What? Violence without guns?!

[pimpdave]

Yes, heavycola, I too would most grateful to have the opportunity to read your article.

[Neoteny]

Heart! And the heavycola fan club.

[jiminski]

... and my Axe!!!



By which I mean, I would be extremely interested in reading your article. Please PM me the details of where I might find it.

post it in PC Forum .. screw the rest of these dolts!

[Frigidus]

... and my Axe!!!



By which I mean, I would be extremely interested in reading your article. Please PM me the details of where I might find it.

post it in PC Forum .. screw the rest of these dolts!

Also the Heavy Dancers.

[hecter]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

[MeDeFe]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

I like the idea, I've always wanted to try those cookies.

[Ditocoaf]

If weed is outlawed, then only outlaws have weed!

[jiminski]

If weed is outlawed, then only outlaws have weed!

FACT!

[Snorri1234]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

I like the idea, I've always wanted to try those cookies.

They taste godawfull.

[Jenos Ridan]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

I like the idea, I've always wanted to try those cookies.

So long as there is a tax on it like everything else (tobacco, alcohol) and we increase the funding of the ATF and DEA, don't see any major problems save a short lived (a year at most, then the authusiasm(sp?) tapers off) rush to get high.

[Snorri1234]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

I like the idea, I've always wanted to try those cookies.

So long as there is a tax on it like everything else (tobacco, alcohol) and we increase the funding of the ATF and DEA, don't see any major problems save a short lived (a year at most, then the authusiasm(sp?) tapers off) rush to get high.

Wait, why increase funding if you're legalising it?

[jiminski]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

I like the idea, I've always wanted to try those cookies.

So long as there is a tax on it like everything else (tobacco, alcohol) and we increase the funding of the ATF and DEA, don't see any major problems save a short lived (a year at most, then the authusiasm(sp?) tapers off) rush to get high.

Wait, why increase funding if you're legalising it?

well if the drug enforcement agents aren't being paid-off by the drug barons they will need something to subsidise their incomes!

[Jenos Ridan]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.


Honibaz

Makes sense... People are gonna get it anyway, so why don't we make it really easy for them to get it?

I like the idea, I've always wanted to try those cookies.

So long as there is a tax on it like everything else (tobacco, alcohol) and we increase the funding of the ATF and DEA, don't see any major problems save a short lived (a year at most, then the authusiasm(sp?) tapers off) rush to get high.

Wait, why increase funding if you're legalising it?

So they can go after the real criminals with increased rigor. Think about it: no more busting people for owning a few little plants, increased funds to increase ability to hunt down the big problems (since there are no little problems to worry about), etc. etc.

[b.k. barunt]

If we do accept a two tier interpretation of the law, in which some areas allow citizens to carry a weapon due to the in-situ danger (the very matter of existing is deemed self defence) then we have already given up on these places and people. What that breads is the lawless, hopeless ghetto.

Have to disagree with you on this one Jim. The right to bear arms in our constitution was for 2 purposes: self defence, and so that an armed populace could be ready should a tyrant sieze rule. Evidently the latter is no longer necessary, or junior George would've been shot full of holes, but the first still holds true.

There are a lot of neighborhoods over here in which the predators are armed. To stay out of those neighborhoods because of that is to give up on them, which i guess is a reverse of your supposition. 5 years ago i supervised 2 Americorps literacy teams in 2 of the black schools in New Orleans. We also ran an after school program and a summer camp for the kids in the community center that i worked out of. This was in the Hollygrove neighborhood (not as cute as it sounds), and you could google it to see what type of place it is. From sunrise to about 5pm you could drive through it fairly safe, but after that . . .

Problem was, i got one of the local crackheads into rehab, and he asked me to stop by his house at 11pm each night to make sure no one was trashing it. His house was on the main corner for the colorful night life there. A lot of the locals knew me, but some didn't, and when i went to check that house i was armed to the teeth - illegally. Had a couple of exciting moments, but i never had to shoot anyone - however, if i hadn't been armed, i myself would have been shot.

I'd love to see it become like GB over here, but it's not. If they oultlaw guns here, the predators will still have them and the law abiding cows will not. Most law abiding citizens stay out of places like Hollygrove. They've given up on these areas - i haven't, but i have a sense of self preservation which causes me to sometimes carry a gun.

[Snorri1234]

Wait, why increase funding if you're legalising it?

So they can go after the real criminals with increased rigor. Think about it: no more busting people for owning a few little plants, increased funds to increase ability to hunt down the big problems (since there are no little problems to worry about), etc. etc.

Okay but which real criminals? Unless you're planning to make the DEA into something different, which I completely understand. Shit, you have a lot of people hunting drug-users and growers when they could be hunting for murderers and thiefs.

[GabonX]

Look at the post above this. There's something like 42 other sources with the same story for you to choose from.

What you mean though is that there's 12 others, including such august publications as the telegraph, the daily mail and the metro? To anyone who understands anything about british journalism, you're digging yourself deeper. Not that there's far to go after DM's comment, I must say.

Is the credibility of this story still in question? I got the initial article off of drudgereport which is generally regarded as being a reliable satellite for breaking news online. When people questioned the authenticity of the story and I did the initial search in google news for "satanist" it said that there were 42 related articles to this story. I clicked the link, saw that there were a number of articles, and didn't bother to count how many were actually there. Regardless unless you think that the telegraph, daily mail, metro, fox news, and all of the other sources have committed some conspiracy in making up this story then the credibility of this article is in fact no longer in question. If on the other hand you do think that these organizations have made the story up I suggest you crack out the tin foil.

So you're saying that the way to stop Satanic cults from kidnapping and killing people, is to arm them to the teeth with handguns?

Yeah, thanks for the suggestion. But I think we're going to have to pass on that one.

Unlike the general population, degenerates (people with criminal records or known major psychological disorders) should be restricted as to what they can and cannot own. Even if the killers had been armed with guns alongside the victims the outcome may have been different. Indeed these youths may have been discouraged to the point where they would not have committed these acts if they lived in a society where they faced the prospect of an armed population. Even in a worst case scenario where the Satanists had been armed with guns that they had obtained legally and the victims had opted not to be able to defend themselves it would have made no difference to them accept that the manner of their deaths would have been much less painful.

i'm not sure what your point is meant to be. have americans forgotten what a world without guns is like? i can assure you, it's wonderful.

Neither of us live in a world without guns and just because you do not see them does not mean they are not present. If you think the world is wonderful you must accept that living with guns is wonderful. People who don't know me do not know that I carry a weapon just like you do not realise when you are in the presence of someone who possesses one. Whether legally or illegally it is unlikely that you have not crossed paths with someone carrying a concealed weapon yet amazingly you remain unharmed.

I'm saying we should allow people to empower themselves to the point where they can put up a reasonable amount of self defense, hence the common person should be able to respond to a lethal threat with lethal force. If everyone had the ability to project lethal force it would happen very rarely, I believe they call this mutually assured destruction. It's very relevant that their has never been a shooting at an NRA rally but that the columbine and Virginia Tech massacres both occurred in supposed "gun free zones."

they both occured with guns as well. you're a shitty troll and you know it.

The point is that the laws which were passed to protect the victims wound up costing them their lives. Criminals break laws by definition so it stands to reason that a law barring the possession of fire arms or a law preventing fire arms from being brought to a given place (unless such a policy is physically enforced) will not deter them. Hence declaring that a given place is a "gun free zone" makes it so only in principle as firearms can and do pass through these areas. The only affect of such a declaration is that law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. The Columbine and Virginia Tech killers were able to kill people with the ease of shooting fish in a barrel because of unenforced laws which were intended to protect the public but in reality cost dozens of people their lives.
As for the insult you hurdled about me being a "shitty troll" unless you consider everyone who posts an opinion about anything political regardless of whether or not they hold the same views as you, (Pro or negative Obama or McCain, Pro life or pro choice and everyone here who has posted their opinion about guns), is also a "shitty troll" then you are a hypocrite.

In the future don't expect me to give anyone anymore respect than they give me, not that I really care.

Free speech is certainly not a tricky balance situation. It's supposed to be absolute except for a few instances where it causes harm to the public (like screaming FIRE! in a movietheatre).

The same is true of weapon ownership, it is the application of weapons which needs to be restricted. If we are going to ban things just because they can cause harm to people then we should ban alcohol, tobacco and any other mind altering substance, as well as passing a law that says people cannot own automobiles but instead have to use public transportation. Such a route is feasible but unreasonable.

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but instead of banning guns, why don't we legalize pot and see how that works out.

Honibaz

I agree. I don't think it's the Government's place to tell a person what they can and cannot possess or can and cannot do with their body.

We need to help re-structure them and bring them out of the spiral of violence and struggle. Or if this is too idealistic for you - we need to try to help, know we can not succeed but still not change the bloody law to suit the lowest common denominator.
If we do accept a two tier interpretation of the law, in which some areas allow citizens to carry a weapon due to the in-situ danger (the very matter of existing is deemed self defence) then we have already given up on these places and people. What that breads is the lawless, hopeless ghetto.

I see your point here but I disagree with the assertion that a person who carries a weapon to protect himself and others is of the "lowest common denominator." Instead I see those who carry weapons with bad intentions as being part of this "lowest common denominator" while the individual who enables himself to lash out and stop an act of extreme violence is admirable.

Do you consider police officers to be necessary members of this lowest common denominator or do you see the the fact that they are professionals, or that they get payed to act in the manner I have described, as a differentiating factor? If this is your view then you are essentially stating that a man who volunteers to be righteous demonstrates a lapse of character.

Hitler was addicted to cocaine and methamphetamines and despite being a vegetarian his favorite meal was stuffed Quail. Not that any of that has any relevance...

It seems you've missed the point twice now. Grotz.

The point was that Hitler did not do drugs and and was a vegetarian but that doing drugs and eating meat would not be a means to oppose Hitler. Aside from the fact that neither of these assertions are wholly accurate they bear no relevance to the topic at hand because while eating meat and doing drugs would not have diminished Hitler's influence if the victims in these crimes had been armed the outcome may have, and probably would have been different. Hence there was no point of any relevance made.

Here's some more, horrible despicable violence committed without guns. Right in Philadelphia, the city you mentioned in your thread about hammers and subways.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nati ... slain.html

and the case that preceded that one, but for which I can't find a proper news article:

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arc ... l=GooglePM

Again... violence is done without nukes. Does that mean nukes should be available for purchase (I'm sure it would be a lucrative market)? And if that's too far, what about rocket launchers, what about grenades, and where do you draw the line that flips reasoning from "empowering people to destroy is good" to "empowering people to destroy is bad"?

These are fair questions, and although when I ask what I consider to be fair questions I rarely get straight answers I'll answer four out of five questions. (Not sure what the fifth question is as "(I'm sure it would be a lucrative market)?" isn't a question). At the end of this I'll ask a few of my own and hopefully you will extend me the same courtesy.

Nukes - I think we can agree that weapons of mass destruction should not be possessed by individuals. The Second Amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms and their is no way that a person can reasonably bear a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon does not address an immediate threat to a person but is instead intended to kill thousands or millions of people hundreds of miles away from the person who launches it unlike a gun, grenade, or rocket which a person must still operate from a relatively close distance, IE. maintain line of sight. There are obvious differences between WMDs and weapons which are carried and operated manually and to maintain that these two classes of weapons are of the same class is a stretch. Wherever the line is drawn it is obvious that these kind of arms are on the other side.

