[yt]DKXGjSpnHmE[/yt]
Quote from: Skm1091 on October 03, 2013, 03:45:57 PM
[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.
Quote from: nilecroc on October 03, 2013, 08:49:49 PM
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.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on October 04, 2013, 10:03:35 AM
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.
Quote from: tnu on October 04, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Skm1091 on October 04, 2013, 10:34:05 AM
Former statist here. I came after some rough experiences, but that's a story for another time.
What were the rough experiences?
Quote from: nilecroc on October 04, 2013, 11:09:09 AM
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
How many lies/half truths are this video anyway?
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
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.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 05, 2013, 04:07:24 AM
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?
Quote from: Skm1091 on October 05, 2013, 05:42:17 AM
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.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 05, 2013, 07:39:42 AM
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.)
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 05, 2013, 07:39:42 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Skm1091 on October 06, 2013, 12:33:06 PM
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?
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
That is a completely irrelevant point. Gun ownership declining does equal justification for gun control. It also does not state the reason why it is declining. People like concordance seem to have a ban boner, where anything they should be banned, in his case drugs and guns.
[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]
another vid
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 02, 2013, 10:21:53 PM
[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]
another vid
he clearly doesn't understand it is irrelevant what the potential for collateral damage is: the same argument could be taken to the most absurd levels, and be applicable to knives, rocks, ladders, hammers, swords, etc.
further, unlike a grenade, a rifle can and is very useful for self defense.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on November 02, 2013, 10:35:55 PM
he clearly doesn't understand it is irrelevant what the potential for collateral damage is: the same argument could be taken to the most absurd levels, and be applicable to knives, rocks, ladders, hammers, swords, etc.
further, unlike a grenade, a rifle can and is very useful for self defense.
Technically a grenade can by used in a defensive way. Ever heard of Grenade trip wires? Guerrilla fighters would attach wires to pins and an unsuspecting idiot, such as an enemy trying to attack their base ect, trips it and then....... BOOM!
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 02, 2013, 11:24:39 PM
Technically a grenade can by used in a defensive way. Ever heard of Grenade trip wires? Guerrilla fighters would attach wires to pins and an unsuspecting idiot, such as an enemy trying to attack their base ect, trips it and then....... BOOM!
I concede the point. :)
either way, his argument is still shit.
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 02, 2013, 11:24:39 PM
Technically a grenade can by used in a defensive way. Ever heard of Grenade trip wires? Guerrilla fighters would attach wires to pins and an unsuspecting idiot, such as an enemy trying to attack their base ect, trips it and then....... BOOM!
And that's far from the only way, either.
The grenade pictured is, in fact, a defensive one. (The assumption is that the defender has at least some kind of minimal defensive structure like a foxhole, so the shrapnel from the grenade explosion is not as much of an issue as it is for the much less protected attacker.)
Quote from: evensgrey on November 03, 2013, 01:27:58 AM
And that's far from the only way, either.
The grenade pictured is, in fact, a defensive one. (The assumption is that the defender has at least some kind of minimal defensive structure like a foxhole, so the shrapnel from the grenade explosion is not as much of an issue as it is for the much less protected attacker.)
Claymore anyone :)
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 02, 2013, 10:21:53 PM
[yt]LfEn3RLm_os[/yt]
another vid
The description is even funnier. "I'm someone who opposes all gun ownership". Which means he'll have you kidnapped by people with guns and locked up so he can feel safer. Of course if you can't have a gun, then you can't have anything thing that can be considered a weapon.
Quote from: nilecroc on November 03, 2013, 09:39:58 AM
The description is even funnier. "I'm someone who opposes all gun ownership". Which means he'll have you kidnapped by people with guns and locked up so he can feel safer. Of course if you can't have a gun, then you can't have anything thing that can be considered a weapon.
I think you have misread it.
Heres the full description with the part you misread in bold.
Quote"The Hand Grenade Test" is a rhetorical device I use with friends and family to convey the simple idea that all weapons are not equal: some have design features that make them inappropriate for self-defense use. Hand grenades and C4 have a high potential for misuse and little to no potential for legitimate defensive use.
I understand that [assault weapons] are a contentious issue among gun owners, in spite of being a low percentage of total gun ownership. The "Feinstein definition" is often mocked and parodied, and I agree some of the definitions seem disconnected to reality, but the idea that some weapons have a greater misuse potential than their use can support.
I am not someone who opposes all gun ownership, but smart regulation can prevent misuse of weapons by people intending to harm the innocent.
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 03, 2013, 12:54:14 PM
I think you have misread it.
Heres the full description with the part you misread in bold.
Regarding the bolded part, gotta love vague, never to be usefully defined terms like "smart regulations". Every regulation was thought to be 'smart' by someone in government, or it wouldn't have been added to the federal registry to begin with. Also, I think he means 'laws'? I thought it was laws that are made regarding gun control. If it were regulations, wouldn't all adults be submitting paperwork every month or whatever to prove they don't have guns or whatever?
I nearly vomited in my mouth when I saw this comment from the video's OP:
"Currently I have a 0.22 bolt-action rifle I got for my 9th birthday and an heirloom WWII service shotgun my grandfather used in the Air Reserves. I gave my Dad back a M&P40c .40S&W he'd given me when I went to college."
Hypocrite alert.
another vid.
[yt]dYHXayOEHZ8[/yt]
Quoteskm1091 "Your saying if you have a chance to shoot the rapist you should not and let him (or her) have their way with you."
I never even got close to saying anything that would even be tangentially related to it, so no. I didn't, and could not possibly, say that you should OR shouldn't. None of what I said, has any relevance to your question, thus making it nonsensical.
"I quoted that one because that's the study you guys quote the most."
Who are these "you guys", you speak of?
You assume that I look at defunct studies ...but you have no idea what studies I have looked at. You have no idea what my sources are. You simply choose to assume that my sources are certain specific ones you know about, because they are defunct. (or at least, you believe them to be)
I have never even heard of the Arthur L Kellerman study. Is it really used most often, by gun control advocates, or is it that you've heard that it's the study that gun control advocates use?
It's a very old study and one of the many studies he has done on the subject. I would argue that the main place, where you would find the Arthur L Kellerman study, is among those who are anti-gun control.
To cherry-pick that study to attack, as a strawman, seems fairly pathetic.
I look for scientific studies on the subject. I find that they say that you are safer without a gun, than with.
For some sources, just Google for peer reviewed studies (preferably meta-analyses) on the subject
...or take a look at the Harvard School of Public Health's Harvard Injury Control Research Center: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/ (note, this is a collection of studies and meta-analyses)
Which peer-reviewed studies do you base your claims on?
As to your number... I never questioned them, or even addressed them, in any way, whatsoever. Why? Because they are not relevant.
Anyone got a list of studies I can refer to?
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 14, 2013, 01:25:14 PM
Anyone got a list of studies I can refer to?
About the effects of gun control? About whether or not you should shoot the rapist?
There's links elsewhere on this forum for the former.
Due to the nature of the second, it would be kinda hard to find a peer reviewed paper on it. I guess 2.5 seconds worth of bing would bring up about all the considered opinion you can handle.
Quote from: dallen68 on November 15, 2013, 01:22:20 AM
About the effects of gun control? About whether or not you should shoot the rapist?
There's links elsewhere on this forum for the former.
Due to the nature of the second, it would be kinda hard to find a peer reviewed paper on it. I guess 2.5 seconds worth of bing would bring up about all the considered opinion you can handle.
I need studies that counter his claim about it being more dangerous to fight back with a gun.
Quote from: Skm1091 on November 15, 2013, 02:27:25 AM
I need studies that counter his claim about it being more dangerous to fight back with a gun.
The only thing I was able to find is http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent). From there, you can link to the actual CDC study, which is a 200+ page e-book ($38)
Some highlights:
QuoteThe report expresses uncertainty about gun control measures, stating that "whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue," and that there is no evidence "that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime." It also stated that proposed "gun turn-in programs are ineffective."
QuoteThe CDC's findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research...Quote
And most of the rest of it is about how education and technology are more important in reducing fire arm related accidents than legal restrictions.