[GeneticKiss]

Why are we still having this silly argument? Neither side is gonna convince the other they're right/wrong. For my part, I think any smart and responsible person who feels the need to own a firearm to protect themselves/their loved ones should have the opportunity to. I don't support the NRA nor do I think the Second Amendment is the only thing between a free country and a totalitarian dictatorship.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

death is all around.

and by that you mean: let's not prevent the ones we can prevent. wtf is that supposed to mean rob?

[Rob Instigator]

it means death is all around.

To become obseesed with preventing death can lead to preventing LIVING.

even if you stay at home, never go out, never talk to anyone, and live all 70 yrs of yr life sequestered, death will find you. it could be a slippery tub, a stray bullet through the window, a particularly viruelnt mold in your attic, etc.

It would benefit mankind if there were no alcohol. alcohol related assaults, crashes, accidents, abuse, etc kill more people than most anything else. It would be nice to prevent thes4e deaths, but it is impossible.

In Saudi arabia alcohol is prohibited. women there still die at the hands of abusive husbands.

In china, no one is allowed to own a gun, yet people still go into schools and stab dozens of people and children to death.

my point is the problem lies in MAN not in man's weapons.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

I don't think that that sounds absurd because of the math. The reason it seems absurd is because security based upon mutually-assured destruction is hardly the most civil scenario. At a certain point, that very solution maintains its own minimal level of violence through the culture of fear it produces.

you're right that it's not the most civil, but last i checked this is not a very "civil" country. it was built on the dual engines of slavery and genocide, and it remains, compared to other industrialized countries, moderately barbaric. there is little consideration of the social implications of individual actions and it's "every man for himself" most of the time. the most frequent complaint you hear in politics is "taxes are bad. i don't wanna pay taxes".

the etymological meaning of the word "idiot" is one who just thinks of himself (idios) -- for the greeks it was one who didn't take part in public life. in that sense this is a nation of idiots. "me me me me me and to hell with everyone else". the assumption is that if you take care of yourself the social sphere will take care of itself. it doesn't, but regardless of you agreeing with that or not, you're left on your own.

so yes, i agree with you that this is not the most civil of scenarios, and with voltaire that this is not the best of all possible worlds, but it's what we have to deal with, and i'm not sure i want to be the first martyr of some ideal cause. "i refuse to be armed, please kill me in the name of peace". sorry, not for me.

Originally Posted by pbradley

Certainly less crime is preferable to more crime, so repealing gun restrictions in some cases may have evident practical benefit, but I think that would require a slew of statistics and reliable sociology to determine that such a scenario is preferable.

yes, but the guns are already there, and the individual idiot doesn't care about statistics or sociology (a "communist" discipline).

mind you, i come from a very anti-gun household, and i have been indoctrinated since childhool that when robbed at gunpoint what you do is give up the goods-- that's why you have insurance, and your life is not worth a tv, or a wallet, or some other bullshit piece of property. here, have the fucking keys, go away, i don't have to risk my kidneys.

however, there is the threat of violence from sociopathic and violent people who are already armed, and what is one supposed to do? to be a dove among the hawks? it would require a christian mindset ("turn the other cheek") that i lack. i avoid trouble in the streets, but if trouble comes looking for me i will not be unprepared or wait for the police to show up 2 hours later with a notepad. it is an uncivil country after all. they had lynchings until recently and they still tie people to pickup trucks and drag them, or like that gay kid in wyoming, i forget his name, who was left to die pinned to a barbed wire fence. oh yes, mathew shepard.

Originally Posted by pbradley

Would it makes sense to arm the populous in instances where there exists less crime than if you did arm everybody? Of course not. Also, there is that matter of guns bleeding in from de-regulated populations.

i don't think that you or any entity arms the populace, the populace arms itself. each idiot thinking of their own self-interest. it's "the american way". we're not talking about a wise and benevolent ruler deciding that his people will or will not be armed. anyway, the only guns that are regulated are automatic weapons, otherwise they are just registered/unregistered, i.e., traceable to an owner, and yes, illegal weapons are a bane and should be removed-- but the ATF is having little success with that.

Originally Posted by pbradley

It was the lesson of the Cold War that neither Comintern nor democracy was infectious but the mutually-assured destruction that they birthed. It isn't even about ideologies or justice at that point. It provides its own reason for being. Not a thing is more infectious than fear.

yes, and in an ideal world i would say "hey everybody let's disarm", but it only takes one country to nuke everybody else. MAD wasn't an ideology, it was pure game theory, mathematics, strategy. the problem wasn't the nuclear race itself, the error was opening the door to nuclear weapons. that was done by the nazis, by the way, the american bomb was a reaction to the german nuclear project. once that door was opened and the threat of nuclear bombs existed, the only way to avoid it was to make it so utterly futile that nobody would dare use it. if there had been only 8 or 10 nukes during the cold war, you can be sure they would have been used the way they were used in hiroshima or nagasaki, and today los angeles and berlin and moscow and petersburg/leningrad might be the site of nuclear wastelands.

there is danger in the world regardless of whether we fear it or not; often the worst danger is the one we don't fear and catches us unprepared. a reasonable measure of fear is called prudence, and it's a sign of intelligence and good judgment. too much fear and you end up with insanity and paranoia, and the dangers born from it which can be greater of the original threat. but you cannot will away danger by simply refusing to feel fear. you feel it, you hear what it has to say, and you let it go and not become obsessed by it, you go on living. the equivalent is that you put on your seatbelt before you drive and then you can only hope that the person driving the opposite way doesn't suddenly veer into your lane.

but yes, this is not the most civil country, it's slightly savage, there is a strong racist streak and a lot of prejudice and violence, so how does one survive it? wait for the cops? what is your seatbelt?

[knox]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

it means death is all around.

To become obseesed with preventing death can lead to preventing LIVING.

even if you stay at home, never go out, never talk to anyone, and live all 70 yrs of yr life sequestered, death will find you. it could be a slippery tub, a stray bullet through the window, a particularly viruelnt mold in your attic, etc.

It would benefit mankind if there were no alcohol. alcohol related assaults, crashes, accidents, abuse, etc kill more people than most anything else. It would be nice to prevent thes4e deaths, but it is impossible.

In Saudi arabia alcohol is prohibited. women there still die at the hands of abusive husbands.

In china, no one is allowed to own a gun, yet people still go into schools and stab dozens of people and children to death.

my point is the problem lies in MAN not in man's weapons.

I'm very sorry but all that you're saying is illogical, absurd and atrocious.
It's like saying "why advance medicine if we're all gonna die anyway", it really is.
Every life that can be saved SHOULD be saved.
There are MORE deaths where there are more guns, not because guns make people murderous, but because they make killing easier.
One is much more likely to survive being stabbed, for example.
Individual rights, remember? Everyone has the right to not be killed.

Everyone dies, that's true. But we still try to save people as much as we can don't we? You don't say "grandpa i'm not gonna waste thousands of dollars with your cancer because it's likely to come back", do you?

Everyone dies, but everyone has the right to live the longest, happiest, healthiest life we can possible provide without having their life ridiculously interrupted and we should do WHATEVER we could to minimize the chances of that ever happening. Oh yeah, people will still stab, poison, hit people in the head but can you look at UK murder rates for example? DO YOU NOT SEE A DIFFERENCE THERE? It's out duty to prevent that from happening as much as possible.

You say individual rights, but it seems you only have them if you manage to be alive. The dead for you mean nothing, they're just dead. Because you're not the one whose chances of dying from a flying bullet while walking home from work in your district are on your mind everyday, you'd see things differently if you were.

Have you seen how quickly and randomly a bullet can come from far away and turn a person standing there into a memory in seconds? I have. Have you seen that in front of your eyes? Do you live in a particular place where you can hear gunshots while you're eating dinner every night? And to know all those people who died within seconds could have been alive if there was a LITTLE BIT MORE control.


If human life is not the centre of our 'rights' then we don't need any.

[SONIC GAIL]

Yall could have lobbied congress if yall put as much effort as yall did into a thread.

[knox]

1,000 guns are lost and stolen every year

Amnesty International:

Today, there are no global standards controlling the international trade in conventional arms to help protect human rights. Most governments continue to permit the irresponsible trade in weapons, munitions and other military and policing equipment, inflicting misery and carnage on people in many countries.
Every year hundreds of thousands of people are killed, injured, raped and forced to flee their homes as a result of armed violence. Amnesty International’s research shows that the majority of grave human rights abuses are committed using small arms, light weapons and other military and policing equipment.
To protect human rights, governments must prevent easy access to arms, and strictly regulate their lawful uses. Armed forces and police are too often poorly trained and unaccountable when measured by international human rights standards. Opposition groups, vigilantes, criminal gangs and civilians can also easily access and misuse arms, sometimes on a massive scale. Surplus and unlawful arms need to be removed and destroyed. And new supplies must urgently be restricted.



http://www.amnesty.org/en/campaigns/control-arms

[Rob Instigator]

knox, chill. you don;t know where I live or have lived or what I have gone through. I do not presume to know your life so chills when taking wild guesses about mine ok?

banning guns for the general populace results in ONLY the criminals and the pigs having guns. That is a FACT. regulation cannot stop accidents nor stupidity.

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

knox, chill. you don;t know where I live or have lived or what I have gone through. I do not presume to know your life so chills when taking wild guesses about mine ok?

banning guns for the general populace results in ONLY the criminals and the pigs having guns. That is a FACT. regulation cannot stop accidents nor stupidity.

She's been doing that the whole time (almost), which is why I refuse to take anything she says too seriously. If she's going to make false assumptions about other peoples lives, just imagine everything else she may make false assumptions about.

Nothing worse than trying to debate w/ someone who clearly has no concept as to what they are talking about.

@ knox....again, I suggest you read more. This little world that exists inside yr head is sooooo far from reality.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

lolz all youz guyz iz lame-o's

[Rob Instigator]

I bet those 150 women in the Sudan who were rounded up and gang raped for days on end wished they had a slew of guns with which to fucking wipe their rapists off the face of the earth.

[Rob Instigator]

Hell, I am a non-violent man and I'd gladly do it. all up close and shit too.

[GeneticKiss]

Rapists should be castrated. I think I've said this before.

Your manhood is a privilege, not a right. Abuse it and you lose it.

[knox]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

knox, chill. you don;t know where I live or have lived or what I have gone through. I do not presume to know your life so chills when taking wild guesses about mine ok?

banning guns for the general populace results in ONLY the criminals and the pigs having guns. That is a FACT. regulation cannot stop accidents nor stupidity.

that is not a fact.
all guns purchased by criminals were once legally manufactured, the industry needs regulation urgently - did you open that link?
if people buy more guns, then you turn it into a war rather than peace and the only people to profit are the shareholders of the companies.

the amnesty international has data saying that every year 1 million legally purchased guns go missing - what do you think it happens to them? they are being held by criminals now. That is the loophole being used for a lot of abuse outside of your country.

the lack of regulation in manufacturing, ownership and selling of guns is what's causing this, all the guns in the hands of civilians, criminals and terrorists have the same source.

regulation can't stop people from being stupid, but it can restrict the extent of the consequences.

and as for reading, there's a link up there for you to read.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

so yes, i agree with you that this is not the most civil of scenarios, and with voltaire that this is not the best of all possible worlds, but it's what we have to deal with, and i'm not sure i want to be the first martyr of some ideal cause. "i refuse to be armed, please kill me in the name of peace". sorry, not for me.

So this cynical defeatism is accurately described as idiotic? Surprising that I'm a revolutionary for having never owned a gun. Anyway this analogy of owning a gun and wearing a seat belt is the kind of absurd libertarian rational that anyone but an idiot would entertain. I'm sure you'll stop just shy of saying that owning a tech 9 is prudent. Which model is good judgment, do you think? Which kind of gun screams φρόνησις?

[ann ashtray]

Originally Posted by knox

that is not a fact.
all guns purchased by criminals were once legally manufactured, the industry needs regulation urgently - did you open that link?
if people buy more guns, then you turn it into a war rather than peace and the only people to profit are the shareholders of the companies.

the amnesty international has data saying that every year 1 million legally purchased guns go missing - what do you think it happens to them? they are being held by criminals now. That is the loophole being used for a lot of abuse outside of your country.

the lack of regulation in manufacturing, ownership and selling of guns is what's causing this, all the guns in the hands of civilians, criminals and terrorists have the same source.

regulation can't stop people from being stupid, but it can restrict the extent of the consequences.

and as for reading, there's a link up there for you to read.

So, does this mean that the criminals wouldn't be able to purchase guns through the dishonest folks who'd be able to legally purchase them?

Do you have any idea how things actually work? The world isn't quite as fucked up as you seem to think, it's MORE fucked up.

If there was NO way to purchase them, they'd be illegally manufactured. Guns are NOT difficult to make. VERY simple technology. I suggest you look into that, then you might realize this is hardly an issue worth debating.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by pbradley

So this cynical defeatism is accurately described as idiotic? Surprising that I'm a revolutionary for having never owned a gun. Anyway this analogy of owning a gun and wearing a seat belt is the kind of absurd libertarian rational that anyone but an idiot would entertain. I'm sure you'll stop just shy of saying that owning a tech 9 is prudent. Which model is good judgment, do you think? Which kind of gun screams φρόνησις?

it's not cynical defeatism to admit that we live in an imperfect world, that in this imperfect world there are armed violent people and that the cops always show up too late. it's also bad strategy to be the sole lamb in a room full of wolves. however, if you choose that route as a matter of principle, that's very admirable. not my path, however.

the tec 9 (not tech 9) is illegal, and no longer manufactured. it's also highly impractical unless you're a drug dealer. i'd recommend a glock 17 instead. phronesis by the way is also a character in one of my favorite novels-- come to think of it, his father was an artillery officer.

[knox]

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

So, does this mean that the criminals wouldn't be able to purchase guns through the dishonest folks who'd be able to legally purchase them?

No, this means in the long-term even their access would become more difficult. If they were illegally manufactured, that would be another problem to solve, but the current situation is that they are legally manufactured and the industry is not regulated, and that can be dealt with.

In fact, it's widely accepted that the lack of regulation in the industry causes a lot of the problems we see today, so much that the UN will try and impose a treaty for nations to regulate the gun industry. It's probably going to fail but that's to illustrate the point. The logic, stats and evidence are well-documented on the amnesty international's website. You can also search for information on the UN gun control treaty.

Although most sites you'll find at first are being sponsored by the billion dollar death industry.

I've been doing my research for years and following this issue closely, so I guess that answers your question regarding "do I know what I'm talking about".

If you're not going to consider serious credible stats, then you are not dealing with the issue rationally.

[ann ashtray]

There's no way to deal with the issue rationally...people love guns, and few people (like yourself) consider that within itself to be irrational.

The side of the fence I stand on has been winning, and will continue to win. I might be a bit ignorant in some regards, but this much I know.

This debate, to me, is on the same level of arguing about wether or not drunk people can piss in public alleys...there's absolutely no way the people that are against it can ever win. It just ain't gonna happen. Even if it happens to be against the law it will not cease to occur, not matter what.

I can appreciate (sometimes) the fact that you have a voice, knox, but at the same time it's almost pointless.

There are many, many, many sub-issues I think you are not even aware of, and even if ya might be, you haven't experienced them on such a level to ever truly be able to understand.

Stay inside, never leave, keep yr door locked, + you might be safe.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's not cynical defeatism to admit that we live in an imperfect world

Right, but is it becomes defeatism if you think that it cannot be improved.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's also bad strategy to be the sole lamb in a room full of wolves. however, if you choose that route as a matter of principle, that's very admirable. not my path, however.

Well, I entered this thread without any normative claims, merely asserting that I don't have any need for owning a gun and thus couldn't identify with gun ownership. I'm not in a room full of wolves, even when I was back in the states. I've never once been mugged nor have known anyone who has and, remember, I'm not living in some well-to-do bubble. An old friend of mine is a self-proclaimed 'survivalist' and is obsessed with guns and knives but all I ever hear about him is on Steam playing Counter-Strike and Borderlands. Even my friend who lives in East LA doesn't own a gun, just a rather adorable puppy.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the tec 9 (not tech 9) is illegal, and no longer manufactured. it's also highly impractical unless you're a drug dealer. i'd recommend a glock 17 instead.

But I'm afraid of drug dealers.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

phronesis by the way is also a character in one of my favorite novels-- come to think of it, his father was an artillery officer.

Terrible name for a person, I have to say.