone. If something goes wrong I like having the abililty to be able to call someone.
Iguess you will agree with me that the above is an impossible task, and hence only will look at comparable statistics (like minimizing deaths). I guess however that not all deaths are equal in value. I mean if something is trying to rob me and I shoot him as an act of self defense and he dies, the value of him dying should still count less (in the negative way) than one innocent man dying.
I guess we can agree on that?
Becuase of the above a likely result of allowing guns might be that more robbers are killed, which inflaes the total death by weapon statistics. So in the end someone has to give subjective values for robbers being killed and for innocents being killed. And all robbers are not equal. Some may threaten you with a gun, some with a knife, other being a 13 year old kid without any weapon.
Maybe the only reliable way of using the utlitiran approach is with the goal of minimizing innocents peoples death for each robbery. So you calculate the total number of reported roberys by innocent people dying. This way you will get a fair estimate of owning a gun actually improves your probability of surviving if robbed (assuming that all robberies are being reported).
To some extent this number would be comparable across nations with similar financial/cultural background. Like I guess to some extent you could compare a western european nation with USA, though there would still be some statistical noise. Do anyone know if this kind of analysis has been done?
|
On January 19 2012 00:49 Velr wrote:If 4 people disagree with you and none seems to agree. Then yes, everyone disagrees. Ok? Show nested quote + 2.) Two things here. First of all. Is your prefered system a "utility-maximising" society where the utility of the of the citzens is more important than their individual rights? So if you could kill 1.000 innocent people, to make the rest of the world much more happy would you do that? If you dont want to do that, then what kind of uniserval rule do you use to justfity that minimzy "unneeded" death and take away peoples individual rights.
What is unneeded btw, how do you define that?
Not gonna change anything, but I would still like fact that guns decreases unneeded kills (though I guess it depends on your definition). WTF has what you just asked me to do with me thinking that shooting someone, which broke the law, that is most likely not wanting to hurt me phsyically is way to harsh and I therefore think guns aren't necessary? But funny how you jump to conclusions. I also just don't get the direct connection of "the right to own arms" and "freedom"... Plenty of other stuff is forbidden and almost no one is crying about his freedom... But with the one tool most usefull to actaully take someone else freedom away it's suddenly really important?... Yeah, right. Show nested quote + How do you know if someone will attack you or not if soembody is robbing your house.If your face to face with a robber in your house would you A) rather have a gun (with ammo), or b) Not have a gun.
Even though you may for some (irrational) reason answer b, how can you justify allowing your personal preferences to deny other people their right to defend them self against the potential risk of the robber trying to attack them (I guess this answer will be indrectly anwered by your universal rule which I am looking forward to). I actually can answer this: Robber has a gun, I don't: I would likely try to get away asap.. What else is there to do Robber has a gun, me too (and I decide to face him): The likely outcome is that me or the robber get shot. I most probably don't really want to kill someone so I probably would pull the trigger later/not at all. So the gun would actually give the robber more reason to shoot me while not granting me more protection than "running/hiding". Why should I want a gun again? I have a gun, the robber not: --> He runs. Most robbers do this anyway when they encounter the owner (they are robbers, not psychokillers). I won't shoot him when he runs.. Obviously... So what did I gain by having a gun? --> He stays until the police arrives because he's afraid of me shooting him (what a retard). Well, that's actually a nice outcome but I'm not even sure if that could not be called "taking him hostage" which is a crime and I probably would get into trouble? (I think there are cases like this). --> I shoot him. I just killed a human being, most likely a stupid kid, because he wanted to steal something from me that is assured anyway... EXCELLENT, i'm a hero! Yay, me! Call me Mr. Awesome! See.. My problems are: 1. I'm not really willing to shoot someone just because he is entering my house whiteout my permission stealing something from me. 2. By drawing a gun I give the other guy a reason to actually shoot me which he probably is more likely to do than me (he is the criminal...). 3: To really be "safe" thanks to my gun I would have to shoot before asking/encountering the guy... Which I would call murder. Would I shoot someone in self defense? Yes... But that would probably mean I already catched a bullet (or I just killed someone cold blooded). Guns create more harm than good in most scenarios. That’s why I am against guns and self defense with guns. Btw: Robbers in Switzerland normally don't carry guns... Why would they?... They are robbers, not psycho killers entering random houses killing the inhabitants for fun....
