[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43668142]sure. there's a couple flaws.
first, you're ignoring real world inequality. person a, who has money, is able to purchase a firearm to defend themselves, especially against those who have firearms. person b, who does not have money, is not able to purchase a firearm and is thus thoroughly screwed. you create an extra level of inequality there, especially if you're depending on the necessity to be able to defend yourself.
second, you're ignoring real world psychology. thing called a group mentality exists. in order to maintain security for oneself, people tend to form into groups to maximize security for a group. this is one of the reason why kinship structures are big. this is also the reason why [I]gangs[/I] exist in urban centers. a group of people then organize to maximize their security, gathering their weapons. now, unless we're living in a utopia, a group of people that has an armory of weapons has the distinct possibility of using those weapons as a means of enforcing power over others. yknow, how gangs do in real life. daily.
third, we take these two things and combine them. group mentality + inherent inequalities. often times, one group is going to have better access to capital (through either legal or illegal means, of course!), and thus, a power imbalance will occur. this will inherently lead to either conflict, or domination by a specific social group.
in a world that is not maintained through a police force by a state that is governed by the people, there is no way to be truly "free". when numerous competing groups arise, that is much, much more restrictive to freedom than when there is an overarching state government that utilizes the will of the entire populace to create one system of order that allows people to operate with freedom in a collective and productive way.
what we're talking about here, basically, is something called the security dilemma. it is one of the major components of the cold war.
and AH! you might say - the cold war was one of stability! The russians and the Americans had nukes, and they didn't use them against one another! This logic, then, can be extended to why guns ought to be unrestricted. But oh hey wait - in reality, the presence of nuclear threat and nuclear deterrence did absolutely nothing - in reality, it actually made conflict more likely to happen at lower levels. i can explain this in more detail if you wish.
i do not attach negative stigma when i speak of the word "anarchy" - a system that is anarchistic - aka, the dismantling of an overhead authority so that the individual may be most "free" does not actually create an authority-less system, and indeed facilitates the formation and perpetuation of structures that impede the freedom of a people through lethal force.[/QUOTE]
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I agree with everything, except the need of a state and police force (but rather, alternative similar, yet anti-authoritarian means), but that is an argument for another thread/pm's. I'd rather not shit up this thread.
NOW - if we lived in a utopia, and everyone was kind to one another and all thought in the same way - that they would only utilize their weapons to defend themselves and not impede the freedom of others.
however, as you fully recognize, we do not live in a utopia.
[editline]25th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;43668201]You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I agree with everything, except the need of a state and police force (but rather, alternative similar, yet anti-authoritarian means), but that is an argument for another thread/pm's. I'd rather not shit up this thread.[/QUOTE]
tbh my only real problem with anarchism and specific forms of libertarianism is that it relies on people being kindhearted and have a fundamental lack of self interest in order to work on a large scale level.
however, i do not perceive that as ever being a possibility for mankind.
[QUOTE=lolz3;43668064]You have 240% MORE drug use.[/quote]
what's wrong with drugs
[quote]105% MORE rapes.
75% MORE assaults.
125% overall MORE violent crimes then us. Yeah, we are so shit.[/QUOTE]
you do know that the classifications in the UK for both rape and assault are way harsher than they are in america? rape in the UK is penetration of any sort with any object. assault is unlawful touching. you could literally push someone and it counts as assault
rape in the US is penetration. assault is an attempt at battery
so of course there's going to be more statistical assault and rape in the UK when the definitions incorporate millions more definable actions. do your research properly. learn to ask questions instead of taking everything you read that reaffirms your world view as truth
[QUOTE=lolz3;43668064]"GUNZ R EVIL THAT TELEPATHICALY TALK TO PEOPLE TO KILL AND YOU WANT THEM! NO GUNS = NO CRIME!"
Don't even try to debate man, their minds are too far gone. Let them live like that and wonder why the police don't help and they have nothing to defend themselves with.
You have 240% MORE drug use.
105% MORE rapes.
75% MORE assaults.
125% overall MORE violent crimes then us. Yeah, we are so shit.[/QUOTE]
ps i own several guns and shoot semi regularly, i'm pretty well versed with them.
dont take this as me being "o im badass m8" what i'm saying is you'd be surprised, a lot of the people who you're talking about probably have experiences with guns. i mean shit i've been shooting since i was like, 13?
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43668048]america is shit[/QUOTE]
If you look at the size of the US, you can sort of guess crime is gonna be high here. Each state works differently, and each have a different crime rate. If you're gonna say America is shit, at least specify why and where in the US where it's so bad. The news reports what'll get it more attention.
[QUOTE=Rocko's;43668371]If you look at the size of the US, you can sort of guess crime is gonna be high here. Each state works differently, and each have a different crime rate. If you're gonna say America is shit, at least specify why and where in the US where it's so bad. The news reports what'll get it more attention.[/QUOTE]
i'm only joking really. i've been to america a few times and there's many places i'd be very happy to live if i had the money
but some of the ideals that the country is founded on are baffling. there are certain things that are so outdated and archaic and yet defended to the death (sometimes literally) by a big proportion of the country it's scary, despite the fact that none of the facts add up and there's no example anywhere else in the rest of the world of it working, in fact quite the contrary
but obviously there's no quick-fix to these issues; they're rooted in 300 years of reactionary ideas
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43668413]i'm only joking really. i've been to america a few times and there's many places i'd be very happy to live if i had the money
but some of the ideals that the country is founded on are baffling. there are certain things that are so outdated and archaic and yet defended to the death (sometimes literally) by a big proportion of the country it's scary, despite the fact that none of the facts add up and there's no example anywhere else in the rest of the world of it working, in fact quite the contrary
but obviously there's no quick-fix to these issues; they're rooted in 300 years of reactionary ideas[/QUOTE]
From what I see here, yeah, I can agree that America isn't an angel. But when you take the US, and compare it to some other countries which are known shitholes, it'll top it. Government isn't the best, some of the people here aren't the best, but they're 100x better than some of those in other countries.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43668281]rape in the UK is penetration of any sort with any object.[/QUOTE]
If I put a finger in someones ear is that a rape ?
[QUOTE=AntonioR;43668428]If I put a finger in someones ear is that a rape ?[/QUOTE]
penetration means the vagina or the anus
[QUOTE=Rocko's;43668427]From what I see here, yeah, I can agree that America isn't an angel. But when you take the US, and compare it to some other countries which are known shitholes, it'll top it. Government isn't the best, some of the people here aren't the best, but they're 100x better than some of those in other countries.[/QUOTE]
let's be real here tho we shouldn't be comparing the us to shitholes considering we've basically been one of the major global hegemons for nearly half a century
[QUOTE=Rocko's;43668427]From what I see here, yeah, I can agree that America isn't an angel. But when you take the US, and compare it to some other countries which are known shitholes, it'll top it. Government isn't the best, some of the people here aren't the best, but they're 100x better than some of those in other countries.[/QUOTE]
well yeh if you want to compare a 1st world country to a developing nation or somewhere ran by a dictatorship then fine you're gonna look excellent but i dont see the point in that
that said, obviously there's lots of things that america tops the rest of the world on, but it also has some of the strangest phenomenon of the 1st world. like, for example, a culture that thinks a school shooting every fortnight isn't an issue and that guns aren't an issue
"yes, sir, we have the reports in for our performance this year. we're officially better than cote d'iviore."
"great!"
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43668209]NOW - if we lived in a utopia, and everyone was kind to one another and all thought in the same way - that they would only utilize their weapons to defend themselves and not impede the freedom of others.
however, as you fully recognize, we do not live in a utopia.
[editline]25th January 2014[/editline]
tbh my only real problem with anarchism and specific forms of libertarianism is that it relies on people being kindhearted and have a fundamental lack of self interest in order to work on a large scale level.
however, i do not perceive that as ever being a possibility for mankind.[/QUOTE]
I tend to side with more of an aggressive platformist approach of anarchism, and I think completely pacifist anarchism is unrealistic. If you want my full opinion, just go ahead and shoot me a PM.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43667782]"proven to be in vain" because of a shooting occurring? are you having a laugh?
people still murder each other. obviously, laws against murder are in vain.
people still drive drunk. obviously, laws against drunk driving are in vain.
people still avoid paying taxes. obviously, laws against tax evasion are in vain.
come on now, don't be silly. to make the claim that if a piece of legislation isn't 100% effective it is "in vain" is utter silliness. don't try to mickey mouse it. no one claims that laws are the [I]only [/I]thing that will stop bad shit from occurring. they are a [I]component[/I] of preventing bad shit from happening.[/QUOTE]
We get it, you don't like guns. Jesus fucking christ.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43668495]well yeh if you want to compare a 1st world country to a developing nation or somewhere ran by a dictatorship then fine you're gonna look excellent but i dont see the point in that
that said, obviously there's lots of things that america tops the rest of the world on, but it also has some of the strangest phenomenon of the 1st world. like, for example, a culture that thinks a school shooting every fortnight isn't an issue and that guns aren't an issue[/QUOTE]
i would be interested to see, tho, how the numbers would compare if we did everything relative to size / population. i mean the us has 300+million at this point, and is nearly the size of the entirety of europe. also, given the prevalence of guns, if it were just calculated as mass assaults - to incorporate stabbings, etc. then they could be compared and weighted according to the number of deaths.
just we're aggregating the US, we ought to aggregate europe. i don't doubt that the us will be higher, but just like there's significant variation within europe, there's pretty significant variation within the united states.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;43668538]We get it, you don't like guns. Jesus fucking christ.[/QUOTE]
he literally just said he's been shooting since he was 13
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;43668538]We get it, you don't like guns. Jesus fucking christ.[/QUOTE]
on the contrary i find shooting them pretty fun i just don't think that my hobby is worth a couple thousand people dying in my country each year
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;43668538]We get it, you don't like guns. Jesus fucking christ.[/QUOTE]
I miss bad reading
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43668582]on the contrary i find shooting them pretty fun i just don't think that my hobby is worth a couple thousand people dying in my country each year[/QUOTE]
The shooter used a generic shotgun legal in every fucking country including the UK.
So you just want all guns banned?
Cool logic.
ABC must be fucking up because all the text says that the shooting was in Columbia (i know this for a fact, I live very close by and a bunch of my friends are telling me about it) but they keep saying New Jersey in the video.
[QUOTE=Aman;43668611]The shooter used a generic shotgun legal in every fucking country including the UK.
So you just want all guns banned?
Cool logic.[/QUOTE]
who said this not me
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43668582]on the contrary i find shooting them pretty fun i just don't think that my hobby is worth a couple thousand people dying in my country each year[/QUOTE]
except for the fact that it's not your hobby's fault
[editline]25th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43668626]who said this not me[/QUOTE]
you
[QUOTE=Jagur;43668628]
you[/QUOTE]
Quote it.
[QUOTE=soccerskyman;43668643]Quote it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43667782]"proven to be in vain" because of a shooting occurring? are you having a laugh?
people still murder each other. obviously, laws against murder are in vain.
people still drive drunk. obviously, laws against drunk driving are in vain.
people still avoid paying taxes. obviously, laws against tax evasion are in vain.
come on now, don't be silly. to make the claim that if a piece of legislation isn't 100% effective it is "in vain" is utter silliness. don't try to mickey mouse it. no one claims that laws are the [I]only [/I]thing that will stop bad shit from occurring. they are a [I]component[/I] of preventing bad shit from happening.[/QUOTE]
He defended it
Either way, you can't outright ban guns anyway due to 2nd amendment
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]
Guns are always gonna' be there as long as the Bill of Rights still is in affect.
They can only tell you what guns you can/cant have
[QUOTE=lolo;43668733]He defended it[/QUOTE]
He defended these, not banning all guns
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;43667591]you mean the one preventing people from bringing guns on school grounds? or the ability for someone to bring in a weapon purchased in another state and selling it privately? the one that just went into effect?? oh, what a travesty[/QUOTE]
pls read thx
[QUOTE=lolo;43668733]He defended it[/QUOTE]
Read that page again. He wasn't defending banning all guns. He was defending the law banning them on school grounds.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;43668281]what's wrong with drugs
[/QUOTE]
Heroin is perfectly safe, no side effects what so ever.
[QUOTE=Jagur;43668628]except for the fact that it's not your hobby's fault
[editline]25th January 2014[/editline]
you[/QUOTE]
whether you acknowledge them or not norms and mores exist, and yes my participation in the gun hobby does indeed validate the use and proliferation of firearms that creates a culture that is conducive to violence. this of course is not my intention, but it is a side effect. many people who ardently fear gov't restriction of firearms do so behind a smokescreen of "liberty" when they're liberal on all other counts, willing to sacrifice liberty for the greater good. this is where the crazies claiming that the us is going to turn into nazi germany come from. it's not going to happen. however, many simply do not feel comfortable acknowledging the problem of guns due to the fact that it hits very close to home for them, because they are a fundamental component of one of their hobbies and pastimes. an attack on guns, thus, becomes an attack on the individual. due to this contradiction, we see one of the best examples on this forum of a generally liberal userbase that adamantly, adamantly defends firearms. partially because they want to maintain their hobby, and partially because they do not wish to acknowledge that they may be partially responsible.
this is also why fp appears to be heavily biased against forms of feminist thought. because while on the whole, feminism is a very(!) liberal ideology, it is viewed as an attack at a fundamental part of much of the userbase here on fp.
if one were to simply take a deep breath and a step back and really just look at reality, withholding the ego of the self, you'll eventually see that yeah.
there's a problem.
[QUOTE=bdd458;43668789]Heroin is perfectly safe, no side effects what so ever.[/QUOTE]
drugs are fine, don't start this.
[QUOTE=lolo;43668733]He defended it
Either way, you can't outright ban guns anyway due to 2nd amendment
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]
Guns are always gonna' be there as long as the Bill of Rights still is in affect.
They can only tell you what guns you can/cant have[/QUOTE]
not that i ever said to ban all guns, but you do know that the amendments aren't infallible, right? all you would need to wipe the 2nd amendment right off the face of the constitution is the political will to do so. this is why the 21st amendment exists. it is a repeal of the 18th amendment. another one that people that are big gun supporters are familiar of: the prohibition of alcohol.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.