Harvard Study claims that more guns does not equal more murders and suicides.

[OGOC]

I also don't see why a standard citizen needs an assault style weapon.

Because I want one. That should be reason enough in a free country.

I don't see why you need a vehicle with such poor mpg.
I don't see why you need a 16-ounce soft drink.
I don't see why you need [insert item here].

Personally I would support some kind of training requirement for any guns that are capable of being auto or semi-auto so that at least we know that anyone who wants to use one legally can also do so safely.

Such as gun classes in schools? Teach kids at an early age how to safely use a firearm. Also, some actual shooting classes would even help the gangbangers hit where they're aiming instead of hitting innocent bystanders.

If we're going to have mandatory classes before citizens are allowed to exercise their fundamental right that shall not be infringed, it's only fair we also have mandatory classes on how to vote for the right person.

What do you mean 'riots'?

That was just the glorious non-state you want.

Nonsense. When it came time for the state to do what it promised to do -- protect people -- it failed miserably.

Similar happened during Hurricane Sandy. People huddled with their gun-toting neighbors so they wouldn't be robbed or raped. The mighty protector "the state" had trouble even delivering bottled water.

When a criminal breaks into your home at 2 a.m. and is coming right at you with the intent to kill you, you can call 911 and hope they get there in the next 10 seconds. Me, I'm going to grab a gun.

Also, speaking of Hurricane Sandy, look at how so many people mock "preppers." Those "crazy preppers" are the only ones who didn't need help, and they also were able to help others. The government had a list of "suspicious activity" that included having more than seven days or whatever of food in your house. Get hit with a natural disaster, and you have a decent chance of dying if you try not to be "suspicious."

 

[Craig234]

Because I want one. That should be reason enough in a free country.

I don't see why you need a vehicle with such poor mpg.
I don't see why you need a 16-ounce soft drink.
I don't see why you need [insert item here].

OK, I don't see why you need a vehicle with such more mpg. Having it greatly and needlessly uses extra oil, a limited resource that causes us all kinds of problems.

It's a much better option to make your car have better mpg than use the extra oil.

I don't see why you need a larger than 16 ounce soft drink as a single order at a retail snack outlet. 16 ounces is usually enough for people, and it's the economics that lead stores to sell you 44 ounce sodas for a little more leading people to buy the large ones, causing them health problems. If you really want 32 ounces, buy two 16 ounce. This measure will help reduce the health problems and is worth doing.

I don't see why you [I'll insert the ingredients needed for a Timothy McVeigh truck bomb]. That allows you to do too much damage to be justified under your freedom.

You have a misguided idea of 'freedom'. Where's your freedom to have your elections not dominated by a few wealthy people and interests?

Where's your freedom to have media not owned by about 4 mega corporations?

Where's your freedom to vote without waiting hours in line, on a convenient day?

Where's your freedom to clean air and water when the EPA is under attack by polluters?

Where's your freedom to find out what your government is doing from whistleblowers, by having those whistleblowers protecting from decades-long sentences?

Maybe you should worry a little more about freedoms that are more important than ordering 2 sodas instead of one.

Nonsense. When it came time for the state to do what it promised to do -- protect people -- it failed miserably.

Similar happened during Hurricane Sandy. People huddled with their gun-toting neighbors so they wouldn't be robbed or raped. The mighty protector "the state" had trouble even delivering bottled water.

When a criminal breaks into your home at 2 a.m. and is coming right at you with the intent to kill you, you can call 911 and hope they get there in the next 10 seconds. Me, I'm going to grab a gun.

Also, speaking of Hurricane Sandy, look at how so many people mock "preppers." Those "crazy preppers" are the only ones who didn't need help, and they also were able to help others. The government had a list of "suspicious activity" that included having more than seven days or whatever of food in your house. Get hit with a natural disaster, and you have a decent chance of dying if you try not to be "suspicious."

You don't seem to understand the discussion, which is about Anarchist's 'no state'.

Right, no state would be a far better security situation for you day to day, and in riots and hurricanes.

This isn't about you having your own gun for protection. This is about removing the government - with all its prevention, rebuilding, emergency assistance, military, and more.

 

[OGOC]

I don't see why you need a larger than 16 ounce soft drink as a single order at a retail snack outlet. 16 ounces is usually enough for people,

You have a misguided idea of 'freedom'. Where's your freedom to have your elections not dominated by a few wealthy people and interests?

lol, those few wealthy people you don't like are the ones getting the powerful state to pass stupid soda laws. Stupid soda laws that you apparently think are a good idea. Why do you support wealthy people and their stupid interests that infringe on your freedom?

My "misguided" idea of freedom? You won't even let me have enough freedom to drink the size of soda I want.

Look at all the lobbyists lobbying keepers of the state to abuse their power. If the state didn't have that power to abuse, the lobbyists wouldn't exist.

Where's your freedom to clean air and water when the EPA is under attack by polluters?

The EPA practically endorses pollution if you have the money to pay for fines and carbon credits.

You don't seem to understand the discussion, which is about Anarchist's 'no state'.

This isn't about you having your own gun for protection. This is about removing the government - with all its prevention, rebuilding, emergency assistance, military, and more.

I don't see where he argued to remove completely everything.

I thought the argument was supposed to be "more guns does not equal more murder and suicides."

Besides, my "protection" argument still stands.
There can be a pro-state argument for things like having emergency people work to get the electricity turned back on after a hurricane, but then again you don't necessarily need the state for that, either.

 

[Craig234]

lol, those few wealthy people you don't like are the ones getting the powerful state to pass stupid soda laws. Stupid soda laws that you apparently think are a good idea. Why do you support wealthy people and their stupid interests that infringe on your freedom?

First of all, it's lazy and dishonest to say someone 'doesn't like wealthy people' when it misrepresents their views.

It's a simple way to misunderstand the issues - sort of like some liberals who didn't understand the issues decided the Iraq was was all about Bush liking to see them die.

It's simple, but wrong.

Second, Bloomberg is wealthy, but different wealthy people are different. I agree with some of his views. Other wealthy people have different views.

That one is about the issue, not his wealth or anyone else's. But again, it's simple for you to falsely assert what my views are again.

I support wealthy people on all kinds of things - their interests and society's often overlap. Sometimes they don't, when I generally disagree with those who take a bad position.

I have a pretty positive view of a lot of things about many wealthy people. The guy who made billions making paypal and Tesla and whatever else seems like an impressive guy.

Others not so much. I'm not very impressed with Howard Stern.

People who don't understand the wealth issues often like to personalize it - it's all about 'liking' the people. It's not.

I can really like someone, and feel that it's a better policy for them to pay higher taxes if they're very wealthy. But again, it's simple for you to misrepresent by making it personal.

My "misguided" idea of freedom? You won't even let me have enough freedom to drink the size of soda I want.

Yes, misguided. You can get a 2 liter soda at the market. You can get ten 16 ounce sodas and have 160 ounces to drink. You're worried about a mild measure that will be a big help on health issues, while you ignore actual issues of freedom that matter, that threaten your wealth and power and the functioning of our democracy. That's a misguided idea of freedom. "I want a bigger soda!!!!"

Look at all the lobbyists lobbying keepers of the state to abuse their power. If the state didn't have that power to abuse, the lobbyists wouldn't exist.

No, so your solution is to take that power away from elected representatives, and hand it all to the unelected wealthy who hire the lobbyists instead. No need for lobbyists.

I'm all for restrictions on lobbying - which serves the wealthy you seem to have such a blind love for no matter what they do. You're not.

The EPA practically endorses pollution if you have the money to pay for fines and carbon credits.

There are reasons for that policy. As I understand it, it's originally a Republican policy. There are arguments why it's a practical policy that still helps the environment.

If you want to more, I'm alll ears. Again, it's your side that's fighting doing anything tooth and nail.

I don't see where he argued to remove completely everything.

Like I said, you don't seem very familiar with his positions.

I thought the argument was supposed to be "more guns does not equal more murder and suicides."

Besides, my "protection" argument still stands.

It had nothing to do with the discussion of eliminating the state. The removal of personal guns for protection was not beign discussed. I think kittens are cute, but it's not the issue.

There can be a pro-state argument for things like having emergency people work to get the electricity turned back on after a hurricane, but then again you don't necessarily need the state for that, either.

I think the state plays all kinds of important and useful roles on these things and it would be a disaster to slash that, thinking there's some 'volunteer utopia' or some such.

 

[mikeymikec]

Hum:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

[dank69]

...

By the number of sovereigns there are in the world. If there were just one sovereign, then that would be ~99% tyranny. If everyone were sovereign, then humanity would be ~99% free.

I realize that people could still be enslaved, but there would be no central protection for it.

Do you really think that the people of Virginia would be less free if it seceded today? If you answer, then explain your answer.

Sure, if they seceded today they would be more free at that moment. If they immediately implemented voter ID laws they would instantly be less free than if they had stayed a part of the union. If they outlawed gay marriage, they would be less free. It is actually easier for a state to restrict your freedoms than it is for the feds to do so.

 

[Anarchist420]

If they outlawed gay marriage, they would be less free.

I don't think that a State that seceded without joining another union would become more authoritarian.

The spirit of liberty would be flowing through the people if secession and independence was on their mind.

 

[dank69]

I don't think that a State that seceded without joining another union would become more authoritarian.

The spirit of liberty would be flowing through the people if secession and independence was on their mind.

Is that what happened in Egypt when the spirit of liberty was flowing through them?

 

[Anarchist420]

Is that what happened in Egypt when the spirit of liberty was flowing through them?

Egyptians are a different people the vast majority of whom are rooted in an Islamic culture. The Copts want to secede.

The U.S. govt has also wielded significant power and influence in the region.

 

[dank69]

Egyptians are a different people the vast majority of whom are rooted in an Islamic culture. The Copts want to secede.

The U.S. govt has also wielded significant power and influence in the region.

I love that argument: "The people are different."

The vast majority of people from Virginia are rooted in bastardized forms of Christian culture that love to use the power of government to oppress the people that God hates, like fags and brown people.

Your problem is that you think you understand herd mentality (sheeple) but you really don't. You think people that ignore things that don't effect them equals herd mentality. Herd mentality is when someone does something they normally would not do simply because the majority of people are doing it. The federal government actually provides all of us greater protection from herd mentality, because it increases the size a "herd" needs to become before it can force its will on you.

Look how long it is taking for us to overcome SSM discrimination. That is the way any change should work. Look how easy it is for single states to pass laws banning SSM. That is the utopia you want.

 

[Anarchist420]

That is the utopia you want.

You and Craig need to cut the "utopia" bullshit. Utopia doesn't exist and I realize that. What I want is the freedom to do as I choose as long as I don't aggress against anyone else.

The vast majority of people from Virginia are rooted in bastardized forms of Christian culture that love to use the power of government to oppress the people that God hates, like fags and brown people.

No. It's easier to educate a small group of people than it is to abolish centralism. Second, regions within VA can secede from VA and it would be much easier to do so without a central govt.

The federal government actually provides all of us greater protection from herd mentality, because it increases the size a "herd" needs to become before it can force its will on you.

The federal govt, like all govts, are run by the elites and they can just as easily impose their will on us. The Federal govt didn't do away with eugenics programs. They disproportionately wage a war on drugs against blacks.

Look how long it is taking for us to overcome SSM discrimination.

It's being overcome. It just takes time as does any movement. I could also say "look at how long it took for people to oppose intervention in a foreign country."

Let me remind you that the States in support of SSM could secede but if all they want is SSM while wanting to stay in the Union, then they don't really care about liberty either.

 

[thraashman]

Because I want one. That should be reason enough in a free country.

I don't see why you need a vehicle with such poor mpg.
I don't see why you need a 16-ounce soft drink.
I don't see why you need [insert item here].

Such as gun classes in schools? Teach kids at an early age how to safely use a firearm. Also, some actual shooting classes would even help the gangbangers hit where they're aiming instead of hitting innocent bystanders.

If we're going to have mandatory classes before citizens are allowed to exercise their fundamental right that shall not be infringed, it's only fair we also have mandatory classes on how to vote for the right person.

By your logic if a citizen wants a nuclear missile and is capable of acquiring one he should be allowed to have it. Also, fundamental right that shall not be infringed that is based on membership in a militia according to how that amendment was written.

 

[dank69]

You and Craig need to cut the "utopia" bullshit. Utopia doesn't exist and I realize that. What I want is the freedom to do as I choose as long as I don't aggress against anyone else.

No, you want the freedom to not have to pay taxes.

No. It's easier to educate a small group of people than it is to abolish centralism.

First of all, it isn't easy to educate anyone, especially when a majority of people don't want to be educated. Secondly, it is difficult to abolish centralism because there isn't a valid argument for abolishing it.

Second, regions within VA can secede from VA and it would be much easier to do so without a central govt.

All the additional secession will get you is increasingly smaller herds which means it will take fewer whackos to oppress you.

The federal govt, like all govts, are run by the elites and they can just as easily impose their will on us. The Federal govt didn't do away with eugenics programs. They disproportionately wage a war on drugs against blacks.

The war on drugs is coming to an end. Again, it is a slow process but it will happen. The information age has made it increasingly difficult for governments to pull the wool over our eyes like it did with the war on drugs.

It's being overcome. It just takes time as does any movement. I could also say "look at how long it took for people to oppose intervention in a foreign country."

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, but it seems like you are agreeing with me on the first part.

Let me remind you that the States in support of SSM could secede but if all they want is SSM while wanting to stay in the Union, then they don't really care about liberty either.

That is your opinion only because you believe that taxes equal tyranny, which it does not. You are free to go somewhere where you don't have to pay taxes.

 

[Anarchist420]

All the additional secession will get you is increasingly smaller herds which means it will take fewer whackos to oppress you.

It takes resources to oppress people and if they can't force the resources out of 300 mn people, then it wouldn't be any more difficult.

Do you honestly think slavery would've continued without U.S. govt protection? I mean, the framers put the protections for slavery into the Constitution for a reason.

 

[dank69]

It takes resources to oppress people and if they can't force the resources out of 300 mn people, then it wouldn't be any more difficult.

It doesn't take resources to oppress you.

Do you honestly think slavery would've continued without U.S. govt protection? I mean, the framers put the protections for slavery into the Constitution for a reason.

Slavery continued for thousands of years until government intervention stepped in. Hell, sex slavery still exists.

 

[Anarchist420]

It doesn't take resources to oppress you.

That's rude. Is it necessary to personally attack me? I'm just wondering.

Don't you think that there were costs for the slaveowners and everyone else to maintain slavery?

Slavery continued for thousands of years until government intervention stepped in. Hell, sex slavery still exists.

The powerful govt of today doesn't stop sex slavery does it?

Also, govt intervention continued slavery in America.

 

[dank69]

That's rude. Is it necessary to personally attack me? I'm just wondering.

/facepalm

Not "you" as in "you personally." I meant "you" as in "people in general."

Don't you think that there were costs for the slaveowners and everyone else to maintain slavery?

As opposed to paying them?

The powerful govt of today doesn't stop sex slavery does it?

Also, govt intervention continued slavery in America.

These arguments don't support your position.

 

[Anarchist420]

I request that the mods just close this thread since it's gotten so derailed and since I'm apparently so stupid.

I'll appreciate it. I hate myself. I f***ing HATE myself.

 

[schneiderguy]

Also, fundamental right that shall not be infringed that is based on membership in a militia according to how that amendment was written.

I'm part of the militia.

 

[schneiderguy]

I support what I refer to as "intelligent gun control".

I also don't see why a standard citizen needs an assault style weapon.

If your gun control is so "intelligent", then please explain what an "assault style weapon" is and how they're more dangerous than a regular weapon.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think that a State that seceded without joining another union would become more authoritarian.

Based on what?

States have often wanted to restrict freedoms the federal government protected.

It can go either way. Sometimes states will want more freedom than the federl government, sometimes less.

And 'freedom' isn't some magical good that's always good to increase. How about the freedom to privatize all the beaches? The freedom to pollute and destroy mountains?

The spirit of liberty would be flowing through the people if secession and independence was on their mind.

Again history challenges your utopian idea.

Again and again in history when the people have opposed one tyranny, it's been replaced with a much less than ideal substitute.

Sometimes, it ends up being a net improvement; sometimes not.

Some improvements are cases like the US and France (eventually). Some not so good examples are cases like England's regecide of Charles I and the USSR and China's Mao.

Take Cambodia - and the rise in the vacuum of power not of a wonderful 'freedom' but of the brutal Pol Pot. That's the picture of what you advocate. Who was to stop him?

Sometimes it's mixed; take Cuba. Castro ended some tyranny and caused some others.

 

[Anarchist420]

I asked the mods to close this thread, but no one ever grants my requests.

I'm rejected by everyone I care about. I just wish I could obtain some cyanide or some barbituates. There is no good I can offer the world.

Based on what?

States have often wanted to restrict freedoms the federal government protected.

It can go either way. Sometimes states will want more freedom than the federl government, sometimes less.

And 'freedom' isn't some magical good that's always good to increase. How about the freedom to privatize all the beaches? The freedom to pollute and destroy mountains?



Again history challenges your utopian idea.

Again and again in history when the people have opposed one tyranny, it's been replaced with a much less than ideal substitute.

Sometimes, it ends up being a net improvement; sometimes not.

Some improvements are cases like the US and France (eventually). Some not so good examples are cases like England's regecide of Charles I and the USSR and China's Mao.

Take Cambodia - and the rise in the vacuum of power not of a wonderful 'freedom' but of the brutal Pol Pot. That's the picture of what you advocate. Who was to stop him?

Sometimes it's mixed; take Cuba. Castro ended some tyranny and caused some others.

I'm too stupid to debate you it's the same thing over and over again. I don't contain any original thought.

 

[dank69]

I request that the mods just close this thread since it's gotten so derailed and since I'm apparently so stupid.

I'll appreciate it. I hate myself. I f***ing HATE myself.

You aren't stupid. You know more about American History than I'll ever know.

 

[woolfe9998]

I asked the mods to close this thread, but no one ever grants my requests.

I'm rejected by everyone I care about. I just wish I could obtain some cyanide or some barbituates. There is no good I can offer the world.

I'm too stupid to debate you it's the same thing over and over again. I don't contain any original thought.

FWIW, I don't find you to be stupid. You're intellectually curious, which is good, especially for someone your age. However, you need to think more independently rather than just sticking to ideologically rigid positions. That is probably why you get criticized so often. That and some of us can be quite harsh. It is, after all, the internet.

Don't get so down on yourself. Go outdoors and enjoy life. I wish I was still, what 22 years old? Lots of life ahead of you.

 

[OGOC]

First of all, it's lazy and dishonest to say someone 'doesn't like wealthy people' when it misrepresents their views.

Don't talk to me about dishonest after your "you're doing a drive by lie" bullshit to me.

Yes, misguided. You can get a 2 liter soda at the market. You can get ten 16 ounce sodas and have 160 ounces to drink. You're worried about a mild measure that will be a big help on health issues, while you ignore actual issues of freedom that matter, that threaten your wealth and power and the functioning of our democracy. That's a misguided idea of freedom. "I want a bigger soda!!!!"

I don't ignore the other freedom issues. That's just you being dishonest and lying again. And what I also don't ignore is when someone such as yourself can't even get the freedom for soda right. Sure, you're such a big lover of freedom, yet you won't even let me have a Big Gulp.

Like I said, you don't seem very familiar with his positions.

I would be if he had actually said those positions in this thread. But he did not. You've just been arguing with him about his past claimed positions and then admonishing me for not knowing his history that wasn't mentioned in this thread. And I thought this thread was supposed to be about firearms, anyway.

The removal of personal guns for protection was not beign discussed.

Looks to me like that's the thread topic.