General Forum
Guns 61 replies
the fact that any government body thinks they can take them away is both ridiculous and illegal... not that it stops them. At least the supreme court can read the constitution.
you prob know this Korgrath, but they want too implement gun control in the U.S like up here in Canada cause we got no recognized formal defense (besides the Standing military) in my country.
Canada
Canada
Bear arms > Guns
My right to bear arms!
~Iron
_______________________________________
ps, this number is actually negative ^
Show that you love me and the puppies won't die!
Paypal: admin@wworkshop.com
_______________________________________
ps, this number is actually negative ^
Show that you love me and the puppies won't die!
Paypal: admin@wworkshop.com
_______________________________________
IronSinew (Admin) has posted: 610 forum posts
User ID: 8 / Joined: 2002-06-03
User ID: 8 / Joined: 2002-06-03
Good luck doing that here in texas, heck, we are even allowed to carry concealed hand guns, so long as we have a liscense.
Don't mess with Texas.
Damn democrats and their insane propositions
I think, if they repeal the right for americans to bear arms. Their could very well be another civil war.
Count me in.
I doubt it SL, growing up American I can say in all certainty that you can never ignore the amount of complete apathy most Americans hold for their rights
I think they should banned the production of a brick.
Or at least put a label on it.
"WARNING: Heavy Object. Do NOT throw"
That's retarded?
So is putting a seemingly unloaded gun on your face and pull the trigger.
Or at least put a label on it.
"WARNING: Heavy Object. Do NOT throw"
That's retarded?
So is putting a seemingly unloaded gun on your face and pull the trigger.
LOL crazy bricklayers... almost pegged me off... GET UR HARDHAT ON SON!
[Added at 07/01/2008 11:26:25 by Nataku]
THAT"S A 500 DOLLAR FINE BOY!
Especially when brickies come at ya with their trowell, start putting it to your throat, I mean a jokes a joke but jeez!
w0rd
I like 'gun' control.
Handguns should be banned. (Except for the police/military).
Anything automatic, is now, and should remain banned. [In Canada]
If it’s used for hunting – it’s ok. If not, get rid of it.
Handguns should be banned. (Except for the police/military).
Anything automatic, is now, and should remain banned. [In Canada]
If it’s used for hunting – it’s ok. If not, get rid of it.
why though? so only handguns and semi autos kill? and since they are illegal gangsters will follow the laws and not buy them?
Shadowlord is right, guns are illegal in Britain but theres still loads flying about and there are always people getting shot
Just curiously, why would someone need to carry a gun on them?
I mean, seriously.
We say "self defense", but how many times have each of you actually been mugged, and been in a situation where if you had been carrying a handgun, you would have actually fired it and killed the person attacking you?
Most people are afraid to even fire the weapon. Come on now.
I mean, seriously.
We say "self defense", but how many times have each of you actually been mugged, and been in a situation where if you had been carrying a handgun, you would have actually fired it and killed the person attacking you?
Most people are afraid to even fire the weapon. Come on now.
@Ilidan
Gun culture.
In Switzerland, the males serve national service and they are all issued a rifle to be kept at home. But gun crime rates in Switzerland are astonishingly low. The Swiss people do not have a gun culture.
On another point, I've served two years of national service in my country. In the military, ammunition and use of rifles are taken seriously. It's a very serious military offence to fire before the signal is given at the firing range. Just two days ago, one guy was sentenced to nine years jail for bringing a loaded rifle out of camp. And that's just the civil courts. When he gets out of jail, he'll be charged again in the military courts. Gun culture here is noticeably different. My opinion is that when the responsibility and consequences of bearing arms are doctrined into you, then you'll think twice about bearing arms. So when I see Americans going out to the store to buy a rifle like its grocery shopping, it scares me a little.
Gun culture.
In Switzerland, the males serve national service and they are all issued a rifle to be kept at home. But gun crime rates in Switzerland are astonishingly low. The Swiss people do not have a gun culture.
On another point, I've served two years of national service in my country. In the military, ammunition and use of rifles are taken seriously. It's a very serious military offence to fire before the signal is given at the firing range. Just two days ago, one guy was sentenced to nine years jail for bringing a loaded rifle out of camp. And that's just the civil courts. When he gets out of jail, he'll be charged again in the military courts. Gun culture here is noticeably different. My opinion is that when the responsibility and consequences of bearing arms are doctrined into you, then you'll think twice about bearing arms. So when I see Americans going out to the store to buy a rifle like its grocery shopping, it scares me a little.
Peter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard
I happen to live in Killeen, there were several people who had guns in their cars, and couldve ended that situation before it degenrated into a massacre.
You will find that most people who carry guns on them, are not afraid to use them, especially in the southern states of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard
I happen to live in Killeen, there were several people who had guns in their cars, and couldve ended that situation before it degenrated into a massacre.
You will find that most people who carry guns on them, are not afraid to use them, especially in the southern states of America.
They are not afraid to murder?
i love you the law.
if some fatass paper pushing beuruecrat wants too think otherwise, theyve got a problem.
[Added at 07/09/2008 10:25:49 by Nataku]
nt.if some fatass paper pushing beuruecrat wants too think otherwise, theyve got a problem.
[Added at 07/09/2008 10:26:50 by Nataku]
i live how i want, where i want and when i want. if some paper etc etc *places this line before the insult too all paper pushers*
^ Here here.
now just so everyone knows their are valid and justiied points to both arguements.
but if you are not a criminal and psychologically ok whe should you not be able to own a gun? *some debate can happen here*
because lets face lets arm the good, because the bad already is. and dont bring out the escalation bull crap cause i can and will blow it out of the water. i.e third worl countries.
but if you are not a criminal and psychologically ok whe should you not be able to own a gun? *some debate can happen here*
because lets face lets arm the good, because the bad already is. and dont bring out the escalation bull crap cause i can and will blow it out of the water. i.e third worl countries.
Simply put, you can't take guns away once they're there. You can't wake up one day, as president, and say "no more guns." Civilians will be forbidden to carry guns, but criminals will have access to a huge number of guns. Sure, it'd be nice if ONLY the police and military had guns, but that's impossible today, in any country. A criminal will find a gun if he wants to, because he doesn't care about breaking the law. The next step, I see, is to remove any possibility of being charged for self defense. Criminals know a gun owner will be hesitant to shoot them because of retarded laws that can convict you if you don't do a bunch of stuff to warn the criminal of your intent. It is truly f***ed up that you must weigh the possibility of jail time with the safety of your family. Hell, you could be SUED by a worthless sack of s*** for wounding him in an attempted robbery. It's rare, I admit, but it does happen. You can Google yourself up a news article if you wish. If criminals knew that you were going to shoot them because you wouldn't risk jail or anything, there would be less crime. A lot of people argue that the reverse would be true, because criminals would have to kill to not die, but this is just ludicrous. Few crimes like robbery are done by people with the ability to kill an innocent man. Most crimes are done out of need, out of desperation. Crime is easy, and if you put a huge, easily erected wall in front of it, you're going to cut it way down.
@Pulk
That was basically a gross miscarriage of justice.
Punishment should fit the crime. If you attempt to rob a store, jail time is reasonable. But no court will sentence you to death for robbing a store.
What that marine did was to take the law into his own hands and in doing so, he committed a miscarriage of justice.
That was basically a gross miscarriage of justice.
Punishment should fit the crime. If you attempt to rob a store, jail time is reasonable. But no court will sentence you to death for robbing a store.
What that marine did was to take the law into his own hands and in doing so, he committed a miscarriage of justice.
@Creativename^
No..actually you can take away guns even if they are already there. It just won't happen in America because you guys have a gun culture that's hard to eradicate. You have your powerful gun lobby in congress, and you have a gun issue that's being manipulated for votes by your politicians.
Over here where I live, only the police and the military have guns. The gangsters and the criminals do not have access to guns. It is very much a gun free society. It takes political will to eradicate guns. I say this because guns used to exist in my country. These days, gun crime is so rare that a massive manhunt is sent out if it is found out that a criminal bears arms. I'm just saying that it is possible to take away guns. I can able to tell my business associates from overseas that they can walk on the streets at 3am anywhere in the country and still feel safe.
No..actually you can take away guns even if they are already there. It just won't happen in America because you guys have a gun culture that's hard to eradicate. You have your powerful gun lobby in congress, and you have a gun issue that's being manipulated for votes by your politicians.
Over here where I live, only the police and the military have guns. The gangsters and the criminals do not have access to guns. It is very much a gun free society. It takes political will to eradicate guns. I say this because guns used to exist in my country. These days, gun crime is so rare that a massive manhunt is sent out if it is found out that a criminal bears arms. I'm just saying that it is possible to take away guns. I can able to tell my business associates from overseas that they can walk on the streets at 3am anywhere in the country and still feel safe.
@ShadowLord69
This reminds me of Plato's Republic when Socrates put forth to Cephalus if it was just to return a weapon to a friend who is now insane.
Say today, you are not a criminal and you are sane, what guarantees are there that you'll remain sane and of good moral character in the future? I'm not sure how guns are bought in your country, but are you guys required to go back for routine mental health checkups?
I ask this question because if we assume that if a person is not a criminal and is not insane, then he is fit to bear arms, then we also must go on to ask the question if he will continue to remain sane and of good moral character. Is there a system where people volunteer to return their guns if they think they do not satisfy these two criteria? If such a system does not exist, then it is not logical to base the arms debate on the agreement that a person can bear arms if he is sound and of good conduct.
See a man trying to break into a car? Gun him down?
See a man trying to rob a store? Gun him down?
At what point does a death sentence fit the crime the man is doing? And why are we asking the man on the street who has probably never had formal legal training to answer that question?
On another note, a genuine question. Is it really so difficult to disarm the criminals in your society? Has anybody tried? Or is it the case that nobody has bothered trying because it's just unthinkable to deny people the right to bear arms?
I also put forth to you the fact that nobody is a criminal until he actually uses the gun to commit crime. If we disarm the good, there'll not be any gun crimes that changes the good into a "bad".
Fundamentally, can we disarm the good even though there are no criminals at this point of time when nobody has used the gun for crime. Or are we venturing into the constitutional right to bear arms minefield?
This reminds me of Plato's Republic when Socrates put forth to Cephalus if it was just to return a weapon to a friend who is now insane.
Say today, you are not a criminal and you are sane, what guarantees are there that you'll remain sane and of good moral character in the future? I'm not sure how guns are bought in your country, but are you guys required to go back for routine mental health checkups?
I ask this question because if we assume that if a person is not a criminal and is not insane, then he is fit to bear arms, then we also must go on to ask the question if he will continue to remain sane and of good moral character. Is there a system where people volunteer to return their guns if they think they do not satisfy these two criteria? If such a system does not exist, then it is not logical to base the arms debate on the agreement that a person can bear arms if he is sound and of good conduct.
[Added at 07/09/2008 23:04:10 by Dealer1]
Edit: The main problem with arming the good is that we are giving them the license to murder. See a man trying to break into a car? Gun him down?
See a man trying to rob a store? Gun him down?
At what point does a death sentence fit the crime the man is doing? And why are we asking the man on the street who has probably never had formal legal training to answer that question?
On another note, a genuine question. Is it really so difficult to disarm the criminals in your society? Has anybody tried? Or is it the case that nobody has bothered trying because it's just unthinkable to deny people the right to bear arms?
I also put forth to you the fact that nobody is a criminal until he actually uses the gun to commit crime. If we disarm the good, there'll not be any gun crimes that changes the good into a "bad".
Fundamentally, can we disarm the good even though there are no criminals at this point of time when nobody has used the gun for crime. Or are we venturing into the constitutional right to bear arms minefield?
oh my dear lord, i must equip myself to send out an intellectual sortie against you.
give me some time, this isnt a topic that we should debate lightly. i will get back to you soon.
give me some time, this isnt a topic that we should debate lightly. i will get back to you soon.
I just scanned over what you posted but a few things i saw caught my eye:
Dealer1 said on: 07/09/08 10:29 pm
(7 Hrs, 13 Min, 42 Sec ago)
@Pulk
That was basically a gross miscarriage of justice.
Two men, with weapons were forcing him into the bathroom while committing armed robbery. They would not have hesitated to shoot him if he, or the guy behind the counter had resisted.
See a man trying to break into a car? Gun him down?
See a man trying to rob a store? Gun him down?
Now if i saw a man trying to break into a car, i would shoot my gun in the air and yell at him, 99% of the time they will simply run.
As for robbing a store, that also depends, if im inside the store and it happens, then yes. If, however, im not in any immediate harm, and was able, i would call the cops.
If a guy walking a street sees someone robbing a subway, walks in, and shoots the guys to death. Thats not self defense, thats being a vigilante.
Each scenario has its own particulars, thats why the police view self defense on a case by case basis. There is a huge difference between self defense, and taking the law into your own hands.
Sorry if im rambling, i just woke up like 45 min ago. =(
Dealer1 said on: 07/09/08 10:29 pm
(7 Hrs, 13 Min, 42 Sec ago)
@Pulk
That was basically a gross miscarriage of justice.
Two men, with weapons were forcing him into the bathroom while committing armed robbery. They would not have hesitated to shoot him if he, or the guy behind the counter had resisted.
See a man trying to break into a car? Gun him down?
See a man trying to rob a store? Gun him down?
Now if i saw a man trying to break into a car, i would shoot my gun in the air and yell at him, 99% of the time they will simply run.
As for robbing a store, that also depends, if im inside the store and it happens, then yes. If, however, im not in any immediate harm, and was able, i would call the cops.
If a guy walking a street sees someone robbing a subway, walks in, and shoots the guys to death. Thats not self defense, thats being a vigilante.
Each scenario has its own particulars, thats why the police view self defense on a case by case basis. There is a huge difference between self defense, and taking the law into your own hands.
Sorry if im rambling, i just woke up like 45 min ago. =(
it's a matter of freedom. The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't own. If I were to really like guns and bought a AK-47, never harmed anyone with it, and only brought it to a shooting range, why should I deserve to go to jail? Who did I harm?
Blanket legislation is, by virtue of it's span and scope, idiotic. How is it that someone in Washington DC has any right to tell someone all the way over in Minnesota (that's 1,200 miles away for those who are counting) what they should and shouldn't do?
Politicians, paperwork, and terribly misguided policies have all failed us. The only thing that truly works is to give those who are law abiding the ability to exercise their own rational judgements. I promise there won't be blood running through the streets by the average citizen going crazy with the idea of owning a gun and shooting everyone up.
Blanket legislation is, by virtue of it's span and scope, idiotic. How is it that someone in Washington DC has any right to tell someone all the way over in Minnesota (that's 1,200 miles away for those who are counting) what they should and shouldn't do?
Politicians, paperwork, and terribly misguided policies have all failed us. The only thing that truly works is to give those who are law abiding the ability to exercise their own rational judgements. I promise there won't be blood running through the streets by the average citizen going crazy with the idea of owning a gun and shooting everyone up.
A gross miscarriage of justice? They brought the man and the store clerk into the bathroom and had their guns drawn. Clearly, if it was just a robbery why had they not just taken the money and left. That marine was right in his judgment, and saved two lives that night. Also, it serves robbers right who think that brandishing a gun and using it to rob a store won't lead to grave consequences. Marines 1, Stupid Robbers -1.5.
@Dealer1:
The criminals in your country could easily obtain guns. If there was not a single gun in your country, they could go into a neighboring country and obtain one. I guarantee you I could sneak a gun into or out of your country. What country do you live in?
Feeling safe at night has little to do with how many people are armed. I would not feel safe walking alone in the city center of my city at night, and there are no armed civilians there. There are simply large groups of less than lawful people. Safety has everything to do with what type of trash inhabits the city at night and nothing to do with guns.
Do you really, honestly, believe that you could remove the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns from the US? You couldn't. Ever. Do you think every one of the hundreds of millions of armed Americans has a gun because they like guns? No. They have them for protection. It's not a gun culture, it's a "wow there are lots of undesirable people here" culture. Stun guns, knives, mace, etc. are all for personal protection from those undesirable elements of society who will commit crime if they think they can get away with it. Guns are merely one way of protecting yourself, and an effective one at that.
The criminals in your country could easily obtain guns. If there was not a single gun in your country, they could go into a neighboring country and obtain one. I guarantee you I could sneak a gun into or out of your country. What country do you live in?
Feeling safe at night has little to do with how many people are armed. I would not feel safe walking alone in the city center of my city at night, and there are no armed civilians there. There are simply large groups of less than lawful people. Safety has everything to do with what type of trash inhabits the city at night and nothing to do with guns.
Do you really, honestly, believe that you could remove the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of guns from the US? You couldn't. Ever. Do you think every one of the hundreds of millions of armed Americans has a gun because they like guns? No. They have them for protection. It's not a gun culture, it's a "wow there are lots of undesirable people here" culture. Stun guns, knives, mace, etc. are all for personal protection from those undesirable elements of society who will commit crime if they think they can get away with it. Guns are merely one way of protecting yourself, and an effective one at that.
hah so true Pulk
Took a short getaway out of the country yesterday to Thailand so read the replies late. I live in Singapore anyways.
@Pulk
First things first. The marine shot dead the two robbers. He gave them the death penalty. So we have to establish if his choice of punishment was appropriate.
In 1976, Gregg vs Georgia led to a general acceptance in America that armed robbery by itself did not constitute a capital offence. Only armed robbery with murder of the victim is a capital offence.
I'm not sure about you, but if my purpose was to rob a store, armed or not, I would just be concerned about issuing some threats and then taking the money. The robbers were probably bundling the two guys into the toilet because they were becoming a nuisance. They did not shoot the two guys. They chose to bundle the two guys into the toilet.
It really depends on how you look at it. I believe that the robbery would have ended after the robbers bundled the two men into the toilet to get them out of the way while they ransack the store, taken their money and then left.
We lost the chance to rehab two men, who could contributed in some ways to your society in the future, but were gunned down by a marine who decided that Gregg vs Georgia, 1976 was a load of bull licoln log , carefully thought out and balanced laws that govern the country were bull licoln log , and who decided that -he- was the law.
Of course if you argue that the two robbers would definitely have shot the man and the store clerk, then perhaps, a big perhaps, the marine did the right thing. But we'll never know. The death penalty has already been sentenced and it is not reversible.
@Pulk
First things first. The marine shot dead the two robbers. He gave them the death penalty. So we have to establish if his choice of punishment was appropriate.
In 1976, Gregg vs Georgia led to a general acceptance in America that armed robbery by itself did not constitute a capital offence. Only armed robbery with murder of the victim is a capital offence.
I'm not sure about you, but if my purpose was to rob a store, armed or not, I would just be concerned about issuing some threats and then taking the money. The robbers were probably bundling the two guys into the toilet because they were becoming a nuisance. They did not shoot the two guys. They chose to bundle the two guys into the toilet.
It really depends on how you look at it. I believe that the robbery would have ended after the robbers bundled the two men into the toilet to get them out of the way while they ransack the store, taken their money and then left.
We lost the chance to rehab two men, who could contributed in some ways to your society in the future, but were gunned down by a marine who decided that Gregg vs Georgia, 1976 was a load of bull licoln log , carefully thought out and balanced laws that govern the country were bull licoln log , and who decided that -he- was the law.
Of course if you argue that the two robbers would definitely have shot the man and the store clerk, then perhaps, a big perhaps, the marine did the right thing. But we'll never know. The death penalty has already been sentenced and it is not reversible.
@Korgrath
The country does have a right to tell you what you can own and what you cannot own. It all boils down to the 'social contract theory' that was first developed by three prominent thinkers, Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. I'm not going to turn this into a history/political science/philosophy lecture so to cut to the chase, if you believe in democracy, then you must also accept that your country has a right to tell you what you can own. It's not perfect but it's your political system and your country. I can't buy chewing gum in my country, but I just have to live with it.
I agree with you that blanket legislative can be idiotic but I think the problems lies more with the lobby groups. I don't even know where to begin... An important question that's been asked alot: if legislatures have accountability without power, do interest groups possess power without accountability? Theodore Lowi once said that interest groups are a 'corruption of democratic government'.
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner lobby groups are kicked out of the halls of power in Washington, the sooner America becomes more equal.
The country does have a right to tell you what you can own and what you cannot own. It all boils down to the 'social contract theory' that was first developed by three prominent thinkers, Hobbes, John Locke and Rousseau. I'm not going to turn this into a history/political science/philosophy lecture so to cut to the chase, if you believe in democracy, then you must also accept that your country has a right to tell you what you can own. It's not perfect but it's your political system and your country. I can't buy chewing gum in my country, but I just have to live with it.
I agree with you that blanket legislative can be idiotic but I think the problems lies more with the lobby groups. I don't even know where to begin... An important question that's been asked alot: if legislatures have accountability without power, do interest groups possess power without accountability? Theodore Lowi once said that interest groups are a 'corruption of democratic government'.
As far as I'm concerned, the sooner lobby groups are kicked out of the halls of power in Washington, the sooner America becomes more equal.
@Creativename^
Perhaps they could. But will them, or dare they? The laws of Singapore are strict. We caned Michael Fay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay I remember reading some of the editorials in the New York Times then and they were particularly stinging.
To get back to guns, the use of guns and rifles are associated with national defence. Every able bodied male citizen in Singapore has lobbed a grenade and fired semi-automatics but guns are very rarely used to commit crime in Singapore. Different gun culture. So if you were caught in public in Singapore with a gun and no license, all the best to you and I mean it.
I apologise about linking possession of guns with safety at night. Heh.
It'll be difficult to take away all the guns in the US but it is not possible. It won't happen because any motion to ban guns will be stuck in the legislative body.
But actually, I'm not calling for a complete ban of guns in America. There just needs to be better gun control and education. Which isn't happening yet. Just an idea. Sell guns, but limit the sale of ammunition. The deterrence factor is still there. Nobody knows if your gun is loaded or not.
Perhaps they could. But will them, or dare they? The laws of Singapore are strict. We caned Michael Fay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay I remember reading some of the editorials in the New York Times then and they were particularly stinging.
To get back to guns, the use of guns and rifles are associated with national defence. Every able bodied male citizen in Singapore has lobbed a grenade and fired semi-automatics but guns are very rarely used to commit crime in Singapore. Different gun culture. So if you were caught in public in Singapore with a gun and no license, all the best to you and I mean it.
I apologise about linking possession of guns with safety at night. Heh.
It'll be difficult to take away all the guns in the US but it is not possible. It won't happen because any motion to ban guns will be stuck in the legislative body.
But actually, I'm not calling for a complete ban of guns in America. There just needs to be better gun control and education. Which isn't happening yet. Just an idea. Sell guns, but limit the sale of ammunition. The deterrence factor is still there. Nobody knows if your gun is loaded or not.
There is more than a simple gun culture at work in the US, but I do not wish to start on that thread of discussion. You should be able to see.
