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 December 23 2012 09:59 Jockmcplop wrote: OK please tell me this: How do you know that most of the posters on here are stupid, if you haven't read the thread in first place?
I haven't read most of this thread... because most of the posters are stupid..
That seems pretty closed minded to me. Am i missing something here?
I'll edit the original post since it's apparently the only thing you can think about... And I'd say you're missing quite a bit.. like the part where I said MOST of the thread..suddenly that because "I haven't read any of it.. but everyone is stupid".. you're just like the dude from NZ.. but what do you care..
I assume he read a sample of the thread, saw the ignorance parade, and decided to avoid reading the entire thing. At this point, with a thread more than 300 pages long, ain't nobody got time for that anyway.
JACKPOT... When someone post an absolute waste post such as the one I gave as an example.. the only thing it adds to is their post count.. 310 pages and like I said.. I haven't seen anything that from the anti-gun side that could even be a possible solution that could get us to where we could eventually lead us to a no gun U.S... That's what I want to discuss.. not how U.S. should be like other countries because they don't have guns..
I read somewhere that number of gun owners (as opposed to guns) is actually decreasing, so maybe the problem will take care of itself with time ? Considering hysteria surrounding guns in US I see no other practical way to do anything else. At some point NRA will lose its clout if that trend continues and maybe then also some political changes and regulations can come into play.
I'm reaching back a few pages in these replies, as I don't really wish to discuss whether taxation is or is not robbery. It is a distracting notion which I see as being unimportant to our discussions here on the availability of firearms being necessary for the security of a democracy and on the moral questions surrounding the gun control debate. While many, if not most people seem to agree that firearms are a possible danger to individual safety, the conversation seems to have moved primarily to whether or not the danger posed by firearms is worth the ability to forcibly defend the freedoms of democracy if the need were to arise. The majority of this debate seems to center around the United States as it seems to be the longest running example of both democracy and personal ownership of firearms, and even though I have no direct questions about foreign nations I would be curious to know if people in countries with strict gun control have faith in their political systems to be kept in check. Specifically from people in nations with recent history of political turmoil and/or collapse.
So now on to my few responses to previous statements.
On December 23 2012 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why do you guys assume, given a battle between the people and the government, that the military is going to side with the government?
We don't. That's one of the prerequisites for your argument having any value. If the military sides with the people then we don't need civilians to have guns anyway because we'd have tanks, artillery, and air support.
I disagree. Guerrilla warfare is an amazing thing. The Taliban beat the Soviets, the Viet-Cong beat the US, the Polish resistance to the Soviets was never quelled, and the insurgents in Iraq didn't exactly get crushed.
No military on Earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, canal, harbor, railyard, powerplant, and airstrip in the country.
And before you bring them up, all the drones and laser-guided bombs in the world are meaningless if they can't find you. There are forests and swamps so dense that even the best satellite imagery can't peer inside.
On December 23 2012 05:26 farvacola wrote: Dem forum Anarchist sleeper cells, now there's a real threat worth arming yourself over
Don't get me wrong, violence is an absolute last resort. Just don't think the fight will be one-sided, with or without the military's support.
Guerrilla warfare is not based on hiding in swamps, forests or caves. It's about hiding within the population. Guerrilla warfare wasn't really defined at the the time of the 2nd amendments writing, but it does lend a good argument for it. If a guerrilla war ever broke out in the United States it would be impossible to target the insurgents based on their possession of firearms. A well-armed guerrilla fighter would just seem like any other gun owning American citizen.
On December 23 2012 05:36 Simberto wrote: The point was, that any case where the military does not side with the government, there is no civil war since noone fights for the government.
In that case we would call it an election, or an impeachment. There are legal channels and routines for this sort of thing to take place, and it has happened before and will happen again. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of an extreme situation, although it has most likely greatly reduce the amount of them which we have seen.
On December 23 2012 05:51 Skilledblob wrote: I think it's funny how the guys from the USA feel like their goverment is going to oppress them even though they are such a great democracy
Perhaps we are "such a great democracy" because we maintain these feelings.
On December 23 2012 10:21 mcc wrote: I read somewhere that number of gun owners (as opposed to guns) is actually decreasing, so maybe the problem will take care of itself with time ? Considering hysteria surrounding guns in US I see no other practical way to do anything else. At some point NRA will lose its clout if that trend continues and maybe then also some political changes and regulations can come into play.
I hate the NRA.. I said this earlier to Micronesia.. but I'll say it again.. I blame a majority of the problem on legislation.. but I am never going to agree that the most effective way to solve the problem we have here by punishing people who have done nothing wrong.. LE can prevent crimes by taking illegal weaponry off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.. I would 100% agree with any legislation that allowed them to do this.. UNLESS it infringed on the rights of anyone, who to prior to the events in questions where their rights were infringed upon, who would have been consider reasonably good/productive in society..
We need to be intelligent here... the percent of crimes/stats due to massacres like this are jack squat to the crimes committed by criminals.. So legislation that would prevent a mother from owning firearms to enjoy in her leisure would not be ok in my book.. because I'm not going to assume that every young man with mental problems is going to blow his mothers face off them.. I don't assume that every struggling college student is going to snipe students from a tower.. or handgun people down.. I'm more concerned about lowering statics from violent crimes cause by people who need to do them to exist or profit... not from the people who do them to escape.. while not infringing on the rights of people who like to have a good time without harming others
On December 22 2012 11:28 Jockmcplop wrote: @american nightmare could you ever be persuaded that gun ownership is a bad thing?
Sorry to not respond to this earlier.. but I honestly didn't see it until I was searching for a past post..
I 100% believe that it is bad if the sole purpose for owning the gun is to kill someone or use it for illegal activities
On December 23 2012 10:21 iplayBANJO wrote: I'm reaching back a few pages in these replies, as I don't really wish to discuss whether taxation is or is not robbery. It is a distracting notion which I see as being unimportant to our discussions here on the availability of firearms being necessary for the security of a democracy and on the moral questions surrounding the gun control debate. While many, if not most people seem to agree that firearms are a possible danger to individual safety, the conversation seems to have moved primarily to whether or not the danger posed by firearms is worth the ability to forcibly defend the freedoms of democracy if the need were to arise. The majority of this debate seems to center around the United States as it seems to be the longest running example of both democracy and personal ownership of firearms, and even though I have no direct questions about foreign nations I would be curious to know if people in countries with strict gun control have faith in their political systems to be kept in check. Specifically from people in nations with recent history of political turmoil and/or collapse.
So now on to my few responses to previous statements.
On December 23 2012 04:30 TerribleNoobling wrote: Why do you guys assume, given a battle between the people and the government, that the military is going to side with the government?
We don't. That's one of the prerequisites for your argument having any value. If the military sides with the people then we don't need civilians to have guns anyway because we'd have tanks, artillery, and air support.
I disagree. Guerrilla warfare is an amazing thing. The Taliban beat the Soviets, the Viet-Cong beat the US, the Polish resistance to the Soviets was never quelled, and the insurgents in Iraq didn't exactly get crushed.
No military on Earth could possibly defend every factory, refinery, pipeline, bridge, canal, harbor, railyard, powerplant, and airstrip in the country.
And before you bring them up, all the drones and laser-guided bombs in the world are meaningless if they can't find you. There are forests and swamps so dense that even the best satellite imagery can't peer inside.
On December 23 2012 05:26 farvacola wrote: Dem forum Anarchist sleeper cells, now there's a real threat worth arming yourself over
Don't get me wrong, violence is an absolute last resort. Just don't think the fight will be one-sided, with or without the military's support.
Guerrilla warfare is not based on hiding in swamps, forests or caves. It's about hiding within the population. Guerrilla warfare wasn't really defined at the the time of the 2nd amendments writing, but it does lend a good argument for it. If a guerrilla war ever broke out in the United States it would be impossible to target the insurgents based on their possession of firearms. A well-armed guerrilla fighter would just seem like any other gun owning American citizen.
On December 23 2012 05:36 Simberto wrote: The point was, that any case where the military does not side with the government, there is no civil war since noone fights for the government.
In that case we would call it an election, or an impeachment. There are legal channels and routines for this sort of thing to take place, and it has happened before and will happen again. That doesn't eliminate the possibility of an extreme situation, although it has most likely greatly reduce the amount of them which we have seen.
On December 23 2012 05:51 Skilledblob wrote: I think it's funny how the guys from the USA feel like their goverment is going to oppress them even though they are such a great democracy
Perhaps we are "such a great democracy" because we maintain these feelings.
I would say the claim for the longest running democracy is in the air as it is hard to say if it is a democracy with slavery as opposed to British who had less actual democracy but no slavery.
As for how do we keep faith that the government is kept in check ? Well exactly because of historical experience we know that guns do not cut it. If society goes off the cliff, political system follows and nothing can be done to prevent it. On the other hand if society does not then political system cannot on its own. Government is always dependent on the population it governs. On how big a chunk changes between countries, but in first world democracies government cannot become totalitarian without the will or at least tolerance of majority. At that point any armed insurrection is already doomed (as in it cannot overthrow that government, it can still be a nuisance, but nothing more).
OK americannightmare lets forget that whole stupid argument cos it was stupid and i shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
I don't honestly think there is a way to get from the situation that we are in now to a gun free America. Too many people have been brought up (whether morally right or wrong) to believe that having a weapon is their right as an American. The constitution explicitly supports this. Unless the constitution is no longer taken seriously by the population AND the government (which would be the situation i would be delighted with*), there is no way a government could really expect to be able to ban guns. In a way the idea of an armed population to defend against a tyrannical government is impossible to disrupt. As soon as a government attempts to take weapons away from the population, they become the tyrannical government in the eyes of gun owners.
* Personally i don't see the use of ancient documents in an ever changing world, unless they are updated to keep up with the times. But then i don't see things through american eyes, and its the american constitution, so i'm kinda unqualified to comment on that.
edit:
On December 23 2012 10:33 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 22 2012 11:28 Jockmcplop wrote: @american nightmare could you ever be persuaded that gun ownership is a bad thing?
Sorry to not respond to this earlier.. but I honestly didn't see it until I was searching for a past post..
I 100% believe that it is bad if the sole purpose for owning the gun is to kill someone or use it for illegal activities
I meant gun ownership in general. I guess the point i'm trying to get across, and it probably isn't true in your case, is that such a huge amount of people have already made their minds up about the debate that it almost seems useless debating it.
I have learned an awful lot from this thread, and my view has changed from "America must get rid of all of its weapons", to "the government should be setting realistic targets for controlling who is and isn't allowed to own a weapon, in order to make things safer for the American population."
edit again: Where is the line drawn? Is it necessary to allow everybody the right to own a weapon, because some people want to use them for recreational purposes? How about for hunting purposes? Would a schizophrenic person with no violent history be able to own a weapon if they rely on hunting for income/survival? These are the questions that i see pushing the debate forward to some sort of realistic (if temporary) solution. The big questions are inviting, but they inevitably lead to the same boring answers. The little legal grey areas are more important. Most people agree that some restriction would be a good thing, so we are not handing killing machines to psychopaths, but its how that is done which will be important.
Perhaps we are "such a great democracy" because we maintain these feelings.
Perhaps you are just delusional about your government.
See what i did there? His point is valid. On one hand, everyone is shouting "murrica when you start yet another war "to bring democracy", on the other hand, your whole country is armed because of it.
Don't get me wrong. Im completely fine with americans killing themselves if they feel the urge to, no need to change something there. But that feeling stops if children and other innocent people are targeted.
But i guess it can't be helped, the rest of the world does not have a NRA, (which euro-newspapers even made fun off now after their last announcements about games being the reason for shootings etc) which tells you to arm teachers/schools(!) to protect them. Its just flabbergasting to me, that there is near to none americans who actually get, that you have a huge problem if you need to start arm schools. Whats next, armed hospitals? Armed cinemas? Armed kindergardens?
Also, its a spirale downwards, the argument "if your are armed, you scare the mugger away" becomes stupid at the point, when a mugger feels like everyone is armed. We all know (even americans) what will happen then. There will be no "de-escalation", mugger don't just stop mugging, criminals don't stop being criminal. The only thing you achieve will be, that they make sure to "disable" you beforehand. Meaning, in the worst case, just shoot you without giving you the chance to react. In a society in which kills/murder is actually a sign of strength (like in gangs and criminal background in general), i would be scared shitless.
But again, we don't have a NRA spreading idiotic strawmans, so maybe thats why i don't get the naivete of americans if it comes to guns.
Edit: and of course you can't get rid of all the weapons anymore. What needs to happen is laws to prevent getting them in the wrong hands. And i count militias, paramilitaries, neighbourhood watch etc to wrong hands (of course, mentally unstable/criminals as well).
On December 23 2012 09:48 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 23 2012 09:18 jinorazi wrote: i find it ironic you call others stupid and full of it with the type of reply you made.
Anyone who says there can be a world with no crime or violence.. or anyone who says something isn't debatable.. when it is very much a subject that can be debated to death and back.. IS FULL OF IT..
