Ban rocks to stop vandalism?

[ArfinGreebly]

Sociopath

My, my.

It's been a while since I watched a sociopath at work.

Learn the rules of a culture, then use the culture's rules against it.

If the culture rejects the pathology, the sociopath is a "victim" or martyr.

He gets to "declare victory" in either case.

The only intent is to cause harm.

Purpose: to elicit an angry response (rejection) or, failing that, to cause as much confusion and disorder and strife as possible.

Method: accuse the target of mistreatment, daring the target to take any action that would nullify the pathology. Proceed to act in an inflamatory fashion, use introverting devices where possible, strive for maximum disruption.

Outcome: if the target rejects the approach, declare a "see I told you so" victory; if the target engages in tolerating the approach, use whatever time is permitted to cause maxiumum disruption, introversion, anger, etc. in the target; prosecute the approach until the target surrenders or rejects. Declare victory in either case.

Continue denigration even after rejection to as great an extend as possible.

Lads, this is a bad person.

It will be completely deserved (as in "fully and justly earned") the day someone drops on bus on him.

Learn from it and let him go.

-

Oh . . .

Justin's approach was exactly on target.

Good call.

-

Oleg: Nice poster. You're right, a tad wordy. I haven't been able to come up with an improvement, though. Been distracted by the troll. Sorry.

 

[Mantua]

Oh, there was a purpose to this thread wasn't there! Oleg, IMO this could be two different posters: One with the same imagery with "Vandalism...", and a different poster with "Weapons Bans...". It's a bit too wordy for my taste-my favorite Oleg Posters are the simple ones.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I tired to use the top line as an analogy for the bottom...might try to separate them.

 

[Fosbery]

An idea Oleg:

The stock response to this poster from an anti would be something like this...

Well of coruse banning rocks won't work, they're lying on the ground all over the place, you can dig them up, whatever. Guns are complicated machines that need to be manufactured and sold - if we stop this then we can reduce the number of murders.

Points about people getting traditionally manufactured firearms illegally aside, saying something about the ease with which a firearm can be made would be useful for making this a 'fool proof' poster, if you like. hard to get good pictures without breaking the law, here's one of a .38 caliber submachinegun made by a fellow Englishman using mail order hardware goods (springs and metal tubing) and hand tools. No machinework.



Needless to say its manufacture was highly illegal and he went to prison for it. Despite never having hurt anyone in his life.

 

[Piedmont Plinker]

The poster is great, Oleg.
And to respond for our friend Mr. Troll- I might be a little late, but I would guess he's reading this board and monitoring this thread-
Note that we don't try firearms, knives, etc... We could lock thm up in prison, torture them, destroy them, and they wouldn't give a damn!
Because "weapons" are uncapable of feeling. They can not give a damn. They are uncapable of thought, feeling, or action. And since they are uncapable of action, they are uncapable of murder. It is not the weapon that murders: it is the person. If you remove the weapon, the person is still there, and they will find another weapon. And this process will continue, until you ban everything that could be used as a weapon, in which case you would just have to commit xenocide against the human race.
So we can conclude, that, since weapons are uncapable of action, they are uncapable of murder, and therefore it is the human that causes the murder, and therefore we must ban the human...which we do. It's called prison, or execution.
However, would it not make since to ban the more powerful types of weapons? I think we can all agree that it is easier to kill someone with a firearms than with, say, a baseball bat. So, since killing is bad and firearms are means of easy killing, we should ban firearms. If this statemen were true, we would ban firearms. But it is not, because not all killing is bad. If someone is rying to kill you, your family, or your peers, is it wrong to kill them to save innocent lives? No, it is not. It is not preferable that they die, but it is not wrong. And again, since the gun is one of the easier ways to kill, the gun may be one of the easier and more effective ways to defend. And therefore it can be concluded that since guns are and easy and effective means to defend, guns should not be banned.
Remember, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But if they are not outlawed, people will be able to shoot back at the outlaws..

 

[Nanook]

I actually found his writing difficult to follow. It was almost like he was speaking English as a second language. No disrespect meant, it just seemed stilted.

Basically he brought up the tired anti phrases that have been debunked countless times.

You can sum up his stand with the following words:

"Never let the facts stand in the way of a good story."

I guess he never heard that old Marine quote either, "The gun is just a tool, my mind is the weapon." At least I think it's from the Marines.

 

[skinnyguy]

Great message, Oleg.

I'm staying out of the weapons debate.

 

[Ilphrin]

Awalkalong............

i see you all meet Mingo, and found that he does tend to ignore that wich he can not answer. i wont disparage him, as everyone has thier own opinions. i do want to know if anyone here has looked at the ( i say this loosley) gun control message board on yahoo, this is where he is from, it is ok but off topic a lot and very flooded by hate. everyone here is very good at what they say, but you must know some like him are just to stubborn to even know they are not being logical.

anyway i do agree The Deadliest Weapon ever is The mind.

 

[matt87]

Ilphrin,
Welcome to THR and thankyou for your comments and insight into Awalkalong. I presume that you are also a member of that group? Is that how you knew of his/her 'debating' over here? I would be interested to know which side you fall on the issue of guns and the RKBA.

 

[Ilphrin]

Rkba

well considering i own an itallian(tanfoglio).40 and am planning to buy a new .357 sometime soon. i am very much opposed to more and more gun laws. although i would say that everyone should take the handgun safety course before they purchase one.
but yes i have actually had a "debate" with him on yahoo about the mind being a dangerous weapon and he just does not get it, i guess a logical thought just never occured to him.
i dont post there much though as there is a few there that post repeatedly about the same things and a few that just spam garbage. i like the moderated boards better.

 

[Fosbery]

Welcome to The High Road, Ilphrin.

 

[TX1911fan]

Got sick of reading it all, especially because I could see the smug look on his face, but the point I keep yelling to myself is this guy is using the broad category of weapons when discussing murder and the very narrow category of rocks when discussing vandalism. BOTH require tools, so the analogy is absolutely valid. You cannot have vandalism without some sort of tool, and you can't have murder without some sort of tool (in this case he is calling it a weapon). You could just as easily call the tools of vandalism weapons, as they are weapons against property rather than weapons against persons, and hence the analogy is even more valid--I'll make it for you:

No murder without weapons against persons, no vandalism without weapons against property.

Try and give me one instance of vandalism without a weapon against property. You can't do it.

 

[ozwyn]

If that individual was to recognize the mind as a weapon, then he would have to recognize by endorsing gun control he is endorsing the murder of the helpless by those who do not obey the law.

There is a simple, savage, ugly math to gun rights and gun controls.

you have lives saved in the form of legal defenses uses per year (200,000 to 1 million depends on source and argument/statistical basis)

versus killing by firearms, accidents, etc. (as high as 50,000 to as low on 10,000 depending on source anad argument/satisticial basis)

fundamentally, this means banning guns kills a minimum of 4 times as many people as you might expect to save. By no coincidence, nations which have engaged in gun control have often seen 400% increases in violent crime.

Perhaps the biggest item of concern on the gun control issue is that the biggest supporters of gun control always have private armed guards/bodyguards, usually carrying the exact weapons they seek to ban. This is troubling on so many levels someone could write a book on the subject.

 

[Ilphrin]

thx

hey guys thanks for the welcome. i myself can not understand why they can not see logic and must constantly argue. it is like :banghead: . oh well all i know is they dont seem to be open to anyone else's ideas, if they dont like it they dismiss it.

 

[JKimball]

Edit. I see there is no more Mr. troll. Sad, this was one of the more surreally entertaining threads in a while.

That was an interesting glimpse into the mind of an anti. I got the impression that he thought he was using logic just because he repeatedly used the words "therefore" and "thus" as if that's all it takes to make a convincing argument. I also liked the "I am right, you are wrong." approach.

This thread brings to mind a picture of a cat jumping into a cage full of dogs. They look at it with interest until it starts hissing and scratching and then it's all over. Poor cat. Was a nice bit of excitement though.

Oh well, I guess I can go visit the Yahoo board if I ever want to see deeper into his and his friend's minds.

Oleg,

I like the analogy, but the picture of the girl doesn't seem to fit. Maybe I'm just not liking how only half of her is in the picture.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

To Quote Myself

Something I've said before (here, for example)

If there is one thing that has become clear over the last several decades, it is that gun control is murder.

I believe you'll find the rest of that post is appropriate for this context as well.

It's a common enough argument that pushing over one domino (which knocks over another, which in turn fells another, and so on) does not make one responsible for the inevitable fall of the final domino.

Beyond a certain number of cause/effect stages, the system is declared "too complex to predict" granting plausible deniability for the final outcome.

So, if we take away everyone's guns, we are only responsible for consequences up to the third domino, because that's where our planning ends.

The fact that the thirteenth domino falls -- a result predicted by everyone but the initiating agent -- is "beyond our control" and besides, you can't make that prediction; the system is to complex.

Plausible deniability is formalized "justifiable irresponsibility" when the consequences come home to roost. "OMG, there was no way we could have known!"

Of course, it's also a lie.

 

[Steeragemate]

mingo, answer the following honestly:

How did Richard Speck kill 8 student nurses?

How did Albert DeSalvo kill 13 women in Boston?

How did Ted Bundy murder his 30 victims?

How did John Wayne Gacey kill 33 boys?

How did Richard Ramerez kill 13 victims?

How did Gary Leon Ridgway known as the Green River Killer kill his 48 victims?

How did Jeffrey Dahmer kill 17 victims?

How did Richard Angelo kill his 25 victims?

How did Kenneth Alessio Bianchi kill his 12 victims?

How did Juan Vallejo Corona kill his 25 victims?

How did Edmund Emil Kemper kill his 8 victims?

 

[Fosbery]

Though he cannot answer, I'd add Harold Shipman who killed 300 (three hundred) people here in the UK. Never touched a gun or even a bomb.

 

[Steeragemate]

Thanks Fosbery...

not all that many people realize serial killers exist elsewhere.

 

[Professor K]

Cain didnt need a weapon to kill Abel...

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/13915813/detail.html That's one of the first results from google if you search "beat to death."

There's also death by people boxing. http://ejmas.com/jcs/jcsart_svinth_b_0700.htm There's boxing deaths, big huge table of all of the known ones in the entire sport. And you cant say boxing gloves are weapons, they're meant to REDUCE force applied.

Now yes, unless you are counting fists, feet, arms, and legs, as weapons, you're wrong. And other people have already bought up that our existence would be useless without those.

So yeah, sorry if this is already handled, but I was too lazy to read the 5 more pages of the thread.

 

[MrPeter]

Wow, I just got finished trudging through every single previous post.

Way to go REOIV for using classic debate techniques to deconstruct his/her argument. Very well done, I can tell you have experience.

Thank you Justin for moderating fairly and justly.


OLEG! I really think this is one of the very best posters that you have done. It really strikes home, and doesn't use the suggestion of threats or intimidation to get the point across, and is relatable to anyone who has ever owned a pane of glass. Also, the way you only show half of the model, and a small gun with her hand down at her side, displaying the pistol, without gripping it in a 'I'm ready to shoot whoever broke my window" way, is spot on. I see you were careful to make sure this poster couldn't be misinterpreted.
It isn't too wordy at all. You get your point across concicely with eloquence and clarity.
I really must say, bravo.

 

[kiwibird1]

Wow. It took a long time to get through all that. I realy have to spend some more time out here. That was great.

 

[Sharps-shooter]

Is "mingo creek" the same one that the billy goats had to cross to get to the greener pastures?

 

[v35]

mingo, answer the following honestly:
How did Richard Speck kill 8 student nurses?
How did Albert DeSalvo kill 13 women in Boston?
... (snip)

Mohammed Atta and his ilk killed in numbers orders of magnitude greater than them. His weapons of choice still fly by the thousands above our heads every day. Oh and lest I forget... one of the changes since then is that A WHOLE BUNCH OF ARMED MEN AND WOMEN are now flying in them too. Prior to 9/11 there were exactly none, knowledge they undoubtedly used in committing their horrific crime.

Surely this is another unfortunate truth our Mr. Troll would conveniently ignore. How nice it must be to live in such blissful ignorance.