Stop embarrassing yourself.Rural want to be able to take care of themselves.
Urban want to be taken care of by the gov.
If only.
|
A lot of people in the US do not serve a jail or prison sentence from possessing an illegal or unlicensed weapon (there are exceptions of course, like being a felon for example).To be honest with you Digitalelf I think it's quite the same in Europe, not having any criminal record I hardly believe I'd actually serve a prison sentence even if caught with a bazooka, for sure I'd have to tell where I got it and from who and I'd gen fined. But for the first time without any criminal record, fully cooperating with police (and a good lawyer) I should be able to avoid jail.
We have a few serial killers in Europe which is the proof if needed that we can have extremely violent criminals but for reasons I can't explain, it seems to me, criminality is less violent here.
If anyone has an explanation or think I'm wrong, don't hesitate...
This thread moves very fast, still catching up.
An explanation is in the many other factors outside just the law.
The societies are very different, the attitudes are different. Europeons are much more responsible with alcohol for example*. These are also factors, in the US, society is very unstable, this instability leads to a greater number of conflicts (calm or violent) and so the greater number of conflicts will lead to a greater number of crime problems.
Could it be safer from criminals with gun laws? Sure, but I don't want to live in that kind of world, of needing someone else (the government, police) to look after me.
Part of the problem in the US, is guns are readily available, but few partake, and thus are more vulnerable when the bad guys that do partake come along. The fact that plenty decent folks who do partake don't have proper training makes things a touch worse.
* Old info from when my grandparents lived there, I suspect the difference of how alcohol is seen and treated , results in the greater responsibility. Even kids can drink a little bit with dinner or whatever, in America we treat it like some kind of taboo when dealing with kids, telling them only that they can't, but then glorify it in art available to kids. What are kids supposed to think about it? How are they suppossed to learn how to be responsible with it?
I believe this is mimiced in the gun control issues, as well as many other things probably.
American society is what makes this so bad, and is why I take other countries results with a large grain of salt. Those countries have been stable societies for centuries, the US however has never been stable, and the constant change as new peoples come and mix into the melting pot, makes for a very different reaction, even in neighboring locations within the US.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see comments from people that don't live in the US make a good point without disparaging America or her culture. I'd be more willign to not outright dismiss any points made, were that the case.
We can also stop doing the same in regards to Europe or any other nation with tougher gun legislation. We can talk about this without culture bashing. Respect, please.
Agreed, however from my reading of the thread its the people who live in America who want to keep guns who make the primary disparaging remarks about American culture. When asked why do you beleive you need to have the weapons most other countries have controlled freely available the response is sometimes along the lines of "to protect myself from gangs of armed home invading criminals/the government" or "it's necessary because of where we live (ie USA)" or "a gun control law brought in here like in other countries (Italy/Australia/UK) wouldnt be obeyed here because of our culture".
The non americans tend to say - "its not that bad, you can do it, dont be afraid just give up your guns - we did it and it has reduced gun deaths" Now apart from perhaps ascribing fear of being attacked to the American (pro gun)people (which fear has been stated as existing) and being mildly disparaging by disagreeing with them that it is a rational fear this is not really a culture bash.
I am Australian, I struggle to believe any of those reasons are actually rational. I believe your culture is better than that. I beleive that you dont have as much a reason to be afraid as some seem to think. Its the american pro gun lobby who says it isnt IMO.
|
|
Security and frreedom are opposites, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Nothing we can do can change that, though some people may be happy with less freedom, others, not so much.This is blatantly and obviously not true. Consider your standard brutal, corrupt dictatorship. No freedom. No security. You can be arrested or disappeared at any time. Criminals may still be rampant.
In that situation, both security and freedom could be increased. Removing the dictator and establishing a democratic system with protected rights and all the usual trimming, including effective non-corrupt police can both give you more freedom and more security.
Now, you may want to claim that the US is in some kind of peak state where any increase in security can only come from a loss of freedom, but proving that for a specific case will take a lot more work than make the generic claim.
Sorry for not being entirely clear, freedom and security are like mutualy exclusive concepts, except that they scale. Other factors can still affect the outcome.
Hi security, requires low freedom
Low freedom doesn't require hi security
Hi freedom, requires low security
Low security doesn't require hi freedom
The are exclusive from each other, not from other factors.
Security and frreedom are opposites, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Nothing we can do can change that, though some people may be happy with less freedom, others, not so much.This is blatantly and obviously not true. Consider your standard brutal, corrupt dictatorship. No freedom. No security. You can be arrested or disappeared at any time. Criminals may still be rampant.
In that situation, both security and freedom could be increased. Removing the dictator and establishing a democratic system with protected rights and all the usual trimming, including effective non-corrupt police can both give you more freedom and more security.
Now, you may want to claim that the US is in some kind of peak state where any increase in security can only come from a loss of freedom, but proving that for a specific case will take a lot more work than make the generic claim.
Sorry for not being entirely clear, freedom and security are like mutualy exclusive concepts, except that they scale. Other factors can still affect the outcome.
Hi security, requires low freedom
Low freedom doesn't require hi security
Hi freedom, requires low security
Low security doesn't require hi freedomThe are exclusive from each other, not from other factors.
The trick is finding the acceptable balance. I would fathom a guess that everyone in this thread believes that some level of control over the "right to bear arms" should be maintained. Where we each draw that line is what's in contention.
In order to live in civilized society, one must be willing to give up some freedom to have some security. There's no getting around that. How much of each is what's in contention.
|
|
Security and freedom are opposites, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Nothing we can do can change that, though some people may be happy with less freedom, others, not so much.How about you come and live in Australia for a bit. We have lots of freedoms and lots of security. I don't feel the need to own a gun on the off chance some loony attacks me. I don't feel the need to keep semi-automatic weapons in the house to defend myself from an armed home invasion.
If someone were to break into my house I'd get in trouble if I shot them - proportional use of force and all that. Perhaps there are people who'd relish the opportunity to shoot someone who threatened them in some way. Personally, I think that is just sad.
Out of curiosity how many people in the US each year are shot and killed by someone legitimately defending themselves compared to how many people are accidentally killed by guns kept by someone for the purpose of legitimately defending themselves?
You and others keep going on about freedom and rights as though certain ones (ie your ones) are more important than others. Does the idea of balance enter your thinking? A balance between an individual's rights and freedoms versus the wider community's? Add in a few things like obligations (you pay tax and the government provides certain services etc) and you get a complex mix of issues that contribute to a functioning and safe society. Lots of countries don't place individual gun rights very high but still manage to be stable, safe and prosperous.
I believe in balance, but the exact point of where that balance should be is a matter of differing opinions.
I simply want to have a balance point closer to freedom then can be found in most countries.
|
|
Just found an interesting article on CNN concerning firearms in Europe that tries to explains why there are much less gun violence there (CNN article).
This is why I advocate education, not only because the mental image of guns being something other then just another item can be given, but also, because if those kids had been familiar with guns, would they have even bothered to look at it?
Guns are dangerous, and should be treated with respect and care, never as just another thing, but that doesn't equal being forbidden.
|
|
Buzzers and locked doors are only going to get people killed in a fire, and do very little if anything to keep out one of these nutters.
Alarms can go a long way if there is proper security protocol/measures and trained personnel in place. Could add a tremendous amount of time to getting people into a safe spot while security locks down the facility and deal with the threat. At least in the case of this particular incident.
-
And my two domars on this is that this is mostly a mental health issue. Reacting with a gun ban/restriction/change is only applying a superficial bandage to the problem. The larger issues here are both mental health and cultural. How we identify people with problems and how we treat them when they are old enough to deny treatment. On the cultural side of this there are a ton of aspects - just touching on a few: overall desensitizing people to violence, violence as a form of getting attention or acting out and a culture of revenge/ego gratification at slights.
I don't think that dealing with guns (beyond maybe require greater measures in securing them at home) is an answer. This kid was a hard core CoD player, loved military vehicles and weapons and could easily share some of the same likes as many gamers who post on this site. Banning or regulating one component in the mix is not a fix to the greater problem, be it the guns used to commit the crime or the material that was used to fuel any kind of fantasies.
It isn't guns that kill people, it's the people who are mentally unstable, angry, alienated, improperly diagnosed or who feel victimized that kill people. Additional gun bans or controls beyond a few issues related to home securing are all smoke and do not address a problem that is cultural or tied to how we handle mental illness in our society.
Pretty much in any kind of mass killing or serial killing that is not rooted in sexual deviancy (Uni-bomber) is rooted in rage or the need for revenge. McVeigh felt victimized, so did Ted...
Love this post, mainly think a liscence (similar to a driving liscence) would be better then regulating home storage, which wouldn't always apply anyway (like single people or childless couples, for example) however requiring one to pass a safety knowledge test, demonstrate proper clearing of a weapon, etc would also help reduce accidents (not that those are common anyway)
|
|
Of course, we can barely afford halfway decent buildings, heat or AC or actual supplies for teaching for most of our schools, but we probably will shell out for complete security refits. There'll be some federal money, but most of it will come from the regular school budget.These decisions come from your local school board and are directly related to the property taxes in your area; I would really push for improved funding to local schools, not just for safety and security, but also for arts, music, mental health.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1428499965/
I had a Mr. Rogers moment there.. I remembered his testimony about PBS and his explanation that there are people who don't have a regular "expression of care". Maybe Auxmaulous is onto something.. Worse schools, worse mental health?
Maybe we should all do a Mr. Rogers and go ask people to properly fund the school system?
I admit to not watching the video, but just with what is posted, +1.
I think a complete restructuring of the education system is needed, as well as the higher funding, but as it is unlikely to occur, I will settle for higher funding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where do my rights come from?How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it means
The consent of the governed and the governing.
Did you honestly think they were magically granted to you by a piece of paper?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not the one trying to hold its rights from others,
Even if that were true (it's not), what's your point?
you try reading it.
Seriously?
of course i get the feeling you are one of the folks that think it is outdated
It was written hundreds of years ago and has been amended dozens of times and reinterpreted countless others. Of course the document is out-of-date.
and you know better than those long dead men what people should and should not have.
Honestly, those long-dead men wouldn't know what to do with themselves in today's world. They couldn't foresee the changes we'd go through. That's why they left the Constitution open to being altered.
|
|
It's worth considering that, if gun ownership guarantees safety, Adam Lanza's mother should have been the "safest" person involved in the incident.
She wasn't, by any means. She was just the first victim, and the guns she owned, assumably for the sake of self defense, were used to perpetrate the crime.
Nothing garuntees safety, neither gun ownership, nor gun control laws.
This topic is all about something that is rare, and is discussing only how rare it can be made.
Thus focusing on just one method is unreasonable, many methods and factors should be examined, and considered before forming a solid opinion or a plan of implementation. And much revision and reconsideration as new info or ideas come to light.
Thus focusing on just one method is unreasonable, many methods and factors should be examined,
As long as gun control isn't one of them, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people in the US do not serve a jail or prison sentence from possessing an illegal or unlicensed weapon (there are exceptions of course, like being a felon for example).To be honest with you Digitalelf I think it's quite the same in Europe, not having any criminal record I hardly believe I'd actually serve a prison sentence even if caught with a bazooka, for sure I'd have to tell where I got it and from who and I'd gen fined. But for the first time without any criminal record, fully cooperating with police (and a good lawyer) I should be able to avoid jail.
We have a few serial killers in Europe which is the proof if needed that we can have extremely violent criminals but for reasons I can't explain, it seems to me, criminality is less violent here.
If anyone has an explanation or think I'm wrong, don't hesitate...This thread moves very fast, still catching up.
An explanation is in the many other factors outside just the law.
The societies are very different, the attitudes are different. Europeons are much more responsible with alcohol for example*. These are also factors, in the US, society is very unstable, this instability leads to a greater number of conflicts (calm or violent) and so the greater number of conflicts will lead to a greater number of crime problems.
Could it be safer from criminals with gun laws? Sure, but I don't want to live in that kind of world, of needing someone else (the government, police) to look after me.
Part of the problem in the US, is guns are readily available, but few partake, and thus are more vulnerable when the bad guys that do partake come along. The fact that plenty decent folks who do partake don't have proper training makes things a touch worse.
* Old info from when my grandparents lived there, I suspect the difference of how alcohol is seen and treated , results in the greater responsibility. Even kids can drink a little bit with dinner or whatever, in America we treat it like some kind of taboo when dealing with kids, telling them only that they can't, but then glorify it in art available to kids. What are kids supposed to think about it? How are they suppossed to learn how to be responsible with it?
I believe this is mimiced in the gun control issues, as well as many other things probably.
American society is what makes this so bad, and is why I take other countries results with a large grain of salt. Those countries have been stable societies for centuries, the US however has never been stable, and the constant change as new peoples come and mix into the melting pot, makes for a very different reaction, even in neighboring locations within the US.
You would clearly have benefited from staying in school instead of joining the military, because you obviously have no frickin' idea of how society works.
You already DO have someone (government, police) looking after you. You probably wouldn't last long in your libertarian fantasy paradise. You certainly wouldn't enjoy all the benefits you enjoy today in current society.But if you really want to be so "free" as you talk about all the time, I'd suggest you buy some farmland in the middle of nowhere and become entirely self sufficient. You can do that, right? You'd have no problem surviving under those circumstances, right?
If not, you've just proven your fantasy wrong.
If you had stayed in school you might also not be so factually wrong about other places in the world. Yes, relying on information from your grandparents is effing stupid when you can easily look up information which proves them utterly wrong in today's society.
Also, the age of the US as an excuse for a volatile society is bunk. Canada is much younger, yet they don't have the same gun issues.
|
|
nothing is a guarantee, but if she had one on her and loaded she would have had more of a chance. He could have killed her with anythingYeah, that's what I thought.
"If everyone owned guns they would be able to defend themselves!"
"But the first victim was a huge gun enthusiast with half a dozen different firearms!"
"Well she should have had it strapped to her waist and loaded while in her own home, gun safety guidelines be damned!"
Brilliant. We should just let you talk.
First, the right to bear arms is meaningless unless you actually have them. (A little less important in this case but pointed out since you imply that the ability to bear arms, somehow equates to having them, which somehow equates to having them when needed)
Second, betrayal kills, period, regardless of weapon, it's easy to betray someone who even remotely trusts you, even without guns. The only weapon against betrayal, is distrust (and even I am conservative on distrust)
|
|
Hope to outrun, hope to live til the cops show. Hope they let you live.Yeah, reality sucks sometimes.
It's scary that you want to put me in a position where this is my only option.
You should always have the right to be ready for an attacker, whether you use that right is up to you.
When reality sucks, change your reality. (Not your perception of it but actually go out and change things to remove the sucky elements)
In 2006, Japan had 2 people killed by guns.
|
|
My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.
Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
Many factors must be persued to achieve safety, which factors you chase after or are willing to correct has no absolute correct choice.
|
|
Security and frreedom are opposites, the more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Nothing we can do can change that, though some people may be happy with less freedom, others, not so much.This is blatantly and obviously not true. Consider your standard brutal, corrupt dictatorship. No freedom. No security. You can be arrested or disappeared at any time. Criminals may still be rampant.
In that situation, both security and freedom could be increased. Removing the dictator and establishing a democratic system with protected rights and all the usual trimming, including effective non-corrupt police can both give you more freedom and more security.
Now, you may want to claim that the US is in some kind of peak state where any increase in security can only come from a loss of freedom, but proving that for a specific case will take a lot more work than make the generic claim.
Sorry for not being entirely clear, freedom and security are like mutualy exclusive concepts, except that they scale. Other factors can still affect the outcome.
Hi security, requires low freedom
Low freedom doesn't require hi security
Hi freedom, requires low security
Low security doesn't require hi freedomThe are exclusive from each other, not from other factors.
The trick is finding the acceptable balance. I would fathom a guess that everyone in this thread believes that some level of control over the "right to bear arms" should be maintained. Where we each draw that line is what's in contention.
In order to live in civilized society, one must be willing to give up some freedom to have some security. There's no getting around that. How much of each is what's in contention.
Exactly, I just don't believe that there is a single correct answer, but I don't have an alternative place to go live according to my opinions, so I must take the place that is closest to my desired standard and try to keep it from joining the rest of the world.
And heading of an expected response,
Just because the rest of the world does it doesn't make it right, nor does it mean I should follow suit.
Example, most employees at the fast food places I work at, don't properly clean dishes, leaving grease and food stuck to them and calling them clean. Should I really do the same because almost everyone else does it?
|
|
Where do my rights come from?How do you decide who deserves the second amendment?I'm getting pretty tired of people acting like this is nothing but liberals spitting on the second amendment. It's time you grew a halfway decent understanding of what the Constitution is and what it meansThe consent of the governed and the governing.
Did you honestly think they were magically granted to you by a piece of paper?
That paper, magical or not, outdated or not, is a binding contract.
I do not give my consent to have it ignored.
First, the right to bear arms is meaningless unless you actually have them.
Really? Rights are meaningless unless exercised? So I guess the fact that I have the right to withhold testimony that might result in self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment is meaningless, since I've never exercised it!
Second, betrayal kills, period, regardless of weapon, it's easy to betray someone who even remotely trusts you, even without guns. The only weapon against betrayal, is distrust (and even I am conservative on distrust)
Fear. Stop acting like your ideology id driven by anything but fear.
|
|
Honestly, those long-dead men wouldn't know what to do with themselves in today's world. They couldn't foresee the changes we'd go through. That's why they left the Constitution open to being altered.
Or perhaps those long dead men, sought to prevent their people from dealing with the same issues they had to deal with.
Guns didn't change violence, they just changed how violence was performed. The issues the had to deal with will almost always have an analog in today's world, the specifics will look different because of technology, but the root of those issues remains the same.
It's scary that you want to put me in a position where this is my only option.
I'm not trying to take your guns, so no, I don't think that's accurate.
My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.
|
Inflammatory and insulting tirade
Sigh.... one can be self reliant without the need to go native. This style of attack against libertarian beliefs is getting old even for the OT section on the boards. This isn't a binary yes-no/all-or-nothing situation with regard to personal freedom and rights, but should be a series of degrees and compromises.
And cops are people, not miracle workers. While many police say they would like to see less guns out there on the streets (for their own safety) they also frequently admit that they are there to deal with a problem after the fact. Gov't is something that should NEVER be completely trusted - independent of party in power, your guy, his guy, etc. This is something I would not expect a outsider to really "get" when it comes to America.
And on the point of ignorance - if you understood American culture you might comprehend the very strong sense of independence and distrust we place in authority figures and institutions (rational or not) before you apply a European fix to American problems.
The irony of this whole argument is that the same people who are calling for increased gun control or wholesale bans on personal gun ownership (here and in other places) were the same ones questioning the increase in executive power, unfettered surveillance and in laws that suspend individual rights after the 9/11 attacks. Surrendering those freedoms was an overreaction to those attacks as are the calls to limit or ban gun ownership now after this attack.
|
|
Thus focusing on just one method is unreasonable, many methods and factors should be examined,As long as gun control isn't one of them, right?
On the contrary, I have never denied that gun control is one of many legitimate methods. However gun control advocates have plenty of other countries to go live and enjoy their gun control laws, however the same cannot be said about gun rights activists. And that doesn't take into account the binding contract between us and government.
So let us gun advocates have somewhere in the world where we can live like we desire. If you hate it that much, quit killing the party for us, instead go find somewhere more to your tastes, there are plenty of places being advertised in this thread. And I certainly would never think less of you for desiring a different soluton then me, I would think less of you for trying to force your solution on me (by giving me nowhere to go to get my solution)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or perhaps those long dead men, sought to prevent their people from dealing with the same issues they had to deal with.
Sure. And they did alright. It's worked so far, more or less. But never once has civilian ownership of firearms ensured that. And it never will.
Guns didn't change violence, they just changed how violence was performed.
The six million combat dead in World War I following the advent of the machine gun beg to differ. There's violence, and then there's violence.
The issues the had to deal with will almost always have an analog in today's world, the specifics will look different because of technology, but the root of those issues remains the same.
Hey, DarkLightHitomi! When the specifics are the difference between four hospitalized children and no deaths and an entire classroom of murdered kids, the specifics matter a whole lot!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the contrary, I have never denied that gun control is one of many legitimate methods. However gun control advocates have plenty of other countries to go live and enjoy their gun control laws, however the same cannot be said about gun rights activists. And that doesn't take into account the binding contract between us and government.
In other words, "Of course gun control can be a part of this discussion! As long as you get the hell out of my United States first!"
What a class act you are.
So let us gun advocates have somewhere in the world where we can live like we desire.
No.
If you hate it that much, quit killing the party for us,
That's what this is, to you?
A party?
instead go find somewhere more to your tastes,
No.
I would think less of you for trying to force your solution on me (by giving me nowhere to go to get my solution)
Your "solution" (and man do you ever use that word charitably) doesn't deserve to have a place to go. You're going to have to live with that.
It gives me a guilty sense of pleasure knowing that the world is shrinking for people like you. It must be terrifying.
|
|
...A lot of people in the US do not serve a jail or prison sentence from possessing an illegal or unlicensed weapon (there are exceptions of course, like being a felon for example).To be honest with you Digitalelf I think it's quite the same in Europe, not having any criminal record I hardly believe I'd actually serve a prison sentence even if caught with a bazooka, for sure I'd have to tell where I got it and from who and I'd gen fined. But for the first time without any criminal record, fully cooperating with police (and a good lawyer) I should be able to avoid jail.
We have a few serial killers in Europe which is the proof if needed that we can have extremely violent criminals but for reasons I can't explain, it seems to me, criminality is less violent here.
If anyone has an explanation or think I'm wrong, don't hesitate...This thread moves very fast, still catching up.
An explanation is in the many other factors outside just the law.
The societies are very different, the attitudes are different. Europeons are much more responsible with alcohol for example*. These are also factors, in the US, society is very unstable, this instability leads to a greater number of conflicts (calm or violent) and so the greater number of conflicts will lead to a greater number of crime problems.
Could it be safer from criminals with gun laws? Sure, but I don't want to live in that kind of world, of needing someone else (the government, police) to look after me.
Part of the problem in the US, is guns are readily available, but few partake, and thus are more vulnerable when the bad guys that do partake come along. The fact that plenty decent folks who do partake don't have proper training makes things a touch worse.
* Old info from when my grandparents lived there, I suspect the difference of how alcohol is seen and treated , results in the greater responsibility. Even kids can drink a little bit with
You clearly love to make assumtions,
I joined the military to pay for school, where I am currently studying, and have taken psychology and sociology. And I plan on going further into those fields, maybe not a career, but because I enjoy it. It is always interesting how little of them selves people understand.
In only a slightly facetious tone of phrase - those that need a haven for the gun loving need look no further than Yemen.
Fully automatic weapons are legal, no provision for needing safe storage at home and concealed carry of handguns is a-ok.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is always interesting how little of them selves people understand.
Oh, do tell!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inflammatory and insulting tiradeSigh.... one can be self reliant without the need to go native. This style of attack against libertarian beliefs is getting old even for the OT section on the boards. This isn't a binary yes-no/all-or-nothing situation with regard to personal freedom and rights, but should be a series of degrees and compromises.
And cops are people, not miracle workers. While many police say they would like to see less guns out there on the streets (for their own safety) they also frequently admit that they are there to deal with a problem after the fact. Gov't is something that should NEVER be completely trusted - independent of party in power, your guy, his guy, etc. This is something I would not expect a outsider to really "get" when it comes to America.
And on the point of ignorance - if you understood American culture you might comprehend the very strong sense of independence and distrust we place in authority figures and institutions (rational or not) before you apply a European fix to American problems.
The irony of this whole argument is that the same people who are calling for increased gun control or wholesale bans on personal gun ownership (here and in other places) were the same ones questioning the increase in executive power, unfettered surveillance and in laws that suspend individual rights after the 9/11 attacks. Surrendering those freedoms was an overreaction to those attacks as are the calls to limit or ban gun ownership now after this attack.
Congratulations on utterly failing to comprehend what I wrote.
Not a single one of you alive have ever needed to distrust your government on the same level as your founding fathers distrusted the English king. So, again, fear. And, no, it is indeed not rational.|
|
First, the right to bear arms is meaningless unless you actually have them.Really? Rights are meaningless unless exercised? So I guess the fact that I have the right to withhold testimony that might result in self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment is meaningless, since I've never exercised it!
Second, betrayal kills, period, regardless of weapon, it's easy to betray someone who even remotely trusts you, even without guns. The only weapon against betrayal, is distrust (and even I am conservative on distrust)Fear. Stop acting like your ideology id driven by anything but fear.
First, I was speaking from a safety standpoint, having the right to be safe only keeps you safe if you exercise that right.
In other senses, the right to be safe is not meaningless because of your choice to use it.
Fear of what? Being aware of a danger is not the same thing as being afraid of a danger.
Fearful or not, my statement is still true, it is easy to betray those who trust you.
|
|
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.
I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.
You clearly love to make assumtions,
I joined the military to pay for school, where I am currently studying, and have taken psychology and sociology. And I plan on going further into those fields, maybe not a career, but because I enjoy it. It is always interesting how little of them selves people understand.
I'm replying to the actual words you have written, which paint a very uninformed picture of how you think the world works.
I can only hope you will be better educated through your studies and actually change your old views, which are not based on actual facts.|
|
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.
Those statistics don't account for other factors. This can be misleading.
The equation "3*7" has three factors "3," "*," and "7."
Changing the "7" to a "9" has a profound effect, as would changing the "*" to a "+"
It is an inherent truth that any situation with many factors cannot be stated to depend solely on one factor.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Congratulations on utterly failing to comprehend what I wrote.
Not a single one of you alive have ever needed to distrust your government on the same level as your founding fathers distrusted the English king. So, again, fear. And, no, it is indeed not rational.
No, I understood you all too well - and while I didn't have to endure it my parents did - under the trusting Gov'ts of the Soviet Union and then the 3rd Reich, so please spare me the sermon. I have heard all the horror stories of trusting Governments and the greater good.
I distrust my Gov't because like every governing power in the past they have done both illegal and reprehensible things (and continue to do so). Governments are comprised of fallible and corruptible people, not magical aristocrats or supernatural parents that can do no wrong. They steal, become corrupt, break or contradict their own laws and trample peoples rights all the time - not in the distant past but today. And if you happen to have one that you do trust and is doing a good job you should still remain a bit pessimistic, questioning and vigilant at all times.
|
|
Or perhaps those long dead men, sought to prevent their people from dealing with the same issues they had to deal with.Sure. And they did alright. It's worked so far, more or less. But never once has civilian ownership of firearms ensured that. And it never will.
Guns didn't change violence, they just changed how violence was performed.The six million combat dead in World War I following the advent of the machine gun beg to differ. There's violence, and then there's violence.
The issues the had to deal with will almost always have an analog in today's world, the specifics will look different because of technology, but the root of those issues remains the same.Hey, DarkLightHitomi! When the specifics are the difference between four hospitalized children and no deaths and an entire classroom of murdered kids, the specifics matter a whole lot!
Well, for quote 2, let's clarify, it does change the effectiveness of violence, but not the fact that violence exists or that sometimes there is reason for it.
Quote 3,
I'm refering to the fact that preventing a murderer from commiting murder doesn't change because of his efficiency.
And as part of that statistical evidence you would have to also have to account for the number of times that guns have saved lives or prevented a crime - I've seen numbers that range from a couple of hundred thousand times to 2.5 million times a year. This could be the prevention of a crime without firing a shot, etc.
I don't think there would be a way to actually tabulate such instances since many would not necessarily be reported to the police if they did not result in an actual crime (since the weapon served as a deterrent), but they are the flip side of gun homicides, suicides or accidental deaths.
And, similarly, we have no way of knowing whether the gun was necessary to prevent the crime occurring. So let's stick to actual evidence, shall we? Like, perhaps, the evidence showing that decreased availability of firearms tends to result in a lower rate of homicide, and a plummeting of shooting spree events?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see comments from people that don't live in the US make a good point without disparaging America or her culture. I'd be more willign to not outright dismiss any points made, were that the case.
We can also stop doing the same in regards to Europe or any other nation with tougher gun legislation. We can talk about this without culture bashing. Respect, please.
I don't know if it is my post that made you react that way, but if it is the case, my sincere apologies. I didn't want to disparage anything.
I was responding to some people here (actual US residents) who sounded like they HAD to have guns because they felt that they had to defend themselves against a high crime level. Their words, not mine. I, myself, DO know that the USA aren't a large warzone ; I wonder if they do.
Ninjaed by Werecorpse : he got it right.
I am OK with gun /frontier culture, sport shooting, etc. and all other cultural elements you want. I don't want the USA to become a larger version of Europe. But, I have an opinion that you wold be safer with tougher gun control. We are OK ?
Even in the US, despite what some here have claimed, you don't need guns and not everybody has them. I've lived my whole life without owning one and never felt the lack. I don't live in 1950's idyllic suburbia either. Not urban jungle, but small rundown city with a good deal of poverty and crime.
I know. And we have got crime too. As said above, I was discussing the biased perception of some people here, not the real McCoy. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that (should have quoted).
On the first amendment topic, you are much closer to the true european notion of the freedom of speech than mordion. Here, you can spout anything but some limits have been put in place for the greater good : no racism, no fascist propaganda (already been there, thanks), no manipulation of the democratic process. History has taught us that it's SO VERY easy to control the crowd through the media; the biggest lies can be believed if they get repeated enough times. Hence, the tight preventive limits.
