Guns gave us a civilized society

Thanks, Gallantwarrior. You posted twice and added literally nothing to the debate.

"And yet, all that additional gun control has done damned little to bring their crime stats down."

In the exact post that you replied to I provided a perfectly reasonable analogy as to why it has not brought down the stats.
 
The only way you're going to take guns away from the American public is to repeal the Second amendment.

And that ain't gonna happen any time soon
 
Thanks, Gallantwarrior. You posted twice and added literally nothing to the debate.

"And yet, all that additional gun control has done damned little to bring their crime stats down."

In the exact post that you replied to I provided a perfectly reasonable analogy as to why it has not brought down the stats.

Thank you so much for your kind acknowledgement. I guess I'm one of the lucky few since I am both a farmer and live in an area where defense against wildlife would be an issue. I am also a former law enforcement officer and a veteran, too. I also own my own business, would that be a third qualifier for me?
Thank you for your permission, I shall treasure it...along with all my firearms.
 
Michael Moore - Bowling for Columbine

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jpEhmdVZvA]Michael Moore - Bowling for Columbine (2002) - Movie Trailer - YouTube[/ame]
 
I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

The fact remains that the US has 300 million guns in circulation, if guns made society safer it would be the safest country in the world...as we know from instances like this, it is definitely not...

Funny, I don't recall saying anything about guns making people safer, perhaps I misread my post.

My premise is that guns give people the ability to face others on an equal footing, thus opening the door to persuading them using reason since force is not an option any longer. Care to address that?
 
I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.
A country based on the rule of law, gave us a civilized society.
 
Thank you so much for your kind acknowledgement. I guess I'm one of the lucky few since I am both a farmer and live in an area where defense against wildlife would be an issue. I am also a former law enforcement officer and a veteran, too. I also own my own business, would that be a third qualifier for me?
Thank you for your permission, I shall treasure it...along with all my firearms.

A farmer living in an area with dangerous wildlife with your own business. You get three guns!

Your welcome to my kind acknowledgement. I'd even give you an arm to help you carry that third gun you are so desperately in need of, if I didn't need it to type. :lol:
 
I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

We took the West away from the Indians because we had greater firepower. Is that what you mean?

I am pretty sure I am saying that, if the Indians had equal firepower, we wouldn't have taken it away from them, and would have had to actually honor our treaties.
 
Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

Wow.

Really?

Wow.

whew.

Wow.

I really can't believe what I'm reading here

Blows the mind, seriously


The social economic/population/ and rising incomes of the United States as well as increased police enforcement are just discounted? The industrialization ? discounted? Economic policies that allowed people to rise and aspire to a better life? Forget about tit

its the guns

seriously, so many countries did not allow guns and prospered just fine. Man some people when they make up ideas, they really MAKE up ideas.

Funny, I don't recall saying any of that. In fact, I can argue that most of those came about because force was removed from the equation, which gave people more leverage in the economic factors. Before guns it was fairly simple for strong people to walk in and steal from the people who drove the economy, after the advent of widespread gun ownership they lost that advantage.

By the way, what part of my premise restricts this discussion to the United States? I used the example of the American West because it is the one I, personally, am most familiar with. I am sure I can find parallel lines of economic and social development in other places that resulted from guns leveling the playing field if I looked.
 
I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

If every american believed as you do, it's no wonder we are having so much violence. This is what the white man live by and what he bought to america. Sad but true and live by the sword, die by the sword. Humans don't need guns to be free, they only need to be human and not animalistic as guns has made us. The stong usually lack a brain.

Strange, the FBI is constantly telling us that violent crime rates are decreasing. Are they lying to us?
 
In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

I think you'll find that the reason those areas have stricter gun control is because of the notoriety of their crime statistics.

You are reversing cause and effect. Gun control was implemented because of their high crime stats. And you cannot expect those stats to immediately change, especially when you have the mentioned areas surrounded by other areas with practically no gun control. A bit like banning cocaine (if it was legal) in Brazil, and expecting all negative events in the country regarding the drug to stop, when it still borders Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.

You might think that. You would, however, be wrong. The simple fact is that gun control in large cites predates gun violence by decades.
 
The argument regarding the Second Amendment, in this day and age, is a straw-man. People seem to be under the false impression that they are somehow holding the greatest military might the World has ever seen at bay - holding them hostage - with their guns. This, not only is completely untrue, but also completely ridiculous.

I agree that back when the Constitution was drafted - when civilian-owned guns equaled (or almost equaled) the weaponry of the American military - this would no doubt have been true. But now, if the U.S. was to turn into a dictatorship operating against its citizens, there would be literally nothing any militia could do about it. Think about it. The U.S. is not Syria. In such a paranoid and hypothetical situation they would have no one in the World to answer to. They could literally wipe out entire towns or cities with the push of a button, and after a few cities were to disappear, the citizens of the U.S. would be more submissive than the Chinese or North Koreans. (If we're going down the paranoid road of 'protection against our government', we're as well analysing the full scope of what that would really mean).

Look at Yemen. 50% of Yemenis own a gun and they are one of the least free societies on earth. Their standing army is literally a blip compared to the might of the U.S., yet their guns don't help them one bit. They would be crushed.

And if people really think that the only thing holding their government at bay is the fact that some of them have guns, then is that really freedom that they have? There are many countries across the World with acceptably strong gun control (European countries, Australia, Japan, for example) and they are in some cases far more free than the U.S., in all cases just as free. This isn't the days of King George and the Wild West.

In reality, the only things your government fears is its citizens not voting or them going on strike. Not your silly little guns.

Just my two cents.

Seriously?

I have a question, what does this have to do with the premise that guns reduce the application of force in human interactions? Even if it did have something to do with it, do you honestly think less that 1.5 million people could force their will on more than 300 million simply because they have better weapons? Do you have an explanation of why the rebellion in Syria is still going on if that is the way it works? Do you want to tell Bashar al-Assad that all he has to worry about is his people not voting, or, worse, them going on strike?
 
I believe (actually, from looking around the World, I know) that having far stricter gun control than those that now exist will result in less gun crime. This is quite simply a fact. People will still be able to get their hands on guns, but for the most part this will be limited to only people with connections to the criminal World, with it becoming more and more difficult as time goes by. When we consider that these school shootings have largely been committed by people with very little or no criminal record, we can deduce that this would cut them down almost immediately.

People who should be allowed to own guns: Police (on and off-duty), farmers, (some) store owners, people who live in areas that require them to own one for protection against wildlife. After this, there really no need for anyone to own a gun, other than paranoia.

I am not a liberal.

I'll name one country: Australia.

Even Britain, though gun crime did jump in the year after (it is a slow process, but rewarding, ultimately). There are 50 times more deaths by guns in the U.S. than in Britain when population is taken into account. This is an astounding fact.

But the thing about the U.S. is that it is not simply the guns that are the problem. The U.S. has an absolutely massive problem with mental health - this issue, even more-so than gun control, needs to be addressed.

You know that? How do you know that? I mean, if you actually know it, you should be able to do more than simply state you know it. Or do you know that the same way most people know that Columbus proved the Earth is round?

From your post, my guess is you know it the latter way. One bit of data I have to back up my claim is how easy it is to debunk your claim that the the US has 50 times the rate of gun deaths per capita as the UK.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
By the way, the intentional murder rate in the US is 4.2 per 100,000, in the UK it is 1.2 per 100,000. If gun control stopped crime dramatically one would think that the murder rate in a country with 50 to one advantage in gun deaths would be about 50 times higher.

By the way, not only did Columbus not prove the world was round, he was wrong about how big it is.
 
I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.
A country based on the rule of law, gave us a civilized society.

Tell you what, just to humor you, I will agree to that. It still leaves me free to point out that guns gave us the rule of law because they make it harder for rich people to get away with breaking the law.
 
By the way, the intentional murder rate in the US is 4.2 per 100,000, in the UK it is 1.2 per 100,000. If gun control stopped crime dramatically one would think that the murder rate in a country with 50 to one advantage in gun deaths would be about 50 times higher.

By the way, not only did Columbus not prove the world was round, he was wrong about how big it is.
It's zero in Japan, if you are talking about gun murders.
 
By the way, the intentional murder rate in the US is 4.2 per 100,000, in the UK it is 1.2 per 100,000. If gun control stopped crime dramatically one would think that the murder rate in a country with 50 to one advantage in gun deaths would be about 50 times higher.

By the way, not only did Columbus not prove the world was round, he was wrong about how big it is.
It's zero in Japan, if you are talking about gun murders.

It is above zero if I am accurate.
 
In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

So you think that if the people in the inner cities had easier access to guns the problem would be solved.

LOLOL good one.
 
I just discovered this blog post, and it got me to thinking about things in a way I never actually articulated to myself before.

why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.

There is a simple fact of life that most people do not really think about, all human interaction boils down to one of two things, reason, or force.

People today like to pretend they live in a society where reason has triumphed over force, they are wrong. If that was true, we would live in a society where violence does not happen at all. (Please note, the fact that violence exists does not prove that that we live in a violent society. Whether or not our society is violent is a separate discussion to my point, and not one that I believe is critical to the point I want to make.)

If you want to convince someone who is stronger than you of the merits of your arguments you have to either accept the fact that he might decide to ignore your reason and opt to use force, or find away to negate his advantage in force over you. Guns are that equalizer, and they are why control passed from the hands of people who could fight to the hands of people who can think. In other words, it wasn't reason that triumphed over force, it was guns that defeated it.

Guns turned the American west from a place where the strong triumphed over the weak to a place where farmers planted crops and built towns that became cities. Without guns we would be living under feudalism, not as free people. Taking gins out of the hands of people will turn our society from one where everyone is equal to one where the strong, who are usually the young, rule by fiat.

Human civilization predates guns by over 1000 years.
 
In places where there is strict gun control, like Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC there is much more crime and violence than in places where the population is more likely to be armed.

It is like a war and many areas of the country have been described as war zones. Liberals only want one side armed.

Correlation Vs. causation

Places with low gun tolerance are normally socio-econimic conditions wich support widespread gun violence. Gun laws are a response to violence.

its a bit like saying malaria shots must cause malaria, because only areas where they give the shots they have malaria.

Katzndogz thinks Scott Roeder, the guy who murdered the abortion doctor, is an American hero.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top