American National Anti-Gun Association

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

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Fri May 18, 2007 12:27 pm, sschaula wrote:What the hell was Kelly putting forward?
Well...
.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

ChochemV2:

This is a philosophical argument, not a statistical one. I like to think that there is a difference, hence this forum.

(Please let me know when the day comes that one can accurately and statistically measure the sanity level of an individual before something goes wrong. That would be a very good day, indeed.)

Accordingly, I think Kelly (eventually) states it rather clearly here:
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.
Do you have an argument directly against this?

Kelly also makes the following suggestion based on her reasoning:
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.
Do you have an argument directly against this?

What do you think philosophy is about?
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Scott:
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.
If you're interested, find it yourself. Otherwise, STFUS: "shut the fuck up, stupid."
Between Suicides
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Elizabeth,

Hell is a swear word? Besides, I wasn't talking to Kelly so it doesn't apply.

Leyla,

I'm not interested in the fact that your statement was absolutely untrue. :-)

You better find it if you want to appear smart. That does seem to be the motivating factor for you.
- Scott
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote: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.
.
I don't know. I liken it to a testosterone-based challenge over stamina, personally...

You know, like a test over which one of us is going to be able to go the full distance.

I have no problem, either way.
Between Suicides
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

sschaula wrote:Elizabeth,

Hell is a swear word? Besides, I wasn't talking to Kelly so it doesn't apply.

Leyla,

I'm not interested in the fact that your statement was absolutely untrue. :-)

You better find it if you want to appear smart. That does seem to be the motivating factor for you.
(See!)

Unlike you, darlin', I've no need to appear smart. I am smart.

[files her claws]
Between Suicides
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Haha!

If this is a testosterone based challenge...well...I think I am the only one that has the necessary tools, Leyla.

But back to the point - please show where you asked me to provide some substance to my claims, and where I didn't do it. I'd be glad to help you out with this. Or even if you didn't previously ask me to provide substantial arguments, but you want to now - feel free! I, unlike you or Kelly, CAN provide substance to my claims.

Bring it on.
- Scott
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

cat fight - Will that be one bowl of milk, or two?

Two, I guess - so you won't have to fight over that, too.
.
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

Only girls do cat fights.
- Scott
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

This is a philosophical argument, not a statistical one. I like to think that there is a difference, hence this forum.
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. If you're trying to get at the truth of something sometimes you have to think practically otherwise you're just arguing with yourself.
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'm having trouble with this logical argument because I can't connect use of firearms with a lessened faith in reason and then making another leap to assess the psyche of such a person and how they would handle intellectual discourse.
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 »

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

E: Have you ever heard a gun fire close up, in real life?
Yes. Roo shooting at my family's farm was a Friday night activity for our Christian youth group.

I was probably about 11 or 12 when I had my first go killing a roo with a hunting rifle (large calibre shot). I probably wasn't wearing ear protection. But can recall that the kickback was very painful in my shoulder. I missed.

My father had a wall-rack of hunting rifles at the entrance lobby to his bedroom, which we kids weren't to touch. But we were allowed to use BB rifles to kill sparrows.

Shooting animals was simply to stop them eating crops, or so we could eat them.

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.
.
I wasn't much psychologically affected by the gun's noise, or animals flopping over. The kickback was a pain, though.

I was far more affected when we kids weren't allowed to keep the joeys, that were found in the pouches of the dead mother roos. I thought that was seriously unfair. It was, to me, like killing me as a youth, without giving me a chance to have a go at life.


No thing has meaning or existence unless we give it an identity.


-
Last edited by Kelly Jones on Fri May 18, 2007 2:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

I will explain this statement a bit more:
K: 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.

Note the emphasis.

"Criminal" means one who hates truth. This could include the government who won't follow through on promises, or a burglar, or a madman.

Killing the physical body of a criminal does stops that person carrying out truthless behaviours, but it doesn't stop the mentality from continuing to live in everyone who is affected. The only reasonable way to stop truthlessness is to correct it, consciously and deliberately.

Not to annihilate, but to alter through reasoning.

Something one learns in aikido is not to use one's strength to resist and block an attack, but to influence and facilitate the force of an attacker.

To adjust their plan without them really knowing about it.



-
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

Kelly, all you do is set up your ridiculous statements to be true in and of themselves whether they have bearing on the topic or not.

Anyone who believes that firearms are the only way to handle conflict would be deluded by default, however, how many people believe firearms are the only way to handle conflict?

Then you go on to pull a QRS on the word criminal and create your own definition which involves Truth (shouldn't it be capitalized in that use?).

You follow that up with some drivel about truthless behaviors and how truthless actions live on in the people whom they are perpetrated against whether or not you stop the perpetrator. This is followed by a hint of actually handling the topic which quickly disappears into vague rambling.

And finally we fall back into martial arts comparisons and how you learn stuff through it... I dunno, all I remember from Karate class was a bunch of kids kicking, punching, yelling "HA!" and getting a good workout.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

ChochemV2 wrote:I believe I understand [Kelly's] 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 don't think that's what she was saying at all. I think she was saying that because of the climate of violence & the vast numbers of guns in a place like the US people are less free to think & speak truthfully because there is always the possibility that someone who didn't like what they said could shoot them. I think this is an interesting observation & I would agree that - even if people are not consciously aware of it - this underlying fear & suspicion is an aspect of American culture that may be quite significant in motivating people to keep their heads down in terms of spouting off controversial views. This doesn't apply to everybody of course but I would say it is definitely a significant factor.

I notice a climate of fear in the way people are disturbed about being publicly identified in any way. If they're asked controversial questions by a reporter, they want to answer anonymously. As I mentioned before, people who are well-known are notoriously paranoid about being attacked. Even non-famous people will do things like cut their names & addresses off magazines before they leave them in the laundromat. Women living alone often don't list their names in the phone book, just their initials, so criminals won't know they're women. Many many people in urban areas carry mace or pepper spray to ward off attackers.

I'm not saying that people consciously think: I'd better watch what I say or I'm liable to get shot. But you do hear people talk about 'not making myself a target', even if they aren't specifically referring to guns. Iin this kind of atmosphere there is a sense of danger & vulnerability that may well have an influence on people not wanting to stand out by wandering too far away from cultural norms.

Nevertheless, I still believe that it is too late for gun control to have any useful effect in the US & that another solution needs to be found.
.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

ChochemV2 wrote:Anyone who believes that firearms are the only way to handle conflict would be deluded by default, however, how many people believe firearms are the only way to handle conflict?
Do you agree with David Hodges' point, that guns are necessary in America to enable the government to be reasonable?

Or with Scott's and Elizabeth's point, that when someone is breaking into your house or into your car, that they can only be thwarted by your using a gun in some fashion?




What did you think of this idea.........?
Killing the physical body of a criminal does stops that person carrying out truthless behaviours, but it doesn't stop the mentality from continuing to live in everyone who is affected. The only reasonable way to stop truthlessness is to correct it, consciously and deliberately.


-
Then you go on to pull a QRS on the word criminal and create your own definition which involves Truth (shouldn't it be capitalized in that use?).
Everyone is "guilty" of exactly the same thing. Every individual creates their own definitions, even if they don't realise it.

I don't see how criminality can be divorced from the will to power, i.e. has little will to truth, or Truth.


You follow that up with some drivel about truthless behaviors and how truthless actions live on in the people whom they are perpetrated against whether or not you stop the perpetrator. This is followed by a hint of actually handling the topic which quickly disappears into vague rambling.
It's perfectly clear to me, and is actually being demonstrated throughout this entire thread...................


And finally we fall back into martial arts comparisons and how you learn stuff through it... I dunno, all I remember from Karate class was a bunch of kids kicking, punching, yelling "HA!" and getting a good workout.
It's rare to find a truth-oriented teacher or students.

This is why the class I attend has almost no pupils, while the macho loud teachers have many students.


-
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

I think she was saying that because of the climate of violence & the vast numbers of guns in a place like the US people are less free to think & speak truthfully because there is always the possibility that someone who didn't like what they said could shoot them.
And I think that's complete drivel. America suffers from, if anything, a culture of willful ignorance. People simply don't seek truth not because they are afraid of being shot but because seeking truth is difficult and dangerous (not physically, but it challenges your views in a way that nothing else does). People read the Da Vinci code because it's easy to read and it makes you feel like you're doing something intelligent, even if the story is crap and it's writing style resembles that of a seventh grader.

No one reads, MTV flourishes, and reality TV still hasn't died not because of guns but because people enjoy ignorance.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

Do you agree with David Hodges' point, that guns are necessary in America to enable the government to be reasonable?
First of all, the point was: Guns are necessary to keep the government honest. I think that point is fairly stupid not only because a bunch of people with handguns would never overthrow the US government, but we willfully allow our government to run roughshod over our freedoms every day without uttering a word (much less firing a bullet).

I do, however, believe taking away guns is an unnecessary restriction on freedom because, as I've tried to show in previous posts, it won't solve anything.
Or with Scott's and Elizabeth's point, that when someone is breaking into your house or into your car, that they can only be thwarted by your using a gun in some fashion?
They can only be stopped with firearms? I don't know if anyone has claimed that but I highly doubt it. I do, however, think that if someone intends on hurting you they have no right to do so unmolested. A gun is simply the most practical means of protecting yourself and guns are used every day (maybe hundreds or thousands of times a day) in self defense which leads me to believe people's fear of being molested is entirely justified.
Everyone is "guilty" of exactly the same thing. Every individual creates their own definitions, even if they don't realise it.
Yes, but everyone is also perfectly capable of recognizing what the standard definition is and what emotions use of a word will evoke in the reader's mind. When I think criminals I have a fairly simple picture of someone breaking the law.

What I wanted was you to expand on what this "reasonable way" is to stopping truthlessness not that it's possible and you have to do it consciously and deliberately.
It's rare to find a truth-oriented teacher or students.

This is why the class I attend has almost no pupils, while the macho loud teachers have many students.
Whatever you say, I stopped taking classes around fourth grade.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

ChochemV2 wrote:people enjoy ignorance
I do, however, believe taking away guns is an unnecessary restriction on freedom because, as I've tried to show in previous posts, it won't solve anything.
Restricting popular access to weapons can diminish the enjoyment of spiritual ignorance, in the same way that a bully or a bullshitter, who is challenged, doesn't enjoy being a bully quite so much. It's not so easy anymore.


I do, however, think that if someone intends on hurting you they have no right to do so unmolested.
Notice the deeply superstitious word: "right".

No wonder Americans have no success eradicating Islamic terrorists. They're all on the same side.

Why not substitute "reason" and then think ?


A gun is simply the most practical means of protecting yourself
We are all untouchable, ultimately.

If one practises reason most, then one can let people do whatever they like with one's body, so long as it doesn't do them any harm.


and guns are used every day (maybe hundreds or thousands of times a day) in self defense which leads me to believe people's fear of being molested is entirely justified.
Do the numbers grow, or lessen? That is the question to answer here.


K: Everyone is "guilty" of exactly the same thing. Every individual creates their own definitions, even if they don't realise it.

C: Yes, but everyone is also perfectly capable of recognizing what the standard definition is and what emotions use of a word will evoke in the reader's mind. When I think criminals I have a fairly simple picture of someone breaking the law.
Just as a standard definition may not be truthful, so also a law may also not be truthful, in which case it's reasonable to break and replace it. So, I define crime to be anti-truthfulness.


What I wanted was you to expand on what this "reasonable way" is to stopping truthlessness not that it's possible and you have to do it consciously and deliberately.
The way of reason is to correct falsehoods and illogicality.

For example, a reasonable person, when confronted by some crazy person shouting "God tells me to kill you", will probably do his best to prevent being killed, while remaining free from a similar superstition.

By contrast, an unreasonable person, in the same situation, will be extremely agitated, perhaps use excessive force, and believe that he also has a God-given right to kill the attacker. So, the crime - the criminal belief - lives on in him.


-
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA

Post by sschaula »

The way of reason is to correct falsehoods and illogicality.
That's very true, Kelly...
- Scott
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

ChochemV2 wrote:
I think she was saying that because of the climate of violence & the vast numbers of guns in a place like the US people are less free to think & speak truthfully because there is always the possibility that someone who didn't like what they said could shoot them.
And I think that's complete drivel. America suffers from, if anything, a culture of willful ignorance. People simply don't seek truth not because they are afraid of being shot but because seeking truth is difficult and dangerous (not physically, but it challenges your views in a way that nothing else does).
I don't think I said that people didn't seek truth because they were literally afraid of being shot. I agree with you that willful ignorance is the greatest obstacle. However I do think that the climate of violence & fear of violence that exists in the US can & does cause people to be somewhat careful of what they say in public. And if you can't say it, it becomes more difficult to think it. And if there are too many inhibitions in one's mind - especially unconscious ones - it is impossible to develop the mental freedom that would enable one to think outside social norms.
.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

Restricting popular access to weapons can diminish the enjoyment of spiritual ignorance, in the same way that a bully or a bullshitter, who is challenged, doesn't enjoy being a bully quite so much. It's not so easy anymore.
That's assuming willful ignorance is somehow supported by gun ownership, I just don't see the connection.
Notice the deeply superstitious word: "right".
If one practises reason most, then one can let people do whatever they like with one's body, so long as it doesn't do them any harm.
That's what we are talking about here, harm. How do you reason with someone who has no capability for reason? I consider rape to be harm, I consider murder to be harm, I consider unlawful intrusion to be harm. In all of these instances the criminal is imposing his will on someone else and reason doesn't influence his actions so how would reason stop him?
Do the numbers grow, or lessen? That is the question to answer here.
Do some research, I'd be interested to know the answer to that question.
Just as a standard definition may not be truthful, so also a law may also not be truthful, in which case it's reasonable to break and replace it. So, I define crime to be anti-truthfulness.
As long as you realize I define crime to be breaking the law. You know, theft, murder, rape, etc.
For example, a reasonable person, when confronted by some crazy person shouting "God tells me to kill you", will probably do his best to prevent being killed, while remaining free from a similar superstition.

By contrast, an unreasonable person, in the same situation, will be extremely agitated, perhaps use excessive force, and believe that he also has a God-given right to kill the attacker. So, the crime - the criminal belief - lives on in him.
But you've still left out some rather important parts such as: how does the "reasonable person" defend himself while still remaining reasonable?

Also, in a situation where one person means to kill you killing that person really ceases to be excessive force.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

I don't think I said that people didn't seek truth because they were literally afraid of being shot. I agree with you that willful ignorance is the greatest obstacle. However I do think that the climate of violence & fear of violence that exists in the US can & does cause people to be somewhat careful of what they say in public. And if you can't say it, it becomes more difficult to think it. And if there are too many inhibitions in one's mind - especially unconscious ones - it is impossible to develop the mental freedom that would enable one to think outside social norms.
It's so much more complicated than that. Sure, you might watch what you say in public because you don't know how people around you may react, however, the conditioning for willful ignorance starts before you have any fear of guns. In grade school any extracurricular education made you weird and isolated you from everyone else. It was far cooler to waste away in front of MTV, kill brain cells with various substances, and basically do anything that didn't require brain activity once school was over.

If anything our school system, not firearms, creates perfect zombies to fill desks, buy cars, and act like good little capitalist automatons who are afraid of wisdom and think reading philosophy isn't worth their time.
User avatar
Shardrol
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: New York, USA

Post by Shardrol »

Sure, I didn't mean that firearms were the cause of willful ignorance. I agree that the whole culture creates & supports it. I'm just saying that there is an underlying fear of violence in American life that inhibits what people will do & say. And when you feel you have to curtail what you do & say, you also start to curtail what you can think.
.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Post by ChochemV2 »

Sure, I didn't mean that firearms were the cause of willful ignorance. I agree that the whole culture creates & supports it. I'm just saying that there is an underlying fear of violence in American life that inhibits what people will do & say. And when you feel you have to curtail what you do & say, you also start to curtail what you can think.
I'd go one step further and say firearms use, increased ownership, and the fear that most people feel are all because of our culture of willful ignorance. That is the real problem, that people feel comfortable in not questioning the world around them. Guns don't perpetrate this culture of ignorance because all the programming comes very early on.

We need to change the school system, the justice system, the...well, practically everything and it probably still wouldn't work because there will always be people who simply aren't capable of critical thinking.

All gun control does is make people feel like their lives are being challenged and further entrench them in the belief that they need their guns.
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3771
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle »

Kelly Jones wrote:Or with Scott's and Elizabeth's point, that when someone is breaking into your house or into your car, that they can only be thwarted by your using a gun in some fashion?
I never said "only" and that is not what I believe. In fact twice some guy came to attack me while I was in my car, once someone tried to get in my car while I was stopped at a stoplight, and another time someone tried to use the bump and steal method on me (they had just had it in the news that a tactic being used in the area was that someone would bump into your car lightly, and when you got out to check the damage, they would steal your car - and it was 11:30 at night, I'd stopped at a stoplight, the car behind me stopped, and then they proceeded to bump into my car). In none of these occasions did I use a gun (twice I ran a stoplight to get away, once I kept honking my horn and some guys came up and intimidated him into leaving me alone [no physical violence done, but just the sight of about 5 or 6 guys coming up in all directions got the guy to settle down and walk away] and once I just sat there and considered running him over with my car, but I had a friend's kid in the car with me and I didn't want to traumatize the kid).

People don’t always shoot to effectively defend their homes either. There was a news story a few years ago where someone broke into someone’s house, and the lady who lived there happened to have a decorative sword, and happened to know how to use it, and just seeing woman armed with the sword and ready to use it on him was enough to make him leave.

You shoot only if there is no other way. A gun is supposed to be a measure of last resort, but for citizens who are most likely to stick to that one ethical rule, it is not okay to take that last resort measure away from us.

I agree that reason should be the first measure, and it should always be the preventative measure. When dealing with unreasonable people, reason is ineffective. The second measure should be appeal to emotion and other psychological tactics. Beyond that, ideally one should have a variety of “weapons” at their disposal, including hand-to-hand and other self defense techniques, pepper spray, and a gun. Once you are down to the weapons category, good judgment should be used as to which weapon will do. If a guy slyly grabs your breast, you grab his arm and remove his hand from you – there is no need to spray him or shoot at that point. If he is starts to attack in some method that is beyond your physical capabilities to defend yourself (and only you know what your limits are – which could change on a daily basis if say, your back was acting up), then you spray and call police. Any time you have to take a measure beyond hand-to-hand, you must call the police – and with hand-to-hand, it is a judgment call). If he pulls a gun on you or if the pepper spray has no effect (or just makes him mad) – as can happen if someone is high on drugs – shoot him.

There is a law in America about using minimal effective force, and the above progression is a pretty good description of how that is implemented. It isn’t like the wild west movies where it is okay to shoot someone pretty much “just because.”
.
Locked