This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
DOTD - Debate of The Day #52
Return to board index
Post by
Rankkor
Nope, there are several moral reasons why it should not be done, but pragmatism beats them all, Torture is simply NOT effective.
Subject someone to enough pain and they will say anything to make it stop, its amazing the complex and convincing lies one can make up under duress to prevent more pain. Its actually worse than just having the suspect lie without torture.
Lets assume for a moment that this was like on "24" and torture was an 100% effective fool-proof method of information gathering, would I still approve of it? Hard to tell, but basic human decency would dictate that no, its not worth to trade away our humanity just to get some intel.
Post by
Squishalot
Suppose we had a magical / mystical way of killing someone and examining their entrails for the information we were looking for. Would that be acceptable? I don't think we can justify any sort of activity which would normally entail criminal charges.
That being said, it then goes back to the old philosophical problem - is it worth killing / harming one, to save many?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
FatalHeaven
#34: Would stricter gun laws lower crime?
I base tonights topic after reading
this
.
Many people, not neccesarily in that article are claiming that better gun control laws could of prevented the Colorado tragedy. Simple put, I disagree.
From a humorous stand point:
This
.
But humor aside, in regards to tragic events like this, what honestly makes people believe gun LAWS would prevent CRIME? The whole meaning of crime is that laws are broken.
Do you think the laws would make a difference? How or why?
Post by
Squishalot
But humor aside, in regards to tragic events like this, what honestly makes people believe gun LAWS would prevent CRIME? The whole meaning of crime is that laws are broken.
Because there's a lower incidence rate of gun crimes per capita in countries like Australia with stricter gun laws than in the US (that's the argument).
Gun crimes aren't always committed by hardcore criminals (i.e. those who would break the gun laws because they're breaking the law anyway) - there are going to be incidents where someone wants to vent their frustrations, and who may be dissuaded from doing so by the absence of a firearm (or alternatively, may be encouraged to do so by the presence of a firearm).(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
yukonjack
#34: Would stricter gun laws lower crime?
Where are we talking about, in the US or everywhere? Also which type of gun laws specifically? Aquisition of guns related to type ie: long guns or handguns, bolt action, semi or fully automatic?
Personally I don't think more laws will lower crime because good people don't need laws to be good and bad people don't let laws stop them from being bad.
Post by
FatalHeaven
Where are we talking about, in the US or everywhere?
If I meant it to be specific to the US I would have said as much. The example I used just so happens to be in the US because of recent events.
Also which type of gun laws specifically? Aquisition of guns related to type ie: long guns or handguns, bolt action, semi or fully automatic?
Does it matter which type of gun? They are all dangerous. They all allow people to kill others. I don't see how limiting it to a certain gun-type helps.
Post by
Magician22773
Washington DC had the strictest gun laws in the US until a year or so ago when they were deemed unconstitutional. Prior to that, it was all but illegal to own a handgun in DC. Yet is still ranked near the top in all violent crime catagories in the country. DC was even known as "the murder capitol" of the US in the 90's.
No. Gun laws will not lower gun crime. If you want lower crime, start with fixing the busted economy we have. Poverty contributes more to criminal activity than pawn shops do. Second, start locking up gang bangers and other low-life criminals, and make prisons less of a vactation for thugs. And finally, swiftly execute
anyone
convicted of first degree murder. Let the man with the gun know that when he pulls that trigger, he may as well be pulling it on himself, and maybe he will think twice.
Post by
yukonjack
If I meant it to be specific to the US I would have said as much. The example I used just so happens to be in the US because of recent events.
You didn't specify a location which is why I asked.
Does it matter which type of gun? They are all dangerous. They all allow people to kill others. I don't see how limiting it to a certain gun-type helps.
Yes I think it matters quite a bit, a farmer wanting to purchase a small caliber long rifle such as a 22 should not be in my opinion be subjected to the same restrictive laws as a gun enthusiast wanting to purchase a semi automatic handgun or rifle. Also I don't think guns are dangerous, I think people are dangerous.
To Magician
And finally, swiftly execute anyone convicted of first degree murder
What about the innocent people that are convicted? such as found here
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/article.aspx?aid=43716
Post by
hatman555
Where are we talking about, in the US or everywhere?
If I meant it to be specific to the US I would have said as much. The example I used just so happens to be in the US because of recent events.
Also which type of gun laws specifically? Aquisition of guns related to type ie: long guns or handguns, bolt action, semi or fully automatic?
Does it matter which type of gun? They are all dangerous. They all allow people to kill others. I don't see how limiting it to a certain gun-type helps.
I'm not sure if you are reading Yukonjack's questions with a certain connotation or tone, but it seems to me that the wording in your answers is a bit aggressive.Can we take a less aggressive approach when answering questions?
I think guns are tools. As tools they can be used and abused. The abuse of guns has resulted in people using them as defense against people that abuse them. It's hard to change something like that when it will usually be the people that use the guns correctly, first impacted by laws.
I think that gun control can start on guns that have no practical use in the civilian population. Guns for hunting and sport are one thing, machine guns build for destructive potential are another thing.
Would more control on guns lower crime? I think it would change the types of crimes that happen. As Yukonjack said, guns stop being dangerous if there is no person behind them.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
FatalHeaven
I'm not sure if you are reading Yukonjack's questions with a certain connotation or tone, but it seems to me that the wording in your answers is a bit aggressive.Can we take a less aggressive approach when answering questions?
Uhh... I can try?
Nothing I said was meant to be taken as 'aggressive'... honestly Hat, I'm probably one of the users here who tries to avoid aggression and confrontation when conversing with others. I've even made public apologies when I did feel I crossed a line (referencing an incident with Adamsm & Wicca awile back).
Could what I said been said nicer? I'm sure. Anything can be made out to be taken wrong; however what I said was not meant to be as such. I just respond to people; and as long as what I'm saying isn't vulgar, and doesn't attack a user, I'm not sure what rule I'm not abiding by?
Personally, I think I've taken a lot of flak for different reasons, from different users since I created this thread and have remained decently composed throughout. I don't regret making this thread, I rather enjoy it and hearing peoples opinions and never do I set out to
be rude
to anybody.
That being said, there are times when I feel more or less adamant about certain things and it is those instances in which I assume you are referring to when you accuse me of being aggressive. It is those times, that I try to be crisp and precise with what I'm saying, I can't exactly help if directness is taken for aggressiveness can I? It's not like I said
"What an idiot! Of course I didn't mean just the US you imbecile. L2read!"
I don't think "If I meant it to be specific to the US I would have said as much." is aggresive. Especially with a follow up statement to explain myself such as "The example I used just so happens to be in the US because of recent events."
In the case that yukon felt attacked, then I apologize. I still lack seeing how I did anything wrong, but regardless, I will apologize.
Post by
MyTie
I don't find Fatal's post aggressive either.Does it matter which type of gun? They are all dangerous. They all allow people to kill others. I don't see how limiting it to a certain gun-type helps.I read an article... somewhere... I can't find it anymore, about how a law that limited guns in movie theaters would help. It's as if this man, who went out and MURDERED and MAIMED people, would somehow be deterred by not being allowed to bring a gun into a movie theatre. As if, he had intended on murdering as many people as he could, but decided against it, as bringing guns into movie theaters was against the law. I'm beside myself in amazment at how someone who could arrive at such an illogical conclusion has the capacity of logic to get their shoes tied in the morning.
The only guns that will be removed by anti-gun laws, is the guns of those who abide by laws.
Post by
FatalHeaven
You didn't specify a location which is why I asked.
I didn't specify a location because I didn't want one specified. I wanted to know peoples opinions regardless of current laws wherever they or I may be. That being said, as I said to Hat, if you felt as though I was becoming aggressive towards you, that was not the goal; I apologize.
Post by
yukonjack
In the case that yukon felt attacked, then I apologize. I still lack seeing how I did anything wrong, but regardless, I will apologize.
I didnt feel attacked though I did feel your reply was overly defensive all I was asking for was some clarification to a very generalized question.
Also Hat's post was all his own with no prompting from me.(##RESPBREAK##)136##DELIM##hatman555##DELIM##You're too quick to post! And yes, as Yukon said, my post was all me, no prompting from him ^_^
Post by
hatman555
You didn't break any rule. I'll talk to you more about it if you want to chat on Gtalk. I added the email in your sig to my chat.
Personally, I think I've taken a lot of flak for different reasons, from different users since I created this thread and have remained decently composed throughout. I don't regret making this thread, I rather enjoy it and hearing peoples opinions and never do I set out to
be rude
to anybody.
You're always going to get negative with the positive. I know you don't regret making this thread, because you keep up with it, and you link it in your signature, you are proud of it, and I think lots of other people enjoy it too. I know I do even though I don't post often, I'm an avid reader. I would say, don't stress about the negativity. Just go with the flow.
That being said, there are times when I feel more or less adamant about certain things and it is those instances in which I assume you are referring to when you accuse me of being aggressive. It is those times, that I try to be crisp and precise with what I'm saying, I can't exactly help if directness is taken for aggressiveness can I? Unfortunately, we don't get to decide how other people read our messages. I have the same troubles as you in that respect, and so to most people when we deal with written type. Communication is a lot about body language and tone too. We lose those things in posts. We get smiles tho!
>=O
O.o
^_^
. Sometimes a crisp tone comes across the wrong way. Sometimes even though we want to answer something simply and quickly, we must add more of a flourish to the type so that in the end the message is both clear and friendly.
In the case that yukon felt attacked, then I apologize. I still lack seeing how I did anything wrong, but regardless, I will apologize. He posted above, he did not report if that's what you think. I've seen yukon around the forums for a while, and know he's got a tough skin. He is also a smart guy, and will defend his questions like he did above. Which brings us back to your question! <---see what a good transition back to topic ^_^
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
FatalHeaven
The only guns that will be removed by anti-gun laws, is the guns of those who abide by laws.
This is pretty much how I feel about it as well.
Post by
612548
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
This might be a stupid question, but i'm not familiar enough with US gun laws to be sure, so i'm going to go ahead and ask anyway.
I can't find it anymore, about how a law that limited guns in movie theaters would help.
Isn't that law in existence anyway (sort of)? As far as i know, it's legal to own a gun in the US, but not to walk around with it, only to keep at home or in a store or something.
That sort of begs the question - how do you casually stroll into a movie theatre with an assault rifle in your backpack?
The only guns that will be removed by anti-gun laws, is the guns of those who abide by laws.
I tried to address a possible reason in my first reply. What are your thoughts on that?
Gun crimes aren't always committed by hardcore criminals (i.e. those who would break the gun laws because they're breaking the law anyway) - there are going to be incidents where someone wants to vent their frustrations, and who may be dissuaded from doing so by the absence of a firearm (or alternatively, may be encouraged to do so by the presence of a firearm).
Post by
hatman555
Isn't that law in existence anyway (sort of)? As far as i know, it's legal to own a gun in the US, but not to walk around with it, only to keep at home or in a store or something.
Gun law is a complex thing. I wish I knew more about it. I don't because of lack of experience.
I know there are permits to carry a weapon. I know there are permits to carry the weapon, and have it hidden. The shooting at the movie really got me thinking about things, I think I'll do some reading on the laws that are out there tomorrow. Must sleep now though.
Cheers,
Hat
Post by
yukonjack
That sort of begs the question - how do you casually stroll into a movie theatre with an assault rifle in your backpack?
If your referring to the recent tragedy in Aurora I believe it was reported he had stashed his weapons and body armor just outside the emergency exit door.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.