Guns again...

Duck and cover
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19761
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Guns again...

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:59 am

Major Malfunction wrote:
kennyc wrote:Go box a kangaroo or something and leave us alone. It's none of your business. :mrgreen:

It's our business, because the Yanks can't leave the world well alone.

I often wish we would.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12193
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Guns again...

Postby kennyc » Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:55 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:
kennyc wrote:Go box a kangaroo or something and leave us alone. It's none of your business. :mrgreen:

It's our business, because the Yanks can't leave the world well alone.

I often wish we would.



Me too. Let the {!#%@} fend for themselves instead of us always rescuing their asses.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Guns again...

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:03 pm

kennyc wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:
kennyc wrote:Go box a kangaroo or something and leave us alone. It's none of your business. :mrgreen:

It's our business, because the Yanks can't leave the world well alone.

I often wish we would.



Me too. Let the {!#%@} fend for themselves instead of us always rescuing their asses.


It's looking up recently. We're not going into Iraq to rescue them with the current insurgency, and we are pulling out of Afghanistan.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jun 15, 2014 6:12 pm

digress wrote:I propose no gun violence would exist if only we could get Kim Jung Ill into office.


He be ded. :(
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:34 pm

digress wrote:
How do you get off on saying this and yet I'm the one being portrayed as the troll? I don't think you are a troll, just for the sake of reason, I ask.

I just saw this and haven't had time to read or am fully responding here. But, I do NOT believe that you appear as a troll in the least here. I thought the comment above was in fun and no other.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:29 pm

clarsct wrote:JO:..So what you seem to be saying is that morally questionable people should not own guns.


I never sed anything about moralz. Read the 1st post uv the 2nd amendment topic.
Your example scenario illustrates the same point.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:40 pm

digress wrote:
I also know you don't think morality exists, only law. You were plain about that earlier in stating law does not impact good or bad values on a society, yet wanted to instill a new law banning guns. No, I understand. People are immoral animals and we need to control them somehow! Your immoral nature is creepy on more than one account in this thread.

It's tough to be able to express my opinion on morals without some, such as you might have, to be assuming this implication, especially by the way I tackle arguments often. It doesn't mean that I am immoral as I have fairly strong emotional ones due to my own cultural influence. Morals are hard not to absorb from our environment any more than the emotions we have evolved with as humans.

The only thing I can say here is that while logically anything goes in reality, there are things which have more efficiency given certain goals we all have in common. I think this might even deserve a thread in its own right to discuss how we can determine this and optimize them amongst varying options. So I'll just try to leave it at that until we do.

For the sake of gun control, I take a more utilitarian approach with the goals of (1) minimizing the harm of individuals by quantity and (2) minimizing the qualitative & quantitative suffering of individuals when and where these are inevitable to occur. These may appear similar but they can lead to appearing to support odd things when I argue how given a bad event, like one being criminally assaulted, I argue to favor those criminals who, when they do act, to do so by minimizing the suffering involved. But when I argue this way, people often find this uncomfortable because it seems to appear to be mistakenly supporting the act in the first place. This is often what makes it look 'creepy'. But I've already lived a life experiencing that the 'creep' factor isn't anything that one can rarely do to alter those accusing it of you regardless and trying to defend oneself only leads to being thought of as more 'creepy'. So I have a better understanding of this and now don't actually care what people think. So I embrace it instead where I find it useful.

I was in the Militia for a short time in my youth and was raised as a Military brat surrounded by guns (Note that the military strictly distinguishes 'guns' as hand-held devices and long arms as "rifles" ; this might help you understand those who use specifically unconventional words as you mentioned about some guy elsewhere who did this.) My father too supports a variation on gun controls while in specifics, he would also agree with you here to the degree this is carried out. But we are Canadian and the laws in this area are a little better here to handle those things. It is that Second Amendment for which is the problem I see because I see it as the pivotal origin to your uniquely American problem here.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:25 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
digress wrote:
I also know you don't think morality exists, only law. You were plain about that earlier in stating law does not impact good or bad values on a society, yet wanted to instill a new law banning guns. No, I understand. People are immoral animals and we need to control them somehow! Your immoral nature is creepy on more than one account in this thread.

It's tough to be able to express my opinion on morals without some, such as you might have, to be assuming this implication, especially by the way I tackle arguments often. It doesn't mean that I am immoral as I have fairly strong emotional ones due to my own cultural influence. Morals are hard not to absorb from our environment any more than the emotions we have evolved with as humans.

The only thing I can say here is that while logically anything goes in reality, there are things which have more efficiency given certain goals we all have in common. I think this might even deserve a thread in its own right to discuss how we can determine this and optimize them amongst varying options. So I'll just try to leave it at that until we do.

For the sake of gun control, I take a more utilitarian approach with the goals of (1) minimizing the harm of individuals by quantity and (2) minimizing the qualitative & quantitative suffering of individuals when and where these are inevitable to occur. These may appear similar but they can lead to appearing to support odd things when I argue how given a bad event, like one being criminally assaulted, I argue to favor those criminals who, when they do act, to do so by minimizing the suffering involved. But when I argue this way, people often find this uncomfortable because it seems to appear to be mistakenly supporting the act in the first place. This is often what makes it look 'creepy'. But I've already lived a life experiencing that the 'creep' factor isn't anything that one can rarely do to alter those accusing it of you regardless and trying to defend oneself only leads to being thought of as more 'creepy'. So I have a better understanding of this and now don't actually care what people think. So I embrace it instead where I find it useful.

I was in the Militia for a short time in my youth and was raised as a Military brat surrounded by guns (Note that the military strictly distinguishes 'guns' as hand-held devices and long arms as "rifles" ; this might help you understand those who use specifically unconventional words as you mentioned about some guy elsewhere who did this.) My father too supports a variation on gun controls while in specifics, he would also agree with you here to the degree this is carried out. But we are Canadian and the laws in this area are a little better here to handle those things. It is that Second Amendment for which is the problem I see because I see it as the pivotal origin to your uniquely American problem here.


That's a fair statement.

It was creepy because you continued to hold the constitution as sacred in your attempts to defame it's "sacredness". >The irony here was thick.

I still uphold that other nations should adopt extending freedoms and this includes the right to own(not actually carry) a gun. Practicing this enlightenment gives value behind civil society and is a moral practice every generation needs to develop whether it's about guns or other freedom-based laws.

I think in the case of America, the up-rise in shooting will not deter simply by banning guns. I see your Utilitarian motive, but I'd ask people to reflect on the idea that with the break down of religion in America you will see an up-rise in immoral behavior.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:43 pm

digress wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:
digress wrote: ...
You're the only one talking about banning guns altogether and removing all freedoms, here.

...declaring any restriction is the end of all freedom.


I want Scott Mayers to confirm how true this statement is based on my reasoning in this thread. Is this what I've stated?

I've already confirmed that I don't think you are supporting banning here. I think Major here was not accusing you of supporting that this is your view. The way he's written it is just ambiguous. He can defend this for himself and may already have following this quoted post (I haven't caught up yet). Giving charity to this, I'm assuming that he's responding to assuming that you may appear believe that we are presuming something upon you that we don't by your responses. It's just miscommunication. I think everyone here agrees to some form of controls but differ on causes of problems and means to create the best laws for the issue.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Jun 15, 2014 10:50 pm

kennyc wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:....

You guys are sick and you know it. ////



Nope. That's your opinion. You can keep it.

Sorry, I was being rhetorically emphatic to the issue. I don't actually think anyone is any more or less sick than the next person. At least I cannot determine one's actual internal mindset one way or the other.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19761
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Guns again...

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jun 16, 2014 12:03 am

kennyc wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Major Malfunction wrote:
kennyc wrote:Go box a kangaroo or something and leave us alone. It's none of your business. :mrgreen:

It's our business, because the Yanks can't leave the world well alone.

I often wish we would.



Me too. Let the {!#%@} fend for themselves instead of us always rescuing their asses.

WWII would have been funner without us.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:12 am

Scott Mayers wrote: I've already confirmed that I don't think you are supporting banning here.


TY I hoped I was not that inarticulate.

Scott Mayers wrote: I think Major here was not accusing you of supporting that this is your view. The way he's written it is just ambiguous.


language...
Image
amirite
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby digress » Mon Jun 16, 2014 2:43 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote: WWII would have been funner without us.

Image

How old are you!??
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: Guns again...

Postby clarsct » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:39 am

JO 753 wrote:
clarsct wrote:JO:..So what you seem to be saying is that morally questionable people should not own guns.


I never sed anything about moralz. Read the 1st post uv the 2nd amendment topic.
Your example scenario illustrates the same point.

Sorry, when you say that just having the gun in the same room as you would make you more likely to kill....that's a moral issue.

I'll get around to the link. I generally don't join threads after they've gone a certain length. There's a point of diminishing returns.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
Lstratos
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 12:32 pm
Location: 123 street

Re: Guns again...

Postby Lstratos » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:40 pm

The origin of the English word gun is considered to derive from the name given to a particular historical weapon. Domina Gunilda was the name given to a remarkably large ballista, a mechanical bolt throwing weapon of enormous size, mounted at Windsor Castle during the 14C.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:26 pm

Lstratos wrote:The origin of the English word gun is considered to derive from the name given to a particular historical weapon. Domina Gunilda was the name given to a remarkably large ballista, a mechanical bolt throwing weapon of enormous size, mounted at Windsor Castle during the 14C.

Basic military training clearly distinguishes a rifle from a gun. Only in common colloquial conversation do we call all projectile weapons that use some form of propellant (usually chemical) that accelerates a projectile to describe a gun.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:24 am

Now if we only got rid of all the cars, there'd be no more auto accidents.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:31 am

landrew wrote:Now if we only got rid of all the cars, there'd be no more auto accidents.

Cars are not intended to by design to cause accidents that kill. Guns ARE intended by design to kill. So your comparison is invalid.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:46 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:Now if we only got rid of all the cars, there'd be no more auto accidents.

Cars are not intended to by design to cause accidents that kill. Guns ARE intended by design to kill. So your comparison is invalid.

More to the point, the deaths caused by cars is considered "worth" the offsetting benefits. The more sophisticated Gun Nuts will argue that the net positive benefit of guns is the lives they save...but they say this as if having a gun was the only way to save a life. so again, the comparison is invalid.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Wed Oct 14, 2015 12:48 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:Now if we only got rid of all the cars, there'd be no more auto accidents.

Cars are not intended to by design to cause accidents that kill. Guns ARE intended by design to kill. So your comparison is invalid.


The only people who use guns to kill are criminals and soldiers. The vast majority of gun owners have no intention of killing anyone, and they are the only ones gun-control controls.

If you make something contraband, it creates an instant demand for it; the war on drugs has shown us that. Banning guns is not the answer; anyone who wants to get a gun will have no trouble getting one. Sandy Hook had a total gun-ban, but all that accomplished was to make the shooter certain that no one would oppose him.

Flawed logic.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:04 am

landrew: you admit guns are used by people to kill other people intentionally or by accident (I usually don't include suicides). This and its impact on society is the burden of gun ownership. What is the countervailing "good" that makes this cost worthwhile?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:landrew: you admit guns are used by people to kill other people intentionally or by accident (I usually don't include suicides). This and its impact on society is the burden of gun ownership. What is the countervailing "good" that makes this cost worthwhile?

Yes, and I admit that poison, knives, baseball bats, pressure-cookers, crossbows, nail-guns and crowbars are used by people to kill other people intentionally or by accident, just to name a few. Are you saying we should ban them all too?

Do you know how many people are killed in prisons, where anything remotely lethal is banned? It's a futile argument.

Do I want everyone to have guns? Of course not, but gun-control is a pointless exercise. It's a much better idea to work on defense.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:21 am

landrew wrote:Yes, and I admit that poison, knives, baseball bats, pressure-cookers, crossbows, nail-guns and crowbars are used by people to kill other people intentionally or by accident, just to name a few. Are you saying we should ban them all too?.

I assume by being intentionally obtuse and non responsive to the direct question asked that you do not even recognize the benefit that guns provide?

My point being, those benefits do not outweigh the harm. Folks can differ on that value statement but they at least have to make the case before continuing in their madness that "there is no point."

How to best defend against gun violence/or moreso gun prevalence in society is in fact the ENTIRE POINT. If you could answer direct questions put to you, you might slowly come to see that.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:28 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
landrew wrote:Yes, and I admit that poison, knives, baseball bats, pressure-cookers, crossbows, nail-guns and crowbars are used by people to kill other people intentionally or by accident, just to name a few. Are you saying we should ban them all too?.

I assume by being intentionally obtuse and non responsive to the direct question asked that you do not even recognize the benefit that guns provide?

My point being, those benefits do not outweigh the harm. Folks can differ on that value statement but they at least have to make the case before continuing in their madness that "there is no point."

How to best defend against gun violence/or moreso gun prevalence in society is in fact the ENTIRE POINT. If you could answer direct questions put to you, you might slowly come to see that.

I was direct and more. The larger point is that every tool can be used for either good or evil purposes. Your value-judgment of "more harm than good" is simply your opinion, nothing more. I don't own a gun, but friends of mine value them very highly as "more good than harm," so value-judgments don't count as objective facts. Consider your points refuted.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:38 am

landrew wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:Now if we only got rid of all the cars, there'd be no more auto accidents.

Cars are not intended to by design to cause accidents that kill. Guns ARE intended by design to kill. So your comparison is invalid.


