It just gets better and better for gun owners

[Collector1337]

I'm not addressing the argument about whether to be prepared or not. I'm addressing the strange claims that both you and Seth make that statistics on the subject don't matter. Of course they do. And you accept they matter by realising that isolationism in the face of an infinitesimally small threat is just silly.

Isolationism for the most part is impractical. Owning a small metal object is not only practical, but very easy.

Something might have a low probability of happening, but the consequences of not being prepared should also be taken into consideration. My chances of getting mugged may be very low, but on the small chance that it does happen, the first thing I'm going to be thinking is, "Fuck, I wish I had my Glock." Because the consequences, possible death, are so great. When I drive, I certainly don't get into a car crash every time, but I'm still going to wear my seat belt, because if I don't I could die.

Being prepared isn't only preparing for what is likely, it's also being prepared for what is unlikely, especially since what is unlikely will often have much dire consequences.

WTF?!? Can you not read?? I just explained that it's a trade off between pros and cons. I never said that we are crimeless utopias. That's a strawman.

I know. That's the difference. I disagree with the side of the trade off that you have chosen. I think the pros of firearm ownership far outweigh the cons. Many of the cons of firearm ownership can easily be mitigated, thus many no longer making the list of cons.

Inversely, the list of cons of being prohibited from firearm ownership is very long, and the list of pros being very short.

And none of those places would allow me to enjoy one of my favorite hobbies.

You can enjoy sports shooting here in Australia. You just can't do it with certain guns,

Completely unacceptable.

and you have to operate under stricter regulations.

No. Fuck that shit. The regulations here are already too strict. I can only imagine what other asinine hoops some pussy country would make me jump through.

I understand your logic. It's just stupid. I prefer to rely on myself, not others. Waiting for the police to show up simply isn't good enough for my standards. Being dependent on others when you don't have to is just plain idiocy.

You clearly don't understand the logic of weighing up pros and cons and risk analysis. The logic is sound, as we have lower crime than you lot have over there.

I understand it just fine. I have done the same and reached the opposite conclusion.

Crime rate isn't my primary concern.

I think you non-Americans are somewhat ignorant of what crime here is really like, especially considering how often times it is condensed down to "gun murders."

You make it sound like America is anarchy and riddled with crime. In reality, many of these "gun murders" are happening in inner cities with gang bangers shooting each other. While the vast majority of America is quite peaceful. I could honestly give a shit if gang bangers are shooting each other. The problem comes when people who only look at stats see whatever number of shootings or "gun murders" and think "OMG look at all this gun crime" because the violence between gang bangers is obviously included in the statistics. What would really be telling, is if the inner city/gang banger crime was excluded from the numbers and then we would see how allegedly rampant all this "gun crime" really is in the rest of normal America minus the thugs.

[Collector1337]

1. Taking precautions against highly unlikely events is totally irrational.

LOL! Is this a fucking joke?

Let's all stop fastening our seat belts, getting medical checks, and locking our doors because despite the "highly unlikely" great consequences you may suffer, it's irrational because a blind man said so.

I find it quite comical and entertaining when non-clinical persons think they are the great arbiter of what is rational and what is not. You should see what real irrationality looks like, not this, "I don't agree with it, therefore it's irrational" bullshit that you, and many others here, practice.

In 1911,

In 1911, the most famous pistol in history was invented by the great John Moses Browning and is still one of the most popular pistols bought and sold today, over a century later.

a small dog was killed by a meteorite.

Probability of being victimized > being hit by meteorite.

Does that mean we should all wear steel helmets in case a meteorite hits us on the head? Of course not. Seth carrying a gas mask is really, really laughable, and reinforces my view of him as a totally irrational person. Even though he was close to a gas disaster, the odds against him ever needing that mask are astronomical.

Guy lives near huge chemical spill. Guy buys protective gear. It sits in a closet.

Your barometer of what's rational or irrational is severely out of calibration.

By far the best method of defending themselves against felons is to get rid of the bloody guns.

Wrong. The best method is to shoot them.

Especially hand guns.

But carrying a rifle around would get cumbersome and you'd lose your tactical advantage of concealment.

Whenever guns are made more readily available, the ones to take them up with greatest enthusiasm are the criminals and the violent people.

Citation needed.

Make hand guns available, and you are arming criminals, far more than arming non criminals.

Wrong. Non-criminals outnumber criminals. Non-criminals minus non-gun owning non-criminals still outnumber criminals, at least in America.

Your thoughts are not supported by reality. That's telling considering it's coming from the arbiter of rationality.

Simply having a gun at home in the USA doubles your chance of being murdered, so it is hardly an asset for self defence.

Citation needed.

[Seth]

Trouble is, you think that you still need to be a figure from history...

Um...the Ukrainians in Debaltseve and the Crimea would, I think, disagree, as would the Kurds in Turkey and Syria and the residents of various villages in Central Africa.

[Blind groper]

To Collector and Seth

The reason you have such a warped and ridiculous view is that you do not see things in terms of statistics and probability.

The New England Journal of Medicine found that simply owning a gun doubled your risk of being murdered. Harvard University found that nations with fewer guns had fewer murders. Boston University found that American states with fewer guns had a lower murder rate (also found by Harvard independently). The University of Chicago found that the past few decades, in which murder rates have dropped in the USA coincided with a reduction in the number of people who owned guns.

There is heaps of statistical evidence showing that people are safer when people with guns are few and far between.

[Seth]

That's fine. However, we're looking at this from a society-wide perspective. If everyone carried a gas mask etc with them, there's no problem at all to society. But guns are a different story. They have a negative impact on society. That's the point we are making.

And I have been making the point that they have a positive impact on society that grossly outweighs the negative impacts. Your problem, and BG's is that you focus on one negative impact: "handgun murders" while ignoring the positive impacts on personal safety of the vast, vast majority of citizens, both those who choose to be armed and those who do not.

Your reasoning is also fallacious because you fail to distinguish between the peaceable, lawful possession of handguns (or guns in general) and the criminal use of firearms. The fact that I carry a gun is a net positive impact to society because I do so peaceably and lawfully and therefore my gun is no greater danger to the public than is a five gallon bucket, a bathtub or an automobile, all of which cause more deaths than my handgun ever has.

You ignore the relative risks of common objects that cause death, both accidentally and by design, that kill as many or more people than firearms do because you insist that they have some "purpose" or "intent" that is different from that of firearms. But this is not only not true, it's utterly irrelevant. An inanimate object is inanimate and cannot do anything without being operated by a human being. Inanimate objects have no "purpose" at all, they merely have functions. To what purpose they can or may be put depends on their operators.

There is no logic whatsoever in seeking a ban on one inanimate object that can be used to cause death while ignoring completely another inanimate object that can also cause death, and in fact causes death and injury at a much higher rate. Distinguishing handguns from automobiles is a political and emotional division, not a logical or rational one.

While it is true that handguns are used to commit crimes, it is also true that handguns are used to thwart and prevent crimes. Even if it were a one-to-one ratio of criminal uses to lawful self defense uses (which it's not...it's more like 300 to 1 in favor of self defense) it would not be rational to ban handguns. The only circumstances under which it would be rational to ban any weapon, including nukes, is if the sole and only use to which the weapon can be put by individuals is an unlawful one.

And that is why WMD's are excluded from the protections of the 2nd Amendment. As area-weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately, a class that includes bombs, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, there is no legitimate individual self-defense function of such weapons. But this is absolutely not true of firearms, which are used lawfully with great discrimination and care to prevent a particular crime or unlawful injury.

That they may also be used to lawlessly inflict injury or death does not detract from their authorized function of lawful self-defense, and therefore it is not reasonable or rational to ban such weapons for use by law-abiding citizens using them in lawful manners. It makes no more sense to do so than to ban automobiles because drunk drivers use them to kill.

As you well know, what he means is that we don't feel the need to defend ourselves as we find the risk structure appropriate in our society. Nothing is guaranteed in life. It's about weighing up pros and cons. In Australia, you are very unlikely to be murdered. The pros of guns, in our view, wouldn't outweigh the cons. This isn't difficult logic we are trying to get across here.

And nobody is criticizing your analysis of that risk and your decision to go about unarmed. You have that right. But what you do not have, and what even your government does not have, is the authority to make that decision for any other person.

Yeah, they do, as very few people in Australia want expanded gun rights.

No, they don't.

The vast majority of the people want the gun regime we have to remain.

If the vast majority of people want you crucified and burned to death, is that okay with you as well? Democracy doesn't apply to fundamental individual human rights. Those rights exist and may be defended against intrusion justly and lawfully even if all but one person in the society votes them away. Such infringements on fundamental individual rights are null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever. It doesn't matter what the majority wants, you see, when it comes to my life, or anyone else's life and our right to effectively defend our lives.

And you guys ARE criticising our risk analysis when you give the silly answer that Collector did above (basically, 100% of people who die are dead; no shit, Sherlock).

Yes, we are doing exactly that. We are not criticizing your risk analysis...for yourself. We are criticizing your risk analysis for anyone other than yourself.

When you, and through your cooperation and advocacy, your government say "we, you are infringing on the rights of every person in your country who disagrees with your risk assessment and who wishes to be armed for self defense.

Except there is no objective right to anything. Rights are set by society at large.

Only for Marxists. So I take it you have no problem with being crucified and burned to death because "society at large" deems you to be undesirable.

Once again, the right to effective self defense is not a matter for "democratic" allocation.

Once again, your attempt to substitute in religion into rational affairs is noted.

You are welcome to characterize my beliefs about fundamental rights as "religious." I'm fine with that because they are religious. But the fact that I hold those rights as "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group" or "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience" does not make those beliefs either irrational or incorrect.

[Seth]

To Collector and Seth

The reason you have such a warped and ridiculous view is that you do not see things in terms of statistics and probability.

That's because statistics and probability have nothing whatever to do with fundamental individual rights, therefore your arguments are non sequitur.

The New England Journal of Medicine found that simply owning a gun doubled your risk of being murdered.

They are wrong, but supposing for a moment, arguendo, they are correct, that's none of your or the NEJM's business. If I choose to accept that risk, that is my risk to accept, and nothing whatever gives you, the NEJM or the government the right to interfere in that decision.

Harvard University found that nations with fewer guns had fewer murders.

I don't care what's true in other nations, I only care what's true for my personal safety. You have no right to infringe on my right to personal safety merely because you think somebody else, somewhere else, has a lesser risk of being murdered if you do.

Boston University found that American states with fewer guns had a lower murder rate (also found by Harvard independently).

This is an absolute lie.

The University of Chicago found that the past few decades, in which murder rates have dropped in the USA coincided with a reduction in the number of people who owned guns.

Correlation, not causation.

There is heaps of statistical evidence showing that people are safer when people with guns are few and far between.

Thing is, it's not up to you to allocate my right to effective self defense based on a statistical analysis of any sort. My right is complete, plenary and absolute and nobody, not you, not your government, not my government and not the UN has the right to infringe on that plenary right even to the smallest degree because it might benefit someone else, or even society as a whole, for me to be disarmed and left to be a helpless victim in the face of criminality.

Your personal sense of safety and security is your problem, not mine, and you're not going to interfere with my rights because you have a paranoid fear of law-abiding citizens with guns.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

That's because statistics and probability have nothing whatever to do with fundamental individual rights, therefore your arguments are non sequitur.

But they have everything to do with a cool, rational assessment as to whether it is better for society as a whole to have guns available to anyone, or whether it is better to have restrictions.

You can worship at the shrine of "individual rights" as much as you like, just don't expect the civilised world to pay you any attention...

[Seth]

Two things.

1. Taking precautions against highly unlikely events is totally irrational. In 1911, a small dog was killed by a meteorite. Does that mean we should all wear steel helmets in case a meteorite hits us on the head?

Of course we should not "all" be required to wear helmets, but then again no one is demanding that YOU carry a gun. God forbid. But if I want to wear a helmet to avoid meteorite impact, what the fuck business is it of yours?

Of course not. Seth carrying a gas mask is really, really laughable, and reinforces my view of him as a totally irrational person. Even though he was close to a gas disaster, the odds against him ever needing that mask are astronomical.

Unfortunately they aren't as "astronomical" as you might think, in your gross ignorance of the hazards you face every day you live. Just a couple of years ago a tank car on a track less than 1000 feet from my house leaked acid for miles. The leak was fortunately small, and the tank car was parked on a siding about a mile and a half away from where I live and it sat there for a week emitting fumes that could be detected at my house. The risks at that point were small as the distance and dilution made the fumes non-hazardous. However, if the same tank car had derailed and ruptured near my house, a full-face respirator with the proper filter would have very likely saved my life. My risk analysis is quite sound, even according to the Director of the county EOC and the instructors who taught the various hazardous materials response courses I've taken in my lifetime. I've related the story to them and gotten nothing but compliments and admiration for my level of preparedness.

That you think such precautions are "laughable" just goes to demonstrate how fatally fucking ignorant you are of what's going on around you.

2. The perceived need Americans have for guns to defend themselves is self generated.

So what? So long as we law-abiding citizens don't misuse our guns while we carry them for self defense it's nobody's business but ours.

By far the best method of defending themselves against felons is to get rid of the bloody guns. Especially hand guns.

Impossible utopian nonsense, even in your own country.

Whenever guns are made more readily available, the ones to take them up with greatest enthusiasm are the criminals and the violent people.

Um, no. Less than four ten-thousandth of one percent of all guns in the US are EVER used by a criminal. Ninety-nine point nine nine nine six percent of firearms are "taken up with great enthusiasm" by law abiding citizens who never, ever use them for anything even remotely illegal.

Make hand guns available, and you are arming criminals, far more than arming non criminals.

You lie.

Simply having a gun at home in the USA doubles your chance of being murdered, so it is hardly an asset for self defence.

Even if true, which it's not, that's not your decision to make.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

That's because statistics and probability have nothing whatever to do with fundamental individual rights, therefore your arguments are non sequitur.

But they have everything to do with a cool, rational assessment as to whether it is better for society as a whole to have guns available to anyone, or whether it is better to have restrictions.

Society doesn't get to turn me into a helpless victim because some fuckwit paranoid hoplophobe is afraid of guns.

You can worship at the shrine of "individual rights" as much as you like, just don't expect the civilised world to pay you any attention...

I don't care what the slaves of the world think. They are slaves, and their opinions don't matter at all.

[Collector1337]

Seth wrote:

That's because statistics and probability have nothing whatever to do with fundamental individual rights, therefore your arguments are non sequitur.

But they have everything to do with a cool, rational assessment as to whether it is better for society as a whole to have guns available to anyone, or whether it is better to have restrictions.

You can worship at the shrine of "individual rights" as much as you like, just don't expect the civilised world to pay you any attention...

You lost me the second you said, "better for society."

This whole, "do what we say because it's what's best for society" bullshit absolutely sickens me.

You can worship at the shrine of "what's best for society" all you like, but don't expect me, or any independent thinkers, especially freedom loving ones, to give a shit about the clueless sheep who live sheltered lives, trying to tell me what's best for me. I'll decide that for myself.

I have the privilege of dealing with people who have been seriously victimized and civilized society sure as fuck didn't do anything to save them.

From my life experiences and from academic study, I have learned that there are two basic ways to approach life. Many people approach life passively, as if watching life happen to them instead of them being in actor in life. These are the sheep. These are the pussy, pantywaist, beta males who look to others for help and survival. These are the followers, not the leaders. Then, there are the people who take life by the balls and are in control of their own life. They are motivated and take risks as to reap the rewards.

You can be a sheep who is dependent on others instead of taking control of their own life and rationalize it by saying it's for the greater good of society all you like, but don't expect to take me down with you. I'm not going to sit around hoping nothing bad happens to me and if it does, hope someone comes in time to save me. I'm going to do what's best for me and protecting myself. If more people had this attitude, THAT is what would make for a better society. Natural Selection would run its course making a better society for it. This idea to make everyone a dependent sheep is the downfall of society, not the advancement of it.

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

[Hermit]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

[pErvinalia]

Seth wrote:

That's because statistics and probability have nothing whatever to do with fundamental individual rights, therefore your arguments are non sequitur.

But they have everything to do with a cool, rational assessment as to whether it is better for society as a whole to have guns available to anyone, or whether it is better to have restrictions.

You can worship at the shrine of "individual rights" as much as you like, just don't expect the civilised world to pay you any attention...

You lost me the second you said, "better for society."

This whole, "do what we say because it's what's best for society" bullshit absolutely sickens me.

You can worship at the shrine of "what's best for society" all you like, but don't expect me, or any independent thinkers, especially freedom loving ones, to give a shit about the clueless sheep who live sheltered lives, trying to tell me what's best for me. I'll decide that for myself.

I have the privilege of dealing with people who have been seriously victimized and civilized society sure as fuck didn't do anything to save them.

From my life experiences and from academic study, I have learned that there are two basic ways to approach life. Many people approach life passively, as if watching life happen to them instead of them being in actor in life. These are the sheep. These are the pussy, pantywaist, beta males who look to others for help and survival. These are the followers, not the leaders. Then, there are the people who take life by the balls and are in control of their own life. They are motivated and take risks as to reap the rewards.

You can be a sheep who is dependent on others instead of taking control of their own life and rationalize it by saying it's for the greater good of society all you like, but don't expect to take me down with you. I'm not going to sit around hoping nothing bad happens to me and if it does, hope someone comes in time to save me. I'm going to do what's best for me and protecting myself. If more people had this attitude, THAT is what would make for a better society. Natural Selection would run its course making a better society for it. This idea to make everyone a dependent sheep is the downfall of society, not the advancement of it.

Were you stroking your cock as you wrote that?

[Hermit]

No. He was stroking Seth's.

[pErvinalia]

[Seth]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Mine too. And it's an opinion that we are prepared to enforce with extreme prejudice against those who would try to force their opinions on us.

Remember that.