Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Zoltan CobaltI think “simplistic” would be a better word…

Take your quote: “…it is impossible for people without weapons to use weapons more frequently than people with weapons.”

While remarkable in a profound sense of the obvious, it brings to mind the old saying:

“He who beats his sword into a plowshare, will plow for he who did not.”

Makes a good case for a serious benefit of gun ownership.

Good Afternoon Zoltan: The former is a simple truth borne of very simple logic. The latter presupposes that our guns are the only things that are keeping us from being someone’s slave. I think that such an idea in a modern civilization is actually making us slaves to our own mistrust and fears. Most of us are already slaves to our desires, our needs, the people we work or, our commitments, the things we think we own, and so on. In truth, we own nothing really. The realization of this truth is the first step to having access to every true contentment.

So if I correct my statement to read: “The only problem is that implementation of this state of UTOPIA is impossible. It just ain’t gonna happen.”

…would you agree?

Utopia was imply an idea that Sir Thomas More had. The world will never be perfect in the sense that people envision perfection. What does make sense is to try and make the very best of any set of current circumstances, which are in their nature ever-changing. We address one problem and another takes its place. It’s never been about some sort of static outcome. It’s about how we live out the process.

I am on it! :banghead

I do like your sense of humor!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Good Afternoon Zoltan: The former is a simple truth borne of very simple logic. The latter presupposes that our guns are the only things that are keeping us from being someone’s slave. I think that such an idea in a modern civilization is actually making us slaves to our own mistrust and fears. Most of us are already slaves to our desires, our needs, the people we work or, our commitments, the things we think we own, and so on. In truth, we own nothing really. The realization of this truth is the first step to having access to every true contentment.

I think our current mistrust and fears are well grounded. Look at the world.

I think the term "slavery"is a bit overused today. “Slave to our fears” (?)

If we own nothing, then the concept of property rights does not exist.

We have to sustain our life by our own efforts. Without the right to the product of our efforts, we have no means to sustain our life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is truly a slave.

Utopia was imply an idea that Sir Thomas More had. The world will never be perfect in the sense that people envision perfection. What does make sense is to try and make the very best of any set of current circumstances, which are in their nature ever-changing. We address one problem and another takes its place. It’s never been about some sort of static outcome. It’s about how we live out the process.

OK…so…like I said: “It ain’t gonna happen.”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is an ad hominem attack, which is poor form in debating. Rather than attack the opponent’s claims or arguments, you attack the opponent’s character or motivations.

Come on Leaf…I’m not debating. I am just stating my view and pointing out the absurdity of studies like this. (motivations are important)

They could have used any number of objects or visual stimulation to increase testosterone in young males.

Obvious…boy touches gun (or whatever). Boy’s testosterone level increases. I am not a scientist, but I can figure that one out without an experiment.

Now for a worthwhile conclusion they would have to prove that the boy then acquires a gun and shoots someone. Otherwise it is meaningless.

This “study” ranks right up there with the famous Yale study of the duck penis back in 2005. In 2009, the school received an additional $385,000 from the National Science Foundation to continue its work. When asked by a reporter why the NSF was supporting an an inquiry into the length of duck penises, a spokesperson responded: “…well government funded grants for research have assisted in creating the barcode and Google.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Come on Leaf…I’m not debating. I am just stating my view and pointing out the absurdity of studies like this. (motivations are important)

Not nearly as important as the scientific validity of the experiment. If it is valid, it can be duplicated by people with very different motivations. But if their results show the original experiment was invalid, that experiment and those researchers will be discredited. That is how science works. It is self-correcting through peer review. So you can sit back and say the first group was just a bunch of liberals and of course nothing they show can be valid, or you can get busy and organize a duplicate experiment and prove that they were wrong. But from what you said below, it appears you are not even in disagreement with their results, only with the value of getting those results in the first place.

They could have used any number of objects or visual stimulation to increase testosterone in young males.

Obvious…boy touches gun (or whatever). Boy’s testosterone level increases. I am not a scientist, but I can figure that one out without an experiment.

