• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

What is your viewpoint on Guns?

Migrated topic.
Mmmm, I do feel like non-lethal weapons tend to encourage violence. For instance, when I was a young adolescent, we regularly solved differences with BB guns. Not in an organized way, things simply escalated until it was a full-fledged BB firefight and then someone would eventually give up. Because the weapons in question didn't do any permanent damage (besides a few scars) we were quite quick to bring them out.

I'm guessing that police equipped with a moderately-powered pellet pistol would probably waste no time in getting it out and pumping someone full of non-lethal lead, if they had that option.
 
benzyme said:
you may ask yourself, "now why would someone need a fully auto weapon like this?"
gangbusters; vigilante justice.

this is quality. Heckler & Koch fabricates fine tools of the art.
Click to expand...

I never have to ask myself that question.

I know that as an American its not a question of weather or not I need it, it a question of weather or not I want it.

One of the beautiful things about The Good Ole USA,

If I want it, I can pass the background checks, get the license. I can afford it. Its mine.

If a person cant pass the checks they can always get one illegally. Just as easily just as quickly.

One might ask why I would want such a thing. Because I am American and its my right.

I will If I want to.

Thats one of the many reasons I love America.

this is quality. Heckler & Koch fabricates fine tools of the art
Click to expand...

Yes it is.
 
Wow. In the beginning of this Topic I was soooooo ignorant. Stuck on the view that "Guns make killing too easy".
But I realised that that very view is just another excuse for our Egos to shift the blaim to outside scapegoats to divert attention from the true perpetrator: The Ego itself.

It is really our Egos that make killing too easy. It finds all kinds of reasons as to why it is okay and justifyable to Kill someone. The same way our Egos seeks to Justify Any and All immoral, transgressive & harmfull behaviours of our individual "selves".

If we took guns from people, they would commit violent crimes with Crossbows & knives.
Guns are Symptoms of the human disease called "Ego".
We'd be much more succesfull in ending Violence by Curing the Disease, rather than just it's Symptoms.

The big question off course is: How?
This question seems more important to debate and investigate(In the endeavor of reducing Violence) than the Question wether or not people should have the right to Fire arms.
 
SKA said:
Wow. In the beginning of this Topic I was soooooo ignorant. Stuck on the view that "Guns make killing too easy".
But I realised that that very view is just another excuse for our Egos to shift the blaim to outside scapegoats to divert attention from the true perpetrator: The Ego itself.

It is really our Egos that make killing too easy. It finds all kinds of reasons as to why it is okay and justifyable to Kill someone. The same way our Egos seeks to Justify Any and All immoral, transgressive & harmfull behaviours of our individual "selves".

If we took guns from people, they would commit violent crimes with Crossbows & knives.
Guns are Symptoms of the human disease called "Ego".
We'd be much more succesfull in ending Violence by Curing the Disease, rather than just it's Symptoms.

The big question off course is: How?
This question seems more important to debate and investigate(In the endeavor of reducing Violence) than the Question wether or not people should have the right to Fire arms.
Click to expand...

Finally we are getting to the core of the problem.
Ty for your open mind.

@benzyme
KRISS
 
I'm not even going to pretend to have read all 18 pages of this thread...

That said, I believe guns are simply a means of force. For good or evil, that's how they're used. Personally, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a nation being disarmed by its government. In my mind it conjures up images of Stalinist Russia... Not good.

People are the problem. Human beings are (IMO), by nature destructive and bent on conquest. When deprived of one means, another is invented or improvised. For example, during the Winter War, the Finns were desperately short of heavy weaponry and the Soviet Army was lining up battalions of tanks. What did they do? They filled beer bottles with a homemade napalm of gasoline and tar and proceeded to burn the tank crews alive inside their vehicles, in what I can only imagine was a rather hellish scenario. Evolutionarily, this drive is what probably gave us the edge (no pun intended) to climb to the top of the food chain. The problem is, when there is no longer an immediate threat to our collective (tribal, national etc.) existence, we tend to turn on each other...

Also, on a scale of destructive power, guns are pretty low scoring. Our ingenuity has brought us to the point where really, they are an antiquated and outmoded weapon. Chemical weapons are destructive. Thermonuclear weapons are really destructive, and then there's the most frightening of all. Biological weapons. These weapons are so devastating, so efficient in their ability to utterly destroy a populace that a properly engineered strain could potentially annihilate the entire human race with only a handful of strikes. Thankfully, no one (I assume) has weaponized a strain like this. But, the technology exists, and it could be done...

Pontos
 
(I'm not trying to hijack the thread here)

Yeah, I know which lab you're talking about, and there are others too (I drive past one every morning)... but weaponized strains are usually engineered so that they provide a reduced risk to ones own troops/population etc., a measure of safety if you will. This is part of the reason why pathogens like anthrax are popular for weaponizing - they provide the user with the ability to control the destructive force used in an attack. However, there are things out there that can't be controlled. Some agents are so contagious, to deploy them would ensure not only your enemy's destruction but your own as well. Essentially they're doomsday weapons. And while specimens certainly do exist in a select group of laboratories, I've never even heard the suggestion that the most dangerous types have been readied for use. By this I mean optimized for dispersal, possessing a modified genetic makeup lending itself to near or total resistance to vaccine production, resistance to anti-biotics/virals/retrovirals and stockpiled in quantity. Although I must admit, due to the nature of the labs dealing with such things and the people (and policies) behind them, anything's possible. Especially here and behind the rusty curtain were big, cheap, weapons must seem very appealing indeed.

Pontos
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to do, other than demonstrate that you've taken virology.

The point I was getting at is that over the course of our history, humanity has shown a trend towards the destructive and when deprived of one means, we will create another. I did not intend to begin a discussion about which families of viruses have the most potential as weapons, that's a moot argument (especially now that it is viable to create one that possesses a semi or fully synthetic genome).

Pontos
 
If you use biological weapons, you'd better use something that spreads quickly, has a short incubation period and leads to a quick and painfull death.

Your pandemic will be contained and the enemy severely demotivated. You don't need to have much more to win a war.

There are plenty of virusses capable of doing that but it could be that you have to pay monsanto if you want to use them legally, i'm not much into those sort of things.

I take it those types of weapons wouldn't fall under the first amendement? Or maybe in the north-korean constitution?
 
Pontos said:
that's a moot argument (especially now that it is viable to create one that possesses a semi or fully synthetic genome).
Click to expand...

not a moot argument at all, and why would scientists bother reinventing the wheel?
these proteins are as old as humanity itself. much easier using model viruses with slight modifications.
not sure what you're trying to do, other than derail a thread; you already made your disclaimer
about how you're not trying to hijack the thread, i was merely elaborating on an example of potential biological agents; but it's neither here nor there, because this is a thread about guns, not what's the most destructive weapon which will lead to the demise of mankind.

polytrip, viruses with short incubation periods would not likely be effective enough to cause a pandemic; -RNA viruses which have long incubation periods would be far more devastating, because they will have spread to many people before symptoms become apparent.

a modified smallpox virus would be a good candidate
 
benzyme said:
polytrip, viruses with short incubation periods would not likely be effective enough to cause a pandemic; -RNA viruses which have long incubation periods would be far more devastating, because they will have spread to many people before symptoms become apparent.

a modified smallpox virus would be a good candidate
Click to expand...
You don't want a real pandemic if you're using the virus as a weapon of war. For al-qaida or teaparty people who want the total destruction of the earth it's different ofcourse, but for purposes of warfare you only need some realy impressive 'shock and awe' as they call it.
For that, virusses with a short incubation period are most effective.

And by the time your troops arive to take in the town you want to lute, the pandemic is already over.
 
I would say ebola qualify's best. People who start bleading out of all their openings...that's shock and awe at it's best. No-one wants to be around them anymore, so you can just walk right in and take the town.
 
benzyme said:
ebola is a rather weak one, outbreaks are very short-lived. incredible virile, but very low longevity. the virus dies out fairly quickly.
for small ops, maybe; but it wouldn't be effective for a long-term attack.

minigun ftw.
Click to expand...
I think small contained outbreaks are the only realistic way of using bioweapons. You don't just want a weapon that's destructive, you also want to be able to use it strategically. Small outbreaks that are incredibly horrible are most usefull in that way. you stay unaffected yourself while you totally demoralise the enemy.

A large pandemic could backfire. It may come back to haunt your own troops, it may weaken allied forces, it may seriously damage your economy.

An uncontrollable bioweapon is like an H-bomb. It's in effect useless since you'll only use it as a last resort, wich is when you already have lost everything you where willing to wage war for in the first place.

For countries like iran and north-korea it may be strategically usefull just to HAVE it, though. The most powerfull weapons are the ones you won't even have to use. That's also the reason why iran wants to have them so badly. They could just in complete opennes start assasinating people who reside in the west, israel or saudi arabia, commit terror attacks or support groups who commit them, etc. without anybody being able to stop them.
 
Back
Top Bottom