Latest school shooting in America

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Latest school shooting in America

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 5.00pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 4.37pm Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 4.32pm Of course you can. Or would you prefer we had a military without weapons at all? Being consistently naive about what having Trident achieves, or prevents, isn't a good show of intellect. No to the first question. That is because an armed military serves many purposes other than deterrence, where some form of weaponry may be required. Trident, however, serves no purpose whatsoever other than deterrence (and enriching the pockets of defense contractors.) Since neither of those ends is, to me, worthwhile, I find it easy to justify being against it without feeling naive. There is nothing naive about arguing the position that violence is not a functional response to violence. Deterrents are needed and as we're committed to spending £40bn per year on defense it might as well be mostly on UK defense contractors, or on UK jobs, like it is with Trident. It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent. Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant. How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 02 Oct 15 5.00pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 4.37pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 4.32pm

Of course you can. Or would you prefer we had a military without weapons at all?

Being consistently naive about what having Trident achieves, or prevents, isn't a good show of intellect.

No to the first question. That is because an armed military serves many purposes other than deterrence, where some form of weaponry may be required. Trident, however, serves no purpose whatsoever other than deterrence (and enriching the pockets of defense contractors.) Since neither of those ends is, to me, worthwhile, I find it easy to justify being against it without feeling naive.

There is nothing naive about arguing the position that violence is not a functional response to violence.

Deterrents are needed and as we're committed to spending £40bn per year on defense it might as well be mostly on UK defense contractors, or on UK jobs, like it is with Trident.

It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent.

Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant.

How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 5.04pm
Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 4.39pm Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 4.32pm Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 4.14pm It strikes me as somewhat ironic that many of those right wingers who howl in outrage at Corbyn and claim that we need to spend huge sums on Trident (because it's a deterrent) howl in outrage at the NRAs espousal of the right to bear arms (even though they're presumed by the right to be a deterrent.) Can you have it both ways? Either you think that violence is best addressed by the threat of violence in return, or you don't. At least those of us on the left benefit from having some consistency to our intellectual position. Edited by sydtheeagle (02 Oct 2015 4.14pm) Of course you can. Or would you prefer we had a military without weapons at all? Being consistently naive about what having Trident achieves, or prevents, isn't a good show of intellect. plenty of other countries get along without nukes just fine. Good for them. Those countries that have put in a shift of running the modern world however, or are deemed superpowers, need a good deterrent. So that's UK, USA, Russia and China... So I don't know what France are doing with them and India and pakistan is to neutralise each others threats. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 02 Oct 15 5.04pm

Quote Kermit8 at 02 Oct 2015 4.39pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 4.32pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 4.14pm

It strikes me as somewhat ironic that many of those right wingers who howl in outrage at Corbyn and claim that we need to spend huge sums on Trident (because it's a deterrent) howl in outrage at the NRAs espousal of the right to bear arms (even though they're presumed by the right to be a deterrent.) Can you have it both ways? Either you think that violence is best addressed by the threat of violence in return, or you don't. At least those of us on the left benefit from having some consistency to our intellectual position.

Edited by sydtheeagle (02 Oct 2015 4.14pm)

Of course you can. Or would you prefer we had a military without weapons at all?

Being consistently naive about what having Trident achieves, or prevents, isn't a good show of intellect.

plenty of other countries get along without nukes just fine.

Good for them. Those countries that have put in a shift of running the modern world however, or are deemed superpowers, need a good deterrent.

So that's UK, USA, Russia and China... So I don't know what France are doing with them and India and pakistan is to neutralise each others threats.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 02 Oct 15 5.10pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent. Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant. How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership. Trident is a response to violence, assuming we would only use it as a retaliatory measure. Deterrence is not using it at all. If we used it first, it would be violence that invited violence. Smart, that. In none of the three cases is it justified (in my opinion.) Yes, I agree that comparing military and private gun ownership is irrelevant. However, you drew the parallel, not me. I was merely responding to your post. In answer to your question, yes, that would be none. So why do we need Trident? If the question was how many guns had been mistakenly fired (on civilians) by the military (Russia this week, anyone?) that would be lots. That is not to say we should disarm the military. We should not. But the clear parallel is that whether the weapons are nuclear or conventional, no good comes of weapons so avoid them where you can, whichever flavour of weapon we are talking about. In my view, we should ban outright those that we can (like Trident) and restrict to the appropriate bearers (the military) those that we cannot. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 02 Oct 15 5.10pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm

It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent.

Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant.

How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership.

Trident is a response to violence, assuming we would only use it as a retaliatory measure. Deterrence is not using it at all. If we used it first, it would be violence that invited violence. Smart, that. In none of the three cases is it justified (in my opinion.)

Yes, I agree that comparing military and private gun ownership is irrelevant. However, you drew the parallel, not me. I was merely responding to your post.

In answer to your question, yes, that would be none. So why do we need Trident? If the question was how many guns had been mistakenly fired (on civilians) by the military (Russia this week, anyone?) that would be lots. That is not to say we should disarm the military. We should not. But the clear parallel is that whether the weapons are nuclear or conventional, no good comes of weapons so avoid them where you can, whichever flavour of weapon we are talking about. In my view, we should ban outright those that we can (like Trident) and restrict to the appropriate bearers (the military) those that we cannot.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 02 Oct 15 5.18pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 5.10pm Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent. Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant. How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership. Trident is a response to violence, assuming we would only use it as a retaliatory measure. Deterrence is not using it at all. If we used it first, it would be violence that invited violence. Smart, that. In none of the three cases is it justified (in my opinion.) Yes, I agree that comparing military and private gun ownership is irrelevant. However, you drew the parallel, not me. I was merely responding to your post. In answer to your question, yes, that would be none. So why do we need Trident? If the question was how many guns had been mistakenly fired (on civilians) by the military (Russia this week, anyone?) that would be lots. That is not to say we should disarm the military. We should not. But the clear parallel is that whether the weapons are nuclear or conventional, no good comes of weapons so avoid them where you can, whichever flavour of weapon we are talking about. In my view, we should ban outright those that we can (like Trident) and restrict to the appropriate bearers (the military) those that we cannot. We aren't using it at all, so it's a deterrent as I said. The threat of us using it in response is enough to make it that. I certainly did not make the comparison. You did 3 post ago. If there's been no rogue or accidental nukings, there's no irony in people on here, who back us having Trident, showing dismay at private gun ownership in the USA. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 02 Oct 15 5.18pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 5.10pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm

It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent.

Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant.

How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership.

Yes, I agree that comparing military and private gun ownership is irrelevant. However, you drew the parallel, not me. I was merely responding to your post.

In answer to your question, yes, that would be none. So why do we need Trident? If the question was how many guns had been mistakenly fired (on civilians) by the military (Russia this week, anyone?) that would be lots. That is not to say we should disarm the military. We should not. But the clear parallel is that whether the weapons are nuclear or conventional, no good comes of weapons so avoid them where you can, whichever flavour of weapon we are talking about. In my view, we should ban outright those that we can (like Trident) and restrict to the appropriate bearers (the military) those that we cannot.

We aren't using it at all, so it's a deterrent as I said. The threat of us using it in response is enough to make it that.

I certainly did not make the comparison. You did 3 post ago.

If there's been no rogue or accidental nukings, there's no irony in people on here, who back us having Trident, showing dismay at private gun ownership in the USA.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle England 02 Oct 15 5.37pm
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.18pm If there's been no rogue or accidental nukings, there's no irony in people on here, who back us having Trident, showing dismay at private gun ownership in the USA. Surely a belief in weapons as deterrents is based on principle? It's guided by what you believe, not by the historical record. I think you're having it both ways in so far as you appear to be saying: Bad people in American use guns. But good people should not be allowed to have them because guns are bad, even though they might sometimes have a deterrent effect. (This is a position I completely agree with.) and you are also saying: Bad people in the world do not use nukes (or at least never have). Good people in the world should be allowed to have nukes just in case bad people decide to one day use them. (This is a position I do not agree with.) In essence, you are picking and choosing where you apply the rule about ownership of weapons not because the nature of the weapons or the owner of those weapons (private or public) is different, but because you've simply chosen to randomly apply a double standard. Your choice is based on what you believe rather than evidence (some people are worthing arming, some people are not.) Ownership rules in your case are thus inconsistent; it really boils down to "when it suits me it's the right thing to do" but there's no intellectual consistency beneath the position. I'm not trying to make this personal. I simply think all weapons spending and usage should be eschewed where possible, and allowed only where there is clear evidence (as in the conventional military) that their existence and usage would have a desirable effect. Trident does not (for me) meet that standard. Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.
Alert a moderator to this post

sydtheeagle

England 02 Oct 15 5.37pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.18pm

If there's been no rogue or accidental nukings, there's no irony in people on here, who back us having Trident, showing dismay at private gun ownership in the USA.

Surely a belief in weapons as deterrents is based on principle? It's guided by what you believe, not by the historical record. I think you're having it both ways in so far as you appear to be saying:

Bad people in American use guns. But good people should not be allowed to have them because guns are bad, even though they might sometimes have a deterrent effect. (This is a position I completely agree with.)

and you are also saying:

Bad people in the world do not use nukes (or at least never have). Good people in the world should be allowed to have nukes just in case bad people decide to one day use them. (This is a position I do not agree with.)

In essence, you are picking and choosing where you apply the rule about ownership of weapons not because the nature of the weapons or the owner of those weapons (private or public) is different, but because you've simply chosen to randomly apply a double standard. Your choice is based on what you believe rather than evidence (some people are worthing arming, some people are not.) Ownership rules in your case are thus inconsistent; it really boils down to "when it suits me it's the right thing to do" but there's no intellectual consistency beneath the position.

I'm not trying to make this personal. I simply think all weapons spending and usage should be eschewed where possible, and allowed only where there is clear evidence (as in the conventional military) that their existence and usage would have a desirable effect. Trident does not (for me) meet that standard.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Alert a moderator to this post

twist Miami, Florida 02 Oct 15 6.49pm
That India and pakistan have not gone at it more than they have, is mostly attributed to nuclear weapons. Same with Israel and their surrounding friends, all the direct unfriendliness occurred prior to Israel becoming nuclear. Of course, lets not forget USSR and USA, how they didnt go at it directly ? There are not many facts in this story of nuclear weapons, as nobody has attacked someone else, you can only go by hypothesis. I certainly could say that countries who have nuclear weapons do invade countries that do not have them, and that a country with nuclear weapons has not yet been invaded. Maybe its just a coincidence.
Alert a moderator to this post

twist

Miami, Florida 02 Oct 15 6.49pm

That India and pakistan have not gone at it more than they have, is mostly attributed to nuclear weapons.

Same with Israel and their surrounding friends, all the direct unfriendliness occurred prior to Israel becoming nuclear.

Of course, lets not forget USSR and USA, how they didnt go at it directly ?

There are not many facts in this story of nuclear weapons, as nobody has attacked someone else, you can only go by hypothesis.

I certainly could say that countries who have nuclear weapons do invade countries that do not have them, and that a country with nuclear weapons has not yet been invaded.

Maybe its just a coincidence.

Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX- Alphabettispaghetti 02 Oct 15 7.09pm
Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 9.11am ...and in the hands of teenagers, whose judgment in emotional situations is legendary. There's not really much to debate. The answer is probably enforced birth control for all members of the NRA family. Then they can get rid of guns in a generation or so. Or just cut all their fingers off. Far simpler. Time to move forward together.
Alert a moderator to this post

-TUX-

Alphabettispaghetti 02 Oct 15 7.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 9.11am

...and in the hands of teenagers, whose judgment in emotional situations is legendary. There's not really much to debate. The answer is probably enforced birth control for all members of the NRA family. Then they can get rid of guns in a generation or so.

Or just cut all their fingers off. Far simpler.

Time to move forward together.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 10.32am
Quote -TUX- at 02 Oct 2015 7.09pm Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 9.11am ...and in the hands of teenagers, whose judgment in emotional situations is legendary. There's not really much to debate. The answer is probably enforced birth control for all members of the NRA family. Then they can get rid of guns in a generation or so. Or just cut all their fingers off. Far simpler. Harder than you think, given the webbing and additional digits. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Oct 15 10.32am

Quote -TUX- at 02 Oct 2015 7.09pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 9.11am

Or just cut all their fingers off. Far simpler.

Harder than you think, given the webbing and additional digits.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 10.40am
Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 4.37pm Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 4.32pm Of course you can. Or would you prefer we had a military without weapons at all? Being consistently naive about what having Trident achieves, or prevents, isn't a good show of intellect. No to the first question. That is because an armed military serves many purposes other than deterrence, where some form of weaponry may be required. Trident, however, serves no purpose whatsoever other than deterrence (and enriching the pockets of defense contractors.) Since neither of those ends is, to me, worthwhile, I find it easy to justify being against it without feeling naive. There is nothing naive about arguing the position that violence is not a functional response to violence. Deterrents are needed and as we're committed to spending £40bn per year on defense it might as well be mostly on UK defense contractors, or on UK jobs, like it is with Trident. It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent. Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant. How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership. These days its very hard to maintain and active a nuclear weapon (unlike those of the past), except it seems on TV where. In truth, the military are very very careful and have a lot of contingencies and redundancies in place to make it as close to an impossibility as possible to 'fire a nuclear missile'. The US and Russia managed to lose several nuclear weapons over the years. That's about as close as its come (and those lost were mostly between the 60s-80s; the lack of maintenance means their warheads almost certainly wouldn't fire now). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Oct 15 10.40am

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 5.00pm

Quote sydtheeagle at 02 Oct 2015 4.37pm

Quote Stuk at 02 Oct 2015 4.32pm

Of course you can. Or would you prefer we had a military without weapons at all?

