Charlton Heston dies aged 84

hey, not all criminals have to be fucking insane, just 1 is enough for me to want to have a gun incase someshit goes down. besides shooting someone for breaking into your house is more humane then beating the life out of them with a fire poker

not necessarily be entirely self confident in that situation, think twice about using an alternate, less effective weapon, and ultimately bail out?

That's the point, they're not self-confident of their chances thus they take any advantage they can, fucked up in the mind or a normal person. It's human nature to get an advantage, exams, work, and even in crime.
It's the intent to commit the crime, a criminal may have a zillion thoughts crossing his mind before even doing the act but once he's dead set on it, he will do it and then get his advantage, gun or without.
If a person bails out on his intention of doing the crime, it doesn't matter if he's planning to use a gun or not, he already backs out.
Having a choich of weapons, lethal or non-lethal, isn't the main cause to which a person will commit the crime. It's the disadvantage of the victim, as I said before.

I honestly don't know what there's left to say based on that. You're obviously not reading the posts, and you're addressing only minutiae that in retrospect we probably shouldn't have added in, since it's apparently distracting to the main argument.

It just seems like you want to lump people into categories and say Republicans are dumb, and if they want less gun control then gun control is obviously dumb. And all this psychoanalysis of criminals is totally irrelevant to whether or not it should be provided. The whole examination of gun control's effect on urban violence is an example of the pragmatist approach, which as I mentioned before results in personal liberties eroding.

If you don't mind personal liberties being sacrificed "for the good of the state," that would be a perfectly acceptable justification for your viewpoint.

Oh wow, well said like that, I guess I'm enlightened. Thanks man
You don't necessarily possess the universal fucking truth, so stop acting as if your initial point should be the only argument that can be considered here, and that there's no possible discussion about this "liberty" of yours.
And yes, analyzing criminals' motives and state of mind has everything to do with this, assuming that 0% of them could change if deprived of a weapon is plain stupid. And you can't generalize the DC example to everywhere else since it hasn't been tried in other parts of the country.

Having a choich of weapons, lethal or non-lethal, isn't the main cause to which a person will commit the crime. It's the disadvantage of the victim, as I said before.

But if you admit that all criminals are not necessarily self confident about what they're about to do, don't you think that some may not go through with it if they think that the "victim" could possibly know how to defend himself/herself, or would have the support from other surrounding "victims"? I mean, not every single one of them would have the determination to commit the crime if they're not given the advantage of possessing an actual gun. For all they know, the "victim" might also have whatever kind of alternate weapon they were planning to use in the first place.

But if you admit that all criminals are not necessarily self confident about what they're about to do, don't you think that some may not go through with it if they think that the "victim" could possibly know how to defend himself/herself, or would have the support from other surrounding "victims"?

You mean, like if the victim had a gun?

No, like if the victim has whatever weapon the criminal was ready to use, may it be a pair of scissors, a pen, or whatever the fuck it is. Isn't the possibility of status quo something that could be pretty scary for somebody with this type of intentions?

^ WOW to benji's counter-post

I do not claim to possess the universal truth. In fact, I don't believe in universal truth. However, I have an argument fleshed out with points that I believe to be valid. Your argument isn't really an argument at all because you haven't really made one.

I still don't think you carefully read the post you just responded to, which I find very depressing. So my only option is to ignore you completely when you come into a thread like this to troll it with your unsubstantiated political views.

No, like if the victim has whatever weapon the criminal was ready to use, may it be a pair of scissors, a pen, or whatever the fuck it is. Isn't the possibility of status quo something that could be pretty scary for somebody with this type of intentions?

So, like if the criminal had a gun, and the victim also had one?

So, like if the criminal had a gun, and the victim also had one?

You're obviously not reading the previous posts, since shadowgrin and I were refering to a situation where there is an actual gun control, no guns at all, pas d'armes, no armas, keine pistolen, get it?

Your argument isn't really an argument at all because you haven't really made one.

Because you're too retarded to actually understand the concept of what I'm talking about doesn't mean I don't have an argument. You obviously have nothing remotely relevant to contribute here.

I lost the intent to argue. I'm occupied with laughter

It's like a Looney Tunes act with the back and forth reply of posts. Guns

Last edited by shadowgrin on Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Because you're too retarded

Unless you want to explain your argument in somewhat coherent detail, I think we're done here, civil discussion be damned.

