Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

1. I would not disarm law abiding citizens, I would encourage them to arm themselves.

So, you would encourage Dorner to arm himself with as many weapons as possible? Then when he uses them in a crime, what is your solution?

Quote:

2. I would have the police team up with legal gun owners to fight criminals..

Do you think legal gun owners have registered fire arms?

Quote:

3. In high crime areas, Police should be able to profile, stop, frisk and disarm individuals on the street that are carrying guns illegally.

Haven't you argued all people should be able to carry guns. What is carrying a gun illegally? Why do you want to restrict it to high crime areas? Aren't the people in high crime areas the ones you claim should be carrying guns?

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:

You just don't get it mate...someone else is going to possess your firearms when you are gone...

Yes I do get it and that's why I have them tied up in a trust.

Of course. Because as you already noted, criminals respect the law. Drunk

1 Reply

@parados,

Strange as my family guns had been pass down the family tree for generations and not normally sold outside of the family.

footnote going back four generations not one of those guns had been misused not even in out of season hunting.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Strange as my family guns had been pass down the family tree for generations and not normally sold outside of the family.

That's the best way to do it.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

There is no chance in hell this will happen... it's anti-American to even propose such a thing.

I think it's anti-American for you to portray the adult population of your country as overgrown kids playing at cowboys and Indians before the eyes of the civilised world which leaves the "it is--no it isn't--yes it is" futility at the doors of the kindergarten.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

So Bill. No one in your family has ever committed a criminal act?

And no future member of your family will ever commit a criminal act?
No future member of your family will ever sell those guns to someone else that might commit a criminal act?
No member of your family has ever been burglarized or will be burglarized in the future and guns stolen by a criminal?

I wonder why you need guns for protection Bill since your world is so safe.

1 Reply

Bill, I for one hope parasite is never allowed to handle a firearm.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

And no future member of your family will ever commit a criminal act?
No future member of your family will ever sell those guns to someone else that might commit a criminal act?
No member of your family has ever been burglarized or will be burglarized in the future and guns stolen by a criminal?

Criminal acts in my family, well I had a great uncle who drove a beer truck and allowed some of that beer to disappear and was found guilty of doing so long long before I happen to had been born.

He never got into any further trouble of any kind for the rest of his long life.

No violence however of any kind as far as can be reach by the family tree going back generations.

We trend not to sell firearms as already had been stated and when we do they are sold to family friends of similar solid middle class standings.

None of our homes had been broken into over the decades that I know of. Someone did try to break into one of my homes but did not get in around the mid 1980s.

As far as being armed or not and living in a safe or unsafe world my family had a very long history of being a threat to no one with or without firearms something that sadly can not be said of all the rest of society.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

That's a very interesting point.

I thought so myself when it comes to understanding the logical consistencies of a moral concept but I did not expect a reply from him because I did not think he had an interest in moral philosophy.

I have only met a handful around the globe who seem to have an interest in moral philosophy so I would not expect him to comment on it.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

When people read what their constitution says in their country and worship every word in it, you have the same mental frame of mind as God worshipers... in both instance they are worshiping words written by MEN from the past.

3 Replies

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Quote:
That's a very interesting point.

I thought so myself when it comes to understanding the logical consistencies of a moral concept but I did not expect a reply from him because I did not think he had an interest in moral philosophy.

I have only met a handful around the globe who seem to have an interest in moral philosophy so I would not expect him to comment on it.

In retrospect, from the contributions to moral philosophy discussions that I've observed in the past from you, you have shown interest in moral philosophy, but I've never seen you overcome your erroneous bias, influenced by an excessive attention to your own interests and the self deceptions you wall yourself in.

1 Reply

@tenderfoot,

Bad analogy. By “worship” If you mean admire, respect, try to emulate, or believe in, then even you, a nonbeliever in God partake in some form of worship whether it be wealth, science, humanity, or yourself. To use the word "worship" in any sense other than the religious sense is to abuse the meaning of the word and to diminish the religious sense of the word. To say that since I believe theory of evolution is accurate, I therefore worship worship every word Charles Darwin wrote or all scientific writings is an example of the abuse I am describing.

0 Replies

In his notorious book The Game of Nations Miles Copeland appends a suggested further reading list accompanied with a few remarks. With reference to The Ugly American he says--

"I include this book in the bibliography only because I have referred to it several times in the text. Actually, if you will reverse the Good Guys and the Bad Guys most of the points it makes are valid."

The NRA's use of these terms seem to me to be nothing other than an unsupported claim to be Good Guys but if there is no economic benefit to their operations to set against the exhorbitant economic cost of them then Mr Copeland's wise words obviously apply in the case.

How on earth did it come about that a "most wanted" fugitive trapped in a cabin required the amount of resources we saw deployed and resulted in not only the fugitive's death but the death of a policeman and the serious injury of another when their gun defence was so comprehensive? Was the over-excited, gung ho, response a function of a gun culture? Once Mr Boner was trapped in the cabin he was of no danger to anybody except himself.

Another incident in South Africa inside a gated community involved the killing of a young lady justified by the alleged killer on the grounds that she was "thought to be an intruder". The suspect has been charged with murder.
But is not "thought to be an intruder" a licence to kill anybody?

2 Replies

@spendius,

You should find a better hobby spendius. It seems to me like you're getting a kick out of misguided U.S. policies, and some crackpots in America.

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

There is no more interesting subject than human behaviour aspie. Nothing else comes close. I think other hobbies result from a determination to blot out thoughts of human behaviour. It is a tough subject.

Darwin ran from it imo.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Another incident in South Africa inside a gated community involved the killing of a young lady justified by the alleged killer on the grounds that she was "thought to be an intruder". The suspect has been charged with murder.
But is not "thought to be an intruder" a licence to kill anybody?

From what I know from the news, the couple had a history of domestic violence, and their neighbors reported that they had a loud argument shortly before she was "mistaken for a burglar".

However, no.

If someone is attacking you to the degree where you are justified in defending yourself, you should by definition have a very clear view of just what you are shooting at.

Perhaps there are some extraordinary circumstances where that would not be the case. I can't think of any, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

However, in general, most situations where self defense is justified are situations where you can see your attacker.

If you just take a potshot at a fleeting shadow that is not attacking you, that isn't self defense.

(Texas is different of course. My post only applies to the US outside Texas.)

0 Replies

@tenderfoot,

Quote:

When people read what their constitution says in their country and worship every word in it, you have the same mental frame of mind as God worshipers... in both instance they are worshiping words written by MEN from the past.

You are extremely intellectual in my opinion for recognizing that. I think you are correct.

tenderfoot? Does your name mean moral Indian or something similar?

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

Quote:

In retrospect, from the contributions to moral philosophy discussions that I've observed in the past from you, you have shown interest in moral philosophy, but I've never seen you overcome your erroneous bias,

aspvenom I would like to welcome you to what I study and yet fail in because I think we all get moral philosophy wrong. How long have you actually had an interest in moral philosophy and how strong do you think your interest is?
I have only met a handful of people around the world who enjoy the subject so welcome to the club if you are serious and I hope to hear some of your ideas.
If you are not serious I do not expect you to comment much further on the subject.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

I'm gonna be blunt with you, so don't take it too personal. No hard feelings.

Your wording of your reply.... What a narrow-minded and just plain mistaken thing to say?
Not to disappoint you, but your "club" of handful of people is not the only ones who are interested or participate in the subject of moral philosophy. All humans with a normal mental capacity or the ability to reason, partakes in moral philosophy in some way or another whether it be before or after a decision, an action, or even an inaction.
When philosophy is removed from life context, and humanology, there is no place for it. Otherwise, it is fine and helps organize and see our ways of forming/choosing beliefs. Now regarding good arguments, most people are either too tired or too stupid to follow a good argument.

Given that ethics, mathematics, logic, science (biology, physics, etc.) economics, psychology, computer science, and sociology (just to name the "biggies") are all the spawn of philosophy and are predicated on philosophical assumptions, it seems philosophy is not practiced by you and your club full of handful of people. Our entire culture is predicated on the efforts of many who have questioned and thought boldly. Your ideas are betrayed in your snark comment and pettiness to let alone make anyone else think otherwise by your lack of skills to think deeply or question the assumptions, political, ethical or otherwise, which you holds most dearly.

Now if you're meaning to suggest mental masturbation, and not moral philosophy, then yes, there are only a certain number of people whose hobby consist of intellectuality simulating discussion with no practical purpose, as well as to create awareness of how very limited is our understanding of the world. If you're for all of that, go do your thing man. I'll join you if I'm interested in the topic being discussed.

2 Replies

@aspvenom,

O good! We have another genius who is going to talk down too us mental midgets.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know