Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Guns save lives thread


F3SS
 Share

Recommended Posts

When it comes to nukes, no one is allowed to develop them.

No it's not. No one else is able to develop them who isn't on the politically-correct list down at the bureau.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not. No one else is able to develop them who isn't on the politically-correct list down at the bureau.

No, no one else (than those who already have them) are allowed to develop them, regardless of any "politically correct" list you think exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no one else (than those who already have them) are allowed to develop them, regardless of any "politically correct" list you think exists.

That's what I mean. It's "politically correct" when you exclude those who already have them. How convenient. A big correction to your false statement too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.sun-senti...,0,3905735.post

Always wait for the cops to come.

The four men broke into a Port Richey home early Wednesday morning and began beating up a man, his wife and his stepmother while demanding money and prescription drugs.

The men left, giving the homeowner time to call 911, but as the dispatcher went to transfer the call from the fire department to law enforcement the caller was inadvertently taken to a voicemail.

The armed men returned at this point and the homeowner shot one of them.

Sounds to me like he should have shot them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DieChecker, no one is saying that a childrapist or murderer should get weapons. The problem, though, is I've seen to types of responses from anti-gun-controlers regarding this.

1. Ive heard people claim that once a murderer gets out of prison, they have "payed their dues" and thus should be allowed to have a gun.

2. When pro-gun-controlers talk about taking measures to prevent people like murderers from getting guns, anti-gun-controllers say that it is "punishing" the innocent.

So it is hypocrisy you are against? I think opinions on this will be all over the place based on individual experiences and biases.

Myself, I don't mind that rule. My brother is a Felon, and though I know he is reformed and wouldn't commit a crime again, I understand that part of his punishment is those rules felons live by.

When it comes to nukes, no one is allowed to develop them. Thats the idea of the nuclear-non-proliferation treaty... So does that not "punish" those innocent nations? Is self-defence a right, but only up to firearms and conventional weapons?
What people disagree on is where that balance lies with regards to firearms. Having said that, people argue that everyone having one is "safer" because it becomes a deterrent. Why does that logic not apply to nukes? If everyone had a nuke, there'd be no wars, right?

I believe that ever nation holding a nuke is unnecessary, since international treaty calls for all nations to act against a nation that uses one. If India nuked Pakistan, or North Korea nuked South Korea, the reaction would be to the extent that it would not be a net gain, so worldwide treaty provides the Deterrent.

Yet, many people are like children, or are unstable, yet people maintain that they should be allowed to have guns, because any effort to prevent them from getting guns also "punishes the innocent".

I say punish the innocent. People need to be able to be responsible to use this Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that ever nation holding a nuke is unnecessary, since international treaty calls for all nations to act against a nation that uses one. If India nuked Pakistan, or North Korea nuked South Korea, the reaction would be to the extent that it would not be a net gain, so worldwide treaty provides the Deterrent.

Similarly to how if someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they will be sought after by the police --- which would act as the deterrent.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it informative that a thread about guns ends up a war between those who appreciated the finer points of Nazi Germany and gun-ho "Americans."

Guns are pretty much illegal now in all the parts of the world one might consider civilized, which unfortunately does not include the United States.

Is that true for party members Frank? I'm legitimately curious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that true for party members Frank? I'm legitimately curious?

Yes of course unless you have a legitimate reason for one. Hunting rifle permits are not too hard nowadays to get, regardless of party status. Otherwise you pretty much have to be in law enforcement or the military. Private security guards rarely are given a permit.

Party members don't really have any special privileges, and there are quite a number of restrictions on them, such as owning businesses. Also it's a lot of work. What you do have is something of a voice in the building of party consensus and the choice of each generation of leaders.

Now I'm not a party member so I only go by what I see. It's not hard to find out if someone is a party member if you want to, but they don't go around with a label on their forehead, and pretty much tend to be the people you would expect to be party members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of course unless you have a legitimate reason for one. Hunting rifle permits are not too hard nowadays to get, regardless of party status. Otherwise you pretty much have to be in law enforcement or the military. Private security guards rarely are given a permit.

Party members don't really have any special privileges, and there are quite a number of restrictions on them, such as owning businesses. Also it's a lot of work. What you do have is something of a voice in the building of party consensus and the choice of each generation of leaders.

Now I'm not a party member so I only go by what I see. It's not hard to find out if someone is a party member if you want to, but they don't go around with a label on their forehead, and pretty much tend to be the people you would expect to be party members.

They can't own businesses? Interesting. Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can't own businesses? Interesting. Why not?

It's an old socialist notion that people who have interests other than the society can't be trusted as well. I would observe that there are obviously ways around it, such as having a spouse own a business, but these can cause one trouble.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Similarly to how if someone uses a gun to commit a crime, they will be sought after by the police --- which would act as the deterrent.

Touche'

But, this then goes back to the reaction time. A nuke has a time to react of tens of minutes, to hours. Where as the time to react to a gun is seconds or parts of a second. Police response time is, like with nukes, on the order of tens of minutes.

The police are a deterrent, but a (threat of a) gun (like a dog) will chase a criminal off before they can cause any trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police are a deterrent, but a (threat of a) gun (like a dog) will chase a criminal off before they can cause any trouble.

Just as the threat of a certain retaliatory nuke strike will chase a hostile nation off before they can cause any trouble as well. As you mentioned, with the right detection equipment, you'll have minutes to hours to react to a nuclear launch --- meaning that the target has that long to retaliate with nuclear weapons, but only if they possess nuclear weapons, that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Just as the threat of a certain retaliatory nuke strike will chase a hostile nation off before they can cause any trouble as well. As you mentioned, with the right detection equipment, you'll have minutes to hours to react to a nuclear launch --- meaning that the target has that long to retaliate with nuclear weapons, but only if they possess nuclear weapons, that is...

But if the target nation is an ally of the US, say.... Kuwait, then attacking them would be similar to attacking the allied nation. Thus the USs bombs provide the deterrent for Kuwait.

And the police do the same for individual citizens, but unfortunately, as I said, a gun is a lot faster then the police. Whereas communications are faster then nukes.

It is not the same situation. Maybe you should scale down to fighter jets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if the target nation is an ally of the US, say.... Kuwait, then attacking them would be similar to attacking the allied nation. Thus the USs bombs provide the deterrent for Kuwait.

Assuming they trust the US to get involved. But then, youre putting off your self defense to someone else and hope they are never perceived to be weak-willed...

And then there's all the other countries that don't have strong ties to nuclear powers...

And the police do the same for individual citizens, but unfortunately, as I said, a gun is a lot faster then the police. Whereas communications are faster then nukes.

Perhaps, but how many countries are really going to want to get involved in a nuclear war between to other nations?

Look at non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction being used. Some countries stockpiled them as deterrents... But when Saddam gassed the Kurds, and Iraq gassed Iranians, and Syria supposedly gassed the FSA, did the US or other countries retaliate? Did them stockpiling any WMD work as a deterrent?

In both cases, police and nukes, you're putting your life in someone else's hands. That's the fundamental issue that people are opposed to when it comes to guns. Why hope someone else will respond/reapond in time, when you can protect and deter for yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing ever seems to be wrong with guns when cops have them. The men in blue are our friends apparently. Everyone immediately understands the need for firepower when cops are concerned. Just can't extend the same logic to someone who doesn't collect a govt paycheck for shooting at criminals. There's a real rift in the reasoning there.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing ever seems to be wrong with guns when cops have them. The men in blue are our friends apparently. Everyone immediately understands the need for firepower when cops are concerned. Just can't extend the same logic to someone who doesn't collect a govt paycheck for shooting at criminals. There's a real rift in the reasoning there.

And logic, and economics, and human nature, and our constitution. People claim that the constitution is out dated, but those sentiments are based on thousands of years of history. Why is the last 200 years so different? Technology? I argue that all technology of each time was cutting edge.

We should never trust authority, only give it to them and take it back forcefully if necessary.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

those sentiments are based on thousands of years of history.

Excellent point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And logic, and economics, and human nature, and our constitution. People claim that the constitution is out dated, but those sentiments are based on thousands of years of history. Why is the last 200 years so different? Technology? I argue that all technology of each time was cutting edge.

We should never trust authority, only give it to them and take it back forcefully if necessary.

Amen. The Constitution is timeless in principle. I'd be instantly suspect of anyone who came and told me about "old fashioned".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen. The Constitution is timeless in principle. I'd be instantly suspect of anyone who came and told me about "old fashioned".

Which is a good 1/3 of American UMers and every foreigner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is a good 1/3 of American UMers and every foreigner...

Im not sure about that statistic. You have to be careful. I'm of the opinion that most people fall in the averages. The louder ones get the most attention of course, but those usually dont represent the median.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen. The Constitution is timeless in principle. I'd be instantly suspect of anyone who came and told me about "old fashioned".

Yes. Not many realize our constitution is based off of melenia of observations. Not emotion. Emitional driven politics scare me to death.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure about that statistic. You have to be careful. I'm of the opinion that most people fall in the averages. The louder ones get the most attention of course, but those usually dont represent the median.

Well to clarify I'm just roughing a figure from this particular U.S. section of the forum and didn't intend to imply that was an official or perceived national stat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen. The Constitution is timeless in principle. I'd be instantly suspect of anyone who came and told me about "old fashioned".

If the constitution is timeless, why are there amendments?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the constitution is timeless, why are there amendments?

Only time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the constitution is timeless, why are there amendments?

It was based on the idea that only educated people would be voting, but it was meant to be a living document. I don't really think uneducated people should not have a voice though. But lets face the facts. Without knowing a bit of history, how can one understand the mistakes of the past. As the saying goes we are doomed to repeat them. Without fact based decision making we are doomed to make them emotionally. The constitution should not be amended until there is a solid reason based on observation and fact to do so.

The anti gun lobby is an emotionally driven movement. If they were serious about saving lives, they would focus their attention on banning auto mobiles.

Edited by White Crane Feather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.