Firearms/Second Amendment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-01-2011, 12:29 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(23-01-2011 11:32 AM)Ms Rukia Wrote:  I am not the best educated in American History, I know of various historical events in American History but not to a comprehensive degree. I would stick by my statement that it is a dated right regardless of that almost irrelevant truth. An almost irrelevant truth, is an oxymoron.

[quote]I severally doubt that the doubling of gun crime in the UK (which is due to inner city crimes) is no where near to that of the US. I can understand a farmer owning a gun to protect his livestock but to have your friendly neighbor able to supply for a gang war is a different story. (These are just examples but it does happen)

I do not doubt that gun ownership can deter an intruder or prevent an attacker but it is mostly paranoia based. The level of gun crime is still incredibly high and with the laws in place people are still getting a hold of them when they aren't meant to. This leads to public shootings in most cases.

It's simple that with guns only allowed for the Military and Police it would mean less gun crime due to the public being not being allowed to obtain them. Of course people will acquire them illegally but just because they have doesn't mean we should. It's still rare to come across gun crime in the UK.

Nation Master Rankings (2001)
The UK ranks @46 in murders per capita/country.
With 1,201 murders
Murders with firearms 14.
Kidnappings 3,261.


The US ranks @ 24 ( 0.042802 per 1,000 people)
of 62 Nations listed in Crime Statistics.

So clearly it's not a matter of paranoia, when murder is at such a percentage. And given police are presently armed in this country, those statistics bode as a legitimate reason why, per your ideal, this country would be in more peril if only police (and military which can not act unless under executive order per declaration of martial law), were armed and, as you admit, only criminals who are at this present state wherein citizens are armed for self defense, accrue a ranking afforded at 39.5604 percent in gun violence/homicides, but of that number only 9,369 are murders by firearm.

It's also important to note of those U.S. ranked statistics, that the numbers include executions, and tally all manner of crimes including rape, robberies and murders by other means (than firearms), car theft, drug, etc... As well as other statistics unrelated to criminal acts.

So with the number of crimes at present to be tallied in this country, wherein those crimes are committed by the criminal element bearing other than just firearms, there appears just evidence to refute any claim of paranoia and instead marks the necessity for the law abiding citizen body to be fully able to defend itself against such real and present dangers.

While the UK's crime statistics lend evidence to the fact that a disarmed population, and per your admission that criminals will always be able to acquire firearms, suffer armed assaults and various other criminal acts while, police in GB are unarmed and as such both they and the law abiding citizen public are then made defenseless against what are these statistics and those who manifest them as the criminal element. Thereby refuting any claims that armed defense is more related to paranoia, when the obvious fact of the matter is; it ain't paranoia when the armed criminals are out and do assault disarmed UK citizens.
Quote this message in a reply
23-01-2011, 04:03 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
I never said it doesn't happen but in the greater scale of things the likelihood is incredibly low. We do have have armed response units in our police force that are tasked with responding to highly threatening situations so they aren't exactly unarmed. In a global society that needs to move forward; guns are not the answer.

The lust for gun ownership in the US is more so related to a love affair with patriotism "It's my right as an American" It is an outdated law, after a little research it is clear.

"Article 1 Section 8 US Constitution clearly places the well regulated state militias under Federal control. The Civil War provides us with great examples of exactly how the Framers intended the well regulated militias to be used in combat.

Joshua Chamberlain's legendary 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment was a well regulated militia manned by citizen soldiers who elected their own officers. Joshua Chamberlain was a college professor."

It was put in place so the US could protect itself without an army in the fear that the British might one day return. That is no longer threat and nor is any form of an invasion. To remove guns from the US is almost impossible now due to the amount of money it would cost but it would be the morally right thing to do.

[Image: websig.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 09:02 AM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:Yes, because criminals would have them, but others wouldn't. I still can't see what's wrong with the infering, so please point out what's wrong with it.

They we should not ban rape or murder any more, because Criminals will just do it anyways.. No reason to make it illegal anymore, as Buddy states
Quote:It would become the new "war on drugs"... a failed effort. If you attempt to outlaw something that the people don't want outlawed,
And since murder and rape still happen, we are just wasting our money on it.. Might as well just make it legal. Don't you agree we are just wasting our time then, from your point?

Quote:My point is that huge unequality in having weaponry between groups of people is bad. That wouldn't be a problem if everybody would give up guns, but I don't think that's ever going to happen, especially not by a ban.
Prohibition didn't work on booze and it hasn't worked on other drugs either. Why would it work on guns?
Drinking doesn't hurt others, which is why Prohibition didn't work. It was the Christian Right who thought it was evil..
In the beginning, yes you are correct.. Over time, as less people have less guns, that is less of a factor. You are using a fear based argument to justify your point. Anytime you need to try to fear people into your side, you loss your argument.
Quote:Easier said than done. If you know how to chance the views of a folk, I'm listening.

And you can get guns in Nordic Countries, it just might take a few more forms and a permission from the local police station. It's more about habits.

I hope you don't think I am naive to go, yes we ban them.. everything is fine and the world all gets along, because I don't. I know the risks of the period where people would have them that would not, but over time...That would change, there are other things that need to change as well, as educating people in general on critical thinking skills, among others.. But, this comes from up top, from the President, to Congress, to the State and local governments working together to get shit done. Yes, I know.. its not working now.. But, that isn't a reason not to try to get it to work together.
Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 09:27 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(24-01-2011 09:02 AM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  They we should not ban rape or murder any more, because Criminals will just do it anyways.. No reason to make it illegal anymore, as Buddy states
Quote:It would become the new "war on drugs"... a failed effort. If you attempt to outlaw something that the people don't want outlawed,
And since murder and rape still happen, we are just wasting our money on it.. Might as well just make it legal. Don't you agree we are just wasting our time then, from your point?

Are you suggesting that the general populace is in support of rape and murder?

Those pesky laws, getting in the way of a good time.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 10:09 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
There is a glaringly obvious flaw with the "we should just legalize rape and murder" argument. You can't really compare it to believing guns should be legal. The comparison would be with shooting people, not owning a gun. By using that logic, if you think guns should be illegal, you should also think penises should be illegal, since they are used by rapists.
Not taking a side on this debate, but that just had to be pointed out.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 10:13 AM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(24-01-2011 09:27 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(24-01-2011 09:02 AM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  They we should not ban rape or murder any more, because Criminals will just do it anyways.. No reason to make it illegal anymore, as Buddy states
Quote:It would become the new "war on drugs"... a failed effort. If you attempt to outlaw something that the people don't want outlawed,
And since murder and rape still happen, we are just wasting our money on it.. Might as well just make it legal. Don't you agree we are just wasting our time then, from your point?

Are you suggesting that the general populace is in support of rape and murder?

Those pesky laws, getting in the way of a good time.
It doesn't matter if they are in support or not, the argument is.. Don't ban something that Criminals would do. And if we go your route, are you okay with only creationism taught in Science class, since that is what the general populace is in support of?

Doing the right thing, isn't always the easiest thing.
(24-01-2011 10:09 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  There is a glaringly obvious flaw with the "we should just legalize rape and murder" argument. You can't really compare it to believing guns should be legal. The comparison would be with shooting people, not owning a gun. By using that logic, if you think guns should be illegal, you should also think penises should be illegal, since they are used by rapists.
Not taking a side on this debate, but that just had to be pointed out.

So if you stick up a store, and not fire the gun.. That's not a crime?
Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 10:25 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(24-01-2011 10:13 AM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  So if you stick up a store, and not fire the gun.. That's not a crime?

Obviously not what I am saying. It's not a concept I should have to spell out. Just because a gun can be used in a bad way doesn't justify banning guns. I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned (nor am I saying they should). What I am saying is that the particular argument simply doesn't hold water. A stick can be used to poke someone in the eye. We can't ban sticks just because they can be used to do something bad. "Can" is the operative word.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 10:31 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Why can't we ban sticks? I saw we ban sticks for a year and see what happens. I bet we see a dramatic reduction in eye pokes.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 10:33 AM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(24-01-2011 10:25 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(24-01-2011 10:13 AM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  So if you stick up a store, and not fire the gun.. That's not a crime?

Obviously not what I am saying. It's not a concept I should have to spell out. Just because a gun can be used in a bad way doesn't justify banning guns. I'm not saying they shouldn't be banned (nor am I saying they should). What I am saying is that the particular argument simply doesn't hold water. A stick can be used to poke someone in the eye. We can't ban sticks just because they can be used to do something bad. "Can" is the operative word.

See now you are changing the argument to fit your need. If you stick with the argument, then it works. As soon as you change it, then it doesn't.

The argument in question, or the emotional based reasoning in this is, we should not ban guns in "FEAR" of what "MIGHT" happen. So criminals shouldn't be punished because they are criminals.

Now with the idea, that we should not ban something in fear that criminals might just do it anyways.. brings us to the rape and murder idea.

Basically the point is , Emotional Based Reasoning, or Scare tactics isn't a sound reason to hold up an as someone stated outdated idea.
Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2011, 10:55 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
I'm getting the feeling you're one of those types that misconstrues arguments into completely different arguments, and then responds to the newly formed, yet completely irrelevant argument. Setting up straw men and knocking them down.

My point was, you can't make something illegal that a majority of people support. Since a majority of people don't support rape and murder, your response is extraneous.

So regardless of whether we should or shouldn't ban guns, doing so will accomplish nothing. The same way that weed is illegal, yet I can go door to door in my neighborhood (campus) and find weed in every house.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: