Pro-gun myths busted

[marshallnoise]

Funny and sad.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

I know what anarchy is, not saying you're suggesting that...simply stating that based on your opinion anarchy might actually work. Lack of "nations", "superiority" and "men left to their own devices".

I believe a situation lacking in set laws or a firm state (I hate to use the word "anarchy", there are so many connotations, good and bad, attached to it) can work in small, homogeneous groups. It's when the groups become large and/or heterogeneous that rules, laws and governance suddenly become more necessary in order to resolve disputes. Really it's simple human nature; you can easily get along with a group of 5 friends and decide what movie you want to go see that night, but a group of 100 strangers? Highly unlikely.

[marshallnoise]

I believe a situation lacking in set laws or a firm state (I hate to use the word "anarchy", there are so many connotations, good and bad, attached to it) can work in small, homogeneous groups. It's when the groups become large and/or heterogeneous that rules, laws and governance suddenly become more necessary in order to resolve disputes. Really it's simple human nature; you can easily get along with a group of 5 friends and decide what movie you want to go see that night, but a group of 100 strangers? Highly unlikely.

You can't easily rob from one if your 5 friends, but it is very easy to fleece someone from 100 and point the finger at someone else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[CorvallisBMW]

You can't easily rob from one if your 5 friends, but it is very easy to fleece someone from 100 and point the finger at someone else.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I suppose there is some anonymity in numbers, sure. But consider that most people are not thieves, therefor in a group of 5 or 6 there is unlikely to be a thief. But in a group of 100 those odds increase. The same could be said for people with other criminal inclinations, or mental disorders, or other issues that might cause friction between people. You also make it much harder to maintain homogeneity, so opinions now differ more frequently and by larger amounts.

[frankenbeemer]

Hobbes probably wouldn't agree. Neither would Alfred Marshall. Mill might, but he saw the state as a tool to let people experience fulfillment through freedom from fear of others.

Great minds.

They don't post here.

Laughed out loud, thanks, I needed that.

[ParsedOut]

I suppose there is some anonymity in numbers, sure. But consider that most people are not thieves, therefor in a group of 5 or 6 there is unlikely to be a thief. But in a group of 100 those odds increase. The same could be said for people with other criminal inclinations, or mental disorders, or other issues that might cause friction between people. You also make it much harder to maintain homogeneity, so opinions now differ more frequently and by larger amounts.

The other concept of "people working it out" means that if that thief is caught he is expelled from the community, under more extreme circumstances the thief would be punished to varying degrees as determined by the people. This is where we would be taking a huge step backwards as far as what most people would consider modern civility. In my mind, it's a damn good deterrent for not doing something stupid, others would argue that it's impossible to hold these people to their actions as they can't control themselves. Anyway, our modern society is a result of baby steps towards "civility" and many would argue it's a good thing while others could argue it's unsustainable. Meh...I'm tired and rambling, feel free to disregard.

[CorvallisBMW]

The other concept of "people working it out" means that if that thief is caught he is expelled from the community, under more extreme circumstances the thief would be punished to varying degrees as determined by the people. This is where we would be taking a huge step backwards as far as what most people would consider modern civility. In my mind, it's a damn good deterrent for not doing something stupid, others would argue that it's impossible to hold these people to their actions as they can't control themselves. Anyway, our modern society is a result of baby steps towards "civility" and many would argue it's a good thing while others could argue it's unsustainable. Meh...I'm tired and rambling, feel free to disregard.

I don't think it's rambling, actually I agree with you. However in the greater context of the development of civilization, I don't claim to be an expert. I'll leave that to the philosophers.

[The Dark Side of Will]

I believe a situation lacking in set laws or a firm state (I hate to use the word "anarchy", there are so many connotations, good and bad, attached to it) can work in small, homogeneous groups. It's when the groups become large and/or heterogeneous that rules, laws and governance suddenly become more necessary in order to resolve disputes.

"Dunbar's Number" is the point at which the transition occurs... that's a group of about 150.

[The Dark Side of Will]

The other concept of "people working it out" means that if that thief is caught he is expelled from the community, under more extreme circumstances the thief would be punished to varying degrees as determined by the people. This is where we would be taking a huge step backwards as far as what most people would consider modern civility. In my mind, it's a damn good deterrent for not doing something stupid, others would argue that it's impossible to hold these people to their actions as they can't control themselves. Anyway, our modern society is a result of baby steps towards "civility" and many would argue it's a good thing while others could argue it's unsustainable. Meh...I'm tired and rambling, feel free to disregard.

The Libertarian definition of crime is that an action is only a crime if it causes death, injury, harm, damages or loss to a victim. IE, if there's no victim, no crime has been committed.

The victim-centric definition of crime leads to the understanding that the most important aspect of "justice" is restitution to the victim, and NOT punishment of the perpetrator. Our current system has it exactly backwards.

[BLACKCHARM88]

Cars kill a bunch of people, maybe we should ban them to so we can live in a bubble boy world.

[z31maniac]

Wow, you're literally the first person to say that.

In real life, or in this thread.

You sir, are a master internet trolling. One internetz to you.

[BLACKCHARM88]

Wow, you're literally the first person to say that.

In real life, or in this thread.

You sir, are a master internet trolling. One internetz to you.

Wooo

[peter321]

I read the op every now and then for a good laugh.

[E30NJ]

Guns are completely banned in Mexico. El Paso, Texas is one of the most heavily armed cities in America and is considered one of the safest places in the country. Explain that.

[CorvallisBMW]

Guns are completely banned in Mexico. El Paso, Texas is one of the most heavily armed cities in America and is considered one of the safest places in the country. Explain that.

Completely false on both accounts. But good try.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Mexico#The_right_to_keep_arms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

But if anecdotal evidence is all you're looking for, Belgium has very few guns and very little crime, while Somalia has lots of guns and lots of crime. See? Using your logic, I just proved that guns cause violence.

Now do you see how stupid your reasoning is?