'Dark Knight Rises'

Started by matrix2003, July 20, 2012, 04:38:35 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

FrankB

Interesting debate, but as often, people don't talk about the same thing, mix things up and then the discussion becomes pointless.

I will attemt to be precise in the following::

1 - the killing in Colorado would not have been prevented by a fire arms ban in the US, or elsewhere for that matter. Psychopaths across the globe will be able to get access to guns for money everywhere in the world. Because they go on killing with a (sick) purpose, fueled by their madness of some sort, fire arms ban = useless

2 - Now, most of the death toll by fire arms aren't attributed to psychopaths running amok. Most of the deaths happen in criminal environments, in robberies, drug wars, turf wars, and..... But also alot of them in anger, in affect, often combined with drugs or alcohol. In cases like these, when a relativel normal person is being angered, and he doesn't have gun at his disposal, chances are he isn't going to kill anyone, feel strong and invincible. The person might still resort to violence, or depending on the situation, retreat. For that benefit alone, I think societies should ban guns. Then secondly, there are situations such as a person threatening you with a gun, wanting your purse. Now, if I don't have a gun, I will render the purse, and most likely survive. If I had a gun, I might be tempted to defend myself, in which case at least one death will be inevitable, most likely mine.

Bottom line, nothing will ever prevent maniacs from runing amok. But banning guns will save a lot of lives regardless, for those situations mentioned above.

Frank

TheBadger

July 22, 2012, 05:49:00 pm #16 Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 04:47:18 am by TheBadger
T-U,
QuoteThe wisest doctors over a century ago performed a lot of unnecessary amputations and thought that blood-letting cured everything. Now, we know better


I would say that those Dr.'s were not very wise. But the wisdom of Americas founders remains.

I have to say I am surprised by your strong opinion on this matter, relative to you clear lack of knowledge of american history, culture and values, and our constitution. For example, the insinuation that your opinion of the American constitution is some how equal to, or greater than the knowledge and wisdom of Americas founders, and the american people is a little silly. Its almost as though you believe that if Americans have rights, than it some how effects your nation? Its really strange.

cyphyr,
QuoteWhat about my rights to NOT be terrified of your "right" to terrify me with your guns!.


I did not know the American people had invaded England and were terrorizing you with civilian weaponry. There is a total news black out here! Tell us who's winning?!

I'm sorry guys, but your posts are making no sense at all.


*(edit) cyphyr! Sorry man, I re-read your post and realized I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say. Please disregard my sarcasm.

FrankB,

Thank you for thinking! There by giving your personal opinion on this matter some value. But I do disagree most strongly with your final point:

QuoteBut banning guns will save a lot of lives regardless, for those situations mentioned above.


The FACT is, that guns have been banned in Chicago for a long time, and even now it is very hard for a Law abiding citizen to get a gun. Yet Chicago has the highest gun death rate of any city in the U.S. You pointed out that criminals kill criminals, but in Chicago innocent people are dying because they have almost no rights to defend them selves. The gangsters get guns from all over the world, they even steel them from the Police. But honest Chicagoans cannot even protect them selves in their own homes.

Point of fact: police departments in the U.S. have no legal obligation to protect anyone, or enforce any law. It is voluntary department by department. There are some very good reasons for this.

The U.S. death toll in Chicago is higher than the U.S, death toll in Afghanistan. The numbers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

You were right about almost everything except the notion that,"banning guns will save a lot of lives regardless". In this you are terribly wrong, it has in fact increased the death toll. JUst like it does in many places around the world. Innocent people die because of gun bans. Criminals die anyway.



It has been eaten.

FrankB

Hi Michael,

your observations are most probably right. However, Chicago is a "gun free island", amid a country where guns are easily obtained. How hard is it to leave Chicago, buy arms, then return back home? Probably not hard at all. So for the people in Chicago, it must seem that the citizens have been disarmed, while criminals haven't. That's an unfair battle.

Michael, my conclusion was rather that a gun ban will prevent people from making use of guns when things go wrong, in anger, in affect. How hard is it for a young man in a socially unstable / poor part of the town to get a gun. How far do you need to go to anger the young man so that he draws the gun? Not far at all I reckon. How is the youth crime rate in the US citites?

However, you have also touched on another important point earlier. Banning guns will not help as such. There is a long way to go to care for the mental health of people in the first place. Also, to bridge the vast divide between rich and poor, between educated and illiterate, between justice and injustice. That is the true task for a sane society, and ideally it goes along with a ban of firearms.

regards,
Frank

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: TheBadger on July 22, 2012, 05:49:00 pm
T-U,
QuoteThe wisest doctors over a century ago performed a lot of unnecessary amputations and thought that blood-letting cured everything. Now, we know better


I would say that those Dr.'s were not very wise. But the wisdom of Americas founders remains.



This is probably the finest example of cognitive dissociation :)
Everything is relative, as I explained. Those doctors back then were really the smartest/wisest, but didn't know any better than we do to today.
There's little to no arguing in that and that it would also apply to the founders of America. As the doctors their wisdom isn't ever lasting, so is the wisdom of America's founders,unless one considers America's founder's wisdom of biblical proportions which closes the loop with associated cognitive dissociation.
So what I mean; what else is there to be discussed if one uses arguments like these?
It's the same between men of science vs. men of religion where after a debate the men of religion always says "it remains to be seen the methodes of science are true, I actually don't believe in them, they are not right and never have been" = end of discussion.

Things have changed, but the foundation doesn't change accordingly.
Consider the music industry who's businessmodel is dying, because the world changed.

So, Frank says the following:

Quote from: FrankB on July 23, 2012, 04:05:41 am

...

However, you have also touched on another important point earlier. Banning guns will not help as such. There is a long way to go to care for the mental health of people in the first place. Also, to bridge the vast divide between rich and poor, between educated and illiterate, between justice and injustice. That is the true task for a sane society, and ideally it goes along with a ban of firearms.

regards,
Frank


The latter is important. Why does Europe have a ban of firearms? How did they get to their sane society as Frank mentions?

Briefly, it's in the foundation. Why?

"We" Europeans (not as the Union per se) grew up/are used to a socially structured society with lots of social services.
The foundation is to have very accessible (higher) education. Consequently you eliminate illiteration and the effect is that one's chances of being "succesful" are a lot more equal than in the US, because everyone simply gets the same opportunities and possibilities to develop himself.
Later on in life some people made good use and some didn't because they could be from a lower social class for example with less social skills, less connections. Just to name a few. However, the big difference is that they are not illiterates, have social security and despite there low salaries they still can make a living. The whole society pays for this. I pay for people who didn't make use of opportunities or in the worst case do shit/nothing. That's the system. But they stilll have a house, food, education and healthcare.

The foundation of US's society is that one takes care of himself. I can compare the paragraph above line by line but I think the point is clear.
There's one big advantage over Europe and that is that when you are succesful and worked your ass off then you can keep it almost entirely for yourself. However, it makes the gap between the rich and poor bigger and blablabla...
So as long as US people keep voting on rednecks from Texas to play war- oil-games instead of building up a social system for healthcare for example then there's a looong way to go.

I was so horrified to see Obama being depicted as Hitler on Union Square in San Francisco and I couldn't believe it was considered normal by the people I spoke with there (mostly the average guy sitting next to me in a pub). If that's how sane society is?

p.s. I did like travelling through the US nonetheless ;)

FrankB

Quote from: Tangled-Universe on July 23, 2012, 04:37:00 am
...
I was so horrified to see Obama being depicted as Hitler on Union Square in San Francisco ...


Really? How dumb is that? How do people make the connection between Hitler and Obama? Duh....





cyphyr

Yeah, I guess my post didn't make much sense, sorry about that.
I was awoken (slight hangover) to the sound of gun fire and this thread was at the top of my page. The rest is history as they say.

I have to say I completely agree with Frank, however you do make some interesting points.
It may be true that the experiment in Chicago with banning guns has failed and the reasons are pretty clear, you can still get guns elsewhere. Maybe it's too late for America. Gun ownership has become too ubiquitous, too "normal", to be easily turned around. However in the UK it is still a relatively rare occurrence, most people do not own guns even in the countryside, hence my anger at seeing/hearing it practically on my door step.

QuoteI did not know the American people had invaded England and were terrorizing you with civilian weaponry. There is a total news black out here! Tell us who's winning?!

You didn't!? I'm surprised.
The effect of Hollywood and popular culture exported from America is well documented. If Batman and similar films had no guns or violence I would doubt their success or appeal. Guns give their owners almost god like powers, being able to extend ones reach way beyond the personal sphere. The result is intoxicating and proven to be extremely dangerous.

A couple of links showing the deaths due to fire arms world wide.
USA=31,918 UK=14
USA=10.27/100,000 UK=0.52/100,000
The data from these links  is varied (due to sourcing methods and interpretation) but the trend is consistent and the difference between the USA and western Europe is quite dramatic although Switzerland dose stand out as a country where gun ownership is actually required and gun crime is low (so it "can" work).

I think Frank and Martin have just expressed my views very well especially about social services and education.

Cheers

Richard
www.richardfraser.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/RichardFraserVFX/
/|\

Ryzen 9 3900X @3.79Ghz, 64Gb (TG4 benchmark 6:20)
i7 5930K @3.5Ghz, 32Gb (TG4 benchmark 13.44)

TheBadger

July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am #21 Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 06:14:48 am by TheBadger
@cyphyr

Hi Richard, I edited my post that was in response to what you wrote above. I re read your post and realized I totally miss took what you were saying. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I still disagree with your position, but as it is a personal one I can at least respect it.

@FrankB,

Hey Frank.

Since I used Chicago as an example, I should make some things more clear.
The gun laws in Chicago are stricter than the rest of the state of Illinois, of which Chicago is the largest city, but the state of Illinois has nearly the same laws.
You can think of Illinois like france, and Wisconsin (for example) like Germany in terms of size and proximity to one another. And if you were to talk to someone from Chicago and someone from Wisconsin you would hear a difference in the language. In terms of culture, the two states may as well be two different countries. I have a reason for putting it this way that will be clear in a moment.

In Wisconsin where I am from, not only can you wear a gun on your belt without a permit, you can also take a safety course and obtain a permit that allows a citizen to wear a firearm in a concealed manor. Additionally, in the state of Wisconsin, one can buy and own a fully automatic machine gun and military grade sound suppressor. Although on the suppressor and machine gun there is a lot of bureaucratic hurdles at both the state and federal levels. And in order to obtain those military weapons you must give up some rights. For example, the ATF can enter your home without notice or warrant to check the status of the weapons.

Illinois and Wisconsin have the same social and economic problems at the individual and community levels. Yet Wisconsin has non of the violence and corruption that you see in Chicago and in other parts of Illinois. Even in Milwaukee, Wisconsin's largest city, where there is some serious problems, there is nothing like what you will see if you live in Illinois. The two states may as well be two different countries. One upholds the U.S. constitution and the other does not. Guess which state has all the problems?

So when you want to import illegal guns into Chicago, you don't just have to leave the city, you have to leave the country, so to speak. So I ask you, how hard is it for a criminal in berlin to cross a border and bring back a single hand gun? Not hard I bet. Or are you saying that there is no gun crime in Europe?

If you look at the statistics in the States, you will see that the gun crime is all in the places with gun bans. I do not know which came first. But I think that It is better to shoot than to be shot.

You asked about the youth crime rate, but I'm afraid I don't know about the ages of people, I have read repeatedly that within the inner cities it is very high, especially in minority communities.

You keep saying that a gun ban will stop something, "How far do you need to go to anger the young man so that he draws the gun?". You mention social status, economics and education. You say that it is poor uneducated people who are the danger, so much so, that we need to ban guns for everyone. But I am, I think, highly educated relative to most of my peers, I am also very poor as a result of that education. I can tell you I never learned morality in school, and even though I am poor I have never even thought to do a murder out of anger.
Violence and gun murders do not come as as a result of poverty and a lack of education, but from a lack of morality. From evil. From the animal side of man. You can not ban those things, so banning guns will not fix or stop them. But having a gun, and knowing how and when to use it can save you from those things.

To your last point, good Sir. You say that the task of a sane society includes gun bans. But I say anyone who gives up their right to defend themselves and their families is insane, or a coward. I will not forsake my duties as a husband, father, son, or brother, and I will not depend on others do what is entrusted with me. I hope that I will have help if I ever need it, but I wont rely on it, that would be stupid.

Also, Tactical shooting is a great sport, one that I think is superior to golf and baseball. I know you guy like 'football' over there. But I like sports that are more about self improvement. And all though shooting is a sport, it is no game. Im to old to be playing games.

@T-U

Just about everything you said in your last post is either factually, historically, or observationally incorrect. But your post was to long and brought up to many different topix to respond to just now. But I will when I have slept ;) Stay tuned.


* Edit)
The shooter in Denver, was not poor, and he was highly educated. Point of Fact.
It has been eaten.

FrankB

I don't know, Michael, you seem to cherry pick a certain side of the story, then put it into focus and through that neglect the bigger picture... But then maybe I am doing the same? Not sure, but I am not pretending to know the truth.
However, I wouldn't think of you as a coward if you had no guns. In fact I think you are a good fellow who I respect.  :)
I wish you could see that a gunless society is possible and has benefits.

Regards,
Frank

cyphyr

Quote
* Edit)
The shooter in Denver, was not poor, and he was highly educated. Point of Fact.


He was also the legal owner of the guns used. Therefore the licensing process plainly did not work.

By the way I also found it almost funny (of course not funny at all) that the FBI quickly put this down to being an "isolated incident" and not "terror related". Both concepts I find very difficult to understand.

Richard
www.richardfraser.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/RichardFraserVFX/
/|\

Ryzen 9 3900X @3.79Ghz, 64Gb (TG4 benchmark 6:20)
i7 5930K @3.5Ghz, 32Gb (TG4 benchmark 13.44)

Tangled-Universe

July 23, 2012, 07:56:17 am #24 Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 10:07:09 am by Tangled-Universe
Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am

...

You can think of Illinois like france, and Wisconsin (for example) like Germany in terms of size and proximity to one another. And if you were to talk to someone from Chicago and someone from Wisconsin you would hear a difference in the language. In terms of culture, the two states may as well be two different countries. I have a reason for putting it this way that will be clear in a moment.

...

Illinois and Wisconsin have the same social and economic problems at the individual and community levels. Yet Wisconsin has non of the violence and corruption that you see in Chicago and in other parts of Illinois. Even in Milwaukee, Wisconsin's largest city, where there is some serious problems, there is nothing like what you will see if you live in Illinois. The two states may as well be two different countries. One upholds the U.S. constitution and the other does not. Guess which state has all the problems?


The way you describe and introduce this statement makes me think it is not the constitution but rather the cultural difference between the 2.
What is it with/in the constitution which makes the difference then?

Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am
If you look at the statistics in the States, you will see that the gun crime is all in the places with gun bans. I do not know which came first. But I think that It is better to shoot than to be shot.


Perhaps we've come at a point where making statements is still fine, but preferably supported by source information?

Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am
You keep saying that a gun ban will stop something, "How far do you need to go to anger the young man so that he draws the gun?". You mention social status, economics and education. You say that it is poor uneducated people who are the danger, so much so, that we need to ban guns for everyone. But I am, I think, highly educated relative to most of my peers, I am also very poor as a result of that education. I can tell you I never learned morality in school, and even though I am poor I have never even thought to do a murder out of anger.
Violence and gun murders do not come as as a result of poverty and a lack of education, but from a lack of morality. From evil. From the animal side of man. You can not ban those things, so banning guns will not fix or stop them.

But having a gun, and knowing how and when to use it can save you from those things.


Yes it is true that one at least have to be "primal" to murder/shoot someone. So lack of morality fits that profile.
I see the lack of morality as a result of survival.
If everyone only has to take care of himself and the society isn't supporting through social security, education etc. then everybody is on their own and as soon as someone is in your way. Things can get primal pretty quickly then I can imagine.

I've isolated your last sentence because I like how it makes an example of what's wrong in the way of US citizens thinking.
Having a gun gives a false feeling of safety. If you have one, like carrying a knife for defense, the more likely it is you will use it.
Your previous statement that "it's better to shoot yourself than being shot" proves this.
If you're being attacked and you're unarmed then you cooperate and no blood is shed.
However, if you carry weapons then you're VERY likely to retalliate with force.
If both parties carry guns then there's ALWAYS a casuality.
Banning guns makes both parties unarmed.
Of course, in reality, through illegal channels, criminals still have guns but it's harder to get since weapon traffic is strictly controlled.
The scope of the problem is then at a certain size which can be controlled by the police.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am
To your last point, good Sir. You say that the task of a sane society includes gun bans. But I say anyone who gives up their right to defend themselves and their families is insane, or a coward. I will not forsake my duties as a husband, father, son, or brother, and I will not depend on others do what is entrusted with me. I hope that I will have help if I ever need it, but I wont rely on it, that would be stupid.

Also, Tactical shooting is a great sport, one that I think is superior to golf and baseball. I know you guy like 'football' over there. But I like sports that are more about self improvement. And all though shooting is a sport, it is no game. Im to old to be playing games.


Defending is often mixed up with killing the burglar/criminal. Defending, by law, means to use similar force to prevent disownage or personal damage. But shooting a burglar through the head is in no way defense. Of course, this is mostly semantics, but not entirely irrelevant I think.

Your last paragraph is just an opinion. I don't see though why other sports than Tactical Shooting are not about self improvement.
And I definitely don't see why it is not a game, but I have a feeling it must be connected to your feelings that you must be able to defend yourself and are only happy with headshots ;D No serious. Why so serious? ;) (About Tactical shooting) Is it not a game because you think you need to be a good shooter? I guess people who can't hit a tin can from 3 feet are still good fathers or good Americans?

Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am
@T-U

Just about everything you said in your last post is either factually, historically, or observationally incorrect. But your post was to long and brought up to many different topix to respond to just now. But I will when I have slept ;) Stay tuned.


I'm pretty sure what I say is historical incorrect :)
Most things happened earlier/later or slightly different, but broadly speaking I don't have the feeling it's that far off.
Factually and especially observationally I'm pretty confident about what I say though.

You can have a very complex number of reasons or combination of factors to describe and hypothesize a problem, but you can also try to look for the simplest one which has the same outcome. It's like Occam's Razor.
The simplest explanation is the right one.

I'm happy I'm observing though. I know I can explain my observations as facts from time to time ;) but I really try to look at problems from a broad perspective without too much emotion or prejudicement. As much as possible of course, because it's impossible to be completely objective.
However, I think as far as your reasoning and way of argumentation here isn't really about observation and reasoning, but mostly filled with patriotic feelings.
Hence you mention you're too old for games indicates for me you're a 'true American' which are known/renowned(?) for their patriottic and conservative point of view.
I don't know your age though and maybe you said "too old for games" to explain you're not easily fooled. So you could be even a lot younger than I. In that respect I can only observe the symbols on the screen and guess.

Quote from: TheBadger on July 23, 2012, 06:09:39 am
* Edit)
The shooter in Denver, was not poor, and he was highly educated. Point of Fact.


So? As long as we don't know a motive then you can't draw conclusions yet.

Quote from: cyphyr on July 23, 2012, 05:43:19 am

I have to say I completely agree with Frank, however you do make some interesting points.
It may be true that the experiment in Chicago with banning guns has failed and the reasons are pretty clear, you can still get guns elsewhere. Maybe it's too late for America. Gun ownership has become too ubiquitous, too "normal", to be easily turned around. However in the UK it is still a relatively rare occurrence, most people do not own guns even in the countryside, hence my anger at seeing/hearing it practically on my door step.


I so extremely agree with that. In my eyes it's indeed too late. In that regard US is just 'lost'.
Also, the fact that you describe your anger tells about the difference in cultures and a social society.

Michael, don't get me wrong. Europe isn't any better because we don't have the gun-problem here (ok you think you don't, but for this one sentence we assume you're wrong and the rest is right;)). For instance, we're constantly being screwed by the banks of London and we're so used of being taken care of by the government and all the systems I explained here before that we can't come up for ourselves anymore.
We should burn the assholes of the banks of London for screwing global economics, but nothing happens. And honestly, that's because of the over-evolved social system. There's always a next 'thing' which can save your ass (at least, here in The Netherlands). Living on the streets here is a choice, really.
As a result there are many problems also now with the integration (rather lack of) of Islamic people. Only in France they have the guts to say they want to keep France France. I don't see that happen to the US quicly because of people like you. We only have one here, Geert Wilders, who is being personally protected 24/7 for many years now because he shares the same kind of emotions like you and the people/poltiicians in France.

All in all I don't think being patriottic and conservative isn't that bad, hence the example above, but some ideas are maybe better to become a bit more weakened.

Tangled-Universe

Quote from: FrankB on July 23, 2012, 07:35:42 am
I don't know, Michael, you seem to cherry pick a certain side of the story, then put it into focus and through that neglect the bigger picture... But then maybe I am doing the same? Not sure, but I am not pretending to know the truth.
However, I wouldn't think of you as a coward if you had no guns. In fact I think you are a good fellow who I respect.  :)
I wish you could see that a gunless society is possible and has benefits.

Regards,
Frank


Ghehe yeah both parties probably do this, so me too perhaps.
I share the same wish but also the same respect to you Michael.
Although you're a gun-cuddler you're good to have around ;D

TheBadger

July 23, 2012, 03:29:14 pm #26 Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 03:30:47 pm by TheBadger
Martin,

"I would say that those Dr.'s were not very wise. But the wisdom of Americas founders remains." Me

"This is probably the finest example of cognitive dissociation" T-U

While your powerful arguments have convinced me that anyone who disagrees with you is very clearly, and deeply internally conflicted, perhaps even mentally ill, and certainly brainwashed (not to mention stupid). I nonetheless submit to you that it is not consensus that proves wisdom, but the passage of time. 

"what else is there to be discussed if one uses arguments like these" T-U

It was your argument. I said something and than you said something that had nothing to do with what I said, and then you lambasted me for it. I spoke of philosophy and sovereignty and you brought up medicine. You write about the music industry and all manor of things never answering the first question. Does a man have the right to defend him self or not? If you say yes and then offer a "but", then your answer is really no. If the answer is just yes, than you cannot ban guns. Regulate perhaps, but ban, no.

Yes I read what you wrote about the difference between defence and killing. Perhaps when you awake at 3am to find a burglar in your home you will offer him a free psychoanalysis, try to find out if he planned only to steal from you, or if he was going to kill you and rape your wife and daughter too. Tell him about Sigmund freud. As everyone in your country is literate, he will know what you mean. Afterwords you can take him to the pub for a tall one.
As for me, my assumption is that anyone who breaks into my home is there to kill me. So yes you are correct again, someone is going to end up a casualty. I would rather die than fail my wife or son. Just to put this in perspective, When I was a baby my house was invaded, we were robed, and a family member was assaulted. That family member, to this day, cannot stand being alone in a house at night.
So Damn the social conscience of "progressive" thinking, and Don't tread on me!

"We Europeans" T-U

My response here is long and complex, but fun. So please read, since I read you:)

No, everything is not relative as you explained. I am not a secular humanist. The only things I hate more than post modernist thinking is modernist thinking, and the fact that I cannot escape either one internally or externally... One thing in particular I hate about modernism, is the requirement that history be forgotten, or rewritten to suit purpose.

Now I do not believe that a creative mind can be nihilistic, since a nihilist cannot create. But it is creative people who most often claim to be nihilist, particularly among musicians and image makers. A strange trend, but one which I believe is observable. The shooter in Denver claimed he was the Joker, did you see The Dark Knight Returns? The Joker represented Nihilism in the film, that is not just an opinion, that is the obvious philosophical cloak of the character in the film. They all but say so several times in the movie.
All mass murders are Nihilistic in their thinking. Not just the little dogs like in Denver, but the big dogs too; Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco. Then of course Europe has its little dogs just like the U.S.; Ryan, Michael Robert, Borel, Eric, Leibacher, Friedrich, Dornier, Christian, Bird, Derrick, Izquierdo, Antonio And Izquierdo, Emilio, Palic, Vinko.

Most if not all of these people denied the existence of God, if not verbally than by action, and thus any meaning to life. They believed they descended from animals, that they were animals. My point is not a religious one, but rather that atheism churns out Nihilists. Since if an atheist is honest with himself, he must become a nihilist, or he must delude himself to avoid it. I am not referring to ideas of religious people here, but of frederick niche.
And before anyone jumps on me about the mass murders committed by religious people, let me just say that by definition God must be just, and therefore cannot abide murder. A man *can* be religious, and an atheist at the same time. A man *can* be religious and a nihilist in his thinking and actions. Thanks to modernism and postmodernism.  But whats my point?..

The point is that Europe's social system is producing Nihilists like a factory. And you have totally disarmed your selves! I am not talking about the little dogs, I am talking about the big dogs on their way! Was 50 years ago really so long ago? If the European Union fails, which it may very well do, you are all screwed! And I repeat, to disarm yourselves in this world is insane.
To close on this point, a Nihilist can do only one of two things; 1)Nothing. And, 2) Destroy.

You also said you grew up in a socially structured society, but all societies are socially structured. What you meant, based on the rest of what you wrote, is that in your society the social structure is such that the individual is less important than the community. That because, as you said, you are dependent on the state and cannot readily "fend for your selves" that it is a necessity to preserve the group over the individual.. You are Borg, resistance is futile.

You say that because everyone in your country in literate that you have a more equal chance at being successful. Then why, even per capita, is the U.S productivity so much higher than in europe? I submit to you that the appearance of any success from your beloved social policies comes much more as a result of your small population(s) relative to national GDP(s). That is to say, it is much easier to feed 10 million, than it is to feed three hundred million. What does this have to do with firearms? Nothing, I'm just responding to your attack. Yes, your arguments were much more bite than brain; See paragraph one of this post.

The reason some people refer to Hitler and stalin and Obama in the same breath, is not that people think obama is what they were. But the rhetoric is more of a way to describe Obamas cult of personality.
His followers here have literally done crazy tyrant style things. For example,
replacing the name of Jesus in religious songs with Obama and making public school children sing it.
Public school teachers have on several occasions, verbally attacked students for voicing doubts about Obamas quality or qualifications as President.
Also because of his repeated statements that America is unworthy, unfit, and backwards.
He insults our nations traditional religions while defending religions that have no real spiritual history in the U.S. And by defending I mean promote as equal. But if those religions have not done equal work to build America, how can they be equal.
There is a ton of reasons, not the least of which is his lack luster support for the jewish state, and several media Images of him in a Halo.
Then again there is his association with and appointment to office of, people who have expressed very extremist positions. No Im not going to find all the images and videos for you.
Oh yeah, then there is the Nobel Peace prize for not bringing peace to anyone or anything. People are really bothered by him, but his supporters will tell you its all about race.
Some of his supporters think Obama is the literal second coming of Christ.

I really am sick of the fighting over Obama. I personally do not find the rhetoric useful or intellectually sound. I just want him defeated in the next election. I simply don't think he has done a good job at anything.

You asked about the constitution.
If a man has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, than the constitution must allow for the right to keep and bear arms. If a man does not have the right to defend his life and property, than he does not have a right to life. Rights do not come from men, if men give them, they can take them away. But You cannot take away my rights. Why is that? If you think the answer is simple, you a have the wrong answer.

"lack of morality as a result of survival".

Morality has nothing to do with survival. A righteous (morally upright and Just) man remains a righteous man in the face of adversity and tragedy. A wicked man is just as easily revealed by conflict. Consider those who gave their lives to save others during the shooting in denver. And compare them to the shooter.
Modernism, and post modernism especially, deny the existence of good and evil, right and wrong. One mans terrorist is another mans hero and so on. But what man can say a killer of babies is a hero, and also say of him self that he is righteous? So the belief system must exclude the notion of right and wrong or else the thinking must fall apart.

"Having a gun gives a false feeling of safety"

Only if your untrained. And not really prepared to shoot someone, then your screwed. I was a professional armed courier working with banks. so I am trained. Im not an expert, but I got a leg up on crack heads. Anyway most shooters take classes. You make to many assumptions and bold statements based on nothing, Martin.

"I really try to look at problems from a broad perspective without too much emotion or prejudgement" T-U

Try harder.

"So? As long as we don't know a motive then you can't draw conclusions yet"

I didn't draw a conclusion until this post above^^. Read more carefully.

"The foundation of US's society is that one takes care of himself" T-U

NOOOO!!!! You are absolutely completely and totally wrong! The foundation of america was that the people took care of one another, and left only defense, international relations and a few other things to the federal government. Everything else was left to the People, the state, and the CHURCH. Who took very good care of one another!
You have no Idea what your talking about here. None!

Ok
So I am impassioned and I fight, but I am not angry and yes I respect you, Martin, for a lot of reasons. But on this I do not think we could ever find agreement. But that is perfectly fine, since neither of us can vote in the others country, we can't effect one another. So I am safe from your ideas, and you are safe from mine. But believe me, I find your ideas as dangerous as you find mine.

I am glad to have met you in these forums, and I'm always glad to talk with you. Peace! :)


FrankB,
I was not cherry picking lol, I was debating fine points. Perhaps not as well as I needed to? But I would have cherry picked if I had the chance to plot tactics! lol, you guys did not give me the chance to be lazy.

To answer your statement, "I wish you could see that a gunless society is possible and has benefits?"

Yes, it is possible and has benefits. Germany was a gunless society for awhile, did your father, or grand father tell you about it? My grandfather on my mothers side told me about it. He was born in Germany, he left just in time to escape the "benefits of a gunless society". He eventually returned to his home land though, but he was caring a tank then. All of my uncles are named for dead men.

So I know about the benefits of your gunless society. And no, we are not jewish. Protestants actually, at least historically.


And yes I respect you too Frank, I hope my tone does not betray my good feelings for everyone here. I appreciate your calm and diplomatic approach to debate, very much. I hope we can passionately disagree again in the future.  :)

T-U and I will certainly argue again, it seems neither one of us can stop our selves! ;D

Peace Richard! (through superior firepower) ;)


You guys have exhausted me, I quit.
It has been eaten.

cyphyr

Quotelet me just say that by definition God must be just, and therefore cannot abide murder.


lol, that's just too funny

:)

Richard (atheist an lovin' it, I don't need a fantasy to know right from wrong or to give value and meaning to life)
www.richardfraser.co.uk
https://www.facebook.com/RichardFraserVFX/
/|\

Ryzen 9 3900X @3.79Ghz, 64Gb (TG4 benchmark 6:20)
i7 5930K @3.5Ghz, 32Gb (TG4 benchmark 13.44)

FrankB

July 23, 2012, 05:11:03 pm #28 Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 05:19:47 pm by FrankB
As far as I am concerned, we've debated this enough, but I really want to end with that atheism doesn't produce nihilism. Just through denying the existence of god, the same person doesn't automatically deny all order of value, society and existence. Atheism and nihilism are very different from each other, and again I wish you would not base your thread of conclusions on your interpretation of the relation between the two.

Having said that, "Europe" isn't churning out nihilists like a factory. Actually most people I have ever met have a very sane set of values they live by and teach their children (of cause there are exceptions), really the majority is just fine, although they might not believe in god, or at least neglect the church as god's representation on earth.

I think religion must be kept out of this particular discussion - it has very little to do with it.

I have also said enough now :-)

Regards,
Frank

Tangled-Universe

July 23, 2012, 05:59:18 pm #29 Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 06:03:33 pm by Tangled-Universe
May be I'll have 1 more go tomorrow, but for now I only want to explain briefly what cognitive dissocation means. Or better english is cognitive dissonance I realize now.

First of all I should probably not try using a bit too specific/specialized terminology, because it clearly confuses people and could make them feel offended or give any undeserved negative feeling. So sorry for that.

Cognitive dissociation/dissonance is not a mental state of illness (not from a medical point of view or not really from a psychological point of view).
So when you have/do it, you're not ill, dumb, weak-minded or whatever.

It happens when one is confronted with information, argumentation etc. which makes him/her realize the information or argumentation is valid and weighs "stronger" than his own information and arguments. Yet, still he/she denies it because it doesn't fit with his/her general ideas/beliefs. A kind of short-circuiting occurs and the subconsciouss screams to your cognitive functions "noooooooo". Not much to do about that.

It's like people trying to convince me Ronaldo is better than Messi. I know you don't like football so you probably don't know them, but rest assured, Messi is the best, ever ever ever. See my point :)

So in the context of my argument it meant that I can carry on thousands of examples why I think your logic fails in regard to deterioated wisdom, it won't help because the things I say do not fit with your ideas/beliefs. It will never be in my power/possibilities to persuade you.

Whether this happened here can be debated about, but it was how I experienced and see it and I just want to assure you that I do not have any intention to make you look like a feeble minded dude. Therefore I thought I would be need to explain this particular issue before going to bed :)

Cheers!