|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Two wrongs don't make a right (the (ir)rationality of revenge) - also gun control | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
That would just destroy all the infrastructure and resources... they're not that dumb. Plus, the government has a vested interest in living people so they wouldn't want everyone to be dead. The only way to really do it would be with infantry. That depends on the reasons for the invasion, wouldn't it?They have a vested interest on the infrastructure and the people. So, these facts would be a bigger deterrent than guns. If the government, for whatever reason, decided that these two considerations don't outweigh the desire to invade...then guns are not going to be much of a further deterrent. Because it'd be a huge thorn in their side if we did. Again, depends on the reason for invasion. Also, as we have shown in Iraq and Afghanistan, a well trained military with highend weapons and protection are not easily turned away by rabble in the streets with guns...even when the most violent rabble aren't concerned with collateral damage.
Where did I say or imply that? You called me naive for asserting that there were few to no scenarios I could think of that would result in the American government invading her own land (especially if I add the caveat that they do so unjustifiably) regardless of gun posession.
An armed citizenry is a significant deterrent to invasion:
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy writes: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. That's a good quote, but it didn't seem to stop the British during the early years of the country. Not to mention, the physical isolation of our country compared to the rest of the world (only two countries, who happen to be allies, have the ability to directly invade us over land) makes an invasion expensive, and any invasion would be seen from space, giving our military and national guard forces time to get to where they need to be, plus, any country with the ability to actually carry out a full-scale invasion is an ally, all of which do a far better turn at dissuading an invasion than the possibility of the populace having firearms. Again, we're left with the specific scenario involving invasion...we defeated Japan in WWII without invading her mainland either...all we had to do was drop two nukes. Arguments for against the morality of the decision, it effectively cowed the country without an armed populace being a factor. All I'm saying, is that with the technology available to governments...especially first world ones, firearms are quickly becoming obsolete...but still dangerous in inexperienced, unbalanced, or overly emotional hands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you not game hunt in the UK? Would you be against hunters owning firearms as well? Sportshooters? Exceptionally rare and very very very tightly controlled.
Wiki writes: Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiable good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant's own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed will a licence be issued. Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence.[7] Similarly, persons applying for licences with recent, serious mental health issues will also be refused a certificate. Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a license is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police. The penalty for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is currently a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine. Firearms regulation in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia I don't believe I have ever known anyone in the UK who owns a gun.
In the US, we tried this thing called "prohibition". Let's just say....it didn't have the desired effect. Any wally with a packet of yeast, a bag of sugar and a bucket can make moonshine. I would argue that on the whole UK gun laws work in the UK. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I think this thread is slowly derailing. Best I can tell, everyone seems to be for some level of reasonable gun control. Seems like most people agree for the most part, so what are we arguing about again?
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Theodoric writes:
I brought up Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet relatively low crime. Yes I admit that it hasn't one of the lowest crime rates in the world but that doesn't invalidate my point. Even more importantly, you presented the homicide rates stand alone without any thought for correlation against gun ownership, nor for poverty or other factors that may affect those rates. Yet when I present more stats that debunk your point you suddenly remember that we have to factor in things like the more homogenous society and such. This is why I accused you of disingenuousness
You brought up Switzerland, with claims of one of lowest crime rates in the world and I brought up the figures to show you were not correct. Theodoric writes:
I thought you were saying that I pulled the figures 'out of my ass'. I misunderstood, so apologies.
Again, misrepresenting what I said. The context of what I said was in relation to your assertion that "Switzerland has some of the lowest crime rates in the world". There was nothing at all in the post that could be interpreted that I disagreed with the NationMaster data. I disagreed with your assertion about Switzerland crime rates being among lowest in the world. Again, I ask do not misrepresent what I say. Theodoric writes:
1) You make a statement claiming Switzerland has among lowest crime rates in the world.2) I respond with data(facts) showing you are wrong. 3) You then decide to change your argument saying they have lower crime rate than UK. I never disagreed with that assertion. 4)You make the assertion that the cause of the lower crime rate is guns in Switzerland 5) I point out that there are other factors in the society that need to be addressed. 6)You claim I am being disingenuous No, this is how it went: 1) I make a statement claiming Switzerland has among lowest crime rates in the world despite high gun ownsership.2) You present figures showing that crime in Switzerland isn't among lowest in the world. 3) You claim that "the argument by Legend has been that guns discourage crime...has been totally debunked" (Message 267) 4) You also claim that "there does not seem to be a substantial decrease in things like burglaries in countries with lax gun laws as Legend proposed" (Message 267) 5) I concede that crime in Switzerland isn't among lowest in the world and present figures that show that it's still much lower than in the UK despite the much higher gun ownership, so my point still stands. 6) I present data(facts) about crime rates correlated against gun ownsership that totally debunk your statements in (3) and (4). 7) You come out crying that I didn't take into account other factors that affect crime rates. 8) I point out that neither did you and -as you were the first one (after RAZD) to use these stats- I accuse you of disingenousness. So this is where we are now. You have yet to show WHY ordinary citizens shouldn't have guns. Your only arguments have been variations on the "guns kill people" theme. Which isn't even an argument, more of a superstituous mantra really. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Wud up CS,
Its not that those of us that advance it think that we'd be able to win an all out war against the government, its that us having guns is a deterrant for the government to go in the first place. They had guns in Waco, lots of them, semi auto/atutomatic in fact, that didn't stop the government. What you would need to do is form a significant enough sized group of people that could withstand an advancement from our military. As of right now, not even countries with a big enough size army can do this. There is no deterrant for the government. Iraq, Kosovo, Afgahn, Vietnam, etc. If they want you, their coming for you. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
To be quite honest, I can't own a firearm anyways. hell, i can't own any weapons. Sure you can. Rifles and shotguns require no background check or permit, or in fact anything other than the money to buy them, in most states in the US. That's the beauty of our laxed gun laws, anyone can buy one and kill whoever they want. It's a free-for-all. All you anti-gun control advocates should be happy that we live in a country where the "right to bear arms" is extended to every single person, no matter what they've ever done in the past. Any lunatic who wants to kill his wife or husband, any person who wants to go to the mall and pop off shots, any one willing to go into a school and open fire...here in the US, you're free to do that. You can buy the rifle or shotgun legally THEN become a criminal with it. Ah America...
I am pro constitution. I want every natural born citizen to have ALL of their rights. The constitution is not just some piece of paper that can be re-written. The Constitution claims that every citizen has the right to bear arms, period. It doesn't go into specifics about the type of weapon. Go buy a rifle or a shotgun, there, you have arms and your rights aren't infringed upon. Oh but that's not enough is it? We need 22 clip magazines on 9mm handguns. We need 50 cal. Desert Eagles. We need semi-automatic weapons with 100 clip mag. We need silencers. We need, we need, we need... This is an abuse of the right to bear arms Amendment.
I'd like to see the face of all the anti-gun people when Big Brother comes knocking on their door to herd them off. And takes them where specifically? Is it not enough that big brother has already herded the masses into cubicles and made them work just to pay off debts? Big Brother doesn't need to herd people who are already herded, but just don't know it.
sorry, they have army's that have real guns, tanks, aircraft and the like. And what will you do with your single handgun? You're not Bruce Willis and this ain't Die Hard. If tanks and aircrafts come knocking at your door, like that's gonna happen, there isn't much you can do.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up. Which branch of government will be coming for you? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
And if you think they wouldn't consider it at all then you are living in a dream land. How would they do this? When you say "the government," which branch of government do you feel would be able to gather the resources to be able to invade it's own country? Do you mean with our military? Or on their own some how? Would they pull all of the troups overseas for this or just do it with the troups at home? Do you think the men and women serving in the Armed Forces would be able to attack their own country, and family and friends? If it attacks it's own citizens, and destroys it's infrastructure, then how would they fund the war? Who exactly would "they" be that could pull this off? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of the Japanese Navy writes: You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. The problem is he never said it.
quote:Source I can pretty much guarantee you can not find an original source for this quotation. One quick suggestion. Always confirm the provenance of any quotation you use to make a point. The majority of quotes I see are false. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Your only arguments have been variations on the "guns kill people" theme. Which isn't even an argument, more of a superstituous mantra really. Please show me how I have used that argument? I think you are again misrepresenting what I have said. Please stop that. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Legend, just lost a long post ... so this is probably longer ...
I brought up Switzerland as a country with high gun ownership yet relatively low crime. Yes I admit that it hasn't one of the lowest crime rates in the world but that doesn't invalidate my point. Even more importantly, you presented the homicide rates stand alone without any thought for correlation against gun ownership, nor for poverty or other factors that may affect those rates. Exactly, and those other factors make Switzerland sufficiently different from the US that you can't compare them to show a benefit to gun ownership. Let's look at poverty as an indicator of the need for people to commit crime: Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions
quote: Economy of Switzerland - Wikipedia
quote: Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
quote: Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
quote:Note: I have no idea what columns 2 and 4 represent, but the data sorts under the categories by the first or third columns, so those would be the rates in question, with Switzerland at 12.5 (per thousand?) or <74% of the UK rate (16.8) and <60% of the US rate (21.0) on the absolute poverty scale, and 10.9 on the relative poverty scale, <66% of the UK rate (16.4) and <57% of the US rate (17.2). The relative rate is probably better for predicting burglaries, as it compares who would likely be perps and who would likely be victims -- there's not much benefit to stealing from someone as poor as you within a given society. Let's compare these rates to your data in Message 274 for burglaries (your person invading a residence to steal) and murders (where people die by violence):
quote: Ratio of Burglaries (Switzerland/UK) 58% That's a pretty good correlation to the poverty rate ratio of 66%. Compare them to your gun ownership statistics
quote: Ratio of Gun Ownership (UK/Switzerland) 12% Uk has 12% of the gun ownership of Switzerland, and you claim a direct inverse relationship, so this should relate to 12% of burglaries. It doesn't.
quote: Ratio of (all) Murders (Switzerland/UK) 66% That's a very good correlation to the poverty rate ratio of 66%. Uk has 12% of the gun ownership of Switzerland, and you claim a direct inverse relationship, so this should relate to 12% of burglaries and murders. It doesn't. Now let's go back to those murder by gun rates for these two countries as given in Message 252 to show that you are still picking the stats that you like: Gun violence - Wikipedia
quote: England & Wales is 21% compared to Switzerland - a closer correlation to the rate of gun ownership than either burglaries or murders overall. This certainly seems to show that an increase in the proportion of guns available means that the methods chosen for murder are increasingly biased to using guns. The higher rate of gun ownership in Switzerland is matched by a higher rate of murders committed by firearms. Conclusion: the rate of murders and burglaries correlates well with poverty rates irrespective of gun ownership rates, and increased rates of gun ownership correlate with increased use of guns to commit murders. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi onifre,
Is it not enough that big brother has already herded the masses into cubicles and made them work just to pay off debts? Big Brother doesn't need to herd people who are already herded, but just don't know it. And if you want to look at who would be involved just look at the ones that broke the constitutional rights in the last administration. ... and the willing herds that voted for them .... Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Legend, this will be quick, as I've already replied in another post.
Nonsense. Shooting at someone who's just invaded your home *isn't* cowboy vigilante justice, not by a long shot. Cowboy vigilante justice implies being proactive, seeking out criminals. False. Cowboy vigilante justice is deciding that you will be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
Even this woman you brought up wasn't applying cowboy vigilante justice, she was only over-reacting based on her own prejudice and paranoia, just as she would have even if she didn't have a gun. Let's get one thing clear: Psychopaths and guns are NOT mutually inclusive! You bringing up this incident is a desparate attempt to imply that they are. Burglary is not a crime punishable by death, so you're willingness to give a death sentence for such a crime is you over-reacting based on your own prejudice and paranoia, and if you ever end up engaging in this behavior you might find the justice system takes a dim view of this behavior, possibly because it IS cowboy vigilante justice.
I'm 37 and I've encountered at least a dozen. So have many of my friends and family. Just because you've been fortunate enough not to doesn't mean that other people are or will be. A dozen? ... and yet you still live and post freely. What injuries did you receive? How would it have been different if you had a gun?
Most of Israel's neigbours (and some of its own citizens) are opposed to the state's existence and have vowed to destroy it. They have waged wars against it and attacked it in many ways throughout the years. Yet, 60 years on, Israel's still standing. This IS the evidence. Perhaps you can list who those "most" are and provide evidence of it. I'll note that Hezbollah is an organization, not a neighbor, and it has been able to find many recruits solely due to the behavior of Israel, without which they would not exist. Yes, 60 years, and there has been no change of any significance because the neighbors keep reacting to the exclusive behavior of Israel. Curiously, one of your gun bearing citizens in Israel even killed the best possibility for peace because the extremists IN Israel don't want to share.
I'm not even going to go there. I can't believe we're even talking about this. Is that because you are unwilling (confirmation bias) or unable (cognitive dissonance) to understand the relationships? We're talking about this because it is an example of precisely the false thinking that guns can solve problems, or even reduce them, by attacking symptoms rather than dealing with the real social issues.
My oh my, where do I begin? First off there was never any "armed deterrent" approach or "Cold War" situation in NI, it was all-out war. This fact alone makes yout argument irrelevant. Who said anything about a "Cold War" situation? It's just a straight comparison of the "Irish Troubles" and the middle east conflagration. Please read your own description of Israel's relationship with it's neighbors again. The Troubles - Wikipedia
quote: Discrimination and exclusionary policies are not ways to make friends. If Israel truly wants peace, they need to make friends, not more enemies.
Second, the problem still persists: it's the British occupation of NI and its mixed populace. The IRA terrorism was just a symptom, not the underlying problem itself. Just because everyone decided to talk it over doesn't mean that the problem's been solved, nor that the symptoms won't re-appear. Curiously, the solution has involved much more than just talk, it has included participation in government and in developing further solutions. Of course, if that breaks down then violence may reemerge for the same reasons it did originally, the same reasons that violence still exists in the middle east: marginalization and disenfranchising of people. Fascinatingly, these are also reasons for people to turn to crime ... Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Straggler writes: We are the same age. I know many people of our age (i.e. same school year) from Merthyr. The majority of whom went to Pen Y Dre school and who were presumably contemporaries, possibly even classmates, of yours. It seems highly likely that we will have a number of acquaintances and possibly even friends in common.A very small world indeed.. Indeed! Though I'm not so sure I'd like to meet some of the people I've known while I was there We didn't stay in the area long enough for me to make any lasting friendships, but I do have fond memories of a couple of butties from back then. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Legend Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 1226 From: Wales, UK Joined: |
Hi iano,
long time no chat! Still performing mental acrobatics in "God really exists" circus?
iano writes:
No. The intruders can much more safely neutralise the 'threat' to them by simply not invading in the first place. If the price for something is prohibitive, most people won't go for it.
Em... but wouldn't that simply increase the likelyhood of intruders taking up arms to counter the threat against them? iano writes:
well I learn something new every day! I can get rid of the Rottweiler now, it was too expensive to keep anyway. Thanks for the tip! Have you ever taken a lungful of CO2 in? Try it someday - it has the same effect as someone punching you in the face. So I'd suggest taking your finger off the 9mm trigger and downgrading your Home Defence Systems to a strategically place CO2 fire extinguisher or two. "We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Legend writes: No. The intruders can much more safely neutralise the 'threat' to them by simply not invading in the first place. If the price for something is prohibitive, most people won't go for it. Hi Legend.. Armed-to-the-teeth-America can act as our guide. Do they have burglaries there still? Or dramatically less burglaries than here? Perhaps a comparable guide can be hold-ups of liquor stores and the like in which both sides arm themselves and it's a question of shoot-first-ask-questions later - as countless YouTube videos make plain.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024