Jump to content

The History, Philosophy and Ethics of Gun Control


Recommended Posts

Stefan, at 9:20 you misquoted by stating 0.08/100,000, which would be nearly 120 times instead of 12. Here's the line from the source:

In 1919 the homicide rate for England and Wales was 0.8 per 100,000 (Archer and Gartner 1984)

Then you showed the 1983-1986 UK/US statistic, 0.67/7.59, and said that "after 60 years of increasing gun control, UK murder rates got worse". If you plug in the correct 1919 statistic, UK murder rates improved slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hi Stef, great video.  You make a very valid point with the historical difference between EU countries and U.S.; e.g. feudal vs frontier.  With that in mind, wouldn't U.S. vs Canada be a more fair and relevant comparison than the UK? 

 

Canada is far more influenced by the UK than the US was... I mean, we still have the queen on the money :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure, we still have some of the ole colonial ties, but we share a similar history of frontier settlers and have a reasonable amount of gun ownership in the country compared to the UK's  (near?) zero.   I believe in Canada it is somewhere around 30%.  To me it just seems like a more natural comparison as the two countries have more cultral similarities. Also, many people from the left, like Michael Moore, love to point to Canada as some sort of model the U.S. should aspire to.  Would be great to have some ammo to shut them up :)  Anyway, just my two bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very strong argument, as usual, and expertly delivered.  Definitely a long-term reference piece.

Another very recent article I liked:  http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e279.html

 

If guns are
bad, how come:

All
high politicians – including Dear Leader and Gauleiter Bloomberg
– are surrounded by heavily armed guards?

There is never
a mass shooting at a police station?

.

.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't be emphasized enough that the droves of people who are demanding more gun-control and outright bans only support such things for people who are not part of the State apparatus. They don't oppose violence on principle; they just oppose it when committed by somebody who isn't acting as an agent of the State.

It's similar to people who oppse only private slavery, but not public slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.  Just.....wow....

 

Stef, thank you for this.  

 

By the way, your podcasts have been the center of discussion at my workplace during the last few weeks.  Everyone that I've shown your stuff to has become a philosophical anarchist.   Three new anarcho capitalists have been created in my office this WEEK.  

You're barre none the best communicator of philosophy that I have seen.  (Can't wait for the documentary.  I bet it'll also be a knockout.  Can't wait to donate again too!  As soon as I'm back in America you'll get some of my cash.)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just got in an argument with a bunch of gun control advocates. I posted this video as evidence. The person I was arguing with responded with, and I paraphrase, "not a reputable source" and "less than stellar analytics." Oh, and the most ridiculous one: "I don't have time to watch a half-hour video." To which I responded, albeit in a much nicer way, "then why the fuck do you bother having an opinion?"

I started to notice a trend among these gun control advocates. Their defense mechanisms are so dense that they're incapable of learning. They're general attitude towards my SUBSTANTIATED argument was "That's nice, but how about if we force gun owners to register every bullet fired? And if they don't they suffer fines or jail."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So I just got in an argument with a bunch of gun control advocates. I posted this video as evidence. The person I was arguing with responded with, and I paraphrase, "not a reputable source" and "less than stellar analytics." Oh, and the most ridiculous one: "I don't have time to watch a half-hour video." To which I responded, albeit in a much nicer way, "then why the fuck do you bother having an opinion?"

I started to notice a trend among these gun control advocates. Their defense mechanisms are so dense that they're incapable of learning. They're general attitude towards my SUBSTANTIATED argument was "That's nice, but how about if we force gun owners to register every bullet fired? And if they don't they suffer fines or jail."

 

 

Unless you enjoy arguing with them, this should explain why more than likely, you'll never get anywhere.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_bad_beliefs_dont_die/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One of them actually made a good argument: Which is that Stefan doesn't actually make an causal connections. He simply states statistics and infers correlations.

Is this true?

 

If you took this one video as the entirety of the argument, then that would be true. However, since Stef has about 2000 hours of additional videos and podcasts, many of which describe how the State always achieves the exact opposite of what it claims, I think he's made the casual connection pretty well elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama Opposed Gun Ban Exception to Defend One’s Home

As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home.

Obama’s vote would have maintained the status quo, which made it a violation of municipal gun ban law to use a firearm to save your own life in your own home. But the bill was passed anyway without his support.

The vote is a sign of how committed Obama may be to strict gun control measures.

The Illinois vote is hardly ancient history, having occurred in 2004 as Obama was running for election to the U.S. Senate. In opposing the measure, Obama lined up well to the left of the mainstream, as the Illinois Senate included 32 Democrats to 26 Republicans but approved the bill by an overwhelming margin and subsequently overrode a veto by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Obama did not participate in the veto override, which occurred in November 2004, likely after Obama had resigned his state Senate seat in order to prepare for his new role in the U.S. Senate.

The Illinois legislation was passed after a man who shot a burglar in his home was fined $750 by his town for disobeying its handgun ban. The absurdity and injustice of the situation doesn’t seem to have made much of an impression on Obama.

Just eight years earlier, in 1996, Obama answered “Yes” to a survey question asking whether he would support state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” The Obama 2008 presidential campaign claimed the form had been filled out by an aide who mischaracterized Obama’s position, even though Obama’s handwriting was found on survey.

Meanwhile: Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

W.H. Releases Letters from Little Kids Pleading for Gun Control

"It's a free country but I recommend there needs (to) be a limit with guns," Grant wrote in a letter dated Dec. 17. "Please don't let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that."

. . .

"I am writing to ask you to STOP gun violence," wrote Tajeah, a 10-year-old from Georgia. "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives. So, I thought I would write to you to STOP gun violence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.