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 haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway.
Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away.
Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%.
Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure.
I also haven't gone through this thread so I'm sorry if my point is made more persuasively by someone earlier.
I am in favour of gun control - that is, any policy that makes it more difficult for the average Joe to obtain access to firearms is a step in the right direction.
My primary argument is this - No particular gun law is going to stop someone who wants to use a gun to kill another person from doing so. However, gun laws will decrease the chance of spur-of-the-moment shootings. I believe that the number of murders in developed nations that are premeditated is far less than the number of murders which are purely impulsive acts of fear or anger.
Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun.
Are you are talking about criminals who have the intent to commit murder? Firstly, I am sure most criminals do not wish to murder anyone. Secondly (assuming you mean criminals who only hold a gun to scare someone into handing over valuables), if you were trying to rob someone with a gun, and then they pulled a gun out at you, what would you do? Shoot them to save your own life? Equally, if you were you again, would you shoot the criminal with your gun, otherwise what would you do with your gun? I am not sure the question about needing guns to effectively defend yourself is so clear-cut.
There is very little effort or thought that needs to be expended when one pulls the trigger of a gun. If someone suffers from depression or is psychotic, would anyone want them to be near a gun? Gun laws are necessary to put 'barriers to entry', to place steps which one needs to take before obtaining access to an instrument which, with a measured amount of force, can release a projectile travelling faster than the speed of sound.
These 'steps' are the most important aspect of gun control.
A mass shooting took place in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, Patch reported.
The incident occurred on Sunday morning in Oak Creek.
Police say that seven people were killed, including a gunman. Four of the dead were inside the temple, while three were outside. According to police, an officer was shot multiple times by the gunman and is currently in surgery.
Greenfield Police Chief Bradley Wentlandt said he does not know the total number of victims involved. Police said they did not believe there was a second shooter.
A mass shooting took place in the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, Patch reported.
The incident occurred on Sunday morning in Oak Creek.
Police say that seven people were killed, including a gunman. Four of the dead were inside the temple, while three were outside. According to police, an officer was shot multiple times by the gunman and is currently in surgery.
Greenfield Police Chief Bradley Wentlandt said he does not know the total number of victims involved. Police said they did not believe there was a second shooter.
Was just about to link that article in this thread.
On August 01 2012 03:34 wherebugsgo wrote: So to anyone who is against stricter gun control in the United States:
What explains the much higher incidence of firearm-related homicide in the United States than in other developed countries, if not the proliferation of the guns themselves? (and by much higher, it's much higher on at least one order of magnitude per capita in most cases)
Switzerland has a lower murder and robbery rate than the UK which has some of the strictest gun laws going around so these comparisons are fairly meaningless....
As someone from the US, I think the cultural differences are going to be really striking between us and... well basically anyone else. A lot of us have been raised with the notion of feeling safer knowing that we have a weapon to DEFEND ourselves. The issue is that no matter how much you press gun control, people will still get a hold of weapons, and at that point, its better to have one to defend yourself. I for one live close enough to a ghetto that I almost feel the need to have a weapon with me just to go from my door to my car... :/
iPlaY.NettleS : Switzerland's gun laws are comparable to the rest of Europe, and of course way stricter than the US, so what you are saying is equally meaningless.
On August 07 2012 22:33 zatic wrote: iPlaY.NettleS : Switzerland's gun laws are comparable to the rest of Europe, and of course way stricter than the US, so what you are saying is equally meaningless.
Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples Militia to defend their country. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. Due to this fact, the personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3]
Switzerland has the highest per capita gun ownership in Western Europe by a huge margin yet it's gun murder stats are middle of the road.You are welcome to come to your own conclusions as to why but i think the answer is obvious - swiss militiamen feel like they are part of society and thus have a vested interest to see it improve whereas alot of the people committing murders in the US are outcasts of society often destitute and robbing places/killing people for a few bucks so they can live.Unemployment in Switzerland is running at around 3% , 'official' rate in the US is 8.3%.
Finally murder rate in Mexico is over 5 times the rate in the US and you can't own a gun in Mexico.
On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote: I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway.
Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away.
Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%.
Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure.
Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?? Isn't a bulletproof jacket and an helmet more usefull? Maybe a shield too?
A gun don't protect yourself, it just kill your aggressor, IF you see him coming, IF your gun is close to you and IF you're fast and accurate enough to kill him before he kills you.
As a protection, a gun is almost useless. And the number of murders per capita in USA is another proof.
I could be ok for your "unalienable human right" argument, but why fire weapons??
iPlaY.NettleS : Please research before you post. Their gun laws for private ownership are still comparable to the rest of Europe.
I don't see how military issued service rifles (without ammunition) - which is the unique part - change anything in relation to crime and/or murder stats.
On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote: I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway.
Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away.
Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%.
Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure.
There is no such thing in practically all sensible legal systems as a 'right to defend yourself'. What you do have (and I am not an expert in SA so most of these points will be in the context of UK, French, ECHR and a little US law -- so apologies in advance) is a legal justification of 'self defence' which is very different to a 'right'. Not to mention that practically all legal definitions of self-defence are tempered with the notion of proportionality. (i.e. you can't shoot someone in the face who call you who insults you verbally).
Secondly, I would be very wary of bandying words such as 'god-given' and 'inalienable human rights' as even in the ECHR (arguably the most refined and developed system of fundamental rights protection) only has 2 absolute rights (i.e. rights whose violation cannot be justified in any way) and that is freedom from torture and inhuman treatment and freedom from discrimination (even right to life is a qualified right!). I'm sure the US have very few absolute rights, same as the SA legal system. Which brings me to my point against you (nothing personal btw, you just happen to be the latest person to argue like this) and many others on this thread. Argue the merits of a particular opinion from your premises to your conclusion. Too many people (from both sides of the debate) start off with some sweeping conclusion and provide inadequate arguments to back it up.
Your point about cars works against you, as car use is one of the most regulated areas of society in practically all urbanised nations. (i.e. you have to be licensed, huge amount of restrictions in terms of use: speed limits, right of ways, MOTs etc...). This doesn't seem to offend your libertarian views on and so it shouldn't, as you rightly point out car use causes a heck of a lot of harm. But you do have a point in terms of consistency of argument and I for one am against the use of guns and against the use of cars unless absolutely necessary (which implies a huge investment in public transport which I know is pretty impossible outside of Europe, Japan and a limited number of other countries).
You use what is essentially an opinion blog as authority to back your argument.. hardly weighty evidence. A badly argued one at that (the whole 'Criminals don't think like you do' is not only completely sweeping, does not distinguish from the psychopath from the corner stor robber, but also shows half a century's delay in criminological thinking). Most evidence points towards gun control being, what a psychologist would call, a protective factor with regards to gun crime. No (reputable) study would ever come to the conclusion that gun control = low gun crime or no no gun control = high gun crime. Social sciences just doesn't operate like that as absolute causation is so difficult to prove. This being said there seems to be a lot more consensus that you are more likely to have gun crime where there is low or non-existent gun control. Note that this does not mean ALL gun control measures are good, like all policy changes they have to be effective and legitimate. There is a very interesting article about post-columbine gun control measures and their relative innefectiveness: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/52/10/1447.full.pdf html (like all serious journals you may need access.)
Here is one of many proper, methodologically rigorous studies regarding the effect of gun control on gun-related crime in Boston: http://erx.sagepub.com/content/1/4/543.full.pdf html (if you don't have access PM me and Ill give you a summary)
However Boston is Boston, SA is SA and Virginia is Virginia and each have very different social cultural and legal environments and therefore may require very different ways of dealing with this issue. Here is a very interesting study regarding the differing effects of measures against gun control in areas of UK where gun crime is rare, and where it is prevalant: http://crj.sagepub.com/content/9/3/337.full.pdf html to illustrate just some of this.
TL;DR: please try to limit any sweeping statements when trying to sensibly argue your opinion. And if you are going to rely on some sort of authority, use those that have been peer reviewed (i.e. in an established journal of some sort).
On August 03 2012 08:21 iiGreetings wrote: I honestly think that we don't need guns for everybody. The power should still be held by authorities just because they have the right to have them (here in canada) and to be completely honest with out guns how can we shoot?
You cant stop people from having firearms if they are determined to have them, all these new regulations do is increase cost and stress of law abiding citizens who own firearms for other reasons, for example, my family hunts, and shoots skit, as such we have 8 shotguns, about 14 rifles, muzzle loaders etc, along with a couple of low caliber rifles for cleaning up gophers and what not in fields.
Laws saying they need to be safely stored and transported and put into locked gunsafes etc, those are good and fine, along with having to take courses and tests to own a weapon.
I am not a big fan of the laws in the USA regarding firearms, they are overly loose if you will. For example you can buy almost anything including automatic weapons and ammo that is not used for sport/hunting easily anywhere in the USA. This doesnt really serve a purpose, you dont need a automatic weapon with AP rounds in your home. You cannot own this sort of thing in Canada.
I think some people dont understand the difference between recreational firearms, handguns, and assault weapons. Being from a small town, and moving into a city, I still find alot of people who are extremely ignorant about firearms in general, even in a country where it is not illegal to own one. I wonder how people from Aus/England feel they can contribute to a debate on firearm safety when most of them have probably never seen or handled a gun in the first place.
Have you taken drugs? What do you feel about drug legalisation? Have you been in a war? What are your views about X's foreign policy?
I didnt illustrate my opinion properly, in short there are alot of non violent ways that guns are safely used, and quite useful ways, such as hunting. Guns are made specifically for these purposes, all im saying is, I feel that certain violent weapons dont need to be around, but that doesnt mean all firearms should be blanket banned.
I dont think anyone is going to rob a bank with a muzzle loader anytime soon.
On August 07 2012 23:40 LagLovah wrote: I didnt illustrate my opinion properly, in short there are alot of non violent ways that guns are safely used, and quite useful ways, such as hunting. Guns are made specifically for these purposes, all im saying is, I feel that certain violent weapons dont need to be around, but that doesnt mean all firearms should be blanket banned.
I dont think anyone is going to rob a bank with a muzzle loader anytime soon.
I don't disagree, hence my point about making absolute statements in my previous (longwinded) post.
Its why edited out my original post, I didn't want to take the time to read an entire thread filled with mostly ignorant comments. Somehow you managed to snipe a quote in the 25seconds it was up before i erased it, congrats.
Alot of gun owners seem to feel its their god given right to own a weapon capable of killing half a town. Alot of non gun owners seem to think all gun owners have these weapons and intend to use them for wrongdoing at some point.
The rest of us in the middle just get annoyed at both extremist stances, and hope that we just get left the hell alone.
On August 05 2012 23:42 Gendi2545 wrote: I haven't gone through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been said before, but this is my opinion anyway.
Owning a gun is I think an unalienable human right, the right to defend oneself. Criminals (and the govt) have guns, they will always have guns, therefore to defend yourself effectively you too will need a gun. Saying law-abiding people should be "allowed" to have guns is like saying people should be "allowed" to defend themselves. Who has the right to tell me I'm "allowed" my God-given rights? They're already mine, I'm a responsible adult who's done nothing to justify having them taken away, only a tyrant would take them away.
Arguing that people get hurt by guns is like saying people shouldn't be allowed cars because people get killed in car accidents. Lives will definitely be saved, so its a good idea right? Saying stringent gun-control laws will save lives is also a very debateable point. I've read many reports over the years saying guns actually lower crime, here is an interesting one where every household in a town was mandated to have a gun and the crime rate dropped 88%.
Many facile arguments can seem like a good justification for taking away people's rights, and its easy to give your rights away. Like Ben said, if a people give up their rights to gain a little "security", they'll deserve neither and lose both. Accepting gun control laws is actually a form of cowardice, the fear-mongers say one will be more secure if one's right to own a weapon is taken away, so all the easily-cowed accept this without thinking for themselves and researching, or standing up for their rights even if they think they will then be a little less secure.
Why do you need a gun to defend yourself?? Isn't a bulletproof jacket and an helmet more usefull? Maybe a shield too?
A gun don't protect yourself, it just kill your aggressor, IF you see him coming, IF your gun is close to you and IF you're fast and accurate enough to kill him before he kills you.
As a protection, a gun is almost useless. And the number of murders per capita in USA is another proof.
I could be ok for your "unalienable human right" argument, but why fire weapons??
A "bulletproof" vest means that the bullet won't penetrate your body, however, the power of the hit will still break somr of your ribs. A "bulletproof helmet" laughable.
EPT