Saying that I don't even have an argument just because you happen to disagree with it is a little easy. At least, I've tried to explain why I think your view is incorrect, just re-read the whole thread, I don't just say, "well, it's like having no argument at all then!".

You're obviously not reading the previous posts, since shadowgrin and I were refering to a situation where there is an actual gun control, no guns at all, pas d'armes, no armas, keine pistolen, get it?

Ja, danke. But I guess I was assuming criminal psychology theories don't change in this dystopian society that does not exist, and therefore the proposed theories applied in our reality.

But I guess I was assuming criminal psychology theories don't change in this dystopian society that does not exist, and therefore the proposed theories applied in our reality.

A society without guns is a dystopian reality?

You're obviously not reading the previous posts, since shadowgrin and I were refering to a situation where there is an actual gun control, no guns at all, pas d'armes, no armas, keine pistolen, get it?

I looked back and saw absolutely nothing that sounded like that. What am I missing?

If you have an argument, then copy paste the parts where you made it please. Because I still feel that the following is correct.

It just seems like you want to lump people into categories and say Republicans are dumb, and if they want less gun control then gun control is obviously dumb.

The whole examination of gun control's effect on urban violence is an example of the pragmatist approach, which as I mentioned before results in personal liberties eroding.

All you've stated is the premise that guns cause people to become violent criminals, and various other similar ones that I reject before you even make an argument. So you've taken to making comments about those premises instead of crafting an argument with premises that are acceptable, which led to me saying, in an attempt to get you to commit to something:

If you don't mind personal liberties being sacrificed "for the good of the state," that would be a perfectly acceptable justification for your viewpoint.

I'm still laughing in my mind but I can still type, so back again.

I mean, not every single one of them would have the determination to commit the crime if they're not given the advantage of possessing an actual gun. For all they know, the "victim" might also have whatever kind of alternate weapon they were planning to use in the first place.

No, like if the victim has whatever weapon the criminal was ready to use, may it be a pair of scissors, a pen, or whatever the fuck it is. Isn't the possibility of status quo something that could be pretty scary for somebody with this type of intentions?

But if we apply it to a different scenario where there is no gun control, wouldn't the criminals be also deterred from commiting the crime because the victim also has a gun, negating the advantage the criminal has of possesing a gun? It's basically the same status quo if there were no guns or with guns.

Unless the criminal has a rocket launcher. I personally prefer grenades.

that I reject before you even make an argument.

Why are you here by the way?
Since you tend to reject people's arguments before they even make one, I assume that you must be leaving in a cave, living as a hermit with a herd of goats, am I correct? Either way, I certainly don't have to explain my opinions to somebody who chooses to disregard them before hearing them.

But if we apply it to a different scenario where there is no gun control, wouldn't the criminals be also deterred from commiting the crime because the victim also has a gun, negating the advantage the criminal has of possesing a gun? It's basically the same status quo if there were no guns or with guns

Not at all, since it's obviously not functioning at this time. Somehow, it feels like there would be much less casualties overall if the status quo involved having 2 scissors or 2 knives rather than 2 handguns...

that I reject before you even make an argument.

Why are you here by the way?

Hmmm...did I say I reject the premises, or that I reject the arguments? That might become clear if you read the posts...

Since you tend to reject people's arguments before they even make one

Wrong.

I assume that you must be leaving in a cave

No idea what this is about.

Either way, I certainly don't have to explain my opinions to somebody who chooses to disregard them before hearing them.

I haven't disregarded a single one so far - just look at my responses to your first few replies.

You reject my "premises" just as I categorically reject yours, I guess there's not much else that needs to be said here.

Last edited by el badman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Somehow, it feels like there would be much less casualties overall if the status quo involved having 2 scissors or 2 knives rather than 2 handguns...

But how sure are we that having 2 scissors or 2 knives would result in less casualties overall as compared to having 2 guns?

For the sake of having a concrete example, if we go back to what others posted, let's take a look at DC. They have a gun control yet their crime rate still increased. I doubt high crime is the result of less casualties.

But how sure are we that having 2 scissors or 2 knives would result in less casualties overall as compared to having 2 guns?

In my world , two weapons that have a higher potential of body damage are more likely to create more serious casualties than two weapons that will, in most cases, not provoke the same amount of damage.
Just like two nations attacking each other with nukes are more likely to provoke more immediate casualties than if they attack each other with ground infantry.

You reject my "premises" just as I categorically reject yours, I guess there's not much else that needs to be said here.

Which of my premises did you reject? I never saw you address any of these:

Since when are criminals hesitant to do something that's illegal?

History has shown that once you start making compromises in the name of "pragmatism," individual rights rapidly erode.

An item capable of firing small projectiles is not something that the government should make unavailable to people. If we eliminated things that often kill people, we'd first start with automobiles.

And I wish you'd address this:

If you don't mind personal liberties being sacrificed "for the good of the state," that would be a perfectly acceptable justification for your viewpoint.

And if you continue calling me a retard, I'm going to have trouble believing you're as old as you say you are.

I never saw you address any of these:

And I probably never will...so many threads have ended like this.

It was obviously a waste of time to start with this in the first place, but since you insist.

Quote:
Since when are criminals hesitant to do something that's illegal?

To me, that's seeing everything in black and white yet again. Considering criminals as these zombified beasts who do not have any sense of consequence regarding their actions couldn't be more erroneous. They're still human beings who are affected by more or less serious mental diseases. I agree that some may never be treated successfully, but categorizing ALL criminals as evil people who will never think twice before commiting a crime is not realistic in my opinion.
But since you said that trying to analyze criminals' minds is not relevant here, and I believe it really is, I guess we can leave it at that.

Quote:
History has shown that once you start making compromises in the name of "pragmatism," individual rights rapidly erode

Well, you may consider gun control as a sign of pragmatism, to me it's simply common sense, so there's not much else I can say about this premise.

Quote:
An item capable of firing small projectiles is not something that the government should make unavailable to people. If we eliminated things that often kill people, we'd first start with automobiles.

The car comparison is getting a bit old. Just because two things are "potentially deadly" doesn't mean that they should be compared at all. You can't compare something without which almost nobody would be able to go to work, school, and do whatever they do in everyday's life, with something such as guns. Making this type of sarcastic comparison seems like a cheap way to defend your point of view, as both objects are objectively not similar in nature.

But anyway, I don't feel like going through this again, we disagree and that's that.

Quote:
Since when are criminals hesitant to do something that's illegal?

To me, that's seeing everything in black and white yet again. Considering criminals as these zombified beasts who do not have any sense of consequence regarding their actions couldn't be more erroneous. They're still human beings who are affected by more or less serious mental diseases. I agree that some may never be treated successfully, but categorizing ALL criminals as evil people who will never think twice before commiting a crime is not realistic in my opinion.
But since you said that trying to analyze criminals' minds is not relevant here, and I believe it really is, I guess we can leave it at that.

You've now begun to argue our own argument against us, and I can't fathom why. We've spent multiple posts putting forth the premise that getting a gun in someone's hand does not instantly make them a cold-blooded killer, and now you're agreeing with it but trying to use it against us. What's wrong with categorizing all criminals as evil people in the context of the society? Breaking the law should not be frowned upon?

Quote:
History has shown that once you start making compromises in the name of "pragmatism," individual rights rapidly erode

Well, you may consider gun control as a sign of pragmatism, to me it's simply common sense, so there's not much else I can say about this premise.

This is not common sense. Common sense is something like "If you don't want to get burned, don't stick your hand in a fire. Hotly contested political issues are far from "common" sense unless you're just talking about things that make sense to you.

Quote:
An item capable of firing small projectiles is not something that the government should make unavailable to people. If we eliminated things that often kill people, we'd first start with automobiles.

The car comparison is getting a bit old. Just because two things are "potentially deadly" doesn't mean that they should be compared at all. You can't compare something without which almost nobody would be able to go to work, school, and do whatever they do in everyday's life, with something such as guns. Making this type of sarcastic comparison seems like a cheap way to defend your point of view, as both objects are objectively not similar in nature.

I'm not being sarcastic in the least. If you start allowing the government to make value judgments about which things the people are allowed to have (ESPECIALLY things that the state requires to carry out their functions), you're gradually giving up your rights in the name of pragmatism a.k.a. "It's for the benefit of everyone that the government take away this freedom from us".

Nobody would be able to go to work without cars; no one would be able to practice shooting targets or defend themselves from burglars without guns. The purpose of government isn't to decide whether driving or firing weapons is a more worthwhile pastime for citizens.