Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » This is wrong on so many levels...

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
This is wrong on so many levels...
Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

video

video

<object data="URL/file attachment URL" />

Apparently it has a few issues with HTTPS and I had to change 23yrold3yrold's https to http for it to work.

SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
avatar

Kronk: So we should sit on our butts and accept what we have because others have it worse? And it isn't about having things run "our" way, it's about having things run in a way that at least gives people a chance to have a say in how their society is governed.

If we're going to accept faulty government just because humans are faulty then we must accept every government has the right to exist because the people they govern are faulty. I for one do not believe that we are consigned to system of economic and social destitution or that we must accept what we have simply because we are flawed. We have the capacity to do better and better things don't coming along simply because we wish them to.

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

Yeah, we can do tons of things, but most of them end up with us dead :(. It is sad to see people that want change and do protests end in violence and murder where police just get a slap on the wrist and make it look like the protester(s) are being violent.

Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001

No kidding. It also won't be the end of the galaxy.

I think it will! When Andromeda and Milky Way collide, the resulted mess will most probably be something else than two galaxies you still could point out as Andromeda and Milky Way.

<reading more fox>

Quote:

Dark matter is thought to make up about 23 percent of the universe, while only 4 percent of the universe is composed of regular matter, which includes stars, planets and humans.

:D

{"name":"606121","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/7\/e7feffc8dd5749bc58fc81621a25deb0.png","w":494,"h":130,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/e\/7\/e7feffc8dd5749bc58fc81621a25deb0"}606121

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years of thorough research have revealed that the red "x" that closes a window, really isn't red, but white on red background.

Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I think it will! When Andromeda and Milky Way collide, the resulted mess will most probably be something else than two galaxies you still could point out as Andromeda and Milky Way.

The end? Probably not. The end as we know it sure.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
avatar

Kronk: So we should sit on our butts and accept what we have because others have it worse? And it isn't about having things run "our" way, it's about having things run in a way that at least gives people a chance to have a say in how their society is governed.

You think giving everyone a gun and see who survives the longest solves anything? The problem of democracy, that is, building a society where everyone is granted an equal share in making community decisions, hasn't been solved for societies larger than 12 individuals yet, but just giving up and saying, well, let's go back to Social Darwinism is just silly. Until everyone on the planet acts responsibly, refuses to solve conflicts violently, and spreads an abundance of love, we'll have to put up with horribly inefficient compromises.

---
Me make music: Triofobie
---
"We need Tobias and his awesome trombone, too." - Johan Halmén

SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
avatar

If you look closely I never advocated the use of violence. I simply said if the people want more they need to stand up and work for it. However, there is no way to reasonably say that violence is never the answer. The sad truth is that sometimes violence is what it takes to win the day. As Americas founding fathers understood, you need an armed and attentive people to keep the government structure in its proper role.

Bottom line: violence isn't always the answer but it doesn't hurt to have am armed society capable of fighting for itself.

piccolo
Member #3,163
January 2003
avatar

Someone needs to get sued for a lot of money is that game loses any sales.

wow
-------------------------------
i am who you are not am i

_Kronk_
Member #12,347
November 2010

You think giving everyone a gun and see who survives the longest solves anything? The problem of democracy, that is, building a society where everyone is granted an equal share in making community decisions, hasn't been solved for societies larger than 12 individuals yet, but just giving up and saying, well, let's go back to Social Darwinism is just silly. Until everyone on the planet acts responsibly, refuses to solve conflicts violently, and spreads an abundance of love, we'll have to put up with horribly inefficient compromises.

That's more like what I meant.

If you look closely I never advocated the use of violence.

Maybe not, but most people get kind of uncomfortable when you start talking about stockpiling guns and ammo if you're speaking in a context other than slaughtering animals :-/ Especially in the context of pushing a country over the edge...

--------------------------------------------------
"If only our dreams were fires to ignite, then we could let the whole world burn" -Emery

My blog: http://joshuadover.tumblr.com

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

_Kronk_ said:

Maybe not, but most people get kind of uncomfortable when you start talking about stockpiling guns and ammo if you're speaking in a context other than slaughtering animals :-/

Only because they aren't (and/or can't). ;D If somebody has a water balloon and you don't then you're going to be a little uneasy too. :D

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

Just saw a thing online (RSS got to love it) "Porn Actor kills man". Sounds like a bad National Enquirer article.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

bamccaig said:

Only because they aren't (and/or can't). If somebody has a water balloon and you don't then you're going to be a little uneasy too.

Bull :P Why would you feel less uneasy just because you now have a gun? Other people still have guns, you having that gun isn't going to make you any safer. It might actually make other people with weapons more uneasy themselves, and more prone to panicking and shooting.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Why would you feel less uneasy just because you now have a gun? Other people still have guns, you having that gun isn't going to make you any safer. It might actually make other people with weapons more uneasy themselves, and more prone to panicking and shooting.

Have you ever had a gun yourself? I doubt your armchair quarterback opinion is worth anything.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

If things are that dangerous, that you feel you need a loaded lethal weapon on you at all times, I doubt having the gun would do all that much. If it does, I think you probably over estimated the danger of the situation.

I highly doubt it'd make me feel safer. You'd still have to be extremely paranoid to make sure someone doesn't shoot you in the back from tens of feet away.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Quote:

In truth, we are called upon to make life-or-death choices more often than we generally realize. Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt at any time.

http://catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

If owning a gun makes you feel safer, then you don't need to have it to begin with. You are the type of person that does fit into Thomas' remark as you would be more likely to panic and shoot an innocent person during an intense situation. Police statistics even show a gun owner is more likely to be killed with his/her own gun during a house invasion. Don't get me wrong, having a gun doesn't make me uneasy either nor does it make me feel safe. Me and my wife live with my father-in-law who is former Army and retired Marine and a gun fanatic. When I first moved in 11 years ago he had guns I had never heard of before. He even buys his grandchildren bb guns to try and get them hooked on guns at an early age (my son is seven and he has a bb gun from my father-in-law and he plans to buy a pink one for his granddaughter...just to give you an idea of how far he goes). I now know how to use a wide selection of guns, but knowing this doesn't make me feel safer or uneasy. Guns, even though deadly, are about as neutral for me as programming. People kill people, not guns as a person can kill you just as easily with a knife, car, or hammer so there is no reason to feel uneasy because someone owns one. Same way you shouldn't feel safe for owning one.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

So how does Canada have a lower crime rate than the US even though they have far more guns per capita?

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Trent Gamblin
Member #261
April 2000
avatar

Because we use them for hunting, we don't stock pile them for a revolution.

And yes, half of my family hunts, every year.

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

So how does Canada have a lower crime rate than the US even though they have far more guns per capita?

Nothing worth stealing? Most of our crime rate is from armed robbery which is usually to get things to fence to get drug money. So I'm guessing Canada has nothing worth stealing, or free drugs that require no crime. ;)

Because we use them for hunting, we don't stock pile them for a revolution.

We do both, but our hunting is normally "Well I didn't see Dale's orange hat when I shot him by mistake."

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Because we use them for hunting, we don't stock pile them for a revolution.

Also we have fairly strict laws that most (normal) people tend to follow.

By law you have to store your guns in a locked cabinet, SEPARATE from the ammo. Concealed carry I think is quite a bit more difficult to get, as is a permit to just carry in the open in public.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

Wikipedia said:

a 3-year study of Texas crime statistics immediately following passage of CHL legislation found that the most common crime committed by CHL holders that would be grounds for revocation was actually DUI, followed by unlawful carry and then aggravated assault. The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.

Emphasis mine.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Now what about all those people that don't bother with the permits, and carry anyhow? :P put that in your statistics.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Arthur Kalliokoski
Second in Command
February 2005
avatar

If they're going to break the law, more laws won't help. If you make it illegal to manufacture firearms, resourceful people will just make their own weapons. They won't be as accurate or powerful as what you can buy now, but a one eyed man is king in the land of the blind.

They all watch too much MSNBC... they get ideas.

SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
avatar

TF: Yes, I do more safe now that I can carry a concealed weapon on me. I have been mugged twice and that weight on my hip provides a reassurance since I know I at least have the possibility of defending myself now(either through using it or by simply having the weapon).

The point of carrying a concealed weapon is that no one else knows you have it. So why would anyone else panic if they don't know you're carrying it? It's a faulty argument.

Phoenix: If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood then having a gun would indeed make me feel safer. By your argument thinking I need it means I don't need it which would be untrue because I live in a dangerous neighborhood. A cop thinks he needs his firearm for protection so does that mean he doesn't actually need it? And before you say the cop is in a dangerous profession don't forget that criminals aren't just dangerous to cops.

Trent: Not every gun-toting American stockpiles weapons for a revolution. The vast majority like to hunt or simply would like the opportunity to defend themselves. Argument void.

And as Arthur pointed out, having more laws doesn't keep criminals from breaking the law. I took my concealed license class, I passed a morals check, I have a clean record, and I go to the range regularly so that when I do find myself in the situation to use my weapon I know I have a fairly good chance of hitting what I intend to hit. I also keep all my weapons in a locked safe separate from the ammo(aside from my handgun which I keep close by in case of a break-in) and am teaching my son that they are dangerous and not toys. I would hardly call myself a danger to those around me nor do I panic easily. The only possible argument that's been presented that may have some validity is increased paranoia but even then paranoia is far too strong of a word. I am more observant of my surroundings but that doesn't mean I see danger in every person or expect to shoot every person that happens to walk behind me.

Specter Phoenix
Member #1,425
July 2001
avatar

Phoenix: If I lived in a dangerous neighborhood then having a gun would indeed make me feel safer. By your argument thinking I need it means I don't need it which would be untrue because I live in a dangerous neighborhood. A cop thinks he needs his firearm for protection so does that mean he doesn't actually need it? And before you say the cop is in a dangerous profession don't forget that criminals aren't just dangerous to cops.

You just fell head first into the statistic I was referring to. Those who are in a crime and get the weapon for protection are more likely to have their protection used to kill them. Difference between you and the police is that they are trained in hand to hand, required to pass firearm proficiency tests, and are trained in non-lethal and lethal ways to handle situations. They are also trained to keep their firearms aimed away from the threat and to shoot to incapacitate while again most civilians shoot to kill. You have just put yourself into two situation categories, either you will become jumpy from being mugged twice and shoot an innocent person thinking they are about to mug you or you will get mugged again and they will find the gun or you will pull it and they will try to overpower you and you get shot. Seldom does that end with a good outcome of you just scaring them off.



Go to: