|
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 April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death.
You're lucky TL is not exactly a bastion of feminism.
Anyway, in the US at least, using lethal force against someone attempting to rape you usually results in no charges because it is recognized that it's very easy to murder someone you've already subdued enough to successfully rape. Also, because it's rape.
Why is a certain sub-section of American society so, so terrified about government control of their lives, but so tacitly accepting of the same kind of influence and power of corporate America? Is it purely a principle thing, ignorance of the latter or what?
Genuine question, not a flame or an attempt to post in an obnoxious 'I am European we know better' manner.
Come on you've asked this question already, and now you're complicating it by throwing in an anti-corporation angle.
This "certain subsection" of American society is a very small subsection of gun owners who are usually white supremacists or very, very fundamentalist Christians (the kind of people who think the "Moral Majority" guys were a bunch of hedonists). The vast majority of gun owners, just like the vast majority of Americans, do not "fear" their government in that way. To look at it from a different perspective, when Dubya was president, we turned against him in 2005-2006 because we felt he was being incompetent, not because of fear about our freedoms being taken away. The majority of Americans did not "fear" the Bush Administration that way. Pissed off about two wars we weren't winning decisively when we thought we should have done so, sure. Pissed off that the government seemed incapable of handling Hurricane Katrina, sure. Not afraid that the government was going to put a boot in our faces. We are confident as a people that if our government tried that, it would fail as badly as IdrA trying to discern whether HuK's army was full of hallucinations or not.
Americans also don't see corporations as occupying the place of power and influence in political life that Europeans do. Corporations exist to make money by serving us, if we don't like a particular one for whatever reason, we stop spending money on that corporation's products. To most Americans, that's the end of it. The very idea that corporations could take over our lives is befuddling to us, because we think that if corporations overstepped our boundaries, we'd demolish them and make better corporations in their place. We don't think it would be very hard to do if we wanted to.
|
On April 22 2013 09:34 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 09:31 farvacola wrote:On April 22 2013 09:20 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On April 22 2013 03:01 farvacola wrote:On April 22 2013 02:35 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On April 22 2013 01:08 kmillz wrote:On April 19 2013 23:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The point is that having a national registry to assist in background checks has little to no influence on whether or not we will make a law that confiscates guns. So if we decided to confiscate guns we would not have to register them prior to this happening? Just because A does not lead to B, doesn't mean we aren't any closer to B. An analogy, If a woman gives you her number, there's a chance you might end up seeing her again, compared to seeing her off at the station which is ZERO. In war, the first thing to always protect FIRST is intel. "Knowing is half the battle" - GI Joe. If a government goes against the people, will the gun registry be a benefit for these people? Or a benefit for the government? The chance of a rogue government's ability to confiscate guns is made so much easier once they know where said guns are. Remember how they rounded up unlicensed pharmacists (despite decades of practice) to be jailed and fined when they passed health regulations? See YouTube. Do you really want that scenario? Help Big Brother round up all the "crazy/inferior/rebel scum/etc" aka people? Not only are you illustrating rather perfectly why the tired "slippery slope" argument makes for poor reasoning, you've also made it clear that you are willing to cede authority to Youtube videos, which is.........worrisome to say the least. Without youtube, can you substantiate this tale of persecuted unlicensed pharmacists and substantively link it to the gun control argument sans begging the question? Then do your own research. If you cannot even bother to even view YouTube videos that concerned citizens produced on their own budget, time and energy explaining the associations, paper trails and links to the systematic erosion of American freedom, there's really no point talking further. You are already intellectually covering your ears going "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU IT NEVER HAPPENED WILL NEVER HAPPEN AND YOU ARE WRONG WRONG WRONG" ad nausem. There's therefore no point even going further since you cannot even be bothered to look into the assault on US freedoms with the merger of pharmacy and state. It is a neglected topic compared to the established research of new world orber. Ok, so you don't have anything other than youtube videos to back up your statements, I was only making sure that my initial judgement was germane. The government and the pharmaceutical industry do indeed have a troubling relationship, particularly due to to lobbying and the appointment of suspect individuals to positions of import, but again, linking this to gun control with something more substantial than populist drivel like "assault on US freedoms" seems unlikely given your previous responses, and is, unfortunately, what you need to do to justify all this rabble rousing. If it happened to the pharmaceutical industry, why wouldn't it happen to guns too? Or rather why do you think it's any different?
