u235
a world of angst and boredom
Failing the social contract
04/17/07
Failing the social contract
How much trust is there between humans? I would venture to say very little. Even if you have a formal relationship with someone; Wife, Child, Boss, Neighbor, fellow New Yorker, fellow American, another human being, what trust do you have in the other person?
Can you trust that the other person will smile and wave if you do the same? Can you trust that they'll respect your comments and ideas? Can you trust that they won't hurt you, maim you, kill you, either for money or just 'because'?
As a society we don't have much trust in our peers - thus the need for laws and enforcers. We have judges to make decisions when there's conflict. We need police to physically make people submit. In national cases we have armies and forces, but that's on a global scale that doesn't have direct bearing on what I'm trying to convey.
The point I'm coming to is that we, today, have structures and organizations we depend on because we do not and cannot trust our brethren. So that leaves a choice: either we can say that everyone should be prepared at all time for the worst, or, everyone should be restricted in their ability to do the worst. Which makes more sense?
On the one hand, as Senator McCain likes to point out, every American who wants a gun should have one. Ok, so does that mean that everyone should be mandated to carry a gun so there can be lethal equality (read: self-defense) when one person runs amok? It seems unclear that having the potential to kill even more people accidentally by equipping everyone with guns is a good idea. Yes it's a deterrent, is it a good idea? I'm less inclined to believe it is the "safer" solution. Florida likes the idea of shooting first and asking later, but then Florida, like Texas, isn't much of a role model for safety and security.
It seems that if we can't trust people with guns not to run amok then should we make guns accessible? It's a statistical given that if more people have guns then there is more opportunity for mayhem. Thus how surprised can we really be when someone murders as many people as he can carry ammo for? Statistically it's only a matter of time....
Comments, Pingbacks:
Comment from: Larathiel [Visitor] 
Part of the problem is that whether out of fear or love, people don't respect one another these days. If people respect each other out of love then that's great but the only thing that keeps a great many people acting morally is the fear of Justice and its consequences.
Yet we're a society wherein people do NOT care to take responsibility for their own actions. Any country in which a burglar can sue the people whose house he broke into or someone who is overweight can sue fast food corporations... and WIN sends the message that not only are the people take increasingly less responsibility for their own actions but that the "justice system" is also a laughing stock. Furthermore the fact that people can be pricks or creeps online behind their cuirass of Internet Armor without fear of a good smack-down when they are rude doesn't particularly help the social order as far as I've seen.
Back in my parents' youth, and even for some of my older friends there was more of a social stigma to keep in line lest someone put You in Your place. Now anyone who knows me is aware that I ABHOR small-minded conformity and bullying but at least it kept people polite.
If people cannot love their neighbor as themselves then they might hesitate and consider whether or not they were going to get some teeth knocked loose or a suffer a gunshot wound for their inconsideration.
Almost anything can be turned into a weapon but none of them are dangerous without being wielded by someone with the will to use it. Time has shown again and again that it's impossible (even after 9/11) to completely prevent weapons from getting where criminally-minded people want them. Now this week's massacre shows that in a completely unarmed populace where no one has the will, training, wits or self-sacrifice to be a hero that a lone lunatic can in a short time commit a tragedy the likes of which have never before been seen in this country by a lone gunman. At least no skyscrapers or airliners were involved this time but this still turns my stomach...
Yet we're a society wherein people do NOT care to take responsibility for their own actions. Any country in which a burglar can sue the people whose house he broke into or someone who is overweight can sue fast food corporations... and WIN sends the message that not only are the people take increasingly less responsibility for their own actions but that the "justice system" is also a laughing stock. Furthermore the fact that people can be pricks or creeps online behind their cuirass of Internet Armor without fear of a good smack-down when they are rude doesn't particularly help the social order as far as I've seen.
Back in my parents' youth, and even for some of my older friends there was more of a social stigma to keep in line lest someone put You in Your place. Now anyone who knows me is aware that I ABHOR small-minded conformity and bullying but at least it kept people polite.
If people cannot love their neighbor as themselves then they might hesitate and consider whether or not they were going to get some teeth knocked loose or a suffer a gunshot wound for their inconsideration.
Almost anything can be turned into a weapon but none of them are dangerous without being wielded by someone with the will to use it. Time has shown again and again that it's impossible (even after 9/11) to completely prevent weapons from getting where criminally-minded people want them. Now this week's massacre shows that in a completely unarmed populace where no one has the will, training, wits or self-sacrifice to be a hero that a lone lunatic can in a short time commit a tragedy the likes of which have never before been seen in this country by a lone gunman. At least no skyscrapers or airliners were involved this time but this still turns my stomach...
Permalink
04/17/07 @ 19:11
Comment from: bman [Member]
Lara - Spot on. Excellent response.
u325 - I urge you to find statistics that show any licensed, trained concealed or non-concealed handgun owners and toters have EVER performed a violent crime against society. The majority of the States have had some sort of carrying laws for decades and it has been proven time and time again that crime rates have neither increased or decreased anyplace where handgun carrying is permitted with licensing. This tells us is that its not the law abiding citizens whom you need to worry about.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. As Lara points out in his response, there is nothing that anyone can do to stop a crazed suicidal maniac from performing this kind of mayhem. If he didn't have guns then he would've made bombs or something similar. He could have even used some sort of sword. Had he used some sort of explosives Im sure he would've killed many many more people than he did. Yes I realize even 1 is too much, but it just as easily could have been hundreds.
As far as arming everyone.. NO! Thats just scary. There are many people whom should never be near guns in any way shape or form - we all know a few of those people. But wouldn't it be nice to know that some well trained concealed carrying armed citizen could be lurking amongst your group who does have the credentials and training to stop a crazed lunatic? There are numerous incidents of good concealed carrying citizens who've been in the right place at the right time and have been able to stop a situation before it escalated. Many times without ever having to pull the trigger. Remember, the news is only covering random hand-picked incidents and you'll rarely here them talk about the positive incidents involving a firearm if they dont have a high 'shock and awe' factor to them.
u325 - I urge you to find statistics that show any licensed, trained concealed or non-concealed handgun owners and toters have EVER performed a violent crime against society. The majority of the States have had some sort of carrying laws for decades and it has been proven time and time again that crime rates have neither increased or decreased anyplace where handgun carrying is permitted with licensing. This tells us is that its not the law abiding citizens whom you need to worry about.
Guns do not kill people. People kill people. As Lara points out in his response, there is nothing that anyone can do to stop a crazed suicidal maniac from performing this kind of mayhem. If he didn't have guns then he would've made bombs or something similar. He could have even used some sort of sword. Had he used some sort of explosives Im sure he would've killed many many more people than he did. Yes I realize even 1 is too much, but it just as easily could have been hundreds.
As far as arming everyone.. NO! Thats just scary. There are many people whom should never be near guns in any way shape or form - we all know a few of those people. But wouldn't it be nice to know that some well trained concealed carrying armed citizen could be lurking amongst your group who does have the credentials and training to stop a crazed lunatic? There are numerous incidents of good concealed carrying citizens who've been in the right place at the right time and have been able to stop a situation before it escalated. Many times without ever having to pull the trigger. Remember, the news is only covering random hand-picked incidents and you'll rarely here them talk about the positive incidents involving a firearm if they dont have a high 'shock and awe' factor to them.
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 07:48
Comment from: u235 [Member]
lofl - ah it's good to see the classic "guns do not kill people" line. I don't think there was ever a more idiotic or nonsensical line in the world, evar.
There are lots of oddities about handguns and the urge to shoot - Canada, for example has lots of guns and few gun murders. England has not as many guns but plenty of murders.
Still one fact remains - the more guns you have the higher the odds someone will get killed with one. It's just statistics.
People will kill each other, that's a given. Maybe it's easier to kill a lot more people with a gun than a pipe. On the other hand, given the choice between being shot to death or bludgeoned with a pipe, I'd take the gun.
There are lots of oddities about handguns and the urge to shoot - Canada, for example has lots of guns and few gun murders. England has not as many guns but plenty of murders.
Still one fact remains - the more guns you have the higher the odds someone will get killed with one. It's just statistics.
People will kill each other, that's a given. Maybe it's easier to kill a lot more people with a gun than a pipe. On the other hand, given the choice between being shot to death or bludgeoned with a pipe, I'd take the gun.
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 08:50
Comment from: Abba Zabba [Member]
Of course it's far easier to kill a bunch of people with a gun than any other weapon. That's why all the mass murderers in the US use guns. If it were equally easy to kill 32 people with a sword or a pipe or bombs, then we'd see that happen sometimes. But we don't. So that right there is proof that if people couldn't get guns, there would be less murders.
bman, I'll take up your challenge. On February 9, Cho Seung Hui legally bought a gun in a pawnshop. On March 16, he legally bought another gun at a firearms dealership. His background check was clean, and he had no criminal record. Then, using those legally-acquired guns, he killed 33 people.
bman, I'll take up your challenge. On February 9, Cho Seung Hui legally bought a gun in a pawnshop. On March 16, he legally bought another gun at a firearms dealership. His background check was clean, and he had no criminal record. Then, using those legally-acquired guns, he killed 33 people.
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 09:07
Comment from: Omi [Visitor]
"I urge you to find statistics that show any licensed, trained concealed or non-concealed handgun owners and toters have EVER performed a violent crime against society" - This is the most laughable line I've ever seen. Do you truly think no licensed gun owner has never commited a crime? Its you who should be challenged to provide a statistic that shows this has never occured. Try a google search on gun violence statistics, you'll find there are plenty of licensed gun owners commiting crimes.
Given that, yes, a larger percentage of gun crime comes from people who obtained the gun illegally. But its not like these illegal guns show up from a vacuum all of sudden. They are easy to aqcuire since guns are so easy to get a hold of. Stolen from those who bought a gun legally, or from simple smash and grabs from stores that have loads of them in inventory, etc. If gun control was in place, they wouldn't be a dime a dozen.
Course, despite even if guns were outlawed, violent crime will still occur. I guess more to the issue is it preferred to have crimes commited by guns or other means? Given that most statistics I found quickly on google show less than 20-25% of the population owns a gun...is self defense really a deterent or helping any? Seems unlikely.
Its a complicated issue, but its pretty easy to see that the current system isn't improving things at all nor ever has.
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 11:29
Comment from: sTmykal [Member]
Florida, like Texas, is part of the Bush regime. Coincidence?
Somehow I like the concept of "lethal equality".
Somehow I like the concept of "lethal equality".
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 12:48
Comment from: odessa [Member]
Fact is, the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. I for one cherish the fact that I can have a gun, and I do have one - in the form of a shotgun. My shotgun is in my home. I call it my anti-burglar device - Someone breaks in my home, I am going to assume they are there to hurt me, not visiting for tea a crumpets. It only leaves home if I go someplace remote to test fire it.
And what about hunting? I love a quote a co-worker had, something to the effect of "kids taught to hunt and fish don't hit little old ladies over the head". I gotta go find that quote again. . . .
And what about hunting? I love a quote a co-worker had, something to the effect of "kids taught to hunt and fish don't hit little old ladies over the head". I gotta go find that quote again. . . .
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 18:29
Comment from: Larathiel [Visitor]
"...the classic "guns do not kill people" line. I don't think there was ever a more idiotic or nonsensical line in the world, evar."
Right because in the real world someone getting injured or killed while cleaning their gun directly translates into 1st degree murder. Or perhaps it's nonsensical because weapons are known to self-animate without the benefit of a wielder? No wait, that's Dungeons and Dragons.
Or maybe You find it laughable because it's really the bullets that do the killing? I'd consider that to be mincing words but then considering I employed an idiotic argument I guess that makes me an idiot so I guess I shouldn't expect to understand it.
Since I'm apparently not in the know, please point out why that line of reasoning is idiotic in objective terms citing where actual murders were committed using hand guns that were not wielded by a sentient being. Please stick to hand guns as hunting rifles or assault rifles are outside of the context of this discussion and are not of an easily concealable size like a pistol. Also, please stick to murder and the intent to kill, accidents and manslaughter can happen with factory equipment (though I suppose if You hated someone enough You could knock them into a press or something).
Now that I think about it, in an industrialized country it would make sense if a larger percentage of deaths and murders were attributable to either manufactured items or manufacturing equipment. The scene from that Austin Power's movie where the guy gets run over by the steam roller still haunts me in my sleep...
Right because in the real world someone getting injured or killed while cleaning their gun directly translates into 1st degree murder. Or perhaps it's nonsensical because weapons are known to self-animate without the benefit of a wielder? No wait, that's Dungeons and Dragons.
Or maybe You find it laughable because it's really the bullets that do the killing? I'd consider that to be mincing words but then considering I employed an idiotic argument I guess that makes me an idiot so I guess I shouldn't expect to understand it.
Since I'm apparently not in the know, please point out why that line of reasoning is idiotic in objective terms citing where actual murders were committed using hand guns that were not wielded by a sentient being. Please stick to hand guns as hunting rifles or assault rifles are outside of the context of this discussion and are not of an easily concealable size like a pistol. Also, please stick to murder and the intent to kill, accidents and manslaughter can happen with factory equipment (though I suppose if You hated someone enough You could knock them into a press or something).
Now that I think about it, in an industrialized country it would make sense if a larger percentage of deaths and murders were attributable to either manufactured items or manufacturing equipment. The scene from that Austin Power's movie where the guy gets run over by the steam roller still haunts me in my sleep...
Permalink
04/18/07 @ 21:00
Comment from: Abba Zabba [Member]
The line is reasoning is idiotic because it's so obvious, but it's brought out as if it's a valid point. Of course guns don't kill people without being wielded. Nobody has ever said that's the case.
But the fact is that guns make it much easier to kill people. The person is still responsible for the killing, but the gun is involved. When you have a gun, you can easily kill someone. Beating them to death with a club, or choking them with your bare hands, is a lot harder. That's why guns are such popular weapons.
Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People do. But that doesn't mean that we should let just anyone have a nuclear weapon, does it?
But the fact is that guns make it much easier to kill people. The person is still responsible for the killing, but the gun is involved. When you have a gun, you can easily kill someone. Beating them to death with a club, or choking them with your bare hands, is a lot harder. That's why guns are such popular weapons.
Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People do. But that doesn't mean that we should let just anyone have a nuclear weapon, does it?
Permalink
04/19/07 @ 09:07
Comment from: bman [Member]
Nicely worded Abba Zabba, I agree wholeheartedly. However comparing nukes to this conversation is a bit unrealistic.
One of my original points above was that even if this sick individual couldn't get his hands on a gun he still would've found some way to take this many people out. Radical, suicidal idiots are going to take people out no matter what they have to do. Take away their guns and they'll simply find another way. He could've just as easily made some bombs and placed them around the school. Remember, one guy, a truck some fertilzer and diesel fuel managed to kill almost 200 people in 1995 at the Federal building in Oklahoma City.
What if he went on a rampage in his car? He could've easily killed just as many people by driving around and waiting for large groups to cross the street. I could easily see where he could manage to run over and kill just as many people in a SHORTER amount of time. Should we outlaw cars?
What if he decided to go on a rampage with a big ass sword? He could've easily lopped off people's heads or arms, legs thus causing them to bleed out fast. Should we outlaw swords?
I guess my main point is that if you think gun control is difficult then just imagine trying to stop the sales of common bomb making materials like lye, diesel fuel, charcoal and fertilizer.
Suicidal maniacs are unstoppable - there is NO way to stop them. Its always been this way. Look at the situation in Iraq? VERY FEW of the daily killings we hear about over there involved guns. The majority are some sort of incendiary device.
Gun control simply doesnt work.
One of my original points above was that even if this sick individual couldn't get his hands on a gun he still would've found some way to take this many people out. Radical, suicidal idiots are going to take people out no matter what they have to do. Take away their guns and they'll simply find another way. He could've just as easily made some bombs and placed them around the school. Remember, one guy, a truck some fertilzer and diesel fuel managed to kill almost 200 people in 1995 at the Federal building in Oklahoma City.
What if he went on a rampage in his car? He could've easily killed just as many people by driving around and waiting for large groups to cross the street. I could easily see where he could manage to run over and kill just as many people in a SHORTER amount of time. Should we outlaw cars?
What if he decided to go on a rampage with a big ass sword? He could've easily lopped off people's heads or arms, legs thus causing them to bleed out fast. Should we outlaw swords?
I guess my main point is that if you think gun control is difficult then just imagine trying to stop the sales of common bomb making materials like lye, diesel fuel, charcoal and fertilizer.
Suicidal maniacs are unstoppable - there is NO way to stop them. Its always been this way. Look at the situation in Iraq? VERY FEW of the daily killings we hear about over there involved guns. The majority are some sort of incendiary device.
Gun control simply doesnt work.
Permalink
04/19/07 @ 12:15
Comment from: Abba Zabba [Member]
Those scenarios are ridiculous.
1. Bombs. Cho walked into gun stores and bought guns with no waiting period. He could have started killing people immediately after walking out of the store. Compare that to the difficulty of finding out how to make a bomb, gathering the necessary materials, building the bomb in his dorm room without killing himself or alerting suspicion, and placing the bomb somewhere it could kill a lot of people. And you think that's just as easy?
2. Cars. How in the hell could he have killed 30 people in his car? People could easily have gotten out of the way, and a hit with a car isn't necessarily lethal anyway.
3. Swords. Again, insane. Let's assume that Cho was able to find a combat-quality sword and was trained enough to use it properly. So? If someone comes at you with a sword, you run. He couldn't have burst into a room and katana'ed a dozen people to death.
Perhaps you've noticed that nobody has ever gone on a mass murder spree with a car or sword. And bombers are rare and perform a lot of preparation first. The fact is that firearms are the weapon of choice for mass murder, because they're the easiest weapons to use.
1. Bombs. Cho walked into gun stores and bought guns with no waiting period. He could have started killing people immediately after walking out of the store. Compare that to the difficulty of finding out how to make a bomb, gathering the necessary materials, building the bomb in his dorm room without killing himself or alerting suspicion, and placing the bomb somewhere it could kill a lot of people. And you think that's just as easy?
2. Cars. How in the hell could he have killed 30 people in his car? People could easily have gotten out of the way, and a hit with a car isn't necessarily lethal anyway.
3. Swords. Again, insane. Let's assume that Cho was able to find a combat-quality sword and was trained enough to use it properly. So? If someone comes at you with a sword, you run. He couldn't have burst into a room and katana'ed a dozen people to death.
Perhaps you've noticed that nobody has ever gone on a mass murder spree with a car or sword. And bombers are rare and perform a lot of preparation first. The fact is that firearms are the weapon of choice for mass murder, because they're the easiest weapons to use.
Permalink
04/19/07 @ 13:15
Comment from: bman [Member]
I fail to see how you think any of that is ridiculous. Bombs are EZ to make.. takes about 10 minutes to make one large enough to level a house with everyday common household items.
Cars? Hell go driving on a rampage downtown sometime. Im sure you can find hundreds to run over.
Swords? You are joking..right? A skilled swordsmen can behead and de-limb people quickly and efficiently. Im sure u325 or Lara can give us more info on this one.
Guns are easier right now to use because of their abundance. IF you take them away they'll simply find something else to use.
Cars? Hell go driving on a rampage downtown sometime. Im sure you can find hundreds to run over.
Swords? You are joking..right? A skilled swordsmen can behead and de-limb people quickly and efficiently. Im sure u325 or Lara can give us more info on this one.
Guns are easier right now to use because of their abundance. IF you take them away they'll simply find something else to use.
Permalink
04/19/07 @ 14:00
Comment from: sTmykal [Member]
A gun is a tool whose only purpose is to fire a projectile with the intent of destruction against a living organism. It has no other purpose.
Unless you're really stupid.
Which some people are.
Cars, on the other hand, are useful for other purposes.
And if I'm not mistaken, aren't there laws about carrying blades of certain lengths in some states?
Unless you're really stupid.
Which some people are.
Cars, on the other hand, are useful for other purposes.
And if I'm not mistaken, aren't there laws about carrying blades of certain lengths in some states?
Permalink
04/19/07 @ 15:10
Comment from: bman [Member]
haha.. you keep mentioning laws about guns, knives etc. Thats the whole point. The criminals dont care about the law. You can outlaw all guns and they will still get them. I just dont understand why you anti-gun people dont get this.. only the criminals would have guns. IF by some chance you did get guns completely removed from the planet then they'd still be able to get bomb making materials. They'd still be able to make knives and they might even start using their cars to kill people en masse. There are many ways to kill people quickly and efficiently. If you take away their guns they'll just find some other way. Why doesnt anybody get this?
Permalink
04/25/07 @ 05:49 Leave a comment:
u235
You want descriptions? Get a dictionary. Better go waste time reading the news or play some games on Yahoo or MSN or some shit like that.
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| << < | > >> | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Search
Categories
- All
- Ha ha ha ha Fuck you (63)
- Kill Skullz (81)
- Life In Hell (81)
- Politkxsrgarg (52)
- The ol' double standard (56)
- We're all goin' down (68)
Archives
- May 2008 (1)
- April 2008 (14)
- March 2008 (24)
- February 2008 (16)
- January 2008 (13)
- December 2007 (6)
- November 2007 (18)
- October 2007 (10)
- September 2007 (13)
- August 2007 (8)
- July 2007 (12)
- June 2007 (18)
- More...
Misc
XML Feeds
What is RSS?
Who's Online?
- Guest Users: 28
