It not about a "gun culture," but a "death culture."

[elohiym]

Paranoid much? :chuckle:

That doesn't address my reasoning. The U.S. has been attacked in recent years, buildings were destroyed, citizens were murdered, wars ensued. Other countries have nuclear missiles pointed at our cities and have the ability to invade the U.S. It has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with practical preparation in light of reality. The U.S. doesn't have large military and intelligence agencies because it is paranoid. It's prudent to foresee danger and prepare. My reasoning is based on the same reasoning that justifies the U.S. military. Are you against having a military?

 

[moparguy]

And rapists will find a way to commit rapes if they really want to, regardless of our laws against rape.

Indeed they will.

So the question is, what's ethically right to do in these cases?

So if your point here is that we don't need any laws regulating the ownership of firearms because the criminals will disregard them, well, your argument is foolish.

It would be foolish. But that's not my argument.

Government should use the "power of the sword" against those doing certain kinds of evils; for instance, using guns to carry off crimes.

Otherwise, if you're not doing anything morally wrong, the government has no business doing anything to you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you go to Walmart you will see more and a greater variety of knives designed for hunting and killing humans than for preparing food.



Way more than a few.



You are neither addressing my argument nor making a relevant point.



Why do knives have to be at the same level for you to be interested in controlling them like you want to control people who own guns?

Because, despite all your lame protestations otherwise, guns and knives are different. I also do not want to control people who own guns. I do think it prudent to our best to make sure that people who plan to carry and use guns in public should be trained to do so. That is as much for their own protection as it is for the protection of the public.

 

[PureX]

Government should use the "power of the sword" against those doing certain kinds of evils; for instance, using guns to carry off crimes.

We already have laws against murdering people. The problem is that guns make it so easy that it's happening too often. And we need to find a way to minimize this.

Your response does not recognize the actual problem.

Otherwise, if you're not doing anything morally wrong, the government has no business doing anything to you.

Morality has nothing to do with it. The purpose of our legal system is to protect us from each other, not to make sure we're "morally right". Again, you aren't recognizing the actual problem.

 

[gcthomas]

That doesn't address my reasoning. The U.S. has been attacked in recent years, buildings were destroyed, citizens were murdered, wars ensued. Other countries have nuclear missiles pointed at our cities and have the ability to invade the U.S. It has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with practical preparation in light of reality. The U.S. doesn't have large military and intelligence agencies because it is paranoid. It's prudent to foresee danger and prepare. My reasoning is based on the same reasoning that justifies the U.S. military. Are you against having a military?

In the case of an invasion, civilian populations are protected by international law and substantially protected in practice. The 20th century produced the least number of war casualties in history because the wars were fought by proxies - professional army against professional army - and not by the bulk of the civilians.

Once you draw poorly trained civilians into fighting wars they become legitimate military targets and the number of deaths will multiply hugely.

The days of militias confronting invading professional armoured divisions should be consigned to history, since they will fail militarily and many will die unnecessarily.

 

[Quetzal]

That doesn't address my reasoning. The U.S. has been attacked in recent years, buildings were destroyed, citizens were murdered, wars ensued. Other countries have nuclear missiles pointed at our cities and have the ability to invade the U.S. It has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with practical preparation in light of reality. The U.S. doesn't have large military and intelligence agencies because it is paranoid. It's prudent to foresee danger and prepare. My reasoning is based on the same reasoning that justifies the U.S. military. Are you against having a military?

Then you should join the military! You get to play guns for real!

 

[bybee]

We already have laws against murdering people. The problem is that guns make it so easy that it's happening too often. And we need to find a way to minimize this.

Your response does not recognize the actual problem.
Morality has nothing to do with it. The purpose of our legal system is to protect us from each other, not to make sure we're "morally right". Again, you aren't recognizing the actual problem.

It helps if citizens come to a consensus of what is "right/helpful" behavior and what is "wrong/harmful" behavior.
The Law of the Land/Community is for that purpose is it not?

 

[Quetzal]

It helps if citizens come to a consensus of what is "right/helpful" behavior and what is "wrong/harmful" behavior.
The Law of the Land/Community is for that purpose is it not?

Sure, in a perfect world that would be great. The problem is not everyone is capable of making that distinction. Everyone, from their own perspective is "right" but our perspectives vary by such a wide margin there would be absolutely no consistency.

 

[PureX]

It helps if citizens come to a consensus of what is "right/helpful" behavior and what is "wrong/harmful" behavior.
The Law of the Land/Community is for that purpose is it not?

No, not really. The founders recognized from the start that we would never agree on what's good and right because we all determine that by what's good and right for ourselves. And that the purpose of government is to establish and protect what's good and right for the community as a whole, as well as protecting us from each other.

For example, it may be good and right for the community as a whole to build a road or a bridge in some specific place. But because we individuals determine what's good and right relative to our own needs and desires, many of us will not want to build that road or bridge. So it's the government's job to make us build them, anyway, because they are good for us as a collective community even though they may not benefit us at all individually.

Also, as we all know, people have different ideas about what they think is right for them to do to other people, and so we need a government entity to stand between us and protect us from each other, according to the ideal of establishing and maintaining an equal balance between all and each of our rights and responsibilities.

Beyond that, the government is supposed to stay out of our moral priorities. That's what the separation of church and state is supposed to keep it from meddling in.

 

[bybee]

No, not really. The founders recognized from the start that we would never agree on what's good and right because we all determine that by what's good and right for ourselves. And that the purpose of government is to establish and protect what's good and right for the community as a whole, as well as protecting us from each other.

For example, it may be good and right for the community as a whole to build a road or a bridge in some specific place. But because we individuals determine what's good and right relative to our own needs and desires, many of us will not want to build that road or bridge. So it's the government's job to make us build them, anyway, because they are good for us as a collective community even though they may not benefit us at all individually.

Also, as we all know, people have different ideas about what they think is right for them to do to other people, and so we need a government entity to stand between us and protect us from each other, according to the ideal of establishing and maintaining an equal balance between all and each of our rights and responsibilities.

Beyond that, the government is supposed to stay out of our moral priorities. That's what the separation of church and state is supposed to keep it from meddling in.

In this country "We" have promoted the rights of the individual as of paramount importance and in the process have virtually destroyed the sense of community which is so essential in a civil society. Since I grew up in an era wherein sense of neighborhood solidarity, pride in city and state and loyalty to country were all givens, I am a bit more sanguine about us than you appear to be?
I'm hoping we shall come to realize that rights of the individual must be tempered by what is the most good for the most people.

 

[Quetzal]

In this country "We" have promoted the rights of the individual as of paramount importance and in the process have virtually destroyed the sense of community which is so essential in a civil society.

Can you give some examples?

 

[bybee]

Can you give some examples?

One example is mainstreaming of children with emotional and or physical difficulties into the public school classrooms. There are pluses and minuses here. Often, a difficult child will have an aide assigned exclusively to them as an attempt to keep their disruptive behavior at a minimum. Often, the teacher and other students must wrap themselves around the needs of one disruptive student.
The plus side is that the majority of these students adjust well into the mainstream and it gives the other students an opportunity to learn to empathize and be helpful with those less fortunate.

 

[Quetzal]

One example is mainstreaming of children with emotional and or physical difficulties into the public school classrooms. There are pluses and minuses here. Often, a difficult child will have an aide assigned exclusively to them as an attempt to keep their disruptive behavior at a minimum. Often, the teacher and other students must wrap themselves around the needs of one disruptive student.
The plus side is that the majority of these students adjust well into the mainstream and it gives the other students an opportunity to learn to empathize and be helpful with those less fortunate.

And how has this "destroyed the sense of community which is so essential in a civil society", as you put it? Further, what alternatives do you suggest in your example?

 

[bybee]

And how has this "destroyed the sense of community which is so essential in a civil society", as you put it? Further, what alternatives do you suggest in your example?

It hasn't destroyed sense of community. It is a very small example of catering to the individual which may create a hardship for the group as a whole.
School budgets are limited. The allocation of resources for "one-on-one" attention necessarily takes away resources which could be used to benefit the group.
In the class room, disruptions interfere with the learning process.
An alternative is to remove disruptive students to a separate learning environment.
But this is a tiny example of seeking to address the needs of individuals on a daily basis wherein the benefits to society at large are thought to outweigh the possible negative impact on the group.

 

[Quetzal]

It hasn't destroyed sense of community. It is a very small example of catering to the individual which may create a hardship for the group as a whole.
School budgets are limited. The allocation of resources for "one-on-one" attention necessarily takes away resources which could be used to benefit the group.
In the class room, disruptions interfere with the learning process.
An alternative is to remove disruptive students to a separate learning environment.
But this is a tiny example of seeking to address the needs of individuals on a daily basis wherein the benefits to society at large are thought to outweigh the possible negative impact on the group.

Let's talk broad examples, then. You seem to believe there is a deteriorating factor when we begin to address individual needs. I would like to talk about those examples.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

...The days of militias confronting invading professional armoured divisions should be consigned to history, since they will fail militarily and many will die unnecessarily.

If only somebody told the: Afghani's, Vietnamese, Iraqi's . . . . They didn't get the memo.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[patrick jane]

If only somebody told the: Afghani's, Vietnamese, Iraqi's . . . . They didn't get the memo.


DJ

1.0
​

I wonder what makes people run headlong into death, fighting a force or a government they can't defeat. It must be propaganda or brainwashing. Something convinces them that life will be better if they fight and die ? Or do most think they won't get killed ? I wonder.

 

[PureX]

I wonder what makes people run headlong into death, fighting a force or a government they can't defeat. It must be propaganda or brainwashing. Something convinces them that life will be better if they fight and die ? Or do most think they won't get killed ? I wonder.

The truth is that in most cases there is a man with a gun right behind them, that has sworn to shoot the man in front if he doesn't fight. And there's a man right behind that man, with the same order. And so on.

Another sad truth is that young men like to fight, and to kill things. They are often quite stupid, and controlled by their animal natures.

 

[The Berean]

The truth is that in most cases there is a man with a gun right behind them, that has sworn to shoot the man in front if he doesn't fight. And there's a man right behind that man, with the same order. And so on.

Another sad truth is that young men like to fight, and to kill things. They are often quite stupid, and controlled by their animal natures.

Or just maybe people fight to protect their land, their way of life, their familes? Why did Native Americans fight back against the U.S. Army? Why did the Vietnamese fight against American forces? Why did the Mujahideen fight against the Soviets? Why did the Spartans fight against the invading Persians? Why did all thse groups fight? Was it because they like to kill and were stupid?

 

[The Berean]

I wonder what makes people run headlong into death, fighting a force or a government they can't defeat. It must be propaganda or brainwashing. Something convinces them that life will be better if they fight and die ? Or do most think they won't get killed ? I wonder.

What is the alternative? Just allow an invading army to destroy your way life, your culture, your family?