AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-08-27, 22:47   Link #241
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
TBH, your reverse fear mongering isn't any better than the usual stuff that comes from the right wingers.
Hence why I said "hypothetical and implausible." I don't exactly walk around in my everyday life fearing the imminent takeover of America by some fantasy fascist militia.

Yet, for some reason, the "defense against the State" argument seems to be a prominent part of the reasoning of those who oppose gun control measures, and the 2008 election was accompanied by a massive boost in gun sales.

Why so afraid?
Irenicus is offline  
Old 2012-08-27, 23:03   Link #242
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Hence why I said "hypothetical and implausible." I don't exactly walk around in my everyday life fearing the imminent takeover of America by some fantasy fascist militia.

Yet, for some reason, the "defense against the State" argument seems to be a prominent part of the reasoning of those who oppose gun control measures, and the 2008 election was accompanied by a massive boost in gun sales.

Why so afraid?
Me neither, but that's not the issue, my point of contention with you is your implied notion that the the nutty right-wing militia type are the typical gun owners. Depending on which survey/research you look at/believe, somewhere between 25% to 35% of the US population owns a firearm, with nearly half of all households with a firearm of some kind, are they all nutty right wing militias?

I doubt anyone sane honestly believes that their small arms will actually do much in an actual fight against a real military force.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-27, 23:27   Link #243
Irenicus
Le fou, c'est moi
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Depending on which survey/research you look at/believe, somewhere between 25% to 35% of the US population owns a firearm, with nearly half of all households with a firearm of some kind, are they all nutty right wing militias?
Of course not. Plenty of people own guns for recreational reasons, for their jobs (farmers, etc.), or, yes, because they feel that they need them. Thus I chose the word: "statistical." If you haven't made the argument that I attacked -- I don't think you have, but I've only skimmed the thread anyway -- then you don't have to defend it, but others who are virulently anti-gun control do. From them, I expect answers. What's the paranoia?



I think I have to make myself clear: the reason I don't want to jump into this debate is because I don't believe gun control measures are the answer to the problem of crimes and violent crimes in the United States, or even the recent, obscene, spree of massacres. On the other hand, I don't take them off the table. I don't believe the 2nd Amendment originally meant what the NRA thinks it means, and though I don't oppose the evolution of the meaning (many other, more important clauses supporting our various rights experience the same phenomenon), I do not consider it some absolute rule. To me, the right to own guns is rather a privilege to own guns, as conditional as the "right" to drive. So if I am to make an argument for policy aimed against the problem of crime, which is why people want gun control in the first place, I would consider various gun control provisions as part of a comprehensive measure.

Just randomly thinking out here, but important measures other than gun control would be prison reform, overhaul of the legal criminal system based on the notion of rehabilitation over revenge, better funding and expansion of social support institutions, especially for the mentally ill, cultural and social projects aiming to "communalize" the American citizenry, etc. Even legalization of marijuana, if only to cut a major source of funding out of organized crime.

But that's not what this thread is about, so I'm not going to defend a single piece of a puzzle in isolation.
Irenicus is offline  
Old 2012-08-27, 23:38   Link #244
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Yet, for some reason, the "defense against the State" argument seems to be a prominent part of the reasoning of those who oppose gun control measures, and the 2008 election was accompanied by a massive boost in gun sales.

Why so afraid?
It wasn't only after the 2008 eletion but also when Clinton was elected than a boost in gun sale was seen.

Why so afraid ? Because a portion of the population is a bit more unstable ( for not say crazies) and less rational when it's about their guns. Gun might be more than a mean to defend themself or to do some kind of sport for such individuals, something less healthy .Even if a president would want to ''take their guns'' it won't be possible for many reason and yet they still think than they will have to fight for keeping their weapons.

Such person aren't the majority of thoses than own firearm but you can't try to make as they wouldn't exist.
__________________

ganbaru is online now  
Old 2012-08-27, 23:42   Link #245
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
The question to ask is: would the reduction of legal gun sales reduce or increase the number of victims? And do those killed from defensive fire still count as victims if they were the ones threatening harm of person or property in the first place (before self-defense kicked in and ended the situation)?
This is the right question to ask. While each country is different, we can predict what might happen if we look at data from other countries. England is a fair example, as they recently (late 1990's) enacted tougher legislation around firearms, so we have some "before and after" data to work with. According to Wikipedia, immediately following the legislation there was not an appreciable impact on firearm-related deaths (neither increased nor decreased), but it seems that about a decade or so later the numbers began to fall. That makes sense. I'd still like to look at the actual data for myself, but the summary will do for now. It would be interesting to see data from other countries as well.
__________________
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 00:42   Link #246
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
You're entering dangerous territory with your terminology here.

#1: Most people who are for stricter gun control are not hoplophobes. We're not afraid of guns. You re-use this term and expand on it a few times later on, so I'll come back to it.
At this point they are. We have enough gun laws on the books. Any more laws that ban, restrict, or otherwise deprive citizens access to military/militia weaponry is a violation of their individual rights as ruled by the SCOTUS in the Heller case.
The SCOTUS determined the type of arms in US vs. Miller when they declared that weapons that are "not useful to a militia" are not protected by the 2nd amendment which is why they ruled that a double-barrel hunting shotgun could be regulated as they saw no use for it in the militia.
The militia (not to be confused with the National Guard which is now part of the regular armed forces) is every abled bodied male between the ages of 17-45.

Quote:
#2: Don't begin to generalize people who disagree with you as "aren't of a critical mind." Go down that path and you're only fooling yourself into being unreasonable.
They're not critical when on the one hand they blabber on about saving lives from guns outside of crime, and yet blow an emotional gasket when anti-abortionists demand that woman stop killing their babies.
If you were both pro-gun control and anti-abortion you'd have an argument, but you're not.
You pick and choose what you want to defend or attack not based on any rational basis, but on your emotions and/or likes/dislikes.
That's the major difference between you and I Legem.
I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-2nd amendment. I'm consistent in my absolute commitment to freedom.

Quote:
Right, if everyone were armed, we may have ended up with even more dead people. This is a stalemate scenario, GundamFan, and you damn well know it. In your fantasy, Holmes would burst into the theater, fire off one shot, and then cleanly be taken out by another movie-goer. In the scenario that I and many others envision, a chaotic scene where multiple people draw and begin firing would ensue, hitting many innocents.
I never denied it was a bad situation, but I know for a fact that gun-free zone garaunteed Holmes would meet zero opposition.
You see Legem, if there were armed individuals in that theater there is at least the chance that many more lives would have been saved.
What you're saying between the lines of your posts is that gunowners are too stupid to know how to use their weapons and that they would have done what the NYC police did at the Empire State Building--it's called "Spray and Pray."
Again you show an unwarranted, and unjustifiable fear of firearms by continuing to claim that more people would have been injured.