But please.. as I said.. I love to learn.. so point out to me where I was being ironic.. so I can learn from it and we won't have this problem again..
i never said a world with no crime or violence, i was speaking in terms of countries with already strictly placed gun regulation with low gun saturation, and that world is better than the counterpart. do explain why you would prefer high gun saturation with lax gun control and screening as it is usa.
i was pointing out the useless subjects like you first pointed it out, people saying gun control or no gun control in usa without realistic viewpoint on it, which is the majority of this thread. i didnt call them idiots like you did, i said there is no need for same old words.
the irony comes from you calling others(me) full of it on their words yet you strongly present your opinion with authoritative tone.
You've done it again...first.. where did I say you said there could be a world with no crime and violence.. you assume I said this.. but I can understand because I've made the mistake of assuming before also.. I assumed you were reasonable..
Now for the important part.. do you want me to answer the question to what I'd actually prefer.. or the outrageous preferences you set me to have? Where have I ever said I prefer guns everywhere with lax laws or screening.. I didn't know this was what I preferred.. but if this is the stance you need me to take.. I'll debate it with you if it will make you feel better...
I prefer a world where ownership of guns (almost any) is an option to anyone who can pass screening process that is above adequate.. Now do you want me to do your version?
I think a lot of people from Europe/Asia don't really understand why guns are so engrained into the Culture in the Americas.
If you look at the vastness of Canada/the US it wasn't really plausible to survive out in the wilderness without a gun when it was first being colonized. For hunting and for self defence it was probably the most important thing for a settler. To get an idea of how large the distances are St. Johns the capitol of Newfoundland is actually closer to Ireland than it is to Toronto. When you look at places like BC with essentially an impassable wall created by the Rockies blocking it off from the rest of Canada you had to fend for your self 100% of the time. You couldn't just walk into town and go get some food or beg or something because towns simply did not exist.
I would argue this led to a very strong sense of independence for a lot of people who came to the new world and with on average $15 and had to go out in the middle of butt fuck no where and chop down a forest and set up a home with nothing miles and miles away from another human being in some cases. Lot's of families were brought up out in the wilderness with guns and hunting for centuries. I know a family who have gone to the same cabin hours and hours away from civilization for vacations and gone hunting and pretty much eat only what they fish/hunt up there. They have done this since their family arrived in the 1800's.
This just didn't happen in Europe. Lot's of people came to Canada/the US because Europe was too crowded after the industrial revolution.
Hopefully this helps explain why lots of people love their guns so much. This is just my theory though so meh...
On December 23 2012 10:21 mcc wrote: I read somewhere that number of gun owners (as opposed to guns) is actually decreasing, so maybe the problem will take care of itself with time ? Considering hysteria surrounding guns in US I see no other practical way to do anything else. At some point NRA will lose its clout if that trend continues and maybe then also some political changes and regulations can come into play.
I hate the NRA.. I said this earlier to Micronesia.. but I'll say it again.. I blame a majority of the problem on legislation.. but I am never going to agree that the most effective way to solve the problem we have here by punishing people who have done nothing wrong.. LE can prevent crimes by taking illegal weaponry off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.. I would 100% agree with any legislation that allowed them to do this.. UNLESS it infringed on the rights of anyone, who to prior to the events in questions where their rights were infringed upon, who would have been consider reasonably good/productive in society..
We need to be intelligent here... the percent of crimes/stats due to massacres like this are jack squat to the crimes committed by criminals.. So legislation that would prevent a mother from owning firearms to enjoy in her leisure would not be ok in my book.. because I'm not going to assume that every young man with mental problems is going to blow his mothers face off them.. I don't assume that every struggling college student is going to snipe students from a tower.. or handgun people down.. I'm more concerned about lowering statics from violent crimes cause by people who need to do them to exist or profit... not from the people who do them to escape.. while not infringing on the rights of people who like to have a good time without harming others
On December 22 2012 11:28 Jockmcplop wrote: @american nightmare could you ever be persuaded that gun ownership is a bad thing?
Sorry to not respond to this earlier.. but I honestly didn't see it until I was searching for a past post..
I 100% believe that it is bad if the sole purpose for owning the gun is to kill someone or use it for illegal activities
I cannot find any statistics, but from my perception of murders in Czech Republic half or maybe more of them are not committed by actual criminals, but are "crimes of passion", mental breakdowns or one-time crimes. So the fact that criminals won't have guns will have smaller effect than you might anticipate. On the other hand all of those murderers would be able to get the gun beforehand as they would be people who did nothing wrong. Whereas without guns they might not be so successful. Basically what I wanted to point out that the perception that a lot of people in this thread has that murderers are mostly professional criminals seems to be quite off.
On December 23 2012 10:35 Jockmcplop wrote: OK americannightmare lets forget that whole stupid argument cos it was stupid and i shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
Agreed..
I don't honestly think there is a way to get from the situation that we are in now to a gun free America. Too many people have been brought up (whether morally right or wrong) to believe that having a weapon is their right as an American. The constitution explicitly supports this. Unless the constitution is no longer taken seriously by the population AND the government (which would be the situation i would be delighted with*), there is no way a government could really expect to be able to ban guns. In a way the idea of an armed population to defend against a tyrannical government is impossible to disrupt. As soon as a government attempts to take weapons away from the population, they become the tyrannical government in the eyes of gun owners.
* Personally i don't see the use of ancient documents in an ever changing world, unless they are updated to keep up with the times. But then i don't see things through american eyes, and its the american constitution, so i'm kinda unqualified to comment on that.
I agree.. we can't get to the point of the gun free countries now.. so we shouldn't punish people who have never done nothing wrong to soothe an unnecessary hysteria cause by media..
I love that ancient document... it protects my right to (somewhat) free speech.. it protects me from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail.. protects me from having a unfavorable trial.. it protects me from unreasonable search and seizure. It does so much more then just allows me to have guns..
On December 22 2012 11:28 Jockmcplop wrote:
I meant gun ownership in general. I guess the point i'm trying to get across, and it probably isn't true in your case, is that such a huge amount of people have already made their minds up about the debate that it almost seems useless debating it.
I have learned an awful lot from this thread, and my view has changed from "America must get rid of all of its weapons", to "the government should be setting realistic targets for controlling who is and isn't allowed to own a weapon, in order to make things safer for the American population."
Agreed... but how would you.. if you had a seat at the table where they were trying to do this start?
On December 23 2012 10:43 tokicheese wrote: I think a lot of people from Europe/Asia don't really understand why guns are so engrained into the Culture in the Americas.
If you look at the vastness of Canada/the US it wasn't really plausible to survive out in the wilderness without a gun when it was first being colonized. For hunting and for self defence it was probably the most important thing for a settler. To get an idea of how large the distances are St. Johns the capitol of Newfoundland is actually closer to Ireland than it is to Toronto. When you look at places like BC with essentially an impassable wall created by the Rockies blocking it off from the rest of Canada you had to fend for your self 100% of the time. You couldn't just walk into town and go get some food or beg or something because towns simply did not exist.
I would argue this led to a very strong sense of independence for a lot of people who came to the new world and with on average $15 and had to go out in the middle of butt fuck no where and chop down a forest and set up a home with nothing miles and miles away from another human being in some cases. Lot's of families were brought up out in the wilderness with guns and hunting for centuries. I know a family who have gone to the same cabin hours and hours away from civilization for vacations and gone hunting and pretty much eat only what they fish/hunt up there. They have done this since their family arrived in the 1800's.
This just didn't happen in Europe. Lot's of people came to Canada/the US because Europe was too crowded after the industrial revolution.
Hopefully this helps explain why lots of people love their guns so much. This is just my theory though so meh...
On December 23 2012 10:56 mcc wrote: I cannot find any statistics, but from my perception of murders in Czech Republic half or maybe more of them are not committed by actual criminals, but are "crimes of passion", mental breakdowns or one-time crimes. So the fact that criminals won't have guns will have smaller effect than you might anticipate. On the other hand all of those murderers would be able to get the gun beforehand as they would be people who did nothing wrong. Whereas without guns they might not be so successful. Basically what I wanted to point out that the perception that a lot of people in this thread has that murderers are mostly professional criminals seems to be quite off.
There is no Captain John Anderton to help us with this.. I'm thrilled for you that you are happy to live where you do.. I am.. But here you are (or should be) innocent until proven guilty.. this should matter in for everything.. (unless you are a convicted criminal) I've said this before.. I shouldn't be accused of wanting to kill people just for owning or wanting to own a gun.. If there is no reasonable reason to believe that crime of passion will occur.. then we shouldn't assume it will..
my wife have a few guns.. I'll never assume, unless I've done something bad, that she'll want to kill me..
NRA Responds to Sandy Hook Tragedy at D.C. Press Conference on 21st Dec. 2012
"There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and stows violence against its own people, through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse."
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
"I call on Congress today to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation."
"The National Rifle Association, as America's preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help."
So, "meaning contribution" means more of the latter in my previous post.
"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again,"
Meaning contributions... Could it be accepting slightly tougher gun regulations? or Could it be sending volunteer members to schools for protection? We'll see. NRA press conference will be held on Friday 21st.
Maybe Mayans were anti-gun and thought this was apocalyptic enough.
On December 23 2012 09:48 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 23 2012 09:18 jinorazi wrote: i find it ironic you call others stupid and full of it with the type of reply you made.
Anyone who says there can be a world with no crime or violence.. or anyone who says something isn't debatable.. when it is very much a subject that can be debated to death and back.. IS FULL OF IT..
But please.. as I said.. I love to learn.. so point out to me where I was being ironic.. so I can learn from it and we won't have this problem again..
i never said a world with no crime or violence, i was speaking in terms of countries with already strictly placed gun regulation with low gun saturation, and that world is better than the counterpart. do explain why you would prefer high gun saturation with lax gun control and screening as it is usa.
i was pointing out the useless subjects like you first pointed it out, people saying gun control or no gun control in usa without realistic viewpoint on it, which is the majority of this thread. i didnt call them idiots like you did, i said there is no need for same old words.
the irony comes from you calling others(me) full of it on their words yet you strongly present your opinion with authoritative tone.
You've done it again...first.. where did I say you said there could be a world with no crime and violence.. you assume I said this.. but I can understand because I've made the mistake of assuming before also.. I assumed you were reasonable..
Now for the important part.. do you want me to answer the question to what I'd actually prefer.. or the outrageous preferences you set me to have? Where have I ever said I prefer guns everywhere with lax laws or screening.. I didn't know this was what I preferred.. but if this is the stance you need me to take.. I'll debate it with you if it will make you feel better...
I prefer a world where ownership of guns (almost any) is an option to anyone who can pass screening process that is above adequate.. Now do you want me to do your version?
thats fine and i agree with that stance for usa. not everyone thinks that way and thats perfectly fine too. i'm not sure where we're disagreeing with except for the part where you picked me out and said i'm full of it, i explained my position and since you pointed me out on what i said, i assumed you're advocating the opposite of or against what i said.
On December 23 2012 10:35 Jockmcplop wrote: OK americannightmare lets forget that whole stupid argument cos it was stupid and i shouldn't have said anything in the first place.
I don't honestly think there is a way to get from the situation that we are in now to a gun free America. Too many people have been brought up (whether morally right or wrong) to believe that having a weapon is their right as an American. The constitution explicitly supports this. Unless the constitution is no longer taken seriously by the population AND the government (which would be the situation i would be delighted with*), there is no way a government could really expect to be able to ban guns. In a way the idea of an armed population to defend against a tyrannical government is impossible to disrupt. As soon as a government attempts to take weapons away from the population, they become the tyrannical government in the eyes of gun owners.
* Personally i don't see the use of ancient documents in an ever changing world, unless they are updated to keep up with the times. But then i don't see things through american eyes, and its the american constitution, so i'm kinda unqualified to comment on that.
I agree.. we can't get to the point of the gun free countries now.. so we shouldn't punish people who have never done nothing wrong to soothe an unnecessary hysteria cause by media..
I love that ancient document... it protects my right to (somewhat) free speech.. it protects me from cruel and unusual punishments and excessive bail.. protects me from having a unfavorable trial.. it protects me from unreasonable search and seizure. It does so much more then just allows me to have guns..
I meant gun ownership in general. I guess the point i'm trying to get across, and it probably isn't true in your case, is that such a huge amount of people have already made their minds up about the debate that it almost seems useless debating it.
I have learned an awful lot from this thread, and my view has changed from "America must get rid of all of its weapons", to "the government should be setting realistic targets for controlling who is and isn't allowed to own a weapon, in order to make things safer for the American population."
Agreed... but how would you.. if you had a seat at the table where they were trying to do this start?
Where is the line drawn? Is it necessary to allow everybody the right to own a weapon, because some people want to use them for recreational purposes? How about for hunting purposes? Would a schizophrenic person with no violent history be able to own a weapon if they rely on hunting for income/survival? These are the questions that i see pushing the debate forward to some sort of realistic (if temporary) solution. The big questions are inviting, but they inevitably lead to the same boring answers. The little legal grey areas are more important. Most people agree that some restriction would be a good thing, so we are not handing killing machines to psychopaths, but its how that is done which will be important.
^^^^^^^ This is the final edit of my previous post. I honestly think that tackling the finer details such as this is the only way to create a legal system for gun ownership. There are a thousand moral dilemma that need to be tackled. Could someone whose family has a history of dementia own a gun when they are 45 years old? 50? 60? At what point do they become dangerous? Should parents be held responsible (through manslaughter charges) for their weapon if it gets in to the hands of their child? (i don't know what the law is on this topic at the moment) The only way to come up with some final test for gun ownership is to think of every single possible outcome (barring insanely unlikely ones) and legislate specifically for all of them before they happen. Otherwise it would be unfair.
I can't see that happening though. There is no headline there. No catchy vote winning phrase. It would take a long time and be very difficult, and expensive to do. I just hope that someone in power decides that it would be worth it in the long term (and it definitely would).
On December 23 2012 10:42 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 23 2012 10:18 jinorazi wrote:
On December 23 2012 09:48 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 23 2012 09:18 jinorazi wrote: i find it ironic you call others stupid and full of it with the type of reply you made.
Anyone who says there can be a world with no crime or violence.. or anyone who says something isn't debatable.. when it is very much a subject that can be debated to death and back.. IS FULL OF IT..
But please.. as I said.. I love to learn.. so point out to me where I was being ironic.. so I can learn from it and we won't have this problem again..
i never said a world with no crime or violence, i was speaking in terms of countries with already strictly placed gun regulation with low gun saturation, and that world is better than the counterpart. do explain why you would prefer high gun saturation with lax gun control and screening as it is usa.
i was pointing out the useless subjects like you first pointed it out, people saying gun control or no gun control in usa without realistic viewpoint on it, which is the majority of this thread. i didnt call them idiots like you did, i said there is no need for same old words.
the irony comes from you calling others(me) full of it on their words yet you strongly present your opinion with authoritative tone.
You've done it again...first.. where did I say you said there could be a world with no crime and violence.. you assume I said this.. but I can understand because I've made the mistake of assuming before also.. I assumed you were reasonable..
Now for the important part.. do you want me to answer the question to what I'd actually prefer.. or the outrageous preferences you set me to have? Where have I ever said I prefer guns everywhere with lax laws or screening.. I didn't know this was what I preferred.. but if this is the stance you need me to take.. I'll debate it with you if it will make you feel better...
I prefer a world where ownership of guns (almost any) is an option to anyone who can pass screening process that is above adequate.. Now do you want me to do your version?
thats fine and i agree with that stance for usa. not everyone thinks that way and thats perfectly fine too. i'm not sure where we're disagreeing with except for the part where you picked me out and said i'm full of it, i explained my position and since you pointed me out on what i said, i assumed you're advocating the opposite of or against what i said.
Awesome... so then would you agree that should I pass the screening and prove no threat.. that I can own Bushmaster AR 15? Or any other firearm I would want? Where would you draw the line?
Where is the line drawn? Is it necessary to allow everybody the right to own a weapon, because some people want to use them for recreational purposes? How about for hunting purposes? Would a schizophrenic person with no violent history be able to own a weapon if they rely on hunting for income/survival? These are the questions that i see pushing the debate forward to some sort of realistic (if temporary) solution. The big questions are inviting, but they inevitably lead to the same boring answers. The little legal grey areas are more important. Most people agree that some restriction would be a good thing, so we are not handing killing machines to psychopaths, but its how that is done which will be important.
^^^^^^^ This is the final edit of my previous post. I honestly think that tackling the finer details such as this is the only way to create a legal system for gun ownership. There are a thousand moral dilemma that need to be tackled. Could someone whose family has a history of dementia own a gun when they are 45 years old? 50? 60? At what point do they become dangerous? Should parents be held responsible (through manslaughter charges) for their weapon if it gets in to the hands of their child? (i don't know what the law is on this topic at the moment) The only way to come up with some final test for gun ownership is to think of every single possible outcome (barring insanely unlikely ones) and legislate specifically for all of them before they happen. Otherwise it would be unfair.
I can't see that happening though. There is no headline there. No catchy vote winning phrase. It would take a long time and be very difficult, and expensive to do. I just hope that someone in power decides that it would be worth it in the long term (and it definitely would).
Should I be at that table.. Family history towards certain conditions would be looked at.. but I wouldn't have the gun taken away as soon as they hit a certain age.. it would be more like.. at the first sign of said condition being noticed, they would have to turn over their gun.. I might even throw something in there like.. If they lived on their own.. and had family it's up to the family to make the determination on to when they should give up the gun.. I wouldn't want to leave anyone in their house unprotected, but that family must understand they they assume liability for the person suffering from the condition.. So if crazy grandpa murders someone because his son didn't have the heart to take away the gun.. then the son is going to prison..
I believe parents should (and are) held responsible.. I have a son.. and I am legally obligated to have locks on any gun he could get his hands on..
There is a way to make that test.. but me and you couldn't come up with it in an hour.. maybe it should be one of those test where there is no right answer.. but you are evaluated based on what you say..
On December 23 2012 10:21 iplayBANJO wrote: I'm reaching back a few pages in these replies, as I don't really wish to discuss whether taxation is or is not robbery. It is a distracting notion which I see as being unimportant to our discussions here on the availability of firearms being necessary for the security of a democracy and on the moral questions surrounding the gun control debate. While many, if not most people seem to agree that firearms are a possible danger to individual safety, the conversation seems to have moved primarily to whether or not the danger posed by firearms is worth the ability to forcibly defend the freedoms of democracy if the need were to arise. The majority of this debate seems to center around the United States as it seems to be the longest running example of both democracy and personal ownership of firearms, and even though I have no direct questions about foreign nations I would be curious to know if people in countries with strict gun control have faith in their political systems to be kept in check. Specifically from people in nations with recent history of political turmoil and/or collapse.
Guns can be used against democracy just as easily as for it. At best it's naive to think that they'll defend democracy (a process 90% of the population doesn't participate in in any meaningful way.)
At worst it's a fairy-tale pushed by groups who want to defend gun rights for a different reason.
On December 23 2012 10:33 AmericanNightmare wrote:
On December 23 2012 10:21 mcc wrote: I read somewhere that number of gun owners (as opposed to guns) is actually decreasing, so maybe the problem will take care of itself with time ? Considering hysteria surrounding guns in US I see no other practical way to do anything else. At some point NRA will lose its clout if that trend continues and maybe then also some political changes and regulations can come into play.
I hate the NRA.. I said this earlier to Micronesia.. but I'll say it again.. I blame a majority of the problem on legislation.. but I am never going to agree that the most effective way to solve the problem we have here by punishing people who have done nothing wrong.. LE can prevent crimes by taking illegal weaponry off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.. I would 100% agree with any legislation that allowed them to do this.. UNLESS it infringed on the rights of anyone, who to prior to the events in questions where their rights were infringed upon, who would have been consider reasonably good/productive in society..
We need to be intelligent here... the percent of crimes/stats due to massacres like this are jack squat to the crimes committed by criminals.. So legislation that would prevent a mother from owning firearms to enjoy in her leisure would not be ok in my book.. because I'm not going to assume that every young man with mental problems is going to blow his mothers face off them.. I don't assume that every struggling college student is going to snipe students from a tower.. or handgun people down.. I'm more concerned about lowering statics from violent crimes cause by people who need to do them to exist or profit... not from the people who do them to escape.. while not infringing on the rights of people who like to have a good time without harming others
On December 22 2012 11:28 Jockmcplop wrote: @american nightmare could you ever be persuaded that gun ownership is a bad thing?
Sorry to not respond to this earlier.. but I honestly didn't see it until I was searching for a past post..
I 100% believe that it is bad if the sole purpose for owning the gun is to kill someone or use it for illegal activities
I cannot find any statistics, but from my perception of murders in Czech Republic half or maybe more of them are not committed by actual criminals, but are "crimes of passion", mental breakdowns or one-time crimes. So the fact that criminals won't have guns will have smaller effect than you might anticipate. On the other hand all of those murderers would be able to get the gun beforehand as they would be people who did nothing wrong. Whereas without guns they might not be so successful. Basically what I wanted to point out that the perception that a lot of people in this thread has that murderers are mostly professional criminals seems to be quite off.
The stat are out there if you do digging on stranger crime. You're more likely to be victimized from someone you know then from stranger crime. Stranger crime as a whole is quite rare in society, but the massive focus of it in media gives the perception that it is quite prevalent.
" Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor.
And, from the author's perspective, that's probably inevitable. "Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun use," he wrote. "People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a lifetime." In contrast, the opportunities to use guns in a context where the user isn't any of the above are probably always going to be rare. "
The article goes on to say, that self-armament seems to help to prevent the loss of personal property. However those cases are rare. It also states that the presence of a gun in the house during a conflict. "Overall, the author concludes the same thing applies to homicides and suicides: people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels. This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house; no protective effect of the gun was found. "
Take your pick.
But again, stats and surveys, data and resources do not matter to most of the people here reading in this thread, or even the general population. Instead they trust that gut feeling that you know having a guns, and having more people on the street armed makes you feel safe. That's the feeling they trust in.
EPT
