1. Updated Resource Submission Rules: All model & skin resource submissions must now include an in-game screenshot. This is to help speed up the moderation process and to show how the model and/or texture looks like from the in-game camera.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. DID YOU KNOW - That you can unlock new rank icons by posting on the forums or winning contests? Click here to customize your rank or read our User Rank Policy to see a list of ranks that you can unlock. Have you won a contest and still havn't received your rank award? Then please contact the administration.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Lich King demands your service! We've reached the 19th edition of the Icon Contest. Come along and make some chilling servants for the one true king.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. The 4th SFX Contest has started. Be sure to participate and have a fun factor in it.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. The poll for the 21st Terraining Contest is LIVE. Be sure to check out the entries and vote for one.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. The results are out! Check them out.
    Dismiss Notice
  7. Don’t forget to sign up for the Hive Cup. There’s a 555 EUR prize pool. Sign up now!
    Dismiss Notice
  8. The Hive Workshop Cup contest results have been announced! See the maps that'll be featured in the Hive Workshop Cup tournament!
    Dismiss Notice
  9. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Divorce Agreement

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by leet.firefox, May 4, 2009.

  1. Captain Griffen

    Captain Griffen

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    Or you could have anyone with a concealed weapon be taken out by a police sniper. And hey, guess what? People stop carrying around concealed weapons, and gun related deaths go way down.

    Plus I'm fairly sure owning a gun massively increases the chance of someone in your household getting shot.
     
  2. oh_snap

    oh_snap

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    364
    Resources:
    12
    Icons:
    12
    Resources:
    12
    So guns should not be used for self defense?

    ~Snap
     
  3. Teh_Ephy

    Teh_Ephy

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,042
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'm pretty sure that half of everybody flips the fuck out when the government uses preemptive violence in any way shape or justifiable form.

    Also, most American cities try to maintain around 1 police officer per 1000 civilians, you're not going to have the staff to be able to stick a police sniper on every other rooftop.
     
  4. Dreadnought[dA]

    Dreadnought[dA]

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    810
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Poot, your being retarded, there are soo many guns in circulation already in the U.S. that if you were to implement gun control now it wouldn't work. Countries with gun control don't have the amount of guns the U.S. does, THEREFORE IT WORKS. Stop being an idiot and understand that when you have a billion guns, you can't get rid of them all as easily as when you only have a thousand.
     
  5. Captain Griffen

    Captain Griffen

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    How is it preemptive? Carrying a concealed weapon is/would be highly illegal.

    People report it. It's hard to conceal a weapon 100% reliably. Plus the fact you're liable to get shot is itself a major deterrant.
     
  6. Teh_Ephy

    Teh_Ephy

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,042
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    I'll look it up on Youtube, but if you know what you're doing, you can keep a sawed-off shotgun on what looks like relatively tight clothing without anybody ever knowing.
     
  7. Ghan_04

    Ghan_04

    Vice Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,389
    Resources:
    2
    Tutorials:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    I think part of the problem is when you make something illegal, then the situation turns into only the criminals having guns.
    Drugs are illegal in many places, so the people who have them are the ones that have little problem breaking the law. The same would be true of gun control. You cannot have complete control over guns in a country. Thus it is more dangerous to the citizens as a whole to not permit guns since they would have increased risk.

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
     
  8. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Wrong, Ghan, as mentioned several times countries with gun control have far less crime rates than the US of A.

    Dreadnought, the reason you have so many guns is because you're too busy whining about how many guns you already have to do anything about it.
     
  9. Ghan_04

    Ghan_04

    Vice Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,389
    Resources:
    2
    Tutorials:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    Part of the reason that the citizens should have guns is to maintain fear of the citizens on the part of the government. I think citizens need the ability to protect themselves from the tyranny of government. The very nature of most government is that they try to increase their own power over the populace.
    On a purely philosophical front, I think it is wrong to deny people the right to bear arms. I am not in favor of no gun laws at all, but I think it is easy to go too far here.
     
  10. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    What tyranny of government? You're living in the first world, Ghan. In fact, the US of A is right on the edge due to the population and the governments that population elects.

    Seeing as there is no practical reason for them to carry weapons and plenty not to, I don't see why you hold that position, but meh.
     
  11. Captain Griffen

    Captain Griffen

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    Pistols have no philosophically sound purpose. Their only reason is for shooting people, and the state damned well can interfer with you interferring with others.

    As for keeping the government in fear, just...lol. I mean, seriously, lol. Have you seen how corrupt and screwed up the American government is? And the people have a large proportion of nutters, always. Having the government afraid of the small proportion of the population who are stupid enough to carry arms and thus endanger their children is really not good.

    Evidence for gun control laws cutting down on murders with guns? If anything, it makes the murder rate with guns skyrocket, as robbers shoot first, and don't ask questions later, because if they don't, they'll get shot. Whereas in the UK, shooting people is a Really Really Bad Move, as instead of people just handing the stuff over and then being insured, and there being somewhat of a police response, you have the whole country searching for you. The added risk of being shot makes it so much wiser to just shoot people...
     
  12. Teh_Ephy

    Teh_Ephy

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,042
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    YouTube Video, ignore the ridiculous title.
    Watch. He's not even wearing particularly baggy clothing. The shotgun is obviously (I hope) exaggerated, but any determined criminal could hide a legal weapon in their clothes. And listen to that lady drone on, it's ridiculous, but if they're making a serious Youtube video about it, it's a problem somewhere.
     
  13. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    The point is if you don't think they'll shoot back you won't shoot in the first place.
     
  14. Teh_Ephy

    Teh_Ephy

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,042
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    But it's easier to wave a gun around and threaten people if you know/believe that they aren't going to shoot back.
     
  15. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    I'd rather have a gun waved at me than be shot. Wouldn't you?

    Anyhow, we don't need to get into philosophical debate about this. As has been continuously pointed out, first-world countries with gun control consistently fare better than the US of A in terms of violent crime.
     
  16. aaron

    aaron

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    Messages:
    512
    Resources:
    6
    Maps:
    2
    Spells:
    4
    Resources:
    6
    fail.....
     
  17. TheDivineBoss

    TheDivineBoss

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,562
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    True true, look at my country, we got no guns but we do kill people with cars.

    Fail at the topic or fail at the Poot-post?
     
  18. Hakeem

    Hakeem

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,503
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    2
    Resources:
    2
    You noticed that too eh?
    I'm very curious as to how you have come to conclude that.


    There were also some comments about bad science around this quote period. I'd like to cite [POST=1117874]the table[/POST] and note that it was created before reading any of this thread. I'd like to note the consistency of the "Logical Person" row with reality. Those of us that live without gun control justify it "logically" in our minds and those of us with gun control justify is "logically" in our minds.

    I'd like to note Poot's bad science and Griffen's incomplete logic. I thought you guys were better than that. Though in the [THREAD=124386]other[/THREAD] thread Poot did have a comment about correlation not implying causation, I'm not going to take the time too look up his post times and whatnot, but it still stands. Even if you later corrected yourself, I still thought you were already at a higher level than that.
    My 40 armed guards. The snipers are probably enough though. See, if you are camping on my lawn, and I had plans there, you are infringing on my right to do what I was doing there. Surely we have equal rights to do whatever it is we are doing there. We cannot do these things at the same time. Who takes precedence?

    I'm not going to bother giving and answer, and neither should you. The scenario should be fully prepared to be processed in any mind.

    We have equal rights, but we cannot share those rights simultaneously.

    I believe the concept of ownership was invented to address this specific dilemma. Further extensions are shared ownership and other complex agreements. I should research this more; this is just my initial opinion.
    It would seem as if you mean to call humor itself a defect of stupid people.
    Breaking the law does not justify being killed. It would seem you are temporarily caught in the perception that the law defines morality, not the other way 'round. Furthermore, if you shoot someone before they have used their gun for manslaughter, that is preemptive. You also assume the people that are allowed to use the weapons to execute the law are "moral" people. This is a very dangerous assumption to make because it gives you a false sense of security. When people realize they are not secure as they thought, they tend to panic and open that can of worms.
    That why no gun control works. If everyone has a gun, people are a lot more likely to not try to use a weapon for nefarious purposes. This holds greater truth that the scenario whereby a select group of people are the ones holding guns. The less people who holds guns, the lesser the danger involved in doing things that harm other people.
    I'm not sure whether or not you still hold this to be a truth, but others might, and debate in this context is a spectator sport. You attribute it to guns, when it could be any of a number of causes. Laws and regulations are not the only causes either.

    Bad Science: Lack of control group.
    You're kidding right? Either that or you are dangerously uninformed with regards to history. As someone who prefers to think critically, it is your duty to be one of the people who knows history, so as to not have the negative of it repeat.
    That you two have made these statements, supports my conclusion that people are terrible logicians. I just didn't think you guys were...
    They also serve as a powerful deterrent to potential assailants.
    Except in the scenario that the state itself is a problem, which you would be a fool not to seriously consider. If you and Poot are playing dumb to history, I'm very hesitant to buy it.
    Fat lot of good that corruption does, they can't enforce much of it at all. What they do manage to enforce... People are quite resilient. They can put up with a whole lot.
    I'm not following your presumed criminal logic. I think the logic of a criminal in a world full of guns goes something like this:
    "As soon as I pull this trigger, I'm going to die. No question. If only people had less guns... >:3"
    Yes. However, we disagree on how humans work. You attribute gun control to the waving, whereas I attribute it to the world without gun control. Similarly, you attribute being shot to the world without gun control, and I attribute it to the one without guns.

    The logic for my perspective can be found in [POST=1117874]the table[/POST], with the addition that the ability to shoot without being shot in turn is inversely proportional to the amount of guns aimed at you. That is, the larger the number of guns aimed at you, the lower your safety. The lower the number of guns aimed at you, the higher your safety.

    If I am to be a logician, I presume your logic to be something like so:
    Gun control Gun freedom
    The criminal will only wave his gun at me.

    No, scratch that. I'm not following your logic here.
    As per Hakeem's logic, I am less safe because there is a greater number of guns aimed at me.

    The logic here coincides with that of the "Paranoid Person." You perceive that all carries of weapons are aiming at you, with the possible exception of law enforcement officials. This is not true because humans evolved a powerful sense of species survival, and law enforcement officials are no more trustworthy than average citizens. They possess only the ability to be more corrupt, for the simple fact that power corrupts, and positions of power attract corrupt people. If the average citizen is the type of person that you would expect to shoot you in their stupidity, then the law enforcement officials in that same area can only be worse.

    Aside from it being Bad ScienceTM, [citation needed].


    Now, if you would all be so kind as to calm down, think a little more logically, and laugh at the original post, we can continue this discussion with a higher degree of accuracy.


    Since you are humans, and therefore bad logicians, this is too much to ask, so instead I'll just ask that you try not to flame each other too much, hmm? :)
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2009
  19. Pins

    Pins

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,256
    Resources:
    47
    Models:
    3
    Icons:
    10
    Skins:
    34
    Resources:
    47
    (that must be the most epic high horse riding I've ever seen :D )

    Just a sidenote about a few points : not every robber is up to use his firearm just to steal some shit. And personally, I would not kill someone stealing my wallet. At best I would kick his ass beyond recognition, but definitely not kill him.

    We do have gun control here (I won't say where I come from because it's a country that usually make even slightly conservative people mad) and it works pretty well. Maybe it's too late for USA, I don't know, I've only been there once.

    My brother is used to come at home without knocking at the door. Lately, we were threatened by phone. Being paranoiac and stuff, if I had a gun I'd probably end up shooting my brother.

    One last fact, some of my quite daredevil friends, sometimes (on special festive days) come into houses in the evening just for fun, and it usually turns into parties with the regular inhabitants. No doubt they would have been shot in a country without gun-control, for something a bit "wrong" but really harmless in fact.
    I guess it might aswel come from a difference in the private property notion.

    (By the way did I just merged two topic in my head :D )
     
  20. Captain Griffen

    Captain Griffen

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    Your lawn? Says who? There is no ownership of land in nature. It is the state trying to dictate what I can and cannot do.

    So you admit it is a ficticious invention, created for pragmatic purposes by the state, and thus may be interfered with by the state?

    So what you're saying is that breach of the law which endangers others does not justify the state taking action to stop you? Obeying legitimately crafted laws is part of the social contract. Breach that, and the state, according to most political philosophers, most definitely does have the right to intervene. Most other political philosophers would justify it, too, but from different approaches.

    How is it pre-emptive? Carrying around a concealed weapon in public is illegal and a threat to the public. That threat needs to be dealt with. That will involve endangering someone. The most appropriate person to be endangered is the person illegally carrying around a concealed weapon.

    And the less the reason to shoot other people. A guns culture leads to more guns being available, leads to more firearms accidents, more heat-of-the-moment shootings, and more murders in crimes involving guns.

    Social sciences, dude. Really.

    Tyranny of the gun-wielding nutters > tyranny of the majority government...

    Inductive arguments don't have to be deductively valid.


    Ad hominem attacks while asking us not to flame...? Really, wtf...? Lol...