when it comes to unnatural deaths what is more needed "thoughts and prayers" or "preventive measures"
EGOIST said: deg said: How high/low is the crime rate in the country? I feel like the low security is because of that. I'm not sure if this is true or not but don't most japanese homes leave their houses unlocked? @Flevalt The doors to the studio were usually locked by security, but they had expected visitors that morning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack#Background that seems to imply they let their (security) guard down and why do that especially if there are more people than normal? they do not even do body checks like with a metal detector to at least get the knife of the criminal he used to threaten people with? Police said he was also carrying a backpack with several knives. https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/07/kyoto-animation-kyoani-fire-arson-suspect-death-toll yes japan is like considered one of the safest country in the world and ye i heard they leave their house unlocked at times too (although in anime (ye i know its fiction but still) you will see they still locked their house doors) but this is a business building though and they have security guards already but its weird they disabled that when there are more people than normal (which needs more security in this cases) |
DiscoDespot said: Also, as @SadMadoka stated, much of the U.S. military would be hesitant to use deadly force against the U.S. populace since nobody wants to firebomb their hometown. Yeah, that's why I said a military rebellion/coup would be another story in my original post. Some may, some may not; there'll inevitably be people content with dictatorship as long as it's someone who shares their politics. The power of blind patriotism and/or ignorance is also not to be underestimated (Speaking from first hand experience). It's really hard to say. DiscoDespot said: There is a very good reason why dictatorships always disarm citizens and thats because it's impossible for a military to hold an area with just tanks and helicopters, there will always be a need for boots on the ground, meaning the average civilian rifle can be just as deadly as any military issue rifle, sometimes more so. Hell, extremists in the middle east manage to keep the U.S. military busy despite having vastly inferior training and equipment. Extremist groups are more accustomed to war and the urgency of an internal takeover would result in more drastic measures taken I'd reckon. Those are mere speculation of course. There are so many factors neither you nor I can possibly account for had we ruminated on it for hours, much less in a simple internet discussion. |
Auron_Jul 19, 2019 1:24 PM
 |
Illuminatli said: you can't prevent unnatural deaths, gee. so of course your own thoughts are the only thing that's gonna help you get through it. There are all sorts of ways to prevent unnatural deaths. Laws serve as a major deterrent and curb the bulk of potential violence. Taking initiative to actively prevent tragedy is also a commonplace occurrence. The police force and other security personnel are at the forefront of this endeavor. Just think of all the things they do: patrolling to look out for danger, investigating suspicious activity, patting down people before permitting them to enter a venue, and stopping active threats, to name a few. Civilians can do some of those things as well. If someone is about to shoot someone, and another person (again, it can be a cop, security guard, or random guy) pulls a gun on the shooter, ordering them to stop, resulting in the aggressor being arrested before they can do harm, that would be an example of actively preventing an unnatural death. Same goes for straight-up defending yourself. Then there are doctors and the like who can prevent and treat life-threatening illnesses that may not be natural in the sense of our actions causing them. Even comforting a suicidal person could prevent an unnatural death. konkelo said: That still sounds bizarre to me. Hypothetically if some democratic country's government would turn tyrannical, your assumption here looks close to something like opposition or the government wouldn't have foreign ties to get support or that foreign country wouldn't try to use the conflict for their own interests. And why other countries' politicians and those working in military wouldn't help the rebels? Then there is of course would honestly every citizen become a rebel and not support the tyrannical government, or will it just become a civil war. DiscoDespot said: There is a very good reason why dictatorships always disarm citizens and thats because it's impossible for a military to hold an area with just tanks and helicopters, there will always be a need for boots on the ground, meaning the average civilian rifle can be just as deadly as any military issue rifle, sometimes more so. Hell, extremists in the middle east manage to keep the U.S. military busy despite having vastly inferior training and equipment. Also, as @SadMadoka stated, much of the U.S. military would be hesitant to use deadly force against the U.S. populace since nobody wants to firebomb their hometown. Orhunaa said: Yeah, that's why I said a military rebellion/coup would be another story in my original post. Some may, some may not; there'll inevitably be people content with dictatorship as long as it's someone who shares their politics. The power of blind patriotism and/or ignorance is also not to be underestimated (Speaking from first hand experience). It's really hard to say. Extremist groups are more accustomed to war and the urgency of an internal takeover would result in more drastic measures taken I'd reckon. Those are mere speculation of course. There are so many factors neither you nor I can possibly account for had we ruminated on it for hours, much less in a simple internet discussion. We're discussing politics here, so of course it could go any number of ways. It's highly unlikely for such an extreme and overt act of mass treason (as in the government betraying the republic to the point of becoming a brutal dictatorship) to occur in the US. It's more probable for a politician's totalitarian aspirations to be shut down by other politicians before ever gaining traction. But for the sake of argument, if it did become a reality, it certainly wouldn't happen overnight. We're talking about nearly four million square miles, after all. Even if they managed to secure major cities, thousands of towns across the nation would figure out what's going on and take action. I honestly don't think it would work out well for those who would tread on the rattlesnake, so to speak. |
SmugSatokoJul 19, 2019 6:59 PM
 |
AnimeFeminist said: Both are important but preventive measures are more useful . Take US for example if they would only ban guns like in other civilized countries violence and school shootings would drop but they won't do it cause muh 2nd amendment. I don't really know the reason why would anyone want to burn kyotoani but I bet it was some angry otaku. So the solution would be to combat the toxic otaku culture. So much ignorance and toxicity in a single post. |
| It's almost like sending prayers is just doing your best to be nice. It's not always the time to start talking about a solution, or bringing in personal viewpoints. Personally I think the best thing any of us can do for this world is find peace within ourselves. And naturally, it's quite traditional to pray for the souls of the dead. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
