Ethics: should all parents of the World have a duty to own at least one pistol or revolver?
I think we agree that the World is a dangerous place and that children (also by poverty of language) are exposed to hideous criminals continuously! What say you?
("Also to gun lobbyists and NRA!")
Should all parents of the World have a duty to own gun?
Moderator: Moderators
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Should all parents of the World have a duty to own gun?
Post #1I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Post #21
From the OP:
I'm a parent of a couple young'ns now, and I'm here to tell it, I'd shoot me either one the next time it is a walk me into a room and the light's already on. (In the daytime, I'm willing to allow for night; I can compromise, and have the added benefit of not using up my tracer rounds.)
Y'all theists have y'all some goofy notions.
I have faith the pretty thing'll get her up in the morning and cook her up a mess of breakfast. What I won't do, is point a gun at her and tell her it's my faith she'll do it. (Knowing the cost of bullets, and how it is, them lights in the living room are on right now, and there ain't the first soul in it, and I swear to god if it happens again I don't care if I have to use me some tracer rounds to do it.)
Faith, in this case apparently, is the thinking of if only we had us more weaponry, we could produce us more folks who have faith in the weaponry it is we use to increase faith!
No.Should all parents of the World have a duty to own gun?
I'm a parent of a couple young'ns now, and I'm here to tell it, I'd shoot me either one the next time it is a walk me into a room and the light's already on. (In the daytime, I'm willing to allow for night; I can compromise, and have the added benefit of not using up my tracer rounds.)
Don't it beat all, faith has to have it a defender. How strong is one's faith, they'd hafta shoot them someone about it? How strong is someone's god, they'd hafta shoot all them that looked at that god, and got it confused with Homer Simpson?Guns have proven effective to defend faith.
Y'all theists have y'all some goofy notions.
I have faith the pretty thing'll get her up in the morning and cook her up a mess of breakfast. What I won't do, is point a gun at her and tell her it's my faith she'll do it. (Knowing the cost of bullets, and how it is, them lights in the living room are on right now, and there ain't the first soul in it, and I swear to god if it happens again I don't care if I have to use me some tracer rounds to do it.)
Sure. If we can stone them danged homosexuals, it must surely be right and just we'd shoot us any young'n who'd dare to challenge our faith.Then children?
Faith, in this case apparently, is the thinking of if only we had us more weaponry, we could produce us more folks who have faith in the weaponry it is we use to increase faith!
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Post #22
[Replying to post 21 by JoeyKnothead]
Formally, at least for the sane theists, faith / religious faith, is outside the domain of science.
So what is it for Atheists (read Humanists) / Humanists to challenge theists' faith than to make friendly contact on a forum to discuss faith in peace and freedom ("under Peace, Democracy, Human Rights (UDHR) and Freedom")?
Formally, at least for the sane theists, faith / religious faith, is outside the domain of science.
So what is it for Atheists (read Humanists) / Humanists to challenge theists' faith than to make friendly contact on a forum to discuss faith in peace and freedom ("under Peace, Democracy, Human Rights (UDHR) and Freedom")?
You are using a strawman. "In this case apparently" is not true! No, this is the case for 1, 2 or 3 handguns per home, primarily self-defence, so that people can maintain (true) sanity and religious faith.Faith, in this case apparently, is the thinking of if only we had us more weaponry, we could produce us more folks who have faith in the weaponry it is we use to increase faith!
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Re: Should all parents of the World have a duty to own gun?
Post #23No, they are actually 5 methods:Tcg wrote:Actually, that's at best 3 methods. Given that I'm not sure that a "lie-detection array" is a real thing, it may only be 2 methods.Aetixintro wrote:
I agree that a gun (minimally the revolver) does not solve "everything", but I urge you to imagine a gun, perhaps the revolver, with every home as well as pepper spray as non-lethal defence and widespread use of lie-detection array, 5 methods combined+++ and radio-based "airport" scanner portals that can scan people for lots of useful reasons.
1. Polygraph testing
2. Voice stress analysers
3. Mimicry including capillary dilation, computerized, including eye-tracking
4. fMRI and its brain signals, also where it says "lie", "false" and "deception"
5. Transdermal Optical Imaging
Also combined, as it actually says. Please, see: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/20 ... -work.html
No, you are misinterpreting. It's my belief that radio-based "airport" scanner portals should be placed at appropriate places, for disclosure of criminal implants, for disclosure of "warts" of corrupt minds and 500 other conditions. This is not so much intended for private homes, indeed.I'm not sure either what "radio-based "airport" scanner portals" are, but it sounds like you are describing security checks before parents let other parents enter their house. If that is the case, wouldn't you then be removing guns from parents when arming parents is your proposed solution?
Crime in the World is well known and happens every now and then, hopefully declining. Self-defence in the World is common in USA by pepper spray and other. In Europe, the self-defence by significant force is the police force.Given that you are making the claim that "a duty to own a gun" is the solution to the problem parents face, it is your responsibility to support your claim.
You seem to be ignoring the unarmed Jews before Kristallnacht and The Holocaust which comes across as incredibly insensitive...So, arming European parents who use heroin is going to solve the hard drug problem in Europe?
Arming parents are going to somehow retroactively solve these historical atrocities? How is that even possible?
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Should all parents of the World have a duty to own gun?
Post #24How does this relate to arming parents with guns?Aetixintro wrote:
No, they are actually 5 methods:
1. Polygraph testing
2. Voice stress analysers
3. Mimicry including capillary dilation, computerized, including eye-tracking
4. fMRI and its brain signals, also where it says "lie", "false" and "deception"
5. Transdermal Optical Imaging
What airport scanners are capable of disclosing '"warts" of corrupt minds and 500 other conditions.' In any case, how does this relate to parents being armed with guns?
No, you are misinterpreting. It's my belief that radio-based "airport" scanner portals should be placed at appropriate places, for disclosure of criminal implants, for disclosure of "warts" of corrupt minds and 500 other conditions. This is not so much intended for private homes, indeed.
Once again, I don't know how this relates to arming parents with guns.
Crime in the World is well known and happens every now and then, hopefully declining. Self-defence in the World is common in USA by pepper spray and other. In Europe, the self-defence by significant force is the police force.
I haven't ignored it at all. I asked, "Arming parents are going to somehow retroactively solve these historical atrocities? How is that even possible?" I'm still confused how arming parents today will change anything that happened to unarmed Jews in the past.
You seem to be ignoring the unarmed Jews before Kristallnacht and The Holocaust which comes across as incredibly insensitive...
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Post #25
Primarily self-defense? What other uses do you see as being appropriate?
How is a lethal weapon going to help people maintain sanity?
...so that people can maintain (true) sanity and religious faith.
How is a lethal weapon going to help people maintain religious faith?
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Post #26
[Replying to post 25 by Tcg]
To be short and blunt: if Djengis Khan (the Barbarians) stayed in Roman Empire after he conquered it, we would all be Chinese communists!
To suggest that weapons do not defend against barbarism and crime in general seems absurd. That these insane people should have equal chance to attack good people who may in fact wield weapons skillfully is out of this World.
So you say something to the effect: no (hand)guns equal "a peaceful and happy World"? You aren't a bit naive? You don't care for the self-defence of (innocent) people who may be in harms way?
To be short and blunt: if Djengis Khan (the Barbarians) stayed in Roman Empire after he conquered it, we would all be Chinese communists!
To suggest that weapons do not defend against barbarism and crime in general seems absurd. That these insane people should have equal chance to attack good people who may in fact wield weapons skillfully is out of this World.
So you say something to the effect: no (hand)guns equal "a peaceful and happy World"? You aren't a bit naive? You don't care for the self-defence of (innocent) people who may be in harms way?
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Post #27
My question was, "Primarily self-defense? What other uses do you see as being appropriate?"Aetixintro wrote:
To be short and blunt: if Djengis Khan (the Barbarians) stayed in Roman Empire after he conquered it, we would all be Chinese communists!
How does this reply address it?
I didn't suggest anything remotely like this. I asked the following two questions:
To suggest that weapons do not defend against barbarism and crime in general seems absurd. That these insane people should have equal chance to attack good people who may in fact wield weapons skillfully is out of this World.
"How is a lethal weapon going to help people maintain sanity?
How is a lethal weapon going to help people maintain religious faith?"
Once again, I haven't said anything remotely like this. I asked the questions I repeated above and am still waiting for you to address them.
So you say something to the effect: no (hand)guns equal "a peaceful and happy World"? You aren't a bit naive? You don't care for the self-defence of (innocent) people who may be in harms way?
- oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 321 times
- Been thanked: 238 times
Re: Should all parents of the World have a duty to own gun?
Post #29This suggests that you think that parents should have the right to shoot people.Aetixintro wrote: Ethics: should all parents of the World have a duty to own at least one pistol or revolver?
Please give an example of when a parent should shoot/kill somebody.
That would be helpful.
- oldbadger
- Guru
- Posts: 1870
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
- Has thanked: 321 times
- Been thanked: 238 times
Post #30
The above was posted to another member.Aetixintro wrote: To suggest that weapons do not defend against barbarism and crime in general seems absurd. That these insane people should have equal chance to attack good people who may in fact wield weapons skillfully is out of this World.
It looks as if you are connecting criminals with mentally disabled folks?
This seems dangerous to me because it could easily be reversed into a belief that mentally disabled people are bad, and they are not.
Indeed, where I live a plea by a defendant of 'beyond reason of the mind' is a very strong defence against a criminal charge.
I look forward to reading any scenario from you where a mother or father would draw a gun and shoot/kill a person...? I am interested in exactly what crime is being committed and exactly what the parent did or said before they shot the criminal. I would also be extremely interested to read about how this family were exposed to risk of the crime.
By the way, from what I have read about US gun owners I am extremely surprised to discover that very few licence holders have ever bothered to take out 'all risks indemnity' insurance for their gun in all areas of its use. That seems to be a very irresponsible situation.