Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Swamp_Thing on February 14, 2005, 04:34:37 am
-
Not again?!?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6964215/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6964215/)
There must something in the water, in America. Something that makes ordinary people pick up a gun and start spraying...
Now, if there was gun control in the US, chances are this man would not have a gun to go postal with. I wonder how many more post offices, malls and restaurants will have to be shot to pieces and how many more have to die, before gun control starts getting the discussion it deserves.
:wtf:
-
This is a bigger issue than simply gun control, there are a lot of angry, depressed, confused and unsatisfied people out there and the problem stems from what western "culture" has evolved into, people are bankrupt mental health wise, products of barrages of advertising in every form of media, misinformation from vast media monopolies, lies, hypocrisy, a lack of spirituality (which is a very different beast to religion) and a vast consumer culture that's making whores out of us all.
You address these problems and maybe you can stop the rage that these people are feeling, the pure anger at being ousted by a society that demands conformity and uniform.
Of course, he could just be a definite crazy. Who knows?
-
Maybe the president should.. Oh yeah.. ..Hopefully the next president will make a few gun control laws...
-
Guns don't kill people, wanna know why?.. sit a gun onna table, and no matter how much you dare it to shoot you, it just sits there..
a firearm is a tool, like no other.. which, in the hands of the intelligent and incompetant alike, can be a truely dangerous tool indeed
therefore, guns don't kill people... idiots kill people.
but yeah, some more strict gun licensing would help. heck, look at australia, our gun laws would make many an american weep tears of blood, because they won't have their precious semi-auto firearms to hunt animals, throwing natural selection out of balance. :blah:
-
Originally posted by 01010
This is a bigger issue than simply gun control, there are a lot of angry, depressed, confused and unsatisfied people out there and the problem stems from what western "culture" has evolved into, people are bankrupt mental health wise, products of barrages of advertising in every form of media, misinformation from vast media monopolies, lies, hypocrisy, a lack of spirituality (which is a very different beast to religion) and a vast consumer culture that's making whores out of us all.
You address these problems and maybe you can stop the rage that these people are feeling, the pure anger at being ousted by a society that demands conformity and uniform.
Of course, he could just be a definite crazy. Who knows?
Stop or restrict the 'picking up a gun part' and you have at least a partial solution, though.
-
You want to know why this happens?
Because of all those damn M-rated games. These grownups got their hands on 'em when they were kids, and BLAMMO! :p
For the humor-deficient amongst us, that was a joke.
-
Obviously, however, if someone really wants to get hold of something, they can. I don't think that gun control should be the only issue when faced with problems like this, because, at the end of the day a gun is just a weapon, if you ban them it's still easy enough to get a knife and go on a stabbing spree if you were that way inclined.
I think more should be done on addressing the reasons why these people react to society in this way rather than letting them get this way and only stopping them on the last hurdle.
-
Originally posted by 01010
Obviously, however, if someone really wants to get hold of something, they can. I don't think that gun control should be the only issue when faced with problems like this, because, at the end of the day a gun is just a weapon, if you ban them it's still easy enough to get a knife and go on a stabbing spree if you were that way inclined.
I think more should be done on addressing the reasons why these people react to society in this way rather than letting them get this way and only stopping them on the last hurdle.
There's 2 things there, though;
1; they have to work harder to get a gun, even on the black market. That makes it more difficult or at the least longer, and thus makes this sort of thing require more consideration and gives greater time for the planned crime to be detected.... if it's a nutcase on a rampage, maybe it forces them to wait long enough for them to come to their senses.
2; A knife is less dangerous than an automatic weapon, or indeed any gun. A gun can fire >6 bullets from long range, a knife requires close range use.
Yeah, we have to tackle the reasons these things happen, but can it really hurt to remove as many of the 'tools' used in them? Because there's almost always going to be some nutcase who slips through the net, in which case you need the damage control.
-
I was agreeing with you on the damage control don't get me wrong, I do agree that guns should be more controlled definitely but I do get annoyed that this is all people seem to focus on, because if someone is determined that someone else is to blame for their problems and they are determined to hurt someone, they will, regardless of the weapon they get hold of.
I'm not going to say a knife is more dangerous or equally dangerous to a gun, it's not, it's a completely different kind of weapon, used in a far different manner, it's easy(er) to conceal a knife both before and after use, it's silent and whats more, in a crowd of people, who's to know who is doing what. Look what happened at the Notting Hill Carnival a few years back. Not even mentioning the fallability of the user of a gun, aiming a gun is nowhere near as easy as T.V and movies make it out to be, especially an automatic (though I respect your intelligence enough to think you already know this).
Personally I'd like to see a study into the mindset of people that do go "postal" because I've never seen one and I bet there would be a hell of a lot of similarities in the mindset and situations of the people that do these things.
So yeah, gun control is necessary most certainly, however I think it's the smallest part of a much longer chain of things that need to happen.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I was agreeing with you on the damage control don't get me wrong, I do agree that guns should be more controlled definitely but I do get annoyed that this is all people seem to focus on, because if someone is determined that someone else is to blame for their problems and they are determined to hurt someone, they will, regardless of the weapon they get hold of.
I'm not going to say a knife is more dangerous or equally dangerous to a gun, it's not, it's a completely different kind of weapon, used in a far different manner, it's easy(er) to conceal a knife both before and after use, it's silent and whats more, in a crowd of people, who's to know who is doing what. Look what happened at the Notting Hill Carnival a few years back. Not even mentioning the fallability of the user of a gun, aiming a gun is nowhere near as easy as T.V and movies make it out to be, especially an automatic (though I respect your intelligence enough to think you already know this).
Well, yeah. I mean, this guy emptied a clip and only (only!) hit 2 people... but on the whole I think guns used in this way are more dangerous. Even thinking of the (certified) loony who ran naked in a church and attempted to massacre the congregation with a samurai sword - he didn't actually kill anyone IIRC. I'm not sure it would have been the same situation with a shotgun or even pistol at that range, but in this situation I think a gun is definately more dangerous because it's easier to shoot at (even if you don't hit) someone than stab them; and that makes it harder to stop the person shooting, because you can't get close as easily.
Of course, a secondary arguement for gun control is that if you legislate or even ban weapons and shooting ranges, then you're in a better position to stop people becoming lethal with a weapon, and maybe also detect those who wish to be.
What I'm thinking is, you have 2 parts. One is the person, and the other is the weapon. The former will be longer, and harder to 'correct' than the latter (whilst more important), but you need both to be safe.
-
Most of the times, these attacks are not premeditated. They happen almost instantly. Some guy snaps, grabs his gun from the closet, and goes on a killing spree. But if the gun is not there, by the time you get your hands on one, you would be hopefully out of your homicidal rampage.
Guns don´t kill, people do, that´s right. But the convenient presence of a gun eliminates that time period a guy would need to reflect on his actions. With a gun present, you immediatelly jump into action and do your thing. But if you have to go look for one, there´s a chance that you would cool off and think about it with a more clear head.
Gun control isn´t enough by itself. Even if you instated the most severe gun control today, it would take maybe decades before you rid the country of the millions of existing guns. And that´s why gun control hasn´t been implemented yet. Presidents want their actions to bare fruit almost immediatelly. They would never risk a public uproar knowing that the fruits of their labour would only turn up long after he had stepped out of office.
But if no one takes that first step, there´s no way to solve this.
I find it hard to believe that it´s just a coincidence that the countries where such rampages happen are also those where guns are much more widespread.
You can´t help it if people go crazy, but you can make sure they aren´t armed when they do.
-
But what you don't understand is that people in America have a very different view. It's just like soccer. Most Americans with the exception of watching thier little kids playing soccer, hate professional soccer. Why? THat's just the way it is. You think they are going to get rid of guns in America or limit them in derastic way? Hell no. You got the NRA, NAHC, etc that won't let that happen plus a very large market that would be hurting. Not just the hunters, but the competition shooters as well. And then you also have this.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Yes, people say it is out dated, but it is still part of the Bill of Rights. Something that shouldn't be touched.
That doesn't mean just Militia, National Guard, that means everybody.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
But what you don't understand is that people in America have a very different view. It's just like soccer. Most Americans with the exception of watching thier little kids playing soccer, hate professional soccer. Why? THat's just the way it is. You think they are going to get rid of guns in America or limit them in derastic way? Hell no. You got the NRA, NAHC, etc that won't let that happen plus a very large market that would be hurting. Not just the hunters, but the competition shooters as well. And then you also have this.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Yes, people say it is out dated, but it is still part of the Bill of Rights. Something that shouldn't be touched.
That doesn't mean just Militia, National Guard, that means everybody.
Why shouldn't be touched? Surely it's completely unecessary for that purpose? The US is completely free from the threat of invasion (the only armies large enough to threaten are an ocean away), and surely US democracy isn't so weak as to require mobs?
And aren't amendments to the Constitution withdrawable anyways? Such as Prohibition, for example?
Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment dates from a very different time (1791); this is before the concept of a national police force came into force (in that age governments were also very laissez faire in their attitudes, I believe; so policing would be a local rather than national issue). And, of course, shortly after independence (and thus aware of the danger of invasion, be it from the UK or maybe even from former allies such as the French? this is complete conjecture, of course).
It's also ambiguous as to what militia means in that context; you'll no doubt notice the regulated part of that - which implies to me either a formally organized pseud-military group (such as the TA, or police; IIRC at that time there was no intention of a formal standing US army in the manner of the more war-like european/colonial powers), or some form of control over who had arms. From what i understand, the only Supreme Court decision regarding the 2nd amendment (US vs Miller, 1939) ruled that only the right to bear military weapons was protected by the second amendment, and that these weapons had to be for use as part of 'the common defense' (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174).
-
Here's what "militia" means. (http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/RKBA/militia.html). It's not very vague. Basically it's the armed populace (men), who also know how to use their weapons.
/derail
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Why shouldn't be touched? Surely it's completely unecessary for that purpose? The US is completely free from the threat of invasion (the only armies large enough to threaten are an ocean away), and surely US democracy isn't so weak as to require mobs?
And aren't amendments to the Constitution withdrawable anyways? Such as Prohibition, for example?
Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment dates from a very different time (1791); this is before the concept of a national police force came into force (in that age governments were also very laissez faire in their attitudes, I believe; so policing would be a local rather than national issue). And, of course, shortly after independence (and thus aware of the danger of invasion, be it from the UK or maybe even from former allies such as the French? this is complete conjecture, of course).
It's also ambiguous as to what militia means in that context; you'll no doubt notice the regulated part of that - which implies to me either a formally organized pseud-military group (such as the TA, or police; IIRC at that time there was no intention of a formal standing US army in the manner of the more war-like european/colonial powers), or some form of control over who had arms. From what i understand, the only Supreme Court decision regarding the 2nd amendment (US vs Miller, 1939) ruled that only the right to bear military weapons was protected by the second amendment, and that these weapons had to be for use as part of 'the common defense' (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174).
It is part of the Bill of Rights. Amendments 1 through 10. I think they are unchangable.
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
therefore, guns don't kill people
Wappers do
Sorry
-
They passed some rules in 1791, and decided that they could not be changed, ever? :eek:
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
It is part of the Bill of Rights. Amendments 1 through 10. I think they are unchangable.
So the older a rule is, the less it is open to change? I would think that would be flying the face of progress, especially for a nation which repealed slavery and (much later on) segregation much later after they were written.
Originally posted by Gank
Wappers do
Sorry
pffffffftttttttttt.......:lol:
-
Well, they can always be changed...
Maybe it's 2nd republic time for the US too?
-
I vote for more vacation time. Americans are ****ing workoholics, and they really need to cut it out. It's unhealthy, and it drives those of us who want to enjoy life absolutely crazy.
-
that reminds me
http://drudgereport.com/flashss.htm
let them eat cake.
-
:lol: He's so clueless.
-
Originally posted by 01010
This is a bigger issue than simply gun control, there are a lot of angry, depressed, confused and unsatisfied people out there and the problem stems from what western "culture" has evolved into, people are bankrupt mental health wise, products of barrages of advertising in every form of media, misinformation from vast media monopolies, lies, hypocrisy, a lack of spirituality (which is a very different beast to religion) and a vast consumer culture that's making whores out of us all.
You address these problems and maybe you can stop the rage that these people are feeling, the pure anger at being ousted by a society that demands conformity and uniform.
Of course, he could just be a definite crazy. Who knows?
Couldn't have said it better myself. How can anyone be expected to display ever increasing conformity while the world is growing crazier and more restictive to our nature by the minute? To be act "normal" in a insane world, thats the true insanity.
-
Just to clarify an earlier statement, and without any political commentary on the thread topic, the Bill of Rights is no more secure from potential changes than any other part of the Constitution. That being said, the odds of any part of the Bill of Rights being repealed/edited are slim to none, partly because of their historical significance, partly because, in such a short list, they lay out an historically unprecedented declaration of civil liberties that is still just as relevant today (for the most part; "quartering of troops" isn't that big of a deal anymore) as the day they were written. Most politicians wouldn't even propose such a change, and I doubt most well-informed people would agree with one, either.
-
Surely that would depend on what that change was?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Wappers do
Sorry
:lol: Yes!
My opinion: If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people. Take away the guns, and you'll have a staggering reduction in gun crime. Nobody needs a gun, so why should they be allowed to have them? And we're talking about assault rifles here. Military-grade weapons. How on earth is it acceptable for people to own military hardware?
This reminds me of Medieval Europe. Remember when everyone used to wear swords? And how there were huge numbers of deaths and serious injuries from duelling? Well, there aren't many of those any more. Can you guess why?
-
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.
Anything can be a potential weapons. A grown adult of average intelect and with a desire to do harm can kill hundreds before he is caught, more if he's smarter and more determined. You can't take away the means, you have to take away the reason.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.
Anything can be a potential weapons. A grown adult of average intelect and with a desire to do harm can kill hundreds before he is caught, more if he's smarter and more determined. You can't take away the means, you have to take away the reason.
Crime isn't always committed by victims of society, y'know - it's a quick, easy way to make money as well. There are always going to be people who take that option; you can't just rely upon the intrinsic good nature of the human race even if you iron out the problems with society.
And weapons control is also about protection of the innocents - a gun can accidentally kill someone, after all (i.e. if a kid gets hold of one). And what is the benefit of legalising lethal weapons anyways, and how does it outweigh the lives lost through intentional or inadvertant gun use?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.
