6 ms·

I left reddit to get away from those with facile arguments which relied on an appeals to emotion rather than logic and fact. Yours is one of the former. But I

I left reddit to get away from those with facile arguments which relied on an appeals to emotion rather than logic and fact. Yours is one of the former. But I'll bite anyways: how many more children have died under oppressive regimes where the people were not able to defend themselves?

tome 14y ago
Mine was not an argument, more a suggestion that your argument needs clarification. Please note that while I admire your aversion to "appeals to emotion" bringing "what happens if the system collapses? ... Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion" to the discussion may violate this ideal.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  That is not an appeal to emotion, that is an appeal to history. The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that the world has seen the end of destabilization, riots, and war. It has only been half a century since the end of the last 'War to End All Wars,' which happened just a couple of decades after the previous War to End All Wars, shortly after the second World War, the world fell under the shadow of the Cold War, a period where we came very close to all-out global nuclear war numerous times. I'm sure you're familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis. You may also want to google Stanislov Petrov. Ask an economist just how close we came to all-out GLOBAL banking collapse just a few years ago; we were within a hair's breadth of a severe financial meltdown, and that is not an appeal to emotion - that is fact. None of us can predict the future, but to assume that we have seen the end of destabilization and the unknowns that destabilization brings seems rather foolish.
  - darkchasma 14y ago
    We're talking about getting rid of civillian arms, not the arms held by the military or even police officers. Every example you have given is a war between nations. If you want to play historian, give me an example where there was a better civil outcome when guns were used to overthrow tyranny, or tyrannical ideas. I'll start with the peaceful examples: Egypt, India, US Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage etc... Ideas change the world, not guns. And while you're at it, maybe you could tell me how your little handgun is going to protect you from the next Cuban Missile Crisis? You must be a hellofa shot!
    - notdrunkatall 14y ago
      >give me an example America. ... You people are dense to the point of complete idiocy. My point is that the current period of prosperous peace (relatively speaking) will certainly not last forever. Wars are a fact of life, and when they happen, regimes fall and power vacuums arise. Sometimes, those vacuums are filled not by the most capable (and rarely by the most benevolent) but by the most ambitious. Given the history of the human race, it would be foolish to believe that there will never be another Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al, and on a long enough timeline, it would be incredibly foolish to believe that there will never be one in your neck of the woods, wherever that may be. What are you going to do when you've been labeled an enemy of the state and your friends and family are being shuttled off to a labor camp? Write a strongly worded fucking letter? Guns are our insurance policy that we will not be easily oppressed, whether by a foreign invader or our own government, and that you people have such a difficult time accepting this obvious truth is utterly baffling.
      - darkchasma 14y ago
        America? The war where the tyrannical overreaching government wanted to take away people's right to own other people and enforce more control over the states than the southern states wanted? Because the government; it won. (I'm pretty happy it did too!) :) So, yea... Great example.
        notdrunkatall 14y ago

tome 14y ago

Mine was not an argument, more a suggestion that your argument needs clarification. Please note that while I admire your aversion to "appeals to emotion" bringing "what happens if the system collapses? ... Riots, destabilization, foreign invasion" to the discussion may violate this ideal.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
That is not an appeal to emotion, that is an appeal to history. The entire history of the human race has been that of oppression of the many by the few; only in the last few hundred years have we begun to cast off those chains, and though it is tempting to believe that we will never see them again, people still desire power, sociopaths still exist, and considering the history of our species, I think it unlikely that the world has seen the end of destabilization, riots, and war. It has only been half a century since the end of the last 'War to End All Wars,' which happened just a couple of decades after the previous War to End All Wars, shortly after the second World War, the world fell under the shadow of the Cold War, a period where we came very close to all-out global nuclear war numerous times. I'm sure you're familiar with the Cuban Missile Crisis. You may also want to google Stanislov Petrov. Ask an economist just how close we came to all-out GLOBAL banking collapse just a few years ago; we were within a hair's breadth of a severe financial meltdown, and that is not an appeal to emotion - that is fact. None of us can predict the future, but to assume that we have seen the end of destabilization and the unknowns that destabilization brings seems rather foolish.
- darkchasma 14y ago
  We're talking about getting rid of civillian arms, not the arms held by the military or even police officers. Every example you have given is a war between nations. If you want to play historian, give me an example where there was a better civil outcome when guns were used to overthrow tyranny, or tyrannical ideas. I'll start with the peaceful examples: Egypt, India, US Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage etc... Ideas change the world, not guns. And while you're at it, maybe you could tell me how your little handgun is going to protect you from the next Cuban Missile Crisis? You must be a hellofa shot!
  - notdrunkatall 14y ago
    >give me an example America. ... You people are dense to the point of complete idiocy. My point is that the current period of prosperous peace (relatively speaking) will certainly not last forever. Wars are a fact of life, and when they happen, regimes fall and power vacuums arise. Sometimes, those vacuums are filled not by the most capable (and rarely by the most benevolent) but by the most ambitious. Given the history of the human race, it would be foolish to believe that there will never be another Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al, and on a long enough timeline, it would be incredibly foolish to believe that there will never be one in your neck of the woods, wherever that may be. What are you going to do when you've been labeled an enemy of the state and your friends and family are being shuttled off to a labor camp? Write a strongly worded fucking letter? Guns are our insurance policy that we will not be easily oppressed, whether by a foreign invader or our own government, and that you people have such a difficult time accepting this obvious truth is utterly baffling.
    - darkchasma 14y ago
      America? The war where the tyrannical overreaching government wanted to take away people's right to own other people and enforce more control over the states than the southern states wanted? Because the government; it won. (I'm pretty happy it did too!) :) So, yea... Great example.
      - notdrunkatall 14y ago