I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Arizona Girl Takes Facebook Photos With Gun

Hits: 8984 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Magentab0b
Female, 30-39, Western US
 1461 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 8:58:54 PM
After that first Hitler comment I stopped reading the thread so this, from thenedman, would have been spot on if I would have read it.

"aaaaaand McGovern has made the Hitler reference, the thread is now dead. Thanks everybody for playing, better luck next time."

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 5:59:13 PM
@NOCASH

american version of freedom is living in fear of being attacked constantly and having the right to defend themselves with a firearm

You are being very over-dramatic. I do not worry about such events, as most Americans do not. Statistically, I should be much more worried about being killed in a car accident, lightening strike, etc. than in a mass murder.

I want to now what discomforts you so much that you need a gun

Vigilance, not fear... I'm not afraid that someone will break into my house and try to rape my girlfriend in the middle of the night. However, I find it wise to be prepared for such a situation in the unlikely event that it occurs. Even in your Canada, these things happen. As such, you, as an individual, should have the capacity to protect yourself.

I imagine previous unarmed victims wish they were more prepared.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 5:54:15 PM
@thenedman

However, policy makers can not create laws that work for individual situations, they have to use the percentages on a national or maybe state level.

The problem is that they cross into the realm of limiting an individual in a potentially detrimental way, in order to prevent them from doing something they may or may not do. We should be exceptionally wary of such laws that prevent us from doing something (owning a firearm) that does not infringe on the rights of others to prevent us from doing something that we are statistically never likely to do.

I do think that this comes down to a fundamental philosophy difference. For you, it is OK to sacrifice an individual liberty if it benefits the society to a greater degree. I do not believe it is OK to sacrifice an individual liberty if it does not infringe on the rights of others...

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 5:50:34 PM
@thenedman

My apologies for the delay...

but I can never see why as a society having more people die would ever be a good thing

Well it's not, per se. The question is whether or not the alternative is righteous and sensible.

Also it would not have been "without a doubt" that he could have stopped the attack.

It was a hypothetical situation; as such, I had the authority to dictate the "without a doubt" part... The point I was making was that, by outlawing firearms, such situations may occur in which you essentially sacrifice an individual for the "greater good"... When we start justify actions and legislation because of the "greater good", nothing good follows.

For me to have the dramatic decrease in homicides overall is worth an increase in lesser crimes where people can carry on living.

A much more dramatic increase in "smaller" crimes...

paperduck
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 1684 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 5:04:55 PM
Guns are to blame for this as much as Facebook is.

NOCASH
Male, 18-29, Canada
 421 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 3:16:23 PM
HumanAction, If the american version of freedom is living in fear of being attacked constantly and having the right to defend themselves with a firearm if such a thing were to actually occur, I like the canadian version much better. I dont fear being attacked by some lunatic, though it is not impossible, when I leave my house. I feel no need to carry a firearm on me in public because the odds are just not there that I will be in some life threatening scenario where there is another person who wishes to kill me. What gets me even more are those of you going on about home invasions and the need to have a firearm readily accessible at your nightstand just in case the absolute unthinkable were to happen and someone managed to get into your house in the dead of night. I find it hard to believe you call yourselves free when you live in such irrational fear constantly. You may say it isn't fear that drives you to protect yourself, I want to now what discomforts you so much that you need a gun

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:54:49 PM
True there will always be situations where a gun may have helped, it is not black and white argument by any means. However, policy makers can not create laws that work for individual situations, they have to use the percentages on a national or maybe state level. It may not be the most compassionate thing in the world, but it is a start to reducing all crime.

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:50:48 PM
@HumanAction In the scenario I get what you are saying that it is good that he stopped the attack but I can never see why as a society having more people die would ever be a good thing. Also it would not have been "without a doubt" that he could have stopped the attack.
You said it yourself that the number of people that bear arms at any given time it low. So the chance that an untrained civilian stopping what would probably be a much heavier armed attacker is not high.

True while they may stop crimes happening the majority of the crimes that they stop will be smaller stuff such as robbery 60% of your homicides are done using a gun. For me to have the dramatic decrease in homicides overall is worth an increase in lesser crimes where people can carry on living.


HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:14:03 PM
However, that is not how they are used. They are used to threaten and murder thousand of completely innocent people every year.

They are also used hundreds of thousands, if not millions (heavily debated number), of times each year in the US to prevent crime. You should do some research into Defensive Gun Uses (DGU).

Firearms, even in the most conservative of estimates, are used dozens of times more each year to deter crime that to commit crime.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:12:19 PM
yes I do disagree, the gun law makers didn't put him in that situation to be stabbed

OK - fair enough. Let us then use a similar situation abiding by these new rules.

A man is at a shopping mall where he is brutally, at no fault of his own, by a mass murderer who has illegally obtained a firearm (although they are illegal in your scenario and difficult to come by, it is not impossible). Beyond a doubt, without anti-gun laws, he would have had a firearm and would have been able to thwart the attack. Thus, without the laws, he would have been able to save his own life.

This is acceptable to you, because, as a society, the total number of gun homicides is decreased in a greater quantity than those sacrificed (such as in this case). Correct?

I'm sorry, but this is sacrificing an individual for the "common good". It's social utilitarianism...

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 2:05:24 PM
@HumanAction yes I do disagree, the gun law makers didn't put him in that situation to be stabbed. If we lived in a perfect world where people only use guns in self defence to protect themselves from the "not innocent" then I wouldn't have a problem with them.

However, that is not how they are used. They are used to threaten and murder thousand of completely innocent people every year.

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:59:47 PM
@McGovern I don't know how but have you seriously just gone in 2 comments from Swedish name registries to genocide?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:53:00 PM
@thenedman

So, in thinking, here are some hypothetical scenarios that represent the reasoning we've each used.

Situation 1: An innocent man, who otherwise could have saved his own life, is murdered with a knife because firearms are illegal and he is a law-abiding citizen. As long as his death is compensated by the statiscal lessening of homicides by a greater quantity, then this is OK by you - even is those saved were not innocent.

To me, this is the same as sentencing an innocent man to death. Do you disagree?

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13145 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:50:48 PM
@thenedman

Well if that's all you want to see but Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it, Kim Jong did it's pretty long list and they all end with genocide.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:47:47 PM
you take what I say far too literally

... and you don't take what I say quite literally enough. If words and statements are not to be taken literally, then why bother?

However the actually number of adult with a gun isn't that far of 50%

It's actually probably higher from the research I've done. However, that does not mean that everyone is carrying one on them at all times. In fact, the number of non-law enforcement citizens who bear a firearm in the US at any given instant is quite low.

I'm a 6' 4" rugby player

... and I am a 6'2" competing Olympic lifter (Olympic meaning the style of lifts, not that I went to the Olympics...); thus, my promotion of firearms hurts me more than it helps. Even so, it isn't a point of whether it personally helps me, it is a point of whether or not it is morally right.


cfwestdotie
Male, 18-29, Europe
 119 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:39:39 PM
you are god on accident

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:32:53 PM
aaaaaand McGovern has made the Hitler reference, the thread is now dead. Thanks everybody for playing, better luck next time.

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:29:07 PM
@HumanAction you take what I say far too literally.

Isn't the bald eagle the american symbol for freedom and a free spirit? That is what I was getting at.

The phase "every other guy" might literally mean 50% but it is not intended like that. However the actually number of adult with a gun isn't that far of 50%

I'm a 6' 4" rugby player, I am not worried about defending myself, but I am honestly very happy that if I am ever confronted by somebody I know that they are not going to shot me.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13145 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 1:03:14 PM
LOL! Europeans have blind faith in giving politicians absolute power. They should take a beter look at history to see where that goes.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 12:36:38 PM
I am sorry that we all don't have the spirit of a bald eagle in our hearts

Nobody has the spirit of a bald eagle in their heart. Perhaps we should stay on topic? (I will be an ass when you say stupid things - fair warning)

I know what freedom is and I am very thankful for what I have

Great! I find it to be a shame that you understand freedom yet are so willing to give it up; to each their own.

However, I don't need a gun to defend what I have as unlike in the US there is not the danger that every other guy on the street or any robber in my house has a loaded weapon.

You're being a bit dramatic, aren't you? The percentage of people who carry firearms is pathetically low compared to the 50% you estimate. Even so, you must worry about being robbed or burglarized far more frequently than me. Perhaps because you cannot defend yourself?


HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 12:32:33 PM
It is a stretch but by your logic we should all live in the
Harrison Bergeron world.


Not quite... In a Harrison Bergeron world, everyone is forced to be equal by law. This requires the "knocking down" of some people because we cannot improve those with natural disadvantages. In my example, we are "pulling up" people by enabling (<- key word alert) them to be equal.

Would you rather we had no protection laws and everybody just looked out for themselves?

Of course not; why would you think that I prefer such a system?

discussion about tyranny

So you believe that a government has the moral authority to regulate the names of children, rather than only the parents? Can you defend your claim that this is not tyrannical with some evidence other that "well it just isn't!"...?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 12:28:36 PM
That is a scary and twisted logic you have there, I am seriously worried.

I feel the same way about your beliefs. Now, what have we achieved in this argument by expressing that we disagree for yet another time?

Even if everybody did had a gun everybody would still have a different ability with it.

I agree - there are no two people who will have identical skills. However, the point you've missed is this: "the field is closer to level now"; the key word is closer. For example, a 300lb linebacker attacking a 120lb female will win. Give them both firearms, and they are closer to being equal. This is another example of you making assumptions...

bullet proof vest

... because it isn't an equalizer. Would a bulletproof vest deter the 300lb linebacker in the example above? Of course not.




r66tramp
Male, 40-49, Canada
 678 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 12:23:54 PM
Self cleaning oven.

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 12:10:28 PM
Well maybe it was from when you said "because many people in these countries were not instilled with the spirit of freedom, they do not understand that they live under tyranny". I am sorry that we all don't have the spirit of a bald eagle in our hearts but I know what freedom is and I am very thankful for what I have. However, I don't need a gun to defend what I have as unlike in the US there is not the danger that every other guy on the street or any robber in my house has a loaded weapon.

thenedman
Male, 18-29, Europe
 231 Posts
Friday, January 04, 2013 12:09:11 PM
@HumanAction That is a scary and twisted logic you have there, I am seriously worried. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Violence will only beget more violence". Even if everybody did had a gun everybody would still have a different ability with it. One gun may be better then another. Sure it may equal the field a bit but if we really want to equal the field then why don’t we get everybody a bullet proof vest as well. It is a stretch but by your logic we should all live in the
Harrison Bergeron world.

I only assumed that you hadn't read about it as it had absolutely no place in the discussion about tyranny. It is a law put in place to protect people just like anti-stalking laws or harassment laws. Would you rather we had no protection laws and everybody just looked out for themselves?

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.