Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: mass shootings in the u.s.
Thread: mass shootings in the u.s. This thread is 19 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · «PREV
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted October 10, 2017 12:38 PM

Here's the info I mentioned earlier in another thread, I thought it would be useful to have it here permanently, instead of some soon-to-be-deleted VW thread:

U.S. and gun violence statistics.
____________
...and the laymen's landscape is rife with quacks and people with strange agendas. - Corribus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
tSar-Ivor
tSar-Ivor


Legendary Hero
Live today for we die tomorrow
posted October 10, 2017 07:18 PM

Jesus, when I read states with tighter gun controls have less gun related violence - no ****ing **** lol. A child could've theorized that. Still misses the point entirely, which is WHY? Money should be poured into research into pathological states of mind (including what makes people dumb and ignorant to the point where they use their tools of murder inappropriately to the point of "accidental" self harm or harming others. Note the quotation marks around accident, they're not ****ing accidents in hungarian the word for accident is 'an outcome you specifically didn't foresee' (so you could've if you paid attention for instance) so why you didn't should be the object of research, not some research results that's friggin common sense and serves absolutely no point (pro-gun peeps will refute it regardless of what they say, and pro-gun restriction peeps will already know/blindly believe any stats that serve their baseless agenda).

You will have less gun crime, but do we really want to live in a society where people are put into straight jackets rather than dealing with the real problem? Most intelligent people dont own guns, but they retain the right to. Now you might say why not do away with it then for the others? That's a reasonable view in the present situation, but the better question is, why should you be punished for someone else's stupidity? Take away their rights to firearms not yours if they feel it reasoned. It's injustice to punish all for the crimes (in this case the 'potential' of the few, simple.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness" Jenny.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted October 10, 2017 07:44 PM
Edited by artu at 19:56, 10 Oct 2017.

In the case of U.S., I dont think it's just about the binary question of being able to own guns or not but rather about the culture/industry turning it into a fetish, the sort of guns you are able to own (warfare automatics that are in no way designed for hunting or self-defense) and the lack of strict precautionary background checks when it comes to these kind of weapons.

And your argument can be also used to defend the right to own bio-hazzard weapons or even nuclear warheads, most (almost all) intelligent people wont use them even if they have the right to own them, so why should they give up this right for the potential misdeeds of a few? But what exactly is the upside of owning a nuke, if the argument is you wont be using it anyway? Why would a construction worker or a car salesman have the right to own a machine gun that spits out 600 bullets per minute? What sense does that make? Even U.S. wasnt like this only 50 years ago.

Also, if the studies show that "higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness didnít correlate with more gun deaths" as the article suggests, then the correlation between lack of tight gun laws and gun deaths is very unlikely to be just coincidental. It is not "baseless" to detect a causality in correlation when you rule out other probable causes.
____________
...and the laymen's landscape is rife with quacks and people with strange agendas. - Corribus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
tSar-Ivor
tSar-Ivor


Legendary Hero
Live today for we die tomorrow
posted October 10, 2017 07:59 PM
Edited by tSar-Ivor at 20:10, 10 Oct 2017.

Precisely, why should the state have unequivocal right to them, the United States president is an imbecile of unprecedented proportions yet he has command of not only the largest armed forces in the world, but also its nuclear arsenal (of course that's only on paper, but the principle stands on these grounds nevertheless).

There should be no laws to curtail men, none (and really there are none, if I want an atomic weapon and pour money, time and energy into its aquisition then I will have it, just as India and Pakistan did, they are countries though, but the example you gave is extreme to the point where only states, or even PMC/NGOs now are realistically capable of producing and maintaining the nukes and the necessary facilities to house them). Or if I want to butcher and maim my fellow man for pleasure, I can do it freely, retribution will likely only occur post my heinous deeds, the law offers no protection or buffer for people when up against determination, they'll merely paint it as a horrible tragedy, an enigma. Not that I have such ambitions, if I did there would be nothing in my way, deterence only affects the meek.

Human beings are the only ones capable of disciplining themselves, not some arbitrary system whereby you surrender your god given faculties for a "comfortable" (ha sometimes not even for that) nonsensical existence. I love how criminals understand this, but are rarely capable or willing to succintly express their world view/ideology, most people have no aptitude for its understanding, and psychopaths in particular prey on those who have grown too accustomed to the illusion of comfort and safety (for instance, there was a Lithuanian migrant who on his first weak hear, choked a woman into a coma and raped her brutally, the comment section was delirious with people calling for his head, they want to kill the thing that brings light to their fears that they haven't ever paid attention to). That said as far as I'm concerned, the legal system is a farce, existing only on the sustinence provided by fools that believe in its function rather than their own principles and desires - their dreams (not that any dream will be curtailed by laws, plenty, pleeenty of wiggle room, so you don't even have to be a criminal, just skirt the lines for most things).

That said, whether you agree or not, my original point stands regardless, why should the actions of baffoons or criminals affect the rights of law abiding citizens that had absolutely nothing to do with it? Then again I don't expect a system that breeds said morons to know what justice is, save by 'accident' (even a broken clock is right twice a day).
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness" Jenny.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Minion
Minion


Legendary Hero
posted October 10, 2017 08:14 PM

What rights? There is no such thing as the right to own weapons of mass destruction. As soon as you join a society of other people, an individualís personal rights are limited by the degree to which they affect the rights of others.
____________
Our consciousness should be global, our footprint local.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted October 10, 2017 08:16 PM

I can't believe that you guys are missing the point so absolutely entirely.
The US are a country with a high percentage of poor people living in one or another form of ghetto. At the same time weapons are legal AND there is a slew of illegal activities that promises high profits since the products are in high demand.

So when you need a simple explanation for the high number of gun-related deaths and acts of violence in the states, then it's a combination of the wrong things being legal and the wrong things being illegal, and all that in a social environment that is ideally suited for ghettos to prosper - people who can see, smell and hear the American dream, but have no chance whatsoever to take part in it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Stevie
Stevie


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted October 10, 2017 08:20 PM

tSar-Ivor said:
That said, whether you agree or not, my original point stands regardless, why should the actions of baffoons or criminals affect the rights of law abiding citizens that had absolutely nothing to do with it? Then again I don't expect a system that breeds said morons to know what justice is, save by 'accident' (even a broken clock is right twice a day).


Criminals were once law abiding citizens as well, what do you think happened?
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
"Stevie's spamfest gave Corribus PTSD." - Kipshasz

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted October 10, 2017 08:23 PM
Edited by artu at 20:34, 10 Oct 2017.

@tsar

Even if you are using it as a metaphor, nothing is "God given." In nature, there is no freedom, there is no captivity, there are only consequences and survivability. Freedom and rights are abstract concepts that is all part of a social construct. A gazelle does not have the right to stroll around a lion's hunting ground, nor it is restricted from doing so. In our original state, freedom is a meaningless concept because the original state is the jungle law. You can, of course, choose to reject to cooperate with any social construct and "freely" put yourself back in the gazelle's (or lion's) position: Anything is legal as long as you don't get caught. Other than that, if the society arrives at a consensus that it is harmful to let everybody own a nuke and this should not be within the framework of rights they provide with civil law, you can try to change the law by legal means or forget about it. So, the question is not if the rights a society provides are absolute or not (they never are and that's reasonable, because the jungle is not the optimum) but rather if they are based on rational criteria.
____________
...and the laymen's landscape is rife with quacks and people with strange agendas. - Corribus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
tSar-Ivor
tSar-Ivor


Legendary Hero
Live today for we die tomorrow
posted October 10, 2017 08:29 PM
Edited by tSar-Ivor at 21:33, 10 Oct 2017.

Criminals are more sensitive to what I mentioned prior to that, when you realize the law is not a de-facto obstacle to your desires you can practically do anything, take anything. This changes the landscape and focus onto you, your current capabilities, your desires etc. Of course a criminal may not necessarily go through rational steps knowingly, but there are key steps they have to do regardless without truly knowing why.

And of course criminality is a point of subjectivity, it's the citizen law abiding or otherwise taking a judgement on another, us and them sort of mentality and vice versa (a loosely related thing which I found quite funny, research into jurors in England and Wales, found that juries tend to pass much harsher rulings and are far stricter when it comes to the application of the law than ordinary judges, you'd expect the opposite, the sympathy of a fellow 'normal' citizen, but the opposite is actually true, if anyone cares for the details I might dig it up). We all skirt the law now and then, whether knowingly or unknowingly (for instance here in England ecchi is a grey area, but in reality a recent ruling might have unwittingly made it illegal, since there no longer has to be a 'victim' anymore, so long as the state has reasonable grounds to believe you have a loli fetish they will have you done on presumptions alone sadly, hopefully that court ruling gets quashed in the Court of Appeal since again it's injustice even by Western/post-modern standards).


@artu, my point exactly, but if we're going to have an artificial system of "laws" (they're not really but yeah) we might as well try to do it right or better, by better I mean to have categories of citizenship (which we already have in a very old fashioned way by way of the 'class system'). I would argue the longer we put it off the more the state risks losing their intelligencia or potential to the underground, not necessarily to criminality (but that too), but the grey. For example to PMCs, which have been rivaling traditional armed forces, a quote from a former Navy Seal "anyone who is good at being a soldier is no longer in the army" (they're in PMCs if they're smart). I would have a more appropriate example but I'm currently busy caressing my feet and the cuts on my hands (which look like a friggin jigsaw puzzle, what happens when an academic is made to use a stanley knife for 8 hours )

Then again by the quality of my fellow uni students it's still a little way off, they can't take on different perspectives as succintly as I can. For instance in a lecture on Conflict Management, I raised the point that the theories on how conflict comes about, how they develop and finally end, can very easily be flipped from conflict management/peace studies, to how to generate conflicts and how to stoke the flames of war, not that I have plans for such an end, but I like to look at things from as many possible angles as I can (not just the one I'm given), it was almost a no brainer for me, but to my surprise the thought didn't even occur to my collegues, in fact they were shocked.


Quote:
As soon as you join a society of other people, an individualís personal rights are limited by the degree to which they affect the rights of others.


I don't ever recall being invited or out of my own free will joining anyhing as such. Whoever came up with this was obviously too lazy to generate a functioning system of free-subordination as opposed to subordination at gunpoint, the subtleties of the differences between the two are actually quite significant, depending on personal development and acumen.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness" Jenny.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 19 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 · «PREV
Post New Poll †† Post New Topic †† Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0571 seconds