1. I'm not really willing to shoot someone just because he is entering my house whiteout my permission stealing something from me. - Face him with a gun and tell him if he does every rash move you shoot him ( not deadly, just wounding in case that he does not have a gun himself ) .
2. By drawing a gun I give the other guy a reason to actually shoot me which he probably is more likely to do than me (he is the criminal...). - Having a gun doesnt make you draw ure gun if he is already aiming at you unless you are braindead idiot or a "movie superhero-tard"
3: To really be "safe" thanks to my gun I would have to shoot before asking/encountering the guy... Which I would call murder. - Shooting your agressor should be in the last possible moment and only shooting him to wound him, unless he has a gun and aims at yourself - still you wound him because you don't need to kill him even if he has a gun if he is not just ready to shoot you.
Robber has a gun, I don't: I would likely try to get away asap.. What else is there to do - have fun getting shot
-> He runs. Most robbers do this anyway when they encounter the owner (they are robbers, not psychokillers). I won't shoot him when he runs.. Obviously... So what did I gain by having a gun? If you didn't have a gun and he had a knife you would've been dead right now
--> He stays until the police arrives because he's afraid of me shooting him (what a retard). Well, that's actually a nice outcome but I'm not even sure if that could not be called "taking him hostage" which is a crime and I probably would get into trouble? (I think there are cases like this). - Since he initiated in the act of agression ( if you legally cary a gun ), you have no fault because you have to be sure you're not exposed to danger, and turning back and leaving from an agressive man is rather retarded if he decides to stand still, remember you didn't hell him to stand still.
--> I shoot him. I just killed a human being, most likely a stupid kid, because he wanted to steal something from me that is assured anyway... EXCELLENT, i'm a hero! Yay, me! Call me Mr. Awesome! - With pracctice you can easily aim to wound, but anyways you should shoot in the last moment possible ( if he is that mad to attack you while you're aiming at him )
Of course all this in the conditions where you regularly go to shooting ranges to pracctice ( without this , having a gun is just like building a nuclear plant in the middle of a fault line - HELLO FUKUSHIMA - imminent stupid death in case of threat )
You're logic is horrible. Again, having a gun is like a state having a nuclear weapon, don't fuck with him because if you do you are dead. You should press the trigger in the last possible moment. My approach is rather cold because you could say people are irrational in moment of stress, however you are not in immediate danger unless you have a knife by your neck or a gun aimed at you... so unless you get in those cases...most people shouldn't panic.
|
On January 19 2012 02:31 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 00:49 Velr wrote:If 4 people disagree with you and none seems to agree. Then yes, everyone disagrees. Ok? 2.) Two things here. First of all. Is your prefered system a "utility-maximising" society where the utility of the of the citzens is more important than their individual rights? So if you could kill 1.000 innocent people, to make the rest of the world much more happy would you do that? If you dont want to do that, then what kind of uniserval rule do you use to justfity that minimzy "unneeded" death and take away peoples individual rights.
What is unneeded btw, how do you define that?
Not gonna change anything, but I would still like fact that guns decreases unneeded kills (though I guess it depends on your definition). WTF has what you just asked me to do with me thinking that shooting someone, which broke the law, that is most likely not wanting to hurt me phsyically is way to harsh and I therefore think guns aren't necessary? But funny how you jump to conclusions. I also just don't get the direct connection of "the right to own arms" and "freedom"... Plenty of other stuff is forbidden and almost no one is crying about his freedom... But with the one tool most usefull to actaully take someone else freedom away it's suddenly really important?... Yeah, right. How do you know if someone will attack you or not if soembody is robbing your house.If your face to face with a robber in your house would you A) rather have a gun (with ammo), or b) Not have a gun.
Even though you may for some (irrational) reason answer b, how can you justify allowing your personal preferences to deny other people their right to defend them self against the potential risk of the robber trying to attack them (I guess this answer will be indrectly anwered by your universal rule which I am looking forward to). I actually can answer this: Robber has a gun, I don't: I would likely try to get away asap.. What else is there to do Robber has a gun, me too (and I decide to face him): The likely outcome is that me or the robber get shot. I most probably don't really want to kill someone so I probably would pull the trigger later/not at all. So the gun would actually give the robber more reason to shoot me while not granting me more protection than "running/hiding". Why should I want a gun again? I have a gun, the robber not: --> He runs. Most robbers do this anyway when they encounter the owner (they are robbers, not psychokillers). I won't shoot him when he runs.. Obviously... So what did I gain by having a gun? --> He stays until the police arrives because he's afraid of me shooting him (what a retard). Well, that's actually a nice outcome but I'm not even sure if that could not be called "taking him hostage" which is a crime and I probably would get into trouble? (I think there are cases like this). --> I shoot him. I just killed a human being, most likely a stupid kid, because he wanted to steal something from me that is assured anyway... EXCELLENT, i'm a hero! Yay, me! Call me Mr. Awesome! See.. My problems are: 1. I'm not really willing to shoot someone just because he is entering my house whiteout my permission stealing something from me. 2. By drawing a gun I give the other guy a reason to actually shoot me which he probably is more likely to do than me (he is the criminal...). 3: To really be "safe" thanks to my gun I would have to shoot before asking/encountering the guy... Which I would call murder. Would I shoot someone in self defense? Yes... But that would probably mean I already catched a bullet (or I just killed someone cold blooded). Guns create more harm than good in most scenarios. That’s why I am against guns and self defense with guns. Btw: Robbers in Switzerland normally don't carry guns... Why would they?... They are robbers, not psycho killers entering random houses killing the inhabitants for fun.... 1. I'm not really willing to shoot someone just because he is entering my house whiteout my permission stealing something from me. - Face him with a gun and tell him if he does every rash move you shoot him ( not deadly, just wounding in case that he does not have a gun himself ) . 2. By drawing a gun I give the other guy a reason to actually shoot me which he probably is more likely to do than me (he is the criminal...). - Having a gun doesnt make you draw ure gun if he is already aiming at you unless you are braindead idiot or a "movie superhero-tard" 3: To really be "safe" thanks to my gun I would have to shoot before asking/encountering the guy... Which I would call murder. - Shooting your agressor should be in the last possible moment and only shooting him to wound him, unless he has a gun and aims at yourself - still you wound him because you don't need to kill him even if he has a gun if he is not just ready to shoot you. Robber has a gun, I don't: I would likely try to get away asap.. What else is there to do - have fun getting shot -> He runs. Most robbers do this anyway when they encounter the owner (they are robbers, not psychokillers). I won't shoot him when he runs.. Obviously... So what did I gain by having a gun? If you didn't have a gun and he had a knife you would've been dead right now - -> He stays until the police arrives because he's afraid of me shooting him (what a retard). Well, that's actually a nice outcome but I'm not even sure if that could not be called "taking him hostage" which is a crime and I probably would get into trouble? (I think there are cases like this). - Since he initiated in the act of agression ( if you legally cary a gun ), you have no fault because you have to be sure you're not exposed to danger, and turning back and leaving from an agressive man is rather retarded if he decides to stand still, remember you didn't hell him to stand still. - -> I shoot him. I just killed a human being, most likely a stupid kid, because he wanted to steal something from me that is assured anyway... EXCELLENT, i'm a hero! Yay, me! Call me Mr. Awesome! - With pracctice you can easily aim to wound, but anyways you should shoot in the last moment possible ( if he is that mad to attack you while you're aiming at him ) Of course all this in the conditions where you regularly go to shooting ranges to pracctice ( without this , having a gun is just like building a nuclear plant in the middle of a fault line - HELLO FUKUSHIMA - imminent stupid death in case of threat ) You're logic is horrible. Again, having a gun is like a state having a nuclear weapon, don't fuck with him because if you do you are dead. You should press the trigger in the last possible moment. My approach is rather cold because you could say people are irrational in moment of stress, however you are not in immediate danger unless you have a knife by your neck or a gun aimed at you... so unless you get in those cases...most people shouldn't panic.
Yes his logic is off, and I think most gun-"haters" would agree that in this situation you would maximise your probabolity of surviving through having a gun. However they would argue that we need to look at the society as a whole instead one specific situation. Thats at least my perception of their throught proces.
|
I would argue that you should look at statistics instead of believing in your cowboy dreams...
![[image loading]](http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif)
|
On January 19 2012 02:48 Velr wrote:I would argue that you should look at statistics instead of believing in your cowboy dreams...
Sigh... At least I feel like Mcc (though i disagree with him) has a somewhat rational throught proces.
Your off on so many levels. As i have written:
1) Statistics do not change my opinion.
2) Statistics however can be "interesting".
3) The specific stat I was interested in was number of innocent people dying / number of robberies. Your statistic is compltely irrelevant as correlation/causalition.
|
On January 19 2012 02:48 Velr wrote:I would argue that you should look at statistics instead of believing in your cowboy dreams...
I am not particualy pro or anti gun in any significant way but I think a lot of non-americans or younger people dont have their finger on the pulse of America. There is a very strong bias in our country against people who instigate lose/lose scenarios. While very few politicians would go so far as to say this, as a general principle Americans would rather see every violent criminal shot dead in the act than see one innocent family brutalized.
We of course dont create our laws to this effect, but it is the country's persistent emotional state (a state that the media capitalizes on by the hour).
|
That is your personal bias not wanting to deal with statistics... Not me being off.
I know that statistics are not the end all of it.. But you don't even bring anything to back up your claims. So therefore i ask myself, wtf are you even doing arguing/discussing this topic? You are obviously not interested in other opinions anyway and are totally full of your own idea that is not backed up by anything.
wtf are you doing writing here?
The statistic i posted (which was just the first hit i found on google), even when not taking into account the USA spike, shows just that more Guns = more dead people by Guns (including suicides... the USA spike actually gets REALLY ridiculous when excluding suicides).
|
On January 19 2012 02:48 Velr wrote:
I would argue that you should look at statistics instead of believing in your cowboy dreams...
More guns= more gun-caused deaths... that is a Pro-Gun argument.
The point of having guns is for the gun to kill criminals.
Now if you had a more gun ownership-> number of noncriminals intentionally killed by all means.. then you have an anti-gun argument.
|
On January 19 2012 02:48 Velr wrote:I would argue that you should look at statistics instead of believing in your cowboy dreams...
this is misleading, I would be interested in a statistic that distinguishes between legally acquired and illegally acquired guns. If you really want a gun you can get one (atleast in Germany which I think has pretty average EU gun laws).
Also higher violence (or murder) rate doesn't have to exist because there are more guns available. I think it's more because of problems in the society in some regions.
Gun ownership also is a cultural thing in America which you can't stop that easily, since the beginning of the nation it was allowed to have guns. It's similar to the problem we have in Germany with too much drinking or driving too fast.
|
Throwing statistic like that with no proper logical train of thought.
It's just like I hear in my country that we have many car accidents because many people drive unsafely when our roads are totally destroyed and our infrastructure is crap.
Apparently obvious logic is "cowboy thinking" . Whatever, last reply to that Velr guy, he is obviously out of touch with reality and is done for this lifetime from any sense of rational thinking if he is older than 25.
Oh and by the way.. I'm in no way a "gun lover", I'm rather "gun hater" but I cannot discard the society that I live in and also...oh well, rational thinking. If it was up to me...destroy all the guns in the world..every single one in the world + kill all the arms idustry => we have money to help the poor of the world. However we are in that world...we are in the world where if you believe in faeries and elves and if you are caught in the wrong place at the right time without means of defending yourself, you are dead out of mere ignorance.
Also last post on this gun control debate ( unless someone comes with serious strong arguments - I only used logic, the logic I developped living in a world where crime rate is moderate ) . I'm gonna this up here as rule of thumbs. If you live in this world where bad people get guns regardless of the law and good people don't have the means to procure guns, and you support gun regulations, you are completely out of touch with reality.
|
, I would be interested in a statistic that distinguishes between legally acquired and illegally acquired guns.
This is the crux of the argument here. We can also look at how many of these deaths above are suicides. I'm going to post something I wrote from the previous page to reinforce what's been said here.
You also have to consider why these murders occur too. I'm sure our drug consumption per capita is much higher than that of the other countries. This is where most of the homicides occur. Plus we have far more bloodthirsty gangs that go hand in hand with these drugs, which explains the inflated murder rate.
This was conveniently ignored in the previous pages. I wonder why.
Edit: Spelling.
|
On January 19 2012 03:00 Velr wrote:
That is your personal bias not wanting to deal with statistics... Not me being off.
I know that statistics are not the end all of it.. But you don't even bring anything to back up your claims. So therefore i ask myself, wtf are you even doing arguing/discussing this topic? You are obviously not interested in other opinions anyway and are totally full of your own idea that is not backed up by anything.
wtf are you doing writing here?
The statistic i posted (which was just the first hit i found on google), even when not taking into account the USA spike, shows just that more Guns = more dead people by Guns (including suicides... the USA spike actually gets REALLY ridiculous when excluding suicides).
Well I have been trying to figure out "gun-haters" throught proces. I have been trying to help you in figuring out how to calculate the utility-maximisaiton proces. But the problem is that you dont even get it your self. You cant define an objective rule universal rule as to why it should be disallowed. I have been suggestion one statistical number that probably would be your best bet, for how YOU can justify your opponent based on the principle I think your following. But its kinda hard, cus you dont even know your principle. You just pull out random graphs and conclude "bad" = guns disallowed. I guess if you tried to read all my post (another time perhaps) you would perhaps kinda understand the point I am making. But I udnerstand that if your not used to thinking in this way, it can be tough to understand.
My rule is: Individual rights should be respected. People are allowed to have freedom. Now i could go on to elaborate and define these terms, and argue why I believe that individual rights must be followed instead of the utilitian approach. But there is really no point in arguing for my base, because what am I too argue against? You have not even explained your own arguments.
What claims have I made btw? I claimed that you would most likely be a nazist if you were born in germany in 1930 (or lets say 1920, whatever) as your very easily manipulated and have problem using logic.
WHat other claims? That the statistics were useless? In previous post I stated that there were way too much noise ( I realize i haven't specified what kind of noise, but many of them are so obivous, so i throught everybody would realize them) for these kind of correlations to be relevant (to justify your own principle btw). I guess it would benefeit you too take a statistical course, because its need really rockey sciene why your graph is totally useless. Generally that course would teach you how to make an hyphotesis (which have you stil haven't done), and back it up with solid data.
Arguments for why that graph is useless in proving your point (that guns kill innocent people?)
It doesn't take into account culture
It doesn't take into account economy
It doesn't take into account number of robberies (which is kinda related to the 2 above, though this number is most relevant).
It doesn't take into account non-innocent people killed.
It doesn't take into account ppl killed by non firearm weapons?
etc.....
Completely useless graph. OF course there is a correlation between number of guns and number of firearm deaths. Do you also think there is a correlation by number of cars and number of death through car accident.
|
On January 18 2012 07:36 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2012 06:37 kwizach wrote:On January 18 2012 05:32 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 18 2012 05:00 Derez wrote:On January 18 2012 04:57 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:@zalz So, are you going to tell me that intellectuals like chomsky are wrong in foreign policy? What about the three generals from the USA saying the same thing as Ron Paul in regards to his foreign policy. Are they wrong too? What about the ex CIA guy who went after Bin Laden too... + Show Spoiler +So, tell us why we should believe your foreign policy is whats best for the whole world? Forcing your beliefs onto others~ Yet intellectuals like Chomsky still disagree with the entire political philosophy behind all of Ron Paul's idea's, but that part of his argument gets conveniently ignored by the Paul fanatics. You can't have your cake and eat it too :/. Oh really? Yes, really. Well Apparently you haven't read any of chomsky's books.
Actually, I have. Have you?
|
On January 19 2012 03:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 03:00 Velr wrote:
That is your personal bias not wanting to deal with statistics... Not me being off.
I know that statistics are not the end all of it.. But you don't even bring anything to back up your claims. So therefore i ask myself, wtf are you even doing arguing/discussing this topic? You are obviously not interested in other opinions anyway and are totally full of your own idea that is not backed up by anything.
wtf are you doing writing here?
The statistic i posted (which was just the first hit i found on google), even when not taking into account the USA spike, shows just that more Guns = more dead people by Guns (including suicides... the USA spike actually gets REALLY ridiculous when excluding suicides). Well I have been trying to figure out "gun-haters" throught proces. I have been trying to help you in figuring out how to calculate the utility-maximisaiton proces. But the problem is that you dont even get it your self. You cant define an objective rule universal rule as to why it should be disallowed. I have been suggestion one statistical number that probably would be your best bet, for how YOU can justify your opponent based on the principle I think your following. But its kinda hard, cus you dont even know your principle. You just pull out random graphs and conclude "bad" = guns disallowed. I guess if you tried to read all my post (another time perhaps) you would perhaps kinda understand the point I am making. But I udnerstand that if your not used to thinking in this way, it can be tough to understand. My rule is: Individual rights should be respected. People are allowed to have freedom. Now i could go on to elaborate and define these terms, and argue why I believe that individual rights must be followed instead of the utilitian approach. But there is really no point in arguing for my base, because what am I too argue against? You have not even explained your own arguments. What claims have I made btw? I claimed that you would most likely be a nazist if you were born in germany in 1930 (or lets say 1920, whatever) as your very easily manipulated and have problem using logic. WHat other claims? That the statistics were useless? In previous post I stated that there were way too much noise ( I realize i haven't specified what kind of noise, but many of them are so obivous, so i throught everybody would realize them) for these kind of correlations to be relevant (to justify your own principle btw). I guess it would benefeit you too take a statistical course, because its need really rockey sciene why your graph is totally useless. Generally that course would teach you how to make an hyphotesis (which have you stil haven't done), and back it up with solid data. Arguments for why that graph is useless in proving your point (that guns kill innocent people?) It doesn't take into account culture It doesn't take into account economy It doesn't take into account number of robberies (which is kinda related to the 2 above, though this number is most relevant). It doesn't take into account non-innocent people killed. It doesn't take into account ppl killed by non firearm weapons? etc..... Completely useless graph. OF course there is a correlation between number of guns and number of firearm deaths. Do you also think there is a correlation by number of cars and number of death through car accident.
Though I agree the graph isn't definite proof of anything, the things you mentioned to be taken account of probably wouldn't make your argument better. At least the three last ones. The culture or economy I don't really know how how you'd take it into account.
|
|
|
I like all the people who post a hit and run source (that could be old, spurious or false by now) and claim it's the end all be all.
The general consensus among recent scholars is that right to carry laws and a bad economy now are thought to have no significant correlation with violent crime. Yes I get it, all the gun happy guys are going to point to Lott's 2005 "More Guns Less Crime" but in scholarly terms it's verging on ancient.
There is a national downward trend in crime rate (all of this data can be accessed easily by the "UCR") even in Illinois, the only state with no concealed carry law who has had a similar drop in violent crime rates as say in Florida, where they were pioneers of right to carry laws. You don't even need to read the recent journals on what I'm talking about, it can simply be summed here properly http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/
In another words at least pertaining to the U.S., guns aren't really bad or good in terms of crime, so no side should be claiming some annoying victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
