Crime free society

[AWDstylez]

imported post

I had an interesting question posed to me today so I wanted to get some opinions on it. I wasn't sure how to respond because it isn't something I had ever really though of. With that said, there's some things that need to be understood to keep this from going grossly off-track:

1. This is purely hypothetical. Don't get caught up in how unrealistic it is.

2. The question is posed Constitution and American law ASIDE. Don't get caught up in whether it's Constitutional or what the Supreme Court has to say about it.



If a 100% crime and tyrannyfree society could be created by eliminating all weapons, would you willingly give up your guns?



After thinking about it for quite some time I'd challenge anyone that says no to thoroughly explain themselves and then take a careful look at their purpose for carrying a gun. The scenario is obviously impossible, but the intent of the question couldn't be more clear.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Since this is a hypothetical question, I'll assume that this crime free world will be a human free world. The idea of a crime free society of humans is an Utopian fantasy.

Sorry folks,there will always bemembers of the human species that are simply not going to play nice with everyone else.

But let's say that some one has suggested that they are going to bring this about, I would not give up any of my weapons because I know that this proposed crime free society won't last. There will always be a certain segment of society that will hold to criminal intent and they will fashion some sort of weapon to carry out their criminal activities with.

I would also be highly suspicious of anyone who suggest such an idea.

And then there's the dangerous animal critters, too.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

First reply and simultaneously the first person that didn't listen to rules of the question -no surprise there.

It's hypothetical no one said it was realistic. It's a simple question, really. Yes or no, would you give up your self-defensearms if it would end crime/tyranny?

 

[skidmark]

imported post

"Crime" and "Tyranny" are philosophical constucts used to attempt to describe ways and means by which one human being or a group of human beings attepts to exert power over another human or group of human beings. The presumption in that is that in all human interaction one will attempt to exert power over another in some form or fashion. That presumption has prety much been borne out by history, in spite of the Utopians' dreams that one day, under the right alignment of the stars, moon, and circumstances it will no longer happen.

Thus, I am "forced" to reject your hypothetical premise that a society in which crime and tryanny did not exist could be created.

If Iplay the game by your rules and "not get caught up in how unrealistic it is" to imagine such a society existing, then I am going to answer that I would never give up my guns, because there would be no need to. Guns would remain the same benign tools they have always been. What would have changed is that people would no longer use those benign tools to advance criminal and/or tyrannical ends. What would not have changed is my desire to use the benign tools I own for many of the other uses besides advancing crime and tyrannyfor whichthose tools are useful - hunting, plinking, punching holes in paper, stress relief, mental and physical skill development, etc., etc., etc.

In those situations, my guns are NOT weapons, so they would not "have to" disappear.

Therefore, my answer in an situation is an unqualified "No."

stay safe.

skidmark
* edited for typos

 

[Citizen]

imported post

No.

Don't fall for this line of questioning, AWDstylez. By this I mean, don't entertain such a question.

Its a very old trick. The listener assumes its a legitimate question, then starts thinking about it and forgets that he made that assumption. Then gets wrapped around a post either a little or a lottrying to sort it out. Witness your uncertainty about how to respond.

The questioner wins half the battle by getting you to accept their framing of the question. By defining the question, they define the possible answers. And since they know people like to be logical, they know an honest listener will avoid giving illogical or destructive answers, the questioner has all but guaranteed there can be only one answer.

An example would be the old car salesman tactic that goes, "If I can show you a car that you like and fits your budget, there would be no reason not to buy it today would there?"

Think of it like negotiating for something. There is the negotiation for the item; but there is also, before that, negotiating for how the negotiation will be conducted. The North Koreans are especially adept at spending ages dickering over how the negotiation will proceed.

So, don't buy into the false or self-serving premise. As soon as you spot it, raise the objection.

There is no legitimate basis for this question. Hypothetical or not.

 

[snake021]

imported post

No



What's your answer AWD?

 

[snake021]

imported post

Well, he was online.

Guess we'll have to wait till he goes and gets his professors response.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

First reply and simultaneously the first person that didn't listen to rules of the question -no surprise there.

It's hypothetical no one said it was realistic. It's a simple question, really. Yes or no, would you give up your self-defensearms if it would end crime/tyranny?

I know it was a hypothetical. I was trying to give you a hypothetical answer.

But no, I would not give up my toys.

And I might add, that tyranny isn't necessarily a bad thing. It depends greatly on who the tyrant is and how he/she rules. Not all tyrant rulers have been oppressive to those they ruled over.

 

[Aran]

imported post

No, I like guns and knives and swords. All three are "weapons"

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Aran wrote:

No, I like guns and knives and swords. All three are "weapons"

In AWD's make beleive world we'll have to call them toys, cuz we won't need any weapons.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

If a 100% crime and tyrannyfree society could be created by eliminating all weapons, would you willingly give up your guns?

Simple answer, no. First of all, none of my firearms has ever been used as a weapon by me and if we had a 100% crime and tyranny free society they would never in the future be used by me as a weapon, ergo, eliminating them would only be eliminating something that COULD be used as a weapon. If we start eliminating things that COULD be used as a weapon then we have to eliminate cars, knives, bricks, baseball bats, sticks, large animal skeletons, spears, bows and arrows, letter openers, pointy scissors, slingshots, pitchforks, ball point pens, broken bottles, hammers, axes, hatchets, pikes, piano wire, heavy lamps and rocks to name a few. And that entirely ignores that the human body can also be used as a weapon.

So, the only way to eliminate all weapons would be to eliminate all humans and higher primates being that gorillas and chimpanzees, for example, have been known to use sticks and thrown projectiles as weapons against predators and their own kind. So, I guess maybe the hypothetical is actually possible only no human or other higher primate would be here to see it.

The assumption inherent in the context of the question is that firearms are the only types of weapons. Unless you are willing to accept that assumption the entire hypothetical is negated. I do not accept that hypothesis as it ignores the behavior of humans for millennia before the creation of gunpowder, and for millennia prior to the creation of mechanically propelled projectiles. Man has been killing man since the beginning of the species and has used about anything we can think of as a weapon at some point. And if you do not eliminate all potential weapons, what is the point in eliminating one particular weapon, ie firearms, when history has shown that shield and sword is sufficient to conquor the world. It was argued as early as the 19th century that with then modern communication technology available, Rome could have survived another thousand years. In other words, it is argued that it was not the weaponry that lost the empire, but communication over the vast areas conquored.

In short, it is a silly hypothetical. The question really being asked and the presumptions inherent are, "Are you so much of a gun nut that you wouldn't even give up your firearms even if doing so would eliminate all crime and tyranny? And if you are such a nut, then you are clearly a menace and shouldn't have a gun. And if you would give them up, then being that someone else believes that the theoretical is true, why not just give up your guns now and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem as someone has to be the first to step up to make a more perfect world."

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

It just dawned on me. :banghead:

The proper answer to this question would be - "What weapons? We don't have any weapons. We have tools"

 

[WhiteFeather]

imported post

I conur with most of the answers here.

Since none of my firearms have been used in the commission of a crime I do not see how anyone could make the connection. Firearms themselves do no commit crimes so ridding myself of them would not contribute to a society as such.

The real question posed is. Would you give up your freedoms if it meant we could live in a world without crime.

That sir or ma'am is a resounding no. I would not care what the offer was, I will not give up a single freedom in the persuit of a utopian era.

 

[like_the_roman]

imported post

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.

They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.

But when we disarmed, They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,

And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'Stick to the Devil you know.'

- Excerpt from The Gods of the Copybook Headings by Rudyard Kipling (1919)

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_copybook.htm

 

[FogRider]

imported post

It depends on whether or not I get a flying unicorn with the deal.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

FogRider wrote:

It depends on whether or not I get a flying unicorn with the deal.

That's a Hall of Fame answer right there.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

The question really being asked and the presumptions inherent are, "Are you so much of a gun nut that you wouldn't even give up your firearms even if doing so would eliminate all crime and tyranny? And if you are such a nut, then you are clearly a menace and shouldn't have a gun.

At least someone got it. That's exactly the underlying question. Obviously everyone couldn't overcome the temptation to dissect and tear apart the question rather than just answering it with the simple yes or no it requires.

Citizen seemed to have hit the nail on the head with his original post, if not getting the correct answer in the process. The correct answer is a simple "yes". Who wouldn't give up guns for peace? The qualifier is the fact that the perfect world isn't possible so the "yes" answer is irrelevant. The question has nothing to do with guns, it's a simple determiner of what's more important to you... would you give up ice cream for peace? Cars? Sports? Sex? It can be asked of anything. It's simply more interesting when asked in relation to guns because peace is the purpose we all claim to carry for. Obviously that leaves out the sporting purposes of guns as many people mentioned, but then again that wasn't part of the question. If you want to debate what a gun is then go to the "guns are only designed to kill" thread (personally I'll agree with that statement because lethal forceis their primary purpose, anyone that says otherwise is a fool, it's like saying an M1A1 tank isn't designed to kill, it's just transportation).

And for everyone that's continuously butt hurt about my oh-so-non-patriotic, anti-government attitude, the question isn't something I came up with because I'm the forum's official hippie liberal gun hater. It's basically the summation of a discussion I had with my anti-handgun/carry boss.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

Then I would pose this question.

If we answer no, and this "clearly means we are gun nuts and a menace......", who are we a menace too? If we who have guns and want only peace and have no intent to do harm to anyone else, how are we a menace because, we choose to keep are weap.... er ...tools?

The problem with the liberal minded anti-gunners is that they can't see past their little Utopian bubbles they have surrounded themselves with, to protect them from the ugly realities of humanity.



You know, this kind of stuff makes for great mental calisthenics. And you want to be mentally sharp for those events that may require split second decision making.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

The question really being asked and the presumptions inherent are, "Are you so much of a gun nut that you wouldn't even give up your firearms even if doing so would eliminate all crime and tyranny? And if you are such a nut, then you are clearly a menace and shouldn't have a gun.

At least someone got it. That's exactly the underlying question. Obviously everyone couldn't overcome the temptation to dissect and tear apart the question rather than just answering it with the simple yes or no it requires.

Well, we agree that I understand the underlying question. As to the dissecting and tearing apart the question and the presumptions underlying the question rather than just answering "with the simple yes or no it requires", I tore into it to point out the invalidity of the question even as a hypothetical idealism because in your OP you wrote, "I'd challenge anyone that says no to thoroughly explain themselves." My "no" answer, per your request, begged an explanation and a thorough one at that. The explanation required said deconstruction.

Perhaps the question would be better formed by asking, "If a 100% crime and tyrannyfree society could be created by eliminating all firearms, would you willingly give up your guns?"

In that case my answer is different. In that case, with that hypothetical criteria and the rest of the OP, of course the answer is yes. I would sacrifice a hobby I enjoy to have a 100% crime and tyranny free society with all the appropriate understood caveats as to the premise being an over simplified and absurd idealism.

If you do not like the answers you get or get the answers you like, sometimes the problem lies in the question asked rather than the answers given.

 

[Slayer of Paper]

imported post

Ok, I'll be the rabid gun nut. No, I wouldn't give up my guns, because I don't believe it would be a fair trade-off. Maybe if I owned guns ONLY for self-defense, I'd consider it, but I just plain enjoy shooting and collecting guns. So no, I don't think I'd want to give that up so YOU could have crime and tyranny free society. For my part, I'm happy to take my chances that I won't be a victim, and if I am, that I will be able to defend myself. Personally, I think it's worth it.

Too many people think that the most important thing we can do is to "save lives" or "make the world safer". By doing that, we are condeming our posterity to truly horrible conditions. The world population has grown from about 3 billion to almost 7 billion in just FIFTY years (perhaps a bit less, even). Just imagine how much worse it would be if just 10% of people who died young in the last 50 years (under say age 50) had lived to 70.

I saw this show about scientists that swear that within a few decades, they will be able to extend human life spans by 40%, and some estimates even claimed about 200-250%! At first, I thought, "how cool, I could live 300 years, that would be awesome". Then I thought about what kinds of conditions the world would be in in another 250 years with the population growning like it has been, and decided I would be better off dead.

Too many people fear death. Death is just the logical conclusion to life.