2012-08-26, 16:33 | Link #221 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
That said, in this case (IE bystanders helping someone in need), the outcome of morality would be defined by pretty much everyone as "good". Generally speaking, the fundamental elements of morality that are common across cultures are universally considered good. The specific elements of morality that are unique to certain cultures will be considered good by some, evil by others, and a few will simply not care one way or the other. |
|
2012-08-26, 20:22 | Link #223 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-08-26, 21:38 | Link #224 | |||||||||||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
#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. #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. 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. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
I'm a very collective-oriented person. I chose many activities and even my career based on what I could contribute to society, not what I could do to enrich myself. I make personal sacrifices for the betterment of others, even if I receive nothing in return. I am a strong believer in the "golden rule" (treat others as you want to be treated), and I am very conscientious of those around me. This is where I'm coming from. 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. Quote:
Quote:
Understand also that I walk outside of my apartment without a gun each and every day, and it's very rare that I worry about someone getting into a fight with me, or someone pulling a gun on me. The author says that walking around with a gun allows him to be "unafraid" - well, I'm unafraid, and I don't have a gun. What should I think of him if not paranoid, then? 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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. Do you really want to be safer, or do you just want to feel like you have some influence over a world that can't be predicted and can barely be controlled? It seems to me that having a gun on you offers a sense of control, but the reality is that you're still fairly powerless. Again, this is because a gun is not defensive. Eliminating crime from society will take a lot of work in areas of education and social services, and as I have stated repeatedly, reducing/eliminating guns likely won't have an appreciable impact. However, removing guns from society will reduce the magnitude of injury that you face; more importantly, it will greatly reduce the risk that you face from random, mentally unstable shooters (which is a realistic threat, in light of the fact that we've been steadily decreasing our support for mental health institutions, and we now have a lot of war veterans with PTSD and other problems coming home).
__________________
|
|||||||||||||
2012-08-27, 05:54 | Link #225 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
And just how would you go about that? Removing crime from society, that is? Do we all line up for shock treatment or get frontal lobotomys? As long as emotions rule us there will be crime, because jealousy and the desire to want something or covet something will also be there.
And I find your faith in society to handle or the group mentality to deal with a given situation most disturbing. The "sheep mentality" isn't going to do you much good when a pack of "wolves" descend upon you, especially if none of you are armed or lack the means or ability to defend yourself! |
2012-08-27, 08:24 | Link #226 | ||||||||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'd plus rep your post Ledgem, but I +rep you too often, alas. |
||||||||
2012-08-27, 08:30 | Link #227 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Pretty much every gunman has come from the "sheep" segment, people who think the world is out to get them, and decide it's high time they started fighting back and took the fight to the government, and the sheeple who support them. They're not wolves preying on people for money and profit. The "Wolves" understand that the best way to get their money is to leave people alive. That's why they go to work as CEOs. |
|
2012-08-27, 10:14 | Link #228 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
I always appreciate the agreement, Don
Quote:
Quote:
This isn't about group mentality, this is about everyone working together for the benefit of all individuals involved.
__________________
|
||
2012-08-27, 10:52 | Link #229 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The reason that Toyota completely wiped the floor with GM in the 80s and 90s was because it's workforce all operated as one big team, be they managers or just workers on the line. They all worked together to make their products and manufacturing processes the best they could be. We built the society we have today by working together. We will lose it when we work against one another. Together we are far more powerful then we are apart. Have a little trust. After all, if you don't trust your neighbour, why should he trust you? |
|
2012-08-27, 18:15 | Link #230 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
Quote:
First I never said I lost faith in or didn't trust society! I said your total dependence on it to get things done is disturbing. Have you ever led those around you in a rally or signed a petition? Ever made your voice heard outside of an Internet forum? I trust my countrymen, and love my country, but I have little use for those who try to tell me how too live, what too wear, how too think, etc. Despite facts put forth by GundamFan that show that the presence of a firearm did indeed change the tide or alter an other wise gruesome outcome, you both still cling to just "getting rid of all guns" and creating some sort of Utopia! Your never ending rhetoric of the same old thing has quashed an otherwise interesting and insightful thread. That and I personally think it all about the post count and "rep points" for you both. GundamFan said your afraid of guns. I say your afraid of those if us who have taken the responsibility of protecting ourselves, and do our own thing, march to a different drummer. It's called Free Will, we all have it, but only some of us use it and make our own decisions in life without checking to see if "society" approves! That's what scares you both! And despite that I would still protect you if the need arose. |
|
2012-08-27, 19:01 | Link #231 | ||||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
It's actually been "two against three" this entire time. Don and I have been arguing against you, kyp, and Gundamfan (and Vexx occasionally takes a pro-gun stance, but he does so diplomatically and treads very lightly ). Not that it really matters what the numbers are: this isn't a shouting match. Even if 100 people were in agreement with me, if you make valid points, I am happy to say that the point is good and to accept it. I only ask that you do the same for me.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, you and I, along with the rest of America, have a choice: do we want to allow firearms to be prolific among our society? On one hand, it grants us a slight bit of control over our own fate. On the other hand, many people are killed or seriously injured by these weapons, and that poses a direct risk to us as well; that number and risk would be reduced (but probably not eliminated) if we could reduce the number of guns within society. Isn't it a worthwhile trade-off? Quote:
I'm taking the time to read what you write and then I take the time to give you a response because I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm interested in hearing what you think about what I have to say. With the sentiment that you've displayed you have completely blown me off and disrespected me. I hope that you simply wrote it in an emotional outburst, but please do not say such a thing again. If what I write riles you up, please take a few minutes to cool down before penning your response. We cannot have a meaningful discussion otherwise. Quote:
This isn't about living by society's approval. As I'm sure you're aware, you are currently legally entitled to own a gun. My guess is that you're also in an area of the country where guns are common. For all your talk of "free will" and living life without caring for the approval of others, you're not defying anything. No, this is simply about reducing needless injuries and deaths within society, a cause that should not give anyone reason for disagreement. The disagreement is purely over whether reducing guns would tip the balance one way or another, and if it would be worthwhile. I appreciate that. I'd offer you help if you needed it, too.
__________________
|
||||||
2012-08-27, 19:58 | Link #232 | |||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To go back to guns I'd like to move away from statistics, and towards morality. Ultimately, if we legalize the possession of guns, then we have to legalize the using of guns as well. And a gun can only be used for one purpose: Killing. You can try to trot out statistics about how most gunshot wounds aren't lethal, but that's not the point. The gun is designed to kill. That is it's entire purpose. I believe that objects and substances whose sole purpose is the destruction of another human being should be heavily restricted to those who are known to be of sound mind and body. We wouldn't let just anyone buy arsenic or cyanide, either, would we? Now you can say, "what about knives?" But knives have a myriad of other uses. I can use it to prepare food, I can use it burst blisters. Any competent outdoors-man can elaborate even more uses for the humble knife. But there's only one use for a gun: To Kill. Even in defence, it's purpose is still to kill. Even in intimidation, it's use is to threaten to kill. We should take care not to trivialize death. Shooting a guy dead who just wants money from your wallet might be described by some as self defence. To me, that seems a lot more like disproportionate retribution. We must separate the material from the spiritual. If I lose 100 bucks in a mugging, my beard just got shaved. But you know what? It will grow back. But if I take his life, that can never be returned. And furthermore, how will I be able to face his family in the court room, learning that he was only stealing to feed his starving children? |
|||
2012-08-27, 20:18 | Link #234 | |
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
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?
__________________
|
|
2012-08-27, 20:40 | Link #235 |
is this so?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gradius Home World
|
Is this thread only for those who live in the U.S?
I don't own a gun, but my dad has one and it's mostly kept at home. He told me once the secret hiding place where the gun is kept, and to quickly get it in the emergency that someone should break into the house. With that being said. I don't know if I could fire a gun properly if the situation arise (hopefully such a situation never happens). I always make sure all the doors are properly locked at night, before I sit in front of the comp as an added precaution.
__________________
|
2012-08-27, 20:57 | Link #236 |
Le fou, c'est moi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 34
|
A little contribution from the Net about the strictest gun control law in the world:
[Warning: link in PDF] An English Introduction to the Japanese Firearms and Sword Control Law, as it stood in the year 2000. The article is short, the law's provisions are organized into tables, the focus of the analysis being on the provisions themselves and the motivations of the Japanese government, with few examples of the methods of enforcement. What must be noted, and is beyond the scope of the review (which was only meant to "translate" to Westerners the specifics of this law), is that the law is merely one pillar of a much larger apparatus. Any debate in the United States which intends to direct policy towards reducing the rate of homicide -- of which Japan's is at a remarkable 1/10th of the United States, per capita -- must be holistic, with gun control being part of the solution. Moreover, many Americans, even the most left-wing, are unlikely to be willing to trade away certain differences such as the Japanese police's broad legal powers in comparison to the United States which allow for much more effective measures of gun control to be enforced. And of course, one cannot change geography. I am not willing to jump into the debate itself, but if I may make an "emotional" statement: some of you are asking me to distrust my government more than I distrust my fellow citizens. As much as I am aware of the pitfalls of power and the United States government's far from spotless human rights record and certain authoritarian behaviors associated with the police authorities among its states, I must ask: why should I trust you more? I am everything which the typical members of American "citizens' militias" dislike: a minority, an immigrant, poor, liberal, pro-gun control, "pro-abortion," anti-clerical atheist. Why should I trust you? Why, when the ascension of President Obama four years ago, amidst inspired hopes among my peers, were accompanied by an immediate and alarming rise in right wing terrorist activity, and when the current President is under at least three times more death threats than the previous? When so many of you truly believe, pushed as you are by media influence from the likes of Fox News, with intensely confrontational rhetoric, that you are on the verge of being oppressed, threatened, to lose everything you'd ever know, and therefore more than willing to fight back? Frankly, in the hypothetical and implausible situation that paramilitary violence breaks out in the United States, I have absolutely no reason to expect better treatment from the statistical owners of civilian firearms in the United States than from the current regime. |
2012-08-27, 21:14 | Link #237 | |||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
I'm a minority, immigrant, certainly not rich, neither liberal nor conservative, pro-choice, agnostic, and I'm very much pro-2nd amendment, hardly the stereotype you've implied here. TBH, your reverse fear mongering isn't any better than the usual stuff that comes from the right wingers. Quote:
Maybe you've just been so lucky that all your life you've only ever seen the good side of humanity, and that's great for you. Me on the other hand have seen both the good and the bad. I don't live in fear, but I'm also not ignorant of what can happen. Granted, yours is the more typical attitude in the general population. Those of us who've dealt with risk/emergency management etc. knows that one really ought to plan for the unexpected, yet how many people even bother keeping an emergency kit in their car? or even a simple plan for family members to meet up during an emergency, where cell phone service is likely to be out or extremely unreliable? You can live your life however you want, but I find it insulting when you categorically label everyone who have decided to be more prudent or keeping their options open as "living in fear". Quote:
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. And just to entertain your scenario, if the man had threatened me or others with a deadly force, whether it be a knife or a firearm, then I would not feel guilty at all, whatever his reason may be. Last edited by kyp275; 2012-08-27 at 23:09. |
|||
2012-08-27, 21:39 | Link #238 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 46
|
@Ledgem"I'm taking the time to read what you write and then I take the time to give you a response because I'm interested in what you have to say, and I'm interested in hearing what you think about what I have to say. With the sentiment that you've displayed you have completely blown me off and disrespected me. I hope that you simply wrote it in an emotional outburst, but please do not say such a thing again. If what I write riles you up, please take a few minutes to cool down before penning your response. We cannot have a meaningful discussion otherwise."
If I had completely done the above I'd wouldnt have said what I said! Nor do you need to be condescending or patronizing. I have worked hard to get where I am today, and while the gun isn't the most important part of my life, it's a part of it none the less! Maybe I was out of line with the post count and rep thing, BUT despite everything that has been said here it's still the "ban them all" line that keeps popping up. So I must ask, did you witness a horrific gun related accident? Is that why your against them so much? And if you are reading my posts you'll have noticed that the words TRAINING and RESPONSIBILITY are used quite often by me. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF LIFE ITSELF! As you well know I have three children and am married to an active duty Marine, guns are a part of this household and I see men and women everyday carrying firearms, be they rifles, or pistols. So yeah guns flourish around here. And I'm quite proud of our Armed Forces for what they do. But back to the topic. I can remember a time when I never gave a thought to having or owning a gun, my Daddy gave me his old .45 when I left for college but not before teaching me how to shoot it and maintain it...yeah it scared the hell out of me at first, but during my first year a close friend of mine was brutally raped and left for dead by her boyfriend. That changed me and I took the responsibility of protecting myself more seriously from then on! And while you admit your open to guns for sporting purposes. So what's your stance on concealed carry? And by the way, I've been studying Aikido for three years too. As to legalizing the carrying of a gun, the law is: it only to be used as a last resort and in the gravest extreme. In other words you WILL have to articulate why you did what you did before a judge and possibly a jury! There are repercussions if you screwed up, I suggest you both do a little research into the subject. It isn't as easy as it seems, as you will be fingerprinted, have a background search done, and have to attend a class and shoot on a range to show your proficient. |
2012-08-27, 22:06 | Link #239 | ||||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Haven't given it much thought. If you want my raw impression, I'd say that if you're allowed to carry a gun, you might as well be able to conceal it. But I don't have any reasoning for that - it's just my initial impression. Quote:
__________________
|
||||
2012-08-27, 22:28 | Link #240 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
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)?
__________________
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|