Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 1:59 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Leus wrote:
This is what the ballot box is meant to prevent.

It's arguable how effective our democracies are, so I suppose heavily armed mobs are a viable alternative if you can live with the downsides.


Good post.

Sometimes the old saying 'better the devil you know..' applies.

The fear of revolt would hopefully keep the government in check, it is all about finding a balance. Our 'democracy' seems to not mean much nowadays since we live in a globalised world, corporations dominate politicians. Hence there are no real differences between the parties that would get in.
Leus
Rigged


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:11 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Well yes, but my first move would be to improve the quality of democracy without going straight into shooting people, or threatening to.

I probably didn't make clear how huge I think those downsides are.
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:15 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Leus wrote:
Well yes, but my first move would be to improve the quality of democracy without going straight into shooting people, or threatening to.

I probably didn't make clear how huge I think those downsides are.


I believe the government backs off though. No way would they order the military to assassinate British civilians in large amounts. They are weak career politicians and it would not work, in fact, it wouldn't come to that.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:21 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
PokerSensation wrote:
Leus wrote:
Well yes, but my first move would be to improve the quality of democracy without going straight into shooting people, or threatening to.

I probably didn't make clear how huge I think those downsides are.


I believe the government backs off though. No way would they order the military to assassinate British civilians in large amounts. They are weak career politicians and it would not work, in fact, it wouldn't come to that.


I think it mainly wouldn't come to that because you just wouldn't have a large scale popular armed uprising - just like you have never had one in the USA.

But as much of a problem as weak career politicians are - do you really think it would be a good idea to have them replaced with military dictators who have entrenched ideological beliefs? (which is what an armed uprising always results in)
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
PokerSensation
Flush


Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Posts: 573

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:26 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Jon MW wrote:
PokerSensation wrote:
Leus wrote:
Well yes, but my first move would be to improve the quality of democracy without going straight into shooting people, or threatening to.

I probably didn't make clear how huge I think those downsides are.


I believe the government backs off though. No way would they order the military to assassinate British civilians in large amounts. They are weak career politicians and it would not work, in fact, it wouldn't come to that.


I think it mainly wouldn't come to that because you just wouldn't have a large scale popular armed uprising - just like you have never had one in the USA.

But as much of a problem as weak career politicians are - do you really think it would be a good idea to have them replaced with military dictators who have entrenched ideological beliefs? (which is what an armed uprising always results in)


No I don't. I was just looking at the argument made by some.
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:30 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Weak career politicians are exactly the kind of people who are casual about ordering murders.
Alex B
Straight Flush


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:18 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
PokerSensation wrote:
Could a justification for gun ownership ever be made on the basis that we as in the masses need to protect ourselves from government?

An example could be where the masses were strongly against the invasion of Iraq. Granted, our military is pretty irelevant but we pay for this financially and with the cost of our lives, while a small elite benefit. If the masses were armed could the crime of Iraq still have happened? Would we also lose our civil liberties one by one (which is designed to increase government power) in the name of 'counter terrorism'?


I was under the impression that this was a major part of the justification in the US and the key to whichever amendment it is.

The idea that the state shouldn't be able to force the citizens to disarm to such an extent that are powerless to break down a dictatorship.
Leus
Rigged


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:40 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I believe the original justification of the amendment was to maintain a militia in case the British ever decided to come back. As far as I know we have no plans to do so.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:50 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Leus wrote:
I believe the original justification of the amendment was to maintain a militia in case the British ever decided to come back. As far as I know we have no plans to do so.


It wasn't just about the British coming back - it was also to do with the antagonism between the State government and the Federal government. Having weapons to keep control over the government also meant the state militia being available so that the Federal government and standing army couldn't impose their will on unwilling constituent states of the USA.

There's some very interesting history with regards to the creation of the USA.

I checked on Wiki though and it seems that none of it is legally relevant any more because the Supreme Court have ruled that this amendment doesn't only relate to service in the militia any more.


Maybe it's true though that there isn't actually a relation between the number of guns in the system and the number of injuries and deaths caused by them - maybe it would be the same if they weren't as easily available - it could just be down to Americans being particularly blood-thirsty and savage.
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Leus
Rigged


Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 1290

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:10 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
There are certainly cultural and historical questions about gun violence. There's the obvious fact for example that in their early history law enforcement didn't have the near universal reach it now has, so private means of discouraging crime were deemed more necessary than they are today.

That article I linked earlier states this
Americans are no more prone to mental illness or violence than any other people in the world. What they do have is more guns: roughly, 90 for every 100 people. And regions and states with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher rates of homicide than states with lower rates of gun ownership.

Younge is a pretty solid journalist imo, so I have no reason to doubt that he's looked it up.
codeman77
High Card


Joined: 23 Jul 2012
Posts: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:47 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
[quote]If you're really gonna include a bomb attack by Al-Qadea carried out in the middle east against the US military; a bomb attack in Europe and all the last centuries' world wide hijackings (deadly or otherwise) and set them against specifically mass (rather than all) shootings in the USA then you are clearly hellbent on proving a point rather than getting to the truth.

My point is that evil people are going to do evil things no matter what, with guns or without them, that's truth.

Truth is out of all that I have posted no one can give me a reason why I should destroy my guns, stop carrying my guns. All you can do is nit pick some stats I dropped without arguing against any point that I have made.

Truth is when something tragic happens people want to try to find a way to stop this from happening ever again "Guns, he had guns. Lets get rid of all the guns and that will stop things like this from ever happening again" this is false.

Truth is people who want guns band or controled are scared of guns, the thought of all guns being banned gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, a false sense of security, but even if all guns were banned there would be mass shootings, murders, evil will go on. Then what? What will you use as your scapegoat when guns are outlawed and people are still getting shot, blown up, etc?

Now there's the truth. Go ahead and pick out a line or two and make some sarcastic remark about it, that's fine, but if you want to get down to the matter, and have a real discussion, great! Now tell me why the government should come to my house and take my guns. I think if you're honest with your self you'll find the only answer you can find is "I'll feel better", because it wont save lives.
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:09 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
codeman77 wrote:
...

My point is that evil people are going to do evil things no matter what, with guns or without them, that's truth.

...


This is just repeating the idea that all gun crime is pre-meditated murder.

It would seem obvious that not all of the thousands of people killed by guns each year in the US were killed on purpose, just as it seems likely that a fair proportion of the tens of thousands of people with gun injuries every year were injured by accident rather than design.

The alternative view is that the higher homicide rate in areas with higher gun ownership is a coincidence - if that was the case then do you think Leus's source is wrong and that Americans are just inherently more murderous by nature?


You seem to think that wanting to control guns is an emotional issue. The massacres are an emotional issue - but thinking that restricting the supply of firearms to a population will help reduce gun crime is pretty much just statistics and logic.
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Jackdaw
Full House


Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 990
Location: Dorset

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:11 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
[quote="codeman77"]
Quote:
If you're really gonna include a bomb attack by Al-Qadea carried out in the middle east against the US military; a bomb attack in Europe and all the last centuries' world wide hijackings (deadly or otherwise) and set them against specifically mass (rather than all) shootings in the USA then you are clearly hellbent on proving a point rather than getting to the truth.

My point is that evil people are going to do evil things no matter what, with guns or without them, that's truth.

Truth is out of all that I have posted no one can give me a reason why I should destroy my guns, stop carrying my guns. All you can do is nit pick some stats I dropped without arguing against any point that I have made.

Truth is when something tragic happens people want to try to find a way to stop this from happening ever again "Guns, he had guns. Lets get rid of all the guns and that will stop things like this from ever happening again" this is false.

Truth is people who want guns band or controled are scared of guns, the thought of all guns being banned gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, a false sense of security, but even if all guns were banned there would be mass shootings, murders, evil will go on. Then what? What will you use as your scapegoat when guns are outlawed and people are still getting shot, blown up, etc?

Now there's the truth. Go ahead and pick out a line or two and make some sarcastic remark about it, that's fine, but if you want to get down to the matter, and have a real discussion, great! Now tell me why the government should come to my house and take my guns. I think if you're honest with your self you'll find the only answer you can find is "I'll feel better", because it wont save lives.


People are going to do evil things with or without guns, that is true, but if that boy hadn't had an assault rifle and other guns the scale of the tragedy would have been much smaller. The reason he used guns, is because they are the best thing for killing that he could get hold of. If he'd had to use a knife it wouldn't have been on the same scale.

When something tragic happens, people do want to find a way to prevent it happening again, that is natural and sensible. Will gun control prevent tragedies from happening again? I doubt it, but if we can reduce the damage these people do is that not worthwhile? I don't trust people to own guns and that's the reason I don't want them to have them, and I will feel better if the government takes your guns.

Yes, I am scared of guns, I admit it, not of the actual physical items but of what they can do. How about we start with banning the private ownershsip of automatic assault rifles. I mean, what the **** do you need one of those for?
Jon MW
The British Cowboy


Joined: 17 Feb 2006
Posts: 1865
Location: Hastings

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:15 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Jackdaw wrote:
Quote:
...

Truth is people who want guns band or controled are scared of guns....

...

Yes, I am scared of guns, I admit it, not of the actual physical items but of what they can do. How about we start with banning the private ownershsip of automatic assault rifles. I mean, what the **** do you need one of those for?


I think guns are cool - and I'd trust myself with them, just not other people Very Happy

It's a good point about the range of weaponry that's available - you could never just overnight have a blanket gun ban. But one of the first steps could be a further restriction on types of weapon.
_________________
Jon "the British cowboy" Woodfield

2010/11 UK Team Championships: Black Belt Poker Team Captain
5 Star HORSE Classics - 2007 Razz Champion
2007 WSOP Razz - 13/341
Indestructible
Royal Flush


Joined: 21 May 2005
Posts: 15760
Location: Final Table

PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:35 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
[quote="codeman77"]
Quote:
If you're really gonna include a bomb attack by Al-Qadea carried out in the middle east against the US military; a bomb attack in Europe and all the last centuries' world wide hijackings (deadly or otherwise) and set them against specifically mass (rather than all) shootings in the USA then you are clearly hellbent on proving a point rather than getting to the truth.

My point is that evil people are going to do evil things no matter what, with guns or without them, that's truth.

Truth is out of all that I have posted no one can give me a reason why I should destroy my guns, stop carrying my guns. All you can do is nit pick some stats I dropped without arguing against any point that I have made.

Truth is when something tragic happens people want to try to find a way to stop this from happening ever again "Guns, he had guns. Lets get rid of all the guns and that will stop things like this from ever happening again" this is false.

Truth is people who want guns band or controled are scared of guns, the thought of all guns being banned gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside, a false sense of security, but even if all guns were banned there would be mass shootings, murders, evil will go on. Then what? What will you use as your scapegoat when guns are outlawed and people are still getting shot, blown up, etc?

Now there's the truth. Go ahead and pick out a line or two and make some sarcastic remark about it, that's fine, but if you want to get down to the matter, and have a real discussion, great! Now tell me why the government should come to my house and take my guns. I think if you're honest with your self you'll find the only answer you can find is "I'll feel better", because it wont save lives.


I don't think i will convince you tbh, but my problem is with your line and others like this is that you are not suggesting anything else. What is your plan, do nothing? Confused
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Non-Poker General Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum