Piers Morgan: murder is fine. Gun related murder is wrong...

reply to post by Panic2k11


I appreciate your opinion, but I must interject with this particular premise...

You wrote:

This has many parallelisms to the nuclear arms race and the logic behind nuclear proliferation.

While on the surface, the correlation between armed civilians and their Govt. and opposing nuclear powers, seems similar, it is only in a general relation.
The specifics though, would have to include that the proliferation of nuclear arms, was in itself a deterrent, but also a significant risk to the world, in their benign state! The sheer instability of them, the maintenance required, the potential for leaks or disposing of retired cores, were nearly as bad as their potential for destruction upon detonation.

Our guns don't have that attached to them. They are only a deterrent, and pose NO risk, to this generation or future ones, in their current state.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

The specifics though, would have to include that the proliferation of nuclear arms, was in itself a deterrent, but also a significant risk to the world, in their benign state!

If I'm reading it correctly, to be a deterrent you include in the term proliferation, the act of creation of said nuclear weapons.

I do not agree, the creation of the weapons was a simple exercise of technical prowess in service of geopolitical power, especially if we consider that the NAZI threat had been ended by the time the endeavor was successful. Proving the theories right and achievable, with the implication that sooner or later others would be capable of the same. In that the similitudes continue in parallel with the development of the firearm, the right of control and create those weapons. The only logical restriction is the law be it national or international, hence the continued parallelism in regards to proliferation.

The relation of state governance in relation to its citizens is governed by law that defines rights, the similar situation exists in relation to international law, there is a body (mostly controlled by the US called the UN) that "governed" the world nations (I know that I'm extending reality a bit but only to be clear on what I was implying). As we look at the security council we clearly understand a relation between those that govern and those that are governed and why it is important to keep the "citizens" unarmed. That was the similitude I was proposing, the logic is the same as are the limitations.

Weapons are tools, laws can restrict use but never prevent those that know how to make them to do so, in fact attempting to do so is mostly futile and disingenuous, as it perverts the needed transparency and responsible behavior in the name of fake security. Especially when those creating the law not only create exceptions to their own uses but darker purposes. A few examples would be for instance the US arm deals in Bosnia and the Nuclear capacity of Israel and the deals with Iraq (even the nuclear program).

Our guns don't have that attached to them. They are only a deterrent, and pose NO risk, to this generation or future ones, in their current state.

I do not think that any gun is a deterrent, to be a deterrent it implies being a threat and that in turn implies being a risk. Guns are tools, utilitarian in a rural environment and in specific a limited capacity, for recreation in even more limited capacity and in equal ground to the military in regards to nations and capacity to safeguard one's sovereignty.

Now the issue is should one need to protect one's sovereignty while dependent of the state, I very recently make a 180 on that and now think so, since most governments today, and by historic evidence, do not operate for the direct benefit of all their citizens.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

The specifics though, would have to include that the proliferation of nuclear arms, was in itself a deterrent, but also a significant risk to the world, in their benign state!

If I'm reading it correctly, to be a deterrent you include in the term proliferation, the act of creation of said nuclear weapons.

I do not agree, the creation of the weapons was a simple exercise of technical prowess in service of geopolitical power, especially if we consider that the NAZI threat had been ended by the time the endeavor was successful. Proving the theories right and achievable, with the implication that sooner or later others would be capable of the same. In that the similitudes continue in parallel with the development of the firearm, the right of control and create those weapons. The only logical restriction is the law be it national or international, hence the continued parallelism in regards to proliferation.

The relation of state governance in relation to its citizens is governed by law that defines rights, the similar situation exists in relation to international law, there is a body (mostly controlled by the US called the UN) that "governed" the world nations (I know that I'm extending reality a bit but only to be clear on what I was implying). As we look at the security council we clearly understand a relation between those that govern and those that are governed and why it is important to keep the "citizens" unarmed. That was the similitude I was proposing, the logic is the same as are the limitations.

Weapons are tools, laws can restrict use but never prevent those that know how to make them to do so, in fact attempting to do so is mostly futile and disingenuous, as it perverts the needed transparency and responsible behavior in the name of fake security. Especially when those creating the law not only create exceptions to their own uses but darker purposes. A few examples would be for instance the US arm deals in Bosnia and the Nuclear capacity of Israel and the deals with Iraq (even the nuclear program).

Our guns don't have that attached to them. They are only a deterrent, and pose NO risk, to this generation or future ones, in their current state.

I do not think that any gun is a deterrent, to be a deterrent it implies being a threat and that in turn implies being a risk. Guns are tools, utilitarian in a rural environment and in specific a limited capacity, for recreation in even more limited capacity and in equal ground to the military in regards to nations and capacity to safeguard one's sovereignty.

Now the issue is should one need to protect one's sovereignty while dependent of the state, I very recently make a 180 on that and now think so, since most governments today, and by historic evidence, do not operate for the direct benefit of all their citizens.

edit on 5-1-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

Actually, I was referring to the danger posed by an existing nuclear weapon. And the build up of such huge numbers of them, by opposing countries. The act of creating a new or improved weapon is irrelevant. The purpose may differ, depending on many factors. There exist many inventions, that were "designed" to be a benefit to humanity, but end up being bought out, or stolen and being weaponized!
It's the intent to do harm, that makes them a threat.

Guns are absolutely a deterrent, and not a risk in their benign state, and I can prove it.
Prison is a deterrent. The threat of prison weighs on the mind of the criminal. But, there is no risk of prison, without the intent and subsequent action, of breaking the law.

Without the criminal element and mindset, prisons would be empty and guns would lay dormant, in their respective safes, cases and holsters. No threat or risk, involved. The same can't be said, for nuclear weapons.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Prison aren't really deterrents they are punishment from crimes. As I stated a deterrent implies risk, criminal activity should not be considered to start with, it should be considered an exceptional behavior. If a prison is a deterrent then society is failing and citizens are looked as default criminals, that are only free because they dare not risk the penalty. That is the wrong approach to the problem. That is why death sentence is also a bad logic and most often a cover for other sinister activities.

Without the criminal element and mindset, prisons would be empty and guns would lay dormant, in their respective safes, cases and holsters. No threat or risk, involved. The same can't be said, for nuclear weapons.

Again you put the burden on the individual, the problem with criminality is a social issue, except for the mental deranged in a well educated and fair society criminality wouldn't be an issue (well criminality that would justify risking shooting someone). Even crimes of passion are social failing due to the artificiality of the environment (but that is another complex issue in itself). Guns do not serve only to prevent crime in fact they in that function they are barbaric, we would just as well be all wearing swords. I only defend gun ownership in regards to exceptional situations (not common day affairs and as a juxtaposition to the governmental monopoly on violence).

I agree that nuclear weapons are on another scale but never the less they are simple tools, weapons like gun that have as a goal to kill, they may even serve other purposes, in fact nuclear power is less a default weapon than a gun is even weaponized the complexity and cost and risk is on another plane field but intrinsically the logic behind it and the point that I was advancing is valid.

Originally posted by SpearMint
Yeah but no where that has had guns banned had a gun murder rate as ridiculously high as the US, and they didn't have almost as many guns as citizens. You can't compare anywhere else to the US.

Seriously?

Murder is murder, regardless of whatever weapon was used.


Can we start a petition to have Piers Morgan shipped back back to the UK?
Something tells me they don't want him ther either.

reply to post by Alxandro


There is one actually....



I wont post it though. I think thats against T&C...... I think.

Not to hard to find though......

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

Prison aren't really deterrents they are punishment from crimes. As I stated a deterrent implies risk, criminal activity should not be considered to start with, it should be considered an exceptional behavior. If a prison is a deterrent then society is failing and citizens are looked as default criminals, that are only free because they dare not risk the penalty. That is the wrong approach to the problem. That is why death sentence is also a bad logic and most often a cover for other sinister activities.

Without the criminal element and mindset, prisons would be empty and guns would lay dormant, in their respective safes, cases and holsters. No threat or risk, involved. The same can't be said, for nuclear weapons.

Again you put the burden on the individual, the problem with criminality is a social issue, except for the mental deranged in a well educated and fair society criminality wouldn't be an issue (well criminality that would justify risking shooting someone). Even crimes of passion are social failing due to the artificiality of the environment (but that is another complex issue in itself). Guns do not serve only to prevent crime in fact they in that function they are barbaric, we would just as well be all wearing swords. I only defend gun ownership in regards to exceptional situations (not common day affairs and as a juxtaposition to the governmental monopoly on violence).

I agree that nuclear weapons are on another scale but never the less they are simple tools, weapons like gun that have as a goal to kill, they may even serve other purposes, in fact nuclear power is less a default weapon than a gun is even weaponized the complexity and cost and risk is on another plane field but intrinsically the logic behind it and the point that I was advancing is valid.

I'm sorry....I'm just a dumb country boy, with a ridiculously high IQ.

But. what I get from your post if I apply your logic to current events, is that Adam Lanza isn't responsible for the deaths of those 20 babies, but the good citizens of Newtown, CT are...

Is that what you are saying?

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


In the ultimate degree your interpretation is correct. Like some religions like to put it, all children are born without sin, beyond mental defect it is society that shapes the individual and is ultimately responsible for his social evolution, there is no way around this truth.

It has even been scientifically proven that a psychopath that has indeed a verifiable mental divergence (I would not call it defect because I believe that as a group and in the long run the species may benefit from having such individuals). They have specific brain configuration, that in the proper context with a proper education and upbringing they can be productive and safe members of society.

I'm not by this removing the responsibility for personal options and actions, but individuals today have very few opportunities to be really independent, you could look at your own life and see how limited you have been in your own choices, examine your own frustrations and regrets and understand that some other person may not be as mentally stable to handle the same type of pressure or has been under an even higher load.