Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 52 of 52
  1. #41
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Westford, MA
    Posts
    197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    A toolmaker generally does not concern themselves greatly with what their tool is actually put to use for. They are interested in making it effective at its intended task and sometimes in making it beautiful. A gunsmith likely does not want their gun to be used to kill anyone, but they do want it to be able to kill someone quite effectively if put to use.
    You claim that a gun is designed for killing. Yet, you agree that the gun maker doesn't concern himself with the uses of their tool.

    So, if a gun maker isn't concerned with the killing and, as you appear to agree, doesn't focus his designs in that direction, then how is it possible they are designed for killing? Who is doing that designing, if not the gunsmith that you've admitted generally doesn't concern himself with what his creations are used for?

    I fail to see how your argument retains coherence.
    "... freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own." -- John Locke, Second Treatise on Government

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Gun & design

    Guns & bullets are designed to strike a target at range to effect. Hammers are designed to deliver force to an area. Knives are designed to slice and pierce.

    Everything else is application. Is an AR-15 designed to kill a person, or punch holes in paper targets in a small pattern at 100 yrds?
    I have used mine for the later much more than the former. .. .and it's darn fun. Better than a ticket to six flags.
    To serve man.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,718
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Squatch

    No doubt you know far more about it than I, but in reading the same article I came away with a different message.
    That is a good point, I definitely should not imply that there is no debate on what rounds are most effective given a variety of factors. GSG uses different weapons than Delta, who uses different weapons than the SEALs, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig
    If you really want a non lethal round you use beanbag guns or rubber bullets or other non-penetrating rounds. I didn't see anything in the article stating that anyone intended the bullet to be less lethal.
    That is the assumption that lethality is the primary metric. Their intent isn't to make the round more or less lethal, lethality is a by-product of the round's main purpose, incapacitating your opponent. Killing is a method towards that goal. So is incapacitation, stun and deterrence. Again to make the military analogy, I don't necessarily need to close with and kill an enemy fighting force to win. I can displace them, demoralize them, etc.

    I think really the disagreement here is a disagreement between goals and methods. Killing is a method, not a goal. The goal is to impart one's will upon whomever the target is. In the military it is often killing. But if you could design a round that had perfect ballistics, was half the weigh of current rounds, was one third the cost, and stunned its target until "reactivated" do you think the military would adopt it? I think they would for sure, because killing isn't necessarily the goal.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by wakko View Post
    You claim that a gun is designed for killing. Yet, you agree that the gun maker doesn't concern himself with the uses of their tool.

    So, if a gun maker isn't concerned with the killing and, as you appear to agree, doesn't focus his designs in that direction, then how is it possible they are designed for killing? Who is doing that designing, if not the gunsmith that you've admitted generally doesn't concern himself with what his creations are used for?

    I fail to see how your argument retains coherence.
    You misunderstand my intent. When I say the designer is not concerned to what purpose his tool is put, I mean if it is used or where it is used. It is designed to be a good tool for that use none the less. So the gun maker who made the guns used in the recent shooting did not intend for children do die, but he made it good at killing so when someone decided to use it on children it worked well.

    The distinction here is between the function of a tool, and the specific use to which it is employed. A shovel digs dirt, you might dig a grave, you might dig a latrine, you might dig a post hole. The shovel designer doesn't care so long as it is good for digging.

    He is not responsible for how it was used, its specific end was not his intent. But its general purpose is well understood and well designed for. Those guns were made to kill, and kill they did. That is the sober fact of the matter. It is not evil or good it is a tool.

    A designer may feel remorse at what his tool eventually ended up being used for, but it is not honestly his responsibility as it could as easily have been used for something noble.

    While its a debate board and we all come to argue, this seems a strange topic to try and defend.

    ---------- Post added at 10:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Gun & design

    Guns & bullets are designed to strike a target at range to effect. Hammers are designed to deliver force to an area. Knives are designed to slice and pierce.

    Everything else is application. Is an AR-15 designed to kill a person, or punch holes in paper targets in a small pattern at 100 yrds?
    I have used mine for the later much more than the former. .. .and it's darn fun. Better than a ticket to six flags.
    Sure, and certainly guns have been put to those uses. But If I sold a gun that was great for shooting paper targets, but didn't even phase someone being shot with them, then no military man, hunter, or home defender would have any interest in such a thing. It would be ridiculed as a useless weapon, a mere toy rather than a tool.

    What makes a gun a weapon is its ability to kill. I've already noted there are specialized guns that are not for killing. Pellet guns and paintbal makers are of course for sport only, but no one is really thinking about regulating those are they? They are really only interested in having a go at guns that kill and do it in volume and with relative ease.

    I appreciate the finer points but the central thesis that guns are designed for killing is pretty silly to have a go at. Not that I fault folks for trying, its a debate board after all.

    ---------- Post added at 10:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is the assumption that lethality is the primary metric. Their intent isn't to make the round more or less lethal, lethality is a by-product of the round's main purpose, incapacitating your opponent. Killing is a method towards that goal. So is incapacitation, stun and deterrence. Again to make the military analogy, I don't necessarily need to close with and kill an enemy fighting force to win. I can displace them, demoralize them, etc.

