Aussie's is this story true?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

country-wide regulation and education program

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

slap the stupid out of their head.

what is brain

I'm not entirely sure if you're asking me a question, and if you are, could you please be more specific?

Also, I believe you are taking things out of context.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 09:21:35 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

country-wide regulation and education program

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

slap the stupid out of their head.

what is brain

I'm not entirely sure if you're asking me a question, and if you are, could you please be more specific?

Also, I believe you are taking things out of context.

OOC post. He is trying to imply that slapping the stupid out of someone's head is not a type of education. but yet people learn not to touch electric fences. strange that.

it is not a type of education I like, though.

Quote from: rooster on August 29, 2012, 09:49:32 PM

Quote from: burt on August 29, 2012, 05:28:10 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 29, 2012, 04:10:47 PM

Quote from: burt on August 29, 2012, 12:56:46 PM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 29, 2012, 07:05:42 AM

Stop saying tools, it's knives.
And stop saying outlawed they are not.

You are allowed to possess a knife at any age.

You are not allowed to buy a knife under the age of 18 in the UK.

So if your actual question is 'why should the sale of knives be banned for under 18s?' then the answer is because minors cannot always be trusted with knives. With our law an adult gets to make the decision for the minor.

Surely they should not be allowed to handle them then? the law might be one way or the other about knives, but claiming that minor's can't be trusted with them, yet saying they are allowed to handle them is somewhat incoherent.

If a child wants to buy a knife for no reason, he would have to ask an adult to buy it for him or her. The adult will hopefully be dubious of buying a child a knife for no reason.
If, however, the child is interested in cooking, one can see why the child may want a new knife.

Simples!

If some minor's cannot be trusted with knives why are they allowed to posses them, yet they are not allowed to buy them?

What is the point you are trying to make, that the only way to get a knife is through adults or buying them yourself?

Because I think they have made it pretty clear in the argument above that if someone was determined to get a tool, like a gun or or knife, while it might be harder while regulated, they will still succeed in aquiring one.

and in fact why would a minor buy a knife if he has criminal tendencies? surely they would steal it.

For the same reason that a minor is allowed to posses an M rated game but not buy one in the USA or only see an R rated movie with an adult. Providers of the product need an adult to take responsibility for that child's behavior and teach them or put things into context. I believe you have to be 18 to buy a real sword here legally speaking, but I could be wrong.

I believe this argument has fallen off of the edge of the "flat earth."

I bought a sword before I was 18. However, I was educated in the proper and safe uses of a sword, and I was brought up in a way that I don't have homicidal/suicidal thoughts or tendencies. What we need is a country-wide regulation and education program to teach and enforce safe and practical uses of all of these tools. Also, just because the guns are near kids, doesn't mean that it's dangerous to the children. The pictures I've seen have the gun holstered, hopefully with the safety on. If a child tried to take my gun (hypothetical, I don't own one) out of the holster, I would probably slap the stupid out of their head. Guns are safe if there's proper education. Many, many people used to own guns, and their parents used to teach them proper handling and care, and there weren't "columbine" type incidents. Now, this doesn't happen anymore. Proper gun/weapon safety education is all but non-existent, and people can get a hold of weapons, whether through legal means (which they wont do if they don't want to get caught) or black market contacts. They learn how it make it go "bang," and then they have it. People are the problem, not the guns.

Of course people are the problem. Guns just don't float around shooting things on their own. But people generally aren't responsible enough so might as well take them away.

I don't know how you bought that sword, but I'm fairly positive you need to be 18 to buy any weapon. When I bought my sword they checked my ID. And that's why knives are always under those special locked display cases.

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 09:21:35 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

country-wide regulation and education program

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

slap the stupid out of their head.

what is brain

I'm not entirely sure if you're asking me a question, and if you are, could you please be more specific?

Also, I believe you are taking things out of context.

OOC post. He is trying to imply that slapping the stupid out of someone's head is not a type of education. but yet people learn not to touch electric fences. strange that.

it is not a type of education I like, though.

I see. That's what I thought. I wasn't going to truly answer something without being more specific. But my last statement rings true, he took it out of context. The "slapping the stupid out" was not the means of education. It was the means of "hey kid, get your fucking hand off of my gun." Of course, one would know that if they were to read the whole post instead of scanning through to pick out things to try and bash on my argument.

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 09:21:35 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

country-wide regulation and education program

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

slap the stupid out of their head.

what is brain

I'm not entirely sure if you're asking me a question, and if you are, could you please be more specific?

Also, I believe you are taking things out of context.

OOC post. He is trying to imply that slapping the stupid out of someone's head is not a type of education. but yet people learn not to touch electric fences. strange that.

it is not a type of education I like, though.

I see. That's what I thought. I wasn't going to truly answer something without being more specific. But my last statement rings true, he took it out of context. The "slapping the stupid out" was not the means of education. It was the means of "hey kid, get your fucking hand off of my gun." Of course, one would know that if they were to read the whole post instead of scanning through to pick out things to try and bash on my argument.

I agree: OOCP. though, in all honesty, I would not give a kid a swift clip around the ear, or condone it - maybe that's my damned british-liberal roots.

Now for a funny video that includes a debate about slapping:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Should the law on smacking be relaxed?

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:28:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:22:53 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:11:10 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 09:21:35 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

country-wide regulation and education program

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 05:42:40 AM

slap the stupid out of their head.

what is brain

I'm not entirely sure if you're asking me a question, and if you are, could you please be more specific?

Also, I believe you are taking things out of context.

OOC post. He is trying to imply that slapping the stupid out of someone's head is not a type of education. but yet people learn not to touch electric fences. strange that.

it is not a type of education I like, though.

I see. That's what I thought. I wasn't going to truly answer something without being more specific. But my last statement rings true, he took it out of context. The "slapping the stupid out" was not the means of education. It was the means of "hey kid, get your fucking hand off of my gun." Of course, one would know that if they were to read the whole post instead of scanning through to pick out things to try and bash on my argument.

I agree: OOCP. though, in all honesty, I would not give a kid a swift clip around the ear, or condone it - maybe that's my damned british-liberal roots.

Now for a funny video that includes a debate about slapping:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Should the law on smacking be relaxed?

See... that red headed lady is talking about beating... yea that's not what I was talking about. I was over exaggerating. I do that. I give my kids a smack now and then, but only when, say, my son thinks it's funny to trip is sister so she smacks her face into the floor. Situations like this require quick attention, and everyone will have a different opinion on what this means and what works. The schools in my area have adopted a "positive reinforcement" policy. They pay attention to, and reward the good stuff, and ignore the bad stuff. People say it works, but it sounds a bit asinine to me.

But anyway. Guns. Teach people what the fuck they're for. Also, teach people how to raise their children, I believe that might be part of the problem.

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.

Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I'm sorry, is it making you angry? To me, your word swapping looks ridiculous. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. Rape and murder are morally wrong. Guns are not. Using guns to rape or murder is morally wrong. Using a gun to defend yourself is not. Using a gun to uphold freedom is not. Using a gun to protect others is not. Guns don't have to be all bad.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

I don't think so. I registered Independant. I'm not sure that it makes me an anarchist. Or a libertarian. I'm also not sure how libertarian is chaos. I'd rather restructure every piece of government and economy, as there's way too much room for corruption and greed to take over, as it has done, but that's beside the point.

A question for the gun owners here: If a law was passed tomorrow prohibiting gun ownership (or severely restricting it, like the British laws), would you turn in your guns?

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Libertarianism by defintion is less radical. libertarians don't like the state but they think that some kind state is necassery, hence why they are minarchists, which translates as someone who wants the minimun amount of government necassery.

anarchism does not require community. types of anarchism for you perusal:
Individualist anarchism ( the most radical political stance ever, after egoism.)
anarcho-syndacalism (I.e anarchists who use marxist terms and dialectic, furthermore the one with community)
anarcho-capitalist (suprisingly similar to libertarianism)
anarcha-feminism (I bet you can guess)
there are many more types but an out an out anarchist belives that in a true anarchist society all of these would manifest in some sense, therefore it is the most radical stance you can have.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:06:23 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.

Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Libertarianism by defintion is less radical. libertarians don't like the state but they think that some kind state is necassery, hence why they are minarchists, which translates as someone who wants the minimun amount of government necassery.

I guess this would make me Libertarian, by this definition. However, I don't like labels, as my views can change with experience. I do think the state is necessary. I don't like the current position that the US government has placed itself in. There's a lot of cleaning up and fixing to be done. But they, with the help of the media, have got people so stuck on abortion, medicare, and taxes, that no one pays attention to the real issues, like the fact that the government has $15 trillion debt of borrowed/printed money, and $130 trillion debt to the American Taxpayer, and they're spending more money than they make, and they raise the "debt ceiling" once every few months, which means they authorize printing of more money, with no more gold/silver to back it, thereby devastating the value of the dollar, and they're funding global war campaigns on people that cannot effectively defend themselves from our military strength, all with no money. They have no money, and they're just ignoring the fact and letting people vote on where the money that doesn't exist should be spent, while they borrow money from China, who now practically owns the US. The real issues.

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

I would have to disagree with you. People are generally pretty selfish and look out for their own needs and that of their dependents before anyone else's. Rape, murder, and stealing has been around since the beginning of humankind. It has nothing to do with original sin or any religious reasons. On the contrary, I would say you seem like the more religious or spiritual one with your optimistic stand point. You don't have to be a sociopath to rape, murder, or steal. It could be any heat of the moment situation or a situation of need (you're starving and you see someone's nice steak sitting unattended on a table).

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:34:50 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Libertarianism by defintion is less radical. libertarians don't like the state but they think that some kind state is necassery, hence why they are minarchists, which translates as someone who wants the minimun amount of government necassery.

I guess this would make me Libertarian, by this definition. However, I don't like labels, as my views can change with experience. I do think the state is necessary. I don't like the current position that the US government has placed itself in. There's a lot of cleaning up and fixing to be done. But they, with the help of the media, have got people so stuck on abortion, medicare, and taxes, that no one pays attention to the real issues, like the fact that the government has $15 trillion debt of borrowed/printed money, and $130 trillion debt to the American Taxpayer, and they're spending more money than they make, and they raise the "debt ceiling" once every few months, which means they authorize printing of more money, with no more gold/silver to back it, thereby devastating the value of the dollar, and they're funding global war campaigns on people that cannot effectively defend themselves from our military strength, all with no money. They have no money, and they're just ignoring the fact and letting people vote on where the money that doesn't exist should be spent, while they borrow money from China, who now practically owns the US. The real issues.

it sounds to me that you would really like this site: http://www.alterati.com/blog/

I have listened to various of their podcasts, they seem to bve converging with the principles that you are espousing here, they are a very interesting sub-culture.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

I would have to disagree with you. People are generally pretty selfish and look out for their own needs and that of their dependents before anyone else's. Rape, murder, and stealing has been around since the beginning of humankind. It has nothing to do with original sin or any religious reasons. On the contrary, I would say you seem like the more religious or spiritual one with your optimistic stand point. You don't have to be a sociopath to rape, murder, or steal. It could be any heat of the moment situation or a situation of need (you're starving and you see someone's nice steak sitting unattended on a table).

Because a heat of the moment situation or moment of need is going to cause an otherwise "normal," level headed, good person to rape someone? In America's society, there's usually not much "need" for these things. People can get a job, buy a hooker, or file a lawsuit (and get money instead of jailtime!). I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

criminality is a mixture of state rules, lack of education, societal problems etc. simplifying an argument and attacking it, is not good argumentational practise, even if you are being facetious.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 11:48:41 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:34:50 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Libertarianism by defintion is less radical. libertarians don't like the state but they think that some kind state is necassery, hence why they are minarchists, which translates as someone who wants the minimun amount of government necassery.

I guess this would make me Libertarian, by this definition. However, I don't like labels, as my views can change with experience. I do think the state is necessary. I don't like the current position that the US government has placed itself in. There's a lot of cleaning up and fixing to be done. But they, with the help of the media, have got people so stuck on abortion, medicare, and taxes, that no one pays attention to the real issues, like the fact that the government has $15 trillion debt of borrowed/printed money, and $130 trillion debt to the American Taxpayer, and they're spending more money than they make, and they raise the "debt ceiling" once every few months, which means they authorize printing of more money, with no more gold/silver to back it, thereby devastating the value of the dollar, and they're funding global war campaigns on people that cannot effectively defend themselves from our military strength, all with no money. They have no money, and they're just ignoring the fact and letting people vote on where the money that doesn't exist should be spent, while they borrow money from China, who now practically owns the US. The real issues.

it sounds to me that you would really like this site: http://www.alterati.com/blog/

I have listened to various of their podcasts, they seem to bve converging with the principles that you are espousing here, they are a very interesting sub-culture.

Those people seem a bit... (over excited?) about the topics. I'll just simplify and call them extremists. There was a video labeled "Peace Through Vandalism." That's where I stopped reading.

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 11:49:28 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

I would have to disagree with you. People are generally pretty selfish and look out for their own needs and that of their dependents before anyone else's. Rape, murder, and stealing has been around since the beginning of humankind. It has nothing to do with original sin or any religious reasons. On the contrary, I would say you seem like the more religious or spiritual one with your optimistic stand point. You don't have to be a sociopath to rape, murder, or steal. It could be any heat of the moment situation or a situation of need (you're starving and you see someone's nice steak sitting unattended on a table).

Because a heat of the moment situation or moment of need is going to cause an otherwise "normal," level headed, good person to rape someone?

Uh, yeah. It's happened. People are pretty susceptible to emotions that cloud judgment and unpredictability.

In America's society, there's usually not much "need" for these things. People can get a job, buy a hooker, or file a lawsuit (and get money instead of jailtime!). I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Umm... not everyone can just easily "get a job". You seem like a privileged person, I mean "not much need for stealing"? Maybe not for you, but I don't think you can speak for everyone in America. And who said that every behavioral flaw of humankind was necessary? On the flip side of your argument there's not much "need" for the average citizen to own a gun in our society either.

@burt: since there has yet to be a perfect Utopian society where there was never any rape, murder, or theft then I'd have to say that it's inherent human behavior.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 11:51:47 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

criminality is a mixture of state rules, lack of education, societal problems etc. simplifying an argument and attacking it, is not good argumentational practise, even if you are being facetious.

Which are all human constructs. All crime always can and always will happen (except like, Betamax piracy). If one wants something and doesn't have the legal means to get it, there is a chance one will pursue illegal means.


Anyway this is irrelevant. I think my point a million or so posts back was that British knife/gun law has no bearing on the morality of British citizens, and saying that we have the stronger laws because we are less responsible makes little sense.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

I would have to disagree with you. People are generally pretty selfish and look out for their own needs and that of their dependents before anyone else's. Rape, murder, and stealing has been around since the beginning of humankind. It has nothing to do with original sin or any religious reasons. On the contrary, I would say you seem like the more religious or spiritual one with your optimistic stand point. You don't have to be a sociopath to rape, murder, or steal. It could be any heat of the moment situation or a situation of need (you're starving and you see someone's nice steak sitting unattended on a table).

I never said you had to be a sociopath to murder and steal, and in an oblique way, what you said was exactly my point. I was denying that criminality is an inherent part of a human being's nature, unless they are sociopaths ( and even then it is quite dubious) people will commit these things wheter or not they are criminals, their action at that point is a criminal action and they should be made to take responsibilty for it. so therefore douchbas list was idiotic, because it was definitional one and not an empirical.

religion...optimitic!? Umad bro?

I am slightly spiritual, in some sense of the popular connotations of that word (what I mean is I do not believe in spirits). but I put it to you that the human species has developed the way it has because of the social dynamic, selfishness exists, but so does altruism. Selfishness does not create the problems you think it does, and is in fact a very good evolutionary strategy that allows for various, things. like individuality, innovation etc, yes sometimes it turns into greed etc, but all things come with their pay off.

this liberal-conservative stance is really just a way to take the burden of your own life more and more and place it under the states jurisidiction, and they will happily take it off of you while they steal your money to build better "security measures" while robbing you of a decent education - good luck.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:54:59 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 11:51:47 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

criminality is a mixture of state rules, lack of education, societal problems etc. simplifying an argument and attacking it, is not good argumentational practise, even if you are being facetious.

Which are all human constructs. All crime always can and always will happen (except like, Betamax piracy). If one wants something and doesn't have the legal means to get it, there is a chance one will pursue illegal means.

It is easy to make someone a criminal, just make it illegal to walk downstairs. crime will always happen if there are laws.
this is what your argument comes down to. what we have to take into account is that illegality of something does not always make it wrong, that is why some laws are repealed. the problem here is that the defintion of criminlaity is so linked in your argument to the act of making something illegal that it begs the question of what you are actually arguing: is it that the state is always right, or that criminality is really an inherent part of existence or human nature so that there is some universal judge who decides what is right and wrong? people will always trespass on other people. it is impossible to stop, laws do not make it otherwise.

Anyway this is irrelevant. I think my point a million or so posts back was that British knife/gun law has no bearing on the morality of British citizens, and saying that we have the stronger laws because we are less responsible makes little sense.

I agree with your last statement, I don't think we ever exchanged anything about that.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I'm sorry, is it making you angry? To me, your word swapping looks ridiculous. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. Rape and murder are morally wrong. Guns are not. Using guns to rape or murder is morally wrong. Using a gun to defend yourself is not. Using a gun to uphold freedom is not. Using a gun to protect others is not. Guns don't have to be all bad.

Morality has fuck-all to do with legislation, legislation is there to protect people. Regulation of firearms to keep them from people with no justifiable reason to have them is in the public interest, whether or not owning a gun is a moral choice.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:06:23 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.

Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

So only sociopaths kill people? Not hitmen with financial incentives, not gangs defending territory, not scorned lovers exacting revenge or nervous idiots Standing Their Ground? Criminality isn't inherent, it's a socioeconomic problem that still needs to be considered. You're acting like because it's not inherent it's not a problem.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

Oh god, glorious.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 11:28:17 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I'm sorry, is it making you angry? To me, your word swapping looks ridiculous. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. Rape and murder are morally wrong. Guns are not. Using guns to rape or murder is morally wrong. Using a gun to defend yourself is not. Using a gun to uphold freedom is not. Using a gun to protect others is not. Guns don't have to be all bad.

Morality has fuck-all to do with legislation, legislation is there to protect people. Regulation of firearms to keep them from people with no justifiable reason to have them is in the public interest, whether or not owning a gun is a moral choice.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:06:23 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.

Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

So only sociopaths kill people? Not hitmen with financial incentives, not gangs defending territory, not scorned lovers exacting revenge or nervous idiots Standing Their Ground? Criminality isn't inherent, it's a socioeconomic problem that still needs to be considered. You're acting like because it's not inherent it's not a problem.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on August 30, 2012, 11:51:47 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings

I agree! Criminality comes in on strong northerlies!

Oh god, glorious.

Please keep up with the discussion I have already counted these rebuttals elsewhere.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 11:28:17 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.
People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I'm sorry, is it making you angry? To me, your word swapping looks ridiculous. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder. Rape and murder are morally wrong. Guns are not. Using guns to rape or murder is morally wrong. Using a gun to defend yourself is not. Using a gun to uphold freedom is not. Using a gun to protect others is not. Guns don't have to be all bad.

Morality has fuck-all to do with legislation, legislation is there to protect people. Regulation of firearms to keep them from people with no justifiable reason to have them is in the public interest, whether or not owning a gun is a moral choice.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:39:12 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 11:09:15 AM

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 10:58:23 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:52:32 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

Quote from: rooster on August 30, 2012, 10:26:53 AM

And the logic that "people are going to get them anyway" is really awful. People make and buy meth anyway, people steal anyway, people rape and murder anyway, might as well make it all legal right?

You tell me my logic is awful. Then you make my point for me. Need I say more?

Like you said, all those illegal things, people do them anyway.

Stealing is morally and fundamentally wrong. You could always ask for help/money, or just get a job.

I would never do meth myself. I'm of the opinion of "to each his own" however. If you wanna rot your teeth, kill exorbitant amounts of brain tissue, and destroy your throat and lungs, by all means, go ahead. There's safer ways to get the type of effect as I understand it, but by all means, it's your body, feel free. Just don't hurt anyone else.

Rape is, in a strange way, analogous to stealing (although it down right disgusts me that anyone would do this). You're taking something without permission. Like I said before, you could always ask.

Murder is the act of taking another human life, and by definition, murder is "killing someone without just cause," in the law's eyes, just cause for killing is if your life is threatened by the person you killed. They still might throw you behind bars. But I digress.

Guns however, are a tool. None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns. Guns may be a tool of death, but they are a tool nonetheless. Most of the aforementioned are actions, not tools. If someone is threatening my life with a gun, I would feel much safer if I had a gun to defend myself, or if someone nearby had a gun and the gumption to defend me. People will think twice about using a gun against someone if they know there person can just turn around and do the same back. It's called a level playing ground.

Are you an anarchist by any chance?

By my reckoning he is a libertarian.

Anarchism is a little more radical than this.

Anarchism is less radical than libertarianism, it still calls for a community. Libertarianism is chaos.

Quote from: burt on August 30, 2012, 11:06:23 AM

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 30, 2012, 10:36:38 AM

None of these other things mentioned are analogous to guns.

Why the fuck not? You've said this over and over: pray, do expand at some point. Guns are a commodity, yes, but their purchase, ownership and use are all actions which conform to exactly the same semantic rules as rape or murder.

People are going to buy guns anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

 Isn't that the problem.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to rape people anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

so rape isn't socially taboo unless it's illegal?

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

People are going to drop motherfuckers anyway, all you do by criminalising it is ensuring only criminals do it.

Untrue. criminality is not inherent in people.

Quote from: General Douchebag on August 30, 2012, 10:47:04 AM

When all I have to do is swap a verb and an object to make your argument look ridiculous, it's not a sound argument.

I think the act of not thinking things through is what makes you think it is rediculous.

Nonsense, irrelevant, irrelevant nonsense.

Social taboo and inherent criminality don't mean shit, people do it. People rape people, people kill people, you saying "oh well rape's still taboo" and "criminality isn't inherent" just sounds like you're denying their existence.

if that's what it sounds like to you, you are playing a very silly game. I am denying criminality being inherent in a human beings (are you religious by anychance sounds like you are trying to co-opt original sin under a new label), unless you mean in the context of mental healt I.E sociopaths. though, crime does exist.

So only sociopaths kill people? Not hitmen with financial incentives, not gangs defending territory, not scorned lovers exacting revenge or nervous idiots Standing Their Ground? Criminality isn't inherent, it's a socioeconomic problem that still needs to be considered. You're acting like because it's not inherent it's not a problem.

no, you just see it that way because I am disagreeing with you. there are more subtle ways to to deal with a problem, and in fact we are osccilating between talking about what causes the problems and how to solve them, please stop simplifying.