Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 11. (Read 36631 times)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Sorry, try again.  And this time, please, put a little effort in it; I know believing yourself to always be right is wonderful, but it really only serves to make you stupid over time; after all, why learn anything, you already know it all, right?

Welcome to the world of black-or-white of the libertards.

What this debate, and all debates on politics, boil down to is thus:

Are you pro-freedom, or pro-authority?

The odd part is, you must be pro-freedom on all topics to count as pro-freedom; to be pro-authority on anything is to be pro-authority on everything, as government does not pick and choose what any single individual believes should be up to the individual or not; it just sucks in everyone's thoughts on what government should regulate and regulates everything, including the things certain people don't want it to regulate.  It's easier to add law, than to take away, as every law gives government that much more power over its citizens, and the bigger it gets, the harder it is to counteract it: this is the pro-authority stance, the same perspective that has given us the dysfunctional American government of today.

However, it is my belief that, if democracy is functional, then that means people are functional without democracy, for if democracy is necessary, the people are dysfunctional without it, and thus, democracy cannot work with a dysfunctional people as it requires its people to actually be able to think and participate, and if they could think and participate, they would already be doing so without the help of democracy.  So, I take a pro-freedom stance, as I do not believe people require a higher power to be told what to do and how to do it; it is in my belief that people readily have their self-interest in mind, which is eroded when they are told they cannot think for themselves as only government can tell them what's best for them (e.g. "We must ban all the guns", or even the unlikely "We must not ban all the guns"; it doesn't matter, since people already know what they want), and so a dependency is created.

If ever there is a time where you say, "We have to ban X because it's just obvious/for our own good/people can't figure it out on their own", remember it's people who make democracy function, making this statement redundant, for it assumes people both can and cannot think for themselves (or rather, the person saying this has taken an authoritative stance in the assumption that he is more intelligent/powerful than his peers.)  The only explanation to this idea is that government is not by the people, but its own entity, making its own laws in its own benefit through corrupt politicians and business owners, and the pro-authority individual just loves the idea of manipulating this system for their own benefit, even at, or ignoring, the expense of others.

Yes, guns are made to kill people.  But remember that it's through guns that we ban guns, and if you believe guns should be banned, you must absolutely believe government should disappear, and yet this is the dissonance I constantly hear in these arguments, because you cannot be pro-authority and anti-gun; in fact, pro-authority individuals require guns, they absolutely love the idea of guns, or else their authoritative stance simply disappears: nobody cares about the demands of an unarmed individual.  If you believe citizens should be banned from having guns, but government should still have them, this only reinforces the idea that government is not of the people; it is its own entity, passing laws for its own needs, made even more easy as there's close to a 0% chance they'll be overthrown.

Please, for the love of Christ, anti-gun proponents, lose the ambivalence and understand what it is you're asking for: you cannot be in favor of politics and against guns and killing, for politics necessitates the other; you cannot, ever, ever, ever, have both a powerful and benevolent government, for that power stems from their ability to kill, with guns, and tanks, and missiles, etc.  The government with the ability to ban guns is the government with all the guns and is using them, often.

Governments and military and their hired thugs must disarm first.

However, that won't solve the underlying issue.  Without guns, this discussion would be about swords.

M

I agree about the 2nd ... not willing as opposed to intend.

ps.  I'm not a city boy.  But I think I learned it in a NRA gun safety course at the store I bought my first pistol from.

M

Well I live in the land of Oz and we've had guns outlawed since 1996 and it's been a smooth time. Sure I do agree that they should serve the people, and it's in the people's best interest to have ALL guns banned simple as that.

so you don't believe in the idea that government is to SERVE the people, rather than be our masters?

Hah, easiest decision in the world. Ban ALL guns. I've never seen the merit in allowing civilians to readily access firearms and I still don't. All you are doing is giving more power to the masses to terrorize each other with.

first one is correct. Developed by the Marines in the 1800's.

I would amend the second line to are not willing to kill, as quite often the intent is to defuse the situation, and the third isn't really a rule but is a good adjunct. I have not memorized the rest of the list, as it's all clarification of the first rule. Such as be sure of your back drop, aim carefully, things like that.

I am happily surprised that someone was so quick with that. In the cities I've lived in, people come up with all kinds of really wacky stuff. The one I hear the most often is never point a gun at someone. That makes me nuts. In a SHTF situation, even just a personal one, you are of course HOPING to point your gun at the aggressor before they can do unto you.

Never met a country boy (or girl for that matter) who didn't know the rule.

I can't recall seeing a nipple on "broadcast tv", but I have not watched it in years, so someone might correct me.  And of course, what we get on cable/pay per view is the same as what you get, the same Hollywood stuff, with the same calculated percentages of sex/blood/gore/car chases etc.  I don't watch that either for about 3 years, but we do rent and buy movies and the better of the serials - Boardwalk, Breaking bad, Wired, Hell on Wheels are examples.  And I've never considered subscribing to the playboy channel that's pretty much a joke - it was also a calculated marketing effort with narrow markets.

I think it's fair to say that porn in the US went from VCR/DVD straight to internet.  

One essential problem here is that even to seriously discuss what entertainment is available on the networks is to admit that you've fallen for the propaganda traps purveyed therein along with the content you think you're getting.  We see a lot of Europeans who have fallen for this and don't even realize it.  Of course the reverse is likely equally true.

But here in the USA we ain't giving no Obama no Nobel Peace Prize.   That's your fucked up friends up north a bit get credit for that one.

Precisely why a central source of power is so dangerous.  The more concentrated it is, the more the insanity ensues.

On a related note, I have concluded that I do not want to be an admin on any TF2 server; the server would be empty before long.

About comparing to other countries, I meant the you cannot compare america to europe with pregnancies issue, it's apples and oranges.

Sexual revolution boom came with condoms. "Yay, we can fuck without consequences now, let's make some orgies right here!" After every progression, naturally comes regression. "Yeah, he came on my face, when my nephew came in, and larry was filming. I think it's too much for kids to see this".  Sense of overdoing it.

I hope i will not see the day when heroin becomes over the counter thing. Cigarettes are not hard to get, and still youngsters are dumb enough to smoke. If I were to be a dictator I would outlaw all tabacco and hard drugs, with public beheadings and stuff. And hard enforcing. People would get the message after time. I want alchohol to be hard to get, I don't want drunk kids seen around, or doing crazy things. You can get booze, but you cannot be drinking openly in public if you're a minor. It's not about simply getting it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prude


Insincere because we have laws about "exposing yourself", yet there is sexuality flaunted in your face everywhere.

I personally think it's a conspiracy.

M

Sorry, didn't get you. Care to explain?

There is a lot of insincere prudishness here.  I don't understand it.  It's full of irony.

M

Really? You do not have porn on TV in the US? Not even a "nipple"? I hope you are joking. Do you really need to have cable to watch Playboy channel, which is mostly softcore at least in Europe?

We have hardcore porn on TV on weekends night in Europe since the '80s, in some countries since the '70s. I knew the US was fucked up, but I didn't know it was SO bad.

True. I forget that because I do not have cable/sat. For me I see nothing worth the money on television. My point is that we seem to be fine with violence compared to sexuality. We play a pretending game that hiding genitals means protecting people from their own animal urges. Yet little attention is paid to reining in our more dangerous urge to better our position by hurting others.

It's likely always assume a gun is loaded.

Close to that would be don't point the gun at something you don't intend to kill.

Third would be keep your finger off the trigger unless you are about to fire.

M

This. +1

I want to reiterate that ALL of the mass shootings in my lifetime have been in places where it is illegal to carry a weapon, rendering the victims defenseless. I have heard of maybe three incidents in that time where some fool tried it in an area where arms were extant, with very different results. Either the perp dead or disarmed with little or no harm inflicted on innocents.

As to why *I* want an "assault" weapon, specifically an AK variant, is because it's a damn fine rifle with better reliability than practically anything, and it's simple.

I had the single fire version in the past, and it is decent for hunting as long as you're not after bear or elk or some other ridiculously tough animal, but it's best for shooting back in a bad situation. I actually prefer pistols for myself, as my visual acuity makes gun-sights an iffy proposition due to astigmatism, but at the ranges a pistol is best for (which is not coincidentally the ranges that the maniacs go for against targets they know to be unarmed), sights are unnecessary. But in a SHTF scenario, I would want a rifle. The reliability and simplicity of the AK make it my rifle of choice.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not a particularly powerful rifle. A 30.06 is a much more dangerous gun against an armored target, and it's long range accuracy is superb. It also kicks like an angry mule, which makes it impractical for a small framed guy like me. That it's far less likely to be banned is kind of amusing, as it was originally developed as a sniper's gun back around the turn of the 20th century.

The truth regarding the banning of assault rifles is that they are kind of a connoseur's weapon, and thus an easier target for the politicians than the guns that are actually most often used in crimes. No, I don't think those should be banned either, as I believe the first requisite of liberty is general competent armament.

While taken as a whole, the US has more gun violence than all other nations that I am aware of (by population, at least), the US is NOT a homogenous culture. Those areas where armament is pretty general have low crime rates. The places that report the most gun violence also have the most restrictive laws regarding legal possession of firearms. This correlation is too specific to be a fallacy, and is one of the things the gun bannin' crowd never likes to respond to. I live in Idaho, which has the loosest gun laws in the country to my knowledge, except wrt concealed carry. Armament is common and unremarkable in this society, and we have a very low violent crime rate. Thugs like to HAVE guns, not face them.

I'm not sure if it's still true, but for a very long time the District of Columbia was the murder capital of the world (the private sort, not government wars). It was illegal to even OWN a handgun or long gun in the District, yet it had the most gun deaths. When you disarm the potential victim, that potential goes WAY up.

As to the argument that most people can't handle the responsibility, I'm divided. Given that modern society/government goes to great lengths to protect the willfully stupid, you have a valid argument, but I believe that the key there is education, not regulation. Any idiot can operate a gun, which is why I make the distinction between merely being armed and being COMPETENTLY armed. I am not going to shoot somebody by accident or in a fit of rage. I understand and respect the power of my weapons and will keep my head in a tense situation. This is not the result of temperament, but of training and education. I have handled firearms, safely, for nearly four decades. I have taught many others how to do so. I will teach my son to shoot and when NOT to shoot before much longer. He's still too young, but he already knows the first rule of gun safety.

And I think I will end off with a question of my own, for whoever wants to take a stab at it, because I find that Americans are woefully undereducated on this.

What is the first rule of gun safety?