I feel that some americans tend to think of their rights as intangible absolutes, in a quite binary way (either they get them all the way, either they don't, even if it sometimes leads to seemingly absurd solutions). Europeans tend to see them as elements of a equilibrium, where one can get limited to better uphold some other (hence, the right of speech can be limited to exclude racist speech, to better protect the right of minorities of not being beaten to death by racist nuts. Or to prohibit "independant" political ads during election time, to avoid manipulation of the democratic process. Other examples exist).
That's true in the US as well. Jail terms for unlicensed or otherwise illegal weapons.
My point was that burglars don't carry gun because they don't need them, and that carrying one while entering a stranger's house is enough basis for attempt of murder charges, with premeditation to boot (the idea being that nobody carries a gun if he doesn't intend to use it). It's a waaay lenghtier jail term !
Typical burglars want your goodies : they enter your home while your are away, or while you are sleeping. They flee if you stir. They are not looking for a fight. Ergo, you need an alarm, a dog or a phone more than you need a huge gun to deal with them.
I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.Those statistics don't account for other factors. This can be misleading.
The equation "3*7" has three factors "3," "*," and "7."
Changing the "7" to a "9" has a profound effect, as would changing the "*" to a "+"
I have a four-year degree in Criminology, Law & Society - a field that relies on statistical analysis. Your half-baked lecture on statistics means precious little to me. "Statistics can be misleading!" only holds true if you don't know what the hell you're doing.
Well, for quote 2, let's clarify, it does change the effectiveness of violence,
Yeah, and changing the effectiveness of our nation's criminal violence would be pretty awesome right about now.
|
|
On the contrary, I have never denied that gun control is one of many legitimate methods. However gun control advocates have plenty of other countries to go live and enjoy their gun control laws, however the same cannot be said about gun rights activists. And that doesn't take into account the binding contract between us and government.In other words, "Of course gun control can be a part of this discussion! As long as you get the hell out of my United States first!"
What a class act you are.
So let us gun advocates have somewhere in the world where we can live like we desire.No.
If you hate it that much, quit killing the party for us,That's what this is, to you?
A party?
instead go find somewhere more to your tastes,No.
I would think less of you for trying to force your solution on me (by giving me nowhere to go to get my solution)Your "solution" (and man do you ever use that word charitably) doesn't deserve to have a place to go. You're going to have to live with that.
It gives me a guilty sense of pleasure knowing that the world is shrinking for people like you. It must be terrifying.
1, My grandfather has the phrase, "if you don't like living by my rules, then get your own house and your own rules."
Frankly, I agree with this sentiment, however as there are plenty of houses that cater to your preferences and no others that cater to mine, clearly you leaving is only fair, or you accepting the rules of this house.
Yes, I would love to go build my own country, but finding real estate is kinda hard, and I do have honor, so stealing from others is out of the question.
2,
What gives you the right to decide that we can't have a place of our own? What gives you the right to decide how everyone else lives? What gives you the right to play god? Quit telling me my beliefs don't matter because they conflict with yours.
At least I am capable of admitting that my choices aren't for everyone, because there is no right choice, so quit pretending that there is.
3,
Party was a poor choice of word, I apologize. Some would refer to life as a party, that was my reference.
4, You should at least consider it. I did.
5, Well, when your beliefs get squashed because someone thinks they know better then you, when you know otherwise, remember this conversation.
There is no right answer, and you certainly don't have it, someday you will have to come to grips with that.
Here, you can spout anything but some limits have been put in place for the greater good : no racism, no fascist propaganda
Could you explain what you see as the difference in what you said and the "government protecting citizens from having to listen to offensive or dangerous ideologies." Is "having to listen to" causing you problems?
Not arguing on this point, genuine request for an explanation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1, My grandfather has the phrase, "if you don't like living by my rules, then get your own house and your own rules."
This isn't your house.
Frankly, I agree with this sentiment, however as there are plenty of houses that cater to your preferences and no others that cater to mine, clearly you leaving is only fair, or you accepting the rules of this house.
The rules of this "house" are whatever its people decide them to be. You're going to stay here and suck it up, or you can leave and find somewhere else to go. But if you remain you will have to deal with the reality that the United States is not run by you, or by people who completely agree with you (in fact, they probably don't agree with you on very much at all).
Yes, I would love to go build my own country,
Why does this not surprise me?
2,
What gives you the right to decide that we can't have a place of our own?
I'm not deciding anything, beyond exercising my right to vote, and to participate in my government.
What gives you the right to decide how everyone else lives? What gives you the right to play god? Quit telling me my beliefs don't matter because they conflict with yours.
Your beliefs will continue to be marginalized - not because they conflict with my beliefs, but because they are unsupportable beliefs. Your participation in this thread is pretty clear evidence of that.
At least I am capable of admitting that my choices aren't for everyone, because there is no right choice, so quit pretending that there is.
Whichever choice prevents another classroom of children from being murdered is the right choice.
|
|
I have a four-year degree in Criminology, Law & Society - a field that relies on statistical analysis. Your half-baked lecture on statistics means precious little to me. "Statistics can be misleading!" only holds true if you don't know what the hell you're doing.I believe Irontruth is working from statistical evidence, which basically trumps anything you might have to say.My point is this: when a gun rights activist is saying that guns make them safer, they are wrong. That the opposite is actually true.Actually, there are too many factors to say that any one factor, such as gun laws, can significantly make one safer.Those statistics don't account for other factors. This can be misleading.
The equation "3*7" has three factors "3," "*," and "7."
Changing the "7" to a "9" has a profound effect, as would changing the "*" to a "+"
And yet you insist that gun control is the only factor worth mentioning, by way of not acknowledging any other factors or possible factors. Stop trying to prove your right, try to prove yourself wrong at least to yourself, only then can you really call an idea, a solid hypothosis.
And yet you insist that gun control is the only factor worth mentioning, by way of not acknowledging any other factors or possible factors.
Should I quote every post I've written in this thread where I've explained that we need to focus on both improving access to and quality of mental care as well as beginning a cultural shift away from the idea that firearms are symbols of nationalistic pride in addition to examining the idea of gun control?
Or would you just ignore them like you did the first time around, you sad liar?
Stop trying to prove your right,
I'm not. We showed evidence for our position pages ago. I'm just here to see what you'll say next.
Only in your head, Andrew R. As others have pointed out, it's a scary, confused place.It is what you showBut banning guns feels good and dealing with the crazy is mean to themThis is what conservatives actually think liberals believe.
Some of us have long ago worked out what that R stands for.
|
|
1, My grandfather has the phrase, "if you don't like living by my rules, then get your own house and your own rules."This isn't your house.
Frankly, I agree with this sentiment, however as there are plenty of houses that cater to your preferences and no others that cater to mine, clearly you leaving is only fair, or you accepting the rules of this house.The rules of this "house" are whatever its people decide them to be. You're going to stay here and suck it up, or you can leave and find somewhere else to go. But if you remain you will have to deal with the reality that the United States is not run by you, or by people who completely agree with you (in fact, they probably don't agree with you on very much at all).
Yes, I would love to go build my own country,Why does this not surprise me?
2,
What gives you the right to decide that we can't have a place of our own?I'm not deciding anything, beyond exercising my right to vote, and to participate in my government.
What gives you the right to decide how everyone else lives? What gives you the right to play god? Quit telling me my beliefs don't matter because they conflict with yours.Your beliefs will continue to be marginalized - not because they conflict with my beliefs, but because they are unsupportable beliefs. Your participation in this thread is pretty clear evidence of that.
At least I am capable of admitting that my choices aren't for everyone, because there is no right choice, so quit pretending that there is.Whichever choice prevents another classroom of children from being murdered is the right choice.
1, House is metaphor the structure in which I live, which includes the goverment.
2, Clearly you have no understanding of fair. If someone has to leave, the one who's leaving results in the greatest happiness among them both is the one that should leave, you could be happy in those countries that have laws like what you want. There are no such countries outside outside the US that have laws like what I want. Therefore you going to a country like what you want, and me staying in this country with laws like what I want, is clearly the soluton that leads to greater enjoyment of life. Thus is fair.
Doesn't mean I said someone had to leave, only that I have reasons why leaving is not a viable choice, and that you have no reason why leaving is not a viable choice (within the context of this discussion)
4, You didn't say you vote, you just said "no" with emphasis, as though you believe it to be the only viable option. It might be your preference, but are you incapable of admitting that your way of living is not the only way?
5, You have yet to show that they are unsupportable beliefs (not that it matters, they are my beliefs, along with the belief that we should allow places in the world for each their own, there is no reason to have gun laws everywhere on the planet.)
6, There is nothing you can do to prevent such. Stop hateing on me and my preferences in your futile search. Evil can only be minimized, never stopped. Accept the fact the people die, some earlier then others, some fairly, some unfairly, Then you can see clearer on the subject.
Besides how can imply that your solution is the best choice when you can't even identify alternate factors on the results.
There is more to statistics then averages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here, you can spout anything but some limits have been put in place for the greater good : no racism, no fascist propagandaCould you explain what you see as the difference in what you said and the "government protecting citizens from having to listen to offensive or dangerous ideologies." Is "having to listen to" causing you problems?
Not arguing on this point, genuine request for an explanation.
Of course.
The limits on free speech have been put in place to protect the society as a whole (including the citizenry and the governement), not the citizens as individuals.
Your line ("protecting citizens") could imply that the well-being of the citizens was foremost here, that they couldn't stand to hear some kind of stuff. That's not the point : even if they WANT to hear racist or fascist stuff, they aren't allowed to, as we have already seen the long term effects of such corrosive ideas on a democratic regime. The same applies to jihadist propaganda.
In the end, the citizens get a better deal by living in a democratic society, but the idea is to protect said society first. Hence, thejeff was closer than you.
Hope it was clear...
EDIT : the "offensive" part was really off the mark too. Absolutely nothing get censured because it's offensive here, to the sadness of some religious fringe groups who can't stand god jokes.