Aileron Posted August 22, 2004 Report Posted August 22, 2004 Well, lets get back to the topic. The problem with freedom today is that several key industries have formed oligarchies that all have the same policy. Suppose for example that for either religious or personal reasons, you don't want to show up on a security camera. Suppose then that you needed to go to a bank, as every citizen likely has to at some point. The problem is that likely every bank in the country has a security camera set up. Technically, you have the freedom to avoid the security cameras. In reality, one cannot avoid them without turning their life upside-down. Cases like this are rare, minor, and often stupid, but you can see how private industry take some of the public's freedom away.
MonteZuma Posted August 23, 2004 Report Posted August 23, 2004 yeah.. next lets give osama the freedom to have a second try at the pentagonYou think having a gun under your bed is gonna stop some dude flying a plane into the Pentagon?
A Soldier Posted August 23, 2004 Report Posted August 23, 2004 The more freedom you have to drive a car, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to carry a club, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to swim, the more likely you are to drown. The more freedom you have with knives, the more likely you are to cut yourself. The more freedom you have to cook, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Get the point?Except that the purpose of a gun is to injure someone or terminate lives.
MonteZuma Posted August 23, 2004 Report Posted August 23, 2004 Aileron wrote:that first chart shows that the US still only has a 1.5% rate...it would be more efficient to make driving laws or actually do something in the war on drugs.You think that 1.5% of kids under 15 being killed by firearms (1% by homicide!) is a good result? I'd say that the US, Finland and Israel results are appalling. The following 10 or so rates are also bad, but the US rate is shocking. The child death rate from firearms should be negligible. For crime, how many crimes are commited with 22-cals and muzzleloaders? A universal ban includes weapons such as that, whose ban will have no impact on the war on crime. Gun control isn't about saving lives or anything noble as that, its about one line of thought that has an opinion that private gun ownership does nothing for our society, and they feel that they have the right to dictate their opinion on the rest of us.[/What I have said from the start is that the second amendment is stupid. I am safer because my next door neighbour doesn't have a 'right' to bear arms. I'm saying that the second amendment makes the US a more dangerous place to live. Guns shouldn't be banned anywhere - they should be highly regulated.Ridiculous. Guns should be banned in some places. Schools and aeroplanes for example. I agree that they should be highly regulated - that is pretty much my point. The second amendment makes it difficult for US states to implement sensible regulations because they impinge on so-called 'rights'. Smart regulations can have the same impact on personal safety, which Monte himself has proven is an insignificant aspect in the first place.What I've proven is that high levels of gun ownership are directly linked to high levels of gun deaths. Nothing more. What I believe is that this demonstrates that the second amendment does nothing to advance the freedom or security that Americans enjoy. It actually reduces your personal freedom and personal security. I'm not interested in debating whether or not guns should be banned. All I know is that I am happy that my next door neighbour, the guy in the next office with the twitchy left eye, and the guy next to me in traffic don't have a 'right' to own a firearm. They all have to jump through lots of hoops before they get one.
MonteZuma Posted August 23, 2004 Report Posted August 23, 2004 Somewhere along the line you missed the point. The more freedom you have to carry a firearm, the more likely you are to be killed with a firearm. Fact. The more freedom you have to drive a car, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to carry a club, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more freedom you have to swim, the more likely you are to drown. The more freedom you have with knives, the more likely you are to cut yourself. The more freedom you have to cook, the more likely you are to burn yourself. Get the point? The more RPG launchers you have, the more likely you are to be killed by one. The more fissile material you have, the more likely you are to be killed by fissile material. Get the point? We are talking about the impact of having the right to own a tool that is designed to kill people. We are not talking about a tool designed to cut chicken.
MonteZuma Posted August 23, 2004 Report Posted August 23, 2004 these are all privlages not freedoms Maybe. But to get back on topic with Aileron, I think one of the tangents that I have taken is that freedom is a state of mind. Your state of mind is affected by the environment you live in. Sometimes living in a society with more privileges actually reduces your personal freedom. If we lived in a state of anarchy for example, I suspect that we would enjoy less freedom than we do in an ordered democracy.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 23, 2004 Report Posted August 23, 2004 Your state of mind is affected by the environment you live in Or in the case of the person who started the threat, by what you smoke..
Aileron Posted August 24, 2004 Report Posted August 24, 2004 that first chart shows that the US still only has a 1.5% rate...it would be more efficient to make driving laws or actually do something in the war on drugs.You think that 1.5% of kids under 15 being killed by firearms (1% by homicide!) is a good result? I'd say that the US, Finland and Israel results are appalling. The following 10 or so rates are also bad, but the US rate is shocking. The child death rate from firearms should be negligible. Alright, now that you want to push that chart - where did you get it? Secondly, the problem is that there is no controll variable...this could be a result of the drug war in the US. But overall, trust me when I can say that I can find a couple NRA charts that indicate the opposite. Besides, the US does not own that many guns, Israel gun ownership rates are higher than ours. My point is while you are at it, how about banning swimming pools to prevents deaths by drowning? How about banning ladders to prevent deaths by falling? Both of those things have comparable rates. Guns shouldn't be banned anywhere - they should be highly regulated.Ridiculous. Guns should be banned in some places. Schools and aeroplanes for example. I agree that they should be highly regulated - that is pretty much my point. The second amendment makes it difficult for US states to implement sensible regulations because they impinge on so-called 'rights'. My bad. I meant "Anywhere" as in "every nation", not every place. Sorry about that. For the second part, no. It prevents the federal government from making such rules, but local governments have a lot of leeway in that area. The purpose and wording of the second amendment does not prevent local governments from enacting regulations.
MonteZuma Posted August 25, 2004 Report Posted August 25, 2004 Alright, now that you want to push that chart - where did you get it?US Department of Health and Human Services, Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. Secondly, the problem is that there is no controll variable...this could be a result of the drug war in the US. But overall, trust me when I can say that I can find a couple NRA charts that indicate the opposite.More likely it is because of the high rate of gun ownership. There is a corelation. I'd like to see the NRA charts so that I can pick those apart too. Besides, the US does not own that many guns, Israel gun ownership rates are higher than ours.Comparing the US to the country that has the third highest murder rate in the industrialised world hardly proves anything. My point is while you are at it, how about banning swimming pools to prevents deaths by drowning? How about banning ladders to prevent deaths by falling? Both of those things have comparable rates.The right to bear swimming pools is not written in the cons!@#$%^&*ution. Swimming pools and ladders serve a non-lethal purpose. And, in any case, where I live local government approval must be sought to install a swimming pool. All swimming pools must be enclosed by a childproof fence and gate and CPR instructions must be posted near the pool. Why the -*BAD WORD*- should it be easier to get a gun to put under your pillow than it is to get a swimming pool??!! My bad. I meant "Anywhere" as in "every nation", not every place. Sorry about that.Well yeah. I was just being an opportunist For the second part, no. It prevents the federal government from making such rules, but local governments have a lot of leeway in that area. The purpose and wording of the second amendment does not prevent local governments from enacting regulations.Maybe. But I think that it does make it politically more difficult to make regulations, even in local governments.
Aileron Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Its not, nor has ever been, easier to get a gun than to buy a swimming pool. We are comparing gun regulation to gun banning. Yeah, swimming pools and ladders are regulated, but they aren't banned. Besides, guns do have other uses. Just yesterday I used a 22-cal pistol filled with blanks to scare off a group of stray dogs that were hanging around my house.
MonteZuma Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Besides, guns do have other uses. Just yesterday I used a 22-cal pistol filled with blanks to scare off a group of stray dogs that were hanging around my house.Yea. Who knows what might have happened if you just banged a garbage can or something? Someone might've got hurt. Wtf? Do you live on a farm in the woods or something? Sheesh. I'm glad my next door neighbours don't use a pistol to scare off strays.
Aileron Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 The woods actually, and I tried shouting at them first. I don't think a garbage can would have done it. I didn't come to that decision quickly - it was dangerous even with such a low calibur and with blanks. However, I realised it was the only solution that would have reliably worked. If I had neighbors, the dogs would have been lingering around their property as well, and they likely would have tolerated the disturbance if it got rid of them. Look, I'm not saying that guns should be used quickly or given to everyone. They should be regulated so that they are handled responsably. All I'm saying is that national governments who take the right to own one away are overstepping their bounds. I don't like the idea of buerocracies deciding who is and who isn't qualified.
MonteZuma Posted August 26, 2004 Report Posted August 26, 2004 Look, I'm not saying that guns should be used quickly or given to everyone. They should be regulated so that they are handled responsably. All I'm saying is that national governments who take the right to own one away are overstepping their bounds. I don't like the idea of buerocracies deciding who is and who isn't qualified.I don't think our beliefs are all that different. But a right to bear arms? C'mon. >95% of people live in urban areas and have no need for a firearm. A 'right' to bear arms implies that there should be minimal regulation. I think there should be maximal regulation. 2nd amendment:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.In the 21st century, this amendment doesn't help make the US "a free state". It inhibits freedom and security. Murder statistics help tell the story.
Aileron Posted August 27, 2004 Report Posted August 27, 2004 Well, that's the difference between the US and a lot of European nations, we have a lot more rural areas than they do. I have no idea why Australia is taking their side. In any case, a better thing to do would be to leave it up to local governments. Let the city enact regulations, and the rural areas not have them. You didn't cite murder rates - you cited deaths by firearms. Well, I will admit that it does seem that guns helped against out of controll government in the 18th century more than today. However, maybe in the 22nd century, they may be needed greatly. Basically, when the government isn't running away, a failsafe against runaway governement doesn't seem that usefull, but some time in the future, the government may run away on us. If your regular brakes are working, why do you need an emergency brake? There are many nations around the world that are essentially run by warlords robbing the local peasants. If the peasants had guns, the warlords wouldn't be able to do this. The second amendment may not be usefull at this place and time, but what about the next?
MonteZuma Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Well, that's the difference between the US and a lot of European nations, we have a lot more rural areas than they do. I have no idea why Australia is taking their side. In any case, a better thing to do would be to leave it up to local governments. Let the city enact regulations, and the rural areas not have them.Well. It might be a good idea to leave it up to local government to enact regulations if it was difficult for guns to be shipped and used across borders. Artificial boundaries like that make gun regulation difficult to enforce. Europe, as a whole, is less urbanised than Australia and North America. In fact, even in some of the most industrialised parts of Europe there is usually a lot of agriculture. The 'need' for guns is probably similar in all western countries. Australia isn't following Europe's 'lead' on this matter. In any case, farmers and hunters and others can still own a gun in Australia and Europe. There are different rules for people who need guns, and there are allowances for some groups that want guns - sporting shooters for instance. There is no gun ban, there is simply tighter gun regulation. You didn't cite murder rates - you cited deaths by firearms.True - and there are a lot more factors that come to play when you do look at murder rates, but the stats tell a similar story. For industrialised nations, based on murder rate, USA in first position and Finland is in 3rd position. I believe those rates would be less if those countries didn't have a gun culture. Well, I will admit that it does seem that guns helped against out of controll government in the 18th century more than today. However, maybe in the 22nd century, they may be needed greatly. Basically, when the government isn't running away, a failsafe against runaway governement doesn't seem that usefull, but some time in the future, the government may run away on us. If your regular brakes are working, why do you need an emergency brake?I am more worried that elements of society might run away on us. Look at the anarchists in Greece and the anti-globalisation protesters all over the world. Look at religious fanatics. Lets keep the guns out of their hands. If our governments get out of hand we won't be able to keep them in check with ordinary firearms. We'll need to be a lot more clever than that.
Aileron Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Europe is WAY more urban than the US. Yeah, they have their rural areas too, but the Great Plains are friggin ridiculous. Let me start by saying that there is no such thing as a "gun culture". It is a term made up by the leftist media to make gun owners out to be strange. There are people who happen to own guns and people who don't. It takes more to define one's culture than the owning of a single piece of property. The weapon of choice for fanatics happens to be explosives. Outlawing guns won't help that. It isn't so much about the right for people to have guns, rather than the right of governments to deny them. Disarming the populace is the first thing any dictatorship does after seizing power. Dictators need to remove threats to themselves, and an armed populace is a threat to oppressive governments. Guns may not be good against tanks, but: A) They are better than rocks They are good enough to do quick raids, such as taking over a tank factory.
MonteZuma Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Europe is WAY more urban than the US. Yeah, they have their rural areas too, but the Great Plains are friggin ridiculous.No. The proportion of the US population that lives in urban areas is about 75%. Some European countries are less urbanised than the US (eg France, Norway, Italy, Greece, Switzerland). Let me start by saying that there is no such thing as a "gun culture". It is a term made up by the leftist media to make gun owners out to be strange. There are people who happen to own guns and people who don't. It takes more to define one's culture than the owning of a single piece of property.By comparison with the rest of the western world there is a gun culture in the US. Not everyone is a part of that culture, but it exists, and it is a big part of US politics. In most other countries, gun regulation is rarely debated. The weapon of choice for fanatics happens to be explosives. Outlawing guns won't help that.Pfft. If you can speculate and hypothesise about a runaway US government that tramples on the rights of citizens then I think it is more than fair to also hypothesise that civilian trouble-making groups might use firearms. In any case, explosives are already strictly controlled. Guns may not be good against tanks, but: A) They are better than rocks They are good enough to do quick raids, such as taking over a tank factory.If you ever plan to take over a tank factory from your own government you are gonna need something more powerful than garden-variety firearms.
Dr.Worthless Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 If you ever plan to take over a tank factory from your own government you are gonna need something more powerful than garden-variety firearms. You can legally own a good number of semi-automatic rifles that can easily be changed to full auto if wanted. (in the us ) Practically though, many police stations carry assault weaponry, gr!@#$%^&*-roots movements could capture caches of the weapons, etc. Fairly effective explosives etc can be made out of common chemicals, etc. If there were to be a situation where the right to bear arms would be needed, some states in the union would be able to put up quite a fight. ANYWAY, wierd tangent for the day over.
Aileron Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Monte, I live in the US. I would notice if there was a gun culture here. There isn't. Its a myth. Owning a gun doesn't instantly change your mindset or your culture.
MonteZuma Posted August 30, 2004 Report Posted August 30, 2004 Monte, I live in the US. I would notice if there was a gun culture here. There isn't. Its a myth. Owning a gun doesn't instantly change your mindset or your culture.You are too close to the action. You can't see the forest for the trees. On every gun-related statistic (longguns, handguns, murder rates, suicide rates) the US leads other nations by a country mile. Gun control is always an election issue in the USA...it isn't in most other places. Only in America (and Iraq) will you see Presidents or Presidential candidates waving firearms around befor the cameras. You have the right to own gun in your friggin cons!@#$%^&*ution. Just look at the TV that comes out of the US and compare it to TV from other countries. You fired a gun to scare away dogs -*BAD WORD*-. Of course there is a gun culture in the US. It may not be in your face all the time, but it is there a lot more than it would be if you lived elsewhere.
Aileron Posted September 1, 2004 Report Posted September 1, 2004 Monte, you just can't see how left-wing you are. Besides, the cons!@#$%^&*ution doesn't give citizens the right to own arms as much as deny the right of the government to take them away. Alright, you win, we are a culture. Call us the Gunownians. What is your justfication for oppressing the Gunownian culture? Just because our heritage is different than yours doesn't give you the right to tell us how to live. There are many cultures in the world, not just yours. By what right can you judge which cultures are right and which ones are wrong? Now, I'm going to perform the ritual sacfrifice to ours gods Winchester, Colt, Glock, and Springfield.
MonteZuma Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 So long as you don't export it, you can do what you like with your culture. We both believe in freedom of speech right? I'm exercising it by voicing my opinion. That isn't oppression. Cannibal culture says that it is traditional to kill and eat people, yet we don't allow cannabalism. Some cultures (and sub-cultures) are bad. The world is better off without them.
MasterDrake Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 guns don't kill people, people kill people
A Soldier Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 guns don't kill people, people kill people ...but people kill people with.. guns?
X`terrania Posted September 2, 2004 Report Posted September 2, 2004 Here, let me take a quote from a popular movieBraveHeart, William Wallace 'FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!'
Recommended Posts