Rocket Launchers - My opinions are mixed on whether or not people should be allowed to own rocket or grenade launchers. On one hand there is relatively little practical use for a civilian regarding these weapons but on the other if there ever was a civil war against a corrupt government (and it would have to be much more corrupt than the Bush administration to warrant fighting a civil war) or an invading force than I would certainly want myself and my neighbors to have access to these weapons. While I understand the merits of restricting such arms it is worth noting than anyone who went around launching rockets at inappropriate targets would quickly lose their ability to continue such actions. For our purposes it may be a good idea to separate rockets into two classes, those which are highly accurate and those which are indiscriminate. Certainly rockets like katyushas which are intended to be launched into an area but without a specific target (they just hit what they hit and kill who they kill) should be banned. On the other hand while anti tank rockets or rockets with a tracking device like a stinger missile do not have any application to the common person today they may one day so I am sympathetic to arguments advocating legalizing these arms.

Grenades - I see no problem with grenades, and in a comical way they are possibly the ultimate defensive weapon. If a person who is carrying a hand grenade is confronted with a threat and they respond by pulling the pin but not letting go of the grenade they have created a situation where if a person attacks them it will negatively affect both parties but if not they will both live. It's reminiscent of a scene in the new Batman movie where the Joker confronts a group of gangsters who are discussing how to kill him. If someone attacks a person who is brandishing a grenade with the pin removed the grenade will fall, big boom, everyone is sad and nobody walks away happy. I see this outcome as being superior to having only the attacker walk away happy. This is an example of mutually assured destruction which is the principle which has prevented nuclear war in the second half of the 20th century.

Where do we draw the line? - Weapons which are operated by an individual to address threats at a reasonably close distance and are discriminate in their targets should be legal. Weapons which are indiscriminate and are intended to kill people who are nowhere near the proximity of the person operating the weapon should be restricted. It's as simple as that.

Note that gabon hasn't posted a thing since the point was raised (by me)...

I do have other things that I do besides posting in these forums. While I expected this thread to get a reaction I did not think that I would be bombarded with so many posts to answer so soon. The thread had two full pages in under half an hour and I couldn't address everything at once. I guess people just love (to hate) my topics.

And now for my questions...

1. How could the situation have been made worse for the four victims in the article which I posted by the assailants having guns? Seeing that they all died in a most brutal manner and were then eaten I personally cannot think of any way the situation could have been worsened for them but I would be curious as to whether anyone thinks it could have been.

2. Could the outcome of the situation have been improved by the victims having been armed? If so how could the outcome have been improved and if not then why not?

3. Does it not benefit the state to have dangerous criminals eliminated prior to a costly trial while maintaining the population of upstanding citizens?

[b.k. barunt]

Ummm . . . this is a forum - not a publishing house. If you think anyone's going to read that tome, your self image is waaaaayyy inflated, and that's if you had something interesting to say.


Honibaz

[black elk speaks]

personally, it should come down to a choice. i should have the choice to access and use firearms as I see fit. This is one benefit to a truly free society. whether knife, baseball bat or bare hands, there are people that will kill you for one reason or another if they feel the need. point in case, hammer man from the "one more reason" thread. It is not so much the means or tools that a person should be held accountable, meaning, just because i have a gun does not make me a bad or irresponsible person, rather it is the intent that a person has with reference to the weapons he/she chooses to use.

[Snorri1234]

Allright, time for being an obnoxious twat.

Look at the post above this. There's something like 42 other sources with the same story for you to choose from.

What you mean though is that there's 12 others, including such august publications as the telegraph, the daily mail and the metro? To anyone who understands anything about british journalism, you're digging yourself deeper. Not that there's far to go after DM's comment, I must say.

Is the credibility of this story still in question? I got the initial article off of drudgereport which is generally regarded as being a reliable satellite for breaking news online. When people questioned the authenticity of the story and I did the initial search in google news for "satanist" it said that there were 42 related articles to this story. I clicked the link, saw that there were a number of articles, and didn't bother to count how many were actually there. Regardless unless you think that the telegraph, daily mail, metro, fox news, and all of the other sources have committed some conspiracy in making up this story then the credibility of this article is in fact no longer in question. If on the other hand you do think that these organizations have made the story up I suggest you crack out the tin foil.

Made up? No.
Exxagerated heavily? yes.

I gather you're not a brit from your belief that the telegraph, daily mail and such are actually quality newssources. They're not. They're sensationalist tabloids really. They're not balanced in any way.

Still, there is indeed the fact of the story.

Unlike the general population, degenerates (people with criminal records or known major psychological disorders) should be restricted as to what they can and cannot own.

And we all know how much of a law-abiding citizen a criminal makes.

Even if the killers had been armed with guns alongside the victims the outcome may have been different.

Yup. Everybody would've been killed rather brutally.

Indeed these youths may have been discouraged to the point where they would not have committed these acts if they lived in a society where they faced the prospect of an armed population.

Ha. That's a good one. It works swimmingly in American society so I guess them dirty limeys are just in denial.

i'm not sure what your point is meant to be. have americans forgotten what a world without guns is like? i can assure you, it's wonderful.

Neither of us live in a world without guns and just because you do not see them does not mean they are not present. If you think the world is wonderful you must accept that living with guns is wonderful. People who don't know me do not know that I carry a weapon just like you do not realise when you are in the presence of someone who possesses one. Whether legally or illegally it is unlikely that you have not crossed paths with someone carrying a concealed weapon yet amazingly you remain unharmed.

There are far less guns in european societies in the hands of criminals. Criminals here don't all own guns, I know because I know a bunch of coke-dealers in my hometown and for the fact that most petty criminals don't get charged with weapon-possesion. (Often, weapon-possesion gets them more years than the actual crime they did.)

The point is that the laws which were passed to protect the victims wound up costing them their lives

THAT'S BECAUSE YOUR WHOLE SOCIETY IS FULL OF FUCKING GUNS!

It's not about criminals getting a hold of guns anyway, it's about making guns largely available on the legal market and as a normal consequence also putting them on the illegal market.

. Criminals break laws by definition so it stands to reason that a law barring the possession of fire arms or a law preventing fire arms from being brought to a given place (unless such a policy is physically enforced) will not deter them. Hence declaring that a given place is a "gun free zone" makes it so only in principle as firearms can and do pass through these areas. The only affect of such a declaration is that law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. The Columbine and Virginia Tech killers were able to kill people with the ease of shooting fish in a barrel because of unenforced laws which were intended to protect the public but in reality cost dozens of people their lives.

It's enormously stupid to put a "gun free zone" in a country full of guns, ofcourse. But the difference is that most european countries are a gun-free zone totally. The only way to get a gun is by smuggling it through customs where they can easily stop such things.

Free speech is certainly not a tricky balance situation. It's supposed to be absolute except for a few instances where it causes harm to the public (like screaming FIRE! in a movietheatre).

The same is true of weapon ownership, it is the application of weapons which needs to be restricted. If we are going to ban things just because they can cause harm to people then we should ban alcohol, tobacco and any other mind altering substance, as well as passing a law that says people cannot own automobiles but instead have to use public transportation. Such a route is feasible but unreasonable.

Except that none of those things are fucking deadly like guns.

Rocket Launchers - My opinions are mixed on whether or not people should be allowed to own rocket or grenade launchers. On one hand there is relatively little practical use for a civilian regarding these weapons but on the other if there ever was a civil war against a corrupt government (and it would have to be much more corrupt than the Bush administration to warrant fighting a civil war) or an invading force than I would certainly want myself and my neighbors to have access to these weapons. While I understand the merits of restricting such arms it is worth noting than anyone who went around launching rockets at inappropriate targets would quickly lose their ability to continue such actions. For our purposes it may be a good idea to separate rockets into two classes, those which are highly accurate and those which are indiscriminate. Certainly rockets like katyushas which are intended to be launched into an area but without a specific target (they just hit what they hit and kill who they kill) should be banned. On the other hand while anti tank rockets or rockets with a tracking device like a stinger missile do not have any application to the common person today they may one day so I am sympathetic to arguments advocating legalizing these arms.

So basically you're saying that people should be able to have rocketlaunchers?

Grenades - I see no problem with grenades, and in a comical way they are possibly the ultimate defensive weapon. If a person who is carrying a hand grenade is confronted with a threat and they respond by pulling the pin but not letting go of the grenade they have created a situation where if a person attacks them it will negatively affect both parties but if not they will both live. It's reminiscent of a scene in the new Batman movie where the Joker confronts a group of gangsters who are discussing how to kill him. If someone attacks a person who is brandishing a grenade with the pin removed the grenade will fall, big boom, everyone is sad and nobody walks away happy. I see this outcome as being superior to having only the attacker walk away happy. This is an example of mutually assured destruction which is the principle which has prevented nuclear war in the second half of the 20th century.

Yay for the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine.
I suppose you have no problems with Iran or Pakistan or whatever country is suddenly an enemy to have nuclear weapons, right? Because when you have the right to own one the other country can only respond by also having one.

1. How could the situation have been made worse for the four victims in the article which I posted by the assailants having guns? Seeing that they all died in a most brutal manner and were then eaten I personally cannot think of any way the situation could have been worsened for them but I would be curious as to whether anyone thinks it could have been.

Applying a general thought to an isolated incident doesn't work. What you should ask is whether society works better without everyone having a gun.

3. Does it not benefit the state to have dangerous criminals eliminated prior to a costly trial while maintaining the population of upstanding citizens?

Better yet. Why do we bother with giving dangerous criminals a long and costly trial? Why don't we just hang every last one of them in a jiffy?

[black elk speaks]

Even if the killers had been armed with guns alongside the victims the outcome may have been different.

Yup. Everybody would've been killed rather brutally.

I think you are stoned... anyway, I think that would have been better than just the victims being dead.

[Snorri1234]

Even if the killers had been armed with guns alongside the victims the outcome may have been different.

Yup. Everybody would've been killed rather brutally.

I think you are stoned... anyway, I think that would have been better than just the victims being dead.

Well it certainly would've been far more hilarious, I grant you that.

[Ditocoaf]

Ummm . . . this is a forum - not a publishing house. If you think anyone's going to read that tome, your self image is waaaaayyy inflated, and that's if you had something interesting to say.


Honibaz

I read it. Long posts are not a crime. It's a good thing to post long; the longer your post, the more clear you are likely to be. Leave sound bites for TV news, this is a forum, a place for in-depth discourse.

Beyond this-- I really appreciate GabonX's post, and love that we're having some reasoned, thoughtful debate... this is why I come onto the forums. By way of rebuttal, for now I'll just say that I agree with most of what Snorri said in his latest point-by-point.

[b.k. barunt]

Okay dito, since you, unlike gabon, usually have something to say, i'll defer to your judgement on this. However, you will find that on this forum, the longer you post, the fewer people will read it. It's the same in a conversation - a conversation should go back and forth, and your long explanations need to be given in pieces, in between your co-converser's observations.

[Neoteny]

Hitler was addicted to cocaine and methamphetamines and despite being a vegetarian his favorite meal was stuffed Quail. Not that any of that has any relevance...

It seems you've missed the point twice now. Grotz.

The point was that Hitler did not do drugs and and was a vegetarian but that doing drugs and eating meat would not be a means to oppose Hitler. Aside from the fact that neither of these assertions are wholly accurate they bear no relevance to the topic at hand because while eating meat and doing drugs would not have diminished Hitler's influence if the victims in these crimes had been armed the outcome may have, and probably would have been different. Hence there was no point of any relevance made.

Three times. Should we keep a count?

My point is that you created a straw man and then made your point based on it. Nice try, though.

[black elk speaks]

Even if the killers had been armed with guns alongside the victims the outcome may have been different.

Yup. Everybody would've been killed rather brutally.

I think you are stoned... anyway, I think that would have been better than just the victims being dead.

Well it certainly would've been far more hilarious, I grant you that.

Mark your calendar Snorri, I think we just agreed on something.