Freedom begets freedom

[Stardreamer]

Explain the last part. I'm curious how you are connecting them, as they are completely unrelated.

Best I can tell he is engaging in stereotypes, all gays must be liberals and all liberals must hate guns.

 

[bankside]

That's funny, but it completely ignores his actual point.

Remember, my question was not "What culture routinely allows self-defence" but "What kind of culture routinely requires it?"

So my question was never answered. Anyway, I don't think much of a culture where people are given to be so violent that it would actually be practical for me to have a gun for self defence.

It's overkill, in the literal and figurative sense of the word. It makes no more sense than buying a personal submarine to withstand the coming tsunami.

Also, as far as basic rights go, I reserve the right to invoke my right to self-defence by embarking on a program of mutual disarmament. There is a consensus in much of the world that that is a preferable approach.

 

[Stardreamer]

No; you're missing the point. We have a natural right to defend ourselves against tsunamis as well. But for some reason Calgary and Toronto and Chicago and Johannesburg and Beijing are really lax in their preparations….aaaaand yet nobody seems to care. In fact life is pleasant there, despite the complete failure to address the looming tsunami problahahahahaha. I can't it's too silly.

While I'm sure some people would risk living in Vancouver or Tokyo or Los Angeles because they feel that other factors would outweigh the risk of inundation, I don't understand people who are willing to risk living amongst risky neighbours. Keep your guns. And keep your neighbours. I won't have either.

You chose an utterly silly analogy you will of course get a silly result GIGO. I assume you don't think Tokyo's series of tsunami defenses (flood walls and gates, sensors, evacuation plans, etc.) which they feel are very necessary and probably saved many lives in the recent disaster are not justified because Berlin doesn't feel they need them?

 

[Stardreamer]

Um there you go putting words in my mouth again. No, I'm not engaging in stereotypes, nor did I say that. That's a very poor attempt to discredit.

Not really wanting to but your logic escapes me and I'm trying to develop some understanding, I would welcome a clearer explanation that doesn't involve logic errors like below, lacking that I have to go with what I see.

What I am saying is many people who advocate gun rights are anti-gay also... and that's where the conflict happens.

Flawed logic AND another stereotype. Might as well say many people who wear bluejeans are anti-gay also.... Where is the connection? Many people who advocate gun rights are pro gay also, Kulindahr for example. It also provides no reasoning as to why gays should be anti-gun, even if this faulty cross-reference were true it does not make the inverse necessary true.

Why do people push accusations on here? Can't handle the fact that some have different viewpoints?

I love the fact that folks have different viewpoints life would be so boring otherwise, doesn't mean I can't point out flaws in those viewpoints as I see them.

 

[Zu-Mendel]

Guns are not required nor necessary for self defense. Self defense is something that is a lot bigger then guns. I don't believe guns are required for freedom or self defense. And I don't see how the LGBT community can be at peace with those who want lenient gun laws.

I don't know where exactly you grew up, but down here in rural areas of Florida we have a little bit of a redneck problem. Knowing you can put 6 rounds into a quarter at 8 yards goes a long way towards setting your mind at ease in tense situations with people who would like nothing better then chain you up to the back of their truck and go for a little 'fag drag'.

Tell me this, if every single eligable LGBT American got their CC permit by the end of this month, and responsibly carried at all legal times, just how many gay bashings would we see in March?

I would argue that everybody should at least carry police-grade mace; I don't think it's banned anywhere in this country. There is simply one lable for people who refuse to prepare to defend themselves, potential victims.

 

[JB3]

I don't see where you are building an argument based on logic here. I've already gone through this quite clearly, and there are no logic errors in my argument.

Except you haven't explained it, which is why people are questioning your logic. All we want to know is how you're going from A to B, from gun rights to their incompatibility with gay rights. So far you've only stated that they're connected, but you haven't explained HOW they are.

No I'm sorry, but it's certainly not flawed logic or stereotyping. If I said ALL it would have been a stereotype. But I Said many. Correlations matter in this regard. Anti-gay people possess many guns in this country and to me that's disturbing. Many in this country shouldn't have guns in the first place.

Since when do you have the right to pass judgement on a person's ability to have a gun? Oh, that's right, you don't.

Despite your attempt to explain away your stereotype with your use of many, it doesn't change the fact that you were still stereotyping. If a person said that many black people like fried chicken and grape soda, or many mexicans are illegal immigrants, no person in their right mind would say 'oh its okay, they said many instead of all so its not a stereotype'. It doesn't matter what language you couch it in, you are promulgating a negative stereotype of gun owners.

I love the fact you're so quick to point out logical fallacies where there are none. It simply shows your argument is non-existent.

How about you actually explain your position. Since you haven't, what you've given us thus far is all we can judge your argument on. In that light, it is full of logical errors.

 

[Stardreamer]

I don't see where you are building an argument based on logic here. I've already gone through this quite clearly, and there are no logic errors in my argument.



No I'm sorry, but it's certainly not flawed logic or stereotyping. If I said ALL it would have been a stereotype. But I Said many. Correlations matter in this regard. Anti-gay people possess many guns in this country and to me that's disturbing. Many in this country shouldn't have guns in the first place.



I love the fact you're so quick to point out logical fallacies where there are none. It simply shows your argument is non-existent.

Ohh so if I say 'many' gay men like to have sex with small boys its not stereotyping?

Correlations are only relevant when you can show a relevant connection. Many anti-gay people wear blue jeans so should gays fear blue jeans?

 

[Stardreamer]

*yawn* I guess a few don't seem to understand I can't see their posts.

Have a nice day guys. I think I've said all there needs to be said. I've seen guns, and I've seen the damage they can do to people. My growing up has an impact on the way I think. Some have their way of thinking and I'm fully willing to accept that. But I personally will not ever own a gun.

Well at last your logic is clear, it is simply a personal bias.

 

[andysayshi]

The article paints fairly tenuous parallels to me. I think you could make generic connections between any generational social changes. I don't think the article links gay rights and gun rights very strongly. Most of the comparisons seem weak, to me. I will say that, given the audience, it shows how gay rights is spreading into very mainstream and male-dominated environments.

The way I see it, they are fundamentally different struggles because they seek different goals. Gay rights is the pursuit of acceptance and inclusion: to be respected, to have equality under the law, to have our relationships recognised as valid and important. Gays want to be united and welcome with greater society, equal to their fellow citizens.

Gun rights, on the other hand, is rooted in the distrust or fear of one's fellow citizens and/or government. Rather than wanting to unite, to join and meld, gun rights is a response to the belief that those around you cannot be trusted - that you must protect yourself from society, rather than be unified with it.

Carrying a gun doesn't earn you respect, it earns you fear. Other than other gun enthusiasts, few people look at a civilian carrying a gun with respect or admiration: they are usually fearful, concerned, or at least bemused. Carrying a gun might make you feel equal, stronger or more powerful than your potential attacker, but that's not respect. If the majority of gays armed themselves, demanding rights or else, it would not win them respect or equality: it would make them intimidating or feared. Intimidation and fear doesn't win you friends, it makes you enemies.

Gay rights is the pursuit of unity and respect. Gun rights is the pursuit of power, of the desire to be more powerful than a perceived enemy. I don't think they are the same at all.

 

[White Eagle]

Why may I not construct a dungeon in my basement? I have a rational purpose for it: to contain people who put my life at risk by breaking-and-entering, and to make of them an example to others.

Surely if I can shoot people in self defence, I can imprison them. Yet the building codes oppress me and deprive me of this common-sense solution to everyday crime.

Gays who push trespassers into the oubliette don't get bashed.

You need to move to Texas. If anyone comes onto your property to do harm or theft you can shoot em dead and not be tried for murder.

 

[T-Rexx]

Appreciating that carrying a firearm increases your chances of getting shot by 4.5x and your chances of getting killed by 4.2x, the only gays who should be carrying guns are those who really, really want to get shot and killed.

Period.

Argue all you want about how important and powerful a gun makes you feel. The most probable change that it will cause in your life is that you will die.

 

[Kulindahr]

I didn't skip the point of the article. I'm just saying it doesn't add up. Gay rights and gun rights are fundamentally incompatible. You can have courage to fight for freedom without guns.

Um, in the blue you make a claim, but then you go on to talk about something unrelated to the article.

How about addressing what the article had to say?

 

[Kulindahr]

Appreciating that carrying a firearm increases your chances of getting shot by 4.5x and your chances of getting killed by 4.2x, the only gays who should be carrying guns are those who really, really want to get shot and killed.

Period.

Argue all you want about how important and powerful a gun makes you feel. The most probable change that it will cause in your life is that you will die.

You're citing the New Science article? Seriously?

Their "methodology" went like this (to use another topic): you find a day in a large city where there were 33 traffic deaths. Those deaths break down into one bus crash where thirty people died, and three separate car crashes. So you claim that riding a bus is ten times as likely to get you killed as riding in a car.

See the problems? The biggest one is obvious to anyone who has a clue about statistical studies: the data don't anywhere include how many people were riding buses and how many were in cars that day, total! The lesser one is that the data were selected (to be) from a narrow window.

In other words, your comparison is foolish. And that's what the New Science comparison is -- it's high school freshman 'math' as opposed to graduate student math, middle school methodology as opposed to graduate student.

New Science didn't study how many people carried guns and how many didn't, so right from the start their data isn't meaningful in the least. They also didn't distinguish whether you're a criminal carrying a gun or an honest citizen carrying a gun. It's trash.

 

[T-Rexx]

You're citing the New Science article? Seriously?

Don't like that one?

How about the American Journal of Epidemiology?

The Southern Medical Journal?

The Journal of the American Medical Association?


I could go on and on and on, of course, but I know that no amount of science will persuade you.

Guns make you feel important. And, to some people, that is something worth dying for.

But please don't post in here claiming that bearing firearms will help make us safer. That is a lie.

 

[Stardreamer]

No it's not. Open your eyes to different perspectives please. It would help instead of insulting them.

And thanks for that article T-Rexx. Proves my point exactly. People with guns are more likely to get shot by other people with guns (MS-13?), or worse getting jumped and having their gun used against them. Some will jump on the credibility of the study without providing any counter-evidence.

I am open to different perspectives when they presented to me. I've been patiently waiting for you to present something..anything.. that supports the position you laid out. All you have given me is unrelated correlations with nothing to support the tie other than your own opinions of groups of people.

 

[Stardreamer]

I have presented a different perspective, but you have come to me with nothing at all... besides weak character attacks.,

I see the perspective you are presenting, all I'm asking is for you to support the reasoning behind it. I'm being quite restrained on this, if I really wanted to attack your character you've given me lots of ammunition to do so, nearly everything you accuse me of I've observed in your debate both in this tread in and others. But I've done my best to ignore that because I DON"T WANT TO GET INTO YOUR CHARACTER! I want to understand the why of your perspective, if you are dissatisfied with the conclusions I am forced to draw, perhaps you need to explain yourself better.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't like that one?

How about the American Journal of Epidemiology?

The Southern Medical Journal?

The Journal of the American Medical Association?


I could go on and on and on, of course, but I know that no amount of science will persuade you.

Guns make you feel important. And, to some people, that is something worth dying for.

But please don't post in here claiming that bearing firearms will help make us safer. That is a lie.

Well, the first two aren't science, any more than your other offering was, because they're not studying what they say they're studying. In both cases, as before, they aren't studying the set of households which have firearms, they're studying the set of households which had violent deaths.

Further, both studies are irrelevant because they don't distinguish between criminals shooting each other, residents shooting intruders, and the other situations. THey don't limit it on the basis of who had the firearm or what it was used for.

I will note that in the case of the third item above, they acknowledge a study which showed some 400,000 lives saved in a year by the use of firearms. That would mean, by your prior figure, that 1.68 million people in households with guns are killed violently every year. Even using a different study, which found only half as many lives saved, the figure comes out to 840k people dying violently each year in households where there are firearms. Both figures are ludicrous; they would make it arguably safer to move to Somalia.

But the last one I can't tell if it's science or not -- it discusses all sorts of things that could affect the outcome of a study, but it never gives any basis on which a study could be or was done. It looks like a summary of other research, which is often the sort of thing done by people too lazy to do their own.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'll not make any comment other than to say that GiancarloC is saying all that you know i would be saying too Kuli. I've had too much excitement debating in other threads of late to amass the energy to get involved in this old gem again (tempted as i am lol)

Except he's not addressing the article. I'd count on you to do at least that much.

 

[Stardreamer]

Statistics are wonderful things, as many bright minds have observed in the past.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli (1804 - 1881)

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
Evan Esar (1899 - 1995)

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.
Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

I gather, young man, that you wish to be a Member of Parliament. The first lesson that you must learn is, when I call for statistics about the rate of infant mortality, what I want is proof that fewer babies died when I was Prime Minister than when anyone else was Prime Minister. That is a political statistic.
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Wayne LaPierre slips into that last kind not infrequently. I call it the "fallacy of enthusiasm": if it appears to support a preferred position, it gets embraced as actually supporting that position.

That man gives the NRA a bad name.