Do guns protect you, or simply cause violence? (Page 32) SWlNE: There's that narrative. (Not meaning to take this off topic) The Syrian situation will be different because the 'pro-democracy' protests were instigated by foreign influences and it cleared the way for armed groups to take over. Groups armed by Western and Arab countries as well as individuals. That was the intention. The violence was planned and already there prior to these foreign-backed 'rebels'. This type of situation is not in line with what you propose can occur in the US which is, an introduction of guns will result in a Syrian conflict. SWlNE: I agree with that part, that some do think that arming themselves will protect them from the government, should the government turn on them but that is nonsense considering that the US government is more armed and better equipped to deal with an uprising or coup. Besides what foreign country will be instigating that? -None.  ghostgeek: We are not talking about reality here, only what is in people's minds. Paranoia seems to rule the American psyche and guns are seen as the panacea by far too many people. SWlNE: Well, you were making the comparison to a possible Syria, which is something rooted in reality. I'm only stating that the dynamics will not possibly play out in the US in similar ways, even when considering "people's minds". Because the Syrian conflict was not a natural flow or coincidence. It was forced and had a lot of background politics that will not play out in the US with an addition of guns. Might get a few spontaneous protests in the US with some gun shots as is happening now. Persons in the US who have that paranoia to reason that being unarmed makes them vulnerable should rethink on brining a shotgun to a tank fight. ghostgeek: Was there not something called an "Arab Spring"? A time when certain people dreamt that, maybe, the old politics could be replaced with something that gave ordinary citizens a say on how their lives were governed in Arabic speaking lands. Yes, I dimly remember mention of it, years ago. That, of course, was before the Syrian people dreamt that they too might have the same freedoms that we in the "democratic" West enjoy. Oops, Bashar al-Assad didn't like that talk and so the fragile spring blooms of hope have withered in the face of his opposition. Telling him to go has progressed to forcing him to go and may well end up with us all begging him to stay. Definitely, there is a flow to the events of the Syrian conflict. ghostgeek: It is still possible to speculate on the fate of America. Will it rot from the head or the tail? Only time will tell.
SWlNE: Yeah, I'm sure that's the story you likely heard. A warm Arab night, suddenly arab nations woke up one by one with hopes of 'democracy' and 'capitalism' being able to 'vote' because the West is so peachy and the lifestyle is adored by the desert barbarians. Then they took to the streets to protest and face their dictators but was shut down but suddenly out of no where they got armed and became 'rebels' who fought back to win and cheer. But, no, that's not the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring is a mess. It was composed of US 'pro-democracy organisations'. It was not spontaneous or a dream. It is not a conspiracy theory, it has been admitted. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&emc=eta1 You see, this is the political game. You prop up and support a dictator, when he is no longer useful you create an 'uprising' and support/finance 'rebels'. And when these unstable 'rebels' are no longer useful or have filled their purpose and continue to cause havoc, they're given a new name 'terrorists'. Hence why I said the instigated so-called uprisings are not natural as you assume and will not fit what can occur in the US. (Edited by SWlNE) SWlNE: The same is what occurred in Syria. It is more an orchestrated proxy war. There is no real concern on 'democracy' or on the people of Syria. It's politics. Something that will be lacking in a naturally occurring civil war. On the concern on if the US, the main protesting done are by the African Americans and some of those involve gun violence but I can't envision that turning out into a full-scale civil war even with the intervention of more guns being available. Even while protesting many are yet concerned about looting and getting free stuff than on pressing for the cause. Look at that country, man. Who is going to organise a civil war? There's more uproar over twinkies and starbucks cup designs than on the government's action of funding and supporting 'rebels' to fight in foreign countries. ghostgeek: Well, I wasn't expecting civil war in America but, now we're on the subject, l sure don't expect the Blacks, African Americans if you like, to be the group that fights to carve out a new entity. Don't expect those dumb ass rednecks, who love their guns more than their wives, to mount the revolution either. No, I'm putting my money on the Latinos, would that be your mob Filth, to lead the charge. ghostgeek: I wonder, is yearning to be free, politics? Is nobody allowed to cry out, "Free us from this bondage!" ghostgeek: Must there always be dark forces moving behing the scenes, manipulating events to suit vested interests? SWlNE: Latin Americans are pro-active aren't we but I'm not seeing a motive or reason to 'charge'. I'm just saying that politics is a dirty game and the wide-eyed childish view of 'free us from this bondage' and 'liberty for all' and 'here comes democracy' has long past. And the reality is that geo-politics takes a dirty forefront. As I said, it's not a conspiracy, it is reality and you are free to read it from the direct sources. It is not a secret. Follow international politics it becomes more apparent.  LiptonCambell: Lol I saw how many messages were on here, and I got worried. Then i read it, and realized half of it was utter off topic nonsense....phew.... LiptonCambell: >>> They will have everyone in mind even 'crazy people' Couldn't disagree more. The dangerously insane are not considered when food regulations are put on the books, or when dictating what is and is not involved in applying for permits for upgrading your homes electric circuits. Can you present one example of law that exists with 'crazy people' in mind? >>>Laws are created for everyone and stating that 'reasonable' people will not break the law is incorrect. --omg i've said this three times now how can you not understand this? Whose responses are you reading because it's clearly not mine-- i'm not saying reasonable people don't break the law. I'm saying laws are drafted with the idea that people are reasonable, and any laws drafted with the idea that people are unreasonable, crazy, unpredictable or self-destructive IS DOOMED TO FAIL. >>>They're aimed at people in general. --you still aren't getting it-- In general would you say people are; A)Reasonable B)Unreasonable >>>By the way I've not 'kept silent', Sure ya have. This was happening when you were active in the thread. You choose to ignore ghostgeek's glaring opposition to your stances because he was useful to push your agenda. You ignore the flaws of logic of your peers, because you'd rather see your agenda put forward than have the conviction of the honesty you insist be presented by people you oppose. >>> it does not mean the law will be pointless. Please, enlighten me- what is the 'point' of these laws you're proposing? Not that i'd use the phrase "pointless"- i'd say your proposed laws are ineffective, poorly thought out and poorly researched, based less on facts and more on principle- they're an extension of your political ideology, and your drive to enforce your opinions on others, and an extension of your misanthropy, and shows how little you respect your fellow man, wanting to control them than trust them.... In short, I believe YOU believe these laws will save lives. They will not- they will endanger them. In your drive to control the situation, you will only cause more bloodshed. I've presented numerous data throughout these 32 pages to support my stance. It isn't some drum circle idea I just came up with, and honestly, it wasn't immediately obvious- but I do believe it IS a fact- more people armed, and properly trained, means we are all safer. >>>Citizens will know that that is illegal and if a person is carrying a concealed weapon they will be alerted to that. You....you do understand the meaning of the word "concealed", right? Like, even where it's legal to have a concealed weapon they're not allowed to wave it around or point it at people.... Saying making hidden weapons illegal will prevent crimes presupposes the fact that people know it's there....hell, if I see someone waving a gun around, and there's conceal carry where I live, I'll have no problem alerting the police.....they can approach the person and demand their permit. Denying the printing of permits won't change that. >>>My conclusion on risk is that you don't understand risk assessment. I disagree entirely. Risk assessment isn't an emotion. It isn't "I don't like that thing, so that thing is wrong and dangerous"- risk assessment is understanding the threats that exist around you. You don't seem to understand that, opting instead to focus on the emotional and flamboyant... >>>If you consider letting a kid go for a swim in the pool a greater risk than handing a kid a loaded gun based on the statistic that more kids die in swimming pool. What? I would love to see where I said that. I have asserted, correctly, that more people die in pools than die from guns. Our food and our diets are far greater killers than guns are, and you should take that to heart when making your supper... ...but I never suggested we should arm kids..... How's that strawman you're making coming along? >>> Without knowing that in risk assessment But we DO know how dangerous guns are, and we DO know how dangerous cars and pools and food are....you just wish to ignore the data, and setup foolish standards...."Oh, we can't compare the risk of pools to the risk of guns unless we compare how dangerous a pool is to a child compared to how dangerous a loaded gun is to a child"- what kind of nonsense is that? I'm starting to remember why I told you I was going to ignore your posts.... >>>You risk nothing by having a concealed weapon on you because you're within that law. You're going to have to explain that one....you're talking about the risk of obeying permits properly? huh? >>>A person get into an altercation with another person, a concealed gun can be taken out the settle it. And a knife. And a car. And a blunt object. And a glass bottle. If you can call for the ban of an object because "in the heat of the moment, you might use it as a weapon", then all bets are off- alot more than just guns should be on the table....you can kill alot of people with scissors, and our kids are using them every day.....what if they have them handy when they're in a fight??! >>>There are a lot of real life scenarios that you've neglected to look at because it doesn't suit your aim. As have you! Wild was posting examples of people killing each other with cars, knives, and blunt objects- 1/3 of homicides are done with weapons other than guns- ONE THIRD OF THE DATA YOU'VE IGNORED SWlNE: 1) Addressing your statement: "Couldn't disagree more. The dangerously insane are not considered when food regulations are put on the books, or when dictating what is and is not involved in applying for permits for upgrading your homes electric circuits." As stated before: We have things in place for persons who break the law and are crazy, it's called the Defence of Insanity. Laws are created for everyone and stating that 'reasonable' people will not break the law is incorrect. Also 'crazy people' are mentally ill and having a mental illness does not mean they are unable to function in society and obey laws. The mentally ill are also required to follow laws and are punished accordingly. Depression is also a mental illness, does that mean that a depressed person can not follow regulations? -They can. And when legislations are made, it is not made specifically towards the 'sane'. It is made for society and society consists of the mentally ill or 'crazy'. You're free to 'disagree' but this what it is. ------------------------------------------ 2) Your statement: "I'm not saying reasonable people don't break the law. I'm saying laws are drafted with the idea that people are reasonable, and any laws drafted with the idea that people are unreasonable, crazy, unpredictable or self-destructive IS DOOMED TO FAIL." Evidence of the above? Because laws were made because humans are unreasonable, 'crazy', unpredictable and self-destructive, etc. They were created for order. Once again, they are created for society, both the 'reasonable' and the 'unreasonable'. Additional reading material for you: http://judiciallearningcenter.org/law-and-the-rule-of-law/https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/can/en_can_mla_what.html --------------------------------- 3) Your statement: "In general would you say people are; A)Reasonable, B)Unreasonable" I'd say people are both and can be both at different points. ----------------------------------- 4) Your statement: "Sure ya have. This was happening when you were active in the thread. You choose to ignore ghostgeek's glaring opposition to your stances because he was useful to push your agenda. You ignore the flaws of logic of your peers, because you'd rather see your agenda put forward than have the conviction of the honesty you insist be presented by people you oppose. " Again read the full sentence: By the way I've not 'kept silent', I just left the thread as it was going nowhere and checked back on it to see this new conversation. I unfollowed the thread and visited other threads after my last comment because no one responded to it but if you can show me where ghostgeek responded and something with the 'logic of my peers', I'd address him. This was my last conversation and the post directed to you was unanswered (perhaps you should reflect on your own words) : Topic: Politics --------------------------------- 5) On your statement: "Not that i'd use the phrase "pointless"" Good then the law disallowing persons to walk around freely with concealed weapons will have a point. -------------------------------- 6) You can see a person carrying a concealed weapon at times. In that case if a citizen sees or suspects the person is carrying one he/she can move cautiously or alert the police. ------------------------------- 7) On your statement: "You don't seem to understand that, opting instead to focus on the emotional and flamboyant..." I think that it is you who are getting emotional and 'flamboyant'. Risk assessment as I said before is dealt with by assessing one hazard at a time, not risk in comparison to other risks. You will not find in a risk assessment: "spit chokes and kill more people than gun shots, hence guns are a minor risk". What you will find is that 'death by choking' will be placed as a hazard and the risk assessed for it. Then 'death by firearm' will be placed as a hazard and the risk assessed for it. A weapon should not be compared to anything else but itself, Mr. Flamboyant. ----------------------------------- 8) On your statement: "How's that strawman you're making coming along?" Not a strawman. I didn't state that 'you said' and quoted you as saying anything. It is sarcasm because if you want to lessen the view of guns because you want to compare it to pools, it deserves to be laughed at. -------------------------------- 9) On your statement: "...but I never suggested we should arm kids....." And you know why we trust a kid in a pool but not with a gun? Because they are two separate things and pose two separate dangers. Even if a 'pool kills more people'. We do not lesson the hazard of a gun in conjunction to the hazard of a pool. Understand now why I said you don't seem to understand risk assessment and why things are assessed without correlation? I hope so because it is tiring to repeat myself more. ------------------------------ 10) On your response to: ">>>You risk nothing by having a concealed weapon on you because you're within that law. You're going to have to explain that one....you're talking about the risk of obeying permits properly? huh?" Reading the full related paragraph then selective reading I said: Having a law state that all persons can carry a concealed weapon poses no preventative measure for anyone. You risk nothing by having a concealed weapon on you because you're within that law. Meaning those with the intention or with the opportunity to shoot, will not worry about being caught carrying a concealed weapon because they will be in the law to do so. By the way if you think that having a permit prevents a person, it does not. As can be seen, persons have carried out shootings with concealed weapons they have a permit for. One example is Michael McLendon. -------------------------------------- 11) I don't know about you but I'd take my chances with a knife, a car, a blunt object, a glass bottle, or a fist in a fight than a gun. One, because 'no one will be killed by a stray bullet', Two: easer to fend off, three: easier to run. -------------------------------------- 12) On your statement: "As have you! Wild was posting examples of people killing each other with cars, knives, and blunt objects- 1/3 of homicides are done with weapons other than guns- ONE THIRD OF THE DATA YOU'VE IGNORED" I didn't read Wild's postings. Also what are the 2/3? Certainly the conversation here isn't on eradicating homicides, the most that a person can realistically aim for is curbing it. It is understood that persons commit homicides by various means. And? The conversation is on gun violence and are you stating that that accounts for 2/3 of all homicides. To me that's something that should be paid attention to. --------------------------------------- 13) On your statement: "I'm starting to remember why I told you I was going to ignore your posts...." You're free to do that. I might consider it as poop flushing itself. I will continue to respond to everyone's postings, including yours. At least till I get bored or something. I don't mind having discussions and persons objecting to my statements. That's the whole point here. Don't get too emotional on it, man. ----------------------------- I placed numbers to the points that you made and my address to each. It'd save you the time of copy and pasting sentences. You can response to points instead of selected sentences. (Edited by SWlNE) ghostgeek: I see that the great American shoot-em-up is alive and well. Three officers were injured this Friday in a shooting near a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, and a local hospital has reported receiving five casualties: [ http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/27/police-respond-to-active-shooter-in-colorado-springs.html ] And we mustn't forget what happened in New Orleans on Sunday when hundreds of people were gathered at a playground for a block party and music video shoot when two groups in the crowd opened fire on each other, wounding 16 people: [ http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/23/16-injured-in-new-orleans-park-shooting.html ] Oh, and it seems Chicago police have arrested a man for a 9-year-old’s shooting on Nov. 2 in what police say was a targeted gang shooting: [ http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/27/chicago-police-arrest-man-in-9-year-olds-shooting.html ] America sure is the Land of the Free; to gun down each other, that is. (Edited by ghostgeek)  davesdatahut: And, of course,what is the answer of the gun owners and the emotionally challenged in the National Rifle Association??? More guns!!!! Yayyyyyy guns!!!  davidk14: . Some people believe guns kill people. If so, then we can blame mis-spelled words on our keyboards.  . davesdatahut: As an aside....has anyone read the reader comments on Fox News about the Colorado Planned Parenthood. A true window into the minds of the Neanderthal segment of American society, and a clear explanation for why Donald Trump is leading in the polls. Not a pretty picture.  Wild__: davesdatahut posted... The latest advertisement against letting people run around with guns in their pockets. Masked cowards shoot protesters: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/us/minneapolis-shooting-protest-police-jamar-clark.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 ........................................................ Davesdata... Nowhere in that link does it say that the perpetrator of said crime had a concealedcarry permit. You are comparing apples to oranges when in fact people that apply for a permit are people that tend to obey the law. CCW holders are not the problem and you have stated that you can't find statistics to show that even so much as one tenth of one percent of CCW holders are committing homicides as a result. ghostgeek posted... Oh, and it seems Chicago police have arrested a man for a 9-year-old’s shooting on Nov. 2 in what police say was a targeted gang shooting: ...................................................................... Its illegal for a gang member to have a gun . Its illegal to be a gang member. Gang members don't seem to have much regard for the law or human life. As long as these thugs remain on the street instead of prison average people will feel the need to carry firearms for their own protection and in doing so they are actually keeping our streets safer. (Contrary to all the emotional rhetoric and anti-gun propaganda.) davesdatahut: Wild, does it matter if this nut had a concealed carry permit? You say people who apply for a CCW "tend" to obey the law. That does not bring great comfort, as it suggest some tend not to obey the law. | Politics Chat Room 73 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
