Human nature created guns, yes. And it is, in many cases, human nature to want to use them.
But what I am trying to get at is, we could save lives by, if it were possible, getting rid of guns and weapons. We could also save lives by changing human nature. One of the two options is much easier to implement than the other, and I suggest we choose that one :)
Getting rid of firearms is no more realistic than changing human nature.
But it is moot, as my official stance is that I will shoot anyone who tries to take my guns. I don't philosophize about it, I don't try to justify it, that's just how it is. I am the apex predator, the creeping cat, the big bear, the swooping eagle, and all the rabbits must do as I say, and I probably eat them anyway. If you're not armed, you're a rabbit, a rabbit who will never be able to change one little thing about the world. If you are armed, it's not much different, but at least you can shoot stuff.
"I don't philosophize about it, I don't try to justify it, that's just how it is".
Maybe you should philosophize about it. Simply accepting something to be true without properly thinking about it is not strengthening your argument. Furthermore, if you think you could stop the government taking your guns if they wanted to you are living in a dream world.
"If you're not armed [... you] will never be able to change one little thing about the world"
What utter bollocks. I don't see Obama carrying a shotgun. I don't see Rupert Murdoch with a sniper rifle. Ghandi certainly never shot anyone. Neither did Martin Luther King. I could go on forever listing names if people who have changed the world beyond recognition without using guns.
The fuck is this even relavent? Sure he has a gun, but he doesn't NEED one to be one of the most powerful people on the planet.
Obama doesn't personally use guns, and (as far as I am aware) there are no proven attempts on his life where he has been saved by guns.
King was "issued a weapons permit". That is very far from being armed, and I'm sure he never used a gun to defend himself, so that too is irrelavent.
Furthermore, you are missing the point. Without personally using guns with the intention of shooting people, those people are still successful. I notice that you utterly ignored disporoving Ghandi, which was the most important example I used.
Dom, so sorry you don't like people poking holes into your statements. A few websites note that King did carry a weapon for some time. I simply gave specific information instead of heeding your unsubstantiated position.
I don't believe anyone you listed ever used the gun in self-defense, much like 99% of the gun owners in America will never (probably) need to shoot someone.
I didn't mention Ghandi because I know little about him. Seems only right to leave him out of the chat.
I thought we were defending gun ownership, not citing a few people that didn't have to use a gun to change the world. Perhaps I misread someone else's previous post. Also, there were two attempts on Obama's life thus far. But I'm sure they didn't announce that on CBS news.
I know, we have deviated. But that was what you pulled me up on, so that is how I responded. Rufus brought up the "change the world" thing first, and I expanded from there, and it hijacked the whole debate.
It doesn't bother me if King *carried* a gun or not. Surely if he never *used* it, then it doesn't matter if he had one or not. Therefore he would have changed the world without guns. That was all I was saying. I didn't actually know much about him, I just brought him up because he came straight into my head.
You seem a little stung by me poking holes as well, though. Picking holes in unimportant places is just pedantic, it doesn't affect my overall argument, which is why your clay shooting argument bothered me so much. I am fully aware that I don't know everything, and I can only argue from the information that I have.
"Simply accepting something to be true without properly thinking about it is not strengthening your argument."
I'm not making an argument. A predator does not argue, he kills, he survives, and sometimes he dies. I'm TELLING you that I don't care what anyone thinks, and I do not feel the need to justify myself. Does that make me a bad person? Probably. If you don't like it, shoot me. I'm prepared to die.
"What utter bollocks. I don't see Obama carrying a shotgun. I don't see Rupert Murdoch with a sniper rifle. Ghandi certainly never shot anyone. Neither did Martin Luther King. "
I could not care less about any of those people. They come from completely different worlds than I.
1) Why are you continuing this conversation unless you are making an argument? How can you convince me without trying to make one?
2) You don't feel the need to justify yourself, but you are explaining your actions to someone over the internet who thinks differently to you? Hmm.
3) Yes, that does make you a bad person. Correct, I don't like it. No, I won't shoot you. It illustrates quite well how differently we think if your reaction to a problem would be to try to shoot it.
