Innocents Betrayed Documentary

[Guest]

Thought I'd share this heavy documentary about the history of gun control and it's danger, particularly since the debates are so fierce in the US right now.

I don't watch mainstream TV so I can't tell but I noticed even my friend was bringing it up (we live in Australia), so it's become a hot topic even in my country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls

Warning: very graphic. also it's a bit heavy but I don't shrink back from controversy

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

[Gav]

I didn't watch the whole thing, but the gist of it seemed to be that guns don't just help execute crimes, but also help stop it. It just seemed to list different massacres that had occurred after the restriction of weapons.

First of all, I 95% disagree with this video. But I'm not really surprised since it's obviously funded by pro-gun institutions. It almost seems self-contradictory by condemning violence with the use of firearms, and then glorifying potential violence with firearms. It seems to suggest that all of these killings of innocent people would have been prevented if everyone had guns. I feel that, if anything, more guns would have produced even more deaths. I'm not saying people shouldn't have a right to defend themselves, but I do not agree that giving (untrained) civilians the power to easily take lives.

Firearms should only been available to those deemed responsible to handle them. Military, law enforcement and hunters (who have proven themselves responsible) are the only people that should be allowed to own firearms. Self defence is not a valid argument to own a firearm.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Mahatma Ghandi

If you want to defend your family, community or even country from violent crime then you should join the military or law enforcement. Enabling any civilian to own a firearm is just allowing irresponsible people to commit the violent crimes that we have been hearing about in America. Guns in America are either marketed as hunting weapons or self defence weapons. The latter are guns made for one purpose and one purpose only. To inflict violence on other human beings.

The United Kingdom has a very good system for the control of firearms, which allows people who can prove themselves to be responsible to have access to firearms. As you can imagine, gun crime is extremely low in the UK, even though thousands of people own firearms. And even though gun control is strict, we haven't been massacred, unable to protect ourselves. Even if we were invaded by bloodthirsty killers, it is the job of the military and law enforcement to keep us safe, not civilians.

[Guest]

I think the purpose of the film was to illustrate what happens when we put one group of people in a position where they have superior firepower over everyone else (over the populace). The populace must have at least equal firepower over any other one group of human beings, even if they are wearing a badge (or precisely because they are wearing a badge). This is the way you avoid tragedies.

Government is the most dangerous institution that exists on earth, more dangerous than the mafia. Much more dangerous than mass shootings (you are more likely to be hit by lightning, than be a victim of mass shooting -FBI stats, that's USA stats btw). (262 million deaths by government in 20th century: wikipedia article on Democide)

You do not make self-defence illegal. The rapist does not negotiate with the woman he is about to rape and patiently wait for the police to come. He will do his thing before the police comes. Gun control is to suggest that the woman must be armed with a knive, while the rapist is armed with a gun. You cannot legislate against outlaws because they are outlaws, they function outside of law. When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have them.

Also it is not the guns that are evil. It's the people. Removing the guns do not remove murder, they will use hammers instead. http://i.imgur.com/Yx58U.jpg

Gun control laws centralize power. Any centralized power is dangerous, because human beings cannot be trusted. Power always corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely even if the original intent was to be good for the people. You must decentralize power. No one group of human beings can have that much power over his fellow man. We do this because we know what happens if we don't.

That is why everyone must be trained in firearms, men, women and children. It is because criminals exist among us that we must do this. People who love their family will do this.

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." - Robert LeFevre

"The worst thing that the British ever did to us was to take away our guns." - Mahatma Ghandi

In switzerland it is mandatory for almost all men after the age of 20, to own a gun (and ammo is subsidized by the government) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

They also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

[Guest]

This is a very good explanation for why good people must have at least equivalent firepower to the wicked in order to defend themselves.

Also I noticed you said something very strange, that people have a right to defend themselves, yet they are not allowed to use weapons equal to their aggressor. That is really bizarre.

[Bolverk]

I think the purpose of the film was to illustrate what happens when we put one group of people in a position where they have superior firepower over everyone else (over the populace). The populace must have at least equal firepower over any other one group of human beings, even if they are wearing a badge (or precisely because they are wearing a badge). This is the way you avoid tragedies.

