Ask me about Communism.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well, what if someone intended to do harm to me with a gun? Should I not have the ability to protect myself or should I wait 15 to 30 minutes for the cops to arrive after I am shot dead bleeding, Oblarg?

[Oblarg]

Well, what if someone intended to do harm to me with a gun? Should I not have the ability to protect myself or should I wait 15 to 30 minutes for the cops to arrive after I am shot dead bleeding, Oblarg?

 

Better than you having a gun and shooting him instead, because there's a much better chance if you own a gun of you shooting someone in a situation which is not self-defense. Simple statistics.

 

Murders involving guns *will* happen, the best we can do is design policies to minimize the number of them.

 

As for how I know a gun is intended to do harm, that's what they are designed for. The gun is a weapon. Weapons harm people. There is nothing more to it. Target shooting is a paltry excuse. Hunting is a legitimate reason to own a rifle, I will not deny that, but there's no reason for anyone to own a handgun other than ego-boosting. Statistically, owning a gun is simply not a good way to defend yourself.

 

It's not because I don't think you should, it's because you owning a gun is demonstrably bad for society. Owning a handgun for "self-defense" is selfish and short-sighted. Morals have nothing to do with it, it's simple logic - the needs of society come before the needs of the individual. Always.

 

If you can demonstrate that the internet is dangerous and a detriment to society, you would have basis for that argument. Alas, such a claim is laughable.

[Trenitay]

Why is target shooting a "paltry" excuse. It's an activity I enjoy doing and there is no reason I shouldn't be able to do it. Maybe people shouldn't be able to cook. They have to use knives. Those were meant to be weapons.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well, what if someone intended to do harm to me with a gun? Should I not have the ability to protect myself or should I wait 15 to 30 minutes for the cops to arrive after I am shot dead bleeding, Oblarg?

 

Better than you having a gun and shooting him instead, because there's a much better chance if you own a gun of you shooting someone in a situation which is not self-defense. Simple statistics.

 

Murders involving guns *will* happen, the best we can do is design policies to minimize the number of them.

 

As for how I know a gun is intended to do harm, that's what they are designed for. The gun is a weapon. Weapons harm people. There is nothing more to it. Target shooting is a paltry excuse. Hunting is a legitimate reason to own a rifle, I will not deny that, but there's no reason for anyone to own a handgun other than ego-boosting. Statistically, owning a gun is simply not a good way to defend yourself.

 

It's not because I don't think you should, it's because you owning a gun is demonstrably bad for society. Owning a handgun for "self-defense" is selfish and short-sighted. Morals have nothing to do with it, it's simple logic - the needs of society come before the needs of the individual. Always.

 

If you can demonstrate that the internet is dangerous and a detriment to society, you would have basis for that argument. Alas, such a claim is laughable.

 

Sorry, I don't buy that "Star Trek" garbage that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" crap. There have been instances where I live that a gun saved lives. In Des Moines a woman protected herself from an intruder in her apartment by killing the intruder with a gun. Another instance is that a Pizza Hut deliverer was ambushed by a bugger trying to steal his cash and if he didn't have a gun on him and shot his attacker he would have ended severely wounded or dead. I myself was robbed at gun point which could have ended very badly for me. If I had a weapon I could have killed that bugger before he had a chance to pull out his gun. If you take away guns from law abiding people then the only people who will have guns will be criminals.

 

I rather rely on myself for defense than some cop who more often than not comes after the fact.

 

Human society is filled with violence, hate, and greed. One does have the right to protect himself from that. To protect his life and the life of his loved ones no matter what.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[taks]

because there's a much better chance if you own a gun of you shooting someone in a situation which is not self-defense.

prove it.

 

Simple statistics.

something tells me you don't understand "simple statistics."

 

taks

[mkreku]

Ok, since the original post of mine must have contained too many words, I'll simplify it a bit and remove some of the multi-choice options:

 

I don't like this whole conept of someone else telling me "No you can't have this thing because "I" don't think you should!" You are simply imposing you will or morality on someone else using the law as a means of forcible coercion.

Is it now simple enough for you to actually respond to the stupidity posted above? Or are you going to pull out more useless popular internet expressions to avoid the subject? Guard Dog wants to keep his **** enlargers, but according to his post (or one of the choices in it), it shouldn't stop with firearms. He doesn't want anyone to be able to tell him what he can or can't have. Where does he draw the line? Is there a line? Where does it stop being about "imposing your will on someone else" and simply being "it should be this way because I think it's right"?

[Oblarg]

Sorry, I don't buy that "Star Trek" garbage that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" crap.

 

I'm sure glad you live in my country!

[taks]

Is it now simple enough for you to actually respond to the stupidity posted above? Or are you going to pull out more useless popular internet expressions to avoid the subject?

i know exactly what GD said, and your response was a strawman, with a bunch of hyperbole and a slippery slope to boot.

 

Guard Dog wants to keep his **** enlargers, but according to his post (or one of the choices in it), it shouldn't stop with firearms. He doesn't want anyone to be able to tell him what he can or can't have.

you were so close, here, but he really didn't say "it shouldn't stop with firearms." you added that bit. simply saying "i'm tired of people telling me what i can and can't do" is not even close to the same as saying "i think everyone should have a nuke." besides that, his comment was clearly in the context of self defense, a concept few of your hyperbolic examples fit.

 

Where does he draw the line? Is there a line? Where does it stop being about "imposing your will on someone else" and simply being "it should be this way because I think it's right"?

self defense, obviously, but clearly you need someone else to point it out. anyone that understands context, knows exactly what GD meant.

 

I assume someone is helping you look up all these 'difficult' expressions that you then seem to repeat like a monkey with a keyboard.

wow. maybe you should stop repeating the same sorts of fallacies? hmmm?

 

fyi: strawman arguments, or red herrings in general, are the most common fallacious argument. they are the most common because they represent a cop-out when someone, like you, mkreku, doesn't have a legitimate argument and inserts something weak instead, since it is easier to respond to. that's why it is so easy for me to spot, people like you repetedly commit them, probably because your arguments are simply that weak.

 

now that i've clearly dissected your argument for what it is, do you think maybe we could stop with the nonsense?

 

taks

[taks]

Statistically, owning a gun is simply not a good way to defend yourself.

i missed that one. prove it.

 

It's not because I don't think you should, it's because you owning a gun is demonstrably bad for society.

you're right, and a state that has absolute control over an unarmed populace is clearly good for society as has been so frequently demonstrated. oh, wait, it actually worked the other way historically.

 

Owning a handgun for "self-defense" is selfish and short-sighted.

you're right, and as a result we look past it to the point of protecting the people from the state. still self defense, but in a much larger context.

 

Morals have nothing to do with it,

perhaps in your world, but then again, arguing morals with a someone making such claims is an exercise in circular... wait, you mention it here:

 

it's simple logic

yet i get the impression you don't understand what logic means.

 

the needs of society come before the needs of the individual. Always.

if you satisfy the needs of the individual first, it will necessarily lead to the betterment of society. history disproves your assertion Always.

 

taks

Edited January 5, 2010 by taks

[Tigranes]

Bit extreme I think, taks. Sure a state with absolute control over an unarmed populace is bad, but it's not so sure if a 'reasonably' (yeah, i know) armed populace is better. Satisfy the needs of the individual first -> betterment of society 'always'? really, always? No time to unravel this properly at the moment, but just strikes me, why go that far?

[Oblarg]

Statistically, owning a gun is simply not a good way to defend yourself.

i missed that one. prove it.

 

It's not because I don't think you should, it's because you owning a gun is demonstrably bad for society.

you're right, and a state that has absolute control over an unarmed populace is clearly good for society as has been so frequently demonstrated. oh, wait, it actually worked the other way historically.

 

Owning a handgun for "self-defense" is selfish and short-sighted.

you're right, and as a result we look past it to the point of protecting the people from the state. still self defense, but in a much larger context.

 

Morals have nothing to do with it,

perhaps in your world, but then again, arguing morals with a someone making such claims is an exercise in circular... wait, you mention it here:

 

it's simple logic

yet i get the impression you don't understand what logic means.

 

the needs of society come before the needs of the individual. Always.

if you satisfy the needs of the individual first, it will necessarily lead to the betterment of society. history disproves your assertion Always.

 

taks

 

Are you actually naive enough to think that the populace owning guns is why we don't have a dictatorship?

 

I'm not going to bother searching out the statistics myself. I've seen them before, and if you want to disagree, you can go look up something to the contrary.

 

And your last statement is pure stupidity. Do you actually believe that anything that benefits the individual also benefits society? What world do you live in?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Lets see here...

 

A society is made up of what...

 

Oh, let's see here...

 

INDIVIDUALS!

[Oblarg]

Lets see here...

 

A society is made up of what...

 

Oh, let's see here...

 

INDIVIDUALS!

 

Doesn't mean one individual can't benefit in a way that harms the rest.

 

This is irrelevant, though, as owning a gun has no real benefit anyway.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Oblarg

[Killian Kalthorne]

How is a law abiding person owning a handgun harming you in any form or fashion if you do not intend harm on them? Please, tell me. How does it harm you at all? There are lots of benefits owning a gun, and the chief among them is protection. You are just too naive to see that the world is a dangerous and violent place. The only person you can count on to protect you is yourself, and no one else.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[Guard Dog]

Apparently I missed out on the best parts of Mkrekus posts. But from what I glean from whats left he made a nonsensical argument by taking my example to an extreme and using the exteme to disqualify my argument (that is actually what a "strawman" is by the way). I could counter by saying that since he is in favor of gay marriage he must also in favor of an adult male marrying a young boy since after all they are both male. You see the problem here Mkreku? No, you probably don't.

 

This thread has grown pretty tiresome for me so this will be my last post and I'll end it but saying this:

 

There are two kinds of people in this world. One group desires nothing more than to live their lives as best they can in peace and with the freedom to do what makes them happy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am certain I've read that somewhere. The second group is watching the first group in a trembling rage because the first group, in the process of living their lives, is doing something the people in the second group don't like. The people in the second group will do anything to force the people in the first group to behave in a way they think they should. They will use rhetoric, laws, guns, they will strap on bombs and blow themselves up. The people in the second group are a pretty disparate bunch, from the religious zealot burning an abortion clinic, to the muslim terrorist, to the lone nut job banging away on his computer keyboard (Mkreku, Oblarq, LoF). The one thing they all have in common is they think they know better how you should be living your life than you do. And nothing makes them madder that when you deny them, or disagree with them. Most of it is pretty tame. They just use language to insult and belittle. Notice the really insulting posts in the two communist threads have been directed at those who oppose communisim or follow a religion. But it is just a very small step to shooting and that is why the worst atrocities in history are comitted by the people in group 2. Small wonder they are so attracted to totalitarian styles of governance like communisim and it's ugly kid sister socialisim.

 

No thanks, not for me.

[Oblarg]

How is a law abiding person owning a handgun harming you in any form or fashion if you do not intend harm on them? Please, tell me. How does it harm you at all? There are lots of benefits owning a gun, and the chief among them is protection. You are just too naive to see that the world is a dangerous and violent place. The only person you can count on to protect you is yourself, and no one else.

 

Look at the statistics. Legally owned guns are used far more often in murders than in self-defense. I don't care how much you say you don't intend to harm anyone with it, it's not about *you*. It's about what's best for society.

[Oblarg]

Apparently I missed out on the best parts of Mkrekus posts. But from what I glean from whats left he made a nonsensical argument by taking my example to an extreme and using the exteme to disqualify my argument (that is actually what a "strawman" is by the way). I could counter by saying that since he is in favor of gay marriage he must also in favor of an adult male marrying a young boy since after all they are both male. You see the problem here Mkreku? No, you probably don't.

 

This thread has grown pretty tiresome for me so this will be my last post and I'll end it but saying this:

 

There are two kinds of people in this world. One group desires nothing more than to live their lives as best they can in peace and with the freedom to do what makes them happy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am certain I've read that somewhere. The second group is watching the first group in a trembling rage because the first group, in the process of living their lives, is doing something the people in the second group don't like. The people in the second group will do anything to force the people in the first group to behave in a way they think they should. They will use rhetoric, laws, guns, they will strap on bombs and blow themselves up. The people in the second group are a pretty disparate bunch, from the religious zealot burning an abortion clinic, to the muslim terrorist, to the lone nut job banging away on his computer keyboard (Mkreku, Oblarq, LoF). The one thing they all have in common is they think they know better how you should be living your life than you do. And nothing makes them madder that when you deny them, or disagree with them. Most of it is pretty tame. They just use language to insult and belittle. Notice the really insulting posts in the two communist threads have been directed at those who oppose communisim or follow a religion. But it is just a very small step to shooting and that is why the worst atrocities in history are comitted by the people in group 2. Small wonder they are so attracted to totalitarian styles of governance like communisim and it's ugly kid sister socialisim.

 

No thanks, not for me.

 

You're ridiculous. There are no such "two groups," and I highly doubt you actually believe that.

 

There are selfish people who would do whatever they want with no regard for the society which allows them to do so. You are one of those people.

[Trenitay]

How is a law abiding person owning a handgun harming you in any form or fashion if you do not intend harm on them? Please, tell me. How does it harm you at all? There are lots of benefits owning a gun, and the chief among them is protection. You are just too naive to see that the world is a dangerous and violent place. The only person you can count on to protect you is yourself, and no one else.

 

Look at the statistics. Legally owned guns are used far more often in murders than in self-defense. I don't care how much you say you don't intend to harm anyone with it, it's not about *you*. It's about what's best for society.

 

And people who murder are going to murder anyway. They don't need a gun to do it. If you think guns are the only way to kill people you're mistaken. If they're going to attack me what am I supposed to do?

[Killian Kalthorne]

Look at the statistics. Legally owned guns are used far more often in murders than in self-defense. I don't care how much you say you don't intend to harm anyone with it, it's not about *you*. It's about what's best for society.

 

I place myself higher than I do society, Oblarg. You see, the only person that I have to live with is myself. I don't care about society and given my experiences in my life society doesn't give a rat's ass about me. I don't care what is best for society. I care what is best for me. No one else.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Apparently I missed out on the best parts of Mkrekus posts. But from what I glean from whats left he made a nonsensical argument by taking my example to an extreme and using the exteme to disqualify my argument (that is actually what a "strawman" is by the way). I could counter by saying that since he is in favor of gay marriage he must also in favor of an adult male marrying a young boy since after all they are both male. You see the problem here Mkreku? No, you probably don't.

 

This thread has grown pretty tiresome for me so this will be my last post and I'll end it but saying this:

 

There are two kinds of people in this world. One group desires nothing more than to live their lives as best they can in peace and with the freedom to do what makes them happy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am certain I've read that somewhere. The second group is watching the first group in a trembling rage because the first group, in the process of living their lives, is doing something the people in the second group don't like. The people in the second group will do anything to force the people in the first group to behave in a way they think they should. They will use rhetoric, laws, guns, they will strap on bombs and blow themselves up. The people in the second group are a pretty disparate bunch, from the religious zealot burning an abortion clinic, to the muslim terrorist, to the lone nut job banging away on his computer keyboard (Mkreku, Oblarq, LoF). The one thing they all have in common is they think they know better how you should be living your life than you do. And nothing makes them madder that when you deny them, or disagree with them. Most of it is pretty tame. They just use language to insult and belittle. Notice the really insulting posts in the two communist threads have been directed at those who oppose communisim or follow a religion. But it is just a very small step to shooting and that is why the worst atrocities in history are comitted by the people in group 2. Small wonder they are so attracted to totalitarian styles of governance like communisim and it's ugly kid sister socialisim.

 

No thanks, not for me.

 

:lol:

 

Look at the statistics. Legally owned guns are used far more often in murders than in self-defense. I don't care how much you say you don't intend to harm anyone with it, it's not about *you*. It's about what's best for society.

 

I place myself higher than I do society, Oblarg. You see, the only person that I have to live with is myself. I don't care about society and given my experiences in my life society doesn't give a rat's ass about me. I don't care what is best for society. I care what is best for me. No one else.

 

This. Why do I give a rat's ass about you people, especially in cases like this one, where owning a gun can obviously save my life, but has no real connection to the quality of your lives, especially considering I'm not a crazy?

[Oblarg]

Apparently I missed out on the best parts of Mkrekus posts. But from what I glean from whats left he made a nonsensical argument by taking my example to an extreme and using the exteme to disqualify my argument (that is actually what a "strawman" is by the way). I could counter by saying that since he is in favor of gay marriage he must also in favor of an adult male marrying a young boy since after all they are both male. You see the problem here Mkreku? No, you probably don't.

 

This thread has grown pretty tiresome for me so this will be my last post and I'll end it but saying this:

 

There are two kinds of people in this world. One group desires nothing more than to live their lives as best they can in peace and with the freedom to do what makes them happy. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am certain I've read that somewhere. The second group is watching the first group in a trembling rage because the first group, in the process of living their lives, is doing something the people in the second group don't like. The people in the second group will do anything to force the people in the first group to behave in a way they think they should. They will use rhetoric, laws, guns, they will strap on bombs and blow themselves up. The people in the second group are a pretty disparate bunch, from the religious zealot burning an abortion clinic, to the muslim terrorist, to the lone nut job banging away on his computer keyboard (Mkreku, Oblarq, LoF). The one thing they all have in common is they think they know better how you should be living your life than you do. And nothing makes them madder that when you deny them, or disagree with them. Most of it is pretty tame. They just use language to insult and belittle. Notice the really insulting posts in the two communist threads have been directed at those who oppose communisim or follow a religion. But it is just a very small step to shooting and that is why the worst atrocities in history are comitted by the people in group 2. Small wonder they are so attracted to totalitarian styles of governance like communisim and it's ugly kid sister socialisim.

 

No thanks, not for me.

 

:lol:

 

Look at the statistics. Legally owned guns are used far more often in murders than in self-defense. I don't care how much you say you don't intend to harm anyone with it, it's not about *you*. It's about what's best for society.

 

I place myself higher than I do society, Oblarg. You see, the only person that I have to live with is myself. I don't care about society and given my experiences in my life society doesn't give a rat's ass about me. I don't care what is best for society. I care what is best for me. No one else.

 

This. Why do I give a rat's ass about you people, especially in cases like this one, where owning a gun can obviously save my life, but has no real connection to the quality of your lives, especially considering I'm not a crazy?

 

I suppose you'd love to live without things provided by the collective. No roads, no schools, no communication. Enjoy.

[mkreku]

This is so tiresome. OK, short lesson for the various dogs who are unlucky at thinking: a strawman is when you say stuff like "Noone should tell me not to own firearms!" and some idiot counters with "So noone should tell you not to own bombs?!". It's when you include stuff the original inanity spouter didn't say. Get it?

 

Now go back and read what the original dog wrote. What he wrote is all inclusive. Noone should tell him what or what not to own (too lazy to quote it again), because that is someone imposing his will upon him. It doesn't say "Noone should tell me to not own firearms!". If it had said that, then we would have had a strawman on our hands in my follow-up post. He said "Noone should tell me what or what not to own". Pretty huge difference! Except for dogs apparently, but I never figured dogs could read anyhow.

 

So congratulations on your failure on using the strawman argument yet again! Unluckily for us, watching the dogs squirm is no fun when Tigranes is in a non-squirming mood.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I have no need for roads. I walk.

I have no need for schools. I have my own books.

I pay a private telephone company for my communication needs.

[I want teh kotor 3]

I suppose you'd love to live without things provided by the collective. No roads, no schools, no communication. Enjoy.

 

Sure. I need to lose some weight, so walking would be good. I go to a private school, so I don't need public schools. AT&T already provides my communication. Your point?

[Trenitay]

Do you walk through the woods? And I would hate to have to go to private school or learn by myself as we are poor and I am too lazy to do that myself.

Edited January 5, 2010 by awsomeness