Gun History

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nk_lion

I really like this thread. I'm still undecided towards guns, sometimes I think the world would be better without them, and sometimes guns are just as dangerous as a regular knife found in a kitchen.

---

Yep... and I actually agree with this statement.
1) Bows and crossbows are hard to conceal.
2) I'm rather skilled with edged weapons. They're so much more up close and personal.

But it was also much easier to kill someone who gave offense and get away with it... so... maybe the world wouldn't be a better place... where the strongest man gets to bully you.

"God made man. Colt made men equal."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logic1

aaaah I wondered where this thread went.

I think that the main reason why we get such a heated discussion here is because Tom and I live in Sweden where we havent had a war for the past 200+ years and you in the US have had lots of fighting in the past few hundred years.
Our societys look different and we dont have the same amount of violent crimes nor the same amount of people carrying guns. There might not be a link between the two or there might.
Swedes cant get a permit to carry a concealed weapon at all and we dont feel as "scared" of what our government does as it seems like you do from your posts. We never had the need for every person to carry a gun to defend themselves even.

Simply put our past and present look very different and that is why our opinions differ.
It is most definitely an interresting discussion though.

my 5 eurodollars ;)

---

Careful there me bucko. Some might say Sweden remains neutral so they can sell weapons to both sides.

On the other hand, you took in a lot of refugees.

But don't knock us for coming to the rescue when our friends were in need. (I know, that's a simple statement in a complex world... then and now.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

I agree difference in war here and wars abroad is very different ...
People have forgotten that it can and will come home again one day.

WWI and WWII was not internal.

political conflicts using military , police actions, etc should not be called wars.
Examples Korean War wasn't ours truly. Vietnam Wasn't a war although it felt like it to those who went. Grenada wasn't a war. Gulf War I & II are hardly war, though the government is waging a form of it. I do not think it's the same or we would have the draft back. ( which may yet come, if they don't bring the troops home. see sustainability in searches. )

Way I look at it .. We've only had two wars here.
And I won't go into the second one ATM.

---

IMO, That's splitting hairs.

The last war Sweden "waged" was during the Napoleonic era and their policy of neutrality comes around 1812... because they lost A LOT of territory back then. Finnland, for example...

We also had a war in 1812. Call it what you want, we fought... Mexico, American Indians, ourselves, more indians, Spain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Germany again, Italy, Japan, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Cuba, Greneda, Panama, Iraq twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Just like those gang bangers WB was describing. It's obviously bollocks. What possible gain could they or the gang get from killing a random person? They'll get the cops on their case for one! I don't believe that has ever happened no matter what the paper says. Beside the fact that the murder of a random person is immoral to everybody, no matter your stance. Nobody thinks murder is "nothing" or "cool". Whenever people get killed because of street crime I think is mostly down to freaky random shit that nobody had planned. I think it's at best sensationalist press talking.

---

Well, I think WB got the motivation wrong... but they do in fact initiate members by random violent crime... and the worst of the gangs do so by murder. Kind of hard to turn on your fellow members if you yourself are a murderer. Even harder for law enforcement to infiltrate a gang if he has to kill someone to do so. THAT, in part, is why they initiate the way they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nia25

It seems to me that the debate here is not about guns, but about crime. THere is so much more to guns than defending yourself if your house is robbed. As a teenager I learned how to handle guns at around 14 years old. For my family and I it is a sport. Why should something I enjoy doing be illegal just because some idiot gets a hold of a gun and decides to shoot people? Now given the chance if need be I am sure that I would use it in defense; but owning a gun would not make me feel safer or make me feel macho. The only reason I do not own a gun right now is because my hobbies cost more than what is in the bank. Given the chance I will buy a gun; and no I will not use it to shoot someone. The real question here is why does the government feel the need for gun control? They have made illegal guns that are semi automatic because they are dangerous. Sorry but I think a bullet from a .22 can kill someone just as much as anything coming out of a semi automatic. I feel that if people were more educated on the use of guns that maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. There will always be some idiot out there that will get a hold of a gun and shoot someone or a bunch of people. More than likely that idiot who does so will get that gun illegally. Obviously it is the law abiding citizens who are being punished for other's stupidity. But, that's how the world is.

---

This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.

In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.

To me... it's the same kind of logic. :rolleyes:

Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.

First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.
Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)
Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.
Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period

Masterstone that is what Australia is doing. gone from firearms to long blades .. last i heard they were considering baseball bats. small chuckles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozme52

This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.

In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.

To me... it's the same kind of logic. :rolleyes:

---

TOTALLY agree with that one... LOL It's almost as though they feel they can control everything... wait they almost can!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterStone

Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.

First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.
Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)
Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.
Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period

---

Well said... and there are always ways to get guns illegally!

Quote:

---

When people today say "democracy" I'd say that they by default mean "liberal democracy" and the interpretation of the opposite is mostly down to a know-it-all trying to shine a bit isn't it?

---

Hmm...exactly what, then, do you mean by "liberal democracy"? Personally, I interpret democracy fairly generously, but also, I think, fairly conventionally as a governmental system in which a free vote of a sizable portion of the population leads to laws and leadership. TRUE democracy, to my understanding, is a decision by simple majority upon all governmental decisions by all members of the population...which has never existed in national government (and, imo, never will or should).

Quote:

---

USA wasn't a fully functioning liberal democracy until 1920 with every state allowing women to vote. No matter how often George Washington use the word "freedom" in 1776.

---

Again, I'm curious as to your definition of liberal democracy. There is only one(!) decision made by vote by all Americans able to vote, once every four years -- the President, someone to make decisions for us. Even this is not by simple majority (meaning a majority vote does not always win; a minority vote can -- and has -- elected presidents). Even in this vote, there are many people excluded: non-citizen residents, minors, and felons. I never voted on marraige laws, health care, or going to war.

And for the record, the writers of the Constitution abhorred the excesses of democracy and the carnage and repression of the French Revolution, and took exceptional steps to ensure the US was NOT democratic, but instead Republican. It was only in later reinterpretations (particularly beginning with Andrew Jackson) that we imagined "of the people" equated "democratic."

Quote:

---

A very important thing to bear in mind is that there to date have still not been any armed conflicts between two functioning liberal democracies.

---

Hrm...I guess one could claim that Hitler's Germany, and FDR's US, weren't functioning liberal democracies, as both were under martial law and suspension of civil rights at the time...but those suspensions were per democratic (my interpretation) constitutions and followed elections, so that seems a bit of a stretch to me.

And..."know-it-all trying to shine a bit"...refuting knowledge with rude comments is beneath you, Tom. I invite disagreement, I welcome it -- I learn nothing from nodding heads -- but please be polite. End of rant :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

I could argue much is amiss in other countries.
Much is amiss when .gov decides it can defend citizens better than they can themselves.. while elderly are beaten regularly for the measing things that are taken. where is the government then?

---

Ok, that's fine, but this attitude is actually at odds with the idea of liberal democracy. The government should defend the citizens better than they can defend themselves to make sure everybody is equal under the law. The border between defending and being proactive isn't exactly clear, is it? When does the proactive measure become a one sided aggressive act? How is the law supposed to address that?

I don't have any problems with people defending themselves when they're attacked. It's the part of doing it better than the cops or army that I've problems with. The state should be better than it's citizens to ensure that the laws of the country are upheld, and not the strong citizens own vigilante book of law. The law of the strong is what we're trying to avoid by liberal democracy, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

What is amiss when the goverment decides to gas defenseless people as it did in Iraq?

---

If Bush would seize power with the army in USA, you'd be fucked. No matter how much guns you have. USA has the most powerful and experienced army in the world. Backed up by extremely powerful CIA and FBI you wouldn't have a chance in hell to stop him. But this is all assuming the army would back a dictatorship up in USA, which would be a first. There is no examples in history of a stable democracy with a generation having grown up with democratic traditions reverting to a military dictatorship, (or a shit loads of generations since 1776).

I hear that as an argument against gun control all the time, and even if it sounds good, it has no relevance to USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

What is amiss when people can't walk this planet without worrying of manmade borders and walls that prevent us from enjoying all that is natural nad beautiful.
What is amiss when culture overrides the knowing and understanding your fellow man regardless of language?

How are these arguments for guns?

Yes ToS much is amiss but it does not all reside in the US.
Open your eyes and stop reading so much and look around and experience the world as it is.

---

But I'm not for gun control as such. I'm just for anything that can make the world safer. If guns lead to a safer USA I'd like to see something to back it up. I know off-course that statistics can be read very liberally depending on what you're trying to prove. :) But do somebody really deny the vast number of murders committed in USA? If it's not guns that's the problem, then what is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterStone

Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.

First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.

---

I'm talking about the criminal lifestyle. Not white collar crime. Off-course there's plenty ways to commit crime which I'm not addressing at all. I'm talking about people breaking into your home and stealing your VCR or your car. If it's not poverty motivating them, then what is it? Fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterStone

Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)

---

ok. Nobody has anything to either back it up or refute so let's just leave this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterStone

Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.

---

Seriously. What if some nutty right wing or communist government would come to power in USA. They'd been elected!!! Would you really take arms against it even though it had been democratically elected? Isn't the whole point with democracy that we hand over power to the government and put up with shit we might not agree with just to keep the peace.

Your examples are a bit silly. The cops have the mandate they've received from the people. If you don't like the cops enforcing laws you've voted for, then vote for something else. Considering the number of grass roots lobby organisations and how fast USA adapts new science into policy, (compared to Europe). I'd say USA has the worlds most well functioning democracy. We might not like what's been voted for. Like creationism in Kansas. But the fact that it almost became law in USA means that the people feel empowered. Democracy is more an attitude and tradition rather than the set of rules in the constitution.

So, government and cops fuck up. That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether private citizen protecting themselves with guns, will fuck it up more than the law enforcers....with guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterStone

Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period

---

Here we go again with the mythical cold hearted evil criminal mind. Yes, a criminal will use what ever it takes to get what they want. But how that is an argument against gun control is beyond me. They will get what they want. If not from you then somebody else.

I suggest looking at interviews with criminals on youtube. It's fun. Beside from the loony ones, because there's a fair share of those. But the sane ones. They all talk about eating vast quantities of ****** and various tranqilizers before comiting their crimes. Does that seem like people with no conscience? Cold blooded killers? Does that sound like people who don't know they're doing wrong?

Very few criminals make enough money from their life style to make it worth it more than having any old shity down and out job. Career criminals go in and out of jail all the time. What kind of person would rather do that than get a job do you think? Is it laziness? Idiocy? The search for status among teenagers?

People here seem quite comfortable hypothesizing about the criminal mind without seeming to feel the need to explain it. It's treated as if it's the truth. Even though the people described are the most inhuman of monsters. I need more than that. I don't believe in monsters under the bed either.

Again. I'm not for gun control as such. The issue is a lot more complicated than being about just the guns alone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElectricBadger

Hmm...exactly what, then, do you mean by "liberal democracy"? Personally, I interpret democracy fairly generously, but also, I think, fairly conventionally as a governmental system in which a free vote of a sizable portion of the population leads to laws and leadership. TRUE democracy, to my understanding, is a decision by simple majority upon all governmental decisions by all members of the population...which has never existed in national government (and, imo, never will or should).



Again, I'm curious as to your definition of liberal democracy. There is only one(!) decision made by vote by all Americans able to vote, once every four years -- the President, someone to make decisions for us. Even this is not by simple majority (meaning a majority vote does not always win; a minority vote can -- and has -- elected presidents). Even in this vote, there are many people excluded: non-citizen residents, minors, and felons. I never voted on marraige laws, health care, or going to war.

And for the record, the writers of the Constitution abhorred the excesses of democracy and the carnage and repression of the French Revolution, and took exceptional steps to ensure the US was NOT democratic, but instead Republican. It was only in later reinterpretations (particularly beginning with Andrew Jackson) that we imagined "of the people" equated "democratic."



Hrm...I guess one could claim that Hitler's Germany, and FDR's US, weren't functioning liberal democracies, as both were under martial law and suspension of civil rights at the time...but those suspensions were per democratic (my interpretation) constitutions and followed elections, so that seems a bit of a stretch to me.

And..."know-it-all trying to shine a bit"...refuting knowledge with rude comments is beneath you, Tom. I invite disagreement, I welcome it -- I learn nothing from nodding heads -- but please be polite. End of rant :)

---

Sorry, I didn't think you'd take it as an insult. I think I may have needed a smiley there.

"Liberal democracy" is pretty well defined. You can look it up anywhere. It's not really open to interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Yeah, I think I would argue that Hitler's Germany was not a fully functioning democracy. Considering the fact that he was elected on a vocal anti-democratic platform. Since the people obviously didn't believe in the merits of democracy it's an indication the democracy isn't working.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Just like those gang bangers WB was describing. It's obviously bollocks. What possible gain could they or the gang get from killing a random person? They'll get the cops on their case for one! I don't believe that has ever happened no matter what the paper says. Beside the fact that the murder of a random person is immoral to everybody, no matter your stance. Nobody thinks murder is "nothing" or "cool". Whenever people get killed because of street crime I think is mostly down to freaky random shit that nobody had planned. I think it's at best sensationalist press talking.

---

Yeah, try living in Chicago. People can and do kill people for no reason at all every single day. When I lived on the West side, gun fire was merely background noise. I got used to it! Now that's scary!

There is quite a difference in how people in the USA view guns, depending on the area in which they live. Here in the city people are horrified to hear that my dad taught me how to use a gun when I was eight; To know that my mom and her husband carry concealed weapons; That my youngest sister got her first shotgun when she was 13. In the city people tend to view guns as these horrible things that only gang bangers and cops have and don't see any reason for an upright citizen to have one. Out in the country it seems that everyone has a least one just to go hunting at the very least, but they will also tell you it's for their own protection. They will also tell you that if you are taught responsibility along with that gun then there is really very little danger of it being used for ill purposes.

I don't have time to make this as clear as I would like, but I will come back it as soon as I can.

ToS discussing something with you involved in the thread is frustrating at times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfscout

ToS discussing something with you involved in the thread is frustrating at times.

---

I'd suggest you haven't made a convincing arguement. Of all the people here (at the library,) Tom has been one of the most willing to modify or moderate his position when the arguement has convinced him.

I think you're upset because his counterpoints have merit.

Oz, not to me, but then .... what does that matter, eh?

*Sighs and attempts this again...*

Ok everyone...

Still a great discussion... but my edit button is back to working and if things continue as they are there will be items considered as flaming.

You may disagree and argue and state your point as many times as you wish. BUT... do not make personal comments or statements about others.

This is the 2nd... and the last warning on this. Next time not only will posts be edited but warnings will be given and further action taken if need be...

*gives my bestest sternest MODly look... *

No problems annie..
I saw the situation already. But not editing my posts anymore

I think the issue here is a difference in mentality about guns and the causes of crime.

However well a argument is presented, with whatever evidence, the discusees ( is that a word?) will always come back to their own opinions, and probably be able to support them with statistics too, so the argument will always be circular.

rach

Thank you rach that is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rach

I think the issue here is a difference in mentality about guns and the causes of crime.

However well a argument is presented, with whatever evidence, the discusees ( is that a word?) will always come back to their own opinions, and probably be able to support them with statistics too, so the argument will always be circular.

rach

---

No, that is the definition of bad communication. I hope it isn't what we're having here. There's a big difference between a political campaign and a friendly discussion. I'm preparing a little longer reply on my opinion/theory of the origins of crime. At least what it means to me.

Thank you Ozme for those very kind words. Wolf, I'm really trying not to be an annoying know-it-all which I know I have a tendency to be. My goal is never to win. Only to test my opinions and if possible learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

Thank you Ozme for those very kind words. Wolf, I'm really trying not to be an annoying know-it-all which I know I have a tendency to be. My goal is never to win. Only to test my opinions and if possible learn something.

---

Well I feel like I'm learning something at any rate. This has a been a really interesting thread!

Quote:

---

No, that is the definition of bad communication.

---

I disagree with you on that. I think sometimes it might be bad communication but not always.

I've had friendly discussions with people, and have known by the end of a frank and complete discussion, that we will not agree on that particular topic. It might be due to personal experiences or political leanings, but whatever the reason we simply have a different mindset, and therefore opposing views on the subject in hand. So the discussion is ultimately circular not due to poor communication, but due to strong yet differing opinions.

I'm not saying the discussion isn't an interesting one, and it certainly opens people's eyes to new opinions, and information, but if the same people are in the discussion, it will end up back where it started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rach

I've had friendly discussions with people, and have known by the end of a frank and complete discussion, that we will not agree on that particular topic. It might be due to personal experiences or political leanings, but whatever the reason we simply have a different mindset, and therefore opposing views on the subject in hand. So the discussion is ultimately circular not due to poor communication, but due to strong yet differing opinions.

---

Exactly... as the marriage counselor my husband and I have used before once said...

"Sometimes you have to agree to disagree because of your own personal experiences and beliefs."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomOfSweden

No, that is the definition of bad communication. I hope it isn't what we're having here. There's a big difference between a political campaign and a friendly discussion. I'm preparing a little longer reply on my opinion/theory of the origins of crime. At least what it means to me.

Thank you Ozme for those very kind words. Wolf, I'm really trying not to be an annoying know-it-all which I know I have a tendency to be. My goal is never to win. Only to test my opinions and if possible learn something.

---

People feel the way they feel, and I highly doubt that this discussion would change your opinion on guns anymore than it will change mine. But it is interesting to see how other people feel about these things.

Thanks rach for your post.

I agree to disagree with many when they are not likely to move or I am not.
sometimes you have to know or be hinted at.. or told bluntly the topic is at an end.

I certainly don't want to end a good conversation... but if it is causing frustration may be a good idea to step back for a bit! Otherwise... debate away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rach

I disagree with you on that. I think sometimes it might be bad communication but not always.

I've had friendly discussions with people, and have known by the end of a frank and complete discussion, that we will not agree on that particular topic. It might be due to personal experiences or political leanings, but whatever the reason we simply have a different mindset, and therefore opposing views on the subject in hand. So the discussion is ultimately circular not due to poor communication, but due to strong yet differing opinions.

I'm not saying the discussion isn't an interesting one, and it certainly opens people's eyes to new opinions, and information, but if the same people are in the discussion, it will end up back where it started.

---

Unsurprisingly, I don't agree.

Constructive discussions always work backwards toward the premises and argue their relevance and value and then argue about what can be deduced from the mutually agreed upon premises. Or it should be.

People who use ideological or faith based leanings as an excuse not to try their premises or assumptions are just plain lazy and shouldn't get into discussions at all. But I don't think that's the case here at all. All it needs is two parties with differing opinions to keep a discussion going in a constructive manner. No matter of how many other people might be participating.

Circular reasoning is always down to laziness. Distilled circular reasoning can be summed up as, "it is because it is". That is what happens when people haven't attacked their own arguments enough before reaching a conclusion, and therefore do not know why they believe the way they do. And on top of that aren't willing to do it once it's been revealed.

All arguments are by its nature a cooperative venture. No matter how heated the discussion might get. Everybody taking part, do so because they value the opinions of the "opponent". I think it is a beautiful act. Often frustrating and annoying. But that's the price to pay for knowledge. Even if you keep your own opinion it can still be valuable since your opinion now has been tested, and your faith in it is strengthened. Distilling which specific premises we might disagree on is also valuable information.

Looks like another great discussion was killed and done without a gun. No matter, I'm still going to a class to renew my CWP this weekend. Any criminals out there I need to be on the lookout for?