Ukraine Today

Currently viewing this thread:

Anthropoid

Sergeant Knight at Arms
It is an interesting philosophical puzzle. However, I don't think it is necessarily a matter of putting trust in anyone. Effective societies operate with complex systems of checks and balances that involve both positive and negative feedback loops.

Moreover, to the extent that 'trust' (as opposed to a confidence in the effectiveness of social order's myriad mechanisms) is involved in advocating for gun ownership by the citizenry, comparable if not greater 'trust' is placed in our fellow citizens day after day in thousands of ways, big and small.

When you get a haircut, you trust that the barber will not suddenly lapse into psychosis and lop your head off with that straight razor. When you drive you trust that other drivers who share the road with you are not impaired and paying due diligence to properly operating their vehicle. When you receive professional services such as a checkup, a blood test, optometric examination, X-rays, etc. you trust these individuals to perform their job safely and efficiently and without compromising your health, rights or confidentiality. Collectively, these various social issues where negligence or malice can (and does) cause tremendous suffering receive virtually none of the "ban them!" attention that firearms receive.

Every year on North American roadways there are ~40,000 fatalities in automobile accidents and at least 100,000, if not more injuries. Many of those injuries are life changing.  Even at peak levels in the mid 1990s, homicide rates in the U.S. (about 25,000 per annum at peak) have never come close to the rate of fatalities on the roadways. Suicides account for something like 15 times as many deaths as all forms of violence and accidents combined. Yet instead of silly rhetoric about vehicle control and suicide prevention, we constantly hear of hairbrain-feel-good plans to solve the gun homicide problem with more restrictions.

ADDIT: that said, I think if we want to delve into this deeper we probably ought to take it to a different thread.
 
EDIT: Sorry I think I am confusing Aleksandr Muzychko with Olexander Turchynov.

What are people's thoughts on Olexander Turchynov? Also is there any possibility that Aleksandr Muzychko's party might get a leading candidate into the presidency?



 

Weaver

Count
Anthropoid said:
It is an interesting philosophical puzzle. However, I don't think it is necessarily a matter of putting trust in anyone. Effective societies operate with complex systems of checks and balances that involve both positive and negative feedback loops.
Philosophical puzzle, is it?
I believe you'd solve it pretty quick if your city was flooded with radicalized elements in black masks and military outfits.
rejenorst said:
Also is there any possibility that Aleksandr Muzychko's party might get a leading candidate into the presidency?
No.
Right wing will have to come up with someone reasonably moderate. Western Ukraine is big on nationalism but it's least populated so a candidate will have to be able to appeal to much broader masses.
Besides, Muzychko is an uneducated thug just like our previous president. So it won't really work. And he's not very well known countrywide anyway.
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Grandmaster Knight
Anthropoid said:
Vermillion_Hawk said:
Because that's exactly what Mage was saying, right?

Every human being has an innate right to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property. Firearms are the safest, most effective versatile and inexpensive technology for doing that at this time. No government on the planet has the privilege, much less the right, to deny its citizens the basic human right of self-defense and/or the capacity to resist oppression.
You misunderstood Mage, to begin with, and you're wrong with this rant as well. There's a thing called a "social contract", look it up. In short, it means that the individuals give up certain rights to live together in a society. You sign that contract when you're born, unfortunately, and the violence monopoly that a State has, will hold you responsible unless you manage to sneak away into the mountains or something.

As for people thinking that armed population can stop foreign invasions:  :lol: It has never happened and will never happen.

 
Jhessail said:
As for people thinking that armed population can stop foreign invasions:  :lol: It has never happened and will never happen.
And your proof being?

The USA is one of the rare country with an armed populations.
They were NEVER invaded so you can't know if its good defense or not.

Technically, an armed populations can manage a quicker defense.
Do not deny it.
If the USA get invaded, most gun owning persons of courageous nature will fight back.
So even if the US army get defeated, there will be TONS of armed insurgents.

Please explain to me how it WONT help the defender.
 

Anarion

Marquis
Well, most people in the US aren't well armed. They'd stand no chance against a modern military. And since they are (somewhat) rational human beings they'll eventually understand that and give up. Patriotic songs paint a very romanticized image of the enemy stepping over the dead bodies of every last man and woman before they let him in, but that's not what happens in real life.
 

Marko͘

Section Moderator
WBNWM&BWF&SVC
Rebelknight said:
Jhessail said:
As for people thinking that armed population can stop foreign invasions:  :lol: It has never happened and will never happen.
And your proof being?

The USA is one of the rare country with an armed populations.
They were NEVER invaded so you can't know if its good defense or not.

Technically, an armed populations can manage a quicker defense.
Do not deny it.
If the USA get invaded, most gun owning persons of courageous nature will fight back.
So even if the US army get defeated, there will be TONS of armed insurgents.

Please explain to me how it WONT help the defender.
It could help...a bit.
I think Jhess' point is still that it couldn't stop it.
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Weaver said:
First, a small anecdotal story from the previous day.
We had two demonstrations in the city. Both maydan and anti-maydan, both comprising of several thousand people.
I walked out to greet the maydan activists.
We stood on the sidewalk and watched the column pass. I was surprised to see many people wearing black masks and carrying baseball bats. I pointed it out to some bespectacled fellow who was standing near me with his gf. Why are they still hiding their faces, didn't we win?
As we were talking they started shouting "Glory to Ukraine" and raising hands in an unmistakable "sieg heil" gesture. The dude in glasses said something like "What? Are they nazis?"
Immediately one of the masked kids shouted "Titushki! They're titushki!", jumped towards us and pepper-sprayed the bespectacled fellow in the face. He then promptly retreated and we saw a group with baseball bats moving towards us. The crowd quivered, some older women started shouting "What are you doing? Why are you provoking the people?" They hesitated for a moment and then an older man without a mask appeared and commanded them to move on, which they thankfully did.
The whole incident left a bitter taste in my mouth. But it was also an eye opener.
Later that day the two groups had a run in. Basically, right now fighters touring around the country do nothing more than legitimize in people's eyes the local ultra-right movements who take up arms to "protect" people from those tourists. And let's be clear there are ultra-rights on both sides.
So yeah. Masks should go. Bats should go. Ultra-rights should be checked and from now on we should work on rebuilding a functional society.

20 USD says the masked kid didn't even take part in the actual revolution.

Bluehawk said:
Then again, in 2008 I said "they won't cross the S. Ossestian border, don't worry guys!" So what the **** do I know?

Very true. To me, 2008 was a definite proof that all the hippies that were saying "lol Cold War's over, let's all get along" for 20 years were wrong. True, invading Ukraine would be much harder and louder, so I'm not saying it will happen, just that Russia is willing (though maybe not ready) to invade stuff.
 

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Grandmaster Knight
America is NOT the "one rare country with an armed population", that's just basic ignorance. The Swiss and the Finns are a good counter-example from Europe, and many African/Asian countries have extremely high numbers of weapons in the hands of the population, we just don't have exact statistics. But when you realize how many guns are shipped to Africa, for example, annually...

Afghanistan has always been armed. Hasn't stopped the British, Russians, Soviets or Americans from invading it. They also always lost. Even with external support, the invaders were only "driven away" when they decided that the cost was getting too high or their focus moved elsewhere. Guns didn't help Hungarians in '56 or Czechs in '68. Finland was just as heavily armed as USA in '39 and the USSR still invaded. Gun-owning Germans didn't prevent Hitler from coming to power. An armed population is nothing more than a speedbump when facing a modern military.

This idea - that NRA has been grooming for a long time - if not even a fetish, that armed population prevents invasions, or that "a gun behind every blade of grass", (which, by the way, is even more ridiculous propaganda bull**** than Mussolini's eight million bayonets) has almost zero reflection with reality. When the Chechens stopped Russian army in the '94-'96 war, their commanding officers had been trained in the Red Army - as has most of their troops - and they were equipped with RPGs, machineguns and mortars, in addition to rifles. Even then, Russians just used artillery and air strikes to pretty much pulverize Grozny. And any success that the Chechens had also stemmed from the utter ruin that the Russian military was at that time.

The courageous Hungarians who shot at Red Army soldiers in '56 got the buildings where they were hiding shot to hell by tanks and artillery pieces. How much time did their actions bought? A few days, that - in the end - mattered not at all. Because there was no outside support. The courageous American patriots would very soon enjoy the pleasures of napalm, cluster bombs, summary executions of bystanders, chemical agents liberally sprayed across the countryside and so on. Do not think that Red Dawn (either the original or the remake) has much of anything to do how actual insurgencies would happen.

The only reason the partisan movements in USSR and Yugoslavia (and resistance movements elsewhere) survived was that Nazi-Germany was fighting a total war on multiple fronts. Without external support, they would have collapsed very quickly.

Does that cover all your (and Anthropod's) points, so we don't need to continue this nonsense?
 

Weaver

Count
So USA are willing to put up with urban shoot-outs, massacres in schools and other instances of civilian gun violence for the unlikely event of a foreign invasion. Not my cup of tea.
To be clear, you can own a gun in Ukraine, the whole thing is just very heavily regulated and complicated. So you can't by a gun like if it was an iphone and carry it around in public.

In other news, so called anti-maydan and maydan activists in my city had a constructive parley and decided to ditch masks and bats. They've agreed on important issues like fighting corruption. Now both forces peacefully piquet regional council demanding governors resignation. Maybe things are looking up.
 
Urgrevling said:
And since they are (somewhat) rational human beings they'll eventually understand that and give up.
That's not being rational...
There peoples who will fight till the end to liberate their country and these peoples are not any less rational than you.
They just have more conviction than you.

Jhessail said:
America is NOT the "one rare country with an armed population", that's just basic ignorance. The Swiss and the Finns are a good counter-example from Europe, and many African/Asian countries have extremely high numbers of weapons in the hands of the population, we just don't have exact statistics. But when you realize how many guns are shipped to Africa, for example, annually...

Afghanistan has always been armed. Hasn't stopped the British, Russians, Soviets or Americans from invading it. They also always lost. Even with external support, the invaders were only "driven away" when they decided that the cost was getting too high or their focus moved elsewhere. Guns didn't help Hungarians in '56 or Czechs in '68. Finland was just as heavily armed as USA in '39 and the USSR still invaded. Gun-owning Germans didn't prevent Hitler from coming to power. An armed population is nothing more than a speedbump when facing a modern military.

This idea - that NRA has been grooming for a long time - if not even a fetish, that armed population prevents invasions, or that "a gun behind every blade of grass", (which, by the way, is even more ridiculous propaganda bull**** than Mussolini's eight million bayonets) has almost zero reflection with reality. When the Chechens stopped Russian army in the '94-'96 war, their commanding officers had been trained in the Red Army - as has most of their troops - and they were equipped with RPGs, machineguns and mortars, in addition to rifles. Even then, Russians just used artillery and air strikes to pretty much pulverize Grozny. And any success that the Chechens had also stemmed from the utter ruin that the Russian military was at that time.

The courageous Hungarians who shot at Red Army soldiers in '56 got the buildings where they were hiding shot to hell by tanks and artillery pieces. How much time did their actions bought? A few days, that - in the end - mattered not at all. Because there was no outside support. The courageous American patriots would very soon enjoy the pleasures of napalm, cluster bombs, summary executions of bystanders, chemical agents liberally sprayed across the countryside and so on. Do not think that Red Dawn (either the original or the remake) has much of anything to do how actual insurgencies would happen.

The only reason the partisan movements in USSR and Yugoslavia (and resistance movements elsewhere) survived was that Nazi-Germany was fighting a total war on multiple fronts. Without external support, they would have collapsed very quickly.

Does that cover all your (and Anthropod's) points, so we don't need to continue this nonsense?
Good point.
 

Anarion

Marquis
Rebelknight said:
Urgrevling said:
And since they are (somewhat) rational human beings they'll eventually understand that and give up.
That's not being rational...
There peoples who will fight till the end to liberate their country and these peoples are not any less rational than you.
They just have more conviction than you.

Not wanting to die pointlessly is being rational. Anyway, my point was almost the same as the one Jhess (admittedly much more eloquently) has made.
 
trueten said:
Yup. Guns are for protection and for 'responsibilty' - think twice before you do something. It's like nuclear bomb, best way to stop conflicts peacefully.


Hahahahaha! this is a joke right? pls say this was a joke?  :lol:
 
Urgrevling said:
Rebelknight said:
Urgrevling said:
And since they are (somewhat) rational human beings they'll eventually understand that and give up.
That's not being rational...
There peoples who will fight till the end to liberate their country and these peoples are not any less rational than you.
They just have more conviction than you.

Not wanting to die pointlessly is being rational.
Pointlessly?  :neutral:
 
Well, if it doesn't change anything it's pointless in the grand scheme of things. I mean, I understand how some people can think it's the highest honour to die for their country and all that. But if you kill some random soldier and then die yourself you're not going to stop an invasion. And that's what they're trying to say.
 

Anarion

Marquis
Ninja'd Untitled, but nevermind.  :razz:
I just don't think dying for your country just for the sake of it has any value. I'm not saying that defending one's country is wrong, I'm saying that one man with a hunting rifle isn't going to stop a modern military. I don't agree with the argument that arming the populace will deter foreign invaders. It would lead to pointless deaths, unless the people (as I think) would understand that soon. The WWII example is good; some people kept fighting as partisans, but they weren't fighting all by themselves. And it was a relatively small number of people.

 
Life itself is already pointless and meaningless so how dying for a cause more pointless than dying as a old incontinent men?
Given the choice i'd rather die fighting for a cause (or dying cause) than living an uneventful life just to die pointlessy in my sleep with a full diaper.
 
Top Bottom