You must be very smart indeed, because I had no idea that testosterone levels could be affected by what object you handle until I saw this experiment. I always knew that testosterone levels would affect which object you might prefer to pick up. But that is an entirely different result than saying that picking up an object that someone else chose for you affects your testosterone levels.

Now for a worthwhile conclusion they would have to prove that the boy then acquires a gun and shoots someone.

Obvious…boy becomes more aggressive (or whatever). Boy’s probability of engaging in violence increases. I am not a scientist, but I can figure that one out without an experiment.

 

[styrgwillidar]

sorry if this has been posted before-

"“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.”

Stefan Molyneux

 

[LongingSoul]

sorry if this has been posted before-

"“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.”

Stefan Molyneux

I don’t know… but that just sounded like a child reasoning but trying to sound like a philosopher. Firstly gun control is gun control… it is not anti gun. Anti gun is anti gun. Secondly, subjecting gun owners to strict licensing and laws of use, is not Pro-gun. It is pro-life since the rate of gun injuries and deaths is at issue. Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history. What apart from some kind of mass mental illness spread through the water or something, could turn a whole group of people against all the other people on the street on mass? Insane logic.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

sorry if this has been posted before-

"“If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.”

Stefan Molyneux

Good Evening Styrgwillidar: Two percent of he population in the US owns over forty percent of the wealth, lobbyists and corporations control a good deal of the decision making in congress, and they also control how people think via the media. The fact of the matter is that you are already someone’s minion, and a country without gun control is just minions shooting and menacing other minions. And among that population of minions are millions of psychotic and neurotic minions who haven’t been diagnosed, hot head minions, disenfranchised minions, loner sociopath minions, and all of these are totally free to roam among the rest of us minions with firearms. And we see the results everyday in the local. regional and national news, and the news is seldom about guns preserving anyone’s life of freedom. It’s always about someone losing their lives and their freedom. And as for freedom, well for the most part you only ever really free to be a minion in the first place. And when you come to that realization, I would rather that you be unarmed, quite frankly.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.

Who obviously cannot be trusted.

 

[GaryTaylor]

. And as for freedom, well for the most part you only ever really free to be a minion in the first place. And when you come to that realization, I would rather that you be unarmed, quite frankly.

Broad sweeping statement, so allow me to make one, I will always be free and when I am not physically, I will still be in my mind. And I would just assume keep the gun, however, I tend not to speak for what others should do in critical situations. Least my advice be “dead” wrong.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

I will always be free and when I am not physically, I will still be in my mind.

Well, I will agree that you and I have brains that are some sort of interface between the temporal world of sentient experience and consciousness or mind, but whether or not you and I actually have our own mind or where exactly the mind is, I think that’s another matter altogether. And wherever it is, it is neither free or bound, but simply is. Or at least this is the best I can reason.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[GaryTaylor]

And wherever it is, it is neither free or bound, but simply is. Or at least this is the best I can reason

But…

only ever really free to be a minion in the first place. And when you come to that realization,

Amended?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I don’t know… but that just sounded like a child reasoning but trying to sound like a philosopher. Firstly gun control is gun control… it is not anti gun. Anti gun is anti gun. Secondly, subjecting gun owners to strict licensing and laws of use, is not Pro-gun. It is pro-life since the rate of gun injuries and deaths is at issue. Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history. What apart from some kind of mass mental illness spread through the water or something, could turn a whole group of people against all the other people on the street on mass? Insane logic.

Childish? Not the way I would have worded it, but I wanted to credit the author for the concept. The gun control advocates in the US aren’t pushing for the police to be disarmed, or for their weapons to have the same restrictions as the public. They definitely push for the consolidation of physical power in the government— increasing the disparity which obviously already favors the government.

Yes. Gun control is anti-gun, unless you are proposing placing the same restrictions on the police or law enforcement organizations that you do on the citizen.

Secondly, firearms are used far more often by the public to prevent crime than to commit them. So guns save lives. Literally. I would hate for the US to experience say, the same rate of rape that Australia has for example. Crime has dropped considerably as the states have expanded concealed carry laws and gun ownership has increased.

You do not protect people by disarming them. You just make them more vulnerable victims.

“Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history”. Well, they didn’t protect the freed slaves in the south particularly well. (The first gun control laws were enacted in the south directed at the newly freed slaves. The gun control laws in the 60’s were directed at the civil right movement. The 'small political elite and their minions like the democrats/KKK in the south weren’t keen on safeguarding the black population. Gun control in the US is racist in nature). Otherwise, yes, with a strong respect for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It’s not the governments job to keep people safe. It’s the government’s job to keep them free, retain their liberty. By the way, thats actually the law according to US precedent. The police have no duty/responsibility to protect an individual. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves;

Warren vs DC
Balisteri vs Pacifica Beach PD
Gonzalez vs Castle Rock
Pinder vs Johnson

Insane logic? Mass mental illness. Please review world history, heck just since 1900, and observe the number of governments who slaughtered their people after disarming them. (or allowed criminal element as in Mexico to slaughter/intimidate etc. Look at the movements in Mexico and Kenya-- where folks have taken up arms to defend their communities despite it being illegal. The safest areas in Mexico right now are those where the citizens have formed militias.)

Or do you deny those events occurred in Germany, China, The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Iraq, Uganda, etc. etc.?

Its nice that you believe Americans and their politicians are so pure and noble that we are immune to the temptations which have plagued mankind. That we alone in human history could never, ever, have those kinds of things occur-- that we have evolved such that our very nature is better than all of the preceeding generations. my somewhat skeptical but wiser self tends to believe we’re just human beings like everyone else.

It can happen here.

Never again.

 

[migueltojose]

Childish? Not the way I would have worded it, but I wanted to credit the author for the concept. The gun control advocates in the US aren’t pushing for the police to be disarmed, or for their weapons to have the same restrictions as the public. They definitely push for the consolidation of physical power in the government— increasing the disparity which obviously already favors the government.

Yes. Gun control is anti-gun, unless you are proposing placing the same restrictions on the police or law enforcement organizations that you do on the citizen.

Secondly, firearms are used far more often by the public to prevent crime than to commit them. So guns save lives. Literally. I would hate for the US to experience say, the same rate of rape that Australia has for example. Crime has dropped considerably as the states have expanded concealed carry laws and gun ownership has increased.

You do not protect people by disarming them. You just make them more vulnerable victims.

“Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history”. Well, they didn’t protect the freed slaves in the south particularly well. (The first gun control laws were enacted in the south directed at the newly freed slaves. The gun control laws in the 60’s were directed at the civil right movement. The 'small political elite and their minions like the democrats/KKK in the south weren’t keen on safeguarding the black population. Gun control in the US is racist in nature). Otherwise, yes, with a strong respect for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It’s not the governments job to keep people safe. It’s the government’s job to keep them free, retain their liberty. By the way, thats actually the law according to US precedent. The police have no duty/responsibility to protect an individual. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves;

Warren vs DC
Balisteri vs Pacifica Beach PD
Gonzalez vs Castle Rock
Pinder vs Johnson

Insane logic? Mass mental illness. Please review world history, heck just since 1900, and observe the number of governments who slaughtered their people after disarming them. (or allowed criminal element as in Mexico to slaughter/intimidate etc. Look at the movements in Mexico and Kenya-- where folks have taken up arms to defend their communities despite it being illegal. The safest areas in Mexico right now are those where the citizens have formed militias.)

Or do you deny those events occurred in Germany, China, The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Iraq, Uganda, etc. etc.?

Its nice that you believe Americans and their politicians are so pure and noble that we are immune to the temptations which have plagued mankind. That we alone in human history could never, ever, have those kinds of things occur-- that we have evolved such that our very nature is better than all of the preceeding generations. my somewhat skeptical but wiser self tends to believe we’re just human beings like everyone else.

It can happen here.

Never again.

 

[nmgauss]

As long as we have blow-by-blow sensationalistic reporting of mass shootings, we incite those would-be mass shooters to copy what they see. As long as movies and television dramas glorify gun violence it is the thing to do these days. It is a readily accessible way for hateful types to get their jollies.

For this reason, the less access that power hungry and spiteful individuals have to these weapons, the more secure we will be in public venues.

In the old days when I was a kid, there was no television. Special effects movies showing blood and gore ad nauseum were not coming out of movie studios because the technology for special effects was not available. This was before there were Oscars for special effects. At most, western movies showed gunfights with revolvers, and occasional crime movies showed a gun or two. I remember seeing western-style revolver toy guns in holsters as playthings. Today we are likely to see toy AK-47’s.

Safety in my town was excellent because hardly anybody carried a gun. I was able to carry considerable sums of money in a very poor neighborhood when collecting subscriptions on my newspaper route. I was never mugged. How come one cannot do that today?

 

[Annie39]

Childish? Not the way I would have worded it, but I wanted to credit the author for the concept. The gun control advocates in the US aren’t pushing for the police to be disarmed, or for their weapons to have the same restrictions as the public. They definitely push for the consolidation of physical power in the government— increasing the disparity which obviously already favors the government.

Yes. Gun control is anti-gun, unless you are proposing placing the same restrictions on the police or law enforcement organizations that you do on the citizen.

Secondly, firearms are used far more often by the public to prevent crime than to commit them. So guns save lives. Literally. I would hate for the US to experience say, the same rate of rape that Australia has for example. Crime has dropped considerably as the states have expanded concealed carry laws and gun ownership has increased.

You do not protect people by disarming them. You just make them more vulnerable victims.

“Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history”. Well, they didn’t protect the freed slaves in the south particularly well. (The first gun control laws were enacted in the south directed at the newly freed slaves. The gun control laws in the 60’s were directed at the civil right movement. The 'small political elite and their minions like the democrats/KKK in the south weren’t keen on safeguarding the black population. Gun control in the US is racist in nature). Otherwise, yes, with a strong respect for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It’s not the governments job to keep people safe. It’s the government’s job to keep them free, retain their liberty. By the way, thats actually the law according to US precedent. The police have no duty/responsibility to protect an individual. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves;

Warren vs DC
Balisteri vs Pacifica Beach PD
Gonzalez vs Castle Rock
Pinder vs Johnson

Insane logic? Mass mental illness. Please review world history, heck just since 1900, and observe the number of governments who slaughtered their people after disarming them. (or allowed criminal element as in Mexico to slaughter/intimidate etc. Look at the movements in Mexico and Kenya-- where folks have taken up arms to defend their communities despite it being illegal. The safest areas in Mexico right now are those where the citizens have formed militias.)

Or do you deny those events occurred in Germany, China, The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Iraq, Uganda, etc. etc.?

Its nice that you believe Americans and their politicians are so pure and noble that we are immune to the temptations which have plagued mankind. That we alone in human history could never, ever, have those kinds of things occur-- that we have evolved such that our very nature is better than all of the preceeding generations. my somewhat skeptical but wiser self tends to believe we’re just human beings like everyone else.

It can happen here.

Never again.

Wish that I had written that.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Obvious…boy becomes more aggressive (or whatever). Boy’s probability of engaging in violence increases. I am not a scientist, but I can figure that one out without an experiment.

Leaf…I see the light :bowdown:

Of course…that is the real conclusion of the experiment…**Boy’s probability of engaging in violence increases.
**

So based on the validity of that study…what do we do about it?

 

[Gorgias]

Of course…that is the real conclusion of the experiment…**Boy’s probability of engaging in violence increases.
**

So based on the validity of that study…what do we do about it?

Set up a registry and instant background-check to control the ownership of hot sauce. Require that hot sauce owners safely store their capsaicin-dispensing devices away from young adult males and with state-approved cap locks. Pass a law that requires bottle caps that limit the number of shakes of sauce that can be dispensed without re-loading the bottle. Initiate a voluntary “hot sauce buy-back” program in which people can return their hot sauce at its market value, no questions asked.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Set up a registry and instant background-check to control the ownership of hot sauce. Require that hot sauce owners safely store their capsaicin-dispensing devices away from young adult males and with state-approved cap locks. Pass a law that requires bottle caps that limit the number of shakes of sauce that can be dispensed without re-loading the bottle. Initiate a voluntary “hot sauce buy-back” program in which people can return their hot sauce at its market value, no questions asked.

Excellent, Gorgias…Bravo

I am glad someone picked up on what the researchers actually DID prove…Hot sauce is the inherent evil.

If there was only 50% compliance with your provisions there would be a marked reduction of aggressive behavior in male college students leading to a reduction in ALL violence including guns.

Let the lobbying begin.

 

[Rau]

Childish? Not the way I would have worded it, but I wanted to credit the author for the concept. The gun control advocates in the US aren’t pushing for the police to be disarmed, or for their weapons to have the same restrictions as the public. They definitely push for the consolidation of physical power in the government— increasing the disparity which obviously already favors the government.

Yes. Gun control is anti-gun, unless you are proposing placing the same restrictions on the police or law enforcement organizations that you do on the citizen.

Secondly, firearms are used far more often by the public to prevent crime than to commit them. So guns save lives. Literally. I would hate for the US to experience say, the same rate of rape that Australia has for example. Crime has dropped considerably as the states have expanded concealed carry laws and gun ownership has increased.

You do not protect people by disarming them. You just make them more vulnerable victims.

“Thirdly, the ‘small plitical elite and their minions’ have done a pretty reasonable job of safeguarding America and her allies throughout American history”. Well, they didn’t protect the freed slaves in the south particularly well. (The first gun control laws were enacted in the south directed at the newly freed slaves. The gun control laws in the 60’s were directed at the civil right movement. The 'small political elite and their minions like the democrats/KKK in the south weren’t keen on safeguarding the black population. Gun control in the US is racist in nature). Otherwise, yes, with a strong respect for the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It’s not the governments job to keep people safe. It’s the government’s job to keep them free, retain their liberty. By the way, thats actually the law according to US precedent. The police have no duty/responsibility to protect an individual. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves;

Warren vs DC
Balisteri vs Pacifica Beach PD
Gonzalez vs Castle Rock
Pinder vs Johnson

Insane logic? Mass mental illness. Please review world history, heck just since 1900, and observe the number of governments who slaughtered their people after disarming them. (or allowed criminal element as in Mexico to slaughter/intimidate etc. Look at the movements in Mexico and Kenya-- where folks have taken up arms to defend their communities despite it being illegal. The safest areas in Mexico right now are those where the citizens have formed militias.)

Or do you deny those events occurred in Germany, China, The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Iraq, Uganda, etc. etc.?

Its nice that you believe Americans and their politicians are so pure and noble that we are immune to the temptations which have plagued mankind. That we alone in human history could never, ever, have those kinds of things occur-- that we have evolved such that our very nature is better than all of the preceeding generations. my somewhat skeptical but wiser self tends to believe we’re just human beings like everyone else.

It can happen here.

Never again.

My God, I had no idea Americans lived with such fears. Government of the people, by the people for the people leads to…The enemy within! So the guns are there to fight the Government if and when the time comes. Wow!

 

[styrgwillidar]

My God, I had no idea Americans lived with such fears. Government of the people, by the people for the people leads to…The enemy within! So the guns are there to fight the Government if and when the time comes. Wow!

Fear? No.

Realism, understanding of human history, and the resolve to remain free. Yes.

Our founding fathers understood human history as well. It is why they provided for the continuation of a right which preceded the constitution for the people to have weapons to oppose government tyranny. A government acting in the people’s interest has no reason to fear an armed public.

It is very encouraging the number of states which have increased public safety through legislation providing for shall-issue concealed carry and respecting the US citizens right to defend themselves, and have the effective means to do so.

States which respect life, and don’t fear their own citizens. Who act in accordance with the Catholic view on life and the right to self-defense.

But, will it always be the case? I don’t know. But is it my right, is it social justice for me to give away, dispose of a right for future generations, to strip them of self-defense simply because I trust the government now?

Read the Declaration of Independence-- it is a justification for taking up arms and violently overthrowing the existing government. In particular the following:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

Government and the people running the government do change. They are supsceptible to corruption and abuse of power. It is social justice that the people retain the capability to oppose government power in the eventuality that the evil becomes intolerable…