C0nc0rdance Gun control vid

[Skm1091]

[yt]DKXGjSpnHmE[/yt]

[nilecroc]

[yt]DKXGjSpnHmE[/yt]

What an ass. As a group we decide what shall be prohibited and what the consequences are.
Demonstrably false. The government, a small part of the population, decides what is prohibited and what arbitrary punishments to dish out. One thing I don't get is what the hell is the point of a punishment other than pointless revenge? Unless the victim gets to carry it out, then there's no point to it. It seems that anti-gun opponents think that guns are some mystical items that are responsible for all the shootings that happen, and not the retarded policies of governent (gun free zones) and the pychos that carry them out. If you can' trust them with a gun for fear of mental instability, then you can't trust them to walk around without harming others. One thing I've noticed about concordance is that he is for drug prohibition, and now gun prohibition. Except in typical Orwellian fashion he thinks that restricting access to guns is not gun prohibition. He also seems keen saying that the group decides things and that magically makes it okay. But all the group is is a bunch of people. He's using appeal to majority and appeal to force at the same time. What's with these people and trying to use the government to "solve" problems that 1, aren't actually problems, or 2. problems that could actually be solved if they were really willing to work together instead of using the government to force their so called solutions onto everyone

These control freaks seem to think that guns are a problem, they aren't. The problem is that some people are evil and/or crazy. This does not mean that choices for people like me should be limited so that people like Concordance can have some self righteous since of satisfaction that "criminals" can't have guns. Another thing that irks me is this whole law abiding bullshit. All that means is that you haven't gone against the demands of over rated bullies. If you have drugs, you are not a law abiding citizen. If you refuse to pay taxes, then you are not a law abiding citizen. According to Concordance, this means you shouldn't own a gun. It drives me crazy how many people like this are. Obey our rules or else. Like the so called rules actually do anything  other than prevent you from doing things that you enjoy for insert generic reason here.

[Travis Retriever]

What an ass. As a group we decide what shall be prohibited and what the consequences are.
Demonstrably false. The government, a small part of the population, decides what is prohibited and what arbitrary punishments to dish out. One thing I don't get is what the hell is the point of a punishment other than pointless revenge? Unless the victim gets to carry it out, then there's no point to it. It seems that anti-gun opponents think that guns are some mystical items that are responsible for all the shootings that happen, and not the retarded policies of governent (gun free zones) and the pychos that carry them out. If you can' trust them with a gun for fear of mental instability, then you can't trust them to walk around without harming others. One thing I've noticed about concordance is that he is for drug prohibition, and now gun prohibition. Except in typical Orwellian fashion he thinks that restricting access to guns is not gun prohibition. He also seems keen saying that the group decides things and that magically makes it okay. But all the group is is a bunch of people. He's using appeal to majority and appeal to force at the same time. What's with these people and trying to use the government to "solve" problems that 1, aren't actually problems, or 2. problems that could actually be solved if they were really willing to work together instead of using the government to force their so called solutions onto everyone

These control freaks seem to think that guns are a problem, they aren't. The problem is that some people are evil and/or crazy. This does not mean that choices for people like me should be limited so that people like Concordance can have some self righteous since of satisfaction that "criminals" can't have guns. Another thing that irks me is this whole law abiding bullshit. All that means is that you haven't gone against the demands of over rated bullies. If you have drugs, you are not a law abiding citizen. If you refuse to pay taxes, then you are not a law abiding citizen. According to Concordance, this means you shouldn't own a gun. It drives me crazy how many people like this are. Obey our rules or else. Like the so called rules actually do anything  other than prevent you from doing things that you enjoy for insert generic reason here.

The worst part?  He often claims he used to be a libertarian....I wish I was kidding.

[tnu]

The worst part?  He often claims he used to be a libertarian....I wish I was kidding.

It should be pointed out that many of us can play that game too. I and a few others used to be statists until the realization that it was morally and logically unsound.

[Skm1091]

It should be pointed out that many of us can play that game too. I and a few others used to be statists until the realization that it was morally and logically unsound.

Former statist here. I came after some rough experiences, but that's a story for another time.

[nilecroc]

Former statist here. I came after some rough experiences, but that's a story for another time.

What were the rough experiences?

[Skm1091]

What were the rough experiences!

You know having your world view turned upside down etc. To explain the whole story that would take me a long time

[nilecroc]

How many lies/half truths are this video anyway?

[Skm1091]

Fail Quote

Aviel Menter

Mentions the bogus study by a Arthur L Kellerman (Link Bellow)

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

This thing was debunked years ago

[Professor_Fennec]

How can he say that that gun laws in WWII Germany were not about oppression of the people when the laws were clearly being used to repress a minority? 

How can he say that limiting gun ownership in Soviet Russia was not about oppression it was clearly a measure to prevent rebellion? 

It is as if he's making the arguments for gun rights advocates, and then discounting them with apology to gun control.  He's basically saying "Yeah, the argument is valid and sound, but I can discount it because of X." 

And then comes the appeals to consequence about the effectiveness of gun laws.  It only goes to show that people such as C0nc0rdance are more concerned with keeping their view of an ordered society intact.  As Steven Pinker points out, humans are becoming less and less violent.  This is not a result of intervention, but part of a natural selective pressure on humanity to become a less violent species. 

It isn't up to progressives to dictate to everybody else how to live their lives or to force a zero risk society upon us all.  Statists never seem to have an answer to this, so they just appeal to consequence. 

I never understood why moral arguments aren't subject to the appeals to consequence fallacy.  This is, in and of itself, a special pleading fallacy, because nobody can explain why moral arguments get this special exemption.  It only seems to serve the purpose of statist to have their way. 

This is the core issue that C0nc0rdance always ignores: CONTROL.  There is no answer that he could ever give without presupposition, which is the universal problem of ALL ideologies. 

Never trust somebody who tries to sell you an ideology to explain what science currently does not explain.  That person is a charlatan and a trickster that should be given the same level of scrutiny you would given any religious apologist. 

[Skm1091]

How can he say that that gun laws in WWII Germany were not about oppression of the people when the laws were clearly being used to repress a minority? 

How can he say that limiting gun ownership in Soviet Russia was not about oppression it was clearly a measure to prevent rebellion? 

I have had some people justify Obama's drone strikes on civilians saying that these people might have been militants and that even if do kill civilians they kill militants.

First of all, how would we feel if some supposed terrorists in a building in Manhattan were killed in a bomb strike, without a warrant, or without any regards for civilian casualties which causes the death of hundreds of men women and children? We would find this absolutely unacceptable. WE WOULD BE FUCKING OUTRAGED!

But they are saying that it is perfectly fine as long as it is not us and it is done by people in uniform and not civilians. This also tells us what they really think about people abroad, they are literally saying that the children and other innocent civilians that are not Americans are not worth as much.

Says a lot about these bastards doesn't it?

[MrBogosity]

I have had some people justify Obama's drone strikes on civilians saying that these people might have been militants and that even if do kill civilians they kill militants.

First of all, how would we feel if some supposed terrorists in a building in Manhattan were killed in a bomb strike, without a warrant, or without any regards for civilian casualties which causes the death of hundreds of men women and children? We would find this absolutely unacceptable. WE WOULD BE FUCKING OUTRAGED!

But they are saying that it is perfectly fine as long as it is not us and it is done by people in uniform and not civilians. This also tells us what they really think about people abroad, they are literally saying that the children and other innocent civilians that are not Americans are not worth as much.

Says a lot about these bastards doesn't it?

It's because those people are Not Us. Genetically our ancestors--going all the way back to reptiles and maybe even further--are programmed to protect Us but fight against Not Us. So, your tribe, your state, your race, your religion, and everyone in it all become Us, where death is horrible and those who kill them are an outrage, and everyone else is Not Us, so killing them is justified or at the very least not a big deal.

One of the key culminations of civilization is for people to encompass the whole human race into Us, with no humans at all in the Not Us category. But like always, we're having to drag everyone else along kicking and screaming.

[evensgrey]

It's because those people are Not Us. Genetically our ancestors--going all the way back to reptiles and maybe even further--are programmed to protect Us but fight against Not Us. So, your tribe, your state, your race, your religion, and everyone in it all become Us, where death is horrible and those who kill them are an outrage, and everyone else is Not Us, so killing them is justified or at the very least not a big deal.

One of the key culminations of civilization is for people to encompass the whole human race into Us, with no humans at all in the Not Us category. But like always, we're having to drag everyone else along kicking and screaming.

I ran across something related to this in a thread about what it is that might give humans an advantage over an aliens we might one day encounter (in some areas, at least, being universally dominant not being required). One thing is that humans can achieve a very expansive notion of 'Us', which can already include members of other species (how do you feel about your pets, people?). We can embrace an 'Us' that goes beyond the borders of our family, clan group, friends, local community, region, nation, continent, species, and potentially our planet. (Recall what it was in Babylon 5 that made humans special? "Humans build communities of diverse elements.") The fear this may generate is obvious from the fear those humans who don't want such an inclusive 'Us' have, particularly of other cultures where a very inclusive 'Us' is common.

We who value freedom are likely to have a more inclusive 'Us' than those who don't, since we propose that peaceful consent should be the basis of all interactions and relationships. Humans, at least, are wired to do this only with those we see as being part of 'Us'. As tribal apes, we're programmed to be ready to kill, pretty much at a moment's notice, anyone or anything we see as 'Them'. (In fact, war and other forms of mass violence is extremely hard to start without first convincing the acting population that whomever they are supposed to attack is 'Them' and not 'Us'. This is one of the main purposes of propaganda, and why almost every genocide is prefaced with a heavy propaganda denigrating the target group.)

[Skm1091]

It's because those people are Not Us. Genetically our ancestors--going all the way back to reptiles and maybe even further--are programmed to protect Us but fight against Not Us. So, your tribe, your state, your race, your religion, and everyone in it all become Us, where death is horrible and those who kill them are an outrage, and everyone else is Not Us, so killing them is justified or at the very least not a big deal.

One of the key culminations of civilization is for people to encompass the whole human race into Us, with no humans at all in the Not Us category. But like always, we're having to drag everyone else along kicking and screaming.

I think this why I feel no empathy for the likes of the people I just mentioned.

Lets face it they don't really deserve it. 

[Skm1091]

Concordance says that gun ownership is decreasing and even though the number of guns are increasing people owning them are decreasing. Anyone have any stats?