Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
We should forbid knives. Knives were made to cut meat. It's dangerous.
Yeh, and then cut our foot with euh sticks or so? :/
Besides, certain knifes in the Netherlands are forbidden to own as they are considered to be weapons.
Besides, certain knifes in the Netherlands are forbidden to own as they are considered to be weapons.
Oh, and don't forget to ban spoons. They make you fat, like guns kill.
Yes, because the primary function of spoons is to make you fat ...
Enlighten me, what's the primary function of a gun? Don't tell me 'defend myself' because it only works because you can kill the other ... Turn it either way you want, guns are designed to kill something ... unlike spoons.
Enlighten me, what's the primary function of a gun? Don't tell me 'defend myself' because it only works because you can kill the other ... Turn it either way you want, guns are designed to kill something ... unlike spoons.
Exactly, the lonely purpose of a gun or any weapon is to kill. Nothing else. After, it could be used as a derivative : to scare, to protect by intimidation or as a spoon to turn your coffee...
Enlighten me, what's the primary function of a gun?
Killing. Why?
Enlighten me, what does a gun do by itself? Don't tell me 'killing' because it only works because a human being uses it.
Banning guns in order to reduce the number of deaths by criminals (criminals tend to ignore the law) is like banning spoons to counter obesity in the States. Ridiculous.
Killing. Why?
Enlighten me, what does a gun do by itself? Don't tell me 'killing' because it only works because a human being uses it.
Banning guns in order to reduce the number of deaths by criminals (criminals tend to ignore the law) is like banning spoons to counter obesity in the States. Ridiculous.
god, everytime I think you can't get more ridiculous on this thread ... but you surprise me once again.
Spoon - eat - obesity if you do it too much
Gun - kill - dead only when you kill too much?
And fyi, we're talking about death reducing by 'ordinary' people, not criminals. But we're used to you taking stuff into the ridiculous or out of context.
Spoon - eat - obesity if you do it too much
Gun - kill - dead only when you kill too much?
And fyi, we're talking about death reducing by 'ordinary' people, not criminals. But we're used to you taking stuff into the ridiculous or out of context.
How on earth is a man who steps into a school and kills children an ordinary person?
And I already said that a gun's primary function is to kill. You haven't explained why that would be wrong though.
And I already said that a gun's primary function is to kill. You haven't explained why that would be wrong though.
Maybe the main problem is that "not ordinary" people have a simplification to gain a weapon easily... And if guns are not the main purpose to kill as derivative use for "ordinary" people, why do they have need to have one ? And why forbid all weapons to be brought by people who come in USA ? And why forbid the right to get a nuclear bomb in own house ?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I'll skip to the conclusion (I know you don't consider social sciences sciences, but I hope you have the honesty to not reduce this Harvard paper as a joke):
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐
den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.
I'll skip to the conclusion (I know you don't consider social sciences sciences, but I hope you have the honesty to not reduce this Harvard paper as a joke):
This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the bur‐
den of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.
Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
If you are surprised by [our] finding[s], so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” hand‐
guns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.
And if guns are not the main purpose to kill as derivative use for "ordinary" people, why do they have need to have one ?
I guess you are asking the question here of why ordinary people need a gun if its primary use is killing. Answer is simple: defend themselves. Also known as the Second Amendment.
And why forbid all weapons to be brought by people who come in USA ? And why forbid the right to get a nuclear bomb in own house ?
I'm not forbidding that. And in my preferred society, forbidding that as a government wouldn't be necessary.
I guess you are asking the question here of why ordinary people need a gun if its primary use is killing. Answer is simple: defend themselves. Also known as the Second Amendment.
And why forbid all weapons to be brought by people who come in USA ? And why forbid the right to get a nuclear bomb in own house ?
I'm not forbidding that. And in my preferred society, forbidding that as a government wouldn't be necessary.
I understand the answer about the 1st comment but human can also try to find some anti-weapon instead of weapons to protect themself, no ? Secondly, if protect oneself is primordial thus why the need of police ? I see a contradictory here, no ?
I also understand your preferred society as we had already talked about few times, but as it is an utopia, possessing personal nuclear bomb would clearly be a danger for humanity... You could also use the same principle as explained into the 1st part : to protect oneself but the damages encountered would be, you know, dramatic ;-)
(edited)
I also understand your preferred society as we had already talked about few times, but as it is an utopia, possessing personal nuclear bomb would clearly be a danger for humanity... You could also use the same principle as explained into the 1st part : to protect oneself but the damages encountered would be, you know, dramatic ;-)
(edited)
you can prove everything be shuffling with numbers really. It happens all the time. Forbidding guns doesn't help, because they use guns anyway, and those that don't have guns, use every possible thing that can kill. Though, forbidding gun use in a proper way will reduce the slaughters, as you can not kill 30 men easily with just a knife ;)
ONce again you talk about criminals. I talk about 'ordinary' people, who 'snap' or 'abuse' their gun.
I understand the answer about the 1st comment but human can also try to find some anti-weapon instead of weapons to protect themself, no ?
Like what? How can you defend yourselves?
(And by the way, I'm very anti-weapons myself, I would never buy one.)
Secondly, if protect oneself is primordial thus why the need of police ? I see a contradictory here, no ?
The police is not omnipresent. And guns can protect you against the police / the state / policestate.
you know, dramatic
In my preferred society, it would be perfectly possible to ban nuclear weapons without using state force.
Like what? How can you defend yourselves?
(And by the way, I'm very anti-weapons myself, I would never buy one.)
Secondly, if protect oneself is primordial thus why the need of police ? I see a contradictory here, no ?
The police is not omnipresent. And guns can protect you against the police / the state / policestate.
you know, dramatic
In my preferred society, it would be perfectly possible to ban nuclear weapons without using state force.