Government is the most dangerous institution that exists on earth, more dangerous than the mafia. Much more dangerous than mass shootings (you are more likely to be hit by lightning, than be a victim of mass shooting -FBI stats, that's USA stats btw). (262 million deaths by government in 20th century: wikipedia article on Democide)

You do not make self-defence illegal. The rapist does not negotiate with the woman he is about to rape and patiently wait for the police to come. He will do his thing before the police comes. Gun control is to suggest that the woman must be armed with a knive, while the rapist is armed with a gun. You cannot legislate against outlaws because they are outlaws, they function outside of law. When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have them.

Also it is not the guns that are evil. It's the people. Removing the guns do not remove murder, they will use hammers instead. http://i.imgur.com/Yx58U.jpg

Gun control laws centralize power. Any centralized power is dangerous, because human beings cannot be trusted. Power always corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely even if the original intent was to be good for the people. You must decentralize power. No one group of human beings can have that much power over his fellow man. We do this because we know what happens if we don't.

That is why everyone must be trained in firearms, men, women and children. It is because criminals exist among us that we must do this. People who love their family will do this.

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." - Robert LeFevre

"The worst thing that the British ever did to us was to take away our guns." - Mahatma Ghandi

In switzerland it is mandatory for almost all men after the age of 20, to own a gun (and ammo is subsidized by the government) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

They also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

The government is of course dangerous, but even less do I trust other people. That is why I do not wish for people to learn how to use guns. They are meant for one thing only and that is killing, some people in the name of “self defence” will say it's for protection. But they are not.

The only reason you would need such a tool, is if anyone has a similar tool or a greater one (physically strong, many people, weapons, etc.) Regardless if you have access to guns, so do others. You won't become more safe, everyone is more likely to carry a gun. “But that okay, I got a gun!” You aren't really much more safe, people can still catch you rape you and kill you regardless. But if your lucky and the criminal messes up you get to kill him in the name of self defence. I don't think it's right to kill,

About 60% of violent deaths are committed to firearms. America with it's high access have one of the highest number of deaths by firearms, It does say something doesn't it.

A recent study by UN.

The government WILL increase their firepower as well, if there is more access to guns. A sidearm will be part of the police uniform.

Where I come from, Norway. Police do not walk around with guns, because there is no need. Without in mission where at this required. Most likely if they need to the criminal is using a Soft gun replica's. Yes soft guns, they are quite popular with criminals...

We have a very restricted way of gaining handguns and its very costly and takes quite some time. We got very very few shootings as a result..

I don't wish people to be able to walk around with guns, they are dangerous enough already.

[Steve]

I think the purpose of the film was to illustrate what happens when we put one group of people in a position where they have superior firepower over everyone else (over the populace). The populace must have at least equal firepower over any other one group of human beings, even if they are wearing a badge (or precisely because they are wearing a badge). This is the way you avoid tragedies.

Government is the most dangerous institution that exists on earth, more dangerous than the mafia. Much more dangerous than mass shootings (you are more likely to be hit by lightning, than be a victim of mass shooting -FBI stats, that's USA stats btw). (262 million deaths by government in 20th century: wikipedia article on Democide)

You do not make self-defence illegal. The rapist does not negotiate with the woman he is about to rape and patiently wait for the police to come. He will do his thing before the police comes. Gun control is to suggest that the woman must be armed with a knive, while the rapist is armed with a gun. You cannot legislate against outlaws because they are outlaws, they function outside of law. When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have them.

Also it is not the guns that are evil. It's the people. Removing the guns do not remove murder, they will use hammers instead. http://i.imgur.com/Yx58U.jpg

Gun control laws centralize power. Any centralized power is dangerous, because human beings cannot be trusted. Power always corrupts, and Absolute power corrupts absolutely even if the original intent was to be good for the people. You must decentralize power. No one group of human beings can have that much power over his fellow man. We do this because we know what happens if we don't.

That is why everyone must be trained in firearms, men, women and children. It is because criminals exist among us that we must do this. People who love their family will do this.

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." - Robert LeFevre

"The worst thing that the British ever did to us was to take away our guns." - Mahatma Ghandi

In switzerland it is mandatory for almost all men after the age of 20, to own a gun (and ammo is subsidized by the government) http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

They also have one of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

I must disagree as well on this one.

Every firearm is dangerous whether it is a police officer, soldier or a civilian. But you should restrict all of them from using it freely, not push them to everyone. In my country there are even very strict laws when a police officer can actually pull his gun and also many officers in specific outfits are not even allowed to carry a firearm as they do not deal with other criminals having a gun and are more of a civilian help and assistance and deal with little thieves in markets so they are fine with Taser.

As for civilians having firearms - you have to complete series of tests, you have to be trained with the gun, how to properly use it and psychically tested if you are even capable of wisely using the gun. So yes, people get a gun for self defense if they are really scared, but they have to prove first that they can shoot it precisely and not hit other innocent if the time comes, they have to prove they are not mentally broken and they have to prove they are not on drugs and everything. Only then are civilians here allowed to have a gun. And for my almost 22 years of life I never met a person who owns a gun for self defense, I never shot a gun and other than BB gun and hunter rifle I never actually saw a gun with my own eye. And I do not even know where I would go to get a gun so if I wanted to kill someone with a gun, I have absolutely no means of getting one. And so do not know these crazy individuals who might be able to commit mass shooting murders. Yes a criminal in some organized group will get a hold of the gun from some black market but those are not the crazy people who would go and shoot many people, they might kill like someone because of some loans of money not being paid etc or drug deals but that is the criminal organization stuff, you as a civilian cannot do anything with it and let police handle it, you can easily avoid them here, just don't seek out drugs and drug distribution market and don't try to get easy loans from non bank companies and you are fine.

Actually worth noting that with what I said about me not ever seeing gun, I am from a family circle that owns a lot of woods and lot of my uncles are woodeepers (or hunter or what you call it, people who are allowed to use rifle to kill animals to keep balance in the woods). Yet they only have a rifle and can only use it on their own wood and same as with other guns, they needed to do a woodkeeper license which includes several tests and rifle training. So they don't have pistol either.

Another thing you try to say is that a woman needs self defense, yes they can have it, there are possibly dangerous rapists out there. But to commit a rape you need to get closer, why would they need a long range weapon like a gun then? There is lot of non-lethal weapons that are even more efficient than a gun. And I actually notice similarities when I watch some Japanese stuff - women can use freely pepper sprays or any other kind of spray, I tell you if you get that in your eye, you forget about raping anyone for several days. Or they can have zipper or what the name of the electric melee weapon is, that can incapacitate ANYONE for several minutes, long enough to run away or even call police if you use it few more times.

And with all that said, we have almost zero gun killing and murders. Yes there is still lot of crime, mostly it is melee weapons like knives or even kitchen knives used by angry wives or husbands. But I can't imagine how it would look if everyone had a lethal weapon. You can mostly survive some knife attack, I notice in news lot of time some homeless attack someone with knife but he survives if it is not a critical hit (or intended murder with several knife hits in a row). With gun the chances to survive are much lower.

So my opinion actually for once agrees with my country laws. To be able to carry a weapon in public areas, you need to be tested first (whether it is a test for gun license or a few years of service with police only after which you can use gun). Common people should not be allowed to carry a firearm and should go with non lethal self defense, there is even lot of free self defense training programs for incapacitating enemies with bare hands, for both women and men. And if you cannot afford zipper, you can get a cheap spray, there are even programs that teach you how to use the spray and zipper effectively.

[Guest]

Self-defence is the only legitimate justification for the use of violence. If you want to rape me, I'll kill you.

This is because we have a natural right to our life, property & liberty. I'm not saying it is desirable that anyone should die. I'm saying that this is the only legitimate justification for violence. If another human being wants to use my body in a way that I say no to, then I will use sufficient force to thwart their attempt of coercion, and the conflict in this case may result in possible death.

Natural rights, including the right to self-defence are absolute. Because all human beings are equal, no human being can rightfully remove another human being from their right to self-defence of the kind they deem fit for their own protection, be it owning kitchen knife or defense-rifles. No group of human beings, including government (who are just another bunch of human beings), can legislate away a human right, because human rights are above the law. Government does not mean they can write whatever laws they want. If I cannot knock on my neighbours door and point a gun at his head and say, "Turn in your Rifles. NOW!", then the government also cannot. Subsequently you cannot vote away a person's right to own a weapon, because you are also a person. If they say no, then not even 51% persons in favour can make it justified.

"If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?"

- The Law by Frederik Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The common force that Bastiat is referring to, is the State.

Taken from FBI.gov

• In 2011, an estimated 1,203,564 violent crimes occurred nationwide, a decrease of 3.8 percent from the 2010 estimate.
  
• When considering 5- and 10-year trends, the 2011 estimated violent crime total was 15.4 percent below the 2007 level and 15.5 percent below the 2002 level.
  

Now juxtapose it with gun ownership from Department of Justice, US

Increasing gun ownership does not increase violent crime. It's decreasing it.

[Beato]

Here in Sweden we also have very strict laws against guns. To obtain one you either have to have a license (which takes a long time to obtain), or be a member of the police force or a similar institution.

For the average joe, obtaining a gun is nigh impossible and therefore shootings are very rare.

Average civilians should never be allowed to even touch a gun. The act of killing with one is too easy. It requires no physical contact with the victim. You only have to point and shoot.

Of course you can’t fully trust the government. But that doesn’t mean you should be able to kill them.

Even in the cases where the government is corrupt giving the other side weapons may very well worsen the situation (look at Syria for example).

Your home is not your castle and you should not be given tools to defend it.

Killing with a gun, even in self-defense is murder. When you use a tool where you fully know that one of the most likely outcomes is death you are attempting murder. Knifes shouldn't be acceptable self defense tools for the very same reasons.

If you arm yourself with a gun or knife in the name of self defense you are ready to commit murder to defend yourself.

(of course I'm not saying that someone who kills their agressor with a gun should be persecuted but I am saying that they shouldn't have been granted guns in the first place)

[Steve]

Self-defence is the only legitimate justification for the use of violence. If you want to rape me, I'll kill you.

Well this must really be the difference between American and European way of thinking. However bad can rape be, you are not allowed to kill anyone, not even a rapist. You do not know if the person has a illness that causes him to try to attempt it and however dangerous it can be for you, just use an incapacitating weapon and run away. You cannot even know for sure he is trying to rape you at all, he may be drunk or under influence of drugs and just act stupidly on the first look, and you shoot him on 5 meter distance? Why not just have incapacitating weapon, wait for him to actually try to commit the crime and then act?

Increasing gun ownership does not increase violent crime. It's decreasing it.

Because your government doesn't count "self defense" murder as a crime probably. Here if someone tries to rob you of your bag or wallet and you beat him to death with knuckles or kill him with a knife - you are murderer and you go to prison, it was inappropriate self defense. If you just zip him or spray him and run away, you are fine.

[Bolverk]

Well this must really be the difference between American and European way of thinking. However bad can rape be, you are not allowed to kill anyone, not even a rapist. You do not know if the person has a illness that causes him to try to attempt it and however dangerous it can be for you, just use an incapacitating weapon and run away. You cannot even know for sure he is trying to rape you at all, he may be drunk or under influence of drugs and just act stupidly on the first look, and you shoot him on 5 meter distance? Why not just have incapacitating weapon, wait for him to actually try to commit the crime and then act?

That is what I think is crazy as well, if the person who attacks you is intoxicated, drugged or deranged. If you are using a gun, he will not go down with a single shot, you would have kill him. Shooting him in the vital organs would normally incapasiate, but when drugged, he won't notice it, you would have to shoot him multiple times and then he would die.

This mentallity reminds me of the middle ages in the middle east. If someone steals, chop of his hands. If he kills, hang him.

Because your government doesn't count "self defense" murder as a crime probably. Here if someone tries to rob you of your bag or wallet and you beat him to death with knuckles or kill him with a knife - you are murderer and you go to prison, it was inappropriate self defense. If you just zip him or spray him and run away, you are fine.

Where I am from it's very likely if you kill someone in the name of self defence, you would get many years from either "use of excessive violence" or "accidental murder". Because if you can kill him, you can also drive him off or beat him till he blacks out.

[Ryoji]

For the love of god, GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE!!! PEOPLE DO!!

sigh, I have over 60 guns, id like to see someone try to tell me I cant have my guns. Its called the 2nd Amendment.

If they take away the right to have guns only the bad guys will have them. Making stronger gun laws wont stop crazy people from killing people. If someone wants to go somewhere and kill people they are going to find a way to do it.

And on a side note, WHY are we talking about this on a Visual Novel forum??? I come here to escape this bullshit not to read about it.

As a US Marine, Ive seen more death then everyone here 100 times over. Guns can and do cause death. But its the people holding the guns that are doing the actual killing.

Can we please keep this out of the forums or make a particular thread for them, I know it says Other, in the title but i dont think this belongs here. I DO NOT want to read about this here. I use Visual Novels and this forum to escape. If you guys could see what ive seen youd have nightmares.

[Beato]

If they take away the right to have guns only the bad guys will have them. Making stronger gun laws wont stop crazy people from killing people. If someone wants to go somewhere and kill people they are going to find a way to do it.

This is only true in a country which already has too many guns in circulation. Here you can't just get a gun. You have to have criminal contacts (and most criminals here doesn't have access to guns either) or you have to have a license (which is really hard to get). The thing is most people doesn't know how to make bombs or weapons that can kill several people at the same time. Which means they'll have to substitute guns with knives for example. Killing someone with a knife may not be harder then killing someone with a gun but killing several people with one sure is. You can't kill people that's running away from you with a knife. You can with a gun.

Also if a person is crazy they deserve help not someone shooting them.

[Steve]

And on a side note, WHY are we talking about this on a Visual Novel forum??? I come here to escape this bullshit not to read about it.

Can we please keep this out of the forums or make a particular thread for them, I know it says Other, in the title but i dont think this belongs here. I DO NOT want to read about this here.

I too think this should not be here, these opinions differ based on country you live in as it works differently everywhere, so just like religion and other controversial topics should not be discussed here so we can keep it more friendly and happy place

[Beato]

Yeah it'll just lead to fighting mass-negrepping and other non-fun stuff. I think it's really hard to understand most people who are against gun-control because of growing up in a different kind of culture and I guess most of you who are against it would feel the same way about us who are for it.

[Ryoji]

This is only true in a country which already has too many guns in circulation. Here you can't just get a gun. You have to have criminal contacts (and most criminals here doesn't have access to guns either) or you have to have a license (which is really hard to get). The thing is most people doesn't know how to make bombs or weapons that can kill several people at the same time. Which means they'll have to substitute guns with knives for example. Killing someone with a knife may not be harder then killing someone with a gun but killing several people with one sure is. You can't kill people that's running away from you with a knife. You can with a gun.

I can kill you with a knife at 25 yards. If someone wants to kill you they are going to find a way to do so. lol you can be killed with a toothpick. The weapon dont matter Beato, if someone wants you dead, they are going to keep coming until your dead. Guns or not. Thats why all this talk about gun control or gun laws is not going to solve anything. Crazy people will find a way to kill, taking away the guns will only make them use something else.

From your post im guessing your not trained in weapons. one well trained person can kill SEVERAL people with a knife.

Sigh, can we stop talking about this stuff, THIS IS A VISUAL NOVEL FORUM!!!

[Steve]

Sigh, can we stop talking about this stuff, THIS IS A VISUAL NOVEL FORUM!!!

yes, lets replace every post with this image please Now I made the topic 1000% better

[Ryoji]

OMG sooo cute. thanks steve, MUCH BETTER!!

+rep for you my friend!!

[Beato]

Much Better!

Though she looks kinda cold doesn't she? I mean hugging the snow man like that. What if she gets hypothermia !

[Ryoji]

her Cuteness and Moe Power would melt the snow before she got cold Beato. Power of Moe>cold

[Steve]

Much Better!

Though she looks kinda cold doesn't she? I mean hugging the snow man like that. What if she gets hypothermia !

her Cuteness and Moe Power would melt the snow before she got cold Beato. Power of Moe>cold

exactly

however even if that was true and she would catch a cold, I'd treat her until she was better.

so lets unofficially rename this thread to "Innocents Displayed Documentary"

Innocent cute girls are the best.

[Ryoji]

exactly

however even if that was true and she would catch a cold, I'd treat her until she was better.

so lets unofficially rename this thread to "Innocents Displayed Documentary" :)/>/>

Innocent cute girls are the best.

ooo good idea, soo much better to talk about!! Hey Steve, what anime/VN is that from?

[Steve]

ooo good idea, soo much better to talk about!! Hey Steve, what anime/VN is that from?

Actually this specific girl is not from any anime or anything as it is original, however the author of the image uses the same style like in his other work.

The author is http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=19723 and he is the artist of Lyrical Nanoha Vivid manga

All his work is very similar and for me it is the cutest style I have ever seen, even the image posted in the "cutest image" thread is from this guy.

Here is all his work on konachan: http://konachan.com/post?tags=fujima_takuya

[Steve]

actually here they have more images from him https://yande.re/pos...s=fujima_takuya

But I think on yande.re you need to login and disable some blacklist filters

[Ryoji]

actually here they have more images from him https://yande.re/pos...s=fujima_takuya

But I think on yande.re you need to login and disable some blacklist filters

Soo cute, thanks for the info man!!