Poll

Syria?

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

Total Members Voted: 26

Author Topic: Politics  (Read 630795 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brandonazz

  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8912
  • Everything ends.
    • View Profile
    • My Internet Treasure Trove
Re: Politics
« Reply #2505 on: October 13, 2010, 11:35:38 am »
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.

You heard it here first, folks! Anyone that becomes a criminal threat to anyone else deserves to die immediately.

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2506 on: October 13, 2010, 12:11:30 pm »
That's actually a pretty good argument against guns for self defence, a victim can't be expected to care about the life of their assailant, perhaps the state should. I'd say that the threat of dying while committing a crime actually serves as a powerful deterrent, and although the person committing the crime may not deserve to die, he probably shouldn't be committing the crime in the first place either.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2507 on: October 13, 2010, 01:11:07 pm »
I'd say that the threat of dying while committing a crime actually serves as a powerful deterrent.

See that would be great if any criminals acted rationally. For the most part, they don't. Some junkie dying for a fix probably isn't going to hold back on mugging someone because they're afraid they might have a gun, a burglar who gets interrupted in the middle of robbing someone's house is going to panic and do something dumb rather than just put his hands in the air and wait patiently for the police to show up.

The 'professional' criminals that are going to act rationally are either not going to let themselves ever get into a situation where getting shot is a problem, or they just won't have any compunction about killing you before you even have a chance to react.

But I'm just sort of stream of conciousness-ing now so I'll shut up >_>
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2508 on: October 13, 2010, 01:20:45 pm »
Well that does make sense in a way, but if there are enough people with guns and a few criminals get shot and it's on the news or something, theres probably going to be a point were the risk of being shot during a crime is self evident enough that it factors into a criminals instinct when judging the risk associated with a crime (i.e the point were it doesn't require a rational thought process to recognise the risk). Of course it won't deter all criminals or even most of them, but it has the potential to deter people, although there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that it has that effect.

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Politics
« Reply #2509 on: October 13, 2010, 01:25:30 pm »
You heard it here first, folks! Anyone that becomes a criminal threat to anyone else deserves to die immediately.

Brandon, your sarcasm is curious. When a man draws a gun on a police officer, is a police officer supposed to calmly try and talk him down or fire until the threat is neutralized?

If your answer is the former, you'll be laughed at by every police officer you talk to.

-Sam's post-

Sam, wouldn't you say that it's better to have some chance to defend against, say, a junkie breaking into your home or organized criminals trying to murder you, than to deliberately leave yourself unarmed?
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2510 on: October 13, 2010, 01:27:45 pm »
You heard it here first, folks! Anyone that becomes a criminal threat to anyone else deserves to die immediately.

Brandon, your sarcasm is curious. When a man draws a gun on a police officer, is a police officer supposed to calmly try and talk him down or fire until the threat is neutralized?

If your answer is the former, you'll be laughed at by every police officer you talk to.

Your previous posts don't mention the criminal attacking you having a gun, so this analogy doesn't really work. Just saying.

Offline Yokto

  • Street Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
  • Do not feed the Giant Gnawling.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2511 on: October 13, 2010, 01:28:06 pm »
First if your out manned then you probably should ether try to escape if possible or comply with criminals. Most people are not John Mcclain standard you know.

In a world where the criminals have a hard time getting there hands on guns then Tazers are going to be more efficient. Traditional guns have many ages of development behind them compared to the relatively new Tazer technology. Ideally one should not have to be armed with any weapon at all for self defense. There should be no need for it. But a Tazer is a better option in many cases then a gun. Is safer for all involved.

As for the idiotic idea that the Nazis did not invade Switzerland because the citizens where arm. Well Sweden during WWII was not invaded ether and we do not have the same gun policy. We had a rather poor army at the time but like Switzerland we where neutral and Germany had no reason to really spend resource in trying to take over Sweden. Nether Sweden nor Switzerland where in Germany's way. Wile i am sure they would have tried to incorporated both nations in to the Greater German Reich in some way or the other they still had a lot of win from both nations staying neutral.

And again with Afghanistan. Afghanistan has tons of weapons from years of fighting and Democracy have not really returned. Especially not on is own. Guns do not guard stop democracy from being taken away. It can easily make the situation worse. Those that say they want to use arms to resist tyrants often become tyrants them self.
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 Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Politics
« Reply #2512 on: October 13, 2010, 01:45:38 pm »
Your previous posts don't mention the criminal attacking you having a gun, so this analogy doesn't really work. Just saying.

If a criminal has a knife, the answer should be no different, munchkin.


@Yokto: I think we can all agree that it'd be a better world where no-one needed to worry about arming themselves against dangers, but the fact is, it's not.

As for guns and tazers as a comparison, tazers are NOT a better option at the moment, nor do criminals have a hard time getting guns, especially not in countries that have no isolated borders (such as most of continental Europe).

Lastly, in regards for Afghanistan, guns do not mean democracy will happen, they just ensure that it CAN.

P.S. As I've said, in the event of a mugging, it's grand to let them just take what they want, but a gun can stop them from escaping and save your life if they decide they don't want witnesses. In the event of a break-in, you might be tempted to hide, but there's far more than one case of people whose lives were taken because they couldn't defend themselves or were saved because they could.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2513 on: October 13, 2010, 01:54:44 pm »
Your previous posts don't mention the criminal attacking you having a gun, so this analogy doesn't really work. Just saying.

If a criminal has a knife, the answer should be no different, munchkin.

Well you didn't say they had a knife either. You just said 'trying to harm you', which doesn't nescicarily mean lethal force.

Offline Krakow Sam

  • Moderator
  • Dungeon Sieger
  • *****
  • Posts: 24440
  • Stern dissaproval
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2514 on: October 13, 2010, 02:12:15 pm »
Sam, wouldn't you say that it's better to have some chance to defend against, say, a junkie breaking into your home or organized criminals trying to murder you, than to deliberately leave yourself unarmed?

I'd call the police.  :P
Sam is basically right, he's just cranky.

Offline munchkin5

  • Punch-Out Champ
  • *****
  • Posts: 3130
  • Gentlemen.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2515 on: October 13, 2010, 02:18:45 pm »
The target responce time to an emergency 999 call is 12 minutes from making a phone call, whcih also assumes that in that situation you have the time to phone the police, a gun is a far more effective defence against immediate threats than the police.

Offline Yokto

  • Street Fighter
  • *****
  • Posts: 6254
  • Do not feed the Giant Gnawling.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2516 on: October 13, 2010, 02:20:07 pm »
@Yokto: I think we can all agree that it'd be a better world where no-one needed to worry about arming themselves against dangers, but the fact is, it's not.

As for guns and tazers as a comparison, tazers are NOT a better option at the moment, nor do criminals have a hard time getting guns, especially not in countries that have no isolated borders (such as most of continental Europe).

Lastly, in regards for Afghanistan, guns do not mean democracy will happen, they just ensure that it CAN.

P.S. As I've said, in the event of a mugging, it's grand to let them just take what they want, but a gun can stop them from escaping and save your life if they decide they don't want witnesses. In the event of a break-in, you might be tempted to hide, but there's far more than one case of people whose lives were taken because they couldn't defend themselves or were saved because they could.

There is where you are wrong. If as Homicide involving guns are higher in nations where there is a lot of guns in the population (Which i think we can agree on). Nations where is harder to get guns will have less chance of being involved in a crime with guns. You more likely to face for example a knife. As such again the Tazer do get a edge. Though my guess is that you do not follow the concept. So if self defense is the primary goal then one should promote none lethal weapons over lethal ones. This is the same thing why striving to remove SUVs from the roads will lower death in traffic. Yes if you get hit by a SUV you screwed in you tiny car. But if there hardly any SUVs around then your not likely to get hit by one. The thing you use to protect you self with is what is cousing the trouble to being with. A vicious circle where you have a arms race on the streets.

And Democracy can happen without guns. It does not ensure anything. There so many nations in the world created without a armed rebellion. Without people using firearms that you can not say there must be a armed population for it to happed. Also who are the first to take up arms against the government? Is it you and me or is it some nut job extremist?
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 #2517 on: October 13, 2010, 03:10:02 pm »
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.
You brought this up like 3 times already, but you never gave us a source.

-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.
So, defending against someone with a gun pointing at you is easier than someone who is threating you with a knife?

o_O
There is, of course, a difference between having a laugh with someone, and having a laugh at their expense

Offline Axelgear

  • Fooblitzky Fooble
  • *****
  • Posts: 4258
    • View Profile
    • Axel's Playground
Re: Politics
« Reply #2518 on: October 13, 2010, 03:14:15 pm »
Well you didn't say they had a knife either. You just said 'trying to harm you', which doesn't nescicarily mean lethal force.

Does it matter? Any attempt to harm you is potentially lethal, you have no way of knowing otherwise.

I'd call the police.  :P

Munchkin answered this nicely; police might not arrive in time. Twelve minutes or more is a looong time when someone has a weapon at your neck...

-Non-lethal weapons-

Tazers do not have an advantage over groups, and, again, non-lethal weapons are great if they're able to do the job, but they are not as capable as firearms. They cannot be properly used to defend your home either.

-SUV analogy-

Your intention is received, even if your analogy is flawed (ever had someone rob you at SUV-point?) and your logic unsound to me. You're placing the blame for the deaths on the SUV when it should be on the people who are driving unsafely. It'd be a safer world if everyone drove a crash-resistant car, and an ever safer one if they all drove them responsibly, than if everyone drove normal cars.

A highly efficient SUV would be better for everyone to have than a regular car, because they're safe in the event of accidents and not just stupidity too.

But we aren't discussing SUVs, really. We're discussing firearms. Saying homicides will involve guns more often in nations where gun ownership is common doesn't indicate that firearms are responsible for the actual homicide rate, nor does it cover the amount of potential crimes that are prevented by people (be they law enforcement or civilians) having weapons available.

-Democracy-

When it's you and me taking up arms, it's a good thing for someone to have stockpiled them to do so, wouldn't you say? As for needing guns to bring about democracy, most nations won things like bills of rights from armed uprisings at some point or another. India and Canada are rare exceptions to the rule.

So, defending against someone with a gun pointing at you is easier than someone who is threating you with a knife?

No, in that case, you're probably screwed, but should the situation arise where you can ready your weapon, you'll have the upper hand. Against someone without a gun, though, you're going to win if you have one.

A gun isn't a perfect defense against crime, nor will I suggest it is, but it means you have a damn better chance than if you don't.
Axel's Playground - Come see what I'm playing with today.

Offline Cobra

  • Moderator
  • All Your Base Zero Wing
  • *****
  • Posts: 8952
  • People want ducks.
    • View Profile
Re: Politics
« Reply #2519 on: October 13, 2010, 04:13:11 pm »
To go back to my point a few pages ago. I'm not sure how you think having more ammo will save you from being outnumbered. Like I said you may bring down 1 maybe 2 if you are lucky but 3 guys pointing a gun at you your a dead man no matter what weapon you bring. At the end of the day you get attacked by multiple people then your only choice is do what they say because it doesn't matter how you are armed the only way out alive is compliance.