How Many Weapons do you own?

[The Dunedan]

However I still disagree that violence of any kind is the solution to any problem.

To paraphrase the late, great Robert Anson Heinlein, I wonder what the city fathers of Carthage or Berlin would say to that? Violence, pure naked physical force, has solved more problems (for one party or another) more decisively than any other force or entity in the history of humankind, and for one simple reason: when all the chips are down, enough violence works. Every time. Whether "enough" means a punch in the face or a 20 megatonne H-bomb is irrelevant, the fact would remain that sufficiant violence will solve almost any dispute. Whether that violence -should- be used is another matter altogether. I have the means at my disposal to ventilate literally everyone I don't like plus all their friends and relations, thereby eliminating all of my disputes with them provided the cops didn't kill me before I finished, but it is obviously and patently wrong for me to do so, and so I don't.

In a situation in which life is at stake, -any- level of violence directed at the threat to one's life is morally acceptable. I don't care if someone's trying to feed three kids and a puppy; the minute he threatens someone with a weapon or attempts to do them harm, he needs to be stopped. IF he dies, grand: the gene pool is badly in need of chlorine. If he lives, groovy; maybe he'll thank God or luck or his big brass balls for a lucky escape and reconsider his lifestyle, assuming he doesn't end up in prison for the rest of his life for whatever he was trying to do that got him shot in the first place. Those who commit acts of aggressive violence against others deserve whatever they get.

[leviathon435]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Not to sound like a smart-alic, but this is because you've never been in the situation where force is the only recognized currency of exchange. You can't "reason" with people who don't respect or grasp reason. You can't appease the unappeasable. You can't fulfill a bottomless quest for bloodlust.(and survive) I too, being a man of reason, attempt to reason with any reasonable person before force becomes an option, but there are times when force is the only option, and its those times I believe it is in my best intrest to prepare for. Well said, and I fully agree.

"A bottomless quest for bloodlust" where the hell do you live? You seem to paint a picture of life in Ohio as being some primitive fight for survival where only the fittest survive. Now if where you live truly is that bad then fair enough, my advice? Move! More likely is that you should get real and what you say is pure BS. What is the point of the police if people have the right to kill others, you're obviously not stupid so maybe you should try thinking. Modern life is not a fight for survival for those of us lucky enough to live in (supposedly) mordernised countries with an ethos of peace.

[quote=The Dunedan;The Dunedan Quote:
However I still disagree that violence of any kind is the solution to any problem.

To paraphrase the late, great Robert Anson Heinlein, I wonder what the city fathers of Carthage or Berlin would say to that? Violence, pure naked physical force, has solved more problems (for one party or another) more decisively than any other force or entity in the history of humankind, and for one simple reason: when all the chips are down, enough violence works. Every time. Whether "enough" means a punch in the face or a 20 megatonne H-bomb is irrelevant, the fact would remain that sufficiant violence will solve almost any dispute. Whether that violence -should- be used is another matter altogether. I have the means at my disposal to ventilate literally everyone I don't like plus all their friends and relations, thereby eliminating all of my disputes with them provided the cops didn't kill me before I finished, but it is obviously and patently wrong for me to do so, and so I don't.

In a situation in which life is at stake, -any- level of violence directed at the threat to one's life is morally acceptable. I don't care if someone's trying to feed three kids and a puppy; the minute he threatens someone with a weapon or attempts to do them harm, he needs to be stopped. IF he dies, grand: the gene pool is badly in need of chlorine. If he lives, groovy; maybe he'll thank God or luck or his big brass balls for a lucky escape and reconsider his lifestyle, assuming he doesn't end up in prison for the rest of his life for whatever he was trying to do that got him shot in the first place. Those who commit acts of aggressive violence against others deserve whatever they get.[/QUOTE]

You on the other hand Dundean seem to be lacking not only in compassion and sense but also in any intelligence or reason. First people dying is not "grand" even if they are fundamentally bad and especially not just if they've had a hard life. Also your last statement just proves to me the leack of sense in your argument. Maybe when you give others "what they deserve" someone will give you "what you deserve". How would you, or your family feel about that. A particularly brillian quote from Ghandi is "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." try taking this on board before saying that people deserve to die. The creation of carthage and Berlin may have come from violence, indeed so did the U.S.A., but this is the past, maybe we should learn from history not use it as an excuse to repeat the same mistakes. Need I remind you of the 620,000 soldiers that died in the American civil war, not to mention the uncountable number of civilian casualties. It ended slavery, but at what cost? Slavery in Britain ended far more peacefully and the racism prevelant in America even to this day was not seen nearly as much in Britain, violence is not the answer!

[Osborn F Enready]

Leviathon said: "A bottomless quest for bloodlust" where the hell do you live?

Location makes no difference. There are people who have bloodlust, in all parts of the world.

Leviathon said: You seem to paint a picture of life in Ohio as being some primitive fight for survival where only the fittest survive.

Ohio sucks, but not for that reason in my opinion. I said it is wise to prepare for the worst, hoping you may never have to face it.

If you do have to face it, and you aren't prepared, there is only one person to accept that blame.

Leviathon said: Now if where you live truly is that bad then fair enough, my advice? Move! More likely is that you should get real and what you say is pure BS.

How is it BS? Please explain?

Leviathon said: What is the point of the police if people have the right to kill others, you're obviously not stupid so maybe you should try thinking.

If all major nations have police, why are people still getting killed in crimes? Maybe you sir, should think.
Police can only protect what they see, and even then, only if the situation deems it possible. Do you have "man to man" police coverage where you live? I doubt it, nobody does, and I wouldn't accept it if they offered it. Safety is an individual responsibility. Police are one measure to aid the individual in doing this, not a replacment for individual responsibility.

Leviathon said: Modern life is not a fight for survival for those of us lucky enough to live in (supposedly) mordernised countries with an ethos of peace.

You sound like a person waiting to be a victim. Naieve of the dangers that lurk right outside your door if on one day you are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

[leviathon435]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Location makes no difference. There are people who have bloodlust, in all parts of the world. Ohio sucks, but not for that reason in my opinion. I said it is wise to prepare for the worst, hoping you may never have to face it. If you do have to face it, and you aren't prepared, there is only one person to accept that blame. How is it BS? Please explain? If all major nations have police, why are people still getting killed in crimes? Maybe you sir, should think. Police can only protect what they see, and even then, only if the situation deems it possible. Do you have "man to man" police coverage where you live? I doubt it, nobody does, and I wouldn't accept it if they offered it. Safety is an individual responsibility. Police are one measure to aid the individual in doing this, not a replacment for individual responsibility. You sound like a person waiting to be a victim. Naieve of the dangers that lurk right outside your door if on one day you are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

What I meant by BS is that where you live is not in a world where danger lurks at every street and this is not just naiveity. Even if there was so much danger guns, violence, these are not methods of solving it, they merely escalate the situation. if you shoot a mugger maybe his brother shoots your wife, are you better off? You say it is an individual responsibility to keep oneself safe; correct. but this does not iclude shooting people. It is also the government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

However I feel our debate is going stale, you make some good points and the difference between us maybe is not one of logic but merely opinion. to avoid repeating ourselves maybe we should agree to disagree, unless you feel still able to persuade me.

[Osborn F Enready]

Leviathon said: What I meant by BS is that where you live is not in a world where danger lurks at every street and this is not just naiveity.

Prove this? The fact is, you are making this assumption based on statistics. Anyone can become a statistic, good or bad. I prepare to avoid being a bad statistic. Being unprepared leads to being a bad statistic, by not being able to prevent being a victim.

Leviathon said: Even if there was so much danger guns, violence, these are not methods of solving it, they merely escalate the situation.

That is an attempt at philosophy, a philosophy I don't ascribe to, nor do I see value in. When force is the only currency being accepted, you either become a martyr, a victim or a fool, but all end up dead, if you can't meet unjust force, with just force for defense.

Would you say Ghandi was a pacifist?

A few quotes from Ghandi on the issue:

Gandhi's Words

No charter of freedom will be worth looking at which does not ensure the same measure of freedom for the minorities as for the majority. No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom

Second Amendment Quotes, Gun Control, Gandhi
Also:

A quote advanced to support the armed populace fantasy is from Mohandas Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent resistance to British rule in India. His objective of Indedepence was achieved in 1947. Gandhi wrote in Chapter XXVII, "The Recruiting Campaign," in his autobiography, My Experiments with Truth: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." "Arms" in this context were military arms not the personal weapons of private individuals. The context of "depriving of the whole nation of arms" was the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the British Army during the First World War. Gandhi was an extreme anti-militarist. The statement is odd coming out of him, but he used the circumstance for political purposes to advance the cause of Home Rule and Independence.

Leviathon said: if you shoot a mugger maybe his brother shoots your wife, are you better off?

If I shoot the mugger, why wouldn't I shoot his brother when he came to shoot my wife? Why wouldn't my wife shoot him? ( I am armed, and have no wife )

I have no obligation to society, or any man, to sacrifice my life to unjust force. I have a right to keep and bear arms for defense.

Leviathon said: You say it is an individual responsibility to keep oneself safe; correct. but this does not iclude shooting people.

Where you live? It does here.

We recognize that force that can't be reasoned with, must still be dealt with. It seems your nation does also, as they have an armed military, correct?

Leviathon said: It is also the government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

Police and military are forms of insurance. They have not the means, nor the manpower, nor the AUTHORITY to be with you at all times, therfore it should be obvious they CAN'T protect you at all times.

Do people die from crime where you live? If so, why? Are the police and military not doing their job?

Your entire argument seems to be riddled with plainly logical holes.

I am comfortable agreeing to disagree if thats the only way peace can be maintained, but I place logic and reason above opinion and faith. I am not here to make enemies, but to learn and to teach what I can teach.

[leviathon435]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Prove this? The fact is, you are making this assumption based on statistics. Anyone can become a statistic, good or bad. I prepare to avoid being a bad statistic. Being unprepared leads to being a bad statistic, by not being able to prevent being a victim. That is an attempt at philosophy, a philosophy I don't ascribe to, nor do I see value in. When force is the only currency being accepted, you either become a martyr, a victim or a fool, but all end up dead, if you can't meet unjust force, with just force for defense. Would you say Ghandi was a pacifist? A few quotes from Ghandi on the issue: Gandhi's Words Second Amendment Quotes, Gun Control, Gandhi Also: If I shoot the mugger, why wouldn't I shoot his brother when he came to shoot my wife? Why wouldn't my wife shoot him? ( I am armed, and have no wife ) I have no obligation to society, or any man, to sacrifice my life to unjust force. I have a right to keep and bear arms for defense. Where you live? It does here. We recognize that force that can't be reasoned with, must still be dealt with. It seems your nation does also, as they have an armed military, correct? Police and military are forms of insurance. They have not the means, nor the manpower, nor the AUTHORITY to be with you at all times, therfore it should be obvious they CAN'T protect you at all times. Do people die from crime where you live? If so, why? Are the police and military not doing their job? Your entire argument seems to be riddled with plainly logical holes. I am comfortable agreeing to disagree if thats the only way peace can be maintained, but I place logic and reason above opinion and faith. I am not here to make enemies, but to learn and to teach what I can teach.

Before I argue I just want to make sure you don't think that I am not happy about debating further, the contrary is true, this is highly enjoyable for me and I hope you don't take anything i say to you as personal. Debating with intelligent people such as yourself is obviously why I joined the forum. I merely suggested agreeing to disagree as I could forsee the debate becoming repetitive. And i very much hope you are not my enemy.

1) You want proof that danger doesn't lurk at every corner? I have turned many corners and the vast majority had no danger! I take your point about being a statistic and I'm sure you'll rebutt that if even one corner has danger that could turn me into one. However...

2) Your argument hinges on one specific point, namely that by drwing a weapon (gun) you will avoid being hurt yourself or having your family being hurt. this requires two things. Firstly that you are quicker at drawing arms than your attacker (and/or being more accurate), secondly that you will be willing to kill him/her.

3) Your argument based on unjust force being put upon you falls down in two respects I feel. The first is that similar to the point made in 2 it requires your ability to be able to have and use superior force. The second is more subtle and possibly does vere towards the same philosophy that you have already denied so you may not accept it. When, and how, can you judge what is unjust force and what sort of society does the continual meeting of force with more force create.

4) I am not in disagreement or agreement with you about Ghandi as I know very lttle about him, i merely quoted him as it made sense to me, the source can be counted as irrelevant as I hope the point made still stands.

5) My example about the mugger's brother was obviously bad, but the pinciple behind it is that violence, as shown infact by your retaliation to violence, leads to more violence and the Ghandi eye for eye quote shows that this continues, it doesn't stop with one shot.

6) Britain obviously does have an army, as it is busy shooting Iraqis and Afghans (as well as a few Danes) at the moment. The line my country takes on violence is not my line, and there is also a difference between democratically sanctioned governments acting violently than single people.

7) Yes, people do die from crime where I live and the police are not perfect, however I put it to you that more people would die if people were allowed to kill others in "self-defence". In 2001 the number of deaths from guns in britain per 100,000 poulation was 0.35 in U.S.A. 9.90. The facts speak for themselves.

[Osborn F Enready]

Leviathon said: Before I argue I just want to make sure you don't think that I am not happy about debating further, the contrary is true, this is highly enjoyable for me and I hope you don't take anything i say to you as personal. Debating with intelligent people such as yourself is obviously why I joined the forum. I merely suggested agreeing to disagree as I could forsee the debate becoming repetitive. And i very much hope you are not my enemy.

All good, and no, I am not anyones enemy until they stake a claim at removing my rights.

Leviathon said: 1) You want proof that danger doesn't lurk at every corner? I have turned many corners and the vast majority had no danger! I take your point about being a statistic and I'm sure you'll rebutt that if even one corner has danger that could turn me into one. However... 2) Your argument hinges on one specific point, namely that by drwing a weapon (gun) you will avoid being hurt yourself or having your family being hurt. this requires two things. Firstly that you are quicker at drawing arms than your attacker (and/or being more accurate), secondly that you will be willing to kill him/her.

Well, that was not my intention. Being responsible for your own defense is like being responsible for anything... it entails taking the steps necessary to succeed if challenged, or accountable, if you fail.

Simply owning an arm is not enough, one must train, maintain training and test themselves repeatedly to keep that training honed, much like a knife won't keep its edge if left exposed to the elements, or used without sharpening.

I support using force in defense of unjust force, and that is not limited to arms, it entails all forms of defense, from unarmed, to fully armed. All of these require training, and the level of training is determined by how much you value your life, and how much you recognize the possibility that anyone can become a victim, at anytime, statistics be damned.

Leviathon said: 3) Your argument based on unjust force being put upon you falls down in two respects I feel. The first is that similar to the point made in 2 it requires your ability to be able to have and use superior force. The second is more subtle and possibly does vere towards the same philosophy that you have already denied so you may not accept it. When, and how, can you judge what is unjust force and what sort of society does the continual meeting of force with more force create.

People can only accept responsibility for themselves, therefore it is only their responsibility in the end, whether they live or die, be it from poor health, poor diet, poor living, or poor understanding of defense. I don't believe in Utopias, nor do I think it is likely we will ever see one exist in our lifetime. I value this life, as the only life I have, and don't judge people by their "situation" but by their actions. I bear no pity for the bad choices of others, nor do I bear any shame for protecting myself from a person who has obviously lost or been confused in their value of life, so as to put it at risk by endangering mine.

I don't live for society, but for myself. I own myself, I work for myself, and I live for myself, and only my self, can outline what happiness is, while it is my actions who are left to achieve it.
My debt to society is 0, and societies debt to me is 0. If I can't trust myself to understand what type of force is just and unjust, when my own life depends on this, I can't really trust myself to decide anything, can I? This is why I trust myself, my mind, and am not afraid to invoke my mind to support myself, and my actions, to live or die by those actions.

I do not view this life as a trial on where I will be placed in the next life, as I don't believe there is a next life, nor do most men of the mind.

Leviathon said: 4) I am not in disagreement or agreement with you about Ghandi as I know very lttle about him, i merely quoted him as it made sense to me, the source can be counted as irrelevant as I hope the point made still stands.

As I said, I see and understand your point, I simply can't agree with it.

Leviathon said: 5) My example about the mugger's brother was obviously bad, but the pinciple behind it is that violence, as shown infact by your retaliation to violence, leads to more violence and the Ghandi eye for eye quote shows that this continues, it doesn't stop with one shot.

I abhor violence, but I feel I must face the reality that life is a contest of violence, and only mans creation of society can alter this natural fact. Until society places all men on an equal footing regarding individual rights, I feel I have no choice but to defend what is, against those who claim it is not.

As I have said... there are times when you meet a trader who accepts no currency but force, and will not accept " I don't wish to deal with you" as an answer. It is these times I prepare for, as I value this life, more than any lesson to those whom may survive me, may take from my death or the form of that death.

To die at the hands of a fool, being foolish, only makes me more the fool for trusting them to stop before my death was imminent.

I have trust in my fellow men of reason, but little trust for my fellow men of blind faith, for life, for lifes sake.

Leviathon said: 6) Britain obviously does have an army, as it is busy shooting Iraqis and Afghans (as well as a few Danes) at the moment. The line my country takes on violence is not my line, and there is also a difference between democratically sanctioned governments acting violently than single people.

All governments draw their strength through sanction of the public they suppress or support. The people need to remove that sanction, if they feel that system is unjust, if they expect the system to EVER become just.

I don't sanction my government when at all possible... I believe in civil disobedience, and I believe in my right to petition for redress of grievance. I don't accept law as law, simply because an unchecked authority decides it should be law.

My point is that violence has always been a part of mans nature, and most likely, always will be. Knowing this, I prepare to live a life of peace, but prepare to meet force should it be thrust upon me against my will.

Leviathon said: 7) Yes, people do die from crime where I live and the police are not perfect, however I put it to you that more people would die if people were allowed to kill others in "self-defence".

This to me, is neither here nor there. I have no duty to protect the foolish, nor do they have a duty to protect me. I bear no burden on society, and refuse them to burden me.

leviathon said: In 2001 the number of deaths from guns in britain per 100,000 poulation was 0.35 in U.S.A. 9.90. The facts speak for themselves.

No they don't. There is no causal argument, nor is there exhaustive investigation to show all the relevant issues that are not addressed, which alter those outcomes.

[leviathon435]

Whether you believe statistics or not is up to you and I see that they are not whole and factors like easy illegal arms transport through Mexcico etc. is a factor. But I also say that almost 30times the number of deaths is not a casual argument.

I now think I see the true differences between us, one is that I feel a duty to my fellow man and to my society, whereas you have stated that you do not, at least not to "fools". I believe that what I do has implications on society and even if I die I want these to be for the good. The other is that i am young and do believe in utopias and that even in the effort, even if it fails, goodness can be found. Only by working towards that can we live in peace. None of this means that I don't disagree with my government, because I do. I have not yet symbolically broken a law but it could happen. The British government is waning to bring compulsory i.d. cards for all citizens, this is something that even leading members of the third political party have said they will refuse. I can still ac t for society and to better it whilst not blindly following all its laws. I also want to say that I am not religious, I don't believe in a higher power or an afterlife. I act out of compassion for all fellow humans and for my own pleasure.

[Osborn F Enready]

Leviathon, your well spoken, and I appreciate the chance to speak with you on these issues.

Thank you for being honest, and as non-confrontational as possible.

I also should have stated something more clearly.

I support my government, as designed, just not as it has become through perversion of law and abuse of Constitutional infringement, by lawmakers.

[leviathon435]

Thank you Osborn, my first debate has been very interesting thanks to you and I would like to echo your statements back to you.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: leviathon435 Ah, i see your question now, and the answer is no, I have nothing else to hand, Obviously I have kitchen knives in my house which could be used as a weapon but I would not consider using them. The weapon i consider to be most useful is my brain and whilst it may sound a bit cliched I would try to avoid a violent confrontation with my quick-thinking, at least enough to postpone violence untill police have arrived. this is not just naivity (pardon my spelling) on my part, the fact is that I would not be capable of using force even if i had the physical means.

leviathon sensible reply. If one is not trained and physicaly capable it is often better to have other means.

[leviathon435]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel leviathon sensible reply. If one is not trained and physicaly capable it is often better to have other means.

I'm not only not physically trained but mentally I would find it very hard if not impossible to serioulsy injure, or kill, anyone.

[brien]

I'm not only not physically trained but mentally I would find it very hard if not impossible to serioulsy injure, or kill, anyone

That's what Sgt York said initially until he learned otherwise.

Alvin C. York

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: leviathon435 I'm not only not physically trained but mentally I would find it very hard if not impossible to serioulsy injure, or kill, anyone.

leviathon I respect you

[leviathon435]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel leviathon I respect you

Thank you very much Arawn.

[Praxius]

I say all Canadians late at night before they have to wake up for church, we all sneak in their homes in our beaver fur suits through the doggy doors, slip the animals some bacon and canned ham all mashed up and minced with gravy with a fork. Then pet the pitbulls and continue on our way and steal all their firearms and replace them with super soakers all painted to look real.

tee he he.... and then we tell Cuba the coast is clear, and they invade along with Mexico, the Americans go and grab their arms and start shooting the invaders, but realize their flack suits are padded with that foamy stuff those dinos were made out of in your cereal... you know, that stuff that grew bigger when you added water?

Anyways, then they got super padding so even knives have a hard time getting through, and the Mexicans will pelt them with slingshot spicy tacos, and the Cubans will slowly kill them all by 2nd hand smoke from all their cigars they smoke.

And the Americans would seek backup from their buddies in Canada to lay some Frozen Canuck smack down with our kung fu beaver tails and smack their tacos back into the eyes of the Cubans, and they'll scream and throw their cigars and their cigars would in turn hit the Mexicans and set their sun dried out clothes on fire and they'd all go screaming in agony into the ocean and die.

And the moral of the story?

You don't need guns to save the world, just deceitful neighbors who not only club baby seals for their pretty coats, but we also club beavers for their tails.... oh and we taser you for free at the airport.

[leviathon435]

Quote by: Praxius I say all Canadians late at night before they have to wake up for church, we all sneak in their homes in our beaver fur suits through the doggy doors, slip the animals some bacon and canned ham all mashed up and minced with gravy with a fork. Then pet the pitbulls and continue on our way and steal all their firearms and replace them with super soakers all painted to look real. tee he he.... and then we tell Cuba the coast is clear, and they invade along with Mexico, the Americans go and grab their arms and start shooting the invaders, but realize their flack suits are padded with that foamy stuff those dinos were made out of in your cereal... you know, that stuff that grew bigger when you added water? Anyways, then they got super padding so even knives have a hard time getting through, and the Mexicans will pelt them with slingshot spicy tacos, and the Cubans will slowly kill them all by 2nd hand smoke from all their cigars they smoke. And the Americans would seek backup from their buddies in Canada to lay some Frozen Canuck smack down with our kung fu beaver tails and smack their tacos back into the eyes of the Cubans, and they'll scream and throw their cigars and their cigars would in turn hit the Mexicans and set their sun dried out clothes on fire and they'd all go screaming in agony into the ocean and die. And the moral of the story? You don't need guns to save the world, just deceitful neighbors who not only club baby seals for their pretty coats, but we also club beavers for their tails.... oh and we taser you for free at the airport.

What an imagination!

[Poledancer]

In reply to the original question. I am in the UK, I have no guns ( and no, I don't have an illegal one either).

Only have things that could be weapons, like kitchen utensils but nothing that I bought for the sole purpose of it being a weapon.

[Lasher]

Quote by: Arawn-ap-Hywel this question of how many weapons do you own is posed with thanks from a reply by Keith Hamburger on this thread Forget the green technology - the hot money is in guns the weapons questioned are those that can be used to defend or attack so do you possess a weapon(s) how many and what sort (here thanks to Grandpa who seams consider only guns are weapons, only teasing Grandpa no real offence meant)

Enough.

[Compugasm]

From my cold, dead hands.