Poll

Syria?

Yes
6 (23.1%)
No
20 (76.9%)

Total Members Voted: 26

Author Topic: Politics  (Read 630969 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Cobra

  • Moderator
  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8952
  • People want ducks.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2490 on: October 12, 2010, 05:17:41 pm »
Let's assess the non-lethal alternatives, shall we?

Pepper Spray: A pretty good option if you're being mugged by one person, but that's about on it. Not a good option if they're on drugs, though, or if there's more than one of them. Typically, there are. Also, useless in a home invasion or if the person has a gun.

Tazer (Short Range): More or less as effective as a knife. Again, suffers the same weaknesses as pepper spray.

Tazer (Long Range): Even less effective than either of the other two. Single shot, then you're absolutely boned.

So, all in all, not really useful in any situation where you have more than one attacker. Guns, however, are quite different and far more capable.

I just wanted to address what advantage having say a 6 shooter pistol would really have when being faced with multiple assailants complared to the one shot nonleathal/less than leathal alternatives. You opinion seems to be if you have lets say a longer range tazer you get attacked by lets say 3 guys you taze one and then get taken out by the rest. If you had 6 shots do you really think the other 2 guys are going to wait and let you take them all out once you started to open fire?

Offline eropS

  • Out Run Speedster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5117
  • That's right, I went there
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2491 on: October 12, 2010, 05:27:13 pm »
Guns protect as well as kill, its a double edged sword. Also, guns are a form of people v gov't.

I believe TJ said "The beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be used until they try to take it away".

Let us have our guns and myob.
No, no, he did. In the everything else section, at least. Officially, this makes him king.

Offline Clarke

  • Jungle Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2492 on: October 12, 2010, 06:04:37 pm »
Guns protect as well as kill, its a double edged sword. Also, guns are a form of people v gov't.

I believe TJ said "The beauty of the second amendment is that it won't be used until they try to take it away".

Let us have our guns and myob.
I doubt that the guns currently in private possession would be enough to rebel against the government. In the case of a widespread revolt for whatever reason, the use of guns would likely only create more havoc.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2010, 06:06:38 pm by Clarke »

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Politics
« Reply #2493 on: October 12, 2010, 07:26:37 pm »
I doubt that the guns currently in private possession would be enough to rebel against the government. In the case of a widespread revolt for whatever reason, the use of guns would likely only create more havoc.

There's hundreds of millions in the US. Even so, in the modern era, you'd only need a fraction of that; most rebellions run on guerilla tactics, not formal fighting.

A is the homicide rate per year.

Guns are banned: A
Guns are legal: A + 300

So banning guns would still save ~300 lives per year.

You overlook all the lives saved every year by gun ownership. Even then, people die from unintended accidents every year anyway. More people die from drowning in pools, so you'd save more lives banning pools than guns, if you want to argue pure numbers.

The problem here is that you're actually wrong. I don't mean "I disagree with your opinion" or "that's just an anecdote and doesn't apply on a larger scale," I mean you are simply incorrect in your assumption. Sufficient gun controls do reduce the availability of illegal firearms.

Being from the UK, what KS and I both mean by "gun control" is "You can't have a gun. No, not even then."

Prove it. Prove to me that the banning of legal guns decreases the availability of illegal firearms.

That is... singularly the worst idea ever. I like the way gun lovers will say "criminals will be criminals whether they have guns or not" and then go and conveniently ignore their own rhetoric.

So if I want to commit a crime involving a woman, I've got to be ready to shoot her. Okay, I'll steal or buy one of those pink Eagles that there are millions of now. Instead of threatening her to get her purse, I'll shoot her in the head just to be on the safe side. I don't want to take any chances, I just want to stay alive and get my fix.

So you're saying that every mugger is willing to commit murder? Or risk their own life?

Also every criminal who happens to be a woman is now armed. Nice job breaking it, hero: now there are just a lot more people getting shot to death on a daily basis.

Fair enough. They're also aware that every woman they may potentially rob could gun them down, but one could, of course, simply require that they have a clean record.

At the end of the day, it's a thought experiment to point out that guns have an additional stopping power before their user even has to draw one, it's not meant as a suggested real policy.

I just wanted to address what advantage having say a 6 shooter pistol would really have when being faced with multiple assailants complared to the one shot nonleathal/less than leathal alternatives. You opinion seems to be if you have lets say a longer range tazer you get attacked by lets say 3 guys you taze one and then get taken out by the rest. If you had 6 shots do you really think the other 2 guys are going to wait and let you take them all out once you started to open fire?

