What I like in discussions is when one party blames the other party for failure, and with this kind of "proving" that the other party is always wrong, so the one *never* needs to give in.
Agreed. Sorry I can't be of more help in this thread, I articulate badly and just flat out can't argue with folks for the most part.... do not trust government and do not particularly like it. That radically alters one's views on what "free society" really means.
Actually arming kids is pretty much in line or not far off from the general chorus of the gun zealots we have heard. More guns, more people with guns, more guns everywhere - that was their FIRST response. Meet the potential of armed threat with a greater armed preparedness. Responsibility and moderation were second at best. Certainly this is an extreme response, but are you debating that it is only slightly off what they were saying on Fox News even as they were carting out bodies?
It's really fairly simple, DArt. You Euros feel that government is a good thing. It provides for you and gives each and every citizen a kiss goodnight at bedtime and there is much rejoicing. We (or at least the targets of your derision, for whom I'm speaking) do not trust government and do not particularly like it. That radically alters one's views on what "free society" really means.
Y'all are also using sloppy logic by painting all gun owners as the loose cannons you need them to be to justify your indignation. There are millions of gun owners out there that acquired their weapons legally, are trained in their use, maintain them properly, and properly respect their lethality. There's absolutely no justification to take weapons from those people. You're blindly casting an overly broad net, and treating anyone that doesn't agree like some sort of mouthbreather while completely ignoring all attempts to point out your flawed logic.
Allow me to demonstrate what you're really doing. Criminals use their penis to rape. There are plenty of impressive textbooks that claim that not only is that the tool, but also the justification in and of itself. Your response is that we should remove all penises from everyone.
Yes, your proposal really is that stupid. Walk thru the logic—it's the exact same nonsense y'all are using to "prove" that guns should be taken away.
Those who argue that "freedom" means abolishing government aims to abolish the freedom that government protects. The democratic state distribute power for rational reasons (the more people who can contribute, the faster a nation develops, the faster economy grows, the more effective is to adapt to crisis's and the less conflict).It's really fairly simple, DArt. You Euros feel that government is a good thing. It provides for you and gives each and every citizen a kiss goodnight at bedtime and there is much rejoicing. We (or at least the targets of your derision, for whom I'm speaking) do not trust government and do not particularly like it. That radically alters one's views on what "free society" really means.
That's pretty stupid, even coming from you. The difference between my penis and my gun, is that you can't take my penis and rape someone with it. That's on me.
Can you follow this distinction?
As for what we "Euros" like, I'm pretty sure it's very much the same thing. Nobody fully trusts the government - because you'd have to be a fool to trust people in power. But we need government to make civilization work until we're ready to do without it - which is very, very far into the future.
Those who argue that "freedom" means abolishing government aims to abolish the freedom that government protects.
This was really a remarkably dumb comparison, especially in an argument that uses the word "logic".
JemyM said:A democratic state is the most effective solution to diminish SDO's.
What you guys also have to remember is that the generalities he speaks of represent a group that:
Y'all are strawmanning the shit out of this now. If that's the best you've got, I guess we've gotten as far as we're going to get.
Actually, that was kinda the final death throes for the discussion. When a discussion about gun control somehow leads to unsubstantiated and baseless accusations of racism when racial implications of gun control hadn't even been so much as mentioned, it's clear the conversation has run its course.Yep, you're an anarchist Taliban racist. I don't think you're going to accomplish anything here. Null program.
More strict gun laws will have almost no impact on firearm violence. You can check out the CDC study published in 03. (Their findings/methodologies/etc were published in the American Journal for preventative Medicine 28.2-S1) Also the Cato Journal (Issue 26.1) printed another study done quite locally to me. Both are fairly well known peer reviewed journals. I find it odd that they are so rarely mentioned, by I imagine that is mostly because the findings do not support either popular political parties narrative on the matter.
The only form of gun "control" that would likely impact gun deaths in any meaningful way is complete state repossession. And that could actually spark off a war. Coupled with the fact that there is no conclusive data to predict how effective such measures would be, no one is likely to go there.
Actually, that was kinda the final death throes for the discussion. When a discussion about gun control somehow leads to unsubstantiated and baseless accusations of racism when racial implications of gun control hadn't even been so much as mentioned, it's clear the conversation has run its course.