The only people who use guns to kill are criminals and soldiers. The vast majority of gun owners have no intention of killing anyone, and they are the only ones gun-control controls.

If you make something contraband, it creates an instant demand for it; the war on drugs has shown us that. Banning guns is not the answer; anyone who wants to get a gun will have no trouble getting one. Sandy Hook had a total gun-ban, but all that accomplished was to make the shooter certain that no one would oppose him.

Flawed logic.

"Criminal" is itself a relative term and only defines the formal act of some community to impose some value over another. So should you also not extend your argument for a right to have guns to favor a right to be a criminal by default?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:42 am

landrew: In your estimation, what is the benefit of gun ownership that outweighs 30,000 gun deaths per year?

To help you out: personal mobility and commerce provided by motor vehicles sustaining our 12 Trillion Dollar per year GNP is "worth" the death of 50K people per year. If a democratic vote were held on the issue, car ownership would be greatly supported.

The opposite for guns. So....where is the countervailing benefit in your mind?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby landrew » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:45 am

Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:
landrew wrote:Now if we only got rid of all the cars, there'd be no more auto accidents.

Cars are not intended to by design to cause accidents that kill. Guns ARE intended by design to kill. So your comparison is invalid.


The only people who use guns to kill are criminals and soldiers. The vast majority of gun owners have no intention of killing anyone, and they are the only ones gun-control controls.

If you make something contraband, it creates an instant demand for it; the war on drugs has shown us that. Banning guns is not the answer; anyone who wants to get a gun will have no trouble getting one. Sandy Hook had a total gun-ban, but all that accomplished was to make the shooter certain that no one would oppose him.

Flawed logic.

"Criminal" is itself a relative term and only defines the formal act of some community to impose some value over another. So should you also not extend your argument for a right to have guns to favor a right to be a criminal by default?

Nonsensical.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:51 am

Nonsensical /// Well, it makes sense as an "extended argument" it just happens to be wrong in its assumptions/set up as there is no "right" to be a criminal. The same issue could be fairly raised as "empowering" the criminal class.

guns do empower criminals in their dastardly deeds..... part of the burden of gun availability.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:17 am

landrew

It is clearly sensible. You interpret your 'right' to own a gun based on interpreting this as an arbitrary 'right' by nature itself to dismiss moral judgments about the gun's function to kill. Thus, the same is with whether one is 'criminal' is more about how and who has the power to interpret one as a criminal or not. With respect to nature, no moral injunction recognizes what a 'criminal' is.

So by extension, if you assert that guns don't kill but only those who are 'criminal' do so with guns, you should accept that criminals also don't kill, only those who deem them as criminals are the ones responsible for creating them. So if we remove the stigma against any action as 'crime' then we remove the existence of "criminals" as so voila, even any gun killings are also justified.

Why for instance am I not also allowed to own a nuke? Or why am I not allowed to carry any bomb on me personally. I might like the idea that it is my right to have such a bomb. And if I haven't used it yet, should I not too be considered a responsible owner of it? Should we only interpret those who actually use their own bombs to harm others as in violation after the fact?

So your own belief is severely circular and irrational.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 6:12 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:To help you out: personal mobility and commerce provided by motor vehicles sustaining our 12 Trillion Dollar per year GNP is "worth" the death of 50K people per year.


Actually thats wutever number uv people can be counted az living due to the the transportation system minus 50k who get killed by it.

Its probably possible to estimate the number rather than shutting the system down for a year and counting everybody who failz to make it to the hospital by walking, evrybody who starvez to deth kuz the entire food delivery system crashez, and all the other systemz that depend on carz, trucks and roadz to operate.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10682
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:42 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:landrew

It is clearly sensible. You interpret your 'right' to own a gun based on interpreting this as an arbitrary 'right' by nature itself to dismiss moral judgments about the gun's function to kill. Thus, the same is with whether one is 'criminal' is more about how and who has the power to interpret one as a criminal or not. With respect to nature, no moral injunction recognizes what a 'criminal' is.

So by extension, if you assert that guns don't kill but only those who are 'criminal' do so with guns, you should accept that criminals also don't kill, only those who deem them as criminals are the ones responsible for creating them. So if we remove the stigma against any action as 'crime' then we remove the existence of "criminals" as so voila, even any gun killings are also justified.

Why for instance am I not also allowed to own a nuke? Or why am I not allowed to carry any bomb on me personally. I might like the idea that it is my right to have such a bomb. And if I haven't used it yet, should I not too be considered a responsible owner of it? Should we only interpret those who actually use their own bombs to harm others as in violation after the fact?

So your own belief is severely circular and irrational.


:roll: :roll: :roll: Same old irrational {!#%@} from the anti-gunners. I assume you are sincere in your desire to rid the planet of guns, but your arguments are deeply flawed.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19761
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Guns again...

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:12 pm

digress wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote: WWII would have been funner without us.
[hentai deleted]
How old are you!??

I did my Masters on "US-Japanese Diplomatic Relations Prior to Dec. 7th, 1941, With An Analysis Of Prejudicial Translation In The "Magic" Intercepts."
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:32 pm

xouper wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:landrew

It is clearly sensible. You interpret your 'right' to own a gun based on interpreting this as an arbitrary 'right' by nature itself to dismiss moral judgments about the gun's function to kill. Thus, the same is with whether one is 'criminal' is more about how and who has the power to interpret one as a criminal or not. With respect to nature, no moral injunction recognizes what a 'criminal' is.

So by extension, if you assert that guns don't kill but only those who are 'criminal' do so with guns, you should accept that criminals also don't kill, only those who deem them as criminals are the ones responsible for creating them. So if we remove the stigma against any action as 'crime' then we remove the existence of "criminals" as so voila, even any gun killings are also justified.

Why for instance am I not also allowed to own a nuke? Or why am I not allowed to carry any bomb on me personally. I might like the idea that it is my right to have such a bomb. And if I haven't used it yet, should I not too be considered a responsible owner of it? Should we only interpret those who actually use their own bombs to harm others as in violation after the fact?

So your own belief is severely circular and irrational.


:roll: :roll: :roll: Same old irrational {!#%@} from the anti-gunners. I assume you are sincere in your desire to rid the planet of guns, but your arguments are deeply flawed.

Isn't this a site to debate our views? I can respect you better for at least attempting to argue why rather than 'tweeting' a stance of dissent. You'd also be surprised how I could relate to understanding your views as well given other unspoken rationales that much of your side is actually defending distinct from guns themselves. Like, the 'hidden' fear of having some government who might relatively come in power to which you find utmost offensive, for instance. Thus you might actually be thinking of gun ownership as merely a means to have the power to overthrow such offensive governments, right? At least argue for your position and don't presume that I'm 'against' you for your potential real justifications in sincerity.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10682
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby xouper » Wed Oct 14, 2015 11:07 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:At least argue for your position ...

Scott, I have been doing that for years on this forum.

I have already explained my arguments at great length. I have posted hundreds of times with detailed justifications for my position on guns as well as detailed rebuttals of the flawed arguments used against guns. I have lost interest in repeating myself. I have decided instead (for the moment, at least) to adopt Gawdzilla's tactic of taking pot shots whenever someone posts BS. It takes far less time and effort.

If you want to understand my position on guns, it's already all here on the forum. All you have to do is go read them.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Guns again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Oct 15, 2015 12:06 am

It's okay to repeat it for those of us to participate in fairly, though. At least you could link to what you think there instead of requiring me to read through some indetermined number of threads and their posts to interpret your view, right?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:05 am

I also have posted for years regarding Gun Nuts and banning the gun. It is irritating to have to raise all the shop worn arguments and basically as Landrew demonstrates never have the argument actually engaged.

Its the price of admission if you want to be relevant.

If the passage of time has not modified your position "just a little" and be worth a confirming rethink prior to posting: you may be brain dead.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10682
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby xouper » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:38 am

Scott Mayers wrote:It's okay to repeat it for those of us to participate in fairly, though. At least you could link to what you think there instead of requiring me to read through some indetermined number of threads and their posts to interpret your view, right?

Maybe some day I might be motivated enough to post an index of all the relevant posts.

Maybe I could do that after I rearrange my stereo wires*.




________________________________________________________________
* Footnote: Apologies to Terri Clark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSLv_tShIU at time index 2:10

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:44 am

My {!#%@} is ice cream. Here: have a scoop.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12382
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Guns again...

Postby JO 753 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:16 am

Maybe we coud ask Pyrrho to put all the gun thredz into a new subforum like he did for the Holocost Denierz. Make it eazy to find all uv them.
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11005
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Guns again...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Oct 15, 2015 7:55 am

Does remind me of that joke about the guys in prison all remembering the number of the joke from a joke book and some dude would yell out "73!" and everyone would laugh. Then the newbie wanting to play read the book and remembered the best joke was No 47, so he yelled that out and no one cracked a smile. He asked his cellmate what was wrong and got the answer: "It was how you told it.".... or timing. Ha, ha.....whatever the punch line was.

Yep..........no reason to think about it: "My mind is made up." See #42.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest