Try not to grieve if, without a firearm that could have saved a loved one's life, they instead lay dead on the floor. While your argument is profoundly simple is is based on a restrictive set of alternatives that have no real world applicability, real world in the sense that it conforms to a genetic imperative. There is no virtue to simplicity in this case. You are safer if you never get in a car. No rational person chooses not to drive for that reason. I have the gun my father bought before I was born. I have never loaded or fired it. The biggest risk I have faced with it is dropping it on my toe. It is a work of art with its pearl handles. Quite beautiful if you have an eye for such things, which I do. You see killing. I see art applied to the will to survive. Guns protect life. Sick people as with sick people everywhere abuse everything. There are rational and irrational ways to respond to this. There is a natural appeal among conservative fear driven reactions to prefer low level thinking. It appeals to the simple. You are the conservative here. hate to go all fskimospy on you but hay, if the shoe fits......
Again, not sure what you aren't understanding here. It is a very simple idea - the odds of a loved one dead on the floor are higher if you own a gun than if you do not. Since I don't want my loved ones to die the logical choice is to not own a gun. I even get to save money! Imagine getting paid to make your family safer.
Cars have utility (faster travel) that people willingly exchange safety for. In terms of personal safety guns have negative utility as you are more likely to be injured or killed with one than without.
Maybe using your car analogy will help you understand. If someone spent money on a car that 1) was more dangerous than walking and 2) made you travel more slowly than walking you'd think a person was pretty stupid for buying that car, no? That's what guns do.
So basically you're saying that you are safe from your gun because you have never placed it in a situation where it could be used for its intended purpose. You're actually making my point for me here, haha.
Facts are neither conservative nor liberal. They're just facts.
I would rather not think about prostitution ceos having blood on their hands 😱. In all seriousness, it is amazing instruments of death are so revered. But a bit of boob is the end of all civilization. Merica
Moon is cray-cray. Walls of text full of sound and fury signifying nothing. Out, out damn moonbeam spot
The choice to own a gun is identical to the choice to own a car. In the case of the gun the choice is to own the capacity for self defense over the risk of ownership just as the capacity for faster travel outweighs the increased risk. The argument based on risk the right of the individual to assess. I don't want to ban cars to make you safer. You want to take away my right of self protection, far more important than getting somewhere faster. Your simplicity argument goes nowhere.
Yes, the facts are that at the level that I want to be capable of self defense, that is to say not having a gun available for instant use, is a level that satisfies me, but it is not the level you describe. I can still use a gun but would have to load it first.
I’m genuinely confused as to why you’re struggling with understanding this.
A car has a positive (faster movement) and a negative (less safe). A gun has no positive, only a negative. Something you purchase for safety that makes you less safe is a stupid purchase.
Ok then you ARE making yourself less safe.
If the only person fools like yourself were harming with your guns were yourselves I wouldn’t want to ban them. The problem is you guys take other people with you.
nakedfrog
No Lifer
- Apr 3, 2001
- 62,727
- 18,889
- 136
At least he's quit with the Socratic dialogue phase, that was an exceptionally tedious era. Don't know that the current incarnation is really "better" though.
The potential to defend yourself whereas you would not have that same potential is a positive not a negative. You would seldom be in a position to defend yourself with a car. You can get somewhere faster, like maybe going to a rifle range and enjoying more time there. In either case you are less safe driving and at the range. Your decision not to own a gun is personal to you and is a choice you make based on your lifestyle, not on an assessment of personal risk. You revert to statistics to mask the fact of your own personal distaste.
All the people who have successfully defended themselves with a firearm ane never used one irresponsibly would be dead if you could have banned guns in the past.
It is mental illness that is the problem, a subject you are powerfully motivated not to understand and an ignorance that drives you to look for simple solutions out of emotional frustration. I can’t help you if you choose to be blind and don’t recognize that is your condition.
Nothing I can say will reach you. I believe you have the inferior understanding. I think that is a fact, not a value judgment.
I have provided sufficient support for my position to satisfy me at this moment and will let the matter rest. Enjoyed the conversation and will likely come back to it in some other thread.
