EPTWhy do the upstate people of the state of New York have a higher need of guns? Upstate has a lower crimerate than NYC according to this and it should have as less densely populated areas usually do. Do you have to protect yourself from those illegal canadian immigrants? Where does this need come from?
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| 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. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
Why do the upstate people of the state of New York have a higher need of guns? Upstate has a lower crimerate than NYC according to this and it should have as less densely populated areas usually do. Do you have to protect yourself from those illegal canadian immigrants? Where does this need come from? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
You should still be able to own and use firearms for whatever purpose you see fit, as long as you do not impede on the rights of others. You will be screened with background checks and your weapon will be registered, where is the problem? If we follow some of the logic in this thread, alcohol should be banned because people might get drunk and drive. Interestingly enough, there are probably more alcohol related deaths than non-accidental gun murders. It's about proper regulation, not about blanket bans. I could very well see legislation go through which requires guns to be kept in locked safes or cabinets, for example. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12179 Posts
On October 11 2015 09:45 oBlade wrote: The force of the analogy is only to show that statistical correlation is fickle. The example I used doesn't really matter except that it accessibly shows things aren't always what they appear. I can't really parse what your point is except that you believe wearing a helmet is "preventive" and owning a gun isn't. That's good to know, but the point of the analogy wasn't to convince people that everyone should buy guns, as you could see by the context; it merely was to caution against taking simple stats at face value. I see, the problem is that you viewed the gun as the helmet, and running around without guns as being careless on your bike, while I viewed the strict gun laws as a helmet, and letting everyone run around with guns as being careless on your bike. In that case, the actual problem with the analogy is simply that we would be discussing helmet violence. Guns can't be helmets in the context of gun violence, because they're an integral part of the violence debated. On October 11 2015 09:45 oBlade wrote: Homogeneity is not some kind of "gotcha" moment. I wasn't implying that. But racial inequality has historically been a problem in the USA. I daresay in another context you would be quick to agree with that. As micronesia pointed out, your parenthetical comment wasn't right. It's missing the point that in homogeneous societies, controlling for other variables, people probably get into fewer scuffles with each other to begin with. Let alone that they would escalate more. You might still contest that, but that's the general idea. This is not an endorsement of homogeneity or something. It's just an observation that it's a factor among many beyond how many civilian guns are in the USA. As I answered Micronesia, the problem isn't whether it leads to more violence or not. The problem is that we're discussing specifically gun violence and in that specific context, that element keeps getting brought up. Why is that? What is it about homogeneity that influences the amount of times guns get involved? Regardless of whether or not you believe it leads to more violence, there is no specific link between homogeneity and gun violence, and so it should be irrelevant here. On October 11 2015 09:45 oBlade wrote: But it seems like when people consider the USA, these explanations vanish. It must chiefly be the guns themselves rather than the society in the USA's case, because on paper it's a "first world democracy." Like it follows that it has to be a paradise domestically." Well yeah. First world comes with standards. But more importantly, the thing is, there IS a simple explanation for the USA. You have the most guns in the world, and yet you have very few regulations around who gets to have them when. That is a simple explanation. On October 11 2015 09:45 oBlade wrote: Implicit in what you and many people say is the idea that gun violence is a problem per se and not just a face violence takes when guns are available. That's true sometimes (we can bicker about to what extent), but it's not true categorically, right, as we can see from all the places with fewer guns and more violence." I mean, it is the entire conversation we're having. What do you think gun control advocates are trying to do, remove violence in America? Of course not. Violence exists. It's the gun violence that is targeted, because it's high, and based on the experience of every country that has implemented stricter gun control, there is something you can do about it. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44334 Posts
Is this statement made primarily because of the Second Amendment's comments about guns, or because of some broader, overarching theme about how we should pretty much be able to do whatever we want as long as we don't hurt other people in the process (more about the ethics than the legality)? If it's the former, then I don't think anyone is saying that guns are illegal in our current system. I think people want to re-examine the legitimacy and relevance of the Second Amendment in the year 2015, so saying "It's in our Constitution, end of discussion" is a bit short-sighted, since the Constitution can be reinterpreted and/or changed. Furthermore, I think those in favor of more gun control would like the laws to change (especially in regards to the thoroughness of background checks, how easily one can acquire a gun, gun education and safety, etc.) and also point out the specific language used in the Second Amendment, and how 99% of people are using guns for reasons other than what the Second Amendment says you should have them for. Not hunting, not shooting around for fun, not home invasion protection, not deterrence in a public area, not threatening others... simply to join a well-regulated militia. Which, of course, is an outdated idea, since it's absurd to think that minutemen are going to be able to take on the U.S. Army. That's why Thomas Jefferson strongly recommended that the Constitution should be updated every 19-20 years, so that we're not "enslaved to the prior generation". If it's the latter, then that sounds much better in most contexts (i.e., an ethical argument rather than merely arguing what the law currently is), but keep in mind that there are restrictions on our freedoms if potential security and safety can even be indirectly at stake. Similar to yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, Bomb! on a plane, or something else that can cause mass panic and hysteria and injury, having a gun in public might do the same, because that necessarily is an added- and very visual and real- risk to everyone's comfort and safety. And I consider it more of a legitimate issue then, say, a subjective offense, because there's a significant statistical body count ascribed to guns in public, as opposed to just hurting other people's feelings. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 11 2015 21:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If it's the latter, then that sounds much better in most contexts (i.e., an ethical argument rather than merely arguing what the law currently is), but keep in mind that there are restrictions on our freedoms if potential security and safety can even be indirectly at stake. Similar to yelling Fire! in a crowded theater, Bomb! on a plane, or something else that can cause mass panic and hysteria and injury, having a gun in public might do the same, because that necessarily is an added- and very visual and real- risk to everyone's comfort and safety. And I consider it more of a legitimate issue then, say, a subjective offense, because there's a significant statistical body count ascribed to guns in public, as opposed to just hurting other people's feelings. I agree with you in principle. I'm French so the 2nd amendment means screw-all to me. I'm speaking from a broader point of view where I firmly believe that individual rights and responsibilities are incredibly important to protect. This is a point of view which isn't shared by many French (or European) people who would prefer to have everything controlled by the government. I completely agree in restrictions or legislation which protect people's lives, however any piece of legislation must be carefully considered. For me it's very important to argue the technicalities of these laws. Do they truly protect people? Do they infringe on people's rights? Where is the line drawn between freedom and security? Finding this line is the reason I partake in these discussions in the first place. I don't pretend to know where the line is, but I think it's important to find it collectively, through debate and discussion. This is why I sometimes play devil's advocate in these threads. It's also important to consider if laws are fixing symptoms of a problem or the root cause. From my point of view, lax gun laws aren't the problem so much as people being sick in their head (school shootings). Nonetheless, I would have nothing against slightly stricter regulation which would make it more difficult for sick, suicidal people (a mass shooting is a one-way trip to jail) to do whatever they want. You can't let the sick people bully around the sane, law-abiding people. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44334 Posts
On October 11 2015 21:57 Incognoto wrote: I agree with you in principle. I'm French so the 2nd amendment means screw-all to me. I'm speaking from a broader point of view where I firmly believe that individual rights and responsibilities are incredibly important to protect. This is a point of view which isn't shared by many French (or European) people who would prefer to have everything controlled by the government. I completely agree in restrictions or legislation which protect people's lives, however any piece of legislation must be carefully considered. For me it's very important to argue the technicalities of these laws. Do they truly protect people? Do they infringe on people's rights? Where is the line drawn between freedom and security? Finding this line is the reason I partake in these discussions in the first place. I don't pretend to know where the line is, but I think it's important to find it collectively, through debate and discussion. This is why I sometimes play devil's advocate in these threads. It's also important to consider if laws are fixing symptoms of a problem or the root cause. From my point of view, lax gun laws aren't the problem so much as people being sick in their head (school shootings). Nonetheless, I would have nothing against slightly stricter regulation which would make it more difficult for sick, suicidal people (a mass shooting is a one-way trip to jail) to do whatever they want. You can't let the sick people bully around the sane, law-abiding people. Those are really good points, thanks  And yeah, I agree with you that there are a lot of other factors that we need to be dealing with (poverty, mental illness/ depression, etc.) that can certainly make it less likely for anyone to even want to buy a gun specifically to hurt others, rather than only trying to make acquiring a gun really, really hard. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
On October 11 2015 20:58 Incognoto wrote: When you are taking away someone's rights, it's you who needs to justify why you're doing it. People do not need to justify why they need the right, it's the other way around. You should still be able to own and use firearms for whatever purpose you see fit, as long as you do not impede on the rights of others. You will be screened with background checks and your weapon will be registered, where is the problem? If we follow some of the logic in this thread, alcohol should be banned because people might get drunk and drive. Interestingly enough, there are probably more alcohol related deaths than non-accidental gun murders. It's about proper regulation, not about blanket bans. I could very well see legislation go through which requires guns to be kept in locked safes or cabinets, for example. 200 years ago the Americans had the right to own slaves. The slave-owners usually did not impede on the rights of others, as slaves were no people. The right of a person is alwasy up to debate, you can't just argue that you should keep the right because you had it in the first place. I am saying owning guns in the first place brings no tangible benefit to a society an he says he needs them. I think it's fair to ask why he believes he needs them. About your alcohol argument, yeah, alcohol is regulated in our society.There are laws prohibiting you from driving drunk. The existing gun control laws in comparison are don't drive if you have more then an alcohol level of 2 per million. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44334 Posts
Armed Citizen Shoots And Kills Waffle House Robber ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ A Waffle House customer with a legally concealed weapon saved the day by shooting an armed robber at a Waffle House in North Charleston, South Carolina. The customer, who remains unidentified, opened fire on the armed suspect around 5 a.m. Saturday morning, according to The Post and Courier. The suspect, who police have also not named, was rushed to the hospital where he died from his wounds. The customer’s decision to use force drew praise from employees. “He saved us, that’s what he did,” a Waffle House employee said. One police officer on the scene speaking on the condition of anonymity said the customer’s actions are an example of how guns in the right hands can save people, saying, “It’s says something about firearms, for good people with firearms being in the right hands.” “No one was hurt, which is the best part. No one was injured – besides the suspect,” Waffle House Division Manager Brandon Rogers said. This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 11 2015 22:52 Broetchenholer wrote: 200 years ago the Americans had the right to own slaves. The slave-owners usually did not impede on the rights of others, as slaves were no people. The right of a person is alwasy up to debate, you can't just argue that you should keep the right because you had it in the first place. I am saying owning guns in the first place brings no tangible benefit to a society an he says he needs them. I think it's fair to ask why he believes he needs them. About your alcohol argument, yeah, alcohol is regulated in our society.There are laws prohibiting you from driving drunk. The existing gun control laws in comparison are don't drive if you have more then an alcohol level of 2 per million. Sorry these arguments are just garbage, anyone who spouts this crap is someone I'm going to dislike. I'm not even going to talk about the right to slavery, debunking such an idiotic argument is something I'm not going to waste my time with. Owning guns does not bring any tangible benefit to society, nor does alcohol, nor do big cars, nor do video-games, nor does eating meat, hang-gliding etc. You should not require a government to sanction your every move or your every possession. We don't live in North Korea. However, those activities should indeed be regulated as they are inherently risky. Firearms are no different to alcohol or big cars. "Rights" do indeed need to be revisited now and then, in the name of equality and security. However rights should only be revoked when it is absolutely necessary. Again, you do not justify why you should have right, it's always the other way around. Revoking rights is what needs to be justified. Just because you don't believe in individual freedom doesn't mean that the rest of us should put up with it. I don't need a camera in my home to make sure that big brother is keeping me safe. Funnily enough, with computers, smartphones and internet access, this is pretty much already the case. The NSA said hi. I totally support any regulation which increases security and safety, as long as it is properly weighed against the individual rights which are lost in the process. You can't go into either extreme. Your knowledge of existing gun laws in the USA is probably sub-par. You do realize that Germany itself is comparable in terms of privately-owned firearms? On October 11 2015 23:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In the spirit of fairness, apparently there was at least one tiny bit of positive news relating to gun defense that recently occurred: ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? You can find plenty of anecdotal evidence for both sides of the argument really. Indeed though, stories like this one are why I'm perfectly fine with firearms in the possession of responsible people. They're individually responsible and trust-worthy, so they should be trusted. Those people should be protected by the law and indeed in this case it's exactly what happened. Obviously in this case the suspect broke the law and did not get a proper trial. He died immediately, however he was not condemned to death penalty. Although it is perhaps unfair to the suspect, he did put others in mortal danger. Things unfortunately turned out the way they did, however it makes perfect sense that the law-abiding citizen is the one that the law protects; not the criminal who threatened other people's lives. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On October 11 2015 23:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: In the spirit of fairness, apparently there was at least one tiny bit of positive news relating to gun defense that recently occurred: ~ http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/10/armed-citizen-shoots-and-kills-waffle-house-robber/ This is as positive as it gets for gun advocates, I suppose. Armed robber was taken out during the robbery, and no one else was hurt. Obviously, it would have been even better if the robber wasn't killed- only incapacitated- but I guess this is second best? ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44334 Posts
On October 12 2015 00:04 killa_robot wrote: ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. I'd rather have death be a last resort in general, especially since there's absolutely zero context about who he is and what his background is. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
On October 11 2015 23:21 Incognoto wrote: Sorry these arguments are just garbage, anyone who spouts this crap is someone I'm going to dislike. I'm not even going to talk about the right to slavery, debunking such an idiotic argument is something I'm not going to waste my time with. Owning guns does not bring any tangible benefit to society, nor does alcohol, nor do big cars, nor do video-games, nor does eating meat, hang-gliding etc. You should not require a government to sanction your every move or your every possession. We don't live in North Korea. However, those activities should indeed be regulated as they are inherently risky. Firearms are no different to alcohol or big cars. "Rights" do indeed need to be revisited now and then, in the name of equality and security. However rights should only be revoked when it is absolutely necessary. Again, you do not justify why you should have right, it's always the other way around. Revoking rights is what needs to be justified. Just because you don't believe in individual freedom doesn't mean that the rest of us should put up with it. I don't need a camera in my home to make sure that big brother is keeping me safe. Funnily enough, with computers, smartphones and internet access, this is pretty much already the case. The NSA said hi. I totally support any regulation which increases security and safety, as long as it is properly weighed against the individual rights which are lost in the process. You can't go into either extreme. Your knowledge of existing gun laws in the USA is probably sub-par. You do realize that Germany itself is comparable in terms of privately-owned firearms? You can find plenty of anecdotal evidence for both sides of the argument really. Indeed though, stories like this one are why I'm perfectly fine with firearms in the possession of responsible people. They're individually responsible and trust-worthy, so they should be trusted. Those people should be protected by the law and indeed in this case it's exactly what happened. Obviously in this case the suspect broke the law and did not get a proper trial. He died immediately, however he was not condemned to death penalty. Although it is perhaps unfair to the suspect, he did put others in mortal danger. Things unfortunately turned out the way they did, however it makes perfect sense that the law-abiding citizen is the one that the law protects; not the criminal who threatened other people's lives. Look, nobody in germany feels oppressed by the government, because he is not allowed to buy an H&K MP5 and shoot it in his yard for fun. The only argument you have is guns are cool, don't take away my guns. An it's a pretty weak argument because humans have had a lot of things in the past that have been stripped off them and i don't hear you cry about that. But thank god you have found a way to not answer that, because my argument is "gargbage". And how is germany comparable? Germany has around 1,5m firearm owners, all of them hunters or sport shooters. They have to lock their weapons and all those weapons are registered. That is fundamentally different from every state of the USA. | ||
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
On October 12 2015 01:25 Broetchenholer wrote: The only argument you have is guns are cool, don't take away my guns. I don't think that's the only argument most people have. I'm sure if you interview every citizen in the United States you can find one or two who were fairly described by what you said. There have been many other arguments made, both here and elsewhere. Your comment leads me to believe you really don't understand this issue and simply want to project your lifestyle on to others. Note that I'm not specifically taking any type of side on the US gun argument by pointing out the inaccuracy of your comment. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1944 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18827 Posts
On October 12 2015 00:04 killa_robot wrote: ... Why? I don't see anything wrong with the guy being killed, and it's better than him surviving and getting the chance to try again. That you don't see anything wrong with the murder of an armed robber who inflicted no injuries on anyone speaks volumes. Thank God that the concealed carrier saved Waffle House's cashbox. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 12 2015 01:52 Broetchenholer wrote: Just that i was directly talking about what i perceive Incognotos arguments to be. I don't deny that some people in the US are actually scared and believe a gun will keep them safe. Others want to use if for recreational means which is probably fair, i like paintball as well. What you perceive my arguments to be and what they actually are seem to be different. I'm not saying guns are cool, don't take my guns. I am saying that possessing firearms and using them is something which does indeed have some risks attached to it, however this goes for a plethora of different activities and objects. The inherent risks which come from the possession of firearms and their usage (for sport shooting, for hunting, recreation, pest control, hobbyist) should be curtailed not through blanket bans, but instead through more individual responsibility from those who use it. That individual responsibility should be borne from proper regulation and legislation. You're argument can be summarized by "guns are dangerous, take away all guns", which is hardly appropriate. If you told me that firearms are acquiring a special status due to the media's (borderline fear-mongering) fixation on it (egging on more potential massacres), then I could give that argument credence. If you told me that firearms are too readily available, which in turns fuels the gun industry, which in turn makes it easier for the black market to operate, then I might give that argument credence. If you told me that firearms shouldn't be used as defensive counter-measures in the first place, since they give citizens the power of life or death over other people (which no individual person should have), then I could give that argument credence. There are plenty of totally legitimate arguments out there; you aren't giving me any. Rights aren't meant to be stripped so easily. Don't tell me that slavery is a "right", that's trash. Slavery impedes on peoples' rights which is precisely why it's gone for good in western society. Well, I say that, but in reality occidental countries have literally no problem importing clothing and electronics made by Asian child / slave labor. Double standards, really. If government politicians had any balls they'd start trying to pass bills which makes it illegal to import goods manufactured in disgusting worker conditions (which is both crappy for Asian people and the domestic people who don't get the job). Instead, we're arguing about firearms. Which, while it's not an unimportant issue, is hardly up there in terms of importance. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24680 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42691 Posts
On October 12 2015 02:31 Incognoto wrote: What you perceive my arguments to be and what they actually are seem to be different. I'm not saying guns are cool, don't take my guns. I am saying that possessing firearms and using them is something which does indeed have some risks attached to it, however this goes for a plethora of different activities and objects. The inherent risks which come from the possession of firearms and their usage (for sport shooting, for hunting, recreation, pest control, hobbyist) should be curtailed not through blanket bans, but instead through more individual responsibility from those who use it. That individual responsibility should be borne from proper regulation and legislation. You're argument can be summarized by "guns are dangerous, take away all guns", which is hardly appropriate. If you told me that firearms are acquiring a special status due to the media's (borderline fear-mongering) fixation on it (egging on more potential massacres), then I could give that argument credence. If you told me that firearms are too readily available, which in turns fuels the gun industry, which in turn makes it easier for the black market to operate, then I might give that argument credence. If you told me that firearms shouldn't be used as defensive counter-measures in the first place, since they give citizens the power of life or death over other people (which no individual person should have), then I could give that argument credence. There are plenty of totally legitimate arguments out there; you aren't giving me any. Rights aren't meant to be stripped so easily. Don't tell me that slavery is a "right", that's trash. Slavery impedes on peoples' rights which is precisely why it's gone for good in western society. Well, I say that, but in reality occidental countries have literally no problem importing clothing and electronics made by Asian child / slave labor. Double standards, really. If government politicians had any balls they'd start trying to pass bills which makes it illegal to import goods manufactured in disgusting worker conditions (which is both crappy for Asian people and the domestic people who don't get the job). Instead, we're arguing about firearms. Which, while it's not an unimportant issue, is hardly up there in terms of importance. TPP actually addresses this point pretty heavily as do a half dozen previous treaties. Companies cannot knowingly import clothes from shitty factories. The issue is that the people that commission and import the clothes aren't the ones who make all of them, they offer public contracts to subcontractors in 3rd world nations and then bribery, false reporting and bad enforcement take over. Every time they're caught the companies go "this is an isolated incident from just one of our many subcontractors, he had passed our rigorous examinations of conditions in his factory and we're looking into how this could have happened". Child labour on clothes is an issue but it's not an issue that nobody cares about. It's simply very difficult to do anything about due to how the business is structured. There are many levels of deniability between the workers and the US companies. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18827 Posts
On October 12 2015 06:05 micronesia wrote: While I'm not going to say killing the armed robber was the ideal ending to that affair, you have to consider more than just how much would have been stolen in the form of cash and valuables before the robber fled. If he gets in, takes people's stuff, and gets out uncontested, it is more likely that the same thing will happen to some of those customers in the future by the same or a different robber because the culture is being perpetuated that you can rob large groups of people at gunpoint whenever a cop isn't around. This would be true if one had little to no faith in the ability of police to respond to a well-witnessed crime committed in public. Besides, the logic works both ways. Those drawn towards acts of armed robbery will have their trigger fingers made all the itchier if they think a random self-appointed hero is gonna draw on them. The game of predicting where deterrent effects will manifest is not an easy one, but I'd prefer one with less guns rather than more. The alternative is a society in which property and "stuff" is considered valuable enough to warrant the taking of another's life without any sort of process of justice. | ||
| ||
