I know who Dad is, who's Mom?
I know who Dad is, who's Mom?
Lance's girlie?Originally Posted by KevinD
Lance is a hermaphrodite. He's both Mom and Dad.
Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.
Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.
Lance is a hermaphrodite. He's both Mom and Dad.
but that's merely a general maxim. You need to apply it within reason or else you'd end up with anarchy. As usual, the question is not which of two extremes to go for because that almost always ends badly, but rather to work out which of the many shades of grey is the best compromise.
So jog my memory - which one of the countries mentioned was a democracy before the respective genocides or other mass killings began? Unless I'm missing something, the only place with a sort of democracy in place before things got ugly was germany with the Weimar Republic. Ironically, people in the time between the end of WW 1 and 1933 had very easy access to guns because the country was lousy with them after the surrender of the german imperial army. I believe that in no small part the government's trouble in subduing the nazi, communist and imperialist movements that eventually brought down the republic was due to the fact that they didn't have much of an advatage in firepower.Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
But wait, that's not possible in a Democracy!
On an aside, it seems the numbers stated for Uncle Joe are far too small.
what does that stat prove in the present context?
I agree with you, this particular case is not a good example for the debate on gun laws. key questions for the legal framework of a country should be pondered with a long term perspective in mind and not under the impression of an isolated recent disaster.No offence to anyone, but there is literally no winning this argument. For either side. Not in this instance.
Here is a guy that set off no bells, alarms, whistles. One day he snaps. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned it out, and succeeded.
There was no stopping him.
Would stricter gun control have stopped him from killing people? No. He would of just found a different way to accomplish his task. Possibly killing more if it had been bombs.
Could some CCW citizen have stopped him? Honestly, the thought of this happening frightens me even more. Ask any police officer that has had more than 4 years in, and they will tell you, low light fight or flight scenarios are 'THE' scariest situations to be in. These are trained individuals. So unless some super human with built in night vision and reflexes faster than superman... No, it would of just made a scary situation even more terrifying.
Would the thought of other people carrying firearms have stopped him? Obviously not. He was wearing body armor and TAC helmet.
Obviously, both sides of the political spectrum will skew this in their direction, but the fact of the matter is, there was just no winning in this situation, for anyone, flat out.
you wish...
History shows the gruesome nature of human beings and that was the point of my graphs. It's insane, irrational, and down right dumb to think that Democracies are immune from revolution or government imposed killings.but that's merely a general maxim. You need to apply it within reason or else you'd end up with anarchy. As usual, the question is not which of two extremes to go for because that almost always ends badly, but rather to work out which of the many shades of grey is the best compromise.
So jog my memory - which one of the countries mentioned was a democracy before the respective genocides or other mass killings began? Unless I'm missing something, the only place with a sort of democracy in place before things got ugly was germany with the Weimar Republic. Ironically, people in the time between the end of WW 1 and 1933 had very easy access to guns because the country was lousy with them after the surrender of the german imperial army. I believe that in no small part the government's trouble in subduing the nazi, communist and imperialist movements that eventually brought down the republic was due to the fact that they didn't have much of an advatage in firepower.
On an aside, it seems the numbers stated for Uncle Joe are far too small.
what does that stat prove in the present context?
I agree with you, this particular case is not a good example for the debate on gun laws. key questions for the legal framework of a country should be pondered with a long term perspective in mind and not under the impression of an isolated recent disaster.
you wish...
Our current president used the military to kill 4 American citizens without due process. It's not a huge number but it proves that even modern Democracies kill their own citizens.
Nice post Iffy.I would rather someone like this have the easy option of a gun which has limited potential of destruction rather than resorting to explosives or chemical weaponry that has as much (and usually more) killing power. Explosives or chemical weaponry that can be made from every day household items. Single person killings would hold a stronger argument for gun control than this particular incident
12 killed is unfortunate but is a small price to pay (even when compounded over all gun shootings involving "innocent" victims every year) to protect one's freedoms which have been mentioned in numerous posts in this thread already. Compare that to the 14 killed in a truck crash this Monday and yet no one mentions stricter vehicle ownership laws. Is one any worse than the other? Both were caused by people not using sound judgement.
This is a bit of a stretch but..
On a personal note...
I do not see any appeal in firearms. I do not own one and hopefully never will. I think they are impersonal and make bad decisions too easy to make. I do not have anything worth protecting. If the unfortunate robbery/random shooting occurs most likely I will die. I sleep just fine at night knowing that this is a possibility as is a meteorite falling out of the sky into my skull or suffering an aneurism while taking a shit. My one exception is the loss of freedom. Whether through invasion or tyranny I will take up arms when that freedom is threatened.
Having said that I do believe that an individual has the right to own a gun or as many as they want I suppose. I have no issue with people wanting to defend themselves, their family, or their property. In fact I applaud them for it. They are a necessary evil as long as a single person has access to one.
I wish we lived in the world that Jez believes is possible. Of course as soon as we have total peace and harmony we will be invaded by extra terrestrials and have no idea how to defend ourselves anymore. Anal probes for all
As a dyed-in-the-wool misanthropist, I concur with your original assessment of humans and society. I just draw different conclusions from it. There certainly is a slight risk that even governments that are stable democracies now might turn tyrannical in the future. In that unlikely event, there is a small chance that an insurrection might succeed in bringing down that hypothetical tyranny by using guns. What are the odds of that acutally happening?
Meanwhile, day after day, actual people actually die or get wounded in armed robberies, gunshot accidents or spontaneous outbursts of violence that got much uglier with guns than without them.
So in my book the benefits of stricter gun laws (I don't even think a complete ban is warranted or acceptable) outweigh the risks and restrictions of individual freedom by far.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
