Are you serious? That's freaking lame.DHodges wrote:Maybe we should focus more on the Australian side of this equation. Why is it that Australians are so terrified of guns that you need a permit to buy a paintball gun?
.
Are you serious? That's freaking lame.DHodges wrote:Maybe we should focus more on the Australian side of this equation. Why is it that Australians are so terrified of guns that you need a permit to buy a paintball gun?
I'm going by this article that lists paintball guns and airguns as "Category A" firearms, requiring a permit to acquire.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Are you serious? That's freaking lame.
On what basis do you reason that the sky appears blue on a cloudless day?On what basis do you reason that this is absolutely true?
It is, as I've admitted many times before. Pay attention.How do you logically know no one in history has ever been, and no one in future will ever be, perfectly enlightened?
In other words, why is perfection not a scientific uncertainty to you?
That is what I say. And I add - "It's highly unlikely to ever happen...so unlikely, that I believe it never has or will."If it were, you'd say, "I am not sure whether it will occur or has occurred, so let's just see what happens...."
I think I said something like:DHodges wrote:Your argument so far has run something like:
Guns are icky.
Guns are dangerous.
I don't like guns.
Therefore, guns should be banned.
Also, Americans are not wise.
The logical argument is simple.You seem to feel that what you are saying is so obviously correct that you don't have to back it up with any sort of real data or logical argument. So your arguments have been unconvincing, and you don't seem to realize it.
Well, based on your experiences, do you see masculine and feminine traits in people?I don't think you can conclude anything about national characteristics based such a small and obviously biased sample.
Well, if you recall, I did mention the likely psychological difference between stabbing and shooting, earlier.The connection to guns is even more tenuous. Are you saying my posts would be less wise if I owned a gun? Would they become even less wise if it was a handgun instead of a rifle? What about bows and arrows? Would they make me just slightly more foolish?
There are far more opportunities for reflection and self-awareness in martial arts. One needs to have an excellent understanding of human anatomy and psychology (and how the two work together) to know the weak points of an attacker; a good understanding of physics (different types of force, levers); and underlying everything else, an excellent understanding of Reality.What about martial arts in general? Would it be foolish to study a martial art, since you might hurt somebody? Does it matter if the martial art involves the potential use of deadly force, or teaches how to disarm someone with a gun?
Beginners and the unconscious may not realise that paintball guns can inflict serious injury to the body.Why is it that Australians are so terrified of guns that you need a permit to buy a paintball gun?
Intelligent people realise that laws are for learners. They don't whinge about having to obey. They are like parents showing children how to use trainer wheels on a little bicycle --- and in their own lives, don't use trainer wheels.Is it that Australians are not wise enough to responsibly handle guns? Is it possible that Americans actually view each other with more respect - that we expect each other of being capable of acting like adults?
From memory, the Pt Arthur massacre was viewed in the context of a baby American gun culture. The same with the Strathfield Plaza massacre. There are now very few such things.Could it be that the current attitude in Australia is due to an irrational over-reaction to the Port Arthur massacre, or some similar event?
The only other factor besides fear of the Absolute, in terms of consciousness, is fear of delusion.Is there any evidence that fear is a bigger factor in America than it is elsewhere? All there really seems to be is your assumption - your assertion - that there must be.
I myself am a country governed by the policy that I should be conscious.In my view, gun ownership is a political issue - but it seems that this view is not shared in other countries.
If I became a US citizen, I wouldn't recognise any rights. I don't care in whose jurisdiction I am. Reason is more important than blind obedience.In the US, it is the recognised right and responsibility of the citizens to overthrow the government when it gets too coercive.
This is the same as Scott and Elizabeth's argument, that people can impose their will on you.The "consent of the governed" means nothing without it - if the government holds all the guns, then true consent is impossible.
Even when you point a gun at someone's head, to force them to change their speech and actions, you can never force them towards or away from true freedom.That is why gun ownership is considered a basic right, like freedom of speech. It's what makes us free men rather than serfs. It's the basis for the very possibility of a legitimate "social contract".
This is an interesting point. I go for nightly walks, dogless, in my neighbourhood, sometimes quite late, and see no one. I live in a city with the third highest crime rate in Australia. Yet my neighbourhood is quiet and well-behaved...... Who knows?Scooter and I go out for a walk every night - completely unarmed! It's pretty daring - you know, what with all the bullets flying around willy-nilly, we can barely see where we're going.
I think the laws are that these guns can only be used on "Police Approved Ranges" - at least for handguns anyway.Even if America adopted identical laws, I don't think it would change anything. A "genuine reason" is target practice. I think there would suddenly be a lot of Americans who would officially claim that they wanted to target practice.
Kelly,Kelly Jones wrote:Well, if you recall, I did mention the likely psychological difference between stabbing and shooting, earlier.
I don't think they have done that in decades. As for the rest of your post, if enough people have M16s in their closet, they are no longer considered freaks. "Normal" (unusual, or freakish) is set by what percent of people engage in a certain behavior. I'd say it's more in the category of unusual for mainstream America, and only normal for militia groups.Dan Rowden wrote:When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.
*thinking Scott watches too much Dr. Phil*sschaula wrote:...or to put it in Scott-terminology: what the hell are you thinking?
That's not a logical argument! For it to be, you have to show how or why the belief is likely to cause a lessened faith in reason. You simply made a stupid statement.The logical argument is simple.
The belief that only personal firearms deal properly with criminals is likely to result in a lessoned faith in reason, and in turn has effects on how one deals with purely intellectual conflicts.
Funny how this whole topic is about how you're promoting more laws.Laws are for the lowest common denominator, and for the ignorant. To the unconscious, laws are very necessary, as they would be terrified without them.
Why are these David Quinn antics so popular? In my opinion, this type of talk stops all thinking.In general terms, no national culture is characterised by either, because 99.9999999999% of people aren't conscious enough for either.
That's exactly why the people would overthrow the corrupt government...duh.If I became a US citizen, I wouldn't recognise any rights. I don't care in whose jurisdiction I am. Reason is more important than blind obedience.
You're a moron if you don't understand that other people can determine whether you breathe or not.This is the same as Scott and Elizabeth's argument, that people can impose their will on you.
You're an odd bunch.
Even when you point a gun at someone's head, to force them to change their speech and actions, you can never force them towards or away from true freedom.
They were still doing it around the time of Columbine.Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I don't think they have done that in decades.Dan Rowden wrote:When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.
I've never personally heard of either. Really.When you have banks that hand out free guns when you open a certain account - and those banks are licensed firearms dealers - you surely have to think there's something really fucked up about your culture.
Likewise when you have neighbourhood militia freaks with M16s in their closet who think it is un-American not to be armed.
Absolutely! Since the people who support having guns for killing people are the ones killing eachother.sschaula wrote:Jamesh,
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."
-Nietzsche
...or to put it in Scott-terminology: what the hell are you thinking? You support people being killed so that no more guns can kill people?
I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can address what Kelly wants to discuss because I'm not sure if anyone really understands what it is she is saying.You stick out like a sore thumb in that regard. I have asked you to substantiate elements of your pro-gun argument, and have been watching for a reasonable, on-topic argument, too. I have seen one such reasonable, pro-gun argument in this whole thread--and it wasn't from you. And that argument did not even begin to address what Kelly has been putting forward.
Your grammar is horrible, Leyla. Why do you choose to type in code? It doesn't make you look more intelligent.It's a matter of where I see signs of deluded, or the most deluded, form/s of "reasoning," Scott.
Where have you done that, and where have I failed to do it? Lets get back to a good point by focusing on this. If you can't answer the question, it can reasonably be assumed that you haven't asked me to substantiate any elements of my argument and that I've been making reasonable, on-topic arguments.I have asked you to substantiate elements of your pro-gun argument, and have been watching for a reasonable, on-topic argument, too.
What the hell was Kelly putting forward? I thought I addressed it in the beginning of the topic, and the rest was her intellectually squirming.I have seen one such reasonable, pro-gun argument in this whole thread--and it wasn't from you. And that argument did not even begin to address what Kelly has been putting forward.