SadMadoka said: We're discussing politics here, so of course it could go any number of ways. It's highly unlikely for such an extreme and overt act of mass treason (as in the government betraying the republic to the point of becoming a brutal dictatorship) to occur in the US. It's more probable for a politician's totalitarian aspirations to be shut down by other politicians before ever gaining traction. But for the sake of argument, if it did become a reality, it certainly wouldn't happen overnight. We're talking about nearly four million square miles, after all. Even if they managed to secure major cities, thousands of towns across the nation would figure out what's going on and take action. I honestly don't think it would work out well for those who would tread on the rattlesnake, so to speak. But neither would it happen in one day in any other western country or countries that have had democracy system in place for some time. Reason why I don't see the point in arming every citizen for preventative reason for this that is full of ifs and buts in the real situation. You can of course say it is due to cultural differences, because when I have shot it has been for fun and the rifle was for hunting not for safety, other common reasons for owning a gun here is for a hobby reasons. But I still wouldn't feel like my rights as a citizen would be violated, if the doctor wouldn't give me a pass to buy a gun. |
 |
konkelo said: But neither would it happen in one day in any other western country or countries that have had democracy system in place for some time. Reason why I don't see the point in arming every citizen for preventative reason for this that is full of ifs and buts in the real situation. You can of course say it is due to cultural differences, because when I have shot it has been for fun and the rifle was for hunting not for safety, other common reasons for owning a gun here is for a hobby reasons. But I still wouldn't feel like my rights as a citizen would be violated, if the doctor wouldn't give me a pass to buy a gun. Not every citizen is armed in the first place. No idea what you're going on about a doctor giving you a pass to buy a gun. This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Anyway, like I said, self-defense is a right, and that is what is important to me. If your (as in anyone's) government deprives you of the right to own and use firearms, you can say goodbye to being able to defend yourself from any real and immediate threat. If you can't even defend yourself, you really don't have any rights, as far as I'm concerned. |
|
SadMadoka said: konkelo said: But neither would it happen in one day in any other western country or countries that have had democracy system in place for some time. Reason why I don't see the point in arming every citizen for preventative reason for this that is full of ifs and buts in the real situation. You can of course say it is due to cultural differences, because when I have shot it has been for fun and the rifle was for hunting not for safety, other common reasons for owning a gun here is for a hobby reasons. But I still wouldn't feel like my rights as a citizen would be violated, if the doctor wouldn't give me a pass to buy a gun. Not every citizen is armed in the first place. No idea what you're going on about a doctor giving you a pass to buy a gun. This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Anyway, like I said, self-defense is a right, and that is what is important to me. If your (as in anyone's) government deprives you of the right to own and use firearms, you can say goodbye to being able to defend yourself from any real and immediate threat. If you can't even defend yourself, you really don't have any rights, as far as I'm concerned. Of course not, but the idea of having enough civilians who do own guns seems like a key in going against the government. The doctor part is related to my country's laws, where everyone need to check up in doctor's office who can then make the decision if the person is suitable (in this case doesn't have history of mental problems and other such things) to own a gun. What threat would there be that would require me to get a gun and defend myself? I understand crime rates are different compared to Finland and USA, but really what rights I don't have regarding this issue, if I don't see a need to owning a gun to protect myself in the first place. |
|
konkelo said: What threat would there be that would require me to get a gun and defend myself? I understand crime rates are different compared to Finland and USA, but really what rights I don't have regarding this issue, if I don't see a need to owning a gun to protect myself in the first place. Well, statistically, you probably won't ever need to defend yourself with a gun. It's the low-likelihood events that can suddenly come up and present a threat. A criminal could invade your home or try to mug you in public...or simply try to harm you, for whatever reason. You may cross paths with a wild animal like a bear. Just use your imagination. We live in a dangerous world with practically endless threats. Unless you're a martial arts master, there aren't many other options for self-defense in many scenarios, and if the aggressors have firearms, physical skill alone would be more or less useless. |
|
| Have more thoughts on this, but will get back to it a bit later when I finish some work. One thing is for sure - I fully acknowledge this is a selfish desire and have no qualms about expressing it: I'm glad the alleged perpetrator is an ethnic Japanese Japanese national so any culture around foreign anime fandom isn't stigmatized as a result. Overall, times of brutal violence, chaos, and tragedy like this are times when hard truths are needed, so I innately dislike the urge among some to shut down discussion over anything outside of pre-approved responses. |
SadMadoka said: konkelo said: What threat would there be that would require me to get a gun and defend myself? I understand crime rates are different compared to Finland and USA, but really what rights I don't have regarding this issue, if I don't see a need to owning a gun to protect myself in the first place. Well, statistically, you probably won't ever need to defend yourself with a gun. It's the low-likelihood events that can suddenly come up and present a threat. A criminal could invade your home or try to mug you in public...or simply try to harm you, for whatever reason. You may cross paths with a wild animal like a bear. Just use your imagination. We live in a dangerous world with practically endless threats. Unless you're a martial arts master, there aren't many other options for self-defense in many scenarios, and if the aggressors have firearms, physical skill alone would be more or less useless. I still see little to no reason tbh. If I'm outside my home where most danger would be I'd feel a lot more unsafe if people could freely carry guns around. Regarding wild life, tick is the most dangerous animal here so yeah. Wolves don't really attack adult humans unless you have a dog with you and bears are harmless they rarely even pay attention to humans. And no I don't live in any urban area, saw a wolf couple months ago while driving to work. But lets just agree to disagree with this topic. |
konkeloJul 20, 2019 4:50 AM
|
konkelo said: I still see little to no reason tbh. If I'm outside my home where most danger would be I'd feel a lot more unsafe if people could freely carry guns around. I wonder how unsafe you would feel if someone threatened your life (it could be with something other than a gun) and you had no means to protect yourself. That is the issue here. Feelings are irrelevant. |
|
SadMadoka said: It's highly unlikely for such an extreme and overt act of mass treason (as in the government betraying the republic to the point of becoming a brutal dictatorship) to occur in the US. It's more probable for a politician's totalitarian aspirations to be shut down by other politicians before ever gaining traction. But for the sake of argument, if it did become a reality, it certainly wouldn't happen overnight. We're talking about nearly four million square miles, after all. Even if they managed to secure major cities, thousands of towns across the nation would figure out what's going on and take action. I honestly don't think it would work out well for those who would tread on the rattlesnake, so to speak. I agree with most of what you said. Weren't we talking about the practicality of citizen gun ownership in the case of a tyrannical government? It seems to me that what you're saying about the unlikelihood of such an act in a democracy, that tyranny-aspiring politicians would be shut down and other states/towns would take action before it gets massive all seems to reinforce the idea that the utility of citizen gun ownership in relation to this particular point should be called into question when weighing the pros and cons. |
Auron_Jul 20, 2019 5:51 AM
|
Orhunaa said: I agree with most of what you said. Weren't we talking about the practicality of citizen gun ownership in the case of a tyrannical government? It seems to me that what you're saying about the unlikelihood of such an act in a democracy, that tyranny-aspiring politicians would be shut down and other states/towns would take action before it gets massive all seems to reinforce the idea that the utility of citizen gun ownership should be called into question when weighing the pros and cons. Not at all. It's a safeguard against tyranny, regardless of how likely that is. But perhaps you missed everything I said about self-defense...? It's simple: If someone threatens your life, you don't just stand there like a retard and let them murder you; you defend yourself! As I said before, if you are deprived of that right to even defend your own life, then you cannot say you have any rights at all. |
SmugSatokoJul 20, 2019 5:49 AM
|
SadMadoka said: konkelo said: I still see little to no reason tbh. If I'm outside my home where most danger would be I'd feel a lot more unsafe if people could freely carry guns around. I wonder how unsafe you would feel if someone threatened your life (it could be with something other than a gun) and you had no means to protect yourself. That is the issue here. Feelings are irrelevant. Here's the deal. Those people who are dangerous often are dangerous to people that are part of their "circle", in this case drug addicts and alcoholics. Now I don't admit I hang around those folks. If one of them had a way to get a gun I'd be pretty much doomed if they so decided my face was annoying to them or they'd start a fight in the streets with each other, regardless if I had a gun with me, but if they can only use fists and knives I have much higher change of surviving that. That time when some dude was threatening his ex-girlfriend with a hunting rifle and I was pretty close to that scenario, hasn't made me feel any unsafe. Polices dealt with that very quickly. When last year we had a knife attacker on loose in neighboring city, I just avoided isolated places. If someone would try to rob me, I'd simply give my cash on my hand and later made a report to the police, because you don't start a fight with a criminal in the first place. But really statistically speaking the most dangerous place I could be is during night in a grill kiosk queue with drunk men, which I can easily avoid. Or maybe my spouse would decide I'm a nuisance and would end me, where if we had a gun it would likely be the one that'd kill me. Those are really the only violent deaths I likely could end up with. Mixing guns in a society where crime rate is already low among homicide rate is unneeded. Oh and if you took I'm some ban all guns person, no I'm not. I'm merely curious of this "owning a gun is a right" and using a gun as a means to protect itself stand as an outsider that's all. |
|
SadMadoka said: Orhunaa said: I agree with most of what you said. Weren't we talking about the practicality of citizen gun ownership in the case of a tyrannical government? It seems to me that what you're saying about the unlikelihood of such an act in a democracy, that tyranny-aspiring politicians would be shut down and other states/towns would take action before it gets massive all seems to reinforce the idea that the utility of citizen gun ownership in relation to this particular point should be called into question when weighing the pros and cons. Not at all. Perhaps you missed everything I said about self-defense...? It's simple: If someone threatens your life, you don't just stand there like a retard and let them murder you; you defend yourself! As I said before, if you are deprived of that right to even defend your own life, then you cannot say you have any rights at all. Sure but we we're talking about it in the context of defending oneself from the government. This is a different point which I did not dispute. Here, let me clarify by editing my post and bolding it for you. |
|
konkelo said: Here's the deal. Those people who are dangerous often are dangerous to people that are part of their "circle", in this case drug addicts and alcoholics. Now I don't admit I hang around those folks. If one of them had a way to get a gun I'd be pretty much doomed if they so decided my face was annoying to them or they'd start a fight in the streets with each other, regardless if I had a gun with me, but if they can only use fists and knives I have much higher change of surviving that. That time when some dude was threatening his ex-girlfriend with a hunting rifle and I was pretty close to that scenario, hasn't made me feel any unsafe. Polices dealt with that very quickly. When last year we had a knife attacker on loose in neighboring city, I just avoided isolated places. If someone would try to rob me, I'd simply give my cash on my hand and later made a report to the police, because you don't start a fight with a criminal in the first place. But really statistically speaking the most dangerous place I could be is during night in a grill kiosk queue with drunk men, which I can easily avoid. Or maybe my spouse would decide I'm a nuisance and would end me, where if we had a gun it would likely be the one that'd kill me. Those are really the only violent deaths I likely could end up with. Mixing guns in a society where crime rate is already low among homicide rate is unneeded. Oh and if you took I'm some ban all guns person, no I'm not. I'm merely curious of this "owning a gun is a right" and using a gun as a means to protect itself stand as an outsider that's all. You described scenarios involving your low likelihood of being in immediate danger. What I am saying is that being armed is crucial in life-threatening situations (no matter how probable they are) in which you only have seconds to react. If you want to gamble on statistics, that's your prerogative. Finland seems to have a more homogenous culture, whereas the US is more diverse and chaotic. (Plus it's about 29 times larger with a population around 58 times higher.) I'll acknowledge that owning a gun is less necessary in your country than it is in mine. Orhunaa said: Sure but we we're talking about it in the context of defending oneself from the government. This is a different point which I did not dispute. Here, let me clarify by editing my post and bolding it for you. I edited my post too late; apparently after you started replying. The only alteration I made was, "It's a safeguard against tyranny, regardless of how likely that is." When I mentioned the thousands of towns potentially taking action, I was referring to them using firearms (etc.) to fight back. If everyone was disarmed, they would be practically defenseless. I'm not implying that everyone should be armed or anything to that effect; just a sufficient number. |
|
SadMadoka said: You described scenarios involving your low likelihood of being in immediate danger. What I am saying is that being armed is crucial in life-threatening situations (no matter how probable they are) in which you only have seconds to react. If you want to gamble on statistics, that's your prerogative. Finland seems to have a more homogenous culture, whereas the US is more diverse and chaotic. (Plus it's about 29 times larger with a population around 58 times higher.) I'll acknowledge that owning a gun is less necessary in your country than it is in mine. And I simply believe in a country where there is not similar culture surrounded around guns like in USA, it would more likely cause problems and possibly just increase those life-threatening situations. And I'd rather not try that in real life to see if i'm correct or wrong. There is a reason why countries that have been in a war recently try to confiscate guns or put more restrictions on them. Even if we would take that possibility government would turn tyrannical it would be so minimal change of actually happening and there are countless other factors in play that preparing for a big war just in case is ridiculous. |
|
SadMadoka said: I edited my post too late; apparently after you started replying. The only alteration I made was, "It's a safeguard against tyranny, regardless of how likely that is." When I mentioned the thousands of towns potentially taking action, I was referring to them using firearms (etc.) to fight back. If everyone was disarmed, they would be practically defenseless. I'm not implying that everyone should be armed or anything to that effect; just a sufficient number. "It's a safeguard against tyranny, regardless of how likely that is." That would be logical, had there not been any drawbacks to this allowance. The question is "Does a need for an additional countermeasure to an unlikely event that already has quite a few outweigh the potential harm that'll come from it?" A proper assesment of benefit/harm outlining the disparity between gun crimes with and without gun control, proportion of defensive use of firearms, and the improbability of totalitarianism rising from a democracy like US should be made by statistics from unbiased sources. I don't believe that right to bear arms should be the default position. I also think "sufficent number" is a moot point. Given that such an extreme event like a democracy turning tyrannical from inside hasn't befallen to US in its history (that I know of, I'm not a US citizen so do inform me if there was) there's really no way to know what'll be sufficent. Even if there was, times have considerably changed. |
Auron_Jul 20, 2019 7:39 AM
|
| Never personally been one to find "thoughts and prayers" to have any meaning really as talk is cheap generally. Actions speak louder than words, whether that be donating to a relevant charity or passing a relevant legislative fix. Of course both parties in America are completely incompetent on most issues no matter how much they pretend to care and most people don't care much about donating to charity so I don't ever expect anything other than thoughts and prayers really. Which is also why when I see people online bashing others for only offering thoughts and prayers it always comes to me as suck a fucking dick move, especially when they attribute the deaths of people to lying on the shoulders of said thoughts and prayers people. But I digress. |
rohan121 said: Also, preparing more fire escape exits would be preferable there are no fire escapes/exits on that KyoAni building too i just googled it earlier to confirm what i read on other threads about it "There was no fire escape on the outside of the building and I think that was a big reason why so many people died," he said. "There was only one way for them to escape." https://japantoday.com/category/crime/More-details-emerge-about-anime-studio-arson-attack-that-killed-33 |
degJul 21, 2019 3:57 PM
| In the case of things like mass killings what's needed is strict, merciless public punishment of the perpetrator. No "thoughts and prayers", no taking away of constitutional rights and property from everyone else, just hang the fucker from a tree or a lamp-post and let vultures pick at the corpse to set an example. "Preventative measures" like modernizing Japanese fire codes, having armed security guards and faculty at schools and other public buildings, and giving the mentally ill more resources to get help is fine though. Genuinely wishing the victims to recover or mourn is fine too. What I'm saying is that collective punishments via taking away rights and property of others not only is unfair it also doesn't actually work, but strictly enforcing what's already on the books and using preventative measures that respect the rights and property of others does work. Orhunaa said: The US federal government and various state/local governments have turned tyrannical plenty of times: Japanese-American internment, Wounded Knee massacre, Battle of Athens, too many others to name. The Battle of Athens specifically was an instance where privately-owned guns were used to stop tyranny (and nobody died doing so). I know this is going a bit off topic of the thread but you said to inform you of historical tyranny, and I did.Given that such an extreme event like a democracy turning tyrannical from inside hasn't befallen to US in its history (that I know of, I'm not a US citizen so do inform me if there was) there's really no way to know what'll be sufficent. Even if there was, times have considerably changed. "Times changing" is irrelevant, government tyranny is as old as centralized government itself and the solution has always been the same. |
Lost_VikingJul 21, 2019 5:05 PM
 |
Lost_Viking said: Orhunaa said: The US federal government and various state/local governments have turned tyrannical plenty of times: Japanese-American internment, Wounded Knee massacre, Battle of Athens, too many others to name. The Battle of Athens specifically was an instance where privately-owned guns were used to stop tyranny (and nobody died doing so). I know this is going a bit off topic of the thread but you said to inform you of historical tyranny, and I did.Given that such an extreme event like a democracy turning tyrannical from inside hasn't befallen to US in its history (that I know of, I'm not a US citizen so do inform me if there was) there's really no way to know what'll be sufficent. Even if there was, times have considerably changed. "Times changing" is irrelevant, government tyranny is as old as centralized government itself and the solution has always been the same. Times changing is relevant as it relates to the "sufficent number" to counteract it that the previous poster has thrown it around and I argued was a moot point, i.e it's really convenient to say sufficent number and be done with it when there's no way to gauge what's sufficent given that our references are rather outdated. Would've been easier to show if you hadn't edited it out while quoting and claimed that I was insinuating times changing means that it can't possibly happen. |
Auron_Jul 22, 2019 6:13 AM
|
| Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sounds like you want to ban fire. Are you Zeus? |
konkelo said: And I simply believe in a country where there is not similar culture surrounded around guns like in USA, it would more likely cause problems and possibly just increase those life-threatening situations. And I'd rather not try that in real life to see if i'm correct or wrong. There are approaching two million firearms in civilian possession in Finland. You're proportionally in the top ten, so...congratulations, I guess. konkelo said: There is a reason why countries that have been in a war recently try to confiscate guns or put more restrictions on them. Yeah...so the people can't resist and have to do whatever the ruling regime dictates, up to and including being shot dead for any arbitrary reason. Exonerating despots is a no-no. konkelo said: Even if we would take that possibility government would turn tyrannical it would be so minimal change of actually happening and there are countless other factors in play that preparing for a big war just in case is ridiculous. So naive... That's what they all said before disaster struck. Brush up on your history, bud. Any manner of atrocities were relatively unlikely...and they happened anyway. Ever heard of democide? An estimated 262 million human beings were killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Orhunaa said: That would be logical, had there not been any drawbacks Might wanna list some real ones, then. Hope ya got proof. Orhunaa said: to this allowance. "Allowance"? I spit on your arrant disregard for nuance. It is an exertion of natural rights. Orhunaa said: The question is "Does a need for an additional countermeasure to an unlikely event that already has quite a few outweigh the potential harm that'll come from it?" No, the question is whether you are able to defend your very life, whether it be against a single malefactor or a larger group of assailants (such as the state). If you take the guns away, the people are rendered defenseless and their lives are fucking forfeit. That's all there is to it. Orhunaa said: A proper assesment of benefit/harm outlining oooh, sounds fancy. Let's see what you have in store for the fate of mankind... Start your engines! Orhunaa said: the disparity between gun crimes with and without gun control, Shameless rubbish right out of the gate. Gaze upon enlightenment, rookie: Laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm are unlikely to stop a person willing to commit robbery, assault or murder. On the other hand, honest citizens who respect the law will submit to the gun control laws, even if the laws do not make them safer. Any ban on firearms is unlikely to prevent criminals from getting them. Even in places where firearms, particularly handguns, are banned--both here in the United States and internationally--criminals continue to get and misuse guns in crimes. The most direct impact of gun bans has been to disarm law-abiding people. Over the past century, all types of gun control laws have been implemented in different parts of the United States. Everything from purchase restrictions to complete gun bans has been tried. These laws have not worked, and in some cases have had the opposite effect from what was intended. Some big cities have strict gun laws. New York City has very strict gun laws, more strict than the rest of the state of New York. In spite of this, New York has always had significantly higher violent crime rates. Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Ill. have banned the ownership of handguns, and both these cities have much higher violent crime rates than the surrounding areas. States such as Illinois and New York have gun owner licensing. Other states, such as Hawaii, have gun registration. However, none of these laws led to reductions in violent crime rates. And that is the real test of gun control laws. Do crime rates fall after gun laws are passed? The clear answer is no. Gun control has been tested, and it has failed the test. Many areas with high percentages of gun owners are some of the most crime free areas in the nation. The simple presence of a gun, or many guns, does not lead to crime. Most of the states with higher per capita legal gun ownership have the lowest rates of violent crime, while states with lower per capita gun ownership have much higher violent crime rates. The real answer to reducing crime is not passing gun laws, but solving other problems that really do lead to high crime rates. Gun control diverts attention from the roots of the crime problem. To some people, banning guns sounds like a perfect way to make the world safer. However, proponents of gun bans ignore two important facts. Criminals ignore gun bans, and law-abiding people will be even more at risk with no effective means of self-defense. The British experience with gun bans is a perfect example. Over the past 20 years, Great Britain has banned handguns and many long guns. During that same period violent crime has increased dramatically. One significant area where crime has risen sharply in England is home burglaries where the occupants are present. Since they know the residents will not be armed, thieves more openly enter even occupied homes, often during daylight hours. This has resulted in more violence against victims who try to defend their homes. In general, the crime rates of Canada, Britain, and Australia, all of which have implemented strict gun control laws, have risen significantly after the passage of these laws. At the same time, the U.S. has seen a significant drop in violent crime rates. The evidence shows that firearm ownership, including handguns, does not lead to increased crime rates, and gun bans do not deter criminals from committing violent crimes. In fact, ownership of firearms deters crime. The important truth is: criminals do not want to attack armed citizens. The only real impact of a handgun ban is to insure that law-abiding citizens are disarmed, leaving them more at the mercy of illegally armed criminals. Cities such as Washington D.C. and Chicago have banned handguns, and violent crime has not been eliminated, or even reduced. Orhunaa said: proportion of defensive use of firearms, An award-winning expert on crime, Prof. Kleck has conducted extensive survey research to measure firearms ownership and use in America. He found that firearms were used as often as 2.5 million times a year for protection--three to five times more often, he says, than they are used for criminal purposes. In the vast majority of these protective cases, the gun is not fired. Orhunaa said: and the improbability of totalitarianism rising See the democide statistic above for the irrelevance of probability. Orhunaa said: from a democracy like US The United States is not a pure democracy, and was never intended to be; it is a constitutional republic. "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." Orhunaa said: should be made by statistics from unbiased sources. Riiight...because apparently Americans are too dumb for their own good and need a foreign authority to tell them what's best for them. Unbiased my ass. Orhunaa said: I also think "sufficent number" is a moot point. Given that such an extreme event like a democracy turning tyrannical from inside hasn't befallen to US in its history (that I know of, I'm not a US citizen so do inform me if there was) there's really no way to know what'll be sufficent. Even if there was, times have considerably changed. ~40% of all guns on the planet are owned by US citizens. There are even more guns than people here. I'd say we're covered. As was mentioned above, there are numerous examples of the US government acting in a tyrannical manner. Here's another. In the wake of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, over a thousand firearms were confiscated. (But security guards of businesses and wealthy individuals were left alone.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_civilian_firearms What's more, police officers opened fire (without warning) on an innocent unarmed family in the street, murdering two in cold blood and wounding four others. (Thank goodness they didn't get away with it...though their prison sentences were far briefer than civilians would have gotten.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danziger_Bridge_shootings While I'm at it, here is a good overview of the second amendment. I suggest perusing it by clicking the "more" link. https://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/ Key points not already covered in the quotes above: The Founders were declaring that we are all equal, and that we are defined by rights that we are born with, not given to us by government. Among those rights is the right to pursue happiness--to live our lives as we think best, as long as we respect the right of all other individuals to do the same. The Founders also declared that governments are created by people to secure their rights. Whatever powers government has are not "just" unless they come from us, the people. Some people claim that there is no individual right to own firearms. However, anyone familiar with the principles upon which this country was founded will recognize this claim`s most glaring flaw: in America, rights--by definition--belong to individuals. Richard Henry Lee wrote that, "to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms." Centuries before the Second Amendment was drafted, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to all the people, armed with their own firearms or swords, bows or spears, led by officers they chose. America`s Founders defined the militia the same way. Richard Henry Lee wrote, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . ." On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that the Second Amendment protects a right to possess firearms for individuals, and not just a right to have them as part of a militia or the National Guard. Before the Heller decision, the most thorough examination of the Second Amendment and related issues ever undertaken by a court is the 2001 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson. In Emerson, the Appeals court devoted dozens of pages of its decision to studying the Second Amendment’s history and text. The court concluded, “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.” The most important aspect of the Second Amendment is the philosophy on which it is founded: that all free people have the right to defend themselves, their families, communities and nation. Why does anyone need an "assault weapon"? This question is often used to justify laws restricting firearms ownership. So-called "assault weapons" are just one example. Why does anyone need a handgun? Why does anyone need a semi-auto shotgun? The real question we ask is, "Why does government need to restrict this right for law-abiding citizens?" In a free society the government has to prove it needs to restrict the basic rights of the people. The government that can restrict a right based on "need" can restrict any right. That is not a free society. Banning guns because some criminals use them tells all honest citizens that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct but on the behavior of the lawless. It tells the law-abiding that they have only such rights and liberties as criminals will allow. Orhunaa said: I don't believe that right to bear arms should be the default position. And I don't believe that what some unwitting teenager thinks has any place in serious political discourse. As someone else put it, "The right to keep and bear arms (filed under private property) and the right to self-defense (filed under right to life) are inalienable individual human rights." Rights are intrinsic, derived from our very nature as human beings. They are not granted by government. (If they were, they would be privileges, not rights.) At best, government serves to help secure them; at worst, it destroys them totally. Countless people died to preserve these rights, and without a second thought, you blaspheme the noble principles the greatest nation in history (you heard me) was founded upon and brazenly disparage their sacrifice. We won't stand for treason, we don't negotiate with terrorists, and we sure as hell won't let a bunch of Eurocucks write our laws. To all hostile forces considering disarming the US (because I just know you're reading this off-topic post on an anime forum...lol): Try to take our guns. See what happens. |
|
SadMadoka said: konkelo said: And I simply believe in a country where there is not similar culture surrounded around guns like in USA, it would more likely cause problems and possibly just increase those life-threatening situations. And I'd rather not try that in real life to see if i'm correct or wrong. There are approaching two million firearms in civilian possession in Finland. You're proportionally in the top ten, so...congratulations, I guess. Oh I am well aware of that, again I haven't said ban all guns. What I'm more suspicious of is that second amendment you yankees have as a basic right spread to other nations and in this context, used as a preventive measurement for safety put in use globally. Majority of guns here are for hunting and you have restrictions on hunting itself. Hand guns are more harder to get and they made it more harder after couple school shootings, you can't really get hand guns unless you have a good reason like a job or you're "professional". For "protecting yourself"-reason only mace spray is an option. Like I said, different culture regarding fire arms. SadMadoka said: konkelo said: There is a reason why countries that have been in a war recently try to confiscate guns or put more restrictions on them. Yeah...so the people can't resist and have to do whatever the ruling regime dictates, up to and including being shot dead for any arbitrary reason. Exonerating despots is a no-no. More so because they're illicit and easy to end up to criminals. And accidents do happen especially when a person who knows jack shit about guns still gets one trough family. Anyway I doubt a country like Kosovo has a government that plans to oppress its own people and put them in danger. SadMadoka said: konkelo said: Even if we would take that possibility government would turn tyrannical it would be so minimal change of actually happening and there are countless other factors in play that preparing for a big war just in case is ridiculous. So naive... That's what they all said before disaster struck. Brush up on your history, bud. Any manner of atrocities were relatively unlikely...and they happened anyway. Ever heard of democide? An estimated 262 million human beings were killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM What you on now about? Why you made it sound like I believe no government ever has done shitty things, when I claimed a country with a stable democracy is unlikely to turn into some North Korea with out any other options to resolve that and many possibilities what would happen in a previous comment I made some time ago. And I'd say same to you. You remember we had World war I and its sequel in 20th century, colonization when absolutely no colonialist country cared what happened in their colonized country among that quite many civil wars due to many nations getting their independence and their power structure was fragile. Why give that link in this discussion when the three biggest murderers in 20th century are USSR, China and Nazi Germany, where there was obvious propaganda citizens believed, bribery and happenings where guns would not have helped like famine also oppression of minority ethnics that majority didn't care about. I have to copy this from your source too, since it tells what were their logic in counting death toll and how democide is defined For its indiscriminate bombing of German and Japanese civilians, the United States must also be added to this list So it's not simply just government going mental over its own people that counted, which is this whole deal of going against the tyrannical government by fire arms. Because most nations have an army for foreign threats. |
konkeloJul 23, 2019 8:30 AM
|
konkelo said: Oh I am well aware of that, again I haven't said ban all guns. What I'm more suspicious of is that second amendment you yankees have as a basic right spread to other nations and in this context, used as a preventive measurement for safety put in use globally. I doubt there's cause to worry about that happening. Much of the rest of the world is too far gone. konkelo said: Majority of guns here are for hunting and you have restrictions on hunting itself. Hand guns are more harder to get and they made it more harder after couple school shootings, you can't really get hand guns unless you have a good reason like a job or you're "professional". For "protecting yourself"-reason only mace spray is an option. Like I said, different culture regarding fire arms. Good luck warding off criminals (with guns, knives, and who knows what else) with freaking spray... konkelo said: More so because they're illicit and easy to end up to criminals. If guns are banned, that means they're all illicit and anyone in possession of them is (unjustly) classified as a criminal. (Aside from the state, which gets to be armed to the teeth.) konkelo said: And accidents do happen especially when a person who knows jack shit about guns still gets one trough family. Which is why gun safety education is important. The truth is that in the past seventy years, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms owned by Americans has gone up five times, fatal firearm accidents have been cut by 76%. The most important factor in reducing firearms accidents is proper education on the safe handling and storage of firearms. NRA, the leading pro-gun ownership rights group in the nation, has spent over a century teaching firearm safety. Firearms accidents can always be reduced further, but their numbers are far below many other common mishaps including drownings, falls and poisonings. Gun accidents account for only 0.7% of accidental deaths. konkelo said: Anyway I doubt a country like Kosovo has a government that plans to oppress its own people and put them in danger. Oh, okay. I guess since Kosovo is (according to you) in the clear, no one in the world needs to worry about being killed by their government ever again. konkelo said: What you on now about? Why you made it sound like I believe no government ever has done shitty things, when I claimed a country with a stable democracy is unlikely to turn into some North Korea with out any other options to resolve that and many possibilities what would happen in a previous comment I made some time ago. It's not even about preparing for the worst possible scenario; it's about preparing for any scenario that could threaten our lives and liberty. People use guns to defend themselves every day. konkelo said: And I'd say same to you. You remember we had World war I and its sequel in 20th century, colonization when absolutely no colonialist country cared what happened in their colonized country among that quite many civil wars due to many nations getting their independence and their power structure was fragile. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. konkelo said: Why give that link in this discussion when the three biggest murderers in 20th century are USSR, China and Nazi Germany, where there was obvious propaganda citizens believed, bribery and happenings where guns would not have helped like famine also oppression of minority ethnics that majority didn't care about. You're missing the point, which is that people in various nations regarded their government as trustworthy...and were subsequently killed by it. Having the citizens armed is a countermeasure to that. (Plus, as I repeatedly covered, it is a natural inalienable right to self-defense.) Think of it as the notion of noticing that these things occurred in the past, and taking measures to prevent that. Again, citing unlikelihood is 100% irrelevant. There's propaganda and bribery in the US too, FYI. You assume guns would not have helped; I wager that they could have. If they were not disarmed, they could have fought back, obviously. (Including circumventing a forced famine.) konkelo said: I have to copy this from your source too, since it tells what were their logic in counting death toll and how democide is defined The definition of democide is covered here: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide konkelo said: So it's not simply just government going mental over its own people that counted, The extraneous factors taken into account hardly alter the statistic. konkelo said: which is this whole deal of going against the tyrannical government by fire arms. Your point is poorly-worded and unclear. Try again. konkelo said: Because most nations have an army for foreign threats. And? |
|
| When you are thirsty, what's better: Drinking a glass of water or eating a hand of sand? |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
| @SadMadoka I rather not start another round of bickering over same things both have already said of modern day's use of guns to protect oneself from criminals. If you honestly want to start go on about gun control laws of different countries or some other thing regarding that hit me a message outside this thread. But as for me like I have already said, agree to disagree. I'd rather go on that more interesting part, namely that "history as an example" SadMadoka said: konkelo said: And I'd say same to you. You remember we had World war I and its sequel in 20th century, colonization when absolutely no colonialist country cared what happened in their colonized country among that quite many civil wars due to many nations getting their independence and their power structure was fragile. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. What I'm getting here at is that World was full of regions that were forced under another country's power. Either with no actual big battles or with very bloody fights. With regions that didn't have connection to each other be it either language, culture or simply distance there is highly change there will be conflicts with varying severity. And one important thing is too that with war there will always be shortage of food and other supplies, how the government dealt with that is another thing but there will still be deaths wanted or not. Civil war is pretty simple since it is countrymen killing each other, fighting usually over political power. Those are pretty common thing with new countries where there is a void, so it is a good environment for government actually turn into tyrannical since the political power is not spread. SadMadoka said: konkelo said: Why give that link in this discussion when the three biggest murderers in 20th century are USSR, China and Nazi Germany, where there was obvious propaganda citizens believed, bribery and happenings where guns would not have helped like famine also oppression of minority ethnics that majority didn't care about. You're missing the point, which is that people in various nations regarded their government as trustworthy...and were subsequently killed by it. Having the citizens armed is a countermeasure to that. (Plus, as I repeatedly covered, it is a natural inalienable right to self-defense.) Think of it as the notion of noticing that these things occurred in the past, and taking measures to prevent that. Again, citing unlikelihood is 100% irrelevant. And here's the reason why I don't get why bring these here. Do you really think that majority of Germans would have fought against the nazi party, when they promised them better and as in truth the economy did develop for better and many citizens lives too with it. Either people didn't know of all the crimes Nazis did or when they did there really wasn't other option but to go with other folks to save your own ass because socially it was accepted what they did and encouraged. The propaganda worked, no way people will then go against the government. Only minority is left to fight that and those brainwashed people will be against them. That is already escalated into situation with no really turning back, so better make sure the government won't turn into that. Also bringing up again that many regions were under foreign force, those people did not wish for that government and most fought but since the enemy had large army there's little a civilian can do without no backup forces. SadMadoka said: I promise you, everyone who has ever anywhere heard of USA knows that.There's propaganda and bribery in the US too, FYI. SadMadoka said: You assume people didn't fought back and lost. I am pretty sure no guns would have stopped USSR sending all those ethnic minorities in to Siberia or hanged. I am also pretty confident in saying no guns would have helped in China with all neighbors spying on each other and reporting anything weird to the police.You assume guns would not have helped; I wager that they could have. If they were not disarmed, they could have fought back, obviously. (Including circumventing a forced famine.) SadMadoka said: konkelo said: I have to copy this from your source too, since it tells what were their logic in counting death toll and how democide is defined The definition of democide is covered here: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP2.HTM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide konkelo said: So it's not simply just government going mental over its own people that counted, The extraneous factors taken into account hardly alter the statistic. konkelo said: which is this whole deal of going against the tyrannical government by fire arms. Your point is poorly-worded and unclear. Try again. konkelo said: Because most nations have an army for foreign threats. And? Okay lets try again then. Your given source isn't limited to only government killing its own citizens. The one I copied from there is important because USA didn't drop bombs over its own men, it bombed foreign country's civilians, Germans and Japanese, and why it is included in democide are these criterias (1) designed to kill or cause the death of people (1.1) because of their religion, race, language, ethnicity, national origin, class, politics, speech, actions construed as opposing the government or wrecking social policy, or by virtue of their relationship to such people; (1.6) by directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict. (3) with the following qualifications and clarifications: (c) clause 1.1 includes, for example, directly targeting noncombatants during a war or violent conflict out of hatred or revenge, or to depopulate an enemy region or terrorize or force the population into urging surrender; this would involve, among other actions, indiscriminate urban bombing or shelling, or blockades that cause mass starvation; (h) and excluding from the definition: (h.1) execution for what are internationally considered capital crimes, such as murder, rape, spying, treason, and the like, so long as evidence does not exist that such allegations were invented by the government in order to execute the accused; (h.2) actions taken against armed civilians during mob action or a riot (e.g., killing people with weapons in their hands is not democide); (h.3) the death of noncombatants killed during attacks on military targets so long as the primary target is military (e.g., during bombing enemy logistics). So no that estimate of 262 millions of people getting killed by their own government is way over blown since it includes enemy force's civilians and regions that were occupied during war, so like whole Poland for example. |
konkeloJul 24, 2019 11:49 AM
|
More topics from this board
» Why should we have sympathy for drug addicts? ( 1 2 )HarryRambod22 - Feb 10, 2022 |
66 |
by JKKH
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» What do you think about online friendship?Mehwish_999 - Apr 21 |
38 |
by Rinenka
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
» Are you a slow or fast typier on a computer???DesuMaiden - Apr 19 |
37 |
by Rinenka
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
» What do you need cash for in your everyday life?MeanMrMusician - Apr 21 |
30 |
by Rinenka
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» Fill this thread with the most questionable statement or two you can think of!IAmOdie - Apr 20 |
25 |
by Noboru
»»
21 minutes ago |