Quote:
I'm willing to concede that reality would be somewhere between the two. I want you to admit that guns aren't a perfect solution (if they're even a valid solution) in all of these cases.
That's a red herring.
There are not perfect solutions to anything Legem.
Not crime, not drunk driving, not drugs, not rape, not child molestation, not war, not disease, nothing.
We have to settle for the BEST solutions to a problem
Gun control was tried in the US from 1934 to 2004 with increasing the number of bans, restrictions, and requirements.
It's done NOTHING to deter the violence.

What has worked?
Increasing the standards of living, improving law enforcement techniques such as forensic sciences, greater enforcement of existing laws, and stronger anti-gang initiatives.
Therefore, now that we know beyond any doubt that gun-control does not work, there is no justification to violate people's rights to have weapons.

Quote:
I wasn't referring to the government, I was referring to society itself. Society has an interest (but not an obligation, as you say) in upholding justice. The reason is simple: someone who wrongs me could wrong you or our neighbors, thus it is within our best interest to take care of that person and return us to a state of peace.

I agree that the government should not be trusted completely. So where are we now - do you want to go back to your argument that guns are necessary for society to repel a government that gets out of hand? Please do. I've been waiting for you to bring that up, but the last time I asked if that was what you were saying, you denied it.
Society's interests vary from culture to culture, it is a subjective rather than objective thing.
I see some of Shelly Kagan's nonsense in your statement.
I vehementy disagree with his "reasoning" about the nature of morality.
Society operates off of fear and has done so for thousands of years.
Why do we cooperate?
Because we fear starvation, we fear invasion, we fear disease, we fear criminals, we fear being poor, we fear being alone...etc.
To say otherwise is to deny your instincts as a human being.
As for peace, again we're dealing with a subjective term.
If someone wrongs me, I will take it upon myself to right that wrong.

As for me "argu[ing] that guns are necessary for society to repel a government that gets out of hand?", I never brought it up in the first place. You did, and you continue to go back to it for some reason.
The founding fathers are the ones who made the argument that the people should bear arms equal to the government, not I.
And their argument is as sound today as it was in their time in the 1700s, or Aristotle's time 2000 years ago when he said "neither Oligarch nor Tyrant can suffer a people to be armed."
When government proceeds to attempt to stop a wrong before it happens, then that government has now committed a wrong by becoming authoritarian.
This is why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment, it is a safeguard against government going from being passive in its enforcement of law to active.
I don't see why that's such a big deal, it is what it is, which is why I don't bother discussing it.
Unless of course you're going to try and stake a claim that totalitarian government is benevolent?

Quote:
Yes. Both opponents. You're making the same fatally flawed assumption that he did: that all confrontations are between two people. Tell me, what happens when you're confronted by five other men, and all of you have guns?
No, I'm making the point that you still don't seem to grasp.
Let me draw you a picture.
If both opponents have equal force they have an equal chance of winning.
Understand?

Now, to your question about 5 on one, the five have greater force then your one don't they?
So there are two possibilities:

If you're a good shot, and they're not, you kill them.
If you're not a good shot, or if they're better than you are, you die.
That's life.

Quote:
Not a huge fan of Nietzsche. I pay my taxes because I'm a fan of civilization, and recognize that taxes are necessary to support many aspects of life that I enjoy. I'd stop for a police officer because that's part of the agreement I made with society when I acquired my license to drive (rules of the road). I don't steal because I would feel badly about violating someone like that. None of this - none - is motivated by fear.
So you're a serf?
You obey your lord and master (the government) without any thought about what they might be using you for because you falsely believe it is all for your benefit, right?
Stalin loved his useful idiots too.

Quote:
I'm a very collective-oriented person.
You mean you're a collectivist? Or more accurately, a socialist?
That's okay, I already figured that out when you started on the "I'm not talking about crime" nonsense.
However, I do believe that now we're getting to the meat of why you dislike gun ownership.
Doesn't matter what kind or flavor, they're all anti-American, and anti-freedom.
I've yet to find a flavor that preserves individual rights over the good of the collective.

Quote:
I know that many people are not like me. They're selfish, committed only to themselves and not thinking much farther than beyond this moment. Yet even these people are reliant on society, and while they may kvetch about things like paying taxes or obeying regulations, society forces them in order to avoid their parasitism or taking advantage.
Oh that's a bunch of Petyr Kropotkin's crap.
Mutual aid is total bullshit, and has only one relevence to the discussion of gun control...but I'll get to that below.

Quote:
I don't know. My guess is that they want to be able to command a higher budget, and with such equipment they can make the argument that they're able to respond to more serious crimes (instead of deferring to higher government agencies). I know that some police forces have this equipment, but let me ask you this: when is the last time that you actually saw any of this equipment in action? Colorado may be different, but I can tell you that during my time in Los Angeles, New York City, and now Pittsburgh, I've never seen it in use. It isn't standard patrol gear.
Don't dodge what I'm saying.
There is NO legitimate reason for the police to have this equipment.
NONE!
If you say otherwise then you are either ignorant of the proper role of peace officers in a free society or you know damn well what they want that equipment for.
Tyranny rarely announces itself to the society it chooses to oppress.

And for the record, THIS is the last time I saw the police using their combat robots, armored personnel carrier, full body armor, submachine guns, and snipers.
I was at a friend's house across the stream on the south side of those apartments and actually got a chance to talk with the sniper sitting at the end of a culdesac during the end of the situation.
They looked like something out of a B-flick WWII movie about Nazis Germany.


Quote:
Let's get one thing straight: I've occupied some fairly crappy places in the three cities that I listed.... What should I think of him if not paranoid, then?
You're twisting the point he's making.
He's saying that an armed society is a polite one, in other words he always feels at peace because he knows that should an individual with a gun confront him, he has the means to defense himself properly.

Quote:
But if I may also be honest with you, as a friend... you sound pretty damn paranoid when you start railing against the government and the "police turned paramilitary." I read the various reports and know that you're not lying or exaggerating, nor do I think that it's all fine and dandy. Just be careful with how extreme you let those thoughts slide.
As do you.
You must understand that I've worked with police officers on every level by supplying, repairing and servicing their weaponry. Many of those officers were VERY concerned about what is going on in this country. Are they paranoid? No, and neither am I, but I'm not blind either.
It is obvious at this point what is happening.
We don't need drones in our skies, we don't need police with armored personnel carriers, and we don't need cops with machine guns.

Quote:
You're making the same mistake that he did. The three points that I made were not meant to be discussed separately, but rather to point out how he dodged the issue. Again, the issue was that guns will increase the injuries and deaths sustained in confrontations. Agree or disagree, and state why - don't run around by trying to talk about other weapons or force equalization.
No, force equalization IS the issue, and your statement shows you don't understand the issue at hand.
Not all guns increase injury or death in a situation and you cannot make that claim without evidence to back it up.
There have been confrontations where dozens of rounds were fired and no one even got hit.

It's these kinds of statements you're making that show me your total ignorance of firearms, and your unwarranted fear of them.
Now, I'll illustrate why I said that to you.

Had these people been using shotguns in that bar-fight, somebody would have gotten shot. Perhaps killed if the right rounds were being used (00 buck).
But that's because the shotgun is the deadliest weapon in close quarters battle outside of an explosive.
Does that mean all guns cause more injury than other weapons.
No.
Knives are normally deadlier than pistols at point blank and rifles are all but useless.
Why?
Because they require considerable skill to put that bullet onto the target, whereas a knife does not. Neither does a baseball bat, or other weapon.
Rifles are designed/engineered for long-range combat, pistols for close to imtermediate range, and both require training to use them well.
A shotgun just requires you to point and shoot.

Quote:
1) I do not have a fear of firearms.

2) I have not been talking about reducing homicide or crime. Please stop bringing these types of points up as if it's what I've been saying. What I have been saying is that reducing guns will reduce the injuries and deaths occurring from confrontations. I am not arguing that the rate of confrontations would be affected.
If that's the case then why are we having this conversation?
We already know that accidental gun injuries (outside of crime) are statistically insignificant (only 600 deaths per year), so why
are you making this non-argument in the first place?
Clearly it cannot be about safety, since the safety issue is a moot.
You say it's not about crime, so that issue is moot.
But yet you still want to ban all guns that are protected by the 2nd amendment and leave the ones that aren't.
Now, why would that be?
Oh that's right, because you're a collectivist by your own admission.
Now, why do collectivists want firearms banned and/or heavily restricted.
I know, because they provide a means for individualists to overthrow any totalitarian regime that attempts to erect a collectivist society, that's why.

Quote:
Be careful with this line of thought, you're risking becoming unreasonable. And once again, I do not have a fear of guns or of being attacked. It seems strange (and paranoid) to me that people would be afraid to go outside without their gun, though.
Oh I've been quite reasonable throughout this entire thread.
I've provided you with all the evidence necessary to show that you're desire to "ban all the gun stores" as you said a few pages back is completely irrational and without justification.

Quote:
This isn't about hatred of guns, this is about reducing injuries and deaths (but not crime, which always seems to slip into your mind even though I never make that argument).
If it's not about reducing crime--I keep having to repeat this to you--then it is irrelevent and has no legal standing. Just because you or anyone else doesn't approve of gunownership does not make your emotionally driven opinion valid.
I called you on your fuzzy-logic, provided you with all the evidence necessary, and you have given NOTHING in return.

Quote:
Here's the way that I see it. A gun can be protective in a number of instances, but ultimately a gun is not a defensive device.
They way you see it, isn't the way others "see it" and therefore it doesn't matter.
If guns aren't for defense, then why do the cops have them?
Oh that's right, to DEFEND themselves from armed criminals.
You must have been tired at this point or something, your points are degenerating.

Quote:
People like the idea that guns provide full force equalization and level the playing field, but even this is fantasy. A criminal can ambush you or can confront you with a group, of which both scenarios are tipped against you.
LMFAO.
You claim that the equalization principle is fantasy, then go on to create a fake scenario.
Classic!
How many criminals are out there plotting to ambush people who've done nothing to them?
Huh?
Not many, that's for sure (unless you're in trouble with the mob).
It's these types of over-the-top scenarios that have undermined your argument and thus your position as a whole.

Quote:
Do you really want to be safer...
I already am safer because I own a firearm and know how to use it.
What I don't want are a bunch of hoplophobes thinking they're saving society by turning me and everyone like me into potential victims for criminals who are never going to follow the law.
It is complete idiocy to disarm in the face of an agressor.

Quote:
This isn't about telling you how to live, or what to wear, or how to think. Your gun is not your life... at least, I hope it's not the most important part of your life.
I wanted to add to a few of these comments you made to Lost Cause.
If you don't mind.
My gun saved my life when I was confronted by two armed assailants, doesn't that make my gun my life?
I would argue that it does since I might not have been here right now if not for my having the .357 Colt King Cobra I was carrying.
So in some cases, a gun is a person's life or more accurately the tool used to save their life.

Quote:
Gundamfan has raised some good points, and I am not ignoring them. It is true that a firearm can be used to get people out of bad situations. However, it is also true that firearms have been used for some very vile purposes. Unfortunately, based on the available data (which isn't satisfactory, but it's what we have at the moment), the number of innocents lost to firearms has exceeded the number of people saved by them. Those are the facts.
This is the point I wanted to address most here.
The FACTS are, only 600 people are injured/killed from firearms per year.
Compared to auto accidents (42,000 deaths/year) that's insignificant and does not exceed the number of people saved by them. Conservative (as in small) estimates range from as low as 60,000 times per year to as high as 300,000 times per year. The NRA claims it's more like 1.3 to 2 million times per year that a gun saves a person's life. Either way, 600 accidental deaths is not more than the number of times guns are used to save a life.
__________________

Last edited by GundamFan0083; 2012-08-28 at 00:54.
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 01:15   Link #247
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
This is the right question to ask. While each country is different, we can predict what might happen if we look at data from other countries. England is a fair example, as they recently (late 1990's) enacted tougher legislation around firearms, so we have some "before and after" data to work with. According to Wikipedia, immediately following the legislation there was not an appreciable impact on firearm-related deaths (neither increased nor decreased), but it seems that about a decade or so later the numbers began to fall. That makes sense. I'd still like to look at the actual data for myself, but the summary will do for now. It would be interesting to see data from other countries as well.
You missed something there. I did not say "firearm related deaths" I said "victims". That means anyone who died to a crime (murder). Be it a gun, a knife, a bat, poison, a chair, a car, or bare hands.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 18:51   Link #248
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
I've used guns many, many time. I've never killed anyone or any creature with a gun. I have put many, many holes in nonliving things though.
Never heard of an Air Rifle? All the killing fun, none(okay, less) of the lethality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
The argument made on the basis of morality might be able to go somewhere, but as you've presented it I have to disagree. Guns can be used for sporting, and they can be used for hunting. While I'm not a huge fan of hunting, it's a necessity in many parts of the USA in order to keep deer populations in check (and possibly other animal species, but deer is the big on in the Northeast).
Missing the point, people don't defend their ownership of guns for hunting and sport. They defend it so they have the right to kill another person in self defence. I don't think anyone has the right to kill anyone for any reason, at least not intentionally. It is not our place to judge such things.
Quote:
This line of reasoning is also problematic with some other things. For example, should archery be banned? Bows and arrows were designed for killing. Should swords and sword-based arts be banned? Swords were designed for killing. A gun is a much more efficient killing tool than either of those, but looking at morality alone, those two (and others like them) should be banned, no?
Certainly should be. And in many places they are. To practice archery you have to be in an archery range. And last time I checked, in places with gun control they don't allow you to carry around swords either. The possession and carrying of all lethal weaponry should not be legal. These alternative uses are a very small minority of gun users, and they could still exist without legalising the free possession of guns. Even in Japan, with the tightest such laws you can imagine, you can practice Kendo and go to a shooting range. You just can't own real versions of those weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
I can't speak for others, but I for one don't trivialize death, I've stared at its face more times than most(those that lives in 1st world countries anyway) ever would, and I'm very much aware of the nature, capability, and limitation of firearms.

Your line of logic here is inherently flawed, since when did the right to protect yourself became a tug-of-war between what you'd lose versus what the attacker would lose? between life, dignity, properties, who gets to decide what is worth more to any person? Should potential rape victim not use deadly force to fight back because a rape is not as "final" or bad as death? Should an old man not be able to fight back against home burglars who would take everything he owes? It's one thing to throw out just a single scenario to support your argument, but you need to consider the potential implications behind the reasoning of your argument.
Do we have a right to take the life of another? We have the right to defend ourselves with force, but do we have the right to defend ourselves with deadly force.

I do not believe we do, I do not believe we have the right to make ourselves judge, jury and executioner. Death is for the law, and for the Gods themselves, to mete out.

It is perfectly possible to defend yourself with nonlethal force. Pepper spray, tasers, a cane...

We do not have the right to take the life of another. Under any circumstances. Now, if a person accidentaly kills another in self defence, I don't think they should be tried for murder. But, that person does not have the right to do so intentionally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
If that's the case then why are we having this conversation?
We already know that accidental gun injuries (outside of crime) are statistically insignificant (only 600 deaths per year), so why
Hang on, how can any number of deaths be "statistically insignificant". If we can pass a law that can prevent even 1 death, I say we do so. You cannot place a value on human life.

All of America's guns hold less value then even 1 of those lives, let alone 600.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 19:18   Link #249
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
^ And what would you say to the peope dying in Syria, fighting for freedom and killing there own to destroy a monster? Is what they're doing wrong? According to this it is!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 19:18   Link #250
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Humans have always had the right to defend themselves with leathal force. Otherwise there would be no humans (predetory animals would have wiped us out long ago if we couldn't kill them with our tools).
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 19:39   Link #251
Ledgem
Love Yourself
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
At this point they are. We have enough gun laws on the books.
Hear that, everyone? GundamFan0083 says that we have enough laws on the books. The ultimate authority on gun laws and the dictator of society says that we have enough, so wrap it up - no more gun laws.

Get real. Society determines whether we have enough laws - not you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Any more laws that ban, restrict, or otherwise deprive citizens access to military/militia weaponry is a violation of their individual rights as ruled by the SCOTUS in the Heller case.
For better or for worse, laws aren't set in stone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
I'm pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-2nd amendment. I'm consistent in my absolute commitment to freedom.
Oh, how wonderful. I'm sorry that I don't live in that black and white world, as nice as it sounds. I support freedom, but I don't do so blindly. If misuse of guns begin to threaten people's freedom to live their lives without having to worry about some random madman gunning them down, then I think that their place in society should be re-evaluated.

The way you've presented it, you're basically arguing for the freedom to own a toy that can injure and kill others. What a freedom to have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
What you're saying between the lines of your posts is that gunowners are too stupid to know how to use their weapons and that they would have done what the NYC police did at the Empire State Building--it's called "Spray and Pray."
Again you show an unwarranted, and unjustifiable fear of firearms by continuing to claim that more people would have been injured.
I don't claim that anyone is stupid. Have you never been in a movie theater? Have you never felt the adrenaline rush when you thought that you were going to die? This has nothing to do with anyone's intelligence, this has to do with our limitations as humans. It's one thing to know how to handle a firearm, it's another entirely to be able to react properly to a tough situation.

I get that you think that some miracle shooter would have been able to stop the Aurora theater shootings. And because it's a purely hypothetical situation, you're free to believe that and nobody will ever be able to say that you're absolutely wrong. What I'd appreciate hearing from you is some acknowledgement that these situations are tricky, and that the risk of collateral damage is high. That's realistic. I'm not convinced that you're grounded to reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
We have to settle for the BEST solutions to a problem
Gun control was tried in the US from 1934 to 2004 with increasing the number of bans, restrictions, and requirements.
It's done NOTHING to deter the violence.
How many times do I have to repeat this line? I am not arguing that a ban on guns will affect the rates of violence. Read that over a few times, I don't want any pro-gun advocate to try and argue that point with me again on this thread unless I really do use it as an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
What has worked?
Increasing the standards of living, improving law enforcement techniques such as forensic sciences, greater enforcement of existing laws, and stronger anti-gang initiatives.
Therefore, now that we know beyond any doubt that gun-control does not work, there is no justification to violate people's rights to have weapons.
I agree with you in terms of reducing violence and crime, but your waving off gun control only works if you assume that the purpose of banning guns is to reduce crime and violence.

And that's not what I've been arguing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
I vehementy disagree with his "reasoning" about the nature of morality.
Society operates off of fear and has done so for thousands of years.
Why do we cooperate?
Because we fear starvation, we fear invasion, we fear disease, we fear criminals, we fear being poor, we fear being alone...etc.
To say otherwise is to deny your instincts as a human being.
I'm not going to deny that some people - perhaps many people - operate based off of fear. I'd appreciate it if you'd be open enough to admit and accept that some people have moved beyond that, and are not primarily motivated by fear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
And their argument is as sound today as it was in their time in the 1700s, or Aristotle's time 2000 years ago when he said "neither Oligarch nor Tyrant can suffer a people to be armed."
When government proceeds to attempt to stop a wrong before it happens, then that government has now committed a wrong by becoming authoritarian.
This is why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment, it is a safeguard against government going from being passive in its enforcement of law to active.
I don't see why that's such a big deal, it is what it is, which is why I don't bother discussing it.
Unless of course you're going to try and stake a claim that totalitarian government is benevolent?
The reason why it's a big deal is because the world has changed a lot since the country's founding. Weaponry and combat equipment has advanced. The weapons that the government holds cost too much for individuals to have access to, they require too much training to operate and maintain, and they're far too dangerous to allow into the hands of just anyone in society. (Go ahead and argue that last point - I know you want to - and tell me why you think your neighbor should be allowed to own a nuclear warhead.)

Aside from differences in the weapons power, politicians and various interest groups have done a spectacular job of fragmenting and polarizing society. Do you really think that armed citizens could unite and organize enough to take down the government? Really?

If citizens realistically can't fight back against the government, then firearms represent a vestigial trait in society. It's something that once had meaning and importance, yet is now ineffective and little more than symbolic. Firearms are to society what the appendix is to the human body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
No, I'm making the point that you still don't seem to grasp.
Let me draw you a picture.
If both opponents have equal force they have an equal chance of winning.
Understand?

Now, to your question about 5 on one, the five have greater force then your one don't they?
So there are two possibilities:

If you're a good shot, and they're not, you kill them.
If you're not a good shot, or if they're better than you are, you die.
That's life.
Oh, thank goodness. When you began to talk about a confrontation between two people again I thought that perhaps you were barely reading my posts. Thank you for addressing what I actually wrote, and thank you for including the realistic outcome of you losing out even if you're armed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
So you're a serf?
You obey your lord and master (the government) without any thought about what they might be using you for because you falsely believe it is all for your benefit, right?
Stalin loved his useful idiots too.
Clearly I am 100% behind the government because I see that guns are used to carry out some heinous murders and injuries, and I question whether society would be better off without them.

If I'm a serf, what does that make you - a paranoid, antisocial man who needs the grown-up version of a security blanket in order to leave his house?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
You mean you're a collectivist? Or more accurately, a socialist?
That's okay, I already figured that out when you started on the "I'm not talking about crime" nonsense.
However, I do believe that now we're getting to the meat of why you dislike gun ownership.
Doesn't matter what kind or flavor, they're all anti-American, and anti-freedom.
I've yet to find a flavor that preserves individual rights over the good of the collective.
Wow, I never expected to find this trash written on AnimeSuki. Anti-American and anti-freedom, all for disagreeing with you, and all because of one thing: guns. Doesn't that seem a bit... I don't know... idiotic to you? Nah, probably not, otherwise you wouldn't have written it. You must think so highly of yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Don't dodge what I'm saying.
There is NO legitimate reason for the police to have this equipment.
NONE!
I gave you some hypothetical reasons for why they might have it, reasons aside from "they're tyrants who are trying to take us over." I am undecided as to whether there is a legit reason for such equipment. I lean against it, particularly since I am keenly aware of police brutality.

But then I hear about these fools who talk about civil war, or our own home-grown terrorists who want to rip up the government. I do not identify with those people. They are not fighting for me, and I do not want them to impose their way of life upon me. They might as well be the Taliban, wanting to impose Sharia law. When I read those types of news articles, I begin to lean toward feeling that it's all right. I trust the police more than I trust those types of people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
You're twisting the point he's making.
He's saying that an armed society is a polite one, in other words he always feels at peace because he knows that should an individual with a gun confront him, he has the means to defense himself properly.
I know of the "armed society is a polite society" concept. I don't think that it's an unrealistic notion, either.

However, the way this is worded is revealing. The idea that an armed society is a polite society means that everyone treats everyone else with respect and care, because they know that a confrontation could lead to a worst-case scenario where someone dies or is seriously hurt. If you say "I feel at peace because if someone attacks me, I can defend myself," your statement indicates that you're already thinking about being attacked. This isn't about a polite society - this is now about you getting attacked, and being able to ward off your attacker. I think you know the definition of paranoia. I don't think that this man is paranoid, but those are some paranoid thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
It is obvious at this point what is happening.
We don't need drones in our skies, we don't need police with armored personnel carriers, and we don't need cops with machine guns.
On this we agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Not all guns increase injury or death in a situation and you cannot make that claim without evidence to back it up.
I don't need to make that claim, because your counter-argument makes absolutely no sense.

Let me show you why through an analogy on a topic that you're not as blinded by. Some people can drive at 100 MPH through a crowded city and not hit anyone or anything. No problem, right? We should allow everyone to do that, and persecute only those who screw up? Not all 100 MPH drivers cause injury or death in a situation, after all.

No, the entire reason why we have these regulations is to avert tragedies in the first place. To put it back to guns, it's true that the number of people with firearms who use their firearms improperly is a small percentage of firearms owners, but that's no consolation to the innocent dead and wounded. I'm not talking about the gun owners who use their guns responsibly, I'm talking about the people who do not. If you can come up with a solution that eliminates those injuries and deaths while allowing others to continue owning guns, I will fully support you, I will tell all the liberals and the conservatives, and I will contact the state legislators from every state that I have ever resided in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
If that's the case then why are we having this conversation?
We already know that accidental gun injuries (outside of crime) are statistically insignificant (only 600 deaths per year), so why
are you making this non-argument in the first place?
Clearly it cannot be about safety, since the safety issue is a moot.
Wow, "only 600 deaths per year." 600 is larger than my entire high school population was. I suppose you could have dropped a bomb on my school and people would have said "ah what ever, it was less than 600 kids that died."

Are you out of your mind? The fact that the number is "only" 600 (a number seems damn big to be for being limited to accidental shooting deaths) means that gun legislation should be a low priority compared to other areas of society. We're not arguing about what legislative priority should be, though. This thread is all about guns.

So tell me, if those 600 deaths could be reduced to zero, don't you think that it would be worth it? Oh, we don't necessarily need to restrict guns in order to get that number down to zero... but don't you think it's worthwhile to avoid preventable deaths?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Oh that's right, because you're a collectivist by your own admission.
Now, why do collectivists want firearms banned and/or heavily restricted.
I know, because they provide a means for individualists to overthrow any totalitarian regime that attempts to erect a collectivist society, that's why.
I thought you said it was because I was an anti-American, freedom-hating socialist

In all seriousness, what is so hard to understand here? A large number of people die or are seriously injured each year of multiple causes. If we can do something to prevent those from happening, why shouldn't we? Yes, there are many causes for these deaths, and guns are just a small part, but if the gun-related ones can be averted, then why not? What reason do you have that is so important that it's worth the thousands of lives that are lost to guns each year? I can think of a few possible reasons (some that you've sort of touched on), but I'm not convinced that they're worth the trade-off. So why are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Oh I've been quite reasonable throughout this entire thread.
I've provided you with all the evidence necessary to show that you're desire to "ban all the gun stores" as you said a few pages back is completely irrational and without justification.
I guess it would seem that way to someone who can throw around a figure like "600 deaths" and feel that it's nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
If it's not about reducing crime--I keep having to repeat this to you--then it is irrelevent and has no legal standing. Just because you or anyone else doesn't approve of gunownership does not make your emotionally driven opinion valid.
I don't particularly care about gun ownership. I care about guns that are used inappropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
I called you on your fuzzy-logic, provided you with all the evidence necessary, and you have given NOTHING in return.
Nothing at all, huh? Fuzzy logic? Well, if we can't even agree on the value of 600 lives...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
They way you see it, isn't the way others "see it" and therefore it doesn't matter.
Oooh, that sounds so cool. Hey, mind if I try?

The way you, GundamFan0083, see it isn't the way others "see it" and therefore it doesn't really matter. So deflate that sense of self-important authority and rejoin the rest of us.

Oh, sorry - I decided to spice it up with that last bit. I hope you don't mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
If guns aren't for defense, then why do the cops have them?
Oh that's right, to DEFEND themselves from armed criminals.
Huh? Cops have guns to subjugate us lowly serfs. Didn't you know?

Seriously though, why do police have guns? Surely you realize that an armed police force is not a universal feature of societies that have police. So why do our police have guns? You hypothesize that it's for defense from armed criminals. OK, I think that's acceptable. But there are two points on this:

1) It is a part of the business of police officers to deal with those violent, unruly members of society. Regular people like you and me generally don't go patrolling crappy neighborhoods at odd hours, nor do we engage potentially hostile people. We're smart and we want to avoid trouble, and that applies whether you have a gun at your side or whether you're unarmed. Are we both in agreement so far? Police - if they're doing their jobs - don't follow that rule. They go into the high-crime neighborhoods and they seek out the suspicious-looking people. They're at high risk for encountering violent confrontations. It seems justified that they should have something - a gun, a taser, a baton - to shift the balance in their favor.

This gets into point #2:
2) How come some countries can have police without firearms? The reason I propose is that those countries don't have a lot of guns. So now we're in a chicken-and-egg scenario: if we reduce the guns, we won't need guns to ward off other guns. Yet if you give up your gun, there will still be some guns around to threaten you and everyone else; thus, you don't want to give up your gun, and we're stuck with a bunch of guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
How many criminals are out there plotting to ambush people who've done nothing to them?
Huh?
Not many, that's for sure (unless you're in trouble with the mob).
It's these types of over-the-top scenarios that have undermined your argument and thus your position as a whole.
What do you mean, "not many"? Are the criminals in Colorado honorable or something? Do they come up to you and say "excuse me sir, but I'm here to rob you, and just so that you know, I have a gun; we can walk twenty paces and then draw if you're armed"? No. Some scumbag walks into a store and pulls a gun without warning; some sleaze ball waits until they see someone alone in a park, and then they approach them with their weapon ready. That's an ambush, and that's how the majority of crimes take place in America. (Well, I'd say it's the majority if you leave the white-collar criminals out of it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
I already am safer because I own a firearm and know how to use it.
Security blanket. Were you safer when you were shot at in the Applebee's parking lot? Fat lot of good your gun did then, didn't it? And yet because that asshole was allowed to have a gun and because he couldn't keep his shit together, bullets were fired your way. Yet somehow you say you feel safer? This seems very short-sighted to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
My gun saved my life when I was confronted by two armed assailants, doesn't that make my gun my life?
I would argue that it does since I might not have been here right now if not for my having the .357 Colt King Cobra I was carrying.
Tell me more about this situation. What happened? If the two armed men simply wanted your wallet, then you probably know my response: handing it over would have saved your life, too. You would have been violated, but you'd still be alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
This is the point I wanted to address most here.
The FACTS are, only 600 people are injured/killed from firearms per year.
Based on the webpage that you linked, 600 people are killed from firearm-related accidents. The number of homicides linked to hanguns is approximately 8,000, and there's about another 3,000-4,000 homicides linked to "other guns". But go ahead and tell me about how 11,000-13,000 lives is nothing compared to auto accidents or some completely unrelated thing that people die from. Act as if we can only reduce deaths in one area at a time. Or maybe you'll throw me a real winner and tell me that the website that I linked to is a government website, and thus the numbers are exaggerated and made up. Tinfoil hat time, you know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
You missed something there. I did not say "firearm related deaths" I said "victims". That means anyone who died to a crime (murder). Be it a gun, a knife, a bat, poison, a chair, a car, or bare hands.
Ah, I misunderstood. I'm sure there's data available for that, too. I can make a prediction, though. Based on the website that I linked to GundamFan, firearm-related homicides are far beyond homicides used with other weapons. As of 2005, handgun-related homicides were between 8,000 and 9,000 lives, and other guns were between 3,000 and 4,000 lives. Homicides due to knives and "other weapons" numbered around 3,000, and homicides from "blunt objects" numbered in the hundreds to 1,000. That's pretty damning.

If you reduced the number of firearms, I would anticipate that homicides wrought through those other means would rise. But would they all triple or quadruple in order to match the number of homicides carried out by guns? Anything is possible, but I don't find that to be a realistic scenario.
__________________

Last edited by Ledgem; 2012-08-28 at 19:50. Reason: Correcting some BB-Code errors
Ledgem is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 20:06   Link #252
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Personally, I think we're framing this debate too mechanistically here. The fundamental thing here is the right to kill another. How can we so easily give such a thing away? How can anyone under any circumstance have the right to kill a human being? A gun's purpose is to kill, that is why it is created. How can we legalize the keeping of the tool, but make the use of it illegal? Doing such a thing is absurd. If we legalise the keeping of the gun, we must give people the right to kill other human beings. I think that such a thing is too awful to think about. No one should have the right to kill another. Maybe you guys think that we do have that right. I'm an atheist, but the only hypothetical entity that I can think of that has the right to give and take life is God himself. There are some things which are His prerogative alone. No man the purity of thought and wisdom to judge to be given such power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost Cause View Post
^ And what would you say to the peope dying in Syria, fighting for freedom and killing there own to destroy a monster? Is what they're doing wrong? According to this it is!
That is neither here nor there. We are talking about how a lawful and free society should be assembled. Syria is a case where there is no freedom, and law has completely collapsed.

Do we live in Syria? Why should we formulate our laws based on the circumstances of a war zone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Humans have always had the right to defend themselves with leathal force. Otherwise there would be no humans (predetory animals would have wiped us out long ago if we couldn't kill them with our tools).
I have no beef with killing animals (I love me some beef burgers). But our civilizations only came into existence when we finally sat down and decided that we can't kill other people whenever we like. That killing another human being is sinful. Our entire system of ethics is based on the idea that killing another human as being the ultimate sin.

So if you're in danger of being killed by your natural environment, sure do whatever you like. But in affairs of humanity, there is no justification for the intentional taking of human life. Our society is sophisticated enough today that we have many means for self defence that does not require it. Being that killing is the ultimate wrong, then our society should ban any instruments whose sole use and purpose is to kill. We should ban guns.

If you can claim another reason to keep a gun, say you need to defend against bears, sure you can have your rifle. But any other use solely entails the eventual killing of human beings. No man should be given the right to kill another human being unless he is solely directed to do so by the law. No man should have the power to take the life of another. To do so is Hubris.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Aww, there, there Legem, I know you lost the argument and so do you.
Did he?

Last edited by DonQuigleone; 2012-08-28 at 20:22.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 20:27   Link #253
Liddo-kun
Come on everyone
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nanairogaoka
Send a message via MSN to Liddo-kun
The debate seems to be on gun control in America..
But maybe an example of what happened in other countries could also be placed in this thread.

Here in the Philippines we had several "road rage" incidents. Two people get in a traffic argument, one loses temper and pulls out a gun = murder commited in the street. There are several stories, but the Jason Ivler case is one I remember the most. He shot a man named Ebarle during a traffic argument, NBI agents cornered him in his house and he was captured after a gunfight. A classic example of guns being in the wrongs hands (wrong hands = short tempered "tough guys").

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...-with-nbi-team

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...efore-qc-court
Liddo-kun is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 21:04   Link #254
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Quote:
I have no beef with killing animals (I love me some beef burgers). But our civilizations only came into existence when we finally sat down and decided that we can't kill other people whenever we like. That killing another human being is sinful. Our entire system of ethics is based on the idea that killing another human as being the ultimate sin.

So if you're in danger of being killed by your natural environment, sure do whatever you like. But in affairs of humanity, there is no justification for the intentional taking of human life. Our society is sophisticated enough today that we have many means for self defence that does not require it. Being that killing is the ultimate wrong, then our society should ban any instruments whose sole use and purpose is to kill. We should ban guns.

If you can claim another reason to keep a gun, say you need to defend against bears, sure you can have your rifle. But any other use solely entails the eventual killing of human beings. No man should be given the right to kill another human being unless he is solely directed to do so by the law. No man should have the power to take the life of another. To do so is Hubris.
If that was the case, there would be no wars. However, as we can quite plainly see, our race is not so advanced. There is always something that causes us to war against each other for the last 10,000 years or more. Humans killing humans for greed, lust, property, resources, or religion. It trickles own to the individual level. As long as we have vices, wants, and desired that we cannot have but someone is willing to take...than the "victim" realistically needs a way to defend themselves from the "predator".
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline  
Old 2012-08-28, 23:11   Link #255
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Personally, I think we're framing this debate too mechanistically here. The fundamental thing here is the right to kill another. How can we so easily give such a thing away? How can anyone under any circumstance have the right to kill a human being?
I had already address this in my earlier response to you which you either didn't see or chose to ignore, but I'll go over it here again.

Who are you to decide the worth of life, dignity, or possession for someone else? Again, should someone who is about to be raped lay there and be raped instead of fighting back with deadly force because, as you said, no one should have the right to kill another under ANY circumstances? What about the police? should they also give up their weapons? after all, they can just ask the criminals nicely to stop, just like the rape victim before right? same goes for the military, everyone should just carry a deck of card and settle the fight with a game of poker.

It's your right to have a very idealistic view of the world and how it should be, but when it comes to policy making, I prefer ones drafted with reality in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
No one should have the right to kill another. Maybe you guys think that we do have that right.
No one should be deprived of their right to protect their OWN life. And for that matter, every human society bestows the right to kill another to certain members of said society, the only difference is who.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
I'm an atheist, but the only hypothetical entity that I can think of that has the right to give and take life is God himself. There are some things which are His prerogative alone. No man the purity of thought and wisdom to judge to be given such power.
atheist making a religious argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Our society is sophisticated enough today that we have many means for self defence that does not require it. Being that killing is the ultimate wrong, then our society should ban any instruments whose sole use and purpose is to kill. We should ban guns.
Pray tell, what's this "many means for self defence that does not require it". Really, I'm waiting here. Apparently you have some secret technology the rest of the world haven't even heard of.

TBH, gundamfan went a bit over the deep end there, you on the other hand went off the deep end on the other side here. Deprivation of a person's right to protect themselves? are you nuts?
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-29, 00:06   Link #256
Daniel E.
AniMexican!
*Moderator
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Monterrey N.L. Mexico
Couple of posts have been deleted and I must ask you guys, once again, to cool off before posting again.

I'll check more posts a bit later.
__________________
Daniel E. is offline  
Old 2012-08-29, 02:43   Link #257
Sugetsu
Kurumada's lost child
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
It finally dawned on me the reason why random people commit random acts of pointless violence in the US; it is cultural issue. More specifically, it is the "I got mine, get yours, forget you" mentality that many Americans have, which causes people to dismiss the obvious warnings given by mentally unstable people before they go out on a rampage. Unless we are able to care collectively for each then there is no stopping these tragedies from occurring.

Where does this "epiphany" of mine fit into this thread? Simple, I believe that gun control laws will not prevent the root cause of the problem mentioned above. The root cause of acts of violence is individualism. If people believe that strict regulation will stop gun related violence, they are delusional. However, I do believe that regulating the kind of fire power a citizen should be allow to carry can make a significant difference in the number of lives saved.
__________________
"If you educate people, you cannot control them." ~Jacque Fresco
Sugetsu is offline  
Old 2012-08-29, 05:24   Link #258
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
If that was the case, there would be no wars. However, as we can quite plainly see, our race is not so advanced. There is always something that causes us to war against each other for the last 10,000 years or more. Humans killing humans for greed, lust, property, resources, or religion. It trickles own to the individual level. As long as we have vices, wants, and desired that we cannot have but someone is willing to take...than the "victim" realistically needs a way to defend themselves from the "predator".
Well, war is pretty evil, isn't it? Something to bear in mind is that in a war situation there is no law in place to protect the participant. It's kill or be killed(If not by the enemy, by your own commander in a court-martial). In such a situation there's not much choice.

But we are discussing about how we live in a peaceful society governed by the law. In such a society we must strive to reduce all deaths to a minimum. The best way to do so is to remove the instruments by which death is inflicted.

And as I said, defend yourself, sure, but don't kill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
I had already address this in my earlier response to you which you either didn't see or chose to ignore, but I'll go over it here again.

Who are you to decide the worth of life, dignity, or possession for someone else? Again, should someone who is about to be raped lay there and be raped instead of fighting back with deadly force because, as you said, no one should have the right to kill another under ANY circumstances? What about the police? should they also give up their weapons? after all, they can just ask the criminals nicely to stop, just like the rape victim before right? same goes for the military, everyone should just carry a deck of card and settle the fight with a game of poker.

It's your right to have a very idealistic view of the world and how it should be, but when it comes to policy making, I prefer ones drafted with reality in mind.
There are many ways to defend yourself non-lethally. You can use pepper spray, Tasers or a cane to bludgeon them. All these things can cause them significant pain or injury and grant you the opportunity to escape, without ever requiring you to kill the other person.

The reality I speak of is perfectly feasible. The police in my own country do not carry guns. My country continues to function quite well. A bat is more then enough to subdue the criminals of this world. Sometimes they can carry guns if it is strictly necessary. Thankfully that is not a frequent occurrence.

As for the military, they should not exist, but they are a necessary evil to deter invasion by others.
Quote:
No one should be deprived of their right to protect their OWN life. And for that matter, every human society bestows the right to kill another to certain members of said society, the only difference is who.
I do not think we should bestow that right on anyone, but if we do, that person must be judged to be of completely sound mind and body, and to encapsulate our ideals of justice. It should not be a privilege enjoyed by all. Only by special forces and judges, acting in accordance with the law.

Quote:
atheist making a religious argument?
God is the only entity with the perfect omniscience necessary to do something so final correctly. Given that no person exists with such abilities, I don't believe anyone should have the right to kill another.

Quote:
Pray tell, what's this "many means for self defence that does not require it". Really, I'm waiting here. Apparently you have some secret technology the rest of the world haven't even heard of.
Enjoy. If anything, I'd say these things are more effective then a gun. Any criminal hit with these will be immediately immobilized and unable to take further action, enabling you to escape. A gun shot wound, on the other hand, is often easy to ignore, as it often causes little pain (Reagan got shot by a sniper and didn't even realise it until he saw the blood!).

Quote:
TBH, gundamfan went a bit over the deep end there, you on the other hand went off the deep end on the other side here. Deprivation of a person's right to protect themselves? are you nuts?
It's perfectly possible to defend yourself without killing another human being. Defend, don't kill.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-29, 10:35   Link #259
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Don, if you're not willing to confine the debate to something within the realm of reality, I see no reason to continue any further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Well, war is pretty evil, isn't it? Something to bear in mind is that in a war situation there is no law in place to protect the participant. It's kill or be killed(If not by the enemy, by your own commander in a court-martial). In such a situation there's not much choice.
Actually no, there's the Geneva Convention, though often times that gets ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
But we are discussing about how we live in a peaceful society governed by the law. In such a society we must strive to reduce all deaths to a minimum. The best way to do so is to remove the instruments by which death is inflicted.
Wrong, the best way to do so is by changing the culture and the drive behind people who kill. Humans are not retarded creatures, they won't suddenly decide not to kill just because you took away the easiest tool to accomplish that goal with. Nor can you "remove all instruments by which death is inflicted", unless you remove every single physical item on the planet, and chop off everyone's hands and legs and pull out all their teeths .

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
And as I said, defend yourself, sure, but don't kill,

There are many ways to defend yourself non-lethally. You can use pepper spray, Tasers or a cane to bludgeon them. All these things can cause them significant pain or injury and grant you the opportunity to escape, without ever requiring you to kill the other person.
Oh lord, stop basing your reality on TV.

Pepper spray's range is extremely short, nor is it guaranteed immediate incapacitation like you see on TV, many can function just fine even after being sprayed, and the period of incapacitation can also be very short. It's a last-resort type of defense that may or may not work.

Taser is the same. Very short range for the shooting type, which is also worthless when there are multiple assailants. The period of incapacitation is even shorter, which practically ends as soon as the charge is stopped. A taser is designed more for LE use where others can move in to subdue the target while he/she is incapacitated. Also, just like pepper spray, some people just aren't going to be affected by them, or they could just be wearing thick clothing, at which point your shooty taser becomes a toy gun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The reality I speak of is perfectly feasible. The police in my own country do not carry guns. My country continues to function quite well. A bat is more then enough to subdue the criminals of this world. Sometimes they can carry guns if it is strictly necessary. Thankfully that is not a frequent occurrence.
transplant the population of the L.A. or Detroit or Chicago etc. metropolitan area to Ireland, and we'll see how long your police keep on not carrying guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
I do not think we should bestow that right on anyone, but if we do, that person must be judged to be of completely sound mind and body, and to encapsulate MY ideals of justice. It should not be a privilege enjoyed by all. Only by special forces and judges, acting in accordance with the law.
fixed, do not confuse your ideals as everyone else's

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Enjoy. If anything, I'd say these things are more effective then a gun. Any criminal hit with these will be immediately immobilized and unable to take further action, enabling you to escape.
One should not spout off on the practical ability of nonlethal forces when one doesn't have a single clue as to their real-world performance and application potential. As I've already addressed earlier in this post, what you're claiming here is pure fantasy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
A gun shot wound, on the other hand, is often easy to ignore, as it often causes little pain (Reagan got shot by a sniper and didn't even realise it until he saw the blood!).

Please tell me, when was the last time you got shot? Trust me, it's not so "easy to ignore"

Sometimes some people get so much adrenaline pumping through their body that they don't realize they've been shot, but those are the rare exceptions and not the norm, and trust me, it hurts very much so after the adrenaline wears off .

lol... gunshot wounds are easy to ignore and cause little pain? soldiers on every battlefield today would like to know what you're smoking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
It's perfectly possible to defend yourself without killing another human being. Defend, don't kill.
Sometimes that is true, other times it is not, and that is the reality of the world we live in.

Last edited by Daniel E.; 2012-08-29 at 15:05.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-29, 10:46   Link #260
killer3000ad
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
(Reagan got shot by a sniper and didn't even realise it until he saw the blood!).
Reagan wasn't shot by a sniper. The guy opened fire at him with a revolver at close range outside the hotel Reagan was leaving and MISSED all his shots. However one bullet ricocheted of the side of the president's limousine and struck him under his left arm and lodged itself in his lung. Additionally, three other people around, a policeman, a Secret Service agent and White House Press Secretary James Brady, were all hit once each. Brady became permanently disabled after that.
__________________

Last edited by killer3000ad; 2012-08-29 at 17:47.
killer3000ad is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.