The Big Picture: On The Subject Of Violence

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

karamazovnew:
Well Bob, I don't agree with you here.
When you call games and movies "art", surely you're not thinking of the 99% of crap out there. Very few titles are made for the sake of art, most are made for money.

If people like MB are going to stand up for games as art, they accept they take the good with the bad, the Bioshock with the Modern Warfare, the Portal with the Madden. You can't pick and choose what is art and what isn't.

OT: Great episode Bob. Hat is off, standing ovation, nothing to add that wasn't in the video or in the previous comments on here

I need to hug Bob.
Seriously.

blackrave:
It kinda reminds me what I said to defend games in front of my mother
"Give a madman spoon and he'll kill his neighbors, his family and then himself with this spoon"
Fact is that inadequate people will find "inspiration" to hurt and kill innocent people in anything
Ban everything and they will start to look at stars at night and weather changes
(I personally believe that it is how first religions started. "People, you all know that there was no rain for some time, but in stars I saw the answers to our troubles. We need to burn all of our young women and then gods will send rain to us. And I must emphasize, this NOT because they all declined my marriage proposals, and I'm NOT worthless human being, THIS IS THE WILL OF GODS and I am their voice." And so on. I dare you to prove me wrong)

ok I normally defend religion cause most of the time I just think people are just using it as an escape goat to pretend that Humans are not a bunch bloodthirsty pretentious jerks but you sir just said one of the coolest & scariest ideas I have ever heard

...Wait, the Oslo guy said that MW2 was just a way to train, not a motivation like the Colorado guy, its written right there in the quote. That pretty much makes it an invalid example for this video.

Violent art does hurt those who are mentally unstable, who don't naturally have these barriers against these things in the form of common sense.
But a madman will always find the muse for his madness, no matter what it is.

There's a time for seriousness and a time for frivolity, and a wise man understands which is called for.
Well done, Bob. Good of you to step up and speak your mind. No opinion is perfect, but forming one out of insight and reasoning is a huge step in the right direction.

i know it's a bit off topic but anyone see the newest Zero Punctuation? Yahtzee took a swing at poor MovieBob

Before we do almost anything we unintentionally analyse what may and may not happen, every action we take is an action where a risk VS reward scenario has been thought up and concluded in the time it takes for you to decide which way to go to work today.

You know Bob, it's you're show and you're free to pick any topic you want. But don't feel like you need to always pick happy topics to appease us. If you feel like doing a serious video or a video about past cartoons, go for it, there will still be someone watching. If I'm the only one in your audience who enjoys your serious videos, well, okay.

Well said, Bob.

all I can say is thank you. I felt I was in a world of Black and White where there is no room for surrender at all. And Thanks for reminding us that we can back away from I have to be right

That was actually, a fantastic argument.

As for the gun control debate, this guy was smart enough, dedicated enough, and unstable enough to wire his apartment to blow. He would have found whatever he needed to accomplish his fucked up ends no matter how far away or inaccessible guns become. He could have thrown tear gas then right after that bombs into the crowd.

I really dont think that a better mental healthcare system or really anything could have turned this guy back. Some people are just that deranged. How can we protect ourselves from people like this? To understand and respect our ability to defend ourselves.

I don't think I could say it better myself.

There doesn't seem to be much of a connection between this psycho and the Joker. I mean the closest thing he has to a Joker costume is red dyed hair, and everyone knows the Joker has green Hair. It feels more like he choose the name and the venue to help make him famous, so the only logical response I can have to this is to forget him. Never bring up his name or face and let the perpetrator fade into absurdity.

Artists and their creations deserve to have their work immortalize. And this coward is no Joker, no Mark Hamill, no Jack Nicholson, no Heath Ledger. He doesn't deserve to be remember like them.

ivc392:
Does any one know what could have prevented the Denver incident? GUN CONTROL!!

Nope.ave That makes too much sense

Well said, Bob. We're quick on the jump to blame various media for certain things, but we're not as quick to blame the individual. An unusual mind can't be predicted, and can't be preempted. Sad, unfortunate, but true. You can protect probabilities to a certain extent, but you can't plan for everything.

You cant control other people.

You can try, but it never works.
Build a wall? They get around it
Ban something? They go and find it
Condemn something? They do it anyway.

As a species we are nothing if not creative in finding how to get our way.

Well said.

Just want to reiterate/paraphrase one line, because it really sums up the whole argument perfectly.

"You can't predict the actions of crazy people, that's what makes them crazy."

Q.E.D. bitches, end of argument. If you could have 100% assuredly predicted FOUR years ago (well more than that, if you want to count production time) that Heath Ledger's (R.I.P.) inspired performance of the Joker would cause this brutal act half a decade later... then we would still make Batman movies and go after the CRAZY PEOPLE whom we've just identified.

And personally, I don't believe for a second that Batman (or the Beatle's Helter Skelter, or Modern Warfare, etc) are unilaterally responsible for inspiring these crazy people. Those just happen to be their avenue for expressing the crazy. If this nutjob didn't have the Joker to fall back on, he would have called himself Tyler Durden, Anton Chigurh, Ezio Alditore, Holden Caulfield or the Cheshire fucking Cat.

Oh, and final point, as a big fan of the new Batman series, I'd just like to point out how wrong this guy is to adopt the Joker pseudonym. Do we not remember one of the defining traits of the Joker : "Guns are too quick. You can't savor all the ... little ... emotions."

Art is the first thing to be censored throughout most of history. That's just how it is. But artists/people will usually bounce back and make more art.

@Katya: That's not a bad idea now that I think of it. Idiots who go around shooting places up to gain infamy deserve nothing more than to be forgotten. There will always be folks like them and the best thing for mental health professionals can do is try to spot them. But seeing invisible conditions or madness will always be an uphill battle for our mental health professionals.

@RJ Dalton: I'll agree with you the media are nothing short of idiotic about this kind of thing. Splashing evocative words like psycho doesn't help anything - but sadly the media isn't in the business of helping people understand mental illnesses and conditions or even telling the truth in a wise way. It's in the business of ratings, webshits and selling papers - and nothing grabs attention quite like evocative and shocking wording. They may tell you the truth, but they'll tell you the truth the way they want you to see it. Putting their own spin on it, if you will. (Which is also one of the reasons why I stopped watching the news - it's nothing but a depression laden finger wag-fest.)

Admitting that you're schizophrenic is a mighty ballsy thing to do on a public forum like this, so you got props from me for that. (Mind you, I'm a guy who's crushing on a schizophrenic who doesn't want people knowing that she's one.) There's your normal boring psychopath who functions as well as anyone else in public - and then there's idiots like that gunman. The thing with most psycho or even sociopaths is that they're more of a danger to themselves than everyone else - the media should take stock of this little nugget of truth.

But using the term "schizo" to describe the insane is something of a bugbear of mine too, it shows a lack of intellect and imagination on part of the speaker. There needs to be more awareness about schizophrenia and other mental illnesses and conditions and less stigma about it - the better life will be for everyone.

I know I say "I couldn't have said it better" frequently, but to say it in this case would be a massive understatement.
Movie Bob's argument and his thought process is so incredibly well done and carried out, that I can't even find any flaw or mistake to pick at--not that I'd want to, but its just something I've been trained to do.

Very well done Bob

Interestingly enough, the Joker in the Dark Knight expresses this very topic in an exemplary manner. "Do you want to know how I got these scars?" or basically "Do you want to know why I'm a deranged psychopathic robber/arsonist/murderer?" Answer: "Some [people] just want to watch the world burn." Attributing any cause to this version of the Joker is superfluous at best and impossible to satisfactorily accomplish at worst. Same with someone who would come to a movie theater filled with people with 3+ fully loaded guns.

That was awesome Bob well done :)

*slow clap*

Well, I think I can forgive you for your Amazing Spider-Man review now, Bob. I wasn't that angry in the first place, but you've shown here that you are actually a very intelligent, thoughtful person.

XDravond:

ReiverCorrupter:
*snip* due to wall of text

I'm sorry (or not ;-) but I'm gonna quote myself
"But gun control is more likely just a part in the solution to start with, best is education and/or banging some sense in to people.
You don't need a guns, you need intelligent people whom understand that since you don't have a gun they don't either....

But why am I arguing it probably wont change anyones mind and "Don't argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you whit experience.".... =D"

Well... you seem to have missed some of my major points. There are several different things that you said that are worth responding to separately, so I'll post different responses to each of them.

Let's just put aside aside the typical liberty vs. safety arguments (as I said in my post, I don't think gun control will lead to tyranny). Your main point seems to be that gun control should be part of the solution. I provided plenty of arguments to suggest that the type of gun control that most of these people lobby for won't be any real solution to our main problem. I suggest you go back and look at points 6 and 7 in my original post.

To summarize my points in the most succinct manner: gun control laws don't really affect gang violence, and gang violence is the overwhelming cause of gun deaths. Hence, gun control won't really solve much of anything.

XDravond:
Gun control isn't the perfect solution to gun related murders, but why does guns have to be?
If no one has a gun, including the gangs etc, who (in the whole world) would kill you with a gun?

I never said that gun ownership is a solution to these problems. The argument that if more people owned guns stuff like the Colorado shooting wouldn't happen is a common (and very stupid) argument made by gun-control opponents, but it is not one that I have made or intend to make.

XDravond:
But guns isn't the main problem it's the attitude of a few that endangers the rest that somehow needs to be changed, Switzerland is one quite good example of this they somehow have the same or less gun problems. So I would go over and check what's so different. If it's the gangs or other crime related people then thats what you need to focus on how to solve the current polices is quite obvious not working since people in USA feels so unsafe that they need guns.

No, no, no. Americans don't just own guns because they feel unsafe. Many of them own guns for recreational purposes as well. And the vast majority of them are law abiding citizens. My argument was that gun ownership is part of the right to defend one's self, and thus we should be careful about how we restrict it.

I don't believe in absolute rights because rights are really just conventions and have no power outside of the will of the public to enforce them. I just want people to clarify what they want and make sure they weigh the costs and benefits of restricting any particular liberty.

Listen very carefully: the cause of gun deaths in America isn't a bunch of paranoid suburbanites shooting each other: it's the gangs fighting for turf to sell drugs on.

And that was my entire point. What's different is that America has a huge gang and illegal drug problem that is the source of the vast majority of gun deaths. Gun control does not affect this problem. You seem to think that stricter gun control is part of the solution. What I'm telling you is that it really isn't.

Why? One word: enforcement.

A law is just a piece of paper until the police enforce it. Heroin and cocaine are highly illegal, but they're still easy to get. The police have to have the power to enforce the laws in order for the laws to actually work. The problem is that the gangs already have their illegal guns, and don't get these guns through legal means. Passing laws restricting how people can legally purchase firearms will do absolutely nothing to remove the guns from the gangs.

In order to really take care of the problem, you would have to grant police the power to search and seize these weapons without a warrant. Like I said, the illegal gun problem is directly tied to the sale of illegal drugs, so the powers we would have to grant to police would inevitably also give them the power to search for drugs. That screws over a lot more people than just the gangs.

And why why stop there? If you're concerned with the occasional psychopaths, you should also give the police the right to search electronic media. After all, the Colorado shooter used the internet to buy his guns, the VT shooter had all sorts of disturbing stuff on his FB account that could have tipped people off, as did the Columbine guys.

XDravond:
When was the last time you visited a place where you had to use a seatbelt whilst in a moving car?....
(giving up the freedom for safety again...) ;)

Here is the crux of my argument:

The loss of liberty that Americans would have to incur to really solve our violent gun-death problem isn't just the loss of our guns: it's a state where the police have the ability to come into anyone's home with little-to-no justification.

That, my friend, is something that everyone should be concerned about.

XDravond:
I do also know that most people are not murdering maniacs even in USA but why give the few such an easy time...

I understand the argument that the recreational benefit of things like assault rifles is outweighed by public safety. The problem is that banning assault rifles won't do anything unless you've give the police the power they need to get the illegal ones off the street. Plus, the vast, vast majority of gun deaths are caused by hand guns. What people seem to be preoccupied with are the extremely rare scenarios where psychos shoot up a public place. That's like trying to prevent lightning strikes.

Legally banning things like assault rifles isn't going to stop a committed psycho because it's too easy to get these things illegally. I know it might sound stupid: surely banning these guns will make it much harder for people to get them, that's just common sense! Well, sure, it makes it harder to get them, but that only slows people down. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, it isn't working with drugs, and it wouldn't work with assault rifles.

Go back and look at point #11 from my original post. If you really want to prevent the occasional madman your best bet isn't to ban guns (because, as I've argued above, that is almost impossible); it's to put in a more thorough system of monitoring that will allow us to potentially spot the psychos before they carry out their plans. If you make assault rifles illegal it only slows them down, because they'll just go and get them illegally.

But if you require thorough background checks and licenses for these sorts of things the psychos will set off red flags that the police can follow up on. That's really the only chance we have of preventing these things.

Think of it this way, which is a better way to prevent terrorism? Trying to close down the borders and deport all the Muslims in the hopes that you'll keep all Islamic extremists out of the country, or putting more money into surveillance and covert operations? Putting aside the fact that the former is extremely unjust, it would be almost impossible to carry out.

XDravond:
I don't live in USA and I don't think I need a gun to defend myself against neither the government nor the people because I believe I'm safe enough.
And if it's the poverty that's the problem help us "anti gun nuts" find a good solution to that "problem" and how is having a gun solving it?

This is a good question, one which I've put some thought into. I'll give you the short version and then the long one:

TLDR:
We have to fix society, not pass stricter gun laws.

LONG VERSION: I think the solution to the vast majority of gun deaths is:

1) legalizing drugs so that the gangs have nothing to sell and thus nothing to fight over. (Continuing pressure on illegal drug trafficking should make the illegal drugs way more expensive than the legal ones, and thus people won't buy anything from them.)

2) Fixing the broken public education system at the pre-university level so that people can actually get out of the ghettos and become middle class citizens.

3) major government investment in infrastructure (I'd like to see a trans-continental bullet train), which would temporarily provide a lot of people with jobs.

4) long term investment in new technology through heavy research and development, coupled with a government stipend that completely pays for undergraduate and graduate education for those who qualify. E.g., if your GPA and SAT are above a certain threshold the government will pay tuition, room and board at the accredited university of your choice.

5) Of course, none of this would work unless we turn around America's economy so that everyone can have a decent job. How best to do this is obviously the #1 debate in America right now. These are my general ideas:

A) passing protectionist measures against outsourcing, e.g. heightened sales taxes on products made outside of the U.S.

B) Tax reform:

B.1) closing all the income tax loopholes and eliminate offshore accounts and other tax havens.
B.2) generally keep corporate taxes low, but add a special tax hike for executive bonuses given in times of financial distress, and add tax breaks for creating jobs in America.
B.3) add a moderate general tax increase on Billionaires coupled with a large luxury tax on stuff like Yachts, planes, etc.
B.4) more tax breaks for the middle class as the middle class drives the economy.
B.5) keep the taxes on millionaires as they are now (millionaires are usually people who are in the process of creating a successful business, and thus should be rewarded rather than punished.)

[Note on B.3-5: there's a huge difference between millionaires and billionaires. I'm not concerned with fairness, just practicality. When wealth pools at the top in the pockets of billionaires and doesn't get reinvested in the economy by spending the entire economy becomes unstable. The fact that billionaires invest their money actually makes things worse. Economies driven by speculation are especially susceptible to things like the sub-prime mortgage crises. Capitalism works best on the supply and demand model where consumers buy concrete products, i.e. when the money is in the hands of the middle class.]

B.6) reduce taxes on people like engineers and scientists.

C) Eliminating government sponsored corporatism.

The relation between government and business should be purely business: the government pays directly for products and services rendered. No patronizing companies through subsidies. E.g. certainly no subsidies should go to oil companies in the hopes that it will decrease the price of oil.

Subsidies to consumers are alright. E.g., we should not have given subsidies to Solyndra just because we liked what they were doing, but it's okay to give subsidies to individual citizens to help them by solar panels. Stimulate demand and the supply side will follow. Allow the consumer to pick the company. It might also be acceptable to give companies subsidies as long as it's to buy specific things, e.g. if a small business wants to buy solar panels the government could foot the bill, as long as the government is helping them pay for a concrete service.

This also means that the government bailout of the banks should have actually been a forced buy-out wherein the government would have majority control of the stocks, with all that entails. Businesses should not be rewarded for failure. Either the banks should have been forced to buy back the stocks, or the government should have broken them down and sell them off piece by piece. Whatever profit the government made from the deal should be counteracted by a tax reduction for the middle class. The extra spending money would help stimulate the economy.

On the flip side, this also demands much stricter anti-trust/collusion/price-fixing laws. For example, GE has an unacceptable monopoly on energy. Often it is the only electric company in an area. One need look no further for proof that that the democrats are as bad as the republicans. MSNBC is owned by GE, which is why you don't hear the democrats complaining about its monopolies. Texas had recently taken steps to promote competition in its energy market, and it has been met with some success already.

D) cut down significantly on our military budget by

D.1) getting rid of all the unnecessary bases across the world. There's no reason for us to have so many bases in Germany, WWII and the Cold War are both over. There are also a shit-ton of officer 'bases' that are essentially just 5 star resorts for Generals and Admirals.
D.2) Cutting down the actual size of our military and focusing on quality rather than quantity. All of our servicemen should be special forces level. A large-standing army doesn't help us fight the kind of battles we've been facing. While we were losing the war in Vietnam by instituting a draft and sending over hundreds of thousands of troops, just a couple men in the SAS were winning several wars in Southeast Asia through clandestine guerrilla warfare. We need to be more like the SAS.
D.3) while at the same time increasing our military's investment in research and development. Scientific inquiry is the future and the military has been the starting point of every major technological innovation of the past century.

In regards to the whole tyranny argument...

XDravond:
And yes guns are effective against government tyranny, but how much would you bet that the "uprising" wouldn't just lead to anarchy instead? and is that not more or less the same thing?
People need to learn to talk more to solve problems and also listen more.

First of all, I'm not really arguing that gun control will necessarily lead to tyranny. However, I would like say a couple things about it the relation between the two.

I'll start off by saying that tyranny and anarchy are two completely different things. All revolutions lead to anarchy for a short period of time but then order is reestablished. Tyranny tends to perpetuate itself and get worse and worse if the people don't act.

Secondly, the whole "people need to learn to talk more..." argument is hopelessly quixotic. Talking is only good for establishing a compromise, and a compromise can only be reached when people actually have common goals and both sides are willing to make sacrifices. Rationality has nothing to do with peace or 'good' or 'evil'.

In other words, I'm a Humean. I think that we can use rationality to work out how to best accomplish our goals, but that rationality is useless for establishing those goals in the first place. (I say Humean because this view of agency is usually attributed to David Hume, who argued that "reason is a slave to the passions".) Our actions are ultimately driven by our desires, although reason helps along the way.

Being rational just means that you are logically consistent about your beliefs/desires, i.e. you don't contradict yourself. It doesn't mean that you have to be committed to peace and love or any other specific position. It's a matter of syntax, not semantics. Thus someone can have perfectly 'evil' goals and also be perfectly rational as long as the pursue those goals without contradicting themselves.

There's no point in trying to talk it out with someone whose goals are incompatible with your own. The most you can hope to do is appeal to their emotions so that they are affected more by their sympathy or some other such desire such that this desire eclipses the desire that is the source of your disagreement. In other words, you're probably way better off trying to get the person to put him/herself in your shoes and feel what you feel than arguing semantics about the objective meaning of the terms 'right' and 'wrong'. But that is an emotional appeal, not rational discourse.

XDravond:
I'm not saying ban all guns, but how many times have any uprising solved the "problems" without having the army on your side?

Well, the idea is that the people with the guns form an army. However, I will grant you that almost any revolution is always supported in part by people who defect from the corrupt government's army to join the rebels.

However... what should really have you worried is that WE ALREADY HAVE THINGS LIKE THIS:

image

This should have everyone frightened. The thing that makes tyranny conspiracies sound so crazy is that the soldiers would never go along with it. Robots, however, can be programmed. What's even worse is that private companies can buy and build as many as they want.

You don't have to just be worried about the government, you should really be worried about mega-conglomerates. I frankly think that if there's going to be any sort of tyranny, it won't be from the government, it'll be more like the scenarios in Deus Ex or Syndicate... or basically half the techno-punk scenarios in movies and video games.

(Although I wouldn't worry about things like Skynet or I Robot. AI is pretty much total fantasy at this point. Even as the hardware for computers progresses their software is still limited by programming constraints. Don't get me wrong, we'll eventually be able to program them to do cool things like physically simulate a complete model of the cell, which will lead to major breakthroughs in biology. They just won't be able to think for themselves any time soon. And that's a good thing.)

That concludes my series of rants. Yes, I was bored and I took this as an opportunity to put some of my ideas on paper, and that it was otherwise probably a waste of time.

trophykiller:

ReiverCorrupter:
[Epic snip]

This. This is well documented, logical, and intelligent. I applaud you, good sir.

Thank you, kind sir!

I normally only post to criticize Bob's work now and then.
I usually agree with his points but he comes to a weak, biased summation sometimes that I just have to try to point out because so many people (myself included) enjoy and follow his breakdown of art and find it enlightening.

And I must say I loved this one. Agree %99 on every point and conclusion, I just had a small difference with art being "sacred". It is powerful and important yes, but it's our freedom that's "sacred" not just artistic freedom.

But great breakdown of this whole thing Bob. Tasteful, spot on, and thorough. Nice work. =)

this is the best vid bob has put out in a long time...and he consistently puts out good vids.

bravo bob.

Evil Smurf:

ivc392:
Does any one know what could have prevented the Denver incident? GUN CONTROL!!

Nope.ave That makes too much sense

Nope, it doesn't make any sense. thats the problem. Mexico has gun control, and 40% of the nation was taken over by cartels. Chicago has gun control and they lead first world cities in murder rates.

Why? because gun control is not crime control. it makes as much sense as banning artwork because it doesnt solve a problem that already happened. Norway has gun control and look what ONE mad man did.
you cant 100% prevent it just by 'banning guns' or 'banning assault clips' (especially since a clip=/= a magazine and the 100 round mag Holmes used Jammed like huge clips do and thats why no one who understands guns uses them which may haved a few peoples lives but im not going to speculate on that). and when you look at crime reports, more than 60% of all homocides (baring police action or self defense) are males 15-30 useing handguns that are not acquired legally and almost every victim and suspect were already convicted or suspected felons. and even more unfortunate is the majority are blacks.

So we dont have a problem with guns...we have a problem with gangs and gang culture. thats the problem. these kids and young people think its cool for whatever reason to join a gang and shoot people for drug money and handle illegal weapons.

While legal gun owners use guns 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime or use in self defense, with another 2 million cases suspected of going unreported. the vast majority dont involve firing a shot. and i further this point by pointing out that legally owned automatic weapons have killed only 4 people since 1937. and three of those happened AFTER the brady law and clinton gun ban and one of those 3 was a cop.

While im not calling guns artwork (though ive seen some pretty stylish custom made guns), they suffer the same as art for people blaming them with out being educated or even having experience with them when it doesnt matter in alot of cases because some crazies shoot up a place. Ignoring the biggest mass murder outside of 9/11 was caused by a car bomb in oklahoma.

banning guns or media forms wont solve any problem and will only create new ones, what we should be doing is find the REAL ways on how to prevent gang crimes and how to detect mentally unstable mad men.

ReiverCorrupter:
*snip*

Whilst I on a theological standpoint can agree with you I on some points must say that I do not believe guns will ever be the best solution possible, it is however one of the "more possible" ways.
But what has made me go from "I wouldn't mind having a gun" to "why bother" is two things.
1. If "I" get a gun everyone would want one to defend themselves from "me" and then get a bigger gun, a silly serious example of this is the Cold War.
2. I'm going to die at some point, so is everyone else life is to short to prepare for all "if"s. Stay positive and keep your hope and you will live, maybe even have fun whilst doing that.

Shit will happen whatever we do guns will not fix everything and I'm ready to pick one up if I get a good enough reason but for now I don't know what that would be.

I read through your post (takes some time.. ;)) and still I don't see the need to having guns anything else than shooting animals. And you don't do that with small fire arms machine guns or assault rifles, hunting rifles and MAYBE sniper rifles... So I agree on the point "don't ban guns entirely but restrict what people can get them and how". Personal (civilian)defense shouldn't be needed that's what police is for, sure it's not the perfect solution either(they take to much time and don't solve all crime to name a few of their problems...)

But I really disagree on the point of your following solutions

ReiverCorrupter:
//
Think of it this way, which is a better way to prevent terrorism? Trying to close down the borders and deport all the Muslims in the hopes that you'll keep all Islamic extremists out of the country, or putting more money into surveillance and covert operations? Putting aside the fact that the former is extremely unjust, it would be almost impossible to carry out.

Surveillance and covert operations is not the solution neither is deporting Muslims (like there's no "native" terrorists...)-.

The solution is learn how you can live together without killing each other... I can live with disagreeing with you for example I don't need to kill you for it and I hope you don't need to kill me either for disagreeing with you, so why not try that on a larger scale.... Yea I know "religious beliefs" and people with (other ;))psychological problems is a bit harder to convince but should be possible without guns... That would remove the need for all guns for everyone (except perhaps hunting ones..)

(Sorry for not as well built arguments but I'm kinda bored and don't believe in guns for defense is a good idea, they are fun using to shoot paper targets though. But I will probably not change my mind no matter what you say, just like you probably won't either.)
Thank you for reading and your interesting reasoning, I really like good debates even though I'm not so great in written ones...

"Live long and prosper"

XDravond:
(Sorry for not as well built arguments but I'm kinda bored and don't believe in guns for defense is a good idea, they are fun using to shoot paper targets though. But I will probably not change my mind no matter what you say, just like you probably won't either.)
Thank you for reading and your interesting reasoning, I really like good debates even though I'm not so great in written ones...

Meh. I'm not necessarily trying to change your mind, I'm really just killing time. I do enjoy a good debate. In fact, I'm studying to be a professional philosopher, so it's actually good practice for me. At the very least it provides me an opportunity to get my thoughts on paper. I'd actually say that a typed debate like this is much better as it forces you to put thought into your responses and not just fall into a shouting match.

That being said, I'm going to respond with another massive wall of text in the following post. You don't have to respond if you grow weary of the argument. I'll understand.

XDravond:

ReiverCorrupter:
*snip*

Whilst I on a theological standpoint can agree with you I on some points must say that I do not believe guns will ever be the best solution possible, it is however one of the "more possible" ways.

I never said guns were the best solution to anything. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. I'll quote myself again:

ReiverCorrupter:

XDravond:
Gun control isn't the perfect solution to gun related murders, but why does guns have to be?
If no one has a gun, including the gangs etc, who (in the whole world) would kill you with a gun?

I never said that gun ownership is a solution to these problems. The argument that if more people owned guns stuff like the Colorado shooting wouldn't happen is a common (and very stupid) argument made by gun-control opponents, but it is not one that I have made or intend to make.

XDravond:
But what has made me go from "I wouldn't mind having a gun" to "why bother" is two things.
1. If "I" get a gun everyone would want one to defend themselves from "me" and then get a bigger gun, a silly serious example of this is the Cold War.
2. I'm going to die at some point, so is everyone else life is to short to prepare for all "if"s. Stay positive and keep your hope and you will live, maybe even have fun whilst doing that.

Shit will happen whatever we do guns will not fix everything and I'm ready to pick one up if I get a good enough reason but for now I don't know what that would be.

There are two discussions here. One is about whether you should personally own a gun, the other is about whether you have a right to own a gun. You seem to be focused on the former. That's fine, it's your business. But it doesn't really have any bearing on the second question, i.e., whether people have a right to have guns.

That being said, the reasons you listed seem a bit out there.

As far as #1 goes... My friends have guns and I'm not focused on defending myself from them. People also know that I have guns, but as of yet they haven't come and tried to kill me before I kill them. Why? Because I haven't threatened them. People are only going to be afraid of you if you go out waving your guns around in public or if you threaten them. As I said before, if you think the gun violence in America is crazy paranoid middle class white people shooting each other then you've lost touch with reality.

Now, as far as #2 goes, this argument would probably be effective against the doomsday prepper people who spend half of their lives preparing for the end of days. But buying a gun for home defense and taking it out to the range a couple times will hardly interfere with your life. In fact, you might find shooting to be fun. It's about the same as making some emergency plans in case of a natural disaster.

Either something bad will happen to you, or it won't. It's just a matter of statistics. Hope is completely and totally irrelevant. All it does is make you comfortable, it certainly isn't going to save you in the event of a disaster. If anything, it makes you less prepared. I agree that you shouldn't become obsessed with survivalism, but most people who own guns in America aren't.

I'm not saying that you should own guns. If you don't want to have guns, that's your business. I'm just pointing out that the reasons you listed here aren't terribly convincing. Most people who choose not to own guns do it because they are afraid of them, or because they aren't willing to kill another human being. That's the #1 reason why you shouldn't own a gun: you shouldn't own it unless you're willing to use it when the chips are down.

As far as it being more dangerous to own a gun... well... I think Samuel Clements (aka Mark Twain) said it best: "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." The statistics that say this sort of thing count suicide and violent criminals and are thus rather meaningless. However, that is not to say that guns aren't dangerous. Obviously they are. But if you treat them with respect and take the necessary precautions you'll be fine.

XDravond:
I read through your post (takes some time.. ;)) and still I don't see the need to having guns anything else than shooting animals. And you don't do that with small fire arms machine guns or assault rifles, hunting rifles and MAYBE sniper rifles... So I agree on the point "don't ban guns entirely but restrict what people can get them and how". Personal (civilian)defense shouldn't be needed that's what police is for, sure it's not the perfect solution either(they take to much time and don't solve all crime to name a few of their problems...)

Well, if someone is in your house it's already too late for the police. Sure, there are accidents where idiots decide to use a 44 magnum for home defense and the bullet goes through the wall and shoots the neighbors dog. If your concern is home defense you should have a shotgun. It comes down to a trade-off: are you really so worried about rare accidents and the like that you're willing to take people's ability to defend themselves and their families if their home is invaded?

[Note: I am NOT in favor of everyone carrying guns in public. That should require a very special license that very few people should be able to get. I am talking about home defense.]

There are two approaches to the role of the government and to ethics in general: utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism is concerned with promoting the greatest good no matter what. If vivisecting 1,000 five-year-old children cures all the world's disease then go for it! Deontology goes in the opposite direction. If lying is prohibited then it is always prohibited no matter what; if the Gestapo comes to your door and asks you if your neighbors are hiding Jews you have to tell them the truth.

The best approach is a middle way between the two extremes. However, when taking this middle way, it is far better to err on the deontological side of things, or else you'll find all of your liberties quickly eroding.

So you see, I'm not saying that everyone having guns promotes the greatest good. I'm saying that people need to have the ability to defend themselves. If you're not allowed the means to defend yourself and are instead forced to be reliant upon the government for self-defense, then why should you be allowed any liberties at all? What could be more basic than self-defense?

Certainly if your self-defense falls to the government then there should also be no problem with the government telling you what you can put inside your body. They already do (see: war on drugs). What then? Should the government tell you what you can and can't eat? Well they try and do that too (see Mayor Bloomberg's outlawing of 12+ oz sodas in New York as well as his recent campaign to try to force mothers to breastfeed). It's just getting ridiculous.

What pisses me off about the gun control thing is that it is the ultimate form of the nanny state. It means that we can't even be trusted to defend ourselves. Frankly, I don't get freaked out when bad things happen and run to the government for help. Sure, if the government took away all freedom, people wouldn't be able to commit crimes. But that's a price I'm not willing to pay.

[Note: I'm not a tea partier. I think the republicans are corporate whores who would sell America out in a heartbeat. But I don't like big government that tells people what to do. I'm all for socialized health care as long as people have a choice in the matter. I'd also like to destroy the whole gay marriage debate by simply removing the term 'marriage' from all of the government forms. Gay and straight couples should just apply for the "HSW457 tax consolidation form" that grants them the same rights. Why? Because that's all the government should do: give couples tax breaks. Let someone else worry about whether it should be called marriage.]

XDravond:
But I really disagree on the point of your following solutions

ReiverCorrupter:
//
Think of it this way, which is a better way to prevent terrorism? Trying to close down the borders and deport all the Muslims in the hopes that you'll keep all Islamic extremists out of the country, or putting more money into surveillance and covert operations? Putting aside the fact that the former is extremely unjust, it would be almost impossible to carry out.

Surveillance and covert operations is not the solution neither is deporting Muslims (like there's no "native" terrorists...)-.

The solution is learn how you can live together without killing each other... I can live with disagreeing with you for example I don't need to kill you for it and I hope you don't need to kill me either for disagreeing with you, so why not try that on a larger scale.... Yea I know "religious beliefs" and people with (other ;))psychological problems is a bit harder to convince but should be possible without guns... That would remove the need for all guns for everyone (except perhaps hunting ones..)

That was just an analogy about the practicality of trying to ban guns completely.

However, as I said elsewhere, sometimes people just have competing interests that don't allow for compromise. We don't have any common interests with Islamic extremists. The only way for us to get them to stop fighting us would be for them to give up their beliefs entirely.

Here's something that you really won't like hearing...

Sometimes there is no peaceful solution.

Imagine two men traversing a great desert from two different directions. Half-way through the desert they both realize that they didn't pack nearly enough water. There is no way they can turn back. They both see a tiny oasis with a pool of water and they head towards it. They both reach it at the same time. At first they are happy but then they look down at the pool and realize that there is only enough water there for one person to make the trip. If they try to split the water neither of them will make it. What do they do?

In an idealistic world the most they could do is draw straws. But even if they draw straws, one man is still leaving the other to die of thirst: a 'peaceful' solution only in name.

In the real world both men draw their swords and only one leaves with the water.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. Death is death. A violent death isn't really any worse than dying of cancer, in fact it's probably a lot quicker. Sure, we should try to have compassion for one another, but ultimately human beings are animals, and sometimes life doesn't offer us a peaceful solution.

Organized warfare evolved almost immediately after agriculture, and, like it or not, it has been a vital part of our sociological evolution. Sure, in the modern era we would say that all forms of conquest are bad. But there would have been no empires without conquering armies. Warfare is what drives tiny communities to band together into larger communities for protection, which in turn is what allows for cities and for people to specialize in things other than food production like philosophy and mathematics. Without war we would likely still be stuck in hunter-gatherer mode.

Sure, nowadays there are plenty of resources to go around, but I wouldn't take that for granted. We are very quickly overpopulating the planet, and our resources are finite. When people start starving I sincerely doubt the UN will get everyone to share their resources and each let a certain proportion of their populations starve. The expanding circle of need will quickly contract. Why would countries like India agree to let their populations starve when they could try to conquer some poorly defended place like Africa that can give them the capacity to feed their country? Suddenly the pursuit of equality and moral condemnations against violence will have a lot less force than they used to.

Here's hoping that we don't have WWIII over food. But seeing as how no one (aside from China) is doing anything about overpopulation it's looking more and more likely. Although thankfully I don't think it will involve America and Russia in direct conflict. If it does happen I predict that the first world will be swept up in an internal conflict over how to handle all of the refugees while the third world battles it out for land. The one good thing is that since the fighting would be for land and resources no one will want to use nukes.

Jegsimmons:

Evil Smurf:

ivc392:
Does any one know what could have prevented the Denver incident? GUN CONTROL!!

Nope.ave That makes too much sense

Nope, it doesn't make any sense. thats the problem. Mexico has gun control, and 40% of the nation was taken over by cartels. Chicago has gun control and they lead first world cities in murder rates.

Why? because gun control is not crime control. it makes as much sense as banning artwork because it doesnt solve a problem that already happened. Norway has gun control and look what ONE mad man did.
you cant 100% prevent it just by 'banning guns' or 'banning assault clips' (especially since a clip=/= a magazine and the 100 round mag Holmes used Jammed like huge clips do and thats why no one who understands guns uses them which may haved a few peoples lives but im not going to speculate on that). and when you look at crime reports, more than 60% of all homocides (baring police action or self defense) are males 15-30 useing handguns that are not acquired legally and almost every victim and suspect were already convicted or suspected felons. and even more unfortunate is the majority are blacks.

So we dont have a problem with guns...we have a problem with gangs and gang culture. thats the problem. these kids and young people think its cool for whatever reason to join a gang and shoot people for drug money and handle illegal weapons.

While legal gun owners use guns 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime or use in self defense, with another 2 million cases suspected of going unreported. the vast majority dont involve firing a shot. and i further this point by pointing out that legally owned automatic weapons have killed only 4 people since 1937. and three of those happened AFTER the brady law and clinton gun ban and one of those 3 was a cop.

While im not calling guns artwork (though ive seen some pretty stylish custom made guns), they suffer the same as art for people blaming them with out being educated or even having experience with them when it doesnt matter in alot of cases because some crazies shoot up a place. Ignoring the biggest mass murder outside of 9/11 was caused by a car bomb in oklahoma.

banning guns or media forms wont solve any problem and will only create new ones, what we should be doing is find the REAL ways on how to prevent gang crimes and how to detect mentally unstable mad men.

This. ^^^

It's pathetic that we only get upset about the extremely rare shooting sprees that affect the middle class while young black and Latino men are dying in the streets every day due to gang violence. There are 300 million people in America, you aren't going to stop the random psychos. The only way to stop the REAL gun violence epidemic in America is to fix the broken system that makes these young men think that gang-banging is the only way out of poverty.

But NOOOOOO that problem is too hard. WAAAAAAHHHHHH! It would require a tax increase and an overhauling of the education and welfare systems. Obviously the Republicans have managed to convince everyone that taxes and government are bad, so we're just going to try to pass worthless legislation that won't change anything but will make all our bleeding heart supporters feel warm and fuzzy inside.

It's just like gay marriage, immigration, birth control, abortion and every other moronic hot-button issue. Political organizations have realized that the real problems America faces are too complicated and hard to solve to hold the voter's attention so they focused on these idiotic issues to whip up their bases.

The NRA is telling people that the Obama campaign has a massive gun control conspiracy because they know that stirring up controversy is the best way to get people to send them money. The NAACP realized the exact same thing, which is why they spend all of their energy on trying to lynch George Zimmerman and banning the confederate flag. They support an affirmative action program that is only capable of helping black people who are already middle class, and that sends unprepared students with terrible educational background to places like Berkeley, where they almost always fail out.

All these organizations seem to realize that trying to solve the broken public education system would require sustained effort for a long time without seeing any immediate positive results, and that their supporters don't have the attention span or patience for that sort of thing. So they take the easy way out. There doesn't seem to be anyone who is willing to deal with the problem.

This country is doomed by its own stupidity and apathy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here