Author Topic: The right to bear arms  (Read 21614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Teejay

  • Guest
The right to bear arms
« on: October 30, 2006, 10:50:15 PM »
I believe strongly that people should have the right to own what ever kind arms they want, as long as they aren't ex-cons and other undesirables, Why shouldn't people be not allowed to own automatic guns, catapults, battle axes, maces (not the spray kind), swords, rocket launchers, tanks, gunship helicopters, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, so long as they do not use them to volatile the law.

The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate, look at Switzerland, every gun is required by law to keep military weapons and is not a lawless society by any means. It would be the ultimate expression of a free, democratic and well ordered society, that we can afford to let the citizenry any kind of arms they see fit.  8)

Offline McGiver

  • Hetero sexist tragedy
  • Caretaker Admin
  • Postwhore Beyond The Pale
  • *****
  • Posts: 43309
  • Karma: 1341
  • Gender: Male
  • Do me.
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2006, 04:35:33 AM »
i think people should keep weapons, if only to excercise their right and join forces to bring down their government.  militia.
Misunderstood.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #2 on: October 31, 2006, 05:13:25 AM »
Oh, one of my absolute favourite topics.

I agree strongly with both of you. As I said on WP: In a democracy, the people shall have the last word. But the people can only have the last word if it can bring down an unjustful government. Nowadays the government has tanks, missils, nuclear arms, etc, so it would be very hard, if not impossible, to bring it down, if you just didn't kill the specific persons in the government and the military didn't turn against the people on behalf of the government, but the principle should be there nevertheless: To keep and bear arms should be an indisputable right, not a fucking privilege.

And, of course, there should be no fucking gun register. With a gun register, Big Brother can come anyday and pick your weapon. "He" shouldn't know if you have one or not, or hundreds, or which kind/s of them.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #3 on: October 31, 2006, 05:23:25 AM »
Bad gun law

Sorry for you who can't read Swedish, but it's full of ridiculous crap anyway.  ;)

Good gun law

Great.  8)


« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 05:25:21 AM by Litigious »

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #4 on: October 31, 2006, 07:36:26 AM »
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate

I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to  similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.

Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.

I rest my case.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2006, 08:32:37 AM »
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate

I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to  similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.

Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.

I rest my case.



Yes, 41 people died of crimes with guns in the year 2000. But 332 Swedes committed suicide with their legal guns in 2002. That's more in percentage of the population than those who are killed in crimes with guns in the US. It's not a crime to kill yourself, but would they have gotten their licenses if the application authority had been aware that they were suicidal? No. Of course, many, or probably most of them, weren't suicidal when they got their licenses. You won't enter a shooting club or a hunting team to get a gun to kill yourself. Far too much work. You either get an illegal gun or kill yourself with something else.

I think that the rate would increase a little with totally free guns in Sweden, but not dramatically. The whole Swedish culture is not at all that aggressive and trigger happy as the American. And some of the ones who actually would get killed would be criminals killed in self-defense by law-abiding citizens. I see nothing wrong with that. And I see nothing wrong with people who are tired of life and by their full senses, who kill themselves quickly and painlessly with a gun rather than hanging themselves, jumping in front of trains, cutting their venes, inhaling car exhaust etc.

But it's good that you trust Big Brother and I hope that you're a hunter or a member of a shooting club, if a really dangerous criminal would break into your home. Out on the streets you're not even allowed to carry a licensed gun for self protection in this country, so I also hope that you will accept to be a victim of assault on the open street if you're out for a late walk. Of course you wouldn't break the law just for your own safety, if you had a licensed gun? Big Brother would put you in jail for that...

Scrapheap

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2006, 09:22:16 AM »
Firearms ownership along with the size of the middle class, is a measue of how strong a democracy is.

