Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,152 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.

So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.

Lantern Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
And yet you insist that gun control is the only factor worth mentioning, by way of not acknowledging any other factors or possible factors.

Should I quote every post I've written in this thread where I've explained that we need to focus on both improving access to and quality of mental care as well as beginning a cultural shift away from the idea that firearms are symbols of nationalistic pride in addition to examining the idea of gun control?

Or would you just ignore them like you did the first time around, you sad liar?

Quote:
Stop trying to prove your right,

I'm not. We showed evidence for our position pages ago. I'm just here to see what you'll say next.

Yet you do not consider the possibilty of the fact that the culture and stability of those societies, could be at least as responsible for the difference. You insist that gun laws are the only factor worth mentioning in the statistics you present.

Whatever methods you vouched for before, you have yet to present statistics that account for culture, social views/mores, or social stability.

Edit, by not acknowledgeing other factors in your statistics they are not valid, they need the supporting evidence, for against them as far as what factors are responsible for the changes.

And your lack of providing the stats for other factors means they don't exist or you value that factor with little value for any others.

And you never proved you were right before, only demonstrated that you have reasons to believe in opinion. Somewhat lacking reasons, but better then nothing.

Lantern Lodge

Mark Sweetman wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.
So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.

I'll have to take a look, anything particularly bad about them?


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
1, House is metaphor the structure in which I live, which includes the goverment.

Yeah, we got that.

The rest of your post is just ugh.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.
Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.

And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.

I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.

Oh you've SEEN have you.

Links or shut up.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Smarnil le couard wrote:
In the end, the citizens get a better deal by living in a democratic society, but the idea is to protect said society first. Hence, thejeff was closer than you.

Interesting. So, my mistake was in thinking speech is banned for the protection of individuals, it's banned to protect society as a whole.

Thanks for explaining, I wouldn't expect to learn anything on a thousand post gun control thread. ;)


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.
So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.
I'll have to take a look, anything particularly bad about them?

Lots of heavily armed dudes, unless that's a good thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.
Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.

And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.

I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.

I read up on the 2.5 million times a year estimate, their methods were atrocious, used out of date information and basically sampled for the answer they wanted. In their survey, someone who heard a noise in the middle of the night, grabbed their shotgun and found a raccoon in the garage counted as having used their gun for defensive purposes.

In a lot of the unreported cases, there's also the issue of it not actually being a situation, but one where the gun owner misinterpreted what was going on, or needlessly escalated the situation.

One of the theories for why gun owners have a higher chance of firearm related injuries and death is that the gun gives a false sense of confidence and control. That false sense leads them to get into or escalate situations into dangerous territory, that an unarmed person would try to avoid or diffuse.

The 4.5 times more likely to be shot when targeted for a crime was done using epidemiology methods. These are the kinds of methods they use to determine the statistical risk of things like smoking and lung cancer.


Mark Sweetman wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.
So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.

You may want to check your facts on the East Timor bit. Irrespective of the what laws are on the books, East Timor and Yemen cannot be compared. Yemen's private gun ownership rate is 150 times that of East Timor. There used to be lots of guns up there but they were all in the hands of the Indonesian military and their proxies plus the weapons the resistance took off the Indonesian military.

Lantern Lodge

Glanced over the wikis on them, for an overview. Muslim non-secular state sounds worse then lack of guns. East timor, sounds like it could become a decent nation with a little work.

Of course I do realize that such info is not inherently accurate and need to be taken with lots of salt.


Werecorpse wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.
So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.
I'll have to take a look, anything particularly bad about them?
Lots of heavily armed dudes, unless that's a good thing?

East Timor certainly doesn't have lots of heavily armed dudes (except when I was up there in 1999/2000 with 8000 Australian and other peacekeepers.....). Private gun ownership is incredibly low and the government is actively getting rid of weapons left over from the period of Indonesian occupation.


Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.

Guys are usually taller, which usually means longer legs which usually means he is faster than you and thus will most likely catch you and rape you. No woman I've ever met has the stealth skills of Solid Snake, nor his CQC skills. I'd say a gun or a knife would do better than being unarmed. Lastly, how long do you think it'll take the authorities to reach you while you scramble to get your phone in hand? Oh wait, the guy will probably get it off your hands and rape you anyway before anything could have been done.