Being consistently naive about what having Trident achieves, or prevents, isn't a good show of intellect.

There is nothing naive about arguing the position that violence is not a functional response to violence.

Deterrents are needed and as we're committed to spending £40bn per year on defense it might as well be mostly on UK defense contractors, or on UK jobs, like it is with Trident.

It's not a response to violence, it's a deterrent.

Anyway comparing private and largely unregulated gun ownership to military, and heavily regulated, weapons is irrelevant.

How many nukes have been fired by accident or used by rogue groups? Would that be none? Unlike the weekly problems of private ownership.

These days its very hard to maintain and active a nuclear weapon (unlike those of the past), except it seems on TV where. In truth, the military are very very careful and have a lot of contingencies and redundancies in place to make it as close to an impossibility as possible to 'fire a nuclear missile'.

The US and Russia managed to lose several nuclear weapons over the years. That's about as close as its come (and those lost were mostly between the 60s-80s; the lack of maintenance means their warheads almost certainly wouldn't fire now).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 05 Oct 15 12.48pm
John Oliver had a very pithy sound bite regards gun control which I kinda liked. To paraphrase 'One failed shoe bomber tries to board a plane and everyone now has to take their shoes off at the airport before boarding, 31 school shootings in that time and absolutely no change in gun law'..... As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 05 Oct 15 12.48pm

John Oliver had a very pithy sound bite regards gun control which I kinda liked.

To paraphrase

'One failed shoe bomber tries to board a plane and everyone now has to take their shoes off at the airport before boarding, 31 school shootings in that time and absolutely no change in gun law'.....

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 2.37pm
Quote The Sash at 05 Oct 2015 12.48pm John Oliver had a very pithy sound bite regards gun control which I kinda liked. To paraphrase 'One failed shoe bomber tries to board a plane and everyone now has to take their shoes off at the airport before boarding, 31 school shootings in that time and absolutely no change in gun law'..... So very true. If someone from IS shot and killed 8 or 9 American kids the same people who oppose gun control would be demanding a war. When an American kid does it, they don't even demand better mental health services. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Oct 15 2.37pm

Quote The Sash at 05 Oct 2015 12.48pm

John Oliver had a very pithy sound bite regards gun control which I kinda liked.

To paraphrase

'One failed shoe bomber tries to board a plane and everyone now has to take their shoes off at the airport before boarding, 31 school shootings in that time and absolutely no change in gun law'.....

So very true. If someone from IS shot and killed 8 or 9 American kids the same people who oppose gun control would be demanding a war. When an American kid does it, they don't even demand better mental health services.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

nairb75 Baltimore 05 Oct 15 4.14pm
here's the argument: what does right to bear arms mean? many here believe there are no limits to the definition of "arms." so can i have a tank? a nuke? walk around with a bazooka? why not? so if there then IS a limit, that is the discussion that must take place. assault weapons? this country is nuts in regards to guns. we have a sitting senator make a video where he cooks bacon on the tip of his automatic gun. these people are crazy. it won't change. we had sandy hook where a bunch of kindergarteners were killed. were they to defend themselves with guns? in essence, the right's argument is that we should live in an uncivilized society where you are on your own at all times. "well granny, if you would've been packing heat, that b****** wouldn't have stole your pocket book. too effing bad."
Alert a moderator to this post

nairb75

Baltimore 05 Oct 15 4.14pm

here's the argument: what does right to bear arms mean? many here believe there are no limits to the definition of "arms." so can i have a tank? a nuke? walk around with a bazooka? why not?

so if there then IS a limit, that is the discussion that must take place. assault weapons?

this country is nuts in regards to guns. we have a sitting senator make a video where he cooks bacon on the tip of his automatic gun. these people are crazy. it won't change.

we had sandy hook where a bunch of kindergarteners were killed. were they to defend themselves with guns? in essence, the right's argument is that we should live in an uncivilized society where you are on your own at all times. "well granny, if you would've been packing heat, that b****** wouldn't have stole your pocket book. too effing bad."

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Latest school shooting in America

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors