MillenniumMan Posted September 30, 2003 Report Posted September 30, 2003 That is faulty logic though. Its much like the arguments about gun possession. Switzerland has high availibility of small arms but low gun crimes. America has high availibility of small arms and high gun crime. Reducing the availibility of weapons is unlikely to make a difference to gun crime in switzerland because people treat the weapons with respect but is very likely to cut gun crime in the USA by making it harder to glamourise weapons. Hm.. thats the nicest way I can find of saying "I wouldn't trust americans to make their own decisions". Perhaps someone could find a better way of putting the idea across to mr. patriot. Oh it may cut "GUN" crime, but then the thugs don't care about the law. The good *Bahhhhhhhh* citizens would gladly give up their guns in the name of civic duty to their masters. Remember what happened to George Harrison about a year before he died from cancer? Some -*BAD WORD*- broke into his $3million mansion with all it's fancy high tech "modern" protection like alarms and lights and nearly stabbed him and his wife to death with a knife. Gee.... if the brits only had the sense to regulate the ownership of kitchen utensils..... But then he would have gone in with a cricket mallet or furnished something out of a rope, duct tape and a rock. Point is, you can't create a law that doesn't make sense because people still get hurt, even if you have some jackbooted thug enforcing it and make token arrests to set an example to the rest of the people as to what they should fear. Want to know what the difference is between organized crime and the current government? The current government has more money and troops... So what if I'm speaking in sedition? It's still a free country... or has the nation suddenly gone into a greater state of martial law?
madhaha Posted September 30, 2003 Author Report Posted September 30, 2003 1. Learn english.2. Learn reasoning.3. Come back. This isn't a place to randomly spout all your nationalistic issues and silly beliefs with no logic backing it.
MillenniumMan Posted September 30, 2003 Report Posted September 30, 2003 1. Learn english.2. Learn reasoning.3. Come back. This isn't a place to randomly spout all your nationalistic issues and silly beliefs with no logic backing it. 1. I know english. 2. My reasoning is pretty much shared with half the people on the board but they're too scared that they might be looked upon as peculiar or worse. I however am not. 3. I'm not going anywhere. I can make time to play with you, but not much. Beating a dead horse is fun until there's nothing left but a pile of dirty matted hair on the ground, then it's just a waste of my time... Uhhhhhh..... the politics forum isn't a place to randomly spout out my beliefs? Talk about faulty thinking. And who said nationalistic? I'm talking idealistic, I'm talking about letting people be people and not part of a nationalist hive mind whos mind changes with the person(s) in power. Those that believe in God or a number of gods may be seen as silly by those who don't, and vice-verse. What may be something you consider very important like your wanting to drive an SUV may be seen as rediculous and infact evil by some tree-hugging hippie, but it doesn't make him right because it's your choice to make and not his and you don't want someone else making such a lifestyle choice for you through their bantering or threats of violence ALA the E.L.F. Back to the gun issue, people in switzerland aren't sue-happy idiots like they are here. People are more afraid of getting sued by their attackers after capping them rather than being hurt. Unfortunatley we the people have become sheeple that are drawn more by what's in our wallets rather than what's in our minds. And as a lazy and incompetent people, we prefer our security over freedom and free choice. But in the process we have lost both. However, just so long as we can get the nice little conveniences in life like microwave ovens and Mr. Television that fills our minds with happy wasteful thoughts, then those other things that made us human beings over the eons won't be missed all that much. And now, for something more worthwhile that may get the point across, after all, I know most of you can't get through long articles or posts without wanting to look at pictures. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/josephgrant/byebyeterrorists.gif
G.T.O The Judge Posted September 30, 2003 Report Posted September 30, 2003 1. Learn english.2. Learn reasoning.3. Come back. This isn't a place to randomly spout all your nationalistic issues and silly beliefs with no logic backing it. 1. I know english. 2. My reasoning is pretty much shared with half the people on the board but they're too scared that they might be looked upon as peculiar or worse. I however am not. 3. I'm not going anywhere. I can make time to play with you, but not much. Beating a dead horse is fun until there's nothing left but a pile of dirty matted hair on the ground, then it's just a waste of my time... Uhhhhhh..... the politics forum isn't a place to randomly spout out my beliefs? Talk about faulty thinking. And who said nationalistic? I'm talking idealistic, I'm talking about letting people be people and not part of a nationalist hive mind whos mind changes with the person(s) in power. Those that believe in God or a number of gods may be seen as silly by those who don't, and vice-verse. What may be something you consider very important like your wanting to drive an SUV may be seen as rediculous and infact evil by some tree-hugging hippie, but it doesn't make him right because it's your choice to make and not his and you don't want someone else making such a lifestyle choice for you through their bantering or threats of violence ALA the E.L.F. Back to the gun issue, people in switzerland aren't sue-happy idiots like they are here. People are more afraid of getting sued by their attackers after capping them rather than being hurt. Unfortunatley we the people have become sheeple that are drawn more by what's in our wallets rather than what's in our minds. And as a lazy and incompetent people, we prefer our security over freedom and free choice. But in the process we have lost both. However, just so long as we can get the nice little conveniences in life like microwave ovens and Mr. Television that fills our minds with happy wasteful thoughts, then those other things that made us human beings over the eons won't be missed all that much. And now, for something more worthwhile that may get the point across, after all, I know most of you can't get through long articles or posts without wanting to look at pictures. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/josephgrant/byebyeterrorists.gif lol...i like the pic
Silk Posted September 30, 2003 Report Posted September 30, 2003 2. My reasoning is pretty much shared with half the people on the board but they're too scared that they might be looked upon as peculiar or worse. I however am not. I can see what you are saying but this implies more into physical interaction with people in the real world. Not over a forum site, maybe youre right some people are scared to speak up on the net but why would they be afraid of what someone thinks of them over the net? They will never see that person in life. Uhhhhhh..... the politics forum isn't a place to randomly spout out my beliefs? Youre spewing these beliefs under the Consent Age thread, all of what you say doesnt imply to this threads topic. And youre picture is a lie. Even if we did allow pedestrians to carry concealed weapons anywhere they like, does the cartoonist really think hijackers would come onto a plane with knives?
Evil Jin Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 theyd come on with ak's and 50 c4 to blow our !@#$%^&*es we need laws to keep us alive its a good/bad thing we dont have anarchy my opinion dont flame me and try not to quote me
Aileron Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 2. My reasoning is pretty much shared with half the people on the board but they're too scared that they might be looked upon as peculiar or worse. I however am not. Actually, it has nothing to do with be scared. It has more to with the fact that first of all you already said it and posting to say the same thing would be nothing but spam. Secondly, you are going off topic. And youre picture is a lie. Even if we did allow pedestrians to carry concealed weapons anywhere they like, does the cartoonist really think hijackers would come onto a plane with knives? The overall point would be that if all regular citizens had guns, while it would be easier to obtain weapons, it would be MUCH more difficult to carry out acts of violence. Put it this way, what would the terrorists have to take on the plane in order for them in order to subdue, but not kill, the armed passengers? Also, they would have to crash the plane to be successfull, so the answer can't be a bomb.
Silk Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 The overall point would be that if all regular citizens had guns, while it would be easier to obtain weapons, it would be MUCH more difficult to carry out acts of violence. Put it this way, what would the terrorists have to take on the plane in order for them in order to subdue, but not kill, the armed passengers? Also, they would have to crash the plane to be successfull, so the answer can't be a bomb. Why would it be harder to achieve a act of violonce if weapons were easier to obtain? It wouldnt, there are people out in the world that just dont care if someone else has a weapon or they will die as long as they take someone else down with them. If the government allowed weapons to be easier obtained and easier to take with you anywhere, what is going to stop someone from going on a killing spree? What is going to stop a gang of people from robbing a store or a house? It wouldnt, it would make it easier for them to do that.
Silk Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 Meh, someone needs to make a weapons thread, this has gone off thanks to mad
Aileron Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 Well, I mistermed that. It would be harder for someone who doesn't want to die to commit minor acts of violence safely. As for someone suicidal, it probably would be easier to start the act, but the act would probably (yes, not ALL the time, but most of the time) do less damage. Also, note that it would not be a LOT easier to start the act. The 9/11 terrorists couldn't sneak a gun on to a plane, so they snuck box cutters. There are easy ways to commit violence without guns, and if murder is the goal, the threat of jailtime for carrying a gun is not a deterrent. You must look into why people need weapons to commit acts of violence. Why not use fists? The obvious answer is that the commiter of the crime would have no advantage of the victim. Thus, the threat won't scare the victim and any attempt of murder would be difficult and risky. It would lead into further complications if the criminal or terrorist wanted to kill or subdue a GROUP of people. Thus, criminals and terrorists need the weapons as a means of getting an advantage over their vicitims. Basically, if everyone had guns, it would be easy to get a weapon. However, it would be more difficult to gain a decent advantage. It would do nothing to deny the criminal a weapon, but it would deny the criminal the chief USE of the weapon - to gain an advantage over a victim. Suppose you wanted to kidnap somebody. Suppose you have the whole thing planned out except for the abduction. If they don't have a gun, how do you get an advantage? You either get an illegally obtained gun or any other weapon such as a knife or club. Now, suppose they did. In order to get an advantage, you would need either a bigger conspicous gun, a partner that might stab you in the back, or something else. Point being, while obtaining the weapon is easier, the act itself is more difficult.
madhaha Posted October 1, 2003 Author Report Posted October 1, 2003 I disagree totally. You can have my reply if you start a seperate thread. Also, doesn't opening fire in a pressurised cabin stuffed with people seem like a bad idea to anyone? Now get back on topic!
Silk Posted October 1, 2003 Report Posted October 1, 2003 I agree with mad about the disagreeng and ya im not replying either
MillenniumMan Posted October 2, 2003 Report Posted October 2, 2003 Silk, you have to realize that an armed populace means that the real criminals are going to be more fearful of what may happen to them. Scenario 1: A 6 month pregnant mother to be is jogging in a park on chicago, where private handgun concealment is banned, some thug son of a -*BAD WORD*- comes out from behind a tree and demands her money. There are a few joggers nearby and he has a gun. Out of sheer malice he caps the pregnant mother anyway and tries the same with some of the witnesses. Many scream and run away in fear of their lives. Scenario 2: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals around the age of 12 are nearby (no AOC law for conceal-carry but required training). The same stupid thug comes out from behind the same -*BAD WORD*-ing tree and pulls out the same -*BAD WORD*-ing gun. All of a sudden there's five or six guys with various styles of gun from colt peacemakers to tech-9s trained on the guys head and they blast him all to -*BAD WORD*-. The 12 year old stands over the thugs now bullet ridden corpse, and the young man says "stupid punk -*BAD WORD*- beoooootch" and spits in the massive hole in the thugs head. Scenario 3: The same pregnant mother is jogging along the same path in the same park, several other joggers, mothers fathers and yes younger induviduals are nearby. The same tree is still there, and the pregnant mother-to-be passes by the tree without incident. Why? Because the thug realizes that it wouldn't be safe for him to try anything on this or any other day. He gets a sorry--*BAD WORD*- job at wal-mart as a greeter because he couldn't cut it doing anything else decent. Aieleron: Some people just don't get it... Glad you do. Madhaha: Despite what you've been told, it takes a far bigger hole than what one or two rounds going through the cabin of a 737 to cause it to depressurize. Those sons of -*BAD WORD*-es were on a mission to kill hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground. Think of what would have happened if the passengers of flight 93 didnt act, most likely we would have a hundred dead senators *not necessecarily a bad thing* but there would also be hundreds of dead civilians on the ground as well. Now, if the people on board were armed at the time, the hijacking wouldnt have even taken place because the -*BAD WORD*-s wouldn't have been able to fufill their objective of smashing into a building in the first place. And don't give me that bomb crap either. Yeah it would have killed everyone on board the plane, but that already happened when the -*BAD WORD*-s barrel rolled flight 93 without using one. Objective still unobtained. Point is, if someones going to do something to hurt others, if someone's determined enough then no half-!@#$%^&*ed law is going to stop them. Sure, measures like creating new laws will make the world a safer place, but only for the real criminals. Anti gun legislation like the brady bill, prohibition, the age of consent laws, creation of the IRS and department of fatherland security are all examples of idealism taken one step too far, that in the end hurts more people than said ideas claim to protect.
Silk Posted October 2, 2003 Report Posted October 2, 2003 Im not going to reply to this, even though i just did make a new thread and well discuss.
MillenniumMan Posted October 2, 2003 Report Posted October 2, 2003 Im not going to reply to this, even though i just did make a new thread and well discuss. What's stopping you? ;p Actualy this was throuroughly discussed in another thread here on the political forum a while back before they screwed it all up and we lost all the posts
Silk Posted October 3, 2003 Report Posted October 3, 2003 Ya i know made me mad my posts were gone. But ya ill make a thread real fast and be back laters
Recommended Posts