Gun Free Zones
Offline I can't understand the logical process behind these laws. They're the idea that government buildings like schools and post offices should be gun-free, meaning harsh penalties for carrying weapons on to the property. Heres the logical disconnection: if you have someone who's willing to go on a rampage and kill people, why do they give a flying f*** if it's in a gun-free zone? If breaking a law--like committing murder--is no big deal, what's a "please don't bring guns here" sign gonna do?
Actually I'd say it makes most these places more dangerous. It means the majority of good, law-abiding people have no guns, while that one or two psychopaths have as many as they can carry. I don't know if we should just give everyone a gun, but there has to be something better than this.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline ... do you really want all of these people with rage and violence issues to have guns?
No. I want good citizens to have guns, nay, MORE guns than the bad guys.
Once again, I am not against recreational gun use. But if you just keep it under the bed for the children to play with, you don't need a gun.
Being responsible is always a good idea. This has no bearing on the discussion though. You might be interested to find out that accidental handgun death is pretty rare. In fact, a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by gunfire. Better get legislatin'!
If you are worried about home security get better doors and windows. As the good captain said, you don't need an AK-47.
If that works for you and yours, be my guest.
As the good captain said, you don't need an AK-47.
I think people who are anti-gun are more obsessed with AK-47s than gun owners are. To tell you the truth, I'm no more afraid of a criminal with an AK-47 than I am of someone with a .44.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.
- Login to post comments
Offline These laws do nothing to counteract the problems they profess to solve. If someone has resolved themselves to go on a killing spree ending in suicide/suicide by cop, then the toughest law in the world will do nothing to deter them. I think things like this are part of an incremental approach to restricting guns in the culture at large, one step at a time. Kind of like the Lacey Peterson bill that would have recognized Lacey's unborn child as a second murder, in effect causing a legal precedence that unborn life, when terminated, is murder. It gave the fetus some rights as a person. You really have to be able to see the forest through the trees sometimes or you will risk falling down a very real slippery slope.
I agree with this in answer to the original post. I agree that it makes them more dangerous, especially in the cases of schools. I don't mind so much in courthouses, as there are armed officers on duty, even so, I have to trust them to protect me as I would protect myself, and I know that cannot always work out in my favor..
In regard to the controversy about gun control vs gun crime & especially killing spree type crimes I have two comments.
First, look at what ends killing sprees. Guns. The more guns availible, the quicker the spree ends. If all the gunds are in the hands of the perpetrator, it only ends when they decide they have had enough and turn thier guns on themselves. If there is any chance that someone like this can get a gun, and there will always be, then the more widespread guns are the less damaging a spree like this will be.
Second, I actually agree with you that gun control would reduce murder. I also agree that guns aren't the underlying reason for a crime, but they do escalate many situations which would be merely dangerous but escapable into fatal. I understand that the position I support means more murders and fatalities in crime. I agree that it does in fact make ME more likely to be murdered. I agree that gun control would reduce that. I disagree that we should control guns as strictly as we are. As others have mentioned, threat of revolution has a political impact that transcends political systems. That threat is built into our bill of rights as a check to systemic corruption. Every limitation to our right to bear arms reduces the threat of revolution. Thus, while I agree that increasing gun control would reduce murder I can rationally say that I wish to reduce gun control as I value the increase in protection of my rights and freedoms that the threat of revolution provides more than I value the reduced chance of being murdered. Note here I say "threat". I believe that politicians are of above average intellegence, even if many are pandering slimy and corrupt. Revolution is unlikely to be necessary if the threat of it is recognized by those who would be the target of one.
Another point I'd like to make is that even though police vow to "serve and protect" you the citizen, they are not funded enough, nor are there enough of them to protect you personally from criminal activity. The protection that police provide comes almost wholly from the deterrant effect of the penalties of law. While they are happy to see murderers go to jail or capitally punished, that does not help the murdered victim in any way. Should you wish not to be a victim of a crime, you must take responsibility for protecting yourself from that crime. If you don't want to be murdered, you must protect yourself. Common sense will get you far here, don't get yourself into the situation in the first place is really the best way to do it. Escape is almost always the better option should such a situation surprise you. If escape isn't possible, disabling your attacker in self defense better be something you are prepared to do. Being armed with a firearm and trained in how to use it is the best preparation. If you choose to not prepare yourself in that way because you recognize such an event would be unlikely to occur, thats fine. Everyone prioritizes their resources in different ways, and its difficult to judge who did better without the benefit of hindsight.
- Login to post comments
Offline If only the police and military had guns we would be a much safer society.
Just because someone wears a uniform doesn't make them trustworthy. In your society, ordinary citizens would have more safety from each other, perhaps, but how would you address the problems of corruption, recklessness, and criminal intent among police officers?
- Login to post comments
Offline HeyZeusCreaseToe wrote:These laws do nothing to counteract the problems they profess to solve. If someone has resolved themselves to go on a killing spree ending in suicide/suicide by cop, then the toughest law in the world will do nothing to deter them. I think things like this are part of an incremental approach to restricting guns in the culture at large, one step at a time. Kind of like the Lacey Peterson bill that would have recognized Lacey's unborn child as a second murder, in effect causing a legal precedence that unborn life, when terminated, is murder. It gave the fetus some rights as a person. You really have to be able to see the forest through the trees sometimes or you will risk falling down a very real slippery slope.
Another point I'd like to make is that even though police vow to "serve and protect" you the citizen, they are not funded enough, nor are there enough of them to protect you personally from criminal activity. The protection that police provide comes almost wholly from the deterrant effect of the penalties of law. While they are happy to see murderers go to jail or capitally punished, that does not help the murdered victim in any way. Should you wish not to be a victim of a crime, you must take responsibility for protecting yourself from that crime. If you don't want to be murdered, you must protect yourself. Common sense will get you far here, don't get yourself into the situation in the first place is really the best way to do it. Escape is almost always the better option should such a situation surprise you. If escape isn't possible, disabling your attacker in self defense better be something you are prepared to do. Being armed with a firearm and trained in how to use it is the best preparation. If you choose to not prepare yourself in that way because you recognize such an event would be unlikely to occur, thats fine. Everyone prioritizes their resources in different ways, and its difficult to judge who did better without the benefit of hindsight.
Unfortunately I think you have slightly misunderstood by slippery slop point. I do not agree with gun control. I think the slippery slope of giving rights to fetus is a deliberate strategy to overturn supreme court rulings or constitutional articles through legislation rather than the proper channels. It is a baby step approach that slowly overturns the policy you disagree with by constantly creating new precedents that outdate the old law.
I would refer you to what I wrote here:
I think restricting a population's right to own guns allows the state/government too much control and takes away one of the prime weapons in creating a revolution if that government is not operating to the people's liking. This is an argument that will never end. As a gun owner and someone who shoots once a week, I can attest that recreational gun use is quite safe. Yes there are accidents occasionally, but most sports do have accidents that occasionally result in death. As far as handgun deaths relating to crime and homicide, I think that is largely a result of a larger cultural problem. These cultural issues are multifaceted and I don't have the solutions to the problems, but I know the problem is not the gun, but the operator and his worldview/environment. Countries like Canada and Switzerland do not seem to have the same scale of these sorts of crimes per capita.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
Offline Murders with firearms (most recent) by country
#1 South Africa: South Africa
31,918
I'm not terribly sure,but I think the licensing process to get a gun here is pretty hard. And it seems they are trying to stem private gun ownership. The problem isn't people can own guns, the criminals are going to get them illegaly anyway.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
- Login to post comments
Offline The problem isn't people can own guns, the criminals are going to get them illegaly anyway.
exactly. it doesn't matter what anti-gun law you pass. criminals break laws. that's why they're criminals. they now have a huge power over the rest of us, the people obeying the law.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline Unfortunately I think you have slightly misunderstood by slippery slope point. I do not agree with gun control. I think the slippery slope of giving rights to fetus is a deliberate strategy to overturn supreme court rulings or constitutional articles through legislation rather than the proper channels. It is a baby step approach that slowly overturns the policy you disagree with by constantly creating new precedents that outdate the old law.
I am confused. I thought I understood your slippery slope point, and agreed with it. The elaboration you provide reinforces this. I also do not agree with gun control. This is why I don't debate, I often seem to communicate an impression opposite than I intend. I don't see much overlap between your two paragraphs and the paragraph of mine you quoted, but where thier is overlap I do not see disagreement. You say determined criminals are not deterred by penalties, I say police are largely limited by resources to enforcing penalties to prevent crime, and an individual must largely take personal responsibility for protecting themselves from criminal activity. I think we are in agreement that if a shooting spree were to unfold and we couldn't escape we would both want a gun on our hips and practice with aiming it properly.
The paragraph you quoted was mostly a response to the idea that only police and military should have guns. Much of my post was meant not to adress yours, but gun control proponents that posted later. Since there was more than one, I didn't want to quote each, as I intended to make a more general statement that addressed a variety of points consisely. My previous paragraph I felt mirrored many arguments in your following quoted paragraph, which I had previously read in this thread. Specifically both you and I state that the second amendment was written with revolution in mind and should not be lightly set aside, and that cultural/social issues are at the root of gun crime that should be addressed.
The whole reason I made this post was because I felt MattShizzles argument that gun control leading to lower gun crime could be answered differently than saying you can't compare apples and oranges. I concede his point. Canada and Switzerland do a good job about addressing the social problems and eliminating the crime in the first place. We don't so much. If we implemented harsh gun controls while still failing to fix the underlying problems, I expect murder would be reduced. Thats not enough of a reason to implement stronger gun controls. In my mind that cure is worse than the disease. Limitations on our right to bear arms will have an impact on the rate at which our freedoms and rights are eroded. I say, as you do, we need to keep the guns in the hands of the people, and work on the underlying societal and cultural issues.
If you can give me any pointers on what I am doing wrong in trying to get my point across, I would appreciate it. It's frustrating for me, as it happens often.
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree with this in answer to the original post. I agree that it makes them more dangerous, especially in the cases of schools. I don't mind so much in courthouses, as there are armed officers on duty, even so, I have to trust them to protect me as I would protect myself, and I know that cannot always work out in my favor..
In regard to the controversy about gun control vs gun crime & especially killing spree type crimes I have two comments.
I think I misinterpreted that you stopped talking about my position at this point and started talking about the larger issue. It appears that I thought your point about agreeing with gun control(which was not my position) was not intended to be agreeing with the larger issue, but me. I was wrong. I believe we are arguing about nonexistent semantics, and I would dismiss my earlier statement.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
Offline http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
One of the best websites out there for this kind of stuff. They have a "correlation" link above many of the statistics. Anything in the list of stats that is correlated will be listed, along with the % correlation.
Cool; I'll check that out.
As for the Japan-America comparison, I'm not really sure the suicide number is particularly relevant. Yeah, it's death, but it's not murder, and I fail to see the link.
The point I was trying to make is that there are many cultural differences between the US and Japan, and so ranking on a single variable can make for a persuasive argument that is inapplicable. Japanese society is much more repressed than US culture; the individual is subsumed and in some senses untrustworthy without a hierarchy in which to operate. In the US, the individual is all, and can in many cases be more powerful that the whole.
A long time ago, I heard someone make a distinction between cultures with sin and cultures with shame. Shame cultures tend towards high suicide levels, since suicide is seen as a way to redeem shame. In that sense, seppuku (not sure if that word is still used to describe suicide in Japan) is murder because you are killing the perpetrator of a misdeed. It's murder of the self in pursuit of redemption. Sin cultures tend to have high crime levels, because sins can be forgiven through either absolution or deed, depending on the religion.
Incidentally, Osaka is Japan's most violent city. There were 11 murders there in 2006. It's a shameful thing to the residents.
That reaction is not a surprise in a culture that is entirely geared towards order and the good of the many.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
- Login to post comments
Offline The point I was trying to make is that there are many cultural differences between the US and Japan, and so ranking on a single variable can make for a persuasive argument that is inapplicable. Japanese society is much more repressed than US culture; the individual is subsumed and in some senses untrustworthy without a hierarchy in which to operate. In the US, the individual is all, and can in many cases be more powerful that the whole.
A long time ago, I heard someone make a distinction between cultures with sin and cultures with shame. Shame cultures tend towards high suicide levels, since suicide is seen as a way to redeem shame. In that sense, seppuku (not sure if that word is still used to describe suicide in Japan) is murder because you are killing the perpetrator of a misdeed. It's murder of the self in pursuit of redemption. Sin cultures tend to have high crime levels, because sins can be forgiven through either absolution or deed, depending on the religion.
I have never heard of this before, but it is an interesting concept. Do you have anything to back this sin/shame concept up, or are these more like loose philosophical ponderings? It would be great to know.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
Offline Japan has had suicide as an acceptable outcome in it's society for quite a long time. Ancient Samuri would commit hari-kari(i believe that's how it's spelled), or suicide to protect one's honor, when they failed or even just when they were ordered to. That was the commitment they made. Kamakaze fighters in WWII were glorified. It is seen there as the logical alternative if you have "failed" at life.
Difficult for us to believe, because as much as we may not like it our western culture is very oriented toward judeo-christian values, where suicide is sinful.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline shikko wrote:(snip)
A long time ago, I heard someone make a distinction between cultures with sin and cultures with shame. Shame cultures tend towards high suicide levels, since suicide is seen as a way to redeem shame. In that sense, seppuku (not sure if that word is still used to describe suicide in Japan) is murder because you are killing the perpetrator of a misdeed. It's murder of the self in pursuit of redemption. Sin cultures tend to have high crime levels, because sins can be forgiven through either absolution or deed, depending on the religion.
I have never heard of this before, but it is an interesting concept. Do you have anything to back this sin/shame concept up, or are these more like loose philosophical ponderings? It would be great to know.
It was something I watched on PBS a long time ago; I don't know who it was. A cursory googling turned up the following:
The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature
A pdf about African vs Western Ethics
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
- Login to post comments
Offline Japan has had suicide as an acceptable outcome in it's society for quite a long time. Ancient Samuri would commit hari-kari(i believe that's how it's spelled), or suicide to protect one's honor, when they failed or even just when they were ordered to. That was the commitment they made. Kamakaze fighters in WWII were glorified. It is seen there as the logical alternative if you have "failed" at life.
Nitpick: hara-kiri is a vulgur term that literally translates as "belly cutting". Seppuku can translate as "ritual suicide", but it's sort of reserved for samurai. It's always fun to see what you learn by hanging out with a bunch of Japanese martial arts nerds.
It's not the alternative as much as it is the requirement to remove shame from both yourself and your organization (be it family, company or whatever).
Difficult for us to believe, because as much as we may not like it our western culture is very oriented toward judeo-christian values, where suicide is sinful.
Yeah; another difference between the avoidance of sin and the avoidance of shame. Since most Western religions categorize suicide as sin, it's considered an evil.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
- Login to post comments
Offline It was something I watched on PBS a long time ago; I don't know who it was. A cursory googling turned up the following:
The Psychology and Ethics of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greek Literature
A pdf about African vs Western Ethics
thanks I will check them out
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
- Login to post comments
These laws do nothing to counteract the problems they profess to solve. If someone has resolved themselves to go on a killing spree ending in suicide/suicide by cop, then the toughest law in the world will do nothing to deter them. I think things like this are part of an incremental approach to restricting guns in the culture at large, one step at a time. Kind of like the Lacey Peterson bill that would have recognized Lacey's unborn child as a second murder, in effect causing a legal precedence that unborn life, when terminated, is murder. It gave the fetus some rights as a person. You really have to be able to see the forest through the trees sometimes or you will risk falling down a very real slippery slope.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Better would be to severely restrict ownership of guns like they do in Europe - maybe make unauthorized ownership of a gun punishable by 30 years in an extremely harsh prison with no parole. And make it almost impossible to own a pistol - maybe an automatic death sentence or life in a supermax for possession of an assault rifle or SMG. Selling guns would be done by the government only, like liquor is done in Pennsylvania. Anyone selling guns (other than back to the govt) would get a life sentence, too. All guns sold would be tested thoroughly before so anyone killed by one it would be easy to know the owner, unless it was stolen. Very little restriction on single shot shotguns or rifles. How much gun crime is there in non-US western countries? I seriously think the 2nd ammendment was a big mistake.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I think restricting a population's right to own guns allows the state/government too much control and takes away one of the prime weapons in creating a revolution if that government is not operating to the people's liking. This is an argument that will never end. As a gun owner and someone who shoots once a week, I can attest that recreational gun use is quite safe. Yes there are accidents occasionally, but most sports do have accidents that occasionally result in death. As far as handgun deaths relating to crime and homicide, I think that is largely a result of a larger cultural problem. These cultural issues are multifaceted and I don't have the solutions to the problems, but I know the problem is not the gun, but the operator and his worldview/environment. Countries like Canada and Switzerland do not seem to have the same scale of these sorts of crimes per capita.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
You definately need a restriction on the number of guns out there, the people that have them and the types of guns.
In Australia the owner of a gun is licenced and so are the guns that he/she has. The police know where (most of) the guns are. Just becasuse you are licenced does not mean that you can take your gun wherever you like. You also have to store it securely.
My father has always had guns, I was brought up with proper firearm safety and have nothing against recreational use (it is damn fun). But you don't want just any moron with a quick temper being able to carry a gun.
In the countries we live in I would hope that if we are really displeased with our government a violent uprising is a long way down the list of how to reslove things.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
I believe every American should have the right to have a gun after proper training (X hours of classes) and licensing (extensive background checks etc)
I agree with MattShizzle regarding strict regulations and severe punishment for law breakers.
Would all the regulations in the world stop violence? I don't even want to go downtown this summer:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/22/chicago.violence.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
Murders in America last year: 12,658
Murders in Japan last year: 637
Population of America: 296,410,400
Population of Japan: 127,774,000
The only type of firearm which a Japanese citizen may even contemplate acquiring is a shotgun.[5] Sportsmen are permitted to possess shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap (p.27)shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[6] Without a license, a person may not even hold a gun in his or her hands.
Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I can't help but notice a correlation. When there are no guns, there are no murders by guns. Just my two cents.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'd use a society a bit more North American-like than Japan for comparison to try to control for societal variation, given that the suicide rate in Japan is more than twice that of the US (link) (and egads, apparently being male in Lithuania is a good start towards offing yourself). But yes, there is a rather obvious connection between the prevalence of guns and the prevalence of gun deaths.
I'd love to set a graph plotting prevalence of evangelical religion vs gun availability...from the countries that come to mind, there seems to be an almost direct relationship between the two.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php
One of the best websites out there for this kind of stuff. They have a "correlation" link above many of the statistics. Anything in the list of stats that is correlated will be listed, along with the % correlation.
As for the Japan-America comparison, I'm not really sure the suicide number is particularly relevant. Yeah, it's death, but it's not murder, and I fail to see the link.
Incidentally, Osaka is Japan's most violent city. There were 11 murders there in 2006. It's a shameful thing to the residents.
It's not just gun deaths. It's murder. The vast majority of murders being committed by guns, the per capita murder percentage goes down sharply when nobody has guns. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
If no guns are available to the average citizen, then they would just get them from the blackmarket.
We need to control the bullets guns purchased are used many times. Bullets on the other hand are only used once.
I wonder what kind of black market there would be if illegal gun sales resulted in life in prison or execution- and illegal ownership in 20+ years. They couldn't be stolen if citizens didn't own them.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
It seems strange to me that shotguns are permitted while other guns are not. Have you ever seen what a single blast from a shotgun does to a person's head ? The tissue destruction far exceeds what a mere bullet can do. Click the link below if you aren't disturbed by gory images.
http://smoke.rotten.com/gunshot/kj51n.jpg
It's like banning the possession of firecrackers but allowing the possession of dynamite.
Murder ( by any means ) is already a felony in the US and in many instances draws a death sentence, yet murders are committed on a daily basis. Good luck with your "tough justice" approach.
And please, execution for the mere possession of a firearm ? Give me a fucking break
!!!
1 - I think that the right of the people to own weapons(muskets, firearms, laser beams, whatever) is integral to a free democracy, and that this should be obvious to everyone who has read the declaration of independence. It is foolish to say "I trust the government to have all of the guns and I trust them to protect me 24/7 for ever and and ever." Perhaps we should investigate the correlation between oppressive governments and the right of their citizens to own weapons. What do you think the outcome would be.
2 - Trying to reduce the murder rate by reducing guns is a very short-sighted solution. We should be trying to answer the question "why are people willing to kill each other so often(compared to Japan, etc)?" Removing guns does not solve this problem.
3 - "Illegal guns = less gun violence" Kinda of like illegal drugs means less drug use.
4 - The way to reduce violence is not to take away one tool but to take away the desire. How much violence is a result of poverty, the drug war, gang life, etc? These are the problems that need to be solved. There is no "gun problem." The banning of firearms is a silly, and quite frankly cowardly, attempt to solve the larger problem.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.
I agree.
Okay, let's say your idea get implemented:
It is punishable by life in prison if you are caught selling an illegal weapon.
It is also punishable with life in prison if you murder someone. How's that working out so far?
As for you other point, you'll never get rid of all the guns in the U.S. Even if you did, they may still be able to be purchased in a foriegn country (Canda/Mexico..) then smuggled into the U.S
They smuggle kilos of cocaine in from Columbia. I think they can mange to smuggle in a couple 9 mils from Mexico/Canada. Seriously, Uzis, AK-47s you name it, the black market has it. Even in the U.S.
I highly doubt the government will implement martial law or for that matter require you to have a gun to 'defend your freedoms' anytime soon. It's called a democracy.
On that note, I'm actually somewhat for gun control. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home. Who the fuck do you expect to break in, Spetznaz?
I actually somewhat see Mattt's point now, whilst true that people who want to go on killing sprees (gang members, terrorists etc...) will aquire them regardless, having them increases the risk of 'on the fly' rampages.
I agree with this. There are many countries that have high gun ownership, that's not like the U.S.
My point was that a government that "derives its powers from the consent of the governed" should not prohibit weapons amongst its citizens.
Because the government may not be overly oppressive at this moment, is not a good reason to disarm the populace.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.
Yes, of course, why get upset. Democracies have never infringed upon the rights of the governed...just ask the American Indians, or the African slaves, or the interred Japanese Americans during WW II, or the 399 black men who were used as human guinea pigs for the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, or the....
Heres an experiment for you all to think about: suppose we give everyone a gun.
It could be issued, by the government, after you complete a safety training course. This insures both that both you are familiar with safety and that they are all registered.
Now I'm assuming most people are good. Most people are not criminals. What psycho kid is gonna try and go in and pop his classmates knowing the second he even points the thing, it's done? he might get one or two, but this sure beats the dozens we typically see.
It seems like a crazy idea. I know. but think of situations where everyone does have a gun, like NRA conventions, sporting events, gun shows, firing ranges, etc. How many mass slaughters happen there?
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
And as for the revolutionary idea...
The founding fathers had very VERY specific reasons for putting in the second amendment. They had JUST FOUGHT a government that was supposed to represent the people(the king still had power, but it was parliament, elected officials, that taxed us). We wanted what we felt our rights were, like representation. But they screwed us. So we went to war. And we sure as hell wouldn't have won our independence charging the British with pointy sticks.
And if you think it can't happen again, look around. According to the US Patriot Act, if you're deemed an 'unlawful combatant', you can be detained, convicted by military tribunal, and basically shipped away and forgotten. The government has even in this day and age taken our civil rights and will always try to in the future.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
I love starting shit storms.
Okay, what the hell is keeping guns going to do? It just increases the risk of rage kills. Even if the government gets 'oppressive', other nations can very well step in and help.
To say that people who think it will get to the point that the citizens actually need guns to fight the government are paranoid would be the understatement of the century.
I could very well turn that around to say the Cuban rebels overthrowing the government, The fall of Imperial Russia to Communism, FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia.) and other terrorist groups etc...
And, what if,in the thought experiment when the guy fires into a crowd, and people panic and start blasting each other, since they don't know who shot first?
I highly suspect that factors other than the existence of guns is the main reason why people end up murdering others.
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
I think that's a good example of a few guys with weapons taking control of most people who don't. But in the end, if the majority wants to be communist and wins, that's the will of the people. I prefer democracy, but understand some may not.
I'll give you that when people get together we can be a pretty irrational and panicky bunch, but I still think you have a pretty low estimation of people's intelligence to assume they'll all just kill each other in this situation. I think most people's reaction would be to get down and figure out what's going on first.
And last but certainly not least:
And I would say people who think we don't are naive. It's not all government, all the time, like some crazy conspiracy theory. But throughout history some of those in power have decided they want more power, and some have even gone so far as to do some really messed up things to get it.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
The government of Columbia doesn't have guns? The Cuban government didn't? etc...
Friendly fire anyone? Why do people who are trained to fire accurately and not kill the wrong people still do? They're human. If people start shooting, I don't think people are going to stop and interview people to see who started it.
Yep, and they can be stopped by peaceful democratic means.
What about people that wouldn't normally commit murder but kill someone in the spur of the moment in "road rage" or after getting mad at a loved one? Again, look how much better it is in Europe where gun ownership is severely limited. What other countries allow the insane level of gun ownership we do? Only lones that have no real control over the country - say in Africa and the less stable mideast countries. By the way, since the constitution actually mentions a militia, that means if you join the National Guard you can own a gun. What exactly do you think you are going to do to resist the government even with an assault rifle? If I was running the government/military in a scenario where it became repressive and people resisted I'd just send in artillery or tanks. If a town or whatever seriously resisted I'd use napalm or a tactical nuke - maybe a neutron bomb if I didn't want to damage the area. What would you do against that? Back in those days there weren't weapons more powerful than rifles and cannon. Now the real weapons of war civilians normally can't hope to get. Also, the revolution was supported by other nations (France , Spain and Holland.) The French even directly participated! Who's going to do that? The Chinese would rather have a government like that than the kind nutcases with guns would found. Same with the mideast. I really don't think any of them would want war with the US either.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Yes, I hate guns. I would be horrified to know people were carrying guns in the grocery store, mall or whatever. Luckilly I live in Pennsylvania and not a super-redneck state so it's illegal to carry in public. If someone's carrying a gun in public (obviously not a hunter hunting or having it in the back of the car/truck, a police officer, or other such situation) The SWAT team needs to show up. Another point - why is it the fucked up states that have less gun control (Texas, the South) also have way higher gun crime than the sane states that give you 5 years as a state guest for carrying anything other than a hunting rifle or such (Most of New England?)
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Keeping in mind they also have a gun? i can't speak for everyone, but that would keep me considerably more docile. and i realize this probably won't work for everyone, and i'm not saying this will end all murders. But it should hopefully decrease them.
And no one has answered my question about these place that do have all the guns. why no mass murders at the NRA?
something we can probably all agree on. I don't believe for a second that Europe has less murders because of fewer guns. they're all still perfectly capable of killing each other by different means. I believe that our culture is unfortunately just more violent.
not as many as the revolutionaries. but if all the ordinary people did, who knows what could have happened?
possibly. but I know I, and probably many other Americans, would fight and if necessary die for my freedom. We greatly exceed the government both in number and in determination, if not technologically. The Vietcong were in a similar position, and they drove us out.
This, however, is a scenario we would do well to avoid. Having guns now and keeping the government afraid of the people would prevent the conditions for armed revolt from arising.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
It's worth noting in the interest of fairness that Switzerland has very high gun ownership and very low crime rates.
However U.S=/=Switzerland. Different cultures etc..
As for the NRA, I can't comment since I have no idea what % of gun crimes are commited by NRA members.
This is a pretty good example of an irrational approach to guns full of fear, ignorance, and emotional reaction. Perhaps we should only allow the police to drive cars. We'd all be a lot safer. And only cooks can own cleavers. You don't REALLY need one of those do you?
The vast majority of people who own guns don't want to kill you, or anyone else. We want to good people to out gun (pun unintended) the bad people. Can good people make mistakes? Yes. Does friendly fire happen? Yes. But I'd wager that armed good people would save more lives than they would end.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.
None of you have yet answered why the states with very strong gun control have lower crime rates than those with very little. If you were right Texas, Lousiana and Alabama should have a lower murder rate than Massachusettes, Wisconsin and Vermont. If only the police and military had guns we would be a much safer society.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
very well said.
unfortunately this is also true. so maybe we should stop demonizing guns and start actually trying to make societal changes. these are typically long, frustrating fights, but worth it in the end.
I think we've been blaming human flaws on inanimate objects for too long. Sometimes we just have to look inside ourselves, admit our flaws, and try to grow. it's much easier to blame a gun, but it doesn't solve anything.
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
Could you post some specifics? And instead of just the 'bad' states, some information on the 'good' ones and what their policies are
"We are the star things harvesting the star energy"
-Carl Sagan
And global warming is because of pirate decline.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.
The states you mentioned have some of the lowest socioeconomic statuses, high school test scores, and high minority populations(not being racist, maybe the courts are, but they are incarcerated at greater percentages for gun crimes than their number reflect in society). Mass, Wis, and Vermont are predominantly white, middle class people. This is an unfair analogy and only provides a further testament to the multiply attributing factors that add to gun related crimes.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I agree that there is a problem with society. I'm pretty sure I saw something a while back that compared neighbouring US and Canadian states which had similar gun ownership but vastly different levels of gun violence.
Even in Oz the level of violence is on the increase including road rage and random acts, even against the elderly. My policy when driving now is that if someone cuts you off and it isn't close enough to be life threatening, I won't bother beeping. There are too many potential psychos out there.
The thing is: even if it is a problem with the society do you really want all of these people with rage and violence issues to have guns?
Once again, I am not against recreational gun use. But if you just keep it under the bed for the children to play with, you don't need a gun.
If you are worried about home security get better doors and windows. As the good captain said, you don't need an AK-47.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
No. I want good citizens to have guns, nay, MORE guns than the bad guys.
Being responsible is always a good idea. This has no bearing on the discussion though. You might be interested to find out that accidental handgun death is pretty rare. In fact, a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming pool than by gunfire. Better get legislatin'!
If you are worried about home security get better doors and windows. As the good captain said, you don't need an AK-47.
Scientific illiteracy is reality illiteracy.