Who actually thinks a US gun ban would work?

Post Reply New Topic

You're not even attempting to keep it relevant to the topic.


I don't think it's any of your business what I own. Should I be able to tell you that you can't own peanut butter? Should I be able to tell you that you can't own a sofa? What I own doesn't jeopardize your safety. If you are afraid of what other people own, the problem is with you.


In the first, I am saying that you are a hypocrite. You oppose guns unless they are being used to advance ideas that you support. If they are used to oppose your ideas, you want them taken away.

As for the second, I am saying that your definitions of right and wrong take away my freedoms. You want to tell other people what they can do and what they can own. If you want to ban guns on your property, go for it. As for what I do on my property, it's none of your business.

You're just like the people who oppose gay marriage... wanting to control what other people do even though it has nothing to do with them.

Keyword: Agree. You can't agree or disagree if determinism is true. Arguments would not matter.

Best Regards,

Jake

That is a totally ludicrous thing to believe. Although I guess it's not all that surprising. Extremists always seem to assume that their opponents are also extremists.

I think you are misunderstanding what determinism is tbqh, or at least what I am saying.

If you are always going to think something after hearing something, your future is determined. Arguments can influence people, but that doesn't mean the influence isn't determined.

Nor are you, you're just attacking me whenever you get the chance.

You have to understand that a discussion is naturally going to deviate as people make points and people criticise those points.

That's fair enough, I suppose. Although what "you" (obviously not "you", but a lot of people who live near me) does jeopardising my safety.

Do you subscribe to the idea that guns reduce crime at all? If so, then someone who can own a gun but doesn't is jeopardising my safety. Someone who isn't competent to own a gun but does is jeopardising my safety. The fact that guns are widely present in society makes it easier for a criminal to get hold of one and jeopardise my safety. The fact that guns are widely present in society makes it easier for someone to get drunk and shoot me in a fit of anger. The fact that guns are widely present in society makes it more likely I will kill myself on impulse at a party.

(Of course, this is a hypothetical society.)

I do oppose guns being used to advance ideas that I support. As I said at the time, the only time I advocate a gun being used against another human, directly or indirectly, is to stop a murderer from killing more than one person, and I'm unsure even then.

What happens on your property affects me. If you waste electricity, that affects me (even on another continent). If "you" keep a gun, then that increases the chance of a criminal stealing a gun from you. It also increases the chance of you shooting me because you don't like the things I say. And so on.

OK, you people advocating for gun control, tell me something...

Do you like being controlled by the ruling class?

The "ruling class" is by definition those who exercise control.

So the right question is: Do you like being controlled?

ruveyn

What is the intent of owning a gun in this context? To keep the uniformed minions of the "ruling class" away? Will waving the gun out the window do that? Probably not, To me that basically says you are willing to shoot a person who represents authority for a reason I find less than valid.

You are determined to believe in determinism. Fair and simple.



That's called rationality, I'm not going to blindly jump into something without prior thought on the matter. Determinism assumes impulsivity without concencioius choice.



That's called making a decision and choice. The "Influence" is not determined. You can either agree or disagree with me. Or if you believe Determinism to be true, it wouldn't mean anything and this discussion would be null and void as you already pre-determined your next line.


Best Regards,

Jake

So, you would rather be exploited by the rich and affluent?

Enjoy your slavery.

I am a successful freelance artist.
People call me for work.
I am debt free, and have no financial obligations.

You must be a slave then if you hold a job. If you receive public assistance, shall I refer to you as a parasite? No, I'll just think of you as someone who hasn't considered things outside of his experience.

Enjoy your foot in your mouth.

You dodged the question.

Nothing can spray death like a gun? Really?
Bath School Massacre

Oh, I see. You forget, I am Quaker, we search for a third way since the obvious choices have been tried by generation after generation to varying degrees of success.

Tyranny existed long before guns, To cite the gun as the only modern option is not a tenable position for me. Weapons to fight tyranny? Sure, but if your weapons cannot achieve the end you seek, why stick with them? Personal defense against home break-ins and marauding wild animals is fine. Thinking you can overthrow the government when they show up at your front door is just silly. The most you can do is "take some down with you" which is just not something I am willing to do.

I'd rather go nomad, kind of like I am now. A man without family is a man without that leverageable weakness,

Last edited by shrox on 27 Dec 2012, 9:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.

70% of the people in U.S. prisoners are incarcerated for victimless crimes. I have a real problem for people being arrested for non-crimes just because a dude in a suit and a guy with a gun decided they did not like a certain behavior.

The Bath School massacre took weeks to set up, and the bomber had uncommon access to the premises,

Hardly convenient, and not really in the scope of most peoples' abilities. Most anyone can obtain a gun, load it and fire it,

I bristle around police, and they notice. I don't like having that reaction.