Iowa FTW

[odeon]

You are stuck either in that kind of thinking or some other kind of thinking.

Or you are, and can't get past it even though most of us see that you are, at best, entertaining a private pipe dream.

You know that the gun law is there to preserve status quo, not to protect the citizens. Before Sweden had a gun law, Swedish cops usually didn't carry guns. On the very same date that it became mandatory with gun licenses, the 1st of January 1927, it also became mandatory for Swedish cops to always carry guns.

Actually that's somewhat dishonest. Not every Swedish cop carries a gun and not every Swedish cop is required to carry one. Which I assume you know.

And now we are splitting hairs. All patrolling Swedish cops are armed, as opposed to before 1927. It's usually the patrolling cops shooting at people, not the ones sitting at the station filling in papers.

You talk about slitting hairs while arguing that the present is quite similar to 1750? I mean really?

[TheoK]

Why don't you finally back up what you are saying? Show that I am not being honest or that I don't argue in an honest way. And show that Adam is less intelligent than you are, because you seem to *know*, somehow.

You are pretending that gun laws aren't there to protect the ones in power. You were splitting hairs about a few cops not being armed, when it is a fact that patrolling cops are carrying guns from the very same date it became mandatory with licenses for most civilian guns.

That's "the greater perspective"? Sorry but I was rather expecting more.

So it's not true that it is incredibly hard to legally defend yourself successfully against criminals in Sweden? It is not true that dictators disarm (groups of) people that they want to oppress and murder?

Not following your reasoning here. At all.

Gun statistics are important, though, because they do give some insight into different alternatives.

You mean gun statistics give an insight in how to legally defend yourself from criminals with laws like the Swedish ones? They give insight in how not end up in a sitaution like that in Syria?

Don't roll your eyes. Make an argument that is coherent instead.

I do all the time.

[TheoK]

You talk about slitting hairs while arguing that the present is quite similar to 1750? I mean really?

You are asking for examples of dishonesty. I said that the state is run by the same principles as in 1750. Yet you can't argue against it in an honest way but are again twisting my words.

[TheoK]

No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.

Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary

For what?

Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.

You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.

This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.

Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state 

Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?

Because the principle behind the state is the same as in 1750: it is there for those in power. That there is health care, free education etc is not because the politicians are so warm-hearted but because it's easier to bribe the sheeple to obey than to force them. "Democracy" and "welfare state" is simply easier to run and more stable than an outright dictatorship.

Sorry but

What's wrong with that statement? Some months ago you yourself told how you think the politicians are breaking laws when it comes to surveillance. Yet you seem to trust this system in some strange way anyway?

[TheoK]

It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.

And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.

Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.

I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.

It would only be safer in the respect that accidents with legal guns would be less common. In all other respects it would be less safe. Does it seem like the gun law is stopping criminals from shooting in Göteborg? Would it be harder for them to shoot each other and innocent bystanders if the gun law got more rigid than it is?

[odeon]

Why don't you finally back up what you are saying? Show that I am not being honest or that I don't argue in an honest way. And show that Adam is less intelligent than you are, because you seem to *know*, somehow.

You are pretending that gun laws aren't there to protect the ones in power. You were splitting hairs about a few cops not being armed, when it is a fact that patrolling cops are carrying guns from the very same date it became mandatory with licenses for most civilian guns.

I'm not pretending anything. I was not splitting hairs, I was pointing out how you conveniently ignored some rather pertinent details while going back 86 years. Not that I fully grasp what it had to do with anything.

And I still want to know how you know Adam to be less intelligent than you.

That's "the greater perspective"? Sorry but I was rather expecting more.

So it's not true that it is incredibly hard to legally defend yourself successfully against criminals in Sweden? It is not true that dictators disarm (groups of) people that they want to oppress and murder?

And that largely irrelevant piece of pro-gun propaganda for the extreme right-wing folks is supposed to be the greater perspective? I was expecting more.

Not following your reasoning here. At all.

Gun statistics are important, though, because they do give some insight into different alternatives.

You mean gun statistics give an insight in how to legally defend yourself from criminals with laws like the Swedish ones? They give insight in how not end up in a sitaution like that in Syria?

Don't roll your eyes. Make an argument that is coherent instead.

I do all the time.

Must have blinked, then.

[odeon]

You talk about slitting hairs while arguing that the present is quite similar to 1750? I mean really?

You are asking for examples of dishonesty. I said that the state is run by the same principles as in 1750. Yet you can't argue against it in an honest way but are again twisting my words.

You are accusing me of twisting your words while telling me what I think? That's rich, Lit, even by your standards.

[odeon]

No one ever chose to have a government in the first place, not anymore than anyone ever chose to get raped.

Most sensible people wouldn't agree with you though. Most people accept that, while not perfect, govt is necessary

For what?

Let's go back to 1750. You are an independent farmer. What the hell do you need a government for? They only steal the fruits of your labour and send you to die for them in wars.

You go back to 1750. See if the state is willing to pay your bills. Me, I'm staying in 2013.

This was a simple example of why no one needs the state if they have something they can live on without support from the outside. Of course you couldn't be honest enough not to twist my words and use ad hominem.

Or we could invent the term argumentum ad pensionem: if you don't have an income from work you are disqualified from discussing abolishing the state 

Why is it dishonest to point out that it's no longer 1750?

Because the principle behind the state is the same as in 1750: it is there for those in power. That there is health care, free education etc is not because the politicians are so warm-hearted but because it's easier to bribe the sheeple to obey than to force them. "Democracy" and "welfare state" is simply easier to run and more stable than an outright dictatorship.

Sorry but

What's wrong with that statement? Some months ago you yourself told how you think the politicians are breaking laws when it comes to surveillance. Yet you seem to trust this system in some strange way anyway?

What's wrong with it? Seriously? Did you actually read any of my replies before going off on yet another tirade? Did you even consider actually addressing anything I wrote instead of simply writing in response to something you assumed was there? This is bizarre, Lit.

[TheoK]

I'm not pretending anything. I was not splitting hairs, I was pointing out how you conveniently ignored some rather pertinent details while going back 86 years. Not that I fully grasp what it had to do with anything.

And I still want to know how you know Adam to be less intelligent than you.

Pertinent detalis? Patrolling cops 1926 were usually carrying no firearms. Patrolling cops ever since are carrying firearms. On the very same date that patrolling cops started to carry firearms, licensing got mandatory for most civilian guns. That's the important facts, not that the cops are not being armed while working indoors.

Adam is unable to see the whole picture.

And that largely irrelevant piece of pro-gun propaganda for the extreme right-wing folks is supposed to be the greater perspective? I was expecting more.

Yes, that's irrelevant, as long as you are not a crime victim or a civil war breaks out.

[odeon]

It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.

And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.

Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.

I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.

It would only be safer in the respect that accidents with legal guns would be less common. In all other respects it would be less safe. Does it seem like the gun law is stopping criminals from shooting in Göteborg? Would it be harder for them to shoot each other and innocent bystanders if the gun law got more rigid than it is?

Yes, it would.

[TheoK]

It was a qualified guess, yes, but not an accident. Not a fluke.

And most people now, as in 1920 or 1900, don't actually care, nor do they possess the mental faculties or the knowledge to make such a guess. What's your point? The rolling eyes in your previous post surely meant *something*.

Since you can't predict the future you can't say for sure that something like in Bosnia or Syria will never happen. Yet you are arguing from the point of view that the future will be as stable as the present.

I am most certainly not. I am arguing that the present would be more stable and, more importantly, safer, without easy access to guns.

It would only be safer in the respect that accidents with legal guns would be less common. In all other respects it would be less safe. Does it seem like the gun law is stopping criminals from shooting in Göteborg? Would it be harder for them to shoot each other and innocent bystanders if the gun law got more rigid than it is?

Yes, it would.

How? The guns they are using were never legal to start with.

[RageBeoulve]

Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.

[McGiver]

Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.

better, how many 'blind' criminals obey the law?

3. The answer is 3.

[odeon]

Exactly. Please tell me how criminals obey the law.

One law at a time?

[odeon]

Adam is unable to see the whole picture.

Or you miss his point, which, following your own logic, makes you the less intelligent one.