I realise this could as easily go into the Ethics section, but it seems more political. Anyway... Should we all be carrying iron, packing heat? Does it make a society safer or more dangerous if everyone has a gun?
Adam, I wouldn't feel safe if everyone had a gun. But I think that 50% of the population of any country should be armed. Of course, this 50% would have to be responsible citizens trained in the use of firearms. Tom
Goofyfish, Because 50% would guarantee that the right to bear arms is preserved, while, at the same time, keeping guns away from irresponsible individuals. Tom
Adam, There would be training and several mental tests that a person would have to pass to be in that 50%. Of course, the training and tests would have to be adjusted so that 50% of the population would pass them. Tom
People who really want guns are going to get them anyhow. It is called the Black Market. Guns are illegally imported and manufactured in countries where there is no admenmant right to bear arms (like handguns are illegal in Japan, but somehow Japanese gangs still manage to get them, to shoot at each other Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). But then, I probably can't tell you how many times a 10 year old boy tried to walk into Wal-Mart and get a gun to kill his class mate who stole his girlfriend. The sales clerk asks "Let's see some ID kid", then the kid is turned away. But then of course, he'll go to his dad who is old enough to buy them, and stupid enough to give them to him. I guess the issue, even if gun control was implemented world wide, it certainly wouldn't work 100% But then, if guns were readily accessible to anyone, people with less desparation to obtain them (like going to their buddy and saying "do you think your 18 year old crack head friend would take a bribe to do me a favor") would probably get them, and use them out of a little spur of anger. The real solution if you wanted to implement gun control, would be to stop guns from physically being manufactured. Like shutting down all of Colt's gun production factories. Most normal people don't have the ability to set up a little welding shop in their back yard to make guns that will actually fire accurately.
Clarentavious, So are you saying that a regular citizen is irresponsible so he/she shouldn't have a gun, but that governments are responsible so they can have guns???Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let me remind you that the only protection a country has against an unjust government is the right of it's civilians to bear arms. Tom
No, that's not what I am saying. I said if you wanted to implement gun control effectively, that seems like one of the only solutions.
the best gun control, would be to shot anyone who carries an unliscensed firearm, that sure would scare people.... and people wouldnt even get angry with eachother if they sat indoors all day, because they were afraid to go outside. thats why there are all those shotings in washington. we all know that d.c. has the highest crimerate of any city, thats why their basket ball team is called the Bullets, at least it was 4 years ago, so the sniper in washington is really a scheme by the feds to bring the overall crime rate down.... haha
Citizen Responsibilities? Does a private citizen have the obligation to not shoot at a violent perpetrator if there is a high probability of collateral damage? In the mid-90s, there was a shooting on the Long Island Railroad (LIRR), a commuter train in New York. The shooter was contained by other passengers and eventually defended himself right into prison. However, at the time, we had a gun-control debate aflame in the political circles, and the NRA pointed out that the damage would have been less if he'd been on a train full of armed people. The counterpoint, of course, was that a lot of people shooting at once seemed a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, in gun control debates, I've even said that I'm fine with guns as long as the owners are held accountable for every shot that comes from that weapon. Among gun enthusiasts, this idea has met with derision: apparently being responsible for one's actions is laughable to these people. A guy breaks into my house: I shoot at him and miss, and the bullet flies across the street and hits ... what? A house, a car, a person, the family cat ...? Drunk people cleaning loaded guns and accidentally killing the baby asleep in the next apartment can walk away from their "crimes". Leaving a loaded gun with two unattended children, with the result that the older child shoots the younger child for insubordination should not be prosecuted; in Oregon, it seems that such a prosecution would have amounted to religious persecution. (I still don't get what the family being Mormon had to do with anything.) A gun salesman showing a weapon to police accidentally loses control of the gun and shoots a preschool teacher, missing a child by literally inches. No prosecution for whatever reasons. The guy who painted my mom's house years ago got called off his job when a guy shooting a .22 rifle without any safety measures shot and killed the painter's 5 year-old son by accident. No prosecution. On the other hand, the NRA, in the wake of the Waco disaster, criticized ATF for shooting a man who pointed a loaded weapon at them. Apparently, the fact that ATF had more and better guns when they raided his place was justification for his resistance. People want gun control because gun owners, for all their nice and fancy theories, don't seem to be accountable for their actions. These are all gun crimes which have occurred in some proximity to me. Am I the only person in the world who has seen guns produce negative effects? No, I'm not. So my proposition: • Own however many of whatever guns you like. You are accountable for every round discharged from those weapons; even the round that fires when the gun, left with one round in the chamber, falls off the shelf during an earthquake. There are no excuses. Defending oneself does not justify the placement of other innocents in danger. Had the LIRR train been full of gun-toting folks who all fired into a frenzy, I would prosecute each one of the shooters for any collateral damage. Incidental property damage ... well, that's a different story. If nobody gets hurt, the shooter is stopped, and there's only holes in the railroad ... that's fair, I suppose. But when I stand at my mother's house and look across the street at the neighbor, it is quite clear that any shot missing a burglar fleeing to the street is coming right into my mother's garage, living room, &c. And likewise, a missed shot that I might fire would likely land somewhere in the neighbor's house. "One shot one kill" is a fine philosophy for these moments, but it's not reality. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Unfortunately being held accountable after the fact will not bring people back to life. But it might scare otherwise irresponsible people ito actually thinking further than "I want my toys!"
Me, my soapbox, and a big gun ... Unfortunate, indeed. But at some point I must accept the fact that this is the way of humanity. And in the end, American gun enthusiasts have a point. My preferred method of educating people toward the effect of reducing violent conflict is simply fascist, ill-thought, hateful, and encouraging of violence. Yeah, really. That's what education seems to be worth for American gun owners. If that seems somehow offensive or nonsensical to anyone, please consider that, as issues go in America, how to reduce crime is somehow a separate issue from what to do about crime. Kill 'em, burn 'em, fry 'em. But the why of crime is just a foofy distraction put up by totalitarian leftists who want to turn your children into militant Islamic homosexual pacifists. Sorry ... I'll contain myself. But that, unfortunately, is about the degree of dialogue that brings Americans to the gun control debate. Actually, anyone who ever puts up with my rants about letting other people set the criteria for dialogue ought to watch a good ol'fashion gun-control fight in the US. Where we might agree the issues should seem clear, they are not. Apparently the gun owners are spiteful libertarians with no regard for anyone but themselves while gun-control advocates are ACLU-sponsored (as they fight the constitution?) huggy-hippies who would rather feed their own child to Hannibal Lecter than try to stop him. It's amazing how nobody ever talks about the reasons people have guns and fire them at other people, and also how nobody ever cares about why those reasons exist. In the meantime, I would ask that regardless of nation or laws, if we look at the larger principles of gun ownership, people stop to consider the reasons they have guns in the first place, and what they as individuals do to help necessitate that condition. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So far we have... FOR: - We should all be able to have guns under the law because criminals will have guns regardless of the law. - We need guns to protect us from the government. - Guns don't kill people, people kill people. AGAINST: - Irresponsible idiots get guns. - Cowards use guns for cowardly purposes. - It's easier to kill someone if you have a gun. - Accidental shootings going on all the time. Anything else? Anyone care to expand either list?
It's fair to surmise, "No". Expansion runs the possibility of intruding upon the realm of the reasonable, common-sense, rational, or otherwise. For that reason, I'm betting "No". In the meantime, I'll try to put together a list of more reasonable reasons and post them at some point. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think it's just a matterof getting to respect the weapon as an object of destrution. We do need to protect ourselves from the government but in the long run, how do you protect yourself from the government without getting yourself in trouble? Either way t's a lose-lose situation. pretty pointless. Personally i would love to go back in time and prevent the gun from being invented.. (which i know is also impossible because of the theory that everything that can possibly be immagined will be invented one day.) but i do have wishful thinking. Also what would the world be without insecurity? is it like the relationship with love and hate?
Sorry Clarentavious. I wasn't really responding to your post. I heard people on the radio talking about this gun control issue. Un-inventing the gun is the only way to get rid of guns. But, that's not going to happen. I believe that the only people who are affected by gun control are the law abiding citizens. Guns aren't nuclear warheads. They're easier to hide. Make 'em illegal, and all of a sudden criminals KNOW they have an advantage when they break into someone's house. I'm sure this has already been covered. If so, sorry. And sorry, Clarentavious, my other post wasn't directed at you.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Functional issue The only ... and I mean only ... functional problem with this is that it presumes crime, violence, and criminals are constant. If we look at gun control alongside Prohibition, the solution was not to remove guns from the people (and hopefully by some miracle of fate the criminals) but to alleviate the conditions contributing to crime. In the end, loud drunks, street brawls, and car crashes were the more preferable symptoms to suffer than gangster gun battles. Just as important as what to do about criminals are considerations of how criminals came to be criminals. Some of them never had a chance out of the womb, and we must address this before we start gunning people down. In the moment of a crime, you do what you must, but I don't see this condition dissolving after the fact. It seems well enough to presume that crime is constant (true), that criminals are alike (false) and that social factors have nothing to do with crime or violence (false). But the problem of these presumptions is that they are, largely (2/3 at least) false. After a while, the pursuit of false ends demands its toll. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
