Theresa May, Brexit and the like

[Pidesco]

One thing I've noticed about countries banning guns, it's strange that somehow violence shot up and then dropped down to the SAME amount BUT sexual assaults seemed to sky rocket back up, some places just as much if not more than violent crimes including guns were involved....

It's almost like humans are violent and don't NEED guns to perpetuate violence and that denying guns doesn't stop violence at all.....

 

Yes there's no reason whatsoever for private citizens to own weapons because the almighty govt will protect them from those criminals......

 

Sexual assault statistics rise in modern times are more due to a rise in report rates than actual increases in sexual assaults. Sexual assault is still one of the most under reported crimes, unfortunately.

 

Criminality in general has been going down all over the developed world for ages. Perception of criminality, however, is the problem that seems to be getting worse, due to the sensationalist media.

[Ben No.3]

I agree with pidesco. Additionally, the lack of guns result in a far smaller number of casualties, not only on the civilian or authorities side, but also on the criminals side. In country where guns are prohibited cops tend to shoot far less.

[BruceVC]

One thing I've noticed about countries banning guns, it's strange that somehow violence shot up and then dropped down to the SAME amount BUT sexual assaults seemed to sky rocket back up, some places just as much if not more than violent crimes including guns were involved....

It's almost like humans are violent and don't NEED guns to perpetuate violence and that denying guns doesn't stop violence at all.....

 

Yes there's no reason whatsoever for private citizens to own weapons because the almighty govt will protect them from those criminals......

Having access or not having access to firearms makes no real difference to crime that is based on an historical precedent or vast economic inequality

 

In SA many people have guns yet  we have some of the highest crimes statistics in the world, 350-500  rapes a day and 50 murders a day 

Edited November 8, 2016 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

 

Without a divinity or higher principles for humanity to transcend to you will either end up with nihilism or the worship of a state based on ideologies. Recent history has shown that you end up with in a lot of trouble when you try to enforce that when the citizenry cannot even defend themselves.

In the entire of Europe, weapons are illegal. Yet, I do not see any severe need for a violent revolution.

 

And no, not having a higher deity to believe in does not disable you from having morals. In fact, I'd go as far as to say BETTER morals come out of not believing in for example Christianity. For example the bible heavily punishes homosexuality. Is that a reason for us to do that? No. Yet we all are set on being Christian. We are not. We are cherrypicking the parts that we like, yet we forget the other. Can we please just accept that we moved on from that moral standard?

 

And in a Christian worldview, any form of crime is not severly punished anyway, because in the end, we all die and those who believe will come to God. Thus, assuming everyone believes, a crime is inconsequential. It is such an unimportant event in comparison to the eternity with God.

 

On the other hand, for someone who does not believe in God or an afterlife, the current life is all he gets, which makes any crime highly impactful, and any punishment highly consequential.

 

And an ideal on its own is a very dangerous thing. And the same goes for religion. Many religious people committed terrible crimes, many atheist people committed terrible crimes. But I know of no group of atheist which committed a crime because of atheism, while there are hundreds of examples of theists who committed crimes because of religion. But that is a problem that exists with every ideal.

The human rights deal with that problem very nicely btw. Look at article 30

 

 

I disagree. Without any core sets or absolutes to work as a foundation you can rationalize anything, as in anything goes. When trying to use reason alone to build an utopia on earth one will likely end up shooting those that do not want to take part of it, which has already happened the last 100 years or so. Since the state has taken the role of reverence in the place of the sacred and you have the monopoly as the state to use violence, it is possible to wage war at a large scale than local skirmishes. To understand what i am getting at, look at Faust, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. 

 

I am speaking from a western perspective of course, different rules apply for other cultures.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Without a divinity or higher principles for humanity to transcend to you will either end up with nihilism or the worship of a state based on ideologies. Recent history has shown that you end up with in a lot of trouble when you try to enforce that when the citizenry cannot even defend themselves.

In the entire of Europe, weapons are illegal. Yet, I do not see any severe need for a violent revolution.

 

And no, not having a higher deity to believe in does not disable you from having morals. In fact, I'd go as far as to say BETTER morals come out of not believing in for example Christianity. For example the bible heavily punishes homosexuality. Is that a reason for us to do that? No. Yet we all are set on being Christian. We are not. We are cherrypicking the parts that we like, yet we forget the other. Can we please just accept that we moved on from that moral standard?

 

And in a Christian worldview, any form of crime is not severly punished anyway, because in the end, we all die and those who believe will come to God. Thus, assuming everyone believes, a crime is inconsequential. It is such an unimportant event in comparison to the eternity with God.

 

On the other hand, for someone who does not believe in God or an afterlife, the current life is all he gets, which makes any crime highly impactful, and any punishment highly consequential.

 

And an ideal on its own is a very dangerous thing. And the same goes for religion. Many religious people committed terrible crimes, many atheist people committed terrible crimes. But I know of no group of atheist which committed a crime because of atheism, while there are hundreds of examples of theists who committed crimes because of religion. But that is a problem that exists with every ideal.

The human rights deal with that problem very nicely btw. Look at article 30

 

 

I disagree. Without any core sets or absolutes to work as a foundation you can rationalize anything, as in anything goes. When trying to use reason alone to build an utopia on earth one will likely end up shooting those that do not want to take part of it, which has already happened the last 100 years or so. Since the state has taken the role of reverence in the place of the sacred and you have the monopoly as the state to use violence, it is possible to wage war at a large scale than local skirmishes. To understand what i am getting at, look at Faust, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. 

 

I am speaking from a western perspective of course, different rules apply for other cultures.

 

Meshugger you are mistaken, the truth has always been right in front of you 

 

Start following my views and perspectives around Western ideology and you can indeed live in utopia 

 

But if you keep following people like that Serbian " intellectual "  that has certain real anti-Western views then you will never be happy 

[redneckdevil]

I agree with pidesco. Additionally, the lack of guns result in a far smaller number of casualties, not only on the civilian or authorities side, but also on the criminals side. In country where guns are prohibited cops tend to shoot far less.

True, but what of crime rates AND death by crimes being the same? That basically "shoots" both sides of the camp, those who wanted to get rid bc guns are evil and it'd be a safer world and those who believe guns protect and prevents crime, when the numbers are the same.

 

In essence, is there really nothing wrong at all with the population owning guns then? Taking them away does not lower crime, it's actually shown to sky rocket crimes before after some years it goes back down to where it was when guns were legal. And owning guns does not actually lower crime, all it does is give some citizens a self assurance and others a fear of being shot.

 

When it boils down to that, what basically is "wrong" with people having the right to own hand guns?

Edited November 8, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Gfted1]

Sexual assault statistics rise in modern times are more due to a rise in report rates than actual increases in sexual assaults.

Hmm, this doesn't pass my BS test. Link?

[Hurlshort]

 

Sexual assault statistics rise in modern times are more due to a rise in report rates than actual increases in sexual assaults.

Hmm, this doesn't pass my BS test. Link?

 

 

We looked a bunch of studies out of Sweden just a few months ago.  But yeah, it's not hard to find articles on what Pidesco is claiming.  This one seems to be decent:

 

http://time.com/2851844/number-of-campus-sex-crimes-reported-surges-by-50/

[BruceVC]

 

 

Sexual assault statistics rise in modern times are more due to a rise in report rates than actual increases in sexual assaults.

Hmm, this doesn't pass my BS test. Link?

 

 

We looked a bunch of studies out of Sweden just a few months ago.  But yeah, it's not hard to find articles on what Pidesco is claiming.  This one seems to be decent:

 

http://time.com/2851844/number-of-campus-sex-crimes-reported-surges-by-50/

 

For me the onus is on the person making the statement to prove it., if I was Gfted1 I would also ask for links if I didn't believe it. But I have come to realize Pidesco is someone who wouldn't post something if it wasn't true so I believe this is true 

 

But I appreciate you posting this anyway 

[Pidesco]

 

Sexual assault statistics rise in modern times are more due to a rise in report rates than actual increases in sexual assaults.

Hmm, this doesn't pass my BS test. Link?

 

 

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/pages/rape-notification.aspx

http://www.umd.edu/ocrsm/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9134799/Sexual-assault-survey-80-of-women-dont-report-rape-or-sexual-assault-survey-claims.html

http://www.secasa.com.au/pages/research-statistics/under-reporting/

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf

 

These are mostly about underreporting.

 

One other factor is changes in legislation and how sexual assault complaints are registered. Here in Sweden for instance, if a person has been in a violent abusive relationship for a long period of time, every single instance of sexual assault is now reported individually instead of in one overall complaint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

[Gfted1]

No, I'm talking about the idea that sexual assault has remained flat over history and that the increase is due to reporting the assaults more frequently. I believe its under reported but not that it has remained flat.

[Hurlshort]

No, I'm talking about the idea that sexual assault has remained flat over history and that the increase is due to reporting the assaults more frequently. I believe its under reported but not that it has remained flat.

 

Well Pidesco never claimed they were flat over history.  He just said the increased numbers in modern times are more a reflection of increases in reporting.  He brought this up because someone was trying to make a very tenuous bridge between guns being outlawed and a rise in sexual assaults.  I'm fairly pro-gun, but I still think that's a ridiculous assertion. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Hurlshot

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

Without a divinity or higher principles for humanity to transcend to you will either end up with nihilism or the worship of a state based on ideologies. Recent history has shown that you end up with in a lot of trouble when you try to enforce that when the citizenry cannot even defend themselves.

In the entire of Europe, weapons are illegal. Yet, I do not see any severe need for a violent revolution.

 

And no, not having a higher deity to believe in does not disable you from having morals. In fact, I'd go as far as to say BETTER morals come out of not believing in for example Christianity. For example the bible heavily punishes homosexuality. Is that a reason for us to do that? No. Yet we all are set on being Christian. We are not. We are cherrypicking the parts that we like, yet we forget the other. Can we please just accept that we moved on from that moral standard?

 

And in a Christian worldview, any form of crime is not severly punished anyway, because in the end, we all die and those who believe will come to God. Thus, assuming everyone believes, a crime is inconsequential. It is such an unimportant event in comparison to the eternity with God.

 

On the other hand, for someone who does not believe in God or an afterlife, the current life is all he gets, which makes any crime highly impactful, and any punishment highly consequential.

 

And an ideal on its own is a very dangerous thing. And the same goes for religion. Many religious people committed terrible crimes, many atheist people committed terrible crimes. But I know of no group of atheist which committed a crime because of atheism, while there are hundreds of examples of theists who committed crimes because of religion. But that is a problem that exists with every ideal.

The human rights deal with that problem very nicely btw. Look at article 30

I disagree. Without any core sets or absolutes to work as a foundation you can rationalize anything, as in anything goes. When trying to use reason alone to build an utopia on earth one will likely end up shooting those that do not want to take part of it, which has already happened the last 100 years or so. Since the state has taken the role of reverence in the place of the sacred and you have the monopoly as the state to use violence, it is possible to wage war at a large scale than local skirmishes. To understand what i am getting at, look at Faust, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche.

 

I am speaking from a western perspective of course, different rules apply for other cultures.

Here is my answer: sheer empathy! Empathy and rationality are hard to combine, in some parts even contradictionary, but together those two create quite well thought systems. Although it is extremely hard to decide whether rationality or empathy should dominate in one specific case.

 

I've skimmed through Faust. Very good. I've read through Nietzsche... Not a great fan. Haven't read Dostoyevsky

Edited November 8, 2016 by Ben No.3

[redneckdevil]

That was me. I'm pro gun but won't own one, don't need one (knock on wood). Was checking and found austrialia and U.K., around 1998 with the gun buy backs, sexual assult cases basically skyrocketed above murder rates.

 

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=17847

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Without any core sets or absolutes to work as a foundation you can rationalize anything, as in anything goes.

Which is, of course, a completely different outcome from people rationalizing their heinous acts towards those who do not share their faith (or worship the same deity the wrong way) with "who cares, they were heretics anyway".

Edited November 8, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Ben No.3]

 

I agree with pidesco. Additionally, the lack of guns result in a far smaller number of casualties, not only on the civilian or authorities side, but also on the criminals side. In country where guns are prohibited cops tend to shoot far less.

True, but what of crime rates AND death by crimes being the same? That basically "shoots" both sides of the camp, those who wanted to get rid bc guns are evil and it'd be a safer world and those who believe guns protect and prevents crime, when the numbers are the same.

 

In essence, is there really nothing wrong at all with the population owning guns then? Taking them away does not lower crime, it's actually shown to sky rocket crimes before after some years it goes back down to where it was when guns were legal. And owning guns does not actually lower crime, all it does is give some citizens a self assurance and others a fear of being shot.

 

When it boils down to that, what basically is "wrong" with people having the right to own hand guns?

In your scenario, you assume that crime rates and death by crime is the same number. Which simply isn't the case

Even if the number of crimes go up, there will be significantly less armed robbers to shot the victims, and there will be significance less armed victims to shot the robbers. The cops will also need to shot far less, because they do not need to assume everyone is armed with firearms. In conclusion less casualties.

 

What is bad about people having guns? Well, it leads to more casualties, and (as I stated before), it creates the inequality between those with and those without guns, leading people to want more guns, leading people to want bigger guns (if everyone has a gun, you wants bigger one), leading to more and more arming in a never ending cycle. See where I'm at? And the high number of guns leads to higher casualties of course, because of three reasons: 1. Criminals need to assume their victims and the cops are armed, thus are more willing to shoot 2. Victims need to assume that criminals are armed, this are more willing to shoot 3. Police needs to assume that criminals are armed, thus are more willing to shoot. And the casualties is not even scraping the surface. What about trauma caused by shooting someone? The families?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

There's too much euphoria in this thread.

[Ben No.3]

What a valid argument

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's a statement. Is every post on an obscure video game forum supposed to be an argument now?

[Ben No.3]

It's a statement. Is every post on an obscure video game forum supposed to be an argument now?

Yes

[redneckdevil]

 

 

I agree with pidesco. Additionally, the lack of guns result in a far smaller number of casualties, not only on the civilian or authorities side, but also on the criminals side. In country where guns are prohibited cops tend to shoot far less.

True, but what of crime rates AND death by crimes being the same? That basically "shoots" both sides of the camp, those who wanted to get rid bc guns are evil and it'd be a safer world and those who believe guns protect and prevents crime, when the numbers are the same.

 

In essence, is there really nothing wrong at all with the population owning guns then? Taking them away does not lower crime, it's actually shown to sky rocket crimes before after some years it goes back down to where it was when guns were legal. And owning guns does not actually lower crime, all it does is give some citizens a self assurance and others a fear of being shot.

 

When it boils down to that, what basically is "wrong" with people having the right to own hand guns?

In your scenario, you assume that crime rates and death by crime is the same number. Which simply isn't the case

Even if the number of crimes go up, there will be significantly less armed robbers to shot the victims, and there will be significance less armed victims to shot the robbers. The cops will also need to shot far less, because they do not need to assume everyone is armed with firearms. In conclusion less casualties.

 

What is bad about people having guns? Well, it leads to more casualties, and (as I stated before), it creates the inequality between those with and those without guns, leading people to want more guns, leading people to want bigger guns (if everyone has a gun, you wants bigger one), leading to more and more arming in a never ending cycle. See where I'm at? And the high number of guns leads to higher casualties of course, because of three reasons: 1. Criminals need to assume their victims and the cops are armed, thus are more willing to shoot 2. Victims need to assume that criminals are armed, this are more willing to shoot 3. Police needs to assume that criminals are armed, thus are more willing to shoot. And the casualties is not even scraping the surface. What about trauma caused by shooting someone? The families?

If this is true, then pray tell why violence and murder has dropped in America where we luvs our guns, but places like the U.K. the numbers have gone up? Why then is Australia saying there's no connection between guns and violence and why the U.K. the numbers along with murder have risen with "knife" violence?

Would u not agree that having guns doesn't really do anything and that they are not "evil" and that humans are violent and won't let NOT having a gun stop them?

Also if guns are so bad, then why is the murders (the thing u saying about) only dropped a .2 % compared to America where guns are legal?

Edited November 8, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Ben No.3]

There are obviously more ways to kill than with a gun. But guns are amongst the most dangerous, wouldn't you agree

[ShadySands]

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

 

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

 

Without me, my rifle is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...

 

My rifle and I know that what counts in war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

 

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

 

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.

 

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

[Ben No.3]

Where is that form? WW?

[BruceVC]

Where is that form? WW?

Oh you young grasshopper

 

Full Metal Jacket, Bennie its one of the best Vietnam movies of all time, you must watch it