Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Something Witty]

It isn't about not having respect for their life. It's about having more respect for my own.

[Rizzo]

To diverge a little, back to the original topic.
In terms of the taser being shaped like a shotgun; surely the newer version is just as much a psychological weapon as a physical threat? A taser certainly scares most people but a shotgun is a helluva lot scarier. And judging by those pictures I couldn't tell a shotgun from a taser shotgun so I'd be doubly scared.
Whether police should have tasers at all is a debate for another time but I'm anti it.

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? Now what you're saying to me here by arguing this is that you're willing to kill or maim someone in order to protect your physical possessions. You would honestly use a weapon to potentially murder someone? Because this cannot be argued. Even in self defence you've still commited murder if you shoot someone and they die.
As Khar has repeatedly said, if said assailant wanted your money/possessions/sex but had no concerns about your life they would simply kill you before you had a chance to react and go about their business. However, this rarely happens. I won't say it doesn't but it's very very rare. So you would murder someone for having poor impulse control/financial circumstances/etc etc...
Now I can only think of two countries off the top of my head where this is a common attitude, the USA and Brazil (shotgun murder capital of the world).
And you wonder why the US have the highest murder rate on the planet.
Basically what you're saying here is that you're willing to commit murder in order to protect your physical possesions and your body. You're no better than anyone who'd harm you.

(You is not directed at anyone specific, just the pro firearms persons)

[Something Witty]

Actually, the "taser shotgun" as I am aware of it is a normal shotgun that fires a taser bullet.

[Alex C]

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?

Not really, no. I don't think it's really come up other than the assumption that some of us are fine with owning guns, which people extrapolated to "So you think it's okay to kill people in self defense?" to which Nodaisho said yes. The firearm part is actually somewhat tangential, all things considered.

[Rizzo]

Oh well that's ok then...
I'm still a firm believer in words over weapons. Realistically handguns are designed for only one thing, shooting people. Correct me if I'm wrong but people don't hunt with handguns. Same way a double edge blade is used only for stabbing, a handgun is used only for killing people. Sure both of them can be used for other things but they're absolutely designed with one purpose in mind primarily.
I have no issue with purchasing firearms provided they're rifles for hunting/sport and not handguns and the person purchasing them is put thru more stringent testing than they otherwise would be for getting say... a drivers license.
Anything less is frankly madness and I'm sure many would agree with me.

[Johnny C]

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?

Not really, no.

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.

It isn't about not having respect for their life. It's about having more respect for my own.

I don't buy it unless you're willing to retract this:

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.

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 

[Sox]

...pardon?

[öde]

Why don't we just kill all the criminals in pre-emptive self-defense?

[a pack of wolves]

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.

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.

[KharBevNor]

Why don't we just kill all the criminals in pre-emptive self-defense?

WE COULD GO FURTHER...ONLY THE LIVING COMMIT CRIMESSSS...ALL LIFE ISSSSS A CRIME!

[Alex C]

Correct me if I'm wrong but people don't hunt with handguns.

Yeah, they do. It seems silly to most of us with rifles because handguns are rather awful weapons, all things considered, yes, people do hunt with handguns.

And I must have missed you saying that earlier Johnny C. Regardless, it is rather a minor footnote in the real big theme of the thread: When and to what severity is it OK to harm someone else for your own interests? Because the guns really just expedite the process once the decision has been made.

[Johnny C]

Yeah, but the point being made is that carrying the handgun signifies that once the decision is made it may be quite deadly in comparison to the alternatives, and the necessity of that is in question.

[calenlass]

I thought you were someone from Dumbrella for a second. Damn.

[calenlass]

Guys, I don't know why "getting mugged" is the only situation of self-defense anyone has bothered to come up with. IronOxide said something about how if he had a million dollars, he would still value the life of the person assaulting him over the money. What if s/he wasn't after money? What if you didn't have any money at all, and they were assaulting you anyway? If I happened to be raped at gunpoint or something, and I miraculously had some way to defend myself, you bet your ass I would attempt to fuck up my assailant in self-defense. Shit, I think even if it weren't at gunpoint I'd utilise everything I know about debilitating pressure points (like certain angles at which you can punch someone in the face and drive their nose into their brain) to get them to stop. I can honestly say that anyone who would attempt rape, especially violent rape, has lost my respect for their existence and certainly earned my contempt, regardless of whether or not I could feasibly do anything about it.





On a side note, Rizz, if I were ever able to get my hands on a double-edged blade of short to middling length, I would take it and use it in my more naturalistic pursuits and for the zombie apocalypse. Double edged blades would be so nice for hand-butchering food and cooking and shaving bark off saplings for traps and a bunch of other stuff that hasn't occurred to me because I am still kind of sleepy.

[Hat]

Actually that thing about palming someone upwards in the nose so that it stabs their brain and kills them is bullshit, apparently. I was talking unarmed self-defense with the head guard at work who is basically an unstoppable arse-kicking machine  and he was telling me about a couple of good ways to hurt a dude pretty badly without running the risk of killing them accidentally and that was one of them. Apparently bouncers use it all the time and they just would not do that if there was a risk of killing a guy.

That is my only valuable contribution to this thread because I am personally completely uncomfortable with the idea of utilizing our incredible ingenuity to create something that could make the taking of human life more efficient.

Carry on, good folks.

Edit: On second read katie, you were in fact saying that it does not kill people, and stops them in their tracks!

I should read more.

[KharBevNor]

You could just try not asking for it, you shameless hussy.

[muteKi]

You shot him! He's dead! He's completely dead!


Of course I shot him -- he was attacking me with a banana!

[RedLion]

I'd like to say that, even if I was being mugged/attacked/killed, that I would stand by the code of ethics that I strive to live by, and not take the life of another living thing. But I know full well that once the adrenaline kicked in, I would fight tooth and nail and probably go far beyond just fighting off my assailant and keep pummeling him. When I'm confronted by something/one that's that hostile towards me, I'm going to be ferocious in my defense of myself.

But the concept of dehumanizing the person with cold hardness doesn't make sense to me. My problem would be going in the opposite direction--being so overcome with fury at the person who's attacking me that I would go overboard. Maybe I'm biased because I could see myself doing it, but that sort of thing seems semi-acceptable to me. Being calm and rational about killing someone, though, doesn't strike me as the same kind of deal. That's..how is that different from a cold-blooded killer? Even if a person is being hostile towards you, if you're completely cool about killing that person, my personal opinion is that your action--killing the person-- is actually the more condemnable one.

[clockworkjames]

I know a guy who was involved in being attacked and the attacker ending up dead. I never asked him about it for obvious reasons but he seems like it didn't phase him, in a way it wasn't his fault so, meh.

I guess people all act differently at taking another persons life.

[jhocking]

When you're fighting for your own life, I think instincts take over and all the ethics you've built up through careful consideration and lots of thinking flies right out the window.* If we're going to discuss this hypothetically all along we need to take our instincts into the equation.

But therein lies the point of getting guns out of people's hands: you won't be able to make a rational decision when the time comes, so if you have a gun then you are going to make a huge mistake. By making a rational decision now, we avoid an irrational decision later.

[Something Witty]

But the concept of dehumanizing the person with cold hardness doesn't make sense to me. My problem would be going in the opposite direction--being so overcome with fury at the person who's attacking me that I would go overboard. Maybe I'm biased because I could see myself doing it, but that sort of thing seems semi-acceptable to me. Being calm and rational about killing someone, though, doesn't strike me as the same kind of deal. That's..how is that different from a cold-blooded killer? Even if a person is being hostile towards you, if you're completely cool about killing that person, my personal opinion is that your action--killing the person-- is actually the more condemnable one.

No one who has said they would be okay with taking the life of their attacker. In fact, I'm the only one who has specifically made mention of dehumanizing the attacker for that purpose, and that isn't so I could be "okay" with it, that is so I could not be a broken mess of a person afterwards. I do have some pretty harsh views about it, I'll be the first to admit, but that's just the way I see things while sitting in a cushy chair with no pants on. The way I'll react in a real-world situation may be completely different. Besides that, it's not like I carry a gun everywhere I go.. Just most places.

[negative creep]

I think Mr Hocking is right.

[Something Witty]

A thought occurred to me while in the shower: Just what exactly is the difference between shooting someone(In justifiable self defense) and beating them to death in a fit of panic? Honestly. I want to know how they're different. The end result is the same, you hook a human life in defense of your own.

In scenario 1, you shoot the attacker 1-3 times, they fall over dead, or almost dead, and bleed out.

In scenario 2, you go into a fit of panic and adrenaline and start swinging. Over the course of the next several minutes you pummel your attacker into a bloody heap.

Given the choice of ways to die, I'd rather be shot.

[Alex C]

There really isn't one. As Johnny C said earlier though, it's a question of severity and likelihood. It's a lot easier to realize you're going too far with your bare hands than it is to dial down the risk with a firearm.

[öde]

When you use a gun you detach yourself from the person, dehumanise them like you said. It's not only disgusting, removing someone's humanity before ending their life, it's cold, calculated murder. If I beat the crap out of an attacker, it would most likely be an involuntary reaction and I don't think I'd manage to beat them to death. Someone else can probably answer the question better than me though.

Given the choice of ways to die, I'd rather be shot.

Why do you think your preference matters, if we're dehumanising our targets?

[Alex C]

Someone who has dehumanized other people may be more likely to shoot someone, but in that case the gun is a symptom, not the cause. My grandfather and his brother were both in WWII and have killed people. Neither hand to hand fighting (which my great uncle was a part of) nor shooting someone is in any way pleasant, and coping with either isn't easy even when you've already gone in with the mindset that killing in the particular situation is justified. Again, guns can be representative of a person's intentions, but saying guns themselves are dehumanizing is ascribing them too much power. We've had propaganda doing that job for millennia now.

[Slick]

Just what exactly is the difference

Really, there is no difference with the net result. However, with a gun, it is easier to make a snap decision and kill than it is without. If I'm beating on an assailant, and knock him out, well, that's one life saved. If someone comes at you and gets shot, they're dead.
I guess this just comes back to varying levels of regard for the lives of others.

Again, guns can be representative of a person's intentions, but saying guns themselves are dehumanizing is ascribing them too much power. We've had propaganda doing that job for millennia now.

Pardon, milennia?

[Alex C]

A millennium= roughly thousand years. We've been declaring eachother heretics, savages and animals worthy of being put to the sword for one reason or another for at least all of recorded history, so I'd say dehumanizing proganda and saying it's OK to kill people because we're better than them for some reason has been in vogue for quite some time now.

[öde]

I didn't mean to say that guns dehumanise people, but they do detach you from what you're doing somewhat, I think.

[Alex C]

Awesome.

I had something to say, but it's slipping my mind now because I just heard of the Kosovo says they're independent now thing, which is pretty much sure to stir up some kind of political shitstorm.

[Something Witty]

I didn't ask about the act, I asked about the results.

words

We're dehumanizing attackers, not victims.


This thread has turned south, almost to the point of no longer being intelligent debate, I vote it gets locked.

[Slick]

This thread hasn't turned south any time recently, as far as I'm concerned. It's been at about this level for a while.

I vote no to the lock on principle. If you're done talking, stop talking. Then dialog will die.
This is a great opportunity to prove a) that we can have discussion without necessitating a lock and b) we're adult enough to stop talking when we're done.

A millennium= roughly thousand years.

On first reading, it sounded like you were implying propaganda had been saying what was said about guns for millennia.

[jhocking]

Multiple people already said the result is the same, and then went on to point out that the act itself is what's different. Comparing the result and not the act in this case is quite misleading. That you aren't keeping up with the conversation hardly makes others bad debaters.

As for the thread having gone south, as slick points out it was already south. I was all but calling for a lock at the top of page 3.

[Alex C]

Yeah, I didn't bother to edit that part of my post because I figured context would dictate the "He means propaganda is used to dehumanize people" interpretation would be latched onto first. I guess people aren't prepared to give me that much credit yet.

[Alex C]

I know, but I have this instinct not to immediately latch onto the most batshit insane interpretation of any given post.

Hey, don't worry, it's not like I'm upset. The hunters with guns mural was hilarious.

[Cire27]

[Something Witty]

LOVE AND PEACE

[Chrasstor]

I keep feeling bad for the person that made taster shotguns when I read the thread title :[.

He was just trying the best he could.

[Boro_Bandito]

Seriously, the fact that he invented a taser shotgun implies that he is possibly quite smart. Now, there are good and bad smart people, and the fact that he wanted to make a taser shotgun leans him over towards the asshole side, but he could have been commissioned to do it. I would rather invent a less lethal weapon than a more lethal one, if I had to choose.

I made the typo "taster" shotgun twice while writing the post. Is this awesome (Y/N)?

[öde]

We're dehumanizing attackers, not victims.

What about dehumanising shitty drivers that don't indicate and killing them?

[KharBevNor]

No one ever deserves dehumanisation.

Except people who play music on their cellphones loudly on buses.