Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control

Still, wouldn't a violent society benefit from as few guns as possible? The less violent people have guns, the less deaths they will cause with them.Also, do you think every country in the world also needs to have nuclear weapons? This levels the playing field, afterall?

---

I hunt for the truth

On the flipside, the more decent people have guns the less chance they have of being killed by the violent ones. You can't be absolute and categorically claim that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths. It depends on who's got them and what they use them for.As an example -and since you mentioned nuclear weapons- it's now generally accepted that the Mutually Assured Destruction paradigm between the US and the USSR resulted in less people being killed than they would have if one of the two sides didn't have a strong nuclear arsenal. Weapons proliferation and a level nuclear playing field actually saved human lives. Like I said, it depends on what they want them for. If your country was next on the list to be invaded by the US wouldn't you just wish you had nuclear weapons?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

There are two possibilities: either MAD works, or it doesn't. If it does, the US will invade us anyway, because they know we won't use our nuclear weapons against them, and they can resort to their overwhelming conventional power. If MAD doesn't work, we will use our nuclear weapons against the invading US, who will react by annihilating our small country with theirs. Either way we loose. But I'd rather be invaded and alive than invaded and vaporized. So, would I wish to have nuclear weapons? No, I don't think so.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

At the cost of seriously injuring or killing the violent ones? Or both getting shot? Coupled witht he fact of known high violence, as you agreed to, you can. Violent people, for outing their violence. Or "non-violent" people, for shooting the violent ones, who also have them. So? In a fit of rage, do you care about that when you grab your gun? What if Chroustjev (or Kennedy) had gone insane and launched the weapons? Would it still have been a good idea then? Yet continue to endanger it.... For killing other countires, or killing hte country that wants to kill you. The effects will be equally horrible though. No, not in a million years. I'd fight the enemy coutry, but never would I want such a horrible wepon to be used ever again, not even as "deterrent".

---

I hunt for the truth

...??..sorry you lost me there... If MAD works as a deterrent noone will be invading anyone, as this will result in their Assured Destruction (M.A.D, get it?). That's what happened with the Cold War. err...not quite. We're considering a level playing field scenario, i.e. each side has enough weaponry to guarantee the destruction of the other. If one side -in a fit of madness- attacks, then both sides get destroyed. A rationally-thinking side wouldn't attack since survival instinct is always stronger than the predatory instinct. It worked for half a century between USA-USSR. It's factual evidence that weapons equality or superiority *can and does act as a deterrent against assault*, which is the point of contention here.If you want further evidence ask yourself: why does Israel continue to exist as a nation while totally surrounded by hostile countries?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You see cost, I see benefit. Both getting shot is a better result for society than just the victim getting shot. Yet I've already shown you how two military blocks with aggressive, expansionist policies ended up with *more* guns but *fewer* deaths for nearly half a century. What ifs don't really matter. The fact remains that for nearly half a century the USA and USSR didn't attack each other for fear of their own survival. Just like a rationally-thinking burgalr won't enter a house if they know their life to be at risk by doing so. so what? would you have rather had the USA nuclear arsenal destroyed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths by the USSR invasion of central Europe so that you can feel a little safer today? I assume then, by extension, that if an armed intruder entered your house you'd rush to fight them off with a...butter knive? ...washing up liquid? ....anything but a gun, right?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

You see injuring or killing a human being as a benefit? Wow...just...wow.... Again, you think shooting a human being is a GOOD thing? Nuclear weapons, not guns. And they're still threatening every life on this planet. Heh, same can be said to you. What if "if I don;t have a gun I can't defend myself" doesn't really matter? So? They still have the weapons. And so continue to be a threat to human life. Really? So there are almost no burglaries in the united states concerning people who own guns? I don't believe you. Ifs don't matter, remember. You don't know they would have invaded, and even if they had, nuclear weapons are far too terrible a weapon. I don't like war either, but at least conventional weapons don't wipe out entire countries. No, probably a baseball bat. Yep. Guns get people killed.

---

I hunt for the truth

what?! you mean you don't see the benefit of killing someone like that or this one? or even these ones? Wow.....you obviously just don't give a shit about their victims! ..and I thought you valued human life. Not just any human being. Some specific human beings yes absolutely. Same principle still applies. Irrelevant. ....??...that doesn't even make sense! The point is that it illustrates that armed deterrent *does* work. Like I've been claiming all along. As I've mentioned in a previous post burglary rate in the US is half that in the UK. Correlation? maybe, maybe not. Yes we do. Invasion plans had already been drawn. Thousands of people would have been killed. errrr.....yes......that's the whole point.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Legend doesn't see intruders as human beings. He's made quite plain in his initial responses that he doesn't value the life of an intruder at all.He seems to be one of those repugnant individuals who believes that criminals are all cancerous tumors that deserve whatever they get and should be removed from society permanently. He doesn't care about the relative severity of the crime - to him, breaking into someone's house is just as damning as actually raping or killing someone.Most actual legal codes recognize that murder has more of an effect than rape, which has more of an effect than theft, which has more of an effect than slander or libel, which has more of an effect than jaywalking. Sentencing is determined accordingly: murderers typically get the longest or most severe penalties, and the scale moves down from there so that the punishment at least appears to fit the crime. Legend thinks this is all nonsense, and thinks that a nonviolent thief who breaks into your home deserves to die just as much as a murderer...and he doesn't care about getting his hands bloody himself.His system of ethics seems, from all signs he's given us in this thread, to be a very simple black/white, good guys/bad guys judgment. If you break the law, you're a bad guy. He doesn't distinguish in any meaningful way between bad guys - they're all bad, so who cares? That seems to be the end of it.He should move to Texas. He'd fit right in.

I do care about their victims. Unlike you, I value human life. I didn't say they shouldn't be punished, I said I think hurting or killing another human being is wrong. By the way, you mentioned Hitler, you lose. Thank you Godwin. I do, you obviously don't. Despicable. Sure...Rather have something that can kill the whole planet 6 times over, as long as you feel safe, right? You're the one claiming what ifs don't matter, not me. Except of course for the fact it doesn't. People who own guns have the same bad stuff happen to them as people who don't. Only less people get hurt when there are no guns around. So, you're not even sure that's because of guns, yet you claim it is? By the way, what's the rate of people being killed with guns in the US and the UK? Correlation...? So, the fact that the US has invasion plans for Northern Korea, Iran, and a whole bunch of other countries (as any country who is serious about their defence should have) means they will actually go there and invade? Ok. So you don't care about human life. Good to know.

---

I hunt for the truth

wow...! that's quite a strawman you've built for yourself there mate! Just because I value individual liberty, including one's right to protect oneself, one's family and one's property in the manner which one considers the most effective and less risky I have to be labelled as a gung-ho, one-dimensional republican cowboy.But yeah, whatever rocks your boat, that horse you're on is mighty high partner, you make sure you don't fall of it now, d'ya hear?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I consider a device that will destroy the entire planet and everything on it as the most effective and less risky. Should I be allowed to get that device and use it as I see fit to protect myself and my loved ones?

---

I hunt for the truth

I based my statements solely on the statements you have made in this thread. If my portrayal of you is indeed a strawman, please feel free to correct me by describing your actual system of ethics. How do you judge right and wrong? Are there only black/white distinctions, or are there actual shades of gray where certain offenses are more or less harmful than others? What do you consider appropriate action for criminals? Do you emphasize punishment and retribution? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Removal from society for safety's sake?

Why? Speaking of which (Hitler not Godwin), if you had a chance to kill him before he came to power I presume that you wouldn't do it, as you value human life so strongly. Yes, it would have prevented the death of 20 million people but what matters is that you shouldn't compromise your moral principles. I mean people die all the time, but your ethical system...well.. once it's broken it's hard to fix isn't it? Morality uber alles! You're a very nice man. Yeah, sometimes I cry into my muesli too! I meant that this sentence didn't make any semantic sense at all. All this morality must be interfering with your grammar skills. Yes, given the right circumstances! What do you think the plans are for? Unfortunately we don't all share your virtue and lofty principles, I'm humbled to admit.P.S: Do you think I'll go to hell?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Why the assumption that these two are linked? Burglary is a very wide range of crimes. Are the majority home burglaries? Business burglaries? In my experience talking to sheriffs deputies and police officers, the majority of burglaries are businesses when they know no one is there. Also, the vast majority of home burglaries are when no one is there. That is why they burgle, so they can do it with no one at around. If they wanted to deal with people they would rob, or home invade.Are home invasions common in UK, they are in the USA. Now if you want to compare statistics to see if gun ownership is a deterrent, you need to look at things like robbery and home invasion. Do you have those statistics?Your stats on burglary have no bearing on the subject, because it is usually a crime that happens when the victims are not around.Want to try again?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts