sesamosinsal
Registered
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,048
- Likes
- 1,471
camberiu said:
I just saw this, and was going to post it in this thread. I guess we'll have to ban knives too.
What is wrong with these people!?
- Thread starter expatinowncountry
- Start date
- Status
I just saw this, and was going to post it in this thread. I guess we'll have to ban knives too.
GS_Dirtboy
Registered
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,495
- Likes
- 4,316
camberiu said:
It's too bad the father (or mother) of the girlfriend didn't have a S&W, Glock, Ruger, Winchester, Mossberg, Browning, Beretta, or some "Assault Rifle" etc, etc hanging around. Damed well could have saved a lot of innocent people.
Yep, and so the usual defence is trotted out, nothing changes, and the next time a mass killing occurs the same stuff gets said with the same result - nothing. Hilarious! The gun lobbyists protest, the rest of the world laughs - apart from at friends and those on the receiving end of the violence.
Though I am curious, on this latest attempt to deflect constructive discussion on the subject (as per the usual gun lobby tactic): What's the average annual homicide rate (%) of China compared to US?
Though I am curious, on this latest attempt to deflect constructive discussion on the subject (as per the usual gun lobby tactic): What's the average annual homicide rate (%) of China compared to US?
camberiu said:
How does this in any way demonstrate that gun control laws don't work?
I don't understand why people insist that because there have been mass murders in countries with strict gun control laws, then the laws are somehow invalid.
There's an issue of frequency here. Sure, sometimes people kill people with knives, and sometimes people kill people with guns despite strict laws controlling them.
The point is, that these incidents happen far less when guns aren't available.
Anyone see this story?
Five people hurt in church hall 'machete attack'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19074195
If you didn't see the story - its because it wasn't much of a story. A man armed with a machete attacked several pensioners in a random act of violence. He was quickly overpowered and nobody died. This story won't make the international press, and won't provoke a debate on gun control laws. Few people will champion it as proof that gun control laws in the UK work, citing the fact that the assailants choice of weapon made him less of a threat to the public.
Gun control laws don't prevent murder, they just reduce the potential for guns to be used in acts of murder.
PhilinBSAS
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2010
- Messages
- 580
- Likes
- 298
jp said:
I've come to the conclusion it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion about this with people who have so internalised guns in their belief system that any suggestion that this be seriously reconsidered is countered as an attack on their "americanism", "way of life", "personal liberty" etc etc.
In such cases there is no hope of avoiding the most absurd distortions - such as one I read here a few weeks ago that somehow "Hitler's rise to power could have been prevented if there wasn't gun control in Germany". Risible!
It's not just ignorance it is wilful blindness and one wonders just how this indoctrination has been achieved.
Personally I don't object to guns for sport provided the sport is "dead". Congratulations to Peter Wilson for winning a "shooting gold" and on his Dad's farm in Dorset then plenty of space to practice. A legitimate use of guns in the right place.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/02/peter-wilson-gold-shooting-olympics?newsfeed=true
As for anything else then the less guns there are the better the chances that when crazies go crazy the victim headcount is reduced
Kalashnikov said "I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower."
The problems of Africa etc would have been halved
I've seen numbers published that show gun control often leads to a rise in crime. Studies which have shown that violent crimes such as rape, murder, assault actually go down after CCW laws are passed. I've seen numbers published that show many countries with strict gun controls, like the UK, have distorted their numbers to show a drop in crime, but when the distortions are removed show the opposite.
I've seen those numbers mentioned published by government agencies, often law enforcement agencies. Not "gun control fanatics."
How exactly is that a distortion by gun lobbyists?
Who's right? I really don't know, but I believe that when in doubt, err on the side of freedom, not restriction.
It was mentioned that the problems in Africa would be halved, I assume if gun control laws were enacted. I'm not sure how that is figured - no analysis offered there. Possibly saying that if Africans didn't have guns they wouldn't be killing each other?
In that case, I would think you might be confusing the arms trade which arms both revolutionaries and governments (not usually private citizens, although I suppose the revolutionaries and the governments could both be considered criminals in most of these cases) for people owning guns privately.
But the arms trade does a whole lot more than arm Africa. It arms "legitimate" governments as well. Still doesn't do much in the way of arming individuals.
If every gun in the world were confiscated, people would find something else to kill each other with. It is human nature, unfortunately, and no pie-in-the-sky wishing or laws that restrict guns from those who would use them responsibly as private citizens (which is the vast majority of those who own guns legally) is going to change that. Only a lot of time and evolution will do so.
Hell, as was mentioned in another thread here, in Argentina a well-known member of a musical group murdered his wife by setting her on fire. A heinous crime that was committed without a gun. People will find a way in the absence of easier-used tools if they have violence on their mind. Controlling guns does not remove that unfortunate atavism in the human psyche.
People who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the States, supposedly in order to control morality, weren't successful in their prohibitions. People who want to control drugs to keep people from destroying themselves haven't been very successful in the prohibition. People who outlaw prostitution in order to make people faithful to each other obviously doesn't work. People who want to take the ultimate choice from people in the form of when to end their lives, haven't really been very successful at that, either.
If people want to do it, they will find a way. If human nature leads to it, it will happen. Until human nature is changed.
Often, people who are "for guns" are as ignorant as many of those who are "against guns." I'm NOT saying everyone on either side is ignorant. I'm not calling ANYONE HERE ignorant. However, ignorant folk on both sides make emotional appeals and don't pay a whole lot of attention to the facts. Many gun control proponents are no better able to defend or advance their position because their arguments are "it's obvious." Gun control proponents do the same thing - isn't it obvious that if there were no guns that crime would go down?
The problem being in this world that facts are often not - they are often compilations of numbers that both sides use to defend their own point.
Could Hitler's rise to power have been stopped by an armed populace? Absolutely. Would it have been in this particular case? Probably not, for the simple fact that along with the desire to own guns, one must have a desire to put one's life at risk as well to use those guns. Also, an effort such as that must be coordinated, which would have been possible with something like state militias, which Germany had at one time, but not in the time of Hitler.
Germany didn't have that ability to put their lives at risk to defend against a tyranny of the worst sort. The majority went along with what was happening out of fear and would not have stood up against Hitler. It was no longer a part of their culture, but Hitler was able to play on other parts fo their culture that let him control them sufficiently to get his way.
The US has gone way past the point where the armed populace could prevent grand-scale tyranny for the same reason. The state militias in most cases are relatively impotent and the people of those states are no longer willing, either in a violent fashion, or in a democratic fashion, to put their beliefs on the line and make changes. I'm not talking about health care and such - I'm talking about corruption and the hijacking of the democratic process by special interests and huge corporations and public foundations, all with hugely deep pockets.
But, fortunately, the US Constitution allows for guns and the Supreme Court has actually held up that interpretation fairly consistently. If enough people in the US are really for gun control, then they should change the constitution. But that won't happen any time soon.
If the ONLY reason to own guns were to have a militia and defend against tyranny, then I might be persuaded to agree that gun control could, in this day and age, be a good thing. I still think it would be great to have such militias, but that's a moot point since everyone has given up their liberty in that regard.
In point of fact, I believe that defense against tyranny by the government and violent overthrow is not the only reason to have guns.
I didn't always believe this. I used to be anti-guns. I've personally never owned a gun. My father does. I've learned how to handle and fire guns. I actually love to shoot guns. But I was convinced that being a happy little family man with kids made that whole thing too dangerous. I believe I was wrong about that.
If I still lived in the States, I would change that now. I've seen over the years that going from a more controlled position on guns, to a more relaxed position, did not bring a wholesale bout of gunfights in the streets and slaughter and mayhem. I am able to look beyond the hype that the news organizations throw out in hysteria every time something like the Colorado movie theater event generates and see that out of some 315 million people, there will be extreme stupidity no matter what laws are passed and if a citizen can use a gun and obtain his gun legally, and handles it in a responsible manner, I can conceive of no reason why that person should not be allowed to defend himself.
At the end of the day - why we are supposed to depend on police to protect us, when it's obvious that it's an impossible task? Either that or every police force on this planet is crap. After all, more robberies, murders, rapes, etc, are committed than are stopped by police by a large number. Police are mostly for enforcement of laws after a crime has been committed, finding the guilty and delivering them for justice. A part of a system of deterrent, which is obviously very important.
Does it matter if a rape was committed by someone merely using physical force, a knife, or a gun? There simply are not enough police to protect everyone. If there were, a large portion of the population would be doing nothing more than looking out for the other portion all the time.
Other countries are free to enact their own legislation and disarm their citizenry all they want to - it's a free world, conceptually.
I don't think I'll convince anyone who doesn't already think this way. I know people who argue the other side certainly won't change my mind, not with the currently-available facts and my half century of life experience.
But I'm not twisting anything to fit some preconceived notion, I'm not making an emotional choice. If some new facts come along that show me convincingly that gun control actually works then I might change my mind - as I've already done once.
============
The "public" seems to have bought into this belief that life can, and should, be run without risk, that all accidents are avoidable, and that death is something that only happens to people who eat meat and smoke.
- Jeremy Clarkson
I've seen those numbers mentioned published by government agencies, often law enforcement agencies. Not "gun control fanatics."
How exactly is that a distortion by gun lobbyists?
Who's right? I really don't know, but I believe that when in doubt, err on the side of freedom, not restriction.
It was mentioned that the problems in Africa would be halved, I assume if gun control laws were enacted. I'm not sure how that is figured - no analysis offered there. Possibly saying that if Africans didn't have guns they wouldn't be killing each other?
In that case, I would think you might be confusing the arms trade which arms both revolutionaries and governments (not usually private citizens, although I suppose the revolutionaries and the governments could both be considered criminals in most of these cases) for people owning guns privately.
But the arms trade does a whole lot more than arm Africa. It arms "legitimate" governments as well. Still doesn't do much in the way of arming individuals.
If every gun in the world were confiscated, people would find something else to kill each other with. It is human nature, unfortunately, and no pie-in-the-sky wishing or laws that restrict guns from those who would use them responsibly as private citizens (which is the vast majority of those who own guns legally) is going to change that. Only a lot of time and evolution will do so.
Hell, as was mentioned in another thread here, in Argentina a well-known member of a musical group murdered his wife by setting her on fire. A heinous crime that was committed without a gun. People will find a way in the absence of easier-used tools if they have violence on their mind. Controlling guns does not remove that unfortunate atavism in the human psyche.
People who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the States, supposedly in order to control morality, weren't successful in their prohibitions. People who want to control drugs to keep people from destroying themselves haven't been very successful in the prohibition. People who outlaw prostitution in order to make people faithful to each other obviously doesn't work. People who want to take the ultimate choice from people in the form of when to end their lives, haven't really been very successful at that, either.
If people want to do it, they will find a way. If human nature leads to it, it will happen. Until human nature is changed.
Often, people who are "for guns" are as ignorant as many of those who are "against guns." I'm NOT saying everyone on either side is ignorant. I'm not calling ANYONE HERE ignorant. However, ignorant folk on both sides make emotional appeals and don't pay a whole lot of attention to the facts. Many gun control proponents are no better able to defend or advance their position because their arguments are "it's obvious." Gun control proponents do the same thing - isn't it obvious that if there were no guns that crime would go down?
The problem being in this world that facts are often not - they are often compilations of numbers that both sides use to defend their own point.
Could Hitler's rise to power have been stopped by an armed populace? Absolutely. Would it have been in this particular case? Probably not, for the simple fact that along with the desire to own guns, one must have a desire to put one's life at risk as well to use those guns. Also, an effort such as that must be coordinated, which would have been possible with something like state militias, which Germany had at one time, but not in the time of Hitler.
Germany didn't have that ability to put their lives at risk to defend against a tyranny of the worst sort. The majority went along with what was happening out of fear and would not have stood up against Hitler. It was no longer a part of their culture, but Hitler was able to play on other parts fo their culture that let him control them sufficiently to get his way.
The US has gone way past the point where the armed populace could prevent grand-scale tyranny for the same reason. The state militias in most cases are relatively impotent and the people of those states are no longer willing, either in a violent fashion, or in a democratic fashion, to put their beliefs on the line and make changes. I'm not talking about health care and such - I'm talking about corruption and the hijacking of the democratic process by special interests and huge corporations and public foundations, all with hugely deep pockets.
But, fortunately, the US Constitution allows for guns and the Supreme Court has actually held up that interpretation fairly consistently. If enough people in the US are really for gun control, then they should change the constitution. But that won't happen any time soon.
If the ONLY reason to own guns were to have a militia and defend against tyranny, then I might be persuaded to agree that gun control could, in this day and age, be a good thing. I still think it would be great to have such militias, but that's a moot point since everyone has given up their liberty in that regard.
In point of fact, I believe that defense against tyranny by the government and violent overthrow is not the only reason to have guns.
I didn't always believe this. I used to be anti-guns. I've personally never owned a gun. My father does. I've learned how to handle and fire guns. I actually love to shoot guns. But I was convinced that being a happy little family man with kids made that whole thing too dangerous. I believe I was wrong about that.
If I still lived in the States, I would change that now. I've seen over the years that going from a more controlled position on guns, to a more relaxed position, did not bring a wholesale bout of gunfights in the streets and slaughter and mayhem. I am able to look beyond the hype that the news organizations throw out in hysteria every time something like the Colorado movie theater event generates and see that out of some 315 million people, there will be extreme stupidity no matter what laws are passed and if a citizen can use a gun and obtain his gun legally, and handles it in a responsible manner, I can conceive of no reason why that person should not be allowed to defend himself.
At the end of the day - why we are supposed to depend on police to protect us, when it's obvious that it's an impossible task? Either that or every police force on this planet is crap. After all, more robberies, murders, rapes, etc, are committed than are stopped by police by a large number. Police are mostly for enforcement of laws after a crime has been committed, finding the guilty and delivering them for justice. A part of a system of deterrent, which is obviously very important.
Does it matter if a rape was committed by someone merely using physical force, a knife, or a gun? There simply are not enough police to protect everyone. If there were, a large portion of the population would be doing nothing more than looking out for the other portion all the time.
Other countries are free to enact their own legislation and disarm their citizenry all they want to - it's a free world, conceptually.
I don't think I'll convince anyone who doesn't already think this way. I know people who argue the other side certainly won't change my mind, not with the currently-available facts and my half century of life experience.
But I'm not twisting anything to fit some preconceived notion, I'm not making an emotional choice. If some new facts come along that show me convincingly that gun control actually works then I might change my mind - as I've already done once.
============
The "public" seems to have bought into this belief that life can, and should, be run without risk, that all accidents are avoidable, and that death is something that only happens to people who eat meat and smoke.
- Jeremy Clarkson
ElQueso said:
This sounds nice, but it doesn't make it true.
Human action isn't explained exclusively in terms of irrepressible human will. People do things for a multitude of reasons. People do whats easy, whats convenient, they seize opportunities where they arise. The nature of human action is massively influenced by circumstance.
bradlyhale said:
Speaking of knife attacks, a couple weeks ago, a man walked into a grocery store in Salt Lake City and bought a knife. He then proceeded to the front door and started attacking people as they came in. He had stabbed 2 people before a gun carrying white trash right wing crazy lunatic pulled a gun and threatened to shoot him.
Fortunately, the knife wielding trash, dropped the gun and was held by store employees until the police arrived.
Thank goodness for gun carrying white trash right wing crazies.
jp said:
I didn't say anything about human will. As in every prohibition ever made, as far as I know, people find a way to do things that are prohibited, rightly or wrongly, relatively innocent or hideous. It's not a matter of will - water doesn't have a will when it slips through a strainer. It's water's nature.
Is it not in the nature of many people to do violent things? Perhaps it is not an inherent human genetic factor, but it is certainly a deeply-ingrained cultural factor, varying from culture to culture as to the degree.
We have the right, in almost all societies, to kill in self-defense. That acknowledges the fact that in our collective experience, there are people who will do murder and violence. Yes, opportunity plays into it. You can hardly kill someone who is not near you, after all. Sometimes it doesn't matter who else is near either.
Almost all societies have mitigating circumstances on murder sentencing. As was discussed in another thread, a local musician killed his wife by burning her. Instead of the life sentence the prosecutor asked for, the judge returned 18 years due to the fact that the guy was enraged when he did it.
How can anyone justify rage as a mitigating factor on murder sentencing? It was the taking of a person's life, the most precious thing in existence for each individual. The ultimate rape no matter whether sex was involved. In my mind, such animals do not deserve to live (I am completely against the death penalty for multiple reasons - but they can stay in prison the rest of their lives - that's something I'm happy to help pay for), much less have their sentences mitigated simply because they did something horrendous in a fit of passion.
If they are capable of that, is it not possible that they will do it again? Who really believes that violent people like this can be rehabilitated in prisons? Show me a better way, to really change the "nature" of that person, and I'm willing to consider alternatives.
To me, the only reason to grant mitigating factors in cases such as these is if the law recognizes a certain base human nature. It says we are all capable of this. We are all capable of killing in rage.
Personally, I don't buy it, at least for all people. I can't imagine a situation where I would kill someone purposefully, in a fit of rage. I do believe in manslaughter - I could conceive of me killing someone by accident, say in a fight, as a result of a blow to the head that caused a cerebral hemorrhage, something that I had not intended but caused another person's death.
But to strangle, stab, shoot, burn, etc? I can't imagine me ever being that out of my mind with anger. The very thought nauseates me.
Human nature is a tricky thing. Genetics, memetics, basic animal instincts. All I know is that obviously, some people in society ARE capable of some pretty horrible stuff. It's in their nature.
- Status
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How Milei’s chainsaw economics proved his Left-wing critics wrong | Articles | 3 | |
| S | PASO: what went wrong? Villa 31 provides an insight | Culture | 3 | |
|
You Guys Have It Alll Wrong | Expat Life | 1 | |
| K | Been Doing The Wrong Thing | Newcomers Forum | 1 | |
|
I Must Be Doing Something Wrong... | Expat Life | 30 |