In search of sanity.

[Technosoul]

We can reason with a crazy person who might attack us, and so folks think we must use force.

We cannot reason with the gun culture to give up their right to bear arms because such reasoning would not work on them. So should we just remove the guns by force?

The point is that is the "reasoning ability" behind the trigger that is always at fault, not the trigger nor the gun, because guns cannot think.
(with exception of so called "smart bombs" but they are programmed by people who are mostly unreasonable in my opinion).

Guns cannot be regulated by normal concepts for gun control, guns must be regulated by reason, meaning that each and every individual in a culture must be reasonable on a individual and personal bases.

I would be foolish to give a bunch of apes loaded guns inside of a Zoo cage, no one would advocate allowing inmates in a mental ward the right to bear arms. But what about our mainstream human culture "outside of the Ward", is it really that much different outside?

I have more to add but will await any possible repley to this post (as it so far stands) before continuing.

Technosoul.

[bugsbunny04]

In a sane world, I wouldnt need an AK to protect myself. Of course, in a sane world, there would be no reason why I couldnt have it for recreation at the range.

I would very much lke to live in a world where I wouldnt need it. But that is simply not reallity.

[Compugasm]

Originally posted by Technosoul, So should we just remove the guns by force?

How ya gonna do that without a gun?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Compugasm,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Compugasm,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, So should we just remove the guns by force?

How ya gonna do that without a gun?[/b][/quote]

You are answering a question with a question. (and one taken completely out of context).

But thanks for trying.
Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by bugsbunny04, In a sane world, I wouldnt need an AK to protect myself. Of course, in a sane world, there would be no reason why I couldnt have it for recreation at the range. I would very much lke to live in a world where I wouldnt need it. But that is simply not reallity.

You could employ such circular logic. RE: Guns are safe because Guns make me safe, but such circular logic, like running around in circles, gets us no where toward a new reality that is sane.

I would be nice to eat your pie and keep it also. You want to keep your gun (and likewise everyone would keep theirs) and also have a sane reality, do you honestly believe that can happen? How?

What if you had a choice between ...

(1) keeping your gun. or, (2) living in a sane world with less violence?

What would be more important as an objective in your mind?

Technosoul.

[The Black Flag]

I won't disarm till the armies of the world do. From what I know, everytime a government took away citizen's guns, bad things happened to those citizens. I would love to live in a world where it isn't needed though, but for that to happen, you have to convince the governments to give up their stash, also.

[bugsbunny04]

Your logic assumes guns are the problem. The very first homocide in recorded history was commited with a rock. You gonna put geologist out of business? Or are you just gonna make the license and register and ballistically finger print all their rocks, or not allow them to have rocks of a certain size.

Even if you take weapons out of the equation, remember, I can kill you with my bare hands. It would be more difficult than shooting you, but I could still do it.

Insanity is not caused by guns. Guns are just a means for sane people to be on a level playing field with the sociopaths.

The world would not be saner just because guns are eliminated (assuming they could be). Warfare would simply revert back to a level of brutallity that makes the War in Iraq look like a couple of toddlers arguing over a rattle.

I dont think a sane reallity is possible either way, have you even been paying attention?

And to answer your question, unless "c, give up my gun and live in a world with NO violence" is on the table I'll keep my gun.

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-bugsbunny04, In a sane world, I wouldnt need an AK to protect myself. Of course, in a sane world, there would be no reason why I couldnt have it for recreation at the range. I would very much lke to live in a world where I wouldnt need it. But that is simply not reallity.

You could employ such circular logic. RE: Guns are safe because Guns make me safe, but such circular logic, like running around in circles, gets us no where toward a new reality that is sane.

I would be nice to eat your pie and keep it also. You want to keep your gun (and likewise everyone would keep theirs) and also have a sane reality, do you honestly believe that can happen? How?

What if you had a choice between ...

(1) keeping your gun. or, (2) living in a sane world with less violence?

What would be more important as an objective in your mind?

Technosoul.[/b][/quote]

[Technosoul]

Greetings Bugs,

You are debating something different then what I had posted.

please re-read the message at the top of this message chain and note the part where I said that it is the reasoning behind the trigger that is always at fault, not the trigger (aka gun)".

You are shifting back to the old classic debates about gun control and not debating the new ideas that I put forth.

This is not about your rights to own a gun but about how to gain the right culture by effecting changes in the reasoning attitudes that lay behind the gun culture. Part of that project is to educate people that such reasoning is rooted in overstated fears, anger, and the desire to have capital power and control over others.

The type of debate you are interested in has to do with the political and legal aspects of gun ownership. I have a post (as you know) in the political sections of this webpage for going into that line of debate.

You do not think sanity is possible, that is an opinion worth examining here. Can you state some of your reasons why you think sanity is not possible and we can continue from that base.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by The Black Flag, I won't disarm till the armies of the world do. From what I know, everytime a government took away citizen's guns, bad things happened to those citizens. I would love to live in a world where it isn't needed though, but for that to happen, you have to convince the governments to give up their stash, also.

Let us say a swat team surrounded your house because they thought you were a criminal or because they wanted to question you about buying Black Flag punk records that they thought indicated a mode for possible terrorism. What would you do honestly, shoot it out or lay down your gun and surrender?

The fact is in fact that governments have airplanes, hellicopters, tanks, and a massive number of powerful hand held weapons, and cluster bombs. And if worse came to worse, they got the nuclear bomb. Do you honestly think your pop gun or shotgun is any match for all that? They thought so in Wacco Texas and look what happened. I recall seeing Saddam in a TV film clip holding up a rifle like some big shot, did it do him any good? Fact is, you already do not have the right to bear the kinds of powerful weapons you would need to stay off the government, or even the local city police department. So having a gun for that purpose is not sound reasoning in light of the self-evident facts.

None the less, any ideas that could lead to the collective dissarming of governements world wide would be worth knowing about. Got one?

Technosoul.

[Lava]

I defy you to come up with any household item that you could _not_ kill someone with.

Regards, Lava

[The Black Flag]

Well, if the swat team came to my house bitching about me buying a cd of a band I don't like to begin with, I'd probably just sue. But just because people in the world have bigger guns then me, doesn't mean I should lay down mine. I mean, there are guys with bigger *icks then me, but I'm not cutting mine off anytime soon.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by The Black Flag, Well, if the swat team came to my house bitching about me buying a cd of a band I don't like to begin with, I'd probably just sue. But just because people in the world have bigger guns then me, doesn't mean I should lay down mine. I mean, there are guys with bigger *icks then me, but I'm not cutting mine off anytime soon.

Good point, Bush has big Dick for Vice President. ooooh, that was a punch below the belt. But what the heck, Whoopie did it.

Anyway the point is that it is nearly useless relative to the idea we should be armed to protect our self from our own government or another country invading us. This is already "occupied USA" in case you did not notice and they did not use guns - they used cheap labour. Aka - using the capitolistic greed to their own advantages.

And you are correct, lawyers work better then guns for self defence. (Do they still allow that? I hear that the Homeland security department wants to ban lawyers).

Just before Saddam came under attack he said he was arming everyone in his country and they would be fighting us from every doorway, etc. The plan seems to be somewhat effective and so your idea has some facts to support it, which I cannot deny. I might even be wrong about that?

Technosoul.

[The Black Flag]

*laughs ass off and bush\dick joke* But, yeah, I have to admit, my guns would be pretty useless against an army, but I still feel a *little* better knowing that if the government went *worse* and a soldier was at my door ready to arrest me for something stupid, I'd be ablet o take atleast one asshole down with me.

And, yes, I'm fully aware that the country wasn't high-jacked by guns, but high-jacked by capital. That's what makes change so much harder. Atleast with a gun, you know who your enemy is, but with money, there are many, and many you don't even know it.

[Technosoul]

Yes, we might be better off banning ink pens those people who write up those contracts, etc.

None the less we presently live in what is thought of as a violent culture, that could be mostly just hype due to selective news reporting, but for many the news is the reality impressed in their minds. And we see a lot about guns, drive-by shootings, hold-ups, and crazy kids at schools, snipers, and what have you. They could do it (less effectively) with rocks, or a frying pan. And if one was a little educated you make a bomb with stuff you find at walmart. But each time something big happens the ideas about gun control pop back up and we know something must be done.

The current laws banning certain kinds of powerful assult rifles is not being extended by Congress, so in a few weeks those will be back on the market. The Bush ojectives seem to focus on deregulating whatever has been regulated, so soon we can assume funding for any enforcement of trigger locks and what have you will vanish.

The so-called responsible gun owners have not been responsible enough in the past, school kids got 'em, and crooks can steal them from just about any house because they are not locked up properly when the owner is away from his dwelling place. Our tax funded emergency rooms get in a lot of cases involving gun accidents.
If the good guys who own guns for the proper reasons do not take responsibilty for keeping them secure from robbers, then who should take on that responsiblity? However those options I explored already in the political forum.

Here I wish to come at the problem from another angle, one that the NRA supports. I wish to examine the reasoning behind the trigger, that is to say, behind our gun culture. The NRA said "it is not the gun that kills people, it is the people behind the gun". And so I wish to explore those feelings, fears, reasonings, attitutes, that are behind our trigger happy gun culture. Once we get to those roots we can perhaps uproot them with educational programs that can reduce the negative reasonings for gun dependency habits. That education would be designed to reduce both the violence and the needs that people create in their minds for needing such weapons.

Technosoul.

[bugsbunny04]

Universal Sanity is not possible because sanity itself is subjective. Different cultures have different definitions of sanity. Unless everyone decides to be exactly the same, they will not all be sane by each others standards.

[tman_ndsu08]

So should we just remove the guns by force?

You understand that many people in the world commit crime using guns, right?

If you take away all the "legal" guns, the criminals will simply get them by illegal means.

How do you stop them?

[Technosoul]

Note I was asking a question, then I answered it later on.

We use REASON to regulate gun useage.

For example: It would do no good to ourlaw beer if thousands of people were addicted phycholigically to it's social useage because they would simply turn to bootlegging. The same is true with guns.

So we must deal with the thinking, attitudes, fears, angers, and the excuse making that is behind the trigger, as well as those social conditions that would cause crime.

Meanwhile all the gun buffs keep wanting to keep this debate and exploration limited to those worn out issues about "gun control" that have been gone over a million times.