Because the hands of the government are never as interlinked as the police state preacher would have you believe, and neither are they as disentangled from the societal issues that give them rise. Contrary to popular belief, almost every "negative" facet of governmental infrastructure operates as a sort of reflection of the country and society over which it governs.
For example, lobbying is very much a manifestation of the US fascination with "accomplished success", specifically what that means insofar as political voice is concerned. In no other country are financial and political means so closely tied together, and in a sort of quasi-social mythologistic way, we regard the wealthy as having "earned" the right to have more political voice. Our financial system implicitly encourages this via the way investing and taxation work, and it carries over into politics via lobbying and "legitimized" monied influence like a super pac. Don't get me wrong, the government is definitely at fault in all of this, but not in exclusivity. Not even close. (It's also worth adding that I don't actually mean to demonize the wealthy. They are simply filling the space allowed them.)
Big pharma is definitely related insofar as the problem of lobbying influence is concerned, but it and the FDA's dysfunction are merely parts of the much bigger problem of the incompatibility of individualistic profit incentive and public health. Medical science and its discoveries hit us with a new reason for socialized medicine all the time; the very idea of a superbug whose power hinges on the (ir)responsible wide-spread use of antibiotics speaks to a need for something other than private interest to take the reigns of healthcare. Profit incentive is just not enough when we must both treat and PREVENT disease. To make matters worse, we totally half assed things with Medicare and Medicaid, two programs which, while incredibly helpful and beneficial to many of the less fortunate, simply create another profit incentive-treatment feedback loop with which private interests have no choice to but raise costs as much as they "reasonably" can. The point is that the patient, the drug maker, the doctor, the hospital, the medicare rep, and the surgeon general are all in the bed together.
Sorry for all that lol, but the point is that looking at the government and its deficiencies as "the problem" instead of as symptoms of something much larger doesn't really make a lot of sense, and we would have to place primary blame on the government if we are to worry that it is their involvement that will replicate big pharma in the gun control debate.. Even if you don't buy a lick of the politics described above, the interconnectedness of society and government ought to still be plain to see.
Besides, if we are to truly equate big pharma with gun control, we'd probably have to start with the NRA, as they are by far the largest monied political interest organization around when it comes to gun rights, and it isn't exactly difficult to see that the NRA's money buys them substantial political influence as they sway notable state and national elections.
|
In no other country are financial and political means so closely tied together
The European Union would like to have a word with you.
and in a sort of quasi-social mythologistic way, we regard the wealthy as having "earned" the right to have more political voice.
lolwut? Believing that the wealthy do not deserve to have their means of expression restricted because of their wealth = believing the wealthy have "earned the right to have more political voice"?
It's one thing to advance a narrative, it's another thing to have to say other people believe things they do not to advance that narrative.
Our financial system implicitly encourages this via the way investing and taxation work, and it carries over into politics via lobbying and "legitimized" monied influence like a super pac.
I would argue that PACs who can raise unlimited funds broaden the political arena. Anyone can start a PAC and start fundraising.
Of course, the most successful example of unlimited money in politics is Obama for America (now Organizing for America). Tens of millions of people voluntarily donated small amounts to both candidates' PACs that were allegedly separate organizations from their campaigns. These donations far outweighed large single donations to other PACs. So how are the little people being disenfranchised again?
Besides, if we are to truly equate big pharma with gun control, we'd probably have to start with the NRA, as they are by far the largest monied political interest organization around when it comes to gun rights, and it isn't exactly difficult to see that the NRA's money buys them substantial political influence as they sway notable state and national elections.
How did they do that? Stuff Benjamins in the ballot box?
"Buying substantial political influence" is impossible unless it gets results from the voters. In other words, true political influence comes from getting out the vote. No one would care about the NRA if it couldn't deliver the votes. Politicians aren't bought and sold in backroom deals in between election years, they are bought by the issues out in the open when they face the voters. If we are going to criticize the NRA for spending money to get out the vote either by contribution to campaigns or spending it themselves on ads and organization, we should honestly just hang up democratic elections altogether, they are simply too inherently corrupting or dishonest or something.
Sorry for all that lol, but the point is that looking at the government and its deficiencies as "the problem" instead of as symptoms of something much larger doesn't really make a lot of sense,
If we accept your premises, sure. But things would be just so boring then.
Even if you don't buy a lick of the politics described above, the interconnectedness of society and government ought to still be plain to see.
Isn't that a mite bit... impossible and circular? Even if we don't buy the politics, we must buy the logic underneath the politics that inevitably leads to the politics?
The same logic can of course be used by, say, libertarians to argue that removing much of the government side of the interconnectedness equation would result in a better result than removing much of the money-in-government/politics side of the equation. Government makes the rules, gives corporations and groups and individuals incentive to buy the government for favors, etc. So which is correct? Maybe we should just throw up our hands and give in to the fallacy of the middle, not that I would support that either.
|
On April 22 2013 10:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You're lucky TL is not exactly a bastion of feminism. Anyway, in the US at least, using lethal force against someone attempting to rape you usually results in no charges because it is recognized that it's very easy to murder someone you've already subdued enough to successfully rape. Also, because it's rape. Show nested quote +Why is a certain sub-section of American society so, so terrified about government control of their lives, but so tacitly accepting of the same kind of influence and power of corporate America? Is it purely a principle thing, ignorance of the latter or what?
Genuine question, not a flame or an attempt to post in an obnoxious 'I am European we know better' manner. Americans also don't see corporations as occupying the place of power and influence in political life that Europeans do. Corporations exist to make money by serving us, if we don't like a particular one for whatever reason, we stop spending money on that corporation's products. To most Americans, that's the end of it. The very idea that corporations could take over our lives is befuddling to us, because we think that if corporations overstepped our boundaries, we'd demolish them and make better corporations in their place. We don't think it would be very hard to do if we wanted to.
Incorrect. This free-market bullshit you're spewing is based on the assumption that consumers are educated enough to realize when a corporation is overstepping their bounds. The next assumption is that consumers would give a shit. Neither of these assumptions is valid. Look at Comcast, Time Warner, EA, Monsanto, Verizon, AT&T, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. These are some of the most painful companies to deal with as a customer, but they aren't going to fall. Regional monopolization is a phrase that comes to mind. When faced with a decision to get fucked in the ass or do without, most people choose to get fucked in the ass.
Sustainable success in this day and age is based upon cornering a market well enough so that there is no relevant competition. Which makes perfect sense from a capitalist perspective.
|
On April 22 2013 11:06 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 10:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You're lucky TL is not exactly a bastion of feminism. Anyway, in the US at least, using lethal force against someone attempting to rape you usually results in no charges because it is recognized that it's very easy to murder someone you've already subdued enough to successfully rape. Also, because it's rape. Why is a certain sub-section of American society so, so terrified about government control of their lives, but so tacitly accepting of the same kind of influence and power of corporate America? Is it purely a principle thing, ignorance of the latter or what?
Genuine question, not a flame or an attempt to post in an obnoxious 'I am European we know better' manner. Americans also don't see corporations as occupying the place of power and influence in political life that Europeans do. Corporations exist to make money by serving us, if we don't like a particular one for whatever reason, we stop spending money on that corporation's products. To most Americans, that's the end of it. The very idea that corporations could take over our lives is befuddling to us, because we think that if corporations overstepped our boundaries, we'd demolish them and make better corporations in their place. We don't think it would be very hard to do if we wanted to. Incorrect. This free-market bullshit you're spewing is based on the assumption that consumers are educated enough to realize when a corporation is overstepping their bounds. The next assumption is that consumers would give a shit. Neither of these assumptions is valid. Look at Comcast, Time Warner, EA, Monsanto, Verizon, AT&T, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. These are some of the most painful companies to deal with as a customer, but they aren't going to fall. Regional monopolization is a phrase that comes to mind. When faced with a decision to get fucked in the ass or do without, most people choose to get fucked in the ass.
Since we are dealing with entirely subjective views, if consumers "don't give a shit," then the corporation has not actually overstepped our bounds. Our bounds.
And the 'most people are dumb and uneducated' argument is simply ignorant (how much did college enrollment increase in the last 30 years? Could society truly function if most people were truly dumb?) angry elitism escaping out, it's not even worth responding to. You are not a special and delicate flower. Sorry.
Look at all those corporations. Are they painful to deal with? Sometimes. But do they deliver a product enough people want in a manner acceptable to enough people to make billions of dollars? Yes. Are they painful to deal with to enough people? Not enough obviously.
And you mention regional monopolization, yet the only company you list that is "regional" in any sense is Comcast, and they are not a monopoly. Ever heard of satellite? And half those corporations you list are the result of the old Bell Telephone monopoly being broken up.
When faced with a true decision to get fucked in the ass or do without, most people do without. Most people don't think they're getting fucked in the ass. But, you've figured out that they are and don't even know it, because they're dumb and you're smart. Because you say so.
Sustainable success in this day and age is based upon cornering a market well enough so that there is no relevant competition. Which makes perfect sense from a capitalist perspective.
The gap between what you're saying and the facts of the situation in reality is truly sad. Apple doesn't even produce the best cellphones or tablets anymore. This market domination you speak of doesn't exist, even in the cases of Monsanto and Google, the two closest corporations to a monopoly on your list.
|
On April 22 2013 11:00 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + In no other country are financial and political means so closely tied together The European Union would like to have a word with you. Show nested quote + and in a sort of quasi-social mythologistic way, we regard the wealthy as having "earned" the right to have more political voice. lolwut? Believing that the wealthy do not deserve to have their means of expression restricted because of their wealth = believing the wealthy have "earned the right to have more political voice"? It's one thing to advance a narrative, it's another thing to have to say other people believe things they do not to advance that narrative. Show nested quote + Our financial system implicitly encourages this via the way investing and taxation work, and it carries over into politics via lobbying and "legitimized" monied influence like a super pac. I would argue that PACs who can raise unlimited funds broaden the political arena. Anyone can start a PAC and start fundraising. Of course, the most successful example of unlimited money in politics is Obama for America (now Organizing for America). Tens of millions of people voluntarily donated small amounts to both candidates' PACs that were allegedly separate organizations from their campaigns. These donations far outweighed large single donations to other PACs. So how are the little people being disenfranchised again? Show nested quote +Besides, if we are to truly equate big pharma with gun control, we'd probably have to start with the NRA, as they are by far the largest monied political interest organization around when it comes to gun rights, and it isn't exactly difficult to see that the NRA's money buys them substantial political influence as they sway notable state and national elections. How did they do that? Stuff Benjamins in the ballot box? "Buying substantial political influence" is impossible unless it gets results from the voters. In other words, true political influence comes from getting out the vote. No one would care about the NRA if it couldn't deliver the votes. Politicians aren't bought and sold in backroom deals in between election years, they are bought by the issues out in the open when they face the voters. If we are going to criticize the NRA, we should honestly just hang up democratic elections altogether, they are simply too corrupting or something.
The European Union is not a country, and it is precisely that identity issue that plays such a huge role in their economic instability/dysfunction. Doing anything in such a half-baked way is going to run into problems. That being said, I agree that the tie between wealth and political voice is hardly unique to the US.
I think you are mistaking my critique for some sort of blame, a partisan one at that, when in fact I'm merely trying to dismiss the notion of blame altogether when it comes to addressing these problems honestly. I don't think lobbying is inherently evil, nor do I think super pacs are. These are merely avenues of political and financial intermingling that I think can provably demonstrate a troubling relationship between financial means and political influence. The success of Obama's campaign machine is yet another demonstration of this, and though I'm pragmatically a Democrat, don't think that my criticism is somehow blind to blue money in search of red. The watered down delivery on Obama's part in office when compared to the fire of the image put forth by Obama campaign machine is just more evidence that money can say things actual people and organizations cannot, and just because you can call such a thing a "vote" doesn't make manipulation impossible. Again, I'm not talking explicit manipulation, just people making "rational" decisions given available options.
Your entire post basically hinges on me defending Obama's presidency, and I'm simply not going to do that in these terms. I'm not talking about politicians being bought and sold, I'm talking about entire voting demographics, entire states, and how knowing the right people with the right amount of money can all of a sudden make a political idea or a candidate far more viable. I'm not even sure how one goes about solving these problems, only that things can always change for the better.
|
Northern Ireland25050 Posts
On April 22 2013 10:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You're lucky TL is not exactly a bastion of feminism. Anyway, in the US at least, using lethal force against someone attempting to rape you usually results in no charges because it is recognized that it's very easy to murder someone you've already subdued enough to successfully rape. Also, because it's rape. Show nested quote +Why is a certain sub-section of American society so, so terrified about government control of their lives, but so tacitly accepting of the same kind of influence and power of corporate America? Is it purely a principle thing, ignorance of the latter or what?
Genuine question, not a flame or an attempt to post in an obnoxious 'I am European we know better' manner. Come on you've asked this question already, and now you're complicating it by throwing in an anti-corporation angle. This "certain subsection" of American society is a very small subsection of gun owners who are usually white supremacists or very, very fundamentalist Christians (the kind of people who think the "Moral Majority" guys were a bunch of hedonists). The vast majority of gun owners, just like the vast majority of Americans, do not "fear" their government in that way. To look at it from a different perspective, when Dubya was president, we turned against him in 2005-2006 because we felt he was being incompetent, not because of fear about our freedoms being taken away. The majority of Americans did not "fear" the Bush Administration that way. Pissed off about two wars we weren't winning decisively when we thought we should have done so, sure. Pissed off that the government seemed incapable of handling Hurricane Katrina, sure. Not afraid that the government was going to put a boot in our faces. We are confident as a people that if our government tried that, it would fail as badly as IdrA trying to discern whether HuK's army was full of hallucinations or not. Americans also don't see corporations as occupying the place of power and influence in political life that Europeans do. Corporations exist to make money by serving us, if we don't like a particular one for whatever reason, we stop spending money on that corporation's products. To most Americans, that's the end of it. The very idea that corporations could take over our lives is befuddling to us, because we think that if corporations overstepped our boundaries, we'd demolish them and make better corporations in their place. We don't think it would be very hard to do if we wanted to.
Well, I believe this section of society is bigger than the radical fringe, at least judging from the chatter I hear over this side of the Atlantic. Obama has become portrayed as this boogieman stealing all these freedoms, is this primarily because of Obamacare or his general legislative record?
I won't agree/disagree on whether it's as easy as just choosing different corporations, but at least there's some kind of rationale there I guess.
|
On April 22 2013 11:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 11:00 DeepElemBlues wrote: In no other country are financial and political means so closely tied together The European Union would like to have a word with you. and in a sort of quasi-social mythologistic way, we regard the wealthy as having "earned" the right to have more political voice. lolwut? Believing that the wealthy do not deserve to have their means of expression restricted because of their wealth = believing the wealthy have "earned the right to have more political voice"? It's one thing to advance a narrative, it's another thing to have to say other people believe things they do not to advance that narrative. Our financial system implicitly encourages this via the way investing and taxation work, and it carries over into politics via lobbying and "legitimized" monied influence like a super pac. I would argue that PACs who can raise unlimited funds broaden the political arena. Anyone can start a PAC and start fundraising. Of course, the most successful example of unlimited money in politics is Obama for America (now Organizing for America). Tens of millions of people voluntarily donated small amounts to both candidates' PACs that were allegedly separate organizations from their campaigns. These donations far outweighed large single donations to other PACs. So how are the little people being disenfranchised again? Besides, if we are to truly equate big pharma with gun control, we'd probably have to start with the NRA, as they are by far the largest monied political interest organization around when it comes to gun rights, and it isn't exactly difficult to see that the NRA's money buys them substantial political influence as they sway notable state and national elections. How did they do that? Stuff Benjamins in the ballot box? "Buying substantial political influence" is impossible unless it gets results from the voters. In other words, true political influence comes from getting out the vote. No one would care about the NRA if it couldn't deliver the votes. Politicians aren't bought and sold in backroom deals in between election years, they are bought by the issues out in the open when they face the voters. If we are going to criticize the NRA, we should honestly just hang up democratic elections altogether, they are simply too corrupting or something. The European Union is not a country, and it is precisely that identity issue that plays such a huge role in their economic instability/dysfunction. Doing anything in such a half-baked way is going to run into problems. That being said, I agree that the tie between wealth and political voice is hardly unique to the US. I think you are mistaking my critique for some sort of blame, a partisan one at that, when in fact I'm merely trying to dismiss the notion of blame altogether when it comes to addressing these problems honestly. I don't think lobbying is inherently evil, nor do I think super pacs are. These are merely avenues of political and financial intermingling that I think can provably demonstrate a troubling relationship between financial means and political influence. The success of Obama's campaign machine is yet another demonstration of this, and though I'm pragmatically a Democrat, don't think that my criticism is somehow blind to blue money in search of red. The watered down delivery on Obama's part in office when compared to the fire of the image put forth by Obama campaign machine is just more evidence that money can say things actual people and organizations cannot, and just because you can call such a thing a "vote" doesn't make manipulation impossible. Again, I'm not talking explicit manipulation, just people making "rational" decisions given available options. Your entire post basically hinges on me defending Obama's presidency, and I'm simply not going to do that in these terms. I'm not talking about politicians being bought and sold, I'm talking about entire voting demographics, entire states, and how knowing the right people with the right amount of money can all of a sudden make a political idea or a candidate far more viable. I'm not even sure how one goes about solving these problems, only that things can always change for the better.
I was not clear enough if that what is you think.
I am of the same mind about the EU. It is a step too far and not far enough at the same time. You can't turn Europe halfway into a United States of Europe, you have to go all the way or not go far at all to have a stable system.
I do not think your critique is a blame, I just don't think that there is a troubling relationship between financial means and political influence.
I don't think Obama's machine is an example of that. I blame George Bush for the success of that machine. I don't think Obama is very much different from any other president, Republican or Democrat, who has promised great transformation in the country's economic and political cultures and failed to deliver. Dubya said he wanted to significantly tone down partisanship too if you remember, just as an example. He wanted to make even bigger changes to Medicare than his Part D reform, he wanted to make great changes to Social Security too. My point is that in light of recent political history where this unlimited money was available, the most successful organizations were the ones that relied on large numbers of small donations, and my larger point is that in the end influence is bought by getting out votes. Through direct organizing or by giving money to the people who will. The only argument I can think of against more money in politics is that it will cause more low-information (aka dumb) voters to turn out, and that's an argument against democracy itself. I don't think money is to blame for politicians promising the sky and not delivering, that's just a symptom of the populist underbelly of democratic politics.
My post does not hinge on you defending Obama or on showing Obama's tenure as a failure. I agree that knowing (or being) the right people with the right amount of money at the right time can bring an idea into the front tier of the political arena when it wouldn't otherwise. An example would be climate change regulations and taxes. But, as the failure of the big-money climate campaign in America shows, you can't just create something out of thin air and bring it to victory by infusing more and more money. In other words, you can't fertilize barren political ground quickly. You're worried about a bad idea getting itself pushed through where it wouldn't without money, and that that concern is greater than other ways bad ideas can get themselves pushed through. I don't think that the concern is greater or that bad ideas get pushed through too much either by money or for other reasons. Save one. I think that the only serious concern about the political system is the deep polarization of politics, since it encourages a party to advance its agenda recklessly fast when in power, creating both bad policy and instability.
|
On a very basic level, I look at the past 10 years and see practically unfettered success for those with the capital means with which to insulate themselves from the effects of things like the housing bubble and other crises. I think a number of indicators point to this being an increasingly problematic and endemic phenomena, one that needs to be addressed. It isn't the size of the donations that I'm speaking to, rather the means with which people are convinced to donate and how information is exchanged in pursuit of "getting out the vote". I'm talking stuff like memetics, email campaigns, and youtube commercials. It is clear that you are able to look at the same things and see differently, and without a different medium of exchange, it is highly unlikely that any swaying will be done.
We'll just have to agree to disagree for now.
|
On April 22 2013 02:55 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Lol. "Help big brother". Look, if the government wanted to "go against the people" then it would not matter whether they confiscated guns or not. All the rifles and handguns in the world stand no chance against modern tanks and bombers. I think fearing that a gun registry would endanger everyone's ability to successfully "resist teh governments" is sort of absurd.
This argument is so old at this point I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It has been addressed numerous times throughout this thread and repeating it doesn't increase its credibility.
|
On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death.
You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife.
|
On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife.
I was waiting for him to respond to say something like that. You could also replace the word wife with: "mother, sister, daughter, girlfriend" and I think most men would be singing that same tune. If I ever walked in on someone raping my wife I would lose my fucking mind.
|
Northern Ireland25050 Posts
However, after the cooling-off period, I don't agree that societal institutions, or vigilantes have the right to take his life. Emotions may take over when it is somebody near and dear to you, and that is excusable/explicable, but for those who aren't directly affected this effect isn't nearly as strong.
My attitude is that if I ran into such a thing, I would perhaps do something I wouldn't otherwise do to the rapist, but I don't believe other people can do the same thing, no matter how much vicarious outrage they feel.
|
On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife.
Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all.
|
On April 23 2013 01:18 Wombat_NI wrote:
However, after the cooling-off period, I don't agree that societal institutions, or vigilantes have the right to take his life. Emotions may take over when it is somebody near and dear to you, and that is excusable/explicable, but for those who aren't directly affected this effect isn't nearly as strong.
My attitude is that if I ran into such a thing, I would perhaps do something I wouldn't otherwise do to the rapist, but I don't believe other people can do the same thing, no matter how much vicarious outrage they feel.
Prison for life would be a bare minimum for that, any rapist would still have my vote to be executed however. Just personal opinion. They have no place in society, there is no way to tell if a rapist is "cured" from being a raper in any point in the future. Paying for them to rot in jail is a waste of money as far as I'm concerned too, although I think lethal injection is pretty damn expensive too. I don't understand why anyone would ever sympathize with a rapist, but I still think the best solution is to leave our damn gun laws alone so we can protect ourselves during those crucial moments where cops aren't going to be there.
|
On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all.
It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo.
I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right?
He said deserves. I responded in kind.
|
On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind.
Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun.
She says: "He tried to rape me"
Did he or didn't he?
|
On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he?
That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?"
I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened.
|
On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he?
Why should the decision be made then... take him to the morgue and her to the hospital for examinations... if there is no evidence either way except her word, well that is a rare circumstance in a case where physical violence (like rape and murder) is involved. In that case, I would suggest filing charges as a last resort and only if there is a strong belief that she is lying, to pressure her to take a plea deal and tell the truth in open court.
|
On April 23 2013 03:39 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 03:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 23 2013 03:22 danl9rm wrote:On April 23 2013 01:26 Tobberoth wrote:On April 22 2013 22:51 danl9rm wrote:On April 22 2013 08:20 Larkin wrote:On April 22 2013 00:55 kmillz wrote:On April 21 2013 23:19 Warheart wrote:On December 20 2012 05:51 Zergofobic wrote:On December 20 2012 01:46 Warheart wrote:
i think that civilians should not be able to buy or keep fully automatic weapons and that they should not be able to buy clips that can store more than 10 rounds; so i'm not against the right of people to keep firearms (i own some myself) but fore in house self defense you don't need an M-16. also the more people are allowed to carry guns, the higher the risk of getting shot is,that's simple statistics; only security and police should be allowed to carry weapons, i wouldn't trust a badly trained school teacher to have a loaded gun!
in Italy there is also a limit to the number of ammunitions that you can legally have in your possession and you must notify the police every time you buy new ones (except at firing ranges,where you must shoot every single bullet that you buy there) and before you get the license to own weapons you must pass both a physical and a practical test, and when you do get the license you must always make sure that they can't be taken by somebody without the knowledge of how to use them or without the permission to use them,and i think this is a reasonable way to go about guns as safely as possible. Look up the term democide. Governments are the biggest threats to human life. Trusting government to have all the guns, while you have none or little has always led to mass murder and genocide. In fact governments are more dangerous than the black plague. Also the police can't and won't protect you. They react to the crime scene, after the crime has been committed. They can't prevent crime, no one can and anyone who claims that you need to give up essential liberty for little temporary security is a tyrant, just like Hitler was when he disarmed his people and the Jews, just like Mao, just like soviet Russia, Pol Pot and the rest of them tyrants in the past century. i just wrote that i am NOT against the right of people to own guns, but the only way to prevent crime is through police investigations, not by carrying a loaded gun! because even if you did all you can do is react at a situation, not prevent it! So you're saying if a man attempts to rape a woman, and she shoots him dead before he can penetrate her, then the crime was not averted? A rapist deserves punishment, but not death. You'd be singing a different tune if you walked in on someone raping your wife. Which is why victims don't judge, judges do. Of course you'd feel differently being in the situation, no one denies that, and it's not relevant at all. It's absolutely relevant. Because if I'm on the jury, and the guy being charged walked in on another man raping his wife, no way in heck am I voting he gets murder. Man2 at most is what the DA should be going for imo. Obviously it depends on what all the guy did to the perpetrator, but a half-dozen punches to the face and he dies? Oh well, imo. I don't see how you think it's irrelevant. Somewhere out there, people just like you and me are writing these laws, have written these laws. Right? He said deserves. I responded in kind. Police enters room, sees dead guy and a woman with a gun. She says: "He tried to rape me" Did he or didn't he? That's way off the scope of what we were discussing. He said deserves. I said deserves. You're saying "what," as in, "what happened?" I was using a hypothetical; I get to pick what happened.
I'm using a hypothetical too.
Is it okay for women to shoot men and simply say self defense. I mean sure, I hate rapists, and I would hate them more if they raped my mother, but does that mean murder is okay so long as I hate them? Like, say I hated black people as much as I hated rapists--does that make it okay to shoot black people?
The truth is that its irrelevant how you feel about the situation, what matters is the evidence present. Like what if I'm a woman with a gun, I walk into an alley and see a known sex offender who I saw on TV and just shoot the guy on the spot. Am I a hero? What if its someone that looked like the sex offender on TV? Am I still a hero? What if I just thought it was a sex offender or a scary looking dude that might rape me--if I shoot him am I still a hero?
Or maybe the fact that we already criminalize rape shows that we don't need guns "just in case" rape happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
