|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
Okay, i am not knowledgeable enough to contest that. The point is, however, guns to defend against a tyrannical federal government is not a basic human right. It is a right specific to the United States that the United States has never enforced on any other nation. No country the US has ever liberated for freedom has received that civil right afterwards. It was ingrained in the political process over a long time and therefore has shaped a reality where taking it away would be dangerous but that does not mean anybody would step "on my civil rights" just because it were revoked.
And then i want to spotlight the argument from GreenHorizons, that people having guns is not a non-factor in deciding policy. This is something entirely different and very dangerous. A politician should never have to think about, oh shit, if i do this, they might actually start to shoot me. A population entitled to resist against anything they deem tyrannical is a great way to never move society forward. A legitimate democratic government fears the violent response of a minority of the population against their policy, a tyrannical one does not. It welcomes it. If you start shooting your government and they are afraid of that, you are the asshole, not them.
|
On September 07 2018 12:22 JD.Cursed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 11:39 zlefin wrote:On September 07 2018 10:48 JD.Cursed wrote:On September 07 2018 10:22 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 10:01 JD.Cursed wrote:
Wow I really set fire to another thread.
First I wanna point out, that I called you Australian. Thats far less offensive than saying I know jackshit and calling me ignorant. Im actually trying real hard not to offend anyone so please try to do the same.
And I am going to disagree with your 2nd paragraph. Citizens do have the option to resist the government, but as whoever posted earlier, speech and law are far more effective than force. I got arrested for going bowling when I was 22, you believe that? That judge felt my words. But I was still arrested without ever having commit a crime. That seems tyrannical to me.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I dont own a gun. I dont want a gun. Having a gun causes far more problems than it solves. I am making this argument for Civil Rights and Freedom and all that noble crap. And boredom. And while the law can be argued as irrelevant or outdated, the spirit of that law is not. And never will be. you literally said you know nothing about australia other than what our flag looks like and that we are commonwealth. that qualifies as pretty much jackshit. i wasnt trying to offend, it was an observation based on your confession. your experience with arrest is nowhere near tyrannical. even if we for argument sake said it was, that kind of scale isnt what we're talking about when we discuss the 2nd amendment. besides, how did you solve that problem? you sure as hell didnt pull a gun out and point it at the judge did you your 3rd paragraph is something i could actually agree with. what i dont understand is how you can accept that the law could be irrelevant or outdated, but would choose not to change it despite it being such a massive reason why gun regulation hasnt come to pass I edited the post you quoted a lil bit there. What would you consider tyrannical? And what would you consider tyrannical enough to take up arms against? Those are two very different answers for me. I said it could be argued, not that I accept or agree. And I did also research into England's gun laws for a few min. Hunting rifles and shotguns are actually legal for ordinary citizens to own. Pistols were until the 1 and only school shooting in 1996. And it sounds good. A pistol's only real purpose is murder and suicide. And we'd still have our rifles for the great revolution of neo-fascist quasi dictatorship. Fair compromise, but only if they were taken from police as well. zlefin: I understand a little better now and that is an interesting point. my first counter is "Sic semper tyrannis!" Also I suppose that your right no complete revolution in a world power could be successful without a professional military, however have been wildly effective all over Africa and the Middle East. So instead of revolution call it Coup d'eTat first, please stick to your earlier pledge to respond to me, without other people's stuff getting in the way, then we can have a proper quotechain to refer back to. Also, please don't edit in answers to me if I wasn't the main recipient of a post. I don't like having to check back to the prior page just to see if you've responded to me by editing into another conversation. First, "sic semper tyrannis" is not an actual counter; amusing though it be in context, i'm trying to have a serious argument. and I'd rather not mix joke counters with actual counters. If you intend it to be an actual counter, please do it in a clear way, rather than a jokey and vague way. Second, are you aware of the extent to which the revolutionary war was only successful because other major powers (france in particular) intervened? Third, I think you misestimate what's actually occurred in africa and the mid east in reference to the actual thesis. They (they meaning personal arms again) have not been wildly effective all over africa and the middle east. (especially not at doing anything about tyranny, which is the subject in question). Successful revolutions are generally a result of either substantial support by a foreign power, OR revolutions done by a faction of the military (or other existing power players who have armed forces of their own). You should point to the specific examples you think demonstrate your point. Fourth, coup d'etat is irrelevant to the situation. Because those are not about personal arms of the citizenry at all. Fifth, even assuming the guns were significantly helpful in a conflict, there's still the question of whether they actually help vs tyranny. Tyrannical governments we're talking about aren't some mythical otherworldly force, in this context we're talking about federal government tyranny. If the federal government is tyrannical, then they'd have the support of a substantial part of the american people in that tyranny; and those people would have just as many guns. Was trying not to double post. 1. Sic Semper Tyrannis! is the quote of John Wilkes Booth when he shot Lincoln. I believe it was his personal Derringer. 2. Yes I was, hence the earlier post when I supposed France may have supplied arms to the colonists. 3. Mozambique has the AK-47 on their flag as a symbol of their independence from Portugal in 1975. I dont know specifically any other revolutions that succeeded in Africa but Im sure there are more. Which reminds of the Mexican revolution from Spain, And ISIS was able to capture and hold large chunks of Iraq Syria and Libya but who knows what kind of support they were receiving from other nations. And let's not forget the Alamo, even though it wasnt quite a revolution, and also failed. 4. Still a change of government through violence. 5. Would they though? In 2013, Boston, a city of 650k, volunteered for marshal law.
1. I'm fully aware of that, and it does nothing to advance your point. So I'm not sure why you'd bring it up. It has nothing to do with countering tyranny. Some idiot thinking he's killing a tyrant is very different from actually serving as a check on actual tyrants.
2. France did indeed supply a lot of arms and ammo; as well as other stuff.
3. Ok, let's see what happened in mozambique, here's what wiki says of the start of the post independence period.
"The new government under president Samora Machel established a one-party state based on Marxist principles. It received diplomatic and some military support from Cuba and the Soviet Union and proceeded to crack down on opposition.[23] Starting shortly after the independence, the country was plagued from 1977 to 1992 by a long and violent civil war between the opposition forces of anti-Communist Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO) rebel militias and the FRELIMO regime. This conflict characterised the first decades of Mozambican independence, combined with sabotage from the neighbouring states of Rhodesia and South Africa, ineffective policies, failed central planning, and the resulting economic collapse. This period was also marked by the exodus of Portuguese nationals and Mozambicans of Portuguese heritage,[24] a collapsed infrastructure, lack of investment in productive assets, and government nationalisation of privately owned industries, as well as widespread famine.
During most of the civil war, the FRELIMO-formed central government was unable to exercise effective control outside of urban areas, many of which were cut off from the capital.[13] RENAMO-controlled areas included up to 50% of the rural areas in several provinces, and it is reported that health services of any kind were isolated from assistance for years in those areas. The problem worsened when the government cut back spending on health care.[25] The war was marked by mass human rights violations from both sides of the conflict, with RENAMO contributing to the chaos through the use of terror and indiscriminate targeting of civilians.[26][27] The central government executed tens of thousands of people while trying to extend its control throughout the country and sent many people to "re-education camps" where thousands died.[26] "
4. yes, but it's still irrelevant to the point. You don't seem to be tracking the actual arguments well. remember, the context here is 2nd amendment private gun ownership; that's the point under contention. A change of government through violence does not inherently advance your point in the slightest. The question is whether private gun ownership serves as an effective check on government tyranny. Not whether revolutions can occur.
5. I'm not sure what your point is here; there was no tyranny occurring.
|
On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders.
Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance.
“Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind.
And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
This is one of the most important things that the US needs to look at to be honest.
Guns should be kept locked away and ammo secured at all times, and owner's should be responsible (within reasonable, practicable legal limits) for any crime/accident committed with their weapon if it was left lying around.
|
But if the guns and ammo ares ecured and locked away how are they suppose to fulfill their home defence intruder fantasy and feel safe?
Taking responsibility would require a legislative and cultural shift.
|
On September 07 2018 22:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off.
Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him.
Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. This is one of the most important things that the US needs to look at to be honest. Guns should be kept locked away and ammo secured at all times, and owner's should be responsible (within reasonable, practicable legal limits) for any crime/accident committed with their weapon if it was left lying around.
