Man Sexually Assaulted in Pakistan (metal, quote)

sleepy jack · 07-05-2007, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

If you take away their guns, they will just use knives, if you take away their knives, they will just use rocks, if you take away their rocks, they will just use fists, if you take away their fists. Well, lets have a head start and cut off the hands of every living person in the world. Why not?

Everything can be a bad thing in the hands of a human being.

I know, but point is without bombs, guns and all that people would probably talk things out instead of blowing eachother up.

boo boo · 07-05-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

I know, but point is without bombs, guns and all that people would probably talk things out instead of blowing eachother up.

Naw, violence has existed before guns, before swords, before spears. It will continue to exist without them.

Violence has nothing to do with the weapons we use, its simply a part of human nature.

sleepy jack · 07-05-2007, 02:09 AM

I wasn't saying it would eliminate violence, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference in several countries either but it would cut down on some wars, and thats a start. Its not going to happen anyway, so theres really no point getting in a debate about it.

DontRunMeOver · 07-05-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Violence has nothing to do with the weapons we use, its simply a part of human nature.

The existence of violence existed before humans started to use their tools as weapons, true, it's not just part of human nature, it's just a part of nature in general. All mammals have violent sides (even a hamster will bite you when it's annoyed!), so the idea that human society could exist completely free of violence is almost certainly incorrect.

Although it can be argued whether the existence of advanced weaponry pushes people towards or away from violence, weapons certainly increases the effectiveness of violence, in terms of the amount of injury which can be inflicted with one weapon.

So even if weaponry is unrelated to the motive or desire for violence, weaponry has a very strong relationship to the outcome of that violence.

Some people say "guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people." But if you take away the weaponry then a lot of people wouldn't kill people, because that killing involves a hell of a lot more effort and personal risk. Even if they do try to kill people then they're a lot less likely to succeed with their bare fists than they are with guns.

joyboyo53 · 07-05-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

The existence of violence existed before humans started to use their tools as weapons, true, it's not just part of human nature, it's just a part of nature in general. All mammals have violent sides (even a hamster will bite you when it's annoyed!), so the idea that human society could exist completely free of violence is almost certainly incorrect.

Although it can be argued whether the existence of advanced weaponry pushes people towards or away from violence, weapons certainly increases the effectiveness of violence, in terms of the amount of injury which can be inflicted with one weapon.

So even if weaponry is unrelated to the motive or desire for violence, weaponry has a very strong relationship to the outcome of that violence.

Some people say "guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people." But if you take away the weaponry then a lot of people wouldn't kill people, because that killing involves a hell of a lot more effort and personal risk. Even if they do try to kill people then they're a lot less likely to succeed with their bare fists than they are with guns.

well said.

Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 · 07-05-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

The existence of violence existed before humans started to use their tools as weapons, true, it's not just part of human nature, it's just a part of nature in general. All mammals have violent sides (even a hamster will bite you when it's annoyed!), so the idea that human society could exist completely free of violence is almost certainly incorrect.

Although it can be argued whether the existence of advanced weaponry pushes people towards or away from violence, weapons certainly increases the effectiveness of violence, in terms of the amount of injury which can be inflicted with one weapon.

So even if weaponry is unrelated to the motive or desire for violence, weaponry has a very strong relationship to the outcome of that violence.

Some people say "guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people." But if you take away the weaponry then a lot of people wouldn't kill people, because that killing involves a hell of a lot more effort and personal risk. Even if they do try to kill people then they're a lot less likely to succeed with their bare fists than they are with guns.

Dude, you can kill a person by snapping their neck. You'll have to learn how to do it, of course, but people will learn how to if it means being the most effective way to kill people.

You are right. Weapons do increase the effectiveness of killing people. But even without guns and bombs, we'd still find some way to kill people. On some level, we all wanna kill. We all feel anger and the need to push back. Just some people accept this barbaric trait alot more than others.

DontRunMeOver · 07-05-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01

Dude, you can kill a person by snapping their neck.

And you can evade somebody who is trying to kill you in this way by not standing right next to them. Have we been playing a bit too much Splinter Cell?

Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 · 07-05-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

And you can evade somebody who is trying to kill you in this way by not standing right next to them. Have we been playing a bit too much Splinter Cell?

Never played Splinter Cell.

The point is that you can still kill people without weapons. It'll make it a little difficult, but difficulty won't stop people from killing each other.

~~CAPTAIN CAVEMAN~~ · 07-05-2007, 03:58 PM

Do you think Seung-Hui Cho could've walked into VT and karate-chopped 30 or so people to death?

Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 · 07-05-2007, 06:22 PM

Of course he could. He was Asian. DUH! [/sarcasm]

I'll give you that one. Yes, if we didn't have guns, he wouldn't have been able to commit that massacre as easily as he did.

07-05-2007, 06:22 PM	#30 (permalink)
Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 #1 Schuldinist. Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 420	Of course he could. He was Asian. DUH! [/sarcasm] I'll give you that one. Yes, if we didn't have guns, he wouldn't have been able to commit that massacre as easily as he did. __________________ I don't mean to dwell But I can't help myself When I feel the vibe And taste a memory Of a time in life When years seemed to stand still

07-05-2007, 03:58 PM	#29 (permalink)
~~CAPTAIN CAVEMAN~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: VAN Posts: 2,530	Do you think Seung-Hui Cho could've walked into VT and karate-chopped 30 or so people to death?