Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[dairygirl4u2c]

" Or you can compare the rates of gun deaths per capita in the US to those of places such as Brazil, Mexico, or Russia, which have much stricter gun laws but much higher gun homicide rates.  You can cherrypick stats and countries and use correlation=causation "arguments" to "prove" whatever you want. "

you have to compare developed countries against each other. it doesn't mean much if undeveloped countries have more gun problems cause thatd be expected. brazil for example shouldn't be compared to the USA. 

the problem is conservatives think there's an actual argument among experts about this stuff, but there's really not. ninety percent of gun researches think more gun control is better than none when it coems to saving lives. guns with stirct gun control have less deaths than otherwise. controling for poverty and other factors, the presence of a gu means more death will occur. ive never seen anything that said otherwise. (not counting raw data that just looks at deaths v gun without controlling for it, cause ive seen differntt outcomes with that.... also keeping things compared between developed v developed as opposed to not deveoped, cause that skews correlations)

but anti gun control folks will just continue to ignore the data, and im sure anomaly will come around with the fact that the usa has more guns but less death over time, as if that proves anything in the bigger picture. and no one's views will be altered. 

[Winchester]

On 1/5/2016, 12:58:58, PhuturePriest said:

My feelings on the topic are that, ultimately, I would rather limit my self-defense to only a knife if it meant we decreased mass homicides. If by limiting guns we decreased gun violence but increased knife violence, that for me is preferable. Guns have the capability of doing something like we saw in Paris. Knives limit the user and his deadly capabilities. 

I'm 5'6". I'm a person who would greatly benefit from having a gun if I were ever attacked. But I'm willing to sacrifice that if it means decreasing the amount of lost lives.

You should consider not placing yourself in a group arbitrarily defined by politicians. 

 

Have you ever participated in or been in a position to stop a "mass homicide"?

Drugs are prohibited in the US. In spite of mass incarceration and the employment of military style tactics, drugs are still available. How much violence are you willing to tolerate to control guns? Prohibition simply does not work. If there's a market for an item or service, prohibition will fail. Gun legislation isn't based on rational evaluation (look up Dianne Feinstein's "shoulder thing that goes up video), but emotion and fear.

 

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

gun legislation is based on common sense and scientific fact. look at my last post. again with the conservatives ignoring facts. 

should we just legalize drugs cause there's a black market? actually winchester might not be the one to ask on that one, cause he might say yes. should we get rid of all the rules for driving cars cause some people will break the law? should we just enter into anarchy? the fact is that gun laws create some benefit. that's why we have laws in general, and the same logic applies with guns. 

[Winchester]

52 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

gun legislation is based on common sense and scientific fact. look at my last post. again with the conservatives ignoring facts. 

should we just legalize drugs cause there's a black market? actually winchester might not be the one to ask on that one, cause he might say yes. should we get rid of all the rules for driving cars cause some people will break the law? should we just enter into anarchy? the fact is that gun laws create some benefit. that's why we have laws in general, and the same logic applies with guns. 

Explain to me the common sense behind forbidding "the shoulder thing that goes up".

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”--Robert Higgs.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

Explain to me the common sense behind forbidding "the shoulder thing that goes up".

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”--Robert Higgs.

They did kill a lot of people during the Spanish civil war, and the Russian and Mexican revolutions... Probably a few others if I kept looking.

[Winchester]

40 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

They did kill a lot of people during the Spanish civil war, and the Russian and Mexican revolutions... Probably a few others if I kept looking.

Higgs isn't advocating pacifism. I doubt he would agree with the an-socs or an-synds. 

The States in question weren't fighting a fascist leader in an attempt to throw off oppression/ The States weren't reacting (or over reacting) to a threat to peace.

We're not going to agree. You've returned to statism. I haven't. Maybe one day I'll become a utilitarian, again. When that happens, I'm sure I'll have all sorts of arguments that cloud my mind against that reality.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Higgs isn't advocating pacifism. I doubt he would agree with the an-socs or an-synds. 

The States in question weren't fighting a fascist leader in an attempt to throw off oppression/ The States weren't reacting (or over reacting) to a threat to peace.

We're not going to agree. You've returned to statism. I haven't. Maybe one day I'll become a utilitarian, again. When that happens, I'm sure I'll have all sorts of arguments that cloud my mind against that reality.

Statism is a silly word. It is libertarian code for "anyone who is less libertarian than myself, who has the exact perfect amount of libertarianism." You consider Ron Paul a statist. Ron probably considers Rand a statist. It is a word game. I simply decided that the teachings of Leo XIII were more important to me than the great and powerful Tom Woods.

Edited January 27, 2016 by Nihil Obstat

[Batman]

My parents were shot and I'm still against gun control. 

[Socrates]

9 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

 I simply decided that the teachings of Leo XIII were more important to me than the great and powerful Tom Woods.

Heretic!

[Nihil Obstat]

9 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Heretic!

Tom Woods? Well I try to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Winchester]

20 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Statism is a silly word. It is libertarian code for "anyone who is less libertarian than myself, who has the exact perfect amount of libertarianism." You consider Ron Paul a statist. Ron probably considers Rand a statist. It is a word game. I simply decided that the teachings of Leo XIII were more important to me than the great and powerful Tom Woods.

Statism is the belief that some people can get together and without consent of anyone else, grant themselves (through the organization) special power. This magically binds others. It's a substitution of man for God. It hijacks the authority everyone has to seek or aid in justice, and then stuffs it into a bureaucracy. 

Ron Paul appears to be an anarchist, although he did try to work with the federal government on its ostensible terms. Unsurprisingly, the men who have put themselves in the place of God now act like God.

Applying Leo's writings to the modern state is a mistake. The modern state is based on legal positivism, which Catholics obviously must reject.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i dont know what "the shouldar thing that goes up" means. 

as i kinda worried about, winchester is too extreme to reason with in terms of comparing gun laws to other laws. winchester is probably an anarchist. but for everyone else that see the value for, say, traffic laws (common sense, really), if we have one it's only common snse to have the other. 

[Nihil Obstat]

45 minutes ago, Winchester said:

Statism is the belief that some people can get together and without consent of anyone else, grant themselves (through the organization) special power. This magically binds others. It's a substitution of man for God. It hijacks the authority everyone has to seek or aid in justice, and then stuffs it into a bureaucracy. 

Ron Paul appears to be an anarchist, although he did try to work with the federal government on its ostensible terms. Unsurprisingly, the men who have put themselves in the place of God now act like God.

Applying Leo's writings to the modern state is a mistake. The modern state is based on legal positivism, which Catholics obviously must reject.

"Applying Leo's writings to the modern state is a mistake. The modern state is based on legal positivism, which Catholics obviously must reject."
How would you know? You never read those encyclicals I keep sending you.  And it is certainly not legal positivism, but you would know that if you followed through with those.

"Statism is the belief that some people can get together and without consent of anyone else, grant themselves (through the organization) special power. This magically binds others. It's a substitution of man for God. It hijacks the authority everyone has to seek or aid in justice, and then stuffs it into a bureaucracy. "
All of this is true if and only if you previously reject that the state can have a natural right to exist. So in this case you are begging the question.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

21 minutes ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

i dont know what "the shouldar thing that goes up" means. 

as i kinda worried about, winchester is too extreme to reason with in terms of comparing gun laws to other laws. winchester is probably an anarchist. but for everyone else that see the value for, say, traffic laws (common sense, really), if we have one it's only common snse to have the other. 

Traffic laws are common sense and so are gun laws.  I support the 2nd ammendment as well as common sense gun laws.  Yet banning guns altogher is not the same as instituting gun laws. It would be more like banning cars because some people don't obey traffic laws and end up killing people with their automobiles. 

Freedom is the ability to do what we ought, not what we want.  Traffic laws are not an obstacle to my freedom to drive. Their purpose is so I do not drive incorrectly.  Yet banning me from owning a car, and therefore taking away my right to drive when I've done nothing wrong, is an obstacle to my freedom because it takes away my ability and right to drive as I ought.

[Winchester]

1 hour ago, dairygirl4u2c said:

i dont know what "the shouldar thing that goes up" means. 

as i kinda worried about, winchester is too extreme to reason with in terms of comparing gun laws to other laws. winchester is probably an anarchist. but for everyone else that see the value for, say, traffic laws (common sense, really), if we have one it's only common snse to have the other. 

It's an expression from one of the legislators. You know, the people you claim are employing common sense.

26 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

"Applying Leo's writings to the modern state is a mistake. The modern state is based on legal positivism, which Catholics obviously must reject."
How would you know? You never read those encyclicals I keep sending you.  And it is certainly not legal positivism, but you would know that if you followed through with those.

"Statism is the belief that some people can get together and without consent of anyone else, grant themselves (through the organization) special power. This magically binds others. It's a substitution of man for God. It hijacks the authority everyone has to seek or aid in justice, and then stuffs it into a bureaucracy. "
All of this is true if and only if you previously reject that the state can have a natural right to exist. So in this case you are begging the question.

I read those encyclicals when you were still playing with hollow plastic toddler hockey sets.

 

Not at all. It proceeds from the idea that each person has a claim to himself higher than the claim others have on him, and then creates no exemptions for the later comer known as the State. If you don't accept the premise that each of us has a higher claim on himself than others (and I think family is a rather sticky area in that regard), then who does?

30 minutes ago, Oremus Pro Invicem said:

Traffic laws are common sense and so are gun laws.  I support the 2nd ammendment as well as common sense gun laws.  Yet banning guns altogher is not the same as instituting gun laws. It would be more like banning cars because some people don't obey traffic laws and end up killing people with their automobiles. 

Freedom is the ability to do what we ought, not what we want.  Traffic laws are not an obstacle to my freedom to drive. Their purpose is so I do not drive incorrectly.  Yet banning me from owning a car, and therefore taking away my right to drive when I've done nothing wrong, is an obstacle to my freedom because it takes away my ability and right to drive as I ought.

They are? Coming to a complete stop, shedding all speed at a stop sign regardless of circumstances is an assault on common sense.

 

Near my house, there are two intersections identical in design. One has a left turn yield option on a solid green. The other doesn't. It's not at all common sense to obey the one that doesn't. It's in stark contradiction to common sense to obey a design flaw.