Don't talk about gun control, blame Hollywood!

Where is the tyranny is Norway? We have socialism in the UK, is the UK tyrannical?
Is that Peter Schiff in your picture?

Look through my posts. I have never said ONCE the solution is more guns.

Criminals and maniacs can get a gun if they want because guns are readily available on the black market.

I think what everyone agrees on is that there should be more tough evaluation of people who buy guns. People should be more responsible in storing them too. But that is down to the individual, not yet another extended tentacle of the government you all think is omniscient.

Read what I put with regards to Scandinavia.

And yes it is, one of the few to predict the crisis coming, while egomaniacs like Paul Krugman were way off the mark.

What put in regards to Scandinavia doesn't answer my question. Unless you are going prove yourself even more stupid and deny that Britian and Norway have socialism.

His entire ideology is a joke.

It is excessive that Americans own assault rifles but what would you do? Ban assault rifles from people who go to the shooting range? Who have a collection? Blame the killers before you blame the tool they have.

So you're saying he's an idiot even though he predicted what none of your beloved left wingers could? A joke doesn't become a CEO of a broker-dealer you moron. You're the joke, as is anyone who still clings to an ideology that has failed OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Are you bitter or just blind? They have aspects of socialism, yes, but the US has socialist aspects yet I wouldn't call them socialist. I'm talking about the toilets that snot-nosed middle class socialists seem to flock to in defense.

Free market thinking has lead to the developed world, technological progress and freedom. Capitalism works off mutually beneficial trade. Only runts of the litter complain because they see it fit to live off other people's money. What has your dead rat of an ideology by the deluded Marx done for the world? That's right, killed millions, starved millions, formed dictatorships, lacked freedoms, bad economic planning and poor living conditions. For God's sake they had to BUILD A ****ING WALL TO KEEP THEM IN. The fact you approve of something which leads to that is an indicator of your intelligence and morals and I doubt you're reading economics.

Keep them coming, I'm going to have fun with you.

Yes? You don't need an assault rifle to go target shooting or hunting. I will blame the tool just as much as the killer, especially when the weapon they used in an assault rifle only has one purpose, to kill numerous people in a short amount of time.

He is an absolute idiot.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SamSeder/videos?query=peter+schiff

For the rest: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2210655&p=40730534

On face value the main reasons it is a joke are:

1. It's impossible. Libertarianism is impossible except for survivalist nutters and hermits. Humans need a social structure because we're a social species. Trusting that humans can moderate their own behavior on their own is just a fantasy. If we were as sparsely distributed as wolf packs, we could get along in our small groups without intervention from a higher authority in theory.... but the matriarch or patriarch would be the higher authority so even that isn't strictly libertarian. Anyway, we're long past the point in evolution where we could manage our behavior without a formal structure. Michael Shermer theorizes the optimal size for a human community to manage without any oversight is about 150. Those days are gone.

2. It's naive. It assumes people are basically good. This is a nice thought, and a refreshing break from the Christian belief that all people are sinners who need to be saved, but it's just plain wrong. Just as we differ in our DNA we differ in our personalities. Some of us will go through life making very few decisions that negatively impact others, and some of us are sociopaths. At its best, government protects the truly good from the sociopaths. Without a government, we would be reduced to lynch mobs which can only avenge bad deeds, not prevent them. And we certainly wouldn't have something like the FBI, which can trace the path of a serial killer from one area to the next based on DNA evidence, etc. I think the people who believe that "survival of the fittest ergo libertarianism" probably assume they are the fittest themselves. They don't think that they would be the victims of a sociopath. Bernie Madoff counted on this kind of hubris to make his illegal millions.

3. It's cold-hearted. For example, regulations about safety in cars aren't needed because over time car companies would be forced to make safer cars or they'd go out of business. So the people who died in fires caused by exploding gas tanks in Ford Pintos, or in wrecks caused by the design of their Corvair were just collateral damage in the evolution of better cars. People who died because of unregulated businesses did nothing to deserve that fate, except perhaps not be able to afford better cars. And the pseudo-Darwinism of libertarianism really doesn't care what the strong do to the weak. Rich and powerful people are good and deserve to be rich and powerful. The poor and powerless deserve what they get.

4. It ignores history. We haven't always had a U.S. government. It's only a little more than 200 years old. But we do know earlier forms of society. We've had monarchies. We've had theocracies. We had the ancient Roman & Greek systems that privileged people with money. Modern democracy certainly has its failings, but we really be better off returning to "less" government considering what our previous systems gave us?

5. It's not natural. The underlying assumption of libertarianism is that government is an artificial construct that interferes with natural behavior, which they believe works just fine on its own. There's no evidence that humanity could have survived without some form of social organization. The instinct for survival that causes some to climb to the top of the heap and others to hide from the climbers just doesn't result in a society that works for large numbers. It probably won't work for small numbers, either.

6. It ignores human failings. We no longer live in family groups in tiny villages, and if Libertarianism became the "law" of the land, we would pretty much have to go back to that. In our distant past, we helped each other within our own group and competed against other groups for resources. Surviving without a government would require all of us to gather into small groups for protection and predation. Child abuse and spousal abuse would again be perpetrated with no recourse. Victims of alcoholism or mental illness would have no access to services, and their families would suffer. A small group's only hope of survival when "infected" with a defective member would be to ostracize that member.

7. It ignores human compassion. Libertarianism denies the instinct to help others, which has been shown in other species as well. Government taking a role in "lifting up" the poor is an extension of the instinct we would follow individually in a smaller group. By blaming the victim, libertarians can imagine themselves the agents of their own good luck. There's no place in their worldview for helping the blind, the deaf, the physically impaired, or the children of these people. The mentally ill who are incapable of working for a living due to their illness? *shrug* At least religions have charities that make a dent in these issues. Secular libertarians leave the powerless to their own devices as if blindness or mental illness were somehow the victim's own fault. There have been hundreds if not thousands of examples of other animals helping each other or even other species, so compassion seems to be instinctual. I have yet to meet a libertarian who has a relative that needs help to survive. If I had the power to curse people, I'd curse libertarians with multiple sclerosis. Let's see how many ways they make use of the ADA law's provisions.

8. It ignores Somalia. Somalia is the perfect example of libertarianism in action. There's basically no government in Somalia so we can see what would happen. Without a government, pirates and tribal groups terrorize others. Women and children are mistreated. Disease is rampant. There's no viable business other than crime. It's a chaotic mess. Why would anyone want to copy that model?

9. It's selfish. On the surface, Penn Jillette saying that he doesn't know what's best for someone else seems humble and charitable. But really, sometimes he would know what's best. He would know that a woman being beaten on a daily basis by an abusive husband would be better off if she could get out of that situation. He would know that someone with asthma would be better off in a world with less air pollution. His pseudo-humility covers up a basic unwillingness to get involved. Or, he's got his head in the sand when it comes to the problems of society and of individuals that are just too big or complicated for a family or small group to help with.

10. It's provincial. It ignores the fact that the economies and socieities of all the world's nations are now interconnected. If someone lives in the country with well water, septic tank and a burn pit for their garbage, they can fantasize they are not relying on the government. But then when their four-year-old comes down with cancer, they're only too happy to take him to the big city hospital for chemo that was studied using federal funding.

So... I call BULL**** on libertarianism. It's a stupid position to take. Even if it could be implemented it couldn't succeed. Its thinly veiled social "darwinism" but without any of the nuance of true evolutionary theory.

Well the law says that you're wrong here.

No it doesn't, as the situation is taking someone's gun under law as they are illegal. We've already established that, if I go to take someone's drug stash as drugs have been made illegal and he shoots me, how is that not maniac? But if he does it to protect his gun that's perfectly sane?

This doesn't even deserve a reply. Yeah, because all internal organs are in the leg.

The people who use the violent movie/video game argument are idiots to be honest. Free will exists, as does a knowledge of the difference between reality and fiction. Anyone who doesn't understand the fundamental differences shouldn't be watching it if they cannot grasp that concept.

Thing is though, my friend has a constitutional right to bear arms. Unless the 2nd Amendment is changed, any law that bans his guns is automatically overruled. And with no legal power to confiscate them, anyone trying to take them is committing theft.

Shots to areas other than centre mass aren't unheard of, but they are normally for a good reason (Shooting a terrorist in the head in case they have a suicide vest).

why do you feel like you have to prove it?

Where does the 2nd Amendment mention modern guns? It says arms yet your not allowed nuclear arms or rocket launchers in your house, is that theft? You are a joke, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you not get tired of constantly being wrong? Because I am thoroughly bored to death of your nonsense.

Like I said I would rather be shot in the leg than the head, it is really not that hard to grasp.

You're such a joke, you even admitted to your statements being false. So why did you say I did? Because you lied, anyone who reads through that exchange can clearly see that.

I assumed that most people accept that there is a difference between arms suitable for civilian ownership, such as handguns and semi automatic assault rifles, and stuff like nuclear weapons which civilians have no business owning. I'm not to blame if you seriously can't see such a difference. But as always if you've decided that you're right and that people more knowledgeable than you are wrong,

Perhaps, but if you knew all along that such warning shots only ever really happen in movies, why even mention it?

Well if you're so confident that people will agree with you, why do you still feel that you have to keep proving it by dragging the same stuff up over and over again even when we've moved on?

You're one of those people who always uses ambiguous terms and vague wording in arguments so that when someone disagrees with you you can turn round and go "Aha! But I didn't specifically say those exact precise words did I?"

It clearly doesn't do you any favours,

You haven't specifically said that you want all guns banned.

I was correct in thinking that you want all guns banned - As all guns have been used in massacres before.

Free will exists? Ooh now there's a debate.