International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   Weapons, poll (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357725)

dudalb 22nd March 2022 04:01 PM

They will take my broadsword from me then the wrench it form my cold dead hands.

The Man 22nd March 2022 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13763821)
They will take my broadsword from me then the wrench it form my cold dead hands.

Naw, just take the hands too.

JoeMorgue 22nd March 2022 04:24 PM

*Note to self, learn to kill people with ploughshares*

The Man 22nd March 2022 04:30 PM

Just mount a bunch on the front bumper and it's 'Death Race 2022' time. Has the versatility of working in a post money and/or zombie apocalypse.

arthwollipot 22nd March 2022 08:45 PM

Oh boy, this thread again.

8enotto 22nd March 2022 09:39 PM

I have a small collection of hand forged traditional agriculture tools commonly used in Mexico. All of them by just plain design are effective weapons. Even the pointy iron tipped stick.

In a world without potential weapons there is no agriculture. We couldn't have the most basic tools to plant nor harvest food. Much less process it.

Is that what we want? Because we know humans won't become respectful of all others just because.

dann 23rd March 2022 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13763277)
More guns in a society more people will die because guns makes it easy to kill.


When you look at industrialized countries, there seems to be some correlation between the number of guns and violent deaths:
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review) (Harvard Injury Control Research Center)
Changes in firearm mortality following the implementation of state laws regulating firearm access and use (PNAS, June 15, 2020)
America's gun culture in charts (BBC News, April 8, 2021)

And it seems to be more than correlation:
Quote:

It's a basic rule of any empirical research: If you want to evaluate how much a single factor impacts something else, you should do your very best to control for all other variables to ensure that the single factor is the only thing being analyzed. So with studies on gun ownership and gun violence, researchers go through great efforts to control for all sorts of variables — economic outcomes, alcohol consumption, rates of urbanization, other crime rates, and so on — to make sure the results look, as much as they possibly can, only at gun ownership and its effects.
This is why, for example, Vox's charts look at the correlation between gun ownership and gun violence in developed countries: It helps weed out the many, many social and economic factors involved if you compare the US with, for instance, Honduras — a nation mired by poverty and weak government institutions.
More guns mean more gun murders. Here's how we know. (Vox, Dec 8, 2015)

People like Lauren Boebert are blithering idiots:
Quote:

In the wake of a mass shooting that left 10 people dead in her state, freshman Congresswoman Lauren Boebert brought some insensitive snark to an interview on the topic by suggesting hammers are more lethal than firearms.
“In America, we see more deaths by hand, fist, feet, even hammers, and, you know, are we going to start legislating that away or are we going to be like these other countries who even ban knives?” Boebert said, “I mean, if hammers are the cause of more death than firearms, then maybe we need to start having background checks on hammers. I mean, look out, Black and Decker.”
According to the data platform Statista, annual deaths caused by firearms (handguns and other types) in 2019 numbered 9,649; annual deaths from personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) and blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) numbered 997. That means guns killed 8,652 more people in 2019 than personal weapons and blunt objects combined.
GOP Rep. Boebert Bizarrely Compares Firearm Killings to Murder by Hammer (RollingStone, March 27, 2021)

bruto 23rd March 2022 07:59 AM

I think many people here would agree that gun control is something that ought to happen, and that we'd be far better off if not armed. If Gaetan were making such an argument, it would be worth making, perhaps. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the argument here. Rather we're left with an ambiguous, catch-all, poorly formed statement that could apply to anything from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of government to paring knives in the hands of cooks.

It is true that we'd be better off if we did not kill each other all the time. But while it suggests a certain virtue to say so it does not impart wisdom.

Gaetan 23rd March 2022 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13764326)
I think many people here would agree that gun control is something that ought to happen, and that we'd be far better off if not armed. If Gaetan were making such an argument, it would be worth making, perhaps. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the argument here. Rather we're left with an ambiguous, catch-all, poorly formed statement that could apply to anything from weapons of mass destruction in the hands of government to paring knives in the hands of cooks.

It is true that we'd be better off if we did not kill each other all the time. But while it suggests a certain virtue to say so it does not impart wisdom.

That's the samething, to have weapons to protect yourself just makes more people die. Ukraine wanted weapons to protect themself but there won't be much left in their country. They build more weapons to kill as more as they can, competition.

JoeMorgue 23rd March 2022 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13764358)
That's the samething, to have weapons to protect yourself just makes more people die.

"Water is wet. Nobody would drown if it where dry. No I don't have the slightest beginnings of anything resembling a plan on how to make it dry."

The Don 23rd March 2022 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13764358)
That's the samething, to have weapons to protect yourself just makes more people die. Ukraine wanted weapons to protect themself but there won't be much left in their country. They build more weapons to kill as more as they can, competition.

Then again, if the Russians were successful in their invasion of Ukraine, orders of magnitude more Ukrainians might end up dying than will be killed in the defence of their country. Russia does have form in that regard.

Gaetan 23rd March 2022 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13764366)
Then again, if the Russians were successful in their invasion of Ukraine, orders of magnitude more Ukrainians might end up dying than will be killed in the defence of their country. Russia does have form in that regard.

It'll just make more people die on both side

JoeMorgue 23rd March 2022 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13764374)
It'll just make more people die on both side

A) "We'll have less overall death if one side just immediately capitulates and stops fighting and lets itself get passively slaughtered instead of fighting back" is not the moral high ground you seem to think it is.

B) You still haven't, nor will ever because that's your entire routine, actually propose a solution that isn't "What if everyone just stopped?"

The Don 23rd March 2022 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13764374)
It'll just make more people die on both side

Probably not.

The numbers dead in the current war is in the low tens of thousands.

The numbers killed in the Holodomor is in the millions.

Weapons aren't the only way to kill people, they're not even the most effective. Disease and famine is a far more effective way of killing a lot of people in a comparatively short period of time.

bruto 23rd March 2022 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13764374)
It'll just make more people die on both side

Not necessarily. The history of Russian behavior in Ukraine is one of genocide and irresponsibility, and Putin is a fearsome tyrant.

In any case, if what you are arguing is a specific point of view on the Ukraine war, your original post is irrelevant anyway. Even if you disapprove of both, and even if you are right to disapprove of both, gun control with regard to individuals is an entirely separate issue from the armed defense of a nation against invasion, and even if you disapprove both of owning a gun in the home and of maintaining a military force in a nation, those things are simply not the same, even if both are wrong. Your initial post is so vague and nonspecific, both with regard to what it's about and to what should be done, that it's worthless.

I dislike pit bulldogs and cluster flies, but if I were to try to combine them in a thread, I would, I think, rightly garner criticism.

Gaetan 23rd March 2022 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Don (Post 13764411)

Weapons aren't the only way to kill people, they're not even the most effective. Disease and famine is a far more effective way of killing a lot of people in a comparatively short period of time.

Do you mean that the economic ambargo on Russia will kill more people?

sackett 23rd March 2022 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13763277)
More guns in a society more people will die because guns makes it easy to kill.

Gaetan, I fear that you lack empathy. We like our weapons. The heft, the balance, the textures -- here smooth steel, there checkered grips -- the clicking action, the quiet finality of moving the safety from off to on, the coolness of selecting full auto: who cannot love all this?

And handling ammunition! All that power barely contained in metallic-scented brass and copper! The rippling efficiency of stripping a clip into a magazine!

Even you, for all your duckling primness, would in the end be seduced by the consummation of firing: flame, exploding blows of sound, and the sweet smoke of burned double-base propellants! (Odd, the way ignorant authors always write of "acrid" gunsmoke. When quite a child, I loved that quick wisp of scent: it seemed almost a reward for good shooting.) Then you would understand. Then you would know the rightness! of being strong.

Thermal 23rd March 2022 11:15 AM

You forgot the blatant eroticism! A long hard, oiled up barrel, manipulated just the right way, resulting in a jarring burst of pent up energy that sends its recipient into oblivion!

Plus you can shoot ducks and eat them.

dudalb 23rd March 2022 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13763838)
*Note to self, learn to kill people with ploughshares*

A ploughshere actually could make of hell of a good blunt weapon.

Thermal 23rd March 2022 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13764540)
A ploughshere actually could make of hell of a good blunt weapon.

Looking at the thread title, a pole might not be a bad weapon either. Or a Pole, for that matter. Pretty scrappy bunch.

Hellbound 23rd March 2022 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13764540)
A ploughshere actually could make of hell of a good blunt weapon.


Interestingly, a lot of the “deadly ninja weapons” are actually modifications of farm tools, as owning weapons was generally illegal for commoners. Rakes, threshing flails, etc were adapted for combative use.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

Fonebone 23rd March 2022 12:42 PM

"Every beast preys upon another,
Man is wolf to Man." _Thomas Hobbes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellum...m_contra_omnes


All moderns weapons of war are Omnicidal and kill every living species indiscriminately.
Ban all weapons except mano a mano passive devices thereby limiting accidental injuries
and fertilizing the battleground soils with nutrients.

Gaetan 26th March 2022 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13764430)
Not necessarily. The history of Russian behavior in Ukraine is one of genocide and irresponsibility, and Putin is a fearsome tyrant.

Could you put some link to prove it

Quote:

In any case, if what you are arguing is a specific point of view on the Ukraine war, your original post is irrelevant anyway. Even if you disapprove of both, and even if you are right to disapprove of both, gun control with regard to individuals is an entirely separate issue from the armed defense of a nation against invasion,.
Invasion for what, you are afraid that poor come to eat in your country, for what purpose an invasion? You can get everything by trade those days. Weapons threat was the cause of invasion in Ukraine, Iraq, Vietnam, Afganistan, further Iran, North Corea, Cuba, Venesuela, il you eliminate the threat of weapons, you eliminate invasions, the reason for it.

trustbutverify 26th March 2022 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767048)
Could you put some link to prove it



Invasion for what, you are afraid that poor come to eat in your country, for what purpose an invasion? You can get everything by trade those days. Weapons threat was the cause of invasion in Ukraine, Iraq, Vietnam, Afganistan, further Iran, North Corea, Cuba, Venesuela, il you eliminate the threat of weapons, you eliminate invasions, the reason for it.

So Hezbollah should unilaterally disarm right to the smallest caliber, since that will insure Israel will never invade Lebanon again. Glad we settled that- I assume you agree 100%, right?

arthwollipot 27th March 2022 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767048)
Could you put some link to prove it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

The Man 27th March 2022 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767048)
Could you put some link to prove it



Invasion for what, you are afraid that poor come to eat in your country, for what purpose an invasion? You can get everything by trade those days. Weapons threat was the cause of invasion in Ukraine, Iraq, Vietnam, Afganistan, further Iran, North Corea, Cuba, Venesuela, il you eliminate the threat of weapons, you eliminate invasions, the reason for it.

Again, with invasion you get it all, even what they won't trade, those days or any other. Generally, the cause of invasion is that they have something you want (land, resources, control of the government or population) and that's the only (or your preferred) way to get it.

bruto 27th March 2022 07:59 AM

If trade were the recipe to avoid invasion there would never be any invasions. We know from experience that even heavily armed countries can and do trade with each other, and even when their arms threaten each other. The fact that arms may be unnecessary is not to say that they are a bar to trade. No sane leader would invade another country if they could achieve their goal through trade. Even the rank and odorous apologists for Russian aggression are not stupid enough to suggest that trade is the reason, citing territorial, ethnic, and cultural motivations, as well as the transparently crazy idea that a small nation that gave up its nuclear arsenal in return for a promise of protection from its enormous, heavily armed, nuclear equipped neighbor, presents a threat that must be neutralized by terror, the bombing of hospitals and the gunning down of refugees.

Nor, for that matter, is it sane to invade a country that refuses trade any more than an individual. If you refuse to sell me something, or if your price for it is not acceptable to me, it is not sane or moral or reasonable for me to kill you and take it.

Gaetan 27th March 2022 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13767560)
No sane leader would invade another country if they could achieve their goal through trade.

Countries invade another not because they couldn't trade these days but because they are a threat to their safety.

The Man 27th March 2022 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767574)
Countries invade another not because they couldn't trade these days but because they are a threat to their safety.

Trade what? What country is simply going to trade you its sovereignty, land or peoples? How much should they ask for or should you have to pay for those things?

bruto 27th March 2022 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767574)
Countries invade another not because they couldn't trade these days but because they are a threat to their safety.

