|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
I think everyone would agree that to some extent potentially harmful devices should be illegalized. For example I think it's unreasonable for a citizen to possess a nuclear bomb simply because the potential of a single bad apple could cause too much damage. However we'd also agree that it is unreasonable for a butter knife to be illegal although it could potentially kill someone. So the question is how potentially damaging does something have to be to be deemed illegal?
Other legal substances/devices do more damage compared to guns. For example alcohol kills 75,000 people annually in the US (source) while annual gun related deaths are around in the US are ~31,000 (statistic from 2007 source). I could have chose to use motor vehicle related deaths as a comparison, but motor vehicles are somewhat a necessity, whereas alcohol use is purely recreational. Since legally civilian owned guns are largely used for recreational purposes, it is inconsistent to say that guns should be banned/restricted due to their potential damage while alcohol (and other equally or more dangerous devices) shouldn't suffer the same fate. Some might say that alcohol related deaths are mainly inflicted on the user whereas gun related deaths are homicides. However gun related deaths are mainly suicides (source)
Because I cannot ethically differentiate the greater purpose of the pleasure I get from drinking beer from the pleasure gun enthusiasts get from shooting/hunting/collecting. I cannot rightfully pass judgement on gun control laws based on annual deaths without inconsistencies. They are both sources of pleasure that unfortunately result in a significant amount of deaths annually. So although I empathize with the people who sound like they are taking an anti-gun position purely based on the desire to preserve life, I cannot agree because I indulge in more lethal devices such as alcohol.
Please understand this is my stance on why I cannot support gun bans based on annual death. I understand that there is an argument to be made that alcohol is a source of motive enhancement by the impairing of judgement, while guns are more of a tool for homicide, but in that case I still feel that we should impede motive enhancement before impeding a single homicide tool. I am interested in what people think and will listen to arguments with an open mind as long as people are willing to put thought into their statements as opposed to dropping a one liner based on their immediate gut feelings. Also if people have better sources of statistics please share!
|
On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights.
Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank.
I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda.
In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
- Jeff Snyder
|
On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
I remember listening to something Thomas Sowell said in a discussion that stuck with me. He said that there is nothing easier than finding fault in something human. In other words, what is your alternative? What is your proposal to remove the fault? If your goal is just to find fault then you will never find the answers.
This is the problem with the gun control debate. Innocent people will always die, so people will always complain about something, regardless of the policies in place and all the studies that support (or don't support) them.
|
On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
From the article:
"Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data."
Then the rest of the article is just cherry-picked data ^^
|
On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:
In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts:
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
- Jeff Snyder
My god, that's a great quote. Puts it much better than anything I've written.
If anything, I feel that not having higher standards for gun ownership is a disservice to responsible, law-abiding citizens that take gun ownership seriously.
|
On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
This reasoning assumes gun ownership is completely morally neutral, and that's the reason it's so inappropriate. The purpose behind the design of a gun is killing, and for that reason they should be inherently more aligned toward being regulated. High explosives and Sarin gas are regulated because they are inherently risky and designed to kill. It doesn't follow that mass ownership of these materials should be considered obvious and that they are regulated only because of the "conduct of the guilty and the lawless."
Furthermore, Jeff Snyder obviously hasn't considered the possibility that protection under the law from living in a society full of people who have the means to easily kill you should it cross their mind, regardless of other factors, might easily be considered a "right" by some, in other words it's unconsciously biased toward gun ownership as a fundamental right.
|
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote.
|
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile.
|
On July 25 2012 09:55 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder I remember listening to something Thomas Sowell said in a discussion that stuck with me. He said that there is nothing easier than finding fault in something human. In other words, what is your alternative? What is your proposal to remove the fault? If your goal is just to find fault then you will never find the answers. This is the problem with the gun control debate. Innocent people will always die, so people will always complain about something, regardless of the policies in place and all the studies that support (or don't support) them.
A great question. I was trying to throw a little skepticism onto the arguments of others who seemed so... "locked-up," I guess you could say, in their worldview. But that question still requires an answer, and you're right that simply pointing at people for the sake of blaming them is ultimately fruitless. For my opinion, and in terms of specifics, I don't know fully. My simple answer is that citizens should be more free to carry at least certain types of guns (again, of what specific type, I haven't determined that for myself yet), and that people who do own a firearm should be both very familiar, knowledgeable, and safe with their weapon(s). I want to emphasize that last point; the husband of a former coworker shot himself in the hand cleaning his pistol a while back, and as I was talking with him (I've shown interest in purchasing a .22 for sport and training), he always came back to safety.
So, basically, be a good exemplar with your tools and firearms. "Lead by example" is the best I can offer up at the moment.
On July 25 2012 09:56 Mylin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder From the article: "Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data." Then the rest of the article is just cherry-picked data ^^
Yeah, lol, I noticed that too, haha! Hence the disclaimer. X-D I guess you've caught the point I was trying to make. ^_^
|
On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote.
On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
Yes, I did say he was biased.
My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose.
|
On July 25 2012 10:26 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote. Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder Yes, I did say he was biased. My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose.
Logically, you don't need to own a gun for the purposes of recreational shooting. They can easily be obtained at ranges.
|
On July 25 2012 08:42 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 04:16 blinken wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote:On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote:
I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control.
People kill people, not guns.
When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! Please don't be so condescending, it makes you sound unintelligent. I could make a home-made bomb that could take out half that theatre which I could conceal as easily as a gun. Search the internet for five minutes, you can too. Are you aware of how many guns are in North America? It is simply unrealistic to implement the magnitude of control necessary to prevent the kind of tragedies that have taken place recently. You cannot prevent all tragedies, obviously. But there's no need to exacerbate the problem by pretending that the government, the NRA, gun owners or sellers have done ALL they can to discourage the legal purchase of guns for illegal or irresponsible purposes. You can argue for more regulation, better enforcement of less regulation, higher standards for security in public spaces, a better and more effective mental health care system, etc. My issue with your argument -- and I apologize for being a dick to you specifically, because you're not the only one that's made this argument -- is that it's defeatist. It's the equivalent of throwing your hands in the air and saying, "No point in arguing. Gun massacres are part of life." Yes, that's an argument, it's just not particularly useful.
I guess I'm more interested in arguing why people massacre people. I know guns are the biggest killer out there, but you can't focus so much on the weapon used as to the motivations behind it.
If the motive is simply insanity? Gun control isn't going to help all that much.
|
On July 25 2012 10:33 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:26 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote. On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder Yes, I did say he was biased. My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose. Logically, you don't need to own a gun for the purposes of recreational shooting. They can easily be obtained at ranges.
That's a good point. You could even apply that to hunting; rent out a piece of land for a day, and the owners "stock" the forests with game, much like with fishing in a river. However, between us Americans' love for independence, easy convenience, and the cheapest way out ( ), we like to have our own firearms. 
So then the question again becomes: what's the best way for people to own guns in a morally acceptable, politically legal, and socially safe manner?
|
On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder
For some reason people think guns is comparable with drugs and alcohol. They aren't.
1. Guns are easier to effectively regulate, and keep effectively banned. Not only does this follow logically, because guns and the materials are more conspicuous than narcotics and alcohol, but most of Europe has already shown the US this is possible.
2. Guns are not some sort of natural right necessary to provide for your security and liberty. If the government ever really did feel like opressing you in a seriously militant way, your gun would not help much at all. Further, guns are actually a statistically bad idea to own if what you're interested in is your own security. You are more likely to die if someone breaks into your house and you own a gun. Lastly, guns bring no real practical benefits to society besides marginal happiness to those that hunt. People can still hunt with say, one round rifles. The risks beyond that outweigh the benefits.
People in a free society should not have the power to kill, and because the jury, judge, and arbiter of who lives and dies with the twitch of a finger. Guns enable that. Crimes like the one committed in Aurora are a reminder of why.
|
On July 25 2012 09:56 Mylin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder From the article: "Do countries with strong gun control laws have lower murder rates? Only if you cherry-pick the data." Then the rest of the article is just cherry-picked data ^^
Only if you cherry pick the country and compare the US to other liberal western constitutional democracies instead of Russia, Brazil, or Mexico. Why that author thinks people not comparing the developed United States' murder rates to the failed state Mexico's murder rate of is propoganda is beyond me.
|
On July 25 2012 10:39 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:33 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:26 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote. On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder Yes, I did say he was biased. My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose. Logically, you don't need to own a gun for the purposes of recreational shooting. They can easily be obtained at ranges. That's a good point. You could even apply that to hunting; rent out a piece of land for a day, and the owners "stock" the forests with game, much like with fishing in a river. However, between us Americans' love for independence, easy convenience, and the cheapest way out ( ), we like to have our own firearms. So then the question again becomes: what's the best way for people to own guns in a morally acceptable, politically legal, and socially safe manner?
Hunting is a separate issue, since I can begrudgingly concede licenced ownership of rifles for the purposes of hunting like 0.303 etc. Handgun ownershp is different though, since they aren't really useful for hunting, only for killing people or shooting at a range. Are you sure that's what the question becomes? The question I wanted to ask is why independence, convenience, and expense are to be valued so highly if we're really seeking a safer citizenry handling guns in a socially safe manner.
|
On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile.
I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well.
I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths:
- guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more
- guns and alcohol are meant to be used for recreational purposes to provide pleasure
- I can't think of a good meaningful way to differentiate importance of the uses of alcohol over the uses of guns
- therefore it is not logical for me to say guns should be restricted more than alcohol based on how many people get killed
I am interested in your statement about fear, depression, and societal impact. If the presence guns have a significantly broader/deeper impact on the general comfort of society then I would have to agree with you. However I feel that alcohol must have a similar effect. On a personal level, I have been made uncomfortable/scared/depressed more times by people who have been drinking alcohol (as an innocent bystander) than I ever had by someone with a gun. Some numbers/sources would also be very helpful (unfortunately my quick google search wasn't fruitful).
Also I would like you to elaborate on why you think a comparison to alcohol is so flawed. I'm interested to know your criteria for reaching this conclusion. Is it because of societal importance? The fact that alcohol has been banned before? The sheer number of people involved in alcohol consumption compared to guns? Also how are you evaluating the necessity of increased gun restrictions ( I chose to do this by viewing the number of annual deaths, are you going by the same criterion?
|
On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more
On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you?
|
On July 25 2012 10:48 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:39 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:33 sevencck wrote:On July 25 2012 10:26 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 10:02 semantics wrote:
He reads one sentence, and posts an article on an American conservative website saying it's unbais, you should at least post something from AP, because the Internet is a reliable source. He can't even grasp that england like japan which has slightly laxer gun laws but still very strict by US standards also have a very low gun death rate per person. Because guns are not readily available, guns per a person is low and thus it's just simple numbers. Yes you can have alot of guns in a country has a low gun death rate, but it's just simply logical that less guns available less chance for gun death, assuming the same population. And if your goal is less dead people one is simply easier to do then to ask everyone with guns to be morally outstanding citizens.
It's funny how hard to responds to that one sentence but completely misses the rest of what i wrote. On July 25 2012 09:43 cLAN.Anax wrote:On July 25 2012 09:06 semantics wrote:On July 25 2012 08:53 Mr.Pyro wrote:
Truth is you're just as safe with a pepper spray or a tazer, so why allow guns? It only makes matters worse, and puts more weapons on the streets.
I really have never heard a solid argument as for why you should be allowed to have a gun from americans, other than 'It's in the constitution'. Number one way to remove gun deaths is to completely outlaw guns, take japan where it's legal to own a gun but it's nearly impossible to obtain a legal license and you're very limited in type and use of the gun. You have a very dense population, but a culture that is strongly against guns, even before wwii, guns/swords were not popular. And with that you get very few gun deaths, yes gangs still get hands on things like uzi's etc but they are very rare incidents and over all japan has incredibility low gun deaths. Frankly i'm fine with guns for sport/fun, don't care for the idea of self defense with guns. And the idea of gun regulation needs to be revisited in the US to what should be allowed in peoples homes, and how to tract suspicious activity. People throw around the 2nd amendment like it means anything is allowed, just because something has been classified as a right doesn't mean it's as broad as unlimited as possible, the courts have always defined limits to rights. Number one way to remove gun deaths is for people to stop shooting other people, accidentally or on purpose. Period. They outlaw narcotics, but people still get their hands on those. The US outlawed alochol during Prohibition, but folks still drank. I've never cared for statistics and studies and such, as experience tells me it's usually cherry-picked to cater the author's agenda. To counter your claim, that Japan is largely free of gun-related deaths, I read an article today from the opposition. Thomas Sowell is not unbiased and the column deals with England rather than Japan, but at the least, it's to show you that "studies," and the people that conduct them, are indeed fallible, regardless of agenda. In repsonse to the question posed in the title of this thread, I want to present a quote that perhaps throws a different take on the issue of gun control and the right to bear arms. Sees it through a different view. In fact, it sounds like Defacer is kinda getting at this in his posts: "To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." - Jeff Snyder Yes, I did say he was biased. My goal is for less death through a more intelligent and safe citizenry. There may be less guns in a country, but that doesn't necessarily lead to lower gun-crimes; that sounds illogical, but regulating gun numbers does a better job at ensuring the legal citizens have fewer guns than preventing them from getting into the hands of a criminal. Also, for whatever reason, I bristle at the thought that the government would take my right to legally purchase, own, and operate a firearm for a useful (safety), legal, and recreational purpose. Logically, you don't need to own a gun for the purposes of recreational shooting. They can easily be obtained at ranges. That's a good point. You could even apply that to hunting; rent out a piece of land for a day, and the owners "stock" the forests with game, much like with fishing in a river. However, between us Americans' love for independence, easy convenience, and the cheapest way out ( ), we like to have our own firearms. So then the question again becomes: what's the best way for people to own guns in a morally acceptable, politically legal, and socially safe manner? Hunting is a separate issue, since I can begrudgingly concede licenced ownership of rifles for the purposes of hunting like 0.303 etc. Handgun ownershp is different though, since they aren't really useful for hunting, only for killing people or shooting at a range. Are you sure that's what the question becomes? The question I wanted to ask is why independence, convenience, and expense are to be valued so highly if we're really seeking a safer citizenry handling guns in a socially safe manner.
They're arguments to support my position. They're not sufficient on their own by any means, but I wouldn't say they detract from my position supporting gun ownership. Of course I'm not saying, "Scrap safety, we want it only 'cause it's cheaper, danggit!" Lol. X-D Perhaps my statement of the question did not follow very well. My bad.
On July 25 2012 11:00 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 10:54 BearStorm wrote:On July 25 2012 10:10 Zahir wrote:
Bear storm, if a man wants to kill himself with alcohol or a gun, I say let him. It's sad but that's his choice. If a man wants to get an assault weapon, and he's not a soldier fighting in some war, id say no. You do not use an assault weapon to kill yourself, you use it to kill others. I know spree killings are statistically minuscule, but the fear and depression they can cause within a single community is massive, and their societal impact is pretty massive as well. To not regulate assault weapons just because alcohol kills is a flawed comparison. Very few people die in nuclear explosions but those are fiercely regulated because they are a weapon; the most devastating of weapons. The fact is that not all deaths are somehow morally equal and while society ought have little to say as far as what a man does to himself, society should try to prevent its members from killing each other, or else the entire exercise is a little futile. I wasn't saying that guns shouldn't be regulated. I am actually in support of the general gun control laws across the states. Basically they should be similar to alcohol consumption where there are age restraints and strict enforcement of those restraints. A minor difference in gun regulation is that guns require a background check as well as a safety certification test/demonstration (at least in CA). I am all for this as well. I think you might have misinterpreted my point based on your statement about deaths not being morally equal. So I'll try to reiterate my argument against poeple wanting strict gun control based on annual deaths: - guns and alcohol kill people, but alcohol kills more On the other hand, you can't kill me with your alcohol, can you?
I'm sure this has been hashed to death, but, drunk-driving?
|
I find it funny people equate if guns where banned it be like prohibition, as if making a gun is as simple, easy to make and as in demand as making alcohol is. And really people should stop saying ban guns in a debate with the US but rather what would you like for a common citizen to aquire and what would the rules to be that. My examples where such things like hallow points for handguns, things like civilian versions of military guns like the ar-15 which was illegal only about 8 years ago in the usa, things like limiting the magazine sizes etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
