How do you feel about guns?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by lixluke, Jul 31, 2006.

?

Guns

  1. Have no place in this world. Should be abolished like slavery.

    33 vote(s)
    36.7%
  2. Are every human's right.

    57 vote(s)
    63.3%
  1. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    What's the military for? Well, what's the National Guard which is the organized militia for? And what is the unorganized militia for as well? Please look up the definition of militia and note the mention of organized and unorganized militia.

    Yeah right, I wish every 2nd person has a gun in the U.S. then we wouldn't have to worry about people assaulting other's as they'd get their asses killed.

    You can't just say oh, there's half as many guns in the U.S. as citizens and then say every other person has a gun. Look at the distribution. Most liberal cities and states aren't allowed guns, and oddly enough, that's where all the crime is. In the other cities and states that have high gun ownership, there's less crime. An armed society is a polite society.

    Yeah, like people needing them in areas of high crime where guns are banned where law-abiding citizens have no means to defend themselves from the numerous criminals that will have guns no matter what limiting laws are imposed. Laws only hurt law-abiding citizens, not the criminals that go out and do the crimes where a person gets killed by a gun which makes you liberals go out and think gun owners are irresponsible and kill lots of people when it's the criminals doing it, not regular ol' joes. Gotta love how liberals try and make criminals look like innocent victims of society and the regular citizens as bad. Disgusting.

    - N
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    You should quit thinking and start paying attention.

    A military is fine and dandy, however when this contry was formed there was no standing army. It was a draft as you need them kinda thing. Besides What idiots invades a nation where potentially every citizen will fight to the death becuase they know what they have is better than what your offering.

    No, but it does set the laws.

    No, hardly there are enough guns for 50% of the nation, but the arms are resting mostly in tha hands of criminals (legalized ones as well) and collectors.

    So you think it is enlightened to be able to control other peoples lives by a whim. What if I petitioned the courts to order you to eat meat every hour? What if they granted me that order? What if I purchased you into bondage? What if I stole all you possess becuase I managed to convince people you did not deserve them? Do you see yet your slippery slope. the US is the enlightened nation here. Great Britian and Australia will eventually learn their follies.

    So you propose to limit the freedoms of everyone rather than punishing those who were naughty? Interesting. So let's say some one in your town misuses the electricity. Now none of you get it as you don't need it. Or perhaps your neighbor slaughters 15 people, so they hang every adult man in town for the crime. Do you see the problem yet?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Most other advanced nations are more enlightened? Please, show me a list of other western nations where guns are banned. There aren't many. Heck, there are more westernized countries where a rifle is a requirement in every home than there are that are banned outright. There's a large gun following in Europe.

    And the westernized countries that you will list that have guns banned or severely restricted, those countries have high violent crime rates with a worse per capita than the U.S.! Not only that, but when those gun bans were enacted, violent crime rates and even gun crimes shot up! They're increasing as the time goes by. Those gun laws are failures because all it does is make regular citizens bigger victims to criminals with guns that don't follow the rule of law. Gun restrictions only hurt law-abiding citizens, not criminals. You know, law-abiding citizens that wouldn't go out and murder someone?

    I also love how when statistics are shown that shows Global Warming is a problem (which I agree with), you're all over it. Yet when the same is shown for your utopian gun fantasy, you're wrong and ignore it all.

    - N
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Disarmed? How? Are you proposing that Americans carry grenade-launchers, RPG's, &c? Fully-automatic weapons? Disarmed? When we're so armed to the teeth that we're willing to load up our guns because the hispanics next door are having a party, the one thing I can't figure out is how we're disarmed.
     
  8. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    Guns make me feel sad and afraid.

    That’s why they are evil.
    I don’t believe in guns.
     
  9. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    I think only peolple over 75 should be allowed to have guns.
     
  10. Satyr Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,896
    I think retards should own guns with no safeties on.
    It’ll get rid of 90% of Sciforum membership and most of the sock-puppets.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    1. It does make sense. Having a gun, even a loaded one ready to go in the household doesn't necessarily make anyone any safer.

    2. I mean, I support the original intention to be able to call up people with arms to defend the land. I don't support people who want guns just because they are paranoid cowards, while they let a standing army get away with murder.
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    No, it doesn't ....necessarily. But if it makes only ONE household safer, then it was all worth ...to them, right?

    I forget the numbers, but like 1 in 'X' persons will be assaulted and robbed in the US in a normal year. But, Spider, if that one person is able to hold off that attack with a handgun, then it was worth carrying that damned heavy thing for years!! How could anyone say it wasn't?

    I don't expect to be assaulted or attacked or robbed at home, but my gun is ready and I practice with it regularly .....just for that one-in-a-million chance of it happening. If I didn't, and I was attacked and killed, I don't think I'd like it, would you?

    I have several friends/acquaintances who have handguns at home, but keep them unloaded and locked up, including trigger locks. That's senseless as a weapon for protection because it's a pretty stupid robber who'll announce his intentions, then give you time to get the gun ready! However, as stupid as it is for actual protection, if it makes him/them FEEL better, then who am I to argue with it?

    Paranoid cowards???? Huh? What the fuck does that mean?

    But why won't you support regular people, NOT paranoid cowards, but just regular ol Joe's having guns for their own protection? I don't get it, I don't get your thoughts here ....perhaps you could explain it?

    And what does that blurb about the army being murderers mean? Geez?!

    Baron Max
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Neildo:

    Experience shows that where gun ownership is restricted, criminals also have a harder time getting hold of them.

    It is precisely because people are not just innocent victims of society that guns should be banned.

    Following the shooting rampage by Martin Bryant in Tasmania, the Australian government imposed strict restrictions on guns. Australia has a much lower gun-crime rate than the US, per capita or however else you want to look at it.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    TW Scott:

    But we don't live in the past. We live in the present.

    Like you would with a gun, for example?

    No. I don't see any connection here. Please explain your "slippery slope".

    Many freedoms are limited in mature democracies, for the better good of the general populus. I'm sure you can think of some if you put just a little effort in.

    I see problems with those things, but they are unrelated to anything I have said. You're off on a tangent.
     
  15. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    No it doesn't in fact the complete opposite happens.

    Okay, so to get this straight. You think guns should be banned becuase criminals are not victims? What are you on?

    Actually it had a a much lower one to start with but the difference is shrinking and your incidences of violent crime pwer capita is making our lok down right progressive by comparison. See, while our rates are going down, yours are up. More areas around here are becomeing "shall issue" and it is precisely those areas that crime is disappearing.
     
  16. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
     
  17. Neildo Gone Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,306
    Experience shows? Yeah right. I just showed you articles that proves otherwise. I guess that's why gun crime is increasing rapidly in those countries that have strict ownership, eh?

    Criminals can get ahold of anything whenever they want. There's a reason why they're called criminals. Banning guns for example only gets rid of a criminal buying it legally at a store, which they wouldn't do in anyways since they'd be traced. They buy it offhand from a secret supplier or other thug. Criminals rarely do things legally. Laws don't hurt or surpress criminals, only law-abiding citizens!

    - N
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Neildo:

    Where do the "secret suppliers" and "other thugs" get their guns?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    TW Scott:

    I don't see anything intelligent from you that I need to respond to.
     
  20. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Of course you don't. You have blinders on. Anything that counters your arguemnt is filtered out and thus to you does not exist.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Guns and Statistics

    I would like to recycle some numbers I found a couple years ago:

    The US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics notes that a 1997 survey of state prisons indicated that 80% of the guns used in crimes surveyed came from "family, friends, a street buy, or illegal source." (see BJS-1)

    DoJ/BJS statistics are a little more specific than that, as well.

    Of that 80% slightly over half of that result (39.6% overall) obtained their guns from "friends or family," while a slightly lower number (39.2% overall) obtained their guns from the "street" or other "illegal source." (see BJS-2)

    Comparatively, the "friends and family" number for 1997 is up 5.8% compared to 1991, while the "street" number is down by 1.6% over the same period. Criminal gun supply also saw declines over that period in retail purchase, pawnshop purchase, and flea market purchases. The "gun show" difference is +0.1%, what I consider an insignificant number. (We can also, imho, set aside the -0.3% change in flea market acquisitions over the period, if others feel it necessary. From 1.3% to 1.0% ... I'll flip a coin.)
    ("'Guns' and the Second Amendment")​

    It seems that during a period of "gun control" in the U.S., the criminals did, indeed, find their guns. They simply took them from people they knew who already had them. Should we impose penalties against crime victims, then? Cite someone whose gun is stolen for failing to secure a firearm?

    I would propose four measures of "gun control":

    (1) Licensing ownership of guns.
    (2) Registering all firearms.
    (3) Mandatory education for shooters.
    (4) Absolute responsibility of registered and licensed owners.​

    Somebody breaks into your house while you're out, smashes into your storage, and steals your guns? Not your problem; just report it to the police. Your kid gets hold of your gun and takes it to school? Your problem. You put a bullet into your neighbor's lawn while shooting at a burglar? Your problem. Your kid shoots your brother while you're on a family hunting trip? It's going to be someone's problem, although I admit that one's stickier than other situations. Point being, no "accidents". None of this accidentally shooting a teacher because the manufacturer's representative made a mistake during a demo (happened 'round here several years ago); none of this cleaning the gun and accidentally putting a round into the neighbor's child; none of this leaving a loaded rifle around while your children are home alone with the result that your five year-old shot your three year-old to death for refusing to obey him. And, yes, that last one, as spectacular as it seems, did happen, and the prosecutors did not file any charges.

    Quite simply, let's have some real accountability in using guns.

    That's the whole of my "gun control" policy; and no, I don't think people should have automatic assault rifles or grenade launchers. I mean, grenade launchers are problematic in, I would hope, an obvious way. But as to assault rifles: as Stephen Weaver points out in his article against gun control, you don't need them:

    Embattled Rhodesia, fighting for its very life and ostracized by virtually the entire world, quietly adopted a policy change for its armed forces. As a result, the selector switches on thousands of FN-FAL rifles were deliberately switched from the full-auto mode to semi-automatic as a matter of standard procedure. The reason was the shortage of ammunition brought about by international sanction efforts. The effects were startling in that nothing changed as far as battle outcome in spite of a better-armed and equipped enemy in increasingly superior numbers penetrating Rhodesia from three fronts. The communist-trained and supplied terrorists maintained the full auto mode with their AK-47s right up until the end. When the final battles came the outnumbered and outgunned Rhodesians had never lost a single encounter; rather, their demise came at the negotiation table-which is a point for deep reflection.

    What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth.
    ("Freedom's Last Stand")​

    Really, an automatic rifle will not make much of a difference against tanks and airplanes. But in the meantime, gun owners can continue to be as creepy and frightened as they want.

    What? I don't think it's an unreasonable policy.
     
  22. Killjoy Propelling The Farce!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,289
    `

    Not even flechette rounds ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sound concept, actually - IMHO, anyway.
    I particularly like the aspect of personal accountability involved. Seems perfectly reasonable given that gun ownership means introducing what is quite literally a killing machine into your environment.

    As an aside - which tanks and airplanes, if I may inquire ?

    I also agree about the assault rifles, actually. I see no reason whatever for the average shmoe to possess a submachine gun. Those desperate enough to operate one can always sign up at their local recruiter...

    Still...

    There has to be accountability for those who stole a gun from a friend, family member, or anyone else - or bought one illegally on the street. Not to mention the fact that they then committed a crime with the stolen gun.
    What about a new category of charge for stealing a gun ?
    Theft of a deadly weapon with the intent to commit larceny ?

    Depends on whether a longer stretch in the klink would be a deterrent, I suppose.
    What about a mandatory death penalty for armed robbery... Think of the bonanza in transplant organs that would be made available !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Tiassa, I'm not sure, but I think more murders are accomplished with knives and clubs and hands (strangulation, etc) and such, than with guns. So perhaps we should "control" those things, too? Perhaps we should make a new law that says killing people is a no-no, huh?

    I'm not fully against your ideas and I think there's some merit to the suggestions. But lest you forget, one of the major stumbling blocks for the pro-gun advocates is that any form of gun control is violating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That's the big rub! And I agree with them. If you allow the government to control guns, what else will they want to control? and if you can't stop them from controlling guns, how can we stop them from stomping on other Constitutional rights?

    Talking like that won't win you many gun advocate converts, Tiassa. And it's another one of those things that makes everyone such frothing-at-the-mouth fools in these types of discussions. Please, if you're able to control such emotional outbursts, it would help you arguement.

    No, I guess not ...if taking away some of the nation's hardwon rights is not big deal, then please continue to take them away one by one. Perhaps in a few years we can take away the freedom of speech and get rid of all those damnable porno sites on the web. Sure ...here's my rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, go ahead, take one if you'd like ....I don't use it anyway, ya' know? Who needs the fuckin' rights as long as the governemnt will take care of us, huh?

    Baron Max
     

Share This Page