Learn Japanese with JapanesePod101.com

View topic - Weapons

Weapons

Post questions and answers about living or visiting Japan or the culture

Re: Weapons

Postby CajunCoder » Tue 04.07.2009 10:21 pm

That'll scare just about anyone away :shock:

Useful as a deterrent, though I must question it's practical use as a weapon -- the only one, which I see, being to give someone a heart attack :mrgreen:
CajunCoder
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue 09.27.2005 4:08 am

Re: Weapons

Postby Infidel » Wed 04.08.2009 6:47 pm

Disco wrote:I do know that there is a colossal difference between being safe and feeling safe. If you're in an area where people are most-likely going to hurt you, then by all means, have a shank or a 9mm on you. But in an area where it's virtually unnecessary to have a weapon, then being the only one with a weapon like that, people will feel threatened by you; because who carries a weapon who isn't prepared to use it? Let me use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example. When the soviets gave Cuba long range missiles, America felt threatened ( even though they had missles stationed in Turkey {as well as other places}). And this all almost ended in catastrophe. But in the end, they agreed to disarm the cuban missiles, in exchange for the ones in Turkey be disarmed as well. But also in the United Kingdom, they're not allowed to carry guns, or any other types of weapons; so when people are (for instance) robbed at gunpoint (god knows how they got one, but it does happen) and they are utterly defenseless, and rely on law enforcement like helpless children. So no one feels safer until they have a bigger weapon than the "other guy".


Ok, I deleted a bunch of stuff from my previous post, but I guess I'll write it here afterall since you bring up the cuban missile crisis. And add more stuff.

Basically, there are 3 basic states for weapons possession. This applies to nuclear arms as well.

Ideal - Everyone has a weapon and everyone knows it. Because everyone knows everyone has a weapon, no-one wants to use them. Nuclear Missiles are a great example of this, note that nuclear powers bend over backwards to avoid going to war with one another. We felt threatened by Cuban missiles, we made threats, and because we had Nuclear power, our threats were recognized and responded to with a lot more haste than is common in diplomatic correspondence. Thus while the threat of war loomed large, it didn't actually transition into war. There is a significant element in the U.S. political structure that ENCOURAGES countries to arm themselves nuclear, and the reason is this: belligerent countries suddenly become a lot less aggressive when they acquire arms. There was a nice paper available online that discusses this principle, if I can find it, I'll link it. For personal use it's the same. When criminals who practice robbery or burglary are interviewed about choosing their victims or why they stopped, they always say they choose victims that are unarmed, and they take a vacation or move to another town if everyone starts buying guns. Thus, you don't feel threatened, because everyone has a gun and since everyone has a gun, no one wants, or needs, to use them.

Sub-par - Some people have weapons and others don't. If the majority has weapons, then belligerent parties are reluctant to imitate violence, unless they are reasonable confident the victims are unarmed. Being anti-gun in this environment is bad because it advertises your availability for victimization. Thus victims get victimized, then complain about being victimized, which encourages people that normally would be honest to go ahead and take up a life of crime since all these potential victims are out there and waiting. If the minority has weapons, then belligerent parties are less reluctant to initiate violence without doing research on the victims first, thus anti-gun sentiment in this environment escalates violence.

Worst - No one but the government has weapons. Day-to-day life will be safer, people won't fear passers-by on the street because crowded places might feel safer, but it's no safer than sheep under the watchful eye of a shepherd. The transition from kindly shepherd to oppressive regime can happen quickly and when a government turns oppressive, there is no defense if the citizens are unarmed. Enter ethnic cleansing, Action T4, and slavery, for starters. I'm sure future generations might imagine something even less savory.

No, I'm not saying that a government will automatically start victimizing citizens as soon as guns are stripped from the citizenry. What I am saying, is that governments are run by people, and throughout history, hate and fear have sometimes captured the hearts of those in control of government, and because it has happened before, it will happen again. When hate and fear begins to dictate government policy, then the government will turn on the citizens. People forget that governments change or wrongly believe that "that can't happen again". No matter how nice and kind your government might be now, that doesn't guarantee they will remain so. Actually, history guarantees it will not.

