Guns or not Guns

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Very truthfully said, Lisnpuppy. I hope this post will help stimulate matters in a positive direction.

 

I think it's pretty funny how selective it is at times to doubt someone's experience. Nobody doubted the story about the gun-owning uncle, for example. I don't feel too insulted, really. I don't want this thread to close! I know a knee-jerk reaction when I see it. This thread is filled with them, and that's good! Guns cause fear, rightly so.

 

I would also like to put forth that, in truth, personal experience does equal fact. Increased repetition of experiencing that truth only increases how widespread that truth is recognized but does not change the basic nature of that truth, in itself.

 

What is fact? What else could it be other than the product of someone's experience? It couldn't be anything, for without experience of some thing there is no "fact" of it. Without experience, ontologically speaking, it doesn't exist in our beings. It isn't factual. It is only Being that lends the quality that we call "fact" to an experience. We have to have been there, done that, seen it happen, and therefore then and only then is it a fact to us.

 

And therein lies the problem. The non-experiencers. Gun debates usually, in any forum and anywhere, have a lot of them. The trend I usually see is that the people who have actual experience are positive towards guns because they experientially know. Those who don't have actual experience are usually negative towards guns, often justifying their unexperienced points of views with statistics made to do just that. It's generally based on their fear, on some level of their being, possibly of which they are completely unaware.

 

You don't go to a dentist who doesn't have past experience of curing dental problems, do you? You don't go to a physicist who never experienced the years of physics lessons, do you? Of course not. Most people would know not to pronounce upon a matter of physics or dentistry without having the know-how. Strangely, though, it seems that in guns and gun related matters, everyone's an expert with actual experience.

 

One last note as I feel compelled to not let this false idea linger on the e-waves without being corrected: in a self-defense situation against multiple armed adversaries (even with guns) when you are unarmed, if conflict is unavoidable and there are no means to escape safely or that path is circumstantially unwise (out with the GF, with someone who's physically handicapped), the closer you are to your aggressors the better you are if you have to defeat them. This is especially true with weapons, as their own numbers and weapons can be used against them, if you know what you're doing.

 

This is a good example of uninformed opinion, as it was stated that if you are close there's nothing to do. Wrong. Being very close is the only way to have something to do. Especially against gun-wielding assailants.

[Marxist ßastard]

And therein lies the problem. The non-experiencers. Rape debates usually, in any forum and anywhere, have a lot of them. The trend I usually see is that the people who have actual experience are positive towards rape because they experientially know. Those who don't have actual experience are usually negative towards rape, often justifying their unexperienced points of views with statistics made to do just that. It's generally based on their fear, on some level of their being, possibly of which they are completely unaware.

Fixed that for you.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

And therein lies the problem. The non-experiencers. Rape debates usually, in any forum and anywhere, have a lot of them. The trend I usually see is that the people who have actual experience are positive towards rape because they experientially know. Those who don't have actual experience are usually negative towards rape, often justifying their unexperienced points of views with statistics made to do just that. It's generally based on their fear, on some level of their being, possibly of which they are completely unaware.

Fixed that for you.

For the time it took you to post this, it's obvious you paid no attention to its contents.

Well, at least you're not flying off the handle....http://forums.nexusmods.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/whistling.gif

edit:and speaking of knee-jerk reactions...

Edited February 11, 2012 by WizardOfAtlantis

[marharth]

Very truthfully said, Lisnpuppy. I hope this post will help stimulate matters in a positive direction.

 

I think it's pretty funny how selective it is at times to doubt someone's experience. Nobody doubted the story about the gun-owning uncle, for example. I don't feel too insulted, really. I don't want this thread to close! I know a knee-jerk reaction when I see it. This thread is filled with them, and that's good! Guns cause fear, rightly so.

 

I would also like to put forth that, in truth, personal experience does equal fact. Increased repetition of experiencing that truth only increases how widespread that truth is recognized but does not change the basic nature of that truth, in itself.

 

What is fact? What else could it be other than the product of someone's experience? It couldn't be anything, for without experience of some thing there is no "fact" of it. Without experience, ontologically speaking, it doesn't exist in our beings. It isn't factual. It is only Being that lends the quality that we call "fact" to an experience. We have to have been there, done that, seen it happen, and therefore then and only then is it a fact to us.

 

And therein lies the problem. The non-experiencers. Gun debates usually, in any forum and anywhere, have a lot of them. The trend I usually see is that the people who have actual experience are positive towards guns because they experientially know. Those who don't have actual experience are usually negative towards guns, often justifying their unexperienced points of views with statistics made to do just that. It's generally based on their fear, on some level of their being, possibly of which they are completely unaware.

 

You don't go to a dentist who doesn't have past experience of curing dental problems, do you? You don't go to a physicist who never experienced the years of physics lessons, do you? Of course not. Most people would know not to pronounce upon a matter of physics or dentistry without having the know-how. Strangely, though, it seems that in guns and gun related matters, everyone's an expert with actual experience.

 

One last note as I feel compelled to not let this false idea linger on the e-waves without being corrected: in a self-defense situation against multiple armed adversaries (even with guns) when you are unarmed, if conflict is unavoidable and there are no means to escape safely or that path is circumstantially unwise (out with the GF, with someone who's physically handicapped), the closer you are to your aggressors the better you are if you have to defeat them. This is especially true with weapons, as their own numbers and weapons can be used against them, if you know what you're doing.

 

This is a good example of uninformed opinion, as it was stated that if you are close there's nothing to do. Wrong. Being very close is the only way to have something to do. Especially against gun-wielding assailants.

It isn't very hard to read your post in four minutes, not sure what the reply to MB is about.

 

Would you go to a dentist who claimed they had a degree and went through school, but couldn't provide any documents to prove it?

 

That is the last I am going to say on this because Lins said to stop. Claiming experience in a debate over a anonymous internet forum is simply ridiculous.

Edited February 11, 2012 by marharth

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Would you go to a dentist who claimed they had a degree and went through school, but couldn't provide any documents to prove it?

 

That is the last I am going to say on this because Lins said to stop. Claiming experience in a debate over a anonymous internet forum is simply ridiculous.

If you'd read her posts, she said to stop attacking people. She also said that debates often get whipped up rather quickly and evidence is often lacking so you have to follow the logic of the argument put forth.

I have the documents, but as anon and you being you, I'm not going to give them to you. Read Ginnyfizz's post.

You've done this before, marharth. This is your short-cut when someone knows more than you from their own experience and you are unwilling or unable to follow the logic of their arguments. It's a cop out.

Many, many people here are claiming experience of this or that in their posts. Haven't you seen that? You're just falling back on this, against me this time. That's okay, but you should realize that giving personal documentation over an anonymous forum isn't normal. People's statements are taken as is, based on their own internal merit. Mine have it, and as a professional I would see it in another's posts, too. You aren't a professional in this field, that's visible from how you treat self-defense situations in your mind, so you don't see it in my posts. I understand that, but try to see what I and others are saying.

Oh, and Marxist B-astard (sorry, strange keyboard, can't find correct symbol), you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future.

Edited February 11, 2012 by WizardOfAtlantis

[Marxist ßastard]

you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future.

Yeah, no. Your basic criterion for "gun experience" seems to be gun ownership.

 

Restricting the debate to gun owners isn't like having rapists tried by a jury of rape victims. It's having rapists tried by a jury of other rapists. It's having rapists rewrite the Constitution to create a universal right to rape.

 

If anything, gun owners' opinions ought to be valued far less in this debate.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future.

Yeah, no. Your basic criterion for "gun experience" seems to be gun ownership.

 

Restricting the debate to gun owners isn't like having rapists tried by a jury of rape victims. It's having rapists tried by a jury of other rapists. It's having rapists rewrite the Constitution to create a universal right to rape.

 

If anything, gun owners' opinions ought to be valued far less in this debate.

Why would you think that? I never said that. That's you you're seeing there in my words.

Experience means first having, then doing, learning, doing more, learning more...just like in every other field. Only in this field, everybody's buttons get pushed and they act very irrationally with knee-jerk animalisms.

And gun owners' opinions should be valued less, huh? So you'll go to a cop to get your haircut and to the barber to report a stalker. Hmm. Interesting logic.

 

 

[Aurielius]

you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future.

Yeah, no. Your basic criterion for "gun experience" seems to be gun ownership.

 

Restricting the debate to gun owners isn't like having rapists tried by a jury of rape victims. It's having rapists tried by a jury of other rapists. It's having rapists rewrite the Constitution to create a universal right to rape.

 

If anything, gun owners' opinions ought to be valued far less in this debate.

By that form of esoteric logic then car owners are less qualified to judge the potential for auto accidents than pedestrians. So in essence only the inexperienced should have any weight to their arguments? Brilliant logic...dismiss the practical experience in favor of supposition by the inexperienced.

[Ghogiel]

you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future.

Yeah, no. Your basic criterion for "gun experience" seems to be gun ownership.

 

Restricting the debate to gun owners isn't like having rapists tried by a jury of rape victims. It's having rapists tried by a jury of other rapists. It's having rapists rewrite the Constitution to create a universal right to rape.

 

If anything, gun owners' opinions ought to be valued far less in this debate.

By that form of esoteric logic then car owners are less qualified to judge the potential for auto accidents than pedestrians. So in essence only the inexperienced should have any weight to their arguments? Brilliant logic...dismiss the practical experience in favor of supposition by the inexperienced.

The logic is the opinion has greater potential for bias.

Edited February 11, 2012 by Ghogiel

[marharth]

Would you go to a dentist who claimed they had a degree and went through school, but couldn't provide any documents to prove it?

 

That is the last I am going to say on this because Lins said to stop. Claiming experience in a debate over a anonymous internet forum is simply ridiculous.

If you'd read her posts, she said to stop attacking people. She also said that debates often get whipped up rather quickly and evidence is often lacking so you have to follow the logic of the argument put forth.

I have the documents, but as anon and you being you, I'm not going to give them to you. Read Ginnyfizz's post.

You've done this before, marharth. This is your short-cut when someone knows more than you from their own experience and you are unwilling or unable to follow the logic of their arguments. It's a cop out.

Many, many people here are claiming experience of this or that in their posts. Haven't you seen that? You're just falling back on this, against me this time. That's okay, but you should realize that giving personal documentation over an anonymous forum isn't normal. People's statements are taken as is, based on their own internal merit. Mine have it, and as a professional I would see it in another's posts, too. You aren't a professional in this field, that's visible from how you treat self-defense situations in your mind, so you don't see it in my posts. I understand that, but try to see what I and others are saying.

Oh, and Marxist B-astard (sorry, strange keyboard, can't find correct symbol), you'd be right if you wanted to apply your example in an actually productive sense: those experienced with rape would make great judges and juries of those crimes. I think if the poor victims had their way, there would be fewer rapes in the future.

What have I "done before?" Asked people to stop taking the route of making a claim of experience and ignoring any facts or statistics? You are seriously going to suggest that what I am doing is a cop out?

 

This is probably going to be the last time now, but let me explain a bit more carefully.

 

You do not need to send me documents. You shouldn't be sending me documents. That is the entire reason you can't use experience as your sole evidence on an anonymous internet forum. Because no one can prove your experience is valid. It is that simple.

 

I will ask a few questions to you. I hope you answer them this time.

 

Do you understand that using anecdotal evidence that can not be proven is faulty logic? Do you understand with the same method you are using, I could say I saw a ghost or alien and you should consider it to be true?

 

Would you trust a surgeon that said they had experience in the field, but didn't have anyway to prove it?

 

By the way I actually AM a general. True story. My experience is greater then yours so I am instantly right. No need for this topic anymore, everyone move along :whistling:

Edited February 11, 2012 by marharth