Scrapheap -
This statement ingnores much of what was already said about gun violence. Redicnig the number of guns in LEGAL circulation has'nt had an effect on crime anywhere that I've seen. Nor does it make sense that it would. Gunsa can always come from different sources especially here in America where we have a border with Mexico that you could pass an entire Army through without getting caught.
Care to guess how many illegal guns will be smuggled in from Mexico if guns got outlawed in the US???
Actually it has had an effect on crime, for that same reason the gun homicide rates differ of both our countries differ. The problem with the situation you described is that a demand for guns was declared illegal, but the actual demand remained (though perhaps with other numbers) and so did the amount of criminals. They've found ways to get the guns. But again, I never said that it would have an effect crime as a whole, but the yearly average of gun victims is more likely than to go down or up. That's not a certainty, but a probability.
Quote from: Kiss_my_AS 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,
I for one, can't agree with this. You statement assumes that life is the very most precious thing there is. This is a flawed philosophy for the following reason. If you feel life is most important to you, this opens you up to bullying and other intimidation tactics. If you feel thatfreedom is more important than life, you are harder to bully because you would rather die than to submit to intimidation. Bullies respect this. TRUST me I learned this the hard way!!!
An interesting vision. However, do not misinterpret mine. Of course there will be moments when you'll reach that zenith, like when you're a soldier fighting against the enemy. If there's no other way to solve a problem other than to kill someone so be it. That's why I did not say that murder is never good, but I do see it as something that should be the last resort. Same goes for situations for when I have to sacrifice my life for the protection of others.
But owning a gun isn't a guarantee for freedom. Perhaps when you life in a hostile environment (with reasonably high crime rates), it's the best way to make it through. And of course you might be able to save yourself from risky situations of which you couldn't save yourself from otherwise. Keep in mind that I said that if everyone was trustworthy enough to deal with that posession, I would probably condone it. And that I said that if I lived in a country with a liberal gun policy, education would be the best way challenge the risks. In my vision the greatest risk is an unnecessesary loss of lives, a risk that will never disappear (though the likelihood of it can be diminished).
One could argue that the same amount of lives that were unnecessarily lost were saved, but that is very hard to calculate, also taking into consideration that the probability on 'mistakes' also rises with the use of every single gun.[/quote]
Quote
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.
Can you prove this??
Think in relative numbers. As I said (I seem to be repeating myself a lot), I consider every murder to be one to many. Why do I say that? Because I think that in a perfect world nobody would commit a crime (the criminals) or encourage other people in such a way. Fact is, this isn't a perfect world and probably never will be. But for the sake of the safety and ourselves, we do see that as an ideal, hence the creation of laws prohibiting and punishing murder. While this is not sufficient to save every life, they are created and sometimes modified with the intention to lower the number of unnecessary murders, as according to that law each of those murders is wrong.
Those numbers vary, but they do not effectively minimize. In most cases those charts jump up and down, but usually not towards longterm trends that those laws are built to take care of. That indicates that no certainty can be given on the extrapolation of situation (when reviewing the change from a strict gun policy to a more liberal gun policy in the span of a couple of decades), other than similar percentages on a higher scale (coming from the greater probability on the risks of guns with a greater amount of them).
Note that this doesn't mean every society will get higher amounts of unnecessary gun victims when going through such a period. But the risks remain, and so far they weren't effectively challenged. If that would happen in the future of that society it would be good, but right now there no indications for such a change, which makes me believe that the chances are greater that it won't happen for at least a long time. Until then too much (which was what the 'mostly' was aimed) dangerous effects come from the gun owners, something that could be minimized. A good education, as was suggested by Sausageofpower, could aid to that.
Quote
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.
What sort of slave mentality is this?? "legal human protectors"?? EVERY HUMAN HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES DUMBASS!!!
With 'legal human protectors' I meant the army and bodyguards, etc. English is not my first language and I will not always be able to find the right words to express myself, hence the misunderstanding. Btw, I don't how insults and typing in caps are of contribution to this discussion, not to mention that it shows that you've apparently misunderstood my post, as I do not assume that to be a strict given. Just that I think it's a more effective way to avoid unnecessary deaths in the situation, though not the best, and I'm always open to suggestions that do bring us closer to the ideal situation.
What I do assume is that we're probably so much apart that neither of us is going to give in - and I'm already growing tired of making long posts. I could go on with you forever, but what's the point of that if both are attempts of 'convertion' are fruitless? It would rather makes us more stuck in our stance towards eachother's visions.
Of course there are others to continue this thead with, but I'm backing out - I've typed more than enough on this.
With those last two paragraphs I'm making myself vulnerable to a verbal bullying, but I assume that we are all adults here - in body and mind. By that logic, I hope I can count on a mature response to my last post in this thread.