If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
My inference being based on the whole "Evolutionarily Stable Strategy" thing. Or a pair of ODE's. Or pretty much any model you care to construct in which you have two competing groups and a given characteristic which increases their ability to 'beat up' the other.
(Previously posted by doubro)
"What you are saying is that you fear people will overwhelmingly become criminals if given the freedom to own weapons. Such a notion is not merely ridiculous on it's face, but is insulting to basically everyone."
<Now there's a well and truly utterly wrong inference if ever I saw one!>
No, that's exactly what you are saying, as evidenced by your later comments that you were scared to be judged by your own hometown folks.
No, I didn't. I said gun ownership would rocket. I said nothing about crime rate. I said nothing about size of criminal population. I didn't even (gasp!) say whether gun ownership was good or bad. I just said, basically, that "guns breed guns."
Right! So lets then do away with the legal system, because all your fellow countrymen are totally incompetant and need to be kept far away from any postition of authority. The "Great Unwashed" are simply a bunch of dangerous illiterates who need the "Nanny State" to take care of them...
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Right. Right. In that order.
< They can conflict with what is right: in fact, they frequently do.>
No, they don't. Maintaining the Rights of the innocent is always moral. If you think for a second that someone trying to kill me has any rights left, you'd be wrong. People maintain their rights by maintaining their respect for others rights. Once there is an attack, the victims rights immediately take precedence...hence, no conflict.
That simply isn't compatible with the idea of rights being 'inalienable'.
And what happened to the 'rights of the innocent' at Hiroshima? Was every single Japanese citizen guilty and thus devoid of rights? Really? Interesting.
That doesn't sound like any Scientific method I'm aware of.
Hardly surprising.
Quick precis:
Observe. (Not strictly necessary.)
Hypothesize.
Observe and Compare.
If correlation is good, continue. Otherwise chuck the hypothesis out.
Yea, I know... but were here to stand up for and say what we can about our belief in FREEDOM before we are submerged in the coming Globalsim.
And the USA has such a great record of going out and enforcing those God-given rights, doesn't it? If you really believed in them you (the USA) wouldn't have this horrible tendency to isolationism that you do.
You're a pretty intelligent guy, and you seem to recognise the "if... then..." form of logical reasoning. Just like all of us, you make certain starting assumptions when you thrash out your philosophy. And I think you've realised that those assumptions are, essentially, abritrary, based on nothing more than emotionality. Like me, you see that decisions (i.e. judgements) must be made for day-to-day life to be possible. However, I think you've made one of two decisions at this point:
(1) Assumed that what works day-to-day must be right in all circumstances. (Think Newtonian mechanics here.)
(2) Realised that most people can't cope with uncertainty in their daily (moral) lives, and so it's a necessary evil to make out to them that there are moral absolutes. In order to convince them of this, these absolutes should be imbued with the highest possible authority, God.
Also, looking back, I can't seem to see myself opposing the "right to carry" any more than I have opposed any rights. Right from the start (no pun intended) my quarrel has been with the whole idea of "rights" in the first place, not any specific one.
<My inference being based on the whole "Evolutionarily Stable Strategy" thing. Or a pair of ODE's. Or pretty much any model you care to construct in which you have two competing groups and a given characteristic which increases their ability to 'beat up' the other.>
Well, the history of man is filled with the cooperation and trade as well. Technology can be used for good or ill. Your assumption that War and the technology of destruction defines humanity is a bit less than the definitive desciption of human behavior.
(Previously posted by doubro)
"What you are saying is that you fear people will overwhelmingly become criminals if given the freedom to own weapons. Such a notion is not merely ridiculous on it's face, but is insulting to basically everyone."
<No, I didn't. I said gun ownership would rocket. I said nothing about crime rate. I said nothing about size of criminal population. I didn't even (gasp!) say whether gun ownership was good or bad. I just said, basically, that "guns breed guns.">
Right, the implication being explicit in the the previous analogy about populations increasing in size and lethality. Neccessarily you contend that the more guns, the more violence. That is the whole point of the analogy. But this is not the case, and never was. There was violence before guns, before swords... there was always violence. Civilization and Cooperation has, to a degree, countered the increase in martial technology. As we've (The 1st world nations) gotten more dangerous, we've become less violent.
The "Great Unwashed" are simply a bunch of dangerous illiterates who need the "Nanny State" to take care of them...
<Right. Right. In that order.>
Well, that just confirms you truly are a Fascist.
(Doubro pp)
No, they don't. Maintaining the Rights of the innocent is always moral. If you think for a second that someone trying to kill me has any rights left, you'd be wrong. People maintain their rights by maintaining their respect for others rights. Once there is an attack, the victims rights immediately take precedence...hence, no conflict.[/b]
<That simply isn't compatible with the idea of rights being 'inalienable'.>
Sure it is... Think of it this way...
Some cars on the road have the right of way, even though both have the right to travel, one can take precedence over another when there is a conflict (Accident) if there is a clear violation of traffic rules. That doesn't mean that the driver in error doesn't have the right to travel, it's just that his rights are defered in favor of the other drivers rights due to his erroneous actions.
<And what happened to the 'rights of the innocent' at Hiroshima? Was every single Japanese citizen guilty and thus devoid of rights? Really? Interesting.>
It was a War.
While they were mostly "Collatoral Damage", the Industry there was still contributing to the war effort. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were some of the few places in Japan that weren't already bombed flat and they were still producing military supplies for the war effort. While Civilans were not ostensibly the intentional target of the military...
The military was still unsure of the effectiveness of the Nuclear weapons they had developed.
Civilians were still active participants in the war. Little Japanese kids that were wrapped up in explosives were called "Sherman Carpets"... and were seen up through the very last stages of the war anticipating a ground invasion. There were military targets in both cities, besides a show of force intended to save lives destined to be lost in a continuing conflict (one position I disagree with).
<Quick precis:
Observe. (Not strictly necessary.)
Hypothesize.
Observe and Compare.
If correlation is good, continue. Otherwise chuck the hypothesis out.>
You must have a methodologically consistent test with controls set up or your comparisions are worthless superstition.
Yea, I know... but were here to stand up for and say what we can about our belief in FREEDOM before we are submerged in the coming Globalsim.
<And the USA has such a great record of going out and enforcing those God-given rights, doesn't it? If you really believed in them you (the USA) wouldn't have this horrible tendency to isolationism that you do.[/B][/QUOTE]>
First of all, I beleive the tendancy to isolationism is simply a self defence response. Besides, not everyone in the U.S. believes in their own rights...I wish they did... then perhaps US history would be more consistent with these beliefs. I didn;t say the U.S. was perfect, only that the ideological foundation was righteous (No, not in the religous sense...Jeez)
By the way...I use "god given" (lower case G) as a metaphor for our unknowable circumstance of existence. I don't know why we're here, but the hell if I'm gonna let some Elitist or Statist tell me that I'm unable to make life and death decisions about preserving life, especailly if it's MY LIFE on the line. I consider everyone of equal value until they threaten me or someone else, then they ain't worth (to me) the salt in my tears.
First, if you read back you will see that in no way does what I said imply any extreme views. You said, The "Great Unwashed" are simply a bunch of dangerous illiterates who need the "Nanny State" to take care of them... Well, I may have a different idea of what the properties of the "Great Unwashed" are to yours, but I think dangerousness, illiteracy and the need for support and brainwashing (indeed, washing of all kinds <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"> ) are among them. I didn't make any statement about the existence of the G.U., only about their properties.
Second, I am not a Fascist or a fascist (and I trust that you know the difference). Reason: I'm not nationalistic. One counterexample is enough to disprove your proposition, though I could give more if you want...
Inalienable
Once again, "inalienable" means "cannot be taken or given away by ANYONE, including the possessor." Check Websters Online or any other dictionary if you don't believe me on this. My source, btw, is OED 10th Ed.
You must have a methodologically consistent test with controls set up or your comparisions are worthless superstition.
Of course. Where you get the hypothesis from is entirely up to you, though. All I did was throw in a theory: as long as it gets a fair hearing, I'm not all that bothered about its relative success or failure, except insofar as it may guide the formulation and testing of future hypotheses.
the hell if I'm gonna let some Elitist or Statist tell me that I'm unable to make life and death decisions about preserving life, especailly if it's MY LIFE on the line.
I never said you couldn't reach a decision. I only warned of the dangers of presuming yourself to be right.
Also, I wish you'd make up your mind as to what political philosophy you think I stand for.
how, then, can you explain the US refusal to send peace-keepers in to Macedonia, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of both ethnic albanians and macedonians.
in fact, the macedonia thing is an interesting case in point of disarmament. the rebels took up arms, and failed to achieve their aims. now, they are disarming of thier own volition, as is the government. negotiations are proceeding (with a few hiccups, as is inevitable) between the sides, and it looks as if the actual fighting was a bit of a waste of time, and failed to achieve anything. hmm. that sounds odd, doesnt it? government and citizens who distrust it BOTH disarming, and resolving their quarrels by a MATURE process of negotiation. now, that cant be right, can it?!
as for my example about the plane (going back a bit here), i'd be interested if someone could point out to me how that makes me a 'slave'. sure, i have my limitations (eg, i cant fly a plane), but that doesnt make me a coward, and that doesnt make me a slave. i rely on other people in society, to make the trains run, to fly the planes, to farm the food.
we cant all do everything, so does that make us less free? perhaps it does in a way, by taking away some of our individual freedoms so that government may function. but i have no objection to that, because that actually makes my life a bit better. ok, so i cant carry a gun, but i feel more secure walking the streets. as somebody said earlier, total individual freedom is anarchy - some reduction of that leads to a stable (quasi-)democracy. a vast reduction of that leads to totalitarianism. but that is protected against by the very institutions upon which government rests.
so, i'm quoted as being a slave, a coward, a fascist and only ever talk in mindless rhetoric. but, even if that is the case (!) i'm still a free elector, not afraid to defend my rights, a believer in democracy, and making a not-so-bad job of pickin whackin great holes in the morality and sense of your argument.
i dont mind the insults - they actually reinforce my position as the more mature, and the morally right.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Apologies for the late response on this one.
I think that even though an individual government may be inefficient, the society becomes more efficient for having a semi-specialised governmental group. Even though the nail-flattener may be a dunce, the team still profits from his specialisation. This make sense?
That's not to say, or course, that we have a "ruling class" in the traditional sense of the phrase. We're not saying that only X and their progeny may rule, just that society is better served by the business of government being handled by a group who don't also have to worry about keeping a stable, or flattening pin-heads, or other such tasks.
its called "the risk factor" and goes on to analyse the various ways he, as an american, is more to suffer an untimely and accidental death compared to british people. this is the bit about the guns though....
he goes on to talk about passive smoking and how ridiculous it is to "ban it on grounds of public safety when you are happy to let any old fool own a gun or drive around unbuckled".
proving, imho, that Americans are illogical and dont make sense <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
But that's in a private residence, where the law dares not intrude. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/biggrin.gif">
And I'm sorry, because although I count as 'fascist' on some of those points, I fail to meet most of the criteria. Looks like you may need a new term to describe the way you percieve my opinions.
I would wonder where he came up with his "statistics" given that it seems obvious that his book is intended to communicate his agenda, not facts.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Age and Guile by P.J. O'Rourke
Big Trouble by Dave Barry
The Way Things Ought to Be by Rush Limbaugh
They all qualify I believe under your criteria...
but why would he lie?
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
Diesel
88888888
None of the suggested books are about gun control. They are all humor to some extent or another. The point is that they are just as valid as your source...meaning of little or no validity.
I disagree. Without motivation for efficiency, ineffiency breeds. It isn't hard to illustrate. Most governments have "professional" ministries. They do not illustrate the same efficiency in any way that business does. More often, they illustrate an ability to reproduce themselves as inefficient. Although some areas may require "professionals", government of any sort needs oversight in order to avoid the ever increasing bloat that it creates for itself and which stifles nations (their own). There might be an argument to be made that the fall of the British Empire was caused by too much English Government vs the business interests that formed the Empire.
although quite what this has to do with guns is beyond me!
so, back on track - guns are bad, mmmkaaay!
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Yeah, I know that governments frequently tend to be self-serving and inefficient. My contention is that, even so, the society they govern benefits. The alternative, having everyone be the government, would be so incredibly unwieldy as to bring all other activity to a halt. Would anyone have time to read budget reports, defence strategies, draft health proposals, &c., think them through, and cast a vote in good time - and keep a day job?
Can I ask how many of those we caused by someone defending their own home?
I think that may be an important point in this discussion. The 'pro-guns' lobby claim that this is necessary for the defense of their property, yet the 'anti-guns' lobby say that they 'cause' more suffering. So which would be right. How many of the 40,000 people suffing GSWs were as a result an act of defense, how many were accidents, how many were deliberate acts of violence?
[This message has been edited by Doubro (edited 08-09-2001).]
Here are a few facts about gun control .
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that
because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment
don't matter?
