SpeedOfSound wrote:

felltoearth wrote:I can't even respond because I can't imagine a situation I'd be in where I live that I might need to use a gun, let alone carry one around with me.
If one actually needs to carry a gun around with them to feel safe that's the opposite of freedom in my books. YMMV.

I agree. It sucks that my best reasoning leaves me believing that I need to not go out unarmed and I need to never go to sleep without measures.

I agree, that reasoning sucks.

Yup....horrid.

Now Joberg ...that's sound reasoning ...mainstream Merica .....shouldn't be.

Fallible wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Fallible wrote:'Guys like you'? What, like, most people who live in the developed world who don't go to bed with loaded guns under their pillows and wouldn't say 'I will never' because they're open to altering their views?

There is a point here. I get into these conversations about strict background checks and limits on third party gun trading. All really good ideas. Bothersome to 'guys like me' is that the conversation never stays there. I have never been convinced that slippery slope is a 'logical fallacy'. I slipped on many a slippery slope.

Reasonable and conscientious laws concerning gun ownership is possible if the radicalized left view of guns would just reign it in a little bit.

Where have you got it from this time though? No one came at you with any radicalized left view. Someone just made the astounding comment that if you have guns, you should store them properly. Then you just kind of went on a 'cold, dead hands' tirade.

Yes. Cold Dead Hands Tirade is sort of a default response. What I was going off on is this idiocy about bolting a safe to the bottom of your car. Else be judged in the same packet as mr left his gun on the dash. Coming at an individual gun owner with generalizations, statistics, and lumping, is never gonna get much of a warm and fuzzy response.

It is trendy though to go from a universal statistical statement to the specific. When you think about it this is not going to work very well. What do you think of that kind of science?

zulumoose wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

felltoearth wrote:I can't even respond because I can't imagine a situation I'd be in where I live that I might need to use a gun, let alone carry one around with me.
If one actually needs to carry a gun around with them to feel safe that's the opposite of freedom in my books. YMMV.

I agree. It sucks that my best reasoning leaves me believing that I need to not go out unarmed and I need to never go to sleep without measures.

I agree, that reasoning sucks.

Good reasoning just shitty results. Reality sux. I even avoid certain high accident zones when I drive.

I fucking hate sentience.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
I fucking hate sentience.

Me too, but it's all I got going. Imagine how shitty omniscience would be. No wonder God pissed off and left us to our own devices.

The discussion here is about how stupid, stupid gets. It's an interesting thing to watch. Guns are a nice arena to observe the whole game play out.

It does seem to me that we have a powerful feeling bone. The bone decides the direction we are going to end up pointing in. Then the ole brain comes up with all sorts of ways to justify that direction. As if we actually sat ourselves down and reasoned to that result.

Meat eating is another good one. Or abortion.

SpeedOfSound wrote:The discussion here is about how stupid, stupid gets. It's an interesting thing to watch. Guns are a nice arena to observe the whole game play out.

It does seem to me that we have a powerful feeling bone. The bone decides the direction we are going to end up pointing in. Then the ole brain comes up with all sorts of ways to justify that direction. As if we actually sat ourselves down and reasoned to that result.

Meat eating is another good one. Or abortion.

The problem with the feeling bone is that it generally points in the direction it is already pointing. It's called confirmation bias. In the case of guns the bias of the feels generally involves fear. By yours and lak's account the fear has some basis in reality.

However, if I felt that my family was in danger due to where I lived and it came down to owning a gun or moving, I would move. Statistically my family is still indanger with a gun in the house. Best choice in my opinion would be to extract my family from the situation.

felltoearth wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:The discussion here is about how stupid, stupid gets. It's an interesting thing to watch. Guns are a nice arena to observe the whole game play out.

It does seem to me that we have a powerful feeling bone. The bone decides the direction we are going to end up pointing in. Then the ole brain comes up with all sorts of ways to justify that direction. As if we actually sat ourselves down and reasoned to that result.

Meat eating is another good one. Or abortion.

The problem with the feeling bone is that it generally points in the direction it is already pointing. It's called confirmation bias. In the case of guns the bias of the feels generally involves fear. By yours and lak's account the fear has some basis in reality.

However, if I felt that my family was in danger due to where I lived and it came down to owning a gun or moving, I would move. Statistically my family is still indanger with a gun in the house. Best choice in my opinion would be to extract my family from the situation.

Of course. You are a complex individual. So am I. Moving for me is a much larger fear than the one that got the gun.

Another complication. Fear doesn't quite describe my motivation in owning a gun. Something is wrong. It may make perfect sense to you, you not being me. I could say that your not owning a gun is due to fear. How do you feel about that?

Fear and comfort involve our imaginings. We each have a different ready made fantasy world concerning our futures. While I imagine being asleep in this very dark cul-de-sac and having someone covet my really big house, then breaking in and possibly harming me. You may imagine owning a gun and accidently shooting your head off. Your imagination has a gun being something like a sweaty bundle of dynamite sticks.

Do we BOTH have the right to comfort and happiness? If I was tossing around the idea of a law that made a gun in the home mandatory how would your comfort bone feel?

1 in 36 homes in the US are broken into each year. One in 42 cars are involved in a car crash. Ten out of 100,000 people are killed in these crashes. How do we come to imagine what we imagine concerning our mortality?

Another factor in stupid arguments is the emotion of disgust. Disgust is actually based on how our own shit smells. We greater apes having exapted that and employ it in judging the trustiness of others. All that of course is fostered and maintained by what we imagine about other people. We have our ready made, media empowered, stereotypes of the US gun nut for instance.

Then we drag out the stats and hover over them for awhile.

SpeedOfSound wrote:1 in 36 homes in the US are broken into each year. One in 42 cars are involved in a car crash. Ten out of 100,000 people are killed in these crashes. How do we come to imagine what we imagine concerning our mortality?

I don't own a car as I think driving and car ownership is a waste of time and money. I moved to a large city for that reason mainly. YMMV - no pun intended.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:The discussion here is about how stupid, stupid gets. It's an interesting thing to watch. Guns are a nice arena to observe the whole game play out.

It does seem to me that we have a powerful feeling bone. The bone decides the direction we are going to end up pointing in. Then the ole brain comes up with all sorts of ways to justify that direction. As if we actually sat ourselves down and reasoned to that result.

Meat eating is another good one. Or abortion.

The problem with the feeling bone is that it generally points in the direction it is already pointing. It's called confirmation bias. In the case of guns the bias of the feels generally involves fear. By yours and lak's account the fear has some basis in reality.

However, if I felt that my family was in danger due to where I lived and it came down to owning a gun or moving, I would move. Statistically my family is still indanger with a gun in the house. Best choice in my opinion would be to extract my family from the situation.

Of course. You are a complex individual. So am I. Moving for me is a much larger fear than the one that got the gun.

Another complication. Fear doesn't quite describe my motivation in owning a gun. Something is wrong. It may make perfect sense to you, you not being me. I could say that your not owning a gun is due to fear. How do you feel about that?

Fear and comfort involve our imaginings. We each have a different ready made fantasy world concerning our futures. While I imagine being asleep in this very dark cul-de-sac and having someone covet my really big house, then breaking in and possibly harming me. You may imagine owning a gun and accidently shooting your head off. Your imagination has a gun being something like a sweaty bundle of dynamite sticks.

Do we BOTH have the right to comfort and happiness? If I was tossing around the idea of a law that made a gun in the home mandatory how would your comfort bone feel?

Well, like I said I think your fear, which you essentially expressed in your previous post is likely well founded. And yes moving (as opposed to gun ownership) is based on fear as well. Moving lessons the chance that I might have to kill or injure someone. So there's that.

So we can conclude that some people aren't actually stupid because they disagree but rather are different.

SpeedOfSound wrote:So we can conclude that some people aren't actually stupid because they disagree but rather are different.

Yes, though it wasn't me making that comment.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Reasonable and conscientious laws concerning gun ownership is possible if the radicalized left view of guns would just reign it in a little bit.

Sounds to me as if you're saying is that sensible gun laws might be enacted if certain people shut up about enacting sensible gun laws. Those who openly dream of eliminating guns entirely scare the shit out of a particular demographic because when they promote sensible gun laws they're seen as putting the country on a slippery slope to rampant gun-grabbing. 2nd Amendment fundamentalists have worked themselves into a foam-flecked paranoia that leads them to view mass shootings as false flag operations, but I guess we're meant to believe that's the fault of those who hold "the radicalized left view of guns," as if that view had any genuine chance of being realized.

Which lawmakers in the US do you believe belong to the "radical left" in regard to gun laws? The fact is that nobody with any power in the US is proposing the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, and blaming the "radical left" for the long-standing inability of the Congress to take any real steps to enact reasonable and conscientious laws seems remarkably myopic.

Polls show that the majority of the citizens of the US are in favor of such laws, but a vocal minority does not view them as reasonable and conscientious, and there is a very well-entrenched lobby promoting this view. That lobby has convinced politicians of one party that it speaks for an integral element of their constituency, and in fact it does. The politicians of that party have the power to prevent progress in regard to gun regulation. It seems possible that they're the ones who are responsible for the lack of progress.

Reining it in a little bit will never do. People who hold "the radicalized left view of guns" need to shut up entirely about their beliefs, because their very existence triggers the 2nd Amendment fundamentalists. That's not going to happen. This is why the US can't have nice things like sensible gun laws.

Two bulls. Locked horns.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Yes. Cold Dead Hands Tirade is sort of a default response.

It' not a default response. It's the words of a lunatic proving how extreme his position is. Just like everyone holding his position.

SpeedOfSound wrote:So we can conclude that some people aren't actually stupid because they disagree but rather are different.

If I were slightly more vehement, I would consider stupid people as being different, in that they are different to those who are not stupid.

aban57 wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Yes. Cold Dead Hands Tirade is sort of a default response.

It' not a default response. It's the words of a lunatic proving how extreme his position is. Just like everyone holding his position.

That doesn't do justice to the art of political negotiation.

You need to go a little meta on this thing and take your own death grip into account.

LucidFlight wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:So we can conclude that some people aren't actually stupid because they disagree but rather are different.

If I were slightly more vehement, I would consider stupid people as being different, in that they are different to those who are not stupid.

I know some perfectly intelligent Trump supporters. They aren't quitting either. Damndest thing, they want someone in the china shop kicking over ALL of the tables. How did we get there?