Does Increasing Terrorism Justify Loosening or Tightening Gun Control? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Does Increasing Terrorism Justify Loosening or Tightening Gun Control?

1. Increasing terrorism or violent crime justifies loosening gun control
8
35%
2. Increasing terrorism or violent crime justifies tightening gun control
8
35%
3. Other
7
30%
#14994897
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think it is irrelevant to your thread.


But it is relevant. MAD is the idea that peace doesn't happen when one side can kill the other with impunity it happens when no side can kill with impunity because the other side is equally well armed for retaliation. In that is the built in assumption that all sides wish to remain alive though and MAD actually breaks down when a side is suicidal, as for example muslims sometimes are because in that case a side will not be deterred by assured destruction.

Take this shooter in NZ according to his manifesto, which I have now read, he intended to survive the operation if possible. Clearly he couldn't know for sure that the mosques did not have armed guards but what if he knew they did? Would he have picked those targets if he had a low expectation of surviving? Probably not unless he was suicidal.
#14994899
Pants-of-dog wrote:Oh, you are misusing the term.

It is not applicable here because there is no way for a total war to happen between Muslims and their white supremacist murderers that would then result in the complete destruction of both groups.

If the muslims had armed guards then the shooter would probably not survive his operation and would not have caused as many casualties as he did.
#14994901
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, and this is why the Muslims should be allowed to carry guns.

Now, should potential terrorists be allowed to carry guns?


Under the circumstances where the authorities are unable to maintain a monopoly of arms then they should not stand in the way of law abiding people having the means of self-defence.
#14994912
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, that is still a yes for arming potential terrorists.

Do you think white supremacists should be allowed to have military rifles?


Under the circumstances where the authorities can guarantee the safety of law abiding citizens then they can ban whatever weapons they like from anyone. Under the circumstances where they can't then white supremacists, the islamists and the commies are all going to have them regardless of what the govs say so the point is moot.
#14994916
SolarCross wrote:Under the circumstances where the authorities can guarantee the safety of law abiding citizens then they can ban whatever weapons they like from anyone.


...and now you seem to be saying that potential terrorists should not be allowed to have weapons.

Under the circumstances where they can't then white supremacists, the islamists and the commies are all going to have them regardless of what the govs say so the point is moot.


Yes, I made that point when you originally tried to shift the goalposts, and I explained then what you are explaining now: that it is a moot point in this context.
#14994922
I think there may be a way to have our cake and eat it, which is to say have gun control AND have government take better efforts to protect the citizens it has disarmed but first I should explain some history. Prior to becoming christians the germanic peoples of northern europe such as the anglo-saxons had a practice of law called weregild, which means "man price". Essentially the principle was that one owed to the kin of whoever one killed a material compensation for the life taken.

In those days there were no police so people had to look to their own self-defence and so unless they were slaves they would keep arms and train with them. Nowadays we expect the police to do that for us and police expect us to let them have a monopoly on our self-defence. However a lot of the time they turn up too late and don't do much except clean up the mess. Now what if in return for disarmament they had a material liability to pay weregild to those they neglected to protect? In tandem of course those they were not obligated to defend could not be prevented from taking reasonable measures for self-defence such as possess a handgun or possibly a rifle (though probably nothing crazy like an rpg which goes a bit beyond self-defence). This gives a financial incentive for the police to actually do their job and a financial incentive to those law abiding people willing to disarm (because they will get compensation if the police fail).

The link and quote has been posted. As well as l[…]

Nobody is trying to distract from the humanitarian[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Again: nope. Putin in Feb 2022 only decided ... […]

Helping Ukraine to defeat the Russian invasion an[…]