Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Here we go again......
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by First of Two: [QB] Deconstruction: >"1) You have people who get mad enough or insane enough to want to wreak bloody vengeance against any representative of humanity they come across. This is not confined to America; hell I've felt like it on occasion. It merely manifests itself more strongly there because of the nature of your society. Private stresses accumulate on individuals, but the rest of society continues on oblivious, and to the eyes of the person in question, uncaring. In less well off countries the stresses are felt by wider groups; families, or even whole nations if the stresses are economic. Hence there is more of an outlet for frustrated emotion and the consolation of "being in it together"." The 'stressed out' defense? Are you kidding? Yes, 'stress' is definable as 'the urge to throttle the living hell out of someone who desperately deserves it.' However, 'being human' is defined as 'not doing so.' Except in cases of physical assault, use of physical force is never justifiable. I don't give a damn HOW bad they feel. I've probably felt worse. People who set out to 'wreak bloody vengeance' should not be treated as we would human beings. rather, they should be treated as any other mad animal would be, and destroyed with all haste. This is not compassionate, but it is practical. It will save more lives than it takes. "2) Ability to act on these violent impulses. When they get in a "killing mood" these people will grab whatever weaponry they can and use it until someone stops them forcibly - frequently by killing them, which they may wish to hapen anyway." True. So why deny our ability to give them what they want? Swiftly and easily? "Given: It is unlikely that in the short-term society will be able to prevent some individuals from becoming so alienated that they are consumed by desires for retribution." Perhaps. This, too, is a matter left to the individual's self-discipline. It is not society's job. Nor is it "society's" fault. All sentient beings make their own choices, know right from wrong, and should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions. Again, this falls back under 'behave yourself.' "Hypothesis: It is logical, therefore, to limit their access to weaponry that will allow them to maximise their violence." True, up to a point. Identical access to the same weaponry will allow me to minimise their violence, should I be present. "Rationale: The argument that everyone being armed equalises the balance of power is sophistry. The element of surprise will always allow the person to take down at least a few before anyone can intervene. It may indeed provoke him into procuring a superior arsenal to ensure he gets to kill more people. Down this road we have those who stockpile sub-machine guns, mortars and explosives. Should everyone be armed with semtex to deter bombers?" It may be sophistry. However, it is also true. This has been shown REPEATEDLY in communities where 'pro-gun' legislation has passed, and been followed by a precipitous drop in the crime rate. You will notice also that the LACK of a balance of power did not prevent the columbine students from dying en masse. Nor did it prevent Klebold and Harris brom building some NINETY bombs out of legal materials. It should also be noted that you are now attributing logical reasoning to people whom, in your first points, you claimed were maddened by stress. Your 'road' is a dead-end. Here's another point: no matter HOW many guns a thug carries, he will eventually have to pause to reload, or switch weapons. This produces 'free time' in which an armed defender may take him down. However, if no armed defender is present, it's simply 'waiting to die' time. "By reducing the number of guns in circulation, and limiting their sale by necessity must make it harder for people on the edge to get guns. Yes, they may steal one, or come by one through illegal means. But this would be made progressively more difficult for them as the "gun culture" is reduced and people become less used to seeing them everyday not just on TV, but strapped to the belts of their policemen. If nothing else, restrictions on ownership of guns would prevent all the accidental deaths of kids who blow their heads off because their parents forgot to lock the box they keep the "family gun" in." You canot reduce guns in circulation. All you can do is reduce the number that are possessed by law-abiding private citizens. Criminals DO NOT TURN IN THEIR GUNS! You also seem to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the resilience of steel. Guns, taken care of, can last for CENTURIES. It is a good point you make, about the policeman. Tell me, how easily is it to get the 'element of surprise' on a cop? A friend of my father's jokingly remarked once that if they banned guns, and he needed one, he'd simply go out one dark night and waylay a beat cop with a brick. A crook can do this. TWO could do it much more easily. The 'kids blowing of their own heads' scenario is already extremely rare, (there is no 'All the kids') and now happens only among the fatally irresponsible. From a purely genetic point of view, this is a good thing, for it prevents passage of stupidity. And since gun locks require the gun to be unloaded in the FIRST place, they are worse than useless. "A final point to levvy against those who seek universal arming. What does it say about a society where its memebrs trust each other so little that they are perpetually on the brink of "drawing" on each other?" I don't know. What does it say about a society that refuses to defend itself against agression? Of a society that surrenders to lawlessness? Oh, yes, I know, it says "On this spot was once a city." I don't seek universal arming... I seek universal opportunity to defend and protect oneself. I also know that the confiscations and registrations you describe have been sucessfully implemented before... in Germany shortly prior to WWII and in Soviet Russia, not that it really matters. "I hope I have given your brains something to chew upon." Yes. Chewed and spit out again. [IMG]http://flare.solareclipse.net/smile.gif[/IMG] I am not compassionate. I am merely practical. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3