Gun Control: Your Opinion

[The Adrian Empire]

A complete ban would include the police and the military would it not...

Maybe. The UK has pretty strict laws about guns, but also has a military and armed police.

And armed criminals, No? The only ones who don't have guns are the ones who follow the rules, how is that logical

[Grave_n_idle]

England pre-gun powder
France pre-gun powder

Neither of these were much like your description.

That is if the gun drawing itself doesn't diffuse the situation, it isn't whoever can afford the best toy wins, a pistol's bullet kills the same as an assault rifle, might makes right is far worse because there is no chance for a feeble old man to win against an oxen of a mugger, with the gun, the ox might have a better gun, but the old man has one, the oxen must think if he misses, and the old man fires he is dead, he does not need to fear this with a sword, because even if the old man lifts his sword, the ox with sheer power will eventually over power him. With a pistol he has distinct chance of death and if he is not insane then he obviously will not continue.

I don't really see how the guy who uses lawyers as weapons to force the old guy out of his house, is actually noticably worse than the big guy in the alley. Less bruises maybe.


But - this is why societies formed in the first place, you realise? The advantage of not having to be PERSONALLY mighty, yourself?

Personally - I'm well over six feet tall, and well over 200lbs. Might-makes-right seems like a great idea to me.

[The Adrian Empire]

Yeah. Who wants to not get killed.

Actually, the solution to achieve no crime at all could very easilly wind up getting you killed.

There are three ways:

1) Kill every living human. No humans, no crime.

2) Abolish all governments. No concept of law, no crime.

3) Multiple CCTV cameras in every room of every building and everywhere in every public place. Chips implanted in every human that instantly introduces a lethal dose of [insert poison here] the second they try to tamper with one of these cameras. Anything that could ever possibly be used to do anything wrong is banned. If you need to use it for an approved purpose, you must do so entirely under supervision. The boarders must be completely guarded, and all immigration to and from your society absolutely illegal. I could go on.

Why it sounds like a paradise, when can I join and do I have to drink the kool-aid first

Why Unhealthy Truthseeker I do believe this might the first time I;ve ever agreed with you, perhaps the second

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah. Who wants to not get killed.

Actually, the solution to achieve no crime at all could very easilly wind up getting you killed.

There are three ways:

1) Kill every living human. No humans, no crime.

2) Abolish all governments. No concept of law, no crime.

3) Multiple CCTV cameras in every room of every building and everywhere in every public place. Chips implanted in every human that instantly introduces a lethal dose of [insert poison here] the second they try to tamper with one of these cameras. Anything that could ever possibly be used to do anything wrong is banned. If you need to use it for an approved purpose, you must do so entirely under supervision. The boarders must be completely guarded, and all immigration to and from your society absolutely illegal. I could go on.

I'm sure there's a point intended here.

I notice you missed out neural clamping technologies, mass conditioning, and some kind of thought monitoring.

[Grave_n_idle]

A complete ban would include the police and the military would it not...

Maybe. The UK has pretty strict laws about guns, but also has a military and armed police.

And armed criminals, No? The only ones who don't have guns are the ones who follow the rules, how is that logical

What do you mean 'how is that logical'? If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - that's how it's logical.

Or do you actually mean, how is it wise? Or something like that.

Well - it's worth noting that just because outlaws can have guns, doesn't mean that all outlaws will...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I'm sure there's a point intended here.

I notice you missed out neural clamping technologies, mass conditioning, and some kind of thought monitoring.

No, they'd simply be part of number 3. My point is that you can't completely abolish all crime without abolishing society or turning society into a hellhole. At some point, you're just going to have to "eat the cost" of a certain level of crime.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm sure there's a point intended here.

I notice you missed out neural clamping technologies, mass conditioning, and some kind of thought monitoring.

No, they'd simply be part of number 3. My point is that you can't completely abolish all crime without abolishing society or turning society into a hellhole. At some point, you're just going to have to "eat the cost" of a certain level of crime.

If you conditioned the populace, for example, you wouldn't need number 3 - so, it's an alternaitve, rather than 'part of'. Your 'there are three ways' is optimistic.

How would a conditioned society be a hellhole?

[Qistletorts]

Yes, so long as the large amounts of people have no immediate method of self defence or there methods are significantly less powerful, however it would be inaccurate to say a man with an assault rifle beats three with a pistol

Why?

I'm sorry I'm not following why what? Why would an assault rifle not beat three pistols, well that's not to say it wouldn't sometimes, but it also wouldn't always, meaning that there is certainly a better chance of more people surviving such an attack, which is far better then none, were they disarmed.

\Easy you pull the trigger on an assault rifle it rises and goes left if the shooter is right handed and untrained. If one is trained in self defense unarmed they can win..

But this is not the true gun control issue... i have to review the thread to figure out where I am going to argue it. Suffice to say it will not be on the self defense angle because most of you gun toting muthers would just lose your Weapon and have it turned on you.

Seems better to consider the use of a firearm for defense against oppression.

JSin

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If you conditioned the populace, for example, you wouldn't need number 3 - so, it's an alternaitve, rather than 'part of'. Your 'there are three ways' is optimistic.

How would a conditioned society be a hellhole?

1) Is such a massive level of brainwashing even possible?

2) You honestly don't think there's any problem at all with an entire society under mind control?

[Grave_n_idle]

If you conditioned the populace, for example, you wouldn't need number 3 - so, it's an alternaitve, rather than 'part of'. Your 'there are three ways' is optimistic.

How would a conditioned society be a hellhole?

1) Is such a massive level of brainwashing even possible?

2) You honestly don't think there's any problem at all with an entire society under mind control?

1) Yes.

2) I didn't say there could be no problems - I said how would it be a hellhole?

(Also... mind-control - you make it sound like the Puppet Master story, with little slugs riding around on people. I just meant programming).

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

1) Yes.

2) I didn't say there could be no problems - I said how would it be a hellhole?

1) Really? How do you know this?

2) Such a society would stagnate. There would be no progress, no science, no change ever. Sure, the society wouldn't fall apart overnight, but it wouldn't be relevant for long.

[Grave_n_idle]

1) Really? How do you know this?

Behaviour modification is not a new science.

2) Such a society would stagnate. There would be no progress, no science, no change ever. Sure, the society wouldn't fall apart overnight, but it wouldn't be relevant for long.

Progress, science and change all require crime?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Behaviour modification is not a new science.

It's also not an exact science, and doesn't always work so well.

Progress, science and change all require crime?

Crime is disobeying the laws of the government. To get people to instinctively follow all laws, even new ones, you must condition them for complete obedience. Absolute and unquestioning obedience on an unconsious level doesn't really make for good scientists.

[The Adrian Empire]

England pre-gun powder
France pre-gun powder

Neither of these were much like your description.

That is if the gun drawing itself doesn't diffuse the situation, it isn't whoever can afford the best toy wins, a pistol's bullet kills the same as an assault rifle, might makes right is far worse because there is no chance for a feeble old man to win against an oxen of a mugger, with the gun, the ox might have a better gun, but the old man has one, the oxen must think if he misses, and the old man fires he is dead, he does not need to fear this with a sword, because even if the old man lifts his sword, the ox with sheer power will eventually over power him. With a pistol he has distinct chance of death and if he is not insane then he obviously will not continue.

I don't really see how the guy who uses lawyers as weapons to force the old guy out of his house, is actually noticably worse than the big guy in the alley. Less bruises maybe.


But - this is why societies formed in the first place, you realise? The advantage of not having to be PERSONALLY mighty, yourself?

Personally - I'm well over six feet tall, and well over 200lbs. Might-makes-right seems like a great idea to me.

Yes, among several hundred other things societies did come together for mutual protection, but these societies also outlined how each man was responsible for his own self-defence, and the defence of the community was a mutual effort, police are not you bodyguards, they will tell you that themselves, they're job is to deter and investigate crime, where possible protect the people, but all police will say to you that your personal self-defence is up to you. It would be naive to think they could.
So the gun, the great equalizer of man prevents people like you (in size not temperament) from harming those too weak to survive in a society where might is right.

The old man being beat up in an alley is 100% worse then him losing his house to a bank foreclosure, it would be sick to think otherwise, he loses his money either way but one he might die, now armed h e can defend himself in the alley, though his home will still foreclose.

And now pre-gun powder England and France were not as bad as I described of course I was using hyperbole, rapes would be more common as women usually have less physical strength then men and would have no means of self-defence otherwise so would be forced to subdue to the physically stronger males, old men could be robbed in the street, unless an officer was right there he would have no immediate form of defence, and other people would be too fearful of criminal reprisal to intervene, police themselves would be at the mercy of stronger criminals, only the very strongest could be police men as any others would easily be over powered and killed by criminals, meaning less police, public murders would be no more eliminated by the elimination of guns there would still be such crazed men but unarmed most people would run away which might leave some people safer, but those he catches are as you say no less dead

[The Adrian Empire]

I'm sure there's a point intended here.

I notice you missed out neural clamping technologies, mass conditioning, and some kind of thought monitoring.

No, they'd simply be part of number 3. My point is that you can't completely abolish all crime without abolishing society or turning society into a hellhole. At some point, you're just going to have to "eat the cost" of a certain level of crime.

If you conditioned the populace, for example, you wouldn't need number 3 - so, it's an alternaitve, rather than 'part of'. Your 'there are three ways' is optimistic.

How would a conditioned society be a hellhole?

This is your ideal society, why was I even arguing with you you're clearly INSANE

[Grave_n_idle]

It's also not an exact science, and doesn't always work so well.

You simply asked if it was possible.

Crime is disobeying the laws of the government. To get people to instinctively follow all laws, even new ones, you must condition them for complete obedience.

Not at all, just complete obedience to the laws.

Absolute and unquestioning obedience on an unconsious level doesn't really make for good scientists.

It's also an absolute and unquestioning red herring.

[Grave_n_idle]

This is your ideal society, why was I even arguing with you you're clearly INSANE

I didn't say it was my ideal society - I said that it was possible to have a crime-free society by other methods than the ones UT suggested. This was one of them.

"It's not a hellhole" =/= "It's my ideal society".

[Hedonistic Despotism]

All firearms should be completely illegal except for legally trained and tested hunters.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

You simply asked if it was possible.

The fact that it isn't an exact science and that it doesn't always work pretty much means mass conditioning is gonna fail.

Not at all, just complete obedience to the laws.

What part of "not an exact science" eludes you? How are you going to condition people to obey every law completely and unquestioningly but still make it so that they are capable of not being completely obedient anywhere else?

It's also an absolute and unquestioning red herring.

No, it directly follows from what I said previously.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes, among several hundred other things societies did come together for mutual protection, but these societies also outlined how each man was responsible for his own self-defence, and the defence of the community was a mutual effort, police are not you bodyguards, they will tell you that themselves,

You appear to be jumpng about between historical arguments, and what modern police do. It's very confusing.

So the gun, the great equalizer of man prevents people like you (in size not temperament) from harming those too weak to survive in a society where might is right.

Actually - if you look at artifacts like suits of armour - 'people like me' defended those two weak to survive.

The old man being beat up in an alley is 100% worse then him losing his house to a bank foreclosure, it would be sick to think otherwise, he loses his money either way but one he might die, now armed h e can defend himself in the alley, though his home will still foreclose.

So - getting beaten up is worse than being hungry, homeless and destitute, and being forced onto th street is okay if you have a gun...?

And now pre-gun powder England and France were not as bad as I described of course

Of course.

I was using hyperbole, rapes would be more common as women usually have less physical strength then men

Except, that's not what happened.

Of course, you can decry the lack of liberty - and it's a fair argument - but women were more likely to be being guarded by the menfolk.

... and would have no means of self-defence otherwise so would be forced to subdue to the physically stronger males, old men could be robbed in the street, unless an officer was right there he would have no immediate form of defence,

Again - you seem to be jumping around between the historical (ish) and the curret era - I'm not quite sure what you're allocating to which.

...and other people would be too fearful of criminal reprisal to intervene, police themselves would be at the mercy of stronger criminals,

Hue-and-cry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry

...only the very strongest could be police men as any others would easily be over powered and killed by criminals, meaning less police, public murders would be no more eliminated by the elimination of guns there would still be such crazed men but unarmed most people would run away which might leave some people safer, but those he catches are as you say no less dead

And.. this appears to be about where the medication kicked in... I've got no idea what this means.

[Grave_n_idle]

The fact that it isn't an exact science and that it doesn't always work pretty much means mass conditioning is gonna fail.

Denstistry doesn't always work. You go back and fix the problem when it arises.

What part of "not an exact science" eludes you?

I'm not finding it elusive. "Not an exact science" doesn't mean "is 100% wrong".

How are you going to condition people to obey every law completely and unquestioningly but still make it so that they are capable of not being completely obedient anywhere else?

How do you condition people so they stop for a red light, but not for a green one?

No, it directly follows from...

...a false assumption.

[The Kropotkinite Union]

I think guns should be rounded up, tortured, and systematically murdered by gassing them with Zyklon B and incinerating their bodies in ovens. When that method's not available, they should be lined up against a wall... and shot.

[Grave_n_idle]

I think guns should be rounded up, tortured, and systematically murdered by gassing them with Zyklon B and incinerating their bodies in ovens. When that method's not available, they should be lined up against a wall... and shot.

*blink*

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Denstistry doesn't always work. You go back and fix the problem when it arises.

We're also not discussing a mass dentistry plan that always and forever works.

I'm not finding it elusive. "Not an exact science" doesn't mean "is 100% wrong".

When did I say it was 100% wrong? You're putting words in my mouth.

How do you condition people so they stop for a red light, but not for a green one?

Conditioning people to do something most of the time =/= completely making it so that people have no desire to commit any crimes at all. Do remember that people do run red lights.

...a false assumption.

An assumption you've yet to show to be false.

[Grave_n_idle]

We're also not discussing a mass dentistry plan that always and forever works.

Which is okay, since we weren't necessarily discussing a 'crime-free' society where the mechanism always works, or lasts forever, either.

When did I say it was 100% wrong? You're putting words in my mouth.

You keep saying 'it's not an exact science' like that somehow suggests it doesn't work.

Quantum mechanics is evidence that even exact science isn't an exact science.

Conditioning people to do something most of the time =/= completely making it so that people have no desire to commit any crimes at all. Do remember that people do run red lights.

People who run redlights have to overcome a compulsion to NOT run redlights.

And that's a very subtle form of conditioning.

An assumption you've yet to show to be false.

You made a claim about how conditioning people to obey laws would make them incapable of autonomy - which you haven't even approached being able to support - even in 'thought experiment' terms.