Gun Control

[Skepdick]

My point is that the case Walker cited doesn't makes the case for an armed citizenry.

I have no idea what that means.

What does; or would make the case for the armed citizenry known as the IDF?
What does; or would make the case for the armed citizenry known as the Russian Armed Forces?

[mickthinks]

Mick: My point is that the case Walker cited doesn't make the case for an armed citizenry.
Skep: I have no idea what that means.
Mick: Okay. In that case I don't know how to help you.

[Skepdick]

Mick: My point is that the case Walker cited doesn't make the case for an armed citizenry.
Skep: I have no idea what that means.
Mick: Okay. In that case I don't know how to help you.

I know that you don't know how to help me - that goes without saying.

However, I know how to help you help me; which is what I am doing.

That is exactly why asked you the questions - to help you express your meaning.

What does; or would make the case for the armed citizenry known as the IDF?
What does; or would make the case for the armed citizenry known as the Russian Armed Forces?

I am asking because I am truly perplexed about the notion of "making the case" about facts.

[mickthinks]

Ah! A discussion of the notion of "making the case" about facts is worthy of a thread of its own, I think. Suffice to say, I am not sure a case can be made for the Russian or Israeli armed forces, and I certainly don’t claim to be able to make one in either case.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's talk about it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZ9HCi6wBs

Gun control:

1. Keep muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
2. Cock the firearm.
3. Slip off the safety.
4. Lower firearm slowly, and extend arm to a relaxed but firm position
5. Sight along the top of the barrel, looking beyond to the target.
6. Squeeze the trigger by slowly contracting the entire grip.
7. Anticipate and absorb the recoil, minimizing muzzle jump.

[Alexiev]

I'm new to this thread, and may be repeating something.

Proposition: Owning personal protection firearms is cowardly.

1. Statistics show that owning a personal protection firearm is far more dangerous than not owning one. Risks include suicide, domestic violence,, and being shot by an armed intruder (see Breanna Stewart).

2. Behaving irrationally out of fear is cowardly.

3. Fear is the only reasonable reason for keeping a pp firearm (unless you want to murder someone).

Conclusion: see above.

[Skepdick]

I'm new to this thread, and may be repeating something.

Proposition: Owning personal protection firearms is cowardly.

Proposition: Using personal protection equipment is cowardly. This includes seatbelts, parachutes, masks, helmets and critical thought.

1. Statistics show that owning a personal protection firearm is far more dangerous than not owning one. Risks include suicide, domestic violence,, and being shot by an armed intruder (see Breanna Stewart).

Statistics show that wearing a seatbelt is far more dangerous than not wearing one. Risks include whiplash, broken collar bones, and dislocated joints.
Furthermore, people wearing seatbelts engage in far riskier driving behaviour which results in more fatalitiesl

2. Behaving irrationally out of fear is cowardly.

Then stop wearing a seatbelt.

3. Fear is the only reasonable reason for keeping a pp firearm (unless you want to murder someone).

Fear is the only reasonable reason for wearing a seatbelt (unless you want to have a car accident).

Conclusion: see above.

Ditto

Proposition 2: When you are attacking motivations you are violating the principle of charity. By definition.

[Alexiev]

I'm new to this thread, and may be repeating something.

Proposition: Owning personal protection firearms is cowardly.

Proposition: Using personal protection equipment is cowardly. This includes seatbelts, parachutes, masks, helmets and critical thought.

1. Statistics show that owning a personal protection firearm is far more dangerous than not owning one. Risks include suicide, domestic violence,, and being shot by an armed intruder (see Breanna Stewart).

Statistics show that wearing a seatbelt is far more dangerous than not wearing one. Risks include whiplash, broken collar bones, and dislocated joints.
Furthermore, people wearing seatbelts engage in far riskier driving behaviour which results in more fatalitiesl

2. Behaving irrationally out of fear is cowardly.

Then stop wearing a seatbelt.

3. Fear is the only reasonable reason for keeping a pp firearm (unless you want to murder someone).

Fear is the only reasonable reason for wearing a seatbelt (unless you want to have a car accident).

Conclusion: see above.

Ditto

Proposition 2: When you are attacking motivations you are violating the principle of charity. By definition.

This is ridiculous. It is irrational behavior caused by fear that is cowardly, not rational behavior. Wearing a seat belt (or refusing to jump off a cliff) is rational, unless you want to die. If course everyone (the bold and poltroon alike) behaves rationally out of fear. You appear either not to have read my post, or to be unable to understand plain English.

[Skepdick]

This is ridiculous. It is irrational behavior caused by fear that is cowardly, not rational behavior. Wearing a seat belt (or refusing to jump off a cliff) is rational, unless you want to die. If course everyone (the bold and poltroon alike) behaves rationally out of fear.

That's just a silly double standard. I carry a gun for exactly the same reason you wear a seatbelt: I am protecting something valuable.

Identical goal - identical utility - identical function.

If seatbelts are rational then so is carrying a gun.
If your motivation for wearing a seatbelt is something other than fear; then so is my motivation for carrying a gun.

You appear either not to have read my post, or to be unable to understand plain English.

You are projecting.

[Alexiev]

This is ridiculous. It is irrational behavior caused by fear that is cowardly, not rational behavior. Wearing a seat belt (or refusing to jump off a cliff) is rational, unless you want to die. If course everyone (the bold and poltroon alike) behaves rationally out of fear.

That's just a silly double standard. I carry a gun for exactly the same reason you wear a seatbelt: I am protecting something valuable.

Identical goal - identical utility - identical function.

If seatbelts are rational then so is carrying a gun.
If your motivation for wearing a seatbelt is something other than fear; then so is my motivation for carrying a gun.

You appear either not to have read my post, or to be unable to understand plain English.

You are projecting.

Wrong again. You are arguing that if rationally protecting oneself is not cowardly, then irrationally protecting yourself because of fear is not cowardly. My assertion was that acting irrationally out of fear is cowardly. You might may disagree with that postulate, but the arguments you have made are silly and irrational (although not cowardly). Your cowardice is evident not because of your arguments (which are .merely stupid), but because of your craven gun-toting.

[Immanuel Can]

...your craven gun-toting.

I haven't noticed that gun-hating men have much testosterone.

Learning and practicing responsible gun-handling, on the other hand, is a rite-of-passage for many confident young men. Compare the whiners to the advocates on the internet, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Just sayin'.

[Alexiev]

...your craven gun-toting.

I haven't noticed that gun-hating men have much testosterone.

Learning and practicing responsible gun-handling, on the other hand, is a rite-of-passage for many confident young men. Compare the whiners to the advocates on the internet, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Just sayin'.

On the contrary. Gun-toters are cowards who are afraid of a fight. I've been in many fist fights (in my younger days) and don't fear conflict. My only fear is that some gun-toting jerk who is too cowardly to fight fairly will shoot me.

Why would a "confident young man" need a gun? It is only cowards and those who lack confidence who think they do. Or perhaps you think pulling a trigger requires more "testosterone" than defending oneself physically.

Arguing with gun lovers is a bit like shooting an unarmed man. Victory is easy. But there's not much glory in it.

[Immanuel Can]

...your craven gun-toting.

I haven't noticed that gun-hating men have much testosterone.

Learning and practicing responsible gun-handling, on the other hand, is a rite-of-passage for many confident young men. Compare the whiners to the advocates on the internet, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Just sayin'.

On the contrary. Gun-toters are cowards who are afraid of a fight.

Not in my experience, they're not. In a gunfight OR a fistfight, I'd stand with the guys who aren't afraid of guns against the pansies who whine about them any day. There's no question which side has the testosterone. Go look on the internet: real men aren't afraid of guns. Soy boys are.

Why would a "confident young man" need a gun?

Because confident young men can handle danger responsibly. They can handle motorcycles, ATVs, heavy machinery, light explosives, heavy objects, felling trees, frightening situations...and when everybody in the school or the mall -- all the women, children and soy boys -- are screaming and running, they can stand their ground, coolly pull out that Glock, and put a shooter down before he gets going.

That's part of what it means to be a real man. I actually feel sorry for today's city boys, who have no such opportunities. No wonder they don't know if they're men or not.

But if a stranger enters your house in the middle of the night, the chances are really good that he's a psycho, and either so high on drugs he doesn't feel pain, or he's got pals. Either way, you need a way to make him leave without having to kill him in hand-to-hand. A .347 magnum pointed at a man's chest will make any rational invader back right off. And if he doesn't back off, then you can be very glad you've got the .357 magnum. He's probably a crazed crack-addict, or has his own weapon.

[Skepdick]

Wrong again. You are arguing that if rationally protecting oneself is not cowardly, then irrationally protecting yourself because of fear is not cowardly. My assertion was that acting irrationally out of fear is cowardly. You might may disagree with that postulate, but the arguments you have made are silly and irrational (although not cowardly). Your cowardice is evident not because of your arguments (which are .merely stupid), but because of your craven gun-toting.

You appear to be misfiring on all four cylinders.

[Age]

I haven't noticed that gun-hating men have much testosterone.

Learning and practicing responsible gun-handling, on the other hand, is a rite-of-passage for many confident young men. Compare the whiners to the advocates on the internet, and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Just sayin'.

On the contrary. Gun-toters are cowards who are afraid of a fight.

Not in my experience, they're not. In a gunfight OR a fistfight, I'd stand with the guys who aren't afraid of guns against the pansies who whine about them any day. There's no question which side has the testosterone. Go look on the internet: real men aren't afraid of guns. Soy boys are.

Why would a "confident young man" need a gun?

Because confident young men can handle danger responsibly. They can handle motorcycles, ATVs, heavy machinery, light explosives, heavy objects, felling trees, frightening situations...and when everybody in the school or the mall -- all the women, children and soy boys -- are screaming and running, they can stand their ground, coolly pull out that Glock, and put a shooter down before he gets going.

That's part of what it means to be a real man. I actually feel sorry for today's city boys, who have no such opportunities. No wonder they don't know if they're men or not.

But if a stranger enters your house in the middle of the night, the chances are really good that he's a psycho, and either so high on drugs he doesn't feel pain, or he's got pals. Either way, you need a way to make him leave without having to kill him in hand-to-hand. A .347 magnum pointed at a man's chest will make any rational invader back right off. And if he doesn't back off, then you can be very glad you've got the .357 magnum. He's probably a crazed crack-addict, or has his own weapon.

And, according to 'your' OWN so-called "logic" above here, "Immanuel can", if "he" has 'his' own gun, then "he" would be a so-called "real man" also, right?

Also, with replies like this one from "Immanuel can" and "others" here there is absolutely NO wonder AT ALL of WHY 'the world' was in an absolute MESS and SHAMBLES, back in the days when this was being written.