Philosophy Now Forum

Notvacka wrote:It has been tried, you know. In the land of the free, actually. USA had a national ban on the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. Enforcement of the prohibition proved to be difficult and the ban led to vast criminal organisations like the mafia flourishing. It was similar to the present day problem with narcotics. Criminal organisations thrive on drug trade, because the drugs can't be produced and sold legally. Banning guns and allowing drugs would perhaps be a good idea.

hi Notvacka, i had heard of that somewhere but i didn't know it was for such a long period of time. i think you have made a good point regarding some of the negative aspects that have resulted from the ban on drugs, however i don't think removing the ban and allowing drugs would help. i think it would make things worse. can you imagine that if tomorrow, hypothetically, all narcotics were legalized? the deathtoll itself rising to never had been seen before heights because of it?

chaz wyman wrote: The USA has the highest crime rate and the highest criminal population on earth; more weapons than any other nation on earth and the highest death by fire-arms.

More than Mexico with the ongoing cartel violence? Can you cite your source? How would you categorize Syria? It would seem to me that nations at war would top the list. By saying "criminal population," would you include those in prison too?

chaz wyman wrote: The slippery slope argument is a fallacy.
All is being suggested is that AMericans give up their unlimited right to bear arms, like other civilised countries.
Bearing arms doe not guarantee freedom of any kind except the right to bear arms.
Oppressive states are as armed as non oppressive states; there is no correlation.
By allowing the madness to continue al you do is hand over the state to para-military organisations that keep their cellars full of weapons - is that what you call freedom?
In the UK most policemen are not armed. That is a freedom I cherish.

the slippery slope argument might be a fallacy however again i'd have to surmise that banning guns is not the solution. i would be all for it aside from the fact that i know it wouldn't work in the U.S. and would spawn very negative results.

the negative results i think might happen because of it:

decent people angry about their rights taken away (regardless of whether or not your viewpoint towards the right to bear arms not guaranteeing freedom is correct. and regardless of your view towards animals rights.)

more people pulling their kids out of the public schools

violence ensuing

underground weapons trade

increased taxation to maintain something that probably 3/4's of the nation would argue is not working and making things worse

chaz wyman wrote: In the UK most policemen are not armed. That is a freedom I cherish.

i think that is astounding. is there something over there that your doing that might help us over here without us having to ban guns?

Felasco, i don't think that will be happening. especially because humans will not want it to be that way and work towards something else much more positive.

Women are taking over the world. Sooner or later they'll come to a choice between men, and their children. Guess who's gonna win that vote?

Lesbian Planet is coming. You read it here first.

Satyr was right, he may have been controversial for some, but his words were prophetic.

There it is in black and white. Rampant and ugly feminism.

A woman is usually at or on the bottom of every problem.

and misogyny is the other side of the coin.......

reasonvemotion wrote:There it is in black and white. Rampant and ugly feminism.

I may be rampant and ugly, it's true.

But feminism isn't the best label for my view. I prefer to call it "drawing logical conclusions from the widely available evidence" and "being serious about dramatic reductions in violence".

Every civilization in the history of humanity has attempted to solve the problem of violent men, and all have failed. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

At the least, I suggest we recognize two facts.

1) All half measures have failed at achieving a dramatic reduction in violence.

2) We could achieve a dramatic reduction in violence by removing men, the source of the vast majority of violence.

So the question really is, are we willing to accept more centuries of violence, or not? The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that we have a choice, and are thus at least partly responsible for future violence.

want to stop school shootings? ban schools

-Imp

Felasco wrote:

reasonvemotion wrote:There it is in black and white. Rampant and ugly feminism.

I may be rampant and ugly, it's true.

But feminism isn't the best label for my view. I prefer to call it "drawing logical conclusions from the widely available evidence" and "being serious about dramatic reductions in violence".

Every civilization in the history of humanity has attempted to solve the problem of violent men, and all have failed. The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

At the least, I suggest we recognize two facts.

1) All half measures have failed at achieving a dramatic reduction in violence.

2) We could achieve a dramatic reduction in violence by removing men, the source of the vast majority of violence.

So the question really is, are we willing to accept more centuries of violence, or not? The point of this exercise is to demonstrate that we have a choice, and are thus at least partly responsible for future violence.

Without men, women would probably commit suicide by throwing themselves off the gravy train that has come to a screeching halt!

In a violent confrontation if it is a Man against a Man, a man will win and be labled the agressor. If it is a woman against a woman, a woman will win and be labeled the aggressor. If it is a man against a woman, the man will usually win because the man is usually (but not always) bigger and stronger, so the man will be labeled as the agressor. So it's 2 out of 3 that a man is the agressor and only 1 0ut 0f 3 that a woman is the agressor, an obvious bias against men. Alternately in 2 out of 3, the woman will be the victim and only 1 out of 3 will the man be the victim.

Barack Obama in his second term, could push through gun control. This way, at least, he could be remembered for something during his time in Office, as he won't be elected a third time.

Emotion not reason is ruling the day.

Its time for all you cowboys and cowgirls (we have one at least on this Forum who is pro guns) to relinquish your weapons. Other countries have done it...... successfully.

reasonvemotion wrote:Its time for all you cowboys and cowgirls (we have one at least on this Forum who is pro guns) to relinquish your weapons. Other countries have done it...... successfully.

Other countries suck, some more than others, but they all suck, and they're all afraid of their citizens rising up against them.

Felasco wrote:The problem's not guns. The problem is men.

The problem is isolated and ostracized adolescent males with a gun collecting(nut) mother.

Felasco wrote:... Lesbian Planet is coming. You read it here first.

Only one generation then.