4) No, you are not prepared to die. If you think you are then you are fooling yourself once again. I'm sure that you would not like to die at all.
5) If you don't care about any of those people, you exist only to for self-interest, whereas I do not. Again, differences between us. However, that gives my life potential worth to other people, whereas yours has none. If your life has no worth to the world, what is your purpose in life? [This is a genuine question, by the way. I would be interested to find out what motivates you, and why you choose to live like you do.]
6) No-one comes from a different world to you or anyone else. We are all connected. Just by ignoring something or someone, you cannot make it any less relavent in your life or point of view, even if you wish it wasn't. Furthermore, why talk about making changes if you don't care about people who do?
4. I don't want to die, but I'm ready for it at any given moment. When a big truck acts screwy in traffic on the interstate, I lean back, smile, and think "maybe this is it."
5. Your philosophy about self-worth just proves that you are fundamentally different than me. Nothing more. Mine is the philosophy of no philosophy. In other words, my body acts of it's own accord, and I don't know what I'm doing, or why I take certain actions as opposed to other actions. My head is empty.
6. I do come from a different world. The planet "Mau". The inhabitants are physiologically similar to humans, but are solitary creature like cats, and rely on individual intelligence, rather than group effort, and the development of civilization, to survive. They, in turn, are descended from the survivors of a failed space expedition in the 1840's. You won't find anything about it in the history books. I'm the son of the first one to be recovered from this planet. He was taken here in the 60's, and learned to live in our world over the course of several years. He even married. Eventually, he ended up going berserk, and had to be killed by the military. I never met him.
No, but for entirely different reasons than guns. The world was bloodier before then because of the lack of civilisation and co-operation, not because guns were not invented yet. There is no reason to link decreased bloodiness with firearms.
Also, there is a difference between use of guns in war and allowing the man in the street to keep one at home to shoot intruders dead. War (while I hate saying it) can sometimes be justified, but there is no good reason to let your citizens carry guns in peacetime.
The flaw in your reasoning is contained in you phrase "... let your citizens". That's thenub of this. A government sjould servd the cutizens and should properly fear the citizens. Subjects, as opposed to citizens, fear their government. The USA has a second amendment precisely so that the citizens can, as a last resort, destroy an oppressive government. Citizen are soverign; subjects are, well, subject to their government. If you don't think 70 million armed citizens can destroy any government on earth, you haven't read enough history.Gun ownership is about freedom and also responsibility.
I think that is where we differ. The government should serve the citizens, but also guide the citizens to a decision that is best for the national interest. This is why we vote in elections for representatives, instead of voting on specific policy: to prevent laws which would endagnger public safety. Furthermore, why does fear have to be the motivator at all? I do not fear my government, and neither does it fear me. It ought to me a mutual relationship, with neither side dominant.
In this day and age, 70 million would not be enough. They would need to be co-ordinated, and they could not co-ordinate in secret without the government finding out. Also, the British, French and probably Canadians would all rush in and defend the US government as well.
Hows that vaunted team of USA, Canada, France etc doing against the lightly armed Afghans? How do you think the Afghans would be doing if there were 70 million of them? Think before you write; there is an empirical example right in front of you.
I think we are veering off topic here, but I'll respond regardless.
Afghanistan is well known of it's strategic ability to defend easily. You need much fewer numbers to defend Afghanistan than you do almost anywhere else in the world.
The Western troops in Afghanistan are also poorly motivated compared to the Afghans, as the war there is thousands of miles from home and insignificant to their lives at home. The Afghans, however, are well motivated; if they don't fight, their way of life will be destroyed.
Have you ever shot a gun before?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Human nature created guns, yes. And it is, in many cases, human nature to want to use them.
But what I am trying to get at is, we could save lives by, if it were possible, getting rid of guns and weapons. We could also save lives by changing human nature. One of the two options is much easier to implement than the other, and I suggest we choose that one :)
--
Rufus
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
-
ashfordite
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
lease
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Getting rid of firearms is no more realistic than changing human nature.
But it is moot, as my official stance is that I will shoot anyone who tries to take my guns. I don't philosophize about it, I don't try to justify it, that's just how it is. I am the apex predator, the creeping cat, the big bear, the swooping eagle, and all the rabbits must do as I say, and I probably eat them anyway. If you're not armed, you're a rabbit, a rabbit who will never be able to change one little thing about the world. If you are armed, it's not much different, but at least you can shoot stuff.
--
CreamPuffs
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
Guns are lame. Bombs are much better for taking out little snobs like you.
"I don't philosophize about it, I don't try to justify it, that's just how it is".
Maybe you should philosophize about it. Simply accepting something to be true without properly thinking about it is not strengthening your argument. Furthermore, if you think you could stop the government taking your guns if they wanted to you are living in a dream world.
"If you're not armed [... you] will never be able to change one little thing about the world"
What utter bollocks. I don't see Obama carrying a shotgun. I don't see Rupert Murdoch with a sniper rifle. Ghandi certainly never shot anyone. Neither did Martin Luther King. I could go on forever listing names if people who have changed the world beyond recognition without using guns.
--
lease
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
6
6
-
Rufus
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Obama would be dead if the scores of people around him weren't carrying guns.
Rupert Murdoch was an avid clay shooter.
King was issued a weapons permit by the state of Alabama after his home was bombed.
Next?
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
"Rupert Murdoch was an avid clay shooter."
The fuck is this even relavent? Sure he has a gun, but he doesn't NEED one to be one of the most powerful people on the planet.
Obama doesn't personally use guns, and (as far as I am aware) there are no proven attempts on his life where he has been saved by guns.
King was "issued a weapons permit". That is very far from being armed, and I'm sure he never used a gun to defend himself, so that too is irrelavent.
Furthermore, you are missing the point. Without personally using guns with the intention of shooting people, those people are still successful. I notice that you utterly ignored disporoving Ghandi, which was the most important example I used.
--
lease
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
Dom, so sorry you don't like people poking holes into your statements. A few websites note that King did carry a weapon for some time. I simply gave specific information instead of heeding your unsubstantiated position.
I don't believe anyone you listed ever used the gun in self-defense, much like 99% of the gun owners in America will never (probably) need to shoot someone.
I didn't mention Ghandi because I know little about him. Seems only right to leave him out of the chat.
I thought we were defending gun ownership, not citing a few people that didn't have to use a gun to change the world. Perhaps I misread someone else's previous post. Also, there were two attempts on Obama's life thus far. But I'm sure they didn't announce that on CBS news.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I know, we have deviated. But that was what you pulled me up on, so that is how I responded. Rufus brought up the "change the world" thing first, and I expanded from there, and it hijacked the whole debate.
It doesn't bother me if King *carried* a gun or not. Surely if he never *used* it, then it doesn't matter if he had one or not. Therefore he would have changed the world without guns. That was all I was saying. I didn't actually know much about him, I just brought him up because he came straight into my head.
You seem a little stung by me poking holes as well, though. Picking holes in unimportant places is just pedantic, it doesn't affect my overall argument, which is why your clay shooting argument bothered me so much. I am fully aware that I don't know everything, and I can only argue from the information that I have.
"Simply accepting something to be true without properly thinking about it is not strengthening your argument."
I'm not making an argument. A predator does not argue, he kills, he survives, and sometimes he dies. I'm TELLING you that I don't care what anyone thinks, and I do not feel the need to justify myself. Does that make me a bad person? Probably. If you don't like it, shoot me. I'm prepared to die.
"What utter bollocks. I don't see Obama carrying a shotgun. I don't see Rupert Murdoch with a sniper rifle. Ghandi certainly never shot anyone. Neither did Martin Luther King. "
I could not care less about any of those people. They come from completely different worlds than I.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
1) Why are you continuing this conversation unless you are making an argument? How can you convince me without trying to make one?
2) You don't feel the need to justify yourself, but you are explaining your actions to someone over the internet who thinks differently to you? Hmm.
3) Yes, that does make you a bad person. Correct, I don't like it. No, I won't shoot you. It illustrates quite well how differently we think if your reaction to a problem would be to try to shoot it.
4) No, you are not prepared to die. If you think you are then you are fooling yourself once again. I'm sure that you would not like to die at all.
5) If you don't care about any of those people, you exist only to for self-interest, whereas I do not. Again, differences between us. However, that gives my life potential worth to other people, whereas yours has none. If your life has no worth to the world, what is your purpose in life? [This is a genuine question, by the way. I would be interested to find out what motivates you, and why you choose to live like you do.]
6) No-one comes from a different world to you or anyone else. We are all connected. Just by ignoring something or someone, you cannot make it any less relavent in your life or point of view, even if you wish it wasn't. Furthermore, why talk about making changes if you don't care about people who do?
--
Rufus
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
1. For my own entertainment.
2. But I'm not justifying myself.
3. Cool shit. Survival of the fittest.
4. I don't want to die, but I'm ready for it at any given moment. When a big truck acts screwy in traffic on the interstate, I lean back, smile, and think "maybe this is it."
5. Your philosophy about self-worth just proves that you are fundamentally different than me. Nothing more. Mine is the philosophy of no philosophy. In other words, my body acts of it's own accord, and I don't know what I'm doing, or why I take certain actions as opposed to other actions. My head is empty.
6. I do come from a different world. The planet "Mau". The inhabitants are physiologically similar to humans, but are solitary creature like cats, and rely on individual intelligence, rather than group effort, and the development of civilization, to survive. They, in turn, are descended from the survivors of a failed space expedition in the 1840's. You won't find anything about it in the history books. I'm the son of the first one to be recovered from this planet. He was taken here in the 60's, and learned to live in our world over the course of several years. He even married. Eventually, he ended up going berserk, and had to be killed by the military. I never met him.
Do you seriously believe the eotld was les bloody before the invention of firearms? Read history, really
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No, but for entirely different reasons than guns. The world was bloodier before then because of the lack of civilisation and co-operation, not because guns were not invented yet. There is no reason to link decreased bloodiness with firearms.
Also, there is a difference between use of guns in war and allowing the man in the street to keep one at home to shoot intruders dead. War (while I hate saying it) can sometimes be justified, but there is no good reason to let your citizens carry guns in peacetime.
--
ashfordite
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Rufus
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The flaw in your reasoning is contained in you phrase "... let your citizens". That's thenub of this. A government sjould servd the cutizens and should properly fear the citizens. Subjects, as opposed to citizens, fear their government. The USA has a second amendment precisely so that the citizens can, as a last resort, destroy an oppressive government. Citizen are soverign; subjects are, well, subject to their government. If you don't think 70 million armed citizens can destroy any government on earth, you haven't read enough history.Gun ownership is about freedom and also responsibility.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I think that is where we differ. The government should serve the citizens, but also guide the citizens to a decision that is best for the national interest. This is why we vote in elections for representatives, instead of voting on specific policy: to prevent laws which would endagnger public safety. Furthermore, why does fear have to be the motivator at all? I do not fear my government, and neither does it fear me. It ought to me a mutual relationship, with neither side dominant.
In this day and age, 70 million would not be enough. They would need to be co-ordinated, and they could not co-ordinate in secret without the government finding out. Also, the British, French and probably Canadians would all rush in and defend the US government as well.
--
ashfordite
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Hows that vaunted team of USA, Canada, France etc doing against the lightly armed Afghans? How do you think the Afghans would be doing if there were 70 million of them? Think before you write; there is an empirical example right in front of you.
--
dom180
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
I think we are veering off topic here, but I'll respond regardless.
Afghanistan is well known of it's strategic ability to defend easily. You need much fewer numbers to defend Afghanistan than you do almost anywhere else in the world.
The Western troops in Afghanistan are also poorly motivated compared to the Afghans, as the war there is thousands of miles from home and insignificant to their lives at home. The Afghans, however, are well motivated; if they don't fight, their way of life will be destroyed.
There is a great reason: I will shoot anyone who tries to take them from me. Allowing the private ownership of firearms saves lives.
I'd argue that hunting necessity first created guns.
--
Rufus
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Exactly, and that is my primary use for them.