I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.
Advertisement
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:54 pm
by Sevvania » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:12 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Evil Grantica wrote:Or minorities.
Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...
I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.
by New Baldonia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:19 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Evil Grantica wrote:Or minorities.
Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...
I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:19 pm
Sevvania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.
When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."
Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:21 pm
New Baldonia wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.
I'm for arming all Americans regardless of class, race, political standing, or financial mobility. As long as you're not under indictment for or convicted of a felony, a fugitive from justice, addicted to a controlled substance, declared mentally unstable by a court, or have been committed to a mental institution, an illegal alien or in the US under a non immigrant visa, dishonorably discharged from the military, have renounced your citizenship, subject to a restraining order, or convicted of any domestic violence related misdemeanor.
Oh, and they need to be over the age of 18.
Which just so happens to be exactly the same requirements we have right now. Only difference is that now you're getting a free gun. Well free relatively speaking, since they would have to be purchased with tax dollars. And it would mean that one company would be receiving a rather large contract from the government that would give it an unfair advantage in the marketplace.
Ok on second thought I don't want the government to arm anyone. If you want a gun, buy it yourself.
by Sevvania » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:28 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Sevvania wrote:When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."
Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.
The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.
Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:31 pm
Sevvania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.
Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?
I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.
by Fartsniffage » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:32 pm
Sevvania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.
Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?
I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.
by New Baldonia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:43 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Oh, i wasn't thinking of the government arming them. I'm thinking that a fundraising campaign would be a good idea. Now, we'd have to ensure that people with felonies on their records weren't getting the firearms, and that the proceeds are actually going to buying the weapons, so I suggest that we give gift cards with the name of the homeless recipient on them. They show their ID at the counter, get checked out, come back in three days, and pick up the gun. Ta-da!
by Sevvania » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Sevvania wrote:I'm not saying that they should necessarily be disallowed, but I'm under the impression that a lot of crime stems from poverty. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, but I don't see handing out free guns to homeless people as being a great idea. A gun can get you things. If you already have things, there's little reason for you to turn to armed robbery. If you don't have anything but a gun, it seems like the temptation would be a lot greater.
So only those who can afford guns without help can be trusted with the responsibility of owning one? That seems a bit elitist to me.
by New Baldonia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:57 pm
Sevvania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
So only those who can afford guns without help can be trusted with the responsibility of owning one? That seems a bit elitist to me.
It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern. There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?
If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?
It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.
by Ifreann » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:02 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Sevvania wrote:When I think of homeless people, I think of people with little or nothing to lose. When I think of people with little or nothing to lose that have access to guns, I think of armed robbery and the saying "When the only thing you have is a knife, every problem starts to look more like a steak."
Of course, I have no idea how true any of these notions are, but those are my first impressions.
The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.
Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:03 pm
Sevvania wrote:It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern.
There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?
If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?
It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.
by Sevvania » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:14 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Sevvania wrote:It's not elitist, it's a realistic concern.
The cry of elitists throughout history.
How many of those "elitists" could back up their cries with actual points that have basis in reality?There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?
Sorry, since we're taking it on good faith that other people will not use firearms for nefarious purposes such as settling arguments, then why should we approach homeless people with a presumption of guilt?
Which do you need more, to settle an argument or avoid dying of starvation/exposure?If they have no home, how do they safely store their firearms? Are they expected to carry it on their person at all times? If they're sleeping on a park bench with a pistol strapped to their hip, what's to stop somebody from stabbing them and taking it? Do homeless shelters or soup kitchens allow firearms? If not, are they going to be leaving their guns in the bushes outside?
Technical details that can be addressed. Not a reason to not provide them with the means of self-defense.
"I don't have an answer, but someone else can figure it out," isn't a very convincing argument.It's easy to oversimplify it into, "I believe everyone has a right to self-defense regardless of economic status." That's a nice concept and all, but there are tons of potential problems that could arise from the actual execution of distributing guns willy-nilly.
Which again comes back to prejudging people's actions based upon economic status. You're automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends, which means that you're using a different standard of judgment for them than you would for anyone else.
All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others. This is the reality of the world we live in. To say that I'm automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends is absolutely true, because if you're handing them out en masse, some of them will be used to break the law. If you're suggesting that I think every single homeless person will resort to a life of crime when given a gun, this is incorrect. But I do believe that desperate times can drive people to do desperate things, and freely giving them the instrument that can be misused to carry out those acts of desperation does not seem like a good approach. The entire situation is a Catch-22. If such an approach were to be take, you would just be trading one set of problems for another.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:24 pm
Sevvania wrote:How manyof those elitists can back up their cries with actual points though?
There are probably some swell homeless people who'd never hurt anyone. But if you take a random individual who has nothing, and give him something that, if abused, can get him pretty much anything, are we supposed to just take it on good faith that they'll never resort to that? That they'll take sleeping in a box with no food over the chance of getting their hands on a wad of cash they can turn into something they want or need?
Which do you need more, to settle an argument or avoid dying of starvation/exposure?
"I don't have an answer, but someone else can figure it out," isn't a very convincing argument.
All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others. This is the reality of the world we live in. To say that I'm automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends is absolutely true, because if you're handing them out en masse, some of them will be used to break the law. If you're suggesting that I think every single homeless person will resort to a life of crime when given a gun, this is incorrect. But I do believe that desperate times can drive people to do desperate things, and freely giving them the instrument that can be misused to carry out those acts of desperation does not seem like a good solution.
by Norstal » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:38 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Evil Grantica wrote:Or minorities.
Gun laws, Jim Crow, and Bloomberg all have something in common...
I'm for arming the homeless. It would have the double benefit of making people a little less likely to mess with them without cause, and would probably cause a few representatives to rethink some positions.
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Sevvania » Thu Feb 26, 2015 9:58 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:08 pm
Sevvania wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:I haven't met one yet.
They were good enough points to convince at least one poster to rescind his support of arming the homeless, unless he's just being an elitist, as well.
It's easier to presume that a person who has enough money to get by is less likely to resort to crime to make ends meet. They may very well resort to crime, but if they do, odds are that it'll be for something less necessity-driven.
"Maintaining your freedom" as a starving homeless person doesn't sound like it'd be high on the list of priorities. Jails have shelter and free food. People make impulsive decisions based on self-interest all the time while disregarding the notion of self-preservation, because if they didn't, nobody would rob convenience stores ever, for fear of getting shot by a clerk with a gun.
A bag can be removed from a homeless person sleeping on a bench just as easily. You can't shoot somebody if you're asleep, and I'm not sure what's supposed to alert you to an intruder if there's no sound of shattering glass or door being forced open to wake you up. This seems like it would just turn homeless people into even higher-priority targets for people who want a free gun.
I don't think many people resort to desperate acts "simply" because of things like economic status, lack of ethics, or lack of common sense. I think people resort to desperate acts because there's something they need, and they feel that they don't have an alternative.
by Asterdan » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:17 pm
by Spirit of Hope » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:21 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Sevvania wrote:They were good enough points to convince at least one poster to rescind his support of arming the homeless, unless he's just being an elitist, as well.
It's easier to presume that a person who has enough money to get by is less likely to resort to crime to make ends meet. They may very well resort to crime, but if they do, odds are that it'll be for something less necessity-driven.
"Maintaining your freedom" as a starving homeless person doesn't sound like it'd be high on the list of priorities. Jails have shelter and free food. People make impulsive decisions based on self-interest all the time while disregarding the notion of self-preservation, because if they didn't, nobody would rob convenience stores ever, for fear of getting shot by a clerk with a gun.
A bag can be removed from a homeless person sleeping on a bench just as easily. You can't shoot somebody if you're asleep, and I'm not sure what's supposed to alert you to an intruder if there's no sound of shattering glass or door being forced open to wake you up. This seems like it would just turn homeless people into even higher-priority targets for people who want a free gun.
I don't think many people resort to desperate acts "simply" because of things like economic status, lack of ethics, or lack of common sense. I think people resort to desperate acts because there's something they need, and they feel that they don't have an alternative.
So because you have an idea that homeless people will be more likely to rip off stores (and mind, you've presented no statistical evidence, but rather a tired stereotype of homeless people and unwarranted assumptions that naturally follow from this stereotype), you're fine with people who don't have homes not being able to defend themselves from assault or abuse of authority. They're not worthy of the level of respect and dignity given to housed folks. Got it.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Desperate Measures » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:26 pm
Ifreann wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
The argument is that people require firearms for self-defense and to protect themselves against the tyrannies of government.
Outside of military personnel in combat zones, I can think of no Americans who are in more constant danger of assault than homeless people, or subjected to greater abuses at the hands of those in authority. Should they be disallowed this basic right due to the possibility that a few may turn to desperate measures?
Maybe we should ask Desperate Measures...
by New Baldonia » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:26 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Irrelevant. Guns can be safely stored in the appropriate backpack. Make it part of the gift.
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:All men are created equal. But some are more equal than others. This is the reality of the world we live in. To say that I'm automatically assuming that these weapons will be used for nefarious ends is absolutely true, because if you're handing them out en masse, some of them will be used to break the law. If you're suggesting that I think every single homeless person will resort to a life of crime when given a gun, this is incorrect. But I do believe that desperate times can drive people to do desperate things, and freely giving them the instrument that can be misused to carry out those acts of desperation does not seem like a good solution.
Are you seriously using a paraphrased George Orwell quote to argue your point? You realize that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" was a phrase meant to show the absolute absurdity and internal contradictions of the farm's governing body, right?
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:People BUY weapons for nefarious purposes all the time, and yet they get sold.
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Yes, desperate times can result in desperate actions. However, to assume that someone will resort to desperate actions simply because of economic status, to assume a lack of ethics, morality, or common sense due to one's economic status...that seems a bit pompous, if you'll forgive me for saying so.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:27 pm
Spirit of Hope wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
So because you have an idea that homeless people will be more likely to rip off stores (and mind, you've presented no statistical evidence, but rather a tired stereotype of homeless people and unwarranted assumptions that naturally follow from this stereotype), you're fine with people who don't have homes not being able to defend themselves from assault or abuse of authority. They're not worthy of the level of respect and dignity given to housed folks. Got it.
The money spent giving guns to the homeless could be much better spent making them not homeless. Such as providing job training, suits, cell phones, places to live, mental health care, better education system, or a better safety net. All of those would help the person not become homeless, and get out of being homeless, where they could then make a choice about getting a gun, be less exposed to danger, and less likely to commit crime.
Also hereis a source for you. Those in the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to commit crimes.
by Spirit of Hope » Thu Feb 26, 2015 10:34 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote:Spirit of Hope wrote:The money spent giving guns to the homeless could be much better spent making them not homeless. Such as providing job training, suits, cell phones, places to live, mental health care, better education system, or a better safety net. All of those would help the person not become homeless, and get out of being homeless, where they could then make a choice about getting a gun, be less exposed to danger, and less likely to commit crime.
Also hereis a source for you. Those in the bottom fifth were seven times more likely to commit crimes.
Yes, all of these things would be nice, but they're not happening, and frankly, handguns are significantly less expensive.
Maybe I'm missing something, but your study seems to use the income one's family had during one's upbringing as a factor in potential criminality, not one's current economic or residential situation.
These regressions show that a one percent increase in the population below poverty level will lead to an increase of about 135 total crimes and about 25 violent crimes.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Almonaster Nuevo, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Dazchan, Elejamie, Galloism, Libertarian Negev, Likhinia, Neu California, Omphalos, Outer Bratorke, Pale Dawn, Shearoa, The Holy Therns, Three Galaxies
Advertisement