|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A discussion of Gun Control for schrafinator | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Riiight! It might be time for someone to compare US and Canadian rates of homocide and suicide by all causes.
One should note that we are not a large a population and we don't have cities of the size, density and social disparity that the US has. So sorting out all the reasons for the differences may be hard. England however, does have similar city sizes, densities and disparities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xavier999 Inactive Member |
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------- I think the point being that the US constitution pertains to the US, not contracycles country of birth. Fortunately both he/she & I are protected from your constitution in this regard. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, that would explain a few things. I thought that seemed like an odd statement to make, but thought perhaps contra was going for the "what that amendment REALLY means is..." angle. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------- My chances of being a victim of gun crime are fractional compared to you folks. Posessing a gun just doesn't seem to act as a deterrent in the good ol' USA. No matter what the hype. --------------------------------------------------------------------- True. I seem to recall the UK having fairly strict laws regarding handguns and thus it follows that you would have less gun violence. But the whole argument ISN'T just based on "guns make us safer." It's a common misconception that we all have guns only as a deterrent to crime, though I argue they are effective as such (there are many other posts in this thread that deal with that so I'm not going to spend time rehashing those arguments. You'll just have to make up your own mind on that one). But the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to acknowledge that the people have a right to bear arms in order to maintain the security of a free state. This does NOT only mean from other governments, but from our government itself. Like I said, I do not see the need to overthrow our government any time soon, but things can change. There is no guarantee that we will always have the democracy we have now. quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------- Posessing a gun just doesn't seem to act as a deterrent in the good ol' USA. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the US as a people have always had guns since our inception you can't really say that "Posessing a gun just doesn't seem to act as a deterrent" because there has never been a time where the US had an unarmed population with which to compare it. We can try and compare different countries, as you said, and that can be somewhat useful. Of course, even then we still have to acknowledge that comparing two similar countries (i.e. both democracies) is hard because there is more than one variable. Sure you may have lower crime, but is that solely due to gun laws or do the other differences play a part? Do you do a better job (as a whole) of educating your children on what it means to be a responsible adult? Do you have better social programs that help out the less fortunate so they don't try and resort to crime? I argue that if you raise a person with a sense of responsibility and instill in them a sense of morals that it doesn't matter whether they have a gun or not, they aren't going to use it irresponsibly. If you want to know what the problem is in the US it is that there are way too many kids learning their "life lessons" from TV and movies instead of their parents. Too many parents are not willing to actually put EFFORT into raising their children, but just let them grow up on their own and hope for the best. We're becoming complacent as a nation and it's starting to show. But let me stop digressing and get back to the topic of guns. The fact is our forefathers acknowledged the RIGHT of people to own a firearm and thus limited the POWER of the government so they would not try and infringe upon this RIGHT. They did NOT give us this right, but merely acknowledged that it already existed (along with the other rights in our Bill of Rights). If we start just trying to take away even ONE of these rights then it goes against the most important principle that THIS country was founded on. That there are certain things that are above even human government. That no person should not be able to speak their mind for fear of reprisal. That no person should be forced to follow a certain religion. Etc, etc. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. That this is not just about guns, but about whether we are going to turn against those things that make us who we are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
xavier999,
True. I seem to recall the UK having fairly strict laws regarding handguns and thus it follows that you would have less gun violence. You can own shotguns, & pistols up to .22 calibre. Maybe more, I'm not sure. Certainly no semi-automatics. Although I accept the reasons for violent crime, even gun crime, are complex. It just seems silly to us outsiders to hear people defend gun ownership in the US when your chances of being murdered are something like ten times greater than anywhere (per capita)in Europe (off the top of my head, remembering a radio prog from a month back). It is difficult to attribute the disparity to anything other than the gun culture that exists in the US & not Europe. The reasons for the need to bear arms are unconvincing. We manage without them perfectly well in Europe. The crime rates are not elevated because we don't have guns to defend ourselves with, nor do we particularly feel the need to protect ourselves from our governments, we just vote them out if they piss us off. Certainly there's no reason to allow the elevation the murder rate by a factor of ten just in casethere's a coup.
This does NOT only mean from other governments, but from our government itself. Like I said, I do not see the need to overthrow our government any time soon, but things can change. A few popguns won't protect you from the material might of the US Army. Even if you had the right to bear tanks, it would just get you killed quicksharp. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Yes
quote: Yes. I don't understand why you find these contradictory. I am not at war; were I at war, I would no doubt be armed. While I am living as a private citizen going about my peaceful day, I have no need or interest in being armed, and the presence of arms around me constrains my freedom. Gun Ownerships is not some ontologically meaningful entity. It's a living arrangement, and we should deal with it practically, not based on Essentialist idealisms of weapons and their uses. This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 05:21 AM This message has been edited by contracycle, 08-06-2004 05:30 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Huh? Please don't make yout local legal problems my problems.
quote: i don't need to know your family. And the FACT that my life is in the hands of anothers is NOT paranoia. Someone who is armed in my presence is in fACT physically capable of killing me. That threat exists implicitly or explicitly.
quote: Ha ha ha. You're still missing the point; introducing a gun into the househiold defintely introduces risks thaqt did not exist before, and only mildly reduces the risk of some criminal activity. It might even increase the risk of criminal violence if its your gun they come to steal. And EVEN THEN, I'm more likely to survive a criminal encounter by trying to make my escape than by seeking to escalate the conflict.
quote: Many. Have you actually read my other posts?
[quote]
If so, exactly in what ways are they not responsible as gun owners? [quote]
By bringing a device for homicide into the family domicile.
quote: Where is you firearm right now? Do you have a safe? Where is your firearm stored at night? Answer these questions and I can give you a meaningful response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I don't understand why you find these contradictory Well that about says it all.
I am not at war; were I at war, I would no doubt be armed. How? How would you arm yourself for a war against your own government, when it says you cannot have arms and has eliminated ways for you to get them? As it is, these people are discussing the US which you say people SHOULD be fighting. Thus you should at least alter your argument that "peaceful" Africa should not allow people to have guns, but the US should. That is if you are going to have any tiny bit of consistency. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Because the kind or arms I would need in order to conduct an armed resistance to the state - tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, fuel-air explosives, C4, cluster bombs, landmines, laser guidance systems, radar etc are so hopelessly beyond my reach (and have never been offered to civilians anyway) that the two issues are entirely orthogonal. If I was in actual armed rebellion, I'd be shopping on the international black market like every other non-state military. You can buy an AK47 in Africa for, umm, about $20 in some places.
quote: What a bizarre remark. Whether or not there should or should not be a war made against the US is entirely separate from whether it is a good idea to have commercial access to tools for homicide by the citizenry. If you think I should advocate gun ownership by American citizens to facilitate a rtevoilution against the American state... my answer is still no for multiple reasons, not least the above disparoity of real force, but also because I advocate a mass strike strategy, not an off-with-their-heads strategy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
If so, exactly in what ways are they not responsible as gun owners? By bringing a device for homicide into the family domicile. Do these people by any chance also own kitchen knives? Or a hammer? Or a screwdriver? Or a......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xavier999 Inactive Member |
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huh? Please don't make yout local legal problems my problems. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where do you live anyway? I guess I should inherently know these things. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i don't need to know your family. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, so all families have the same likelyhood of killing each other if a gun is in a house? All people are alike. Just carbon copies of each other. Nobody has different personalities. Nobody is more responsible than anyone else when it come to evil firearms. When we get a gun in our hands we all turn into homicidal maniacs. I see your point so clearly now. Nice job of dodging my question, though. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And the FACT that my life is in the hands of anothers is NOT paranoia. Someone who is armed in my presence is in fACT physically capable of killing me. That threat exists implicitly or explicitly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, the fact that you think everyone with a gun might blow you away on a whim is what makes you paranoid (reference my earlier post). People who aren't armed are physically capable of killing you too. quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------- And EVEN THEN, I'm more likely to survive a criminal encounter by trying to make my escape than by seeking to escalate the conflict. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you ASSUME a person with a gun won't try to make an escape first too? Why do you not ASSUME they will only use the firearm as a last resort? You think everyone with a gun is trying to be a cowboy don't you? I talk with other gun owners all over the US on several bulletin boards and websites and there is one thing that is commonly discussed. How your firearm is to only be used when no other means of protecting yourself (including retreating) is available. I've talked with quite a few who got into bad situations, but were able to get away and they NEVER EVEN DREW THEIR WEAPON because it did not come to the point where they had no other option. One guy I know had a car pull in front of him while driving through a bad neighborhood and block him. Two guys got out and started running toward his car. Did he pull out his gun and shoot them? No. He backed up and drove away because even with a gun he still is able to be rational. quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------- By bringing a device for homicide into the family domicile. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, you definately have been watching too much television. A device for homicide? Please. You're such a drama queen/king. I can tell you are so afraid of guns that nothing that ANYONE says is going to change your mind. You obviously have a preconditioned fear response that you will probably never overcome. Even the many other people in this post who are anti-gun at least approach it with rationality and I can respect that. You have your fears and your catch phrases. quote:------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where is you firearm right now? Do you have a safe? Where is your firearm stored at night? Answer these questions and I can give you a meaningful response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- They are all in safes. Yes, the ones I keep my firearms in. In the safes. I await your meaningful response. This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-06-2004 12:58 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Because the kind or arms I would need in order to conduct an armed resistance to the state YOU would not need tanks, artillery, fighter bombers, etc etc... Only if you had enough people to form an ARMY would you need this. And then you would not get them on a black market, but rather from friends within the military that are taking sides in your civil war. The size struggle we have been discussing is individual size which is guns and basic explosives.
You can buy an AK47 in Africa for, umm, about $20 in some places. I take it these are safer in home use than US guns, sold on the white market?
my answer is still no for multiple reasons, not least the above disparoity of real force, but also because I advocate a mass strike strategy And the tools of this will be safer in the home, how? You just can't have it all ways contra. But this is what it seems, you want a strong government that protects the people from themselves by making sure they stay disarmed, yet people should be arming themselves with explosive devices to overthrow that same government. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
xavier999 Inactive Member |
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Although I accept the reasons for violent crime, even gun crime, are complex. It just seems silly to us outsiders to hear people defend gun ownership in the US when your chances of being murdered are something like ten times greater than anywhere (per capita)in Europe (off the top of my head, remembering a radio prog from a month back). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- It is mostly the large cities where gun violence is a problem (L.A., D.C., etc.). In most rural areas there is practically NO gun violence. So it varies from place to place. But yes, there are dangerous areas that even without guns would still be full of dangerous people. And having grown up in a country with a differnt "gun culture" I can understand why you do not see things the same as we do. quote:---------------------------------------------------------------------- nor do we particularly feel the need to protect ourselves from our governments, we just vote them out if they piss us off. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Theoretically we should always be able to do that too, but the type of government you have to worry about overthrowing isn't the type that accepts votes. It may never happen, but it's always great to keep things in check. quote:---------------------------------------------------------------------- A few popguns won't protect you from the material might of the US Army. Even if you had the right to bear tanks, it would just get you killed quicksharp. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Small arms can be very effective in guerilla warfare. You are correct that a direct confrontation of the US army would be unsuccessful in the long run, but unconventional warfare just might. This message has been edited by xavier999, 08-06-2004 01:15 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It may never happen,... Maybe it already did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: When the seller turns in some kind of paperwork to a law enforcement agency, maybe the ATF or whoever oversees gun dealers, indicating that they performed the criminal background check. This shouldn't be a problem if the seller wants to be sure they are not selling a weapon to a criminal, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Little five year old Jimmy is not likely to be able to kill his little sister accidentally with a kitchen knife, hammer, or screwdriver. Someone is not likely to break into their home specifically to steal a kitchen knife, hammer, or screwdriver. Nobody can nearly effortlessly kill anyone else from mere yards away with a kitchen knife, hammer, or screwdriver.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to 326 and 329 please, xavier.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024