Charlton Heston dies aged 84

I don't remember you bringing up even one single reason in any topic like this...that's probably why they became useless. If you did, I guarantee I replied directly addressing the reasons you brought up.

I'll switch it up then - how can you be a nihilist and say that a far-reaching government-type organization should restrict people from firing small projectiles? It just doesn't add up from what I can see.

how can you be a nihilist and say that a far-reaching government-type organization should restrict people from firing small projectiles? It just doesn't add up from what I can see.

That really has nothing to with each other, trying to look too much into stuff like that is precisely why I don't bother explaining my reasons. And just so you know, what members here use for their custom title does not necessarily need to be taken seriously...

So you won't post your reasoning because you think I'll....look too much into it? You'd rather I accept it as valid right off the bat?

I just want to know why you think people owning guns is such an awful proposition.

And why bandy about the word "nihilist" all over your online presence if you don't even hold that worldview?

I want an atomic bomb launcher with atomic bomb included. some assembly required.

I just want to know why you think people owning guns is such an awful proposition.

Fair enough, sorry for overreacting.
Basically, this is an issue that people here would really look at from a different angle if...well, if they came from somewhere else. I understand this is part of Americans' life, it's their right and it's fine. Only, they really cannot realize how insane this appears to the rest of the world.
As far as I know, this specific right does not exist in most other developed countries, and there's absolutely no denying that the level of criminality is far lower in these nations. Yes, people kill people, not weapons, but if you don't have any guns circulating freely (or almost), it's obvious what kind of difference it can make. Of course, those with bad intentions will maybe always manage to get ahold of guns anyway, but not having them legal in the first place definitely helps. In France, it almost makes the news big time if somebody got shot anywhere in the country, in the US it's absolutely all the freaking time, and the larger population just doesn't explain that, proportionally, everyone knows that this is the country where there is the most gun-related casualties anywhere in the world.
Now, people brandish the "for my protection" argument, but it's a really a cause and consequence kind of deal. Without such a history of gun legalization, this country would have never become such a fertile place for maniacs using firearms, the gun-related mortality rates would have never been so high, and as a society, people would not feel the need to actually protect themselves and their families with weapons.
I don't really care if it sounds idealistic, pacificist or dowright stupid, it works fine with most other countries.

And why bandy about the word "nihilist" all over your online presence if you don't even hold that worldview?

There's certainly quite a few things that I've stopped believing in with getting older, but this was mostly meant to be sarcastic. I was under the impression that most people here with a title don't really choose one that accurately describe their way of life.

Nihilist isn't even your title, it's your occupation...but if it's sarcasm then it's sarcasm I guess.

Basically, this is an issue that people here would really look at from a different angle if...well, if they came from somewhere else. I understand this is part of Americans' life, it's their right and it's fine.

I don't think they would look at it differently...it's right there in the Constitution, and unless you supported another amendment to repeal the second, it's difficult to argue it. If you understand that it's our right, then what are you looking to argue?

As far as I know, this specific right does not exist in most other developed countries, and there's absolutely no denying that the level of criminality is far lower in these nations.

I would absolutely deny this. I've never seen any statistics that put the US far ahead of other countries in terms of violent crimes.

Yes, people kill people, not weapons, but if you don't have any guns circulating freely (or almost), it's obvious what kind of difference it can make. Of course, those with bad intentions will maybe always manage to get ahold of guns anyway, but not having them legal in the first place definitely helps.

Since when are criminals hesitant to do something that's illegal? And it's fairly apparent that it doesn't really help at this point. Look at Washington D.C. - they've got a handgun ban in effect but still the highest homicide rate of any urban area in the U.S. if I'm not mistaken.

Now, people brandish the "for my protection" argument, but it's a really a cause and consequence kind of deal. Without such a history of gun legalization, this country would have never become such a fertile place for maniacs using firearms, the gun-related mortality rates would have never been so high, and as a society, people would not feel the need to actually protect themselves and their families with weapons.

History has shown that once you start making compromises in the name of "pragmatism," individual rights rapidly erode. This is largely what's been happening in the U.S. government since Reagan and I'm genuinely not enthused to see it jump up yet another notch with any one of the three progressives running in the '08 election.

Guns are not magical objects, they do not possess mystical powers that turn level headed people into bloodthirsty killers. Gun-related crimes may be higher in the US, but plenty of other Western nations have higher violent and other crime rates. Crime is the result of political/social/cultural factors, not magical objects molded by wizards.

The idea of "protection" is not from our fellow citizens, that is what the state is for. The idea of "protection" is from the state. Without the capability to take up arms against the state, we become subjects of the state without a means of recourse. Having protection from people who do not abide by the law, even if guns themselves were illegal, is just a side benefit.

If you understand that it's our right, then what are you looking to argue?

So because it's your right, there's absolutely no point discussing or denying it? See, that's what I meant by not wanting to disclose my reasons here, it's apparently not acceptable...

I would absolutely deny this. I've never seen any statistics that put the US far ahead of other countries in terms of violent crimes.

Well, I do encourage you to look further. I've seen numbers and mostly, I've lived in other countries, so I can guarantee that this gun frenzy is definitely proper to the US, along with civil war-prone type of countries.

they've got a handgun ban in effect but still the highest homicide rate of any urban area in the U.S. if I'm not mistaken.

Having a "small" enclave where guns are legal, in the middle of a country where it's legalized is obviously not gonna help.

Guns are not magical objects, they do not possess mystical powers that turn level headed people into bloodthirsty killers. Gun-related crimes may be higher in the US, but plenty of other Western nations have higher violent and other crime rates. Crime is the result of political/social/cultural factors, not magical objects molded by wizards.

Again, I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out the fact that in other developed countries where gun control has always been implemented throughout recent history, violent crimes and gun-related casualties are drastically lower.
Just like you obviously cannot understand why other countries may wish to implement gun control, I obviously will never understand your reasons either. I guess we'll both keep thinking it's common sense and call it a day, no biggie.

So because it's your right, there's absolutely no point discussing or denying it? See, that's what I meant by not wanting to disclose my reasons here, it's apparently not acceptable...

Wait, wait, that's not what you said. You said:

I understand this is part of Americans' life, it's their right and it's fine.

If you think it's fine, then why would you want to deny it?

Well, I do encourage you to look further. I've seen numbers and mostly, I've lived in other countries, so I can guarantee that this gun frenzy is definitely proper to the US, along with civil war-prone type of countries.

Sorry...simply living in a country is not a good enough reason for me to believe your "guarantee" that you know how its violent crime rate compares to the U.S.

Having a "small" enclave where guns are legal, in the middle of a country where it's legalized is obviously not gonna help.

I don't see how this is relevant. If homicide continues to skyrocket even after handguns, doesn't it seem like it's not a viable solution?

Just like you obviously cannot understand why other countries may wish to implement gun control, I obviously will never understand your reasons either. I guess we'll both keep thinking it's common sense and call it a day, no biggie.

I sort of think my reasons are objectively simple to understand. 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. Apparently that's not pragmatic enough, so we move on to something that has been more dramatized in popular media as evil.

Just like you obviously cannot understand why other countries may wish to implement gun control, I obviously will never understand your reasons either. I guess we'll both keep thinking it's common sense and call it a day, no biggie.

I understand why people want to implement gun control. I also understand why people want to be told what to eat, what to see or not see on the internet and their television, which people to round up, what speech to allow, etc. I can understand something and not have to support it. And I certainly do not think it is common sense.

Again, I'm aware of that. I'm just pointing out the fact that in other developed countries where gun control has always been implemented throughout recent history, violent crimes ... are drastically lower.

This is not a "fact" though, violent crime rates are comparable and even higher in other Westernized nations. (Note: I am not contending gun crime rates.) Especially ones that are not ethnically homogeneous.

Any benefits or non-benefits of gun control does not rebut the concept of having a means to protect yourself from the state. Which is the constitutional and theoretical foundation of the Second Amendment and traditional American gun rights.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA[/youtube]

Yeah, yeah, linking to other people making my argument for me, but it's good stuff.

but if you start basing everything you do on what might possibly happen, you might as well live constantly with a helmet and bulletproof vest, or isolate yourself from anything or anyone else. That's how all propagandas start, "you gotta be afraid"...

But what if it's my choice and decision to live constantly with a helmet and a bulletproof vest.
We can't automatically ignore the decision of the individual and blame it entirely on propaganda (by the state. media, religion, etc). Granted that such propaganda may influence people but it's still up to the individual to be swayed or not by such propaganda.

Just admit that you're jealous of my cool helmet and vest.

Any benefits or non-benefits of gun control does not rebut the concept of having a means to protect yourself from the state. Which is the constitutional and theoretical foundation of the Second Amendment and traditional American gun rights.

That's what it all comes down to. As soon as as governmental intervention is involved, you people think that it's such an outrage to try to alter a "personal liberty", even if it's as absurd as this one, you get offended and reply with typical anti-communism bullshit that you probably heard from your parents or grandparents.
Fine, that's you right, you guys enjoy it, I hope you have plenty have 20/20 feel good type of stories where you get to pop the bad guy, kudos to you in advance.

If you ever stopped jumping to assumptions about me, and others, posting here just wouldn't be the same.

I guess I wasn't aware that non-piety to the state was "anti-communism bullshit" that for some reason my parents and grandparents, despite the latters lack of remaining life, told me about.

Since you're resorting back to insults towards "inferiors" I won't continue repeating myself by explaining constitutional philosophy behind the existence and importance of the Second Amendment. So, for hopefully the final time. It is not a "personal liberty," absurd or not, it is the means of defense that protects them.

I suppose I was wrong for assuming someone could actually discuss something, instead of repeating standard talking points and then switching to the common "deride and smear the other person" tactic when they were challenged.

instead of repeating standard talking points and then switching to the common "deride and smear the other person" tactic when they were challenged.

Yes, looking at this thread and others, you certainly never repeat the same over and over again, only in more eloquent terms to make it appear different...
I do make assumptions because everything that you post here about these kind of issues is always identical to what may be heard from any conservative spokeperson, media, candidate...No discrepancy whatsoever. Pretty hard not to stereotype after that. But since you certainly do the very same thing, although you won't admit it here, I guess we're even.

Now that you've shown again how petty you are.

You can make all the claims, and try to fit individuals into stereotypical groups, however you want. I can't and won't stop you. But wouldn't it have been nicer if you would've actually tried to participate in somekind of discussion instead of immediately deciding anyone opposed needed to be derided?

I guess I can play along.

Another person who desires the world to be black-and-white. "No discrepancy" with "republican-affliated" people, for they all think exactly the same. And someone with liberal ideological values and positions, a belief in natural rights, and support for constitutionalism, why they must be a Republican! (Unless, of course, it was truly meant as small-r republican, which of course I am! Republics are much more practical than democracies.) If there are guns, there is gun violence, so the solution must be get rid of guns!

The world looks far more gray to me.

I fear the person, especially when they have power. You fear the inanimate object.

See how much less enlightened and more self-centered that was, talking about ourselves, instead of ideas.

I fear the person, especially when they have power. You fear the inanimate object.

Hmm, wouldn't the person have less power without the inanimate object? You still wanna believe that I'm afraid of the image that represents the weapon, while I've already said this is not true, but wouldn't dangerous people without their weapons be...a little less dangerous?
If you say no to that, maybe you're the one who should have endorsed the nihilist title, because you really don't have any faith in humanity for shit in that case.

Please re-read my posts until you can understand my argument (especially in regards to defense against the power of the state) and differentiate it from what you assume the argument to be, or the arguments of others in the thread.

If the person is dangerous and intends me harm without fail, he is no less dangerous and powerful without the weapon. If he is acting as a representative of the state then any ban against the weapon he would be precluded from, the state will not strip itself of the weapon. Even if he is not, stripping him legally of the weapon is not a guarantee, as he is clearly not an actor under the law, thus his desire to harm. Therefore, the only viable way to balance his weapon, is through possession of a counterpart weapon.

But even that is practicalization of the theoretical concept. Stripping citizenry of a recourse against a corrupt state only serves that corrupt state.

I cannot endorse nihilism because I do indeed believe in things. Such as in the natural flaws of man. Thus, the need for recourse against man, especially when he is enshrined with the power to enact his authority.

If the person is dangerous and intends me harm without fail, he is no less dangerous and powerful without the weapon. If he is acting as a representative of the state then any ban against the weapon he would be precluded from, the state will not strip itself of the weapon. Even if he is not, stripping him legally of the weapon is not a guarantee, as he is clearly not an actor under the law, thus his desire to harm. Therefore, the only viable way to balance his weapon, is through possession of a counterpart weapon.

So according to you, if no guns were available, people who were, let's say planning to rob a convenience store or a bank would still do it in exact same numbers, only bringing with them a butter knife and their insanity? You can't be serious...

Stripping citizenry of a recourse against a corrupt state only serves that corrupt state.

But who's talking about a corrupt state here? What does a small time criminal from South LA who bought his handgun and ammo from Kmart have to do with the state? We're talking about individuals here, that has nothing to do with the state being corrupt, that has to do with reducing the resources that some people may use to harm others. What could be wrong with that?

Last edited by el badman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

So according to you, if no guns were available, people who were, let's say planning to rob a convenience store or a bank would still do it in exact same numbers, only bringing with them their a butter knife and their insanity? You can't be serious...

I am, you don't seem to be. I am talking about the world that exists, you are comparing it to one that cannot. You're also doing the same thing you whined about earlier in regards to BigKaboom. If there's no guns, suddenly only butter knives are left.

But who's talking about a corrupt state here?

I am! Read my posts for darkosakes.

As has been said endlessly, if law abiding citizens cannot have guns, only criminals and the state have them. That is not a trade-off I think is worth making just for the placebo effect of having the magical objects outlawed. Especially since I do not accept the premise that mere existence of a gun causes criminal behavior.

Gun control is another black-and-white style distraction, that also conveniently reduces the power of the citizenry for recourse from the state, that has nothing to do with the causes of crime. It is blaming the tool, not the handyman.

But this is continuing to try and escape my original point of why we have the Second Amendment, and why it is important. It is not insanity or absurd to those not pious to the state. Too much derision roped in what was originally an explanatory intent.

If the person is dangerous and intends me harm without fail, he is no less dangerous and powerful without the weapon. If he is acting as a representative of the state then any ban against the weapon he would be precluded from, the state will not strip itself of the weapon. Even if he is not, stripping him legally of the weapon is not a guarantee, as he is clearly not an actor under the law, thus his desire to harm. Therefore, the only viable way to balance his weapon, is through possession of a counterpart weapon.

So according to you, if no guns were available, people who were, let's say planning to rob a convenience store or a bank would still do it in exact same numbers, only bringing with them their a butter knife and their insanity? You can't be serious...

Stripping citizenry of a recourse against a corrupt state only serves that corrupt state.

But who's talking about a corrupt state here? What does a small time criminal from South LA who bought his handgun and ammo from Kmart have to do with the state? We're talking about individuals here, that has nothing to do with the state being corrupt, that has to do with reducing the resources that some people may use to harm others. What could be wrong with that?

I think what benji's trying to say is, gun or no gun, a person intent on doing an illegal threatening act will still do it. A criminal has no regard for the law (hence being called a criminal), he will still do the intended crime because he's already set on it, butter knife or spoon. That's why gun control is by no means a way to prevent crimes from happening. Since criminals do not care about such things of control, they will get any advantage they can to make their crime successful, such as getting a gun and using it on unarmed citizens. Gun control doesn't remove the threat of gun-related crimes since they are commited by people with intent of violating the law anyway and removing the guns to people to which to protect themselves clearly puts them citizens at a disadvantage and their life at risk against such criminals

benji's talking about as to why such a thing is in the constitution, a safeguard just in case. I think.

I am, you don't seem to be. I am talking about the world that exists, you are comparing it to one that cannot. You're also doing the same thing you whined about earlier in regards to BigKaboom. If there's no guns, suddenly only butter knives are left.

I'm pretty sure criminals would quickly run out of inspiration as to what they could use to commit their crimes. I'm not saying that they would all become angels after realizing that crime is much harder without a gun, but I think that'd certainly be a step in the good direction.

As has been said endlessly, if law abiding citizens cannot have guns, only criminals and the state have them.

And that's precisely what I'm not agreeing with. You're the one talking about not seeing things in black and white, but coming up with this type of argument is exactly what it is. You're saying this as if we're in an Age of Empire type of game, where if we don't have the goods, the others do, with some state conspiracy thrown in there for good measure. Doesn't that sound a little simplistic to you? Yes, there will always be black market for everything, and yes the state will always have access to resources that citizens may not have, but it's no reason to become paranoid and claim that we need to be the equal of the "bad guys" to be able to survive. That's just way too extreme, that has nothing to do with being realistic about the society we live in.

I think what benji's trying to say is, gun or no gun, a person intent on doing an illegal threatening act will still do it.

I understand that, but do you honestly think that there would be at least as many criminals giving it a shot if they didn't have the ultimate way to threaten?

Since criminals do not care about such things of control, they will get any advantage they can to make their crime successful, such as getting a gun and using it on unarmed citizens. Gun control doesn't remove the threat of gun-related crimes since they are commited by people with intent of violating the law anyway and removing the guns to people to which to protect themselves clearly puts them citizens at a disadvantage and their life at risk against such criminals

But this all sounds awfully familiar with "they have no regards for freedom, they want to spread their terror and annihilate us" kind of nonsense that we've heard way too often these past years. Assuming that all criminals are inherently evil and cannot possibly change who they are is just not realistic, it's just making sure that you keep your people constantly afraid, and I'm not sure what good ever comes from that.

I thought I had pretty desperate views about humanity, but you guys are apparently worse than me here...

The ultimate way to threaten isn't the weapon itself, it's the disadvantage of the victim the criminal sees.
If the victim has nothing to defend himself, a criminal will still use a ballpen, butter knife, or even a fork to commit the crime because he knows the advantage he has. What are we going to do then, ban ballpens and forks?


I'm guessing this discussion wouldn't even be happening if Charlton Heston didn't die.

You maniac! You died! Ah, damn you! God damn you to hell!

But that's assuming that all criminals are so absolutely fucked up in the head that they can't even think twice about what they're gonna do, that they're just like schizophrenic maniacs. I'm pretty sure that most people in that case do have a zillion thoughts crossing their mind before they commit their crimes, it's not like they're zombified. If we acknowledge that, isn't it possible that some of them would not necessarily be entirely self confident in that situation, think twice about using an alternate, less effective weapon, and ultimately bail out?

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.

I'll just point out that this is one of those incidents I mentioned elsewhere where I've read a LOT of text and still been unable to nail down a concrete rationale for the point you're trying to make.

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.