Iowa FTW

[odeon]

What problems could the farmer have that he couldn't peacefully solve with his neighbours?

You are joking, right?

Have you any insight at all into the human condition?

You mean instead of getting along peacefully with my neighbours face to face we need to be oppressed by both morally and judicially criminal psychopaths who force us to get along peacefully?

These people are the ones causing Syrians being raped and tortured to death. These are the ones using the NSA spying on both individuals, corporations, nation states and international organisations. So we need those murdererers, torturers, war mongers and traitors to protect us from our fellow man? Brilliant.

For of course it couldn't be just these psychopaths creating most evil on Earth for their own benefit and power.

This phenomenon is common by people rejecting anarchism: "In an anarchy, who would protect you from all the wrongs that the state is doing to you?" Because that's in principle what you are saying.

We can take the shootings in Göteborg as an example, since we are already talking about guns. They are about drugs. Different gangs are shooting at each other. But if the drugs were sold in the pharmacy without a prescription, they would be easy to get and cost very little and the problem wouldn't exist. About the same people would be taking drugs as today, but no criminals would benefit from it. But that wouldn't be good for the state, because the faked war on drugs is one of those things that the state uses to justify its existence.

And this is also a topic where the state has brainwashed the citizens. Most people in Sweden believe that if drugs were free there would be full of drugged people in the streets, a lot more violence etc. But the violence that is now is because the drugs are illegal, not because they are easy to get. The state uses this twisted logic in all areas that it demands control of: drugs cause criminality because they are illegal. The state turns this upside down and says that it's just thanks to the state's criminalizing that it isn't worse. Just like with guns: gun laws are there so that it should be more easy to massacre the people. The state turns it to the perverted lie that they are there to protect the people 

You're missing my whole point. You are going off on a tangent, ignoring your previous comment and its implications, choosing instead to bring up another issue. I love it how you bring up wholly unrelated arguments, most of which are assumptions on your part, based on what you think rather than what people actually say.

Arguing against both the new and the old is an exercise in futility, especially since neither is related to the original topic.

[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?

[odeon]

If you are satisfied that you have a voice in your government, then don't feel that you need to impose American values on yourself. I would not want to live under a system where one branch of the government can do whatever it wants, given a majority, and I wouldn't want my taxes to support even a symbolic monarchy. To me, the basic principles that underlie the US are too antithetical to a monarchy or a state church to support either one. All people can't be created equal if some of them get special rights by virtue of nobility.

Sadly, people are not treated as equals in your country either. The methods are different, that's all.

True, but that's not all. All people are theoretically created equal in America. All people are not created equal in the UK. It sometimes doesn't work, but in my opinion, the US system in this area is better than the British system.

Aren't you generally voting for people who will vote for you?

[TheoK]

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.

Adam doesn't grasp the whole picture. I'm on disability now, but I have been out in the real world, so to speak, when I was younger. Adam lives in an illusion.

[odeon]

Um, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

That shows how unnatural city people live. In my humble opinion that's one of the reasons why people like you have the views you have on things. It's much more common that farmers think owning guns is a right than city people, because city people are out of touch with reality.

Nothing humble with it. This is just silly.

[odeon]

your humble opinion... lol

because guns are perfectly natural

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

Did you just wake up and miss the whole discussion?

[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.

[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.

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.

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*.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[odeon]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Not following your reasoning here. At all.

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

No, but I can if you want me to.

 

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

[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.

Adam doesn't grasp the whole picture. I'm on disability now, but I have been out in the real world, so to speak, when I was younger. Adam lives in an illusion.

So you keep saying but I really think it's time you backed it up.

[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

[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.