Fear of Weapons is Sexual & Emotional Immaturity

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I feel like liberals get the lable because young people tend to be liberal, [/quote]

What are called liberals are not “liberals,” in the sense they want people to be free.

They are libertines who desire themselves to be free from the consquences of their actions, and thus demand no one suffer consequences from their actions.[/quote]

BINGO!!

I would like a firearm, but I’m not too keen on some of the people I’ve met having access to them.

What do?

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I would like a firearm, but I’m not too keen on some of the people I’ve met having access to them.

What do?[/quote]

The people whom you are not keen on having firearms are the ones most likely to have them illegally.

Laws only stop decent people.

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Laws only stop decent people.[/quote]

I’m going to assume that you consider a decent person to be a person who would not commit a violent crime.

With that assumption in mind, your oft-repeated “laws only stop decent people” line carries a logically necessary implication: that the sudden and utter abolition of all American law would correspond with exactly no rise in violent crime.

And every single person on this board knows that that is not true.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Laws only stop decent people.[/quote]

I’m going to assume that you consider a decent person to be a person who would not commit a violent crime.

With that assumption in mind, your oft-repeated “laws only stop decent people” line carries a logically necessary implication: that the sudden and utter abolition of all American law would correspond with exactly no rise in violent crime.

And every single person on this board knows that that is not true.[/quote]

A therefor B. Not A therefor not B. This is poor logic.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Laws only stop decent people.[/quote]

I’m going to assume that you consider a decent person to be a person who would not commit a violent crime.

With that assumption in mind, your oft-repeated “laws only stop decent people” line carries a logically necessary implication: that the sudden and utter abolition of all American law would correspond with exactly no rise in violent crime.

And every single person on this board knows that that is not true.[/quote]

A therefor B. Not A therefor not B. This is poor logic.[/quote]

Congratulations, you are exactly wrong–as in, you’ve come away with the precise opposite of the truth. My argument is a contrapositive–the only valid inference from a conditional:

[i]If A, then B.

~B

Therefore, ~A[/i]

  1. If law only deters people who do not break the law, then the breakdown of law will have no effect on the total rate or ratio of crime.

  2. The breakdown of law has a substantial effect on the rate and ratio of crime.

Therefore, ~1

In other words, if all law were rendered null and all courts and police forces disbanded tomorrow, would the number of people who do things that would have been considered “illegal” before the dissolution of the legal and prosecutorial system–would that number rise?

If it is true that laws only deter people who otherwise wouldn’t break them, then the answer is no.

But the answer is yes.

Therefore…

Hopefully you can get the rest. Either way, I don’t feel like holding your hand through elementary logic any longer.

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Laws only stop decent people.[/quote]

I’m going to assume that you consider a decent person to be a person who would not commit a violent crime.

With that assumption in mind, your oft-repeated “laws only stop decent people” line carries a logically necessary implication: that the sudden and utter abolition of all American law would correspond with exactly no rise in violent crime.

And every single person on this board knows that that is not true.[/quote]

A therefor B. Not A therefor not B. This is poor logic.[/quote]

Congratulations, you are exactly wrong–as in, you’ve come away with the precise opposite of the truth. My argument is a contrapositive–the only valid inference from a conditional:

[i]If A, then B.

~B

Therefore, ~A[/i]

  1. If law only deters people who do not break the law, then the breakdown of law will have no effect on the total rate or ratio of crime.

  2. The breakdown of law has a substantial effect on the rate and ratio of crime.

Therefore, ~1
[/quote]

I think I understand you better. The problem is that you are confusing legality, the altering of behavior, and crime. If there is no law, there is no crime, at least by the same definition. You have to have rules to have rule breakers. Your contention is that good people would do bad things without laws, and I’m not sure you have a basis for that (sense you have offered no measuring stick. You have to many laws that define criminal acts that aren’t bad and vice versa.

I don’t believe the contention is that all laws don’t change people anyway. It’s my inference that the type of feel good legislation in question doesn’t do anything to prevent the things that it is a reaction to. IE banning guns in schools doesn’t prevent crazies from going in and shooting kids.

Good people certainly are altered by tax law, I file my taxes before April 15th. BUT if there were no tax law, I wouldn’t be committing a crime by not filing.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Laws only stop decent people.[/quote]

I’m going to assume that you consider a decent person to be a person who would not commit a violent crime.

With that assumption in mind, your oft-repeated “laws only stop decent people” line carries a logically necessary implication: that the sudden and utter abolition of all American law would correspond with exactly no rise in violent crime.

And every single person on this board knows that that is not true.[/quote]

A therefor B. Not A therefor not B. This is poor logic.[/quote]

Congratulations, you are exactly wrong–as in, you’ve come away with the precise opposite of the truth. My argument is a contrapositive–the only valid inference from a conditional:

[i]If A, then B.

~B

Therefore, ~A[/i]

  1. If law only deters people who do not break the law, then the breakdown of law will have no effect on the total rate or ratio of crime.

  2. The breakdown of law has a substantial effect on the rate and ratio of crime.

Therefore, ~1
[/quote]

I think I understand you better. The problem is that you are confusing legality, the altering of behavior, and crime. If there is no law, there is no crime, at least by the same definition. You have to have rules to have rule breakers. Your contention is that good people would do bad things without laws, and I’m not sure you have a basis for that (sense you have offered no measuring stick. You have to many laws that define criminal acts that aren’t bad and vice versa.

I don’t believe the contention is that all laws don’t change people anyway. It’s my inference that the type of feel good legislation in question doesn’t do anything to prevent the things that it is a reaction to. IE banning guns in schools doesn’t prevent crazies from going in and shooting kids.

Good people certainly are altered by tax law, I file my taxes before April 15th. BUT if there were no tax law, I wouldn’t be committing a crime by not filing.[/quote]

Obviously, which is why in my previous post I added the “would have before the dissolution” bit. And the point stands perfectly.

If you want to add the “feel good legislation” line, that’s fine. And I agree, to an extent. But that’s not the claim I took aim at.

The claim I took aim at was, “laws only deter decent people.”

And that’s horseshit.

So we’ve gone in a tiny little circle and here we are again.

Yes, if there were no tax laws, good people wouldn’t pay their taxes by April 15th.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, if there were no tax laws, good people wouldn’t pay their taxes by April 15th. [/quote]

I’m a good person, and think about paperfiling my return every year with a staple in all four corners and two in the center…

Just to make them work for the money.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Yes, if there were no tax laws, good people wouldn’t pay their taxes by April 15th. [/quote]

Not even close to the point. This isn’t about the “good” people. It’s about the fact that “good” people–i.e., for our purpose, people who would not do wrong to others even after the breakdown of law and order–aren’t anything close to the only people deterred by the law.

“Laws only stop decent people.”

That’s the claim. The emphasis is mine. Figure the rest out for yourself.

This is really, really simple.

The claim is essentially that laws only deter people who wouldn’t have done whatever’s been made illegal by the said law in the first place.

That claim is nonsense.

And this time I really am done holding hands.

So “decent” people don’t break the law? LMAO

Back to the OP

I think the correlation between today’s liberal democratic party and the fear of weapons is ABSOLUTELY linked to immaturity. Sexual, emotional AND cognitive.

The boys are sexually immature because they masturbate excessively and use the internet to find mates because they lack the testicular fortitude to actually go up and talk to a REAL LIVE GIRL. And the girls are caught up in some advertizing driven fantasy about what a perfect guy is: shaved chest, abzz and skinny jeans.

They are BOTH emotionally immature because they have daddy issues. Their fathers left and mommy did her best, but she raised boys that cry over spilled milk and girls that give out blowjobs on the second date. This lack of male role model causes SOOO much emotional damage that it’s beyond the scope of this thread.

They are cognitively immature because they are the product of a shitty public school education staffed by unionized, un-fireable teachers who stopped teaching critical thinking skills decades ago and instead serves as little more than a government run baby sitting program with equal opportunity, unoffensive activities.

The democratic party is GROWING because these infantile pathetic excuses for men and women who want nothing more out of life than to get more “likes” on their FB page than their friends. It’s kind of scary when you stop and think about it: these morons are the future…

They’re not only the future AC, they’re the present.

Laws and law enforcement are kind of like a bicycle chain and lock. They keep the honest people honest. I’m not sure why that discussion got as long winded as it did lol.

And I can only partially agree with you AC. That’s no more true than saying all republicans are uneducated redneck bigots. Sure, they are a part of the party, but not the party.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Laws and law enforcement are kind of like a bicycle chain and lock. They keep the honest people honest. I’m not sure why that discussion got as long winded as it did lol.

And I can only partially agree with you AC. That’s no more true than saying all republicans are uneducated redneck bigots. Sure, they are a part of the party, but not the party. [/quote]

Even the uneducated redneck bigots know that they have to WORK for a paycheck… They don’t live in some liberal fantasy land where those that have and worked hard for it, OWE something to those who don’t have and are too lazy to get it. Or even TRY to get it.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
I would like a firearm, but I’m not too keen on some of the people I’ve met having access to them.

What do?[/quote]

All the more reason for you to have one.[/quote]
Interesting.

I was thinking some on what kamui said

[quote]kamui wrote:
To be fair, if fearing some inanimate objects is irrational, loving them is surely irrational too.
for the same reason.
[/quote]
At first I was like ‘damn, he’s got a point’

Then I was like ‘no - actually, he’s underplaying it. Love is a way stronger word than fear… that’s borderline crazy’

How can this be, I’m on the wrong side!!

I think it is how people visualize it. Visualize someone else with a gun, especially someone you don’t trust ------> fear

Visualize yourself with a gun --------> no fear

Visualize both ---------> it almost makes sense to fall in love with an inanimate object…
that’s almost as easy as falling in love with ‘freedom’ or ‘life’ or something awesome