Anything can be a potential weapons. A grown adult of average intelect and with a desire to do harm can kill hundreds before he is caught, more if he's smarter and more determined. You can't take away the means, you have to take away the reason.
I have to disagree. A gun is not "potentially" dangerous. It is designed purely to kill, to take life (be it human or otherwise). What else are they, what else can they be for other than to allow a person to kill another person incredibly easily? You take away that ease, and you'll find that most people won't bother. True, they may still have a burst of murderous rage, but if they don't have an instrument of death immediately to hand, then chances are they'll give up or calm down before they vent their rage on a person.
A knife can be used for many things. A gun can only be used for one.
EDIT: heheh, kara summed it up sooo much better than I did... ;)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.
So why not give everyone bazookas and be done with it then? Strike a blow for the rights of the common man!
-
so what about farmers and things who may need guns to deal with dying livestock or to defend them against random invading predators? completely banning guns may not be viable, although i agree that more stringent measures are probably a good idea, especially in the case of america.
you know, when we were little, it seemed like living in america might be close to paradise. now, it's just like, ew, america?
-
That's a fair point. Of course, we haven't got lots of dangerous predators here (foxes are about the worst, though people seem to think the best way to deal with them is chase them for hours and have hounds rip them to pieces), but I don't think that anything above a shotgun (a 1 or 2-shot, break-barrel type, not a pump-action) would really be necessary. But then licences should be required, and they should be thoroughly checked and followed-up. Selling weapons like they were hand tools is reckless, dangerous and (in my opinion) asking for trouble.
-
I wouldn't shoot a fox with a shotgun. A .22 rifle is more to my taste. I've rarely gotten close enough to a fox to shoot it with a shotgun. I used to own cattle, and killing feral dogs and coyotes is a must if you want to keep your calves.
And on the Medieval Swords, people still kill each other with them. There was a girl a couple months ago down the road from my house was killed with one.
-
I see its going to be one of those conversations. OK...
My point is that its not the law thats in need of reform, its people. As long as people want to kill, they will find a way to do it. If crime is made possible by physical violence, taking away guns just drops the level of sophistication. Look at Rwanda. No nukes, no jet fighters, barely even a few guns. And yet at the end of the day, there were still hundreds of thousands of corpses, due to what...? Machetes and clubs.
Lets say that all guns are outlawed tommorow. And let say that its possible to enforce the ban against those most likely to abuse them: criminal organizations. Well, crime isn't going to go away. But now, instead of drive-bys, you're going to get people using improvised weapons like baseball bats and make-shift swords or whatever. Yes, guns are a means to commit crimes, but they are certainly not the only means.
And just to clarify, yes, a gun is *potentially* dangerous, because there is a chance that it will not be used to harm anyone. Which percentage of gun owners do you think have ever used them to commit a crime? I would be surprised if it was 1%. The arguement that there is no other purpose which guns serve is moot. You're not banning it on the grounds that its useless, you're banning it on the grounds that its useful. I have the right to keep as many useless objects as I wish. By the same token, no one should be allowed to keep swords, since what purpose do they serve other than to harm people?
Like I said, taking away the means doesn't solve the problem, you have to get at it some other way. And just to state the obvious, I'm not implying that everyone who uses guns to kill people is poor and oppressed, but the arguement is no less valid for real criminals.
-
This is where Ford rains on Rictor's parade by asserting that people are essentially incapable of that sort of change, and thus have always been, and will always be, the same.
Seriously though, I certainly agree that taking away guns isn't going to make people stop wanting to kill each other, but it's a matter of degree. Guns make violence more efficient. If they had been more plentiful in Rwanda, the Tutsis probably would have had an even bigger party.
In short, you can't stop violence by taking away guns, but it would probably help.
-
Of course taking away guns won't stop crime. I never said it would. That would be a stupid thing to say. The problem is, with your argument, you'd have to impose Brave New World-style brainwashing and conditioning on people to get them to behave acceptably all the time. People are fundamentally evil bastards - they've been like that forever, and you're not going to be able to change them, no matter how much you try. It's a nice dream, but nothing more. Idealism is all well and good, but you have to look at reality occasionally to see how unlikely it is that your vision will ever come to be.
If you take guns away, deaths will drop. You must be on another planet if you think otherwise (I don't mean that personally).
-
Thing is, unless you are dealing with something bigger than a large dog, a Rat-Catcher or similar weapon is more than sufficient to driving off presdators, the only problem is a lot of farmers think that reduceing the predator to pate with a Shotgun is the only way to be sure.
While just about anyone can lay their hands on a weapon that can kill people, then just about everyone can lay their hands with a weapon that kills people. I wouldn't buy a hammer if I wasn't planning to hit a few nails with it. Theres no point to someone in a city owning a gun unless they intend to use it on other people.
-
Crime is a combination of means & motive. The best solution is to try and minimise both.
-
Well, criminals commit crimes, and no matter how Utopian a society we create, I think we will always have those who will try to exploit or deface it. When desperation is gone, Greed, Control and Power will be the motives.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
When desperation is gone, Greed, Control and Power will be the motives.
I find this very interesting. Desperation is only a motive for the lowest level of criminal. Petty thieves and the like. Greed, control and power already are the motives, the further you move up the ladder, the more this is the case. So then, at the very top, you have the criminals in which these motives are the most powerful, and who subsequently wield the greatest power of society. We call them politicians, businessmen, religious leaders and media moguls. Love of power is one of the cornerstones of any organization, its not avoidable, and love of money is a subset of that. What bigger and more powerful organization exists than a state?
Petty criminals break laws, powerful criminals make them.
--------------
pyro: I never implied that Brave New World style "education" is what I would advocate to fight crime. Quite the opposite. Society is fundamentally composed of individuals, and to curtail the rights on the individual in favour of the rights of the group, is to me repulsive. It is becuase I think that people are flawed that I don't support severe gun resitriction. I think its quite short-sighted to give one group, any group, a monopoly on force. Because at the end of the day, you can guarantee you freedom only through force. Cynical, yes, but can you deny it?
-
Indeed, powerful criminals don't carry guns, they simply employ people that do.
The fact is that a Gun is not just a method of killing, though that is the job it is designed for, but like any weapon, it is a means of control, to coerce people into doing things by using the threat of Death. Whether it be to hand over your pocket money or build an oil pipeline.
That's why you can't take the guns out of the hands of those that cause a lot of crime, because their hands are clean, but you can at least try to limit the tools of control that they use.
-
Natural Selection has to occur somehow.
-
Indeed, but how many thousands have died to stop the 'Rule of the Biggest Stick' which is how Hierarchy works amongst apes etc, and yet it still goes on.
-
Natural Selection has to occur somehow.
No it doesn't. Natural selection isn't like physics; it's not a law, just a process.
-
Actually we push Evolution to it's limits, we have the most varied Gene Pool of any species. Though 'Natural Selection' is almost as murky a term as 'Survival of the Fittest' ;)
-
Surround yourself with foolish people, with foolish laws, with foolish weapons, and surely you become a fool yourself.
Slightly sadistic but meh.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Actually we push Evolution to it's limits, we have the most varied Gene Pool of any species. Though 'Natural Selection' is almost as murky a term as 'Survival of the Fittest' ;)
Actually, I think the human race arguably has less genetic diversity than, for example, a social group of chimps.
( Based on a Swedish study into the mitochondrial DNA of 53 people which suggested modern humans are descended from a breeding group of only a few hundred - although, there is the case of the 'Mungo man'; a 62,000 year old modern human skeleton with genetically distinct DNA, so it's not conclusive by any means)
-
The question we should be asking is where the hell is this mans aim?! Holy crap a whole clip of an automatic weapon (estimating about 30 rounds) and wounding only two in a shopping mall that was Crowded? jesus this dude sucks balls.
-
Originally posted by Krackers87
The question we should be asking is where the hell is this mans aim?! Holy crap a whole clip of an automatic weapon (estimating about 30 rounds) and wounding only two in a shopping mall that was Crowded? jesus this dude sucks balls.
Wait, was this the guy who MAYBE had an assault weapon, but more likely a pistol or other small handgunl, and who almost emptied an entire magazine - but more likely just a few rounds?
edit: Whoops I am dumb and not up to date. My mistake. Assault weapon confirmed.
-
He had an 'assault-type' rifle and stopped shooting when he ran out of ammunition.
Of course, after the first shot or 2 many people would have ran like hell or sought cover.
-
And he would be most likely hitting a good part of ceiling by then.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
And he would be most likely hitting a good part of ceiling by then.
I checked out the entire megathread in an internets at my leisure.
The guy had an Kalashnikov-clone called Hesse, and he bought it roughly 10 years ago. And even better is the fact that this guy emptied TWO MAGS, managing to hit ONE PERSON - in leg. What a spectacular shooter he is.
-
Originally posted by Janos
I checked out the entire megathread in an internets at my leisure.
The guy had an Kalashnikov-clone called Hesse, and he bought it roughly 10 years ago. And even better is the fact that this guy emptied TWO MAGS, managing to hit ONE PERSON - in leg. What a spectacular shooter he is.
Man, whata noob.
-
Originally posted by Rictor:
pyro: I never implied that Brave New World style "education" is what I would advocate to fight crime. Quite the opposite. Society is fundamentally composed of individuals, and to curtail the rights on the individual in favour of the rights of the group, is to me repulsive. It is becuase I think that people are flawed that I don't support severe gun resitriction. I think its quite short-sighted to give one group, any group, a monopoly on force. Because at the end of the day, you can guarantee you freedom only through force. Cynical, yes, but can you deny it?
Dammit, I spent a long time writing a response to this, but then I read it back and realised it was incomprehensible. I can't express myself well enough to argue this properly.... :sigh: I'll try again, but I'm about as eloquent as a not-very-eloquent-thing....
I think you have to work on changing the little things before you can worry about the big things. Yes, in theory the only way to defend your freedom is by force, but that's only necessary if there is someone directly threatening to take it from you by force. In the modern world, this doesn't happen very often on the traditional scale any more, ie. a country invading another country in an attempt to conquer it. More often than not it's now a case of one person trying to take something from someone else. Denying them the means to easily do that will make it much harder for them to do it, and so less likely to try. Yes, you can make a point that "the state" could try to do this to everyone, and that people have the right to defend themselves from this, but that isn't a likely scenario. The people are the state. The state is nothing without the people, and the people are nothing without the state. There may be people within the state that want more for themselves, but that's simple greed.
Dammit again, I can't do this properly. That reads dreadfully as well. :doubt:
I can't seem to make my point here. Bloody hell.
EDIT: On a related note, guns are for pussies.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Dammit, I spent a long time writing a response to this, but then I read it back and realised it was incomprehensible. I can't express myself well enough to argue this properly.... :sigh: I'll try again, but I'm about as eloquent as a not-very-eloquent-thing....
I think you have to work on changing the little things before you can worry about the big things. Yes, in theory the only way to defend your freedom is by force, but that's only necessary if there is someone directly threatening to take it from you by force. In the modern world, this doesn't happen very often on the traditional scale any more, ie. a country invading another country in an attempt to conquer it. More often than not it's now a case of one person trying to take something from someone else. Denying them the means to easily do that will make it much harder for them to do it, and so less likely to try. Yes, you can make a point that "the state" could try to do this to everyone, and that people have the right to defend themselves from this, but that isn't a likely scenario. The people are the state. The state is nothing without the people, and the people are nothing without the state. There may be people within the state that want more for themselves, but that's simple greed.
Dammit again, I can't do this properly. That reads dreadfully as well. :doubt:
I can't seem to make my point here. Bloody hell.
EDIT: On a related note, guns are for pussies.
Is this what you mean;
a) human society is a reflection of human nature - i.e. those who comprise it, not just those who govern it
b) society can be changed by government or enlightened individuals, but drastic, even utopian, change is highly unlikely to be possible due to human self-interest and our most basic biases and fears. For true change, you need a consensus amongst everyone; which is simply impossible.
c) society is shaped by both the needs of individuals and the group as a whole; all of recorded history AFAIK has had humanity living in social groups - from family, to tribe, to city-state, to nation. As such, you need a balance between what is good for the individual and what is good for society - hence why we have laws (against theft, murder, etc).
In the case of guns, this is also protection against one group having force and the other not - namely, those able to get and use guns (and who are willing to do so), and those who do not. The only equality possibly in that circumstance is to allow everyone to carry the same type of gun with the same level of ability; and even then it will undoubtedly cause problems due to the differences in human nature (i.e. one person will use the gun to protect themselves, the other to settle an arguement, etc). Human nature is to abuse power, which is why we have to regulate it in some manner.
d) Freedom to defend youself by force, can entail freedom to supress dissent by force. (this applies to the balance of power between individual freedom to act and the restrictions imposed by society)
e) The use of an organised, regulated society is part of the human self-preservation instinct - call it herd protection if you will.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Is this what you mean;
a) human society is a reflection of human nature - i.e. those who comprise it, not just those who govern it
[/b]
Usually politics, economy and outside pressure have a bigger impact on societies than society itself or people who form a society. See B.
b) society can be changed by government or enlightened individuals, but drastic, even utopian, change is highly unlikely to be possible due to human self-interest and our most basic biases and fears. For true change, you need a consensus amongst everyone; which is simply impossible.
Big changes in societies are almost always shaped or provoked by some kind of a crisis or sudden change in enviroment (political, social, geopolitical, military, religious).
If completely isolated from outside world, a society will swing all around the spectrum until some kind of balance is reached, then they tend to stagnate and find a balanced status. This does not require any kind of absolute morals or even practicality - traditions and what is most suitable for society are usually the strongest factors.In more hermetic socities any appearance of an outside force usually provokes a strong response of some kind.
e) The use of an organised, regulated society is part of the human self-preservation instinct - call it herd protection if you will. [/B]
We're pack animals. Some kind of society and interaction with other humans, plus all hierarchy stuff, is basically a must for a human being.
Term "society" is really vague. Like all cultural or political terms, it has bazillion affecting factors, the ultimate being the other communs and packs.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Usually politics, economy and outside pressure have a bigger impact on societies than society itself or people who form a society. See B.
Reaction to outside stimuli is an inhernet part of society; same as you can define individual reactions as being part of human nature. Politics & economy are parts of society (in my definition); political and economic structures are created and perpetuaated by society
Big changes in societies are almost always shaped or provoked by some kind of a crisis or sudden change in enviroment (political, social, geopolitical, military, religious).
If completely isolated from outside world, a society will swing all around the spectrum until some kind of balance is reached, then they tend to stagnate and find a balanced status. This does not require any kind of absolute morals or even practicality - traditions and what is most suitable for society are usually the strongest factors.In more hermetic socities any appearance of an outside force usually provokes a strong response of some kind.
Permanent change is different from response, though. Response is by nature temporary; it exists for as long as needed (an outside threat, for example), and is often geared towards removing what required that response - regardless, the type of change I'm talking about is not in societal laws, but the basic human nature of that society.
We're pack animals. Some kind of society and interaction with other humans, plus all hierarchy stuff, is basically a must for a human being.
Term "society" is really vague. Like all cultural or political terms, it has bazillion affecting factors, the ultimate being the other communs and packs.
Agreed, but there's not really a good general word to use instead in this context, is there?
[/B]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Reaction to outside stimuli is an inhernet part of society; same as you can define individual reactions as being part of human nature. Politics & economy are parts of society (in my definition); political and economic structures are created and perpetuaated by society.
Permanent change is different from response, though. Response is by nature temporary; it exists for as long as needed (an outside threat, for example), and is often geared towards removing what required that response - regardless, the type of change I'm talking about is not in societal laws, but the basic human nature of that society.
Uhh. I was maybe too vague, I used the term society to describe a group of people who form their own community and interact with other communities/societies.urgh. Maybe our terms are nowhere near the same. That's what I get from hopping onto discussion without thinking or setting up parameters for inevitable discussion. :/ Well anyways. I was talking about long-term change in society, not about human nature (which changes slowly, but changes anyways). Actually I was not looking for an arguement, but here goes!
If a society has to react on something, it will soon find ways. These reactions are never without consequences, and a crisis usually also widens the internal gaps of any society. Rapidly changing enviroment is something the humans as a species are accustomed to but really, really not fond of. Responses provoked by an outside factor inevitably affect the society, which will lead to new movements inside them (the state of balance is a delicate issue), and these changes now have their own long-term effects, which can effect other societies or become internal crisises and so one.
The entire equation is essentially unstable, and so any small change has potential to grow uncontrollably.
Going to bed in T-10 minutes and counting.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Is this what you mean;
a) human society is a reflection of human nature - i.e. those who comprise it, not just those who govern it
Society can reflect human nature, but it also amplifies parts of it, while marginalizing other parts. Greed and self-interest are the parts that have been promoted to the top of current society (at least in the "West") and are now held as the ideals for everyone to aspire to.
b) society can be changed by government or enlightened individuals, but drastic, even utopian, change is highly unlikely to be possible due to human self-interest and our most basic biases and fears. For true change, you need a consensus amongst everyone; which is simply impossible.
I wouldn't say impossible (though that's probably just the idealist in me), but exteremly unlikely.
c) society is shaped by both the needs of individuals and the group as a whole; all of recorded history AFAIK has had humanity living in social groups - from family, to tribe, to city-state, to nation. As such, you need a balance between what is good for the individual and what is good for society - hence why we have laws (against theft, murder, etc).
Yes. The rights of the individual should be paramount, but people must be prevented from infringing the rights of others (eg. by denying them the right to carry a gun, you protect the right of someone else to live).
In the case of guns, this is also protection against one group having force and the other not - namely, those able to get and use guns (and who are willing to do so), and those who do not. The only equality possibly in that circumstance is to allow everyone to carry the same type of gun with the same level of ability; and even then it will undoubtedly cause problems due to the differences in human nature (i.e. one person will use the gun to protect themselves, the other to settle an arguement, etc). Human nature is to abuse power, which is why we have to regulate it in some manner.
Yes. Giving everyone guns won't stop people from using them. MAD doesn't apply to individuals.
d) Freedom to defend youself by force, can entail freedom to supress dissent by force. (this applies to the balance of power between individual freedom to act and the restrictions imposed by society)
I'd say it will entail suppression. People will automatically think that others are out to get them/take from them, and you'll get schisms and people bunching into smaller groups, with infighting and backstabbing, etc.
e) The use of an organised, regulated society is part of the human self-preservation instinct - call it herd protection if you will.
Yes. We're social animals, but at the same time we're very selfish. So in order to have a stable society, you have to limit the power of the individual to act against others. Taking away the means to act against others is a key step.
Those are all things I was trying (and failing) to say, but there are more things I feel need to be considered. I think the second point is the most important. The likelihood of society spontaneously changing into one where people aren't concerned primarily with themselves is practically zero. It needs concerted and co-ordinated effort from many places, and it requires humans to start thinking outside of their own heads, so to speak. Most people are still concerned only with themselves, with how they can make their own existence better, whether or not that comes at the expense of others. Until we can change that, things will stay pretty much the same. This is where I agree 100% with Rictor, but I have to say I'm not optimistic about it. Rictor seems to think that this is a viable option, that it can be accomplished with a bit of work, but I can't say I think it'll happen, because of the way society is moving. Possessions and wealth are becoming the preoccupations of society, with the continued rise of consumer culture and fashion, etc. While these things are the focus of society, people will always be split into the "haves" and the "have-nots". Everyone wants to be a "has". Those who are look down on the have-nots, and the have-nots resent the haves because they think they have much better lives, and wish that they had more of what little they do have. So they keep killing each other in an effort to get more, or defend what they have from everyone else, and nothing changes.
Yay, I've done it again. I've made a complete mess of that. I hope that some of you can understand what I'm trying to say there... :blah:
-
Originally posted by Janos
Uhh. I was maybe too vague, I used the term society to describe a group of people who form their own community and interact with other communities/societies.urgh. Maybe our terms are nowhere near the same. That's what I get from hopping onto discussion without thinking or setting up parameters for inevitable discussion. :/ Well anyways. I was talking about long-term change in society, not about human nature (which changes slowly, but changes anyways). Actually I was not looking for an arguement, but here goes!
If a society has to react on something, it will soon find ways. These reactions are never without consequences, and a crisis usually also widens the internal gaps of any society. Rapidly changing enviroment is something the humans as a species are accustomed to but really, really not fond of. Responses provoked by an outside factor inevitably affect the society, which will lead to new movements inside them (the state of balance is a delicate issue), and these changes now have their own long-term effects, which can effect other societies or become internal crisises and so one.
The entire equation is essentially unstable, and so any small change has potential to grow uncontrollably.
Going to bed in T-10 minutes and counting.
My definition of society is that it is a basic extension of human nature, so any actual and permanent change in society requires the changing of nature of the people forming it (including the social, political and economic structures of that society); I don't really define it as being 'community' any more, because - excluding the obvious - the extent of communications and information dissemination has removed the boundaries between many cultures.
And IMO human nature is too firmly entrenched for large-scale changes, particularly ones which aid equality (because those almost always demand sacrifices from someone).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Surely that would depend on what that change was?
Sorry I'm a bit late, but I did want to respond to this. aldo, if you read the Bill of Rights, you'll see very little room for change, and as I said before, there is little to no public will to change any of it. Let me briefly look at the individual amendments, just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about. The First, as I'm sure you already know, provides for free speech, free press, free assembly, and freedom of religion. It is, without a doubt, the most revered portion of the Bill of Rights; it has never needed to be changed, and it should never be. I'll come back to the Second. The Third doesn't really apply anymore; it deals with the quartering of troops in private homes, which was a much bigger issue just after the Revolutionary War. The Fourth protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires "probable cause" for the issuance of police warrants. The Fifth provides for trial by grand jury, protects against double jeopardy, states that a person need not testify against himself (thus, "pleading the Fifth"), and guarantees "due process of law." The Sixth deals with trial proceedings, such as a "speedy and public" trial in front of an impartial jury, demands formal accusation of a crime, allows for calling witnesses and cross-examining opposing witnesses, and makes legal council mandatory. The Seventh deals with the requirement of a jury for civil cases in which the suit is for more than $20 (obviously, that particular point of it is relatively moot today), as well as stating that a fact "tried by a jury" cannot be re-examined later. The Eight protects against "cruel and unusual punishment." The Ninth and Tenth, taken together, do not specifically enumerate rights. The former states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that no other rights exist, and the latter, dealing with "reserved powers," states that all rights not granted specifically to the federal government or denied the states pass onto the states or the people in general.
Another important amendment that ties in with the Bill of Rights is the Fourteenth. This particular amendment contains both the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses; the former, like the Fifth Amendment, guarantees the "due process" of law for all American citizens, and the latter states that no citizen can be denied "equal protection" under the law. How does this tie in with the Bill of Rights? You see, as originally written, the Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government, not the states. However, through a number of Supreme Court cases, including some of the most well-known, the majority of the provisions of the Bill of Rights have been extended to cover the states through the equal protection/due process clauses. This includes the provisions of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments (I'm not sure about the Seventh; I think, in some states, a jury trial is not required for civil suits). You'll notice that I excluded the Second Amendment. In a certain Supreme Court case, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states through the equal protection clause, meaning that individual states could enact restrictions on the ownership of firearms. It did not make any comment on the relevance of the amendment or the definition of "well-regulated militia."
This comes with a caveat, though. To the best of my knowledge and judgment, if a state attempted to ban all firearms, the case resulting from this would almost certainly be taken to the Supreme Court. I can honestly say that I don't think any such law would stand; I think that the Court would clarify their earlier ruling. That's just my personal opinion, though, and despite having an excellent Government teacher in high school, I'm far from an expert on constitutional law.
Sorry for going off-topic a little bit, but I thought that this might help some of our non-American forum-goers, and maybe some of my fellow Americans as well. :)