Gun Control

valcik said:
Well, it's not very common, last case I remember happened almost ten years ago or so. I guess the empathy toward own family is much stronger than empathy toward someone trying to harm it.
Click to expand...

The fact that this kind of thing is viewed as maladjusted instead of perfectly fucking logical (if brutal) is emblematic of how stupid, fat, complacent and reliant upon arbitrary authority people have become. There's a goddamn good reason the vigilante is a popular subject of various forms of media. People say in public how horrible and dangerous vigilantism is and then they go home and watch a Batman movie, read a Punisher comic, hell they let their kids watch all kinds of stuff like this. Some of us fucking know better than to believe everything a person says with their public face.
 
Pariah Dog said:
I'm sure many of you are asking "where's your empathy?"
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with empathy, it's simply following law and order. A very novell idea I know. You do not want a biased jurisdiction as it might one day happen to drop on you. Having laws based solely on lynching people, just ends up in depotism where a punishment is not based on the basics of a civiliced society, but mob rule. It's a very small step from murdering thiefs to throwing people that are homless into jails and labeling critics as a 'dangerous' subject to society who should also be detained. This is exactly the kind of law you had in the Soviet Union, or now in China, or Saudi Arabia. You can not maintain an open society where criticism and free thinking are celbrated while having excesive and draconic laws, separation of power isn't just a form of governance of a state it's supposed to prevent the concenration of power and thus the corruption of it. We've seen time and time again what happens to societies that don't follow those principles and it always hits ordinary citizens as well.
 
I'm just going to add in here that it is hard to think of some criminals as human. When they cross that line to acting more "animal" (rapist's, serial killers, pedophiles, and such), and are caught in the act I am completely fine with someone acting as judge/jury/executioner. This also has thousands of years of historical context as being highly moral and was once considered justice and it has only been in the last couple of centuries that western society has moved on from accepting this. In the end its hard to argue against the simple adage of "some people just need killing". I mean there is zero reason that someone like Charles Manson should have been left alive, and if he was shot by a regular person while committing his crimes not one person would have cared.

Some animals do not deserve "empathy".

@Crni Vuk
I see you talking about following law and order? Law and order is laid out by the government, what do you do when the law becomes unmoral?
 
Burning witches and torturing people because they thought they would practise witchcraft, was also once seen as correct and fair treatment, not to mention the torture of suspects which would then confess every shit while being tortured, regardless if they did it or not. Should we also get back to medieval thinking too? I mean it worked for thousands of years to believe that the earth was flat and demons would posses you when you got an epileptic seizure. Again, this has nothing to do with morals, but in what kind of society you actually want to live in. We're all individuals, but every individual is also a human beeing. And what happens when you don't seperate the judge and jury for example, can be seen in all the show trials they had in the Soviet Union, their Gulags and secret prissons. This is what you will get guys when you don't have a jurisdiction that follows law and order based on the principles we established for the liberal democracies we're living in and always go for the 'revenge' card.

*Edit I find it in particular ironic, since a few people here complained about how barbaric islam, the shariah and dangerous the religion is. And then we find some here in full support of lynchlaw, parents cracking the skulls of a thief open and so on.
 
Crni Vuk said:
This has nothing to do with empathy, it's simply following law and order. A very novell idea I know. You do not want a biased jurisdiction as it might one day happen to drop on you. Having laws based solely on lynching people, just ends up in depotism where a punishment is not based on the basics of a civiliced society, but mob rule. It's a very small step from murdering thiefs to throwing people that are homless into jails and labeling critics as a 'dangerous' subject to society who should also be detained. This is exactly the kind of law you had in the Soviet Union, or now in China, or Saudi Arabia. You can not maintain an open society where criticism and free thinking are celbrated while having excesive and draconic laws, separation of power isn't just a form of governance of a state it's supposed to prevent the concenration of power and thus the corruption of it. We've seen time and time again what happens to societies that don't follow those principles and it always hits ordinary citizens as well.
Click to expand...

Law and order has no innate virtue. None. Any good that stems from it is purely in the results it gives. Furthermore, it's a contract which demands I trade away a sizable degree of my own initiative and self-sufficiency in order to receive protection, and if it can't adequately protect me then what fucking good is it? It's fantastic for cultivating a sense of dependency on state authority and frequently absolutely fucking garbage at anything supposedly present in the terms.

Stop worshipping golden calves of statist authority. Either be pragmatic about their nature and benefits (if any) or discard them as the garbage they are.

Crni Vuk said:
*Edit I find it in particular ironic, since a few people here complained about how barbaric islam, the shariah and dangerous the religion is. And then we find some here in full support of lynchlaw, parents cracking the skulls of a thief open and so on.
Click to expand...

Oh wow. You really want to open this can? You're not gonna like what's inside.
 
A stable society is no virtue to you? Alright I guess ... You're a funny guy, I have to say almost naively cute in your idea of your pseudo-anarchism of 'might makes right'. The thing is just, that you have to show me one society where this kind of ideology of yours actually work. I would say, considering the experience we had with the societies for the last 70 years and all the attrocities in the past under draconic laws and jurisdictions as you propose them, history is rather on my side in this debate. You're enjoying the safety of this society and authority as you call it, what ever if you realize this now or not, as it does for example prevent also a lot of crimes, exactly because not everyone is following every impulse or emotion.
 
Crni Vuk said:
A stable society is no virtue to you? Alright I guess ... You're a funny guy, I have to say almost naively cute in your idea of your pseudo-anarchism of 'might makes right'. The thing is just, that you have to show me one society where this kind of ideology of yours actually work. I would say, considering the experience we had with the societies for the last 70 years and all the attrocities in the past under draconic laws and jurisdictions as you propose them, history is rather on my side in this debate. You're enjoying the safety of this society and authority as you call it, what ever if you realize this now or not, as it does for example prevent also a lot of crimes, exactly because not everyone is following every impulse or emotion.
Click to expand...

There are/were plenty of relatively stable societies that were fucking brutal and oppressive as all hell. Again, it does not possess innate virtue. If a society fucking sucks (and societies can and do suck) better that it be unstable. Stability is just as much a sign of stagnation and complacency as it is anything else. Flux and change are not and never have been inherently bad. You mock the idea of "might makes right" but when you boil it down what the fuck protects you in a statist society? Supposedly, the might of the state bearing down upon those who would wrong you (doesn't really work so well in practice). I mean, do you think the term "monopoly on violence" is just some dumb bunch of buzzwords?
 
valcik said:
Comparing NKVD and their imprisonments based on fake accusation of political crimes with some dude removing sexual offender attacking his kid? If anything, that's a thousands years old atavism, as old as humanity itself perhaps, not some stupid NKVD commie practice, don't you think?
Click to expand...
If you would make it a practise I can assure this is where it would lead to. All it takes, is one wrong accusation by someone somewhere. Mistakes happen. No jurisdiction, state, judge you name it, is perfect. That's also why we have trials. But once you killed someone, it's over. Done. You can't get them back. I am also talking about draconian laws in general not just false accusations. Again, what you propose leads to depotism. Plane and simple. And depotism is a hotbed for corruption.

GonZo_626 said:
@Crni Vuk
I see you talking about following law and order? Law and order is laid out by the government, what do you do when the law becomes unmoral?
Click to expand...
That's a tough question really. But you would have to define what you see as unmoral. What counts for me, is a jurisdiction that's at the very least giving you a a fair trial, fair in the sense that you get a jurry/judge that's impartial and someone to defend your case. Building on that, you make the laws. Mind you, even in the US or any European nation you will alwys find laws that are 'unmoral'. But that's a bit subjective anyway. As I said, what really counts is that you have a jurisdiction that treats everyone equally. A pipe dream I know, but we have at least to try to get as close as possible to that. Ands even with all it's faults, I think we can say that the US is in that regard at least closer to the ideal than North Korea or Saudi Arabia, which simply has to do with the seperation of power and that we're having a form of democracy.
 
I love the way you fellate the concept of democracy even as you decry the concept of mob rule. What exactly do you think mob rule IS? Is a tyranny better or worse when it's exacted upon you by many instead of one?
 
Democracy can become mob-rule, but it's not mob rule per definition. No clue what you're point is. Besides we're not living in direct democracies or even the 'Athean' model so to speak. We have parliamentary democracy with a seperation of power. Big difference. And it has worked for the last 70 years in most European states, like Germany, and even more than 200 in the case of the US.

valcik said:
What I propose? Fuck yourself with your monstrous strawman, I didn't propose shit.
Click to expand...
Then I am not sure what you want ... do you want the state to crack the skulls of sexual offender open? If not, then why do you approve of a father doing it because his daugher got mugged?

Either be more clear in what you want to say or I have no fucking clue what you're on about.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Democracy can become mob-rule, but it's not mob rule per definition. No clue what you're point is.
Click to expand...

Pure democracy IS mob rule and vice versa. Only by ADULTERATING it repeatedly does it start to drift away from that.

You have a wonderfully charmed notion of what exactly democracy is, I think. Just like law and order it possesses zero innate virtue, and just like law and order it is pathetically easy to subvert for tyrannical ends.

I'm sure Ug the Caveman with his animalistic, oppressive tribal hierarchy thought to himself frequently "Well, it's not perfect but it's the best system we've got, so I'll go along with it". The same could be said of the modern day everyman and democracy of any stripe.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Either be more clear in what you want to say or I have no fucking clue what you're on about.
Click to expand...
Do not make idiotic assumptions and do not try to rephrase my posts when you acknowledge you don't have fucking clue what I wrote, easy as that. I don't care at all whether you understand something or not.
 
Crni Vuk said:
That's a tough question really. But you would have to define what you see as unmoral. What counts for me, is a jurisdiction that's at the very least giving you a a fair trial, fair in the sense that you get a jurry/judge that's impartial and someone to defend your case. Building on that, you make the laws. Mind you, even in the US or any European nation you will alwys find laws that are 'unmoral'. But that's a bit subjective anyway. As I said, what really counts is that you have a jurisdiction that treats everyone equally. A pipe dream I know, but we have at least to try to get as close as possible to that. Ands even with all it's faults, I think we can say that the US is in that regard at least closer to the ideal than North Korea or Saudi Arabia, which simply has to do with the seperation of power and that we're having a form of democracy.
Click to expand...

Ok so my next question is do you have a problem with a police officer shooting someone to stop a crime?

I am asking because this person has not had a judge/jury and has now been most likely executed. What if the police officer was off duty as well?

@valcik

I think the example you are using of the father going after the thief falls more into the vengeance category. Vengeance is immoral, while justice is still moral. Even in an apocalyptic situation that is a bit of overkill to pay with your life for thievery this is why even before modern courts things like stocks were used as it punished without a permanent ending.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Sometimes I do not even understand why you're actually posting in those topics.
Click to expand...
This is the last one I'll explain to you - because there's a lot of smart and interesting people I'm glad to exchange a few words with here and there. Is that okay and could you fuck off now?
 
GonZo_626 said:
I think the example you are using of the father going after the thief falls more into the vengeance category. Vengeance is immoral, while justice is still moral.
Click to expand...

Immoral and moral to whom, exactly? About the only difference I see is that "vengeance" is an "ugly" word and "justice" is commonly perceived as having positive connotations - what's the real difference between the two? What makes you think they don't overlap? At what point exactly does vengeance become just or unjust?

Also, I absolutely LOVE this notion that the only thing keeping people from acting impulsively and committing heinous things is the authority of the state bearing down on them. That kind of utter misanthropy is something I'd expect to see from a particularly religious person, not a secular person like yourself, Crni. I mean, I'm supposed to be the miserable pessimist here and yet you're the kind of person who's convinced ordinary people need the constant threat of having their shit fucked in order to keep them "in line".
 
Last edited:
Pariah Dog said:
Immoral and moral to whom, exactly? About the only difference I see is that "vengeance" is an "ugly" word and "justice" is commonly perceived as having positive connotations - what's the real difference between the two? What makes you think they don't overlap? At what point exactly does vengeance become just or unjust?

Also, I absolutely LOVE this notion that the only thing keeping people from acting impulsively and committing heinous things is the authority of the state bearing down on them. That kind of utter misanthropy is something I'd expect to see from a particularly religious person, not a secular person like yourself, Crni. I mean, I'm supposed to be the miserable pessimist here and yet you're the kind of person who's convinced ordinary people need the constant threat of having their shit fucked in order to keep them "in line".
Click to expand...

Typically I see the line as the emotion surrounding it. Shooting the guy in the middle of stopping the crime would be justice, seeking your revenge afterward by going to his house and burying a cleaver in his head is vengeance. When you are trying to stop predators from killing you livestock (using this example as this was how it was mentioned before) you deal with the ones you see, the ones committing the action. You typical shoot the fox as it enters of leaves the hen house, you don't go out and kill the first fox you see. You do this as a fox has other uses in hunting and killing other animals that interfere with your farming operation.
 
I wouldn't necessarily say that it's justice but rather simply protection really, deadly force is in some cases simply the last resort to stop someone. As soon as someone would get on the ground making clear signs to give up, it would be pretty much outright murder to kill the person in such a case.

GonZo_626 said:
Ok so my next question is do you have a problem with a police officer shooting someone to stop a crime?

I am asking because this person has not had a judge/jury and has now been most likely executed. What if the police officer was off duty as well?
Click to expand...
I already answered this question a few pages ago, yes I do, but it depends entirely on the crime and context. This is often clearly regulated, where a police officer can make use of his fire arm in certain situations, like defending a victim, preventing a felony, think about murder or something similar that could lead to severe injuries of someone. But it is definetly a complex topic and debated among schoolars how far the use of 'deadly force' can go.

*Edit but it's rather clear in some situations :

For cases where the suspect poses a threat to life, may it be the officer or another civilian, Graham v. Connor (1989) held that the use of deadly force is justified.

Which I would say is simply put a necessity. But it should never be done out of revenge or due to some emotions, just to make this clear, it should be always done with the intention to prevent imminent harm and danger.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top