Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mass stabbing on Texas college campus

254 replies to this topic
ForumName
  • ForumName

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2012

#121

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:41 AM Edited by ForumName, 13 April 2013 - 12:43 AM.

Not this gun debate again
suicidal.gif
All the points by the gun grabbers are, for the most part, completely wrong. They say things such as "Oh look at the U.K they are a gun free utopia," but they forget to mention the fact they have twice the violent crime as the U.S. They also leave out Australia, since they banned guns crime has shot through the roof, but don't worry about that. They also forget to mention that the countries with the lowest crime are that way because they have a much higher per capita income then us and that guns have hardly anything to do with it. But ah well, I don't feel like getting involved, it seems like a debate has already been going on for a while.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#122

Posted 13 April 2013 - 07:15 AM

QUOTE (ForumName @ Saturday, Apr 13 2013, 01:41)
All the points by the gun grabbers are, for the most part, completely wrong.

Which would be at all relevant if you hadn't consigned yourself to the idiotic notion that everyone wants to take all of your guns. Which is about as far from the truth of anyone's statements (including mine; I think the UK's firearm laws are archaic, extremely restrictive and penalise sports shooters heavily) as the assertion that the government seeks to replace firearms with fluffy pink unicorns.

QUOTE (ForumName @ Saturday, Apr 13 2013, 01:41)
They say things such as "Oh look at the U.K they are a gun free utopia," but they forget to mention the fact they have twice the violent crime as the U.S.

Only because the UK counts more than four individual crimes (murder, rape, violent robbery and aggravated assault) as violent crimes. Quoted directly from their website:

QUOTE (The FBI)
In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

So, crimes that aren't recorded as violent crimes-

1) Non-aggravated assault
2) Sexual assault other than rape
3) Wounding/wounding with intent
4) All weapon-related crimes against the person, whether the weapon was used or not
5) Attempted murder not occasioning assault or wounding
6) Death by dangerous driving
7) Theft from the person with implied violence rather than actual

Plus the US statistics only count the most serious criminal charge in a case. The European ones could all the criminal charges in a case.

If you directly compare the rates of murder, rape, violent robbery and aggravated assault as individual crimes/groups of crime to those of the US, every single on is either slightly or substantially lower in the UK. I've done so before, I could dig up the stats for you if you so wish and show you?

QUOTE (ForumName @ Saturday, Apr 13 2013, 01:41)
They also leave out Australia, since they banned guns

Which they didn't, but never mind. Let's look at some graphs:

user posted image

user posted image

As you can see, in both these instances, the crime rates in question have fallen back to below 1996 levels- in the case of murder dramatically so. No-one is claiming that introducing firearms restrictions will immediately result in a reduction in crime; in fact, due to the restrictions, it often results in an increase in crime for the pure reason that there are more laws being enforced and therefore more potential offenses. It's also worth pointing out that between 1996 and today in Australia, there have been precisely zero spree killings involving firearms. None.

QUOTE (ForumName @ Saturday, Apr 13 2013, 01:41)
They also forget to mention that the countries with the lowest crime are that way because they have a much higher per capita income then us and that guns have hardly anything to do with it.

Switzerland's per capita income is about 6% higher than that of the US. It's murder rate is one fifth.
The UK's per capita income is 15% lower than that of the US. It's murder rate is one forth.
Serbia's per capita income is about 1/4 of that of the US. It's murder rate is one forth.

Quantify.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 23:22)
The U.S is 88 per 100 people with 315 million people, making it the highest in the world yet the murder rate is only 4.2.

The US has 88.8 per hundred. It's murder rate is 4.8 per 100,000 population as of 2012.
Serbia has 58.2 per hundred. It's murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000 population as of 2012.
Switzerland has 45.7 per hundred. It's murder rate is 0.7 per 100,000 population as of 2012.

As you can see, a murder rate of 4.2 compared to other developed nations with high average instances of firearm ownership is actually extremely high. That's not to forget the fact that the ownership of firearms per 100 of population isn't a particularly helpful figure in determining firearm ownership levels amongst a dispersed population- for that you want to look at the number of households owning one on more firearm. In Switzerland, this number is higher than the US (due to the majority of households possessing one firearm under the Militia rules, but the fact a large proportion of those don't possess a second weapon), but the murder rate is lower by a factor of five.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 23:22)
Without the unregistered guns which aren't on that list the murder rate would be about 2.6 or 2.4.

That doesn't really matter though, does it? We're discussing firearms in general, so you can't keep trying to move the goalposts. If you exclude all the illegal firearms in the UK, the murder rate by firearm halves. See, if you change the metric by which you measure, you can make your statistics say anything. Especially when you just make figures up on the spot to prove a point. You cannot reasonably deny that the murder rate in the United States is significantly higher than elsewhere in the developed world. It is difficult to argue, as you have, that the US has a low murder rate in comparison to it's instance of firearm ownership because nations with 30% and 50% less firearms per capita respectively have murder rates 4 and 5.5 times lower.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 23:22)
Why do you people keep over exaggerating it?

I'm not exaggerating. I'm using accurate statistics to explain that whilst the US murder rate isn't particularly high in the context of the world as a whole, it is astronomical in comparison to the rest of the developed world. As 70% of all murders in the US are committed with firearms, a figure hugely higher than anywhere else in the developed world, this is apt in the context of the discussion.

QUOTE (AH64Hunter @ Friday, Apr 12 2013, 23:22)
Also my Grandmother has been all around the world and only in the UK did they ever steal her purse.

Totally and utterly irrelevant.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#123

Posted 16 May 2013 - 09:29 PM

The main causes of violent crime are sexual frustration, loneliness, poverty and social stress.

Instead of making self-defense illegal and forcing people to embrace pacifism or other unnatural ways of life (which leads to significant increases in the rates of violent crime and suicide), why don't people make a serious effort to prevent the majority of random violent crimes by tackling the four extremely serious social issues which cause depression and uncontrollable anger in young men?

Dollarhide
  • Dollarhide

    Original Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009

#124

Posted 18 May 2013 - 12:38 AM

"Heroic student" - yeah, sure - bullying football cocksuckers are always the good guys, aren't they?
Hopefully this guy hurt some of them and any other bitch who needed to be taught some manners and respect.

stu
  • stu

    Ya filthy animal.

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#125

Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:04 AM

QUOTE (Dollarhide @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 00:38)
"Heroic student" - yeah, sure - bullying football cocksuckers are always the good guys, aren't they?
Hopefully this guy hurt some of them and any other bitch who needed to be taught some manners and respect.

I'm hearing Betfred just slashed the odds that this guy will be the next spree shooter. It's 1/10 apparently!

Tell me Dollarhide, are you feeling confident? I know there's some stiff competition out there, do you think you have what it takes to become America's next top spree shooter? Can you tell us about your exit plans? I know that actually just giving yourself up has been pretty popular lately. Are you going to go old school and shoot it out to the death? Maybe throw a bit of suicide by cop into the mix?

Well, you heard it here first folks. Watch this space.






Killerdude8
  • Killerdude8

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#126

Posted 18 May 2013 - 08:58 AM

So none of the Stabee's noticed this man running up and down the Hallways shanking people and just gtfo?

Rudy
  • Rudy

    Mack Pimp

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2013
  • France

#127

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:18 AM Edited by rudy., 18 May 2013 - 10:22 AM.

QUOTE (Killerdude8 @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 08:58)
So none of the Stabee's noticed this man running up and down the Hallways shanking people and just gtfo?

Probably because the whole lobby / hallway / staircase was crowded prior to the incident.

And you would barely attract attention even if you were touching yourself in the middle of a busy crowd

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#128

Posted 18 May 2013 - 10:26 AM

QUOTE (Killerdude8 @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 08:58)
So none of the Stabee's noticed this man running up and down the Hallways shanking people and just gtfo?

It's not like a knife goes, "BANG" each time a person is stabbed or slashed.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#129

Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:04 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 17 2013, 07:29)
The main causes of violent crime are sexual frustration, loneliness, poverty and social stress.

Instead of making self-defense illegal and forcing people to embrace pacifism or other unnatural ways of life (which leads to significant increases in the rates of violent crime and suicide), why don't people make a serious effort to prevent the majority of random violent crimes by tackling the four extremely serious social issues which cause depression and uncontrollable anger in young men?

You heard it here first folks. Pacifism leads to suicide and more violence. I'd ask for evidence but that's obviously not going to happen... how about just sharing your reasoning? I'm extremely curious as to how someone could come to such a conclusion.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#130

Posted 18 May 2013 - 01:35 PM

I'm more puzzled by the fact that he thinks sexual frustration is a greater cause of violent crime than poor education or social deprivation.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#131

Posted 18 May 2013 - 02:00 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 18 May 2013 - 02:03 PM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 14:04)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Friday, May 17 2013, 07:29)
The main causes of violent crime are sexual frustration, loneliness, poverty and social stress.

Instead of making self-defense illegal and forcing people to embrace pacifism or other unnatural ways of life (which leads to significant increases in the rates of violent crime and suicide), why don't people make a serious effort to prevent the majority of random violent crimes by tackling the four extremely serious social issues which cause depression and uncontrollable anger in young men?

You heard it here first folks. Pacifism leads to suicide and more violence. I'd ask for evidence but that's obviously not going to happen... how about just sharing your reasoning? I'm extremely curious as to how someone could come to such a conclusion.

Pacifism is unnatural and aberrant, it conflicts with millions of years of evolution (and/or God's design, depending on one's beliefs) and if forced on society (hypocritically, under threat of violence at the hands of the police/military/other armed force) leads to the creation of a submissive and feeble population which utilizes social oppression (shunning, social sabotage, etc...) against the remaining strong-willed, independent and often highly intelligent individuals who refuse to embrace pacifism (and subsequently suffer the loss of their human dignity), leading them to become stressed, depressed and frustrated (problems which are exacerbated by the by-products of the social oppression, such as sexual frustration) which increases the chances that they will revolt violently against the members of the hypocritically oppressive society.

Then there are also criminals, who operate outside of mainstream society and will be far more likely to engage in more audacious criminal activity as they will have no qualms utilizing force to get their way, confident that their victims will (in 98+ % of cases) lack the will and/or the means of successfully resisting them.


My short answer: pacifism conflicts with nature, if you hypocritically force others to embrace it then you are causing them extreme psychological harm (imagine the analogy of trying to force a cylinder into a square hole of inferior size, it will obviously cause damage), whilst also causing all members of society to become more vulnerable in the face of violent crime (perpetrated by those who are not part of mainstream society and can never be controlled by non-violent and ethical means).

My opinion: Pacifism is an evil form of hypocrisy, as it is one of the most extreme forms of (social) violence imaginable.



@sivispacem: i also mentioned poverty and general social stress, and the fact that all four of these causes are equally serious.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#132

Posted 18 May 2013 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 00:00)
<snip>

Sorry to burst your bubble, but violent tendencies are not normal. Violence is as much a result of conditioning as non-violence is. What you're saying is based around a misconception: nature is not a system of rules, there's no evidence for that and in fact if we look, we see evidence for the inverse: dogs are evolutionarily "programmed" to be violent (hence why they have gigantic claws and fangs as well as noses that can track prey to the end of the earth) yet they can be domesticated without them rebelling. Most properly trained dogs go their entire life without biting or scratching anyone.

Furthermore, your reasoning is circular. Passifism is bad, therefore it hurts people, therefore passifism is bad. That's what we call a logical fallacy.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#133

Posted 18 May 2013 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 16:33)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 00:00)
<snip>

Sorry to burst your bubble, but violent tendencies are not normal. Violence is as much a result of conditioning as non-violence is. What you're saying is based around a misconception: nature is not a system of rules, there's no evidence for that and in fact if we look, we see evidence for the inverse: dogs are evolutionarily "programmed" to be violent (hence why they have gigantic claws and fangs as well as noses that can track prey to the end of the earth) yet they can be domesticated without them rebelling. Most properly trained dogs go their entire life without biting or scratching anyone.

Furthermore, your reasoning is circular. Passifism is bad, therefore it hurts people, therefore passifism is bad. That's what we call a logical fallacy.

Perhaps i did not properly express myself, but my reasoning is that pacifism harms people because it conflicts with their biological urges (hunt, defend their life, etc...) and therefore it is immoral and unethical for one to force it upon others.
The existence of such urges is not up for debate, as any honest biologist, anthropologist or historian could tell you.

Also, your claim that dogs losing their violent traits after being both selectively bred for passivity and thoroughly trained makes it acceptable to use hypocritical violence, eugenics and brainwashing on humans to force them into embracing non-violence, no matter the consequences, is extremely disturbing.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#134

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:02 AM

You're still using circular logic. "Passifism is bad, therefore it hurts people, therefore passifism is bad." The fact that it "conflicts with biology" isn't proof that it's bad in and of itself, your conclusion still rests on an assumption.

The dog comparison is a perfect one. Dogs aren't bred to be peaceful (quite the opposite), nor is violence or brainwashing used. You teach them violence has consequences (namely, disapproval "bad dog" etc.) and they stop being violent; they show no signs of wanting or needing to continue being violent and there's no evidence that it takes any toll on their mental well-being.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#135

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 06:02)
You're still using circular logic. "Passifism is bad, therefore it hurts people, therefore passifism is bad." The fact that it "conflicts with biology" isn't proof that it's bad in and of itself, your conclusion still rests on an assumption.

The dog comparison is a perfect one. Dogs aren't bred to be peaceful (quite the opposite), nor is violence or brainwashing used. You teach them violence has consequences (namely, disapproval "bad dog" etc.) and they stop being violent; they show no signs of wanting or needing to continue being violent and there's no evidence that it takes any toll on their mental well-being.

1. Humans have complex personalities and are capable of higher reasoning, dogs do not.

2. Most dogs are selectively bred for passivity (virtually all "pet" breeds and "toy dogs"), those who are not (i.e pit bulls and german shepherds) are the most likely to be violent towards humans. It is also an undeniable fact that all dogs are violent towards small prey animals (i.e mice, rats and rabbits) by nature.

3. Bullying humans into self-destructive non-violence via "disapproval" (which is indeed brainwashing when directed towards beings capable of higher reasoning) and/or the use of hypocritical force is extremely unethical, not to mention outright immoral.

4. If you want evidence of forced pacifism taking an extreme toll on the mental well-being of humans you can look at the combined murder, suicide, mental illness and violent crime rates of countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and The UK then compare them to the combined rates of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Japan (yes, Japan allows the unrestricted private ownership of all less-lethal self-defense weapons).

5. If you believe it's acceptable to force others to embrace pacifism, do you believe it's acceptable to force homosexuals to become heterosexual?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#136

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 17:43)
4. If you want evidence of forced pacifism taking an extreme toll on the mental well-being of humans you can look at the combined murder, suicide, mental illness and violent crime rates of countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and The UK then compare them to the combined rates of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Japan (yes, Japan allows the unrestricted private ownership of all less-lethal self-defense weapons).

This is utter tripe. All the nations you've labelled as negatively as having apparently high rates of suicide/mental illness/violent crime actually have extremely low rates; and all permit lethal force in self-defence as long as it is proportionate. Switzerland has a suicide rate far higher than that of Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, for instance, which would imply a higher instance of mental health issues too- and despite common misconceptions the violent crime rate isn't that much lower than elsewhere in Western Europe- in fact the murder rate is considerably higher than most of the Nordic countries, for instance. Saudi Arabia brutally tortures and publicly executes petty criminals, has little to no functioning medical capacity for humanely evaluating the mental health of its citizens, and is a society so oppressive that any figures regarding crime or mental illness cannot be at all trustworthy, and Japan has pretty much the highest suicide rate in the world and crime rates are rising far faster there than anywhere else you've named. I really struggle to see how you can make this argument given that none of the premises on which it is based are actually factually accurate?

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#137

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:15 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 17:58)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 17:43)
4. If you want evidence of forced pacifism taking an extreme toll on the mental well-being of humans you can look at the combined murder, suicide, mental illness and violent crime rates of countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and The UK then compare them to the combined rates of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Japan (yes, Japan allows the unrestricted private ownership of all less-lethal self-defense weapons).

This is utter tripe. All the nations you've labelled as negatively as having apparently high rates of suicide/mental illness/violent crime actually have extremely low rates; and all permit lethal force in self-defence as long as it is proportionate. Switzerland has a suicide rate far higher than that of Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, for instance, which would imply a higher instance of mental health issues too- and despite common misconceptions the violent crime rate isn't that much lower than elsewhere in Western Europe- in fact the murder rate is considerably higher than most of the Nordic countries, for instance. Saudi Arabia brutally tortures and publicly executes petty criminals, has little to no functioning medical capacity for humanely evaluating the mental health of its citizens, and is a society so oppressive that any figures regarding crime or mental illness cannot be at all trustworthy, and Japan has pretty much the highest suicide rate in the world and crime rates are rising far faster there than anywhere else you've named. I really struggle to see how you can make this argument given that none of the premises on which it is based are actually factually accurate?

http://en.wikipedia....by_suicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

http://www.infiniteu...han-in-the-u-s/


Also, you're flawed and prejudiced perception of Saudi Arabian society based on communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda does not constitute an argument.

And lol at "all permit the use of lethal force as long as it's justified",
how can you use justified lethal force in self-defense if the ownership of as little as a can of pepper spray is illegal (and severely punished) in such countries?!



Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#138

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 02:43)
1. Humans have complex personalities and are capable of higher reasoning, dogs do not.

I fail to see how this is relevant. Either "you can't fight nature" or you can. If dogs can learn consequences and be nonviolent, why can't humans?

QUOTE
2. Most dogs are selectively bred for passivity (virtually all "pet" breeds and "toy dogs"), those who are not (i.e pit bulls and german shepherds) are the most likely to be violent towards humans. It is also an undeniable fact that all dogs are violent towards small prey animals (i.e mice, rats and rabbits) by nature.

What is a "pet breed"? Most of the smaller dogs you encounter in a given day were bred to hunt rodents. Interesting you should mention pit bulls, since I've been around them a lot and never been bitten. In fact, I've only been bitten by poodles (I imagine they're what you consider a "toy dog").

QUOTE
3. Bullying humans into self-destructive non-violence via "disapproval" (which is indeed brainwashing when directed towards beings capable of higher reasoning) and/or the use of hypocritical force is extremely unethical, not to mention outright immoral.

I'm a bit confused here. It's sounds like you're saying we should do away with the whole society thing and descend into a violent free for all. We already "bully humans into self-destructive non-violence." If someone is violent we send them to prison and heavily stigmatise them. Are you saying laws against violent crimes should be done away with and the stigma should be removed, and violent crime will decrease?

QUOTE
4. If you want evidence of forced pacifism taking an extreme toll on the mental well-being of humans you can look at the combined murder, suicide, mental illness and violent crime rates of countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and The UK then compare them to the combined rates of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Japan (yes, Japan allows the unrestricted private ownership of all less-lethal self-defense weapons).

Holy sh*t, no. You've got it completely backwards. Japan and Switzerland have among the highest suicide rates in the world (they have somewhat low crime rates but they're very wealthy, cohesive societies) and Saudi Arabia is an oppressive theocracy.

Your own examples work against you here. The UK is very violent, pretty much anyone from up North has been in a few fist fights. Go to Japan or Switzerland and hit someone with a glass and see if you ever find work again.

Of course, all of this is academic because you're still using circular reasoning.

QUOTE
5. If you believe it's acceptable to force others to embrace pacifism, do you believe it's acceptable to force homosexuals to become heterosexual

what is this i don't even

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#139

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:24 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 03:15)
Also, you're flawed and prejudiced perception of Saudi Arabian society based on communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda does not constitute an argument.

Holy f*ck, this guy can't be for real.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#140

Posted 19 May 2013 - 05:43 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 19 May 2013 - 05:55 PM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:22)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 02:43)
1. Humans have complex personalities and are capable of higher reasoning, dogs do not.

I fail to see how this is relevant. Either "you can't fight nature" or you can. If dogs can learn consequences and be nonviolent, why can't humans?

QUOTE
2. Most dogs are selectively bred for passivity (virtually all "pet" breeds and "toy dogs"), those who are not (i.e pit bulls and german shepherds) are the most likely to be violent towards humans. It is also an undeniable fact that all dogs are violent towards small prey animals (i.e mice, rats and rabbits) by nature.

What is a "pet breed"? Most of the smaller dogs you encounter in a given day were bred to hunt rodents. Interesting you should mention pit bulls, since I've been around them a lot and never been bitten. In fact, I've only been bitten by poodles (I imagine they're what you consider a "toy dog").

QUOTE
3. Bullying humans into self-destructive non-violence via "disapproval" (which is indeed brainwashing when directed towards beings capable of higher reasoning) and/or the use of hypocritical force is extremely unethical, not to mention outright immoral.

I'm a bit confused here. It's sounds like you're saying we should do away with the whole society thing and descend into a violent free for all. We already "bully humans into self-destructive non-violence." If someone is violent we send them to prison and heavily stigmatise them. Are you saying laws against violent crimes should be done away with and the stigma should be removed, and violent crime will decrease?

QUOTE
4. If you want evidence of forced pacifism taking an extreme toll on the mental well-being of humans you can look at the combined murder, suicide, mental illness and violent crime rates of countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and The UK then compare them to the combined rates of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Japan (yes, Japan allows the unrestricted private ownership of all less-lethal self-defense weapons).

Holy sh*t, no. You've got it completely backwards. Japan and Switzerland have among the highest suicide rates in the world (they have somewhat low crime rates but they're very wealthy, cohesive societies) and Saudi Arabia is an oppressive theocracy.

Your own examples work against you here. The UK is very violent, pretty much anyone from up North has been in a few fist fights. Go to Japan or Switzerland and hit someone with a glass and see if you ever find work again.

Of course, all of this is academic because you're still using circular reasoning.

QUOTE
5. If you believe it's acceptable to force others to embrace pacifism, do you believe it's acceptable to force homosexuals to become heterosexual

what is this i don't even

1. Forcing another to embrace total non-violence, and put his life in jeopardy doing so, is unethical and immoral.

2. Sorry if i don't believe your "dog story", random internet person. Also, poodles were originally bred as hunting dogs.

3. Where the hell did you get "you want to turn the world into a violent free for all!" from?
I want to abolish the stigmas associated with the non-criminal use of violence (self-defense, hunting, etc...) and have the ownership of weapons (not necessarily lethal weapons) for the purpose of self-defense legalized.

4.

http://en.wikipedia....by_suicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

http://www.infiniteu...han-in-the-u-s/

'nuff said.


5. If you think forcing total non-violence upon others is acceptable, do you believe that it's acceptable to force heterosexuality upon homosexuals?



@ melchior's second post; i "can't be for real" because i'm not some f*cking hippie who gobbles up left-wing propaganda?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#141

Posted 19 May 2013 - 06:27 PM Edited by sivispacem, 19 May 2013 - 07:32 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
http://en.wikipedia....by_suicide_rate

With Japan 9th, Switzerland 43rd and Saudi Arabia not even having any statistics present. I was incorrect with regards to Switzerland and the UK/Belgium (though the Netherlands is lower) but Japan trumps all three of your examples, and Saudi Arabia doesn't release suicide figures. Not a great start for your thesis, especially if your intent was to demonstrate factual accuracy. It's pretty clear your statements on suicide aren't tenable.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Lets look at the top three large nations on that list- Iceland, Hong Kong and Singapore. Do you notice anything familiar about the latter two in particular? The fact they're British-inspired political and social systems with similar regulations when it comes to personal defence? And Iceland has amongst the strictest civilian weapon possession regulations in the world. If you want to argue the correlation between armed citizenry, the legislative right to self-defence and instance of violent crime and suicide, why don't you start by explaining how, given that your augment is that pacifism leads to increased violence, three of the most pacifist nations in the world, and nations with the strongest regulations controlling access to weapons and the right to self-defence, actually have the lowest murder rates- and other crime rates- in the world? Did it not occur to you that your correlation might be false?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
http://www.infiniteu...han-in-the-u-s/

You are aware that the British metric for measuring violent crime differs significantly from that used in continental Europe and the US, aren't you? This has been discussed in this thread and several others a number of times now. For instance, did you know that for the purposes of violent crime reporting a home invasion-robbery that led to a murder an two serious injuries would be one crime in the US, and four or five in the UK? Or that the US doesn't count any sexual assault as violent unless it amounts to rape? Or that most of Europe doesn't categorise property damage such as arson as "violent" unless it actually directly threatens someone's life?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
Also, you're flawed and prejudiced perception of Saudi Arabian society based on communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda does not constitute an argument.

My flawed and prejudiced perception of Saudi Arabian society borne out by every single international standard of freedom of quite literally any kind? The fact that only one international metric for recording political and personal freedom ranks Saudi Arabia above complete authoritarianism, and that relates to economic freedom? Did you know, for instance, that Saudi Arabia ties with amongst other nations Somalia in terms of freedom according to Freedom House? I suppose it's pure accident that Saudi Arabia appears on Reporters Without Borders indices of "enemies of internet freedom", "countries under surveillance" and labels King Abdallah Ibn Al-Saud as one of the predators of free speech? Riiiight, because it's my view on reality that's warped. Besides, what makes you think I'm a pacifist? I'm a strategic realist through and through. I just question your arguments, primarily because they have no actual basis in fact and rational analysis. If the primary maxim of your counter-argument consists of "well, you're a Communist" then you might as well give up and go back to spamming the V forum or whatever you did before you wandered into General Chat.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
how can you use justified lethal force in self-defense if the ownership of as little as a can of pepper spray is illegal (and severely punished) in such countries?!

Because the principle of self-defence isn't the same thing as prohibiting and restricting weapons? If I legally kill an intruder in the US with an unregistered NFA firearm I'll spend more time in federal prison than had I legally killed an intruder in the UK with an unregistered shotgun. There are numerous case studies that demonstrate that it is legal to kill people who pose a threat to you in the UK, including doing so with weapons. There have been several violent home invasions that have resulted in the perpetrator being stabbed to death by the householder and that individual not being charged. The idea that you can't justify lethal force in self-defence purely because less-than-lethal weapons of certain kinds are illegal is completely untenable given that there are numerous case studies in UK and wider European law which demonstrate that fatal wounding can be considered proportionate.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#142

Posted 19 May 2013 - 07:55 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 19 May 2013 - 08:24 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 19:27)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
http://en.wikipedia....by_suicide_rate

With Japan 9th, Switzerland 43rd and Saudi Arabia not even having any statistics present. I was incorrect with regards to Switzerland and the UK/Belgium (though the Netherlands is lower) but Japan trumps all three of your examples, and Saudi Arabia doesn't release suicide figures. Not a great start for your thesis, especially if your intent was to demonstrate factual accuracy. It's pretty clear your statements on suicide aren't tenable.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Lets look at the top three large nations on that list- Iceland, Hong Kong and Singapore. Do you notice anything familiar about the latter two in particular? The fact they're British-inspired political and social systems with similar regulations when it comes to personal defence? And Iceland has amongst the strictest civilian weapon possession regulations in the world. If you want to argue the correlation between armed citizenry and the legislative right to self-defence, why don't you start by explaining how, given that your augment is that pacifism leads to increased violence, three of the most pacifist nations in the world, and nations with the strongest regulations controlling access to weapons and the right to self-defence, actually have the lowest murder rates- and other crime rates- in the world? Did it not occur to you that your correlation might be false?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
http://www.infiniteu...han-in-the-u-s/

You are aware that the British metric for measuring violent crime differs significantly from that used in continental Europe and the US, aren't you? This has been discussed in this thread and several others a number of times now. For instance, did you know that for the purposes of violent crime reporting a home invasion-robbery that led to a murder an two serious injuries would be one crime in the US, and four or five in the UK? Or that the US doesn't count any sexual assault as violent unless it amounts to rape? Or that most of Europe doesn't categorise property damage such as arson as "violent" unless it actually directly threatens someone's life?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
Also, you're flawed and prejudiced perception of Saudi Arabian society based on communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda does not constitute an argument.

My flawed and prejudiced perception of Saudi Arabian society borne out by every single international standard of freedom of quite literally any kind? The fact that only one international metric for recording political and personal freedom ranks Saudi Arabia above complete authoritarianism, and that relates to economic freedom? Did you know, for instance, that Saudi Arabia ties with amongst other nations Somalia in terms of freedom according to Freedom House? I suppose it's pure accident that Saudi Arabia appears on Reporters Without Borders indices of "enemies of internet freedom", "countries under surveillance" and labels King Abdallah Ibn Al-Saud as one of the predators of free speech? Riiiight, because it's my view on reality that's warped. Besides, what makes you think I'm a pacifist? I'm a strategic realist through and through. I just question your arguments, primarily because they have no actual basis in fact and rational analysis. If the primary maxim of your counter-argument consists of "well, you're a Communist" then you might as well give up and go back to spamming the V forum or whatever you did before you wandered into General Chat.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 18:15)
how can you use justified lethal force in self-defense if the ownership of as little as a can of pepper spray is illegal (and severely punished) in such countries?!

Because the principle of self-defence isn't the same thing as prohibiting and restricting weapons? If I legally kill an intruder in the US with an unregistered NFA firearm I'll spend more time in federal prison than had I legally killed an intruder in the UK with an unregistered shotgun. There are numerous case studies that demonstrate that it is legal to kill people who pose a threat to you in the UK, including doing so with weapons. There have been several violent home invasions that have resulted in the perpetrator being stabbed to death by the householder and that individual not being charged. The idea that you can't justify lethal force in self-defence purely because less-than-lethal weapons of certain kinds are illegal is completely untenable given that there are numerous case studies in UK and wider European law which demonstrate that fatal wounding can be considered proportionate.

1. Has it ever occurred to you that pacifistic countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, Belgium, etc.. might doctor their statistics just as much as you claim Saudi Arabia does?
Don't give me any of this "But X is a democratic country, they won't/cant/shouldn't lie!", after all even North Korea calls itself "democratic" lately.

Now I'm not saying Saudi Arabia does not restrict free speech, on the contrary i'm simply saying that even "democratic" countries such as Australia and Germany can have equally strict censorship policies.

Also, Hong Kong has a small population whilst Singapore and Iceland have very small populations.


2. Japan may have a much higher suicide rate than the other nations i used as examples, but it's violent crime and mental illness rates are far lower.

A full comparison of the combined rates of murder, suicide, crime and mental illness between pacifist and non-pacifist societies clearly reveals that forced pacifism is detrimental to human beings.


3. Austria, France, Germany, Poland and The Czech Republic also allow the unrestricted private ownership of self-defense weapons; they are all much safer and healthier than pacifistic countries such as The UK, Belgium, The Netherlands and Singapore.


4. To say that "the principle of self-defense is not the same as restricting access to weapons" is asinine, good luck trying to defend yourself against stronger/multiple assailants with your little "fisticuffs".

Furthermore, your claim that this does not have to be the case as "you can use whatever you have at hand to defend yourself" is incorrect, there have been many cases where individuals have been unjustly persecuted because they defended themselves, their family or their property with a weapon (whether it was legal or not).


5. I did not call you a communist, i simply said that your perception of Saudi Arabian society (calling it "barbaric" and "cruel") was the result of your exposure to communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda which dictates that violence is always wrong, even when directed against criminals.


6. Forcing another to embrace pacifism, which jeopardizes his life and his human dignity, is unethical and immoral. No amount of argumentation can change this simple, hard fact.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#143

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:24 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
1. Has it ever occurred to you that pacifistic countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, Belgium, etc.. might doctor their statistics just as much as you claim Saudi Arabia does?

Not really given that they undergo a far greater degree of independent oversight than the likes of Saudi Arabia. They rank highly for liberties and usually top the freedom from corruption index, so if your argument consists of alleging that other nations are doctoring their figures you'd better provide something to substantiate it. Otherwise it's pure hyperbole without any empirical basis.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
2. Japan may have a much higher suicide rate than the other nations i used as examples, but it's violent crime and mental illness rates are far lower.

Perhaps, but you haven't established reasonable causality between this and your primary point. You claimed that the fact that Japan permits ownership of weapons for self-defence purposes leads to it's low crime rate. This is flawed on two counts. Firstly, there's no clear link between the two assertions- you've not explained logically how you've come to the conclusion that the lack of crime in Japan must be due to the fact that ownership of weapons for self-defence purposes is permitted. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it's incorrect because Japan has incredibly stringent firearm laws and does not permit ownership of weapons for self-defence purposes. So your use of Japan in support of your argument actually contradicts it.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
A full comparison of the combined rates of murder, suicide, crime and mental illness between pacifist and non-pacifist societies clearly reveals that forced pacifism is detrimental to human beings.

Does it? Please quantify. I want something merit-worthy, ideally from a peer review journal. Your personal musings, though entertaining, are totally worthless in the context of the discussion especially given that many of them appear to be based on premises which are factually incorrect

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
3. Austria, France, Germany, Poland and The Czech Republic also allow the unrestricted private ownership of self-defense weapons;

That doesn't refute my argument. Brunei and Slovenia both have violent crime rates around or lower than those of the nations you list, and both have quite restrictive firearms laws. Also, your statement that "Austria, France, Germany, Poland and The Czech Republic also allow the unrestricted private ownership of self-defense weapons" isn't actually correct. Austria does not categorise self-defence as a valid reason for possessing a firearm. The same is true in Germany. The Czech Republic has a specific license for self-defence firearms which is notoriously hard to obtain. So, care to explain to me how all of these nations you name have "unrestricted private ownership of self-defence weapons" when at least two of the four specifically state that self-defence is not legitimate reason for owning a weapon?

For someone whose argument seems to revolve around knowledge of various firearm ownership legislations, you've got a really poor knowledge of firearm ownership legislation.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
they are all much safer and healthier than pacifistic countries such as The UK, Belgium, The Netherlands and Singapore.

Singapore has the lowest crime rate in the world. Please quantify how Austria, France, Germany, Poland and the Czech republic are safer. Also, "pacifistic" isn't a word. It's simply "pacifist".

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
4.  To say that "the principle of self-defense is not the same as restricting access to weapons" is asinine, good luck trying to defend yourself against stronger/multiple assailants with your little "fisticuffs".

Your reasoning is...well, there is none. Exactly the same logic could be applied to firearm restrictions in the US, for instance. The fact that fully automatic weapons, short-barrelled rifles and various other firearms are restricted in terms of access means that an assailant with one of them has a fundamental advantage over a citizen in a self-defence scenario. Does that mean that armed self-defence isn't legal just because criminals might be able to obtain a larger weapon? The quality of your reasoning is utterly shocking.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
Furthermore, your claim that this does not have to be the case as "you can use whatever you have at hand to defend yourself" is incorrect, there have been many cases where individuals have been unjustly persecuted because they defended themselves, their family or their property with a weapon (whether it was legal or not).

Unjustly persecuted according to whom? You? Or to legal professionals and juries of their peers? Sorry, but whilst your personal views on justice might be interesting for some, they don't really hold any weight in this discussion. Especially when the letter of the law disagrees with you.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
5. I did not call you a communist, i simply said that your perception of Saudi Arabian society (calling it "barbaric" and "cruel") was the result of your exposure to communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda which dictates that violence is always wrong, even when directed against criminals.

No, you accused me, without basis, of having been indoctrinated with Communist propaganda. Which is a totally idiotic assertion you can't even hope to substantiate, so I can only presume it was meant as a slur of some kind. Are you, in effect, saying that I an by relation every international organisation that exists and speaks on the subject is factually wrong?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
6. Forcing another to embrace pacifism, which jeopardizes his life and his human dignity, is unethical and immoral.

If that's the case then why do all societies generally shun internal violence between members? This trend pre-exists the very concept of pacifism.

Killerdude8
  • Killerdude8

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#144

Posted 19 May 2013 - 08:28 PM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 04:26)
QUOTE (Killerdude8 @ Saturday, May 18 2013, 08:58)
So none of the Stabee's noticed this man running up and down the Hallways shanking people and just gtfo?

It's not like a knife goes, "BANG" each time a person is stabbed or slashed.

No but the people getting stabbed scream loudly.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#145

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:10 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 19 May 2013 - 09:18 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 21:24)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
1. Has it ever occurred to you that pacifistic countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, Belgium, etc.. might doctor their statistics just as much as you claim Saudi Arabia does?

Not really given that they undergo a far greater degree of independent oversight than the likes of Saudi Arabia. They rank highly for liberties and usually top the freedom from corruption index, so if your argument consists of alleging that other nations are doctoring their figures you'd better provide something to substantiate it. Otherwise it's pure hyperbole without any empirical basis.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
2. Japan may have a much higher suicide rate than the other nations i used as examples, but it's violent crime and mental illness rates are far lower.

Perhaps, but you haven't established reasonable causality between this and your primary point. You claimed that the fact that Japan permits ownership of weapons for self-defence purposes leads to it's low crime rate. This is flawed on two counts. Firstly, there's no clear link between the two assertions- you've not explained logically how you've come to the conclusion that the lack of crime in Japan must be due to the fact that ownership of weapons for self-defence purposes is permitted. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it's incorrect because Japan has incredibly stringent firearm laws and does not permit ownership of weapons for self-defence purposes. So your use of Japan in support of your argument actually contradicts it.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
A full comparison of the combined rates of murder, suicide, crime and mental illness between pacifist and non-pacifist societies clearly reveals that forced pacifism is detrimental to human beings.

Does it? Please quantify. I want something merit-worthy, ideally from a peer review journal. Your personal musings, though entertaining, are totally worthless in the context of the discussion especially given that many of them appear to be based on premises which are factually incorrect

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
3. Austria, France, Germany, Poland and The Czech Republic also allow the unrestricted private ownership of self-defense weapons;

That doesn't refute my argument. Brunei and Slovenia both have violent crime rates around or lower than those of the nations you list, and both have quite restrictive firearms laws. Also, your statement that "Austria, France, Germany, Poland and The Czech Republic also allow the unrestricted private ownership of self-defense weapons" isn't actually correct. Austria does not categorise self-defence as a valid reason for possessing a firearm. The same is true in Germany. The Czech Republic has a specific license for self-defence firearms which is notoriously hard to obtain. So, care to explain to me how all of these nations you name have "unrestricted private ownership of self-defence weapons" when at least two of the four specifically state that self-defence is not legitimate reason for owning a weapon?

For someone whose argument seems to revolve around knowledge of various firearm ownership legislations, you've got a really poor knowledge of firearm ownership legislation.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
they are all much safer and healthier than pacifistic countries such as The UK, Belgium, The Netherlands and Singapore.

Singapore has the lowest crime rate in the world. Please quantify how Austria, France, Germany, Poland and the Czech republic are safer. Also, "pacifistic" isn't a word. It's simply "pacifist".

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
4.  To say that "the principle of self-defense is not the same as restricting access to weapons" is asinine, good luck trying to defend yourself against stronger/multiple assailants with your little "fisticuffs".

Your reasoning is...well, there is none. Exactly the same logic could be applied to firearm restrictions in the US, for instance. The fact that fully automatic weapons, short-barrelled rifles and various other firearms are restricted in terms of access means that an assailant with one of them has a fundamental advantage over a citizen in a self-defence scenario. Does that mean that armed self-defence isn't legal just because criminals might be able to obtain a larger weapon? The quality of your reasoning is utterly shocking.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
Furthermore, your claim that this does not have to be the case as "you can use whatever you have at hand to defend yourself" is incorrect, there have been many cases where individuals have been unjustly persecuted because they defended themselves, their family or their property with a weapon (whether it was legal or not).

Unjustly persecuted according to whom? You? Or to legal professionals and juries of their peers? Sorry, but whilst your personal views on justice might be interesting for some, they don't really hold any weight in this discussion. Especially when the letter of the law disagrees with you.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
5. I did not call you a communist, i simply said that your perception of Saudi Arabian society (calling it "barbaric" and "cruel") was the result of your exposure to communist/socialist/pacifist propaganda which dictates that violence is always wrong, even when directed against criminals.

No, you accused me, without basis, of having been indoctrinated with Communist propaganda. Which is a totally idiotic assertion you can't even hope to substantiate, so I can only presume it was meant as a slur of some kind. Are you, in effect, saying that I an by relation every international organisation that exists and speaks on the subject is factually wrong?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:55)
6. Forcing another to embrace pacifism, which jeopardizes his life and his human dignity, is unethical and immoral.

If that's the case then why do all societies generally shun internal violence between members? This trend pre-exists the very concept of pacifism.

1. http://en.wiktionary...wiki/pacifistic

2. http://en.wikipedia....ip_in_Australia

3. When i say weapons i mean any kind of effective weapon, lethal or less-lethal.

4. Japan allows private ownership of pepper spray and stun guns, a Japanese man recently got in trouble with Hawaiian customs for bringing with him a stun gun he purchased legally in Tokyo.

Also, Austria does allow self-defense as a reason to own a firearm, although it is indeed not considered a valid reason to carry one.

5. Singapore does not have the lowest crime rate in the world; Saudi Arabia and Bahrain both have lower crime rates. Sadly you won't accept the fact that societies can be peaceful without resorting to forced non-violence, and you end up resorting to baseless accusations in an attempt to vilify and discredit them.

6. Slovenia and Brunei both have very small populations, also anecdotal sources state that Slovenia allows the private ownership of pepper spray.

7. Your claim that restricting certain types of firearm is logically equivalent to (almost) totally forbidding armed self-defense is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

8. I don't fully understand your ramblings whose intent is most likely to accuse me of calling you a communist, but i suggest you re-read the answer i have given you.

9. Your wording of "societies generally shun internal violence between members" implies that societies in general have always forbidden self-defense, which is patently untrue.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#146

Posted 20 May 2013 - 07:30 AM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
2. http://en.wikipedia....ip_in_Australia

Right, so the crux of your argument is effectively "because Australia engages in censorship, Singapore and Hong Kong manipulate their crime statistics"? Would you like to explain the logic behind that to me please? Because forgive my scepticism, but unless you can provide something reasonably merit-worthy that specifically relates to those two nations your point remains highly contentious.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
3. When i say weapons i mean any kind of effective weapon, lethal or less-lethal.

Doesn't that encompass pretty much everything, though? Do you mean, perchance, purpose-designed less lethal weaponry? In which case your argument is fundamentally flawed because the UK does in fact permit civilian ownership of certain kinds of less-lethal weaponry. In fact, there are various pretty nasty legal self-defence sprays that have pretty much exactly the same effects as tear gas and CS, but are non-noxious (AKA don't contain any compounds categorised as poisonous) so don't count as a category 5 firearm. Again, I fear much of your argument is based on ignorance of the actual legislative restrictions in the nations to which you refer.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
4. Japan allows private ownership of pepper spray and stun guns

And at what level do these proliferate society, may I ask? Are you suggesting that it's the pure presence of these laws which prevents crime (in which case, why are crime levels so high in the US?)? I don't think your argument holds any water- it's built on a fallacious principle and false equivocation. You've not demonstrated any connection between regulation that permits civilian ownership of self-defence weapons- you've just claimed causality exists where you see correlation, and factual evidence suggests even this correlation doesn't actually exist.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
Also, Austria does allow self-defense as a reason to own a firearm, although it is indeed not considered  a valid reason to carry one.

Austria does have a provision for self-defence as a reason to own a firearm, but it isn't so much a self-defence provision per se as you need to provide evidence of a clear and imminent threat to your life. It works much the same way as "self-defence" firearm laws elsewhere in Europe- the bar is set extremely high to demonstrate a requirement and therefore ownership of firearms for self-defence purposes is effectively illegal for the vast majority of citizens.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
5. Singapore does not have the lowest crime rate in the world

Burkina Faso has the lowest crime rate in the world- not that as a general statistics that has much meaning given how differently different nations categorise crime. Singapore has the lowest murder rate in the world for a non-micro-nation, tied with Hong Kong. I cannot find a single source that identifies Saudi Arabia as a nation amongst the top ten in terms of low murder or violent crime rates, and Bahrain appears on the "lowest murder rates" list, but well down from Singapore and Hong Kong. And I'm pretty sure that excludes the protesters killed by the government on a relatively regular basis. An example, if you will. So far in the last 2 years, 93 civilians have been killed in unrest in Bahrain. If you average that out over the last two years, that's an equivalent rate of five times as many people killed questionably by the Bahrain government than were murdered in either Singapore or Hong Kong.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
6. Slovenia and Brunei both have very small populations, also anecdotal sources state that Slovenia allows the private ownership of pepper spray.

And why does population have any impact on it? Singapore and Hong Kong have higher populations and lower violent crime rates than several nations you've highlighted.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
7. Your claim that restricting certain types of firearm is logically equivalent to (almost) totally forbidding armed self-defense is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

How? Pretty much every nation permits the use of force in self-defence. Most nations permit lethal force in self-defence. The tools that individuals are permitted to wield in the name of self-defence are an entirely separate issue.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 22:10)
9. Your wording of "societies generally shun internal violence between members" implies that societies in general have always forbidden self-defense, which is patently untrue.

Not at all. Societies continue to permit self-defence. You just appear to be living in some kind of dystopian dream-world where you've projected your own personal worries onto a range of different nations and are holding an effectively untenable argument that nations that permit the ownership of self-defence weapons are safer, when all evidence suggests that this is without factual or evidential basis.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#147

Posted 20 May 2013 - 07:47 AM

QUOTE (Killerdude8 @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:28)
No but the people getting stabbed scream loudly.

You would be surprised to know that many people don't know they have been stabbed, they usually think they have been punched, until they feel the warmth of the blood.

Urban Legend
  • Urban Legend

    No, f*ck no.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 04 Jan 2005
  • None

#148

Posted 20 May 2013 - 07:56 AM

QUOTE (Stephan123 @ Tuesday, Apr 9 2013, 12:42)
And I thought stabbing was only a Berlin thing. mercie_blink.gif

And I thought people in Texas actually had balls.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#149

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:09 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 20 2013, 08:30)
absolute nonsense.

1. The vast majority of your retorts are severely flawed:

- Your perception of Austrian weapon laws is wrong (and even if Austria has strict firearm laws, it still permits the unregulated ownership and carry of less-lethal weapons).

- The UK, Belgium and The Netherlands either severely restrict or totally forbid all self-defense weapons (Belgium and The Netherlands even go as far as to forbid the ownership of batons)

If this is not the case then give me the name of one effective self-defense weapon which can be obtained and used (in justifiable circumstances) both legally and easily in at least one of these countries.

- Your view of the middle-east is biased, as it is based on a pacifistic indoctrination which dictates that all violence is always wrong.

- Ad hominems do not constitute valid arguments.

I advise you to stop cherry-picking, manipulating and feigning ignorance in order to defend your irrational beliefs.



2. Population and population density directly affect crime rates as less people (and less people per KM²) decreases the chances of naturally violent individuals being "set off", whilst also limiting the scope of their actions by offering a reduced number of potential victims.

However it is true that other factors such as poverty and sexual frustration also play an important role.


3. Stop taking the piss with your "virtally all nations allow the use of force in self-defense".
Are you seriously expecting me to believe that an average man can sucessfully defend himself from a large dog or stronger/multiple human aggressors with his bare hands?


4. Forbidding another from defending himself is unethical and immoral, not to mention hypocritical. You can argue untill you're blue in the face but this fact will not change.




sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#150

Posted 20 May 2013 - 01:15 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 12:09)
1. The vast majority of your retorts are severely flawed:

2. Population and population density directly affect crime rates as less people (and less people per KM²) decreases the chances of naturally violent individuals being "set off", whilst also limiting the scope of their actions by offering a reduced number of potential victims.

3. Stop taking the piss with your "virtally all nations allow the use of force in self-defense".

4. Forbidding another from defending himself is unethical and immoral, not to mention hypocritical. You can argue untill you're blue in the face but this fact will not change.

Rather than telling my my retorts are flawed whilst failing to explain your logical reasoning or justify your arguments with empirical evidence, why don't you demonstrate the flaws in my responses? Surely if your argument has such a basis in fact you should be able to produce plenty of evidence that supports your reasoning. Why have you been unable to? Why has your argument consisted of equal parts intentional inaccuracy and wilful ignorance of numerous examples that effectively disprove your thesis? Why do you insist on attacking my arguments with no substance when, if your thesis was correct, you should have plenty of data to rebut me with? Maybe, just maybe, your inability to properly quantify your arguments and explain your logic and how you came to the conclusion that your spurious evidence constituted proof of causality is evidence in and of itself that your theory is untenable?

You can claim I'm "wrong" without giving evidence and whinge about my interpretation until you are blue in the face but without explaining how you've concluded causality from very weak correlation and without providing reasonable, rational and statistically accurate evidence to demonstrate your argument it will remain untenable. Attacking specific in my rebuttals whilst actually failing to respond to my fundamental points doesn't improve the standing of your argument.

There are numerous other factors that contribute to violent crime levels, be they economic, political or social, but you ignored them all to chase your completely incomprehensible "nations that outlaw ownership self defence weapons are more violent" thesis. The hypocrisy in you applying one of these standards as if it were a rebuttal of my argument whilst entirely failing to take them into account in your own is as hilarious as it is astounding.

It is a statement of fact. I can't help it that you have decided that your own arbitrary standards of what constitutes a legal right to self-defence completely contradict anything legally enshrined, can I? As I've said before, the issue in this case is not the legal reality of situations but your own interpretations of reality. It becomes quite tiresome to argue against someone whose thesis is purely a product of their own imagination. There are only do many different ways one can say "you are factually wrong".

I don't disagree. You just don't seem capable of understanding the fact that a right to violent self defence doesn't entail the possession of weaponry.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users