Originally posted by backdoorman
What in the hell... People in general hold their eyes and hands in a much higher regard than their material possessions such as their watches and sunglasses and guns. Of course I cannot cite some research study for this but I doubt you think it untrue.
"From my cold, dead, hands"
?
Originally posted by backdoorman
What in the hell... People in general hold their eyes and hands in a much higher regard than their material possessions such as their watches and sunglasses and guns. Of course I cannot cite some research study for this but I doubt you think it untrue.
What does it matter? Is what people general view your standard for judgement? Random.
Originally posted by backdoorman
How so?
C-cause you do what you accuse me of.
Originally posted by inimalist
"From my cold, [b]dead, hands"? [/B]
Originally posted by backdoormanWhat exactly is your point then?
That's quite silly. I would hardly consider the NRA having adopted an incendiary slogan to be proof of their members being willing to have their hands chopped off and their eyes taken out before having the government force them to surrender their weapons (which is incidentally not something I would support).
Originally posted by Bardock42
What does it matter? Is what people general view your standard for judgement? Random.C-cause you do what you accuse me of.
C-cause you do what you accuse me of.
Originally posted by backdoorman
That's quite silly. I would hardly consider the NRA having adopted an incendiary slogan to be proof of their members being willing to have their hands chopped off and their eyes taken out before having the government force them to surrender their weapons (which is incidentally not something I would support).
lol
Wayco then
or Ruby Ridge
EDIT: You are going to be really hard pressed to argue that there aren't people in the states who are so driven by the second ammendment that they would die rather than give up their guns. Christian seperatists live in gun communities, much like Wayco, where they would answer with force to police. Elohim city is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by backdoorman
No. What people's general views are (within some parameters) is however the standard for judgment for the government.
For a democratic government, yes. So?
Originally posted by backdoorman
How so?
That "the strength with which you oppose stuff would not be a result of strange personal whims."
In this case, apparently, as you said, your personal whim to argue a socialist view (social democrats are socialist, STFU).
Originally posted by Bardock42
What exactly is your point then?
Originally posted by backdoorman
That the government always takes away some freedoms of its people to govern them.
True.
Originally posted by backdoorman
That these "surrenderable" freedoms have to be nonessential to the development of a human being (some exceptions being acceptable to this point).
Personal whim.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Regulations being imposed on gun sale is one of these freedoms.
Random
Originally posted by backdoorman
Sure, the government should try to give its people as much freedom as possible but it should balance that thought with a lot of other considerations one of them being public safety.
True. That's what I'm doing, isn't it? We just (possibly) disagree on the exact weighing.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Regulations being imposed on gun sale is one of these freedoms.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
to make that point you have to argue against why the Swiss are able to have very loose gun control very successfully
Originally posted by inimalist
lolWayco then
or Ruby Ridge
EDIT: You are going to be really hard pressed to argue that there aren't people in the states who are so driven by the second ammendment that they would die rather than give up their guns. Christian seperatists live in gun communities, much like Wayco, where they would answer with force to police. Elohim city is a good example of what I'm talking about.
For a democratic government, yes. So?
Personal whim.Random
True. That's what I'm doing, isn't it? We just (possibly) disagree on the exact weighing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stmto make that point you have to argue against why the Swiss are able to have very loose gun control very successfully
Originally posted by backdoorman
You did, you know, read my original comment, right? "People in general hold their..."
The US is a big country, yeah there's a minute minority that would rather die than give up its guns, they are hardly the mainstream though.
fair enough
but the fact that most people would disarm themselves because the state tells them too isn't an argument pro-gun control. If anything, it shows how the state's monopoly on the use of force makes people more willing to give up their rights.
The great age of democracy and of national self-determination was the age of the musket and the rifle. After the invention of the flintlock, and before the invention of the percussion cap, the musket was a fairly efficient weapon, and at the same time so simple that it could be produced almost anywhere. Its combination of qualities made possible the success of the American and French revolutions, and made a popular insurrection a more serious business than it could be in our own day. After the musket came the breech-loading rifle. This was a comparatively complex thing, but it could still be produced in scores of countries, and it was cheap, easily smuggled and economical of ammunition. Even the most backward nation could always get hold of rifles from one source or another, so that Boers, Bulgars, Abyssinians, Moroccans--even Tibetans--could put up a fight for their independence, sometimes with success. But thereafter every development in military technique has favoured the State as against the individual, and the industrialised country as against the backward one. There are fewer and fewer foci of power. Already, in 1939, there were only five states capable of waging war on the grand scale, and now there are only three--ultimately, perhaps, only two. This trend has been obvious for years, and was pointed out by a few observers even before 1914. The one thing that might reverse it is the discovery of a weapon--or, to put it more broadly, of a method of fighting--not dependent on huge concentrations of industrial plant.
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html
and just as an aside, yes, George Orwell predicted asymmetrical warfare and terrorism.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Can't really say as I have no idea what the situation is like in Switzerland. If you have some information you'd like to share that says guns have nothing to do with the Americans' high crime rate, I'd be happy to take a look.
I actually can't prove a negative
However, going from Canadian statistics, registered and legally owned guns are rarely if ever used by their owner for violence.
The violence is a problem stemming from social isolation and zero upward mobility. It is compounded by a lack of real role models and broken homes for kids, mixed with exposure to a culture of violence and respect where a kid from a poor family can be a somebody and be respected.
Does it really not make more sense that violence is caused by problems in people's lives than by the availability of weapons?
Originally posted by backdoorman
That's what I am arguing in favor of.
Well, then we should argue about whether our system is better than the other (for what reasons ever), because if your apply your axioms to my arguments or I apply my axioms to yours we are bound to hit some trouble.
Originally posted by backdoorman
My arguments are rationally (at least I think so...) formed, based on the premise that a democratic government is a desirable thing.
Which is yes, a personal whim.
Well, so do I. Just that mine are not based on a democratic government but a libertarian one based on the non aggression principle.
Which, also, is a personal whim.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Yeah, it is.
I enjoy that we are in agreement.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, then we should argue about whether our system is better than the other (for what reasons ever), because if your apply your axioms to my arguments or I apply my axioms to yours we are bound to hit some trouble.Well, so do I. Just that mine are not based on a democratic government but a libertarian one based on the non aggression principle.
Which, also, is a personal whim.I enjoy that we are in agreement.
fair enoughbut the fact that most people would disarm themselves because the state tells them too isn't an argument pro-gun control. If anything, it shows how the state's monopoly on the use of force makes people more willing to give up their rights.
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/abombs.html
and just as an aside, yes, George Orwell predicted asymmetrical warfare and terrorism.
I actually can't prove a negativeHowever, going from Canadian statistics, registered and legally owned guns are rarely if ever used by their owner for violence.
The violence is a problem stemming from social isolation and zero upward mobility. It is compounded by a lack of real role models and broken homes for kids, mixed with exposure to a culture of violence and respect where a kid from a poor family can be a somebody and be respected.
Does it really not make more sense that violence is caused by problems in people's lives than by the availability of weapons?
I agree that probably the main reason gun-related crimes occur is because of social circumstances in the offender's life, however, I also believe making guns freely available to all who are willing to pay for them will worsen the situation and make gun-related crimes' rate go up.
Originally posted by backdoorman
Never used it as such. I used it as a pro-people prefer their hands over their guns argument.
understood
Originally posted by backdoorman
Why can't you prove a negative? I can prove there isn't a two-hundred pound baby whale sitting on top of my head.
no, what you can actually say is that given all available evidence you must conclude that there is not a 200 pound baby whale on top of your head.
However, there is always the chance that new and better evidence may be found which actually confirms such.
There is something to be said for probability, but in actuality, one cannot prove a negative.
Originally posted by backdoorman
I agree that probably the main reason gun-related crimes occur is because of social circumstances in the offender's life, however, I also believe making guns freely available to all who are willing to pay for them will worsen the situation and make gun-related crimes' rate go up.
well yes, if situations exist which increase crime, gun crime will go up. So will crime using thousands of other means. Computer related crime is on the rise, should the owning of a computer be controlled for society's protection?
The facts remain that gun availability in a society is not related to violent crime in society.
I think the only thing that might support your argument is something called the "mere exposure effect". Some research shows that, in completely simulated environments, people will act in what is deemed an aggressive manner moreso in the presence of a fire arm than in the presence of sporting equipment. It is a controversial finding, but maybe if you argued something like "access to guns causes people who were going to be violent to do so with an object that potentially could harm more people" or "because people might own a gun, there is potential that they might behave more aggressively when it is around" it would be more solid. But I will point out specifically, the presence of a gun in the mere exposure effect does not increase "gun violence", just a lab measure of aggression. There is no mechanism by which simulated aggression can be linked to gun violence, meaning that even if people are more aggressive around guns, it is not proof that they will use them for a violent manner. In this interpretation, at very local levels, gun ownership migh raise domstic violence or non-gun related violence.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, what you can actually say is that given all available evidence you must conclude that there is not a 200 pound baby whale on top of your head.However, there is always the chance that new and better evidence may be found which actually confirms such.
There is something to be said for probability, but in actuality, one cannot prove a negative.
Well, mathematically one certainly can.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, actually they cannot. Human mathematics are unable to, with 100% accuracy, predict events.There is no way to reduce error to 0%. One can be so close as to warrant calling it zero, but never zero.
Haha, it seems no one knows this. Intervals in Calculus make this clear.