Terrorist attack in the Ottawa Parliament
- Thread starter Humanity has risen!
- Start date
I still contend he is a purposeful troll. But who knows, I could actually be wrong.
I doubt you're wrong, Thrasher.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I aim to please, m'lady
As for HHR, if he's a troll, he's a good one - or maybe I just suck at spotting them? Who knows.
The freedom to defend yourselves? You basically depend entirely on the state to provide for your safety. If anyone decides to kill you, you will have to sort yourself out without a weapon or hope you have enough time to call the police(and also hope they arrive in time).
Btw, armed free men are also the last line of defense against tyranny. As the european governments continue to strip away your individual rights and become more and more authoritarian, the day might come where you are going to wish the people could offer actual resistance to it.
It is that old story about living in confort and prosperity for too long. Europeans have lost their survival instinct. Do you actually consider the possibility that your life of peace and plenty might eventually cease to be? Or do you even consider the possibility of something immediate and banal, like being assaulted by a mentally ill person or terrorist?
Remember, none of the 396 victims made by this guy had the means to defend themselves. 2 or 3 more guns that day and I doubt more than a handful of people would have gotten wounded or killed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 269
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,201
It is incredible how stupid and tired this argument is. Hindsight is always 20/20. So, yes, if someone would have showed up at the scene with a gun, knowing a) who this Breivik guy is and b) that Breivik shot first and c) that everyone else holding and shooting a gun is the good guys, then, yes, hypothetically speaking there could have theoretically been less victims.
But life ain't like that where the bad guys are easily identifiable or where the situation is crystal clear. In real life enemies don't show up as reds on your HUD.
Imagine you hear some gun shots in the distance. You pull your gun and head in that direction. You see someone shooting at someone else. You fire without even thinking twice because you are scared and agitated. How do you even know you're firing at Breivik and not at some other guy who just happens to be firing at Breivik? [also please remember that Breivik was disguised, wearing a Norwegian police uniform].
See what I'm getting at? The more guns, the more people with poor/flawed judgment you're going to have at a scene.
Heck, if you allowed free gun carriage and there'd be a situation like that and if I personally had a gun, out of sheer self defense I'd shoot at anyone and everyone who wields a gun first, especially if I'd see someone firing at a "cop" (= Breivik in police uniform disguise).
In the end we might end up with not "only" 396 victims but hundreds more because everyone was thinking everyone else was the bad guy when they started shooting.
So all you Internet sheriffs with impeccable judgment and aim might want to rejoin us in the real world some time where things aren't as crystal clear as judging an event hours or days after it took place.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 3,201
Humanity has risen!
SasqWatch
I aim to please, m'lady
As for HHR, if he's a troll, he's a good one - or maybe I just suck at spotting them? Who knows.
I can post a picture I took from my hotel room with a view of Ottawa a few days ago if you guys don't believe me.
I live in one of the most socialist societies on Earth, one that is much like yours. Is it so unconceivable to fathom that some of its inhabitants might actually come to disagree with some of its values?
Among them is freedom of expression. In other Western countries depending on who you are you might have to watch what you say and some political speech might be illegal. In Canada there are even Human Rights tribunals who can punish you for saying supposedly offensive things. For example, it can be very dangerous to start for example criticizing Islam, and depending on what is said you might even get arrested. The truth is that if you begin to make certain types of speech verboten, you don't support freedom of expression at all.
Then of course, the right to bear arms.
And overall, a lesser emphasis on forcing people to depend on the state for some services.
People point out the gun homicide statistics, but I wonder how many of them are due to gang infighting, which while they are sad killings, ultimately consist of people dying by the sword.
But in Canada and other Western countries, the truly bad guys all still get their hands on arms and the ordinary citizens are left powerless. I'm reminded of the shooting in Toronto's Eaton Centre some two years and a half ago, where a criminal started shooting people right in one of the busiest malls of the country. Or the guy who traveled in the Greyhound Bus and started stabbing someone and eating his corpse. Again here, people were defenceless victims, exited the bus and let him do this horrible defiling. It seems that in some respects it contributes to creating a culture of helplessness.
So people definitely shouldn't act like depriving citizens of arms is all rozy. What bothers me the most is that it seems to be born out of a desire for control. I guess this is what the founding fathers of the US had in mind when they made the second amendment. They realized the inherent oppressiveness of government, and thus they sought to be able to do with as little government interference as possible and to enshrine these principles into law to safeguard them.
Things are never crystal clear, especially in such dangerous situations. But nevertheless, when people bear arms, it makes for a more level playing field or so to speak. While people might make errors of judgment, on the other hand people have to be extremely careful not to behave crazily with arms, when they are surrounded by many other bystanders who casually bear arms too.
Ah yes, America, Land of the FREE and Home of the Brave; you'd have to be brave to want to live there!!
If it aligns more with my values it's normal I envy some of the things they have, such as a more vibrant Christian faith and a greater emphasis on personal freedom.
I did actually consider moving there at some point. At this point I'm beginning to know some people and I have skills in demand, so it would probably be relatively easy to find maybe a better paying job. However, I won't go ahead with it, because it would mean my children would grow up without knowing French and would live too far from their grandparents and other relatives.
Last edited:
D
DArtagnan
Guest
In a world where most people seek to confirm their beliefs, rather than to question them - no, it's not a surprise.
The majority of the population might as well have attained their beliefs through a giant database that delivered them through random number generation.
The ability of the human mind to adapt the world around them, to whatever they happen to believe, is substantial.
It's how people like Hitler managed to make something as incidental and trivial as religion and race into a way to determine whether people were people or merely rats.
Ultimately, we will never agree until we all start questioning our beliefs.
Logically, you're right. The more people with guns - the more dead people is the result.
That's a wonderful level playing field.
So what, I can't have weapons.
I can't sell young kids drugs and neither can you.
People in the us can't drink alcohol until they're 21.
Your points are useless.
Gun ownership is a reason for me not living in the US not the other way around.
Regarding free speech, while the laws are against them, you can actually say what you want. Just not in public.
I can't sell young kids drugs and neither can you.
People in the us can't drink alcohol until they're 21.
Your points are useless.
Gun ownership is a reason for me not living in the US not the other way around.
Regarding free speech, while the laws are against them, you can actually say what you want. Just not in public.
(sigh)
The massacre took over one hour. It was on a small island. Breivik basically took position on high ground and played "practice range" while the poor people tried to hide or escape. Some people were shot while trying to swim away by the sea(!). That is what it was like.
The "stupid argument" here is without a doubt the one you are presenting. Yes, if there were armed people at the scene the shooter would have encountered resistance and would not have been able to pick and choose targets for several minutes, carefully aiming and reloading his guns in the process.
You only need a bit of common sense to figure that out. Sad thing is Europeans don't have that anymore.
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 269
Brilliant reasoning there bro. Too bad reality begs to differ:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466
Fact is you are confusing cause and effect. Switzerland has one of the highest rates of civil gun ownership in the world and it is also one of the safest countries to live.
Gun prohibition only means law abiding citizens won't have them. Criminals can still get their glocks and ak-47's with the friendly local smuggler. And they will be much bolder acting against you knowing that you will be a defenseless bitch.
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 269
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Unfortunately, the amount of people holding guns is not the only factor.
I would agree completely that if America wasn't sick and infested with racism, poverty, excessive class division, massive amounts of crime, and other ignorance-related issues - guns wouldn't be a big deal.
If you can eliminate the real problems - then I wouldn't give two shits about guns. Guns wouldn't even have a reason to exist and people would stop wanting them.
So, I'll make you a deal - Get rid of the problems I'm talking about and I'll shut up about guns.
The thing is, though, that taking guns off the street is easier than taking money away from the rich or placing insight into the bigot or religiously motivated "good citizen".
I guess that's the core of the problem with America. They love money more than they love guns - so there's really no way to get rid of the cause, just the symptoms.
Now you are starting to make some sense.
But do you really think eliminating the fundamental right of self-defense is the answer? Will it actually help in anyway? Is it worthwhile to give away such basic liberty in exchange of a vague promise of safety? I never been assaulted in my house, but if I had I am quite sure I would like a gun to be around because I know the police would not arrive in time.
One thing in common with all these shooting massacres is that the perpetrator always chooses unarmed victims. There is a practical reason why it is always schools and theatres. If the guy tried to do it in a gun range or police station, it wouldn't be a "massacre" to begin with.
But do you really think eliminating the fundamental right of self-defense is the answer? Will it actually help in anyway? Is it worthwhile to give away such basic liberty in exchange of a vague promise of safety? I never been assaulted in my house, but if I had I am quite sure I would like a gun to be around because I know the police would not arrive in time.
One thing in common with all these shooting massacres is that the perpetrator always chooses unarmed victims. There is a practical reason why it is always schools and theatres. If the guy tried to do it in a gun range or police station, it wouldn't be a "massacre" to begin with.
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 269
D
DArtagnan
Guest
The answer?
I'm as certain as I've been of anything in my life that if you take away as many guns as you possibly can - the result will be less dead people.
To me, a single life is more sacred than any human construct that doesn't actually save or create a life in return.
Except the results are in: gun bans don't reduce violence and don't reduce deaths. Australia and the UK are the perfect examples.
You are not being reasonable, you are formulating "opinions" based on ideologies and platitudes.
You are not being reasonable, you are formulating "opinions" based on ideologies and platitudes.
- Joined
- May 19, 2013
- Messages
- 269
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I'm not talking about gun bans - I'm talking about taking guns away.
I'm not basing it on anything except extremely simple logic. I rarely go by anything else.
If you don't understand how guns cause deaths because of their lethality and range - then you probably need to study up on human anatomy and physics a bit.
zahratustra
SasqWatch
- Joined
- January 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
So you are saying, before I will start quoting statistics, that number of homicides committed with a firearm in the UK and Australia is comparable to that in the USA?
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,721
Humanity has risen!
SasqWatch
Questioning beliefs is something that actually goes both ways. I used to hold the contrary of many opinions I hold now. I was repeated these points everywhere around me since I was hold enough to listen, and nothing predisposed me to ever believe any otherwise.
Except at some point around ten years ago or so maybe I started telling myself that maybe Americans aren't as bad as everyone says they are. Maybe it's too easy to seemingly blame them for all the world's sins. Maybe they have important and relevant things to say and maybe I should listen. And I did.
The difference is that gun ownership serves a legitimate and important purpose, that of self-defense.
If thieves sneak into my house at night and I wake up to find them terrorizing my wife and my two children, just how am I supposed to defend them and make sure the scoundrels don't harm my family? As someone who recently became a father this is something which I think about frequently and which worries me.
And regarding free speech, to disallow certain kinds of speeches in public while sanctioning others creates a chilling effect and collateral damage. Not to mention that even for speech deemed heinous, it gives it a special undeserved mystique, rather than trivializing it through healthy debate when countered by other speech.
When you remove killings due to gang rivalries the difference certainly isn't as dramatic.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
As I said, we will never agree until we all question our beliefs and continue to do so.
Americans are human beings - and we're all essentially the same.
The problem with America is how it has evolved - and the only reason it's worse than a lot of other places is because of how powerful America is.
I don't deal with blame - and I don't really care about blame. The only reason I even bother to talk about blame is because people try to deny it.
Blame does nothing good - and I focus on problem solving. That's my thing, really.