|
Nosathro -> RE: Now tell me again.... (9/23/2013 1:08:33 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nosathro
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nosathro
The agreement by the pro gun groups that gun control laws will not work because criminals will not obey the law is at best a weak. Laws were created not change people behavior but to set a social boundary. Murder, rape, robbery, assault are behaviors that happen yet are against the law. Laws provide that if and when a person does violate a law our system has sanctions for it. So my question to pro gun groups is that do they want to ban all laws, then there would be no crime.
The statement that "guns kill people" is correct, after all how does a bullet enter a body? Metamorphosis?
As to the statement that guns influencing people" yes the can, depending on the person, they can be seen as phallic symbols, ego defense, etc.
the statement that guns kill people is fatuous. There have been millions of guns, hundreds of millions of guns - and there is not a SINGLE instance of a gun getting up and shooting someone. Ever.
Do guns make it easier for people to kill people - absolutely.
I can't talk for all in the pro-gun lobby, but my opposition to gun control stems from the following reasons.
1. A well armed citizen prevents tyranny of the state.
If you look at the 20th century - stalin killed 40 million. Mao 20 million, khmer rouge 8 million, Nazi Germany 6 milliion. You had genocide in armenia, ruanda, darfur.
In all those areas - there was a power inbalance. If you take the average of deaths per year - it is over a million people killed per year. So yes, we are horrified that 12,000 people die in the US due to gun violence. But we view it as a necessary evil to stop tyranny by the state from killing a million people a year.
2. We have a constitutional right to own weapons. And the constitution has a process to change those rights. Its called amendment. And I am frankly insulted when you try to cheat by chipping away at gun rights by laws instead of taking the honest approach - amendment.
3. Target shooting is fun, and hunting (although I abhor it) can be useful in providing food and as a test of skill. When you seek to ban gun ownership you are saying that its ok to deprive us of things that we enjoy - and for damn near no cause.
4. There are many other reasons - tradition, for example. Historical reenactment. Understanding military history. Collections. But fundamentally, the attack on gun rights is an attack on my right to defend my home, my land, my life the way I want. It is as offensive to us and regulating what happens in a bedroom is to you.
5. Finally and probably least is the idea that it is another huge government overreach (soemthing we hate in the first place). Just another ineffective government excuse to regulate and subjugate the people. It will not stop crime.
Yes, Britain has strict gun laws that reduce deaths due to guns. But have you looked at their deaths due to bludgeoning? Deaths due to kniving?
1. No evidence of well armed citizen prevent tyranny or anything for that matter. Stalin was elected, Hitler was elected, and he only banned guns for Jews, everyone else could have them. We gave Mao the guns and fought the khmer rouge remember?
2. So you value an object over human life, that is pro gun for you.
3. I have yet to read a law that calls for the taking away of guns.
4. Jeffery Dahmer enjoyed killing, are you saying that he should not have been charged for murder because he enjoyed killing?
5. The UNDOC reports that about 722 murders in England annual, our very own reporting shows some 13,000 murder, nuff said.
6. You did not read my statement on crime and law did you. "Laws were created not change people behavior but to set a social boundary."
7. US Supreme Court "The Second Amendment rights are subject to reasonable restrictions." and
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
1. No evidence? To the contrary - we have plenty of evidence. Why do you think the current controversy over syria is whether the US should be 1arming the rebels. Because it is pretty much a given that armed rebels are more effective than unarmed ones.
2. I have no idea how you get from my statement (follow the rules vis a vis bill of rights to your statement objects are more important than people.
3. Then clearly you need to read more proposed legislation. I don't really feel the need to google for you.
4. No. If I had meant that I would have said that. I said there are many valid reasons that people enjoy guns.
5. Comparing apples to bananas is not useful. Britain had extremely low rates of gun murders before the gun laws were passed.
Lets address the disparity a bit.
"Handgun crime 'up' despite ban," BBC News Online (July 16, 2001) at http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/uk/newsid_1440000/1440764.stm. England is a prime example of how crime has increased after implementing gun control. For example, the original Pistols Act of 1903 did not stop murders from increasing on the island. The number of murders in England was 68 percent higher the year after the ban's enactment (1904) as opposed to the year before (1902). (Greenwood, supra note 1.) This was not an aberration, as almost seven decades later, firearms crimes in the U.K. were still on the rise: the number of cases where firearms were used or carried in a crime skyrocketed almost 1,000 percent from 1946 through 1969. (Greenwood, supra note 1 at 158.) And by 1996, the murder rate in England was 132 percent higher than it had been before the original gun ban of 1903 was enacted. (Compare Greenwood, supra note 1, with Bureau of Justice Statistics, Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and Wales, 1981-96, Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998)
Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
"You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6
Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.
6. I read everything you said. And gave it due consideration. Law exists to punish behavior, and by such actions provide incentives for some behaviors and disincentives for others. Probably more than anything else, laws exist to protect the in place power structure.
7. And?
you [sm=soapbox.gif] me [sm=rofl.gif]. Also the only reason militias were in the South was to keep the black slaves in line. So racism was the reason for the second amendment. You may also consider more recent reports.
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2013/sty-crime-in-england-and-wales.html
|
|
|
|
