or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best wishes from the uk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best wishes from the uk - Page 3

post #81 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

These are the only boundaries you propose in a "free" society? Why? Why should everyone submit to your boundaries here?

They are not ~MY~ boundaries, they are the boundaries that I propose, and thankfully that is generally the boundaries in the country where I am living and working in, which makes me feel happy about this country.

What I can't get in my city though is to shoot military weapons at a range, such as MP5, etc. Which I propose be allowed in the country where I am in now.

Compromise, see?
post #82 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

No, you can keep a life-sized body pillow of Katy Perry and do what you will to it in your own home, or you can even carry it around on the street.

 

Please keep your personal peccadilloes to yourself.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

This is the standard "slippery-slope" nonsensical argument.

 

Yes, it is. Because many folks, like yourself, use the existing restrictions as the basis for the next set of restrictions instead of working from core/base/first principles and base rights.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

If I am a human, and you are a human, then if we live in proximity to each other, we have to work something out, otherwise why bother, let's just go back to clubs and beat the crap out of each other for a piece of squirrel.

 

And we work this out by you telling me what I can or cannot do?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #83 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

They are not ~MY~ boundaries, they are the boundaries that I propose

 

To-mate-to...to-mah-to.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Compromise, see?

 

On what basis ought we comprise to your boundaries and limits?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #84 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

And we work this out by you telling me what I can or cannot do?

I'm not telling you what you can or cannot do, but I believe as civilised society we have to live with each other and that means respecting each others boundaries. Yes, this has been the quandary of ages but that's what I believe.

Negotiation, compromise, discussion, working towards common values. Some people say it's hippie stuff but for some of us lucky enough to experience it, it exists.

I can't not pay my taxes, I ask that the next person not carry an AK47 to school.
post #85 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

To-mate-to...to-mah-to.

On what basis ought we comprise to your boundaries and limits?

Er... We compromise ~our~ values based on, oh, modern, democratic, civilised society? There's still some good in that, don't throw the baby out in the bathwater.

For example, in a few years, I will get my citizenship in my country (not US) and participate in all forms of democracy available to me, compared with virtually zero in Malaysia.

You think you experience oppression by government? LOL.
post #86 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

I'm not telling you what you can or cannot do

 

You're being disingenuous. You are proposing laws that are enforced against those who would do things you are opposed to.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

but I believe as civilised society we have to live with each other and that means respecting each others boundaries

 

Agreed. And I agree to no infringe upon your life, liberty or property so long as you agree to not infringe on mine. There. Done!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #87 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You're being disingenuous. You are proposing laws that are enforced against those who would do things you are opposed to.

Agreed. And I agree to no infringe upon your life, liberty or property so long as you agree to not infringe on mine. There. Done!

No, this is where I draw the line. If we are to live together, it cannot be I don't do anything to you, you don't do anything to me.

I fundamentally believe that as humans we should do things together. That does mean that at some stage some life, liberty or property will have to be compromised.

Total non-involvement which each other, which you suggest, is not realistic at all, and I shall end this discussion here to tend to other things.
post #88 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

No, this is where I draw the line.

 

Why must be submit you where you draw the line?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

If we are to live together, it cannot be I don't do anything to you, you don't do anything to me.

 

Why not?

 

Why do you think we cannot have a peaceful, civilized society in which we all mutually agree that we will not a) take or threaten the lives of others, b) take or threaten to take the property of others, and, c) restrict or threaten to restrict the liberty of others?

 

In fact, what makes you think that any society those doesn't agree to these things could be considered truly peaceful and civilized?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

I fundamentally believe that as humans we should do things together.

 

So do I.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

That does mean that at some stage some life, liberty or property will have to be compromised.

 

Why?

 

Why do you think that life, liberty and property must be infringed upon? Whose? Under what circumstances?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Total non-involvement which each other, which you suggest, is not realistic at all, and I shall end this discussion here to tend to other things.

 

Since that's not what I suggested, your point is...a strawman argument.


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/27/12 at 9:00am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #89 of 244
Thread Starter 
So MJ would you allow adults to own as many grenades and rocket launchers as they wish? Let them take them wherever they wish? If not you're a hypocrit and if yes then your not living in the real world.

SR has it right. We make these laws so we CAN live together.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #90 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So MJ would you allow adults to own as many grenades and rocket launchers as they wish? Let them take them wherever they wish? If not you're a hypocrit and if yes then your not living in the real world.
SR has it right. We make these laws so we CAN live together.

 

How does a person simply OWNING a grenade or rocket launcher harm you or anyone else in any way?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #91 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So MJ would you allow adults to own as many grenades and rocket launchers as they wish? Let them take them wherever they wish?

 

Within the boundaries of respecting the life and property of others of course, yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...if yes then your not living in the real world.

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

I like how you think you can simply declare the two options (hypocrite vs. "not living in the real world") almost like they are facts.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

SR has it right. We make these laws so we CAN live together.

 

He doesn't, nor do you. I suggested some reading for you earlier..."The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. You might find it interesting. Then again, maybe not.


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/27/12 at 9:24am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 244
Thread Starter 
I appreciate the link. I do hope to get some time to read that.

In response to jazz guru too. There are no doubt those who would own such weapons responsibly, but there are those who wouldn't. Whatever pleasures those who would own such weapons get from them simply isn't worth the surfering of those who would misuse or steal them.

Would you allow anyone to own a tactical nuclear weapon? If yes, then again your not living in the real world where people are prone to exploiting and harming others.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #93 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

There are no doubt those who would own such weapons responsibly, but there are those who wouldn't. Whatever pleasures those who would own such weapons get from them simply isn't worth the surfering of those who would misuse or steal them.

 

Again, this is an opinion, a value judgement, for which you've offered no supporting facts. That's all well and fine. You can have all of the opinions you want. But when you want to make them into laws, we ought to have a higher standard...a higher burden of evidence supporting this morality you wish to legislate before we start whittling away people's rights.

 

Typically you assume the highest probability for the worst possibilities while assuming lower probabilities for the better possibilities. And you do this without providing any supporting evidence.


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/27/12 at 9:40am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #94 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I appreciate the link. I do hope to get some time to read that.
In response to jazz guru too. There are no doubt those who would own such weapons responsibly, but there are those who wouldn't. Whatever pleasures those who would own such weapons get from them simply isn't worth the surfering of those who would misuse or steal them.
Would you allow anyone to own a tactical nuclear weapon? If yes, then again your not living in the real world where people are prone to exploiting and harming others.

 

Here is what I don't understand: those arguing for gun control don't trust people with deadly weapons. Yet they trust governments - made up of and run by people - to use deadly weapons responsibly. It makes no sense to me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #95 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Here is what I don't understand: those arguing for gun control don't trust people with deadly weapons. Yet they trust governments - made up of and run by people - to use deadly weapons responsibly. It makes no sense to me.

 

Well, the reason for this is that...

 

ummm

 

well

 

...yeah, I got nothing.

 

 

It is really quite amazing the wide range of things that some folks will trust "the government" to do that they won't trust "people" to do and fail to see the irony (and hypocrisy).


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/27/12 at 10:09am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Again, this is an opinion, a value judgement, for which you've offered no supporting facts. That's all well and fine. You can have all of the opinions you want. But when you want to make them into laws, we ought to have a higher standard...a higher burden of evidence supporting this morality you wish to legislate before we start whittling away people's rights.

 

Typically you assume the highest probability for the worst possibilities while assuming lower probabilities for the better possibilities. And you do this without providing any supporting evidence.

It doesn't take too much research to see that America has a horrendous homicide rate (even though it has the worlds largest prison population) especially when compared to other OECD nations. 

 

You need to step back, and ask yourself, "how can we stop this madness?" I appreciate that you already have important ideas, like ending the war on drugs, better education and to get more people working. All of those things are important, extremely important, but it still leaves the door wide open, so long as the average citizen has access to so many guns.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #97 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Here is what I don't understand: those arguing for gun control don't trust people with deadly weapons. Yet they trust governments - made up of and run by people - to use deadly weapons responsibly. It makes no sense to me.

I don't trust the government with weapons. It's a reality though that without them they wouldn't have the power to defend the country or impose the law. Certainly they are required to act within the constitutional limits of government and that means protecting our rights. I think it's utterly immoral of the the government to restrict many of our freedoms, and hope that more people fight, through legal means, to take back our rights and stop the further corporate control that's redefining how countries are run.

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #98 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It doesn't take too much research to see that America has a horrendous homicide rate (even though it has the worlds largest prison population) especially when compared to other OECD nations. 

 

You need to step back, and ask yourself, "how can we stop this madness?" I appreciate that you already have important ideas, like ending the war on drugs, better education and to get more people working. All of those things are important, extremely important, but it still leaves the door wide open, so long as the average citizen has access to so many guns.

 

But, you see, the average citizen, with access to "so many guns", does not shoot up movie theaters. 100,000,000 gun owners have not murdered or harmed a single person with their guns. So why do you want to deprive them of their right to own a gun because a handfull of lunatics use them to commit heinous crimes?

 

It sounds as if you are afraid that anyone who owns a gun will eventually go on a shooting spree. That is simply not the case.

 

In fact, people can and do use guns to prevent crimes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #99 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I don't trust the government with weapons. It's a reality though that without them they wouldn't have the power to defend the country or impose the law. Certainly they are required to act within the constitutional limits of government and that means protecting our rights. I think it's utterly immoral of the the government to restrict many of our freedoms, and hope that more people fight, through legal means, to take back our rights and stop the further corporate control that's redefining how countries are run.

 

LOL

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #100 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

But, you see, the average citizen, with access to "so many guns", does not shoot up movie theaters. 100,000,000 gun owners have not murdered or harmed a single person with their guns. So why do you want to deprive them of their right to own a gun because a handfull of lunatics use them to commit heinous crimes?

 

It sounds as if you are afraid that anyone who owns a gun will eventually go on a shooting spree. That is simply not the case.

 

In fact, people can and do use guns to prevent crimes.

I know guns can save lives and prevent injury, I've never said otherwise. It's hard to argue though that the overall result of gun ownership saves lives when all OECD countries have a vastly lower murder rate than the US and have vastly lower gun ownership. It's a major problem even though most people only use them legally.

 

A few things to consider-

 

"With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns."

 

  1. "A quarter of robberies of commercial premises in the United States are committed with guns.[51] Fatalities are three times as likely in robberies committed with guns than where other, or no, weapons are used,[51][52][53] with similar patterns in cases of family violence.
  2. Criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesized that if guns were less available, criminals might commit the same crime, but with less-lethal weapons.[55] He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not with overall robbery rates.
  3. A significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill.
  4. Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership." ~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicide
  5. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS

    Compared to other industrialized countries, violence and firearm death rates in the United States are disproportionately high. Of the approximately 50 upper- and middle-income countries with available data, an estimated 115,000 firearm deaths occur annually and the U.S. contributes about 30,000. Among industrialized nations, the U.S. firearm-related death rate is more than twice that of the next highest country. The firearm death rate for this period in the U.S. (14.24 per 100,000) is eight times the average rate of its economic counterparts.http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

     

    6. 

    • The correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across high- income industrialized nations: where there are more firearms, there are higher rates of homicide overall. The U.S. has among the highest rates of both firearm homicide and private firearm ownership. 

    • In 1995, the overall firearm-related death rate among American children younger than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than for children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf

     


     

    "In the wake of the recent senseless death of an 8 year old with an Uzi automatic weapon at a gun club in Massachusetts,  it's critical that we as a nation recognize that this child's gun death was just one of the 5 kids under 10 years old and 83 Americans total that died that day and every day from gun violence.

     

     

    Roughly in 2007.

 

5 Average number of child deaths in gun-related accidents or suicide EVERY DAY

Number of kids under 19 years old killed by guns EVERYDAY

32 Number of states in the US that allow ANYONE to purchase firearms without an ID or criminal background check

40 Percent of gun sales in the US occur without an ID or background check requirement

40 Percent of American households that contain both children and guns

83 Average number of Americans killed by guns EVERYDAY

1,260 Average number of annual firearm homicides in the European Union (pop 376 million)

10,821 Average number of annual firearm homicides in the US (pop 282 million)

34,000 Average number of Americans killed by guns EVERY YEAR

$33,000 Average medical cost (80% uninsured) of a gun related death

$300,000 Average cost (80% uninsured) of a gun related injury

70,000 Average number of gun-related injuries EVERY YEAR

655,000 Number US service men and women killed in all Foreign Wars combined

1,035,000 Number of gun deaths in the US over the past 30 years

$4 million NRA contributions to George W. Bush's 2004 campaign"

$40 million NRA promised contributions to John McCain's 2008 Presidential campaign

$34 billion Annual US medical and productivity costs of gun injuries and deaths

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/us-gun-violence-by-the-nu_b_139879.html


Edited by Hands Sandon - 7/27/12 at 5:11pm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #101 of 244

MJ1970, do you believe that the rate of gun crime in the USA is so high because there are not enough people walking around with guns?

 

Additionally, you seem to be avoiding requests to explain why one would legitimately need to be able to fire 70 rounds per minute, do you care to respond? 

post #102 of 244

No one needs this clip at all. This is for the military not the ordinary citizen. This is insanity.
 

post #103 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

MJ1970, do you believe that the rate of gun crime in the USA is so high because there are not enough people walking around with guns?

 

I don't know. I suspect most gun crime in the US is related to drugs and gang activity actually which, themselves, have deeper root causes.

 

But, as jazzguru has mentioned a couple of times, if guns were actually the real problem I suspect you'd see much, much more gun violence in the US than you currently do given the amount of private gun ownership that exists in the US.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Additionally, you seem to be avoiding requests to explain why one would legitimately need to be able to fire 70 rounds per minute, do you care to respond? 

 

Nope. Whatever I think about that question is irrelevant to whether or not you and your anti-gun friends ought to have the right to tell others what they can and cannot own. In other words, it's a red herring.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #104 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

MJ1970, do you believe that the rate of gun crime in the USA is so high because there are not enough people walking around with guns?

 

Additionally, you seem to be avoiding requests to explain why one would legitimately need to be able to fire 70 rounds per minute, do you care to respond? 

Really. My first thought when I saw that gun was " Well you're not going to need that for duck hunting ". So what do they think people buy guns like that for? They're designed for one thing.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 244

1000

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #106 of 244

Several of you seem to be operating under the premise that if you (or sufficient number of people) believe that someone doesn't "need" something according to your opinion and values, then it is okay to deny them the right to have it. We see this with regard to general wealth or income also...typically from the same people (like the current president of the united states)...this basic idea that:

 

A doesn't need X, therefore it's okay to take X from A.

 

Wow.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #107 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My first thought when I saw that gun was...

 

I think this tells us a lot.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

My first thought when I saw that gun was...

 

I think this tells us a lot.

What precisely does it tell you? Be more specific. And no I'm not a hunter and aren't fond of guns if that's what you're getting at.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #109 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Several of you seem to be operating under the premise that if you (or sufficient number of people) believe that someone doesn't "need" something according to your opinion and values, then it is okay to deny them the right to have it. We see this with regard to general wealth or income also...typically from the same people (like the current president of the united states)...this basic idea that:

 

A doesn't need X, therefore it's okay to take X from A.

 

Wow.

I think real life is a lot more complex than that simple equation.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #110 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think real life is a lot more complex than that simple equation.

 

I agree that real life is but I was talking about a core tenet of your (and the current president's, et al) philosophy.

 

Perhaps you can explain how this philosophy of yours (and the current president's, et al) is fundamentally anything more complex than that equation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #111 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And no I'm not a hunter and aren't fond of guns if that's what you're getting at.

 

No, that's not at all what I'm getting at.


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/28/12 at 1:09pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #112 of 244
Thread Starter 
MJ when are you going to admit you'd prevent people from owning tactical nuclear weapons, even though that invades their liberty?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #113 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think real life is a lot more complex than that simple equation.

 

I agree that real life is but I was talking about a core tenet of your (and the current president's, et al) philosophy.

 

Perhaps you can explain how this philosophy of yours (and the current president's, et al) is fundamentally anything more complex than that equation.

I'd try but I know you wouldn't agree no matter what. However I'll give it a go. There are simply too many guns out there right now in the hands of irresponsible people. This is the trouble I have with your ( Ron Paul's or Libertarians in general ) Philosophy. As I've said life is much more complex than a simple equation because you're dealing with people. People can't be reduced down to a simple equation. And you frequently can't count on them doing the right thing. Look I don't like government telling us what we can and can't do any more than you do. But while it's true that if you outlaw any gun only criminals ( and the military ) will have that gun but it'll still cut down on the number and make it more difficult for them to fall into the hands of the irresponsible ( it's ridiculously easy to get assault rifles right now ). Then the argument goes well then they'll be killing with knives and clubs. Well no knife or club ever was the product of a drive by shooting and passed through the wall of a house killing collaterally. I see the human race as a work in progress. Perhaps you see them as as finished as they're going to be? I do think a day will come when we don't have to have as many restrictions and rules as we won't need them. We're just not there yet. 


Edited by jimmac - 7/28/12 at 1:36pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd try but I know you wouldn't agree no matter what.

 

That's irrelevant.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

There are simply too many guns out there right now in the hands of irresponsible people.

 

Really? How many? How do you know? How do you know they are irresponsible? How do you determine this?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As I've said life is much more complex than a simple equation because you're dealing with people. People can't be reduced down to a simple equation. And you frequently can't count on them doing the right thing.

 

I know all of this and I totally agree. The ironic thing is you and your statist friends actually don't agree with this and the really funny thing is you don't even realize it. It is you who offer the simplistic, formulaic solutions expecting people to respond as if society is just some large laboratory in a B.F. Skinner social experiment. Furthermore you distrust people to "do the right things" but regularly advocate giving some of these people a great deal of power of the rest.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look I don't like government telling us what we can and can't do any more than you do.

 

You have a funny way of showing it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But while it's true that if you outlaw any gun only criminals ( and the military ) will have that gun but it'll still cut down on the number and make it more difficult for them to fall into the hands of the irresponsible

 

You're begging the question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

it's ridiculously easy to get assault rifles right now

 

No it isn't. Go try. Go to gun shop and try to buy an "assault rifle."

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But while it's true that if you outlaw any gun only criminals ( and the military ) will have that gun but it'll still cut down on the number and make it more difficult for them to fall into the hands of the irresponsible ( it's ridiculously easy to get assault rifles right now ). Then the argument goes well then they'll be killing with knives and clubs. Well no knife or club ever was the product of a drive by shooting and passed through the wall of a house killing collaterally.

 

Regardless, all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether or not your disapproval of something confers any right to deny people from doing or owning that thing.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #115 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd try but I know you wouldn't agree no matter what.

 

That's irrelevant.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

There are simply too many guns out there right now in the hands of irresponsible people.

 

Really? How many? How do you know? How do you know they are irresponsible? How do you determine this?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As I've said life is much more complex than a simple equation because you're dealing with people. People can't be reduced down to a simple equation. And you frequently can't count on them doing the right thing.

 

I know all of this and I totally agree. The ironic thing is you and your statist friends actually don't agree with this and the really funny thing is you don't even realize it. It is you who offer the simplistic, formulaic solutions expecting people to respond as if society is just some large laboratory in a B.F. Skinner social experiment. Furthermore you distrust people to "do the right things" but regularly advocate giving some of these people a great deal of power of the rest.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Look I don't like government telling us what we can and can't do any more than you do.

 

You have a funny way of showing it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But while it's true that if you outlaw any gun only criminals ( and the military ) will have that gun but it'll still cut down on the number and make it more difficult for them to fall into the hands of the irresponsible

 

You're begging the question.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

it's ridiculously easy to get assault rifles right now

 

No it isn't. Go try. Go to gun shop and try to buy an "assault rifle."

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But while it's true that if you outlaw any gun only criminals ( and the military ) will have that gun but it'll still cut down on the number and make it more difficult for them to fall into the hands of the irresponsible ( it's ridiculously easy to get assault rifles right now ). Then the argument goes well then they'll be killing with knives and clubs. Well no knife or club ever was the product of a drive by shooting and passed through the wall of a house killing collaterally.

 

Regardless, all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether or not your disapproval of something confers any right to deny people from doing or owning that thing.

 

Quote:

Really? How many? How do you know? How do you know they are irresponsible? How do you determine this?

Take a gander at the statistics Hands posted above.

 

 

Quote:

I know all of this and I totally agree. The ironic thing is you and your statist friends actually don't agree with this and the really funny thing is you don't even realize it. It is you who offer the simplistic, formulaic solutions expecting people to respond as if society is just some large laboratory in a B.F. Skinner social experiment. Furthermore you distrust people to "do the right things" but regularly advocate giving some of these people a great deal of power of the rest.

How would you keep people from doing the wrong thing where we all pay the price one way or another?

 

 

Quote:

You're begging the question.

And I'll continue to beg.

 

 

Quote:

No it isn't. Go try. Go to gun shop and try to buy an "assault rifle."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/

 

Even in a store it took Dateline a half an hour waiting period before walking out with the rifle.

 

 

Quote:

Regardless, all of this is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether or not your disapproval of something confers any right to deny people from doing or owning that thing.

So in other words according to the Libertarian credo you only question this after the person purchases the weapon and violates another person's rights by using it on them.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #116 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Take a gander at the statistics Hands posted above.

 

Do those statistics tell us how many "irresponsible" people own guns? :rolleyes:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How would you keep people from doing the wrong thing where we all pay the price one way or another?

 

Like what for example?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And I'll continue to beg.

 

I bet you will. LOL

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/

 

Even in a store it took Dateline a half an hour waiting period before walking out with the rifle.

 

They didn't buy any "assault rifles". You (and the media, and the president and most anti-gun people) don't know what an assault rifle is. Hint...if it's not automatic, it's not. No assault rifle was used in the Colorado shooting.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So in other words according to the Libertarian credo you only question this after the person purchases the weapon and violates another person's rights by using it on them.

 

Yes. In other words, there's no department of pre-crime in a libertarian world.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #117 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Take a gander at the statistics Hands posted above.

 

Do those statistics tell us how many "irresponsible" people own guns? :rolleyes:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How would you keep people from doing the wrong thing where we all pay the price one way or another?

 

Like what for example?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And I'll continue to beg.

 

I bet you will. LOL

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/46316454/ns/today-today_rossen_reports/t/rossen-reports-anyone-can-buy-guns-no-questions-asked/

 

Even in a store it took Dateline a half an hour waiting period before walking out with the rifle.

 

They didn't buy any "assault rifles". You (and the media, and the president and most anti-gun people) don't know what an assault rifle is. Hint...if it's not automatic, it's not. No assault rifle was used in the Colorado shooting.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So in other words according to the Libertarian credo you only question this after the person purchases the weapon and violates another person's rights by using it on them.

 

Yes. In other words, there's no department of pre-crime in a libertarian world.

 

Quote:

They didn't buy any "assault rifles". You (and the media, and the president and most anti-gun people) don't know what an assault rifle is. Hint...if it's not automatic, it's not. No assault rifle was used in the Colorado shooting.

Ok Assault style rifle. It's still not used for duck hunting. Sigh!

 

 

Quote:

Do those statistics tell us how many "irresponsible" people own guns? :rolleyes:

You can tell from the number of incidents that the number of irresponsible people is high. Sigh! Eyes roll.

 

 

Quote:

Like what for example?

You've answered a question with a question. And we all pay a price in for instance something you're fond of harping about. Lack of freedom because of lack of trust in people doing the right thing. Terrorists are terrorists wither individual psychos or groups. Both kill innocents for reasons crazy or not. And now we have a situation where people are afraid to just go out to a fucking movie and remain safe. The situation impinges itself on our individual freedoms. Also it's expensive in the extra precautions that have to be taken because of this situation. So as you can see by the situation in Colorado where gun sales have spiked we've become an armed society. I really don't see that as a good thing. So here's a Police officer who's stopping someone who's run a red light and rather than just argue with the officer and spend a night in jail it might be easier to just blow him away ( this is how some people really think ). And then of course there's the collateral victims again who weren't the target but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'd say that's another price we pay. The paying for it really is endless.

 

http://www.albertleatribune.com/2012/07/28/shooting-deaths-cost-every-family/ An opinion piece but with some good "information".

 

 

Quote:
painful for those victims and their families.

The cost to our citizens goes way beyond the loss of life, as emergency room visits and medical treatment related to firearm shootings exceeds $200 billion a year, roughly $2,400 for every family of four in America. If we could get on top of these assaults we make on ourselves, the resulting savings could reduce our national debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years alone.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Yes. In other words, there's no department of pre-crime in a libertarian world.

Yes Minority Report was a good movie and Philip K. Dick is one of my favorite authors however this can be considered just plain old preventative maintenance on society and not locking someone up before they do something. It just makes doing that something more difficult. Not a perfect solution but what is? In the end less people may die. And given the numbers we have to try something. Just doing nothing is irresponsible in itself.

 

 

Quote:

I bet you will. LOL

So you're saying that my idea that less irresponsible people will end up with weapons and less will die is a logical fallacy? Perhaps you'd like to prove that. Show me how.


Edited by jimmac - 7/28/12 at 3:37pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #118 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No it isn't. Go try. Go to gun shop and try to buy an "assault rifle."

From the article that jimmac posted-

 

 "There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.” 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #119 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No it isn't. Go try. Go to gun shop and try to buy an "assault rifle."

From the article that jimmac posted-

 

 "There’s no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, email someone, meet ’em in a parking lot, and buy a freaking AK-47.” 

Well he'll get you there on a technicality. It wasn't a " Gun shop " and it was only an Assault style rifle that Holmes used. However if you don't have a criminal record which James Holmes didn't it takes about $1500.00 and a half an hour wait time for the gun he purchased. The point being it's not difficult at all. MJ will also draw the distinction between the rifle used in Aurora and a true automatic weapon but like I said neither are standard hunting fair unless your game is people.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #120 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

 

For one, people would often get shot for just trying to get their gun out to use. Then you could have situations where there is a gun fight instead of simply handing over your money or letting someone else hand over theirs. Obviously too if any one could just walk around with a concealed firearm they may be tempted to use it when giving someone the bird might have sufficed if they'd not had it. 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I notice you apply a greater than 50% probability to the worse possibility here. Do you have anything to support this?

 

Again, do you have anything to support the probability of your claims or is this just your imagination masquerading as fact?

 

Again, you're making assumptions here with supporting them.

 

In brief you are making almost entirely negative assumptions of what happens when people possess fire arms and assigning high probability to these negative possibilities and doing exactly the opposite (making almost entirely positive assumptions of what happens when people don't possess fire arms and assigning high probability to these positive possibilities). But nothing to back any of it up.

 

 

 

 

Here's what happens when the victims of gun crimes who own guns, try to resist. They INCREASE their chances of dying.

 

"Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.

 

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45.

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/10/04/carry-a-gun-you-get-shot-more/

 

 

We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best wishes from the uk