1
   

FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

 
 
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 01:04 pm
@manored,
Quote:
an ideal human being has nothing to hide
An ideal human being has nothing to hide from other ideal human beings.

Does the FBI, or the United States government, now consist of ideal human beings?

(Excuse the late followup, but the thread as a whole has only just now come to my attention because someone has posted to it today.)

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 07:30 PM ----------

Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by jgweed http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
If we were all forced to have an electronic monitor embedded under our skin, this too would help the FBI track down "child molesters"---and anyone else they decide to look into.
That's true. But that would be an extreme measure that would be universally rejected. And rightly so. But the proposal about the web by the FBI is certainly not nearly as extreme, and may, on examination, be reasonable. Your argument, comparing the FBI proposal, with forcing us to have monitors, and concluding that because the second is unacceptable, so it the first, is a variation on the straw-man fallacy.
Surely that is not the structure of the argument.

The FBI says, "We want to monitor everything everybody does on the whole of the World Wide Web all the time so that we can catch (a) terrorists, (b) child molesters, (c) anybody we want to ... oh, what a giveaway!"

(You may ignore (c), and even (a), for the sake of strict logic.)

jgweed says, "If the need to catch bad people is a sufficient reason for the United States government to be allowed to keep the entire [Web-using] population of the world under surveillance at all times, then it follows that the implanting of electronic monitors would also be justified."

To that argument, one can object such a that forcible implanting of monitors would be an invasion of privacy, indeed a physical assault, in a way which the mere monitoring of Web traffic is not; and perhaps that is the objection you meant to make.

But jgweed's argument does not merely set up a straw man. It points out that the need for (a) security or (b) law enforcement or (c) total world domination (you may ignore that bit) does not of itself justify constant intrusive surveillance of the entire world population, because the harm done to individual privacy is not even being taken into account. There must be a weighing of pros and cons. The image of implanted electronic monitors is just a metaphor, but a rather good one, for us all having our privacy constantly eroded like this.

jgweed is not arguing against the proposal as such. He is arguing against the justification given for the proposal, saying that it is inadequate - which it is.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 02:24 pm
@manored,
manored;128196 wrote:
Protecting your own at any expense to others will not bring you security nor peace, because that will make you a danger to others, who may just end up doing the same thing.

Isnt that how the whole terrorism thing started? Hum...
If they wished to react to my defensive action then that is escalation but the fear of that would not stop me. I know, no action is worse than any certain action. Bullies dont turn away because of my inactivity. Terrorist dont act out of logic but they do fear retribution.

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 03:32 PM ----------

Twirlip;128204 wrote:
An ideal human being has nothing to hide from other ideal human beings.

Does the FBI, or the United States government, now consist of ideal human beings?

(Excuse the late followup, but the thread as a whole has only just now come to my attention because someone has posted to it today.)

---------- Post added 02-14-2010 at 07:30 PM ----------

Surely that is not the structure of the argument.

The FBI says, "We want to monitor everything everybody does on the whole of the World Wide Web all the time so that we can catch (a) terrorists, (b) child molesters, (c) anybody we want to ... oh, what a giveaway!"

(You may ignore (c), and even (a), for the sake of strict logic.)

jgweed says, "If the need to catch bad people is a sufficient reason for the United States government to be allowed to keep the entire [Web-using] population of the world under surveillance at all times, then it follows that the implanting of electronic monitors would also be justified."

To that argument, one can object such a that forcible implanting of monitors would be an invasion of privacy, indeed a physical assault, in a way which the mere monitoring of Web traffic is not; and perhaps that is the objection you meant to make.

But jgweed's argument does not merely set up a straw man. It points out that the need for (a) security or (b) law enforcement or (c) total world domination (you may ignore that bit) does not of itself justify constant intrusive surveillance of the entire world population, because the harm done to individual privacy is not even being taken into account. There must be a weighing of pros and cons. The image of implanted electronic monitors is just a metaphor, but a rather good one, for us all having our privacy constantly eroded like this.

jgweed is not arguing against the proposal as such. He is arguing against the justification given for the proposal, saying that it is inadequate - which it is.
You give the case for entertaining this action then side with it.:perplexed: As you say monitoring the world web is an impossibility, its asking certain freedoms of intrusion be allowed. Surely its no more than they have already. When you consider commercial interests know our every move , every interest we may show , so they may target their customers more successfully, this worry you have is outdated . You have no secrets , we are listed, monitored, controlled.
Twirlip
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 02:56 pm
@xris,
Quote:
When you consider commercial interests know our every move , every interest we may show , so they may target their customers more successfully, this worry you have is outdated . You have no secrets , we are listed, monitored, controlled.
This is off the main point, but I'm reminded of the third programme in the television series The Virtual Revolution on BBC2 last night (here in the UK - of little interest elsewhere, I'm afraid). I thought that this episode, unlike the first two (which I found enjoyable and informative) was very boring, because it was trying to make a mountain out of a molehill by getting us all worked up into a state of paranoid anxiety about Amazon knowing our preferences and making tailored recommendations, and so on! I love Amazon, and I don't even mind Google (perhaps I should?), and I couldn't see what the fuss was about. The FBI, now that's another matter.
0 Replies
 
Khethil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 03:15 pm
@Pythagorean,
Hmmm,

Ideally, I'd think it OK for providers to keep long lists of traffic. But I'd want those subject to law enforcement, homeland security and other "protection" agencies for their just, respectful, loyal and prudent use (and then, only under compelling circumstances) by responsible, conscientious individuals.

The problem is: Would it be used only for these noble purposes? And only by respectful and thoughtful individuals? To this, I'd answer "Hell No. Even under the best conditions there is a risk for misuse, control, criminalizing and unjust-incrimination that would go beyond what I see as "noble and responsible".

So then the question becomes: Is what we're likely to lose (privacy and other risks associated with such a situation) worth what we might gain (security, safety and more evidence to get the bad guys)? What happens when something's criminalized (or otherwise disproportionately-incriminates us)? Is it still worth it?

Our answer is dependent upon our fears, priorities and principles.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Feb, 2010 04:19 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;128219 wrote:
Hmmm,

Ideally, I'd think it OK for providers to keep long lists of traffic. But I'd want those subject to law enforcement, homeland security and other "protection" agencies for their just, respectful, loyal and prudent use (and then, only under compelling circumstances) by responsible, conscientious individuals.

The problem is: Would it be used only for these noble purposes? And only by respectful and thoughtful individuals? To this, I'd answer "Hell No. Even under the best conditions there is a risk for misuse, control, criminalizing and unjust-incrimination that would go beyond what I see as "noble and responsible".

So then the question becomes: Is what we're likely to lose (privacy and other risks associated with such a situation) worth what we might gain (security, safety and more evidence to get the bad guys)? What happens when something's criminalized (or otherwise disproportionately-incriminates us)? Is it still worth it?

Our answer is dependent upon our fears, priorities and principles.
No weapon is used only for good but tell me one weapon that man has the ability to control. The web can be seen as a weapon, no one can control its ability. Terrorist and paedophiles use it against us why not use it against them?
0 Replies
 
manored
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:09 pm
@xris,
xris;128209 wrote:
If they wished to react to my defensive action then that is escalation but the fear of that would not stop me. I know, no action is worse than any certain action. Bullies dont turn away because of my inactivity. Terrorist dont act out of logic but they do fear retribution.
But perhaps the fear or rather, caution, should stop you. I believe its worth to consider the possibility of that a defensive action that is an offensive action against someone else may put you in even more danger than you would be if you had not taken a defensive action.

I disagree with your opinion about terrorists. The fact that their objectives are stupid and unproductive doesnt means that they are incapable and cowardly. The grand objective of a human never has any logical justification... how to justify the desire for happiness, for instance?

xris;128228 wrote:
No weapon is used only for good but tell me one weapon that man has the ability to control. The web can be seen as a weapon, no one can control its ability. Terrorist and paedophiles use it against us why not use it against them?
We already do, the web is used for everything.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Feb, 2010 04:20 pm
@manored,
manored;128656 wrote:
But perhaps the fear or rather, caution, should stop you. I believe its worth to consider the possibility of that a defensive action that is an offensive action against someone else may put you in even more danger than you would be if you had not taken a defensive action.

I disagree with your opinion about terrorists. The fact that their objectives are stupid and unproductive doesnt means that they are incapable and cowardly. The grand objective of a human never has any logical justification... how to justify the desire for happiness, for instance?

We already do, the web is used for everything.
This could not be me, I was learnt to take the battle to my enemy not to sit and wait for him. Its not defensive its aggressive.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:08 pm
@xris,
xris;128663 wrote:
This could not be me, I was learnt to take the battle to my enemy not to sit and wait for him. Its not defensive its aggressive.
I dont think its a good idea to have enemies, but its your choice.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:19 pm
@manored,
manored;129067 wrote:
I dont think its a good idea to have enemies, but its your choice.
I dont choose to have enemies they choose me. Are paedophiles your enemy ?
manored
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 07:05 pm
@xris,
xris;129074 wrote:
I dont choose to have enemies they choose me. Are paedophiles your enemy ?
But from what you told me from how you face your enemies, it seens you destroy then even if that will create more enemies. Our conversation was really too abstract to determine so, though.

I have things I hate, but I dont think I have anything I could call "enemy"
0 Replies
 
melonkali
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 04:04 am
@salima,
salima;125724 wrote:
it is very funny to me now to hear about how to track people and what they are doing. there was a time they could track cell phone users and their messages and now you can buy a cheap cell phone and use it and throw it away and who is going to track anyone that way? favorite and necessary tool of terrorists. not to mention you can buy guns at a 'gunshow' and they can not be traced to the buyer. concealed weapons are now legal and if a business does not want people to carry guns they have to post a sign prohibitting guns.

i couldnt believe my eyes when i went to the library and saw a sign 'no guns' along with the 'no smoking' sign. i notice there is no sign on public transportation.

as i see it, any attempts at trying to track people and what they are doing rather than making it easier to stop, deter or capture criminals is going to do nothing else but limit the confidentiality and anonymity of innocent people.

by the way is this only happening in america?


Salima, you wouldn't believe the gun laws recently passed in Tennessee.

A law was passed allowing those with "handgun carrying permits" to carry their guns (openly or concealed) in public parks, shopping malls and restaurants.

So this Village Idiot who is fast becoming a local legend, no one can figure out if he's trying to demonstrate the absurdity of these laws or if he's insane, goes to our local tree huggers' public wildlife, nature trail park dressed like an extra in "Rambo" (camouflage, red bandana, etc), wearing an ammo-belt and over-sized holster slung over his back, from which he "playfully" removes and starts slinging around some type of AK-47 which had been modified to meet the technical standards for "legal hand gun".

The park rangers did a felony take-down on the guy, then called the local police, who, after checking the modifications on the AK-47 and measuring its barrel (which was less than 1/2" below the maximum), determined the man was not breaking the law. The park rangers had to let him go and roam the park, understandably causing many to exit the park. And now the Idiot is suing the park rangers for illegal detainment!

That's only one of many outrageous stunts the Idiot has pulled lately. The pro-gun people, some of whom also work in law enforcement, are, understandably, livid. To get the pro-gun perspective on this guy, I joined a "gun" forum. There was no dispute on the forum that any competent law enforcement officer would have acted as the park rangers did. What they can't understand is how our new gun laws allow Idiot to keep getting away with these stunts and terrifying the public, just because, Idiot says, it's his "2nd amendment right".

On the other hand, a nearby chief of police, with a stellar record, took a leave of absence to fight in Iraq, where he served well and was decorated. When he returned, he had trouble sleeping at first, was diagnosed with mild PTSD, treated for a brief time, and then was cleared by TWO eminent psychiatrists at Vanderbilt University Medical Center to return to his former job.

But he can't return to his old job. The new law says that if a person has ever been treated for any type of addiction or mental disorder, he can never be issued a "handgun carrying permit".

The world's turned upside down...

rebecca
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 05:25 am
@melonkali,
melonkali;129619 wrote:
Salima, you wouldn't believe the gun laws recently passed in Tennessee.

A law was passed allowing those with "handgun carrying permits" to carry their guns (openly or concealed) in public parks, shopping malls and restaurants.

So this Village Idiot who is fast becoming a local legend, no one can figure out if he's trying to demonstrate the absurdity of these laws or if he's insane, goes to our local tree huggers' public wildlife, nature trail park dressed like an extra in "Rambo" (camouflage, red bandana, etc), wearing an ammo-belt and over-sized holster slung over his back, from which he "playfully" removes and starts slinging around some type of AK-47 which had been modified to meet the technical standards for "legal hand gun".

The park rangers did a felony take-down on the guy, then called the local police, who, after checking the modifications on the AK-47 and measuring its barrel (which was less than 1/2" below the maximum), determined the man was not breaking the law. The park rangers had to let him go and roam the park, understandably causing many to exit the park. And now the Idiot is suing the park rangers for illegal detainment!

That's only one of many outrageous stunts the Idiot has pulled lately. The pro-gun people, some of whom also work in law enforcement, are, understandably, livid. To get the pro-gun perspective on this guy, I joined a "gun" forum. There was no dispute on the forum that any competent law enforcement officer would have acted as the park rangers did. What they can't understand is how our new gun laws allow Idiot to keep getting away with these stunts and terrifying the public, just because, Idiot says, it's his "2nd amendment right".

On the other hand, a nearby chief of police, with a stellar record, took a leave of absence to fight in Iraq, where he served well and was decorated. When he returned, he had trouble sleeping at first, was diagnosed with mild PTSD, treated for a brief time, and then was cleared by TWO eminent psychiatrists at Vanderbilt University Medical Center to return to his former job.

But he can't return to his old job. The new law says that if a person has ever been treated for any type of addiction or mental disorder, he can never be issued a "handgun carrying permit".

The world's turned upside down...

rebecca



So Rebecca, what exactly has this guy done wrong? You might not like his antics, but what has he done wrong? Or are you not concerned with what he has done, but instead, what he MIGHT do? Convicting him of something he might do? Just because he might be a nut, doesn't mean he will hurt someone. Does he have the ability to? Yeah, but so does every person on this planet. So if you want to start convicting people of things they "might" do, how about tossing yourself into jail too if you are wanting him to be there. Unless you can actually find something he has done wrong, it is better to not make up a crime where none exists.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 12:08 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;129622 wrote:
So Rebecca, what exactly has this guy done wrong? You might not like his antics, but what has he done wrong? Or are you not concerned with what he has done, but instead, what he MIGHT do? Convicting him of something he might do? Just because he might be a nut, doesn't mean he will hurt someone. Does he have the ability to? Yeah, but so does every person on this planet. So if you want to start convicting people of things they "might" do, how about tossing yourself into jail too if you are wanting him to be there. Unless you can actually find something he has done wrong, it is better to not make up a crime where none exists.
I will have to agree with this, if he is legally allowed to carry a gun secretly, then I dont see why he shouldnt be allowed to carry it on open view. If he decides to commit a genocide, the results would be the same anyway.

And from the sound of it I think he is, indeed, trying to show how absurd the law is. The best way to force an absurd or unfair law to change is to force the twig until it snaps.

I personally think carrying guns should be allowed anywhere. There is no point in having a gun if you cant leave your house with it, most of the danger is outside your house.

These laws do sound absurd though, from what happened to the policeman.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 12:27 pm
@manored,
For me this talk of guns in public place is like saying whose in the nut house and whose outside? Cos I cant tell the damned difference. Freedom to scare the pants of your neighbour, what a law. God bless, save, America.

You get shot by the police in the UK even if it looks like a gun and I'm O so glad about that. No one should legitimately be allowed to carry a gun in a public place.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 01:24 pm
@xris,
xris;129706 wrote:
For me this talk of guns in public place is like saying whose in the nut house and whose outside? Cos I cant tell the damned difference. Freedom to scare the pants of your neighbour, what a law. God bless, save, America.

You get shot by the police in the UK even if it looks like a gun and I'm O so glad about that. No one should legitimately be allowed to carry a gun in a public place.


You know where else this happened? Germany pre ww2. Shortly before Hitler came into power, Germany had passed laws forbidding private ownership of firearms. So when the time came to round up all the Jews, they had nothing to use to protect themselves from the SS. Had private ownership of guns not be denied, this would have been very hard for the SS to pull off.

You can try to debate me but there is one country in all of Europe in which Hitler said would be insane to invade. One little tiny country out of all of Europe. Which one? Switzerland. But why? Because they have the most wide spread publicly owned firearm system and a majority are trained in how to shoot too. Knowing this, it would have made the country incredibly difficult to invade. Having home field advantage and a public that is well armed is suicide and Hitler knew that, so he avoided invading. You can say I am full of crap if you want, it is historically documented as I have pointed out here. Hitler wrote about it personally on several occasions and outlined pretty much what I have stated here. So refute it if you want.

The founders of the US constitution understood this premise well. That governments eventually will oppress the people and take away the rights of it's citizens. To prevent this from happening, the framers knew that the people would need a way to protect their rights, and that protection is the second amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting, and it has nothing to do with protecting your farm from native Americans. It had nothing to do with protecting the colonists from British invasions. It has everything to do with the government infringing on the rights of the American people.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. This is so because those who gain positions of power tend always to extend the bounds of it. Power must always be constrained or limited else it will increase to the level that it will be despotic."
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 11:09 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;129709 wrote:
You know where else this happened? Germany pre ww2. Shortly before Hitler came into power, Germany had passed laws forbidding private ownership of firearms. So when the time came to round up all the Jews, they had nothing to use to protect themselves from the SS. Had private ownership of guns not be denied, this would have been very hard for the SS to pull off.

You can try to debate me but there is one country in all of Europe in which Hitler said would be insane to invade. One little tiny country out of all of Europe. Which one? Switzerland. But why? Because they have the most wide spread publicly owned firearm system and a majority are trained in how to shoot too. Knowing this, it would have made the country incredibly difficult to invade. Having home field advantage and a public that is well armed is suicide and Hitler knew that, so he avoided invading. You can say I am full of crap if you want, it is historically documented as I have pointed out here. Hitler wrote about it personally on several occasions and outlined pretty much what I have stated here. So refute it if you want.

The founders of the US constitution understood this premise well. That governments eventually will oppress the people and take away the rights of it's citizens. To prevent this from happening, the framers knew that the people would need a way to protect their rights, and that protection is the second amendment. It has nothing to do with hunting, and it has nothing to do with protecting your farm from native Americans. It had nothing to do with protecting the colonists from British invasions. It has everything to do with the government infringing on the rights of the American people.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. This is so because those who gain positions of power tend always to extend the bounds of it. Power must always be constrained or limited else it will increase to the level that it will be despotic."
An outdated ideology that is not even true in fact. France has always had a gun culture , that did not stop Hitler invading France. Switzerland bank rolled Hitlers war so why should he invade the bankers. The Nordic countries carry guns and they had Hitler invade also. So your notion that it would deter invasion is not a very good argument.

Why should you be allowed to carry a gun in public, what purpose does it serve? Im not saying you have to remove them altogether but strict control of ownership and not openly display them in public is not exactly infringing on your rights as much as it is on others freedoms to not be intimidated.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 11:33 am
@xris,
xris;129995 wrote:
An outdated ideology that is not even true in fact. France has always had a gun culture , that did not stop Hitler invading France. Switzerland bank rolled Hitlers war so why should he invade the bankers. The Nordic countries carry guns and they had Hitler invade also. So your notion that it would deter invasion is not a very good argument.


I would have to look into this a little more, since you don't quite define exactly what you are referring to. However; if what you say is the case, why did the US pay Switzerland if the Swiss were backing Nazi Germany? Seems a little odd.

xris;129995 wrote:

Why should you be allowed to carry a gun in public, what purpose does it serve?


Xris, I don't like guns either. I see their nature is nothing other than to destroy what ever they are used on, weather it be a road sign or animal or person. They have one purpose and one purpose only, killing. However; I see a fundamental truth with them that most neglect because of their fear of guns. A well armed public will actually be safer, because every potential criminal will know that almost everyone is carrying. It is a deterent although I will admit, not the best but it still works. You can say it doesn't but I have another example to back me up. What's that example?

Nuclear standoff stalemate.

It seems lately when a country gains nuclear armerment ability they somehow enter into the secret club of bomb holders. The US military knows this and acknowledges it, this is why the US is trying to cap other countries from gaining the ability to manufacture them. Who ever holds a bomb, has the ability, that ability is not to destroy, but to have a voice in global discussions. They must "let you in the club when you have a bomb entrance card". Those who don't have the bomb, are not allowed into the club. Iran is trying to quickly develope their bomb so they can get in on the club.

This same principal works on a smaller scale. On an individual level. Sure there will still be nut cases who you really wouldn't want to allow to have a gun, but you have to be fair. The fairness comes with them. If they aren't causing any problems, then what's the harm? But people don't honestly look at it that way. Instead they play this game of "what could happen" and convinct people of crimes they have not even commited yet, simply because they feel that they "might" do something harmful. As far as I am concerned, it is truely bad when we assume someone will commit a crime they have not done. It is far more dangerous to assume guilt than it is to wait until they have done something worthy of that guilt.

xris;129995 wrote:

Im not saying you have to remove them altogether but strict control of ownership and not openly display them in public is not exactly infringing on your rights as much as it is on others freedoms to not be intimidated.


Locally I am seeing that the law enforcement doesn't care about public safty. Do a google search for 15 year old girl get's attacked while security just watch. A girl gets beat up while the security cops just stand there doing absolutely NOTHING. They don't even try to shield the girl getting attacked. Not a single thing. This is not a single case, there are dozens and dozens of these sorts of things happening in Seattle alone.

The police here are only concerned with one thing. Profit. They no longer investigate property theft. They don't care about public safty. All they want to do is ticket people for speeding and running red lights. Law enforcement has become a for profit industry here. Mail gets stolen out of mail boxes. Drive by murders happen and no one gets caught for these crimes. A few police offers were killed recently and they spared no expense on trying to capture the guy who did it. Yet recently a girl got killed because she mistook some gang members for her friends. They shot and killed her and they don't care to investigate the case.

It is absurd that they place officers above the level of citizens. That someone one of their own is worthy of more attention than the average person. All because they refuse to allow people to defend themselves. I say if the police are over worked and strained, why not let the people protect themselves? Train everyone, hell you allow anyone and everyone to drive a car, surely we can provide gun safty courses and classes on proper respect and use of firearms. You are not forced to own one, but a poluation that is well trained is a peaceful one. Just look at Switzerland.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 01:10 pm
@xris,
xris;129706 wrote:
For me this talk of guns in public place is like saying whose in the nut house and whose outside? Cos I cant tell the damned difference. Freedom to scare the pants of your neighbour, what a law. God bless, save, America.
The neighbour is scared by the mere existence of the other, it is this neighbours fault. If we consider that I do not have the right to possess something that may scare those around me, freedom goes out through the window. People may be scared and fake being scared of just anything.

Having a gun and telling someone you will kill then with a gun are totally different things. I think people are biased towards guns, you DO NOT need a gun to kill someone. A kitchen knife is enough. The danger behind assassins is the surprise element, not the firepower they posess.

But then only a few have guns, those few can use then to hold many hostage, or kill many in a short period of time, so perhaps it would be better if many had guns.

xris;129706 wrote:

You get shot by the police in the UK even if it looks like a gun and I'm O so glad about that. No one should legitimately be allowed to carry a gun in a public place.
You cant be serious about this =)

If you are, well, have fun being shot dead by the police due to a suspicious looking umbrela in a rainy day.

Krumple;129996 wrote:

This same principal works on a smaller scale. On an individual level. Sure there will still be nut cases who you really wouldn't want to allow to have a gun, but you have to be fair. The fairness comes with them. If they aren't causing any problems, then what's the harm? But people don't honestly look at it that way. Instead they play this game of "what could happen" and convinct people of crimes they have not even commited yet, simply because they feel that they "might" do something harmful. As far as I am concerned, it is truely bad when we assume someone will commit a crime they have not done. It is far more dangerous to assume guilt than it is to wait until they have done something worthy of that guilt.
I agree

Krumple;129996 wrote:

It is absurd that they place officers above the level of citizens. That someone one of their own is worthy of more attention than the average person. All because they refuse to allow people to defend themselves. I say if the police are over worked and strained, why not let the people protect themselves? Train everyone, hell you allow anyone and everyone to drive a car, surely we can provide gun safty courses and classes on proper respect and use of firearms. You are not forced to own one, but a poluation that is well trained is a peaceful one. Just look at Switzerland.
I dont think that an armed populace can serve as an replacement to the police force, but I dont oppose the idea of letting the populace arm itself.

By the way... this thread has gone waaaaaay off topic =)
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 01:21 pm
@Krumple,
One again the facts dont bare out your argument. Carrying guns does not stop crime, in fact it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. I dont want to get into statical battles but guns kill Americans in their thousands. Something that does not happen when they are criminalized. Just google deaths by guns in America and compare it to the UK. If it was a good deterrent Ide probable be carrying one now, but it aint. We Brits faced the Nazis threat alone without carrying personal weapons, even our police dont carry them on a daily basis. We pride ourselves in military matters but would deplore the American freedom to shoot his fellow citizen.

Locally we have had youngsters get shot for brandishing an air rifle. It sends a message, no guns in private hands, in public view. Try pointing an umbrella at a policeman , pretending it was a gun. If you intend it to be classified as weapon then thats what it is.
manored
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Feb, 2010 01:48 pm
@xris,
xris;130017 wrote:
One again the facts dont bare out your argument. Carrying guns does not stop crime, in fact it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. I dont want to get into statical battles but guns kill Americans in their thousands. Something that does not happen when they are criminalized.
Forbidding guns does not stop it either, and I dont agree it can escalate the occurrence of violent crime. While it certainly increases the chances of that someone will go crazy, get a gun and start shooting everyone, it certainly also decreases the time until this person is shot down.

If you forbid guns, people will have then ilegally. If you manage to make adquiring guns almost impossible, people will use knives or other white weapons. "Guns dont kill, people kill".

xris;130017 wrote:

Locally we have had youngsters get shot for brandishing an air rifle. It sends a message, no guns in private hands, in public view. Try pointing an umbrella at a policeman , pretending it was a gun. If you intend it to be classified as weapon then thats what it is.
In my book policemen that shoot people first and ask questions later arent a great improvement from bandits.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/19/2024 at 03:18:47