Doram's Hyper-Intelligent Discussion Corner

[NanTheDark]

Darn it, I would love to participate in this thread, but I see those walls of text and it makes me feel so lazy >_<

[Harmless]

Nono. I understood you perfectly. What I said is you are asking the wrong question. In order to answer the question of should someone have something, you have to answer other questions like what are the benefits versus the drawbacks, what is involved in the process, is it necessary or just desired, and other things. If you want to know if people should have guns, you need to find out if people can be trusted with guns, and do guns actually make your life better in some measurable way, and so forth.

All right, so you're asking for more of my insight from what I am understanding.

Personally, when it comes to the benefits versus the drawbacks, yes I see that there are some drawbacks to allowing mild self-defense firearms, regarding that you're literally giving weapons to the people, and thus this may serve as counterproductive. However, there is to be considered that the firearm I have in mind is absolutely no heavier than a handgun, something that's light and simple for defense against an attacker or two, not meant to assault with. But then again, you can practically commit a murder with about anything these days. You could push someone into a high-speed vehicle, stab them with a knife, strangle them, bludgeon, etc. So the main priority to fix that, at least in my eyes, would be to give the populace something to defend themselves with. Something easy to use and not too lethal to commit a mass murder with (although I'm well aware a handgun is lethal, it should not have enough firepower to kill more than 1-3 people per clip).

Yet if we're going to give people weapons, they may as well have some sort of basic firearm training. That's what I'm currently trying to figure out. How long of training would be required, and how intense? Where would it take place? Would mentors be needed? And the insurance, if any? There's still a few questions to be asked, but I still vouch for at least some efficient self defense.

If you agree that people cannot be trusted with guns (because some will choose to use them to commit crimes, regardless of the type of gun), and you agree that guns are a beneficial part of life (in that they can be used for defense of self and country, amongst other things), and you agree that laws successfully provide the framework whereby people are forced to act responsibly (by threatening punishment for wrong action), then you MUST agree that laws to control gun use are necessary. To do otherwise is illogical and counterproductive, at best.

The real debate comes in the form of other related questions. Can people be trusted with gun use? Are guns really universally beneficial? Are laws the best way to maintain civilized existence? I have seen many an argument against one or all of those, most of them pretty sound, in my opinion.

When you think about it, it's not the gun that causes the crime, but the person. The only difference would be that they would either get a gun from the black market (hence illegally), or use another weapon (a knife is technically less efficient due to range and ability to penetrate a human body, but still lethal. Yet this shows that a self-defense firearm would more than likely save that person from an attacker due to range and being able to stop a person cold). The point is, however, that it's not the gun that causes the crime, but rather the person and a possible event leading to the person willing to kill someone.

On the other hand, if a victim were able to defense himself/herself with a firearm, then the chances of that person living is greater. So yes, in general I do believe people can be trusted with a gun.

I'll type out the second half of my response tomorrow, it's getting late here.

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

If I were to condense this argument, I'd say that Doram's pointing out controlling guns is useless if, like you said, it's the fault of the person, and we should instead focus on a more utopia-related society goal rather than trying to maintain the broken system we have now.

[Harmless]

If I were to condense this argument, I'd say that Doram's pointing out controlling guns is useless if, like you said, it's the fault of the person, and we should instead focus on a more utopia-related society goal rather than trying to maintain the broken system we have now.

Oh.

Well, there you go.

[Doram]

Yes, If I were going for succinct, That's about it. Ultimately, any gun law is merely a temporary fix, until you repair the underlying problems with society causing the violence in the first place.

---

And on to the next topic: Educational systems

[insert rant here]

I'm going to go make those changes to the first post, and I'll be right back...

[Ridder]

:lol:
Yes, If I were going for succinct, That's about it. Ultimately, any gun law is merely a temporary fix, until you repair the underlying problems with society causing the violence in the first place.

---

And on to the next topic: Educational systems

[insert rant here]

I'm going to go make those changes to the first post, and I'll be right back...

Do you know what's easier to do than actually fixing any systems











Shutting the most important one down, temporarily cutting everyone's pay except your own.
eyyyyyyyyyy

[lordpat]

I would like to propose that we post how the educational system works wherever we live and then post an opinion about it, rather than ranting all the way through, if you all agree.

[~MP3 Amplifier~]

...Well. As nobody continued after Pat's post, I'll talk about the UK educational system as far as I know it.

I'm aware so much has changed since I've been in school, thanks to Michael Gove. :/
Usually during high school you take your GCSE exams in the second to last year, aka year 10, and you have to narrow down your subjects in the year before. You would usually spend year 10 doing revision and coursework and a few exams then year 11 would have all your final exams. (there are a few other exams, like SATS that you do in the last year of primary school, and BTec Level 2 courses in some cases but that's a whole different thing) But they recently changed it so you have to choose your subjects in year 8 (the second year of high school, you're only 13) and then start them in year 9, so basically people do them a year earlier. I don't think it's right, because what happens after year 10?

They say in year 11 you have to retake exams that you think you could improve on, but the problem is, they're even changing how retakes work. When I was there, you could retake as much as you like, and the highest grade is the one that will be counted (of course it costs, but it's just so if you accidentally fail your retake it won't be counted). But now, it doesn't work like that, it's whatever the new grade is that will be counted. So if you get a B in a subject you're predicted an A* in, and decide to retake it, but end up getting a C or a D, the B won't be counted anymore- the new grade will. I don't think it's very fair because by making people enter when they're younger, you would think they would make it a little bit simpler? But no, they have to make it even harder than it already was, because apparently our country isn't as smart as countries like Russia or China, which I do have to agree with. But at the same time, their systems are very different. My friend at college is originally from Russia and moved to the UK five years ago, and no wonder she's so smart- she was doing GCSE equivalent work when she was 12. Instead of doing all the simple stuff in primary school, they started off at a pretty advanced level and caught up as they moved years. It might sound really tough, but she ended up with amazing GCSE results, especially in science, because she had already learned about mole calculations and different types of radiation and all that crap in Chemistry and Physics when she was younger. Point is, we can't really compare ourselves to other countries, because our educational systems are so different.

They're even going to get rid of letter grades soon and replace them with number grades. I know that's not a huuge deal, as lots of countries have number grades, but it's not going to be too easy getting used to. I'm used to seeing grades go from U-A*, having grades go from 8-1 or whatever is going to be weird. (even more so if employers start choosing people for jobs who have a 1 as their grade instead of an A*, because a 1 might be the top top part of an A*.)

I know this is a looong rant, lol. But this is my honest opinion on the system in our country. I've said it many times before, and I still say it now, that there was no reason to change anything and GCSEs were fine the way they were. I see Michael Gove as nothing but a power abuser- changing everything for the sake of change because he has the right to do it, and not for any particularly good reason as far as I can see.

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

Our GCSE Options don't come up until Year 9 (incidentally, it's in a few days or so). It was going to be so that the top form band (Y, below that X, at the bottom Z) would take both their Maths and Science GCSEs early this year, but for some reason that's gone ♥♥♥♥ and now they've been shunted back to Year 10 because retakes have been tightened up or something? We've been running on a GCSE curriculum for both Maths and Science for a whole term and now some teachers are gonna continue rolling with that and some are trying to stitch the original curriculum with what they've already taught? I don't know the government is a ♥♥♥♥ mess with education right now

I have no ♥♥♥♥ clue how the system works past there. Grades? Dependencies? What systems? What are A-levels compared to AS-levels or BAs or ♥♥♥♥ whatever what is this



I am not a good friend with the education system right now

[Harmless]

Amp, I thought Russia (or at least West Russia) was undergoing a horrible education system change in which the passing grade was a 50%, as an attempt to get more people into colleges... so I wouldn't go so far as to say that. But that doesn't say that there aren't smart people in Russia currently.