Just so I’m sure you understand basic concepts here would you consider having a 5% chance of dying better or worse than having a 6% chance of dying?
In the quantum realm of probability the answer to that depends on the shadow at the back of the mediating consciousness of man at 2:32pm in rode island on July 22nd. The shadow’s circumference will dictate the underlying razor line between light and shadow at the edge like the human’s consciousness riding on the edge of self-awareness and self-deluded. By diving deep into the shadows of light and shining a light on the shadow of man’s consciousness so can we learn to no longer differentiate less and more as we become idealized and unified in the greater whole of perfect Rational sapien state of being. Thus 5% and 6% become equally equal in our consciousness as we are realized.
To me the question is meaningless without context. For example, I would choose 6% if not dying meant persisting in a vegetative state. This is why I reject your purely statistical argument.
On this forum in order to exercise my right to free speech, I have to live with the risk that I will offend people and the knowledge that being shallow enough to be triggered as some will be is not good for their health. I accept that as the price of doing business. Also I risk being offended in cases where I fail to recognize they have triggered some feeling in me I have failed to be consciously aware of and have dealt with as something from my past. In such cases it is I who could be charged with being shallow.
How I see the world, I would say, is very different than most people. I put a foot in another world at the cost of suffering. And lo and behold, the water is fine, as is the wine.
Last edited:
I honestly don’t care about how you view the world. My entire point is that what you’re saying about guns is stupid.
If being stupid makes you feel good then knock yourself out.
As I said, I have explained the reasons I believe your statistical argument is fallacious, that it carries no real world weight. You choose not to see that as the case. You have chose to call me stupid instead.
What you call stupid I see as something else. I could say you are too stupid to realize the facts but that would, in my opinion, be childish. One of us has the better case. I am happy with mine and feel no need to call you stupid because you disagree and like your opinion better.
An individual who drinks and drives has a greater risk while driving than the general population. Some people are more conscientious about how they use firearms than others. People make risk determinations carelessly in the case of some and carefully in the case of others. A person skilled in evaluating people in terms of conscientious, if dividing firearm owners by that metric, would, return different statistics.
I believe this blows your risk based analysis out of the water as a tool of universal evaluation. But, of course, this is because I’m stupid especially since there is no way to mount a rational argument against the position I have presented. Risk can’t be separated from context for any one individual.
Last edited:
Unfortunately it’s the careless ones that spoil it. Like if there wasn’t any mass shootings. Only gun incidents of gang, domestic violence and suicide, there wouldn’t be as much a backlash to these metal penises.
Lol at you. You took the down side of a general statist and tried to apply it to me, that I was some sort of callous fool to ignore reality. I took the up side of that exact same statistic to reject that kind of thinking generally because the people who fall victim within a statistical paradigm are by their own personal circumstance at higher or lower levels of risk.
Of the many victims as deaths and injuries of any one particular firearm, each of which will have varying risks of becoming an unwanted statistic, there will be vastly more guns owned by individuals that will not become a part of that statistic. Most guns and most owners of them with varying degrees of risk, will not show up on the down side of the spastic.
Since you made your argument about my statistical risk, I replied that any one person’s down side risk, is a matter of personal circumstance and childishly, in my opinion, you turned that general statement into me attempting to make some claim ego claim.
Somebody, I guess, had to fall into the category of having guns that are and won’t be used improperly otherwise. Just look at the statistics.
But as you say, facts are just facts, and the person presenting them is besides the point. But since you wanted to redirect attention away from those facts by pretending the intention was to brag about my own level of personal responsibility let mereturn the favor.
I believe you lost a dear friend to a gun suicide. Perhaps that has affected your view. Perhaps out of person loss and the despair that should naturally accompany it, and absent any alternative answers, you have chosen to blame gun availibity as the cause of your grief and desire to attack the ease of availability as the answer.
I support tightening the rules on gun sales, but owing to my own personal life experience regarding experiencing dark level of hopelessness and personal despair and the feeling of certainty that deaths is the only way out, I did not go down that path and for reasons I believe you do not understand. I died, all right, but in a different way. An exit exist For those who do not turn away from their pain. There is no loss we can suffer but that produced by the imagination generated by self hate.
I believe your friend died because he lived in a world where no light shown on him to help him discover this fact and that actions to fix gun availability, noble as they are, are not light bringing because most of the world is afraid to personally face their own feelings of loss.
The world is afraid of the unknown, the memories repressed within and has no idea that is the fact. The violence of the world is the product of this ignorance.
This is just like ‘I don’t know how math works’
Look - I get this is an emotional issue for you. It’s okay. The real world doesn’t care about your feelings but I also know you don’t care about facts. So, enjoy your irrational attachment to guns. It’s stupid, but you have a right to be stupid.
Haha, we have already established that you are no more focused on that the math says than I am. Remember, I already suggested it is safer to walk than to drive and to which you replied that the benefits outweigh the risks. But that is the point. It is not mathematical number that forms our decisions but the relevance applied to them on the basis of a personal risk assessment. You ignore the risk of driving because of the benefits of time saved for you. Others look at the risk of owning a gun to the desire to have on on hand should the need arise for self defense. They wish to have a chance to defend themselves despite knowing they incur extra risk. The arrogance of your claim you should have power to prevent that choice is what is wrong with goodie-two-shoe liberal authoritarians. You don't want to own a gun fine. The framers gave people that right explicitly in amendment form.
And I can't imagine why you think this is an emotional issue with me. My interest in the issue is the irrationality of others who see guns as an issue and never notice the hate for themselves they feel that could, under the right conditions surface at any time lacking any awareness of the real enemy within.
Like I’ve said it’s genuinely confusing to me why you struggle to understand why cars are a cost/benefit situation and gun ownership is a cost/cost situation. My guess was that you’re innumerate but it could also be irrational emotional attachment to the idea of gun ownership.
The answer to that is easy. You can only think in terms of what is cost/benefit and cost/cost on the basis of your own personal evaluation which, not seeing this, you take to be correct as an absolute. People, say, who have experienced some sort of trauma, as a result of a car accident, may see the driving as cost/cost the way that you see gun ownership. Math is math but your opinions about cost benefit are not.
I look at cost/benefit based on the well established science on the relationship between personal safety and gun ownership. If you want to pretend it doesn’t exist that’s up to you but again, reality doesn’t care if you ignore it.
Californians living with handgun owners more than twice as likely to die by homicide, study finds
Residents who don't own a handgun but live with someone who does are significantly more likely to die by homicide compared with those in gun-free homes, research shows.
med.stanford.edu
The statistics were never in dispute. Owning a gun puts you at greater risk statistically. But the degree of risk for people who opt to take on that risk differs from individual to individual. Lots of idiots own guns just as lots of idiots are dangerous on the road to others with they drive. Insurance companies recognize this when they charge long time accident free individual lower rates. Some of them are probably at less risk of having a gun used against them than Black young men who go unarmed in high crime neighborhoods.I look at cost/benefit based on the well established science on the relationship between personal safety and gun ownership. If you want to pretend it doesn’t exist that’s up to you but again, reality doesn’t care if you ignore it.
Californians living with handgun owners more than twice as likely to die by homicide, study finds
Residents who don't own a handgun but live with someone who does are significantly more likely to die by homicide compared with those in gun-free homes, research shows.
The point is that for whatever reasons, the love on hunting, enjoyment of target shooting, competitive gun sports, or a desire to have a effective means of self defense, as you say guns were made to kill even though they are made for a lot of other reasons too, like ringing a plate at 2000 yards, people chose to own knowing the risk. The important point for me is that guns can and are used for self defense, a deeply inherent trait that most people would like to be prepared for. You think I don't get math. Maybe you don't get science. An organism's primary motivation is to survive. This biological imperative is going to give you trouble if you try making owning them illegal. You will be seen as a dangerous threat. Of course it won't be you doing the actual collecting. You'll be 5000 yards offshore observing through heavy lenses.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter