Glorifying Guns?

And the unarmed collective defense is valid only if the individual is defended. As I said earlier in this thread, I would not wish to depend on Albuquerque's finest getting here in time if somebody was hellbent on breaking in to commit rape, mayhem, or murder. At times like that it is good to know how to dial 911 AND to know how to shoot straight.

0 Replies

roger wrote:

An unarmed "collective defense" is an interesting idea. I think I'm going to disagree, though.

But is it correct for me to say that the disagreement is about the viability or appropriateness of such a measure? And not necessarily a difference in terms of the end goals?

I know you don't like riposte so feel free to ignore the rest as me just using the forums to express an opinion.

Quote:

The person or persons against whom we might have to defend ourselves is the agressor. They chose to be agressors when they perceive themselves to be stronger than the victims. They may not always be correct, but the choice is theirs to make, not ours.

But the manner in which we decide to react to such threats is.

Quote:

With or without guns, it will normally be the stronger attacking the weaker. With superior weapons the weaker has the opportunity to defend him or herself.

Conversely guns also provide the criminals the opportunity to be the stronger party.

Personally, I think that guns do more to empower criminals than their prey (mainly because they also can have an element of surpise that even when equally armed can give them the "stronger" position).

I really do understand the feeling of being the weaker and unarmed prey. Back in school I got sick of having weapons pointed at me and I started carrying guns for many of the same reasons.

Eventually I came to see guns as an intoxicating power to certain predisposed people and now think that it does more to empower criminals than their prey but in a place like America I like having a gun.

Ironically, in a place like Brazil, where I was frequently the victim of crime I thought having a gun was less attractive/

This was mainly because the crime there is usually about money and not as much about gratuitous violence. Cooperating with certain kinds of criminals is the safest bet. I'd usually chat up the theives, and convince them to leave me with my documents, wallet and money to go home.

Once when being carjacked I convinced them to drop off my girlfriend at her home before they took me to the banks.

In those situations having a gun would have put me in more danger. But I understand the sense of protection against gratuitous violence that guns can bring. My last day in a Cali school I'd sold my guns and on my way home was beaten unconscious with an aluminum bat in a suprise attack from behind that had nothing but the attack as the goal.

I woke up and saw the group walking away in the distance and wished I had a gun... or better yet... a nuke!

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

I am not comparing them. I am illustrating the fact that your axiom is not an acceptable axiom through the use of a deliberately different example.

By your logic Craven, any substitution of an element of an axiom is capable of proving that axiom "unacceptable." This is an interesting twist on logic proofs, but highly flawed. In order for your silly argument to have merit, the substitution must have some shred of relevance. The relevance of firearms and nukes is they both go "boom."

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

This is not exactly true. In a gun culture like America it's likely that we'd not be able to starve the market to the point where most bad guys couldn't have guns but that doesn't mean that it is an inherently flawed measure as it works efficiently in manly places (as an aside, several of which I've lived in and know well).

As an aside, why not illuminate us on the particulars of these places in which you have lived, and their success in starving illicit markets.

Craven wrote:

I happen to think that in the US it is not practical and therefore do not advocate it stateside but many of the pro-gun rhetoric is sill fallacious drek.

I oppose it while hypocritically using it as my platform for my nuke campaign.

So, in other words, you are simply being cute.

0 Replies

In the matter of nukes or any other WMD, it seems reasonable not to make these unnecessarily susceptible to theft or otherwise available to people who would use them for malicious purposes.

Of course our founding fathers could not conceive of such a thing when they crafted the constitution or they no doubt would have addressed the issue. I put it under the category of 'providing for the national defense' and 'promoting the common welfare', however.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

By your logic Craven, any substitution of an element of an axiom is capable of proving that axiom "unacceptable."

Wrong. Substitution of elements of the axiom can illustrate that the axiom is not universally applicable and if not universally applicable needs to be argued for validity for a particular circumstance.

Ultimately the point is that it's not axiomatic in nature.

Quote:

This is an interesting twist on logic proofs, but highly flawed. In order for your silly argument to have merit, the substitution must have some shred of relevance. The relevance of firearms and nukes is they both go "boom."

There is relevance but you ondurately try to seek relevance between the objects as a comparison as opposed to examining the logic of the proposed axiom.

I've already told you that there was no comparison made between guns and nukes and that the logic was being compared. The use of vastly different examples in the logic illustrates lacking universality of the proposed logical axioms.

Because you insist on a simplistic insistence on nuke/gun comparison I'll spell it out for you in simple terms.

A) The notion that the few miscreants should not spoil things for the majority had fundamental appeal. Nobodly likes "punishing" the collective whole.

B) There are clear cases in which protecting the whole necessitates a universal restriction.

So we now are at a point at which some things obviously need to have universal restriction and some things don't.

Some would argue that guns are a legitimate case for universal restrictions while others think it is not.

So ultimately your axiom comes right back to the start, in the question of whether or not guns are a legitimate threat to deal with collectively.

Illustrating that the axiom is not axiomatic in nature illustrates that due to obvious exceptions to the axiom the cases must then be argued on their merits and not simply use axioms as rhetoric.

There's a lot of useless rhetoric on both sides, it's important to examine such attempts to introduce false logical axioms.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

As an aside, why not illuminate us on the particulars of these places in which you have lived, and their success in starving illicit markets.

Perhaps another time. I don't think you are interested in 'illumination' and suspecting your motives do not currently wish to engage in such an exercise.

Quote:

So, in other words, you are simply being cute.

Cute and having a legitimate point are not mutually exclusive. But thanks anyway. I, in turn, think you are positively cherubic. <pinches cheeks>

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

In the matter of nukes or any other WMD, it seems reasonable not to make these unnecessarily susceptible to theft or otherwise available to people who would use them for malicious purposes.

I agree, and the whole point of using them as an example is to bring the rhetoric back to the issue: whether or not guns are a significant enough societal bane to merit a universal restriction and whether or not said restriction can be viable (in the case of the US I do not think it is, elsewhere it has been done).

0 Replies

Finn,

As an aside I'd like to say that you represent the right very well and I appreciate the overwhelming majority of your arguments.

Yourself and Brandon are a terrific boon to the right on this site through the level at which you contruct your arguments. Few on either side argue at such levels and I want to remember to tip the ole hat your way so that I don't forget to do so when I argue with you (which is enjoyable precisely because of the reasons I mention).

Have a good one.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
In the matter of nukes or any other WMD, it seems reasonable not to make these unnecessarily susceptible to theft or otherwise available to people who would use them for malicious purposes.

I agree, and the whole point of using them as an example is to bring the rhetoric back to the issue: whether or not guns are a significant enough societal bane to merit a universal restriction and whether or not said restriction can be viable (in the case of the US I do not think it is, elsewhere it has been done).

It makes sense to restrict the types of weapons that are available to citizens. You don't want them to have nukes, but fingernail clippers are okay. The place where I draw my personal line is military weapons. Ordinary citizens shouldn't be able to own rocket launchers (with the rockets), hand grenades, full-automatic weapons, etc. In other words, if the weapon is designed to kill a whole bunch of people at once with one pull of the trigger or one press of the button, you can't have it. And I think that's pretty much where our government has drawn the line, so I don't feel too bad about laying that out in black and white.

On a side note, I'm somewhat dismayed at not being noted as someone who "represents the right very well." I thought I posted some fair arguments without attacking anyone, even after being slimed several times. Maybe I'll have to go re-read the terms of service to find out what I can do to get me on the A2K Right Wing Honor Roll.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

It makes sense to restrict the types of weapons that are available to citizens.

I agree, and that's why I parodied the argument that few criminals should not cause restriction for all.

In some cases it's entirely appropriate.

Quote:

You don't want them to have nukes, but fingernail clippers are okay. The place where I draw my personal line is military weapons.

Yep, everyone has their lines, this is why I use the nuke example. It illustrates that there's not a difference in that one side wants "punishment for all" measures while the other doesn't but rather that each side has their lines at a different place.

Quote:

On a side note, I'm somewhat dismayed at not being noted as someone who "represents the right very well." I thought I posted some fair arguments without attacking anyone, even after being slimed several times. Maybe I'll have to go re-read the terms of service to find out what I can do to get me on the A2K Right Wing Honor Roll.

Doh, the problem with compliments are the exclusions. I do, in fact, respect your avoidance of some of the lower levels of debate. Just as there are many others I respect for this.

My compliments to those two individuals is just a personal taste and admiration of a very specific debate style.

For example, James Morrison is a rightie whose posts, demeanor and tone I really appreciate. But he doesn't get into logical foundation of arguments and prefers instead to post well-written opinion and commentary. There are many others who make excellent posts but few who get into the level of individual arguments, their support their weaknesses and such.

I like the debators who analyze logic well (lots of people try and do so poorly) as well as get into the back and forth of argument examination and Finn and Brandon are excellent examples of this.

0 Replies

LOL Tarantulas. I think your A2K 'right wing' credentials are in good shape, and I think you represent your point of view very well.

0 Replies

By way of consolation, Tarantulas, being overlooked isn't necessarily all bad; those leading the charge most often draw the most fire :wink:

0 Replies

You can leave it to those leading the charge if you choose, but support them along the way. This guy takes live "fire" everyday.

http://www.post-gazette.com/images2/20040419mf_nugent_nraPJ_450.jpg

0 Replies

Gotta love Ted.

0 Replies

no you don't, but you can respect his POV and sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.

0 Replies

Went turkey huntin' with him once. It rained. We spent some time just chattin'. I admire the guy, even if I differ with him here and there. I like his music, too. Most of it, anyway.

0 Replies

Way to go Timber!

0 Replies

Some one earlier stated that if the president stated that due to terrorist activity the election is canceled or postponed. I for one would take up arms as it is not the presidents right to deny me the right to vote. I would probably then be voting against this individual regardless of his political affiliation or stance on most issues.

If the government were to announce martial law and actually take up arms against the citizens, I would be willing to wager that more than one person in the military would take their arms and cross over the the civilian side.

If the government were to make a list of all gun owners and then go house to house trying to remove the guns from these owners, again, I would wager that members of the "goon" squad, would cross the line and aim their weapons back at the government.

If you don't think that I am right then look at this story about the battle of Athens, Tennessee: http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

Oh, and I don't own guns because I think the government might do something I don't like, I own guns because there are people in this country that would do me harm because I wouldn't give them a dollar. I own guns to protect my family from the filth in society that think they have a right to come in to my home, or office or car, and take whatever they want and do to me what ever they want. I have 2 dogs, an alarm system, and I never felt better than when I brought home a 12 gauge shotgun, a 22 rifle and a Beretta 9mm. Good luck boys and girls.

0 Replies

More Gun control...so we can all enjoy the saftey of D.C.
a statement of mine. All facts are stated from either the BJS, FBI or Census Beurau. The excerpt is from a paper I wrote.

We live in America, which is far and away, the greatest country in the world. 230 years ago, the founders of this land fought a great war to free the land and its people from European rule. Though times change, and our enemies in the Revolution are now our friends, their countries are in no way, models we intend to follow. America did not become the greatest nation of people because we conducted ourselves in the same fashion as our friends across the pond. We did not reach our great accomplishments because we are a superior race of people, and we are certainly not inherently more intelligent then our friends in other parts of the world. We are a free and capitalistic nation, where one can take any action they want (considering it doesn't infringe on another's rights to do the same) and reap the benefits that go with improving the lives of other Americans. While our government policies and practices are not perfect, and we should continue to perfect them. But we should not look at Europe for our answers, because their performance has not equaled ours. We are "navigating uncharted paths" and will continue to do so.

Consider this idea. If you didn't know that fire was hot, and your good friend recommended that perhaps putting your hand in it would make you feel good, what would you do. After presenting this idea, your good friend thrust his hand into the fire and screamed in great pain. Would you still consider the notion that perhaps putting your hand in that same fire would feel good? What would it take to convince you that putting your hand in the fire is not a good idea if you want to feel good?

America, a country with more civilian owned guns, than civilians, is faced with a problem, or at least the perception of a problem. A lot of citizens are victims of violent crime. Our government has made it their business to "fix" this problem. How do we go about fixing this problem? Perhaps making laws that restrict gun ownership and possession is the answer. If it is illegal to have guns in the hands of citizens, then citizens cannot use the guns to rob, assault or kill others, right? I don't think so. Sure if possibility of a projectile was not here, then there would be no guns. And if there were no guns then nobody would get shot or assaulted with one. It doesn't mean there will be no violent crime though.
Some feel that banning guns, and removing them from the citizens is the answer. Why not, after all many Americans feel that in the absence of guns there would be no shootings. But as long as we live in this universe, there will be projectile weapons. And just as there are illegal drugs in this country, under no circumstances will we ever rid this country of guns. No matter what. Some localities cave decided to make all guns illegal, under pressure from people who feel that they are the problem. But what this action fails to observe, is that there is an incredibly high instance of violent crimes in these areas. While there are other contributing circumstances, the localities that ban or severely restrict private gun ownership and possession lead our country in violent crime rates, and rates of violent crimes committed with guns. With these fine examples of a failed policy, when will people decide to try something else? One really good example of this is from the FBI's crime statistics. Arlington county is roughly one third the size of the District of Columbia, shares a border with it and has the approximately the same population density. Arlington has 192,376 residents and is roughly 26 square miles. The District has 571,822 and is about 70 square miles. Arlington County's violent crime rate is 201.7 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. D.C. has a rate of 1736.2 violent crimes per 100,000 residents. A person is 8.5 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the District then in Arlington. One could argue that Arlington is significantly better off financially, but this is both an effect and a cause of the crime rates. People pay more to live in a place where they are less likely to be robbed, raped, assaulted or killed. People who legitimately have more wealth, find it unnecessary to take from others by force, or illegitimately. Thus, when two places of equal convenience have different crime trends, the one with less crime becomes more attractive.
We have several examples of this trend right here at home in America. We have seen that banning guns will not make a place safer. Why not try a different policy because after 28 years of banning guns in D.C. one should realize that the current policy did not work as intended.

0 Replies

Glorifying Guns?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know