Iowa FTW

[Adam]

your humble opinion... lol

because guns are perfectly natural

[TheoK]

your humble opinion... lol

because guns are perfectly natural

Owning them is a natural right.

[RageBeoulve]

your humble opinion... lol

because guns are perfectly natural

As natural as any tool.

[Bastet]

your humble opinion... lol

because guns are perfectly natural

How will removing guns from law abiding citizens prevent criminals from obtaining guns illegally?

[TheoK]

I don't think that Adam understands the concept "black market".

[TheoK]

By the way: control of who was carrying weapons existed already thousand years before firearms existed. This proves that control over weapons has nothing to do with protecting the general public from individuals running amok but is an instrument of power.

[McGiver]

I'm still waiting. What need of a government does an independent farmer have?

because, eventually the banks own everything.

[TheoK]

In an anarchy there wouldn't be a capitalist bank system of the kind we have today: Mutualism

[odeon]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.

There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.

Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected.

Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.

In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?

I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.

In short, yes.

And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? 

No, just the above. Mobile phones were becoming a reality, though, and several unis could access the Usenet. The war on terror was not discussed.

Why? You don't believe I had such a teacher?

At the time, most of us thought she was talking nonsense. There was no way the Soviet Union would collapse, we thought. And most of us considered the US to be even more stable.

If you think about it, though, the signs were all there in plain view.

[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.

[TheoK]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

I didn't know there was a war going on in the US.

There wasn't a war going on in the Soviet Union most of the time Stalin were murdering 10-15% of the population or so either. And Jews were taken to camps in Germany already in 1933 although not extermination camps. You can't give any guarantees what the future will look like.

Yes. The pre-war Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union are relevant in this context. I stand corrected.

Guantanamo is real. The NSA shit is real. "War against terror" is real. You have no idea how this might escalate in 10-20 years.

In 1985, could you have foreseen what the world would look like today?

I distinctly remember a teacher of mine who in the early 80s told us that the Soviet Union would fall, detailed how it would happen, and went on to describe the US economical problems.

In short, yes.

And every other thing that would exist in 2013, like the internet, mobile phones, "war on terror" etc? 

No, just the above. Mobile phones were becoming a reality, though, and several unis could access the Usenet. The war on terror was not discussed.

Why? You don't believe I had such a teacher?

At the time, most of us thought she was talking nonsense. There was no way the Soviet Union would collapse, we thought. And most of us considered the US to be even more stable.

If you think about it, though, the signs were all there in plain view.

I believe that you had such a teacher. But you kind of miss the point. She didn't know that. It was a qualified guess, that happened to be correct. Most people in 1900 didn't think that the world in 1920 would look like it did. Most people in 1920 didn't have a clue what the world would look like in 1940. Etc.

[TheoK]

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.

[odeon]

How is it a natural right? I don't understand that.

To me, natural rights are things like the right to life, freedom of thought, freedom of speech etc

Where does a gun come in to that?

Everything that is not malum in se is a natural right.

ALso Lit, I find it amusing how your automatic response to someone disagreeing with you is always, "he doesn't understand this, he doesn't understand that, he doesn't understand tha concept of x, y or z"

No. We disagree with you. That does not make us stupid.

You are definitely less intelligent than I am. In odeon's case it's about that double bind. He knows that I'm right when I'm saying that the state might murder us one day, but that is a fact so intolerable that he chooses to pretend that it couldn't happen and instead talks into himself that the state is protecting us.

"he knows that I'm right..."?

"talks into himself that the state is protecting us..."

Why do you insist putting words in our mouths and telling us what we think and why, when you have no clue?

We could talk about intelligence in considerable detail and you might find yourself losing that discussion, but that topic is pretty much completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

It's very difficult to have a discussion, let alone a debate, with someone who keeps trying to put words in one's mouth. We don't pretend to know why you hold your views. I'd appreciate if you showed us that same courtesy.

Why would I lose a discussion about intelligence?

Because I can say with reasonable confidence that my IQ is significantly higher than yours. Because you don't actually prove anything, you just postulate something that happens to fit your twisted argument and go from there. We mean this, Adam's intelligence is that, etc, etc, etc. Because, basically, you don't have a leg to stand on.

You are not winning this one. You are as usual avoiding the subject and turning to ad hominem and statistics that just show that more people are killed in America but avoiding to see this from the greater perspective.

Which is? I think I did compare 'merican numbers with Japanese ones.

I think I am winning this one. Or rather, you lot are losing it. Your lack of a coherent argument is enough. It's enough for me to pop in from time to time.

Can you give an absolute guarantee that Sweden, the UK or the US will never end up like Bosnia or Syria? No you can't. So comparing gun deaths in the US vs. Japan in peacetime isn't an honest way to argue.

No, I can't. Can you guarantee that they will? And why would that matter? Can you guarantee *anything* about the future?

Why isn't it an honest way to argue? I fail to see the logic. Neither the US or Japan is comparable with Bosnia/Syria.

But if you want we can include gun statistics from those two countries into the discussion. Should you dig up the numbers or should I?

(He will respond to this with something like  )

No, but I can if you want me to.

[odeon]

lol I am definitely less intelligent than u?

I love how you know that over the internet.

You are less intelligent, since it's obvious that you have a limited understanding of some things.

In odeon's case it is that he simply rejects facts that are too unpleasant. In your case it's a lack of understanding what it's all about in the first place.

How does a disagreement equal "limited understanding"?

It's just not that he disagrees. It is obvious that he often can't grasp the whole picture in a debate. In your case it's obvious that you can but that you avoid certain questions, drag up my disability etc instead of discussing the whole picture in an honest way.

Did it ever occur to you that he, in fact, does grasp the whole picture while you don't? Which is why he answers in a seemingly incomprehensible way.

Your disability is perfectly safe with me, btw. I fully support your right to it but not for the reasons you give. I simply think it is the decent thing to do.

[TheoK]

Because I can say with reasonable confidence that my IQ is significantly higher than yours. Because you don't actually prove anything, you just postulate something that happens to fit your twisted argument and go from there. We mean this, Adam's intelligence is that, etc, etc, etc. Because, basically, you don't have a leg to stand on.

So much stranger that you don't have the confidence to argue in an honest way, then.

Which is? I think I did compare 'merican numbers with Japanese ones.

I think I am winning this one. Or rather, you lot are losing it. Your lack of a coherent argument is enough. It's enough for me to pop in from time to time.

The greater perspective is that without a gun, or even with a gun but with gun laws like the Swedish one it is both nearly impossible to legally defend yourself from a criminal and also to protect yourself from the state if necessary. Dictatorships disarm the people or at least the groups they want to oppress and murder. This goes for "democracies" as well.

No, I can't. Can you guarantee that they will? And why would that matter? Can you guarantee *anything* about the future?

Why isn't it an honest way to argue? I fail to see the logic. Neither the US or Japan is comparable with Bosnia/Syria.

But if you want we can include gun statistics from those two countries into the discussion. Should you dig up the numbers or should I?

Gun statisitics have nothing to do with it. The fact is that with gun control it's easier for the state to murder its citizens. You demand that other people not only risk to be defenceless against ordinary criminals but also risk to end up in a situation like in Bosnia and Syria.

No, but I can if you want me to.