And yet in the present instance this is obviously not the case.

trustbutverify 27th March 2022 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767048)
Invasion for what, you are afraid that poor come to eat in your country, for what purpose an invasion? You can get everything by trade those days. Weapons threat was the cause of invasion in Ukraine, Iraq, Vietnam, Afganistan, further Iran, North Corea, Cuba, Venesuela, il you eliminate the threat of weapons, you eliminate invasions, the reason for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13767069)
So Hezbollah should unilaterally disarm right to the smallest caliber, since that will insure Israel will never invade Lebanon again. Glad we settled that- I assume you agree 100%, right?

Why don't you answer the question? What are you afraid of?

Gaetan 27th March 2022 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trustbutverify (Post 13767069)
So Hezbollah should unilaterally disarm right to the smallest caliber, since that will insure Israel will never invade Lebanon again. Glad we settled that- I assume you agree 100%, right?

Israel should get rid of weapons as well to make sure Hezbollah won't attack them as well.

bruto 27th March 2022 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767794)
Israel should get rid of weapons as well to make sure Hezbollah won't attack them as well.

A perfect solution. All you have to do now is trust that all the nations on earth will act in perfectly good faith, and disarm completely at the very same moment. Remember, it has to be 100 percent, and you have to trust everyone.

wollery 27th March 2022 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767794)
Israel should get rid of weapons as well to make sure Hezbollah won't attack them as well.

But if Hezbollah disarm then they have nothing to attack Israel with.

So if Hezbollah disarm then Israel has nothing to fear from them, and, by your reasoning, they have nothing to fear from Israel.

By the same reasoning, all of the Arab states could disarm, and then there would be no wars in the Middle East, because nobody would invade or threaten anybody else, and Israel can happily keep their weapons, because if nobody around them has weapons then they have nothing to fear and no reason to attack any of their neighbours.

Congratulations, you've just solved all the problems in the Middle East.

Gaetan 27th March 2022 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wollery (Post 13767807)

Congratulations, you've just solved all the problems in the Middle East.

Thank you my goal is to solve all the problems in the world by very simple methods like abolishing weapons, money and borders between countries, therefore by abolishing all that is not healthy.

casebro 27th March 2022 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767048)
Could you put some link to prove it



Invasion for what, you are afraid that poor come to eat in your country, for what purpose an invasion? You can get everything by trade those days. Weapons threat was the cause of invasion in Ukraine, Iraq, Vietnam, Afganistan, further Iran, North Corea, Cuba, Venesuela, il you eliminate the threat of weapons, you eliminate invasions, the reason for it.

Actually, all those conflicts you mention were ideological. Putin's problem with Ukraine is the personal freedoms they have there might be heading into Russia. Which will happen even faster with Putin's imminent failure.

P.J. Denyer 27th March 2022 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8enotto (Post 13764074)
I have a small collection of hand forged traditional agriculture tools commonly used in Mexico. All of them by just plain design are effective weapons. Even the pointy iron tipped stick.

In a world without potential weapons there is no agriculture. We couldn't have the most basic tools to plant nor harvest food. Much less process it.

Is that what we want? Because we know humans won't become respectful of all others just because.

Weed slasher, modern Aylesbury Bill Hook, vintage Aylesbury Billhook with Axe Back (which could be anything from 60 to 180 years old). I also regularly use a pitchfork & occasionally a scythe. Or to put it another way. Yeah, this^

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0e23b8abe4.jpg

8enotto 27th March 2022 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767834)
Thank you my goal is to solve all the problems in the world by very simple methods like abolishing weapons, money and borders between countries, therefore by abolishing all that is not healthy.

The methods of doing so seem to be missing from your ideals.
Is this another Underwear Gnomes solution or is there a real plan backing up the dream?

wollery 27th March 2022 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaetan (Post 13767834)
Thank you my goal is to solve all the problems in the world by very simple methods like abolishing weapons, money and borders between countries, therefore by abolishing all that is not healthy.

Interesting that you ignore the entire rest of my post...

Gaetan 27th March 2022 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8enotto (Post 13767963)
The methods of doing so seem to be missing from your ideals.
Is this another Underwear Gnomes solution or is there a real plan backing up the dream?

We could start here in Canada to abolish money, weapons and borders then others countries will joint us and do the samething untill all countries abolish borders, money and weapons. It is just as simple as that.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.