Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Some Stupid Asshole Invented A Taser Shotgun
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: Whipstitch on 15 Feb 2008, 23:33 ---
--- Quote from: Rizzo on 15 Feb 2008, 22:10 ---In terms of the gun debate currently running, some of you are arguing for your right to carry a handgun in an urban setting for your protection, am I correct?
--- End quote ---
Not really, no.
--- End quote ---
Actually that's precisely what I was making an argument against. If you look back, I essentially express befuddlement over the idea of owning a gun in an urban setting and people respond by saying it's for their protection in case someone tries to do the murder act on them.
--- Quote from: Something Witty on 15 Feb 2008, 18:58 ---It isn't about not having respect for their life. It's about having more respect for my own.
--- End quote ---
I don't buy it unless you're willing to retract this:
--- Quote from: Something Witty on 15 Feb 2008, 11:10 ---As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.
--- End quote ---
That's a genuine lack of respect for another human life right there. Rationalize it as much as you want, you've dehumanized the aggressor. I might sound like someone with a rose-tinted monitor but I genuinely believe that we'd have a much better world if people weren't thinking along the lines of "X makes someone less of a person."
Crime makes someone less of a person.
Wealth or the lack thereof makes someone less of a person.
Lack of desirable genetic traits makes someone less of a person.
The wrong religion makes someone less of a person.
The wrong politics make someone less of a person.
Do you start to see where this is going? Dehumanizing one another does nothing except to render you insensitive to the needs and desires of others. Moreover, it puts you in a state of mind where you have no problem doing something awful to another human being.
If I'm allowed to get anecdotal, I'm almost twenty and I've been in literally two physical altercations in my entire life, both when I was still in primary school. I have managed to defuse every single tense situation I've ever been in, including a few where I could have been smacked around quite a bit and a couple at my old job in the inner city where much worse things could have happened, simply by treating the other party or parties involved with a modicum of respect. Diplomacy has an astoundingly high success rate.
And besides that, if you're getting robbed you might lose twenty bucks but it sure as shit isn't something worth ending another life over. Get a sense of perspective.
clockworkjames:
This thread has some good reading in it on views of lethal and non lethal force.
Also that bionic zombie dinosaurs would be fucking INSANELY AWESOME. Like, a zombie movie where a bunch of nuklear holocaust survivors get sent back in time millions of years and the radiation or whatever makes the dinosaurs into zombies and the people have to survive, but the zombie dinosaurs mutate with the technology so they get like, lasers and shit. Dueling a bionic zombie raptor atop a volcano with only a pack of gum and a taser shotgun would be awesome, all like disabling it's power armour with the electricity. And a killer sound dtack with pipe organs, electrometal guitars and a synth like the bit in DMC where Danté meets Nelo Angelo for the first time in the courtyard.
Fuck yeah :-D
Sox:
...pardon?
öde:
Why don't we just kill all the criminals in pre-emptive self-defense?
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: Something Witty on 15 Feb 2008, 11:10 ---As for your target being a living breathing human being? Nope. Sorry. As soon as the target(No longer a person, at this point) puts my life in danger, they forfeit the right to theirs. You say they have the right to live, but if they are impeding my right to live, why should I honor theirs? The answer is: I shouldn't.
--- End quote ---
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it would throw out the Geneva convention and any other regulations designed to treat prisoners, criminals and soldiers with respect for their human rights.
Another thing that worries me about the use of guns in self defence is the idea is that somehow all the bullets then fired will actually hit what they're meant to. I remember reading a report a few years back about the police armed response units in the UK which said that only 50% of the shots they fired actually hit their target. I'm thinking with any person reacting to a personal situation that percentage will probably get even lower. When people are considering whether or not to pull out a gun on somebody would they also take the time to consider the environment and the possibility of catching someone in the crossfire? I have to say I'm doubtful.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version