>> ^shinyblurry:
This is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to God. The wages of sin is death, and He paid that price for us, so that we could be forgiven and receieve eternal life.

And the doctrine of vicarious atonement is one of the most morally objectionable concepts in the whole Bible.

I might find Dawkins personally objectionable, but I'm sure as hell glad he's around.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

"They're visually announcing to everyone within sight, "Hey look at me! I'm willing to kill someone!""
Horseshit. You can't apply an arbitrary message to someone's actions. I've carried a gun. Do you know if I'm willing to kill someone? Hint: You do not.
"what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can"."
Walking around illegally showing a weapon is cause for alarm, but where this guy lives, it's legal. Ridicule is pointless.
"I have no problem with other people's right to open-carry if they have a valid need to do so. I have a problem with the idea that everyone should open-carry... just because we can."
But that's not what this conversation is about, is it? And it's a false dichotomy.


oh, so you have missed my point entirely. splendid. if i may put it in different terms: if his intention of openly carrying a firearm is explicitly "because he fucking can", he is an idiot. What discernable purpose does it serve to open carry because, and only because "you fucking can" besides announcing to everyone around you, "hey, check it out, ive got a gun, badass huh?" to which i would reply, "how small is your dick? do you drive a porche? whatever, Midlifecrisisasaurus".

what i am not fucking saying is he shouldnt be allowed to.

i open carry and conceal carry from time to time depending on the situation. however, every time i do carry its for a reason other than "because i fucking can". carrying, concealed or otherwise, all the damn time isnt all that smart anyway unless your day to day routine demands it. But if the only thing compelling you to carry is simply "because you fucking can" you are a fucking idiot douche and we will point and laugh at you

"They're visually announcing to everyone within sight, "Hey look at me! I'm willing to kill someone!""

Horseshit. You can't apply an arbitrary message to someone's actions. I've carried a gun. Do you know if I'm willing to kill someone? Hint: You do not.

"what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can"."

Walking around illegally showing a weapon is cause for alarm, but where this guy lives, it's legal. Ridicule is pointless.

"I have no problem with other people's right to open-carry if they have a valid need to do so. I have a problem with the idea that everyone should open-carry... just because we can."

But that's not what this conversation is about, is it? And it's a false dichotomy.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

He walked down the street legally with an item that he was legally allowed to walk down the street with. We don't know why Jeremy was walking around with his gun, and it doesn't matter. If you would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why would I give a fuck?


i couldnt tell you why you should "give a fuck" if i walk around with a jar of cat piss because there isnt any real reason you should "give a fuck". im not arguing that at all. what i am rebutting is this idea that any ridicule of this mans behavior, while it may be well within his rights, is objectionable on the sole premise that "because he fucking can".

imagine you see me walking down the street legally with a legal jar of cat piss. you dont know why i am walking around with a jar of cat piss and it doesnt matter. if i would like to walk around with a jar of cat piss, why should you give a fuck? but if you think im weird for it, youre a paranoid idiot.....now does that make any more sense than chiding me, or anyone else, for very reasonably thinking "jeremy" a douche pickle sandwich, given the context of the situation.

i dont really give a fuck that he was lawfully open carrying. but given the situation that unfolded and how he unnecessarily reacted to it, i am inclined to think he is a douche captain who had no real motive to open carry other than to instigate an awkward scene with the police with the hopes that he may capture video evidence of police brutality that he instigated in the first place to prove a retarded point

for all i care he can continue to act in this way as is his right. doesnt mean im not gonna stop calling him a douche for it though

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You know what? I'm not a libertarian. Most of the cops I've met are courteous and hard working people. A lot of the time, I disagree with Blankfists "way to go, statist idiots" stance. But I'm starting to think that maybe that's because I don't live in the U.S.
Because this is just bullshit.
I have a right to question the actions of a police officer? You're goddamn right I do!
I can handle that a cop crosses the line, but then he gets defended by officials?
Fuck. That. Shit.
In regards to this specific case, a bit of common sense needs applying. Coming up to a cop in the middle of a potentially violent arrest situation and badgering them probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but taping them from several metres away? How is that "interfering"?

You're right. My stance on statism is objectionably wrong. But it's a dissenting viewpoint that at least makes you question the status quo, no? If so, then I feel it's working.
You know, when the US Libertarian Party was started in the US, apparently they never sought to win any elections. It was about changing minds. Think about that. Pretty astounding, IMHO.


I never said it was objectionably wrong. I said I disagreed with it. Maybe I'm crazy, but in general I like having people around with opposing viewpoints*, forces you to justify your own beliefs, so cheers non-statist non-idiot!

*within reason: there is nothing to be gained from debating racists, creationists, homoeopaths and shinyblurry.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You know what? I'm not a libertarian. Most of the cops I've met are courteous and hard working people. A lot of the time, I disagree with Blankfists "way to go, statist idiots" stance. But I'm starting to think that maybe that's because I don't live in the U.S.
Because this is just bullshit.
I have a right to question the actions of a police officer? You're goddamn right I do!
I can handle that a cop crosses the line, but then he gets defended by officials?
Fuck. That. Shit.
In regards to this specific case, a bit of common sense needs applying. Coming up to a cop in the middle of a potentially violent arrest situation and badgering them probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but taping them from several metres away? How is that "interfering"?


You're right. My stance on statism is objectionably wrong. But it's a dissenting viewpoint that at least makes you question the status quo, no? If so, then I feel it's working.

You know, when the US Libertarian Party was started in the US, apparently they never sought to win any elections. It was about changing minds. Think about that. Pretty astounding, IMHO.

@blankfist I'll be honest, I haven't been very careful not to. I will be from now on if you would just respond to the substance of what has been posted. As you might imagine, this isn't the only conversation I'm in over this ruling, provided here again for your convenience. In none of the conversations has someone purporting to be an avid supporter of this protest been able to highlight anything specific in that ruling which they oppose. I actually took the time to read the ruling in light of the protests, and found very little objectionable about it. That is, I'm trying to understand the grievances of the protesters, with genuine interest, but even their supporters can't explain them to me.

I repeatedly hear misinformation which I'd rather wasn't used in the debate, because it shows a disregard for the facts. For instance, that there is a law "against dancing in the memorial." That's ridiculous, of course no such law exists. There is a law against organized demonstration in the memorial. There's as much a law against candlelight vigils in that space as there is against "dancing quietly, at midnight, with 17 like minded individuals." You just aren't allowed to co-opt that space for political purposes, period. The lawsuit filed by Ms. Oberwetter asserted that their right to do so was protected under the first amendment. The ruling (which is only as long, and detailed as it is in homage to Mr. Jefferson) clearly explained why it is not.

I don't want to gang up on you. I want to understand this, and make people think.

She's probably of the pick and chose ideology, which I'd argue everyone is. Bill never lets her finish what she's saying and she never really completes the thought, but it sounds like she's trying to say something along the lines of, 'If you look at all religions they have some objectionable beliefs but they also have many good virtues.'

Which I'm sure is true, however how can a person justify picking and choosing what the word of God is and what isn't? I'm sure they make some sort of logical or emotional decision about what rules are good and which aren't, but they're making a groundless assumption that somethings written in their holy books are God's words and other things aren't.

As soon as someone starts making judgements about what statements are right or wrong in their religion, i.g. a holy book condemns both black people and gay people and a person decides blacks aren't evil but gays are, they undermine the authority afforded to them by their holy book. They can no longer say, it's right because it is in the bible. The rightness or wrongness of a statement of morality must then stand on its own merits. And if you have to do that, what is the use of relying on a holy book as evidence and authority?

I understand why its done, in a sense it's intellectually lazy in another its to protect their emotional well being. If a person holds something as a core belief that is suddenly challenged it is very upsetting, if they don't or are unable to defend that belief on a rational logical basis, one way is to appeal to a higher authority, i.e. God. They are saved the trouble of dealing with the dissonance created by their views being successfully challenged.

Unfortunately laws are made this way. Laws that can not withstand the scrutiny of logic and reason, or do not have a clear logically obtained stance. So an appeal is made to people's cultural views using God as an authority. And the consequence is that those people who do not hold those culturally derived values suffer, through incarceration, their inability to live their lives in a manner that makes them happy, or because those who hold counter cultural values doggedly harass those that do not hold their values.

And that I think is my biggest problem with religion as a whole, it isn't just a moral guide for those who choose to follow, but often becomes a tool to supress those that don't.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.
Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.


But there's a difference between caution and doing nothing. A genocide would already be underway were it not for the international, UN sanctioned mission. That much we can say with certainty. Even Al Jazeera's article here leaves little doubt where things were going hours before the UN resolution was passed.

The article includes this quote from an interview with Gaddafi's own deputy ambassador to the UN:

In the coming hours we will see a real genocide if the international community does not act quickly.

Advising caution is great. Advising inaction in the face of a pending genocide is cowardice.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.

Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:
-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.
If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?
What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?


The evidence that the US has never acted in a humanitarian manner when bombing someone.

Look I'm not going to contest any points you make, I'm simply going to advise caution. This story hasn't come out enough yet...there might be more.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
The intervention in Libya stopped a genocide. If you can't point out something far worse that it is causing, then you'd better not make bold claims about how much better things would be if the genocide had been allowed to play out. You sure as anything better not cry for having done nothing by invoking the lives of the Libyan people that would surely be dead already if that had been done.

Just saying that means nothing, sorry but we really don't know enough to claim it stopped a genocide. Just like we found out later that intervention in the Kosovo didn't prevent anything. Since almost all of the crimes Milošević was accused of occurred after the bombing you could argue it exacerbated an already bad situation, blowing it up into something much worse than it could've been.


Here's what we can say, please point out anything objectionable in these points:

-Gaddafi was a dictator who ruled through absolutely brutal repression.
-Gaddafi's soldiers began killing peaceful protesters, escalating even to the use of heavy weapons and airpower against them.
-Gaddafi then threatened to cleanse the nation of the protesters, house by house.
-Gaddafi also warned the protesters that just as Tiananmen square, nobody would rescue them.
-Gaddafi then deployed the full force of his army against the protesters.
-Gaddafi had reclaimed all but the last city held by the opposition when intervention began.

If that can't be called the beginning of a campaign of genocide what can?

What more evidence must the world possibly have before it should act to enforce international law and prevent genocide?

Why is it extreme fiction to think that powerful, ambitious men would take advantage of a power vacuum? Free market intervention via the IMF has horror stories far, far worse than this. Real stories, not fiction. Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Bolivia. Powerful people take advantage of the power vacuum in our country too. Deregulation of derivatives caused the current financial crisis. Deregulating the banks caused the mortgage fraud crisis. Deregulating energy caused the Enron crisis. Business has co-opted our relatively powerful government and led us into war and debt. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and the power of wealthy ambitious men would be unbound. Take away government and the hard fought laws of the last few centuries and what you consider to be oppression would be dwarfed.

When states fail, gangs and warlords always immediately rise up to take advantage of the system.

When I say anarchists and conservative libertarians are naive, I'm not trying to be mean. I think they are blind to the historical constant that powerful, ambitious men will always try and game political systems, and that anarchism, by design, would be completely impotent at stopping them. It is no small coincidence that these powerful, ambitious men support many of the institutions and think tanks that inform your politics. The same people that fund Cato and the Reason Institute also fund PNAC and Freedomworks. Does it not disturb you that Neo-Cons fund your institutions? Does it not disturb you that conservative libertarian heroes like Milton Friedman have backed violence and violent dictators in South America to further their cause? To further your cause?

Anyway, this is why I find conservative libertarianism and anarchism so objectionable. I don't think anarchism could ever happen, because of the paradox that in order to achieve and maintain an anti-state, you would need the power of a state. The reason I oppose a movement that could never get off the ground is that its principles (low taxes, deregulation) are being used as justification for the very tyranny it seeks to abolish.

(PS: check out the documentary: GASLAND. My fiction was based on real events.)

@GeeSussFreeK

I didn't say GDP, I said GDP per capita. Both Finland and the US have roughly the same GDP per capita.

My assertion is that crimes are more likely to be committed by criminals who are empowered by guns. Suicide has nothing to do with this and that's why I didn't address it.

Murder rates are the only universally comparable measure when you consider various violent offenses are classified differently and with varying degrees of tolerance in difference countries.

I think it would hardly be a stretch to assert that guns allow criminals and delinquents to dish out far more death per violent incident - being a reason why crime is average/above average, but murder (especially by firearms) is astronomical.

Either way, I want to address murder singlehandedly as I think it's certainly still an important (and far less finnicky) topic to argue in and of itself, not crime generally.

Crimes again are classified and reported to varying degrees in different countries.

Again, I want to point out that my argument isn't about gun legislation but about gun ownership rates. I have no doubt that if you were to ban guns immediately in one state, there'll not be a chasm of a decline in gun murder rates. Arguments that look at gun laws ignore the blatant fact that US borders are very porous as far as I understand, and that even then, gun laws take years, decades perhaps to have meaningful effects on ownership rates and as a result, general availability at above minimal cost to criminals. Looking at the wikipedia page for California's gun laws, the only meaningful law I see is a 2005 ban in San Fransisco on all firearms and ammunition. Something like this would take at least a decade to have any meaningful effect though, I'm sure I would agree with you here when I say that smuggling guns into simply a city of all places (not a country with customs, or even a state) and selling them on the black market would hardly be difficult - where surrounding areas have no such ban.

I agree that no legislation will prevent a determined terrorist or capable individual from inflicting massive damage if nuclear weapons were readily available and manufactured in large amounts in one area of the world. A concerted and enforced gun ban on the other hand (with restrictions for hunting in some areas, target shooting, and potentially eased laws for protection in remote areas with low police presence) would do a great deal to reduce availability and reduce the incidence of gun murder by petty criminals which makes up the majority of gun deaths in the US.

Take for example our legislation in Australia. There's nothing exceptional about it, I'm just most familiar with it:

"State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a licence, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

There is a very good reason why this has led to a 5.2% ownership rate among citizens and a murder rate by guns of between 29% and 19% that of the US per capita depending on which numbers you use from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

If you want to come back to saying that people simply murder in different ways, then look at purely the murder rate - the number goes up just slightly to 35% (the rate of murder per capita in Australia of that in the US).

Gun laws aren't punishment. Just like nuclear weapon bans aren't punishment. Or Sarin Gas bans. They're good policy.

Just like making everyone buy basic health insurance to reduce risk among consumers and lower prices, where the poorest are subsidised. If you insist on using analogies, I think this compares incredibly well to a gun ban which makes allowance for recreation and hunting (and at least in my view, allowances of 'for protection' licenses in remote areas with limited quantity and strict restriction to avoid smuggling).

Just like the compulsory third party car insurance we have here, that ensures that if you are at fault and damage another car, the innocent party is guaranteed to have their car repaired.

What I hope you understand coming from a libertarian position (and this is repeating the first thing I said in this whole discussion to blankfist) is that libertarianism is not a flat and universal position on individual rights. You, just like anyone I would imagine, have limits to how far you go with individual rights. You recognize the validity of a system of laws to limit the impact of one's individual's actions on another, and the retribution they should receive for violating it. You simply draw the metaphorical line on rights further right on the ideological spectrum than I do.

Therefore you can't simply justify gun ownership by claiming individual rights and the notion that everyone's entitled to them as they are not presumed guilty. You have to consider whether it does harm in society or not, just like the rest of us.

I hope I've laid out a pretty convincing arguments based on the statistics (speculative of course, I have neither the time nor resources to do a rigorous analysis controlling for a multitude of variables) that gun ownership does lead to more (gun) murders. If we were taking about a 10-20% difference, sure it would be debatable, but we're talking about a 2 to 3 fold increase. Let's not kid around about what causes this.

If you think that individual rights are so incredibly important that they trump this palpably gargantuan increase in death (and suffering) then that is certainly a position you can take, but let's be honest about this if that's the position you want to take.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they are. I think the opportunities for self defense, the willingness to use a gun of most people, the willingness of normal and ration people to risk death for losing their property are small. The sheer empowerment and impetus a gun (easily available from a nearby store at a price anyone can pay) can give a criminal on the other hand is huge.

---

Just a quick recap on things I didn't cover.

If you want to demonstrate guns are less devastating than drugs then kindly provide data to support this. If you are referencing the drug war or even if you are not, this is totally irrelevant to the question I posed to you.

Comparing guns to drugs and referencing the opium war is just not a good analogy. Colonialism. Colonialism. Colonialism.

Yes cars kill people, so do airplanes. So do pretzels. In fact, just about everything kills people (although yes car accidents are far more significant than pretzels). We do have a plethora of legislation that increases car safety. Guns are of course unique in that supposedly (if you would believe people in the US), more guns and LESS gun legislation protects you from the more guns you now have and so on. Let's look at this objectionably just as I compared the benefits to defenders versus aggressors for gun ownership. Cars provide an obvious benefit and are fundamental to commerce and modern life (unlike guns 99.9% of the time for private defenders of civil liberty). More legislation and safety requirements can obviously reduce death rates. To me it seems pretty obvious how to proceed here.

^What do you find objectionable about this lecture?