[Flipside]

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.

[Grug]

Natural Selection has to occur somehow.

[Flipside]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

Natural Selection has to occur somehow.

No it doesn't. Natural selection isn't like physics; it's not a law, just a process.

[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'

[Grug]

Surround yourself with foolish people, with foolish laws, with foolish weapons, and surely you become a fool yourself.

Slightly sadistic but meh.

[aldo_14]

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)

[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.

[Janos]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[kasperl]

And he would be most likely hitting a good part of ceiling by then.

[Janos]

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.

[Krackers87]

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.

[pyro-manic]

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.... 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.

I can't seem to make my point here. Bloody hell.


EDIT: On a related note, guns are for pussies.

[aldo_14]

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.... 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.

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.

[Janos]

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.

[aldo_14]

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]

[Janos]

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.

[pyro-manic]

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...

[aldo_14]

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).