User Tag List

First 22303132333442 Last

Results 311 to 320 of 623

  1. #311
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    What is enforcing the law if not regulating vice?

    Maybe we just had a semantic misunderstanding.
    It's enforcing the rules that are given to them to enforce. Laws don't always pertain to vices. But even if laws were always about vices they must still be defined.

    They aren't intended to be moral enforcers. They don't just decide what is right and wrong except in expedient cases where they might be allowed to a little bit.

  2. #312
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    How about just banning guns and knives primarily designed to kill people? Hand guns, assault rifles, switch blades and flick knives - ordinary people have no need for such weapons.
    Banning all new purchases of those guns and knives or banning all?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  3. #313
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    What is enforcing the law if not regulating vice?

    Maybe we just had a semantic misunderstanding.
    Drinking alcohol in huge volumes and fucking everything withing reach isn't illegal, but it's still a vice.
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  4. #314
    Senior Member tkae.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    762

    Default

    The problem with turning this into a gun control issue is that it has nothing to do with guns. First of all, none of the weapons used in the attack were guns that have any support of being regulated. They were basic pistols and a hunting rifle. Second, the problem isn't the guns, it's the fact that people are wanting to attack schools. If someone wants to attack a school, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not. In fact, on the same day as Sandy Hook, a man in China attacked an elementary school with a knife. He didn't do as much damage, but it was still as much of a tragedy.

    In fact, the most deadly attack on a school (and the most deadly mass murder in American history) didn't use a single gun. It was a bombing back in the early 1900s that killed almost 50 children and adults. The only time the man even used a gun was to shoot into his back seat where he'd loaded more explosives and set off a makeshift car bomb that sent shrapnel out and killed first responders.

    Violence against schools is the issue, not the weapons causing them. Are some weapons insane to have? Yes. Are those the weapons being used? No. Someone who picks up a gun doesn't have the gun call to them for sacrifices of children. People want to hurt the children and so they pick up the gun. That's the issue. And I think Morgan Freeman has it right. We've sensationalized these things so much and examined the killer in the media so much that it's turned suicidal people in spree killers for a last act of existential purpose. Since, as he put it, it's better to go down as a notable person of evil than an unmentionable person who died sad and alone in their basement.

    And honestly, it bugs me when people use these children as tools for a political purpose that's only pseudo-relevant. If an assault rifle had been used in the attack, then maybe I'll let it slide. But nothing being discussed right now has anything to do with Sandy Hook. It's disgusting. I understand the human need to find answers and reasons and something to blame in situations like this, but to go beyond that and use it as a weapon in political theater is absolutely disgusting. If we need to do anything, it's talk about mental illness and the influence of the media on society. Because guns aren't the issue. This man could have loaded his car with explosives and driven it through the window of a classroom, and the body count would be just the same. The thirst for violence transcends the access to guns, human beings have found ways to turn literally anything into a weapon. Nazis used rulers to sexually assault prisoners in France, teens have used broomsticks to sexually assault other teens, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters to hold an entire plane hostage. Glass vases, plates, tire irons, pruning shears, gardening hoses, telephone cords, we, as humans, have the ability to be violent with any kind of weapon. So to single out guns as a cause for violence is a red herring. It's way better than the alternatives people would start using in the absence of guns, such as the example of above. When people actually start using AK-47s to shoot up schools, then we can have this discussion, and I'm not against assault rifles being more heavily restricted, but this isn't a scenario where the gun control conversation is relevant.
    "Not knowing how near the truth is, we seek it far away." -Ekaku Hakuin
    http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...psdunkqmep.png
    5w4 . IEI . Chaotic Good
    Right-Libertarian Minarchist

  5. #315
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Banning all new purchases of those guns and knives or banning all?
    I'd prefer banning all, but would see the difficulty of doing so. Perhaps ban new purchases and find ways of encouraging (or indirectly forcing) people to hand over existing weapons.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  6. #316
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    How about just banning guns and knives primarily designed to kill people? Hand guns, assault rifles, switch blades and flick knives - ordinary people have no need for such weapons.
    "Designed to kill people" is a moving criteria. It's also really a narrow margin. Weapons aren't only designed to kill people. They are designed to kill people more efficiently than before.

    This means that even a flint lock was - in its time - designed to kill people.

    Why does this matter? It matters because a lot of things that aren't designed to kill people are more effective at killing than things which are designed for it.

    Why do people use weapons then? Because weapons are iconic of power. It's a psychological illusion.

    It's less about the design of the weapon and more about what society thinks they are used for. This is especially true because you included blades, where the difference between a killing blade and a tool blade is almost completely cosmetic.


    Your proposal would have been stronger if you had kept it to just guns where it at least makes a little sense.

  7. #317
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    Drinking alcohol in huge volumes and fucking everything withing reach isn't illegal, but it's still a vice.
    I didn't say they regulate all vices, just that the law is necessarilly a regulation of vice.

    By which I mean vice in the broadest sense, i.e. bad behaviour

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    It's enforcing the rules that are given to them to enforce. Laws don't always pertain to vices. But even if laws were always about vices they must still be defined.

    They aren't intended to be moral enforcers. They don't just decide what is right and wrong except in expedient cases where they might be allowed to a little bit.
    Someone has to decide for them to regulate it, and that is still the state.

    I don't want to get too much into splitting hairs. My point was just that the state is not simply there to "assist with problems which are too big to be solved on a local level", but to protect man from "the wolf" - i.e., his fellow man. to paraphrase Hobbes.

    My point: the modern state is not a nice, hands-off, neutral actor, in all societies where it is prevalent, the modern state is there to actively police its citizens and artificially create a culture where trade, property, and representative democracy can thrive, as opposed to our natural state of savagery which we would revert to where it not for armed security services, with a "monopoly of violence" (Weber), protecting us from each other, i.e. protecting our "negative liberty" from the "rule of the jungle".

    You can agree or disagree with that vision. You can agree or disagree with gun cotnrol. But realistically, that is the premise of the modern state, of which the USA is an example, and gun control is fully logical within that premise. No premises of the liberal democratic state, even a very laissez fare state, are violated by gun control.

  8. #318
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Someone has to decide for them to regulate it, and that is still the state.
    And we regulate what the state gets to regulate.

    I don't want to get too much into splitting hairs. My point was just that the state is not simply there to "assist with problems which are too big to be solved on a local level", but to protect man from "the wolf" - i.e., his fellow man. to paraphrase Hobbes.
    The state is also man. The wolf also exists in the state.

    My point: the modern state is not a nice, hands-off, neutral actor, in all societies where it is prevalent, the modern state is there to actively police its citizens and artificially create a culture where trade, property, and representative democracy can thrive, as opposed to our natural state of savagery which we would revert to where it not for armed security services, with a "monopoly of violence" (Weber), protecting us from each other, i.e. protecting our "negative liberty" from the "rule of the jungle".
    The state is not separate from you. States can be just as savage. States are made of people. The jungle exists everywhere.

    You can agree or disagree with that vision. You can agree or disagree with gun cotnrol. But realistically, that is the premise of the modern state, of which the USA is an example, and gun control is fully logical within that premise. No premises of the liberal democratic state, even a very laissez fare state, are violated by gun control.
    That premise is based in illusions.

    Edit: and also Hobbes would disagree with the premise as well if I'm not mistaken.

  9. #319
    Senior Member LEGERdeMAIN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    You can agree or disagree with that vision. You can agree or disagree with gun cotnrol. But realistically, that is the premise of the modern state, of which the USA is an example, and gun control is fully logical within that premise. No premises of the liberal democratic state, even a very laissez fare state, are violated by gun control.
    Wait, was someone claiming we didn't have gun control laws?
    “Some people will tell you that slow is good – but I’m here to tell you that fast is better. I’ve always believed this, in spite of the trouble it’s caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba…”


  10. #320
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    How about just banning guns and knives primarily designed to kill people? Hand guns, assault rifles, switch blades and flick knives - ordinary people have no need for such weapons.
    Oh? And what do you think about balisongs (butterfly knives)?
    ...

Similar Threads

  1. Yet Another Shooting
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-29-2012, 08:55 AM
  2. Another shooting, seven dead
    By MacGuffin in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 06:45 PM
  3. Yet ANOTHER police shooting on New Years eve
    By kendoiwan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:16 PM
  4. Another INTJ, woohoo!
    By Metamorphosis in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 08:19 PM
  5. Another Forum?
    By "?" in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 11:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO