Here it is the libs are coming after our guns
POSTED BY: kaneman
UPDATED: Saturday, February 19, 2011 15:04
VIEWED: 19911
PAGE 6 of 22
Actually Magons, from what I understand, gun deaths in Switzerland are low. The why can be questioned, are they merely more sane, is it their gun laws, is it that they're better trained so accidents don't happen? All? None?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, having spent years in at least one country that endured an armed revolution, I can tell you.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
It's never been clear to me what these evil intentions are that are so feared...
Not being able to criticize the government either publicly or privately, verbally or in writing, for fear of being disappeared (there were spies everywhere).
Not being able to have any say in government policies and laws (no votes, or no recognized votes).
No avenue for challenging or changing the government (no alternative parties, or no real chance for alternative parties).
Heavy taxation, high rates of unemployment, and other practical ills that have no redress.
Watching the country's resources go to a select elite group who live extravagantly, while the rest of the country struggles to feed their families.
Knowing that the government is owned and paid for by foreign interests.
-----
So on one hand, you have economic suffering to the point of people going hungry. On the other hand you have no non-violent way to change this. And to top it off, you see the govt as treasonous in betraying the people for foreign powers and elite cronies. This is the recipe for revolution.
Can this happen in America? I guess if you say "absolutely not, not in a million years," then it would make sense that you would support gun control.
The rest of us who aren't so sure? Well, we don't want our fire hydrant to be taken away.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you've just summarized the entire gun control debate in one question. Wow, that is actually quite impressive.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
They'll lie, cheat and steal, but will they march on my house?
"Yes" people want guns.
"No" people don't.
"Maybe" people are probably split between the two.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I thought my analogy with the doctor deaths made that point. Yes, guns cause deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. But so do doctors, cars, knives, and bathtubs. We put up with those deaths because we want to keep our guns, doctors, cars, knives, and bathtubs. We try to find a way to make them safer, not to get rid of them or severely restrict them.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The issue is whether you can be honest enough to say....we know what the fall out is, but this is an issue of freedom, so we are prepared to put up with and accept the negatives consequences in order that our rights are not infringed.
And our need for guns is not just about freedom and rights. Regarding self-defense against animals and criminals, many guns serve critical uses and DO save lives. Regarding self-defense against govt, on the freedom and right issue, guns are more like fire hydrants than like doctors and cars. We hope never to use them, but we want them every 3 blocks just the same.
One can always try some sort of cost-benefit analysis. At some point though, it does come down to a matter of principle, and how much an individual values that principle. In this case though, for me, the principle is not simply the right to own guns, but the right to be equal in trust and power as the people I elect.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
Your analogies are kind of flawed in my view, doctors may killed through malpractice, but they exist to save lives and promote health. I really don't agree that guns save more lives than they take, they are weapons that have been designed to kill and maim. That is their sole purpose, unlike knives, cars, doctors et al.
My view on guns is that I hate them, I hate the gun culture of the US and its one of the main reasons why I hesitate to visit your shores again, because otherwise I'd really like to do so. I don't own a gun, and know of no-one who does. Guns are pretty much banned here, and personally I'm happy with that. But I recognise that Americans have a different philosophy and I understand why. I don't want it for myself, but I get your reasons.
I'd support militias as I said. I really like the idea of pretty much abandoning standing armies, and creating the capacity for civilians to defend themselves if need be, but I can't agree with large scale individual ownership without restriction or training - clearly I am talking about my own country now, not yours as I recognise that as a general population, you see things differently.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
It is perhaps an irony that one of the things I worry about when I think of visiting England is that I might get attacked. I understand that violent crime occurs there on a comperable level to many parts of the U.S. My understanding of the law system there is that, when confronted with violent crime, the only certain legal recourse is to comply with your attacker and then call the police afterwards. I have heard that violent resistance, and particularly armed resistance (even if only with a handy bludgeoning object) can carry serious legal consequences. Moreso than in the U.S.
I do not know if these things I have heard about England is true, but the thought of it frightens me.
On the other hand, the citizens of all nations have the right to make whatever society they enjoy. It's up to me to decide if visiting is worth the risk.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
It is perhaps an irony that one of the things I worry about when I think of visiting England is that I might get attacked. I understand that violent crime occurs there on a comperable level to many parts of the U.S. My understanding of the law system there is that, when confronted with violent crime, the only certain legal recourse is to comply with your attacker and then call the police afterwards. I have heard that violent resistance, and particularly armed resistance (even if only with a handy bludgeoning object) can carry serious legal consequences. Moreso than in the U.S.
I do not know if these things I have heard about England is true, but the thought of it frightens me.
On the other hand, the citizens of all nations have the right to make whatever society they enjoy. It's up to me to decide if visiting is worth the risk.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
I lived in the UK for about 6 years. Ironically, given that London is a large diverse city with a reasonable degree of crime, I always felt safe walking the streets and travelling the Tube, even on my own, partially because there was always so many people about. It was a city where lots of people walked around and caught public transport. I actually felt much safer there than here, even though the crime rate is lower here because less people use public transport and walk around (being more of a suburban culture).
My understanding of the laws there is that you may defend yourself with reasonable force, which doesn't include shooting someone between the eyes if they are trying to pinch your I-Phone.
I don't believe to any degree whatsoever that having a population in possession of guns makes people safer. I believe the number of guns in circulation increases the amount of gun crime. But I also see that if you believe that governments should butt out of individuals choice in many matters(excuse the terrible pun), then you bear the consequences that some individuals abuse those rights. That is a philosophical stance which I can understand. It's a bit like the Westboro thing, sometimes you have to put up with stuff for the sake of individual rights. It's not a view I personally hold, but I do understand it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't agree with that either. I said they save lives, never said they save more lives than they take. Without being omniscient, I cannot possibly know how many lives have been saved, if any at all, because of the deaths that occurred.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I really don't agree that guns save more lives than they take,
Quote:My analogy is simply to say guns, like lots of other causes of death, are tools that are useful and do save lives despite that fact. No more.
That is their sole purpose, unlike knives, cars, doctors et al.
I understand seeing guns as a tool whose only purpose is to maim and kill. But the results are larger than that.
If you have a gunman who is there to maim and kill your whole family of 7 people, and you either maim or kill him first, wouldn't you have just used a gun to save the lives of 7 people?
It all depends on WHO you maim and kill, and WHEN. If used judiciously on the right people and at the right time, this instrument which is largely used for killing can paradoxically be an exceptional life-saving tool as well.
All that to say, the gun is simply a neutral tool that can fire a small projectile at high speeds. How people use this powerful tool, that is the crux of it all. The real weapons are in the hearts and minds of Homo sapiens.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Well, having spent years in at least one country that endured an armed revolution, I can tell you.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
It's never been clear to me what these evil intentions are that are so feared...
Not being able to criticize the government either publicly or privately, verbally or in writing, for fear of being disappeared (there were spies everywhere).
Not being able to have any say in government policies and laws (no votes, or no recognized votes).
No avenue for challenging or changing the government (no alternative parties, or no real chance for alternative parties).
Heavy taxation, high rates of unemployment, and other practical ills that have no redress.
Watching the country's resources go to a select elite group who live extravagantly, while the rest of the country struggles to feed their families.
Knowing that the government is owned and paid for by foreign interests.
Those sound like a lot of the things this country was supposedly founded to prevent - seems like it's worked "pretty well" so far, for the first 200 years at least.
I'm curious CTS, you are living in Peru now and were in these other countries, how long did you live in the US and how long in these other places?
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
So on one hand, you have economic suffering to the point of people going hungry. On the other hand you have no non-violent way to change this. And to top it off, you see the govt as treasonous in betraying the people for foreign powers and elite cronies. This is the recipe for revolution.
Can this happen in America? I guess if you say "absolutely not, not in a million years," then it would make sense that you would support gun control.
The rest of us who aren't so sure? Well, we don't want our fire hydrant to be taken away.
We're far from perfect and I'm not an hoo-rah patriot, but it seems like you have it kind of backwards - countries have armed revolts to be more like us and have the freedoms we have.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"countries have armed revolts to be more like us and have the freedoms we have."
Hello,
This is sensible, since we are the product of an armed revolt.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"All that to say, the gun is simply a neutral tool that can fire a small projectile at high speeds. How people use this powerful tool, that is the crux of it all. The real weapons are in the hearts and minds of Homo sapiens."
Hello,
On the topic of guns as neutral tools, which is only tangentially related to the topic at hand...
It is probably worth noting that the vast majority of people who own and operate firearms, even though they may discharge thousands of rounds of ammunition, never fire those weapons at a person. A simple analysis of gun ownership vs. gun violence in this country reveals that most gun owners aren't shooting at anyone. I imagine that most operators of firearms use their deadly weapon for the preposterous diversion of putting holes into inanimate objects.
There is another device that was once widely used for violence, but is now used primarily for sport: The wooden club. One might have easily assumed that this device had no peaceful purpose. However, while it can still be used for violence, (and is,) most owners of a wooden club use it for the preposterous diversion of striking thrown balls.
The bow is yet another example of a deadly weapon that has bizzarrely mutated into a sports device. Violence with bows is relatively rare, and usually limited to the killing of animals. Most bow owners use their deadly weapon for the same purpose as most gun owners. Only a minority of bowmen ever fire at a living thing, and only a vanishingly small percentage of those ever fire at a human.
None of this has much to do with the value of guns in free societies, but it is worth mentioning when people note that a gun has no purpose but violence.
In fact, the purpose of a thing is up to the individual.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME