American National Anti-Gun Association

Post questions or suggestions here.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: 78.3% of statistics are made up

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

DHodges wrote:Maybe we should focus more on the Australian side of this equation. Why is it that Australians are so terrified of guns that you need a permit to buy a paintball gun?
Are you serious? That's freaking lame.
.
brokenhead
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
Location: Boise

Post by brokenhead »

This has been one of the most hilarious threads so far, IMHO. It just goes to show how two sides of a debate/discussion can be 100% correct. Scott and Kelly are not really talking about the same thing, at least not at the same level at the same time.

If you set aside the personal attacks, Scott and Kelly are both quite right about handgun ownership and control.

If I could wave my hand and make all handguns vanish from private hands, I would do so. But I wouldn’t stop there. I would hope the genie in my bottle can grant me more than one wish and that he’s not trying to pull the old trick where the wisher ends up sorry for having released him in the first place. Because Scott is right. Any new legislation to tighten gun control will accomplish nothing but to infringe on the rights of citizens who have done nothing wrong, illegal, immoral, irresponsible, or incorrect in any way. It’s just like the IRS – the government can’t corral the big tax cheats, but they sure can bully the little guy, so they do.

No, one wish would not be enough. Each year, gun manufacturers crank out weapons that have indefinite shelf-lives. These weapons wind up somewhere. The probability that all of them come to reside with responsible citizens (I’m referring to handguns targeted for private usage) is exactly zero. My second wish would therefore address an industry that produces devices whose sole intended use is injuring or killing human beings. (I’m assuming that hunters do not use pistols.) Every year, there are more people; every year, there are more guns. Every year, there are more people with guns.

Accidents will happen. Since there are more private citizens in the US who are legally armed each year, the probability that at least some tragedy occurs as a result of a handgun being in the wrong hands at the wrong time gets closer and closer to one hundred percent.

If there were no guns, there would be no gun violence. Because there are guns, there is gun violence. So Kelly is right. And since there is no magic lamp, Scott is right.

Mexican Standoff.
User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Paintball guns

Post by DHodges »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Are you serious? That's freaking lame.
I'm going by this article that lists paintball guns and airguns as "Category A" firearms, requiring a permit to acquire.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Interesting article. Even if America adopted identical laws, I don't think it would change anything. A "genuine reason" is target practice. I think there would suddenly be a lot of Americans who would officially claim that they wanted to target practice.

Collecting is also given as a reason - what happens when a gun collector dies? Does the government seize his collection?
.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly,
On what basis do you reason that this is absolutely true?
On what basis do you reason that the sky appears blue on a cloudless day?
How do you logically know no one in history has ever been, and no one in future will ever be, perfectly enlightened?

In other words, why is perfection not a scientific uncertainty to you?
It is, as I've admitted many times before. Pay attention.
If it were, you'd say, "I am not sure whether it will occur or has occurred, so let's just see what happens...."
That is what I say. And I add - "It's highly unlikely to ever happen...so unlikely, that I believe it never has or will."

What part of this don't you understand? We went over this like a week ago.

Why are you so attached to the idea that people can become perfect?
- Scott
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: 78.3% of statistics are made up

Post by Kelly Jones »

DHodges wrote:Your argument so far has run something like:
Guns are icky.
Guns are dangerous.
I don't like guns.
Therefore, guns should be banned.
Also, Americans are not wise.
I think I said something like:

Guns are irrelevant to this topic.
Guns are immaterial.
Gun ownership and usage aren't in themselves unwise, or motivated by fear and attachment.

You seem to feel that what you are saying is so obviously correct that you don't have to back it up with any sort of real data or logical argument. So your arguments have been unconvincing, and you don't seem to realize it.
The logical argument is simple.

The belief that only personal firearms deal properly with criminals is likely to result in a lessoned faith in reason, and in turn has effects on how one deals with purely intellectual conflicts.

I don't think you can conclude anything about national characteristics based such a small and obviously biased sample.
Well, based on your experiences, do you see masculine and feminine traits in people?


The connection to guns is even more tenuous. Are you saying my posts would be less wise if I owned a gun? Would they become even less wise if it was a handgun instead of a rifle? What about bows and arrows? Would they make me just slightly more foolish?
Well, if you recall, I did mention the likely psychological difference between stabbing and shooting, earlier.

It boils down to the opportunity for reflection and self-awareness (vs instinctive action, and anonymity).


What about martial arts in general? Would it be foolish to study a martial art, since you might hurt somebody? Does it matter if the martial art involves the potential use of deadly force, or teaches how to disarm someone with a gun?
There are far more opportunities for reflection and self-awareness in martial arts. One needs to have an excellent understanding of human anatomy and psychology (and how the two work together) to know the weak points of an attacker; a good understanding of physics (different types of force, levers); and underlying everything else, an excellent understanding of Reality.

People lacking the latter tend to be confused, emotional, belligerent, pushy, argumentative, and so on. They warp reality to suit their measly attachments.

But given that understanding, they act calmly, reasonably, gently, and have no flare-ups.

The best martial arts sensei would be thousands of times better with this understanding. His teaching would be clear and to the point, with no superstitious attitude lingering around, whether that is a hate or a love of God.


Why is it that Australians are so terrified of guns that you need a permit to buy a paintball gun?
Beginners and the unconscious may not realise that paintball guns can inflict serious injury to the body.

Laws are for the lowest common denominator, and for the ignorant. To the unconscious, laws are very necessary, as they would be terrified without them.


Is it that Australians are not wise enough to responsibly handle guns? Is it possible that Americans actually view each other with more respect - that we expect each other of being capable of acting like adults?
Intelligent people realise that laws are for learners. They don't whinge about having to obey. They are like parents showing children how to use trainer wheels on a little bicycle --- and in their own lives, don't use trainer wheels.


Could it be that the current attitude in Australia is due to an irrational over-reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, or some similar event?
From memory, the Pt Arthur massacre was viewed in the context of a baby American gun culture. The same with the Strathfield Plaza massacre. There are now very few such things.

The ripples of the Holocaust will be felt for hundreds of years. Similarly, folks living on the Forestier peninsula are still traumatised by the massacre. They don't like to talk about it.
I think I was living a few suburbs from Strathfield (Sefton) at the time of the massacre, and the "blinds" were well and truly down.

This tells me that Americans, who have had far more massacres, are in a state of shock.


Is there any evidence that fear is a bigger factor in America than it is elsewhere? All there really seems to be is your assumption - your assertion - that there must be.
The only other factor besides fear of the Absolute, in terms of consciousness, is fear of delusion.

In general terms, no national culture is characterised by either, because 99.9999999999% of people aren't conscious enough for either.

So, what I've been getting at, is those little baby steps that might push people towards consciousness. For example, distinguishing between conscious steps (belief in the importance of reasoning, reflection, self-awareness, truthfulness) and unconscious steps (passivity, belligerence, love of materialism).

Every culture has both, some more of one than another.


In my view, gun ownership is a political issue - but it seems that this view is not shared in other countries.
I myself am a country governed by the policy that I should be conscious.


In the US, it is the recognised right and responsibility of the citizens to overthrow the government when it gets too coercive.
If I became a US citizen, I wouldn't recognise any rights. I don't care in whose jurisdiction I am. Reason is more important than blind obedience.


The "consent of the governed" means nothing without it - if the government holds all the guns, then true consent is impossible.
This is the same as Scott and Elizabeth's argument, that people can impose their will on you.

You're an odd bunch.


That is why gun ownership is considered a basic right, like freedom of speech. It's what makes us free men rather than serfs. It's the basis for the very possibility of a legitimate "social contract".
Even when you point a gun at someone's head, to force them to change their speech and actions, you can never force them towards or away from true freedom.


Scooter and I go out for a walk every night - completely unarmed! It's pretty daring - you know, what with all the bullets flying around willy-nilly, we can barely see where we're going.
This is an interesting point. I go for nightly walks, dogless, in my neighbourhood, sometimes quite late, and see no one. I live in a city with the third highest crime rate in Australia. Yet my neighbourhood is quiet and well-behaved...... Who knows?


