User Controls
The 2nd amendment
-
2015-07-26 at 7:04 PM UTC
Like criminals are going to stop being criminals because a piece of paper says so, silly lefties.
Nowhere have I even come close to saying that. The right's response to any argument: YOU'RE SO NAIEVE AND IDEALISTIC BECAUSE <MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT> JUST DOESN'T WORK.If I knew how to post a .gif, I would post a picture of 'how a firearm works'. I admire machinery all the time, and animals, and all kinds of stuff. Maybe I used the wrong word here. The gif I wanted to post is pretty cool, I can sit and watch the round being chambered for hours, Then again, I am one of those types of people who enjoy working in a factory.,
Alright, fair enough. I know a little about how guns work, it does seems like there's some interesting craftsmanship involved, but again I don't see why that has a bearing on private ownership of guns. Like weapons grade uranium also has some interesting properties but I don't think that makes a case for free distribution and ownership of it.
And again, you still haven't told me why my views on the subject are going have an effect on your acceptance of a given piece of evidence.This is why I posted what I did, right below my post. I knew you were going to say this, but individualism does not guarantee selfishness. What we choose to do with that individualism is up to us. Most of us will choose to do the right thing and take care of our loved ones. Most people are good and decent, and I believe in people. They don't need some elite know-it-all to 'coerce' them into 'doing the right thing', Most people do the right thing every day, not out of fear of getting in trouble, but because that is what people do.
Even if that were true (and I have obviously have my doubts) you still have to either retract your statement about not caring about maximizing social utility or admit that the proposed benefits of "individualism" are unable to justify it as social policy. In other words your argument seems to be "individualism leads to more positive outcomes than socialism, thus that should be our social system" (which is a highly contentious claim but we'll put that aside for now), but that implies that positive outcomes justify social policy (something I agree with) and thus your comment that:I don't give a fuck about 'a net win for us', I care about having the ability and option to arm myself if I see fit.
seems disingenuous.Most cops are idiots. I have cops in my extended family. The one guy has like 50 guns, stashed all over his house, he has a .40 on top of his refrigerator in a breadbox.
Cops with 50 guns stashed around their house is clearly not what I'm proposing here. Obviously these are privately owned guns, not state issued ones, the fact that he's an idiot and has a bunch of guns just supports my point.He is a moron, and it would be easy to steal lots of guns off this guy if one so desired. My ex is married to him, and she is a cop too, She is barely 5' tall and I could easily overpower her and penetrate her….wait I mean disarm her….
But again how is this situation better for private gun ownership. As it stands dumb people and 5' tall women who are even less well equipped to retain their weapons have them now. If stealing guns from the police is an issue now it's not going to get any worse when private gun ownership is banned but it will remedy a far larger class of gun theft (theft from civilians).Gun crime in the us and suicides by gun are still less than all deaths related to motor vehicle accidents.
There is literally no reason to ban guns other than to become oppressed especially when the stats are miniscule compared to the real dangers of society.
I've already addressed this issue in this thread, read post #12. -
2015-07-26 at 7:33 PM UTC
Obviously these are privately owned guns, not state issued ones, the fact that he's an idiot and has a bunch of guns just supports my point..
Almost everyone I know owns firearms, at least one, even my own mom used to carry concealed when she lived in this state. Almost everyone around here in public is walking around armed. So, why isn't my town a literal shooting gallery? -
2015-07-26 at 7:35 PM UTCThe only shootings in my town are niggers, shooting other niggers, using illegal firearms, or liquor store clerks shooting niggers who attempt to hold up their store, with....illegal firearms. Or people shooting niggers who broke into their house while the occupant was at home. You can do that here, even if the nigger is unarmed. I approve.
-
2015-07-26 at 8:32 PM UTC
Almost everyone I know owns firearms, at least one, even my own mom used to carry concealed when she lived in this state. Almost everyone around here in public is walking around armed. So, why isn't my town a literal shooting gallery?
Obviously no one has ever claimed that high rates of gun ownership will turn towns into "literal shooting galleries" but it is true that my position predicts generally lower rates of gun violence in places with lower rates of gun ownership. It is fortunate, then, that this is exactly what we observe. I can't speak to your town specifically but I think that a national study is generally more compelling evidence than a single data point. -
2015-07-26 at 8:37 PM UTCAnd since I can't seem to let a post go by without bringing it up I'd be interested to get a response to this:
If I could provide a few more examples of countries with strict gun control and low incidence of gun crime would you admit you're wrong?
Only if you admit that the issue of weapons ownership isn't as simple as 'Guns are Bad!'
To repeat my questions, now that I've admitted that the issue is not as simple as "gun are bad!" (although "private gun ownership is bad" is my conclusion, I don't think the argument for it is that simple) would you admit you're wrong about gun ownership if I could present more cases of countries with strict gun control laws and low rates of gun violence?
And additionally, why does your decision to consider that evidence valid or not depend on whether or not I admit to holding any particular view? -
2015-07-26 at 8:51 PM UTC
would you admit you're wrong about gun ownership
Japan is a strange case. as far as I know there are almost no shootings there, at all. Everywhere else has some degree of 'gun crime', even if at low levels. Other than that, how can I 'admit I am wrong about gun ownership' when I have been immersed in gun culture my entire life? I have a gun right now within arms reach. And you want me to say 'Yeah, I was wrong, guns are too dangerous for normal puny non-elite citizens to handle...I don't know how I survived for so long in such an environment' ?
And ok, I typed 'I will if you will'. I typed it. But I didn't mean it literally, and I didn't think you would take it literally. 'I will if you will' is a thing that people tend to say in informal debates or arguments, it is a rhetorical device used as a counterpoint to certain stated assertions.
-
2015-07-26 at 9 PM UTCAlso, 'the violence policy center'?
See, this is why I never use links to support or underscore my arguments, anyone could find a link to support their view somewhere. I could play this game and say that, since no records are kept of 'lives saved by the crime prevention effects of concealed carry permits', that the information you provided is out of context or incomplete. If you notice, I never, ever, ever use links or even look up anything about the subject while discussing it. While I may be wrong sometimes, at least I have the integrity of knowing I didn't post a link to something like 'the violence policy center' to try to bolster my position.
-
2015-07-26 at 9:18 PM UTC
Japan is a strange case. as far as I know there are almost no shootings there, at all. Everywhere else has some degree of 'gun crime', even if at low levels.
I definitely think there's _some_ level of gun crime in Japan although it is almost unusually lower that other places, even places with low gun ownership rates. But that doesn't change my point, I think I can find other examples of countries with low rates of gun ownership and low gun violence and if we observe correlation there it would seem to demonstrate the social utility of policy that prohibits private gun ownership.Other than that, how can I 'admit I am wrong about gun ownership' when I have been immersed in gun culture my entire life? I have a gun right now within arms reach. And you want me to say 'Yeah, I was wrong, guns are too dangerous for normal puny non-elite citizens to handle…I don't know how I survived for so long in such an environment' ?
Seems pretty straight forward really, you just change your mind of the subject. I recently became a vegetarian and at the point I was convinced it was what I should do I had meat in my fridge. It's certainly possible to change your mind on something even when your upbringing was different from what you choose to believe.
But if you're saying that your experience contradicts an anti-gun-ownership position then I think you're wrong. I've never suggested that anyone who lives in a place with a lot of guns is fortunate to even be alive right now, that's just you blowing my position out of proportion. All I'm saying is that a world without private gun ownership seems to be, on the whole, better than one with. Whether or not you personally have experienced gun violence is irrelevant.And ok, I typed 'I will if you will'. I typed it. But I didn't mean it literally, and I didn't think you would take it literally. 'I will if you will' is a thing that people tend to say in informal debates or arguments, it is a rhetorical device used as a counterpoint to certain stated assertions.
Great, so we're in agreement it wasn't supposed to be taken literally. But if that's the case then why didn't you respond to my question about how you would take more examples of countries with low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence? -
2015-07-26 at 9:43 PM UTC
why didn't you respond to my question about how you would take more examples of countries with low rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence?
Because I don't know what to think about that, and because I am suspicious of being fed statistics, and because I am suspicious of statistics in general and how they can be manipulated, skewed, misinterpreted, or otherwise misused, and because all I have are my common sense arguments, and because I restrict myself to not looking up information on the fly which leaves me at a disadvantage against raw statistics, and because I am still mulling it over because sooner or later I will come up with something in my own brain to challenge your assertions, and I just haven't yet formulated my rebuttal. Probably other reasons, too, but please don't think that I am ever ignoring something that you guys bring up, I think carefully about every argument presented to me. -
2015-07-26 at 9:49 PM UTC
But if you're saying that your experience contradicts an anti-gun-ownership position then I think you're wrong. I've never suggested that anyone who lives in a place with a lot of guns is fortunate to even be alive right now, that's just you blowing my position out of proportion. All I'm saying is that a world without private gun ownership seems to be, on the whole, better than one with. Whether or not you personally have experienced gun violence is irrelevant.
All I have is my own experience and my worldview. I don't have access or exposure to places where guns are banned or restricted, except for a few years living in urban areas as a child. My stepdad made me take two hunters safety courses and used to take me and my cousins hunting and shooting. When I was 11 years old, I had my own 20 gauge shotgun that I kept in my room. It was mine, and my parents even let me and my friends go hunting alone. Me and my middle school friends out in the woods with shotguns. Scary, right? It wasn't. It was normal. It's pretty much all I have ever known, and I can't imagine life any other way.
-edit- I think I quoted the wrong text....this post is re: me changing my mind about weapon ownership -
2015-08-08 at 3:46 PM UTCI abandoned this thread, because it didn't seem like anyone was interested in continuing it. But since zanick is here, and is an insufferable leftist, I am going to ressurect this thread so as not to let any goddamn leftist think that they won.
How do you know that the lower rates of violent crimes involving firearms in countries where ownership is banned, is attributed to the lower firearm ownership rate? Maybe it's something else entirely, like maybe these countries would have low rates of violent crime no matter what the legality of firearms? You guys should know better than this, 'correlation does not equal causation', isn't that how it goes when the numbers aren't on your side?
I figured someone was going to call me out for my arrogance in announcing that I eschew using outside sources in an argument, but I assure you, it is just a personal challenge of mine, and has nothing to do with trying to show off or make myself look good. I just think it improves my real-life argument skills to engage in discussions using only my common sense and my quick wit. -
2020-11-28 at 5:37 AM UTCelook a cat
-
2020-11-28 at 5:48 AM UTCyou have got to be kitten me
