Public Safety: Guns and Driverless Cars - P2P-Zone

Mazer · 11-11-17, 01:10 PM

It's a cultural thing, I guess. As hard as it is for you to get American gun culture, I find I cannot in the slightest wrap my head around this: YouTube: 11 British police officers versus 1 guy with a knife. I get that putting a gun in a cop's hand is the equivalent of putting the power over life itself in his hand and the British people don't want that, but give the cops something. I mean, a guard dog's bark is only as assertive as the bite it threatens, and no matter how short a leash you might put on your dog, you'd never pull his teeth.

malvachat · 12-11-17, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

It's a cultural thing, I guess. As hard as it is for you to get American gun culture, I find I cannot in the slightest wrap my head around this: YouTube: 11 British police officers versus 1 guy with a knife. I get that putting a gun in a cop's hand is the equivalent of putting the power over life itself in his hand and the British people don't want that, but give the cops something. I mean, a guard dog's bark is only as assertive as the bite it threatens, and no matter how short a leash you might put on your dog, you'd never pull his teeth.

The guy with the knife will eventually get tired and and be disarmed.Yes it's comical that 11 police are there but what has that to do with guns?Are you saying he should be shot?The guy is obviously a nut job.Does that been we have to execute him?
Because of all the guns in America and the "Gun Culture"your police have to be armed.I don't at this moment feel our police either need to be or want to be.As to the average guy in the street being armed absolutely not.
There are so many aspects of American culture I do so admire. But this ownership of guns with it's so obvious (IMHO)flaws is not one of them.

Bright Eyes · 12-11-17, 07:21 AM

For my part, I don't own a gun and never have. What's more, for most of my life I held to the idea that guns were bad. That is what I was taught in school, on TV, in the media, in discussions, everywhere. We don't need guns because people will just use them to kill others, and besides, we have the police to save our bacon when we need them.

What changed my mind was the understanding that people who don't have guns can still die from them. And they do. This is because only the law-abiding obey gun-control laws; criminals still have them and use them. The only difference is that the victim can't shoot back. This makes the criminals very happy.

Ever since I started learning from alt news outlets, instead of relying on the main stream media, I have heard of many cases where law-abiding people who had self-protection were able to shoot back at a criminal, and stopped the criminal from continuing to do harm. This meant something to me.

The Main Stream Media almost never report on such events. The media has for years painted gun-owners as rednecks who are reckless with guns and that the high American gun death rate is due to them. This is not born out by the actual statistics. American law-abiding gun owners are, over all, a fairly peaceable bunch. Millions upon millions of people own guns and never do gun violence to anyone their entire lives. Most violent gun crime in America is gang related, often over drug deals or gang turf. And this is not in locations where Constitutional gun carry exists; it's mostly in Gun Control areas like Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, Detroit, where legal gun ownership is nearly impossible. So the gangsters have guns illegally. They don't care about the law, and law enforcement can't stop them having guns, so disarming the law-abiding doesn't achieve a whole lot, except make honest people more vulnerable and please those who have been conned on this subject.

People do point at the massacres that have taken place as an argument against guns, but the reverse is true. The people who were shot at were already disarmed. If any of them had the means to shoot back the situations may have turned out less destructively to human life. This, in fact, has happened a number of times when potential massacres have been less or nipped in the bud because someone was able to shoot the person starting the attack. The MSM tend not to report such things, so people are unaware of them. It is no coincidence that most of these massacres have taken place in gun-control areas, where people are unlikely to have the means to fight back.

Then there is the matter of the US Constitution, which recognizes people's natural right to own guns with a view to self-protection and even overthrowing a tyrannical government that can't be removed by legal means and is oppressing the people. The founding fathers were savvy enough to know that governments invariably attract corrupt people because it offers them power and the means to make a lot of money. So they wrote that the Second Amendment, which protects the First Amendment, ie, the human right to freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to speak against the government. The Constitution requires government to protect people's right to free speech and to bear arms, not erode them. Proto-tyrannical governments love to take away people's guns; this has happened in so many countries over the years, before they felt free to become tyrannical; the people, having been disarmed 'for the good of the people', had no means to fight back. So all of this seem like reasonable arguments to me for the owning of firearms.

I am conscious that I have probably alienated nearly everyone who still visits this forum, and I'm sorry for that to happen. But for me, in all good conscience, I do believe that the means to protect your life is a basic human right that no government has the prerogative to take away or infringe. The US government, at least, is supposed to be the servant of the sovereign people, not their master. The degree of departure from that foundational principle shows how far down the slippery slope America has gone, and in many other countries the people aren't sovereign at all, but subjects of either a monarch or the state. People are not encouraged to consider that reality, being intentionally distracted with other things.

The implied social contract that the police will save our chestnuts out of the fire is a myth; police almost never can arrive in time to save us; they usually can only arrive, at best, a few minutes later, and most attacks on people are over by then.

Over the recent years, since 9/11 in fact, I have come to realize how conditioned my thinking had become by my social environment. During this time I have been working at studying alternative views that the MSM don't acknowledge, or deride as nutter opinions. I have found many things out that have been liberating to me, but I know has put me outside what most people will accept. People generally don't like to have their world view disturbed. Most people don't want to be cast out by their friends, so they conform and fit in. That's their choice, but I prefer to value truth in all subjects, not just about self-defense.

So sorry guys; I'm in a very different camp to the one I was in at the beginning of Napsterites, all those years ago.

Mazer · 13-11-17, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by malvachat

The guy with the knife will eventually get tired and and be disarmed.Yes it's comical that 11 police are there but what has that to do with guns?Are you saying he should be shot?The guy is obviously a nut job.Does that been we have to execute him?
Because of all the guns in America and the "Gun Culture"your police have to be armed.I don't at this moment feel our police either need to be or want to be.As to the average guy in the street being armed absolutely not.
There are so many aspects of American culture I do so admire. But this ownership of guns with it's so obvious (IMHO)flaws is not one of them.

Presented without comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0xTcF2kUhw

malvachat · 14-11-17, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer

Presented without comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0xTcF2kUhw

Giving members of the public the power to enforce the law can't be right.In this case the guy was ex military so would have an element of self control.Average guy on the street wouldn't.Some might argue kill the guy anyway and rid the world of another scum bag.I just happen to believe in the rule of law and trained people in charge of fire arms.

albed · 19-11-17, 07:29 PM

I theorized many years ago that thousands of years of human slavery had selected for large numbers of submissive, weak-minded humans like Malvachat who can't imagine everyone having equal rights. I've seen it confirmed enough that I ought to write a dissertation.

albed · 25-11-17, 12:12 AM

Jeeze! I thought others would help malva become less stupid by pointing it out to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by malvachat

the guy was ex military so would have an element of self control.

The Texas church shooter who killed 26 recently was ex military.

The men who chased him down and shot him weren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by malvachat

Giving members of the public the power to enforce the law can't be right.

I guess you all like him the way he is.

albed · 28-01-19, 03:54 PM

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...ss-destruction

Quote:

This Killer Opioid Could Become a Weapon of Mass Destruction
By Anna Edney
December 12, 2018, 5:00 AM EST

It would take only 118 pounds of fentanyl to kill 25 million people.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ght-by-senator

Quote:

Senator Seeks Strategy to Prevent Fentanyl Terror Attacks
By Anna Edney
January 28, 2019, 2:59 PM EST

A U.S. senator wants to know if national-security officials are prepared for the “frightening prospect” that the potent opioid fentanyl could be used to attack Americans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by albed

October 31, 2017
fentanyl-poisoned darts dropped from a drone have so much potential, or just some baggies of it wrapped around M-80's.

Took them long enough but they're finally coming around.

You're welcome Anna Edney.

12-11-17, 07:21 AM	#3
Bright Eyes Global Security Octopus Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: In the 1960s Posts: 621	For my part, I don't own a gun and never have. What's more, for most of my life I held to the idea that guns were bad. That is what I was taught in school, on TV, in the media, in discussions, everywhere. We don't need guns because people will just use them to kill others, and besides, we have the police to save our bacon when we need them. What changed my mind was the understanding that people who don't have guns can still die from them. And they do. This is because only the law-abiding obey gun-control laws; criminals still have them and use them. The only difference is that the victim can't shoot back. This makes the criminals very happy. Ever since I started learning from alt news outlets, instead of relying on the main stream media, I have heard of many cases where law-abiding people who had self-protection were able to shoot back at a criminal, and stopped the criminal from continuing to do harm. This meant something to me. The Main Stream Media almost never report on such events. The media has for years painted gun-owners as rednecks who are reckless with guns and that the high American gun death rate is due to them. This is not born out by the actual statistics. American law-abiding gun owners are, over all, a fairly peaceable bunch. Millions upon millions of people own guns and never do gun violence to anyone their entire lives. Most violent gun crime in America is gang related, often over drug deals or gang turf. And this is not in locations where Constitutional gun carry exists; it's mostly in Gun Control areas like Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, Detroit, where legal gun ownership is nearly impossible. So the gangsters have guns illegally. They don't care about the law, and law enforcement can't stop them having guns, so disarming the law-abiding doesn't achieve a whole lot, except make honest people more vulnerable and please those who have been conned on this subject. People do point at the massacres that have taken place as an argument against guns, but the reverse is true. The people who were shot at were already disarmed. If any of them had the means to shoot back the situations may have turned out less destructively to human life. This, in fact, has happened a number of times when potential massacres have been less or nipped in the bud because someone was able to shoot the person starting the attack. The MSM tend not to report such things, so people are unaware of them. It is no coincidence that most of these massacres have taken place in gun-control areas, where people are unlikely to have the means to fight back. Then there is the matter of the US Constitution, which recognizes people's natural right to own guns with a view to self-protection and even overthrowing a tyrannical government that can't be removed by legal means and is oppressing the people. The founding fathers were savvy enough to know that governments invariably attract corrupt people because it offers them power and the means to make a lot of money. So they wrote that the Second Amendment, which protects the First Amendment, ie, the human right to freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to speak against the government. The Constitution requires government to protect people's right to free speech and to bear arms, not erode them. Proto-tyrannical governments love to take away people's guns; this has happened in so many countries over the years, before they felt free to become tyrannical; the people, having been disarmed 'for the good of the people', had no means to fight back. So all of this seem like reasonable arguments to me for the owning of firearms. I am conscious that I have probably alienated nearly everyone who still visits this forum, and I'm sorry for that to happen. But for me, in all good conscience, I do believe that the means to protect your life is a basic human right that no government has the prerogative to take away or infringe. The US government, at least, is supposed to be the servant of the sovereign people, not their master. The degree of departure from that foundational principle shows how far down the slippery slope America has gone, and in many other countries the people aren't sovereign at all, but subjects of either a monarch or the state. People are not encouraged to consider that reality, being intentionally distracted with other things. The implied social contract that the police will save our chestnuts out of the fire is a myth; police almost never can arrive in time to save us; they usually can only arrive, at best, a few minutes later, and most attacks on people are over by then. Over the recent years, since 9/11 in fact, I have come to realize how conditioned my thinking had become by my social environment. During this time I have been working at studying alternative views that the MSM don't acknowledge, or deride as nutter opinions. I have found many things out that have been liberating to me, but I know has put me outside what most people will accept. People generally don't like to have their world view disturbed. Most people don't want to be cast out by their friends, so they conform and fit in. That's their choice, but I prefer to value truth in all subjects, not just about self-defense. So sorry guys; I'm in a very different camp to the one I was in at the beginning of Napsterites, all those years ago. __________________ Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia is the fear of long words. This is the Century of the Insane. Last edited by Bright Eyes : 12-11-17 at 07:31 AM.

19-11-17, 07:29 PM	#6
albed flippin 'em off Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: the real world Posts: 3,232	I theorized many years ago that thousands of years of human slavery had selected for large numbers of submissive, weak-minded humans like Malvachat who can't imagine everyone having equal rights. I've seen it confirmed enough that I ought to write a dissertation. __________________ Taking power from the many and giving it to the few corrupts the few and degrades the many.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - January 31st, '15	JackSpratts	Peer to Peer	0	28-01-15 08:41 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - August 10th, '13	JackSpratts	Peer to Peer	0	07-08-13 07:51 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - July 13th, '13	JackSpratts	Peer to Peer	0	10-07-13 07:46 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - March 24th, '12	JackSpratts	Peer to Peer	0	21-03-12 07:45 AM
Peer-To-Peer News - The Week In Review - October 30th, '10	JackSpratts	Peer to Peer	0	27-10-10 06:41 AM

11-11-17, 01:10 PM	#1
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	It's a cultural thing, I guess. As hard as it is for you to get American gun culture, I find I cannot in the slightest wrap my head around this: YouTube: 11 British police officers versus 1 guy with a knife. I get that putting a gun in a cop's hand is the equivalent of putting the power over life itself in his hand and the British people don't want that, but give the cops something. I mean, a guard dog's bark is only as assertive as the bite it threatens, and no matter how short a leash you might put on your dog, you'd never pull his teeth.