|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:53 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
pro choice. and no, before you go there, I don't see the fetus as being a living human being with the same rights as everyone else.
Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens.
And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
|
On December 16 2012 14:42 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:37 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:34 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:30 Gospadin wrote:On December 16 2012 14:28 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:25 TMD wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry, but if you're mugging me--threatening my life for my money/wallet with a weapon, you fucked up and you better do a good job with what you're doing because there will be no passivity on my part. Its easy to say that until you are actually put in that situation. But then again this is just one of the symptoms that correlates with high gun violence. "A deep culture of honor". So you would just stand there and do what they say? Why do you expect the mugger to stop with your wallet if you give it to them? People get killed in robberies all the time, even when not resisting. Yes, I would give him my wallet, because I don't value my possessions over my life, except for maybe my computer, i might be a tad inconsistent there. And I would report it to the police. If he tried something, I'd fight back, i wouldnt just stand there and let him kill me without a fight, but I would have to have some reason to believe my life is being threatened other than him holding a knife and saying give me yo wallet. LOL. WHAT THE F? Do you actually value your own life or not? Of course I do, you think if I did I would try to fight with a person holding a knife trying to steal my wallet? For a mugger the last thing he wants to do is add murder to his list of offenses. if he had a gun you think I want to take the risk that i can whip out my gun and shoot him before he fires? not likely.
Oh my god, I'm sorry man. I can't post with you any longer without not taking you seriously and just coming off as insulting. I swear I can't tell if you being serious or just an amazing comedian, I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
This will be the last reponse to you.
There is more than one cause for those 10,000 deaths. Some are criminals shooting each other (lots of gangs, illegal immigrants from South America here in the US). Most of them are just criminals murdering people. None of them are law-abiding citizens who follow the law (obviously). There are 10,000 gun-related homicides because there are a lot of crazy ass people out there, that's why. It is not the fault of any law-abiding gun owner that this happens.
The biggest cause of the violence is the drugs. US is the most drugged up country in the world by far, psychiatric drugs turn people suicidal and cause them to do violent things like mass shooting sprees.
Your idea that people wanting to defend themselves is the direct cause for criminals murdering people does not make sense at all.
|
On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 13:57 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Exactly what I thought. It's so easy to spot how aberrated and flawed your way of thinking and logic is. Care to elaborate? From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10.
You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic).
|
On December 16 2012 14:47 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:42 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:34 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:30 Gospadin wrote:On December 16 2012 14:28 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:25 TMD wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate?
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry, but if you're mugging me--threatening my life for my money/wallet with a weapon, you fucked up and you better do a good job with what you're doing because there will be no passivity on my part. Its easy to say that until you are actually put in that situation. But then again this is just one of the symptoms that correlates with high gun violence. "A deep culture of honor". So you would just stand there and do what they say? Why do you expect the mugger to stop with your wallet if you give it to them? People get killed in robberies all the time, even when not resisting. Yes, I would give him my wallet, because I don't value my possessions over my life, except for maybe my computer, i might be a tad inconsistent there. And I would report it to the police. If he tried something, I'd fight back, i wouldnt just stand there and let him kill me without a fight, but I would have to have some reason to believe my life is being threatened other than him holding a knife and saying give me yo wallet. LOL. WHAT THE F? Do you actually value your own life or not? Of course I do, you think if I did I would try to fight with a person holding a knife trying to steal my wallet? For a mugger the last thing he wants to do is add murder to his list of offenses. if he had a gun you think I want to take the risk that i can whip out my gun and shoot him before he fires? not likely. Oh my god, I'm sorry man. I can't post with you any longer without not taking you seriously and just coming off as insulting. I swear I can't tell if you being serious or just an amazing comedian, I'll leave it at that.
This is the second content-less post you've made in this discussion; obviously I am no arbitrater but I am actually interested in your response(s)... I think the point is valid that yes criminals are willing to break the law, but that it is not so black and white that all criminals are iwilling to instantly break all laws and that murder, for instance, is one that might be further away from a mugger than say, theft, the actual goal of a mugging. Are these people more willing to murder than others? Likely. Though if the principle of this whole everyone-has-guns argument is that you would kill the guy, maybe not...
|
On December 16 2012 14:52 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate?
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. This will be the last reponse to you. There is more than one cause for those 10,000 deaths. Some are criminals shooting each other (lots of gangs, illegal immigrants from South America here in the US). Most of them are just criminals murdering people. None of them are law-abiding citizens who follow the law (obviously). There are 10,000 gun-related homicides because there are a lot of crazy ass people out there, that's why. It is not the fault of any law-abiding gun owner that this happens. The biggest cause of the violence is the drugs. US is the most drugged up country in the world by far, psychiatric drugs turn people suicidal and cause them to do violent things like mass shooting sprees. Your idea that people wanting to defend themselves is the direct cause for criminals murdering people does not make sense at all.
I've already told you illegal drug use and neurotic personalities do not lead to gun violence. it doesn't correlate. For most of these "criminals" it's their first offense. The vast majority of the offenders legally owned their guns. And it's not because theres a lot of crazy people out there, compared to all other higher income and populous countries, ones that are like us, we are literally killing the competition in terms of firearm death rates, in all categories.
I wish I could agree with you, but the evidence does not lead to your conclusions.
|
On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate?
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic).
In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns.
I'll source it for you as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/
|
On December 16 2012 14:56 bluemanrocks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:47 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:42 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:34 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:30 Gospadin wrote:On December 16 2012 14:28 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:25 TMD wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet.
Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry, but if you're mugging me--threatening my life for my money/wallet with a weapon, you fucked up and you better do a good job with what you're doing because there will be no passivity on my part. Its easy to say that until you are actually put in that situation. But then again this is just one of the symptoms that correlates with high gun violence. "A deep culture of honor". So you would just stand there and do what they say? Why do you expect the mugger to stop with your wallet if you give it to them? People get killed in robberies all the time, even when not resisting. Yes, I would give him my wallet, because I don't value my possessions over my life, except for maybe my computer, i might be a tad inconsistent there. And I would report it to the police. If he tried something, I'd fight back, i wouldnt just stand there and let him kill me without a fight, but I would have to have some reason to believe my life is being threatened other than him holding a knife and saying give me yo wallet. LOL. WHAT THE F? Do you actually value your own life or not? Of course I do, you think if I did I would try to fight with a person holding a knife trying to steal my wallet? For a mugger the last thing he wants to do is add murder to his list of offenses. if he had a gun you think I want to take the risk that i can whip out my gun and shoot him before he fires? not likely. Oh my god, I'm sorry man. I can't post with you any longer without not taking you seriously and just coming off as insulting. I swear I can't tell if you being serious or just an amazing comedian, I'll leave it at that. This is the second content-less post you've made in this discussion; obviously I am no arbitrater but I am actually interested in your response(s)... I think the point is valid that yes criminals are willing to break the law, but that it is not so black and white that all criminals are iwilling to instantly break all laws and that murder, for instance, is one that might be further away from a mugger than say, theft, the actual goal of a mugging. Are these people more willing to murder than others? Likely. Though if the principle of this whole everyone-has-guns argument is that you would kill the guy, maybe not...
But that is based on knowing exactly what the muggers intentions are. Or you are just guessing and taking your chances thinking that "chances are he will just steal my stuff and not hurt me." You can be one of those people, or you can use your right to defend yourself and your life and not take any chances. People have been murdered and mugged before. Who knows what every mugger/criminal's intentions are. If someone feels his life is threatened while being mugged, too bad for the mugger/criminal, he's ganna get shot and killed or he's ganna get his ass kicked.
|
On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 13:58 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
Care to elaborate?
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet. Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic).
I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now.
|
Anyone who actually thinks there is a "right" answer to this is dumb/ignorant. There is no "right" answer, there is only a "moral" answer. And morality is relative. In the USA, we have one of the lowest gun violence rates in the Americas (third only to sparsely populated Canada, and Peru). Our gun culture and self-defense values weigh very heavily on our social conscience. Despite our insanely high gun ownership, our gun violence is not that far out of whack compared to other countries, particularly on our continents where guns were part of life for generations and became cultural.
There isn't a "right" answer, there is just what works for us. It works, despite your personal opinions on the matter. Do we have a slightly higher gun violence rate than Europe? No doubt. But we also have trades-offs for this that we, as a society, prefer to have.
|
On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet.
Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/
That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide.
|
On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:01 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
From my view, you value the rights or life of a criminal who seeks to violate the rights/lives of others. Your view on this makes it easier for criminals to get away with things and to do what they do. While at the same time, you devalue the life/rights of an unborn human being. Basically you value the right/life of a criminal more than an unborn human being, and you justify it by "thinking" that an unborn human being is not a person just because it hasn't developed to the extent we have yet.
Just seems completely irrational to me. I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now.
I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC!
If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable.
|
On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable.
Keldrath is the world ending on the 21st?
|
On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide.
Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries.
|
On December 16 2012 15:01 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 14:56 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:47 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:42 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:34 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:30 Gospadin wrote:On December 16 2012 14:28 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:25 TMD wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry, but if you're mugging me--threatening my life for my money/wallet with a weapon, you fucked up and you better do a good job with what you're doing because there will be no passivity on my part. Its easy to say that until you are actually put in that situation. But then again this is just one of the symptoms that correlates with high gun violence. "A deep culture of honor". So you would just stand there and do what they say? Why do you expect the mugger to stop with your wallet if you give it to them? People get killed in robberies all the time, even when not resisting. Yes, I would give him my wallet, because I don't value my possessions over my life, except for maybe my computer, i might be a tad inconsistent there. And I would report it to the police. If he tried something, I'd fight back, i wouldnt just stand there and let him kill me without a fight, but I would have to have some reason to believe my life is being threatened other than him holding a knife and saying give me yo wallet. LOL. WHAT THE F? Do you actually value your own life or not? Of course I do, you think if I did I would try to fight with a person holding a knife trying to steal my wallet? For a mugger the last thing he wants to do is add murder to his list of offenses. if he had a gun you think I want to take the risk that i can whip out my gun and shoot him before he fires? not likely. Oh my god, I'm sorry man. I can't post with you any longer without not taking you seriously and just coming off as insulting. I swear I can't tell if you being serious or just an amazing comedian, I'll leave it at that. This is the second content-less post you've made in this discussion; obviously I am no arbitrater but I am actually interested in your response(s)... I think the point is valid that yes criminals are willing to break the law, but that it is not so black and white that all criminals are iwilling to instantly break all laws and that murder, for instance, is one that might be further away from a mugger than say, theft, the actual goal of a mugging. Are these people more willing to murder than others? Likely. Though if the principle of this whole everyone-has-guns argument is that you would kill the guy, maybe not... But that is based on knowing exactly what the muggers intentions are. Or you are just guessing and taking your chances thinking that "chances are he will just steal my stuff and not hurt me." You can be one of those people, or you can use your right to defend yourself and your life and not take any chances. People have been murdered and mugged before. Who knows what every mugger/criminal's intentions are. If someone feels his life is threatened while being mugged, too bad for the mugger/criminal, he's ganna get shot and killed or he's ganna get his ass kicked.
I agree with this on a personal level, not on a governmental one. There is a chance one might be maliciously killed at nearly any moment in very many ways; the government exists to provide protections on a generalized and national scale - to say the government should allow you to take no chances and always defend yourself fully is to ask for witness protection at all times, well-beyond simple gun ownership. It's beyond the scope of their powers (IMO) to keep us protected literally all the time, including sanctioning or even providing and reinforcing our gun ownership/knowledge/usage.
|
On December 16 2012 15:12 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. Keldrath is the world ending on the 21st?
Why don't you actually contribute to the discussion rather than asking irrelevant and off topic and quite stupid questions?
|
On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:09 Keldrath wrote:
[quote]
I value life, I don't view a clump of cells developing inside a fetus a life. whereas a criminal is still a person, with hopes, dreams, experiences, family, friends, etc. Killing someone who is alive is a lot different from terminating a pregnancy of something that isn't even alive yet. at best you could call it a potential human life. So yes I do value the life of the criminal more than the life of a fetus. Lethal force is a last resort, not the first option, unless you are fighting in a war against enemy combatants. and the exception there isn't even an exception, that's always a life or death situation. We give people jail time for mugging, we don't execute them. And you shouldn't either, even in a situation where you feel your life may be threatened, you should first attempt to incapacitate them, not jump straight to execution. Which is one reason we allow cops to carry guns, they can deal with those situations, average joes will shoot first and ask questions later. Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point. While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable.
With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him.
I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time.
While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first).
|
On December 16 2012 15:15 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:11 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 15:01 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). In 2008, when the United States experienced over 12,000 gun-related homicides, Japan had only 11, or fewer than half as many killed Friday in Newtown, Conn. That same year in the United States, 587 were killed just by accidental gun discharges. In 2006 in Japan, a nation of 128 million people, only two were killed by guns. I'll source it for you as well. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/the-japan-lesson-can-americans-learn-from-the-country-that-has-almost-zero-gun-deaths/ That's awesome, but it gives no context. If you're going to throw out numbers, at least use rates. Aggregates are statistically misleading. Furthermore, using THE lowest gun murder rate as an example to prove someone wrong is just dishonest. You don't prove him wrong by saying "Well look at Japan." Japan has a significantly different culture than us. And not every part of it that leads to less gun violence is necessarily a good thing. It's worth noting that despite a 149x greater rate of gun homocide, they only have a 14x greater rate of total homocide. Japan was just the example used in that article because they have the lowest gun death rates of any populous high income country in the world. If it makes you feel better, of all of the populous high income countries in the world, the us has 15 times the firearm homicide rate than other populous high income countries.
Once again, a false statistic. The US rate is only about 3x that of Israel. Unless you consider a country with the 26th Per Capita GDP to be third world. I wouldn't know based on those clear and objective criteria you provided for defining your comparisons. Or lack thereof.
|
On December 16 2012 15:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 15:11 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 15:04 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:54 BluePanther wrote:On December 16 2012 14:45 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 14:41 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:37 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:24 Esk23 wrote:On December 16 2012 14:20 bluemanrocks wrote:On December 16 2012 14:13 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
Oh. My God. Society is so fucked if more people think like you. I'm sorry but I think you're beyond reasoning with at this point.
While I understand your issue with the "considering a life" bit, I also buy the cops vs. average joe counter-argument; to my knowledge, cops aren't even supposed to pull weapons unless they are expecting to fire them, and I would venture that a civilian with less training, experience, and ability would not exactly have a cop's judgment, let alone 100% judgment... also, if you don't bother to explain (essentially a "that doesn't even dignify a response"), don't bother to explain THAT you won't bother to explain -- by doing just that you're not contributing you're just saying "I'm right, you're wrong, AND I'm above you." And that doesn't prove your point, disprove the other person's or advance the discussion at all. Cops aren't any more competent at shooting the right target than citizens are. In fact, most citizens have more sense than cops do. Anyone remember the shooting in NYC (where guns are banned btw) and the cops open fired on the guy and shot 9 or 10 innocent bystanders at the same time? Update: The Guardian is reporting that the nine bystanders who were shot (that didn't include the shooter's target) were all shot by police, and that Jeffrey Johnson never fired on police.http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/08/just-how-many-bystanders-did-new-york-police-shoot/56187/ I know the story, but you'd be hard-pressed to find much more consistent even anecdotal evidence to confirm this, and I certainly doubt any (I know of at least one evidencing the opposite conclusion; that the trained are more practically sensible than the untrained). I will edit this post with it once I find it. Furthermore I find that you are moving in the direction of saying generally law enforcement as a force is arbitrary? Perhaps I am expanding too much but it doesn't seem too far-fetched from "citizens are as sensible as police in matters that one might think are police-only" when combined with "equip citizens with police tools". There's nothing cops can do that any normal law-abiding citizen can't do. Any normal person can learn to aim and shoot a gun. I'm against the idea of having government do everything for you and for people to reply completely or even too much on the government for everything. If a robber breaks into your house, who says you can't take care of it yourself if you have to instead of waiting 5-10 mins for the cops to show up hoping they don't acciently shoot instead of the robber. In a free society everyone should have the right to defend their own lives, they shouldn't have to depend on a group of people we put there in the first place to serve us to save our own lives everytime something happens. And this reasoning is why the US averages over 10,000 deaths per year due to gun violence, while countries like japan average about 10. You seriously fail at statistics. You misrepresent data and use correlation = causation arguments. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you stretch the truth to meet your predispositions. I've just read the past 5 pages, and could have made probably 10 different posts telling you where you made an illogical argument (not disagreement, but an actual failure of logic). I posted a little while back he was beyond reasoning with. He's made it even more clear the more he posts. I feel like I'm spinning in circles and starting the gun argument all over again. If people scroll back and read what's been posted already it really answers/counters the arguements they're making now. I am not beyond reasoning with, you'r major objection was the fact that I don't count a fetus's life the same as an actual living person. And you even agreed I had a perfectly justified position because the only justification you could even think of to say it's a human life, is by adding spirituality into the mix, which is the exact as saying, well I think it's a human being because MAGIC! If you can't do better than magic, then don't say I'm unreasonable. With all due respect, you are picking an arbitrary, subjective point in time where you think something becomes a human being as well, same as him. I think his moral point is that you think you shouldn't be able to kill someone who's attempting to kill you, yet you're completely OK with killing what will -- scientifically proven -- become a human at a later time. While I'm not a pro-lifer, I also have a hard time understand how you rationalize that concept. It seems like a contradiction without justification. His is at least a contradiction with a justification (not ok with ever taking life, unless they try to take a life first).
I believe it to be a last resort, not a first one, which is the main disagreement between me and him. Something that potentially could become a human, is not the same in any sense to someone that already is a human with life experience and everything that goes along with that. It's not a human yet, and no one has ever proven that it is, despite the topic being debated for so long. That's my justification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