The second Amendment is not just "the right to bear arms" as people often cite. It specifically reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words, in America, you don't have the right to a gun so that you can hunt deer on your off-time, or so that you can defend yourself from a robber. These are secondary benefits, not the primary benefit. The amendment assumes that everyone with a gun is part of a local militia that can cooperate to fight off the government if it turns against them. Just as in the American Revolution. It also assumes that a militias will band together to fight off invaders until the Army arrives.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." A free state is not one with a bunch of unarmed citizens. If the citizens are not armed, then they are dependent, not free. Like small children totally at the mercy of their parents. Now imagine that you don't have just one set of parents, but they change periodically, and there is the problem.
-edit, link added as promised.
Last edited by Infidel on Thu 04.09.2009 5:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
なるほど。
さっぱりわからん。
User avatar
Infidel
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 1:12 am
Native language: 英語

Re: Weapons

Postby AJBryant » Wed 04.08.2009 9:27 pm

Okay, the whole weapon issue is starting to get to the edge of political discussion. (It's the reason I haven't been posting in this thread -- the only things I want to say will come off all "gun/weapons nut" to one set of people, and "2nd Amendment" stuff to another, and "only logical" to another set.

I'd like this thread to move along.
User avatar
AJBryant
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5313
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 11:29 am
Location: Indiana
Native language: English
Gender: Male

Re: Weapons

Postby astaroth » Wed 04.08.2009 9:33 pm

I was going to post about Cold War and whether or not it was a war: it was a war, not a full-scale (global) but it was a war fought on the borders of the kingdoms.
I was going to post about the 2nd Amendment and that the having weapons at home doesn't turn people into an organized militia, to do that look at Switzerland.
But then this is not the place I guess ... and I saw Tony's post ...
ー 流光 ー

   花地世
小  見獄の
林  かの中
一  な上は
茶   の 
User avatar
astaroth
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon 12.22.2008 5:08 am
Location: Amherst, MA
Native language: Italiano「伊語」

Re: Weapons

Postby JaySee » Thu 04.09.2009 2:35 am

AJBryant wrote:Okay, the whole weapon issue is starting to get to the edge of political discussion.


I'd rather say some of the last few posts were political discussion, and fairly blatantly at that. You're a bit 'conservative' in your judgement (hur hur hur)
JaySee
 
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat 08.04.2007 12:04 am
Location: Tokyo
Native language: Dutch
Gender: Male

Re: Weapons

Postby two_heads_talking » Thu 04.09.2009 8:16 am

AJBryant wrote:Okay, the whole weapon issue is starting to get to the edge of political discussion. (It's the reason I haven't been posting in this thread -- the only things I want to say will come off all "gun/weapons nut" to one set of people, and "2nd Amendment" stuff to another, and "only logical" to another set.

I'd like this thread to move along.



I forgot to put.. "Nothing to see here, move along citizens" in teh caption of my picture..

I see it all 3 ways.. it is 2nd amendment, some gun owners are nuts and it is all logical.. So, where does that place me?
User avatar
two_heads_talking
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
Native language: English

Re: Weapons

Postby Infidel » Thu 04.09.2009 4:58 pm

two_heads_talking wrote:
I forgot to put.. "Nothing to see here, move along citizens" in teh caption of my picture..

I see it all 3 ways.. it is 2nd amendment, some gun owners are nuts and it is all logical.. So, where does that place me?


You're moving into Infidel space if you can see more than two perspectives.
なるほど。
さっぱりわからん。
User avatar
Infidel
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 1:12 am
Native language: 英語

Re: Weapons

Postby two_heads_talking » Fri 04.10.2009 9:53 am

Infidel wrote:
two_heads_talking wrote:
I forgot to put.. "Nothing to see here, move along citizens" in teh caption of my picture..

I see it all 3 ways.. it is 2nd amendment, some gun owners are nuts and it is all logical.. So, where does that place me?


You're moving into Infidel space if you can see more than two perspectives.


the name two_heads_talking isn't just a monicer.. It's also alot about how I see things.. while I don't always agree with the other point of view, I can see it and be empathetic to it..
User avatar
two_heads_talking
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
Native language: English

Re: Weapons

Postby AJBryant » Fri 04.10.2009 1:48 pm

two_heads_talking wrote:the name two_heads_talking isn't just a monicer.. It's also alot about how I see things.. while I don't always agree with the other point of view, I can see it and be empathetic to it..



So YOU'RE the jerk who always takes forever in the voting booth and making us late for lunch! ;)


Tony
User avatar
AJBryant
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5313
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 11:29 am
Location: Indiana
Native language: English
Gender: Male

Re: Weapons

Postby Infidel » Fri 04.10.2009 2:13 pm

two_heads_talking wrote:
the name two_heads_talking isn't just a monicer.. It's also alot about how I see things.. while I don't always agree with the other point of view, I can see it and be empathetic to it..


Same here, which is funny. I chose my name as a deliberate declaration of in my belief a third point of view by adopting a pejorative for a third party.

Most people think in terms of two opposing perspectives--linear two dimensional thinking. I think three dimensionally, so sometimes I'm able to define lines, spheres and parabolas of arguments that do not intersect, at any point, with the common defined lines of existing argument. Then again, sometimes if no one argues for the opposition, then I'll step in and happily argue against common convention, such as when I argue that effect precedes cause.

So YOU'RE the jerk who always takes forever in the voting booth and making us late for lunch!


It doesn't take that long to pen in Micky Mouse.
なるほど。
さっぱりわからん。
User avatar
Infidel
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 1:12 am
Native language: 英語

Re: Weapons

Postby two_heads_talking » Fri 04.10.2009 2:36 pm

AJBryant wrote:
two_heads_talking wrote:the name two_heads_talking isn't just a monicer.. It's also alot about how I see things.. while I don't always agree with the other point of view, I can see it and be empathetic to it..



So YOU'RE the jerk who always takes forever in the voting booth and making us late for lunch! ;)


Tony


What's that got to do with voting? I've made up my mind by the time I hit the booth. I'm not swayed by the knuckle draggers who stand outside holding up signs of their favorite candidate. I usually tell them to quit wasting their breath on me..
User avatar
two_heads_talking
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
Native language: English

Re: Weapons

Postby astaroth » Fri 04.10.2009 3:06 pm

Infidel wrote:Most people think in terms of two opposing perspectives--linear two dimensional thinking.

Two dimensions can't be linear. I prefer them polar, but any other embedding works just fine.
In two dimensions one can not define greater and less, as for instance complex numbers can not be ordered.
Infidel wrote:I think three dimensionally, so sometimes I'm able to define lines, spheres and parabolas of arguments that do not intersect, at any point, with the common defined lines of existing argument.

Lines and parabolas can be defined in two dimensions, spheres can't (though a sphere in two dimension would be an S^1, but usually we call them circles).
ー 流光 ー

   花地世
小  見獄の
林  かの中
一  な上は
茶   の 
User avatar
astaroth
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon 12.22.2008 5:08 am
Location: Amherst, MA
Native language: Italiano「伊語」

Re: Weapons

Postby two_heads_talking » Fri 04.10.2009 3:47 pm

astaroth wrote:
Infidel wrote:Most people think in terms of two opposing perspectives--linear two dimensional thinking.

Two dimensions can't be linear. I prefer them polar, but any other embedding works just fine.
In two dimensions one can not define greater and less, as for instance complex numbers can not be ordered.
Infidel wrote:I think three dimensionally, so sometimes I'm able to define lines, spheres and parabolas of arguments that do not intersect, at any point, with the common defined lines of existing argument.

Lines and parabolas can be defined in two dimensions, spheres can't (though a sphere in two dimension would be an S^1, but usually we call them circles).


What about 2 dimensional linear prediction of images? And what of 2 dimensional linear programming? (we call that an elipsoid) and my final argument.. http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath323/kmath323.htm
User avatar
two_heads_talking
 
Posts: 4137
Joined: Thu 04.06.2006 11:03 am
Native language: English

Re: Weapons

Postby astaroth » Fri 04.10.2009 4:00 pm

two_heads_talking wrote:What about 2 dimensional linear prediction of images? And what of 2 dimensional linear programming? (we call that an elipsoid) and my final argument.. http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath323/kmath323.htm

Didn't say one can't define a line in two dimensions (of course it's possible), just said that in two dimensions the concept of linearly consecutive events, which is the base of linear thinking, is meaningless.
But then I prefer stringy over loopy ...
ー 流光 ー

   花地世
小  見獄の
林  かの中
一  な上は
茶   の 
User avatar
astaroth
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon 12.22.2008 5:08 am
Location: Amherst, MA
Native language: Italiano「伊語」

Re: Weapons

Postby Infidel » Fri 04.10.2009 7:05 pm

astaroth wrote:
Infidel wrote:Most people think in terms of two opposing perspectives--linear two dimensional thinking.

Two dimensions can't be linear. I prefer them polar, but any other embedding works just fine.
In two dimensions one can not define greater and less, as for instance complex numbers can not be ordered.


I actually meant bi-polar for simplicity and wrote two-dimensional for some reason. Not that I'm accusing two dimensional thinkers of ordering complex numbers. Not at all. I'm accusing them of artificially reducing complex numbers to real numbers, more often to just natural numbers, so it fits within their narrow sphere of thought. E.g. they take a chair and reduce it to four points on a plane then connect the dots and claim a chair is a square. That is if they don't claim that the four points are obviously unrelated.

Even if complex numbers cannot be ordered in two dimensions, real numbers can be.
なるほど。
さっぱりわからん。
User avatar
Infidel
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Sun 10.09.2005 1:12 am
Native language: 英語

PreviousNext

Return to Culture and Info about living in Japan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests