Hostile Amish
member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 522
I don't understand - if guns are being withheld from law-abiding citizens, wouldn't criminals, who obtain their guns illegally anyway, just have an easier time committing crimes?
Help me understand the reasoning behind disaramament.
- Thread starter Hostile Amish
- Start date
- Status
shotgunjoel
Member
Yep, very good!!
Dark Skies
Member
The UK's firearm related crime rose four-fold after the handgun ban. Apparently the UK has a higher violent crime rate, proportionally speaking, even than the US.
BHP FAN
Member
I hear there's an anti knife movement in the UK now.What's next... anti pointy stick? I feel for you guys...
Their idea is derived from a disconnect between paper and reality. On paper all I have to do is erase the word GUNS and they no longer exist. If they no longer exist... they can no longer be used...... if they can no longer be used...... WOW I think I'm on to something here! The problem is that paper NEVER translates completely to life.
On paper I can write out 'Everyone Complies' and in the equation... everyone does.
On paper I can set up absolutes and they work out, because I don't have to worry about pesky conditions such as disregard and disobedience. I don't have to account for extraneous factors. Like many physics problems in college..... 'we just won't take those factors into consideration'.
And if you're arguing a philosophy I suppose that would be an interesting angle to come from.
But after a while for one reason or another they begin to think that what was on paper can be constructed in real life. And they stick to it like a rottweiler with lockjaw (apologies to an rottweiler fans out there). It worked on paper so it HAS to work in life.
The part that I find interesting is that while I am more than happy to let them make their own choice to not own firearms, they seek to make my choice for me by forcing me to live in their choice.
It doesn't matter if their motivation is contrivance, conspiracy, or cowardliness... they all seek to implement a social equation that can only ever truly work on paper.
On paper I can write out 'Everyone Complies' and in the equation... everyone does.
On paper I can set up absolutes and they work out, because I don't have to worry about pesky conditions such as disregard and disobedience. I don't have to account for extraneous factors. Like many physics problems in college..... 'we just won't take those factors into consideration'.
And if you're arguing a philosophy I suppose that would be an interesting angle to come from.
But after a while for one reason or another they begin to think that what was on paper can be constructed in real life. And they stick to it like a rottweiler with lockjaw (apologies to an rottweiler fans out there). It worked on paper so it HAS to work in life.
The part that I find interesting is that while I am more than happy to let them make their own choice to not own firearms, they seek to make my choice for me by forcing me to live in their choice.
It doesn't matter if their motivation is contrivance, conspiracy, or cowardliness... they all seek to implement a social equation that can only ever truly work on paper.
Dark Skies
Member
Knife crime has risen hugely - somewhat proportionally to our Government's unfettered allowance of refugees into the country. Strangely we now have a lot of gang related incidents too. Make of that what you will.
rojocorsa
Member
Reason for disarmament?
Simple.
Disarmament = CONTROL.
Simple.
Disarmament = CONTROL.
noskilz
Member
You guys are so silly. If guns are banned, then there will be no guns. End of story.
It's worked so well everywhere it's been tried . . .
It's worked so well everywhere it's been tried . . .
Dark Skies
Member
"You guys are so silly. If guns are banned, then there will be no guns. End of story. "
That's so true!
Well, all apart for the one in my sock drawer - I was figuring on bringing it out when everyone had handed in theirs. You know, just for settling arguments, persuading people to give me things for free and stuff.
That's so true!
Well, all apart for the one in my sock drawer - I was figuring on bringing it out when everyone had handed in theirs. You know, just for settling arguments, persuading people to give me things for free and stuff.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
Other means will be used. In Australia for instance a nail gun was used to put kill someone. The X-rays were horrendous.
You can have guns in Australia but there is a license to be obtained for. Pistol, semi-auto rifle. I am not so sure about single shot.
You can have guns in Australia but there is a license to be obtained for. Pistol, semi-auto rifle. I am not so sure about single shot.
freewheeling
Member
According to something I read about a year ago by Richard Fernandez (Wretchard) legal carry in the Philippines is almost as severely restricted as in DC or Chicago, but because no one there trusts the police to deter crime almost everyone carries... illegally. As a result there aren't many incidents of terrorist shooting sprees in malls and the like, because the terrorists know that the citizenry is armed.
He's got some good Marcos resistance stories too.
He's got some good Marcos resistance stories too.
RoostRider
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 670
What I wonder is "who wants us to be vulnerable and why?".... I can't believe for even a second that everyone who is on the side of prohibition wants us to be victims.... or that the administration or media want us to be victims in the distant future and are so set on disarming us now....
KevininPa
Member
Have thet gotten down to kitchen paring knives yet?
"Knife crime has risen hugely - somewhat proportionally to our Government's unfettered allowance of refugees into the country. Strangely we now have a lot of gang related incidents too. Make of that what you will."
I was over there in 2006. My wife met her pen-pal of over 34 years. Noticed the increase of knife crime and how they wanted to start regulating that, thus my question in title. Just goes to show that it's not the tool but the person wielding it. Was amazed at what the kids were carrying, or is that just the same media sensationalism as we have over here? The news clips were showing large butcher knives and short machetes.
"Knife crime has risen hugely - somewhat proportionally to our Government's unfettered allowance of refugees into the country. Strangely we now have a lot of gang related incidents too. Make of that what you will."
I was over there in 2006. My wife met her pen-pal of over 34 years. Noticed the increase of knife crime and how they wanted to start regulating that, thus my question in title. Just goes to show that it's not the tool but the person wielding it. Was amazed at what the kids were carrying, or is that just the same media sensationalism as we have over here? The news clips were showing large butcher knives and short machetes.
VonClausewitz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34
Gun control activism is no national phenomenon that just happens to coincide in several countries simultanously. Civilian disarmament is a centally administered process of supranational institutions (UN-ODA), national governments and NGOs.
The binding element of all participating state and nonstate actors is the furtherance of shared interests by means of cooperative rent-seeking behaviour. It is the establishment and fortification of the de facto monopoly in the excercise of force, from which all other political power derives. This strategem is shared by otherwise completely adversarial actors who would not cooperate on any other agenda.
We, the advocates of individual gun ownership, miss this point completely as we lament abour crime statistics, sporting use and self defense. Even as we have the facts on our side, we a sidetracked in a debate about utility and effectiveness when the counterparty could not care less. Again: Gun control is a strategem of the consolidation of of political power.
It is not about presidents, not about political partys, not about crime or public safety. It is about the division of power between the state and the people.
The binding element of all participating state and nonstate actors is the furtherance of shared interests by means of cooperative rent-seeking behaviour. It is the establishment and fortification of the de facto monopoly in the excercise of force, from which all other political power derives. This strategem is shared by otherwise completely adversarial actors who would not cooperate on any other agenda.
We, the advocates of individual gun ownership, miss this point completely as we lament abour crime statistics, sporting use and self defense. Even as we have the facts on our side, we a sidetracked in a debate about utility and effectiveness when the counterparty could not care less. Again: Gun control is a strategem of the consolidation of of political power.
It is not about presidents, not about political partys, not about crime or public safety. It is about the division of power between the state and the people.
RoostRider
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2008
- Messages
- 670
Thats great..... except everyone involved is a person.... the government and media aren't living entities, they are comprised of people... who, of those people, think it's a good idea to distort the facts, and why?
I'll sum it up as to what the adverage anti's reasoning is:
We cannot change the fact that there are humans who WANT to do harm.
When people are empowered, they have the ability to do harm.
The only answer is to work so that no person has the ABILITY to do harm.
They consider anyone with the ability to do harm-- even without the desire-- a threat to be neutralized.
And then they call it freedom.
-- John
We cannot change the fact that there are humans who WANT to do harm.
When people are empowered, they have the ability to do harm.
The only answer is to work so that no person has the ABILITY to do harm.
They consider anyone with the ability to do harm-- even without the desire-- a threat to be neutralized.
And then they call it freedom.
-- John
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
Gun control agenda mistrusts ordinary citizens
The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle.
The gun control agenda is based on the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to use the physical power of arms responsibly. But a people that cannot be trusted with guns cannot be trusted with the much more dangerous powers of self-government. The gun control agenda is thus an implicit denial of the human capacity for self-government and is tyrannical in principle.
SCKimberFan
Member
You don't need our help. You do understand.
VonClausewitz
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 34
@ yokel:
Exactly! Hence the fact that civilian disarmament is a top-down project.
Exactly! Hence the fact that civilian disarmament is a top-down project.
Ed Ames
Member
Here is a line of reasoning I have heard...
You start with this:
Murder is not in human nature -- humans are intelligent and at some core level understand that killing fellow humans is wrong. Murders happen every day. Therefore some external force is actively pushing humans to act against their nature.
(A lot of religions encourage that view.)
If you were designing something to cause humans to act against their nature it would be tangible, mysterious, and enticing. In other words it would be a real thing (a book, brick, gun...whatever) that is used infrequently enough that people develop myths about it (a car is driven every day and most people have no illusions about them...other things are actually used for their intended purposes once every few years or in a lifetime and it is easy to create myths about their uses), and actually draws people (as humans...males, mostly...are drawn to weapons).
(Again, look at mythology/religion and you will find many stories of objects that turn people to evil. It is common for antis to accuse pro-RKBA people of being Gollums, coveting their "precious" even as it turns them evil.)
You then look at what people who violate human nature tend to use or own. A quick look says that guns fit the profile and a lot of murderers use guns... so the gun is a likely cause of evil behavior. Because it is likely to be causing harm, and does no good, it should be eliminated.
Maybe evil will attach to something else...knives, motorcycles, pictures of Gore Vidal in speedos... that's part of the eternal struggle between good and evil. Banning guns was a setback for evil so evil had to regroup and choose a new vessel.
You start with this:
Murder is not in human nature -- humans are intelligent and at some core level understand that killing fellow humans is wrong. Murders happen every day. Therefore some external force is actively pushing humans to act against their nature.
(A lot of religions encourage that view.)
If you were designing something to cause humans to act against their nature it would be tangible, mysterious, and enticing. In other words it would be a real thing (a book, brick, gun...whatever) that is used infrequently enough that people develop myths about it (a car is driven every day and most people have no illusions about them...other things are actually used for their intended purposes once every few years or in a lifetime and it is easy to create myths about their uses), and actually draws people (as humans...males, mostly...are drawn to weapons).
(Again, look at mythology/religion and you will find many stories of objects that turn people to evil. It is common for antis to accuse pro-RKBA people of being Gollums, coveting their "precious" even as it turns them evil.)
You then look at what people who violate human nature tend to use or own. A quick look says that guns fit the profile and a lot of murderers use guns... so the gun is a likely cause of evil behavior. Because it is likely to be causing harm, and does no good, it should be eliminated.
Maybe evil will attach to something else...knives, motorcycles, pictures of Gore Vidal in speedos... that's part of the eternal struggle between good and evil. Banning guns was a setback for evil so evil had to regroup and choose a new vessel.
Ed Ames
Member
Oh, no doubt...but the reasoning (and I actually had this conversation with someone not a week ago) was purely religious. It was something about man being created and therefore special. I just laughed and said, "You're an animal just like me and the baboon, and just like us you are wired to fight and kill not only for food but defense and social standing."
He didn't like that.....
He didn't like that.....
Carne Frio
Member
To control and subjugate a population, you must disarm them.
It worked for Mr. Hitler. It will work on any people who allow
themselves to be disarmed.
It worked for Mr. Hitler. It will work on any people who allow
themselves to be disarmed.
- Status
