what happened to freedom?

[alien pimp]

freedom's a tricky subject - maybe we should shutdown prisons and let every murderer, peadophile and war criminal out in order to protect their right to freedom?

i think the fundamental right to life comes before freedom.... we still havent resolved that yet as a human race.

yeah, let's give up freedom, it's such a complicated subject!

better leave it to those people who can't wait to bust their asses for us, all we have to remember is to not put our hoods up if we're in london!

i mean it's very complicated to see some of the restrictions are hurting us more than helping us, not to mention how tough is to live by the principle of "if it doesn't hurt people, why restrict it?"
i'm sure things can be made look even much more complicated than this!
so everyone back to the good old tv, let the topic drawn!

[cyberneticghost]

you need to step away from your fucking PC, no country is in dire need of guns dickhead. YOUR country needs less patriotic, gun toting fuckheads like yourself

Not every gun owner is an inbred moron.

wrong

every gun owner is an inbred moron....you would not own a gun otherwise.

In Fact I think everyone who owns a gun should be shot.

What is wrong with owning a gun?

I understand the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, but honestly, people without guns have a much harder time killing each other.

Someone buying a gun for "protection" would appear to imply that they were willing to contemplate killing other humans.... that pretty much makes them a douchebag.

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

[magma]

Perhaps if guns weren't legal less criminals would have them so the need to protect yourself would be diminished?

I understand the need for keeping a shotgun, say, when you're living in the 1800s on a ranch in the middle of nowhere.... but in 2009, living in a modern city? Shit's outdated...

[elbe]

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest there is a lot more gun related crimes in the US than in the UK

and supprisingly more people die and are injured by guns in the US than the UK.

wonder why that might be?

[magma]

yeah, let's give up freedom, it's such a complicated subject!

better leave it to those people who can't wait to bust their asses for us, all we have to remember is to not put our hoods up if we're in london!

I don't think that's what she was saying at all. Freedom's not something you give up on, but it's important to see these things in perspective.

In my opinion, the greatest cause of human suffering (both directly and indirectly) is the competition for finite resources. We war over it, make business deals over it, we live and die over it.... perhaps now is the time in human history to pull together, get ourselves organised and get everyone to the grindstone so that the future is brighter for the whole race. If we crack the food/water/shelter problems over the next century then we can really get on with making people free.

Until then, lots of people will live under the spectre of war and we will be at the mercy of laws created in the name of "protection" from fallout from these wars. It's a natural human condition, but possibly not a permanent one.

In other words, I don't think the problem is one that can be solved today. I think it *can* be solved - but there are things in the way that we need to deal with first.

That's my opinion anyway - how would you like to move forward? We always see lots of rhetoric from your side on these things, but never many concrete ideas of what to actually do about things?

[deamonds]

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest there is a lot more gun related crimes in the US than in the UK

and supprisingly more people die and are injured by guns in the US than the UK.

wonder why that might be?

i swear, arguing with a US Citezen about gun laws=

[cyberneticghost]

Perhaps if guns weren't legal less criminals would have them so the need to protect yourself would be diminished?

I understand the need for keeping a shotgun, say, when you're living in the 1800s on a ranch in the middle of nowhere.... but in 2009, living in a modern city? Shit's outdated...

I can't argue with that. Statistics show that criminals almost always procure their guns from the homes of innocent, law abiding citizens. I still think the second amendment is a good idea. After all Hitler and almost every other dictators first move is to disarm the masses.

[magma]

Perhaps if guns weren't legal less criminals would have them so the need to protect yourself would be diminished?

I understand the need for keeping a shotgun, say, when you're living in the 1800s on a ranch in the middle of nowhere.... but in 2009, living in a modern city? Shit's outdated...

I can't argue with that. Statistics show that criminals almost always procure their guns from the homes of innocent, law abiding citizens. I still think the second amendment is a good idea. After all Hitler and almost every other dictators first move is to disarm the masses.

Hmm, coincidence rather than correlation, perhaps? LOTS of countries (including mine, which most definitely isn't a dictatorship) restrict their citizens from owning firearms. The UK banned handguns in the wake of the Dunblane School shooting in the 90s and we haven't even started to invade Austria yet.

[cyberneticghost]

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest there is a lot more gun related crimes in the US than in the UK

and supprisingly more people die and are injured by guns in the US than the UK.

wonder why that might be?

It is because guns are legal here and criminals usually acquire their guns by stealing them from people who purchased them legally.

Guns are almost completely illegal in the UK except for the odd hunting club and yet there are still cases of AK-47 shootings in the UK.

That proves that criminals will always have guns no matter their legal status. If tomorrow the US outright banned all guns it would not make a bit of difference.

The guns would be imported through Mexico or by boat through the ports. In the UK there have even been reports of shootings that were done with homemade guns created out of simple steel tubing and a hammer.

If a criminal wants a weapon chances are he will get it, but why let that hurt everyone else?

[magma]

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest there is a lot more gun related crimes in the US than in the UK

and supprisingly more people die and are injured by guns in the US than the UK.

wonder why that might be?

It is because guns are legal here and criminals usually acquire their guns by stealing them from people who purchased them legally.

Guns are almost completely illegal in the UK except for the odd hunting club and yet there are still cases of AK-47 shootings in the UK.

That proves that criminals will always have guns no matter their legal status. If tomorrow the US outright banned all guns it would not make a bit of difference.

The guns would be imported through Mexico or by boat through the ports. In the UK there have even been reports of shootings that were done with homemade guns created out of simple steel tubing and a hammer.

If a criminal wants a weapon chances are he will get it, but why let that hurt everyone else?

Yeah, "reports". It's not that widespread or common. Our problem is knife crime at the moment, tbh.

We had a gun related school massacre in 1994 in Dunblane, Scotland. The guy got the guns legally. We banned handguns. We haven't had another school massacre. Since Columbine, America has done virtually nothing to gun laws.... and since then you've had snipers in Washington, a massacre at Virginia Tech.... in fact, you've had 34 incidents of school shootings in the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... ted_States

[deamonds]

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest there is a lot more gun related crimes in the US than in the UK

and supprisingly more people die and are injured by guns in the US than the UK.

wonder why that might be?

It is because guns are legal here and criminals usually acquire their guns by stealing them from people who purchased them legally.

Guns are almost completely illegal in the UK except for the odd hunting club and yet there are still cases of AK-47 shootings in the UK.

That proves that criminals will always have guns no matter their legal status. If tomorrow the US outright banned all guns it would not make a bit of difference.

The guns would be imported through Mexico or by boat through the ports. In the UK there have even been reports of shootings that were done with homemade guns created out of simple steel tubing and a hammer.

If a criminal wants a weapon chances are he will get it, but why let that hurt everyone else?

Yeah, "reports". It's not that widespread or common. Our problem is knife crime at the moment, tbh.

We had a gun related school massacre in 1994 in Dunblane, Scotland. The guy got the guns legally. We banned handguns. We haven't had another school massacre. Since Columbine, America has done virtually nothing to gun laws.... and since then you've had snipers in Washington, a massacre at Virginia Tech.... in fact, you've had 34 incidents of school shootings in the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... ted_States

that whole last paragraph, + the school shootings just deads this argument. Done.

[cyberneticghost]

It is for protection though. Would you actually rather die than protect yourself? I am not saying guns are the only effective way to protect yourself, but if killing an armed assailant was the only way to survive would you?

There are plenty of studies that show that when a state in the US passes legislation allowing the carry of concealed weapons violent crime does not increase and is often reduced.

There is also a lot of evidence to suggest there is a lot more gun related crimes in the US than in the UK

and supprisingly more people die and are injured by guns in the US than the UK.

wonder why that might be?

It is because guns are legal here and criminals usually acquire their guns by stealing them from people who purchased them legally.

Guns are almost completely illegal in the UK except for the odd hunting club and yet there are still cases of AK-47 shootings in the UK.

That proves that criminals will always have guns no matter their legal status. If tomorrow the US outright banned all guns it would not make a bit of difference.

The guns would be imported through Mexico or by boat through the ports. In the UK there have even been reports of shootings that were done with homemade guns created out of simple steel tubing and a hammer.

If a criminal wants a weapon chances are he will get it, but why let that hurt everyone else?

Yeah, "reports". It's not that widespread or common. Our problem is knife crime at the moment, tbh.

We had a gun related school massacre in 1994 in Dunblane, Scotland. The guy got the guns legally. We banned handguns. We haven't had another school massacre. Since Columbine, America has done virtually nothing to gun laws.... and since then you've had snipers in Washington, a massacre at Virginia Tech.... in fact, you've had 34 incidents of school shootings in the last decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_sho ... ted_States

I suppose you are right. Perhaps guns are more trouble then they are worth. My train of thought has always been "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I think that if a killer has the desire to hurt someone he is going to do it be it with a knife, gun, bat, or his bare hands. It is unfair that people who enjoy hunting with their family or shooting targets have to loose their rights because these people have the desire to hurt others.
Also the point I was making about dictators was not that England is a dictatorship....that would be laughable. I am saying it is a very last resort for the constituents if the government is abusing its power.

[magma]

Yeah, I agree with that. I guess I have faith (maybe misguided) in the idea that as long as we stay vigilant enough, revolution will not be needed again in either of our countries - if our technology transforms us like it promises to, we'll all be too busy being content to need to overthrow anyone.

I wouldn't have had the same view 250 years ago... until the 1800s around here, and a bit later in the States probably, it was a pretty good idea to be ready for revolution should the need arise.

[dr ddd]

freedom's a tricky subject - maybe we should shutdown prisons and let every murderer, peadophile and war criminal out in order to protect their right to freedom?

i think the fundamental right to life comes before freedom.... we still havent resolved that yet as a human race.

Erm. It's about moral codes though isn't it? For instance, If some ome goes into a school and kills and rapes the children, they have gone so far off the scale of what is acceptable they forfit the right to freedom. And there isn't and has never been a society that has been that permissive to allow such extreme behavior.

The moral grey area is tricky. War criminals? Who decides whether what they did was wrong or not (Sadam Hussain, Slobidan Millosivic). If you look at their actions they pale in comparison to what sucsessive UK and US government have done throughout the world. Have you ever seen a president or priminister being called up to answer charges of war crimes? No.

i agree tim - thats part of my point. the problem is that the moral codes are subjective to the viewer and this will always be a bone of contention.

personally, i fundamentally believe in a human being's right to life first. if the concept is that we remove the freedom of those that violate this, it is then through "independent tribunals" and fair representation and judging that whether these are violations gets decided. The problem is the system for this is no where near perfect in any way and really needs to be in a constant state of refactoring, while focusing on this fundamental right as a priority.

If the argument is simplified to this then it is rapidly apparent who is violating it.... for a start, anyone who partakes in torture or execution. And this includes the several states in the US that should be tried for capital punishment - let alone war crimes and guatanamo. This then gets complicated by politics and the sheer arrogance of corrupt fat cats who cant think beyond their own bubble of existence and believe their right is to take what they desire, regardless of human rights implications. The idea of the UN is great, but it means f-all if the US and UK just do what they want anyway.

From my point of view, the only way to combat and refactor this is to provide independent, objective, peer supported, non-violent means to pressurise and educate societies into recognising these faults in their makeup. Which takes time, generations of time.... people rarely like change and are quite resistant to opening their views that they hold so dear and have had indoctrinated in them for their lives by family and society....

However, it does work and patience pays off - for example, over the last 50 years amnesty have made huge leaps in support of human rights and (regardless of whether people believe they are as neutral as they like to say), by keeping it an independent and peer-reviewed process - they have saved countless lives and raised international understanding of human rights and freedom (or at least, lack of freedom without explanantion or fair trial). A lot of their work for human rights in the US was undone with 9/11, at least on a visible level. But the seeds of awareness are planted in an educated generation that has the opportunity to learn from the past and create a different future.

The fact everyone is here on a forum discussing it is a step in the right direction.

[djelements]

Someone buying a gun for "protection" would appear to imply that they were willing to contemplate killing other humans.... that pretty much makes them a douchebag.

If the state has a weapon, I damn sure want it. It's hard to smash the state when the state shoots you down, get me?

EDIT: Additionally, I wish guns didn't exist. Life would be a HELL of a lot simpler. I disagree with the existence of the gun, but if the state has it, I want it.

[dr ddd]

freedom's a tricky subject - maybe we should shutdown prisons and let every murderer, peadophile and war criminal out in order to protect their right to freedom?

i think the fundamental right to life comes before freedom.... we still havent resolved that yet as a human race.

yeah, let's give up freedom, it's such a complicated subject!

better leave it to those people who can't wait to bust their asses for us, all we have to remember is to not put our hoods up if we're in london!

i mean it's very complicated to see some of the restrictions are hurting us more than helping us, not to mention how tough is to live by the principle of "if it doesn't hurt people, why restrict it?"
i'm sure things can be made look even much more complicated than this!
so everyone back to the good old tv, let the topic drawn!

thats not what i was saying at all

[karmacazee]

By the way, I only know this shit, and have such a strong opinion on it, because it's the course I do in uni, I don't spend all my free time thinking about it

Have you heard of shock and awe economics, or chicago school economics?

Now that shit scares me. "Using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets..."
A little excerpt from Namoi Klein's book the shock doctrine. She explains how an entire model of economics (devised by an evil fuck called Milton Friedman) has been imposed upon countless populations (including the UK and the US) just to please the 'free market' and the handful of people who benefit from it.

It's a disturbing development in economic evolution.

[metalboxproducts]

The fact everyone is here on a forum discussing it is a step in the right direction.

This kinda sums it up really. The fact we are able to discuss these thing openly without fear of retribution or the worry that we might have some one come around our house at night and have 'polite' word kinda makes the idea that we are not free a little bit void. I reckon we should all go back in time and live under the Stasi. I bet that was fun.

[olio]

i don't want the chip, but i could see some lazy motherfuckers out there getting it so they don't have to wear pockets...

http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/02/wi ... your-skin/

[ovadose]

Freedom? Getting searched constantly everytime you go into town at the weekends by the police?
Freedom? Making a plant illegal?