CONSIDER THIS...
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to
1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun
control at approximately 56 million in the last century.
Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time
someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens
they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced
to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program
costing the government more than $500 million dollars.
The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8%,
and Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria,
homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures were showing a steady decrease
in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss
to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such
a monumental effort and expense was expended in "ridding society of
guns."
It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the
law-abiding citizens. Take action before it's too late, write or call your
delegation.
"I'd rather have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it."
defence of rights by freedom of speech is, in fact, one of the single greatest contributors to world history. at first, the Americans in the War of Independence did not go about shooting people - they made convincing arguments that won over the people. then they used force, but only because they had captured the hearts and minds of those who could back them forcefully.
yes, democracy can impinge one's 'freedoms' just as much as any dictatorship - for example the freedom to murder your neighbour if he pisses you off. hitler wouldn't allow it, nor will Bush. but its the IMPORTANT rights which remain in place in a democracy - free speech, free association, freedom of conscience etc etc.
Doubro, i applaud your naivete in denouncing that total individual freedom is anarchy. in theory you are right, but that's only if everyone behaves in a perfectly moral way (since then there would be no need for law), never argues. oh, then there would be no 'need' for guns either! the only reason you feel you 'need' a gun now, is to protect your rights. rights that are guaranteed in law (your own fucking constitution!), and enforced not by individuals, but by society (in the form of the judiciary and police). i seem to have posted this a billion times before, and every time i do, you conveniently skirt around the issue by saying that 'thats not the real issue', or some other bullshit excuse.
so answer me this straight: why, if society guarantees your rights, do you feel that society is in some way inferior t oyu, in that you feel you are the only one who can defend his rights properly? and before you answer, take care to think of the ramifications of your response - if you say that the police dont do the job, bear in mind that if guns were not around, there would be far less funding wasted on keeping tabs on who has guns, and far more money spent on controlling crime. take care that in your response, you do not incite an infringement of anyone else's rights (such as the right to life) by shooting them. i'd be interested to see if you can come up with an argument that somebody cannot counter.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
Hmmm...are you under the assumption that it is the job of the police to protect you? Or that "keeping tabs on who has guns" is an issue in a society that allows gun ownership (in fact, if I understand it correctly, keeping those 'tabs' is illegal in the States)?
Let me just say that I know damn well what the American courts have ruled on this subject, but...
If it isn't the job of the police forces to uphold the law and protect the innocent, what the hell is their job? Dusting?!
(I'm not saying that only they have such a responsibility, but that they do have it nonetheless.)
The Supreme Court of the United States has CONSISTENTLY held that it is the responsibility of the police to apprehend suspected criminals AFTER THE FACT and deliver them to the judicial system. It is NOT their responsibility to protect the citizenry. They are CONSISTENTLY deemed NOT LIABLE for harm which might come to a citizen. It is the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN to look out after himself, to protect himself.
ALL gun control laws are ILLEGAL according to our Constitution, but there is such a prevalence of the Degenerate Left who seek to control ALL FUNCTION of the sheep that they would politically enslave that they have perverted our Constitution within their prevarications. They lie their asses off, and the weak of mind bleating sheep lap up their bullshit with zeal.
Benjamin Franklin wrote that them who would trade their freedom for the momentary illusion of safety are deserving of NEITHER the freedom NOR the safety.
Two centuries plus, and THAT TRUTH HAS NOT CHANGED!
BASIC TRUTH: when a burglar climbs through your window, dial 911 (for police) and DIE! Dial up 1911 (as in .45 caliber handgun) and LIVE! Within your cowardice, you might bleat and plead for Big Brother to protect you, as Big Brother might deem fit, IF Big Brother deems fit, but MANY of US are NOT cowards, and would have you responsible for your attempt to enslave us.
'The law forbids tyranny in all its forms'. yet later on in your post you assert that the police (the law enforcers) have no responsibility to prevent this tyranny from occurring?!
as for free speech being a key to defending rights, you cannot actively defend them if you do not know what it is you are fighting for, therefore speech (one of the most effective means of communication) is often a precursor to active defence of rights.
the stuff about the american war of independence - militiamen flocked to the American cause because they were convinced by what their leaders were saying. only a few times in history have a people taken action without a leader, and leaders are the ones that speak the great words, and change the course of history.
'hearts and minds' is Maoist bullshit is it? sounds REMARKABLY similar to an American campaign in Vietnam! what people believe is of tantamount importance in any situation, particularly in military ones. the american rebels won in part because the people believed that their cause was just (and in part because of France, but i wont go in to that). Yes, Mao won because he captured the hearts and minds of the chinese people, but so did washington, jefferson et al.
technically, there is no-one to STOP you from killing your neighbour. you restrain yourself, because otherwise you will end up in the slammer for life. (or dead, if your unluvky enough to live stateside). so, you obey society, because the retribution will far outweigh any gain.
'freedom of conscience' - synonymous with freedom of belief, but without the religious overtones. eg, the freedom to be a socialist, if one so wishes. pretty fuckin important right, i'd say.
I do not think most people will become criminals. however, i believe that if you give everyone access to guns, there will be far more anger-related killings which would not take place if such a simple (and relatively clean) method of deadly force was not available. its a question of the lesser of two evils - trusting the police to prevent crime, or trusting everyone not to get pissed off and shoot you.
the rights i speak of are the ESSENTIAL rights, but why do you feel that YOU PERSONALLY must take up arms to defend your freedom of speech? your freedom of conscience?
in human terms, society is 'everywhere at all times', because as you yourself noted, you are a member of society. therefore, wherever you go, society goes, and your rights are defended. but there you again with your bill of rights bullshit. how many times do we have to over this that LAWS CAN BE WRONG, just like the people that make them. their ideals become outdated, and they hold no relevance. take for example the 'sea sand act' of 1621. in Cornwall at the time, theft of sand from the beaches was a major black market industry, so a law was introduced, forbidding the removal of sand from the beach. at the time, noone could argue. nowadays, the law is utterly stupid, so it has been revoked. perhaps the same applies to other laws/rights (like the right to bear arms, perhaps......)
Finally, you ask (and i quote):
Are you a teenager?
the answer to which is 'yes'. not that shocking; after all, this is a site aimed at young people. what is resent is the fact that you consider MY AGE to make my opinions invalid or somehow fraudulent. i have no idea how old you are (i presume that you are some deal older than me), and it makes no difference to me - your opinion is worth the same no matter how old you may be, and no matter how vehemently i disagree with it.
perhaps i havent been corrupted by the cynicism of age yet, perhaps i still have the idealism of youth, perhaps i do still look at the deeper meaning rather than being lost in the small print. whatever difference my age makes to my personal judgement, i am disgusted that you would dare to use age as an expression of superiority or higher morality.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
And your right where ever I go my rights are protected by me (as part of soceity) in the form of ACP .45, I love this measure it allows .45 cal rounds to go down range and protect my rights.
What you call "idealism" is self-evident naivite. What you call "cynicism" is the voice of experience.
The most dangerous place in the United Stated is the city of Washington, our national capitol, followed by New York City, where hand guns have been illegal or severely restricted FOR A LONG TIME. EVERYPLACE where the right to carry a concealed weapon has been affirmed, or legislated through permits, VIOLENT CRIME HAS RAPIDLY BEEN REDUCED! In towns where arming oneself has been mandated, REQUIRED BY LAW, murder has been eliminated.
Look at Australia, where guns have been outlawed and confiscated... Violent crime is on a RAPID ASCENT!
More accurate would be that your anal/cranial inversion has limited your exposure to the light of day.
"An armed society is a polite society". Sound familiar?
Perhaps in your libertine licentious state, you fear the consequences of your nefarious behavior? Might have to own up to accountability and responsibility? Afraid the lawless would have to pay the consequences for their transgressions? Or is it simply that you believe your life is NOT worth protecting? Too much self-esteem and not enough self-respect?
POINT IN FACT: If a mugger assaults you as you walk the street, he will escape with WHATEVER he fucking pleases, and most likely NOT ever be caught. If a mugger attempts the assault upon me, he will die, and be an example to the others of his ilk. Which occaision do you think will impair the spread of crime?
To choose NOT to arm yourself, you have chosen to be a "victim", the only question is the matter of timing. To arm yourself is to choose to be a combatant, and NO ONE may victimize you, EVER! You cower, I fight back. You exist ONLY because the likes of me are present, and the would-be mugger/assailant might be confused upon which of us he is confronting.
BLINDING STRIKE OF CLARITY ~ guess what, junior? Even tho guns are generally illegal in your country, they are more easily obtained, ILLEGALLY, than legally obtained in my country.
How safe do you feel now???
[This message has been edited by berzerker (edited 09-09-2001).]