Restricting ammunition is absolutely insane. The entire purpose of owning a gun for self defense is to be able to defend yourself if necessary, from bodily harm. Anybody who owns a gun just for "deterrence" and is not prepared to shoot it, is a retard. End of story. A gun will deter an unarmed criminal, and maybe an incompetent thug with a knife. Anyone else, and you will probably have to shoot. Many crimes are committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You do not think rationally then, and charging a gun-wielding citizen may not seem like such a stupid idea, since you want to steal those 3 20's in his wallet. Most crimes done for monetary gain are done out of need (like addiction!), but that does not automatically make the criminal rational, likely due to the aforementioned substance abuse. Who does having an unloaded gun protect? Certainly not the law-abiding citizen, for that is what the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US are.
Restricting ammunition is absolutely insane. The entire purpose of owning a gun for self defense is to be able to defend yourself if necessary, from bodily harm. Anybody who owns a gun just for "deterrence" and is not prepared to shoot it, is a retard. End of story. A gun will deter an unarmed criminal, and maybe an incompetent thug with a knife. Anyone else, and you will probably have to shoot. Many crimes are committed while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You do not think rationally then, and charging a gun-wielding citizen may not seem like such a stupid idea, since you want to steal those 3 20's in his wallet. Most crimes done for monetary gain are done out of need (like addiction!), but that does not automatically make the criminal rational, likely due to the aforementioned substance abuse. Who does having an unloaded gun protect? Certainly not the law-abiding citizen, for that is what the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the US are.
@Dealer
"First things first. The marine shot dead the two robbers. He gave them the death penalty. So we have to establish if his choice of punishment was appropriate."
I am pretty certain that the marine was not trying to punish, or enforce any law. He felt that his life was in danger, he had the means, the right, and the law behind him to care for his own self defense. He had a liscense to carry that gun, inherently a liscense to use it if necessary. That is why there were no criminal charges brought against him. 2 thugs tried to rob a store he was in bundle him off to the back of the store, and at that point it becomes a 50/50 chance of the robbers shooting them, where no cameras can see, or just leaving them in there.
"It'll be difficult to take away all the guns in the US but it is not possible. It won't happen because any motion to ban guns will be stuck in the legislative body."
It is impossible. There are posted speed limits, going above them is breaking the law, yet even police officers give considerable lee-way to citizens found speeding. Why? Because its an unpopular law. Remember the prohibition? All it did was make booze prices go up, and fill the jails with runners, it didnt stop people from drinking. A gun ban wont stop people from owning guns, wont stop people from killing others with guns, and would completely pointless.
"But actually, I'm not calling for a complete ban of guns in America. There just needs to be better gun control and education. Which isn't happening yet."
There are great laws in place here for gun control and education, its just that criminals cannot be stopped, there is absolutely NO way to stop someone from breaking the law if they really want to. To purchase most hand guns for show or for hunting, youre required to have a criminal background check, and a waiting period. you also have to have a liscense for it. To be able to carry a concealed weapon (thsoe states that allow it) you must take a class and pass a test. Also- you must obey all posted signs that say "no guns allowed".
Its not that the US has poor laws concerning guns, its just that we have no control over guns coming into our country illegally.
What the US *needs* to do, is pull our troops out of countries who dont want us there, close our borders, increase our tax on imported goods to raise foreign prices by 50% and sell our own exports at marginally higher prices.
"First things first. The marine shot dead the two robbers. He gave them the death penalty. So we have to establish if his choice of punishment was appropriate."
I am pretty certain that the marine was not trying to punish, or enforce any law. He felt that his life was in danger, he had the means, the right, and the law behind him to care for his own self defense. He had a liscense to carry that gun, inherently a liscense to use it if necessary. That is why there were no criminal charges brought against him. 2 thugs tried to rob a store he was in bundle him off to the back of the store, and at that point it becomes a 50/50 chance of the robbers shooting them, where no cameras can see, or just leaving them in there.
"It'll be difficult to take away all the guns in the US but it is not possible. It won't happen because any motion to ban guns will be stuck in the legislative body."
It is impossible. There are posted speed limits, going above them is breaking the law, yet even police officers give considerable lee-way to citizens found speeding. Why? Because its an unpopular law. Remember the prohibition? All it did was make booze prices go up, and fill the jails with runners, it didnt stop people from drinking. A gun ban wont stop people from owning guns, wont stop people from killing others with guns, and would completely pointless.
"But actually, I'm not calling for a complete ban of guns in America. There just needs to be better gun control and education. Which isn't happening yet."
There are great laws in place here for gun control and education, its just that criminals cannot be stopped, there is absolutely NO way to stop someone from breaking the law if they really want to. To purchase most hand guns for show or for hunting, youre required to have a criminal background check, and a waiting period. you also have to have a liscense for it. To be able to carry a concealed weapon (thsoe states that allow it) you must take a class and pass a test. Also- you must obey all posted signs that say "no guns allowed".
Its not that the US has poor laws concerning guns, its just that we have no control over guns coming into our country illegally.
What the US *needs* to do, is pull our troops out of countries who dont want us there, close our borders, increase our tax on imported goods to raise foreign prices by 50% and sell our own exports at marginally higher prices.
Next, they had guns drawn to the victims heads, who are we to know that they weren't going to shoot the attendant and marine had they (the robbers) not been killed first. That's not a chance I'd like to take, giving two people the opportunity to kill me. I think its easy to judge the actions of the marine not being in his position.
Look up Martin v. Ohio, and do a little reading on self defense law, and you'll come to the conclusion the marine was well within his rights to kill two assailants trying to rob a store.
Look up Martin v. Ohio, and do a little reading on self defense law, and you'll come to the conclusion the marine was well within his rights to kill two assailants trying to rob a store.
[Added at 07/12/2008 19:54:54 by Pulk]
Btw, my last post on this topic. Arguing on the internet is for retards.
[color=silver]I think we should have the right to own nuclear weapons for self-defence. Or tanks.
What, are you guys going to speak against my freedom[/i]? Bunch of fascists.
At the gentlemen saying that gun crimes are still common in Britain, that happens to be a gross lie. Gun crime there is almost non-existant, however now crimes takes form of bladed crimes.
What, are you guys going to speak against my freedom[/i]? Bunch of fascists.
At the gentlemen saying that gun crimes are still common in Britain, that happens to be a gross lie. Gun crime there is almost non-existant, however now crimes takes form of bladed crimes.
[Added at 07/12/2008 19:53:51 by LagunaCid]
Oh, the non-standard BBCode...
From what i hear rape, murder, and robber have gone up in britian since their gun laws.
"The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't own. If I were to really like guns and bought a AK-47, never harmed anyone with it, and only brought it to a shooting range, why should I deserve to go to jail? Who did I harm?"
What's the point of electing a government then if they have no rights over you? The whole point of a government is to give them the right to govern you.
I hear that scenario all the time. Who am I doing harm by having a weapon, if I'm such a good guy?
Someone could easily break into your house when you're not there, steal your gun and go on a rampage. Or some kid may think it'd be neat if he "borrowed" daddy's gun to show it off to his friends in school, only to end up shooting someone accidentally, or having some bully take it from him.
Do you also hold the same logic towards drugs then? Say you really like drugs, and you grow or cook the stuff in your own home, and use it yourself. Would you say the government also has no right to intervene in this case?
You really, cannot, eliminate guns from America. I agree, it's their gun culture. Note the word, "culture". You can't pass legislation to change culture. Culture will change itself overtime. At the moment...there really isn't much the government can do. They can restrict use, but accessibility will always be easy in a country that mass produces them on assembly lines day by day.
What's the point of electing a government then if they have no rights over you? The whole point of a government is to give them the right to govern you.
I hear that scenario all the time. Who am I doing harm by having a weapon, if I'm such a good guy?
Someone could easily break into your house when you're not there, steal your gun and go on a rampage. Or some kid may think it'd be neat if he "borrowed" daddy's gun to show it off to his friends in school, only to end up shooting someone accidentally, or having some bully take it from him.
Do you also hold the same logic towards drugs then? Say you really like drugs, and you grow or cook the stuff in your own home, and use it yourself. Would you say the government also has no right to intervene in this case?
[Added at 07/13/2008 00:28:55 by DeltaFlyer13]
And though I'm a big fan of Dealer's arguements...I have to disagree with him on one thing.You really, cannot, eliminate guns from America. I agree, it's their gun culture. Note the word, "culture". You can't pass legislation to change culture. Culture will change itself overtime. At the moment...there really isn't much the government can do. They can restrict use, but accessibility will always be easy in a country that mass produces them on assembly lines day by day.
@Creativename^
What you say is true.
But to re-emphasise, the idea of an unloaded gun is to deter. That's all. Not all speed cameras have working cameras in them. Drivers do slow down when they see a speed camera though. Those speed cameras, working or not, won't stop a driver high on alcohol or drugs, but they do their job, that is to deter other more rational drivers.
So I'm arguing that gun crime can be reduced this way. I'm not arguing that gun crime will be eliminated completely. That's the limit of my argument.
I can expand on my argument though. Now if we bring up irrational criminals..small time criminals addicted on drugs, who have to rob to cough up cash for their addictions. So how are they going to afford ammunition if ammunition is restricted? We've got to remember that any potential restriction on ammunition applies equally to everybody. The price of ammunition will be jacked up, even them in will become more expensive. It's economics at play here. I was an economics major so it's almost second nature for me to think of solutions this way. If we cannot ban guns or ammunitions, then at least make them expensive. The average small time criminal will no longer have access to ammunition. Gun crime rates go down.
On your related point, while the majority of gun owners in America are law-abiding, it is not a good argument. It is the minority who are not law-abiding that we should focus on even if the majority do not break any laws. If the minority cannot follow the laws, then society as a whole will have to address this problem together. John Stuart Mill expressed this well when he said in 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual', "To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chielfly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society...As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it."
If the minority cannot follow the laws, then society should bear the consequences together. This much is clear, it is not a good argument to say the majority are law-abiding, so gun use should be left as they are.
Of course you can present the same argument, using Illidan's knifes as a counter argument, that a minority may use knifes to murder. Of this, Mill says the question of whether to interfere with the individual becomes open to discussion.
Getting back to solid ground, to contextualise this, the topic that is open to question is, are the use of knifes or guns by the criminal minority dangerous enough to warrant a ban or even tighter legislation (like a restriction on ammunition)? In the former case, knifes are clearly useful beyond a tool for crime, knifes are essential in the kitchen for the majority law-abiding. But can you say the same for a gun? Do guns, beside being used as tools of violence, have any other purpose?
What you say is true.
But to re-emphasise, the idea of an unloaded gun is to deter. That's all. Not all speed cameras have working cameras in them. Drivers do slow down when they see a speed camera though. Those speed cameras, working or not, won't stop a driver high on alcohol or drugs, but they do their job, that is to deter other more rational drivers.
So I'm arguing that gun crime can be reduced this way. I'm not arguing that gun crime will be eliminated completely. That's the limit of my argument.
I can expand on my argument though. Now if we bring up irrational criminals..small time criminals addicted on drugs, who have to rob to cough up cash for their addictions. So how are they going to afford ammunition if ammunition is restricted? We've got to remember that any potential restriction on ammunition applies equally to everybody. The price of ammunition will be jacked up, even them in will become more expensive. It's economics at play here. I was an economics major so it's almost second nature for me to think of solutions this way. If we cannot ban guns or ammunitions, then at least make them expensive. The average small time criminal will no longer have access to ammunition. Gun crime rates go down.
On your related point, while the majority of gun owners in America are law-abiding, it is not a good argument. It is the minority who are not law-abiding that we should focus on even if the majority do not break any laws. If the minority cannot follow the laws, then society as a whole will have to address this problem together. John Stuart Mill expressed this well when he said in 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual', "To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chielfly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society...As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it."
If the minority cannot follow the laws, then society should bear the consequences together. This much is clear, it is not a good argument to say the majority are law-abiding, so gun use should be left as they are.
Of course you can present the same argument, using Illidan's knifes as a counter argument, that a minority may use knifes to murder. Of this, Mill says the question of whether to interfere with the individual becomes open to discussion.
Getting back to solid ground, to contextualise this, the topic that is open to question is, are the use of knifes or guns by the criminal minority dangerous enough to warrant a ban or even tighter legislation (like a restriction on ammunition)? In the former case, knifes are clearly useful beyond a tool for crime, knifes are essential in the kitchen for the majority law-abiding. But can you say the same for a gun? Do guns, beside being used as tools of violence, have any other purpose?
@GuildaMage
As you put it, it is a 50/50 chance. I agree with you that the marine may have been correct in using his gun. What I tried to do was to establish an element of doubt. Because this element of doubt would have been brought up to the Judge if these two criminals were arrested and brought to trial.
A gun ban may not stop people from owning guns, but it will certainly make it more inconvenient and more expensive. It's definitely not completely pointless! Beyond market economics of taking guns out of the reach of the average american, there's also a spillover effect. Criminals who do possess guns, will now think twice about the now harsher punishments before firing.
To reiterate, it is impossible to ban guns, but it is possible to take guns or ammunition out of the monthly grocery list of an average american who can no longer afford them. Gun crime drops. There's no way to stop a criminal who really wants to commit crime, but we can ensure that he cannot afford the ammunition without some pain.
I definitely would like to see America out of some countries. Iraq for example. But the consequences of pulling out prematurely would be drastic. If you guys created the mess in Iraq, then clear it up before you leave. The world is not America's playground. You guys can pull out of the Philippines though. South Korea? Maybe not. I've been to Taiwan and China a few times, and the tensions on the ground are real. America needs to maintain a presence in that region.
If the prices of imported goods are increased, the people who suffer most are Americans who now have to pay more for lower quality products. It can even lead to 'imported inflation'. Protectionist measures don't work and I'm sure you can see this.
To sell your exports at higher prices, you can tweak your the exchange rate of your US dollar. And when you do that, your foreign debt is going to get worse. As it is, you guys are already complaining about the Yuan being relatively too low. By making the US dollar stronger, you are increasing the gap...
America's priority should be to get its house in order. Sort out the bank runs, impose more punitive measures on banks who fail because they think they are "too big to fail". When the credit crunch eases, growth will follow.
As you put it, it is a 50/50 chance. I agree with you that the marine may have been correct in using his gun. What I tried to do was to establish an element of doubt. Because this element of doubt would have been brought up to the Judge if these two criminals were arrested and brought to trial.
A gun ban may not stop people from owning guns, but it will certainly make it more inconvenient and more expensive. It's definitely not completely pointless! Beyond market economics of taking guns out of the reach of the average american, there's also a spillover effect. Criminals who do possess guns, will now think twice about the now harsher punishments before firing.
To reiterate, it is impossible to ban guns, but it is possible to take guns or ammunition out of the monthly grocery list of an average american who can no longer afford them. Gun crime drops. There's no way to stop a criminal who really wants to commit crime, but we can ensure that he cannot afford the ammunition without some pain.
I definitely would like to see America out of some countries. Iraq for example. But the consequences of pulling out prematurely would be drastic. If you guys created the mess in Iraq, then clear it up before you leave. The world is not America's playground. You guys can pull out of the Philippines though. South Korea? Maybe not. I've been to Taiwan and China a few times, and the tensions on the ground are real. America needs to maintain a presence in that region.
If the prices of imported goods are increased, the people who suffer most are Americans who now have to pay more for lower quality products. It can even lead to 'imported inflation'. Protectionist measures don't work and I'm sure you can see this.
To sell your exports at higher prices, you can tweak your the exchange rate of your US dollar. And when you do that, your foreign debt is going to get worse. As it is, you guys are already complaining about the Yuan being relatively too low. By making the US dollar stronger, you are increasing the gap...
America's priority should be to get its house in order. Sort out the bank runs, impose more punitive measures on banks who fail because they think they are "too big to fail". When the credit crunch eases, growth will follow.
@Pulk
Was about to type a decent chunk to reply you then I saw your edit.
I accept but do not agree with your point of view. Have a good day.
Was about to type a decent chunk to reply you then I saw your edit.
I accept but do not agree with your point of view. Have a good day.
@DeltaFlyer13
Good to see somebody agreeing with me!
Sadly though, I think the gun culture in America is there to stay. If we can't change the culture, then we must legislate it. What we can try to do is to take guns out of the reach of most Americans.
Even so, any motion to increase the price of ammunition or guns will be blocked by the NRA in congress. It's a pity.
Good to see somebody agreeing with me!
Sadly though, I think the gun culture in America is there to stay. If we can't change the culture, then we must legislate it. What we can try to do is to take guns out of the reach of most Americans.
Even so, any motion to increase the price of ammunition or guns will be blocked by the NRA in congress. It's a pity.
"That's all. Not all speed cameras have working cameras in them. Drivers do slow down when they see a speed camera though. Those speed cameras, working or not, won't stop a driver high on alcohol or drugs, but they do their job, that is to deter other more rational drivers. "
They dont just slow down, they slam their breaks, areas with speed cameras have a larger percentage of rear end collisions then other areas.
"I definitely would like to see America out of some countries. Iraq for example. But the consequences of pulling out prematurely would be drastic. If you guys created the mess in Iraq, then clear it up before you leave. The world is not America's playground. You guys can pull out of the Philippines though. South Korea? Maybe not. I've been to Taiwan and China a few times, and the tensions on the ground are real. America needs to maintain a presence in that region. "
When it all comes down to it, i think everyone will agree that saddam hussein was guilty of attempted genocide some 15 years ago. The first war should have ended with him being captured, put on trial, and either spending a lifetime in prision or being put to death. America is not responsible for that mess.
And now we get to the part which makes me laugh. All foreign countries are nothing but hipocrits. You dont want the US to do things that you find wrong, but youre more then willing to let us play peacemaker to the koreas and taiwan/china. Honestly, my view point is this: Either we help and help how we see fit, or we say screw the world, and dont do a thing. It is not our obligation to protect south korea or taiwan, nor to send relief to countries suffering from natural disasters, i mean, i dont recall hearing that anyone sent the US millions of dollars worth of aid when we had Katrina..no..we were left to pick up the pieces on our own.
"If the prices of imported goods are increased, the people who suffer most are Americans who now have to pay more for lower quality products. It can even lead to 'imported inflation'. Protectionist measures don't work and I'm sure you can see this."
Not really, america is the largest imported of non-essential goods. Sure, life would suck for us for a while, not every family could own xbox 360s, wiis, ps3s, and have a wide screen tv in every home. The first 5 years or so would be rough, but one of the things in our favor is that we not only make enough food to provide for ourselves, we are also one of the largest exports of food.
"To sell your exports at higher prices, you can tweak your the exchange rate of your US dollar. And when you do that, your foreign debt is going to get worse. As it is, you guys are already complaining about the Yuan being relatively too low. By making the US dollar stronger, you are increasing the gap..."
Once we pulled the majority of our troops out of foreign countries and stopped sending billions of relief money we would have no problems paying off our national debt, or tweaking the exchange rate. America could very easily become the most dominant country again, we just have to stop doing everything, for everyone.
They dont just slow down, they slam their breaks, areas with speed cameras have a larger percentage of rear end collisions then other areas.
"I definitely would like to see America out of some countries. Iraq for example. But the consequences of pulling out prematurely would be drastic. If you guys created the mess in Iraq, then clear it up before you leave. The world is not America's playground. You guys can pull out of the Philippines though. South Korea? Maybe not. I've been to Taiwan and China a few times, and the tensions on the ground are real. America needs to maintain a presence in that region. "
When it all comes down to it, i think everyone will agree that saddam hussein was guilty of attempted genocide some 15 years ago. The first war should have ended with him being captured, put on trial, and either spending a lifetime in prision or being put to death. America is not responsible for that mess.
And now we get to the part which makes me laugh. All foreign countries are nothing but hipocrits. You dont want the US to do things that you find wrong, but youre more then willing to let us play peacemaker to the koreas and taiwan/china. Honestly, my view point is this: Either we help and help how we see fit, or we say screw the world, and dont do a thing. It is not our obligation to protect south korea or taiwan, nor to send relief to countries suffering from natural disasters, i mean, i dont recall hearing that anyone sent the US millions of dollars worth of aid when we had Katrina..no..we were left to pick up the pieces on our own.
"If the prices of imported goods are increased, the people who suffer most are Americans who now have to pay more for lower quality products. It can even lead to 'imported inflation'. Protectionist measures don't work and I'm sure you can see this."
Not really, america is the largest imported of non-essential goods. Sure, life would suck for us for a while, not every family could own xbox 360s, wiis, ps3s, and have a wide screen tv in every home. The first 5 years or so would be rough, but one of the things in our favor is that we not only make enough food to provide for ourselves, we are also one of the largest exports of food.
"To sell your exports at higher prices, you can tweak your the exchange rate of your US dollar. And when you do that, your foreign debt is going to get worse. As it is, you guys are already complaining about the Yuan being relatively too low. By making the US dollar stronger, you are increasing the gap..."
Once we pulled the majority of our troops out of foreign countries and stopped sending billions of relief money we would have no problems paying off our national debt, or tweaking the exchange rate. America could very easily become the most dominant country again, we just have to stop doing everything, for everyone.
Without every random jerk off having a gun we wouldn't live in a country called the USA right now.
But to re-emphasize, the idea of an unloaded gun is to deter. That's all. Not all speed cameras have working cameras in them. Drivers do slow down when they see a speed camera though. Those speed cameras, working or not, won't stop a driver high on alcohol or drugs, but they do their job, that is to deter other more rational drivers.
It's an example of risk vs reward. If you don't slow down for a camera, you are almost guaranteed to get a ticket. What do you gain? You get to work 7 seconds earlier! Woot! If you call the gun-wielder's bluff, he either has to be very convincing, or run. The criminal has a tough decision to make: complete the robbery and gain a good bit of money, or surrender and avoid possibility of being shot. Keep in mind he is likely high/drunk/high on adrenaline, and will not make the best decision for his body. He's not in an A/C'ed car, driving to/from his day job - he's probably unable to find a job and addicted to crack. He doesn't have a whole lot to lose if the odds aren't on his side.
I can expand on my argument though. Now if we bring up irrational criminals..small time criminals addicted on drugs, who have to rob to cough up cash for their addictions. So how are they going to afford ammunition if ammunition is restricted? We've got to remember that any potential restriction on ammunition applies equally to everybody. The price of ammunition will be jacked up, even them in will become more expensive. It's economics at play here. I was an economics major so it's almost second nature for me to think of solutions this way. If we cannot ban guns or ammunitions, then at least make them expensive. The average small time criminal will no longer have access to ammunition. Gun crime rates go down.
First, there's always going to be a black market. There will always be someone who is prepared to make money at the price of public safety.
Second, ammo is very cheap, and you only need a bit. You only need 1 or 2 high caliber rounds to kill someone. In order to make it unprofitable for someone to buy ammunition for a robbery, there would need to be price increases of like 1000%. That would never fly in a capitalist society like the US.
Third, there are hundreds of billions of rounds already in the US. Just as if guns were outlawed, it would be easy to obtain ammo. Yes, it could stop an unmotivated criminal, but not anyone determined to get their hands on some ammo. It's the same for any type of restriction: those who want to commit a crime will not care about laws.
On your related point, while the majority of gun owners in America are law-abiding, it is not a good argument. It is the minority who are not law-abiding that we should focus on even if the majority do not break any laws. If the minority cannot follow the laws, then society as a whole will have to address this problem together. John Stuart Mill expressed this well when he said in 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual', "To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society...As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it."
So why not impose the death penalty automatically for any crime committed with any weapon? Also allow citizens to kill anyone committing a crime with a weapon. Go for the root (the criminal), not the stem (weapon). If we do that, I expect most people will be willing to give up their guns. There will of course be a few who will continue to commit crimes, but I expect that the risk (near certain death) far outweighs the reward. Right now, death is not certain, even when walking into a shop full of armed people. If you get caught by the police, you go to jail for a few years.
Essentially what I am proposing is all out war on crime. The high stakes will immediately stop a lot of crime, but cause others to become more reckless and kill on sight, rather than take hostages. That is the price of the only valid solution for a drastic reduction in crime. Can you think of a better way?
Do guns, beside being used as tools of violence, have any other purpose?
Obviously it would be best if guns had not been invented.
It's an example of risk vs reward. If you don't slow down for a camera, you are almost guaranteed to get a ticket. What do you gain? You get to work 7 seconds earlier! Woot! If you call the gun-wielder's bluff, he either has to be very convincing, or run. The criminal has a tough decision to make: complete the robbery and gain a good bit of money, or surrender and avoid possibility of being shot. Keep in mind he is likely high/drunk/high on adrenaline, and will not make the best decision for his body. He's not in an A/C'ed car, driving to/from his day job - he's probably unable to find a job and addicted to crack. He doesn't have a whole lot to lose if the odds aren't on his side.
I can expand on my argument though. Now if we bring up irrational criminals..small time criminals addicted on drugs, who have to rob to cough up cash for their addictions. So how are they going to afford ammunition if ammunition is restricted? We've got to remember that any potential restriction on ammunition applies equally to everybody. The price of ammunition will be jacked up, even them in will become more expensive. It's economics at play here. I was an economics major so it's almost second nature for me to think of solutions this way. If we cannot ban guns or ammunitions, then at least make them expensive. The average small time criminal will no longer have access to ammunition. Gun crime rates go down.
First, there's always going to be a black market. There will always be someone who is prepared to make money at the price of public safety.
Second, ammo is very cheap, and you only need a bit. You only need 1 or 2 high caliber rounds to kill someone. In order to make it unprofitable for someone to buy ammunition for a robbery, there would need to be price increases of like 1000%. That would never fly in a capitalist society like the US.
Third, there are hundreds of billions of rounds already in the US. Just as if guns were outlawed, it would be easy to obtain ammo. Yes, it could stop an unmotivated criminal, but not anyone determined to get their hands on some ammo. It's the same for any type of restriction: those who want to commit a crime will not care about laws.
On your related point, while the majority of gun owners in America are law-abiding, it is not a good argument. It is the minority who are not law-abiding that we should focus on even if the majority do not break any laws. If the minority cannot follow the laws, then society as a whole will have to address this problem together. John Stuart Mill expressed this well when he said in 'Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual', "To individuality should belong the part of life in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested; to society, the part which chiefly interests society...As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it."
So why not impose the death penalty automatically for any crime committed with any weapon? Also allow citizens to kill anyone committing a crime with a weapon. Go for the root (the criminal), not the stem (weapon). If we do that, I expect most people will be willing to give up their guns. There will of course be a few who will continue to commit crimes, but I expect that the risk (near certain death) far outweighs the reward. Right now, death is not certain, even when walking into a shop full of armed people. If you get caught by the police, you go to jail for a few years.
Essentially what I am proposing is all out war on crime. The high stakes will immediately stop a lot of crime, but cause others to become more reckless and kill on sight, rather than take hostages. That is the price of the only valid solution for a drastic reduction in crime. Can you think of a better way?
Do guns, beside being used as tools of violence, have any other purpose?
Obviously it would be best if guns had not been invented.
Guns are also tools of survival. Hunting for instance.
Stuff..cropped up so I've been up to my neck in work. I'm going to pull out of this arms discussion because everything's been said.
@GuildaMage
So what do you suggest then? Pulling out of Iraq and leaving Iraq as a place for extremists and radicals to flourish? I don't see how you can deny that America invaded Iraq and created this mess when your political leaders have already acknowledged that they made a mess in Iraq. What is at stake here is American credibility and as it is, it is not high. You violated international laws, you destroyed the infrastructure and economy of a country and now you want to pull out?
Singapore sent three Chinook helicopters to help in response to Katrina. We arrived at the disaster area before the bulk of your rescue troops did. Where on Earth have you been living to be able to claim that other countries did not bother to step forward to offer aid? Kuwait donated about 500 million us dollars worth of oil products!
My view is this. If America wants to remain a world superpower, then it has its obligations and responsibilities. If you think of America as a small time nation, then look for a politician who agrees with you, who thinks that America has the same political clout as say..Brunei or Bhutan and consequently, also thinks that America as a small nation now no longer needs to supply foreign aid, and then you vote for him. Put your beliefs into action and you have my respect.
Your protectionist arguments do not hold any economic water. When you argue that life would suck for 5 years or so, you are assuming that the quality of America's products will catch up within this five years and that the cost of producing these products will drop. This will not happen. This will never happen. It is a natural phenomenon that some countries have a natural advantage at producing certain goods, so when we trade, both countries are better off overall. The classic example really is China of not too long ago. They were once on the brink of becoming a world superpower. A few years of protectionist measures and look what happened. They had to pay high prices for inferior local products and they are still recovering from this absurd economic decision. Your idea holds absolutely zero economic sense. I'm being harsh (but honest) here because I think it's important for you to know that your ideals will lead America to economic disaster and financial bankruptcy. It goes against the grain of every accepted economic theory of international trade. You should sit down with a friend who majors in economics and get him to explain to you the intricacies of international trade.
Studies have shown that even if America stops foreign aid, its foreign debt will still continue to grow. The problem here is mismanagement of the American economy, the credit crunch in particular, not foreign aid. It is as clear as daylight to most economic thinkers around the world and it should be for you as well. In this current economic climate, the day America strengthens its dollar is the day millions of Americans lose their job when foreign demand for its exports fall.
To summarise, every major economic theory, from Keynesian to neo-Keynesian to Baumol and Tobin, Classical to Friedmanite, and even the new Intertemporal Theory of money, agrees that your ideas will worsen the current state of America's economy.
@GuildaMage
So what do you suggest then? Pulling out of Iraq and leaving Iraq as a place for extremists and radicals to flourish? I don't see how you can deny that America invaded Iraq and created this mess when your political leaders have already acknowledged that they made a mess in Iraq. What is at stake here is American credibility and as it is, it is not high. You violated international laws, you destroyed the infrastructure and economy of a country and now you want to pull out?
Singapore sent three Chinook helicopters to help in response to Katrina. We arrived at the disaster area before the bulk of your rescue troops did. Where on Earth have you been living to be able to claim that other countries did not bother to step forward to offer aid? Kuwait donated about 500 million us dollars worth of oil products!
My view is this. If America wants to remain a world superpower, then it has its obligations and responsibilities. If you think of America as a small time nation, then look for a politician who agrees with you, who thinks that America has the same political clout as say..Brunei or Bhutan and consequently, also thinks that America as a small nation now no longer needs to supply foreign aid, and then you vote for him. Put your beliefs into action and you have my respect.
Your protectionist arguments do not hold any economic water. When you argue that life would suck for 5 years or so, you are assuming that the quality of America's products will catch up within this five years and that the cost of producing these products will drop. This will not happen. This will never happen. It is a natural phenomenon that some countries have a natural advantage at producing certain goods, so when we trade, both countries are better off overall. The classic example really is China of not too long ago. They were once on the brink of becoming a world superpower. A few years of protectionist measures and look what happened. They had to pay high prices for inferior local products and they are still recovering from this absurd economic decision. Your idea holds absolutely zero economic sense. I'm being harsh (but honest) here because I think it's important for you to know that your ideals will lead America to economic disaster and financial bankruptcy. It goes against the grain of every accepted economic theory of international trade. You should sit down with a friend who majors in economics and get him to explain to you the intricacies of international trade.
Studies have shown that even if America stops foreign aid, its foreign debt will still continue to grow. The problem here is mismanagement of the American economy, the credit crunch in particular, not foreign aid. It is as clear as daylight to most economic thinkers around the world and it should be for you as well. In this current economic climate, the day America strengthens its dollar is the day millions of Americans lose their job when foreign demand for its exports fall.
To summarise, every major economic theory, from Keynesian to neo-Keynesian to Baumol and Tobin, Classical to Friedmanite, and even the new Intertemporal Theory of money, agrees that your ideas will worsen the current state of America's economy.
Oh boy, thanks Dealer for saving me the time to write up a jumbo-sized reply, haha ^^
And Pulk...
Arguing over the internet is for retards, yes. But having a debate where you learn new things and put your values and knwoledge into test, is not. Unless you are insecure, Pulk.
And Pulk...
Arguing over the internet is for retards, yes. But having a debate where you learn new things and put your values and knwoledge into test, is not. Unless you are insecure, Pulk.
So LC, just for a heads up its called having the MCATs (Medical School Entrance Exam) to take, and a Genetics class over the summer. I wanted to personally apologize to you for not spending time on an internet forum debating and attempting to focus on my academic future.
I'm not gonna re-enter the arguments till my exams and work is done (Aug. 20th), and I have no idea what you guys are debating about right now.
Btw random comment though @ Dealer, about the Kuwait 500million thing...it figures they should give us something back for not becoming Iraq jr. during the Gulf War. This irked me too, I'm not accepting the claim that was made but when you say "Studies have shown that even if America stops foreign aid, its foreign debt will still continue to grow. " I expect at least a link...I mean after all I could say that studies show that girls who give fellatio have a 40% less chance of getting breast cancer, but what proof would I have.
I'll say this right now, they #1 problem with the US is Greed and stupid people giving sub-prime loans to douchebags who they know will default.
Food for thought (Yeah it's on science daily but its actually all over the internet):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724115043.htm
I'm not gonna re-enter the arguments till my exams and work is done (Aug. 20th), and I have no idea what you guys are debating about right now.
Btw random comment though @ Dealer, about the Kuwait 500million thing...it figures they should give us something back for not becoming Iraq jr. during the Gulf War. This irked me too, I'm not accepting the claim that was made but when you say "Studies have shown that even if America stops foreign aid, its foreign debt will still continue to grow. " I expect at least a link...I mean after all I could say that studies show that girls who give fellatio have a 40% less chance of getting breast cancer, but what proof would I have.
I'll say this right now, they #1 problem with the US is Greed and stupid people giving sub-prime loans to douchebags who they know will default.
Food for thought (Yeah it's on science daily but its actually all over the internet):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724115043.htm
Pulk, I'll love to give you a link but the problem with following so many economic journals is that you tend to forget which ones published which study. Hey..at least I'm honest! But this is definitely normal as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure you'll agree with me if you get into medical school and you start getting bombarded by medical journals. As a person living in Asia and my livelihood is affected more by Asian news and development, I tend to focus on and remember studies affecting the Asian region.
Secondly, even if I remember which study it was, posting a link isn't very helpful. Most economic journals require subscriptions, which also probably means very few here would be able to access the link. I could post up a link linking fellatio with cancer and claim it's an economic study and you wouldn't be none the wiser if you don't have a subscription.
But really, it borders on ludicrous to think that foreign aid is the main cause or source of America's foreign debt and it shouldn't require a study to de-legitimise this absurd idea. It just occured to me to google 'US foreign aid and foreign debt'. So let's see what we get.
The third link the search engine throws up looks promising.
http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/98-916.pdf
A quick look through and you may notice a damning statement on CRS-20. "Foreign aid spending is a relatively small component of the U.S. federal budget."
So there we have it. All this took me lesser than five minutes.
Good luck with your exams. There's no debate here anymore. I don't even know why I'm talking about guns. When you've had the experience of lobbing grenades..guns? Bah! Which university are you angling for?
We can clearly see that as only 0.9% of the budget, there is no way aid can be the reason for America's foreign debt. And as I've pointed out some time ago in another thread, much of this aid comes back to America. CRS-20 to CRS-22 make for some illuminating reading.
Secondly, even if I remember which study it was, posting a link isn't very helpful. Most economic journals require subscriptions, which also probably means very few here would be able to access the link. I could post up a link linking fellatio with cancer and claim it's an economic study and you wouldn't be none the wiser if you don't have a subscription.
But really, it borders on ludicrous to think that foreign aid is the main cause or source of America's foreign debt and it shouldn't require a study to de-legitimise this absurd idea. It just occured to me to google 'US foreign aid and foreign debt'. So let's see what we get.
The third link the search engine throws up looks promising.
http://italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/98-916.pdf
A quick look through and you may notice a damning statement on CRS-20. "Foreign aid spending is a relatively small component of the U.S. federal budget."
So there we have it. All this took me lesser than five minutes.
Good luck with your exams. There's no debate here anymore. I don't even know why I'm talking about guns. When you've had the experience of lobbing grenades..guns? Bah! Which university are you angling for?
[Added at 07/30/2008 07:32:04 by Dealer1]
Edit: That website I posted up is actually interesting! We can clearly see that as only 0.9% of the budget, there is no way aid can be the reason for America's foreign debt. And as I've pointed out some time ago in another thread, much of this aid comes back to America. CRS-20 to CRS-22 make for some illuminating reading.
I'm not gonna argue about the foreign debt stuff because I agree with you dealer, even doing an inflation adjustment of the money given out by the Marshall Plan doesn't add up to nearly enough.
So, in regards to med school, my top choice is a Military Medical School in Bethesda, but I'm still looking into several universities like Stony Brook, Georgetown, and Penn State. If my MCAT grades come back as good as my practice ones have been going I should have a good shot at the Ivies as well.
So, in regards to med school, my top choice is a Military Medical School in Bethesda, but I'm still looking into several universities like Stony Brook, Georgetown, and Penn State. If my MCAT grades come back as good as my practice ones have been going I should have a good shot at the Ivies as well.
MCATs (Medical School Entrance Exam)
You realize that your second, third, and fourth letters don't even match the first letter of the second, third, and fourth words? :p
Though the incorrect words are actually synonyms for the actual words, so it's all good. :)
You realize that your second, third, and fourth letters don't even match the first letter of the second, third, and fourth words? :p
Though the incorrect words are actually synonyms for the actual words, so it's all good. :)
People say EKG but spell it out electrocardiogram (EKG is derived from elektrokardiogramm, the German spelling). Acronyms don't have to make sense always.
Actually, I've seen ECG used more predominantly than EKG. The only times I've seen EKG was from the slides of this creepy French prof...which, after your explaination about the German origin, makes sense. My old physics textbook also uses ECG instead.
I assume it's one of those crazy North American/European differences?
I assume it's one of those crazy North American/European differences?
Yeah, I don't know why I chose to write that rather than Medical College Admission Test, probably just a brain fart.
I believe most medical people in NA use "ECG" because that's the correct translation for English speakers. People who learn their medical "knowledge" from TV/movies tend to use EKG. At least that's my experience. I use EKG because, in line with the above, it's more common. It's also easier to pronounce, IMO.
[Added at 08/06/2008 21:45:48 by Creativename^]
All this over a typo. Internet ftw.