Also, I'd rather see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens than in the hands of government officials or private companies of any kind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mordion wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
In the end, the citizens get a better deal by living in a democratic society, but the idea is to protect said society first. Hence, thejeff was closer than you.

Interesting. So, my mistake was in thinking speech is banned for the protection of individuals, it's banned to protect society as a whole.

Thanks for explaining, I wouldn't expect to learn anything on a thousand post gun control thread. ;)

You're welcome.

It may seem a tiny difference or a play on words, but the implications are huge.

The most obvious one is the tratment of "offensive" material. If the focus was to protect citizens, we can imagine that anything could be banned provided if offends someone ("I don't get dark elf jokes! They should be banned!").

As the well-being of society at large doesn't depends on the hurt feelings of a bunch of citizens, "offensive" material is allowed (excluding libel), and everybody is free to enjoy dark elf jokes (or not).

Offended people are free to sue too, and usually get busted at court (periodically, religious fringe organizations try to get something "blasphemous" prohibited, such as a play, or a newspaper drawing. Maybe they'll eventually get the hint that they are five centuries late for that sort of things).

Sovereign Court

meatrace wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.
Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.

And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.

I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.

Oh you've SEEN have you.

Links or shut up.

Maybe This is the sort of evidence they're talking about.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.

Guys are usually taller, which usually means longer legs which usually means he is faster than you and thus will most likely catch you and rape you. No woman I've ever met has the stealth skills of Solid Snake, nor his CQC skills. I'd say a gun or a knife would do better than being unarmed. Lastly, how long do you think it'll take the authorities to reach you while you scramble to get your phone in hand? Oh wait, the guy will probably get it off your hands and rape you anyway before anything could have been done.

Also, I'd rather see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens than in the hands of government officials or private companies of any kind.

Nice idea that, an armed citizenry and an unarmed police... And fun ensued !

Of course, easily obtained guns also means that the rapist probably got an even bigger one, and don't have to bother running. It also ignores than most of rapes take place at home or in a familiar environment, where the victim isn't exactly prone to have a gun in hand.

Trying to be better armed that anything that could come your way in a million years is a pipe dream. Fear isn't a good counselor.


Gallo wrote:
Werecorpse wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Mark Sweetman wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want.
So long as we're just talking gun laws - both Yemen and East Timor have very liberal gun laws on par or exceeding those of the US.
I'll have to take a look, anything particularly bad about them?
Lots of heavily armed dudes, unless that's a good thing?
East Timor certainly doesn't have lots of heavily armed dudes (except when I was up there in 1999/2000 with 8000 Australian and other peacekeepers.....). Private gun ownership is incredibly low and the government is actively getting rid of weapons left over from the period of Indonesian occupation.

Sorry I was being facetious.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Smarnil le couard wrote:


It may seem a tiny difference or a play on words, but the implications are huge.

Yeah, I totally agree. It's an interesting way of thinking about things.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.

Guys are usually taller, which usually means longer legs which usually means he is faster than you and thus will most likely catch you and rape you. No woman I've ever met has the stealth skills of Solid Snake, nor his CQC skills. I'd say a gun or a knife would do better than being unarmed. Lastly, how long do you think it'll take the authorities to reach you while you scramble to get your phone in hand? Oh wait, the guy will probably get it off your hands and rape you anyway before anything could have been done.

Also, I'd rather see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens than in the hands of government officials or private companies of any kind.

Nice idea that, an armed citizenry and an unarmed police... And fun ensued !

Of course, easily obtained guns also means that the rapist probably got an even bigger one, and don't have to bother running. It also ignores than most of rapes take place at home or in a familiar environment, where the victim isn't exactly prone to have a gun in hand.

Trying to be better armed that anything that could come your way in a million years is a pipe dream. Fear isn't a good counselor.

Seeing the image of the possible future, I'd rather be armed before some tyrant gathers all the weapons.

And about that fear thing? Tell that to the US and USSR, who were too afraid of nukes to actually kill each other.


DarkLightHitomi wrote:


Yet you do not consider the possibilty of the fact that the culture and stability of those societies, could be at least as responsible for the difference. You insist that gun laws are the only factor worth mentioning in the statistics you present.

Whatever methods you vouched for before, you have yet to present statistics that account for culture, social views/mores, or social stability.

Edit, by not acknowledgeing other factors in your statistics they are not valid, they need the supporting evidence, for against them as far as what factors are responsible for the changes.

And your lack of providing the stats for other factors means they don't exist or you value that factor with little value for any others.

And you never proved you were right before, only demonstrated that you have reasons to believe in opinion. Somewhat lacking reasons, but better then nothing.

Selective reading much?

This has been argued again and again, but since it contradicts your inexperienced world view you somehow feel free to ignore it?
I'll point you to one of my own posts which you can use as a starting ground. It takes your other factors into account and utterly disproves your stance.
Feast your eyes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.

Guys are usually taller, which usually means longer legs which usually means he is faster than you and thus will most likely catch you and rape you. No woman I've ever met has the stealth skills of Solid Snake, nor his CQC skills. I'd say a gun or a knife would do better than being unarmed. Lastly, how long do you think it'll take the authorities to reach you while you scramble to get your phone in hand? Oh wait, the guy will probably get it off your hands and rape you anyway before anything could have been done.

Also, I'd rather see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens than in the hands of government officials or private companies of any kind.

Nice idea that, an armed citizenry and an unarmed police... And fun ensued !

Of course, easily obtained guns also means that the rapist probably got an even bigger one, and don't have to bother running. It also ignores than most of rapes take place at home or in a familiar environment, where the victim isn't exactly prone to have a gun in hand.

Trying to be better armed that anything that could come your way in a million years is a pipe dream. Fear isn't a good counselor.

Seeing the image of the possible future, I'd rather be armed before some tyrant gathers all the weapons.

And about that fear thing? Tell that to the US and USSR, who were too afraid of nukes to actually kill each other.

Preparing for an hypothetical fall of civilzation by stockpiling weapons isn't exactly a sane behaviour.

Do you really have to compare gun owenership with the MAD doctrine (Mutual Assured Destruction, in case you are not familiar with it)? If so, do you remember that the SALT agreements were universally saluted as a good thing ?


How is it not sane behaviour? I'd like to see an elaboration on that.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
mordion wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
In the end, the citizens get a better deal by living in a democratic society, but the idea is to protect said society first. Hence, thejeff was closer than you.

Interesting. So, my mistake was in thinking speech is banned for the protection of individuals, it's banned to protect society as a whole.

Thanks for explaining, I wouldn't expect to learn anything on a thousand post gun control thread. ;)

You're welcome.

It may seem a tiny difference or a play on words, but the implications are huge.

The most obvious one is the tratment of "offensive" material. If the focus was to protect citizens, we can imagine that anything could be banned provided if offends someone ("I don't get dark elf jokes! They should be banned!").

As the well-being of society at large doesn't depends on the hurt feelings of a bunch of citizens, "offensive" material is allowed (excluding libel), and everybody is free to enjoy dark elf jokes (or not).

Offended people are free to sue too, and usually get busted at court (periodically, religious fringe organizations try to get something "blasphemous" prohibited, such as a play, or a newspaper drawing. Maybe they'll eventually get the hint that they are five centuries late for that sort of things).

This is the most cogent defense I have heard of the European attitude towards free speech.

I'm still glad that America has a First Amendment though, especially since right now I live in China where they don't.


For those of you who think that you can't possibly look at the results of gun control in other countries (even other countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which aren't a million miles away culturally in general) then why do you think the US has such a high rate of murder and violent crime than countries like that. When I asked that before only Andrew R answered and his belief was that Americans are just inherently more violent than those countries and will have more murders than them whatever the gun control laws.

That strikes me as just such a depressing view to have of your own people. But for the rest of you why do you honestly think this is the case? Why are you so convinced that gun control in America would have bad results and increase crime while strengthening gun control in Australia does indeed appear to have improved matters?


Every man has a gun in Switzerland.

How often do you hear about killings there?


Icyshadow wrote:

Every man has a gun in Switzerland.

How often do you hear about killings there?

That's far from being true.

And they also don't carry them around with them.
And it's also SWITZERLAND.


Do you honestly believe that America has more cultural similarities with Switzerland than the countries which I listed?


meatrace wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

Every man has a gun in Switzerland.

How often do you hear about killings there?

And it's also SWITZERLAND.

...it being Switzerland has something to do with this?


IIRC (And I probably don't) every male citizen of switzerland is part of their army reserve, with some possible exceptional cases. If what I remember is correct pretty much every house has an assault weapon in case the country is invaded. Then again the source of my information was a TV show so accuracy may vary wildly from reality.

One other thing, which may have been brought up already (I've only skimmed through the thread so I could have missed it): THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE CHANGED. Heck, you're siting an amendment, IE a change to the original document. Some other changes to the american constitution over the years include repealing other amendments (the 21st amendment repeals the 18th), letting black people and women have the right to vote (15th and 19th)... in other words it's not set in stone. For those of you who want to brush up on your constitutional knowledge or for us foreigners who just want to know what the heck you lot are blathering on about a hypertext version of the constitution of the United States of America can be found here


I just hope it doesn't go and being changed to the direction I've been hearing about. SOPA was one example of that direction.

The Exchange

Icyshadow wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.

Guys are usually taller, which usually means longer legs which usually means he is faster than you and thus will most likely catch you and rape you. No woman I've ever met has the stealth skills of Solid Snake, nor his CQC skills. I'd say a gun or a knife would do better than being unarmed. Lastly, how long do you think it'll take the authorities to reach you while you scramble to get your phone in hand? Oh wait, the guy will probably get it off your hands and rape you anyway before anything could have been done.

Also, I'd rather see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens than in the hands of government officials or private companies of any kind.

But as long as she doesn't fight he might let her live. Like I said, the terror of guns leads these folks to prefer a girl raped to armed, they just lack the stones to admit it.

The Exchange

So how many of you are in favor of restrictions to all persons with aspergers? as that is his only diagnosed illness yet reported and all, how many of you want to see any other rights cut?


Actually, I have one or two in mind since you ask:
The right to cheat on your spouse without consequence.
The right to weave through traffic.
The right to be an a#+@!*&
That'll do for now i reckon.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The constitution was accepted in large part because they expected to add those ammendements from the beginning.

Besides, whatever your reasons or evidence for picking a side.

The US is built on the authority of the people. If people have no power, then they no authority. Voting isn't power or authority, it is merely informing others of your opinion on a subject for the purpose of determining which option has the greater support.

Authority comes from the ability to force others, (the ability, and its use are two different things). There is legitimate authority, and illegitimate authority. Being legitimate doesn't make an authority a good thing.

Our ability to have weapons, secures our authority. Without weapons, we cannot enforce our votes. Without authority the government could act regardless of our votes, and do so without suffering any major consequences.

Our authority is one of the many checks and balances of our government. Us having weapons secures our authority, ensuring the government cannot forget the people without cosequences (it is an unpleasent possibilty, but every nation dies eventually, I don't want the next one to be a dictatorship)

@Gentlegiant

I saw your statement the first tiime but I was talking to Scott who kept repeating and supporting his gun law stats, without addressing culture.

I happen to believe that culture can reduce these incidents as much as law, and since there are other reasons for my desire to maintain the right to bear arms, I would go for alternate solutions, such as a cultural shift.


Icyshadow wrote:
Seeing the image of the possible future, I'd rather be armed before some tyrant gathers all the weapons.

Considering you wrote you were living in Finland what are you afraid of? A reindeer insurrection? Angry overarmed American children attacking Santa Claus toys vault??

Isn't boredom the only threat in Finland? Instead of buying weapons go to Tallinn and have fun!


Angstspawn wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Seeing the image of the possible future, I'd rather be armed before some tyrant gathers all the weapons.

Considering you wrote you were living in Finland what are you afraid of? A reindeer insurrection? Angry overarmed American children attacking Santa Claus toys vault??

Isn't boredom the only threat in Finland? Instead of buying weapons go to Tallinn and have fun!

Don't worry, I'll forget all my concerns on Christmas when I get drunk again.

Jokes aside, I'm worried about being part of the idiotic and incompetent European Union.

Lantern Lodge

Andrew R wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
It takes away the most effective means to defend oneself.
The most effective means to defend yourself against an armed attacker is to hide or run and get in touch with the authorities. If you are very highly trained, having a firearm immediately at hand (and I mean immediately) might help.

Guys are usually taller, which usually means longer legs which usually means he is faster than you and thus will most likely catch you and rape you. No woman I've ever met has the stealth skills of Solid Snake, nor his CQC skills. I'd say a gun or a knife would do better than being unarmed. Lastly, how long do you think it'll take the authorities to reach you while you scramble to get your phone in hand? Oh wait, the guy will probably get it off your hands and rape you anyway before anything could have been done.

Also, I'd rather see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens than in the hands of government officials or private companies of any kind.

But as long as she doesn't fight he might let her live. Like I said, the terror of guns leads these folks to prefer a girl raped to armed, they just lack the stones to admit it.

I have heard of women who would rather die then be raped, and some who are so scarred that they can't sleep in the same room as their husbands.

Source, a Magezine, from about 12 years ago, sorry I don't remember the title.

The Exchange

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob70.html
Ayoob talks about rifles
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob63.html
And on guns helping women to be equal
http://www.freecolorado.com/2000/06/gunsstoprape.html
little more reading about women defending themselves

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angstspawn wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Seeing the image of the possible future, I'd rather be armed before some tyrant gathers all the weapons.

Considering you wrote you were living in Finland what are you afraid of? A reindeer insurrection? Angry overarmed American children attacking Santa Claus toys vault??

Isn't boredom the only threat in Finland? Instead of buying weapons go to Tallinn and have fun!

Who said that only likely scenarios are worth being afraid of?

Hitler for example is something very unlikely to occcur again, but if it did, how would we stop him? Throwing rocks? Oh, will the other nations bail us out when the second Hitler comes after the UN becomes the single Nation of the planet?

Hitler came once, he can come again, be prepared.

-----
I also had the epiphany, several people are claiming that pro-gun people are afraid, but aren't anti-gun people just as afraid? Aren't both group afraid of criminals with guns? Sounds like the same fear, different opinions to me.

However, both sides have legitimate concerns, but neither side has the absolute correct and perfect answer.

And I pick pro-gun because other solutions to that problem exist, and I have concerns beyond mere criminal acts, such as maintaining public authority over the government, which is intended to /serve/ the public, not /control/ the public.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Voting isn't power or authority, it is merely informing others of your opinion on a subject for the purpose of determining which option has the greater support.

Authority comes from the ability to force others, (the ability, and its use are two different things). There is legitimate authority, and illegitimate authority. Being legitimate doesn't make an authority a good thing.

Our ability to have weapons, secures our authority. Without weapons, we cannot enforce our votes. Without authority the government could act regardless of our votes, and do so without suffering any major consequences.

You should stop studying psychology and sociology, you're wasting both your time and money, you don't even have the meanest understanding of democracy, so trying to get a glimpse at how societies and psyche work is hopeless.

There is a country where many people think like you, it's Afghanistan. You've a tribal logic!
What if the government will decide to take-off your guns? You'll get a plane and crash it on a tower??


No, the government will keep the guns unless they get transferred "to better hands" like some private company's personal lackies. Then it'll point them at you and tell you to do as they say or they'll open fire. That's the kind of future where the government and whoever has the most money is dancing on top of us. Find that as absurd as you want (staying ignorant means you are easier to control anyway), but similar things have been a topic of concern on more than one occasion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:


i never said they move there for it but that is the reality. they want police everywhere, to always be there to save them, as many laws as they can dream up to control each other, public transport often paid for by others. Country folks by and large just want to be left alone.

Until you have a bad year with your crops, when you want a federal loan to make up the shortfall so you can keep your land, crop subsidies so that in bumper years the stuff can be sold at a profit at all, grazing on federal lands, and of course someone to provide power and internet below costs so its not too expensive for you out there, fracking regulations so your well water doesn't catch fire, land ordinances so that the land stays rural instead of becoming yuppie developments as far as the eye can see...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Hitler for example is something very unlikely to occcur again, but if it did, how would we stop him? Throwing rocks? Oh, will the other nations bail us out when the second Hitler comes after the UN becomes the single Nation of the planet?

Hitler came once, he can come again, be prepared.

Hitler had the support of most of population including institutions like the police and the army.

If there was an equivalent in the US, Hitler had just sent police to arrest you, if not enough the army. Then they had killed you (despite your super-soldiers skills) and had turned your family to ashes is some death camp (not without keeping the hair of your wife to make pillows and the fat of your children to make soap).

You're like militia thinking they can oppose a Government. If Saddam army was lasting only a few days in front of US Army how many tenth of second a bunch of clowns with big guns and super-ego would last?
I know you want to keep it brand new for WWIII but use your brain!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saint Caleth wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
mordion wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:
In the end, the citizens get a better deal by living in a democratic society, but the idea is to protect said society first. Hence, thejeff was closer than you.

Interesting. So, my mistake was in thinking speech is banned for the protection of individuals, it's banned to protect society as a whole.

Thanks for explaining, I wouldn't expect to learn anything on a thousand post gun control thread. ;)

You're welcome.

It may seem a tiny difference or a play on words, but the implications are huge.

The most obvious one is the tratment of "offensive" material. If the focus was to protect citizens, we can imagine that anything could be banned provided if offends someone ("I don't get dark elf jokes! They should be banned!").

As the well-being of society at large doesn't depends on the hurt feelings of a bunch of citizens, "offensive" material is allowed (excluding libel), and everybody is free to enjoy dark elf jokes (or not).

Offended people are free to sue too, and usually get busted at court (periodically, religious fringe organizations try to get something "blasphemous" prohibited, such as a play, or a newspaper drawing. Maybe they'll eventually get the hint that they are five centuries late for that sort of things).

This is the most cogent defense I have heard of the European attitude towards free speech.

I'm still glad that America has a First Amendment though, especially since right now I live in China where they don't.

Thanks.

Still, I have to point out that the difference between Europe and USA isn't the lack of a "First amendment" (we do have constitutional texts to the same effect), but our treatment of it. We see freedom of speech as a goal to strive for, which can be subjected to limits, and not as an intangible absolute. As you say, too much of a good thing...

The reverent tone some people use on this forum to talk about the american constitution strikes me as very close to the way a religious person could speak about the holy word.

In general, European countries have much less awe for their constitutions. We just see them as useful legal tools, that we have no qualms discarding, adapting, shaping, etc. The French Republic lives now on its fifth constitution (born in 1958), and talk of a sixth comes up at every election.

@Icyshadow: I don't know what to tell you, if you are really afraid of Finland's collapse in anarchy, or of the European Union.

You already told on other threads that you were afraid to come out of your house, as you felt you could be targeted by racists groups because of your origins. Fear is a powerful feeling, which can easily paralyze you and lead you to extreme behaviours. Also, the perception of a threat can easily become larger than the threat itself. Anybody suffering from such feelings should seek professional help to cope with them as soon as they become too strong and keep him away from enjoying a normal, peaceful life. I'm seriously concerned here.


Angstspawn wrote:
DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Hitler for example is something very unlikely to occcur again, but if it did, how would we stop him? Throwing rocks? Oh, will the other nations bail us out when the second Hitler comes after the UN becomes the single Nation of the planet?

Hitler came once, he can come again, be prepared.

Hitler had the support of most of population including institutions like the police and the army.

If there was an equivalent in the US, Hitler had just sent police to arrest you, if not enough the army. Then they had killed you (despite your super-soldiers skills) and had turned your family to ashes is some death camp (not without keeping the hair of your wife to make pillows and the fat of your children to make soap).

You're like militia thinking they can oppose a Government. If Saddam army was lasting only a few days in front of US Army how many tenth of second a bunch of clowns with big guns and super-ego would last?
I know you want to keep it brand new for WWIII but use your brain!

So better to just kneel down and accept our new tyrant overlords?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

US have the most powerful military forces and weapons in the world, how can any of you think you even have a chance if government is turning against you??
Some of you were in the army, you know probably much better than I what special units are able to. How can you believe you'd survive a direct confrontation?
How your guns will protect you against the M230 chain gun of an Apache or, a few Hellfire missiles?

Stop the nonsense argue of being able to oppose government, you never were, you're not and never will. At least not with your guns.


How many people make up the government? How many people make up the ones who'd oppose tyranny?

How many people actually are so rich they can control the government and the private companies and the banks?

@Smarnil

I'd get professional help, but my family would disown me the moment I do and the doctors keep offering me pills.

What I need is therapy, not pills. I am aware of my depression (and other problems), and all I can do now is live with it.


Icyshadow wrote:
So better to just kneel down and accept our new tyrant overlords?

Icyshadow we discussed a lot about the struggles in Middle East, you KNOW it's not with guns and rockets you can oppose a governmental army. You know it, just tell them what's happening when you raise without army and support in front in an army with support.

You don't have to kneel but if you were not able to stop it with you votes and the democratic system, only another country can help you.
The US should know it, when they opposed UK it's partly because France was supporting them they won. They know that without US support Libya has not been able to get free, the same for Iraq and most probably now for Sirya.

Thinking you can oppose a government "alone" with basic weapons (which means including rockets and bazookas) is at least naive.


Well, I just hope we never let it get that far. Good thing SOPA was stopped before the internet got censored and put under government control. Also, what would politics help when we're in the phase that opposition of any kind (including verbal or political) will just get you a bullet to the head, and every nation's government in the world has chosen to stick with this kind of plan as well? That's pretty much the dead end, assuming we remain ignorant of what a corrupt government and a rich elite can do.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berik wrote:

For those of you who think that you can't possibly look at the results of gun control in other countries (even other countries like Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand which aren't a million miles away culturally in general) then why do you think the US has such a high rate of murder and violent crime than countries like that. When I asked that before only Andrew R answered and his belief was that Americans are just inherently more violent than those countries and will have more murders than them whatever the gun control laws.

That strikes me as just such a depressing view to have of your own people. But for the rest of you why do you honestly think this is the case? Why are you so convinced that gun control in America would have bad results and increase crime while strengthening gun control in Australia does indeed appear to have improved matters?

I get the feeling that some of this stems from American Exceptionalism. Things that work in other countries wouldn't work in America because America is different. Being from Canada I do notice slight differences in their culture for sure, their news media for example is crazy these days, but for the most part the average American is as decent as any citizen of this earth. Their biggest problem right now isn't the dishonest talking heads it's the level of debate that the country has come to expect. I wish they could debate things without the need to win or demonize their opponents. I wish they could look for compromise. I wish people everywhere would realize that people can have contrary positions on certain things and still be friends afterwards.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angstspawn wrote:

US have the most powerful military forces and weapons in the world, how can any of you think you even have a chance if government is turning against you??

Some of you were in the army, you know probably much better than I what special units are able to. How can you believe you'd survive a direct confrontation?
How your guns will protect you against the M230 chain gun of an Apache or, a few Hellfire missiles?

Stop the nonsense argue of being able to oppose government, you never were, you're not and never will. At least not with your guns.

And think of it this way, especially those who were in the army: Would you follow orders to gun down peaceful unarmed protesters? Or would you be more likely to follow orders to attack an armed dangerous terrorist/militia cell?

Look at Syria. The revolt there started with huge peaceful protests that were attacked by the regimes forces. They continued coming out despite the deaths and gradually the army began to desert until the deserters formed a military force of their own and opposed the regime directly.

If the initial protestors had been armed and responded violently, they still would have been overwhelmed, but they would have been easily portrayed as terrorists and rebels and they never would have had the moral force that has gotten the support of much of the country and so much of the former military.

The government is us. The military is us. The police are us. They are not some foreign power that is nothing but a tool of tyranny. They are made up of people.

1,051 to 1,100 of 1,152 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards