Dazey Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 18 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: I have already given other European examples as well as Christchurch. You cited massacres in France and New Zealand as evidence that Norway has inadequate gun laws. Nice one. Great argument! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-W.A.R- Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Oldest Goat said: Honestly, I think USA is fucked and destined for a civil war tbh. We would be dumb enough to fight each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dazey said: You cited massacres in France and New Zealand as evidence that Norway has inadequate gun laws. Nice one. Great argument! I cited the massacre in france, as an example to show that anti gun laws don't work. not in norway, not in the USA, not in syria... nowhere. because no matter how illegal guns are, they can shoot rounds just as well as legal once. making drugs illegal didn't help stopping drugs very much either. It's a million business. rape is prohibited. murder is prohibited. everything is prohibited, but it all happens regardless, on a daily basis, everywhere on earth. that's the argument, not what you make of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dazey said: You cited massacres in France and New Zealand as evidence that Norway has inadequate gun laws. Nice one. Great argument! I cited massacres in France, Britain, Netherlands as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 4 minutes ago, action said: I cited the massacre in france, as an example to show that anti gun laws don't work. not in norway, not in the USA, not in syria... nowhere. because no matter how illegal guns are, they can shoot rounds just as well as legal once. making drugs illegal didn't help stopping drugs very much either. It's a million business. rape is prohibited. murder is prohibited. everything is prohibited, but it all happens regardless, on a daily basis, everywhere on earth. that's the argument, not what you make of it. What I make of it is that unless a law eradicates a problem, there is no point in having it. Fortunately our law-makers disagree and accept that a reduction in crime is better than nothing. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Download Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 4 hours ago, action said: the easier way is not always the most efficient way. I'm also not agreeing that fixing racism is harder, or reducing the availability of guns is easier. Guns are everywhere, in remote buildings, with extremist groups, criminals etc. Absolutely impossible to remove them all. the internet on the other hand, is a mouse click away. it is my observation that these types of hate-crime, with online platforms full of racist posts (such as 8chan), online manifests by the murderers, live video feeds, are a phenomenon that was facilitated because of the internet. The internet is a controllable environment, see china and russia that heavily restrict access to the internet. If those countries can do that, how hard can it be to restrict access to these sites? So more government involvement? 😂😂😂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, action said: I cited the massacre in france, as an example to show that anti gun laws don't work. not in norway, not in the USA, not in syria... nowhere. because no matter how illegal guns are, they can shoot rounds just as well as legal once. making drugs illegal didn't help stopping drugs very much either. It's a million business. rape is prohibited. murder is prohibited. everything is prohibited, but it all happens regardless, on a daily basis, everywhere on earth. that's the argument, not what you make of it. So you think rape and murder should be legalised? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: What I make of it is that unless a law eradicates a problem, there is no point in having it. Fortunately our law-makers disagree and accept that a reduction in crime is better than nothing. those law makers, in virtually every country that bans guns, are confronted with gun related crimes, every day. My country has one of the strictest gun laws you can come up with, but armed crime happens on a daily basis. Agreed, massacres dont happen every day, but is that because of strict gun laws or because of other reasons? My country has seen some massacres in the past anyway (belgium). Ok, norway has only one mass-massacre. But that's not the point. Armed robbery does occur plenty. Other exampled of armed crime happen there too. Just because norway happens to have a smaller population (and a smaller amount of lunatics), does not mean the anti gun laws are effective. it just means there are less lunatics, in a country with far less population than say the USA. the division between poor and rich (a potential recipe for extremist mass murderers) is also different in norway. But armed crime is plenty in norway, just as in every other country you can name. Focusing on making anti gun laws, really won't make that much of a difference when the CAUSES are not confronted. In that regard, virtually nothing is done 4 minutes ago, Dazey said: So you think rape and murder should be legalised? not worthy of a comment this one Edited August 7, 2019 by action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, action said: those law makers, in virtually every country that bans guns, are confronted with gun related crimes, every day. My country has one of the strictest gun laws you can come up with, but armed crime happens on a daily basis. Agreed, massacres dont happen every day, but is that because of strict gun laws or because of other reasons? My country has seen some massacres in the past anyway (belgium). Ok, norway has only one mass-massacre. But that's not the point. Armed robbery does occur plenty. Other exampled of armed crime happen there too. Just because norway happens to have a smaller population (and a smaller amount of lunatics), does not mean the anti gun laws are effective. it just means there are less lunatics, in a country with far less population than say the USA. But armed crime is plenty in norway, just as in every other country you can name. Focusing on making anti gun laws, really won't make that much of a difference when the CAUSES are not confronted. In that regard, virtually nothing is done What you are saying flies in the face of all data, studies and common sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 minute ago, action said: not worthy of a comment this one Why not? You literally said that the laws make no difference at all so why would you want to burden the police and justice system? Either the laws make a difference or they don’t. If they do then they’re worth having. If not then why even bother? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dazey said: Why not? You literally said that the laws make no difference at all so why would you want to burden the police and justice system? Either the laws make a difference or they don’t. If they do then they’re worth having. If not then why even bother? the argument in this thread, which has been reinstated plenty by soul, was that making anti gun laws would REDUCE massacres. that's what I argued against, not that massacres, rape or murder should be legalised Rape and murder is prohibited, not to reduce these facts, but more importantly as retribution. prevention is part of it, but you can't prevent rape with laws. you can punish rape, but you can't really prevent it. Rape should very well be punished, and that's why the law forbidding it is needed. But like anti gun laws, anti drugs laws, any anti whatever law, the law as such does not reduce the facts. If that were the case, those laws would becoming pointless as time goes on, and we could throw the penalty code out of the window! that's obviously not how this works Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, action said: the argument in this thread, which has been reinstated plenty by soul, was that making anti gun laws would REDUCE massacres. that's what I argued against, not that massacres, rape or murder should be legalised Rape and murder is prohibited, not to reduce these facts, but more importantly as retribution. prevention is part of it, but you can't prevent rape with laws. you can punish rape, but you can't really prevent it. Rape should very well be punished, and that's why the law forbidding it is needed. But like anti gun laws, anti drugs laws, any anti whatever law, the law as such does not reduce the facts. If that were the case, those laws would becoming pointless as time goes on, and we could throw the penalty code out of the window! that's obviously not how this works Yeah, I am outta here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, action said: the argument in this thread, which has been reinstated plenty by soul, was that making anti gun laws would REDUCE massacres. that's what I argued against, not that massacres, rape or murder should be legalised Rape and murder is prohibited, not to reduce these facts, but more importantly as retribution. prevention is part of it, but you can't prevent rape with laws. you can punish rape, but you can't really prevent it. Rape should very well be punished, and that's why the law forbidding it is needed. But like anti gun laws, anti drugs laws, any anti whatever law, the law as such does not reduce the facts. If that were the case, those laws would becoming pointless as time goes on, and we could throw the penalty code out of the window! that's obviously not how this works You argued that it wouldn’t reduce massacres (it would) so there’s no point in doing it. You backed up your argument by saying that rape and murder laws didn’t have any impact on rates of rape and murder. By your rationale laws make no difference to people’s behaviour so there’s no point in having them. Edited August 7, 2019 by Dazey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 I have no words . 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dazey said: You argued that it wouldn’t reduce massacres (it would) so there’s no point in doing it. You backed up your argument by saying that rape and murder laws didn’t have any impact on rates of rape and murder. By your rationale laws make no difference to people’s behaviour so there’s no point in having them. then I suggest you read more on the retributive function of penalty https://www.britannica.com/topic/retributive-justice crime is of all ages, and has never been totally eradicated. It would be pointless to expect so, and it's not the point of the penalty code. Retribution is the main purpose of the penalty code. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Aaaand another thing! @action in the debate when passing anti rape laws back in the day. “You can’t take people’s cocks away. Rape will happen whether you like it or not. Why does government have to get involved?” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 8 hours ago, SoulMonster said: @DieselDaisy I still don't get why individuals should feel morally prohibited to discuss issues that their own country struggle with. Could you share some more light on this? And even more so, why I, living in a country with a gun homicide rate of 0.1. can't "lecture" Americans (who suffer from a rate of 44.5) on gun laws and how to prevent mass murders? 44.5? You mean 4.6? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-W.A.R- Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Download said: I wish the lefties good fortune in the wars to come. It will be a difficult task when they’re fighting with dildos and bongs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 14 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: 44.5? You mean 4.6? Yes, sorry. I remembered it was 45 times higher than in Norway and mixed up the numbers. Thank you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dazey said: Aaaand another thing! @action in the debate when passing anti rape laws back in the day. “You can’t take people’s cocks away. Rape will happen whether you like it or not. Why does government have to get involved?” "back in the day", as you call it, rape laws didn't exist and offenders were dealt with in a proper way by society as a whole. Not a single law in sight. you'll find, that criminal law is fairly recent, say of the last 200 years, and prior to that law was of a very different nature. Today, there are more criminal laws than ever, so according to your logic crime should be reduced, compared to "back in the day". What we find however, is crime is increasing year on year, small exceptions here and there. so why are there laws? to codify sanctions, which have the purpose of retribution (not reduction) of crimes. social control is a far better means to prevent crime. Take away the causes of crime, that's also far more efficient. Edited August 7, 2019 by action 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downzy Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, action said: Today, there are more criminal laws than ever, so according to your logic crime should be reduced, compared to "back in the day". What we find however, is crime is increasing year on year, small exceptions here and there. Absolutely not. Long-term trends show that crime, however you want to define it, has seen drastic reductions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontdamnmeuyi2015 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 After 9/11, most Texans I knew figured it would never happen in Texas. Well, it seems that now Texas realizes they are not immune to gun violence. I'm sorry it took this shooting and others in Texas to make a lot of people realize this kind of violence can happen anywhere in the US. My sympathies go out to the families of these poor victims. I shop in Walmart all the time. It seems the hatred for different peoples is growing day by day and it scares me so much. Now the government is meeting to decide what to do about gun violence. I hope it's not too late. Texas loves their guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
action Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, downzy said: Absolutely not. Long-term trends show that crime, however you want to define it, has seen drastic reductions. with all the mass shootings happening in the USA today, and seeing that statistic one has to wonder how it was in 1993! also, different numbers for the UK https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/olympic-britain/crime-and-defence/crimes-of-the-century/ it doesn't matter. Statistics don't prove much and can easily be manipulated. There is one pertinent fact though, and that is that penalty law, codified like we have today, is a fairly recent thing. in the UK, the earliest criminal trials had very little, if any, settled law to apply. It's only since that 18 th century that european countries began to have operating police forces! source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English_criminal_law do not underestimate the power of social control, that was the main prevention against crime. People didn't commit crimes, out of fear of being lynched by the mob (at one point, even out of fear for the church). that was not nice, so in order to stop that happening, the state made criminal laws as if to say: stop lynching people, we'll take over from here criminal law is a codification, but crime prevention happened for hundreds of years prior, by other means. Edited August 7, 2019 by action Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontdamnmeuyi2015 Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 Honestly, America was freed by violence, so I doubt this kind of shit is ever going to stop. Guns are part of the problem, but it's the people who use guns because of their blind hatred that has to be stopped but how? We have to be aware of things and people we know, but sometimes it's not that easy. How can we see the sickness in others and ourselves? Sometimes you just don't know a person or what goes on in their hearts and minds? It's scary but true. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted August 7, 2019 Share Posted August 7, 2019 13 minutes ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said: Honestly, America was freed by violence, so I doubt this kind of shit is ever going to stop. USA is hardly special in that regard,yet other countries seem to have grown out of their fixation with weapons. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.