Hey Litigious, How likely do you think it is to get gun parts or barrels through the mail into Sweeden??  ;) ;) ;)

Offline QuirkyCarla

  • Bake Sale Coordinator of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6998
  • Karma: 640
  • Gender: Female
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2006, 09:26:00 AM »
The ownership of these weapons aren't going to increase the crime rate

I beg to differ. Compare the number of people killed every year in gun-related violence in the US, where gun laws are very liberal, to  similar statistics in Sweden, where the gun laws are strict. 41 people died in gun-related violence in the year 2000 in Sweden. Compare this to the number of casualties in gun-related violence in the US per year--about 11,000.

Taking into account the difference in population between the two countries, the fact remains that the occurence of gun-related violence in Sweden is one tenth of that in the US.

I rest my case.



I agree with odeon. One of the things I hate about my country is all the morons with guns. Restricting guns is a good idea because it prevents deaths. Yes, that takes away one's "right to bear arms", but since it saves lives, it is worth it. Most successful suicides are from guns. If these people didn't have access to guns, maybe they would get the chance to get help rather than putting their loved ones through that.

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #8 on: October 31, 2006, 09:41:55 AM »
Firearms ownership along with the size of the middle class, is a measue of how strong a democracy is.

Hey Litigious, How likely do you think it is to get gun parts or barrels through the mail into Sweeden??  ;) ;) ;)

It depends. If someone  ;) would send it in a package alone, it would be a great risk that it would be discovered by the customs people. But if someone sent it together with other metal devices, like inside some machine that is perfectly legal to import, the chance that it would go through is much greater.

Ironically, this would have been much easier before 9/11. They showed a documentary on how easy it was to get a gun by mail from Greece to Sweden. I actually was going to Greece the same year and considered the opportunity, but, of course, this was 2001 and my trip to Greece was in October... :(

Litigious

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #9 on: October 31, 2006, 09:50:28 AM »

I agree with odeon. One of the things I hate about my country is all the morons with guns. Restricting guns is a good idea because it prevents deaths. Yes, that takes away one's "right to bear arms", but since it saves lives, it is worth it. Most successful suicides are from guns. If these people didn't have access to guns, maybe they would get the chance to get help rather than putting their loved ones through that.

You live in a country where you have the great gift of easily arming yourself for self-protection and you would like that freedom taken away from you? I wish you could read that ridiculous Swedish law text that I linked to.

And suicide is a human right, since it's a human right to decide over your own life and body. It's your right to protect your life with all means necessary and it is also your right to end your life if you find it unbearable.


Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2006, 11:32:18 AM »
Thankfully, the gun freaks are a minority in Sweden.

BTW, in 2001, 14,800 people ended their lives in the US using a firearm of some sort. That's close to 50% higher percentage than the suicide rate in Sweden the following year. If the gun control in the US was better, some of these people might have survived.

Every suicide is a failure for the society. Not only do suicides cost the state money, but the majority of these people could have been treated. Consider, for example, the cases where an untreated depression ends in suicide. Just because the person committing suicide didn't see a way out, it doesn't mean that there wasn't any. The fact is that medication is often enough, and is far more economical, and productive, than suicide.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

richard

  • Guest
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2006, 11:48:38 AM »
And suicide is a human right, since it's a human right to decide over your own life and body. It's your right to protect your life with all means necessary and it is also your right to end your life if you find it unbearable.
:agreed:

Offline SausageofPower

  • Fresh Meat
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: 10
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2006, 12:39:25 PM »
I reply as someone who owns a few handguns (5 pistols: an IMI Jericho in 9mm, a Beretta 92FS in 9mm, a Beretta PX4 in 9mm, a Springfield Armory 1911 in .45ACP and a Ruger Mk II 22/45 in .22LR).

First, I absolutely believe in the right to bear arms. That goes along with my stance of ultimately being libertarian. In my mind, people seem to forget a major thing when arguing for the banning of substances or firearms or the like: those who wish to commit criminal actions such as dealing or killing with said items won't be deterred. Look at the failed 'War on Drugs' in the U.S., I may not agree with drug use, but I'm not so bold as to declare that I know what is right for everyone and that my opinion is absolute. Plus, from a financial standpoint, the taxation of these substances (along with more responsible spending by the government) could greatly aide my country.

