Sheriff calls for guns on campus

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.

You are the one complicating matters. Animals do what they want unless/until something stops them. Very simple.

If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.

The hell it won't. Lions will chase anything out of their territory on a whim. They can do what they want. So can the Cheetah unless the lion stops it. Very simple.

In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.

No one and nothing can give you rights, only take them away.

[Undertoad]

UG: Guns make people polite.

DanaC: Britain has no guns but is very polite.

Indeed, one of the outstanding things about Britain is its polite culture. It's as built-in to the people as America's individualist streak.

Within cultures there are traditions and teachings and approaches that give the people their basic make-up. What we were taught as children, we will teach our children, and they will teach their children. And this will determine who we are at the very root, and whether or not we will queue ("single file") for a bus or train or elevator.

Brits: Of course we will stand in a queue. We are British.

Americans: Of course we will bunch up at the entrance, fighting to get in, barely letting the departing people off. We are American.

So what UG is actually saying -- although he doesn't realize it -- is "Guns make the American people polite", quite a true statement.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

.

Brits: Of course we will stand in a queue. We are British.

I just love how queue is spelled. 4 vowels, one consonant, 1 syllable. That has to be some kind of record.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You are the one complicating matters. Animals do what they want unless/until something stops them. Very simple.

You do not need rights for animals to do what they want unless something stops them. The idea of rights is what complicates it.

If you are in a fight to the death do you need someone to tell you that you can do whatever you want, you just do what you need to survive (or at least a smart person does and nature tends to have a way with dumb people in those situations).

The hell it won't. Lions will chase anything out of their territory on a whim. They can do what they want. So can the Cheetah unless the lion stops it. Very simple.

Why does the lion chase the other animals out of its territory? Because the lion has a territorial instinct passed down from its previous ancestor that also had it. The territorial instinct beat the non-territorial instinct in natural selection so instinct tells the lion that chasing the other animals out of its territory will ensure the passing of its genes on, which follows my rule.

For my initial example, I was talking about the lion leaving its territory to kill the cheetah to eliminate competition.

No one and nothing can give you rights, only take them away.

You can't just get rights from nothing. Something has to give them to us or they cease to exist. Everything has a source, something has to come from something else (there are exceptions but that has nothing to do with this).

The idea of infinite rights is the same thing as nothing. If you get in a fight where someone tells you everything is fair game and you get in a fight where no one tells you anything, it is the same fight; just the second is much simpler.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So what UG is actually saying -- although he doesn't realize it -- is "Guns make the American people polite", quite a true statement.

I don't completely agree with this and will hopefully build off it. While "Guns make the American people polite" does apply to many (most could possibly fit too) it does not apply to every sub-culture that is considered American.

UG's example, a gun range, is only one sub-culture of America and his example is very true for that sub-culture.

If you go to other sub-cultures, such as gangs, you will see the opposite.

Maybe it isn't being "American" or "British" that makes someone polite with guns or no guns but how they react to the power they get from guns. The people that go to gun ranges have been taught to react differently to the power of guns opposed to the people that join gangs. The people that go to ranges see guns as something greater than just a tool, but as a symbol of peace and/or respect. The people that join gangs see guns as a tool to enforce their lust for power.

In the hands of one sub-culture, guns can and will make society safer, but in the hands of the other sub-culture, it makes society much more dangerous. I will also assume that these sub-cultures or trains of thought are not just limited to America, but the entire human race.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

That is well and rightly said, pierce.

Though I think it would be less the "society" than the individuals within it -- and their individual choices how to behave.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Hmm. I don't know about that. For the most part, my country is quite a polite place to be. There're the usual problems of loitering teenagers, swearing and getting in peoples' faces, but on the whole we're a relatively polite society. Also on the whole, we don't expect people to be carrying firearms.

This does go a ways to illustrate my point. Consider also the exquisite manners of military aristocracies, worldwide. I don't think it's a coincidence that careful good manners are practiced by those who are among other things professional killers.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Guns are not like heroine*, I can not just avoid guns like I can heroine. If someone takes heroine, I will never be killed from it. That is the point of the whole debate, what may be worse for the individual may be best for the community.

If you do not attempt to assault, rape, or murder me, you won't be harmed by my gun.

Just as in your heroin example, you make the choice not to engage in the risk-taking behavior. Actually, it goes beyond that. You are ultimately harmed by the guy doing heroin. It's your money that's going to send him to rehab, and your stuff that he's stealing (even if indirectly by an increase in your taxes to pay for the police to deal with the crime related to his drug use).




_____
* Note: There is no "e" in heroin. Putting one there makes me nuts.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If you are in a fight to the death do you need someone to tell you that you can do whatever you want, you just do what you need to survive (or at least a smart person does and nature tends to have a way with dumb people in those situations).

Thats it! You don't need some one to tell you. You finally got it! Your (they're) rights are natural, given by no one.

Why does the lion chase the other animals out of its territory? Because the lion has a territorial instinct passed down from its previous ancestor that also had it. The territorial instinct beat the non-territorial instinct in natural selection so instinct tells the lion that chasing the other animals out of its territory will ensure the passing of its genes on, which follows my rule.

For my initial example, I was talking about the lion leaving its territory to kill the cheetah to eliminate competition.

See how complicated you're trying to make everything? The Lion does it because nobody/nothing is impinging on his right to do what ever the hell he wants. Simple.

You can't just get rights from nothing. Something has to give them to us or they cease to exist. Everything has a source, something has to come from something else (there are exceptions but that has nothing to do with this).

Oh, I see... you wish to violate my rights by limiting acceptable examples. I don't think so.

The idea of infinite rights is the same thing as nothing. If you get in a fight where someone tells you everything is fair game and you get in a fight where no one tells you anything, it is the same fight; just the second is much simpler.

Exactly... you're catching on now.... the second, nobody tells you what your rights are, is much simpler.
If you get into a fight and willingly allow someone to interfere with your right to do what you want, you're a damn fool.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I am not trying to take your guns away from your ranch or the general public, just my college campus. That is the only place I have been fighting to get guns banned on this thread, or on this entire board I think.


That is making it too complicated. You can just say that “you can do whatever you need to survive”. The only law of nature could be simplified too "the most adaptive will have their genes passed on". Every action in nature, besides humans and altruistic behavior, can be seen to follow this law. To bring rights into the mix just makes it more complicated, which goes against Occam's razor.

If you attack a lion's "right to self-preservation" it will fight back because that is the best option to ensure its survival (or at least its instinct tell it so, which has stood the test of time). On the other hand, a lion will never attack a cheetah to eliminate competition because by attacking the cheetah, it will put its survival chances at risk. Sure, it can attack the cheetah, nothing is holding it back, but it won’t because the lion follows that one rule.

In order to have rights, something has to give them to us. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that the universe is anything but nihilistic, so the only other options are a god or humans. The god option has no proof either, which brings us to humans. Is that a definite statement? No, if proof comes up that the universe is not nihilistic or there is a god my statement will be turned around, but until then that is what all available evidence points too.

Riiiiggght... not having guns has never killed anyone on a campus, oh... wait.
No one gives me shit, my rights are my own.
There is no god.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by wolf

* Note: There is no "e" in heroin. Putting one there makes me nuts.

Methinks heroine is more dangerous than heroin.

[wolf]

How very true!!

The Female of the Species - Rudyard Kipling

WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man,
He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can.
But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say,
For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away;
But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale—
The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations—worm and savage otherwise,—
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger—Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue—to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity—must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions—not in these her honour dwells—
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions—in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!—
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges—even so the she-bear fights,
Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons—even so the cobra bites,
Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw
And the victim writhes in anguish—like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer
With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her
Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands
To some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him
Must command but may not govern—shall enthral but not enslave him.
And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail,
That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by wolf

If you do not attempt to assault, rape, or murder me, you won't be harmed by my gun.

Yes, but you do not speak for everyone that owns a gun. Other people use to enforce their lust for power.


xoxoxobruce - I think you are misunderstanding my analogy. Of course no one has to tell you what you can and can not do, but you do not need rights to do whatever you want. Rights are just superfluous, why I say it is more complicated, and the only thing I can see them being there is for justification.


rkzenrage - Would you still want guns on campus if 20 people were dying a year from them but only 1 person a year was being saved from them? This is assuming we had definite proof.

I did not say I wanted guns on campus. I said adult students have the same rights everyone else has.
No one should take that away from them. No one.
I had my gun with me the whole time I was on campus, (my apt was on college property).
I was working in a job where a concealed weapon was required the whole time I was a student the last three years of my college career. I never knew when I would have to go straight to work from a performance, audition or rehearsal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

xoxoxobruce - I think you are misunderstanding my analogy. Of course no one has to tell you what you can and can not do, but you do not need rights to do whatever you want. Rights are just superfluous, why I say it is more complicated, and the only thing I can see them being there is for justification.

Of course they are justification, they are the reason I can do what I wish.
That said, that doesn't release me from the responsibility of considering, and not infringing on, other peoples rights.
If I didn't have the right to do what I wish, there would be no reason for laws to tell me I can't, they would just not tell me I could.