Gun ownership is MAD?

Pitt

“Try a little more research and you will find stories”

You make an assertion

I ask you if what you claim is common and if you have any proof that it is.

You reply by giving as an example a piece of unverified hearsay from a deeply biased pro-gun source.

I point this out and ask for something a bit more verifiable.

You reply by telling me to go and find the evidence myself.

its Kind of like being told to go find out why crime happens isnt it?

LOL

Pitt this is just a new trick to get out of answering questions.

You made the assertion I didn’t

You brought up crime, I didn’t

*

You want me to back up an assertion you made because you can’t be bothered.

I mean do you honestly think this is a reasonable way to conduct a debate?

Think if the same methods were used in court of law?

DA – Judge, this man committed murder

Judge – what evidence have you for this assertion

DA – well I heard that he did it

Judge – have you any verifiable evidence?

DA – If you want evidence find it yourself.

Do you think the person would be convicted should he be convicted?

its Kind of like being told to go find out why crime happens isnt it?

NO actually it isn’t

You brought up crime as one of the things (the others being entertainment) for having a gun.

You also claimed that people that had guns to ‘protect’ them from crime also believed in other methods for dealing with crime.

To do this of course someone would have to have some ideas on why people might turn to crime and ideas of alternatives.

So far you have claimed that people turn to crime because they are greedy, that it is people that can’t control their greed that turn to crime.

When asked why that was so you claimed that each person’s reasons were different.

This seems incredibly simplistic and frankly doesn’t seem to show that you have given crime that much thought.

I’ve tried to find out if you can think any deeper, but so far that capacity seems beyond you.

*

ok so think on this for a while, what does these social economic factors have to do with owning a gun?

Oh Pitt try and think it through.

The person quoted at the beginning of this thread said people needed a gun “to protect himself and his family from an outside threat”

I asked what threat

You replied “What threats? Take a look in the newspapers, violent crime is everywhere”

So we got onto crime.

You said that “socio/economic problems can contribute to criminal activity”

It seems relevant then to ask what you mean by socio/economic problems and what you think would be the best way to deal with them.

**

 

Pitt

Whatever the reason the simple FACT is they are NOT being enforced. Show me one time the NRA or other progun lobby has ever defended a criminal in possession of a gun.

But why are they not being enforced? That is the question that seems important for how to tackle it.

I mean if you don’t know why something is happening how can you hope to work out how to stop it.

As to the NRA it isn’t up to me to prove the NRA innocent. Once again you want me to do the work because you seem incapable or too lazy to do so.

Here are the accusation of the Brady Campaign

 For years, the NRA has successfully blocked the computerization by ATF of gun sale records from out-of-business gun dealers. Thanks to the NRA-imposed restrictions, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the files must often be retrieved manually from warehouses where the records are kept. As a result, hours or even days are added to the time needed to complete the successful trace of a crime gun. As a result, criminals avoid detection and criminal investigations are impeded.
 The NRA has maintained its steadfast opposition to waiting periods for handgun purchases, despite the need for a "cooling off" period to prevent impulse crimes and suicides. Because of the NRA, the waiting period included in the original Brady Law expired in 1998, and the gun lobby is fighting efforts to reinstate it.
 The NRA likes to talk tough when it comes to criminals. But in 1999, the NRA spent almost $4 million to try to pass a referendum in Missouri that would have allowed almost anyone, even convicted criminals with misdemeanor records, to carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. The referendum would have even permitted people convicted of stalking and child molestation the ability to carry a hidden handgun into bars, stadiums, parks, school yards and other public places. Fortunately, Missouri voters rejected the NRA's intense lobbying effort to put more guns on our streets, voting the measure down.
 At every opportunity, the NRA has sought to decrease or eliminate the funding of the ATF, the law enforcement agency whose mission it is to oversee gun crimes and trace the guns used in the commission of crimes. Because of NRA-sponsored legislation, investigators seeking to trace the path of the guns used in the Littleton school massacre were forced to plod through paper records stretching among numerous states, culminating in a dead end at Colorado gun shows. Only through legwork and luck were investigators able to piece together how the four weapons ended up in the hands of the teenage shooters. The NRA continues to vociferously oppose any record-keeping system that would allow law enforcement to easily trace guns used in crime.
 In 1986, the NRA got legislation passed which restricts ATF inspection of gun dealers to once a year. Even dealers who are the source for hundreds of crime guns cannot be routinely inspected more than once a year without a special court warrant. Of course, this is consistent with the 1995 NRA letter describing ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs," which caused former President George H.W. Bush to publicly resign his NRA life membership in protest.
 As of April 1999, there were more than 100,000 federally licensed firearm dealers (FFL's) in America - more licensed gun dealers than there are McDonald's franchises. Yet there were only 1,783 ATF agents to police them; many of those agents are detailed by law to only investigate crimes involving explosives.

**

Now I’m not saying they are true or not, but the Brady Campaign people have put them forward, so what is your view is this possible?

(PS : also it seems very naive of you to think that the pro gun lobby’s only way of influencing policy is to become directly involved in the defence of a criminal in possession of a gun)

*

You already agree that the gun related murder rate is huge when compared to the UK (US =11,000: UK=70)

Of course its a Percentage thing, but i guess percentages only apply if its in your favor

Percentage thing? Why do you say it is a percentage thing?

Once again we have been through this and once more it seems you just were not paying any attention, or you truly are a goldfish?

These are not percentages they are based on actual figures

UK – 73 people were murdered by guns (2001, BBC)

USA - 11,348 people were murdered by guns (2001, University of Utah)

The UK has 60 million people compared with the USA’s of 250 –280 million so lets boost the UK’s figure

60 million – 70 deaths
120 million – 140 deaths
180 million – 210 deaths
240 million – 280 deaths
300 million – 350 deaths

In fact I believe to get to the USA’s levels of gun related homicides we would need to increase the UK’s population some 160 times to 9,600 million people.

The worlds population at this time is only 6,500 million

**

 

I have guns and dont fear crime, I would fear my goverment far more if I did not own my guns.

 

The way the source was used was different. Everyone understands this but you seem to have difficulty seeing this difference so Ill state it again, take a few minutes to study this and maby the difference will sink in.
You used an ANTI_GUN source to proove a ANTI_GUN point. I used an ANTI_GUN source to proove a PRO_GUN point.

But you have used pro-gun sources to back up pro-gun points several times so what’s your point? Are you saying you can do such things but other people can’t isn’t that a bit hypocritical?

And anyway I wasn’t trying to make a point I was asking you if what the Brady site claimed was possible, so far you seem to be spending a lot of time moaning that the site is anti-gun but have said nothing that refutes the claims?

 

Ok let me try this ONE more time. Your statement is that because someone owns a gun they live in constant fear of crime.
ie if someone does something it means this.
The point of the seatbelt thing is to show how this statement is based on faulty logic.
Since you have such a problem with the seatbelt thing see if this will be easier for you to understand.

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house? Some people do and some people dont. The ones who do are they living in fear of being cought in a fire? or is it just a sensible precaution that some people choose to take?

I notice that you haven’t actually answered the questions about what your argument is?

That people should know that serious injury or even death could result from not having on a seatbelt or having a gun to ready.

OR

Are you saying there is no need to be worried about an accident or crime so don’t bother to wear a seatbelt or carry a gun?

OR

Are you saying that a crime or an accident can happen anytime or anyplace but you can tell in advance where and when an accident or crime will take place and so know in advance when and where to put on a seatbelt or have the gun out?

**

I don’t have extinguishers I have smoke detectors do you know nothing about fire safety? If a fire happened and you were asleep then you could be dead from the smoke a long time before you could use the extinguisher.

If the fire is small it can easily be dealt with by yourself if it is larger the thing to do is to raise the alarm and help evacuate everyone from the building.

What is your comparison with having a gun?

 

Somebody email me spud_rubble@yahoo.com when you reach a critical point with this.

I think I may not be able to see how this ends for reasons beyond my control and as to yet have been informed why but oh well I would like to see how this one winds up as it has been really awesome.

 

I think there would be mountains of quotes, statistics, comments rebutal ect for and against the owning of a firearm but there will be no absolute for obvious reasons.


Then you have to look at is this the private ownership of guns or is it the ownership of guns at all (countries ect)

I would say even if there were world wide bans on guns crime and war will still rage on as they did before they had guns. People will say there was less crime but I say there were less laws. There was alot more people who took care of thier own problems and were not forced to rely on a goverment to assist them becuase laws took away the power to take care of themselves.

Face the reality that guns forged the world, there has never been a country that has sat peacefully without a means of defence thus there will never be a person who if threatend can find there peace without a means of defence and guns make it simple.

Sam Colt was quoted to have made it so all men could be equal and now goverments wish that not to be so. Why should my goverment be able to control me thru force and I have nothing I can do to stop them?

There is already been the destrcuction of unity in this world so a glabal shut down wont happen in the working class. SO likely a revolt against the powers is not likely either but I wont fall into the darkness of slavery without a fight.

 

Your argument then Yank would support N. Korea's and Iran's right to own Nukes. Why should some have the right to develop and use them and not all?

 

Because the last thing the world needs is a 185 nuclear countries, especially ones led by nutjobs and as unstable as North Korea, same goes for Pakistan, that's a really unstable country internally to have nuclear weapons, but they already have them.

 

But who's to say GW is stable? And who monitors the gun dealers to make sure they don't sell their weapons to your psychotic neighbor? They aren't supposed to, but they do all the time. Besides Pakistan is the US's friend...aren't they? They're hiding Bin Ladin, but oh well we must owe them something, because the US really protects their interest.

 

How successful are they in that role? What about: 32-year-old truck driver Charles Carl Roberts IV, armed with three guns, a stun gun, two knives and a bag holding 600 rounds of ammunition, stormed an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. He shot and killed three girls execution style, wounded eight others and took his own life. Was he stable?

 

The US has now reserved the right to be the only nuclear power in space. Are we sane enough to handle that responsibility, and why should we hold it and no one else in the world? I think our politicians and congress have shown they can be bought, what makes us "god"!

 

So a thief is in your house possibly an armed thief and your gun is in the house and locked up.

Do you phone the police and wait for them to come for the criminal?

Or

Do you go into the house hoping not to be seen by the thief get to the safe get the gun out then go looking for the thief to confront him/her?

Or

Do both?

Which one seems the most sensible?

**


And what is worse if the gun is at home and not secured then it is likely the robber will get the gun (you agree)
I have already stated that a gun should be secured or in your possession at all times. so that is a mute point.

Yes and we went through this, don’t you remember?

Again are you saying you would back legislation making it the law that people who owned a gun had to keep it in a secure safe?

And that people that lost or had their guns stolen were subject to a heavy fine?

Again you are leaving out the fact I have already answered this. IF the owner is prooven neglent then there is cause for punishment. If a criminal breaks into the house then breaks into the gun SAFE and steals the gun there is nothing neglent on the owners part.

I’m not leaving it out you just don’t seem to understand.

The point is (once again) that neither of these things -

Mandatory domestic safes

Punishments for loosing gun.

Are laws,

So people can just keep their gun hanging around the house (and many do) and if it is stolen or lost they can just go out and buy a new one.

And at the moment you are saying that you wouldn’t support making these things law, preferring to tell me that the present laws are enough but they are not being enforced.

So I ask once again don’t you need to know why the laws are not being enforced (so the problem can be dealt with and they are).

Or wouldn’t it be a good idea to bring in clear and straightforward new laws that supersede all previous ones?

**

You agree that it is possible for people that are deranged or become deranged to obtain guns and use them (workplace, schoolplace killings etc)

Sure I do all you have to do is read the papers. But what do you think might have happened if the boss or the tescher had been carrying a weapon of thier own? Very possible/likely the deranged person would have been stopped quicker than waiting on the police to drive 20 minutes across town.

So you’re saying that you want everyone whereever they are to be armed with a gun and have it out and ready to use?

I thought you had already rejected that idea?

Also with Castle Domain are you saying teachers should be able to shoot at students that reach into a desk or bag ‘just in case’?

Wouldn’t it be better if they could get access to the guns in the first place?



#1 castle docterine does not state anything about EVERYONE owning/possessing a gun.
#2 nor does it state anything about shooting "just in case"
"Wouldn’t it be better if they(they who?) could get access to the guns in the first place?" To clarify this IS a quote from YOU, however it is not a clear question who is "they" the tewacher or the derainged student?

OH Pleassssssssssse

Are you honestly saying you don’t know who ‘they’ are?

(give you a clue “people that are deranged or become deranged to obtain guns and use them (workplace, schoolplace killings etc)”

As to the quote - given my position so far don’t you think anybody with any sense would have worked out I meant ‘couldn’t’ instead of could.

I mean come on man, is this the kind of pathetic point scoring you have become reduced to?

Come on man stop being childish

**

Your argument is that guns deter criminals but my point is that they can only really be used in only certain confrontational crimes and even then only if it happens in certain limited ways.

So you deny the studies and stats posted earlier about the admission of this very thing by convicted criminals attesting to having been deterred/scared off by a gun.

But as pointed out they don’t show if those criminals then went out and got guns themselves.


This is a mute point as I have stated before as it is shown that a very low percentage of "armed" criminals stand thier ground when confronted with an armed victim willing to fight back. Thier MO is to turn and RUN.

This doesn’t answer the question –

Do the criminals then go out and get a gun themselves, we don’t seem to know?

**

It therefore stands to reason that compared to the UK, it is statistically much more likely to be shot in the US than in the UK.

Shot yes already agreed on this. Being a VICTIM of crime, not according to stats.

Yes Pitt thank you that’s the point I’ve been making, you (and others) seem incredibly afraid of being a victim of crime while I and people here don’t feel so scared that they feel they need a gun to protect them.

This statement just goes to illustrate my point of how YOU ignore the second part of my statement. Defensive gun uses are against CRIME not just MURDER. A FACT you conviently try to skirt around.

This doesn’t answer the question – why are you (and others) so afraid of crime that you think you need guns to protect yourself from it?


**

These are not percentages they are based on actual figures

haha do you know what a "percentage" is?

Yes, can you explain why you think it involved percentages?


*

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus


For years, the NRA has successfully blocked the computerization by ATF of gun sale records from out-of-business gun dealers. Thanks to the NRA-imposed restrictions, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the files must often be retrieved manually from warehouses where the records are kept. As a result, hours or even days are added to the time needed to complete the successful trace of a crime gun. As a result, criminals avoid detection and criminal investigations are impeded.



IE computerized gun owner registration. Look at Canada they have tried this, It has not solved or aided in solving despite its enormous price tag.

So is the system they want exactly the same as Canada’s?

Do you think any central database of gun owners extra would be useful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus


The NRA has maintained its steadfast opposition to waiting periods for handgun purchases, despite the need for a "cooling off" period to prevent impulse crimes and suicides. Because of the NRA, the waiting period included in the original Brady Law expired in 1998, and the gun lobby is fighting efforts to reinstate it.




The opposition to waiting periods has been explained a multitude of times. For example: Mary jane has finally gotten into a position to leave her abusive husband who has physically abused her for years and has told her multiple times he would kill her if she ever tried to leave. Since her husband has yet to be convicted of anything the only option she has is to have a "restraing order" placed on him (not much of a protection) or to have a gun to protect herself just in case. so lets just hope the husband waits more than a week to come and beat her again?

OH MY GIDDY AUNTS another story

Is this like the one you made up to say you thought gun laws were not being enforced because people thought the criminals might sue?

OK questions about the story

You say she has left her husband where has she gone? Why does he know where she is? How does he so easily gain access to her? So after years of abuse when she did nothing to defend herself you think she will suddenly find the will to shot him this time, why didn’t she just buy the gun at a time of her convenience and shot the guy and claim self defence?

About the situation

Why has she stayed with him for years? Why is he abusive?

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus


The NRA likes to talk tough when it comes to criminals. But in 1999, the NRA spent almost $4 million to try to pass a referendum in Missouri that would have allowed almost anyone, even convicted criminals with misdemeanor records, to carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere in the state. The referendum would have even permitted people convicted of stalking and child molestation the ability to carry a hidden handgun into bars, stadiums, parks, school yards and other public places. Fortunately, Missouri voters rejected the NRA's intense lobbying effort to put more guns on our streets, voting the measure down.



Even the Brady campaign website shows that out of 50 states there are ONLY 4 that have not enacted CCW laws. I Know of NO CCW state that allows convicted felons to have a CCW permit. Missouri does In FACT allow CCW. In my opinion there should be a national CCW permit program that provides a uniform set of laws and regulations instead varying from state to state.
And again stats show the crime rate DID NOT increase in states where CCW has been enacted.

Well I thought that would be your answer and quite frankly I can’t believe that criminals could obtain guns legally let alone carry them concealed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus


At every opportunity, the NRA has sought to decrease or eliminate the funding of the ATF, the law enforcement agency whose mission it is to oversee gun crimes and trace the guns used in the commission of crimes. Because of NRA-sponsored legislation, investigators seeking to trace the path of the guns used in the Littleton school massacre were forced to plod through paper records stretching among numerous states, culminating in a dead end at Colorado gun shows. Only through legwork and luck were investigators able to piece together how the four weapons ended up in the hands of the teenage shooters. The NRA continues to vociferously oppose any record-keeping system that would allow law enforcement to easily trace guns used in crime.



This is SPIN, what they oppose is OWNER REGISTRATION, which is what this basically is. Again look at the example from Canada.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus


In 1986, the NRA got legislation passed which restricts ATF inspection of gun dealers to once a year. Even dealers who are the source for hundreds of crime guns cannot be routinely inspected more than once a year without a special court warrant. Of course, this is consistent with the 1995 NRA letter describing ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs," which caused former President George H.W. Bush to publicly resign his NRA life membership in protest.



This restriction is for inspecting FFls records by the BATF at any time WITHOUT cause. If there is cause or during a criminal investigation there is no such restriction.
The law allows the ATF to inspect your records and inventory once every 12 months without any cause, and at any point during the course of a bona fide criminal investigation (18 USC sec. 923(g)). They may inspect without warning during business hours. The only modification of the above pertains to the C&R FFL (type 03) where ATF must schedule the inspection, (C&R FFL holders do not have business hours) and they must have the inspection at their office nearest the C&R FFL holders premises, if the holder so requests. ATF may look around the licensed premises for other weapons not on your records. This means they take the position that if your licensed premises are your home they may search it, as part of the annual compliance inspection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus


As of April 1999, there were more than 100,000 federally licensed firearm dealers (FFL's) in America - more licensed gun dealers than there are McDonald's franchises. Yet there were only 1,783 ATF agents to police them; many of those agents are detailed by law to only investigate crimes involving explosives.



Again a misleading statement as all FFL holders are NOT dealers a large percentage are type 3 FFl holders which is a C&R (curio & Relic) FFl liscense. This type does NOT allow the purchase and sale of weapons that are not on the "list" of weapons classified as curios or relics, as compiled by the BATF.

The law also allows for these people to be inspected.

But according to allaboutguns.com “I personally have only heard of one person that has ever been approached about having an inspection, so to me it’s pretty much a non-issue in deciding whether or not to get a C&R FFL”

Frankly this doesn’t seem to cover what was raised?

From what I can tell there were in 2005 54,902 type 1 FFLs, (much more in 1999) I don’t know how many McDonald franchises there are but that still seems like a lot of people to regulate.


**

LOL

Well I think that proves one of my points – that many pro-gun people are more interested in defending gun ownership that they are in the social and economic reasons for crime.

Ask Pitt to explain what he sees as the reasons for crime and he groans and moans.

But in defence of guns he can gleefully explain obscure sections of the law.

**

OK but what has been said -

One. Pitt seems to argue that he would block such a system.

Two. Pitt is opposed to waiting periods.

Three. Pit is in favour of CCW (but then I already know that).

Four Pitt seems to argue that he would block such a system.

Five Pit argues there are enough laws in place (but also argues gun laws are not being enforced).

Six The reply doesn’t seem to cover the point raised?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Ok let me try this ONE more time. Your statement is that because someone owns a gun they live in constant fear of crime.
ie if someone does something it means this.
The point of the seatbelt thing is to show how this statement is based on faulty logic.
Since you have such a problem with the seatbelt thing see if this will be easier for you to understand.

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your house? Some people do and some people dont. The ones who do are they living in fear of being cought in a fire? or is it just a sensible precaution that some people choose to take?

I notice that you haven’t actually answered the questions about what your argument is?

That people should know that serious injury or even death could result from not having on a seatbelt or having a gun to ready.

OR

Are you saying there is no need to be worried about an accident or crime so don’t bother to wear a seatbelt or carry a gun?

OR

Are you saying that a crime or an accident can happen anytime or anyplace but you can tell in advance where and when an accident or crime will take place and so know in advance when and where to put on a seatbelt or have the gun out?

**

I don’t have extinguishers I have smoke detectors do you know nothing about fire safety? If a fire happened and you were asleep then you could be dead from the smoke a long time before you could use the extinguisher.

If the fire is small it can easily be dealt with by yourself if it is larger the thing to do is to raise the alarm and help evacuate everyone from the building.

What is your comparison with having a gun?

JESUS you cannot be this dumb. The comparison has NOTHING TO DO WITH A GUN but rather the FLAWED LOGIC of YOUR statement.

But you brought up the comparison yourself, I mean why bring it up in a thread about guns if it had nothing to do with guns?

I think the problem is that you seem to think the seatbelt comparison says something it clearly doesn’t. I’ve pointed this out several times and you still have not understood.

I mean I’ve pointed out that if you are saying that a gun is a similar precaution to a wearing a seatbelt then it stands to reason that it should be used in the same way, e.g. all the time it is needed.

You have said that people could be a victim of crime ANYTIME, ANYPLACE – so people should have their guns out all the time and in every place. But you reject that idea.

Now you try another flawed allusion, and once more I’ll explain the reason why.

You wish to protect yourself and family from dying in a fire.

So you get a fire extinguisher but not a smoke detector.

But for the extinguisher to be of any use, you would have to have it to hand at all times and be alert at all times (no sleep or the family taking it in shifts).

If you had a smoke detector it would work all the time.

**

Do you understand? Maybe not since you seem to find that difficult.

OK

For the gun to be effective against an event that could happen anytime anyplace you would need to have it ready for use everywhere and in every place.

Now you have rejected that idea, you don’t ‘scope’ people that come close or even carry the gun all the time and have it locked away at other times.

That would be like having a fire extinguisher but keeping it somewhere else or under lock and key. So for the fire extinguisher to be effective someone would have to know in advance when he or she would need it.

(so are you know saying you can not only predict car crashes but fires as well? -)

**

You have smoke detectors in your home so you must live in constant fear of a fire?

I take the thread seriously so I have smoke detectors, yes.

But I still don’t feel that threatened by crime that I feel I need a gun to protect me, why do you?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus

do you know nothing about fire safety?

HAHAHA you dont realize how ignorant of a question this is as one of the businesses I have IS involved in Fire Safety.

And I’m a trained Fire Marshal (to deal with the situation in case of fire) and a Safety Officer (to try and prevent the possibility of fire) at my workplace.

And as such it seems very strange to me (and a fellow marshal) that you went for the fire extinguishers as your first thought in domestic fire safety rather than smoke detectors.

I checked and it seems that fire safety experts in Britain and America agree, neither the USFA or UK government fire safety tips even mention extinguishers (although the US does mention sprinklers, but not extinguishers) but at the top of both lists is smoke detectors.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/safety/tips/together.shtm

http://www.firekills.gov.uk/home/04.htm

In fact an experienced fireman told me extinguishers have often led people to be overconfident, so that they believe they can deal with a situation when they really can’t, so making things worse, for example using water extinguishers on oil fires.

I mean it doesn’t say much for your competence as a fire safety ‘professional’ if extinguishers were your first thought. (is this really part of your business, if so I hope that isn’t the advice you give out?)

 

Proud

By the way, if you'd care to go back and actually read my post (not just the fragment you quoted out of context like a ninny bitch,) you'd see that I expanded on my comment to include society as a whole.

Actually I took your comments about society as a whole into consideration when I made my own comments. It was those that convinced me I was right about you selfish philosophical attitude (which seems to have been proved right)

**

But you now say that if someone is born with fewer choices, then fuck them, that’s life.

No, I'm saying there's not much to be done about it. There will always be people born into misfortune. You can't change that.

Why can’t you try and change it?

Would you have just accepted slaves as just being people born into misfortune and slavery as something that couldn’t be changed?

**

So basically you are not fighting for what is right for everyone.

Sure I am. (see, I can make empty and meaningless statements, too. You're right, this is much easier)

“I'm saying there's not much to be done about it. There will always be people born into misfortune. You can't change that.”

You don’t seem to be fighting for what is right for the ‘people born into misfortune’ and you don’t even seem bothered to even try.

**

You are fighting for what is right for you and fuck everyone else.

How do equate speaking out natural human rights to "fuck everyone else"? What would you rather I do?

What ‘natural human rights’?

The right to ‘choose’? But if people are misfortunate enough to be born without the range of choices these is nothing that can be done to help them.

I think ‘fuck everyone else’ seems about right.

**

That’s not the battle cry of a ‘freedom fighter’ that the snarl of a big selfish bastard.

Well, it has been argued that all human choices have selfish motivations. This is very difficult, if not impossible to disprove. For example, if you dash into a burning building to rescue orphans, it's because (and only because,) the perceived rewards outweigh the risks. Maybe you'll make it out, and receive the affection of the community, maybe you'll burn to death and go to heaven. Maybe you'll go to hell, but hey, you'll still get a nice memorial built on your ashes. People are selfish. Deal with it.

So you agree with me that your philosophy is based on selfishness? An ‘am all right Jack’ and fuck everyone else attitude?

Selfish bastard seems about right then?

**

Hmm, I should have known you'd bring up Iraq. No doubt for cheap emotional appeal. Methinks thou doth waffle too much.

If you had actually read my posts in this thread you would have discovered that I often mentioned an ‘attitude’ I noted amongst many pro-gunners, that I theorise crosses over from there view of guns into other subjects. For this reason I have mentioned US foreign policy before.

It seems to me that many Americans seem to feel being ‘tough’ and threatening or using violence is the best way of achieving what they want around the world when examination and reflection leading to other methods may be better.

**

 

Proud

OK you said I don’t answer your questions but I couldn’t really remember you asking many so I went back a couple of weeks or so to check

In your post 253 “If I may be so bold, what does all this have to do with the price of spice on Nal Hutta?”

This was answered in my post 257

Post 244 no questions

Post 234 you ask – “it is "Mister" isn't it?” - I didn’t reply since it didn’t seem relevant to anything

Post 224 no questions.

Post 201 no questions.

**

Is that it are you somehow really upset because I didn’t say if I was a man or woman? Do you think that was really, really important to the thread or something?

I think you are just fucking around but if you do actually have any relevant questions please feel free to ask.

 

That the difference between action and reaction could mean life or death and to be prepared to fight for my survival with every tool at my disposal at the outset of a tyrannical crachdown on liberties and freedom, the more tools i have the better my chances of survival.

That tyranny and fascism come with advanced warning, that the majority can be manipulated, that my peaceful non-violent civil disobedience can be stopped with a hail of bullets from the state and silence from the general populace.

Stupid question.
"depends on the circumstances" means exactly that.
There are an infinite number of ways ones freedom/life can be threatened.
The appropriate response to those infitie ways varies acordingly.
One of those responses could very well me violent.
If possible prepare to use violence if needed/warrented.

That tyranny and fascism come with advanced warning, that the majority can be manipulated, that my peaceful non-violent civil disobedience can be stopped with a hail of bullets from the state and silence from the general populace.
Protesting is a fine example of peaceful non-violent civil disobedience, but there are other ways of resistance that are just as worthy and indispensable.
If the avenues are not there to accomodate non-violent civil disobedience then violent radical resistence might be needed and one should be prepared for that scenario.

Generally wars are declared and fought between nation states.
What they should have done is resist detainment and extermination by any means available.

That complanency now means death later.

After they do, or when it is clear that they will.

"seems to me that many of the people"

How many times to i have to defend what you think "many people" "seem to be supporting"?

i can only defend what i say and what my goals are, and it's clearly not nationalism...

 

Balbus, i'm not sure why you are confused about my position.


As long as there are governments, groups, and individuals who will use force to get what they want, i will strive to retain the means to resist that force.

Talking only leads to a solution to conflict if both sides of that conflict are engaged. If one side refuses to talk and insists on using force it is suicidal for the second party to refuse to use force of their own to defend themselves. If force isn't warrented then fine resolve the conflict peacefully (i'd rather just give a mugger my wallet than to shoot it out with him), but to say that force is never needed as a defensive measure is absurd.