gotlucky: How do you kill a bottle with a gun?
How do you kill a bottle with a gun?
AR-15s were designed to shoot bottles? Cause I'm pretty sure they had human beings in mind. If you have some insider info on this I'd be glad to hear it though.
So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. It's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous.
Your point being, what? Yes, they are dangerous, especially to potential criminals. If you want to utilise certain statistical anomalies as an excuse to criminalise them you will have to also criminalise swimming pools on the same basis, for the "common good", since statistically they are more murderous, and the people need to be protected from them (and by extension, from thelselves.) Simply blurting out they are "designed" to kill is irrelevant. You can kill without a gun and on a similar scale using ingredients to manufacture a bomb. Or simply setting a building on fire. Should everything be banned and surveyed by the government since some nuts MAY use them to kill?
The same goes for cars. They may not be intended to kill but they definitely do have a decent homicide rate.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Nowhere in your post did you mention AR-15s. In fact, you talked about ALL guns, and I know plenty of people who own guns who have never shot at another living being but have shot at targets. I suppose you have never heard of skeet shooting or other shooting sports.
Let's not forget archery as a sport too.
@ Jon Irenicus
I'm chewing the stuffing out of my couch in an effort to not quote you on the other forum.
Jon Irenicus: So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. It's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous. Your point being, what? Yes, they are dangerous, especially to potential criminals. If you want to utilise certain statistical anomalies as an excuse to criminalise them you will have to also criminalise swimming pools on the same basis, for the "common good", since statistically they are more murderous, and the people need to be protected from them (and by extension, from thelselves.) Simply blurting out they are "designed" to kill is irrelevant. You can kill without a gun and on a similar scale using ingredients to manufacture a bomb. Or simply setting a building on fire. Should everything be banned and surveyed by the government since some nuts MAY use them to kill? The same goes for cars. They may not be intended to kill but they definitely do have a decent homicide rate.
Look, friend, I'm not pro gun control. However, if you're argument is hinging on equating the lethality of guns to swimming pools and motor vehicles you've got yourself a weak ass argument. And it won't convince anyone who isn't already on your side.
But go ahead and see how far you get with it.
gotlucky: Nowhere in your post did you mention AR-15s. In fact, you talked about ALL guns, and I know plenty of people who own guns who have never shot at another living being but have shot at targets. I suppose you have never heard of skeet shooting or other shooting sports. Let's not forget archery as a sport too.
Gun control arguments are about weapons like AR-15s.
Wowy, for reals? You know people who own guns who haven't shot at a living being before? Well it's your lucky day. Go ahead and add National Acrobat to that list.
Pro Tip: If you're not going to engage gun control advocates' arguments (and just about anyone's for that matter) on the merits of their arguments you'll get no where, and be on the verge of a break down like this SkepticalMetal fellow.
"and be on the verge of a break down like this SkepticalMetal fellow."
Me before argument:
Me after argument:
I think Autolykos correctly pegged you as a troll. I responded to what you wrote. There are plenty of gun control advocates that want to ban all guns for the citizenry. Maybe don't be a dick and actually type what you mean next time.
I won't hold my breath.
gotlucky: I think Autolykos correctly pegged you as a troll. I responded to what you wrote. There are plenty of gun control advocates that want to ban all guns for the citizenry. Maybe don't be a dick and actually type what you mean next time. I won't hold my breath.
Autolykos is an overly sensitive, paranoid individual. I wouldn't take much of what he says about people who aren't exactly on the same page as him too seriously. Also, just because someone doesn't immediately agree with you're particular understanding of libertarianism doesn't make them a troll. I just want people using good arguments. The contemporary debate about gun control isn't close (like unimaginably far away from) talk of banning all guns. Their talking about reinstating the assault weapons ban and making things like background checks more rigorous and clamping down on gun shows.
SkepticalMetal: "and be on the verge of a break down like this SkepticalMetal fellow." Me before argument: Me after argument: If you gotta get your ass kicked a few times to figure out how to do it, so be it. As long as you figure it out
If you gotta get your ass kicked a few times to figure out how to do it, so be it. As long as you figure it out
You were insulting instead of engaging in actual debate. Again, I have met plenty of people who advocate banning all guns for the citicenzry. I had no way of knowing you were talking about assault weapons when you said "all guns". I responded to the actual words you typed.
gotlucky: You were insulting instead of engaging in actual debate. Again, I have met plenty of people who advocate banning all guns for the citicenzry. I had no way of knowing you were talking about assault weapons when you said "all guns". I responded to the actual words you typed.
I didn't say "all guns", so no you didn't respond to the actual words I typed.
And you initiated the insulting with this chaming little bit:
"I suppose you have never heard of skeet shooting or other shooting sports.
Let's not forget archery as a sport too."
Let's not confuse things here.
"guns are made for killing" implies all guns.
"if you have some insider info Id be glad to hear it though" was an unnecessarily snarky comment especially considering the fact that you had not mentioned AR-15s at the time and was acting as though you had.
You started acting like a dick and I responded in kind. Let's not confuse things here.
gotlucky: "guns are made for killing" implies all guns. Not when the next section is: "So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. it's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous." "if you have some insider info Id be glad to hear it though" was an unnecessarily snarky comment especially considering the fact that you had not mentioned AR-15s at the time and was acting as though you had. It wasn't unnecessarily snarky. It was an appropriately jocular response to your tongue in cheek question "How do you kill a bottle with a gun?" You started acting like a dick and I responded in kind. Let's not confuse things here. Almost, but not quite. | Post Points: 35
Not when the next section is:
"So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. it's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous."
It wasn't unnecessarily snarky. It was an appropriately jocular response to your tongue in cheek question "How do you kill a bottle with a gun?"
Almost, but not quite.
How about this argument against gun control:
I'm not sure if you knew this, but neither this nor this was done using guns!
Not when the next section is: "So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. it's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous." LMAO. You are so cute. It's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing. LMAO. Exactly. You said that that all guns were made for killing. Not some. If you meant some, then qualify your statements with the word some. Don't follow it up by qualifying it with "they are made specifically for killing". In no way does that mean "some guns". My god. And "generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous" does not mean "some guns" either. That state was qualifying "things made for the purpose of killing". You are such a liar. It wasn't unnecessarily snarky. It was an appropriately jocular response to your tongue in cheek question "How do you kill a bottle with a gun?" Yes, it was unnecessarily snarky. You made a comment about all guns being meant for killing. The meaning behind your response was that AR-15s weren't made to shoot bottles, and I'm an idiot. But guess what? My comment had nothing to do with AR-15s. It had to do with your claim that all guns are meant to kill. What's especially interesting is that you don't address the topic of gun sports and archery, but instead you preferred to insult and now are trying to pin them on me. Cute. You are a troll. LibertyHQ and its awesome forum. | Post Points: 20
LMAO. You are so cute. It's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing. LMAO. Exactly. You said that that all guns were made for killing. Not some. If you meant some, then qualify your statements with the word some. Don't follow it up by qualifying it with "they are made specifically for killing". In no way does that mean "some guns".
My god.
And "generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous" does not mean "some guns" either. That state was qualifying "things made for the purpose of killing".
You are such a liar.
Yes, it was unnecessarily snarky. You made a comment about all guns being meant for killing. The meaning behind your response was that AR-15s weren't made to shoot bottles, and I'm an idiot. But guess what? My comment had nothing to do with AR-15s. It had to do with your claim that all guns are meant to kill.
What's especially interesting is that you don't address the topic of gun sports and archery, but instead you preferred to insult and now are trying to pin them on me.
Cute. You are a troll.
"I'm not sure if you knew this, but neither this nor this was done using guns!"
This did
Not all guns are made for the purpose of killing. Which means specifying "things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing" is limiting the "guns" mentioned in the previous paragraph.
It's pretty straight forward.
"Guns are made for killing. Cars kill, at best, as a side effect or secondary function. " is pretty straightforward. Notice how you went out of your way to claim that cars only kill as a side effect, but with guns that is their express purpose?
Now you are claiming otherwise. Fine.
gotlucky: "Guns are made for killing. Cars kill, at best, as a side effect or secondary function. " is pretty straightforward. Notice how you went out of your way to claim that cars only kill as a side effect, but with guns that is their express purpose? Now you are claiming otherwise. Fine.
Yes, the guns that are talked about in gun control debates are guns made specifically for killing.
There are pallet guns, bb guns, nerf guns, rubber band guns, all kinds of guns before you even get to sport weapons that everyone knows aren't made for killing and aren't a part of gun control debates. Why you would expand it to sport weapons is beyond me. In every serious discussion about gun control, proponents specifically state they aren't talking about taking hunting rifles. If you're not familiar with the contemporary debate maybe you should familiarize yourself.
I'm still not quite sure what your point is, Neodoxy. My point is that humans have been killing each other ever since they crawled out of the sea. If you really want to stop humans from killing each other, you're going to have to amputate their limbs.
As I said before, I have debated people who want to ban all guns for the citizenry. If you are not familiar with reading comprehension maybe you should familiarize yourself.
Seriously, I can only respond to the things that you write, not to what some others somewhere have said at somepoint about gun control. I am not going to attribute to you another person's argument just because it has been used or is more common.
If it is your belief that assault weapons should be banned, then please state this clearly. Otherwise, state clearly what you do actually mean to say. I'm not going to try guessing. Either be clear or gtfo.
For the record, I have no idea why you brought up nerf guns except to ridicule me. Clearly you have nothing to offer other than attacking people. This is why Autolykos correctly identified you as a troll.
Skeptic,
Correct. But that doesn't mean that guns don't make the process easier. Thus we get back to the OP. You're a lot less likely to die if someone is going be using a knife than if they're going to be using a gun.
Neodoxy, I swear, you're sounding like a liberal. So I'll just ask you this - what would be your argument against the lefties?
What's wrong with pointing out that they support the end justifies the means? Most people don't want to be associated with that.
1. Making guns illegal won't disarm criminals and will make civilians more helpless in the face of criminals
2. Making guns illegal will make people who enjoy guns for whatever reason worse off.
3. Making guns illegal will mean the government has less to fear from the populace. This means that the government will be more likely to be able to abuse its power if things become dire.
4. Guns are not the source of, but the effect of America's violent culture.
Point 1 alone makes the whole argument absolutely irrelevant because it means that the leftists can't obtain their goal. It's the same as price controls; fixing the price doesn't achieve the goal of allowing the poor to get more of a good, so it literally has no redeeming factor.
On the RLM thread I cracked up when I saw one guy arguing that guns would not help you in the event of a crime and another saying the state doesn't fear an armed populace. Both of those are just plain idiotic arguments.
And how would I express such a thing to them?
"You think that the ends justify the means."
I know that these people are wrong, but putting how they are wrong in good words? I'm good at structuring stories, but debates? Eh.
@ Neodoxy
Exactly. It is precisely because of the fatuity of these arguments and the bizarre and grotesquely-utopian worldview of the left-wing fundamentalists that generate the provocation in my mind that makes it nearly-unberable for me to give a sagacious retort. How can I structure a good response to such density?
Well, it's a little tricky, but essentially what these people are saying is that it is okay to use violence in order to prevent an individual from owning or possessing a gun, even if he has never even threatened another with violence. In other words, gun control advocates are the ones initiating violence (as you know). So, while you might want to see nonviolent actions taken to reduce gun violence, they are okay with violence up to and including execution (by cop).
Friedmanite:The fact that nobody died in the Chinese attack while 26 died in the school shooting is precisely the point anti-gun advocates are making.
Neodoxy:Cars have a lot more uses than guns do.
National Acrobat: Guns are made for killing. Cars kill, at best, as a side effect or secondary function. So it's not about everything that can end up killing someone. It's about things that are made specifically for the purpose of killing, which makes them, generally speaking, extremely good at killing and thus dangerous.
Guns are made for killing. Cars kill, at best, as a side effect or secondary function.
Biggest flaw in liberal logic is to me the fact that banning simply means that one group of people (criminals - public and private) are immune to ban while non-criminal private sector is not. It is simply a way to give more power (physical and psychological) to one group of people (imho "bad", parasitic people) at the cost of another group of people ("good", productive people). Banning guns will improve security of those that will have guns - namely criminals, public and private.
You can minimize effects violence only when either nobody has weapons or when everybody has them. Giving government and criminals (purely semantic difference) exclusive access to weaponry seems like dumb idea to me if you do not value concentration of power and all assorted baggage.
Cars have a lot more uses than guns do.
How would you know that and yes, how would you measure that?
SkepticalMetal: I know that these people are wrong, but putting how they are wrong in good words? I'm good at structuring stories, but debates? Eh.
So I decided to rework what I wrote above. I think this is better. This argument is tailored for people who associate law with the state:
When you create a law banning a particular action, you are giving the police the authority to use deadly force in order to enforce the ban. I want to reduce gun violence too, but I don't support killing peaceful people. You want to reduce gun violence, but you don't discriminate between peaceful and violent people. You would have the police kill a nonviolent gun owner just because someone, somewhere, at sometime might use a gun to kill another person. And your solution is threaten, tase, beat, imprison, and even kill peaceful gun owners because some gun owners are violent and criminal. If that isn't the end justifying the means, then I don't know what is.
When you create a law banning a particular action, you are giving the police the authority to use deadly force in order to enforce the ban. I want to reduce gun violence too, but I don't support killing peaceful people. You want to reduce gun violence, but you don't discriminate between peaceful and violent people. You would have the police kill a nonviolent gun owner just because someone, somewhere, at sometime might use a gun to kill another person. And your solution is threaten, tase, beat, imprison, and even kill peaceful gun owners because some gun owners are violent and criminal.
If that isn't the end justifying the means, then I don't know what is.
gotlucky, you must help me out on the RLM forums.
More in the same vein as the OP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010--2011) The conclusion is that the state is ineffective at preventing schools from being invaded by would-be killers. Adults should take some responsibility for their own defense and they should only entrust the safety of their children to people who are capable of contributing to their defense. When adults send their children to public schools, they are abdicating responsibility for their safety to an organization which is unwilling or unable to ensure it.
I checked out that thread, and I have to say, I have no idea why you want to debate with people like that. They seem to just want to spout of their mouths.
...Otherwise known as all gun control advocates.
The point is, no matter how full of shit we know they all are, they are getting somewhere, especially by using tragedies to promote their oppressive system. Debating is the least we can do, because all the media ever lets you see from the opposition are the rednecks with the "praise the lord and pass the ammunition" mentality. You should have heard the Diane Rehm show earlier today. I was about to throw up in my stomach while listening to it.
National Acrobat:Autolykos is an overly sensitive, paranoid individual.
Is that a fact?
National Acrobat:I just want people using good arguments.
You first.
By the way, I don't consider you to be a troll.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum