Police in School?

[Kagayours]

No, I'm saying that in the end, there are no true rights. Rights don't protect people like you seem to think. They are simply a guideline with a punishment for disobeying, but that doesn't stop people from doing so and trying to escape the consequences.

I'm not arguing that people have the right to kill others, i'm arguing that rights isn't true protection. Right's won't protect me from somebody who doesn't care about rights, rights wont protect me from people who control the rights. You know what will protect me though? Those exact weapons. The blessing, and the curse of this world.

To me, rights are nothing more than something to make people feel better and feel safer. Why I find that a problem is that it's gotten too far, and people started seeing it as a magical barrier, something to protect them instead of fighting for themselves to protect their own life. When someone is about to kill another, the victim will be like "You don't have the right to kill me D:" And the killer will be like "Well lets see if those rights will stop me" Then bang, dead. That's problematic to me.

Mmm, fair enough, then.

Though I would still argue that still having those rights as defined by the law is a hell of a lot better than not having them. Yeah, yelling "my rights!" isn't going to stop a criminal and that's why it makes sense for people to exercise reasonable levels of protection, so I'm with you on that.

My issue was that you made it sound like the fact that people have a "right to life" is problematic in and of itself and that the world would be better if that wasn't the case. Which, well, seeing someone say "people don't have the right to kill others" followed by "but people thinking they have the right to life is a problem in society" really just didn't feel right to me, and I felt it needed to be addressed.

And I do still stand by that opinion. Yeah, having those rights does make us "feel safer", and I think I rather would feel safe than have to fear for my life every day because there's no law stopping anyone from ending me. In fact, because of that, I think I would argue that rights (and the laws that protect them) don't just make us feel safer, but often times they actually do make us safer. Yeah, not everyone will be deterred by such things -- murderers do still exist, after all -- but I think it's safe to say that the fact that we don't live in an anarchy leaves us all a bit safer than we would be if we did.

But yeah, I get what you're saying about people defending themselves. I never argued against that. I'm just saying that having a "right to life" is certainly a good thing to have. Not 100% effective, I realize, but certainly better than not having it.

Specifically the part where you said that "the world would be better off like that" is what really got me, since, no, I still strongly disagree with that notion.

Well then I must of misread it XP
Because what I read from Cosmos was people don't have the rights to have guns, because people use them to kill others and/or are super stupid with them which also kills others.
[BCOLOR=#000080]"I don't think I can ever agree with the common folk having guns simply because they are stupid. Like really stupid."[/BCOLOR]
Plus the entire part of how stupid people are with guns

[BCOLOR=#000080]"Guy takes selfie with a gun for instagram and kills himself. Parents are unaware the gun is not put away or make an easy password that kids know resulting in toddlers being shot. Women carrying their guns in their purse where their toddlers have access resulting in the mother being shot in the head by a toddler. People being shot just for being at a party. Racists shooting kids and getting away with it because they claim self defense and the right to bare arms. Teenagers running the streets with guns because if they are stopped and frisked, they claim racism while others shoot up schools...these are all every day stories from the news and no matter how much "safety" courses you take, you're always bound to take a life, an innocent one even by mistake. No one has a right to take a life because they fancy having a gun more, least that's how I view it."[/BCOLOR]

I admit that I didn't pay as much attention to the rest of his post as I did to the bit that you quoted before -- mostly because it was the fact that you replied to "people don't have the right to kill people just because they have a gun" with "yeah no people shouldn't have a right to life in the first place" (or at least, that's what it came across as to me -- I realize that's not quite what you were trying to get at) that really stood out to me, hence why I was re-quoting that bit of his post to make it clear what I was talking about.

The rest of Cosmos' post aside, the thought that people being gun-owners doesn't give them the right to be killers seemed like a pretty sound moral stance to me.

I don't understand how you read my post being about "People have the right to kill".

Saying that society would be better if people didn't have the right to life (and, to be clear, the right to life is not a magic invincibility star that every human on earth recognizes -- it refers to one's right to life as defended by law) is like saying that society would be better if murder was legal. I suppose while calling that the "right to kill" might be a bit inaccurate, what I was trying to say was that living in a world where there's nothing legally wrong with killing anyone just doesn't seem like an ideal one to me. Your argument made it seem as if having laws designed to protect people was a bad thing because it made people less likely to defend themselves. And, while I suppose I would agree that people would be better at self-defense if we didn't have laws defending us, I think I'd still say that we're better off having them.

The fact that you compared all this to animals defending themselves in nature was what really got me. Yeah, animals constantly live in fear of getting eaten by bigger animals, but humans shouldn't have to live like that. That's more where the survival-of-the-fittest thing came from.

I don't understand how you read my post being about "People have the right to kill". And I also don't know how you see Cosmo's post as simply "people don't have the right to kill just because they have guns" Sure that may have been a theme, but the primary point seemed to be about why we shouldn't have guns because of people being killed by them.

Because, like I said, my focus wasn't on that -- my focus was on the fact that you seemed to disagree with the notion that people don't have the right to kill others just because they own a gun.

Zimmerman claims he shot Martin because he "was in fear for his life", which is a very legitimate reason to shoot a person. An investigation was launched into these claims and he was taken to court- by which he was cleared of a crime through a jury of his piers.


Is our system a perfect one? Of course not. But its much better of a system than "social justice" or "street courts" that believed Zimmerman was guilty.

My point being that it's still a gray area because there are plenty that would believe that Zimmerman wasn't justified and that Martin wasn't a threat to him, so he shouldn't have been killed.

But, I'm not here to argue that, it was just an example of these things being gray. I'm not saying that no one ever has the right to self-defense, but, yeah, it can be tricky sometimes.

I think I understand what you are trying to say here. The problem isn't in the law or how it is executed /per se/.

How do you legislate protection? Can you make law that is iron clad perfection that will protect every innocent human life?

Unfortunately, that isn't a possibility. The best you can do is try to grow as a society and change culture. These is more philosophical than it is a question of whether or not making and executing law can get the job done.

In this case (and in my opinion), Police cannot do the job effectively. In fact, Police don't carry weapons to protect others, they carry them to protect /themselves/. That is why people should take it upon themselves to protect themselves. Even if police presence automatically fixed the problem, not everyone has a police officer sitting in their back pocket to toss out when they need protection.

As for my last couple of comments, they aren't necessarily aimed at what you said- but just to try to allow the argument to shift from legality/implementation of legislation to philosophical, as that is what we are mostly dealing with here.

I'm going to jump out of this now because its quite a bit off topic. I did, however, create a Second Amendment topic if you or anyone else is interested on discussing/debating that.

I hope I didn't cause you to be upset or anything and I hope you have a lovely night.

Oh, it's fine. No feelings hurt. I wasn't trying to get into the real nitty-gritty of gun control and the laws surrounding it -- just saying that the concept of there being laws to protect us is still better than there being no laws protecting that sort of thing, and murder being legal. Just wanted to make that stance understood.

I realize that the system as it currently is is far from perfect and there are a whooole bunch of points for debate in that topic alone. All I was trying to say is that even our current, flawed system is better than the thought of it being legally acceptable to kill in any circumstance and everyone being wholly responsible for the protection of their own lives.

But that's hardly the point. In Zimmermans mind (If he's telling the truth) he saved his own life, and I bet that's worth going to jail for a bit. And didn't the kid also rob a store too? Two similar stories happened at the same time so I get confused on the two sometimes DX If I remember correctly, both kids were criminals, and Zimmermans story checks out with what a guilty person would do after being called. Why does that matter? Well that goes into our societies tendency to protect the criminals. Remember the Boston bomber? There were MANY fan-girls in America wanting him to be freed because he's "Too hot for prison"

>> Listen, I'm no expert on what went down with the Zimmerman case, so I feel like I can't argue details on that one, but, there's still definitely a huge difference between said case, in which you had people defending Martin because they believed that he didn't actually pose a threat and that Zimmerman didn't have the right to kill him, and the bolded example, in which you have people defending definite killers because of "hotness". >>

I feel like the two cases aren't even really comparable in that regard. Besides, claiming that society has a tendency to "protect the criminals"? Well, even that depends on who you see as the criminals. If one is convinced that Martin wasn't actually a threat, then Zimmerman becomes the criminal, because he murdered someone. It's a matter of perspective at that point.

The only reason why it would make sense for anyone to defend a criminal is if they believe that that person shouldn't be considered a criminal, and that they were in the right. And, well, at that point, I suppose it makes sense that you'd always have people "defending criminals", because you'll always have people on both sides of every argument, especially highly controversial ones. So, I don't think that's really a flaw with our society as much as it is an inevitable result of people having differing opinions. :P

 

[Asmodeus]

Never mind then...

 

[Shadon Xarian]

@Kaga-kun
I think I know where the confusion comes from now XD The way I see people talk, there seems to be a difference between "Rights" and "Laws" Yes, it is illegal to kill someone, and that is a good thing. However, I find the "Right to life" to be a bit silly because although it has good intentions, people don't care about those rights, and a person with greater power than yours over ride your rights, and it no longer becomes a factor in the terrible situation. But in that situation, people seem to cling to their right to life thinking that maybe that will protect them rather than fighting back and protecting them self.

Should we have to defend ourselves like animals? Personally, I don't even like the fact that animals have to defend themselves from others >.< I REALLY wish the world was different. I WISH there was truly a right to live and not be killed. One of the greatest places I've ever been to was devils punch bowl (I think that was the name) Humans were peaceful, walking and being close with birds, and squirrels. None of them feared each other, none of them wanted to even harm (Or touch) each other. Nothing but true peace.

But sadly, that's not the case everywhere. In the end, rights seem to mean nothing. Even after you're dead, the law will still seek justice for you. But... Well you're dead :/ Doesn't matter too much anymore other than revenge and/or to protect someone else from your fate.

As pro weapon as I am, I actually hate guns, and knives as a weapon (So really, I hate the humans that use them XD) Guns are cowardly, and knives are a PAIN IN THE ASS TO FIGHT AGAINST!!!!! I despise knife training with my friend. Sadly though, knives exist, and are used to do harm. So I need to learn how to combat it. Same with guns. I love target shooting. However, people use guns to kill, so I need to learn how to combat them.

I probably said this before, but I REALLY wish that I could agree with you 100%... (Well maybe 90%-95% XD There's still a few things of "chaos" I personally like in life. Nothing too deadly of course, but things that are probably seen as questionable to many)
But I've been exposed to far too much darkness about this world to be as optimistic. For a world that we probably want, history shown that there's only one way to get something like that, and that's to fight for it. Sure the pen may be mightier than the sword in most cases, but there are some cases where the pen doesn't mean a thing, and the sword is 100% necessary to combat a problem. Of course the best way to deal with a problem is with both, but sometimes one doesn't work while the other does.

@Asmodeus I don't know what reply you're expecting DX

 

[Shadon Xarian]

He also caught a little heat for posting a picture of Martin in a coffin and making very inappropriate jokes about it...but this guy, this guy gets a gun. Smh.

Yes, the guy is pretty scummy. But I hear that the guy he killed was pretty scummy too XP Not saying that makes it right, but as scummy as someone is, if what he says is true, then he had every reason to kill him.
Think about it from his situation, this teen in a hood starts charging at you. Does he have a gun? Does he have a knife? Are you going to give him/her the chance to use it on you and kill you? Personal survival normally comes above law to the individual in most cases. I doubt anyone is thinking "Oh no, this person probably has a knife... What is the legal way to deal with this situa *Stabbed and dies*

Also, in order to claim self defense you must meet the culprit with the same amount of force they give you. Can't bring a knife to a fist fight or a gun to a knife fight because by law, that is considered excessive force.

If someone is coming at me to kill me/do something to me, I'm pulling out my knife regardless of what they may, or may not have. (Potentially gun too if I (Not the law) feels I must. Whenever you go to attack somebody, you KNOW full well that you may get killed in that interaction. You take the risk, and we see if the risk was worth it. If I have jail time, so be it. I potentially just saved my life, and others :D We don't know why people attack us, or what weapon they're hiding. So better safe than sorry. I'd rather do jail time than to be killed by some random nobody.

My friend gave me a grim reminder too XP The ONE TIME I wasn't armed, he snuck up behind me and put me in a chock hold -.- He got so scared when I was about to fight back because he had a playful grip, but I quickly realized it was him and didn't retaliate.

The reason why there was such an uproar is because Martin was smaller then Zimmerman and many felt Zimmerman went to the extreme by taking his life.

Not really XP There was a major uproar because Martin was black. Not too long after, a similar case happened but it was a black man killing a white teen. That didn't get an uproar. Also, there was a black man who was going around killing white cops who were inside their cars. Some of which were considered heroes to locals. But there was no media uproar over that either. The Martin case uproar and media coverage was probably like 90% BECAUSE of racial reasons.

 

[Kagayours]

@Kaga-kun
I think I know where the confusion comes from now XD The way I see people talk, there seems to be a difference between "Rights" and "Laws" Yes, it is illegal to kill someone, and that is a good thing. However, I find the "Right to life" to be a bit silly because although it has good intentions, people don't care about those rights, and a person with greater power than yours over ride your rights, and it no longer becomes a factor in the terrible situation. But in that situation, people seem to cling to their right to life thinking that maybe that will protect them rather than fighting back and protecting them self.

Should we have to defend ourselves like animals? Personally, I don't even like the fact that animals have to defend themselves from others >.< I REALLY wish the world was different. I WISH there was truly a right to live and not be killed. One of the greatest places I've ever been to was devils punch bowl (I think that was the name) Humans were peaceful, walking and being close with birds, and squirrels. None of them feared each other, none of them wanted to even harm (Or touch) each other. Nothing but true peace.

But sadly, that's not the case everywhere. In the end, rights seem to mean nothing. Even after you're dead, the law will still seek justice for you. But... Well you're dead :/ Doesn't matter too much anymore other than revenge and/or to protect someone else from your fate.

As pro weapon as I am, I actually hate guns, and knives as a weapon (So really, I hate the humans that use them XD) Guns are cowardly, and knives are a PAIN IN THE ASS TO FIGHT AGAINST!!!!! I despise knife training with my friend. Sadly though, knives exist, and are used to do harm. So I need to learn how to combat it. Same with guns. I love target shooting. However, people use guns to kill, so I need to learn how to combat them.

I probably said this before, but I REALLY wish that I could agree with you 100%... (Well maybe 90%-95% XD There's still a few things of "chaos" I personally like in life. Nothing too deadly of course, but things that are probably seen as questionable to many)
But I've been exposed to far too much darkness about this world to be as optimistic. For a world that we probably want, history shown that there's only one way to get something like that, and that's to fight for it. Sure the pen may be mightier than the sword in most cases, but there are some cases where the pen doesn't mean a thing, and the sword is 100% necessary to combat a problem. Of course the best way to deal with a problem is with both, but sometimes one doesn't work while the other does.

Well, the "right to life" is a legal term, so... yeah.

I'm not saying that people should treat that right like a magic bubble, because it isn't. And, yeah, there'll be criminals who just don't care.

But it's still better to have laws protecting us, is all I'm saying. I know that they're not 100% effective and not all criminals will be deterred, but I think it'll keep us a lot safer than we'd be if there were no such protections.

There's a happy medium in here somewhere. Mostly just a matter of common sense.

 

[Asmodeus]

I REALLY wish the world was different.

Now it can be, with NEW Commsens Legislation! Commsens Legislation gives you that smooth clean feeling of not getting shot for walking on someone's lawn with the satisfaction of mothers not burying their children. With a unique patented combination of sound education and a cultural exclusion of whackjobs on cable TV and radio talk shows, Commsens works hard for YOU to eliminate the medieval/cowboy culture of shooting/stabbing the fuck out of your fellow man which is picked up on by the uninformed and mentally-retarded all across the nation!

Just listen to one satisfied customer...

EUROPE (not an actor): "So yeah, we decided to exclude idiots and xenophobes from mainstream media, and invested in a healthcare system that could treat violent maniacs. With the inability to buy guns at the cornershop, Commsens fixed it for us to have a culture where shooting people is an impolite and silly idea. Thanks Commsens!

Vote now for a fifty year trial and see how an ignoramus-free cultural agenda can benefit YOU.

Commsens is not affiliated with Socialism or any of its subsidiaries

 

[Hecatoncheires]

"So yeah, we decided to exclude idiots and xenophobes from mainstream media

 

[Asmodeus]

Who's that guy?

 

[Hecatoncheires]

YOU'VE BEEN GONE TOO LONG.

BRITAIN HAS CHANGED, AND NOT FOR THE BETTER.

 

[Asmodeus]

Well, at least she or the hysterical idealogues who confuse their beliefs with hers can't buy guns.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

Well, the "right to life" is a legal term, so... yeah.

I'm not saying that people should treat that right like a magic bubble, because it isn't. And, yeah, there'll be criminals who just don't care.

But it's still better to have laws protecting us, is all I'm saying. I know that they're not 100% effective and not all criminals will be deterred, but I think it'll keep us a lot safer than we'd be if there were no such protections.

There's a happy medium in here somewhere. Mostly just a matter of common sense.

And yes, you're right ^^ (But I don't recall ever saying that laws should be removed, I just don't think that laws mean much in certain situations, and shouldn't be used as an excuse to a criminal who clearly doesn't care)

It may be a legal term, but legal term doesn't mean it all blends together. Sure you have the right to live. But what does that mean exactly? Do we have the right to die too? Because that happens no matter what is said or done.

And yes, it is better to have laws. But that can't be all you're saying because if it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion XD What we seem to disagree on is weather laws actually protect us or not.

Not entirely sure how you see laws, but I see laws more of a consequence rather than an absolute. It's against the law to kill, but it's not magically stopping a killing. Instead, it is seeking justice for that action.

Which is what my personal view on laws are. Seeking justice. Sure it's true definition is probably something else, but in the end, that what it comes down to. But even the law isn't an absolute, and it is still up to ourselves to give us our own justice. When somebody wants to kidnap you/kill you, the law means nothing in that moment. What matters is your own personal protection.


Which then goes to security. Should there be cops in school? Sure... But with the same gear, what's the difference between a cop and a school security guard when it comes to somebody at a school wanting to shoot everyone? My answer? Numbers and odds.
The law won't allow such a thing? I know. Which is where I think the biggest confusion comes from. I'm not talking legally, I don't care what the law says about protecting someone. If the law will dictate that I need to let somebody die to follow it, then I am going to break it and protect the people as people are far more important than laws. There is a reason why the law is able to be changed. The primary reason is because ideals and morals change with the time. But I think that deeper inside, laws are flawed, and people know it. So they are to be removed if they become a negative in the end.

 

[Asmodeus]

...

So.. You don't think that Law is a deterrent? You think if the Law, and fear of imprisonment, were removed, there'd be the same amount of murders?

Security and right to life are the building blocks of civilised society. It should be expected. It should be a barrier.

Yes, Killaz gonna Kill. There'll always be a "responsible gun owner" who becomes easily angered by something on the internet. But the government should be working to stop those people getting guns, recongition and links to Reddit.

Big government frees us from the State of Nature.

We cannot claim to be part of modern society, nor reap its benefits, if we retain the unofficial power to willfully murder one another.

Put a lid on the testosterone, gentlemen. Either get off the grid, or continue enjoying services. Compromise, not customize.

 

[Kakumei]

So.. You don't think that Law is a deterrent? You think if the Law, and fear of imprisonment, were removed, there'd be the same amount of murders?

Have you seen the amount of mass shooters (and really, other shooters of men who kill the wife and children) who immediately kill themselves (or the occasional failed attempt by people like the SC. AME Church Shooter) who don't intend to be imprisoned.

The vast majority of these dimwits are mentally ill.

Last time I checked, you can't legislate hydrophobia, anxiety, eating disorders, impulse control and addiction, yandere, dandere and so on and so fourth out of existence.

Even if you outlaw the use of firearms from people, they can still get firearms or even other tools, to do really bad things.

Timothy McVeigh did it without a single weapon and it was damn easy for him to take more lives than if he tried with a gun.

Gun Control and/or confiscation in the US has always been a failing topic for those on the left. Especially when the majority of the left also tends to side on the "stop with the ridiculous regulation attempts" as well.

 

[Asmodeus]

I guess everyone appears to be "on the left" when you're crazy.


I'll use small words.

YES. CRAZY PEOPLE. THEY GET GUNS. WE SHOULD MAKE IT HARDER. AND STOP GLORIFYING THEM AS EVIL BADDIES WHO WE HAVE TO PEW-PEW.



Also, Mass Shooters kill themselves because they see other Mass Shooters doing it, and people on the internet saying "all mass shooters kill themselves". It therefore becomes part of the mythology. You won't be taken seriously unless you Steve McQueen it.


I'm trying to break the cycle, Kakuwotsit. Please keep up.

 

[Kakumei]

YES. CRAZY PEOPLE. THEY GET GUNS. WE SHOULD MAKE IT HARDER. AND STOP GLORIFYING THEM AS EVIL BADDIES WHO WE HAVE TO PEW-PEW.

Yes, because you can make blackmarket or stolen guns even more illegal than they already are. ;3

Also, Mass Shooters kill themselves because they see other Mass Shooters doing it,

Kindly source this, because its quite the claim.

You won't be taken seriously unless you Steve McQueen it.

Same for those who think you can have any stricter laws without doing more harm than good. The best you could do by furthering the laws at this point is make it another Detroit. And we all know how that hel... hindered their progress against criminal activity.

I'm trying to break the cycle, Kakuwotsit. Please keep up.

People have been trying to do this for thousands of years. What makes you think that your answer is the right way? Show me consistent data in history that proved taking away tools to maim and kill have stopped this "cycle" (human psychological behavior).

I guess everyone appears to be "on the left" when you're crazy.

Oh yeah. Weak ad hominem is weak.

 

[Brovo]

@Grumpy Now's a good time to be asking Diana to delete the debate tag again.

 

[Hecatoncheires]

>Implying I've stopped asking since the last one

>Implying I'm not gonna lock this thread if @Asmodeus and @Kakumei don't cut their shit

>Implying implying implying

 

[Asmodeus]

Yes, because you can make blackmarket or stolen guns even more illegal than they already are. ;3

I'm glad we're on the same page about that.

Kindly source this, because its quite the claim.

Why, thank you.

Same for those who blah blah blah I'm great

False equivalence.

People have been trying to do this for thousands of years. What makes you think that your answer is the right way? Show me consistent data in history that proved taking away tools to maim and kill have stopped this "cycle" (human psychological behavior).

Not until you put down your gun and ask like a good little boy.

Oh yeah. Weak ad hominem is weak.

You're just homophobic.

 

[Kakumei]

Now's a good time to be asking Diana to delete the debate tag again

Not really going to stop people from autohating other people or personal attacks because they don't like the difference in ideas or opinions.

Kinda like gun control xD

don't cut their shit

I'm just using sarcasm for my arguments and calling out ad hom and personal attacks.

I'm not actually like name calling or harassing.. : /

 

[Kakumei]

I'm glad we're on the same page about that.

Nonargument is nonargument.

Why, thank you.

I think I missed the source.

False equivalence.

Make the argument for it. Oh, and quote me properly.

Not until you put down your gun and ask like a good little boy.

I've not yet needed to pick it up.

You're just homophobic.

But I am so in love with you.