[Lycurgus]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You continue to attempt to pass off an enthusiastic - and now, you reveal, even competitive - interest in guns as one of simple utility, comparable to possession and use of a first aid kit. Unless you're making excited phone calls about the new gauze bandages you've just seen in a medical catalog and chatting animatedly with your first-aid-friends about how best to clean a wound before entering a competition for packing and unpacking aid kits in controlled time trials, your maintenance of this comparison is highly disingenuous. The arguments you are making here obviously do not originate in some utilitarian concern of yours. They originate in affinity; and, while argument originating in affinity is fine, you only autosabotage by characterizing your investment in guns as some sort of utilitarian analysis while contradicting yourself across the same posts.

I don't call friends about firearms. In fact, the few people who I do go to the range with (limited to my father and a close friend, occasionally) never really talk about firearms at all.

A topic we talk about equally often is medically related. In fact, probably more often, since I can recall two instances of joking around about homemade stitches and staples, and none about firearms in the last week.

So do us both a favor and stop with your assumptions. You assume I say evil people lurk everywhere, you assume I talk about firearms on a regular basis, you assume a hell of a lot. And you're wrong each time.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You don't seem to be aware of what you've been saying.

No, you don't seem to be aware of what I've been saying. Simply because you're unaware, doesn't mean I am.


Edit: Congrats, you've taken more quotes out of context, but this time I'm not sure why... what point were you trying to make this time?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	A topic we talk about equally often is medically related. In fact, probably more often, since

You are a persistent one, aren't you.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You assume I say evil people lurk everywhere

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It matters in the context of allowing people to defend themselves from aggression, no matter where it comes from.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	ask yourself this -- how is a 90 pound woman going to defend herself from a 240 pound man? Guns are an equalizer, they level the playing field.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	People don't understand the concept of asymmetric warfare and domination versus destruction. Anyone can destroy a population, totalitarian regimes and invaders don't want to destroy, they want to dominate and control.

So you aren't arguing that having an armed public is advantageous because of all these persistent dangers? You really meant to say, as you went through example after example of reasons why people at large might need to be constantly armed, that the armament is a fashion statement and unrelated to the enduring threat of this "aggression" that must be defended against?

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	you assume I talk about firearms on a regular basis

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've made no secret of the fact that I use firearms on a regular basis -- I've made threads about it in the past.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't shoot often, although I used to shoot competitively.

*cough*

Although you contradict yourself a lot in this thread, one really needn't make assumptions about what you're saying. Even if what you're saying bears little resemblance to what you would like to say, which is an assumption I grant you as the benefit of the doubt.

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You are a persistent one, aren't you.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you aren't arguing that having an armed public is advantageous because of all these persistent dangers?

No, I'm saying that if someone wants to be armed, it's not yours, mine or anyone elses place to stop them because whether we like it or not there are people out there who wish others harm. They're not common -- but it's not yours or my place to determine how 'common' something should be in order to allow someone to protect against it.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You really meant to say, as you went through example after example of reasons why people at large might need to be constantly armed, that the armament is a fashion statement and unrelated to the enduring threat of this "aggression" that must be defended against?

I didn't say people at large need, or might need, to be constantly armed. Only that if they choose, the option should be open to them because it's not our place to take it away.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Although you contradict yourself a lot in this thread, one really needn't make assumptions about what you're saying. Even if what you're saying bears little resemblance to what you would like to say, which is an assumption I grant you as the benefit of the doubt.

The second and third quotes you've quoted are contradictory, and that's my fault for lack of explanation. The first is directly in reference to an entirely different topic.



In response to this:

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You continue to attempt to pass off an enthusiastic - and now, you reveal, even competitive - interest in guns as one of simple utility, comparable to possession and use of a first aid kit. Unless you're making excited phone calls about the new gauze bandages you've just seen in a medical catalog and chatting animatedly with your first-aid-friends about how best to clean a wound before entering a competition for packing and unpacking aid kits in controlled time trials, your maintenance of this comparison is highly disingenuous. The arguments you are making here obviously do not originate in some utilitarian concern of yours. They originate in affinity; and, while argument originating in affinity is fine, you only autosabotage by characterizing your investment in guns as some sort of utilitarian analysis while contradicting yourself across the same posts.

I said this:

Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't call friends about firearms. In fact, the few people who I do go to the range with (limited to my father and a close friend, occasionally) never really talk about firearms at all. A topic we talk about equally often is medically related. In fact, probably more often, since I can recall two instances of joking around about homemade stitches and staples, and none about firearms in the last week. So do us both a favor and stop with your assumptions. You assume I say evil people lurk everywhere, you assume I talk about firearms on a regular basis, you assume a hell of a lot. And you're wrong each time.

Again, you've taken quotes out of context, in this instance you've meshed a mistaken quote (Me not shooting often now is relative to how often I shot when I shot competitively) without context to another quote taken entirely out of context. This time you took a quote about often I talk about firearms (which is rare) with how often I actually go shooting.






So lets bring this full circle and address the core of the issue -- You're taking my quotes out of context (repeatedly) and your shoehorning overly-aggressive sentiments within my statements. Lets go back and try again, this time try forming your arguments coherently and logically, and instead of twisting and taking quotes of context, make an argument based on merit.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, I'm saying that if someone wants to be armed, it's not yours, mine or anyone elses place to stop them because whether we like it or not there are people out there who wish others harm. They're not common -- but it's not yours or my place to determine how 'common' something should be in order to allow someone to protect against it.

So then, it follows that prisoners should be armed with firearms while in prison if they wish it. Surely there are people in prison who want to do others harm, and at a much higher rate than most anywhere else. An "unequivocal" right?

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	In response to this: I said this:

It was an absurd line. Absurd, which is what I found the comparison you were repeatedly making to be. That's not an assumption, it's open mockery of an argument. You say X = X+1. Since it clearly does no such thing, I respond by saying, no, not unless X = (MOOSE/LEMONADE)3X. Read for meaning, you find that a) I'm calling your comparative analysis false, and b) I'm also calling it disingenuous because it is so absurdly false. This is me putting an exclamation point on the response because you didn't seem to get it before (you keep drawing the same erroneous analogue).

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I didn't say people at large need, or might need, to be constantly armed. Only that if they choose, the option should be open to them because it's not our place to take it away.

But you did. How often does a small person, using your revised example, find him or herself to be the largest person in the room? If your example is predicated upon the person's size being a constant (they are "small", others are relatively "larger"), and there are no other qualifying factors (you offer none), then what you establish is that those people have a constant reason to be armed. A reason to be armed, and therefore a reason for armament, and therefore a reason for the amendment's unequivocal support.

In fact, you specifically state that the "playing field" is not equal without it. It sounds like you're describing a need to me. You're now saying that it isn't? And if a level playing field does not constitute so much as a potential necessity, of what relevance is it to the unequivocal support of a right? Isn't the possession of rights usually considered to be a necessary sort of thing?

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lets go back and try again, this time try forming your arguments coherently and logically, and instead of twisting and taking quotes of context, make an argument based on merit.

Lycurgus, that your argument is twisted does not indicate that I have twisted it. That the extension of the reasoning you present terminates in absurdity is not a consequence of assumption on my part. When you find that the cases you use take your position somewhere that you don't want it to go, you should come up with better cases. Or abandon the position. You know, whichever.

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So then, it follows that prisoners should be armed with firearms while in prison if they wish it. Surely there are people in prison who want to do others harm, and at a much higher rate than most anywhere else. An "unequivocal" right?

Yay, Strawman!

Unequivocal means without doubt, perfectly clear. Supporting the Second Amendment doesn't not, in itself, equate to supporting everyone having guns all the time -- this includes prisoners.

I've made my opinions clear in the past in this regard (although not in this thread) that constitutional rights can and should (under certain circumstances) be barred certain individuals or groups, upon Judicial order. A perfect example of this is felony or hate speech.

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But you did. How often does a small person, using your revised example, find him or herself to be the largest person in the room? If your example is predicated upon the person's size being a constant (they are "small", others are relatively "larger"), and there are no other qualifying factors (you offer none), then what you establish is that those people have a constant reason to be armed. A reason to be armed, and therefore a reason for armament, and therefore a reason for the amendment's unequivocal support. In fact, you specifically state that the "playing field" is not equal without it. It sounds like you're describing a need to me. You're now saying that it isn't? And if a level playing field does not constitute so much as a potential necessity, of what relevance is it to the unequivocal support of a right? Isn't the possession of rights usually considered to be a necessary sort of thing?

Please, point out to me where you're not assuming something there? Because the entirety of the last paragraph was your assuming that, because of a certain wording, I was saying that 'small people' need firearms.

I was not, I was saying that there are people who are physically weak. Those people are at a disadvantage in defending themselves. For that matter, we're all at a disadvantage defending ourselves against someone who has more physical training than us.

Should any of us feel the need, whether situationally or universally, to carry a firearm for personal protection, and we've passed the local licensing requirements (as I've stated in other threads, licensing for public carry, similar to drivers licenses, that are issued on a request-and-pass basis) there's no reason what-so-ever to restrict that.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Lycurgus, that your argument is twisted does not indicate that I have twisted it. That the extension of the reasoning you present terminates in absurdity is not a consequence of assumption on my part. When you find that the cases you use take your position somewhere that you don't want it to go, you should come up with better cases. Or abandon the position. You know, whichever.

No, the twisting has come entirely from you.

You started off by implying gun ownership was antisocial, and that I the very idea of using a gun to defend ones self would lead to the breakdown of society, and you supported your theory by shoehorning theories and ideas that everyone was out to 'get me' into your arguments, when it's clear to anyone reading the thread that I said nothing of the sort (that's phrased awkwardly, but I couldn't think of a better way). You continued to do so after you were called out on it.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yay, Strawman!

It isn't a strawman to follow lines of reasoning to their logical terminus. You can't just make half-assed statements dangling in the middle of nowhere and then block your ears when their implications contradict your premises:

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Unequivocal means without doubt, perfectly clear. Supporting the Second Amendment doesn't not, in itself, equate to supporting everyone having guns all the time -- this includes prisoners.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm saying that if someone wants to be armed, it's not yours, mine or anyone elses place to stop them because whether we like it or not there are people out there who wish others harm.

Which is it? You're contradicting yourself again.

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Please, point out to me where you're not assuming something there? Because the entirety of the last paragraph was your assuming that, because of a certain wording, I was saying that 'small people' need firearms.

Ka-
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
!

	Originally Posted by Lycurgus To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I was not, I was saying that there are people who are physically weak. Those people are at a disadvantage in defending themselves.

Always? Often? One might even suggest, consistently? Why choose that as an example, instead of a normal, average guy who has no more or less of a chance of being on an un-level field than anybody else, but who - you go on to say here - will sometimes find themselves in need of a (oops! not "need"... um...) a gun to level things out?

[Lycurgus]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It isn't a strawman to follow lines of reasoning to their logical terminus. You can't just make half-assed statements dangling in the middle of nowhere and then block your ears when their implications contradict your premises: Which is it? You're contradicting yourself again.

I'm certainly not contradicting myself.

One can support 'driving rights' and still support their suspension when people drive drunk.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ka- To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !

So the fact you misapplied semantics means what, exactly?

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Always? Often? One might even suggest, consistently? Why choose that as an example, instead of a normal, average guy who has no more or less of a chance of being on an un-level field than anybody else, but who - you go on to say here - will sometimes find themselves in need of a (oops! not "need"... um...) a gun to level things out?

If they want a firearm for self defense, it's neither your nor my place to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to carry one.

Can I make that any more clear, or would you like to say the same thing you've said six times again?

[AaronSheffield]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Appeal to paranoia. Danger everywhere, you never see it lurking, anybody can be the aggressor, et cetera. People usually go unassaulted in places which by all appearances are relatively safe. More than this, people regularly go unassaulted in places that might appear to be quite rough.

Do you wear a seat belt in your car? People who drive usually arrive without getting into an accident so it's just paranoia to wear a seat belt. And those people who want airbags must be shaking with pure terror every time they get into their cars since the chances of needing an airbag are ridiculously small.

Don't even get me started about those paranoid people who carry life jackets in their boats or who have fire extinguishers in their kitchens.

---------- Post added 11-04-2009 at 07:20 AM ----------

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The arguments you are making here obviously do not originate in some utilitarian concern of yours. They originate in affinity; and, while argument originating in affinity is fine, you only autosabotage by characterizing your investment in guns as some sort of utilitarian analysis while contradicting yourself across the same posts.

You cannot prove that and, frankly, have no basis for assuming such things. Correlation is not causation and it is no less likely that his affinity stems from his utilitarian concerns rather than the other way around as you propose.

It is nothing more than your own personal bias which causes you to be so certain that affinity is the root and not merely the outgrowth.

[pip]

Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Do you wear a seat belt in your car? People who drive usually arrive without getting into an accident so it's just paranoia to wear a seat belt. And those people who want airbags must be shaking with pure terror every time they get into their cars since the chances of needing an airbag are ridiculously small. Don't even get me started about those paranoid people who carry life jackets in their boats or who have fire extinguishers in their kitchens.

Notwithstanding that seatbelts, airbags, life jackets and fire extinguishers are all safety equipment and as such are specifically (and intrinsically) designed for a single purpose: To mitigate damage caused by a specific type of accident.

Firearms of any kind also have a single, but quite opposite purpose: To project a mass some distance and cause damage.

Really guys, what circumstance would the 'average' guy on the street EVER need one of these things?
And before you say robbery, rape, mugging, etc let me ask you something...
What's wrong with your fists?
(oh yeah, they're in a claw-like clasp around a lump of metal
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
)

[combustor]

Originally Posted by pip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Notwithstanding that seatbelts, airbags, life jackets and fire extinguishers are all safety equipment and as such are specifically (and intrinsically) designed for a single purpose: To mitigate damage caused by a specific type of accident. Firearms of any kind also have a single, but quite opposite purpose: To project a mass some distance and cause damage. Really guys, what circumstance would the 'average' guy on the street EVER need one of these things? And before you say robbery, rape, mugging, etc let me ask you something... What's wrong with your fists? (oh yeah, they're in a claw-like clasp around a lump of metal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

As a fit young male with training I would probably do ok with my fists in many situations, but personally I won't risk severe injury or death just to avoid shooting someone who is intent violating my or another's sacred right to life. I'll take the best tool available to protect my life, you guys who hate guns - just don't carry them, and leave me alone. Stop trying to ram your individual preferences and false conclusions down everyone elses collective throats in the form of feel good legislation. None of us would suggest that everyone should be forced to own or carry a gun. But you would eagerly deny everyone the right to life, and defense...so much for that leftist compassion.

[AaronSheffield]

	Originally Posted by pip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Notwithstanding that seatbelts, airbags, life jackets and fire extinguishers are all safety equipment and as such are specifically (and intrinsically) designed for a single purpose: To mitigate damage caused by a specific type of accident. Firearms of any kind also have a single, but quite opposite purpose: To project a mass some distance and cause damage.

This is an entirely separate argument. The argument was that the chances of needing a firearm are small and that, as a result, choosing to carry one represents paranoia.

Using the exact same logical framework, we can see that the chances of needing a seat belt, an airbag, a life jacket, or a fire extinguisher are also very small. If choosing to carry a firearm legally is "paranoid" then that same logic dictates that using seat belts, desiring airbags, having life jackets, and having fire extinguishers are all similarly "paranoid".

Also, the fact that an item can be used destructively is not sufficient reason to argue against it. For analogy, see Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. which established that items which have at least some legitimate legal uses cannot be prohibited based on potential illegal use.

	Originally Posted by pip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Really guys, what circumstance would the 'average' guy on the street EVER need one of these things? And before you say robbery, rape, mugging, etc let me ask you something... What's wrong with your fists? (oh yeah, they're in a claw-like clasp around a lump of metal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

What's wrong with my fists? I sit in a cubicle all day. While I am by no means overweight or unhealthy, the simple fact is that I do not have the time to train extensively in unarmed self defense. Even if I did have such time available, why shouldn't I avail myself of the maximum number of options? Defending myself with a firearm presents significantly less risk than attempting to defend myself without arms regardless of my level of training.

In fact, the British Home Office crime statistics show that people who defend themselves with a firearm are 4 times less likely to be injured than people who don't even attempt to defend themselves at all. That's right, simply giving in to a mugger's demands is four times more likely to lead to injury than is resisting with a firearm. Resisting with a knife and resisting without arms are still more likely to lead to injury.

So why should a person be forced to use a method of resistance that is significantly more likely to lead to injury?

[Dodeca]

Look at Afghanistan. Guns and IEDs will happen where people feel persecuted. Its Inevitable.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is nothing more than your own personal bias which causes you to be so certain that affinity is the root and not merely the outgrowth.

And what would that be, pray tell?

It doesn't sound like you've read this discussion very well but I can't say that I blame you.

a) Lycurgus has been intermittently citing himself as anecdotal evidence, touting the naked utility of his having guns as a model for why private citizens might feel a need to have guns. It's just a plan that he has, he says, while he claims to have planned for most any contingency no matter what the potential problem may be. A typical xxTJ statement, yes? Nevermind the fact that he's a gun enthusiast who used to compete, and shoots often (hey, you have to practice), or not often (hey, he may not be an enthusiast, that's an "assumption"). He says he makes "no secret" of this fact; if that does not mean he is not hesitant to talk about his high gun use, that the high use isn't something he conceals, then it means nothing. Indeed, he goes on to say that he has created threads on this forum about the subject as well. Okay. From these statements in sum, we understand that he's not just a gun owner, but a hobbyist. He is interested in this subject in the manner that a collector of stamps is interested in stamps. The utilitarian keeps stamps around because you need them to send letters or mail bills and so forth, which is something that an individual will do many times throughout their lives. The hobbyist keeps stamps even when he does not need them. He may keep foreign stamps that he can not use, he may keep rare stamps that have greater trade than transaction value, but most relevantly, his retention of stamps is not a simple function of needing stamps. There's more to it than that.

At least a stamp collector is actually mailing mundane stamps regularly, aside from his hobby. Is Lycurgus getting into gun fights regularly? He talks about his gun(s) as something rarely if ever to be used in this capacity. He describes himself in a manner that makes him a poor example of the utilitarian concern to which he appeals, yet he uses himself as that example repeatedly. And at the same time, he would have me believe that his keeping of a gun is not qualitatively distinct from his keeping a container of water in his car, or a first aid kit, or a swiss army knife, or some random machete. That his liking of guns enough to do competitive shooting has nothing to do with his wanting guns, but rather, it's like his wanting a ball of yarn and a ballpoint pen to show up MacGyver in case he ever gets trapped in a nefarious scenario. The analogy is absurd in his case. Hobbyists do not represent a utilitarian desire for their hobbies. They have moved beyond such a thing, if ever they were representative.


b) In establishing a casual need for guns, Lycurgus cites a series of cases: that of a woman, that of a small person, and that of a weak person - people whose conditions are constant - as supplying this need. He does not focus on an average, neutral subjects to demonstrate the need of this amendment; subjects who might find themselves wanting a gun in extenuating circumstances but who wouldn't be generally expected to have much use for one even in that rare fight. Instead, he repeatedly selects subjects with persistent gun-leveling characteristics. He predicates his argument upon those persistent characteristics, which in turn establishes logically a persistent need of armament. This is a distortion of the utility of guns.

So twisted and mangled is his understanding of this distorted point (apparently!) that he couldn't even tolerate my referring to it as a "need" when critiquing the error, deciding instead that we should have some more deflection and meta-discussion about "assumptions" and how not-clever I am, before going on in his very next post to contradict these habitual cries of foul by characterizing it as a "need" himself.


c) Beginning with his second response to me and continuing intermittently throughout the debate, Lycurgus elected to thrust a box of prefabricated 'banning guns makes no sense' packets in my direction. I don't think guns need to be banned. I myself have argued here that banning guns does not resolve gun crime; that, instead, the matter of gun crime is cultural. I have repeatedly stated that I am not interested in banning guns. Yet, like the absurdly recurring anecdote about his personal gun "utility", these arguments have surfaced and resurfaced in his responses to me, seemingly at random, as if they have any relevance at all.

When combined with his contradictory statements which support the amendment by broadly disavowing any stopping people who "want" a gun because some people might want to harm them, while simultaneously condescending to stop people who "want" a gun and are certainly in a scenario where some people want to harm them (prisoners in prison), the best tentative conclusion I can possibly draw is that Lycurgus does not have a coherent position on the subject. The only commonality I am able to discern in all of that is 'I want my gun.'

We can reasonably infer nothing from any of this, according to Lycurgus, of course. There's no pattern or theme to his arguments here because he hasn't said anything about a pattern or theme. In Lycurgus-land, the less a person says, the stronger their position is. Through the sea of contradictions, distortions, and barrages of non-sequitur, what I'm reading begins to look like a hodgepodge of other people's arguments. Points in defense of 'I want my gun' that Lycurgus has not bothered to synthesize into a functioning whole. This would make sense if he were just a reactionary gun hobbyist instead of someone concerned with the utilitarian question of what works or doesn't work about this amendment, but that part isn't actually relevant to my argument here. You speak of my being "so certain"; I was just offering him a way to disentangle his argument, since he can't seem to do it himself.

[AaronSheffield]

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And what would that be, pray tell?

Insufficient data to determine. But I've seen nothing in this thread that would constitute solid proof one way or the other on Lycurgus' position.

Whether his affinity is the root of his opinions on the utility of firearms or whether his opinions on the utility of firearms are the root of his affinity cannot be determined by you or I so a firm claim either way must be a product of bias. What said bias is specifically is not known, and, frankly, need not be known for its existence to be evidenced.

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hobbyists do not represent a utilitarian desire for their hobbies. They have moved beyond such a thing, if ever they were representative.

So it is your contention then that it is impossible for a hobbyist to be initially motivated by an appreciation of the utility of the object of his hobby? Can you support this?

Further, can you offer any evidence to support the idea that, even if a particular hobbyist is motivated initially by affinity, that particular hobbyist's observations regarding potential utility are somehow invalid?

	Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Instead, he repeatedly selects subjects with persistent gun-leveling characteristics. He predicates his argument upon those persistent characteristics, which in turn establishes logically a persistent need of armament. This is a distortion of the utility of guns.

Given that he admits that even when such persistent characteristics exist the likelihood of an attack is very slight, is it not more likely that you are over-stating his position when you say that he implies a persistent need? Logically it seems to me that he is saying that, when such persistent characteristics exist, there is the persistent potential for a situation to arise in which a need might conceivably exist. I stipulate that his examples have been hyperbolic but to suggest that he believes in a "persistent need" rather than in the "persistent potential for a need" is to misrepresent his position.

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

c) Beginning with his second response to me and continuing intermittently throughout the debate, Lycurgus elected to thrust a box of prefabricated 'banning guns makes no sense' packets in my direction. I don't think guns need to be banned. I myself have argued here that banning guns does not resolve gun crime; that, instead, the matter of gun crime is cultural. I have repeatedly stated that I am not interested in banning guns. Yet, like the absurdly recurring anecdote about his personal gun "utility", these arguments have surfaced and resurfaced in his responses to me, seemingly at random, as if they have any relevance at all.

Stipulated.

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When combined with his contradictory statements which support the amendment by broadly disavowing any stopping people who "want" a gun because some people might want to harm them, while simultaneously condescending to stop people who "want" a gun and are certainly in a scenario where some people want to harm them (prisoners in prison), the best tentative conclusion I can possibly draw is that Lycurgus does not have a coherent position on the subject. The only commonality I am able to discern in all of that is 'I want my gun.'

I agree that his discussion on this point was poorly phrased. The chief difference between the two scenarios you describe is that prisoners have armed guards in the immediate vicinity 24/7/365 while law-abiding private citizens do not.

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

We can reasonably infer nothing from any of this, according to Lycurgus, of course. There's no pattern or theme to his arguments here because he hasn't said anything about a pattern or theme. In Lycurgus-land, the less a person says, the stronger their position is. Through the sea of contradictions, distortions, and barrages of non-sequitur, what I'm reading begins to look like a hodgepodge of other people's arguments. Points in defense of 'I want my gun' that Lycurgus has not bothered to synthesize into a functioning whole. This would make sense if he were just a reactionary gun hobbyist instead of someone concerned with the utilitarian question of what works or doesn't work about this amendment, but that part isn't actually relevant to my argument here. You speak of my being "so certain"; I was just offering him I way to disentangle his argument, since he can't seem to do it himself.

I will stipulate that the synthesis of his argument is lacking, and your argument here is indeed suggestive. Enough so that, while I stand by my assertion that I've seen nothing sufficient for "proof", I can understand why one would tentatively adopt your position as a working hypothesis.

[Pope]

I'm for the second amendment, I do believe in limits on it though. I believe if there's a good way to do it then mental checks should be required before a person is able to have and use one. Also, I don't believe anybody should be allowed any gun that's capable of shredding apart a crowd of people in a short amount of time. Something that will work for hunting or self defense against one or a few people is all that's needed.

[Lycurgus]

If you wanted a coherent, well thought out argument with cites, references and backup sourcing, I suggest you take a look at research paper (I wrote one in 12th grade for speech, if you're interested -- I also wrote one on Euthanasia, Ted Kaczynski, Against mandatory seatbelts, abortion, etc. I could probably get my hands on them if you'd like) on the topic, rather than a forum.

My point wasn't to convince, only to respond. If you'd like to engage in a debate, we can, but I'd much more open to it if you'd cease and desist the red herrings, and engage in intelligent discourse on the subject.

[thod]

	This is an entirely separate argument. The argument was that the chances of needing a firearm are small and that, as a result, choosing to carry one represents paranoia.

There is a small chance of you being a victim of a sniper. Thus by this reasoning you should wear full body armour when leaving the house. You do not do so because you weigh up the that chance against the inconvenience of wearing the armour. If you were a marine in Afghanistan, you may change your decision due to the more hazardous environment. Someone wearing such armour in a normal city street is indicating he has misjudged the risks that he faces. They indicate to others that they possess a defective mind, that they are paranoid.

There is a mobility cost in carry a heavy lump of iron, filled with even heavier lead, around with you all day. Someone prepared to do so is judging the risks they face much higher than the average person, paranoid. People with defective mentalities are scary enough by themselves, yet carrying a weapon is particularly dangerous. That person needs to justify that decision, mostly to themselves, and that validation can only come from using the weapon. They will thus be seeking criminals to shoot, attackers to defend against etc when no such threat exists.

I do not carry a weapon, I have never been attacked and wished I had a gun. Thus I am justified in my decision to not to carry one. Now I know that only holds until or if I am attacked. Yet I must then wear a metallic suit to protect me from lightning bolts and wear a tin hat to prevent hungry eagles striking my head. It is all a question of risk assessment.

[nowt]

Guns are good for putting down animals.

There are two deer and one dog, I'd rather -not- have slit the throats of.

[combustor]

Originally Posted by Pope To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm for the second amendment, I do believe in limits on it though. I believe if there's a good way to do it then mental checks should be required before a person is able to have and use one. Also, I don't believe anybody should be allowed any gun that's capable of shredding apart a crowd of people in a short amount of time. Something that will work for hunting or self defense against one or a few people is all that's needed.

You realize how absurd that is, right?

[whitey]

Originally Posted by pip To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Notwithstanding that seatbelts, airbags, life jackets and fire extinguishers are all safety equipment and as such are specifically (and intrinsically) designed for a single purpose: To mitigate damage caused by a specific type of accident. Firearms of any kind also have a single, but quite opposite purpose: To project a mass some distance and cause damage. Really guys, what circumstance would the 'average' guy on the street EVER need one of these things? And before you say robbery, rape, mugging, etc let me ask you something... What's wrong with your fists? (oh yeah, they're in a claw-like clasp around a lump of metal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

You're completely skipping over the facts already stated regarding physical capacity. I'm an average size guy, but I'm a guy who could probably barely defend himself due to years of muscle atrophy from a chronic injury. I'm not going to ask you or any one else for the right to carry to be able to defend myself because I couldn't hobble away from danger fast enough.

[Lycurgus]

Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is a mobility cost in carry a heavy lump of iron, filled with even heavier lead, around with you all day. Someone prepared to do so is judging the risks they face much higher than the average person, paranoid. People with defective mentalities are scary enough by themselves, yet carrying a weapon is particularly dangerous. That person needs to justify that decision, mostly to themselves, and that validation can only come from using the weapon. They will thus be seeking criminals to shoot, attackers to defend against etc when no such threat exists.

There are firearms, and holsters, specifically designed to minimize the impact that they have on your every day life. A womans holster that fits in her purse, or a purse that's specifically designed to have a quick-access holster, a hip holster that holds the gun at 9 o'clock and firearms that are extremely light and compact.

The 'heavy lump of iron' that you describe can be as light as

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do not carry a weapon, I have never been attacked and wished I had a gun. Thus I am justified in my decision to not to carry one.

You do realize that you just, by definition, describe confirmation bias, right?

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yet I must then wear a metallic suit to protect me from lightning bolts and wear a tin hat to prevent hungry eagles striking my head.

Don't metallic suits attract lightning?

	Originally Posted by thod To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It is all a question of risk assessment.

And it's your place to determine whether or not someone elses assessment of risk is 'good enough' or 'accurate enough' to qualify them as paranoid?

Is having a weeks worth of canned goods paranoid? What about a month? What about a year and a half?

Where, exactly is the line drawn? I want to make sure I'm not being paranoid -- after all, who seriously
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
a week or more worth of food stored in their house, in the day of the grocery store?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What said bias is specifically is not known, and, frankly, need not be known for its existence to be evidenced.

Similarly, I maintain that the sum of these quirks in Lycurgus' argument indicates something. That the quirks don't spontaneously arise as if by magic, even though some of his assertions appear to. I have found that, unless a person is playing devil's advocate, the arguments they make about issues they deem important tend to have something to do with what their views are. And more than this, as is relevant here, that the manner in which they make those arguments tends to have something to do with the way they're organizing their thoughts at the time. My assessment after the fact is only this; it is an accessory, I find it to be evidenced by the content of his posts here.

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So it is your contention then that it is impossible for a hobbyist to be initially motivated by an appreciation of the utility of the object of his hobby?

Not exactly. It's my contention that anecdotal evidence meant to characterize behavior as being a straightforward and simple exercise in utility is nullified by that behavior being the subject of the behaving person's hobby. That the anecdote, which was posted as a counter to what I said about his argument sounding more like traditional gun sentiment than utilitarianism, is tainted and fails to reestablish his assertion that, no, "[his] ideology is utility".

It's like: 'I only keep a fishing rod on hand for survivalist purposes. I'm prepared, I have extra batteries and an emergency phone too. That's all. BTW, here is a photo of me winning a professional bass fishing tournament. I fish a lot. I make no secret of my fishing, I've started threads about it before, everybody knows I'm a deep sea fisherman.'

Ridiculous.

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I stipulate that his examples have been hyperbolic but to suggest that he believes in a "persistent need" rather than in the "persistent potential for a need" is to misrepresent his position.

I'd say that there isn't a functioning distinction between "persistent need" and "persistent potential for a need" in this scenario since the need in question is bearing (having for use, as opposed to just using) arms. If a "weak" person defines a persistent potential, then the need that person has with relation to the amendment is one of being persistently armed. In other words: where the potential is constant, it follows that the precaution is also constant because the precaution is being justified by the potential.

	Originally Posted by AaronSheffield To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree that his discussion on this point was poorly phrased. The chief difference between the two scenarios you describe is that prisoners have armed guards in the immediate vicinity 24/7/365 while law-abiding private citizens do not.

I agree with you to some extent there. I myself would want to distinguish them, although I would note that even with the presence of prison guards policing prisons, serious assaults (and sometimes murders) are not uncommon in there anyway. So the problem with this contradiction in Lycurgus' argument is not that there can be no distinction between these things, but rather that the way he supports himself in this thread precludes distinguishing them without kicking the legs out from under his argument. He says that it is nobody's place to stop a person who wants to arm from arming because there are others "out there" (lurking?) who wish others harm. Not just an explicit statement, this has been one of the main columns of his position. But if we are to hold the position that people being held in what most everyone can agree is a particularly dangerous environment (prison) may be deprived of the right to defend themselves with guns, forcing them to resort to the un-level "playing field" of melee or to rely upon their crafting ability and sneakiness to produce a rudimentary stabbing weapon when they are assaulted by others, then we can quite clearly stop people who want to arm from arming because there are others out there who wish harm. What we're left with is incoherent.

[Lycurgus]

Originally Posted by stasis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

But if we are to hold the position that people being held in what most everyone can agree is a particularly dangerous environment (prison) may be deprived of the right to defend themselves with guns, forcing them to resort to the un-level "playing field" of melee or to rely upon their crafting ability and sneakiness to produce a rudimentary stabbing weapon when they are assaulted by others, then we can quite clearly stop people who want to arm from arming because there are others out there who wish harm. What we're left with is incoherent.

The core problem with this facet of your argument is that it directly contradicts what's I've already stated in this thread -- that by taking an action which already deprives you of a fundamental human right (Life, Liberty, the pursuit of happiness...), you've taken an action to deprive you of certain rights. The court has ruled as much, and while it's neither your nor my place to take that right away, society has seen fit that it is the Judges place to take that right away under certain circumstances, in the same way that it's neither your nor my right to take away someones drivers license, but it is the judges place after a drunk driving offense.

My support is still unequivocal (clear, unambiguous -- since you seemed to make a big deal of that specific words usage, earlier), for both Firearms and Driving rights, but that doesn't mean that it's universal, taking certain actions can get certain rights revoked, whether for a limited time or permanently. However, those rights are still inherent upon the individual until such time as they've given reason to revoke them.

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by hubcap To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Actually hollowpoints are forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

Hollowpoints are forbidden by the geneva convention because of the horrible wounds they cause.


Stasis is making some very interesting points. I think the best idea perhaps is to look at culture in countries where guns aren't so proliferate.

One of the points that I raised previously, against one of the common arguments against gun ownership is that criminals will have guns regardless of the law. It's true, they will, but if you reduce gun ownership dramatically you will make:
a) It far more difficult for a criminal to come across guns*. A shitty poorly made handgun that may not even work sells for about $2000+ on the street here in Australia*. The price is often 3-5 times more than it's worth in a shop. And it's normally some inferior pile of crap that's all rusted out from salt cause it was shipped over in an unsealed shipping container. Not to mention the difficulty of getting ammo for it.
b) The more a potential criminal has to think about the details of the crime they're looking to commit, the less likely they will be to commit it. Contrast: "I'm going to kill that bastard. Shit... where am I going to get a gun?" to "I'm going to kill that bastard... *pulls out gun*"

* And this will be a very difficult task for america. Like I said, I will take a long while to get all the guns out of the system. It's not something that will be a case of banning them one day, and everything's rosy the next.


* Only the retarded city gangs use handguns here though. Most pro criminals tend to favour sawn off shotguns or sawn off bolt action rifles (.308 being the round of choice)

[boldbidder]

Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yes, excepting all the things that make the military much more powerful than citizens armed with consumer weapons would certainly make it much more feasible for private citizens to defeat the US army. And if the US army really is as easily overtaken as you say, what on earth are we spending 40% of our federal budget on it for?? I thought we had smart bombs and armor piercing projectiles and tanks armored in depleted uranium. Goddamn it I've been lied to all this time and told that we had the most powerful military on earth!! If a bunch of riff raff with shotguns, semi-automatics and hand guns can take it out

The reason I excluded armor and most explosives from the equation is because they have a very particular application on the battle field. A group of hit and run types isn't going to stay in one place long enough for an Abrams to be brought to bear on the situation. I was more referring small arms and the fact that there are actually somethings available to the private citizen that his military counterpart can't get.

	Originally Posted by Lucid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I want a big fat refund!

Agreed, most of what we spend our defense dollars on are vestiges of wars that will never again be fought.