Knife attack kills 27 people, wounds 109

[Seth]

Like I said to you before, there are safeguards in place in civilized countries that prevent the masses from enacting their will on the minority.

Yeah? Such as?

If it's democratically decided by majority to hang gay people then stops being a democracy and becomes a fascist state... Just because some people believe in something and want it to happen doesn't mean it should ever be allowed to happen. Like Christians or Muslims. Or libertarians for that matter ...

And how do gay people and their supporters propose to prevent the democratic majority from hanging gays, pray tell? Do you think the gays in Nigeria are having a very good time right now? Are impassioned pleas and these illusory "safeguards" you allude to helping them?

Nope.

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

And that's exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the US.

[JimC]

Most modern democratic societies have some version of the right to self-defence firmly enshrined in their legal system, to the point where it's removal would only occur in a total upheaval of society. I am happy to be part of a society whose members would resist any move by authorities to remove such a legal right (it may be more circumscribed than the US situation, but it is sufficient in most circumstances). Taking away fundamental rights is not something like legislating for a new method of patent protection; you paint it as something a whim could remove, which is a nonsense. Society's strength is the collective power of the population to work together, and to resist attempts by rulers to remove rights which the people themselves, over a long historical process have helped to create; they are not rights granted as largesse by rulers.

I believe the Brits told the King that with the Magna Carta. Something about "the rights of Englishmen" as I recall. Pity the current occupants of the island don't read their own historical documents.

Those rights were something that evolved over time, and were eventually enshrined (against the will of tyrannical royals) by the collective acts of a population. The rights were not some free-floating piece of magic which existed independently of the historical processes within a given society. This is not me saying the concept of rights is unimportant, simply disagreeing with you on their nature and origin.

[rainbow]

Now if the people at the train station had handgrenades instead of knifes, do you think the death toll might have been a bit higher?

Yes, indeed it would have. Then again nothing prevented those attackers from using hand grenades if that's the weapon they choose to use. They didn't, but they certainly could have.

OK you're just guessing here. You don't know that they could've got hand grenades. I expect the availability in China isn't that good, even if it is in the US.

The point you miss is that increased availability of lethal weapons can increase the possibility of mass murder.

[MrJonno]

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

You only hope is run, if the majority of a society want you dead its not the government that is the problem. Who in their right mind would ever want to live somewhere where they were hated armed or not

[SnowLeopard]

Like I said to you before, there are safeguards in place in civilized countries that prevent the masses from enacting their will on the minority.

Yeah? Such as?

If it's democratically decided by majority to hang gay people then stops being a democracy and becomes a fascist state... Just because some people believe in something and want it to happen doesn't mean it should ever be allowed to happen. Like Christians or Muslims. Or libertarians for that matter ...

And how do gay people and their supporters propose to prevent the democratic majority from hanging gays, pray tell? Do you think the gays in Nigeria are having a very good time right now? Are impassioned pleas and these illusory "safeguards" you allude to helping them?

Nope.

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

And that's exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the US.

That was the single worst attempt at trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 I've ever seen in my life.

[Seth]

Now if the people at the train station had handgrenades instead of knifes, do you think the death toll might have been a bit higher?

Yes, indeed it would have. Then again nothing prevented those attackers from using hand grenades if that's the weapon they choose to use. They didn't, but they certainly could have.

OK you're just guessing here. You don't know that they could've got hand grenades. I expect the availability in China isn't that good, even if it is in the US.

The point you miss is that increased availability of lethal weapons can increase the possibility of mass murder.

Only if the availability is limited to killers and terrorists, which is exactly the point. And since killers and terrorists will find, steal or make lethal weapons whereas law-abiding citizens won't where it's illegal to do so, the probabilities of mass murder are higher where the civilian population is disarmed. Almost all of the mass killings in the US have happened where guns are prohibited either by law or by the management of the property. This is not an irrelevant factor.

[Seth]

Like I said to you before, there are safeguards in place in civilized countries that prevent the masses from enacting their will on the minority.

Yeah? Such as?

If it's democratically decided by majority to hang gay people then stops being a democracy and becomes a fascist state... Just because some people believe in something and want it to happen doesn't mean it should ever be allowed to happen. Like Christians or Muslims. Or libertarians for that matter ...

And how do gay people and their supporters propose to prevent the democratic majority from hanging gays, pray tell? Do you think the gays in Nigeria are having a very good time right now? Are impassioned pleas and these illusory "safeguards" you allude to helping them?

Nope.

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

And that's exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the US.

That was the single worst attempt at trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 I've ever seen in my life.

Glad to hear it, since that's not what I was trying to do, which means it's your mental powers that are deficient, not mine.

I note that you studiously evaded the question...again. What "safeguards" are in place in your "civilized" country that prevent what I describe from happening to you if and when the "democratic" majority decides that you are unworthy of respect as a human being and decides to liquidate you?

Think you can make a stab at actually answering the question this time?

[SnowLeopard]

Glad to hear it, since that's not what I was trying to do, which means it's your mental powers that are deficient, not mine.

Doesn't quite work like that. Irrespective of whether or not it was your intention, it was the final outcome. So if you arrived at that outcome without it being your intention I'd say your mental powers hold the deficiency...

I note that you studiously evaded the question...again. What "safeguards" are in place in your "civilized" country that prevent what I describe from happening to you if and when the "democratic" majority decides that you are unworthy of respect as a human being and decides to liquidate you?

Think you can make a stab at actually answering the question this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_C ... man_Rights

[Beatsong]

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

And that's exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the US.

That was the single worst attempt at trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 I've ever seen in my life.

Glad to hear it, since that's not what I was trying to do, which means it's your mental powers that are deficient, not mine.

I note that you studiously evaded the question...again. What "safeguards" are in place in your "civilized" country that prevent what I describe from happening to you if and when the "democratic" majority decides that you are unworthy of respect as a human being and decides to liquidate you?

This doesn't make any sense. Surely if the majority is ENOUGH of a majority, your guns are not going to mean shit against theirs. It's a simple question of numbers. The same constitution that gives you as an individual the right to bear arms, gives all of them as individuals that right as well. Which means that if one million of them surround your house determined to kill you, you're pretty unlikely to be able to do anything much about it.

I think you might be getting your frontier myths in a twist here. The reason American individuals were granted the right to bear arms was so that they could, if necessary, fight against their government, not against "the majority". And if memory serves me correctly, the way that is described is via citizens' militias, not reality-defying miracles performed by individual Rambo wannabes. It still acknowledges the reality of power in numbers - it just envisages a possibility where a larger force of citizens might fight and defeat a smaller force of government agents.

[Seth]

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

And that's exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the US.

That was the single worst attempt at trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 I've ever seen in my life.

Glad to hear it, since that's not what I was trying to do, which means it's your mental powers that are deficient, not mine.

I note that you studiously evaded the question...again. What "safeguards" are in place in your "civilized" country that prevent what I describe from happening to you if and when the "democratic" majority decides that you are unworthy of respect as a human being and decides to liquidate you?

This doesn't make any sense. Surely if the majority is ENOUGH of a majority, your guns are not going to mean shit against theirs. It's a simple question of numbers. The same constitution that gives you as an individual the right to bear arms, gives all of them as individuals that right as well. Which means that if one million of them surround your house determined to kill you, you're pretty unlikely to be able to do anything much about it.

This is a utilitarian argument, not a philosophical or political one. That the majority may have the physical power to violate my rights does not give them moral license to do so. And the fact that the majority may have the physical power to do so does not cause my rights to vanish nor does it impeach my moral authority to exercise and defend my rights to the best of my ability. Doing so may ultimately be fruitless, but if my forefathers had operated on that principle the United States would not exist because no one would have taken up arms against the Brits.

I think you might be getting your frontier myths in a twist here. The reason American individuals were granted the right to bear arms was so that they could, if necessary, fight against their government, not against "the majority".

What leads you to the silly idea that the two things are not actually the same thing. Remember the old "government by, of and for the People" bit? That has actual, legal meaning. Our government does NOTHING without our consent. If it tries to do something the People don't agree with there are many avenues of redress which all culminate in one simple form of redress that protects all the others: the resort to armed rebellion.

That is what created this nation, and that is what protects it from despots and tyrants, in the end.

And if memory serves me correctly, the way that is described is via citizens' militias, not reality-defying miracles performed by individual Rambo wannabes. It still acknowledges the reality of power in numbers - it just envisages a possibility where a larger force of citizens might fight and defeat a smaller force of government agents.

If you think I'm alone in my beliefs and practices, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

And you're exactly right, the Constitution not only envisages that possibility, it jealously and rigorously guards that ability on the part of the citizenry. That's one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment.

[Seth]

Glad to hear it, since that's not what I was trying to do, which means it's your mental powers that are deficient, not mine.

Doesn't quite work like that. Irrespective of whether or not it was your intention, it was the final outcome. So if you arrived at that outcome without it being your intention I'd say your mental powers hold the deficiency...

Clearly it's your intellectual abilities and powers of cognition that are failed. Your perception appear to be fatally skewed.

I note that you studiously evaded the question...again. What "safeguards" are in place in your "civilized" country that prevent what I describe from happening to you if and when the "democratic" majority decides that you are unworthy of respect as a human being and decides to liquidate you?

Think you can make a stab at actually answering the question this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_C ... man_Rights[/quote]

Lovely. Is that helping gays in Uganda or Ukrainians in Crimea or civilians in Sudan or anybody else anywhere on earth?

Nope.

The UN is comprised of a bunch of fuckwit bureaucrats partying with hookers and blow on their respective government's dime who accomplish exactly zero by way of "safeguarding" anyone. Dumb fucks that work for them aren't even allowed to load their weapons and their blue helmets make dandy targets.

If you're depending on the UN to keep the tyranny of the majority from slitting your throat you might want to go talk to the Serbs and Croats about how well that works.

Anything else left in your quiver or have you shot your last shaft?

[Beatsong]

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

And that's exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the US.

That was the single worst attempt at trying to make 2 + 2 = 5 I've ever seen in my life.

Glad to hear it, since that's not what I was trying to do, which means it's your mental powers that are deficient, not mine.

I note that you studiously evaded the question...again. What "safeguards" are in place in your "civilized" country that prevent what I describe from happening to you if and when the "democratic" majority decides that you are unworthy of respect as a human being and decides to liquidate you?

This doesn't make any sense. Surely if the majority is ENOUGH of a majority, your guns are not going to mean shit against theirs. It's a simple question of numbers. The same constitution that gives you as an individual the right to bear arms, gives all of them as individuals that right as well. Which means that if one million of them surround your house determined to kill you, you're pretty unlikely to be able to do anything much about it.

This is a utilitarian argument, not a philosophical or political one.

Of course it is. But then so is:

If the "democratic" majority decides to string you up, the only hope you have is that you and your supporters are well-armed enough to keep them from doing so.

It's just that yours is a BAD utilitarian argument, based on the delusion that one heavily armed person can successfully defend themselves against a large heavily armed mob. I was simply correcting it.

I think you might be getting your frontier myths in a twist here. The reason American individuals were granted the right to bear arms was so that they could, if necessary, fight against their government, not against "the majority".

What leads you to the silly idea that the two things are not actually the same thing. Remember the old "government by, of and for the People" bit? That has actual, legal meaning. Our government does NOTHING without our consent. If it tries to do something the People don't agree with there are many avenues of redress which all culminate in one simple form of redress that protects all the others: the resort to armed rebellion.

Way to miss the point. Well done.

And if memory serves me correctly, the way that is described is via citizens' militias, not reality-defying miracles performed by individual Rambo wannabes. It still acknowledges the reality of power in numbers - it just envisages a possibility where a larger force of citizens might fight and defeat a smaller force of government agents.

If you think I'm alone in my beliefs and practices, you're a bigger fool than I thought you were.

It was you who introduced the concept of aloneness, by describing the hypothetical situation of a mob lynching an individual. All I did was point out that gun laws don't make any difference to that situation, given that they tend to either increase or decrease the supply of guns to everybody. The reality of uneven numbers is still what it was.

Now you're just changing the subject to somebody fighting when the numbers AREN'T so unequal. Presumably because you know you were writing incoherent gibberish in the first place.

[JimC]

I wish everybody in this thread would learn to write coherent gibberish!

[Hermit]

The point you miss is that increased availability of lethal weapons can increase the possibility of mass murder.

...the probabilities of mass murder are higher where the civilian population is disarmed. Almost all of the mass killings in the US have happened where guns are prohibited either by law or by the management of the property. This is not an irrelevant factor.

Australia, on the other hand, had 8 mass murders involving firearms in the 12 years leading up to the 1996 gun buyback scheme and 0 in the 17 years that followed.

[JimC]

The point you miss is that increased availability of lethal weapons can increase the possibility of mass murder.

...the probabilities of mass murder are higher where the civilian population is disarmed. Almost all of the mass killings in the US have happened where guns are prohibited either by law or by the management of the property. This is not an irrelevant factor.

Australia, on the other hand, had 8 mass murders involving firearms in the 12 years leading up to the 1996 gun buyback scheme and 0 in the 17 years that followed.

Is it really kind to spoil Seth's theories with inconvenient facts?