California makes it a misdemeanor offense. That's fine with me.
|
On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?
and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible".
to apply your logic in a different scenario;
if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person
|
On September 07 2018 22:30 JimmiC wrote:
If guns are not the problem with gun violence and mass shootings, what is? How would your propose to lessen it?
I think it’s an interesting cultural and societal conversation, but I’m going to wait on that. Too much of the base insults like your “I know you think it is fake news but to the rest of the world it is just facts“ and “too bad you misplaced those” sort of cheap political vitriol. “Fucking heartless” and “raging boner fantasising over how they gonna kill the shit out of a burglar” and “Who jerk off to the thought of "coming after the tyrannical government”
I think the better conversation gets the air to breathe when trolls moderate themselves and get moderated. The only thing casting pearls before swine does at this point is showing that cheap insults and witty sexual imagery is the way to hold a discussion at combating unlawful gun homicides. You played the part of the cheap huckster in two threads, and maybe next month or next year there’s actually a desire to hear each other’s solutions and debate them. You show by word that is not the case.
|
On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
Correct me, if i am interpreting you falsely here, but to me this sounds like you understand that there is a negative tradeoff to widespread gunownership that you are willing to accept. Why have you not said so before. You have always argued that guns are a force for good in society and mass shootings + statstically higher gundeaths are not due to guns. Has thisstance changed or what is the tradeoff you are talking about?
|
On September 07 2018 22:54 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off.
Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him.
Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. Correct me, if i am interpreting you falsely here, but to me this sounds like you understand that there is a negative tradeoff to widespread gunownership that you are willing to accept. Why have you not said so before.You have always argued that guns are a force for good in society and mass shootings + statstically higher gundeaths are not due to guns. Has thisstance changed or what is the tradeoff you are talking about?
The time I referred to it two pages ago in the thread? Or the time I referred to it in a response to a post by you earlier this year in the thread? Or the time I referred to it in response to Jockmcplop earlier in the thread?
I refer you to my posts and arguments from February of this year to yesterday to see if you still believe this upon further review.
|
On September 07 2018 22:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off.
Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him.
Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible". to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person
No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice.
Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest.
I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility.
|
|
|
On September 07 2018 23:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:54 Broetchenholer wrote:On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ?
I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. Correct me, if i am interpreting you falsely here, but to me this sounds like you understand that there is a negative tradeoff to widespread gunownership that you are willing to accept. Why have you not said so before.You have always argued that guns are a force for good in society and mass shootings + statstically higher gundeaths are not due to guns. Has thisstance changed or what is the tradeoff you are talking about? The time I referred to it two pages ago in the thread? Or the time I referred to it in a response to a post by you earlier this year in the thread? Or the time I referred to it in response to Jockmcplop earlier in the thread? I refer you to my posts and arguments from February of this year to yesterday to see if you still believe this upon further review.
I will back danglars up on this point. As was mentioned on the last page, its just a difference in value judgments. danglars has always said that he values liberty more than the potential to prevent harm in this case.
|
On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 01:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:
people need to stop making bullshit arguments that possession of guns allows citizens to keep the government in check and if need be, will serve as a form of defense against a tyrannical government.
for your government to be tyrannical all forms of democracy have to fail within your political system. do you know how many checks are in place to ensure this doesnt happen to begin with?
mind you we're talking about the same democracy that allowed trump to become president. i think your political system is doing a pretty fkin good job at being solid if its allowed idiot citizens to elect an idiot president based on the merits of the system.
and suddenly youre afraid this same democracy might fail on all levels and citizens will have to form a militia? please.
outdated 2nd amendment. the need for a militia is non existent because society has progressed too much, and on the 0.0000001% chance it would be required, your firearms arent gonna do shit anyway I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off. Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him. Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next.
I know it isn't directly anything to do with the guns debate but this particular point seems odd to me. You say it's not the government's job to be your nanny or your brother's keeper...
Then who runs the jails? The police? It's not federal, but surely it is exactly the government's job to be both nanny and keeper of brothers? It's the government setting the laws to stop people doing things that are stupid and damaging to one another, and the government punishing people for doing those things anyway. I don't know if the fundament you're working from is particularly firm. It seems, from the outside, like the lines separating stuff the government is fine to run and stuff the government isn't are really arbitrary.
|
I find it funny that americans want their guns to make their goverments accountable and then they don't even get out of the couch to vote :D
|
On September 07 2018 23:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:54 Broetchenholer wrote:On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ?
I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. Correct me, if i am interpreting you falsely here, but to me this sounds like you understand that there is a negative tradeoff to widespread gunownership that you are willing to accept. Why have you not said so before.You have always argued that guns are a force for good in society and mass shootings + statstically higher gundeaths are not due to guns. Has thisstance changed or what is the tradeoff you are talking about? The time I referred to it two pages ago in the thread? Or the time I referred to it in a response to a post by you earlier this year in the thread? Or the time I referred to it in response to Jockmcplop earlier in the thread? I refer you to my posts and arguments from February of this year to yesterday to see if you still believe this upon further review.
I am not always on top of the thread and i have never perceived any answer from you to go into that direction. In my experience, you either stop responding or divert once this is brought up. But if you have actually stated so before, my apologies.
It is an argument i don't unerstand but i can't really argue against. If you admit that you are okay with more people dying for your right to have the option of self defense, there is nothing to add. We would stray fropm discussion to persuasion then and i am not in the business of persuading people on the internet of my moral believes  Be aware though, that i will remind you of this when you are trying to make the point that the 300 million guns have no negative effect on homicide statistics or the number of mass murders in the States.
|
On September 07 2018 23:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:53 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 22:30 JimmiC wrote:
If guns are not the problem with gun violence and mass shootings, what is? How would your propose to lessen it? I think it’s an interesting cultural and societal conversation, but I’m going to wait on that. Too much of the base insults like your “I know you think it is fake news but to the rest of the world it is just facts“ and “too bad you misplaced those” sort of cheap political vitriol. “Fucking heartless” and “raging boner fantasising over how they gonna kill the shit out of a burglar” and “Who jerk off to the thought of "coming after the tyrannical government” I think the better conversation gets the air to breathe when trolls moderate themselves and get moderated. The only thing casting pearls before swine does at this point is showing that cheap insults and witty sexual imagery is the way to hold a discussion at combating unlawful gun homicides. You played the part of the cheap huckster in two threads, and maybe next month or next year there’s actually a desire to hear each other’s solutions and debate them. You show by word that is not the case. I appreciate your fake outrage as what it is grandstanding. I asked you many simple questions which you dodged. And you attributed many comments to me that were not mine. The one about fake news was, as I asked over and over for any statistical info and you either had none (likely) or failed to produce, and treat the mountains of it like it doesn't exist. As usual you are more interested in "winning a argument" by some made up set of debate rules than actually explaining your position. Which more and more starts to look like your position is wining arguments about a policy that you care about because it is a policy not because of the policies merit. There is no consistency in your argument "I am all about civil liberties and personal freedom" How do you feel about these other personal freedom and civil liberties examples "..... some long winded answer never answering or nothing at all". It would be great to get into an actual debate with someone who had consistent reasons for their obsession with guns. Also all the rest of the developed world doesn't not have to deal with Mass shooting in anywhere near the consistency you do. It is not a Utopian fantasy it is the way the rest of the world works LOL.
I refer to the rather long conversation of your question
If guns are not the problem with gun violence and mass shootings, what is? How would your propose to lessen it?
Your worldview may dictate that there's easily explained proposals about what's the root cause with gun violence and how to lessen it. Mine does not. And I'm certainly not going to invest time and effort with someone so intent in calling me a believer in fake news, a grand-stander, and having selective amnesia. This is a long debate going back decades and there's plenty of time to wait for other posters to come around at the seriousness of the issue and how to approach it without needlessly smearing the other side.
As usual you are more interested in "winning a argument" by some made up set of debate rules than actually explaining your position.
Again, you needlessly misinterpret. I stated my reasons for not offering up an argument at this time. If that's "winning an argument," you have a very strange definition of what "winning an argument" means. I think you're trying to fit behavior you can't understand into more familiar molds that you can understand.
And if you think my previous answers are "some long winded answer never answering or nothing at all," maybe say you've been victorious within your own mind and move on? You're playing two men here: one of them laughing and insulting, the other one looking for answers to questions. You'll have to pick an avenue eventually, "Should I call him a big believer in fake news that all the world knows is wrong, and some charlatan that conveniently forgot his argument?" or "Should I ask him what he thinks about this issue giving his previous post and expect an answer?"
I won't have to bring this up again because saying it once for everyone is sufficient.
|
On September 07 2018 23:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ?
I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible". to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice. Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest. I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility.
according to your first sentence the government should do nothing about anything because it inteferes with personal choice.
the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible.
no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0. we are aiming to reduce deaths in general, something that can easily be done in america and has already been done in other countries, as long as people accept that for the benefit of society you may need to make some sacrifices.
if you dont want to make those sacrifices then i suggest you think of some solutions. at the moment all ive seen you do is create nonsensical arguments about defending against tyranny or the need for self defense (both points that have been dismantled in this thread already) and fail to comment on how you would actually change things. failing to provide any ideas simply means one thing, you dont have any ideas on how to make a positive change. you only know what you dont want to change, your individual rights to bear arms.
|
On September 07 2018 23:23 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 03:17 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:58 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 02:36 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 02:23 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I will never let my ideological opposition decide what arguments are bullshit and need to stop. That’s first off.
Second, generic criticism at the result of democratic decisions is not somehow related to the armed citizenry safeguard in case it all fails. You don’t like Trump, I didn’t like Obama. There’s an election in 2020 where American citizens can decide to replace him.
Third, I’m not scared that the fire sprinklers might malfunction. I’m not scared that that the electrical shutoff safeguards might fail. But I’m not taking out the emergency exits for fires. I don’t live in constant fear of chemical attack, but I’m not advocating cost-savings measures on scrapping gas masks. I think the argument that the argument is bullshit is itself a bullshit argument. Go decide not to arm yourself, I won’t force you to have a safeguard if the police show up too late or your house is burgled or you’re raped. Just don’t fucking demand everyone else surrender their safeguards because you’re caught up in the utopian dream of no chance of tyranny, ever. What are the chances that if someone shows up to rape or burgler you, you will have the time to go get and load your gun? Also, do you think it is worth killing someone because they were going to take your T.V.? Thirdly, if you have a gun what do you think the chances are that the burgler does? Do you want a gun fight over your T.V. ? I think I’m more likely to emerge unburgled and not raped if I’m armed vs disarmed. How is this even a question. The gun is for defense of person and property, the most desired response being the threat of an armed person or the actual sight of a man holding a gun encourages him or her to leave things be and withdraw. I really wish people posting in here lived in high crime areas and were robbed frequently to test just how far they’d go to assert their ownership of property. Some of these opinions just baffle me. Is your ideal society a thieve’s paradise or something? Is your right to self defense limited to your physical prowess only? Because in places where guns are not common (like the rest of developed world) the chances of your burgler/rapist having a gun is drastically lower. And there is no statistical evidence of your first statement in fact it is the opposite you are more likely to end up dead if you own a gun. In fact it is often with your own gun! The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless. But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe. I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. I know it isn't directly anything to do with the guns debate but this particular point seems odd to me. You say it's not the government's job to be your nanny or your brother's keeper... Then who runs the jails? The police? It's not federal, but surely it is exactly the government's job to be both nanny and keeper of brothers? It's the government setting the laws to stop people doing things that are stupid and damaging to one another, and the government punishing people for doing those things anyway. I don't know if the fundament you're working from is particularly firm. It seems, from the outside, like the lines separating stuff the government is fine to run and stuff the government isn't are really arbitrary.
It's quite the logical leap to talk about the nanny state in terms of "One of the reasons government should regulate guns for the reason of making it harder for it's citizens to commit suicide" and "Running jails qualifies under the nanny state and brother's keeper definition." The government should run courts of law finding out fraud and punishing murder with jail time and rehabilitation. That's quite a different sort. I think both of us could recognize degrees of being an overprotective parent, without collapsing to anything close to the concept of parenting must be part of overprotective parenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