Why would I say that? I'm saying that the moment you fire with a six shooter, you can fire again. A long-range tazer can only fire once. If there's three people in front of me, I can hit them all with a six-shooter.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Manna

  • Frogger Fanatic
  • ****
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2494 on: October 13, 2010, 03:56:53 am »
We have gun laws here. I've never wished me or any member of my family or any of my friends or anyone I know had a gun in some situation they were in so that they could've defended themselves. I don't live in a quiet out-of-the-way place, I've lived in capital cities for all of my adult life. There is gun crime here but it's the gang members and they're importing illegal guns to do drive-bys on other gangs. Do you know who has the largest gun force? The people we've selected to keep the peace. We have as much crime as anybody, but to be honest, I'd rather be threatened with a syringe or a flick-knife than a gun, I feel like I have a better chance of seeing at least a few more years after that encounter. Maybe that's just me. Pretty difficult to accidentally stab someone you're threatening with a knife and easy to get jumpy with a trigger.

You can have your safety and your rights and your bravado and your paranoia about your government or whatever you need, but I wish you could experience my life so you'd see how much safer you can feel unarmed.
Dont look at me, I'm irrelevant!

Offline Yokto

  • Street Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
  • Do not feed the Giant Gnawling.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2495 on: October 13, 2010, 04:19:39 am »
Do not underestimate Tazer. It is one of the most efficient none lethal weapons out there with one of the safer ones to. The evolution of Tazer have been very fast and you will probably see even wireless ones in the near future.

As for being single shot. First not all long range Tazer are single shot. There are multi shot variants to. But more importunely in such situation where you have to use a gun or a Tazer for self defense you do not get many chances. Even after the first shot your chances greatly diminish. Yes, 6 shots is better then 3 but a 100 shots is a marginally better then 6 to.

As for ownership of a gun. Just like owning a car which is a dangerous machine gun use should require you some sort of training. And just like cars having them registered i think is a good idea. I see this a lot when gun debates come up to that those that are pro guns often refer to different nations with different gun laws and points to them as some ideal society and the other as a cautionary tale yet about gun often the nations have very smiler laws on the subject. In most case both nations have limits to gun ownership focus on the people owning a gun actually being trained to use them and have a propose for owning them. None lethal weapons should also require training in my opinion. Especially since they can be quite lethal in the wrong hands.

And if we are playing the statistics game then i am sure you will find that nations with a lot of guns also have more gun related deaths.  And even if you argue that homicide levels would still be at the same level (which i am not sure of) it would give the none lethal alternatives greater impact as they would compete against less potent weapons.

And for the revolution? Grow up! Really! Use democratic means to fix your freaking nation rather then take up arms! Having guns out there do not protect democracy! It just makes it easier for a coup! Do you really think that the guy who owns most guns will be on your side when the time comes? The Warlords have really done wonders for Afghanistan democracy for example.
Check out my Creatures.
The Ęthirans
The Echin
The Jinnivons
Star Citizen Ref code: STAR-JLJP-LRTC
When you singing up use code and get 5000 credits for free ;)

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2496 on: October 13, 2010, 05:08:21 am »
And if we are playing the statistics game then i am sure you will find that nations with a lot of guns also have more gun related deaths.  And even if you argue that homicide levels would still be at the same level (which i am not sure of) it would give the none lethal alternatives greater impact as they would compete against less potent weapons.

It is in fact the case that gun related crime levels go up, but actual crime levels are unaffected by gun ownership levels.

And for the revolution? Grow up! Really! Use democratic means to fix your freaking nation rather then take up arms! Having guns out there do not protect democracy! It just makes it easier for a coup! Do you really think that the guy who owns most guns will be on your side when the time comes? The Warlords have really done wonders for Afghanistan democracy for example.

Thats easy to say when you live in a democracy, but when the government has all the guns and doesn't want an election there's not going to be an election.

Offline Yokto

  • Street Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
  • Do not feed the Giant Gnawling.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2497 on: October 13, 2010, 05:53:56 am »
And you do not happen to live in that nation now do you? Is very unlikely that you here if you live in nation that do not let partake in the government.

Even so it does not matter. I mean you basically saying take up a arms against a undemocratic regime but you cant because guns are illegal. Well i am pretty sure that is illegal to actually take up arms against your government even if weapons are legal in a nation like that. When you start a revolution in a nation like that whether you actions are legal or not is probably the least of your concerns.

Even so i recommend to always try to find peaceful solutions. It does not always work but sometimes it does. The change towards democracy in USSR did and the eastern block happen by force. India gained independent though mainly peaceful means. And many other nations including my own did not go though a revolution to become democratic. Historically there very few revolutions that have even ended well.
Check out my Creatures.
The Ęthirans
The Echin
The Jinnivons
Star Citizen Ref code: STAR-JLJP-LRTC
When you singing up use code and get 5000 credits for free ;)

Offline Didero

  • Turkey Shoot Terminator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3186
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2498 on: October 13, 2010, 05:58:09 am »
Thats easy to say when you live in a democracy, but when the government has all the guns and doesn't want an election there's not going to be an election.
So you're saying you don't trust the politicians you vote into office?

Offline Yokto

  • Street Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
  • Do not feed the Giant Gnawling.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2499 on: October 13, 2010, 06:45:14 am »
Also i forgot to add a thing about the first part. Again would it not make none lethal weapons more competitive? Or did you just want to skip that part. That is if crime still is on the same level. Which it might be. I have not seen anything to indicate one way or the other. But gun control might have positive effects.

(I am still against banning of guns however. I just think ownership requires responsibility and that a person handling a gun needs to actually have some training to do so.)
Check out my Creatures.
The Ęthirans
The Echin
The Jinnivons
Star Citizen Ref code: STAR-JLJP-LRTC
When you singing up use code and get 5000 credits for free ;)

Offline Flisch

  • H.E.R.O. Rescue Worker
  • *****
  • Posts: 3546
  • Banned - 17/07/15
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2500 on: October 13, 2010, 08:12:06 am »
I doubt that the guns currently in private possession would be enough to rebel against the government. In the case of a widespread revolt for whatever reason, the use of guns would likely only create more havoc.

There's hundreds of millions in the US. Even so, in the modern era, you'd only need a fraction of that; most rebellions run on guerilla tactics, not formal fighting.

A is the homicide rate per year.

Guns are banned: A
Guns are legal: A + 300

So banning guns would still save ~300 lives per year.

You overlook all the lives saved every year by gun ownership. Even then, people die from unintended accidents every year anyway. More people die from drowning in pools, so you'd save more lives banning pools than guns, if you want to argue pure numbers.
*waits for the day when someone attempts to rob a bank using a swimming pool*

The problem here is that you're actually wrong. I don't mean "I disagree with your opinion" or "that's just an anecdote and doesn't apply on a larger scale," I mean you are simply incorrect in your assumption. Sufficient gun controls do reduce the availability of illegal firearms.

Being from the UK, what KS and I both mean by "gun control" is "You can't have a gun. No, not even then."

Prove it. Prove to me that the banning of legal guns decreases the availability of illegal firearms.
Your argumentation sounds insane.

"Since we can't completely stop people from accquiring illegal firearms, we make it easier for criminals to buy guns rather than making it harder for them."
There is, of course, a difference between having a laugh with someone, and having a laugh at their expense

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2501 on: October 13, 2010, 08:21:03 am »
It's easy to trust that the political and military situation in the west will always be as stable as it is now, but over even 1 or 2 centuries change can be dramatic, enough even to say that citizens should be able to arm themselves in order to defend themselves when things turn bad. When upward of 50% of the population is armed that introduces a safeguard extremism in a ruling regime.

To expand the point, i live in Britain and during the second world war there was a very real chance that the germans could of invaded (it happened in France where the French Resistance was formed after government surrender), a militia was formed (see the British sitcom 'dad's army') to protect the country if British forces were defeated in mainland Europe and the Germans made it to British shores, this militia was woefully under equipped, it's only guns generally being farmers shotguns and a few ex-servicemen's rifles. If however the proliferation of firearms had been higher among the populace (say 50%+ household's with a gun) the entire citizenry would of been generally better equipped to repel and Nazi invasion or resist any subsequent occupation. For the proliferation of guns among the public to be high enough for this kind of resistance guns have to be legal in the first place. Again, as you mentioned that it would be illegal for people to take up arms against the government, but any government that both wanted and needed to avoid this would first have to disarm armed citizens. And for example in Switzerland it is compulsory for adult males to keep and maintain a rifle provided by the government, and during the second world war Hitler never actually invaded Switzerland (although he planned to eventually) because the cost of the invasion would of been very high.

I guess what I'm arguing for here is the legalization of guns so that the group action of citizens can defend a country against totalitarian regimes, foreign invaders and any other prospective ruling body that is it's self be heavily armed, there are numerous historical examples of resistance groups and revolutions that people generally consider to be good things in the end, and to say that the political situation is stable enough to negate the need for citizens to arm themselves, or remove the right of those people to defend themeselves is to severely underestimate the amount of change that can affect the political situation over only a few generations.

Finally as people keep arguing that guns are bad becuase they can be used to comit crimes, as i've already siad more firearms =/= increased crime rate, people should be focusing more on reducing crime than banning the things people use to comit them. And i should probably also add that i think guns should be regulated and licensed and anybody using them needs a good education with them.

Offline /lurk

  • Dragon Warrior Slime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2502 on: October 13, 2010, 08:59:45 am »
Prove it. Prove to me that the banning of legal guns decreases the availability of illegal firearms.

Just google "gun homicides" or anything similar and stop being intentionally ignorant. There's less in the UK, that's the point.


Why would I say that? I'm saying that the moment you fire with a six shooter, you can fire again. A long-range tazer can only fire once. If there's three people in front of me, I can hit them all with a six-shooter.

I like the way you don't even consider the fact that you're probably going to kill them. Urban wasteland indeed.
Not a winner anymore.

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2503 on: October 13, 2010, 09:26:39 am »
Prove it. Prove to me that the banning of legal guns decreases the availability of illegal firearms.

Just google "gun homicides" or anything similar and stop being intentionally ignorant. There's less in the UK, that's the point.

Again more guns =/= more murders, just a higher percentage with guns.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Politics
« Reply #2504 on: October 13, 2010, 10:34:00 am »
Sheesh, so much to go through...

Just google "gun homicides" or anything similar and stop being intentionally ignorant. There's less in the UK, that's the point.

Lurk, the overall homicide rate in all forms in the UK is lower than in the US. Naturally, when you have a higher overall rate of homicide, there's going to be a proportionally higher amount of gun-related homicides.

What's telling is that the areas with the highest homicide rates in the United States (lower than the UK) are those with the highest gun control restrictions (most notably the District of Columbia, which has a higher homicide rate than most any country you can care to name) and the ones with the lowest have the weaker gun control systems.

Also, it's harder to get pure stats. The UK excludes attempts from homicide rates, the US does not. Given that the UK has more violent crime than anywhere in the US, I imagine that taints the statistics.

I like the way you don't even consider the fact that you're probably going to kill them. Urban wasteland indeed.

Lurk, why should I give a damn about someone who's trying to harm me ? Their lives effectively forfeit the moment they became a threat. See how caring you are when someone tries to hurt you.

-Manna's post-

Again, we see "I feel safe so you should too". Guns don't fire by accident, they've been designed not to. Plus, if you get threatened with a flick knife or syringe, you're pretty much dead if the person seriously tries to kill you. For proof of this, give a child a marker, tell them to mark you, and try to get it away from them. A gun at least ensures you can fight back.

-Tazers-

Tazers have far more flaws than guns, we've been over this. I'm fine with people carrying them, and the police using them to subdue criminals, they're great tools. However, you should have the option to have a gun.

-Training/licensing-

As I said, fine by me, really.

-Non-lethal alternatives-

The situations in which non-lethal alternatives would be useful would not increase, I'm afraid. A group of attackers could still easily overpower someone wielding them, even without a firearm, in a mugging situation. Meanwhile, in a home invasion situation, pepper spray is assuredly useless except as, at most, a distraction, while with a multi-shot tazer, you better home your attackers are neatly lined up or in range or that there's only three of them and so on.

-Revolution-

Afghanistan had a rather peaceful coup at one point that instituted secular democracy, before the Americans decided to play Cold War chess with the country.

Point is, guns aren't there for when there's democracy; guns are there for when democracy is taken away.

*waits for the day when someone attempts to rob a bank using a swimming pool*

*Waits for the day when someone defends their families with one*

"Since we can't completely stop people from accquiring illegal firearms, we make it easier for criminals to buy guns rather than making it harder for them."

But we don't make it easy for them. I've said before I'm fine with registries, licensing, waiting periods, and background checks (said this in my first post on the topic, in fact). This makes it more difficult for criminals to access firearms, but not by much given the prevalence of illegal markets, and I have not much opposition to these as concepts.

What I'm opposed to is people not being allowed to use a gun to defend themselves.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.