|
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 March 01 2012 00:58 TanGeng wrote:
As for gun violence, it is expected that freedom will offer the chance to do harm and invariably some individuals will elect to do so. The laws and the justice system of the United States will take some measures to promote responsible use of freedoms and will retroactively punish irresponsibility. All injuries, loss of life, and other tragedies are "acceptable" consequences of the freedoms of the people.
This is true.
|
On March 01 2012 01:08 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2012 19:23 TanTzoR wrote:
Again and again. People in Europe don't have guns...so this situation is WAYYYY less likely to arrive in the first place. It's YOUR reality because the US didn't have the courage to progressively ban private gun ownership. So the guy kills a kid then you brave citizen shoot him. Great, one kid is dead. It wouldn't have happened in the first place if the criminal didn't have a gun.
Like I said in Europe only big criminals have guns. And they don't go on killing spree for no reason. They will shoot only if it's in their financial interest. Basically it's criminals vs criminals, criminals vs police.
Again, 70 school shooting since 2000 in the US, 11 in Europe. 11 last year in the US, to 0 in Europe.
Ofc you'll find an example of a case were a murder could have been stopped if his victims had a gun. Bur you need to observe on a larger scale. Great. You're in the UK? So you're not allowed to own private firearms. You say that only big crime has access to firearms, and street thugs don't? So tell that to the guy who has a gun to your wife's head and is about to rape her. Just try to talk him out of it, reason with him that he's small time and shouldn't have access to guns. Tell him how it's not worth it. Nope. If something like that happens you'll be wishing you lived in a country that didn't make it illegal to use deadly force to protect the life of you and your loved ones.
A member of my family got raped, but guess what I was not with her and there is nothing I could have done to help her. It was in the subway. It's horrible and hopefully the guy got caught and I never had the chance to approach him or I would have killed him, he took 40 years. But don't think you and your gun will be able to prevent anything, the myth of the guy coming to your home to rape your wife in front of you is a myth.
It's psychological.Rapists are cowards. They take a woman when she is alone, and don't think that arming your wife would help either.
We live in a fucked up word, with fucked up people. Lots of fucked up people, and I'm glad most of them don't own a gun.
It takes courage to accept to give up guns and be vulnerable in some sort of situations. But in the end all society is safer. And I'm glad that the Europeans or Australians ,for instance, did it. It's easier to back up to fear and go on some individualist road of each man for itself and those who don't have guns get screwed because you are surrounded by average crack addicts owning guns.
|
Goin out shooting or hunting is another thing but I'm against guns in general. Learning to fight with swords sounds cooler.
|
On March 01 2012 00:58 TanGeng wrote:
The argument for a general ban of guns based on the premise that a certain few will be able to use guns criminally or irresponsibly in contrast with the responsible ownership of the wider majority is not a strong argument in the political system of the United States of America. Responsible gun owners will demand overwhelming evidence of irresponsible ownership because their gun ownership had no direct involvement in crime or accidents. This philosophy to governance can certainly change.
As for gun violence, it is expected that freedom will offer the chance to do harm and invariably some individuals will elect to do so. The laws and the justice system of the United States will take some measures to promote responsible use of freedoms and will retroactively punish irresponsibility. All injuries, loss of life, and other tragedies are "acceptable" consequences of the freedoms of the people.
Yes, those are some good points.
I keep going back to this issue, that whether other people have been responsible or not with their guns has no bearing on whether I personally could be responsible with guns. It is effectively punishing the majority for the actions of a minority. It is certainly possible for a citizen to own a gun responsibly, and that fact isn't negated by statistics.
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. A free society necessitates that we grant people a degree of autonomy and personal responsibility, and accept that some people will fail in that regard. Once you state that those ideals are irrelevant, and all that matters is reaching the statistically safer society, then we are effectively declaring liberty to be obsolete.
For example, we grant people the right to drive. We set up rules to ensure that people drive as responsibly as possible. We retroactively punish those who break those rules and endanger others. People always get mad when you compare something like vehicles with guns, because they think guns have no value and vehicles do. You have to realize that values are subjective, that your belief in the worthlessness of guns, or your belief that in a strict cost-benefit analysis they are more harmful than good, does not negate the right of responsible citizens from having the choice.
Like I stated earlier, ideals are not determined according to a cost benefit analysis. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who wish they were, that we could ban hateful speech, ban unhealthy foods, ban SUV's. But that runs contrary to our democratic principles. You may think you know better than other people, but that does not mean you have the right to make their decisions for them. That used to be a given. It is the height of arrogance to think you have that right.
+ Show Spoiler +This is where people go back to the "nuclear weapons/biological weapons" straw man.
|
On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society.
Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all.
|
On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all.
Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff....
|
On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff....
Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys.
|
On March 01 2012 01:49 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff.... Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys.
He already answered your question. The line is, can it be used responsibly or not.
|
On March 01 2012 01:49 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff.... Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys.
So can forks and knives. Let's ban all knives and all forks and anything metal or hard plastic, for that matter. Oh, and people hang themselves with rope and cloth - should we ban those too? Maybe we should all be nudists and eat with only our hands. Oh, but hands can be dangerous, too. You can still choke people to death. Maybe everyone should have their limbs amputated at birth? (All of this in a sarcastic tone, if you didn't notice :p)
We live in a free society, and the free society rocks. If guns go, and everything else starts going...I guess being a human being just wouldn't be any fun. We live in a screwed up world, and there are some crazy people out there, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us from trying to live good, free lives.
|
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to.
|
On March 01 2012 02:03 CakeSauc3 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:49 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff.... Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys. So can forks and knives. Let's ban all knives and all forks and anything metal or hard plastic, for that matter. Oh, and people hang themselves with rope and cloth - should we ban those too? Maybe we should all be nudists and eat with only our hands. Oh, but hands can be dangerous, too. You can still choke people to death. Maybe everyone should have their limbs amputated at birth? (All of this in a sarcastic tone, if you didn't notice :p) We live in a free society, and the free society rocks. If guns go, and everything else starts going...I guess being a human being just wouldn't be any fun. We live in a screwed up world, and there are some crazy people out there, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us from trying to live good, free lives.
...I said you need to draw a line somewhere, and I would draw the line where the main purpose of the object is to harm. A knife can be a weapon, but it's also useful for everyday life. A gun can be useful for hunting. Then it's fine.
|
On March 01 2012 01:54 Dizmaul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:49 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff.... Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys. He already answered your question. The line is, can it be used responsibly or not.
So who defines what responsible is? Going by his answers rocket launchers, bombs and machine guns all pass the requirement of the possbility of being used responsibly.
|
It's completely pointless to compare crime statistics across nations. Different nations have different people, different cultures, different education, different economics, etc. Trying to suggest that all of those things are equal and any difference is related to the weapons laws is extremely naive or dishonest.
The US has a higher murder rate whether or not guns exist there. Crime in general is just higher in the US. If you want to look at reasons for crime, then you have to look at sociology. I could get my hands on a gun, that doesn't mean I'm going to shoot anyone, obviously.
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
|
For sake of keeping the discussion remotely serious. If you're going to bring up "facts", back them up with evidence, a link to a non-biased source with statistics, etc.
The difference in gravity between a gun and a knife wound has been mentionned already.
I'd wager countries where guns arent legal or available have a much lower rate of gun related crimes, murder or accidental deaths. Yes, there is evil people everywhere, but fear and mistrust is a vicious circle. Violence is solved through education and the eradication of poverty, not by buying firearms or installing some pricy surveillance or security equipment.
An increase in social measures would directly reflect itself on the crime rate in the US, its just a matter of time until this self-centered society recognizes it and acts towards it.
|
On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to.
Your argument makes no sense. US murder rates 4.8, UK 1.23. It is easily shown that it is more likely to be killed in US than in UK. UK is safer.
|
On March 01 2012 02:14 liberal wrote:
Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
Agreed. The progressive thought should be "How do we stop people from thinking it is okay to use the threat of violence or to kill." The solution only lies in addressing the root cause, not the symptom, of the sociological disease.
|
On March 01 2012 02:14 liberal wrote:
The way to fight crime in a sane, liberal nation, is to fight the causes of crime at their root, which is the person and the society which creates them. To blame an inanimate object for the behavior of a human is absurd. Somehow the "progressive" ideal is no longer about eliminating the desire for crime, but eliminating the means to crime.
That's why the Republicans want to cut taxes, giving less means to the Police. Makes sense.
So the idea of the more pro-guns is to cut taxes and don't help the poors. Less police, more poor people. Great way to fight crime. Actually let the law abiding citizen get rid of the criminal himself, he'll just have to shoot him.
|
On March 01 2012 02:14 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 01:54 Dizmaul wrote:On March 01 2012 01:49 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:46 liberal wrote:On March 01 2012 01:45 TanTzoR wrote:On March 01 2012 01:40 liberal wrote:
To me this issue is much bigger than the guns themselves. If we accept the premise that citizens cannot be trusted to be responsible, or accept the premise that statistical safety is more important than liberty, then really it's not possible to have a free society. Don't you agree that you need to draw a line somewhere? If you don't, biological weapons free for all. Biological weapons cannot be used responsibly. They cannot be focused on a dangerous target. They spread. Come on this is like common sense stuff.... Then rocket launchers or machine guns? They can be focused on bad guys. He already answered your question. The line is, can it be used responsibly or not. So who defines what responsible is? Going by his answers rocket launchers, bombs and machine guns all pass the requirement of the possbility of being used responsibly.
Society defines it. In yours the people can decide machine guns cant be used responsibly and that's fine with me. In ours the people might decide it is. Obviously no matter what the line is, its always decided by the people in a subjective way.
|
On March 01 2012 02:18 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to. Your argument makes no sense. US murder rates 4.8, UK 1.23. It is easily shown that it is more likely to be killed in US than in UK. UK is safer.
I didn't say murder rate. I said crime rate involving knife/gun. Obviously the murder rate is higher in the US.
EDIT: Safety isn't simply defined by how likely you are to be killed on a daily basis.
|
On March 01 2012 02:05 StarStrider wrote:
Here's a fun fact: If you break crime statistics down for the UK and the US, you are twice as likely to be a victim of a knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of a gun crime in the US. How do knife crimes in the US compare to knife crimes in the UK though? I'd say they are probably marginal in comparison, if you suppose that guns are easy to get in the US and provide a much graver threat for the criminal's use.
EDIT: What's the point then? That living in a society where gun ownership is illegal isn't safer. Evil people with evil intentions will always exist, regardless of what weapons they have access to.
I'm going to try and be as nice as possible here, but you are really not only being ignorant but extremely stupid. I am not even going to explain to you the difference between a knife and a gun, here's a hint though.. One's a sharp pointy piece of metal, the other is a gun. I know the difference is slight and fairly subtle but if you really take the time to weigh up the characteristics of each I think you will see some discrepancies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
