Vaudille: Safety through superior firepower is not how we operate as a society. We are safe through our ability to defend ourselves with firearms.
Taking away all the good citizen's firearms leaves only the criminals with weapons, as they won't abstain from acquiring theirs illegally.
Anyone who wants to debate with me, consider New Orleans. The police recently swept through there and commandeered all the guns and firearms that people owned up the having.
Criminals, it seems, didn't own up. As New Orlean's murder rate shot up 10 TIMES the national average.
Last year, university researchers conducted an experiment in which police fired 700 blank rounds in a New Orleans neighborhood in a single afternoon. No one called to report the gunfire.
That to me proves less that people needing guns is the issue, but that perhaps that your biggest problem is removing guns from the basic human needs of that society.
When people don't report 700 rounds i think basic human need is appropriate.
Hunting is not a valid reason to allow people to have guns. There is no need to hunt; people get food other ways very easily, and the entertainment value of it doesn't justify the potential harm to people.
The real reason everyone should have guns is to deter potential government oppression. If it gets to the point where those in control, whether on the local or national level, want to exceed their given power, it would be significantly easier for them to do so if they can do anything they want with absolutely no risk.
No one knows what the future is going to be like. We can't bet our well being and freedom on the good intentions of others.
More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?
There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.
Vaudille: More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?
There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.
Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.
Vaudille: More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?
There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.
Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.
I'm too tired to decipher your post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's hard to debate when even the judges are totally lost in your maze of random words.
Guns are a part of American society, and will more than likely remain that way for a long time to come. Guns are not the problem and were never the problem. The problem lies with people and their ignorant, uninformed, or biased views on firearms (I'm not saying all who oppose firearms are that way, some just don't care for them). If people were taught about firearms from a young age, to respect them and to understand what they can do is what will help more than banning them outright. However, even that will not stop crimes being committed with firearms. If someone wants to shoot someone else no amount of laws will stop it. Increasing the average intelligence level and standard of living among all people is what will help more than blaming guns.
However, when it gets down to it there will be people who oppose guns and those who are for them. Most will not be easily swayed, if at all. What makes America different from some other countries is that Americans have the choice. They have the choice to own a gun, or to not own one. Whether or not you dislike guns or love them is irrelevant. Even if banning them would help, it's not an option. That would go against what America is. America gives people freedom, for better or worse.
Also, even if gun control works in other countries, there is no guarantee that it would work in America. Americans have a much different mindset than those elsewhere. It's the way Americans are, they have always had the freedom to choose what they want to do. Taking that away would only cause more problems.
I know very well that any argument put forth by either side is ultimately futile in changing most opinions on the matter, but all should respect firearms at the very least.
Vaudille: More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?
There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.
Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.
I'm too tired to decipher your post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's hard to debate when even the judges are totally lost in your maze of random words.
random words?
ill break it down for you.
Now thats just pointless mockery - Here i am making a jovial reprimand at your post, jovial though, i am trying to build rapport
Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock - Here i make the statement that a society in which everyone is armed, to me, is not exactly safe.
Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point. - Here i reprimand myself for exaggerating even when i previously had go at you for doing it yourself... hence the 'Hypocrisy' comment.
In this day an age we simply haven't outlawed guns because war is different. Who remembers Pearl Harbor? (wierd question to ask.) Let's get our facts straight though. When they bombed Hawaii, they weren't just aiming for boats. Don't be so naive. They didn't give to shits about who they hit. They wanted as many Americans dead. (And we responded, showing that if they show little regard for civillians, we will take them down.) Fast forward. 9/11. They didn't give two shits who they killed. Look at what happened and tell me they thought about kids whose parents would not come home. There were no soldiers there. The War against terrorism. We go over there, with the sole intention of rooing out terrorists. They respond, by killing every man woman and child who is from America that they get their hands on. (And not in quick pretty ways either.) We are one of the few coutnries playing by the set rules of war. (Perverse, see: UT3) You have to understand that (slightly off topic, but bare with me) if we pulled out so soon, they'd bring the war to us. (Don't fool yourself into thinking life is that simple. War is born from signs of weakness.) It's not as simple as most people think. They hate us, as much as we hate them. See: 9/11. (don't give me that inside job BS.) If we pull out without a clear victory, you can bet they will move the war to our borders. And unlike us, they won't care who they hit. To them, every man woman and child is an American soldier, and to them, we are a plague. They will come in like, (to quote Lamb of God) "a hailstorm of broken glass" killing anything that isn't them. No mercy, no compassion, no rules, no holding back. If we were to abolish guns and pull out, we'd lose. They would come and kill our civillians, and we'd be unable to do anything about it. And that is why we don't abolish guns. Because the second Amendment was made so that civillians would be able to protect themselves when the wars come to their homes, as it is a very real possiblity. It's not about want, it's not about need, it's about "what if". It's a "what if" that is certainly abused, but's it's not just a right, it's a measure taken. And I can guarentee you, when we pull out, gun sales will sky rocket, and I will be inline.
TheNecroswanson: In this day an age we simply haven't outlawed guns because war is different. Who remembers Pearl Harbor? (wierd question to ask.) Let's get our facts straight though. When they bombed Hawaii, they weren't just aiming for boats. Don't be so naive. They didn't give to shits about who they hit. They wanted as many Americans dead. (And we responded, showing that if they show little regard for civillians, we will take them down.) Fast forward. 9/11. They didn't give two shits who they killed. Look at what happened and tell me they thought about kids whose parents would not come home. There were no soldiers there. The War against terrorism. We go over there, with the sole intention of rooing out terrorists. They respond, by killing every man woman and child who is from America that they get their hands on. (And not in quick pretty ways either.) We are one of the few coutnries playing by the set rules of war. (Perverse, see: UT3) You have to understand that (slightly off topic, but bare with me) if we pulled out so soon, they'd bring the war to us. (Don't fool yourself into thinking life is that simple. War is born from signs of weakness.) It's not as simple as most people think. They hate us, as much as we hate them. See: 9/11. (don't give me that inside job BS.) If we pull out without a clear victory, you can bet they will move the war to our borders. And unlike us, they won't care who they hit. To them, every man woman and child is an American soldier, and to them, we are a plague. They will come in like, (to quote Lamb of God) "a hailstorm of broken glass" killing anything that isn't them. No mercy, no compassion, no rules, no holding back. If we were to abolish guns and pull out, we'd lose. They would come and kill our civillians, and we'd be unable to do anything about it. And that is why we don't abolish guns. Because the second Amendment was made so that civillians would be able to protect themselves when the wars come to their homes, as it is a very real possiblity. It's not about want, it's not about need, it's about "what if". It's a "what if" that is certainly abused, but's it's not just a right, it's a measure taken. And I can guarentee you, when we pull out, gun sales will sky rocket, and I will be inline.
I don't think America should pull out, that country needs you there now and if you pull out now it would ruin the nation for decades to come.
I might be a pacifist but i do know a bit about politics and logistics.
On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.
Ultrajoe: On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.
It is. But in 1776, those weren't their only concerns. When the Britts came over, there was no millitia. The country needed someone to fight for it. And that's heald true today. If we are invaded, we'll still need security in our own homes. When the war comes to our turf, it's no longer just the military who will fight and die. The idea that was implimented for overthrowing an out of control government was used for many reasons. French Revolution was fought mostly with pitch forks by peasants. If we tried to break from Brittain with no wepaons, we'd be screwed.
The idea of the second ammendment was to help protect the American citizens from foreign oppression as well as at home problems. Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, "For a government to truly work, it should be overthrown and rebuilt atleast every two-hundred years" or something like that. I think the number was smaller. But the point is, yes, Washington knew that men could be corrupt, he understood above all men the tragedies of oppression. (Whether or not he was alive when the second ammendment was written would be pointless. Just covering that base, my history isn't perfect.) The constitution was built as a mandate and procedure for our government, as well as our freedoms within reason, and the ability to protect said freedoms. If our government went nuts, yes we'd need a way to fight it. However, it's a little, well, naive (maybe not naive, just, I don't know, absent minded?), to think it was the only reason it was made. Given the timing and all. :P
Ultrajoe: On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.
It is. But in 1776, those weren't their only concerns. When the Britts came over, there was no millitia. The country needed someone to fight for it. And that's heald true today. If we are invaded, we'll still need security in our own homes. When the war comes to our turf, it's no longer just the military who will fight and die. The idea that was implimented for overthrowing an out of control government was used for many reasons. French Revolution was fought mostly with pitch forks by peasants. If we tried to break from Brittain with no wepaons, we'd be screwed.
The idea of the second ammendment was to help protect the American citizens from foreign oppression as well as at home problems. Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, "For a government to truly work, it should be overthrown and rebuilt atleast every two-hundred years" or something like that. I think the number was smaller. But the point is, yes, Washington knew that men could be corrupt, he understood above all men the tragedies of oppression. (Whether or not he was alive when the second ammendment was written would be pointless. Just covering that base, my history isn't perfect.) The constitution was built as a mandate and procedure for our government, as well as our freedoms within reason, and the ability to protect said freedoms. If our government went nuts, yes we'd need a way to fight it. However, it's a little, well, naive (maybe not naive, just, I don't know, absent minded?), to think it was the only reason it was made. Given the timing and all. :P
i'm not saying it has no other uses, but the primary one i've always thought was to prevent the country evolving into something other than what it began as.
But back on topic, if a country's citizens require guns to feel safe, surely you can see that something is wrong with the way weapons are working in that country. Even if you think everyone should have access to weapons, can you concede that perhaps the integration of weapons into that culture is a little over-progressed?
I know exactly what your saying Joe, just giving my fun history lessons, sorry if I sounded too reprimanding.
I would have to say yes people take the right to have a gun and "felling safe" too far. If you do not feel safe, even with no war going on, inside your house without one, you need help. There is a difference between being prepared, and paranoia; and I think we have crossed the line. Guns, while they exhist for the stated reasons, shouldn't just be able to be bought out of the store. It's a little, insane. (Postal services anyone?) However, it's not an unfounded insanity. Two weeks ago a man was shot at a bar over a pool game two miles from my home. The next day, that man's brother was shot by the same person. The guy spent thee weeks in jail, and that was it. Last week, a neighboor's slutty daughter had several friends over for several days. The day before they left my sister's husband's care was broken into. It was the first breaking into in 15 years of this community, atleast reported. Unfortunately America is unsafe, but the problem is, is that we're unsafe from ourselves. And it's, once again, due to safety precautions in a war time, that have ruined it. IE: Someone took their right to bare arms, and used it in a crime. I am not against people owning guns, I am against them having them in a community. If there are children within 50 miles of your home, you should not have a gun. If a man breaks into your house in the middle of the night, a bat works just as well if you don't walk like an elephant.
There is unfortunately no fix to the problem at this point. Atleast, not that I can see working. Maybe, a lockup. How to impliment such a thing, I've no idea.
SeaCalMaster: Two points: 2. With the might of the US military, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to own guns. If our "fearless leader" decided to take the country hostage and install himself as dictator, do you really think the UN or NATO or anyone else could do anything about it if we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves?
Yes, a bunch of gun toting red necks with .22's will hold back the US military. Though I suppose teens with old soviet equipment are doing just fine (See: Afghanistan)
In Australia, since the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people where shot and 37 other injured by Martin Bryant, the Federal Government has tightened gun ownership laws considerably and as a result, during the period of 1991 and 2001 the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%. (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html)
If I remember correctly from a documentary I watched a while back, Australia has something like 20 gun related deaths per year, most of which are police shooting someone. Japan have even less. Why does America have gun deaths in the thousands?
Because our laws protect the rights of someone to own such a gun. Look at it this way. There are a lot of crazy people out there. Give one a gun, and they will do what they do best. It's hard convincing those rednecks they don't need those guns, and YES they will shoot anyone who tries to take it, government or otherwise. Our rights are based on freedoms and neccesities that almost nolonger exhist, but who the hell is going to vote to remove guns from the streets? Definitely not the NRA or other people whom currently own such guns. You all need to remember that a law here, can't just randomly be passed. People have to vote on it. Now how the hell are you going to get 2/3 of a gun owning House of Representitives to vote on gun control that would take away their guns? ESPECIALLY when the NRA is filling their coffers with extra cash. Shit doesn't JUST change in America. Figure it out before judging us.
The gun toting rednecks line is offensive and ignorant. I've known plenty of "rednecks" that are better people than the so called educated and tolerant I've met. Judging someone like that doesn't help your argument.
Besides, you can't compare Australia with America. They are different, so banning or reducing guns in America might not do the same thing it did there.
In the UK we never had lots of guns, but after we had Dunblaine (guy goes nuts, shoots up a primary school) tighter restrictions were imposed, and demanded by the public. Now its mostly criminals and Farmers who have guns here (and farmer's mums). And our murder rate is still lower than the USA, even though people don't have guns "for protection." Im honestly suprised after all the high school and college shootings in the US people aren't clammering for gun control, but no, they'd rather blame it on Marilyn Manson and Doom, and not address the proper causes.
Actually, a great deal of people blame firearms. But guns are not the issue in those crimes. It's the mental health of the people that committed them. And just because your murder rate is lower, doesn't mean that all murders that occur in America are caused by guns. In '05 only about 9% of violent crimes had guns involved, if I read that right. There is no way that number could have jumped so high as to warrant any kind of backlash against guns. Heck our non-gun murder rates are higher than most European total murder rates. All that means is that there are more people willing to kill in America than in the UK. Besides, we already had a higher murder rate even before the UK had such gun control laws. It's not the weapon, it's the person.
Besides, you can't compare Australia with America. They are different, so banning or reducing guns in America might not do the same thing it did there.
Oh goody, the old "Such-and-such is different to such-and-such, so you can't compare them" argument.
I'd actually say there's a lot of room for comparison between America and Australia. They're both countries that were colonized by emigrating Europeans. They both displaced the natives who were living there before. They both became independent from the countries that settled them. They both have crap beer... No, I think we should compare them
That has nothing to do with the citizen's mindsets and ideas regarding gun control. I was saying you can't just say the policies of one would work in another. If you want me to believe that a comparison between the two is really such a good idea, you need to put forth a better argument than that.
Clone552: Actually, a great deal of people blame firearms. But guns are not the issue in those crimes. It's the mental health of the people that committed them. And just because your murder rate is lower, doesn't mean that all murders that occur in America are caused by guns. In '05 only about 9% of violent crimes had guns involved, if I read that right. There is no way that number could have jumped so high as to warrant any kind of backlash against guns. Heck our non-gun murder rates are higher than most European total murder rates. All that means is that there are more people willing to kill in America than in the UK. Besides, we already had a higher murder rate even before the UK had such gun control laws. It's not the weapon, it's the person.
My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?
Xhumed: My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?
The truth is? Tell me why I'm more likely to shoot a family member then a criminal? Give me a statistic.
Secondly, I've noticed a lot of people referring to Rednecks here, so let me explain to you.
Contrary to popular opinion, Rednecks don't all own guns, don't all live in trailer parks, and don't all dream of shooting a homosexual in the ass for being gay.
They're actually intelligent, kind people who you must think are crazy because you've never had experience living in their area. The idea that you think all Rednecks are crazy and gun toting is about the same as someone else thinking all blacks are from the hood and will shoot you up if you try to talking to them.
It's plain baseless discrimination.
Ultrajoe: Constantly, mate, you're trying to bring the argument to a personal level and I refuse to take your bait. Unless you can do this civilly, or at least semi-civilly, I don't think you should be posting.
And the deal between comparing Australia to America. Does Australia have serious drug cartel immigration problems they need to reform? Does Hugo Chavez send Australia 4000 jobless refugees every time he gets a little angry? Did terrorists attack Australia's major city by ramming a plane into a building filled with thousands of people?
No. contrary to popular belief, a great amount of crimes are commit by those illegal and refugee parties who do not pay to become normal citizens and cannot be traced after commiting a crime, not just drunk rednecks shooting a place up. We can thank god there are no terrorists on our soil, though.
Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Eliminating guns in America is not the answer. Limiting mentally unstable people from getting guns is. This actually happening in such a way that works and is universally agreed upon is a challenge to say the least, but the principle itself is pretty easy to understand.
Besides, you can't compare Australia with America. They are different, so banning or reducing guns in America might not do the same thing it did there.
Oh goody, the old "Such-and-such is different to such-and-such, so you can't compare them" argument.
I'd actually say there's a lot of room for comparison between America and Australia. They're both countries that were colonized by emigrating Europeans. They both displaced the natives who were living there before. They both became independent from the countries that settled them. They both have crap beer... No, I think we should compare them
Actually, whether the gun banning here Down Under achieved anything is still under debate:
Even if all these sources are totally wrong (I doubt they can be that far off) I posted this simply because I'm amazed people are quoting the Oz gun banning like many Christians quote the Bible- without studying the damn thing (this is not an attack on Christians; just the dumb ones).
Clone552: Actually, a great deal of people blame firearms. But guns are not the issue in those crimes. It's the mental health of the people that committed them. And just because your murder rate is lower, doesn't mean that all murders that occur in America are caused by guns. In '05 only about 9% of violent crimes had guns involved, if I read that right. There is no way that number could have jumped so high as to warrant any kind of backlash against guns. Heck our non-gun murder rates are higher than most European total murder rates. All that means is that there are more people willing to kill in America than in the UK. Besides, we already had a higher murder rate even before the UK had such gun control laws. It's not the weapon, it's the person.
I agree; we wouldn't blame a bomb for killing people, we blame the planters of the bomb. The weapon makes little difference, people were able to kill before the invention of firearms. Serial killers still existed; it's not as if they sprouted up from the ground once they invented guns. Anyone heard of 'Jack the Ripper'?
He didn't kill people with an AK-47, he killed them with a knife. Although one theory suggests he strangled them first, it doesn't change the fact that people were able to kill before the invent of firearms. We don't outlaw fists or knives because they are able to kill, which is what banning firearms does. Hell, you could kill with a block of cheese if you tried hard enough.
But I do understand the other side of the story. Blocks of cheese aren't the main weapon for many armies of choice - cheese has many uses, and one odd one would be as a murder weapon. The same goes for knives or fists. You won't use it to kill only, it's just a possibility. But with guns, it only kills. There is little else it can do. It could be a hammer, a flashlight, or a night vision tool, but that's stretching it.
It makes sense to put some blame on guns when a person kills, but it is really the fault of the person who used the gun to kill. Guns are just a tool, neutral until used by a human. We could blame the laws that limit access to firearms, but not the gun itself; it is an object. By all means, create gun laws, but if the murderer uses a gun to kill innocent people, its the person's fault, not the gun. The gun is just what he used. A tool.
We don't congratulate the hammer for building the world's tallest scyscraper, we congratulate the builders. In the same sense, we don't shun the water hose for hitting the neighbor in the head with water, we shun the man using the water hose.
Xhumed: My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?
The truth is? Tell me why I'm more likely to shoot a family member then a criminal? Give me a statistic.
I notice people keep saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people, etc. The gun does help though, surely? mowing a group of people down with a knife isn't particularly easy. And saying there should be restrictions to stop crazies getting their hands on guns- well, aside from the fact that that is a form of gun control, where do you think most criminals and crazies get their guns? http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#guns (the guns in the wrong hands section) The questions i ask are: why do you want to keep them so badly? why do you think you need them? If guns were banned completely in the U.S, what do you honestly think will happen? So far all you've done is suggest that you're a country full of murders and lunatics. It doesn't seem logical that you don't think guns should be controlled, on that basis.
That to me proves less that people needing guns is the issue, but that perhaps that your biggest problem is removing guns from the basic human needs of that society.
When people don't report 700 rounds i think basic human need is appropriate.