|
On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party). Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards.
While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us."
|
On February 20 2012 01:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 01:13 Paulio wrote:On February 20 2012 01:07 Aterons_toss wrote: Where is the... non should be allowed to carry guns ? But as far as your question goes, yes they should, if you want everyone to have the right to carry a gun than EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun, ex convicts are equal with you once they are out of prison so they should have the same rights as you do. My thoughts exactly. Idealistic but not realistic. Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns.
i actually think you are right but why carry guns in the first place? what is the reason for a normal citizen ot even own a gun?
i don't understand it and of course people that have been violent previously shouldn't be allowed to carry guns imo
|
On February 20 2012 05:42 Lekebil wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least.
You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
|
On February 20 2012 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party). Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards. While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us."
That's a straw man argument.
Also, I never said that guns are justified on a social level (although I do tend to like the 2nd). I said that it's ignorant to argue that they have no social benefit. Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist. It just means that in the aggregate you find it to be a negative social policy.
|
On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:42 Lekebil wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least. You're giving a personal opinion then. Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me. Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant. I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well?
if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
|
On February 20 2012 06:01 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:42 Lekebil wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least. You're giving a personal opinion then. Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me. Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant. I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference. so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well? if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion... I, and I would assume most Americans, would want to protect myself if I were being robbed, even if that means I have to use deadly force. However, I'm in favor of a gun free society, which unfortunately doesn't/won't exist.
|
On February 20 2012 06:01 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:42 Lekebil wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least. You're giving a personal opinion then. Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me. Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant. I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference. so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well? if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
You assume I take that position because I don't respect human life.
Rather, I take that position because I have zero respect for human life that is willing to violate me in such a manner.
Also, the proposition isn't that I'm shooting someone after they steal my stuff when I'm away and I chase down the street after them. I don't advocate that. At that point, legal means are best used. It's illegal to shoot someone in that manner anyways. The proposition is that I'm being forcefully threatened for the purpose of taking my personal belongings. If someone is going to point a gun at me and threaten me, then no, I have no moral qualms about shooting them first.
|
On February 20 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party). Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards. While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us." That's a straw man argument. Also, I never said that guns are justified on a social level (although I do tend to like the 2nd). I said that it's ignorant to argue that they have no social benefit. Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist. It just means that in the aggregate you find it to be a negative social policy.
Lekebil was pointing out the need to have cars, as opposed to the social benefit vs. burden argument of guns, and so you ignoring the obvious difference seemed like an implicit argument that arguing for or against guns is as legitimate as arguing for or against cars. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you ignored that point of his and just talked about what we "value" as a culture (which isn't always useful in terms of the law... I mean, we have laws against marijuana and gay marriage, and yet pot kills zero people compared to alcohol and cigarettes, and we're supposed to promote civil rights, right? But I digress...).
Yes, some of us value guns. That doesn't mean that the social benefit *automatically* outweighs the social burden (or vice-versa). I'd say we'd need to look at statistics for that.
|
On February 20 2012 06:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:57 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:23 Lekebil wrote: There's a crucial difference between cars and firearms. We need cars to have an effective and well functioning society while firearms only brings harm. Driving cars is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. While allowing everyone to have firearms is a risk we shouldn't take as there is nothing to gain on it. In America, we have decided that allowing everyone firearms is a risk we're willing to take to make our society effective and increase our standard of living. It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Just because YOU don't place the same importance on it does not make it incorrect or flawed. Less reliance on the government is a tenet of much of American social philosophy (and has forged an entire political party based on this concept named the Republican Party). Get off your high horse and deal with the idea that we value it. Your opinion has nothing to do with this discussion about the application of the American Constitution to our legal and societal standards. While I agree that one man's importance is not the same as the importance that an entire society may place on cars or guns... you really think that cars and guns are on the same level? Even your justifications for guns is that we use guns to prevent attacks from other guns. There are so many more reasons for using cars than "So we're safe when we're traveling alongside other drivers, just in case they swerve into us." That's a straw man argument. Also, I never said that guns are justified on a social level (although I do tend to like the 2nd). I said that it's ignorant to argue that they have no social benefit. Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist. It just means that in the aggregate you find it to be a negative social policy. Lekebil was pointing out the need to have cars, as opposed to the social benefit vs. burden argument of guns, and so you ignoring the obvious difference seemed like an implicit argument that arguing for or against guns is as legitimate as arguing for or against cars. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but you ignored that point of his and just talked about what we "value" as a culture (which isn't always useful in terms of the law... I mean, we have laws against marijuana and gay marriage, and yet pot kills zero people compared to alcohol and cigarettes, and we're supposed to promote civil rights, right? But I digress...). Yes, some of us value guns. That doesn't mean that the social benefit *automatically* outweighs the social burden (or vice-versa). I'd say we'd need to look at statistics for that.
You're not saying anything I wasn't. Lekebil stated "there is nothing to gain on it." I was merely saying that there ARE positives and it's ignorant to not consider them when you discuss the negatives. I stated "Just because you find the social burden to outweigh the social benefit does not mean that a social benefit does not exist."
|
On February 20 2012 06:01 sVnteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote:On February 20 2012 05:42 Lekebil wrote:On February 20 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote: It's a risk we HAVE taken and there is some very notable gains, i.e. safety in the home, peace of mind, and less reliance on the government to protect the individual. Safety in your home you say? Imagine if the burglar didn't have a gun, but only a crowbar? And what happens in reality if the burglar has a gun and you have a gun. Who do you think has the guts to shoot first? Something tells me that the burglar would shoot first. So instead of perhaps only getting a beating (which is unlikely if you just let him do his business and try to avoid conflict) you risk getting killed. I don't find any peace of mind in having a gun, just think if one of your family members are seriously mentally ill and for some strange reason think you're the problem, then having a gun available won't benefit you. Also if somebody are after you and you don't know it in general, if they have a gun they would have the advantage in the element of surprise, so in that sense you're less safe as well. I can't argue against less reliance on the government though, but personally I think in a modern functional society the government is better suited for that job. One of the points of living in a modern society is actually to be protected by the government so that you're not left on your own. That's my personal opinion at least. You're giving a personal opinion then. Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me. Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant. I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference. so you would rather kill someone than have your stuff stolen? srsly ? doesn't sound very reasonable to me imagine if you see someone robbing another person so you would kill him then as well? if you really value hav such a low value of life that's ok but otherwise.... i can't understand that the majority of a society of like 300 000 000 people can have that opinion...
I don't think it's as little as "Give me twenty bucks." What if someone broke into your house and attacked your family? What if your wife or children were going to be raped? I could see myself killing over that, and it's a lot harder to use a knife or bare hands (both psychologically and physically) than using a gun- and I have a duty to protect myself and my family. You don't know what sickos are going to do, and you don't exactly have time to talk it over with them. Money and clothes and objects can be replaced. Loved ones can't. And if someone's going to get hurt in my house because somebody broke in- I'd want it to be the uninvited assailant 100% of the time.
|
Another vote that would've gone towards a "no guns allowed" option. I really don't understand the reasoning behind people who feel so strongly about being able to carry guns
|
The minute you commit a violent crime is the minute that you forfeit your right to owning a firearm. Period.
|
On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote: You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference.
I see your points. But lets say you actually shoot first, do you really feel that the proper punishment for a person to break into your house is death? That what it boils down to, I'm not saying removing guns would reduce the amount of burglaries, it may as well increase it. But the outcome of each conflict during a burglary would be so much less dramatic. I'm fine with 5 people losing some of their belongings rather than 1 person losing his life. Also you may say you would shoot first but I sort of doubt it, you would spend more than the reaction time of the burglar to think if it was just your son getting up to drink a glass of water than just shoot and risk it. And that's in the case of you being an expert. I also doubt that burglars actually are afraid that somebody like you would be inside since fact of the matter is that the amount of people trained like you is in such a minority, that the risk of meeting somebody like you is so much smaller than all the other potential problems that could occur while doing a burglary.
In the bigger picture though, imagine the school massacres that could be avoided? If getting a gun would have risked them getting on police radar or getting caught, they would have had a much harder time doing it. The same thing could have been said about Anders Breivik in Norway, the guy who shot 60 kids at a youth camp, the chances for him to be busted if he had to get his machine gun illegally compared to just buying like a normal guy in a store would probably have made the crucial difference. As well as what I wrote in this post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313455¤tpage=8#144. And even if we look past all of those arguments, the fact is that statistics say that the murder rates in USA is much higher than any comparable country. And no matter how much you want to deny it, the open gun laws are a huge factor in this equation. And not wanting to take actions against it is very coldblooded in my opinion at least.
|
On February 20 2012 06:34 Lekebil wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:51 BluePanther wrote: You're giving a personal opinion then.
Me, personally, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone who points a gun at me. I'm a military trained expert marksman. But that's just me.
Other people like you, who would rather take a beating and have all their stuff stolen, are better off because of people like me. The realization by an intruder that someone like me could be inside instead of someone like you is a deterrant.
I'm not saying one person is "better" than the other, but you must acknowledge that there ARE benefits to it. Likewise, I would have to acknowledge the burdens to open gun ownership. And the difference in which is greater is a debate. But it is still a debate that has no functional difference on how our nation views guns, and short of a constitutional amendment, it wont ever make a lick of difference. I see your points. But lets say you actually shoot first, do you really feel that the proper punishment for a person to break into your house is death? That what it boils down to, I'm not saying removing guns would reduce the amount of burglaries, it may as well increase it. But the outcome of each conflict during a burglary would be so much less dramatic. I'm fine with 5 people losing some of their belongings rather than 1 person losing his life. Also you may say you would shoot first but I sort of doubt it, you would spend more than the reaction time of the burglar to think if it was just your son getting up to drink a glass of water than just shoot and risk it. And that's in the case of you being an expert. I also doubt that burglars actually are afraid that somebody like you would be inside since fact of the matter is that the amount of people trained like you is in such a minority, that the risk of meeting somebody like you is so much smaller than all the other potential problems that could occur while doing a burglary. In the bigger picture though, imagine the school massacres that could be avoided? If getting a gun would have risked them getting on police radar or getting caught, they would have had a much harder time doing it. The same thing could have been said about Anders Breivik in Norway, the guy who shot 60 kids at a youth camp, the chances for him to be busted if he had to get his machine gun illegally compared to just buying like a normal guy in a store would probably have made the crucial difference. As well as what I wrote in this post http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313455¤tpage=8#144. And even if we look past all of those arguments, the fact is that statistics say that the murder rates in USA is much higher than any comparable country. And no matter how much you want to deny it, the open gun laws are a huge factor in this equation. And not wanting to take actions against it is very coldblooded in my opinion at least.
Death isn't a "punishment" in a situation like this. A person who threatens another life willingly put themself in a situation where they make the balance of lives matter. It's no different than when a person points a gun at a police officer. It's not a "punishment" when they are shot, it's a matter of self-defense. I'm not going to simply shoot them because they entered... I'd attempt to citizen's arrest or chase them away if I could. Shooting them is a last ditch thing if I feel my life or the life of others is in danger because of their actions.
I may be in an unique spot, but I've had my house burgled. I was not home at the time, but my family was. Luckily the burglars never left the garage and everyone slept through it, but normally I would have been awake and in the area that the burglars were. It's far more nervewracking than you hypothesize. A last minute change in my work schedule is all that prevented me from having to make a decision. I also do not own a gun.... trust me, I wish I had one. You are vulnerable without a gun and proper training.
Burglars, in my experience (I now work in criminal and constitutional law), tend to be cowards. They usually aren't professionals. They tend to be idiot kids and social degenerates (mostly drug users) looking to make a quick buck.
I don't mean to dismiss your argument about illegal guns stopping crime, but I think you overestimate the difficulty in getting a gun illegally. One of the cases I worked this past summer was a crime ring involving smuggling guns into Canada for criminals there (Canada has strict rules on ownership). The numbers were crazy, and these were some REALLY dumb criminals. Guns are no different than pot or crack or anything else that's illegal. If there is demand, a market will arise. Sure, the guns go for 3x the price when they are illegal, but there is no doubt a market for them.
And on the point of school massacres... just imagine if I was in one of those classrooms when a gunman strode in with an auto and opened fire? I'd have popped him and saved dozens of lives. And people like me aren't as rare as you think, nearly 1% of the US population has formal military training.
|
Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada)
|
I think it should be written into the sentence. I think committing some crimes completely forfeits your right to bear arms while others may only suspend it for the time of your incarceration.
|
On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban.
There are too many factors, many of which can easily be soon for you just to say "Japan has strict gun control and low crime and the US has loose gun control and high crime, therefore gun control is effective".
Also, on a positive note, we here in Canada have started the process of dismantling our insane gun control with the ending of the long gun registry.
|
On February 20 2012 07:14 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban. I don't think I was implying that gun laws make the crime rate go down... Gun nuts seem to believe that crime would go up if citizens don't have guns, which is dumb. I can't think of any other reason gun activists think things would be bad as a whole. It doesn't have anything to do with freedom. I can't own a machine gun or anthrax or a ICBM and I don't feel like my freedom is being infringed upon.
|
On February 20 2012 07:16 Kerwin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 07:14 OsoVega wrote:On February 20 2012 07:12 Kerwin wrote: Let's see how well my ideas go...
a.) No one should be able to own a gun without having been properly trained for it. Too often (at least in my neck of the woods) I hear about people being shot when some nut with a gun who doesn't know how to use it freaks out. (Last year a kid got shot toilet papering a house because some idiot thought it was a robber. This guy shot a weapon without knowing what he was shooting at. It's a basic rule of owning a gun is that you don't shoot unless you know what you're shooting at...
b.) Handguns should always have a waiting period before purchasing because handguns are almost exclusively used to shoot at other people.
Also, I'll just throw this in here... The 2nd ammendment has been bastardized from it's original sentiment. The founding fathers weren't envisioning a future where every citizen would be packing, and they weren't suggesting that people needed firearms to protect themselves individually. They were trying to make sure that during wartime, a militia would be more easily rounded up. The exact text from the constitution says,
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The first half of that sentence is a qualifying statement, letting us know that the purpose of people having the right to bear arms is because we need a militia to protect us. In my opinion a militia is no longer necessary with us having one of the largest standing armies in the world.
Take that for what you will, I've never fired a gun, and don't plan on doing it. There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) Correlation does not equal causation. Just look at North Dakota (US state with low crime) compared to Manitoba (Canadian province with high crime). Look at Mexico. Look at the hundreds of extremely safe US countries with extremely high gun ownership. Look at the US cities with strict gun control and high crime. Look at Australia before and after their effective gun ban. I don't think I was implying that gun laws make the crime rate go down... Gun nuts seem to believe that crime would go up if citizens don't have guns, which is dumb. "There are plenty of countries that have shown that strict laws on gun control CAN be effective (Japan, Canada) " It sounds like that is exactly what you are saying.
And it is not dumb to suggest that gun control can cause crime to go up. Gun control takes guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while leaving them in the hands of criminals. That is just a recipe for more crime and it played out in Australia.
As for your edit: The thing about the things you listed is that simply owning them is an initiation of force against those around you (other than machine guns which people should be allowed to own). Firearms on the other hand can easily be directed and controlled for use in recreation and self-defense similar to how a car, despite being able to be used for crimes and murder, can easily be controlled for responsible transportation.
|
I think the instant you commit a crime with a gun your "gun privilage" should be revoked for life. Guns are way too serious not to be treated with respect. Every gun crime is premeditated in my eyes. If you are being safe there is no reason a gun should have to hurt anyone.
Is a car more dangerous than a gun? Of course it is. It is a multi-ton missle capable of doing insane damage. There are a lot of variables when driving a car though that can lead to an accident. You don't get your car taken away if you're in an accident (usually), your insurance just goes up and maybe you get a couple points on your license.
This shouldn't be the case with guns. There are no variables if safety procedures are followed, and no accidents.
|
|
|
|