-
User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh »

Re: Paintball guns. The reason might be that, as few people have anything to do with guns, a paintball gun could be used effectively in robberies - they might not now what it was. It may also be that such guns can be adapted to be more harmful.

From memory, it is illegal to carry a replica of any handgun as well.
Even if America adopted identical laws, I don't think it would change anything. A "genuine reason" is target practice. I think there would suddenly be a lot of Americans who would officially claim that they wanted to target practice.
I think the laws are that these guns can only be used on "Police Approved Ranges" - at least for handguns anyway.

==================================

I've got doubts as to whether guns would offer any real form of protection in the case of some US government becoming dictatorial. To me its a dud argument. These sort of things happen quite insidiously. They'd first bring in marshall law, and guns would be collected or you would be shot. If you resisted you and your whole family would be killed. At least thats how it worked in the past.

==================================

Although I'm entirely against guns, because they promote and prolong infantile behaviour in adults - they are basically a support for fucked up ego's, then let the yanks continue with them - the more yanks that kill each other mindlessly the better :). I'm serious actually - it will take hurt (the death of innocents) for yanks to change their underlying warmongering self-righteousness. There is just no way the insane religious southerners will accept gun law control until they grow up - and they'll only grow up by suffering.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Jamesh,

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

-Nietzsche


...or to put it in Scott-terminology: what the hell are you thinking? You support people being killed so that no more guns can kill people?
- Scott
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.

Likewise when you have neighbourhood militia freaks with M16s in their closet who think it is un-American not to be armed.
Last edited by Dan Rowden on Fri May 18, 2007 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: 78.3% of statistics are made up

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Kelly Jones wrote:Well, if you recall, I did mention the likely psychological difference between stabbing and shooting, earlier.
Kelly,

Have you ever heard a gun fire close up, in real life? They make an ungodly noise, which will rock a person to their core anyway. When that is combined with the situation of a person going down, I can't imagine it having any less of a psychological impact as stabbing.
.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Dan Rowden wrote:When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.
I don't think they have done that in decades. As for the rest of your post, if enough people have M16s in their closet, they are no longer considered freaks. "Normal" (unusual, or freakish) is set by what percent of people engage in a certain behavior. I'd say it's more in the category of unusual for mainstream America, and only normal for militia groups.
sschaula wrote:...or to put it in Scott-terminology: what the hell are you thinking?
*thinking Scott watches too much Dr. Phil*
.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Kelly and Dave were talking:
The logical argument is simple.

The belief that only personal firearms deal properly with criminals is likely to result in a lessoned faith in reason, and in turn has effects on how one deals with purely intellectual conflicts.
That's not a logical argument! For it to be, you have to show how or why the belief is likely to cause a lessened faith in reason. You simply made a stupid statement.

You seem to waste too much time going over useless ideas, and not enough time actually thinking philosophically. Back to the basics!
Laws are for the lowest common denominator, and for the ignorant. To the unconscious, laws are very necessary, as they would be terrified without them.
Funny how this whole topic is about how you're promoting more laws.
In general terms, no national culture is characterised by either, because 99.9999999999% of people aren't conscious enough for either.
Why are these David Quinn antics so popular? In my opinion, this type of talk stops all thinking.
If I became a US citizen, I wouldn't recognise any rights. I don't care in whose jurisdiction I am. Reason is more important than blind obedience.
That's exactly why the people would overthrow the corrupt government...duh.
This is the same as Scott and Elizabeth's argument, that people can impose their will on you.

You're an odd bunch.
You're a moron if you don't understand that other people can determine whether you breathe or not.
Even when you point a gun at someone's head, to force them to change their speech and actions, you can never force them towards or away from true freedom.


Yes you can. When you pull the trigger.
- Scott
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.
I don't think they have done that in decades.
They were still doing it around the time of Columbine.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Dan,
When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.

Likewise when you have neighbourhood militia freaks with M16s in their closet who think it is un-American not to be armed.
I've never personally heard of either. Really.
- Scott
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

sschaula wrote:Jamesh,

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

-Nietzsche


...or to put it in Scott-terminology: what the hell are you thinking? You support people being killed so that no more guns can kill people?
Absolutely! Since the people who support having guns for killing people are the ones killing eachother.

Couldn't be a more rational position.

(Fairdinkum. Must absolutely everything fly over your head, including the very quotes you use?)
Last edited by Leyla Shen on Fri May 18, 2007 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Between Suicides
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

So they did...

While looking for that, I found this. Yeesh.
.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Leyla,
Absolutely! Since the people who support having guns for killing people are the ones killing eachother.

Couldn't be a more rational position.
That just goes to show how intelligent you are.

If killing people is okay with you guys, then why not keep the guns?
- Scott
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

[laaaaaaaaaughs!]

You don't really think we think there's too much of a chance you idiots understand, do you?

Often, unfortunately, reason is for the benefit of the few--not the many.
Between Suicides
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Leyla, why do you avoid the point that the argument is absolutely irrational? I don't give a damn if you think you're wise. There's no need for you to parade it around. I'm not sitting here laughing at your stupidity, I just point it out, in hopes that you'd see it. Why aren't you considerate enough to do the same for me?
- Scott
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

It's a matter of where I see signs of deluded, or the most deluded, form/s of "reasoning," Scott.

You stick out like a sore thumb in that regard. I have asked you to substantiate elements of your pro-gun argument, and have been watching for a reasonable, on-topic argument, too. I have seen one such reasonable, pro-gun argument in this whole thread--and it wasn't from you. And that argument did not even begin to address what Kelly has been putting forward.
Between Suicides
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

Guns are irrelevant to this topic.
Guns are immaterial.
Gun ownership and usage aren't in themselves unwise, or motivated by fear and attachment.
So, um, what is relevant to this topic?
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Leyla and Scott -

I'm guessing that both of you have already presented all you have since you have reverted to childish name-calling and not added any more points to your positions.
.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

You stick out like a sore thumb in that regard. I have asked you to substantiate elements of your pro-gun argument, and have been watching for a reasonable, on-topic argument, too. I have seen one such reasonable, pro-gun argument in this whole thread--and it wasn't from you. And that argument did not even begin to address what Kelly has been putting forward.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can address what Kelly wants to discuss because I'm not sure if anyone really understands what it is she is saying.

I believe I understand the original intent. Americans need to institute gun control because the unwise among us use them rashly. Also, she stated that gun ownership in America is the reason we have lack intelligent public discourse because somehow they impede logical thinking.

The first statement isn't factually supported given that there are probably something like 150 million guns in the United States and, according to her, 99% of the population is unwise gun deaths should have surpassed heart disease as the number one killer in the United States.

The second statement is absolutely and completely unprovable. You would have to find instances where logical discussions were ended with firearms or debates turned into gun battles or something like that. Kelly would have to take a poll and find a significant percentage of the American public agree that the reason they don't read philosophy is because they are afraid of guns...

I tried to show that gun control in the United States isn't going to solve anything but there is no bringing this thread down to Earth, it's stuck in la-la land among thick clouds of pointless argument, animosity and ignorance of the fundamentals of gun control.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

A round of applause for Chochem. The meat of the discussion has been cooked, and it is turning to leather.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Leyla,
It's a matter of where I see signs of deluded, or the most deluded, form/s of "reasoning," Scott.
Your grammar is horrible, Leyla. Why do you choose to type in code? It doesn't make you look more intelligent.

"K.I.S.S. Keep it simple, stupid!"
I have asked you to substantiate elements of your pro-gun argument, and have been watching for a reasonable, on-topic argument, too.
Where have you done that, and where have I failed to do it? Lets get back to a good point by focusing on this. If you can't answer the question, it can reasonably be assumed that you haven't asked me to substantiate any elements of my argument and that I've been making reasonable, on-topic arguments.
I have seen one such reasonable, pro-gun argument in this whole thread--and it wasn't from you. And that argument did not even begin to address what Kelly has been putting forward.
What the hell was Kelly putting forward? I thought I addressed it in the beginning of the topic, and the rest was her intellectually squirming.
- Scott
Locked