So does anybody have an argument for the freedom to own guns being special and important, or does it really just come down to what a bunch of old dead guys thought was important two hundred years ago and people having gotten used to having them, like how people got used to driving without seat belts, smoking, owning slaves etc...?
School shooting: but don't mention guns!
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
joesixpack
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,531
I was thinking something very similar. Conversely, there is the possibility that criminals would assault others at a higher rate because they could safely assume that the target was unarmed.
I think you're correct, fundamentally. Clearly the US is a more violent society, and the rate of gun ownership is probably both a cause and an effect of that. Taking guns out of the equation is not a viable option at this point. I think at some point in the future, though, people will simply own fewer guns if the downward trend in violent crime continues as it has for the past decade.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Only 225 million Americans are even over the age of 20. Are you saying adult gun ownership in the US is 100%?
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
I have had an epiphany. I know why the USA is so violent and know how to cure it. Ban Islam! (as a first step)
Thanks to
Banning the semi-automatic religion of Islam is the first step, as it's the most dangerous religion - the most violent societies in the world are Islamic ones, where most declare that "religion is inportant in their daily life". But it would only inconvenience a small miniority of USAians (I have learnt from this thread that the rights of a minority are not important).
But it's not just Islam. The USA is the most religious nation in the industrialzed world, hence it's violence problem
Once the benefits of the ban on Islam become evidents, the US can move on to banning all religion ,
Personally I have found that one can have a perfectly satisfactory life where religion is NOT important in my daily life, so why have it?
Of course if I actually thought about the problem, I might realize that epiphanies, like other sudden decisions made under emotional conditions, rarely lead to any useful result.
Thanks to
Banning the semi-automatic religion of Islam is the first step, as it's the most dangerous religion - the most violent societies in the world are Islamic ones, where most declare that "religion is inportant in their daily life". But it would only inconvenience a small miniority of USAians (I have learnt from this thread that the rights of a minority are not important).
But it's not just Islam. The USA is the most religious nation in the industrialzed world, hence it's violence problem
Once the benefits of the ban on Islam become evidents, the US can move on to banning all religion ,
Personally I have found that one can have a perfectly satisfactory life where religion is NOT important in my daily life, so why have it?
Of course if I actually thought about the problem, I might realize that epiphanies, like other sudden decisions made under emotional conditions, rarely lead to any useful result.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Er... there aren't even 200 million firearms in the US. Current gun ownership is at about 25% of the adult population, or less than 50 million people. Less than 40% of US homes have a firearm in them, and the rate of gun ownership is decreasing.
Seriously, when you offered up a figure like 200 million registered gun owners (which is virtually the entire adult population) did you apply any critical thinking?
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
A nation which values freedom more than the UK values freedom is willing to grant people the freedom to do things which are not popular with the majority.
This includes the right to own guns and use them responsibly, and the right to say things which you and I might find objectionable.
I prefer not to live in a society in which people can be imprisoned (or even fined) for expressing opinions about religion. I'm not seeking to emigrate to the UK; I assume you're not seeking to emigrate to the US.
To diversity!
wasapi
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 17,585
How much pain can these people take? Even as they try to say goodbye to their loved ones, they are faced again with pure evil.
If religion is causing all kinds of social ills, perhaps it would be worth looking at whether there could be ways of reducing the harms caused by religion. Why wouldn't you? If guns are causing social ills, perhaps it would be worth looking at whether there could be ways of reducing the harms caused by guns. Why wouldn't you?
Are you claiming that religion and guns cause similar levels of social harm to the US, or that the internal problems that the US may or may not have with guns should be addressed in the same way as the external problems the US may or may not have with Islam? Or are you making a facetious argument?
Are you claiming that religion and guns cause similar levels of social harm to the US, or that the internal problems that the US may or may not have with guns should be addressed in the same way as the external problems the US may or may not have with Islam? Or are you making a facetious argument?
If we are criticising one anothers countries, I'd have said that the US valued individualism, or libetarianism rather than freedom. There are many things that I might want to be free to do or be free from that conflict with my neighbours freedom. How we balance those competing freedoms is the job of society and government to work out. I don't think freedom is well enough defined or linear enough to say whether people in the US or UK are more free.
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
No I am saying religion is the problem. Get rid of it!
You seem to be incapable of understanding the working of Insane Troll Logic.
Last edited:
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
Yes. And often insecure.
On "Face the Nation" this morning, the host made the point that "After 9/11 we turned this country upside-down. If this shooter had had an Arabic name..."
Beyond fortifying the doors to the cockpit, I thought most of the "turning the country upside down" after 9/11 was ill advised too.
I guess I'm a freedom nut.
Sunstealer
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,128
After a large consultation my company is now supplying baseball bats and crow bars to the US military.
This is a resounding success for all involved. The money savings of not having to buy ammunition and weapons or service them is enormous. US soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan are extremely pleased because the reduction in weight and increase in lethality that the new baseball bat gives them mean they are no match for the Taliban who are still using outdated AK47s which are obviously no match for a crow bar. This will also mean far, far fewer American personnel will be killed.
The US military are now looking at an even more deadly weapon called the golf club.
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
The Rwandan (95% of Rwandans say religion is important in their daily life) market saturated?
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
Are you the same company that convinced them to use rifles instead of bombs, tanks, and missiles?
zeggman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,911
We tend to draw the lines at things that cause physical harm to others. Polluting the air and water, selling unsafe food, punching people in the nose.
Saying something you don't want to hear is not (currently) illegal here.You are free to say something I don't want to hear in return.
If I punch you in the nose, and you punch me back, I'll be arrested, and you may be arrested too.
Responsible gun ownership is not illegal. Threatening someone with a gun is assault, and will get you arrested.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Why does this gun debate always seem to become so insanely polarised? All I hear talk of is people who want guns banned and people who blindly deny guns have any affect on violence whatsoever.
Is there any western country in the world that has outright banned guns? I can't think of one off the top of my head. The issue is gun control isn't it? Does anyone seriously think the solution is to totally ban firearms?
Every country has gun control laws, including the USA. The only real relevant question is whether those controls are appropriate to the population, or whether they want to amend those controls.
Amending gun control laws does not mean banning weapons, so all this talk of smuggling in illegal weapons, the number of owners, and so on, is totally irrelevant.
The only relevant questions are what control measures are in place, and what control measures could be introduced to reduce gun crime. And then to ask whether the projected benefit of those measures outweighs the loss of freedom. And obviously that's a question only Americans can answer.
But I'd like to point out, because it's a fact that's often misused, that a number of decidedly peaceful western countries have a lot of guns. New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of gun per capita in the western world - in fact because guns aren't registered here we actually have no idea how many guns we have - and yet we still have an unarmed police force and very low rates of violent crime. Many Scandinavian countries have incredibly high levels of gun ownership, likewise with very low crime. Gun ownership is clearly not the issue.
The key difference is gun control laws, and crucially, gun control laws surrounding the storage of firearms. Why is this so critical? Because the more accessible a firearm is, the more easily it can be used in spur-of-the-moment crime, or accessed by someone other than the gun's owner.
It is how the weapon is stored that is really the most important point here. Take, for example, the trusty handgun. In much of the US handguns can be carried on your person and left wherever you like. People leave them loaded in their bedside cabinet. After all, people have them for protection, so you need it handy and armed.
They're readily available, and they're used in an enormous number of crimes.
In New Zealand, the opposite is true. Of all firearms, handguns are amongst the most controlled in terms of storage. Hell, a 0.50cal heavy machine gun has less stringent storage conditions (yes, you can legally own a 0.50cal heavy machine gun in lil old peaceful gun-controlling New Zealand). It is illegal to carry a handgun in public. To buy one you have to be a registered member of a shooting club, and they can only be owned for sport purposes. They must be stored at all times in a locked gun safe, with ammunition stored in a separate locked safe. When transporting a pistol to and from a gun range (which is the only legal place you can fire a handgun) it must be carried in a locked gun box, again with ammunition separate.
As a result, in the rare instances that firearms are used in crime here, they're not pistols.
The crucial thing in this equation, that factor that drives everything else, is the question that society has to ask itself with regards to any type of firearm:
What purpose do we accept people having this weapon for?
As you can see in NZ, society only considers it acceptable to have a handgun for sport shooting. Our controls on that particular firearm reflect this.
In the USA, society considers it acceptable to have a handgun for personal protection. Your controls on that particular firearm reflect it.
This is the root of the issue. This is really the fulcrum on which the entire US gun debate rests. Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?
And I don't mean that as a sort of snide "Americans are paranoid" or "Americans are scared". I ask this question quite seriously. There is clearly a fundamental cultural difference between Americans and all other westerners on this issue. And what's really interesting, once you realise that's at the heart of the issue, is that mass shootings like this actually reinforce the mentality behind US gun control laws. Every single time a nut goes and guns down a bunch of people with a firearm, Americans are only going to be more convinced they needs guns for protection.
Is there any western country in the world that has outright banned guns? I can't think of one off the top of my head. The issue is gun control isn't it? Does anyone seriously think the solution is to totally ban firearms?
Every country has gun control laws, including the USA. The only real relevant question is whether those controls are appropriate to the population, or whether they want to amend those controls.
Amending gun control laws does not mean banning weapons, so all this talk of smuggling in illegal weapons, the number of owners, and so on, is totally irrelevant.
The only relevant questions are what control measures are in place, and what control measures could be introduced to reduce gun crime. And then to ask whether the projected benefit of those measures outweighs the loss of freedom. And obviously that's a question only Americans can answer.
But I'd like to point out, because it's a fact that's often misused, that a number of decidedly peaceful western countries have a lot of guns. New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of gun per capita in the western world - in fact because guns aren't registered here we actually have no idea how many guns we have - and yet we still have an unarmed police force and very low rates of violent crime. Many Scandinavian countries have incredibly high levels of gun ownership, likewise with very low crime. Gun ownership is clearly not the issue.
The key difference is gun control laws, and crucially, gun control laws surrounding the storage of firearms. Why is this so critical? Because the more accessible a firearm is, the more easily it can be used in spur-of-the-moment crime, or accessed by someone other than the gun's owner.
It is how the weapon is stored that is really the most important point here. Take, for example, the trusty handgun. In much of the US handguns can be carried on your person and left wherever you like. People leave them loaded in their bedside cabinet. After all, people have them for protection, so you need it handy and armed.
They're readily available, and they're used in an enormous number of crimes.
In New Zealand, the opposite is true. Of all firearms, handguns are amongst the most controlled in terms of storage. Hell, a 0.50cal heavy machine gun has less stringent storage conditions (yes, you can legally own a 0.50cal heavy machine gun in lil old peaceful gun-controlling New Zealand). It is illegal to carry a handgun in public. To buy one you have to be a registered member of a shooting club, and they can only be owned for sport purposes. They must be stored at all times in a locked gun safe, with ammunition stored in a separate locked safe. When transporting a pistol to and from a gun range (which is the only legal place you can fire a handgun) it must be carried in a locked gun box, again with ammunition separate.
As a result, in the rare instances that firearms are used in crime here, they're not pistols.
The crucial thing in this equation, that factor that drives everything else, is the question that society has to ask itself with regards to any type of firearm:
What purpose do we accept people having this weapon for?
As you can see in NZ, society only considers it acceptable to have a handgun for sport shooting. Our controls on that particular firearm reflect this.
In the USA, society considers it acceptable to have a handgun for personal protection. Your controls on that particular firearm reflect it.
This is the root of the issue. This is really the fulcrum on which the entire US gun debate rests. Why is it that citizens of the USA feel they need a firearm for protection, and not the citizens of every single other western country?
And I don't mean that as a sort of snide "Americans are paranoid" or "Americans are scared". I ask this question quite seriously. There is clearly a fundamental cultural difference between Americans and all other westerners on this issue. And what's really interesting, once you realise that's at the heart of the issue, is that mass shootings like this actually reinforce the mentality behind US gun control laws. Every single time a nut goes and guns down a bunch of people with a firearm, Americans are only going to be more convinced they needs guns for protection.
Aha, that old one. Still wrong, but often repeated.
Yes, exactly as in the UK
We had an ultra far right march in the city I live only a few months ago. It was massively unpopular, but it was legal and it happened and nobody was arrested for having an unpopular opinion.
Well apparently not always (see my link above about Connecticut police).
Seems like this is an example from just 3 months ago:
http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12879
How's that different to the examples you linked to in the UK (that you said couldn't happen in the US)?
Assume what you like. I'll always assume the most diverse people are those most familiar with most different cultures.