Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Fair enough.
as much as it encourages unreasonable action.

I would like for you to explain why universal ownership would encourage people to be more unreasonable than they already can be, and why the means for self defense are unimportant.

You're argument for guns is based on the fact that you know how to use a gun and feel comfortable carrying one, using it as an instrument of defense, and confident in your cognitive ability to decide when to use it.

Universal gun ownership can't be supported because of individual confidence in one's abilities.

Individual rights are, by default, universal. I own a gun, but the only time I have ever pointed a gun at someone was a state owned gun, acting in the interest of the state. I have yet to need to use one for self defense. But it is there if needed.

That's very clever; but we in fact don't need to reveal a firearm whenever we ask a total stranger for the time of day. Your distrust of the state (a distrust which I don't always entirely disagree with) cannot be a flip-side offered as a reason why all citizens should own guns.

This goes back to your baseless assumption that owning a gun magically turns the owner into an unreasonable, aggressive person with a permanent chip on their shoulder.

I realize that I was being sarcastic with my comment about baring our guns each time we address a fellow bystander, but the truth is that the form of society you're condoning is one of intense and nearly universal paranoia, because it's based on the assumption that others intend to do you harm. It's not a healthy form of society, in my opinion.

So I guess you like to take long walks down dark alleys in the middle of the night in Buffalo? Accusations of paranoia being a motivator are ad hominem, and avoid the actual argument.

 

[Einherjar86]

I would like for you to explain why universal ownership would encourage people to be more unreasonable than they already can be, and why the means for self defense are unimportant.

I don't see why it would encourage people to be either more or less reasonable; I don't think it has the effect you assume it will. There are clearly instances where owning a gun would have benefited an individual; but there are also instances where the presence of a gun would quite certainly make things worse. You don't seem to believe that the presence of a gun could ever make a situation worse.

Individual rights are, by default, universal. I own a gun, but the only time I have ever pointed a gun at someone was a state owned gun, acting in the interest of the state. I have yet to need to use one for self defense. But it is there if needed.

But individual competence with a firearm does not support a claim that everyone should own them. I don't see how your ability should apply to everyone.

This goes back to your baseless assumption that owning a gun magically turns the owner into an unreasonable, aggressive person with a permanent chip on their shoulder.

It doesn't, and I never said that; what I said is that universal gun ownership won't make those who are already unreasonable more reasonable. And if an already unreasonable person owns a gun, there is no advantage here. Gun ownership only makes that entire situation worse.

So I guess you like to take long walks down dark alleys in the middle of the night in Buffalo? Accusations of paranoia being a motivator are ad hominem, and avoid the actual argument.

Ad hominem? I'm not accusing anyone specifically of being paranoid; I'm saying that the idea you're suggesting would force an atmosphere of paranoia on all participants.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Of course gun ownership should not be compulsory, but regulation of firearms and banning certain types of weapons is oppressive. Yes, if crazy old man Cooter wants an RPG launcher, let him have it. How much of the populace do you think people would let him blow up before the people collectively kill him? Regulation of anything by virtue removes the most fundamental right of civilized human beings: freedom of choice.

 

[Dak]

I don't see why it would encourage people to be either more or less reasonable; I don't think it has the effect you assume it will. There are clearly instances where owning a gun would have benefited an individual; but there are also instances where the presence of a gun would quite certainly make things worse. You don't seem to believe that the presence of a gun could ever make a situation worse.

You keep referring to gun in the singular, and yes, situations where one person has a significant advantage are undesirable.

But individual competence with a firearm does not support a claim that everyone should own them. I don't see how your ability should apply to everyone.

I never said anything about ability being a prerequisite or a condition for ownership.

It doesn't, and I never said that; what I said is that universal gun ownership won't make those who are already unreasonable more reasonable. And if an already unreasonable person owns a gun, there is no advantage here. Gun ownership only makes that entire situation worse.

But there is no possible way to determine exactly what "reasonable" is, and subsequently no possible way to prevent "unreasonable" people from owning guns.However, for the sake of argument, it is better that everyone be armed, so that the "reasonable" people may protect themselves from the "unreasonable".

Ad hominem? I'm not accusing anyone specifically of being paranoid; I'm saying that the idea you're suggesting would force an atmosphere of paranoia on all participants.

It doesn't force an atmosphere of paranoia on everyone. I think this in particular would be considered personal projection. You already stated you are afraid of the scenario, therefore, you project that all must be afraid.

 

[Dak]

Chavez calls bank bluffs

The bankers will be scrambling. Already seeing opinion pieces bashing Chavez for this covert act of war.

 

[Einherjar86]

You keep referring to gun in the singular, and yes, situations where one person has a significant advantage are undesirable.

Or situations where both people have a gun and one is trying to reason with the other, while the opponent just decides to shoot.

I never said anything about ability being a prerequisite or a condition for ownership.

So you think people's abilities to handle firearms shouldn't be a prerequisite?

But there is no possible way to determine exactly what "reasonable" is, and subsequently no possible way to prevent "unreasonable" people from owning guns.However, for the sake of argument, it is better that everyone be armed, so that the "reasonable" people may protect themselves from the "unreasonable".

Or the "unreasonable" might decide to get some guns and start shooting all the "reasonable" people trying to "reason" with them.

It doesn't force an atmosphere of paranoia on everyone. I think this in particular would be considered personal projection. You already stated you are afraid of the scenario, therefore, you project that all must be afraid.

You're obviously confident in the scenario; maybe your confidence is obscuring the fact that it might not possibly be the best idea.

 

[Dak]

Or situations where both people have a gun and one is trying to reason with the other, while the opponent just decides to shoot.

You can replace shoot with choke/beat/stab etc. What is your point?

So you think people's abilities to handle firearms shouldn't be a prerequisite?

No, because that creates an artificially superior class of people who get to decide on the prerequisites, and enforce them

Or the "unreasonable" might decide to get some guns and start shooting all the "reasonable" people trying to "reason" with them.

Again, you can replace shoot with any verb of aggression.

You're obviously confident in the scenario; maybe your confidence is obscuring the fact that it might not possibly be the best idea.

This is the crux of the issue. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is not "better", no human(adult) has any legitimate authority over another. Again, the only way to prevent someone from having a gun (or anything else) is through coercion, and what is most generally used to enforce the coercion? Guns.

Your position, or rather at least the one you are arguing from, is one of ultimate hypocrisy.

 

[Einherjar86]

You can replace shoot with choke/beat/stab etc. What is your point?

That if both people have guns, the "unreasonable" person is obviously going to prevail.

Guns don't do anything to combat violence in this situation, and if guns are universally present, they won't serve any positive purpose. Those who would be the "stabbers" or "chokers" will instead be "shooters."

I'm not being a hypocrite. I'm pointing out flaws in your argument.

 

[Dak]

But, as I said before, "unreasonable" or "reasonable" are 100% subjective. So if there is any flaw, it is even bothering to address arguments invoking those terms.

 

[Einherjar86]

Then let's go back to your "means of coercion" argument. As a means of coercion, a firearm is much more likely to take someone's life when this is entirely unnecessary.

 

[Dak]

Then let's go back to your "means of coercion" argument. As a means of coercion, a firearm is much more likely to take someone's life when this is entirely unnecessary.

What is your point?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

people will die in situations which, under current/similar-to-current governance, could be handled in less lethal, silly ways.

 

[Einherjar86]

What is your point?

Dak, the point is that people don't need to be killed. I think that should be a priority for you. Or maybe that's just me.

 

[Dak]

people will die in situations which, under current/similar-to-current governance, could be handled in less lethal, silly ways.

Tell that to the Iraqis, the Branch Davidians, the Taliban, the US military members, the Libyan military, the Weavers, etc. etc. etc. etc.

You are attempting to control the value judgement of others.

Dak, the point is that people don't need to be killed. I think that should be a priority for you. Or maybe that's just me.

I agree. But the ends do not justify the means, and guns don't kill people anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[Dak]

I don't understand your reasoning.

Using violence and coercion purportedly to prevent violence and coercion is ok with you then?

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that while all violence should give us pause and force us to consider our actions (and shouldn't be rationalized), it isn't always unnecessary.

I'm more interested in your explanation as to how "guns don't kill people anyway."

 

[Dak]

I think that while all violence should give us pause and force us to consider our actions (and shouldn't be rationalized), it isn't always unnecessary.

You really didnt answer my question. Very "political" answer. Is using violence and/or coercion to purportedly prevent (keywords) violence and coercion ok?

I'm more interested in your explanation as to how "guns don't kill people anyway."

As I'm sure you have heard numerous times, the tool doesn't kill a person. It is an inanimate object. In fact, a gun without bullets is little more than an expensive hammer/club.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

However, with bullets it becomes a vastly different tool than a hammer or club. The point of guns is to shoot, not hit people with them. Guns are entirely used for killing. That is their only point.

also lol at taking what I said and applying it to major military/social operations instead of, you know, what the actual discussion is about here (single combat, basically).

 

[Dak]

However, with bullets it becomes a vastly different tool than a hammer or club. The point of guns is to shoot, not hit people with them. Guns are entirely used for killing. That is their only point.

That still does not change the fact that they do nothing without an operator controlling them.

also lol at taking what I said and applying it to major military/social operations instead of, you know, what the actual discussion is about here (single combat, basically).

You cannot invoke our system of governance, and then claim I cannot invoke it as well.