I'm really in the air about this particular issue.
I'm spending so time over break to go shooting with my neighbor in a shooting range. He's an avid gun collector and owner. He has his conseal and carry permit as well. By no means would I concider him a gun nut though.
I'm trying to educate myself on this matter the best I can. I'm pretty much a pacifist, but I don't think it will hurt to talk to some people about it.
I'm taking the "driver's Ed" approach to this. Taking Driver's Ed won't stop me from having as accident, but the more I learned about driving, the more I respected it. Most of my education on driving however comes from... well... driving.
I'm not sure what I'm going to learn, or experience, but I think it will be interesting.
T
K
O
I'm really in the air about this particular issue.
I'm spending so time over break to go shooting with my neighbor in a shooting range. He's an avid gun collector and owner. He has his conseal and carry permit as well. By no means would I concider him a gun nut though.
I'm trying to educate myself on this matter the best I can. I'm pretty much a pacifist, but I don't think it will hurt to talk to some people about it.
I'm taking the "driver's Ed" approach to this. Taking Driver's Ed won't stop me from having as accident, but the more I learned about driving, the more I respected it. Most of my education on driving however comes from... well... driving.
I'm not sure what I'm going to learn, or experience, but I think it will be interesting.
T
K
O
Quote:David, it was mostly your arguments
that lead me to see the self reinforcing aspects of the pro gun arguments.
U have distorted my position,
and after twisting it to your taste,
u have endeavored to have me accept it as my own.
Your distortion belongs to u, not to me.
Quote:
As you quoted me...how about answering the question.
I will be pleased to address your concerns
with whatever degree of specificity u desire.
Quote:Do you find it to be inaccurate in any way?
Yes.
While we are on the subject
of answering arguments, Vik,
when will u answer my question of:
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws ?
Explain that to me ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:While we are on the subject
of answering arguments, Vik,
when will u answer my question of:
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws ?
Explain that to me ?
But you want to leave in place laws against robbery and murder,
but not the ones for gun control?
Well, I see it as regulation of a product that has great potential for destruction,
so the "favorite color" analogy is a little hard to wrap my head around.
snood wrote:Well, I see it as regulation of a product that has great potential for destruction,
so the "favorite color" analogy is a little hard to wrap my head around.
Well, the Founders correctly saw GOVERNMENT
as a product that has a great potential for destruction.
Governments have killed more people
than murders by private citizens; more painfully too.
Saddam publicly ran some of his victims thru industrial strength trash shredders.
OmSigDAVID wrote:snood wrote:Well, I see it as regulation of a product that has great potential for destruction,
so the "favorite color" analogy is a little hard to wrap my head around.
Well, the Founders correctly saw GOVERNMENT
as a product that has a great potential for destruction.
Governments have killed more people
than murders by private citizens; more painfully too.
Saddam publicly ran some of his victims thru industrial strength trash shredders.
Well I can see your point there. there should definitely be some regulation against shredding people.
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws ?
Explain that to me ?
I will be pleased to address your concerns
with whatever degree of specificity u desire.
vikorr wrote:Perhaps you could be more specific. I'm having a hard time finding anyone who can actually say that there is anything specifically wrong with any specific concept in the original post.
vikorr wrote:
Do you find it to be inaccurate in any way?
Yes.
Has that argument over your 2nd amendment been sorted out in your supreme court yet?
Quote:If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws ?
Explain that to me ?
If they wish a gun, of course they won't.
However, you musn't have read my previous post : To clarify my above post, arguments over 'legality' are a separate issue to the self reinforcing perception of need to possess firearms - which is what my original post was about.
The original post was about the self reinforcing perception of need to own a gun, which included criminals perception of need.
As an example - I have little doubt that Criminals in the US feel a greater need to possess firearms than criminals in Australia.
OmSigDAVID wrote:I will be pleased to address your concerns
with whatever degree of specificity u desire.
vikorr wrote:Perhaps you could be more specific. I'm having a hard time finding anyone who can actually say that there is anything specifically wrong with any specific concept in the original post.
vikorr wrote:
Do you find it to be inaccurate in any way?
Yes.
A 'yes' is hardly a specfic reason why you disagree with the original arguments. That "I'm misrepresenting you" is not an argument for why anything in the original post is wrong, it merely says it is not your argument, which is an understandable enough view for you to hold...but what do you find wrong with it, specifically?
It seems to me that the pro gun lobby arguments go something like this :
Quote:The more guns you have in circulation,
the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who become murderously suicidal,
That is an ANTI-LIBERTY, ANTI-GUN argument,
and we have never said that.
It is FALSE of u to attribute that to us.
On the contrary,
our argument is that every citizen shud be well armed, in his own defense.
Once that has been successfully accomplished, that he has a few good guns, and plenty of ammunition,
his security interests do not require him to continually, endlessly acquire more guns,
the same way that after he has a car, he does not need to get a lot more cars,
but he can if he chooses to do so, as a collector.
I have a gold coin collection.
I do not NEED to continually add more coins to it,
tho I might do so, if I so choose, on a voluntary basis.
I have a gun collection.
A goodly number of years have passed since I NEEDED to get more guns for security purposes.
I got my first functional gun ( a .38 revolver with a 2 inch gunbarrel ) at age 8.
I have since upgraded to a .44 special revolver ( loaded with hollowpointed slugs )
for personal defense, out of considerations of stopping power.
Since then, my only additional acquisitions have been out of
esthetic or historical appreciation, as a collector.
Quote:therefore you need even more guns in circulation
to protect yourself from said suicidal people.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who suffer their first psychotic episode, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said psychotic people.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of drug users, some of whom will psychotic episodes/delusions/paranoia, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said drug users suffering psychotic episodes/delusions/paranoia.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more legal guns will be in the hands of persons affected by road rage, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from road ragers.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more likely legal guns will be in the hands of domestic violence perpertrators, therefore the more guns families need to protect themselves from such.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more guns will fall into the hands of criminals through break & enters etc, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said break & enter merchants
The more guns you have in circulation, the greater the need for crims to carry guns to protect themselves from residents who have guns, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said crims who are trying to protect themselves from the residents home they are trying to break into.
The more guns you have in circulation, the more crims have guns, and therefore more they need guns to protect themselves from other crims who have guns, which means even more crims have guns, therefore you need even more guns in circulation to protect yourself from said higher number of crims who have guns
OK, Vic:
the FALLACY and inaccuracy in the allegations
that u have falsely attributed to me, or to the pro-freedom of self defense movement,
is that decent, innocent citizens NEED progressively higher numbers of guns,
as threats against their safety increase in number. I deny that thay do.
Criminals will arm themselves as thay choose to do,
even including fully automatic weapons, if such be to their taste,
maybe home made AK 47s ( quick and e z to make ),
regardless of any laws. The law is irrelevant to them.
When thay are armed as well as thay deem appropriate,
thay do not continue to get more guns, as beyond some point,
thay have no use; the same way that a thirsty man needs water,
but after having drunk enuf of it, he need not keep endlessly drinking;
get the point ?
The same as a wise motorist will carry a spare tire in his trunk; maybe 2,
but he need not carry 50 tires around with him all the time.
Decent citizens can be secure with one, or a few, competent guns,
with which thay feel secure, having worked out with them at gunnery ranges,
and thay need not increase that number.
The number of defensive guns CAN REMAIN CONSTANT,
insofar as their personal SAFETY is concerned.
However, thay may opt to increase their gun collections
( as I have ) for reasons other than defense,
like beauty or possessing interesting artifacts of history
( like my sleek, comfortable, 1940 German Lugar P-'08; probably a war trophy ).
Thay shud have a good amount of ammunition,
and perhaps a few spare guns, in case of mechanical failure,
but a man 's need of self defense is not endless.
A few guns and plenty of ammunition are sufficient to the occasion.
Analogizing your argument,
u r saying something like that if a soldier in combat is carrying a Garand,
or an M-16, and if the enemy gets some reinforcements,
then our soldier shud carry 2 ( or 7 ? ) Garands, or M-16s ?
That 's not how it works; u suffer from distorted perception.
Most respectfully, its an awkward, inartful argument,
applied either to regular soldiers in combat,
or to civilians, who need to defend themselves at home.
I will add
that the extent of a man 's defensive armament
is a personal choice, the same as his choice
of how many suits he opts to keep in his wardrobe.
Government in America has been deprived of any
jurisdiction to legislate in this area,
just as it may not legislate a state religion or make u go to church.
R u satisfied that I have answered your questions ?
If u 'd like me to elucidate anything,
just let me know.
David
When thay are armed as well as thay deem appropriate,
thay do not continue to get more guns, as beyond some point,
thay have no use; the same way that a thirsty man needs water,
but after having drunk enuf of it, he need not keep endlessly drinking;
get the point ?
The more guns you have in circulation,
the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who become murderously suicidal,
Criminals will arm themselves regardless of any laws. The law is irrelevant to them.
David, unfortunately you have gone off on a tangent :
Quote:When thay are armed as well as thay deem appropriate,
thay do not continue to get more guns, as beyond some point,
thay have no use; the same way that a thirsty man needs water,
but after having drunk enuf of it, he need not keep endlessly drinking;
get the point ?
Quote:Almost your whole post is along these lines.
What I have been talking about is an increased percentage of the population
perceiving the need to own a gun, not a person needing to possess
an increased number of guns (above 1).
Rephrased : more people feeling the need to own a gun
(not individual people feeling the need to own more guns personally)
OK:
every citizen in the population shud be ready to defend his property, including his life,
as thay were in earlier centuries, when there were no police.
Dangerous predators WILL arm themselves as thay choose,
whether u like it or not and whether society or government likes it or not.
vikorr wrote:The more guns you have in circulation,
the more legal guns will be in the hands of people who become murderously suicidal,
Quote:
OK; I will say it now: IT IS NOT TRUE,
on the grounds that ALL dangerous predators
WILL arm themselves as thay see fit regardless of anyone else 's opinion
of whether thay shud. Disarming criminals, and KEEPING them unarmed,
is as impossible as turning water into gold
( unless u kill them, or disarm them as Julius Caesar did, by cutting their arms off with swords ).
Prohibitions are UNenforcible, witness the alcohol prohibition
of the 1920s, or the prohibition against marijuana now.
Thay are useless and futile delusions.
Quote:You deny, without ever explaining what is wrong with what I said.
OK, let me explain it THIS way:
there is no effect upon the rate of gun possession of any people
who are sufficiently motivated to get or make guns,
because thay will ALL get or make guns, if sufficiently motivated,
for good reasons or bad ones ( unless thay are lying paralyzed in hospitals ).
Quote:To put the quote into practical terms...
Say you had a population where 40% of people owned guns.
Are you saying that if you increased that number to, say 80%,
that more guns wouldn't fall into the hands of murderously suicidal people?
Yes.
I am saying that.
Your question falsely assumes or implies
( by use of the language: "...wouldn't fall into the hands of murderously..." )
that society or police can prevent this " falling into the hands of... ".
That is FALSE;
equally as false as saying or implying that criminals can be prevented
from acquiring marijuana; a futile pipe dream and wishful thinking.
That choice is not in the hands of society, nor of its henchmen,
the police; it is in the hands of any living person
who makes a decision of whether or not to be armed,
if he is sufficiently motivated to carry it out; its not hard.
Quote:You've left out part of that quote by the way...
If I left out anything significant,
then put it back in, and I 'll be pleased to address it.
Quote:Criminals will arm themselves regardless of any laws. The law is irrelevant to them.
Quote:As I've previously mentioned, legality,
and the self reinforcing need for guns, are two separate issues.
Self reinforcement is not relevant to the state of affairs,
which is, very simply, that :
1 ) predators need weapons to accomplish their attacks,
and thay WILL make such preparations as thay deem adequate
before thay proceed with their attacks.
Thay will get or make the necessary tools.
Those who are sufficiently motivated WILL BE well armed.
That is a VERY OLD historical fact.
2 ) Potential victims, out of concern for their safety and survival,
will defensively arm themselves, unless thay are so obsessively
devoted to following the laws of society as to willingly committ suicide,
or JUST TAKE THEIR CHANCES that no predator will fall upon them,
or their families.
Those who are sufficiently motivated WILL BE well armed.
It is not cyclical nor sequential, as u suggest,
altho occasionally events occur that draw the attention
of more citizens to the need of self defense
( e.g., the complete breakdown of order after the Katrina hurricane, with mass looting ).
Quote:Thank you for making the attempt to answer.
Unfortunately you answered a different scenario to the one I've been talking about
(that may have been my fault, as I can see how you would get your
interpretation from the original post...but it doesn't make any sense with
that interpretation, so I never thought anyone would interpret it the way you did)
Feel free to re-state or reorganize
your questions, as I suggested.
David
To put the quote into practical terms...
Say you had a population where 40% of people owned guns.
Are you saying that if you increased that number to, say 80%,
that more guns wouldn't fall into the hands of murderously suicidal people?
Yes.
I am saying that.
Your question falsely assumes or implies
( by use of the language: "...wouldn't fall into the hands of murderously..." )
that society or police can prevent this " falling into the hands of... ".
That is FALSE;
Self reinforcement is not relevant to the state of affairs,
which is, very simply, that :
1 ) predators need weapons to accomplish their attacks,
and thay WILL make such preparations as thay deem adequate
before thay proceed with their attacks.
Thay will get or make the necessary tools.
Those who are sufficiently motivated WILL BE well armed.
2 ) Potential victims, out of concern for their safety and survival,
will defensively arm themselves,
vikorr wrote:
To put the quote into practical terms...
Say you had a population where 40% of people owned guns.
Are you saying that if you increased that number to, say 80%,
that more guns wouldn't fall into the hands of murderously suicidal people?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Yes.
I am saying that.
Your question falsely assumes or implies
( by use of the language: "...wouldn't fall into the hands of murderously..." )
that society or police can prevent this " falling into the hands of... ".
That is FALSE;
Quote:We would have to disagree here.
A certain percentage of normally law abiding citizens becomes suicidal,
and a percentage of them end up deciding to take out others with them
(usually family). The greater percentage of the population with guns,
the greater percentage of people who become murderously suicidal will own a gun.
Every living human is a potential victim.
Every potential victim shud be well armed in his own defense.
If he IS, then if someone loses his mind and attacks,
he can handle the situation optimally.
The right to self defense does not warrant that u will WIN every gunfight,
but it puts the victim on an equal footing with the predator.
Quote:Not having easy access to guns gives them time to change their minds.
And if they try another way, it's usually not as easy as it is with a gun.
Its even easier and FASTER to make a bom than a gun.
I have done both, as a child.
.
OmSigDAVID wrote:Self reinforcement is not relevant to the state of affairs,
which is, very simply, that :
1 ) predators need weapons to accomplish their attacks,
and thay WILL make such preparations as thay deem adequate
before thay proceed with their attacks.
Thay will get or make the necessary tools.
Those who are sufficiently motivated WILL BE well armed.
2 ) Potential victims, out of concern for their safety and survival,
will defensively arm themselves,
Quote:The main point in my original post was relating to the motivation to own a firearm.
In 1) you state predators need weapons and yet here in Australia,
where there are less guns, said predators a lesser percentage of them in
Australia (as compared to the US) feel the need to own a gun.
I doubt that.
Anyway, it is a NATURAL RIGHT to defend yourself.
You are violating your citizens' natural rights of self defense;
that is tyranny.
Quote:
You say potential victims, out of concern for their safety and survival,
will arm themselves yet here in Australia, where there are less guns,
people don't seem to feel the need as much.
Apparently, u live in an AUTHORITARIAN society,
in which the citizens have been terrorized and intimidated
from exercising their natural rights of self defense.
The predators must LOVE that.
POUNCE in safety.
Quote:As I said, your posts contributed to my realising the self reinforcing nature of the pro gun argument.
The more guns there are in a country, the more people who feel the need to own a gun for protection.
Everyone shares a need to survive in the face of violent depredation
and to successfully defend his property.
My desire to possess the means of self defense
has nothing to do with the abundance of available firepower.
I will keep the means to control my destiny in my OWN hands,
as well as possible.
David
I doubt that.
Anyway, it is a NATURAL RIGHT to defend yourself.
You are violating your citizens' natural rights of self defense;
that is tyranny
Apparently, u live in an AUTHORITARIAN society,
in which the citizens have been terrorized and intimidated
from exercising their natural rights of self defense.
The predators must LOVE that.
POUNCE in safety.
