|
On February 20 2012 08:05 NNTP wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote:
Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right? It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ] No Nuke [ c ] [ d ] Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case: a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires. b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage. c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d. d: Same as in b but the other way around. All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc. Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
Game theory is cute, but applying it to the issue of nuclear proliferation is a sad exercise in futility. The sheer number of factors involved in weapons of mass destruction destroys the practical application of the theory and assumes all actions are rational and logical, when even a cursory study of Cold War history shows a remarkable tendency for suicidal behavior on part of both sides. Don't use the Cold War as an example of why nuclear weapons should be spread.
|
On February 20 2012 08:05 NNTP wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote:
Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right? It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ] No Nuke [ c ] [ d ] Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case: a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires. b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage. c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d. d: Same as in b but the other way around. All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc. Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back.
Completely unnecessary. The simply answer is, plenty of countries don't have a right to self-defense due to their violation of rights and initiations of force.
|
Nuclear weapons are still a fairly guarded technology, and rightly so. I don't think every country is "worthy" of possessing nukes. It's actually a lot like this very same question being discussed in this thread. Instead of "should ex-cons be allowed to possess firearms?" lets ask ourselves, "should warmongering shit-hole countries with corrupt governments be allowed to own nukes?". I actually think the answer to the latter is obtained much more easily.
|
I'd like an option for no guns, but I'd have to say that without that option, you have to allow everyone to own and carry guns. After someone is released from prison, our system says that they are rehabilitated to the point where they can successfully be assimilated back into society, and a point where they would not be any more prone to use a gun that any other regular citizen.
|
On February 20 2012 08:16 dUTtrOACh wrote:
Nuclear weapons are still a fairly guarded technology, and rightly so. I don't think every country is "worthy" of possessing nukes. It's actually a lot like this very same question being discussed in this thread. Instead of "should ex-cons be allowed to possess firearms?" lets ask ourselves, "should warmongering shit-hole countries with corrupt governments be allowed to own nukes?". I actually think the answer to the latter is obtained much more easily.
But it provokes the same answer from a lot of people:
No one should be allowed to have nukes.
|
On February 20 2012 08:08 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:05 NNTP wrote:On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote:
Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right? It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ] No Nuke [ c ] [ d ] Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case: a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires. b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage. c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d. d: Same as in b but the other way around. All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc. Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back. Game theory is cute, but applying it to the issue of nuclear proliferation is a sad exercise in futility. The sheer number of factors involved in weapons of mass destruction destroys the practical application of the theory and assumes all actions are rational and logical, when even a cursory study of Cold War history shows a remarkable tendency for suicidal behavior on part of both sides. Don't use the Cold War as an example of why nuclear weapons should be spread.
He asked a question and I answered. And in writing my reply I did mention that only if both parties are rational which means that they are not suicidal. The fact that the Taliban thinks that they will go to paradise if they go around killing infidels which means you and me and every other non muslims in this world pretty much rules them out of the equation lol. But then again this also means that countries that already own them have more political power than those that don't on that matter. So joining the I have nukes club nowadays is extremely hard to do.
|
Guns are like tobacco. Even if the government tries to prevent a product to reach a certain part of the market, it's not working very well. Underaged teens will keep getting their hands on cigs while violent gangbangers will be able to get guns.
|
The funny part is by making it illegal for them to buy a gun we probably make it harder to track the fact that they used a certain gun in a shooting.
|
Only the convicts convicted of crimes related to firearms, or those enabled by firearms, should be disallowed from owning/carrying firearms. If a man is sent to jail for significant fraud, he should not necessarily be disallowed from owning a gun. A person who robs another with a knife should not be disallowed from owning guns.
|
On February 20 2012 09:54 Mordoc wrote:
Only the convicts convicted of crimes related to firearms, or those enabled by firearms, should be disallowed from owning/carrying firearms. If a man is sent to jail for significant fraud, he should not necessarily be disallowed from owning a gun. A person who robs another with a knife should not be disallowed from owning guns.
Maybe he should be disallowed from owning a knife instead?
|
People can make guns in their garage. True story.
Once the cat is out of the bag so to speak, it's not possible to outlaw guns completely.
Non-violent offenders can have firearms. HOWEVER, if they get out early, they must wait until the end of the original sentence before they may purchase a firearm. Any firearms they might have had previous to their incarceration would not be returned.
Violent offenders can own a firearm 30 years after the end of their original sentence. Lots of people would like to restrict them forever because they actually assaulted somebody, but assaulting somebody in your 20's gets you a bunch of years, if you have been a good upstanding law abiding citizen for 30 years after.... well, you're 50-60-70 years old. I'd say if somebody wanted to rob you that you would need a gun to defend yourself from somebody half your age.
|
First off: the US 2nd amendment is outdated and one of the main reasons why there are so many crime-related deaths per year and percentage of population as compared to other first-world countries. However, seeing as your constitution is not likely to change I don't feel you can heap all ex-cons together and even the split between violent and non-violent is too general. It should be checked on a case-by-case basis with the large majority getting permission: it's their constitutional right too.
That said, who really cares? With the prevalence of guns in the society, obtaining a gun illegally should be pretty damned easy for any ex-con who is serious about obtaining one. If a violent ex-con is dead set on getting a gun and shooting someone, he will. He should probably never have been let out of jail in the first place (and that goes for anywhere in the world, not just the US).
|
Lol wtf is with all these "should people be allowed to".
|
Isn't it wanted people to have guns so they can shoot others so they can defend themselves? So those who broke once law, may not defend them selves in this state/nations logic? Is there more to it?
|
On February 20 2012 03:58 RodrigoX wrote:
How about we get an actual system that rehabilities criminals and not just make them worse?
This. This more than anything else.
On February 20 2012 03:30 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote:
The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society. Actually the cities that force each household to own a gun have the lowest crime rate in almost every category. Compare cities like Kennesaw, Georgia and Washington D.C its not even close.
!!! I'm actually FROM Kennesaw!! Hahaha. I completely that we had a law requiring every household to own a gun, which is what I assume you are talking about. It's mostly just a middle finger to the D.C. law though, you'll never, ever get arrested for it.
On February 20 2012 02:18 Candadar wrote:
The most common argument by pro-gun activists is that, if you're walking along and someone starts waving a gun around your family, you would hope that you have a gun too to take him down. Let me tell you this:
If someone is waving a gun around you or your family, you're not wishing you had a gun so much that they DIDNT have a gun.
It took me a while to think of why this argument didn't make sense, but I finally got it.
1) If you argue it from you're perspective, the same thing could be said about the man waving the gun: he's definitely wishing that you don't have a gun. And more importantly,
2) That's true that your first wish should be that he doesn't have a gun, but you can't change that fact. The only thing you have under your control in this situation is whether you have a gun or not. In this case, most people would want the gun.
On February 20 2012 02:59 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:00 llKenZyll wrote:On February 20 2012 02:53 Vorgrim wrote:
I'm glad nobody is allowed to freely carry an armed weapon in my country. Going hunting? Sure, not for going to the store. Well you cant just walk around with a gun in the USA either.... Yes, yes you can. If you got a permit, you can walk around with a gun in your waistband or an automatic weapon in your trunk if you so wish, completely legally.
I'm going to assume you mean fully automatic, and that's not really true. You can only own fully automatic weapons after an insanely specific set of rules and regulations have been met, and the guns are just as insanely expensive. Not to mention they have to be made prior to 1986, and you're not really allowed to just tote them around. You can take them to a shooting range though.
On February 20 2012 03:53 DOUDOU wrote:
in this thread, americans vs the world
awe america, you're at it again
so you call us freedom haters for not wanting to let every instable fat ass own assault weapons but you're always on the top when it comes to restrict any rights and privacy to anyone that stole chewing gums 10 years ago, just so that they really don't have even the slightest chance to live a straight life in the future
give guns to everyone, make sure the outlaws keep stealing, raping, killing
seems very logical if you want to cause chaos, might happen very quickly in a recessive economy
I agree with warning/banning that guy who was just calling everybody lefty communists who didn't agree with him, but isn't this a little silly?
On February 20 2012 04:28 Candadar wrote:
Something needs to be mentioned.
People are fucking cowards. You say "People will still kill no matter what" all you want. However, there are less people out there who have the balls to stab someone to death than there are those who will grab a 9mm and shoot someone down. A gun impersonalizes the killing of someone. You press a strip of metal and they are dead from a distance away. A lot of people can't handle fighting someone or stabbing them. So saying that "people will still kill, even without guns so let's keep them so we can defend ourselves" is very fallacious for that reason alone. Because most people, criminals and non-criminals alike, could not grab a knife and kill someone with it like they could grab a gun and shoot someone with it.
I don't think you or I are qualified to talk about this, since neither of us have attempted to kill someone (I hope). That being said, I would think if anybody would be able to kill someone with a knife, I'd pick the felon over the victim.
Also, you are very angry. <3
|
On February 20 2012 08:08 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 08:05 NNTP wrote:On February 20 2012 04:14 LastK wrote:
Why doesn't US allow every country in the world having nuclear weapons? These countries need to have a way to defend themselves in case the U.. tries to conquer the world right? It is called game theory or the prisoner's dilemma . Look it up. It basically is what happened during the cold war No Nuke Has Nuke Has Nuke [ a ] [ b ] No Nuke [ c ] [ d ] Suppose the vertical axis is Country Y and the Horizontal axis is Country X and both countries' leaders are clear minded logical thinkers and not crazies then in case: a: Both countries are afraid of using nukes because they know that they will be retaliated upon so no one fires. b: Country Y has the advantage and in case war breaks out and casualties keep climbing and no end to the war car be sighted then it uses its nukes to put an end to the war and stops casualties from its side. Country Y can be the oppressor since Country X is in disadvantage. c: Both countries do not own nukes and therefor are somewhat equals but if is aggression between both nations then it will be a race to who stockpiles nukes first and will either go to case a, b or d. d: Same as in b but the other way around. All in all, case d is the ideal world where both countries want peace and freedom and respect each other and there is no greed. Most likely not possible because both countries would have different cultures and they think differently but it does not mean that it could not be achieved. The most optimal (not ideal but optimal, best option) is case a. Although there might be differences in point of view both countries fear death and therefor will not fire their nukes. Replace X and Y with anything that you want e.g athletes and performance enhancers, convicted prisoners ratting out on each other, in this forum topic who should own guns, etc. Following this logic, every nation SHOULD possess nukes, but since the US was the first to have them and they have the most taking ex-USSR out of the equation, it acts as the world police (or bullies in the eyes of some) and they dictate the terms of peace. Anyone not respecting the US and that possibly own nukes are considered terrorist states by some american media and policy makers. It is all about who has power and can maintain it. In a just world everyone should be accountable and equals meaning if one should decide to be a bully all the others can fight back. Game theory is cute, but applying it to the issue of nuclear proliferation is a sad exercise in futility. The sheer number of factors involved in weapons of mass destruction destroys the practical application of the theory and assumes all actions are rational and logical, when even a cursory study of Cold War history shows a remarkable tendency for suicidal behavior on part of both sides. Don't use the Cold War as an example of why nuclear weapons should be spread.
The theory also assumes it is only countries that have nuke not smaller entities such as the Terrorist groups and the Mexican cartel. Not saying either does have them, but in dire need when facing erratication they could use them as leverage.
|
Giving a gun to a crazy guy, who just came out of prison for shooting 20cops, will of course sound totally insane to almost everyone, but on the other side not allowing someone ,who went to prison for file sharing, a gun to protecting his own home, after he have served his time in jail also sounds wrong, at least to me it does.
I believe that once someone has sentenced there time in jail, they should be free and have the same rights as everyone else in the society, it should not matter what the person did, because if they did something horrible they would have to sit a damn long time in jail before being allowed back into the society.
Being on parole is not the same as being free, when someone is on parole they should not be allowed any of the goods that a free man has.
|
I agree with the gentleman above me. And it's mostly because we share certain values that we have in Norway. I think that convicts and ex-cons are a valuable resource to the society, and the government should do everything in their power to balance the distance between reality and prison. I believe the people that have served a long, long time in jail doesn't have the same sense of reality as other citizens outside jail. As ex-convicts can't handle the transition to the real world, and therefore they tend to lean back to their criminal life - which costs the government more money than if they were working and having a "normal" life. I believe everyone should have the same rights, even though in their past they have done something wrong. Is an ex-convict's life less worth than people without a criminal past (I'm stating this because almost every US citizen on this forum is pro allowing guns for cizitens)? No. If carrying a gun is so important for some citizens, then deal with the fact that ex-convicts might see you as much as a threat to him if you two face each other with a gun.
|
Of course! Who needs a gun more, who is safer around a gun, than someone who's had a lot of life experience with them. 
|
By ex-cons I assume that means felons. Felons can carry firearms in my state, they have to go through a lengthy process to do so. I'd hope that Felons would want their voting rights restored more than the ability to legally carry a firearm. Our prison system just angers and educates people into being better criminals, and upon their release they can't vote to change anything, and probably have a hard time finding a job, and thus fueling the anger more.. Felons are a big disenfranchised class, but no politician wants to be seen as 'soft on crime.' So it is always more guards and more walls for our overcrowded(dangerous) penal system.
[edit] I forgot to mention I agree with the Norwegians above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
