| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
States like Wisconsin, Vermont, Montana, Iowa, Utah, and a number of rural states I didn't mention, all have high gun ownership rates and low crime rates. The point is, I don't think high gun ownership rates or legal access to guns increases the rate of crime. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
For the US specifically, it doesn't really help at this point. They are already in the shithole situation where every criminal can get a gun. Of course it would be better if gun control was always strict and you couldn't get a gun short of robbing the military, but that's not really viable for the US. This is marginally better than the poster who insists that people should only be allowed to carry pistols and never rifles or shotguns (which is the antithesis of every gun control argument ever made), but it still betrays an assumption that has been corrected time and again in this thread. Of course it would be better if gun control didn't exist--crime rates always decrease when citizens are permitted to defend themselves and their property, and simple display of weapons without violence prevents somewhere between tens of thousands and millions of crimes each year (you can source the claim with Cato). Putting aside the self-evident benefits of protecting yourself, your family, and other innocents from predators, the question the OP posed is in itself offensive to anyone versed in natural rights. Under the Jeffersonian framework of natural rights (the one that forms the basis for virtually all constitutional republics in the modern world), no government "allows" citizens to carry weapons because these rights stem from our human nature; they are not arbitrary privileges granted and rescinded by bureaucratic whim. No one "allows" human beings to own firearms any more than they "allow" us to engage in political discourse or to be free from unreasonable searches--these are your birthrights by virtue of your humanity. I understand that this notion might make little sense to citizens of other first- and second-world nations who tend to view America as a country full of cowboys, possibly because the United States has historically (and imperfectly) tended toward freedom rather than legal convenience. I hope you can understand that many Americans feel similarly bewildered when we travel to nations with which we share an intellectual or historical kinship--Germany, France, and the UK come to mind in particular--and discover that many of our most cherished rights, whether the right to free expression or to bear arms, are not enjoyed by our friends overseas. It's equally disturbing that many citizens of these nations seem to view their governments' autocratic and paternalistic tendencies as a net positive in their lives. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17834 Posts
On February 21 2012 18:26 Voros wrote: This is marginally better than the poster who insists that people should only be allowed to carry pistols and never rifles or shotguns (which is the antithesis of every gun control argument ever made), but it still betrays an assumption that has been corrected time and again in this thread. Of course it would be better if gun control didn't exist--crime rates always decrease when citizens are permitted to defend themselves and their property, and simple display of weapons without violence prevents somewhere between tens of thousands and millions of crimes each year (you can source the claim with Cato). Putting aside the self-evident benefits of protecting yourself, your family, and other innocents from predators, the question the OP posed is in itself offensive to anyone versed in natural rights. Under the Jeffersonian framework of natural rights (the one that forms the basis for virtually all constitutional republics in the modern world), no government "allows" citizens to carry weapons because these rights stem from our human nature; they are not arbitrary privileges granted and rescinded by bureaucratic whim. No one "allows" human beings to own firearms any more than they "allow" us to engage in political discourse or to be free from unreasonable searches--these are your birthrights by virtue of your humanity. I understand that this notion might make little sense to citizens of other first- and second-world nations who tend to view America as a country full of cowboys, possibly because the United States has historically (and imperfectly) tended toward freedom rather than legal convenience. I hope you can understand that many Americans feel similarly bewildered when we travel to nations with which we share an intellectual or historical kinship--Germany, France, and the UK come to mind in particular--and discover that many of our most cherished rights, whether the right to free expression or to bear arms, are not enjoyed by our friends overseas. It's equally disturbing that many citizens of these nations seem to view their governments' autocratic and paternalistic tendencies as a net positive in their lives. Tell that to the millions of US citizens who live in "the projects" and live a marginalized life in fear of the gangs that patrol their streets! Oh wait, was that just as much a stupid, gross exaggeration as you just made of Europe? | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
And again concerning individual rights. In France we have something named CMU, basically it's a healthcare system free for all, even not french people but living in France. I prefer that every people has the right to get some decent healthcare than everyone having the right to carry weapons. So stop with this bullshitting about Europe lacking individual rights. We have things to envy to the US, but individual right is not one of them. And concerning the paternalistic thing, yes i personally agree with it. If in the future I get rich I would be glad to give a fair amount of my money via tax so everyone can benefit from things like CMU. Anyway, in each country we seem to think that our gun control policy is the best one. So it's good for everyone  EDIT: And for the guy talking about being rebellious against a government. It's pretty simple, either the military is against you and you get smashed. Either the military is with you, which is more probable since they won't shoot their friends, family etc, and you easily take over the dictatorial government. The gun ownership has no impact. Period. | ||
|
box-killa
Australia13 Posts
Weapon bans and slavery are a sure sign of the removal of freedom. If you think the US banned slavery, think again. 40% of the worlds prison population live in the US. Most US prisoners are there for non violent crimes and are forced to work for free. There was an article about this not too long ago. Occupy protests would have looked a lot different if there were no police, or if the protesters brought guns and tear gas. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
Small criminals in central Europe do not own guns. They do not own guns because when guns are illegal, 200 of them do not get stolen every day and put on the black market. They do not own guns because any gun found by the police is seized on the spot, thereby being removed from circulation. They just don't. Stop saying they do it is making you look retarded. And then we have people who somehow believe owning guns will let them stand up against their government. Wow. That is just ace. You're gonna go out and fight the army with your colt or something? Or do they need to legalize tanks and aircraft carriers, too, so you guys can stage a successful coup when it is time? | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
So I guess there is no real debate here - keep your guns if you want. I'm just thankful I live in a country where hardly anyone owns a gun and it's litterally news worthy if a gun was fired somewhere. To me, the states seems more like "The land of the paranoid" than the land of the free. Owning guns is considered a right, insanely long jail sentences in their infamous prisons where people become more violent instead of more peaceful, hardcore airport security, a huge debt because of going to war against a few maniacs who did your country wrong, the infamous ridiculous lawsuits.... I mean, if you are happy living in such country I'm not gonna tell you that you should change all this, I'm just thankful I'm not. | ||
|
Grackula
133 Posts
As I recall that one video where the police "officer" (holding his weapon like no real professional would) can't wait to shoot some guy with a crowbar - and does ten times, I think that people are more likely to get unreasonable when holding a gun than being in a situation in which they actually have to use it. | ||
|
Grackula
133 Posts
On February 21 2012 19:14 box-killa wrote: Gun bans are a sure sign of a ruler taking over a country. Put it how you want, democracy, communism, monarchy. When the citizens have power, they are free. When a ruler, either known or unknown(bankers, politicians, 1%) has command over an army, whatever that army might be (police, fbi, army, government, feds, politicians ), that ruler will have power over its people. Weapon bans and slavery are a sure sign of the removal of freedom. If you think the US banned slavery, think again. 40% of the worlds prison population live in the US. Most US prisoners are there for non violent crimes and are forced to work for free. There was an article about this not too long ago. Occupy protests would have looked a lot different if there were no police, or if the protesters brought guns and tear gas. If they give everyone the freedom of owning guns, do you benefit from that freedom when walking the streets? Unless you feel like shooting people, I'd say your definition of freedom is outdated and unrealistic. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17834 Posts
On February 21 2012 19:14 box-killa wrote: Gun bans are a sure sign of a ruler taking over a country. Put it how you want, democracy, communism, monarchy. When the citizens have power, they are free. When a ruler, either known or unknown(bankers, politicians, 1%) has command over an army, whatever that army might be (police, fbi, army, government, feds, politicians ), that ruler will have power over its people. Weapon bans and slavery are a sure sign of the removal of freedom. If you think the US banned slavery, think again. 40% of the worlds prison population live in the US. Most US prisoners are there for non violent crimes and are forced to work for free. There was an article about this not too long ago. Occupy protests would have looked a lot different if there were no police, or if the protesters brought guns and tear gas. So basically your idea of freedom is complete anarchy. Sounds like fun! | ||
|
pileopoop
Canada317 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:21 Romantic wrote: Having lots of guns is not why the US has so much crime. The US has lots of crime because it has lots of people statistically likely to commit crime. thats an empty statement if i've ever seen one | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On the gun-control argument, the rates for violent crime is highly concentrated in certain cities and not where gun ownership (at least legal gun-ownership) is highest. It's more instructive to look at the dynamic in these cities. A third facet is to look at defensive use of guns rather than criminal use of guns in the the non-police population. A good sense of proportion between defensive gun use and criminal gun use would be valuable. On February 21 2012 19:28 Kickboxer wrote: And then we have people who somehow believe owning guns will let them stand up against their government. Wow. That is just ace. You're gonna go out and fight the army with your colt or something? Or do they need to legalize tanks and aircraft carriers, too, so you guys can stage a successful coup when it is time? Paranoid as it may seem, that is their prerogative, and those folks aren't going to be standing up against the army but against a low headcount of police and other infantry type forces. It's not going to be a coup. It'll be defense. They won't be able to defend with pistols, but a few long arms in the hands of an few experienced shoots would be effective. That will force any unpopular government to deploy a heavy footprint if they want to enforce their will. Is such scenario likely to happen? It's not and it's paranoia, but it's just as paranoid as thinking believing that gun owners will just flip out and start shooting huge numbers of innocent people for no good reason. I don't think too much of it and leave them to deal it as they wish. | ||
|
gregnog
United States289 Posts
A two minute drive from my house there is a gun store. When you go inside the first wall you see is almost like a Call of Duty weapons room, guns everywhere, all sizes and types. Like a gun candy store. I am not scared thinking about this, or even being shot really. I am scared when I drive there though. Every single person operating a 3000 lb vehicle which they are hardly qualified to drive. My life could end any second because some 80 year old takes a nap at the wheel, or some 16 year old is on their cell phone. Kind of random but whatever. If you want to force yourself to be scared over something I guess guns are a good a choice as any. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On February 21 2012 21:30 gregnog wrote: Impossible to have a discussion like this on an international forum. Too many biased Anti-American nerds who think they know something revolutionary on the subject. That's a two way street buddy. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On February 21 2012 21:14 TanGeng wrote: In one facet of the argument, reducto ad absurdium: Should people be allowed to carry bow and arrows? `Should people be allowed to carry knives? Should people be allowed to learn martial arts? Disarm the police? - they're humans too. Well that goes both ways: Should people be allowed to get tanks? Fighterjets? Nuclear weapons (they also have a defensive use as deterrence)? Obviously both lines of arguing are absurd so it's established that to draw the line for guns is arbitrary either way. On the gun-control argument, the rates for violent crime is highly concentrated in certain cities and not where gun ownership (at least legal gun-ownership) is highest. It's more instructive to look at the dynamic in these cities. It was also established that ownership alone does not pose much of a problem. Just think of a society where ownership is widespread but ammunition is highly regulated, or a society where although completely legal nobody actually does carry a gun. A third facet is to look at defensive use of guns rather than criminal use of guns in the the non-police population. A good sense of proportion between defensive gun use and criminal gun use would be valuable. This again is highly contextual, people in the US might feel to have the moral right to shoot somebody trespassing on their property while a lot of Europeans don't think that way. So even what constitutes as valid defensive use is highly debatable. What I want to know is whether pro gun posters (mainly from the US) would advocate the loosening of gun restrictions in Europe. Until now the main line of arguments seems to be to defend the already existing rights in the US. Earlier I made a point that was unfortunately ignored (well Kimaker tried to respond but apparently didn't understand the point I was making): I think in a society where it is normal to assume other people are carrying guns (independently of reality and ownership numbers) the police will be much more trigger happy and a lot more authoritarian in everyday encounters (I compared statistics of shot suspects in Germany to New York, where the number was almost twice as big). This is also heavily influenced by culture of course but for me it's a strong argument for not wanting a gun culture in Germany. | ||
|
Tarias
Netherlands480 Posts
The lack of understanding between the different cultures also makes argueing hard. This is understandable. As a European I would feel safer not having a gun, and knowing that other people probably don't have one as well. An American citizen might feel safer having a gun, knowing that other people probably have one as well. Why does one have to be "better" then the other. Is it so hard to accept that things might just be different? Personally I feel that gun control laws are a good thing. When I think about how stupid the average person is (and then realise that alot of them are even more stupid), I'm glad they don't have easy acces to guns. I don't have a problem with people having guns in principal, but I do feel there should be heavy restrictions and limits to who can get them. Heck, even I think it would be pretty awesome to own a gun, I'd love to have a nice WWII bolt action rifle. It would be a collectors item, not a self defense mechanism though. In my opinion giving people acces to guns to defend their own homes is very similar to the having the death penalty. You basicly give people the right to play judge, and you give them the means to execute the worst possible penalty. Do you really think that violent robbery should be punishable by death? I don't, and to be honest I probably wouldn't even be able to pull the trigger on another human being. Even if it's a criminal trying to violently rob my home. The whole freedom argument just seems completely retarded to me. Noone has complete freedom, not even in the US. You can't drive a car when you're not 16 yet, You can't fly a plane if you don't have a license. You can't burn down a house if you think it looks ugly. There is a reason you don't have absolute freedom, and it's a good thing you don't have it. The constitution is basicly just a list of what kinds of freedom you do and do not have, it was made a long time ago, and during the time that passed alot has changed. It wouldn't be weird at all if the constitution would be wrong on some points nowadays. (An example would be slavery, which was a part of cultures for a very long time, and is now completely gone from most of the world. I think we all agree this is a good thing). I would also like to point out that assides from guns, people in Europe also have the same kinds of freedom people in the US have, some people seemed confused about this. There is one another thing I don't really understand thought, and I'm interested in hearing other peoples perspectives on, and this is the whole "use guns to stand up against the government" thing. Is this honestly a reason to have a gun, or is it more like a cultural herritage thing? | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
|
fuzzz
267 Posts
yanks are lazy, fuck guns!  | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On February 21 2012 22:45 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: The most important reason to have widespread access to guns is so that should the government turn tyrannical you have the option of overthrowing it. You may be content to hope that the unthinkable never happens `here`(wherever `here` is) like it has happened in countless nations around the world but I for one would like to prepare and be ready to fight should that day come. As one of the founding fathers said... the 2nd amendment is the one which guarantees the rest. I will quote myself: And for the guy talking about being rebellious against a government. It's pretty simple, either the military is against you and you get smashed. Either the military is with you, which is more probable since they won't shoot their friends, family etc, and you easily take over the dictatorial government. The gun ownership has no impact. Period. | ||
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
235 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby11164 FrodaN2343 Beastyqt1256 B2W.Neo496 shahzam406 elazer353 C9.Mang0148 Trikslyr85 ZombieGrub62 JuggernautJason50 minikerr43 Railgan26 OptimusSC213 |
|
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Rogue
ByuN vs SKillous
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