Returning to the topic at hand though, firearms are only as harmful as their users. There is no such thing as accidental discharge of a firearm, only negligent discharge. Education and respect for what a firearm is capable of can turn firearms from being something frightening to being something extremely useful. Trying to lump them into the 'bad' category while disavowing the good they can do.

For instance, did you know that in the U.S., there are between 800,000 to 2.5 million fewer violent crimes due to defensive handgun use per year? And keep in mind, that doesn't necessarily mean that shots were fired, as I know that wielding a handgun alone can be enough to scare off would-be attackers. Add to that the enjoyment that may be derived from competition shooting, and other sports with firearms (I don't hunt personally, though some do which is both a means of recreation and of supporting oneself in terms of food).

My whole point can be boiled down to this: firearms aren't to blame. Assuming you could ban firearms to the extent that they wouldn't be available on the streets (which would take some serious degree of work that might not even be possible, as people can make 'Saturday Night Specials', cheap and highly dangerous firearms due to their shoddy craftsmanship), people will resort to other methods such as bladed weapons (which, if you've never seen someone sliced up be a blade, it can be terribly disfiguring and make someone's life a nightmare if they even recover fully).  People with the desire to do harm to others will continue to do harm to others. The only thing you definitely accomplish by outlawing firearms is stripping lawful citizens of their right to own firearms and protect themselves.

What about the police, you ask? Well, in Washington D.C. (where guns are outlawed, btw), there was actually a trial awhile back. A girl and her roommates were gang-raped and the police had been summoned. They never showed, and this went on for hours. The girls took the police to court, claiming they had not fulfilled their job as officers of the peace. Well, the courts ruled in favor of the police saying that the police had no obligation to respond to a given situation. I dunno about you, but I'd be extremely angry that the police (often cited as a reason for the banning of firearms, as they 'serve and protect' leaving no reason for civilians to possess firearms) didn't have to respond to my distress calls, and I couldn't even defend myself adequately.

A tool is neutral. The person wielding it is the evil behind an attack. I can stab someone in the chest with a screwdriver and hit their heart, killing them. I can beat someone to death with a tire iron. I can run someone over with my car. Does that mean all of the above need to be banned? No. We need to be educated as a society, and if anything we must make people more accountable for their actions, instead of blaming the methods they used.

That's just my opinion. I've owned guns for two years, and I haven't shot a single person. Will I carry one of my pistols for protection? Yes, and legally at that. And if the day ever arrives where I have to use it, when someone endangers my life, I will take responsibility for my actions.

-Corey

Offline odeon

  • Witchlet of the Aspie Elite
  • Webmaster
  • Postwhore Beyond Repair
  • *****
  • Posts: 108879
  • Karma: 4482
  • Gender: Male
  • Replacement Despot
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2006, 12:46:49 PM »
Corey,

You have the right to your opinion. The statistics are pretty clear, however, and arguing that the easy access of handguns wouldn't cause an increase in gun-related violence simply doesn't hold water. I, for one, am happy to live in a country where getting a handgun is difficult.

I doubt that the gun shot victim cares about the exact semantics behind "negligent discharge" vs. "accidental discharge of a firearm".
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

- Albert Einstein

Offline Kiss_my_AS

  • Part of the Chaos
  • ***
  • Posts: 57
  • Karma: -25
Re: The right to bear arms
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2006, 12:56:47 PM »
I believe that killing someone (even if it is yourself) should be the zenith of ultimate resorts when trying to solve a problem. Most people will agree with that statement, but they also know that sometimes people forget that out of panic and do everything what they think that might get them out of that particular situation. If those people have a gun, they might use it then.....with a great risk on terrible consequences.

This wouldn't worry me, if everyone was competent enough to deal with the possession of a gun. But it's pretty obvious that it's mostly the opposite. For that reason alone I think it's unbelievable that people other than police officers or other legal human protectors are still allowed to bear arms.





« Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 01:00:37 PM by Kiss_my_AS »