|
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. |
On February 21 2012 02:16 Warillions wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:57 Acrofales wrote:On February 20 2012 23:00 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 18:34 Acrofales wrote:On February 20 2012 02:53 Hertzy wrote:The other thread is going off topic with people debating about the general right to own and carry guns. This has been an ongoing debate in the United States since their founding. In Finland, where public carry permissions are effectively nonexistent, the school shootings of the past decade have been fueling the debate on gun ownership in general. I personally believe that, in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence needed to keep society safe. However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence. Further, I do not think that the actions of what is essentially the global bottom ten participants in a class of hobbies should be taken as a reason to limit said hobbies. How would legalizing guns stop school shootings? Do you remember Columbine? Unless you are seriously advocating teachers to stand in front of the class with their gun at the ready for the one in a million chance they might save the day, but are instead teaching fear and violence to the children. Guns don't kill people, people kill people is an obviously true adage. However, it needs an amendment: guns don't kill people, it just makes it more likely that people will kill people. The number of people who die in Europe due to stupid is relatively low: criminals may use guns, but they use them mainly against other criminals with guns. In the end, if you're a gas station owner and you get held up, it doesn't really matter to you whether that's with a gun or a knife. If, however, you have a gun under the counter you might want to get heroic, generally ending with you getting shot in the process. In many cases the robber is caught on video and easily apprehended by the police anyway. Relaxing gun laws is a great way of getting innocent people shot. The only people I feel should be allowed to own a gun are those who have had a hefty amount of training to be allowed to use a gun, which is generally how gun laws in western europe work in the first place. It's not impossible to own a gun in Holland, but you have to pass an exam showing that you know how to take care of the gun and can aim and shoot what you intend to shoot. Guns are a dangerous item and you should not be allowed to own one without knowing how to use it properly (the same goes for cars, btw. I don't think anybody has proposed that you can own a car without having a driver's license? ) I never said that legalizing guns would stop gun violence, nor did I advocate teachers openly carrying firearms in front of children. What I claim is that school shooters represent the least responsible 0.005% of Finnish firearm enthusiasts. I updated the OP with links to a few statistics that dispute your assertion that guns make people more likely to kill people. Why do you feel that someone would need a "hefty" amount of training to use a gun? An hour or two at the range is plenty to teach someone to hit a human-sized target in anything like a self-defence situation, and the situations where using a gun on a human being is warranted are very few and very intuitive. Even the proper storage of guns and ammunition are fairly straightforward. With a car, on the other hand, simply controlling the car is almost as complicated as Starcraft II macro, and on top of that you have a load of rules and their exceptions, not to mention a dozen little things you need to know and pay attention to. Furthermore, where did I say that gun ownership should be utterly permit-free? Proper care for a gun is far from easy (while gun technology nowadays is pretty good, you definitely don't want to leave it lying around armed, meaning you need to, at the very least, learn to arm your gun while under stress), nor is properly learning to shoot. The problem is not so much hitting your target (although I personally am a terrible shot, even I can hit something human-sized at the maximum indoor distance), it is deciding whether to shoot or not when under extreme duress (because you woke up in the middle of the night and there is something moving in your living room). As I said in a previous post, I have been in 2 violent situations in my life and in neither of those would I have been any better off if carrying a gun. The problem with most of the statistics linked are that they, firstly focus largely on the US and, secondly, are extremely biased statistics when performing comparisons. I would link better statistics, but there are some linked in this thread already and I can't be bothered to dredge them up. Wikipedia is actually not a bad source for this. I would start with "gun-related accidents", "gun-related homicides" and even "gun-related suicides". I do feel the studies you link correlating gun-related problems with poverty, as I believe I have ALSO stated a number of times. I don't feel gun ownership per se is a problem, but proper education is a necessity. Btw, as for statistics, I read somewhere that people who own a gun are more likely to get shot than people who don't own a gun. I will try to google it for you. EDIT: found it http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html thats like saying more ppl have car wrecks that drive cars then ppl who dont. lets all drive horse and buggy. what about break ins that happen to houses that arnt defended vs houses that are? ppl who cook with fire get burned more than ppl that cook with microwaves. lets not allow ppl to cook with gas stoves.... u get the point
No, it's not. While I don't have statistics on houses being robbed in the US, I can give you a pretty graph for burglaries: the US is nicely in the middle of developed nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burglaries_per_1,000_pop.svg). Note, however, that this statistic is of course influenced by FAR more than just gun ownership or the lack thereof and drawing any conclusions from it about gun ownership and burglary would be retarded. As an anecdote, for instance, from the same study, property crime in the Netherlands is about twice as high as anywhere else, due to the prevalence of bicycles and the ease of stealing them. This clearly has nothing to do with gun ownership one way or the other, as bikes are stolen while unguarded at, for instance, the train station, not in a stick-up at gunpoint.
As for the rest of your post, you're comparing apples and oranges. There is a correlation between getting shot yourself by SOMEONE ELSE and owning a gun, not number of people accidentally shooting themselves in the face (which is what you are trying to compare it to).
EDIT: I saw your edit and that makes a lot more sense, however this study was preliminary and not after causation, just correlation. I agree with you that the cause is probably due to stupid. However, stupid people are going to exist and, if that is indeed the cause, then prohibiting gun ownership actually reduces gun-related deaths (because, unfortunately, we cannot prohibit stupidity).
|
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns?
|
On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns?
Smelt them into plowshares? I fail to see why this is relevant. We're (or at least I'm) not trying to legislate the US, just discuss personal opinion on why gun ownership is good/bad. When (and more accurately if) your 2nd amendment is changed you can think about the practical solutions to 200+ years of bad practice 
|
On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns?
I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people.
|
ohh ok, so you think its wrong but pretty much cant be changed at all regardless of anyone's opinion.
|
On February 21 2012 02:44 Dizmaul wrote:
ohh ok, so you think its wrong but pretty much cant be changed at all regardless of anyone's opinion.
Most of us aren't US citizens, so legislatively your country could give two hoots about what we think. Cheap jab: while the US may think they rule the world, most of us have no illusions as to who's in charge in an autonomous democracy.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 21 2012 02:44 Dizmaul wrote:
ohh ok, so you think its wrong but pretty much cant be changed at all regardless of anyone's opinion.
In the US that is pretty much the case, yes. I doubt anyone would disagree.
Just because it is impractical to enforce doesn't mean we can't discuss gun control though. And in the end the US isn't the only country in the world where this is an issue. The OP started the discussion referencing Finland for example.
|
On February 21 2012 02:40 Kevan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:33 Dizmaul wrote:
No one who thinks guns should be banned in the US tried to answer my question.
What would be your plan to get rid of hundreds of millions of privately owned guns? I think people are discussing whether it is right or wrong, I doubt someone here is making secret plans to take guns away from people.
I think a proper discussion is beyond that. I believe it is people's right to own guns. I also believe it is a right to engage in homosexual activities if you like it. I'm not particularly fond of either, but I'm completely against the idea that the government can forbid citizens from doing both.
I think the right to own guns is beyond discussion of social efficiency, however most evidence presented here seems to be blurry at best in utilitarian terms.
However I'm still waiting for someone to disprove the fact that in most undeveloped countries and many rural areas of developing and developed countries it is fucking scential to own guns to protect ur property. I just don't see how you lose the right to own guns just because ur situation gets a lot safer (i.e you live in a city on a developed country).
How on earth could a government think it is reasonable to forbid their citizens to own and carry guns, given the circumstances?
|
I was was not trying to troll. Actually wondered if anyone had any idea's as to how it would even be possible to accomplish getting rid of guns. Guess it would just be a very very long process. In the US it might just be something that's not possible ever.
|
Grandfather them? I don't know, I'm not sure I necessarily agree that guns should be banned in the United States.
Banning and taking away something that's abundant in one country is much different than changing laws to allow them where there's no culture of them, which is why I'm exceptionally pissed off at Stephen Harper weakening gun control in Canada, but really don't think I'd vote against the same bill in the States.
This issue's way too complex and my mind isn't fully made up about it, but I feel introducing them into the hands of the general public in my society (because this is a "how do you feel about people owning guns", not "how do you feel about people owning guns in the USA" and I'm going to talk about it how it relates to me) would be terrible. On the same hand, I'm not sure if trying to ban them in the USA would make a positive difference.
I guess my position is that I'm pretty confused as to how guns fit into US society, but I'm not going to begrudge anyone who chooses to get one. Just for the love of God, take a responsible fire-arm ownership class and learn how to handle the weapon. You really owe it to everyone, most notably yourself.
|
The right to bear arms was written because the very founding fathers that built this country needed to bear arms against the enemy state militia. That right was given to us in case the government ended up being corrupt and ruthless, the people can resist against them more easily.
|
On February 21 2012 01:38 micronesia wrote:
Do you still feel we should only allow licensed hunters (and licensed farmers, I guess) to be allowed to own their own guns? In a country where guns are plentiful regardless of laws, shouldn't we try to find a way to enable people like my dad (and the majority of gun owners, to be honest) to continue to own their guns while fighting gun crimes at the same time?
I'll reiterate my point which was probably drowned in that whole graph talk from a few pages back. My problem with what you're saying is that you're taking the example of your dad, who presumably is a great person - but does he represent the US population? Yes, your dad should be allowed to own guns, but it's not because it's a hobby - those things are designed to kill.
But, how do we spot people like your dad and give them license to have lethal weapons? I mean, sure there are some shoddy safety nets, perhaps some background checks (lol), but ultimately you're handing out hunks of metal that kill, pretty much like candy. Like I said in a PM, my neighbor could easily pass any "crazy tests" and buy a handgun for $500 - but I wouldn't be happy. That guy kicks his cars repeatedly when they don't start during the winter, and all around he's a very impulsive guy (who owns a kindegarten of all fucking things). Odds are, he'd never do anything stupid - but I hope he doesn't have a gun.
So, two problems:
1- You don't have any decent ways to weed out the crazy people and morons. In the end, you're allow the sale of guns to people who ultimately will kill others, themselves, or allow for accidents to happen. Some people will bring up the whole "cars kill a lot more people" argument. But really, not only are cars pretty useful (imo, significantly more so than guns), people shouldn't start doing more and more dangerous stuff just because life isn't 100% safe. Salmonella kills less people than cars but I'm still not going to eat raw chicken.
Solution: Only Micronesia's father gets to have a gun.
2- Gun control is impossible because there are so many illegal firearms that have made // still make their way into the US, people can buy guns anywhere. Hell, even a bunch of weapons that are sold legally are pretty much as untraceable as illegal guns imported from whatever countries import guns to the US
Solution: Frankly you're fucked. It's a whole market that's way overblown in the US, and it's a vicious circle. There are so many guns it causes some paranoia, I need one too, more guns are sold - many of them to crazy people.
Easy access to guns for almost everyone is a bad thing. Should we introduce some gun control laws? What good would that do? Prohibition produces more Al Capones.
Should we praise the freedom to own lethal weapons? No, frankly that's childish. Some people own guns for recreational purposes, and that's fine - I understand that - I wish they were all smart and careful. Some people own guns for self-defense, and I don't blame them as long as they're smart and careful - but it's an unfortunate symptom of a country with an extremely high murder rate for an industrialized democracy.
|
On February 21 2012 02:52 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The right to bear arms was written because the very founding fathers that built this country needed to bear arms against the enemy state militia. That right was given to us in case the government ended up being corrupt and ruthless, the people can resist against them more easily.
Haha really? You think your the first person in 30 pages to write that? your probably not even the 10th or 20th. Everyone understands this already.
|
In my opinion: YES!!!
If someone wants to kill me, he will find a way, with gun or withouth it. If I will have to defend myself, I will NOT find any other measure beside escape.
(police cant be trusted)
|
On February 21 2012 02:52 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The right to bear arms was written because the very founding fathers that built this country needed to bear arms against the enemy state militia. That right was given to us in case the government ended up being corrupt and ruthless, the people can resist against them more easily.
Was there a point you were trying to make? This thread is about whether gun ownership is good or bad, not the history of US gun law. I also laugh to myself whenever I read opinions based on the founding fathers, as if that would somehow constitute an argument (... not that you even made an argument, you merely stated facts, but still).
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On February 21 2012 02:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:38 micronesia wrote:
Do you still feel we should only allow licensed hunters (and licensed farmers, I guess) to be allowed to own their own guns? In a country where guns are plentiful regardless of laws, shouldn't we try to find a way to enable people like my dad (and the majority of gun owners, to be honest) to continue to own their guns while fighting gun crimes at the same time? I'll reiterate my point which was probably drowned in that whole graph talk from a few pages back. My problem with what you're saying is that you're taking the example of your dad, who presumably is a great person - but does he represent the US population? Yes, your dad should be allowed to own guns, but it's not because it's a hobby - those things are designed to kill. But, how do we spot people like your dad and give them license to have lethal weapons? I mean, sure there are some shoddy safety nets, perhaps some background checks (lol), but ultimately you're handing out hunks of metal that kill, pretty much like candy.
It works pretty well for most European countries, where pretty much everyone can have a gun, and a lot of people do, and still they don't shoot each other dead.
|
I've been on the fence about gun control for awhile. The main reason is the massive gun culture on the US. I think it's interesting, fun, and cool, even if I don't particularly like guns. I don't think the government should be regulating culture at all, except obviously if it infringes rights.
On the other hand, guns are obviously dangerous. I just think we shouldn't be attacking the gun culture. Find a way to be safe and allow personal firearms.
|
On February 21 2012 02:58 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 02:52 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
The right to bear arms was written because the very founding fathers that built this country needed to bear arms against the enemy state militia. That right was given to us in case the government ended up being corrupt and ruthless, the people can resist against them more easily. Was there a point you were trying to make? This thread is about whether gun ownership is good or bad, not the history of US gun law. I also laugh to myself whenever I read opinions based on the founding fathers, as if that would somehow constitute an argument (... not that you even made an argument, you merely stated facts, but still).
People tend to forget that the founding fathers were fallible (exclusively old and white) men living in a completely different conjuncture almost 250 years ago, pretty much before true industrialization could take place. The world was completely different. Still, a lot of good stuff still stands, a lot of stuff was good at the time but isn't now, and some of the stuff always sucked!
|
On February 21 2012 02:14 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 01:51 EternaLLegacy wrote:On February 21 2012 01:44 zatic wrote:On February 21 2012 01:38 micronesia wrote:On February 20 2012 23:31 Ostby wrote:
Personally, I dont see any reason to allow people to own guns. No reason at all.
Only farmers, hunters and other people that has to have a weapon should be able to get one. But only after lots of background checks and other tests.
Do you still feel we should only allow licensed hunters (and licensed farmers, I guess) to be allowed to own their own guns? In a country where guns are plentiful regardless of laws, shouldn't we try to find a way to enable people like my dad (and the majority of gun owners, to be honest) to continue to own their guns while fighting gun crimes at the same time? Well what you are describing is basically the European model, where getting a gun is not all that complicated, if you are a hunter or you compete in target shooting. You just can't have one for self defense purposes. Because entertainment is more important than protecting your life. Right? Obviously this is not a serious question. But still, speaking for my own country: Yes, there is absolutely no need to own a gun for self defense. At the same time, looking at hunters and competition shooters it seems unreasonable to ban private gun ownership completely. Of course this equation might be different in other parts of the world, but this is how it is in most parts of Europe, and why you will find most Europeans on the pro gun control side.
It's not for anyone to decide for anyone else whether they should value their life enough to want to protect it. Even if 99% of people in a country do not think it necessary to own firearms for self defense, that does not make it right to prohibit the other 1% from owning them.
Remember, there is no such thing as banning guns. Either everyone can have guns, or only a select few people, in special uniforms, can. It is morally/logically inconsistent to say that some people have no right to guns, but others who wear special uniforms do.
Most Europeans are on the pro gun control side because they're incapable of seeing how the State could fail them, even while European States are collapsing all around them. They are fiddling while Rome is burning.
|
On February 21 2012 03:01 zatic wrote:It works pretty well for most European countries, where pretty much everyone can have a gun, and a lot of people do, and still they don't shoot each other dead.
This.
The problem with the United States is that Americans are more violent and has a higher crime rate, period. The problems we have with gun crime don't represent an issue with gun control laws (which are similar to those in other first-world nations without third-world violent crime rates), they are merely a facet of the problems we have with violent crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