    I think really the disagreement here is a disagreement between goals and methods. Killing is a method, not a goal. The goal is to impart one's will upon whomever the target is. In the military it is often killing. But if you could design a round that had perfect ballistics, was half the weigh of current rounds, was one third the cost, and stunned its target until "reactivated" do you think the military would adopt it? I think they would for sure, because killing isn't necessarily the goal.
    I'll give a bit of ground here. I will agree that if somehow we had a weapon that would reliably knock someone out until the end of a conflict, then that would probably be favored over killing a person. And for law enforcement we have some weapons like that, but they are very limited in range and application. The way guns end disagreements is by killing people and the lethal of them is really one of their key selling points. The way they "stop conflict" is to kill people. And I put that in quotes because you can use a gun to start a conflict as easy as to stop one. Heck it can do both in one trigger pull.

    When it comes to gun legislation if guns didn't kill people they we wouldn't really be discussing them would we?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Sure, and certainly guns have been put to those uses. But If I sold a gun that was great for shooting paper targets, but didn't even phase someone being shot with them, then no military man, hunter, or home defender would have any interest in such a thing. It would be ridiculed as a useless weapon, a mere toy rather than a tool.
    Really.. you mean like a BB gun?

    How about a paper target 2 miles away? I challenge you to even imagine a round that could consistently hit a target 100yds away and not phase a person who was struck by it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What makes a gun a weapon is its ability to kill. I've already noted there are specialized guns that are not for killing. Pellet guns and paintbal makers are of course for sport only, but no one is really thinking about regulating those are they? They are really only interested in having a go at guns that kill and do it in volume and with relative ease.
    I agree but honestly, you can't really separate the ability to kill with the ability to hit a target accurately and consistently. If I wanted to make a bullet that would hit a target accurately and consistently at 100yds it would look a lot like .223 (If I were so brilliant)
    The debate on the best way to do it would create several different rounds as there is no clear cut answer.

    As to ability to kill, that is actually not the major factor for the military. There are many rounds much more proficient at killing than the .223
    In fact, the .223 round is best at wounding, not that it doesn't kill or can't.



    The video shows the difference in rounds. The point is to show that in regards to "ability to kill" the 7.62x39 (a .308 comparable and which is a bigger round than the .223) in comparison to actual hunting rounds.

    You know who is looking to kill things? Hunters. They do not hunt with .223 rounds (generally) and though some have hunted with the .308 most would laugh if you brought it to hunt a deer.

    Now, you may be tempted to say that I have changed from talking about a gun, to talking about rounds. The gun is a delivery system for a round that is it's purpose and design. Guns are not designed to be aimed at a person, because they work just fine aimed at anything at all. If you want to see what a gun is not designed for, then try to stick a 50cal round into a BB gun. I believe you will quickly realize the effect of design. Objections to the overall gun design, rate of fire, accuracy etc are factors that can make it deadly, but no one is discussing any gun that has such a specific design. Such as the simi-auto feature that isn't to "kill" it is to allow for easy cycling of rounds. If you have shot a bolt action or a pump for any length of time, you would appreciate that design. As such, it has an effect on killing ability, but it isn't "designed" for killing, nor a design who's aim is to kill.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I appreciate the finer points but the central thesis that guns are designed for killing is pretty silly to have a go at. Not that I fault folks for trying, its a debate board after all.
    I do contest it. Because in regards to the ability to kill a 150lb person, it simply isn't very good. If anything it is designed to "wound".
    From then on it is application and delivery. The gun is designed to be accurate.


    So, no.. I'm not accepting the "designed to kill" argument. That something is "used to kill" does not mean it was designed to kill.
    To serve man.

  6. #46
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,718
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post

    When it comes to gun legislation if guns didn't kill people they we wouldn't really be discussing them would we?
    Its a starting point if we can agree that a gun has more purposes than just killing people. Now that we can reject that claim, which is all too often used hysterically by some (not you) gun control proponents, we can defend access to firearms from a wider array of position.

    IE, Guns also serve the purpose of deterrence, admiration (or sometimes art), recreation, etc.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #47
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Really.. you mean like a BB gun?
    Yes, that would qualify as a toy rather than a weapon. That is why you used to buy them in toy stores.

    How about a paper target 2 miles away? I challenge you to even imagine a round that could consistently hit a target 100yds away and not phase a person who was struck by it.
    You lack imagination in this case. A laser photon "round" could easily mark a photo-sensitive target 100 yards away and not do any harm to a person (aside from some small risk of blinding them if you hit them directly in the eye with it). Lasers have a long history in play target shooting and in play combat.

    I agree but honestly, you can't really separate the ability to kill with the ability to hit a target accurately and consistently. If I wanted to make a bullet that would hit a target accurately and consistently at 100yds it would look a lot like .223 (If I were so brilliant)
    Its a cheap, light weight bullet, much like the 5.56 which we already discussed. It is less lethal than some bullets but is still quite able to kill effectively and has the advantage of being light weight and relatively inexpensive to produce which makes it excellent for high capacity weapons like the AR-15, or the bushmaster which is one of the weapons used to kill school children at Sandy Hook elementary. So if you think those bullets aren't deadly, you should take that up with the parents of the dead kids there they could show you evidence to the contrary I think. You could show them your videos as a counter argument if you like.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You lack imagination in this case. A laser photon "round" could easily mark a photo-sensitive target 100 yards away and not do any harm to a person (aside from some small risk of blinding them if you hit them directly in the eye with it). Lasers have a long history in play target shooting and in play combat.
    I don't lack imagination, I'm just staying consistent. I said "punch a hole in a paper target", you are talking about "marking it".
    I said "round" you changed to lazer.

    A lazer is not a bullet. If however you think that pointing a glorified flashlight at a target is some how comparable to even a BBgun target shoot, then I think you are missing the point entirely.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Its a cheap, light weight bullet, much like the 5.56 which we already discussed. It is less lethal than some bullets but is still quite able to kill effectively and has the advantage of being light weight and relatively inexpensive to produce which makes it excellent for high capacity weapons like the AR-15, or the bushmaster which is one of the weapons used to kill school children at Sandy Hook elementary. So if you think those bullets aren't deadly, you should take that up with the parents of the dead kids there they could show you evidence to the contrary I think. You could show them your videos as a counter argument if you like.
    None of those factors have to do with being "designed to kill" claim.
    Does Cheap make something more deadly? I purchased a dollar store toy gun.. very cheap. Is it more deadly than my $1200 AR-15?
    Cheap rounds, because spending 30c more per round to get a 30-06 round is just too much of a financial commitment for a person about to kill themselves?

    You have mistaken my argument to be that the round is not deadly, I argued that it is not "designed" to be deadly.
    I point to the scale of deadliness as represented by other rounds, that it is in fact on the low end of the scale.
    the .308 round is deadlier, and the other rounds exponentially so. The guns that deliver them could have done the same job, yet are not targeted.

    So the targeting of this round or the guns that deliver it are arbitrary and not fact based at all.
    To serve man.

  9. #49
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'm reading them but clearly not understanding them. Can you give me a concrete example of what you mean. What would a government do in this vision of yours?
    Quote Originally Posted by Henry Thoreau, Civil Disobedience
    The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well—is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis for the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embracing it, for fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
    This is the last paragraph of Thoreau's famous essay.
    All persons whom are born equally free and independent do hereby establish The Common Law Republic whose purpose it is to ensure individual sovereignty, the right of freedom and to protect the property and privacy of all people.
    Neither this nor any other government shall have the inherent right to exist; government shall only exist if consented to do so by all of the people who shall exist under said governments.
    Considering that the concept of race is of human construct, neither the following nor any law established in its name shall take any division of race or ethnicity into account when determining the merits of said laws or any amendments which may follow; this being said, all members of the human species shall be recognized as “persons” and/or “people” under the law.
    This my creation, this is the preamble to a new constitution.

    When you say something like you can choose to follow the rules or not, that doesn't sound like a government to me.
    That is the 'common law' part. Common law is unwritten law that is supposed to apply to all people; in effect, it is 'customs' or 'norms', but these are always open to revision. In mideval britain, the people held government meetings called "folkmoots", also called "people's meeting". Any and all people were allowed to participate in the hundred's folkmoot. Men, women, children, ect. They decided things like taxation, and fair land use. All of this was subject to the whims of the monarch, however, and the system broke down as the representatives to parliment and the monarch sought to gain more power over the people.
    If I make a rule that you can't poop in the lake, and then someone poops in the lake and says, hey, I don't have to follow the rules, I have personal sovereignty, that's anarchy.
    If you feel that the law against pooping in the lake is an unjust and you choose to protest this particlar "anti-lake-pooping" law then you actively seek to flout the law at all times. This is a normal response to tyranny, not anarchy.
    Whether you have some nominal state or not matters not if it doesn't have any monopoly of force to ensure its laws on both the domestic and foreign populations.
    The Common Law Republic is not the state itself. Indviduals are states, and vice versa. Through the merging of the individual and the state as levels of analysis, it becomes easier to modify current government structures to make the idividual freer. Universal citizenship and the right to be able to choose your place of residence, would make the notions of foriegn and domestic, obsolete.



    A. Don't call me a moron, its against the rules of the board to insult people.
    It was not an insult in my POV, if you choose to be offended by my posts that is your problem. We cant all be as PC as you want us to be. Being a 'moron' is not a bad thing, it is transitory state, that you should seek to get out of.

    B. I got that your saying you are not for Anarchy but as of yet everything you say, descriptively, leads me to think you are. Now perhaps you have some model in your head, but I can't see it so you will need to be descriptive and lay it out in greater detail so it is clear. So far all your statements lead me to believe that what you advocate is that people need not obey government laws if they choose not to. And that is what Anarchy is all about.
    Your misdunderstanding of my posts is not my fault. I am not an anarchist, nor am I advocating for anarchism.


    Self rule is a collective measure, not an individual initiative.
    Collectives are not individual entities, therefore cannot self-rule. Individuals are seperate from all others, individuals are independant beings. Self-rule in inherently an "individual initiative".
    We have a representative government in the US.
    Federalist 14, because it would be hard for a people to participate in a national direct democracy, without is interfering into thier personal lives. That is an obsolete argument as we now have the internet and geographic boundries are irrelevant now.
    If the people decide to change the state they change it. But it is not the case each individual gets to make their own personal choice and have it hold sway in all cases.
    Nor, did I say it did.
    Individual Sovereignty is anarchy.
    Individual Sovereignty is the recognition of the individual as the state, as the fundemental political entity. It is not the destruction of all civilization. It is not anarchy. It is LeaderFULL, not LeaderLESS. The Tea Party and the Occupyers; they are LeaderLESS, they are anarchy. They want was is best for the collective, not what is right. Socialism will never work. The individual must have freedom from other humans.
    We choose leaders who serve at our pleasure or cease at our displeasure. Even the framework of our system (the constitution) is subject to popular change.
    The tyranny of the majority.

    Fighting un-just laws is part of that process of change. It is part of the way societies operate. It is not some new idea.
    My ideas are not new either. Gandhi employed Swaraj in the early 20th century, Thoreau wrote Walden in the mid 1800's. Rosseau wrote in the 18th century.



    Rights come from people. They are formalized by governments which are made up of people. The only way you have any right is if you declare it and someone else decides to respect it. If a group/government decides to respect it then in that context you have formal rights which you can expect anyone also agreeing to be part of that group to respect.
    So I have to wait for approval for the majority before I have 'rights'? Is that correct? You beleive in original sin and that babies are evil god-less beings until they are baptized in the church. Right? I beleive that freedom is the inherent state of being. Freedom can only be taken away, not given.



    I am indeed. And rotting is far from simple. I don't aggrandize myself as immortal and immutable. I deal with the reality the world presents to us and make the best of it.
    As do I. But we live in a Quantum reality, not a Newtonian reality. Reality is not always what is seems. Faith is neccesary.

  10. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by HCabret View Post
    This is the last paragraph of Thoreau's famous essay.
    This my creation, this is the preamble to a new constitution.
    It isn't really that different from what the founders of the US constitution envisioned (excepting the race element to which they were shamefully resigned). Not many understand that the US constitution declares rights not only for US citizens but for all people. Jurisdiction tends to keep us from doing much about that, but foreign citizens on US territory get the same rights as US citizens do. That isn't really germane to your argument but its something I point out to folks often in other debates. (It does piss me off we use the "territory" argument to justify BS like Guantanamo.)

    That is the 'common law' part. Common law is unwritten law that is supposed to apply to all people; in effect, it is 'customs' or 'norms', but these are always open to revision. In mideval britain, the people held government meetings called "folkmoots", also called "people's meeting". Any and all people were allowed to participate in the hundred's folkmoot. Men, women, children, ect. They decided things like taxation, and fair land use. All of this was subject to the whims of the monarch, however, and the system broke down as the representatives to parliment and the monarch sought to gain more power over the people.
    If you feel that the law against pooping in the lake is an unjust and you choose to protest this particlar "anti-lake-pooping" law then you actively seek to flout the law at all times. This is a normal response to tyranny, not anarchy.
    I don't see how common law really changes your idea of individual sovereignty. Common law still involves judges and the state enforcing a set of rules on individuals, not treating them as "states". People making decisions that are subject to the whim of a monarch aren't self governing in any real sense.

    Its hard to see telling people not to poop in the fresh water supply as tyranny. More the tyranny of an individual who refuses reasonable cooperation for their own individual desires. While they always have that power, those who share the resource also have the power to exercise their will and stop him. When people organize together to enforce a collective will, its called government. To Govern, to make and enforce rules. If you don't enforce rules you have Anarchy.

    So either you allow lake pooping and have government, or you disallow lake pooping and you have anarchy. There is no third rail. (here lake pooping is an example of any rule making, clearly a government need not regulate all activities)

    The Common Law Republic is not the state itself. Individuals are states, and vice versa. Through the merging of the individual and the state as levels of analysis, it becomes easier to modify current government structures to make the idividual freer. Universal citizenship and the right to be able to choose your place of residence, would make the notions of foreign and domestic, obsolete.
    Your notion of what a state is is somewhat vague to me. Generally speaking the state is the political sovereign, meaning the states determination of law is what stands paramount. if an individual is sovereign/supreme as state then they make the determination of the law and if that is the case then you have Anarchy.

    You say its not Anarchy but its still totally unclear to me how this configuration of yours works. If two people disagree about something there are two possibilities. 1. There is a governing rule that applies, 2. there is not. The first is a condition of governance, the second is a condition of Anarchy.

    It was not an insult in my POV, if you choose to be offended by my posts that is your problem. We cant all be as PC as you want us to be. Being a 'moron' is not a bad thing, it is transitory state, that you should seek to get out of.
    Well, here is a lesson of sovereignty. You don't make the rules on ODN, the owner of the board does and it is enforced by agents such as myself. If we deem you to be insulting members then you will be sanctioned as such whatever your intent may be. In this case I am simply notifying you as a fellow debater, if you do it again (to me or others) then I will moderate you as a moderator. Eventually you would be banned from the site. This is a demonstration of a governing action.

    Your misdunderstanding of my posts is not my fault. I am not an anarchist, nor am I advocating for anarchism.
    It can be your fault if you are not explaining yourself well. You cant simply spout words and expect everyone will have the same understanding of them you do. If what you advocate is not anarchy, you should try explaining how it differs from anarchy, not simply repeat that it is not. What part of the definition of anarchy is not the same as the definition for individual sovereignty/statehood?

    Collectives are not individual entities, therefore cannot self-rule.
    Certainly they can, especially if they are in agreement with one another.

    Individuals are seperate from all others, individuals are independant beings.
    You should let your father and mother know you were not dependent on them. Indeed you should consider all the things you use and do that were created by other people. Any true sense of indipendence you have is an illusion. You are in fact deeply dependent upon other human beings for your survival and even your very existence.

    Federalist 14, because it would be hard for a people to participate in a national direct democracy, without is interfering into thier personal lives. That is an obsolete argument as we now have the internet and geographic boundries are irrelevant now.
    Are they really? You think the folks in china who have their internet filtered for them by the state find their geographic boundaries to be irrelevant? Were I do park my car in your driveway would you find that irrelevant? Boundaries are a fact of life, how we deal with them is open to a lot of variance but their existence is hard to ignore. They are a human creation for the most part and thus we can modify them as we choose, but they exist for reasons.

    Individual Sovereignty is the recognition of the individual as the state, as the fundemental political entity. It is not the destruction of all civilization. It is not anarchy. It is LeaderFULL, not LeaderLESS. The Tea Party and the Occupyers; they are LeaderLESS, they are anarchy. They want was is best for the collective, not what is right. Socialism will never work. The individual must have freedom from other humans. The tyranny of the majority.
    Quite a few words, but no real definitions I can hang my hat on here. How does conflict resolution work in this individuals are the state system of yours? Who is leading who and how?

    So I have to wait for approval for the majority before I have 'rights'? Is that correct?
    That is correct. Without society you have no rights nor any need of them.

    You beleive in original sin and that babies are evil god-less beings until they are baptized in the church. Right?
    No, you have me confused with someone else. I an a naturalist/atheist/humanist. I think original sin is a ridiculous notion. This is especially strange considering you already asked and responded to me about my religious views.

    I beleive that freedom is the inherent state of being. Freedom can only be taken away, not given.
    So if a bear eats you, it is violating your natural right to be free? How about when it eats a salmon? Its just silly. You have no natural rights. A man is just a living organism that inevitably will die by nature one way or another. Nature recognizes no property or right to survive nor persuit of happiness. Those are things we want and ask of our fellow human beings to respect. And if they respect them or we can make them respect them, then and only then do we have rights and it is a thing we made for ourselves, not which was granted to us by nature.

    I'd encourage you to take an extended trip alone into the wilderness and meditate on the nature of rights and what they mean in a context with no other people around.

    As do I. But we live in a Quantum reality, not a Newtonian reality. Reality is not always what is seems. Faith is neccesary.
    Faith does not require you to think that you will survive your own death, that is something you want to be true. Faith in a quantum world merely requires you not have 100% certainty to take action, not that you vest hope in things you have no evidence of.

    ---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't lack imagination, I'm just staying consistent. I said "punch a hole in a paper target", you are talking about "marking it".
    I said "round" you changed to lazer.
    "I challenge you to even imagine a round that could consistently hit a target 100yds away and not phase a person who was struck by it."

    Nothing here about making holes, you said that in an earlier post. I take liberty with the idea of a round, that is true, but a photon is indeed a thing that is transmitted and could be called a round. If you want to target shoot then you need a target and you need to aim something. A laser gun requires aiming and the target is still a target. And it has no danger of killing anyone.

    A lazer is not a bullet.
    Nor is an air pellet or BB. Metal bullets backed by significant black powder kill, that is what they are best at. It so happens to make them also good at long range target practice but a laser is even better at long range target practice and doesn't kill.

    If however you think that pointing a glorified flashlight at a target is some how comparable to even a BBgun target shoot, then I think you are missing the point entirely.
    The point is not lost on me, but its not the one you think you are making. You like the violent action of the gun, it feels powerful and exciting, and it is because it is a tool for killing. Killing gives you power and its exciting. Even a simulation of it is thrilling. I should know, I play games all the time that simulate killing in one way or another. I enjoy them greatly and would like them less if there were not about violence. I am to an extent born for violence, evolved to kill among other things. Guns are weapons designed for killing and that is part of what makes them fun. Target shooting is a simulation of killing.

    None of those factors have to do with being "designed to kill" claim.
    But they do. The Bushmaster is an effective killing machine designed for that purpose and its ammunition is part of that design. If it were designed for target practice it would have a different design. If it were designed for giving back massages it would have yet a different design. It was very effective at killing children which demonstrates just how good it can be at its job and it uses the kind of ammunition you tried to argue was not really for killing. A bunch of dead children would like to argue otherwise, that those bullets kill quite effectively.

    Does Cheap make something more deadly? I purchased a dollar store toy gun.. very cheap. Is it more deadly than my $1200 AR-15?
    No, but cheap bullets can kill cheaply. Call it an added bonus.

    You have mistaken my argument to be that the round is not deadly, I argued that it is not "designed" to be deadly.
    So you are going to argue that bullets are identically deadly?! "Oh man, I never would have thought accelerating a piece of metal at super high speeds could kill someone, I was just making it do that for the thrill of seeing it go zoom!" When bullets are tested the most common point of interest is if they are effective at killing targets. If they are not, then they are not deemed to be good bullets. A lack of lethality is almost always seen as a flaw. (rubber bullets excepted)

    I point to the scale of deadliness as represented by other rounds, that it is in fact on the low end of the scale.
    And some nuclear bombs are more powerful than others, it doesn't change the purpose of nuclear bombs in general.

    the .308 round is deadlier, and the other rounds exponentially so. The guns that deliver them could have done the same job, yet are not targeted.
    Anti-gun interests as you note are often not that well educated in how guns work. If they knew then they would likely target those weapons too. Perhaps you could help educate them as to which weapons pose the greatest public danger and help them in their mission.

    So the targeting of this round or the guns that deliver it are arbitrary and not fact based at all.
    No, not really. The Bushmaster and its ilk are designed to shoot rapidly, accurately, and in a sustained fashion and to effectively take down targets (which is generally lethal or potentially so). The chief complaint is the sustained part, and thus the large ammunition capacity is the chief target.

    No one really wants innumerate weapons, so that's not much of a target of interest. A gun that can't kill is of little interest in self defense so that is not generally a target. The speed of shooting is of interest, though harder to deal (below semi auto speed) with that and not impede self defense. Thus ammunition capacity and speed of reload is a chief aim of legislation efforts.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #51
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    "I challenge you to even imagine a round that could consistently hit a target 100yds away and not phase a person who was struck by it."

    Nothing here about making holes, you said that in an earlier post. I take liberty with the idea of a round, that is true, but a photon is indeed a thing that is transmitted and could be called a round. If you want to target shoot then you need a target and you need to aim something. A laser gun requires aiming and the target is still a target. And it has no danger of killing anyone.
    Context, if you say I lack imagination, then such a charge would have to be consistent with the conversation.
    I said the "purpose" was to put a hole in a targe 100yds away". So it should follow that that the point of "target shooting" was to do that exact thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Nor is an air pellet or BB. Metal bullets backed by significant black powder kill, that is what they are best at. It so happens to make them also good at long range target practice but a laser is even better at long range target practice and doesn't kill.
    Right, which supports the idea that the "POINT" of target shooting is to put holes in a target at distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The point is not lost on me, but its not the one you think you are making. You like the violent action of the gun, it feels powerful and exciting, and it is because it is a tool for killing. Killing gives you power and its exciting. Even a simulation of it is thrilling. I should know, I play games all the time that simulate killing in one way or another. I enjoy them greatly and would like them less if there were not about violence. I am to an extent born for violence, evolved to kill among other things. Guns are weapons designed for killing and that is part of what makes them fun. Target shooting is a simulation of killing.
    Then why is a BB gun so fun to shoot? No, I'm making the point I say I am making, and I am supporting the argument I say I am supporting.

    I submit that it is the idea of mastering an imperfect tool and overcoming the challenge to put various sized holes in a target at distance. A lazer is a glorified flashlight there is nothing to master.

    I am making a distinction from "design to do", and jobs it is used to accomplish. Guns are designed to be accurate, bullets are designed to effect a target (I put a hole in it). The military uses the .223 because it does the job it needs done, not because it is "deadly". If they were using deadly they would only shoot 50cals or basically every other round over the .223.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So you are going to argue that bullets are identically deadly?! "Oh man, I never would have thought accelerating a piece of metal at super high speeds could kill someone, I was just making it do that for the thrill of seeing it go zoom!" When bullets are tested the most common point of interest is if they are effective at killing targets. If they are not, then they are not deemed to be good bullets. A lack of lethality is almost always seen as a flaw. (rubber bullets excepted)
    First, I do not argue that they are identically deadly. Just about everything is deadly when accelerated to a high enough speed. Making any bullet that can hit a target at 100yds a "deadly" one.
    So the fact that the .223 can hit a target at 100yds in a consistent manner is the reason the bullet is the way it is. As shown, the larger bullets are more deadly, yet the army doesn't use them.

    You are basically saying that the thing common to all bullets is the reason for those bullets/guns. They don't have to be designed to be deadly they simply are.
    That the least deadly ,in the spectrum of bullets, is the one that is used, makes the argument from their deadliness a weak one. It's like saying that a race car is designed to kill people when it hits them, or that a macktruck is designed to kill a pedestrian when it hits them.
    Sure, they do it.. but that isn't the "design". They can be used for it, but that isn't what they are designed for. They are uses for it's design. Killing is a use. Punching holes in paper is a use.

    Second, there is some debate about the purpose of the .223 round. If the Russians made the .762 (or .308) to wound a 150lb man(per my link), and it is larger "deadlier" round, then is not a given that the .223 is designed to kill a 150lb man.
    I believe squatch has pointed out that the military is not only interested in killing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Anti-gun interests as you note are often not that well educated in how guns work. If they knew then they would likely target those weapons too. Perhaps you could help educate them as to which weapons pose the greatest public danger and help them in their mission.
    No, they(people in charge) know it.. they just understand that the const protects our gun rights and that such a push would certainly fail. So they target the gun that is in the news or the fictional "assault gun" terminology which describes no gun at all except what the politicians want to decide it does when they write the law.
    As for the general followers, they are ignorant.. educating them is what I'm trying to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, not really. The Bushmaster and its ilk are designed to shoot rapidly, accurately, and in a sustained fashion and to effectively take down targets (which is generally lethal or potentially so). The chief complaint is the sustained part, and thus the large ammunition capacity is the chief target.

    No one really wants innumerate weapons, so that's not much of a target of interest. A gun that can't kill is of little interest in self defense so that is not generally a target. The speed of shooting is of interest, though harder to deal (below semi auto speed) with that and not impede self defense. Thus ammunition capacity and speed of reload is a chief aim of legislation efforts.
    Right, with no actual measured effect on outcome.

    For example, they are not targeting an average rounds per minute across gun lines.
    So I can take my 1911 with 5 clips and put 35 rounds out in just a few minutes... yet that gun is not being targeted. Even though at a classroom range I bet it is "more deadly" than a .223.
    And the end result would still be the same.

    So they are not targeting an effect, they are targeting random features of random guns. That magazine looks too long, so lets regulate it.

    The problem is, you still have to aim a weapon after every shot. So it doesn't matter if you have a 10round clip or a 60rnd clip.
    It is going to take close to as long to fire them all accurately. Your argument is completely invalid unless you are speaking fully automatic weapons that are belt fed.

    I mean really, why should we try to regulate 30 more seconds into how long it takes a killer to kill 30 people? Is that really worth the infringement on everyone else rights?
    I don't think so, because it doesn't really address the problem.
    To serve man.

  12. #52
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Guns don't deter crime, People deter crime

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It isn't really that different from what the founders of the US constitution envisioned (excepting the race element to which they were shamefully resigned). Not many understand that the US constitution declares rights not only for US citizens but for all people. Jurisdiction tends to keep us from doing much about that, but foreign citizens on US territory get the same rights as US citizens do. That isn't really germane to your argument but its something I point out to folks often in other debates. (It does piss me off we use the "territory" argument to justify BS like Guantanamo.)
    You are so extremely correct here, you dont even know it. The United States has a limited form of Universal Citizenship and the constitution is the most successful document in history to treat all people equally.(this doesnt mean that we are equal, it just means that the law and government treats us equally)



    I don't see how common law really changes your idea of individual sovereignty. Common law still involves judges and the state enforcing a set of rules on individuals, not treating them as "states". People making decisions that are subject to the whim of a monarch aren't self governing in any real sense.
    A common criticism of modern representative democracy is that non-elected officials that live far away from DC have little to no say in lawmaking. We left to the whims of people we elect only so often. With a Common Law system at the uber-local level, it allows individuals("states" in said model) to test laws they beleive to be ineffective, or unjust without having to go through a traditional political process immediatly. The "mideval england" analogy was to show that regardless of the personal whims of the monarch(or in the US's case, the federal government) that individuals are still independant beings and that they are only ruled by thier own consent. A "merged" model of international relations would apply this thinking to an international level, essentially creating a system where all government is done at the international level.

    Its hard to see telling people not to poop in the fresh water supply as tyranny. More the tyranny of an individual who refuses reasonable cooperation for their own individual desires. While they always have that power, those who share the resource also have the power to exercise their will and stop him. When people organize together to enforce a collective will, its called government. To Govern, to make and enforce rules. If you don't enforce rules you have Anarchy.
    Collectivists in international relations say that "Anarchy is what you make it". My system may on the outside appear to be a mild form of anarchy, but according to 'realists' in international relations we already live under a system of anarchy that is balanced out by the equality of power among the states.(this is a rare accorance in modern times, but the model was created in europe when their were several superpowers that balanced eachother out). An soveriegn individual system would just expand greatly the number of these 'balancing states' that essentially rid us of anarchy and establishes some sort of ordered government.

    So either you allow lake pooping and have government, or you disallow lake pooping and you have anarchy. There is no third rail. (here lake pooping is an example of any rule making, clearly a government need not regulate all activities)
    So, under the common law republic, foresaid 'lake pooper' would poop in the lake to basicly test the 'constitutionality' of the anti-lake-pooping law. If no one attempts to stop him or punish him after, then the law is effectively null and void. If the lake-pooper is punished, he then goes through his local government (preferablly some sort of open town meeting, direct democracy system) and attempts to get the law amended or repealed.



    Your notion of what a state is is somewhat vague to me. Generally speaking the state is the political sovereign, meaning the states determination of law is what stands paramount. if an individual is sovereign/supreme as state then they make the determination of the law and if that is the case then you have Anarchy.
    To your credit, very few people share the "individual as the state" outlook and any 'merged' theory of international relations is extremely ill-defined. Just like normal 'states'(not individual states) are disincentivized from infringing on eachother's soveriegnty, individuals would be similarly disincentivized from attacking eachother, as such an action would open themselves up to having their life, liberty, and or property taken away via due process of law.

    You say its not Anarchy but its still totally unclear to me how this configuration of yours works. If two people disagree about something there are two possibilities. 1. There is a governing rule that applies, 2. there is not. The first is a condition of governance, the second is a condition of Anarchy.


    Well, here is a lesson of sovereignty. You don't make the rules on ODN, the owner of the board does and it is enforced by agents such as myself. If we deem you to be insulting members then you will be sanctioned as such whatever your intent may be. In this case I am simply notifying you as a fellow debater, if you do it again (to me or others) then I will moderate you as a moderator. Eventually you would be banned from the site. This is a demonstration of a governing action.


    It can be your fault if you are not explaining yourself well. You cant simply spout words and expect everyone will have the same understanding of them you do. If what you advocate is not anarchy, you should try explaining how it differs from anarchy, not simply repeat that it is not. What part of the definition of anarchy is not the same as the definition for individual sovereignty/statehood?
    I understand that and I would be more than willing to elaborate, if need be.



    Certainly they can, especially if they are in agreement with one another.
    It is rare for any two individuals to agree on everything. Agreement on a single issue may allow for two or more individuals to act in unison, but it not create a new seperate individual that is a collection of several former individuals. Seperation is maintained even when agreement have been reached.



    You should let your father and mother know you were not dependent on them. Indeed you should consider all the things you use and do that were created by other people. Any true sense of indipendence you have is an illusion. You are in fact deeply dependent upon other human beings for your survival and even your very existence.
    Material dependance and political independance are two completely different beasts. While I promote simple living, I understand that in many ways simple living's materialism is seperate from political independance. Interaction and cooperation between individuals may at times be neccesary and or desirable, but it is by no means the permanent state of all being.



    Are they really? You think the folks in china who have their internet filtered for them by the state find their geographic boundaries to be irrelevant? Were I do park my car in your driveway would you find that irrelevant? Boundaries are a fact of life, how we deal with them is open to a lot of variance but their existence is hard to ignore. They are a human creation for the most part and thus we can modify them as we choose, but they exist for reasons.
    International borders are unneccesary is the modern age. Property boundries are different. Working to open up a free internet to all humans everywhere is definatly a pre-requisite, but since that isnt generally the case in the US, change can begin here and hopefully spread outwards.



    Quite a few words, but no real definitions I can hang my hat on here. How does conflict resolution work in this individuals are the state system of yours? Who is leading who and how?
    Traditional IR Realism tells us that states are self-interested beings whose main concern is with preserving thier existance. To preserve their existance, and control anarchy, equalibrium must be achieved among the states(John Nash from the movie 'A Beautiful Mind' came up with the specifics of equalibrium game theory), so that violence between the states becomes an undesirable option, thus establishing peace among the states. The same principle applies if your merge the state and the individual.



    That is correct. Without society you have no rights nor any need of them.
    A middle way can be achieved. half way between anarchy and totalitarianism.



    No, you have me confused with someone else. I an a naturalist/atheist/humanist. I think original sin is a ridiculous notion. This is especially strange considering you already asked and responded to me about my religious views.
    the notion of 'original sin' isnt neccesarily a christian one, but a notion that beleives that people must contiually redeem themselves for wrongdoings, all the back to birth. I beleive that freedom is a natural state and that any particular person or being has freedom whether they are given it by a god or a government. I apologize if I misread your religious beliefs, or lack of.



    So if a bear eats you, it is violating your natural right to be free?
    Yes, said bear is preventing you from having life by killing you.
    How about when it eats a salmon?
    same thing
    Its just silly. You have no natural rights. A man is just a living organism that inevitably will die by nature one way or another. Nature recognizes no property or right to survive nor persuit of happiness. Those are things we want and ask of our fellow human beings to respect. And if they respect them or we can make them respect them, then and only then do we have rights and it is a thing we made for ourselves, not which was granted to us by nature.
    I beleive that all living being have natural rights. I dont eat animal products as a result, no do i wear leather and such. Compassion required a compassion for existance.

    I'd encourage you to take an extended trip alone into the wilderness and meditate on the nature of rights and what they mean in a context with no other people around.
    Walden Pond? It'll happen sooner than later.



    Faith does not require you to think that you will survive your own death, that is something you want to be true. Faith in a quantum world merely requires you not have 100% certainty to take action, not that you vest hope in things you have no evidence of.
    Ill will die, but my soul or mind or nous or whatever you want to call it will remain in existance indefinately. Faith is not the acceptance of the unknown in this case, faith is the realisation that there is more to the universe(multi-verse say you) that meets the eye. We are all like Shrodinger's Cat, we die all the time, but we just dont experience death all the time because it is not always the most likely event to occur(sometimes it is).

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Adultery should be a crime
    By Trendem in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: January 1st, 2013, 02:56 PM
  2. Pardons For People convicted of a sSrx Crime?
    By dunrich in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: April 14th, 2011, 07:01 AM
  3. Pre-Crime
    By Dionysus in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: January 15th, 2010, 10:42 PM
  4. A crime for capital punishment
    By Apokalupsis in forum Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: July 16th, 2007, 12:39 AM
  5. A Life of Crime.
    By Mr. Hyde in forum Writing Club
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 07:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •