Philosophy Discussion Forums

We also have to consider, or weigh, in the case of India, how many people die from the rampaging terrorist event, and contrast that against how many Indians would die if they had loose Firearm laws like in the U.S.

Considering India’s quite robust population (1.25 Billion) and the fact that 32% (or 400 million) live in poverty (which spikes crime), we might find I shockingly high number of deaths from looser legislation resulting in cheaper guns. I suspect that number would be far greater per year than India has suffered from terrorism in the last decade. Actually with that huge of a population accidental firearm deaths alone would likely outnumber terrorist kills.

Grotto19 wrote:We also have to consider, or weigh, in the case of India, how many people die from the rampaging terrorist event, and contrast that against how many Indians would die if they had loose Firearm laws like in the U.S.

Considering India’s quite robust population (1.25 Billion) and the fact that 32% (or 400 million) live in poverty (which spikes crime), we might find I shockingly high number of deaths from looser legislation resulting in cheaper guns. I suspect that number would be far greater per year than India has suffered from terrorism in the last decade. Actually with that huge of a population accidental firearm deaths alone would likely outnumber terrorist kills.

Actually terrorism related deaths are deescalating in India. 2001 to 2008 were bad with anywhere from 3500 to 1700 deaths per year. But even then, 70% of the dead were terrorists. Since the last three years, the deaths are less than 200 per year with more that 50% being terrorists themselves.

Also law enforcement is not as sophisticated as it is in the USA. Police personnel (there are hardly any officers on duty) are not trained enough. So if we did not have gun control, it would not take long for India to become completely lawless.

The guns are irrelevant. In Japan, mass-murder is carried out with knives and swords. The cause is punitive, judgmental, competitive societies. Reduce those factors and move towards a society which is loving, caring, and supportive and mass-murder will disappear.

The guns are irrelevant.

No, not if they fire the deadly bullets. Which they do.

The cause is punitive, judgmental, competitive societies. Reduce those factors and move towards a society which is loving, caring, and supportive and mass-murder will disappear.

How do you think such societies (punitive/judgemental/competitive) came to exist in the first place? Are we humans not punitive, judgemental, and competitive in nature? Do we not delight in mass-murder and all other forms of depravity? Technology is supposed to civilize and humanize, but it doesn't. Our base impulses remain, hard-coded.

I don't want to get too deep but all societies must act like species in the fact that they must out compete all other species or societies. A technical society will use whatever it has to survive. In the case of modern western society can we see what happened to the native American societies and the native Australian societies when they brought bows and arrows to a gunfight.

Guns have been invented and restricting them will only provide the gun using society with an advantage over the non using society.

It would be nice if we all could discuss our ideas rather than use force as a means of competition but I don't think that humans are that far along yet We are hardwired to survive. One way or another unfortunately perhaps but it has worked for millions of years. The weapons have changed, evolution has not

Theophane wrote:Are we humans not punitive, judgemental, and competitive in nature?

No, we are not. That is a legitimizing myth of the the patriarchy and "egoic consciousness".

We are starting to see the beginnings of terrorist plots to kill people in the streets of certain disarmed societies. I think this trend will change the laws in those countries back to being more firearm-friendly.

Spiral Out wrote:We are starting to see the beginnings of terrorist plots to kill people in the streets of certain disarmed societies. I think this trend will change the laws in those countries back to being more firearm-friendly.

If we do that, then the terrorists will have already scored a victory.

What is the reasoning behind such a statement, Rederic? Would you find "victory" in death at the hands of a terrorist?

The terrorists are counting on that type of cliche thinking.

If terrorists kill 1000 people, and as an extension of that cause massive policy change in a country which cost millions or restricts freedoms significantly then yes they have successfully struck a major blow. Also if they so much as inspire genuine fear in the populace than they are achieving their ends. The goal of terrorism isn’t damage, it is influencing another population. Policy change is exactly that, it means they succeeded in influencing another population, which is precisely what they set out to prove that they could do. To prove that they could terrify you into another behavior, to recognize them as a real threat, and submit to it on some level. If they do this well enough then they get bargained with to achieve their ends, they strike by persuading the civil population that it is too costly to resist them, rather than trying to persuade the government. For particularly democracies are vulnerable to persuasion of the masses and populous consent.

The terrorist's goals have nothing to do with whether a society is armed or not. They want western nations out of the middle east. I'd have to agree with the terrorists on this point. Western nations have no business occupying middle eastern nations.

Western nations are actually weakening the peaceful people of middle eastern nations by fighting their battles for them, all in the name of so-called "humanitarianism". Terrorists are the result of the over-sensitive and the opportunistic.

The terrorists are not looking to change gun control policy in western nations. That notion is ridiculous. They are not looking to change your behavior within your own country. They want you out of theirs. They exist because of the countries that occupy them. Now they exist and must be dealt with which causes a longer occupation. It's a vicious cycle of absurd idiocy.

What do you do when you find yourself in a hole? STOP DIGGING.

A properly defended populace has no need for fear. I do not fear. I am 'armed' at all times and nobody is the wiser. No harm done. If someone needed assistance then I can help them. If not, then it's business as usual and nobody is affected.

These terrorists are cowards and do not want to fight an equal fight. America's streets are safe from terrorists because we can defend ourselves. They know this. They are not plotting attacks in the streets of America. That would be futile.

They are coming to the streets of disarmed societies though. That is certain. What will be a victory for the terrorists is when they have successfully beheaded numerous Brits and Aussies and the citizens of other nations who participate in the occupation and then these nations capitulate and fold in the face of public fear and political pressure to pull out under their conditions.

The only reason this moronic horseshit continues is Human pride. Humans are nothing but talking monkeys that fool themselves into thinking they are something special.

This whole thing is literally just a bunch of monkey business.

Clothe a monkey in a three-piece suit and you still have a monkey.

They are not plotting attacks in the streets of America. That would be futile.

Don't be naïve, of course they're plotting attacks. How about some small town church on a Sunday morning? They don't care if they're killed. Also, it doesn't have to be on the streets, as experience has shown.

No they'll go for the easy targets like the UK. They're lazy and cowardly like that.

Spiral Out wrote:No they'll go for the easy targets like the UK. They're lazy and cowardly like that.

Were the twin towers an easy target? You underestimate these people at your peril.

I don't underestimate the terrorists. That's why we need to be a armed, able and ready society of vigilant citizens.

The twin towers attacks were not relative to having armed civilians and was not the type of attacks in the streets that will have dire effects on disarmed societies.

We have tighter security due to past attacks. Now is not the time to disarm our population. A disarmed society is the path of least resistance for terror attacks.