Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

801 to 850 of 1,152 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Lemme repeat-post here:

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, but has anyone advocated the use of less-than-lethal weapons like bear mace? I'm not for grabbing guns but I do think mace is more practical both because friendly fire won't likely be as lethal and because most people (sane, untrained) won't want to shoot anyone.

Lantern Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
mordion wrote:
Do you think pro-gun is an odd way to describe some of the posters in this thread?

There are people in this thread who have advocated that we give guns to school teachers and/or schoolchildren.

So, no.

Giving guns to teachers is different then giving guns to adults in general, which is a group that happens to include teachers, which also doesn't include schoolchildren. I merely said kids should be taught gun safety, for which "stay away" is insufficient.

----
I agree that most people don't have the training to handle that situation, me I prefer to treat people as adults and educate/train them as opposed to treating them like babies and tell them they aren't allowed because of Bobby down the street.

I could handle it, I know this because I was a soldier, and I was better then the drill sergeants. That is a really good reason to believe myself capable of doing some good in a bad situation. Can you come up with a better reason to believe otherwise?

I agree that there is a problem, and that guns add to it (though I do not believe they are the only major factor), I desire a solution that doesn't infringe on my rights, a carrot rather then a stick. Teach people do be better, rather then treat people like they are worse.

@ AlgaeNymph
Insufficient, such weapons work in general, but they work because people are untrained. Marrines go through training against such weapons, and I believe we should at least have the right to be on par with a marine.

Of course, there are also videos of drugged up people and martial artists who took several taser shots and lots of mace before being brought down, the one I saw took a couple dozen police officers to bring him down (and people think drugs should be legal when they drive you to endanger others, guns don't drive you, they are just convenient)

Therefore non-lethal is insufficient, besides why care about saving a criminal's life? Isn't an innocent's life worth more?

----
Personally I can understand some people POV, I just don't agree. I believe there should be a place for everyone to live how they want, but that means I need a place that is all for freedom, and gun control advocates need a place all about security. I'm fine with that, but that means I need to keep my place from stomping on my freedom, unless someone can point me to another country built and dedicated to freedom?


AlgaeNymph wrote:

Lemme repeat-post here:

I'm not going to sift through this whole thread, but has anyone advocated the use of less-than-lethal weapons like bear mace? I'm not for grabbing guns but I do think mace is more practical both because friendly fire won't likely be as lethal and because most people (sane, untrained) won't want to shoot anyone.

I'm not sure anyone has, so far. As I understand it, OC sprays tend to be more effective than mace, and all sprays have drawbacks. They are worth considering, though. I think I'm personally more likely to purchase a form of less-than-lethal weaponry than I am to purchase a firearm for personal defense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Giving guns to teachers is different then giving guns to adults in general, which is a group that happens to include teachers, which also doesn't include schoolchildren. I merely said kids should be taught gun safety, for which "stay away" is insufficient.

I believe even the NRA advocates a gun safety lesson plan for children that essentially boils down to "stay away and tell an adult".

Quote:

----

I agree that most people don't have the training to handle that situation, me I prefer to treat people as adults and educate/train them as opposed to treating them like babies and tell them they aren't allowed because of Bobby down the street.

Treating civilians as unprepared to handle firearms in a crisis is not the same as treating them like babies. The reality is that, outside the military and law enforcement structures, there is really no practical way to effectively train civilians in proper use of a firearm under a crisis situation, as we've discussed above.

Quote:
I could handle it, I know this because I was a soldier, and I was better then the drill sergeants. That is a really good reason to believe myself capable of doing some good in a bad situation. Can you come up with a better reason to believe otherwise?

No, but as you state, you were a soldier.

Quote:
I agree that there is a problem, and that guns add to it (though I do not believe they are the only major factor), I desire a solution that doesn't infringe on my rights, a carrot rather then a stick. Teach people do be better, rather then treat people like they are worse.

What about treating people in a way that lines up with reality, rather than pretending that a few hours of training turns a civilian into a person capable of effectively neutralizing an attacker?

Quote:

@ AlgaeNymph

Insufficient, such weapons work in general, but they work because people are untrained. Marrines go through training against such weapons, and I believe we should at least have the right to be on par with a marine.

Owning a semi-automatic rifle does not put you on par with a Marine.

Being a Marine puts you on par with a Marine. And maybe not even then.

Quote:
Of course, there are also videos of drugged up people and martial artists who took several taser shots and lots of mace before being brought down, the one I saw took a couple dozen police officers to bring him down (and people think drugs should be legal when they drive you to endanger others, guns don't drive you, they are just convenient)

I don't understand how you can have two people who ostensibly share the same conservative mentality, one of whom believes that mental instability plays no role in violent behavior, and the other of whom believes that drugs drive you to endanger others. The mind boggles.

Quote:
Therefore non-lethal is insufficient, besides why care about saving a criminal's life? Isn't an innocent's life worth more?

This is kind of lacking in nuance, don't you think? You can't imagine any situation wherein it's worth preserving an offender's life if doing so wouldn't endanger someone else?

Quote:
Personally I can understand some people POV, I just don't agree. I believe there should be a place for everyone to live how they want, but that means I need a place that is all for freedom,

No, you just want a certain list of freedoms. You don't want a country that is all for freedom. You wouldn't like it there.

Quote:
and gun control advocates need a place all about security.

I'm pretty sure gun control advocates want freedom, too. Their list of desired freedoms is just a tiny, tiny bit shorter than yours.

Quote:
I'm fine with that, but that means I need to keep my place from stomping on my freedom, unless someone can point me to another country built and dedicated to freedom?

You should probably stop throwing the word "freedom" around as though it has universal meaning. You're talking about a very specific interpretation of "freedom".


DarkLightHitomi wrote:

@ AlgaeNymph

Insufficient, such weapons work in general, but they work because people are untrained. Marrines go through training against such weapons, and I believe we should at least have the right to be on par with a marine.

Exactly how "on par" with marines do you think Americans should be? There is a fair bit of difference between how marines, or other militaries, use weapons as opposed to how civilians may need to use a weapon. The "right" to use or own the type of weapons marines use? The right to be trained to react with the appropriate balance of clear-headedness and aggression?

Or are you talking about the right to be on par with marines in resisting things like mace? How many times do you think you would have needed to be gassed to be able to "resist". And even if you develop some coping techniques it really just means instead of being completely messed up (effectively "combat ineffective") you might only be partly messed up until you can get treated.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
mordion wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:
And if you didn't watch the video, how can you then think that any "pro-gun" people will be able to dispute the findings?
Do you think pro-gun is an odd way to describe some of the posters in this thread? Do you think there is anything that could possibly be in that video that would keep some of the pro-gun people from trying to dispute the findings?

Not really, the reason why I put it in quotation marks was because the automatic flip side of pro-gun would be anti-gun, which I don't think necessarily is a good descriptor for everyone here who advocates stricter weapon laws.

In an utopian world, sure, I'd prefer it to be gunless, but that's not going to happen. And I can see the use in some situations, like hunting or for protection in some wilderness areas.
But if you want to be really cool, you should hunt with bow and arrow, that takes real skill. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:


I agree that most people don't have the training to handle that situation, me I prefer to treat people as adults and educate/train them as opposed to treating them like babies and tell them they aren't allowed because of Bobby down the street.

I could handle it, I know this because I was a soldier, and I was better then the drill sergeants. That is a really good reason to believe myself capable of doing some good in a bad situation. Can you come up with a better reason to believe otherwise?

Better than the drill sergeants? Really? At what point did that become apparent? And in what skills? I hope you let the drill sergeants know, because when I was an instructor in my army we always appreciated being told by our trainees that they were better than us. We could just hand over the lessons to them and nip down the pub for a beer or two.......

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Real men hunt with thar teeth!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
2nd, I am better then most at combat. One thing about guns, is they don't require training at all to use, so most don't train, even the military has substandard training (well maybe the front-line guys, and the marines might make par) so if I win against the drill sergeants, I think I can take a few untrained whackos. Might get hurt in such a confined space with no maneuvering space but hey I honestly wouldn't hestitate.

Have you ever been in combat? No one knows until they have actually been in combat.......

And you really think guns don't require any training to use? You mean basic things like clearing stoppages correctly, putting a magazine on your weapon the right way around by touch, selecting the right setting when you flick the safety catch with your thumb, aiming, firing, etc. Nah, none of that really needs training. And that is when no one is even shooting back at you.

And you know those untrained whackos? How would you know they were untrained? And if they have guns, well - as you have claimed - they don't actually need training so technically, in your world, there is no such thing as an untrained whacko.......


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I agree that most people don't have the training to handle that situation, me I prefer to treat people as adults and educate/train them as opposed to treating them like babies and tell them they aren't allowed because of Bobby down the street.

Unfortunately a lot of people show on a constant basis that they aren't really much above babies and thus should be treated like that. As a quick example I refer you to numerous street signs riddled with bullet holes across the US (although primarily in rural areas).

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I could handle it, I know this because I was a soldier, and I was better then the drill sergeants. That is a really good reason to believe myself capable of doing some good in a bad situation. Can you come up with a better reason to believe otherwise?

Yes, delusions. ;-)

Other than that, though, still yes. Like the experts in the videos I posted clearly remark, unless you train in this kind of environment constantly you lose the ability to react like that very quickly.
So you might have been a good soldier, in the past, but since you keep referring to that in past tense I take it that you're not in the forces anymore and thus aren't exposed to that kind of environment on a constant basis (and neither does being a soldier ensure that you gain those abilities).

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I agree that there is a problem, and that guns add to it (though I do not believe they are the only major factor), I desire a solution that doesn't infringe on my rights, a carrot rather then a stick. Teach people do be better, rather then treat people like they are worse.

Want a carrot?

Plenty of people have given you those in this thread. Look at gun fatalities compared to countries with stricter gun laws. There's your big freaking carrot.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Therefore non-lethal is insufficient, besides why care about saving a criminal's life? Isn't an innocent's life worth more?

Because not all who use guns against others can be lumped into an easily discarded box called "criminals" - hence why you can be judged not fit for punishment because of mental deficiency. Yes, you did technically commit a crime, but you might not have been lucid due to no fault of your own. And that takes us back to the mental health situation again.

Also, just because someone is a criminal (which encompasses a very, very wide range of offenses) doesn't automatically mean that their life is worthless.
Have you ever driven over the speed limit? If yes (which I assume most people have at one point or another), then you are technically a criminal and by your definition your life isn't worth saving.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Personally I can understand some people POV, I just don't agree. I believe there should be a place for everyone to live how they want, but that means I need a place that is all for freedom, and gun control advocates need a place all about security. I'm fine with that, but that means I need to keep my place from stomping on my freedom, unless someone can point me to another country built and dedicated to freedom?

I'll bring up a tired old phrase, but if you desire so much freedom with no limitations, I hear that large parts of Somalia would be just the place for you. No laws, no oppressive government to "take away your guns" - have fun!

But, as Scott already said, you don't really want what you're advocating here, because you obviously haven't considered all the consequences of such a place.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Question:
For those of you who base most of your arguments on the 2nd amendment, how would you feel if that hadn't been in there?
I assume that you would then be perfectly okay with not being able to purchase/possess most of the firearms you might already possess, since you didn't have a "right" to it, yes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gallo wrote:
Exactly how "on par" with marines do you think Americans should be?

100% Equal.

Bring in compulsory National Service. Might get some respect for firearms as a bonus. Everyone want to talk about their "freedoms", well lets see some more people do their part in protecting them.

:)

Lantern Lodge

1, frankly I would include martial arts (traditional, not the pure self defense schools) and weapons use, safety, and handling in school, elementary for the MA, and high school for the weapons.

I do however think certain elements of the American social structure could be problematic, so that would have to be solved first or concurrently.

2, Telling people to keep their hands out of it and let someone else take responsibility is treating them like chiildren, and it applies to so much more then just gun control issues.

And during elementary and high school, counts as a practical way to teach (granted I believe our education system needs an overhaul)

3, Being a soldier had nothing to do with it, I didn't learn anything about combat during basic training other then how incapable common people can be. (I used to honestly believe that people would be able to attain a certain proficiency without training.) I was winning from day one. My nicknames as granted by others include Acheilles and Riddick.

4, please see point 2. I don't think a few hours is sufficient either.

I would be happy to tutor, if anyone is willing pay my rent BTW.

5, Owning a weapon doesn't put you on par with a warrior, but you can train yourself then be on par with a warrior. However, if we have no weapons, then no amount of training will allows us to go toe to toe with equally trained warriors.

We can train ourselves, but we must also be able to arm ourselves. Both are required to match a marine, and because of modern guns, that half cannot be circumvented.

6, Drugs don't always drive you to violence, but they do impede your self control and judgement, and some do lead to you committing stupid and violent acts, often affecting different individuals in a different way. Until you can say for absolute surity that a drug will not affect you in such a way, don't expect me to trust you with it (which is different then outlawing it BTW) so for the minor drugs that only impair judgement then the same rules should apply as for being drunk, but I have heard of some kids that were high on marijuana, and when their friends got hit by a hit and run, they left him and laughed about it, until they awoke the next morning. Had they called 911, their friend might still be alive.

Guns on the other hand are dangerous, but still require you to make a decision and don't impair your judgements at all.

I would be flexible on lesser drugs, with more info on specific risks and such, so don't go camping me with the complete crazy hippocrits just yet.

7, was a part of my response to using non-lethal weapons, the reduction in efficiency and capability, isn't worth it unless you are trying to take them alive.

8, You should be careful about making such judgements, what if I happen to be crazy enough to like it? Though frankly I really would like to see a minimal government, which is indeed more then a lack of government. But most of things that have happened with laws is to take away our freedoms. We have less freedom now then I would like, and yet we are suppossedly the free-est country in the world, and that is diminishing, and some of the people here want to diminish it even more.

I mean them no ill will, but I really would rather them go find a country already more suitable to their tastes, rather then have them remove any such possibility from my options. 5his country, so far in my search, is the closest to what I want, I just also happens that some people are trying to shift it even further from my ideal.

9, I believe I stated earlier that freedom and security are opposite ends of the same spectrum, the more freedom you have the less security you have.

Some people want to trade away some of their freedoms to gain more security. Yes they still want some freedoms, but it's a lot less then what I want.

10, Perhaps I am using an interpretation, though I would love to know what you think it might be. I for one see freedom as the ability to act with minimum possible negative consequences. Yeah, I don't want to go so far as anarchy, but I think you expect me to want less then I actually want.

Besides I think society (the structure and general views and mores) has the largest effect on the consequences of a minimalist government. And that society would be the determinate factor in what kind of place it would become, the US society would quicky deteriorate, but something similar to japan wouldn't be as likely to do so (their society is more community driven which has HUGE advantages in a minimalist government) other factors are present of course, isolating them and learning how they interact is a challenge but is also very interesting.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:


100% Equal.

Bring in compulsory National Service. Might get some respect for firearms as a bonus. Everyone want to talk about their "freedoms", well lets see some more people do their part in protecting them.

:)

Yes, lets protect freedom by ... forcing people to live exactly how we want, scheduling their lives 24/7, and deciding which counties foreign resources are worth sending them to die for. And if they object, lock them in jail.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Of course, the answer is more combat training. And more guns to make good use of it, I guess.

From an european POV, this absolutist pro-gun stance is so far off the map that I can't even understand how the reflex reaction to a school shooting can be to increase the degree of potential violence among the general population.

I mean, isn't it obvious that semi-auto firearms are tools specifically created to make killing more efficient ? And that letting people of every stripe get them freely is a sure way to have efficient mass killings when one of them goes nuts ?

The "I need them to defend myself against the big government" is interesting too, in a sociological kind of way. Hope it works against drones (snarkish comment here).

Come on, as numerous posters have already said, less weapons lying around means less deaths, accidental or otherwise. If a school shooting doesn't demonstrate the need for stricter control nothing will.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yes, lets protect freedom by ... forcing people to live exactly how we want, scheduling their lives 24/7, and deciding which counties foreign resources are worth sending them to die for. And if they object, lock them in jail.

I like your choice of the words 'We' as though you would be calling the shots and 'Them' as in the guys doing the hard yards.

Perhaps if people thought a little less about 'We' and a bit more about 'Them' we wouldn't have half these problems. Perhaps in this case 'We' being 'We the people' and 'Them' being a bunch of kids who wont be home for Christmas.

Meanwhile, heres a friendly lesson from across the Pacific..


Smarnil le couard wrote:
From an european POV, this absolutist pro-gun stance is so far off the map that I can't even understand how the reflex reaction to a school shooting can be to increase the degree of potential violence among the general population.

We used to be pretty pro-gun in Australia too, being a largely agrarian farming nation for so long it was inevitable. One massacre too many set us of on a different way of thinking though.

Lantern Lodge

Wow, ninjad by a bunch.

@ Gallo
On par, as in free to be reach the same level as a marine, whether I actually get there should depend on what I do without being limited by the laws, the line of where the law should completely prevent things should be there or beyond and not limit me to less then that.

@Gallo again
I didn't get to go against the drills at first, but later during AIT, I did. And plenty of OP4 and regular instructors during actual service time. Though I am wired in the head a bit differently, in case you couldn't tell from my pathetic communication skills.

@Gallo again
Overseas combat, unfortunatley not, people actually trying to hurt me, yes, even a soldier once, and the reflexes of these people is slow. The real fight thing comes into play when someone is trying to kill you, do you mentally freeze up? which I've proven that I don't, other then that the level of skill you use doesn't really change that much between real and training, depending on how you train anyway.

I have also done a lot of "stickfighting" which is the only group of people who've had decent reflexes. Probably from the superlight "sticks" It isn't real fighting but you do train many things useful in a real fight (like reflexes and situational awareness, etc)

S for guns not requiring training. I was refering to the short term ability to of someone being able to point and click and kill someone regardless of that individuals skill. In the old days with a sword, an untrained peasent stood almost no chance against a trained warrior, guns changed that. A peasent with a gun could kill with reasonable success.

Training to deal with jams and such is a bonus more applicable to long term military service, not short term engagements like holding up a store.

This is what I meant by guns not needing training.

@gentlegiant
-It's called a side effect of our education system and social structure.
Could be easily rectified.

However, also note that in general, particularly with the young, if you treat them as babies, they learn to be babies, treat them like adults and they learn to be adults.

- for most martial artists, it is a morning ritual.
And you can keep up with it without being in the military, and I will be going back in when I am done with school, so I don't intend on slipping.

-Obvious misunderstanding. I meant there are better solutions that don't involve restrictions. Teaching rather then punishing. Giving incentives rather then making absolutes.

They can say all the stats they want, I have yet to see one that accounts for the different sociopolitical environment. Gun laws is not the only, nor the largest, factor in these incidents (just the most obvious, and admitidly a damage multiplier), someone even stated that these incidents are on the rise, and since gun laws have only been getting stricter, obviously the laws being too loose are not the problem, otherwise we would have always had much higher numbers of such incidents, with a decline as more restrictions come into play.

-If these things are rare, then a criminal pointing a gun at your head, that is truly worth the effort of saving, is extremely rare. Besides I'm refering to the context of armed criminal in the middle of a crime wielding a gun against others.

And really, all too often people don't expand my statements broad enough (like never almost), but then I make a comment that was intended to be limited in scope and you go and assume I'm being broad. :)

Fate's favorite joke, I am.

-I don't desire no limitations, but I desire fewer limits then what I can currently find on the planet Earth. I talked more about this in my last post.

@gentlegiant again
If it wasn't the second amendment, I would advocate it being put there, though I would also probably consider it too late for the US, and would be looking for another country with potential.

I did say previously that a government can only be held accountable by those with the power to crush it, and the people governed by said government are the ones that actually deserve the right to hold them accountable. And with the way guns are going, removing them from the citizenry, removes the citizens ability to hold a government accountable (which is already difficult enough, right about where it should be) so in the future, with no guns except the military and police, the government can no longer be held accountable except by other nations. And that is a brew just begging for the next Hitler, who could act with much less resistance then the first one.

Not saying it will happen, just saying it could, and they say chance favors the prepared.

Lantern Lodge

Shifty wrote:
Gallo wrote:
Exactly how "on par" with marines do you think Americans should be?

100% Equal.

Bring in compulsory National Service. Might get some respect for firearms as a bonus. Everyone want to talk about their "freedoms", well lets see some more people do their part in protecting them.

:)

If my freedoms are going to be infringed upon, this at least gives me something, rather then taking something away.

Lantern Lodge

Smarnil le couard wrote:

Of course, the answer is more combat training. And more guns to make good use of it, I guess.

From an european POV, this absolutist pro-gun stance is so far off the map that I can't even understand how the reflex reaction to a school shooting can be to increase the degree of potential violence among the general population.

I mean, isn't it obvious that semi-auto firearms are tools specifically created to make killing more efficient ? And that letting people of every stripe get them freely is a sure way to have efficient mass killings when one of them goes nuts ?

The "I need them to defend myself against the big government" is interesting too, in a sociological kind of way. Hope it works against drones (snarkish comment here).

Come on, as numerous posters have already said, less weapons lying around means less deaths, accidental or otherwise. If a school shooting doesn't demonstrate the need for stricter control nothing will.

You do realize that the best martial artists, are peaceful and often even pacifists.

Teaching then is important because they are parts of our world now, and combat training teaches you more about dicipline and self control and the mental strength to bite down on ones anger, then any other method I've heard of. It also teaches many things that are usefull in everyday life.

Also, the things that seem the biggest time wasters to train, are the things that will save lives in an emergency. Nobody wants to train them because they, either don't comrehend what they stand to gain, or because they believe they will never need it, depsite that fact that such training makes the difference between life and death, on the off chance you get into that kind situation.

Better off prepared for the unlikely, then dead when taken by suprise.

Besides, control and denial are two different things.

I would certainly be fine with needing a license, the same way I need one for a car. So long as procurement of said license is possible for anyone who can demonstrate a proficiency with weapons and their safety measures.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I wasn't talking about martial arts, but about keeping up with the intense training it requires constantly to be able to react with calm and precision in a sudden firefight. Obviously you missed that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Besides I think society (the structure and general views and mores) has the largest effect on the consequences of a minimalist government. And that society would be the determinate factor in what kind of place it would become, the US society would quicky deteriorate, but something similar to japan wouldn't be as likely to do so (their society is more community driven which has HUGE advantages in a minimalist government) other factors are present of course, isolating them and learning how they interact is a challenge but is also very interesting.

Obviously Achileus-Riddick, the supreme US-supersoldier, wasn't going far enough in elementary school to understand the basic of a society.

In a society you give-up you capacity to use violence and, only the institutions, can use violence.

Why? Because if everyone interprete or enforce his/her own ways his/her own laws, it's anarchy and chaos. A world where might is right, just the opposite of a society.

That people need (or think they might need) gun for their safety is the sign of a failure of your institutions. So, find the way to correct it with both coercitive and social answers.
Will it be perfect, definitely not, but it will be better.

You think being armed is a protection against robbers? Then you forget one thing, they are also human and the main characteristic of humans is to adapt and overcome the menace. Arm everyone and civilians will be even more victims of criminals.

I'm from a European country where most of robbers gave themselves 10 min to enter and take anything valuable. Why aren't they armed (for most of them)? Because there's almost no chance they can get shot and, on the other hand, if they even threat someone with a weapon the potential consequence is a significantly longer prison term.
People lazy enough to steal to live are also lazy to struggle.
So believe it or not, they're not armed.

Which criminals are armed then? Drug dealers (to protect their stock from others drug dealers), mafia-like criminals to attack money transfer convoy, gang-style teenagers who are mainly killing each others (most often to control "their territory").

The more common people will be armed, the more criminals will be armed, the more everyone around will be a potential threat.
And a place where you've to potentially fight everyone is not a society anymore.

Lantern Lodge

Shifty wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
From an european POV, this absolutist pro-gun stance is so far off the map that I can't even understand how the reflex reaction to a school shooting can be to increase the degree of potential violence among the general population.
We used to be pretty pro-gun in Australia too, being a largely agrarian farming nation for so long it was inevitable. One massacre too many set us of on a different way of thinking though.

Please take our anti-gun enthusiasts, so that we can enjoy our guns and they can enjoy not having them. That way everyone gets to be happy. :)

Seriously, it is a factor in crime, and agree that many possible ways exist to reduce such crimes including what australia has done. I just want a different solution.

Why should I live by your restrictions? I don't live in your house, therfore I should not be bound your rules.

If I go to your house, it is only fair that I follow your rules for the duration of my stay, but when I go back home I should no longer be bound by them. Same for country. I want to live by a different ruleset.

Unfortunatly there is no fresh land, ripe to claimed by me where I can absolutly set my own rules. Therefore, I must find the next best thing, comprimise a little and actually try to make a place in the world somewhat close to what I want.


Angstspawn wrote:


I'm from a European country where most of robbers gave themselves 10 min to enter and take anything valuable. Why aren't they armed (for most of them)? Because there's almost no chance they can get shot and, on the other hand, if they even threat someone with a weapon the potential consequence is a significantly longer prison term.
People lazy enough to steal to live are also lazy to struggle.
So believe it or not, they're not armed.

Not sure if it confirms this phenomenon, but here in Chile, where guns are tightly controlled and carrying anything sharp longer than 10cm is prohibited, it happens the exact same way: Most criminals do not carry guns.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:


Less poverty? You pay 60%+ in federal income tax. What's the point of going to work when 2/3 of your money goes to someone else. Living there, I'd opt to sit at home and watch the Swedish bikini team, instead of going to work.
That probably says more about you compared to the Swedes than you would like because it's not flattering. I guess they're just more industrious than you are.

Quite the contrary Bill. I used to work 60 hours per week. I now typically put in about 50 per week. They're not more industrious than I am. In many semi-socialist & outright socialist contries in Europe, workers work for 32-35 hours per week. That's it. France is an example of this. The French government under Sarkozy tried to move the hours French workers work up to 35 hours per week from 32, and there was a massive uproar in many cities in the country and some rioting. The French, and the Europeans in general (except for the Brits and the Germans) want to work 32 hours per week, retire at age 55-60, and be supported by their fellow countrymen with a buffet full of entitlement programs, and have pensions that pay 75%+ of their salaries. Simply put, it is financially UNSUSTAINABLE, and completely entitled. That is why europe is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. They simply cannot pay for all the things they want to "give out for free." Not because they work too much. Rather, they want to take it easy and live 'La Dolce Vita.'

Lantern Lodge

GentleGiant wrote:
I wasn't talking about martial arts, but about keeping up with the intense training it requires constantly to be able to react with calm and precision in a sudden firefight. Obviously you missed that.

True, but not only is martial arts the most capable in that sense, but any method to actually achieve that effect is going to be similar.

Reacting calmly and with precision, relies on self control and dicipline. And if the people who train self control and dicipline are more often then not, pacifist, then perhaps your arguement about such training having the opposite effect needs re-examination.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Why should I live by your restrictions? I don't live in your house, therfore I should not be bound your rules.

Just make a referendum, what 50,1+% of Americans will decide will be the law and way of life!

The other 49,9% will accept it or leave for what they'll consider a better place.

Democracy is sometimes that simple.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Shifty wrote:

I like your choice of the words 'We' as though you would be calling the shots and 'Them' as in the guys doing the hard yards.

Don't get upset at me for pointing out the incredibly blatant hypocrisy in your plan.

Quote:
Perhaps if people thought a little less about 'We' and a bit more about 'Them' we wouldn't have half these problems.

... thats your come back? Completely ignore the heart of the matter and focus on pronoun usage?

I am not of draftable age, nor is any threat going to enable me to hobble any faster than an encumbered tortoise. I am however, a voter, so if we as a democracy decide to draft people for compulsory service it will indeed be a "Them" and not "us".

Is that enough of an explanation or do you have some more tea leaf reading to do so you can completely ignore the incongruous ideas of forcing people to defend freedom?

Quote:
Perhaps in this case 'We' being 'We the people' and 'Them' being a bunch of kids who wont be home for Christmas.

Enough with the inane chewbacca defense.

Someone said something i don't like!

Therefore they don't support the troops! Unpatriotic! Farblegarble!

Obviously i AM thinking of them because I'm the one standing advocating that they have the same rights to decide what to do with their lives as everyone else.

Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

GentleGiant wrote:

Question:

For those of you who base most of your arguments on the 2nd amendment, how would you feel if that hadn't been in there?
I assume that you would then be perfectly okay with not being able to purchase/possess most of the firearms you might already possess, since you didn't have a "right" to it, yes?

Thats basically the size of it. I'm not a huge fan of how widespread gun ownership is in the US, but as long as the Second Amendment remains in force I also highly disagree with encroaching on that right just because you don't like or agree with the kind of people who avail themselves of it.

The whole system only works if even people you don't like get even the rights that you don't like.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

If it wasn't for the second amendment I would feel a lot more comfortable with more gun control and DEFINITELY a lot better about requiring some sort of a psyche screen. With it there I think the government HAS to treat it as a fundamental right, and if the government does not then whats to stop them from doing the same thing to other rights? I know thats somewhat of a slippery slope argument, but legal precedent is essentially a greased slope.


Nicos wrote:


I do not see how not having a 4-inch knife is a great loss compared to safety of that society. I mean the goverment DO have power an authority over you.

You have a car but there are speed limits, you can drink bur only afther certain age, you can smoke marih... (oh wait), etc.

Ido not see how the "right" to have weapons, particulary high powered weapons, can be so important to some people.

Nicos, I find your view regretable. Why should you not have the right to be adequately armed, in order to defend yourself. Do you really believe anyone who would seek to rob you or do you harm in some way is going to be concerned with the law prohibiting having an unauthorized weapon on their person? They won't, and they will be armed. Why should you be at the mercy of someone who would do you harm. I comprehend that to some on these message boards, that sounds strange or extreme. I deal with people in prison on a daily basis who have used weapons & firearms in the commission of crimes. It happens every day. In today's world, I would not tell you that you should have to beg a government for the ability to protect yourself.

Limitations are not the same as prohibitions. I don't oppose limitations on certain things. I am not in favor of minors having firearms. Brain formation does not complete until the early 20's. Life experience also helps in improving one's decision making skills. If you're an adult, and not an immediate threat to yourself of others, carrying a knife shouldn't be an issue for your government to intrude on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Killer_GM wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:


Less poverty? You pay 60%+ in federal income tax. What's the point of going to work when 2/3 of your money goes to someone else. Living there, I'd opt to sit at home and watch the Swedish bikini team, instead of going to work.
That probably says more about you compared to the Swedes than you would like because it's not flattering. I guess they're just more industrious than you are.
Quite the contrary Bill. I used to work 60 hours per week. I now typically put in about 50 per week. They're not more industrious than I am. In many semi-socialist & outright socialist contries in Europe, workers work for 32-35 hours per week. That's it. France is an example of this. The French government under Sarkozy tried to move the hours French workers work up to 35 hours per week from 32, and there was a massive uproar in many cities in the country and some rioting. The French, and the Europeans in general (except for the Brits and the Germans) want to work 32 hours per week, retire at age 55-60, and be supported by their fellow countrymen with a buffet full of entitlement programs, and have pensions that pay 75%+ of their salaries. Simply put, it is financially UNSUSTAINABLE, and completely entitled. That is why europe is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. They simply cannot pay for all the things they want to "give out for free." Not because they work too much. Rather, they want to take it easy and live 'La Dolce Vita.'

I'd suggest for you to only comment on things you actually have knowledge of. I've corrected you about the way you thought things worked here in Denmark. Again you're incorrect about how things work in the rest of Europe and you seem to have a very typical American skewed view of things over here.

That's the darn thing about just spouting off typical right wing talking points about Europe, on here there are several of us who can point out where you are factually wrong again and again.

Lantern Lodge

Angstspawn wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Besides I think society (the structure and general views and mores) has the largest effect on the consequences of a minimalist government. And that society would be the determinate factor in what kind of place it would become, the US society would quicky deteriorate, but something similar to japan wouldn't be as likely to do so (their society is more community driven which has HUGE advantages in a minimalist government) other factors are present of course, isolating them and learning how they interact is a challenge but is also very interesting.

Obviously Achileus-Riddick, the supreme US-supersoldier, wasn't going far enough in elementary school to understand the basic of a society.

In a society you give-up you capacity to use violence and, only the institutions, can use violence.

Why? Because if everyone interprete or enforce his/her own ways his/her own laws, it's anarchy and chaos. A world where might is right, just the opposite of a society.

That people need (or think they might need) gun for their safety is the sign of a failure of your institutions. So, find the way to correct it with both coercitive and social answers.
Will it be perfect, definitely not, but it will be better.

You think being armed is a protection against robbers? Then you forget one thing, they are also human and the main characteristic of humans is to adapt and overcome the menace. Arm everyone and civilians will be even more victims of criminals.

I'm from a European country where most of robbers gave themselves 10 min to enter and take anything valuable. Why aren't they armed (for most of them)? Because there's almost no chance they can get shot and, on the other hand, if they even threat someone with a weapon the potential consequence is a significantly longer prison term.
People lazy enough to steal to live are also lazy to struggle.
So believe it or not, they're not armed.

Which criminals are armed then? Drug dealers (to protect their stock from others drug dealers), mafia-like...

While I commend you for thinking about the possible consequences I dock points for assuming this is the most likely outcome.

You only have what authority others, believe you will enforce. Whether you acttually enforce it or not doesn't matter, but when one guy has a gun and you don't, what authority do you have over him? What authority do you have over anything?

I don't trust a government, because no matter how well designed, eventually someone will reach the point of being able to use it for their own ends. Governments should answer to the people, but when the people have no authority, the government can do what it wants. This would take a long time to occur, on the order of generations, but with the advancements of technology, citizens without weapons, can do nothing to a government with weapons, therefore, citizens without weapons lose their authority, it's only a matter of time for the illusion of authority to dissolve.

Maybe you'll be lucky and the government will operate as you desire, without a higher authority, but look at the past, how many nations are still standing that have never had problems between the people and the government?

It's not just about crime, it's my rights as a human being, and the potential for such rights to become meaningless. Whatever the chances may be (slim) it is even less likely to occur until it solidifies into a more global government. So not in your lifetime, but shouldn't there be at least somewhere, where people can still exert authority in the extreme case it becomes needed? (And considering history, it's just a matter of time, centuries maybe, but eventually)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Scott Betts wrote:
The Constitution isn't sacred. Stop acting like it is. It's a document, and it was designed to be altered and is open to reinterpretation as the realities of the evolving world demand.

I beg to differ. The moment you determine that any portion of the Constitution can be significantly altered, any/all of it can be altered, and all of the rights and protections that it extends can be altered or removed also. People have clearly misinterpreted the intentions of the founders in the past, but I oppose altering it in its present form.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GentleGiant wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
Killer_GM wrote:


Less poverty? You pay 60%+ in federal income tax. What's the point of going to work when 2/3 of your money goes to someone else. Living there, I'd opt to sit at home and watch the Swedish bikini team, instead of going to work.
That probably says more about you compared to the Swedes than you would like because it's not flattering. I guess they're just more industrious than you are.
Quite the contrary Bill. I used to work 60 hours per week. I now typically put in about 50 per week. They're not more industrious than I am. In many semi-socialist & outright socialist contries in Europe, workers work for 32-35 hours per week. That's it. France is an example of this. The French government under Sarkozy tried to move the hours French workers work up to 35 hours per week from 32, and there was a massive uproar in many cities in the country and some rioting. The French, and the Europeans in general (except for the Brits and the Germans) want to work 32 hours per week, retire at age 55-60, and be supported by their fellow countrymen with a buffet full of entitlement programs, and have pensions that pay 75%+ of their salaries. Simply put, it is financially UNSUSTAINABLE, and completely entitled. That is why europe is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. They simply cannot pay for all the things they want to "give out for free." Not because they work too much. Rather, they want to take it easy and live 'La Dolce Vita.'

I'd suggest for you to only comment on things you actually have knowledge of. I've corrected you about the way you thought things worked here in Denmark. Again you're incorrect about how things work in the rest of Europe and you seem to have a very typical American skewed view of things over here.

That's the darn thing about just spouting off typical right wing talking points about Europe, on here there are several of us who can point out where you are factually wrong again and again.

There's also the simple observation that the common problems with developed economies today have more to do with not enough work for people to do (unemployment) than not enough people to do the work. Spreading the work out among more people by allowing both shorter work weeks and earlier retirement makes more sense than half the people working twice the hours.

Lantern Lodge

Oh, btw, allowing guns doesn't increase the bad guys ability from what it is now, but it would increase everyone elses ability to stand against them. Using that ability however is up to them.

And just why would you let these guys commit a crime? Even without weapons, take them down, bash them with a lamp if you have to, this concept of letting them get away with it so long as no one gets hurt, is ridiculous.

Life includes death, therefore I do not see avoidence of death as somehow the most important thing for you to focus on, these guys are stealing, tackle them and drag them away, and beat the lights out of them if they resist.

Lantern Lodge

Angstspawn wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Why should I live by your restrictions? I don't live in your house, therfore I should not be bound your rules.

Just make a referendum, what 50,1+% of Americans will decide will be the law and way of life!

The other 49,9% will accept it or leave for what they'll consider a better place.

Democracy is sometimes that simple.

The problem with this is that some place needs to be better so I can go there!

Right now plenty of places have lots of gun control, not so many with less gun control.

As the US is founded on freedom, we should build this country to that ideal and let those with other options that actually fit close to what they are asking for, should be the ones to leave, if only because they actually have plenty of alternatives similar to their desires, unlike those in favor less government restrictions.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

I own a pistol, a .40 for home defense. That's what I bought it for.

I don't hunt with it. I keep it in it's case in a safe place, unloaded. I am a responsible gun owner. If I were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, I would be ok with surrendering it.

Does anyone really argue these points, or think they would remain responsible gun owners if the same were to become true of them?

The problem is twofold

First, the you that is you now, and the you that would be you if you were to experience some kind of trauma that made me insane or otherwise unable to remain a responsible gun owner, may not agree on whether or not you need to give up your gun. The problem is that the now you is the one that doesn't have to but will give up your gun, and the hypothetical crazy "you" is the one that has to give up the gun but is unlikely to posses the wherewithal to make that judgement call.

Secondly that if the pistol is available for you to purchase, then it is available for everyone to purchase. I really don't see the need for pistols for home defense, and their concealability seems to aid in their commissions of crimes more than anything else. There's no mechanism for making the pistol available to you without making it available to criminals.

Valid points.

The first I already clarified to Bugley. Of course, once I theoreticly go insane, it'd be too late. But the point is I'm willing to surrender that right if I become a danger to others, without hesitation, wahtever the reason.

To the second point, I saw the need, obviously. I guess in my circumstances, that's really all that mattered. The only way to prevent anyone from getting a firearm in all circumstances is to eliminate their manufacture. Globally. None anywhere, ever. Not for police, military or civilian use. I don't think this is realistic.

Lantern Lodge

@thejeff, liiler gm, dunn, gentlegiant,

Well, some people think that money makes the world go round, but actually it's supply and demand that makes the world go round, demands don't have to be paid with money.

Work, is the essential element of supply btw. Money is just an illusion. A very useful illusion, so long as you don't forget it's place, then it becomes a tool for control, as money is a form of power.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
To the second point, I saw the need, obviously. I guess in my circumstances, that's really all that mattered. The only way to prevent anyone from getting a firearm in all circumstances is to eliminate their manufacture. Globally. None anywhere, ever. Not for police, military or civilian use. I don't think this is realistic.

This is a straw man. Obviously you'll never be able to prevent all access to firearms. It is however possible that a reduction in legal access would lead to it being harder for those who would abuse them to get them and thus to a reduction in killings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I have to reiterate what I've posted before.
I am truly sorry for some of you guys, you seem to live in a very dark, paranoid and abysmal alternative reality where you are scared of everyone.
Some of you even sound like you are more than just borderline paranoid and actually shouldn't be trusted with weapons.
In fact, it could be said that you are not truly as free as you think you are. You are held captive by irrational fears and invisible bogeymen. There is not much freedom in that.

Lantern Lodge

Possible, but then you are only thinking about crime/killings, and you are not thinking about the future, or the lifecycle of governemnts (granted that's outside of your lifespan, but still, do you really want to saddle your progeny with difficulties?)


thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
To the second point, I saw the need, obviously. I guess in my circumstances, that's really all that mattered. The only way to prevent anyone from getting a firearm in all circumstances is to eliminate their manufacture. Globally. None anywhere, ever. Not for police, military or civilian use. I don't think this is realistic.
This is a straw man. Obviously you'll never be able to prevent all access to firearms. It is however possible that a reduction in legal access would lead to it being harder for those who would abuse them to get them and thus to a reduction in killings.

Sorry, that wasn't meant as a 'so we might as well not even bother.'

It's just not a valid option. So...
I'm ok with gun control that makes sense, changes to existing law that allows for mental/emotional screening, etc. I thought I had made that clear previously.

Lantern Lodge

GentleGiant wrote:

I have to reiterate what I've posted before.

I am truly sorry for some of you guys, you seem to live in a very dark, paranoid and abysmal alternative reality where you are scared of everyone.
Some of you even sound like you are more than just borderline paranoid and actually shouldn't be trusted with weapons.

We are discussing the fringe, the small minority of the human race, of course it sounds ugly. No I am not paranoid, I just believe in being prepared, being able to take action in any circumstances.

It's an adult's duty to stand up for the community, but now a days people want to step back and not get involved any more then they have too, and that disgusts me.


GentleGiant wrote:

I have to reiterate what I've posted before.

I am truly sorry for some of you guys, you seem to live in a very dark, paranoid and abysmal alternative reality where you are scared of everyone.
Some of you even sound like you are more than just borderline paranoid and actually shouldn't be trusted with weapons.
In fact, it could be said that you are not truly as free as you think you are. You are held captive by irrational fears and invisible bogeymen. There is not much freedom in that.

This here is where there might be a problem with the mental screening, with the "just becasue you want to own a firearm makes you a paranoid git, and therefore unfit to own one." Really?


I agree with the people that say that armed civilians aren't going to be able to go all Rambo on the attacker and drop them with a single precise shot to the head. That is pure fantasy. But I disagree that there would be no effect if people were armed. It would slow down the attacker and thus give those people with proper training time to arrive and neutralize the attacker.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
GentleGiant wrote:

I have to reiterate what I've posted before.

I am truly sorry for some of you guys, you seem to live in a very dark, paranoid and abysmal alternative reality where you are scared of everyone.
Some of you even sound like you are more than just borderline paranoid and actually shouldn't be trusted with weapons.
In fact, it could be said that you are not truly as free as you think you are. You are held captive by irrational fears and invisible bogeymen. There is not much freedom in that.

This here is where there might be a problem with the mental screening, with the "just becasue you want to own a firearm makes you a paranoid git, and therefore unfit to own one." Really?

No, the reason why you want (or think you need) a firearm is the key, not just because you want one. If you want one just because, then you're just a spoiled kid who'll throw a temper tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I agree with the people that say that armed civilians aren't going to be able to go all Rambo on the attacker and drop them with a single precise shot to the head. That is pure fantasy. But I disagree that there would be no effect if people were armed. It would slow down the attacker and thus give those people with proper training time to arrive and neutralize the attacker.

Having to reload every five or six shots would also slow the attacker down, probably at the cost of less lives.


Guy Humual wrote:
pres man wrote:
I agree with the people that say that armed civilians aren't going to be able to go all Rambo on the attacker and drop them with a single precise shot to the head. That is pure fantasy. But I disagree that there would be no effect if people were armed. It would slow down the attacker and thus give those people with proper training time to arrive and neutralize the attacker.
Having to reload every five or six shots would also slow the attacker down, probably at the cost of less lives.

Unless they had multiple weapons. Of course it doesn't have to be either-or.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
pres man wrote:
I agree with the people that say that armed civilians aren't going to be able to go all Rambo on the attacker and drop them with a single precise shot to the head. That is pure fantasy. But I disagree that there would be no effect if people were armed. It would slow down the attacker and thus give those people with proper training time to arrive and neutralize the attacker.

Yes, because those instances are always clear cut and there is no confusion going on at all.

Let's examine a likely scenario.
Gunman enters a mall and starts shooting. People start screaming, crying and run all over the place to get away from the shooter.
Concealed carry permit guy #1 fumbles around for his weapon and finally gets it out. He's incredibly lucky and with his first couple of shots he hits the original gunman once without hitting anyone else. The gunman goes down (wounded? dead? no one knows at this point).
Hearing the first shots and the commotion CCP #2 and #3 rush to the scene because they are of the conviction that they can take down the shooter. They arrive and see a guy standing with a drawn weapon along with several people lying on the ground bleeding. They start shooting, again with incredible luck not hitting anyone but their target (well, most of their shots don't hit anything but the surroundings), and take down the armed man.
Except this wasn't the original gunman, but CCP #1.

You can put alternative things in there. Maybe they start yelling at CCP #1, he then mistakes them (since they have weapons drawn) to be accomplices of the gunman and starts shooting at them etc.

More guns in a tense situation only escalates it, this is seen over and over again where people have disagreements over stupid things and suddenly someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting.

801 to 850 of 1,152 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.