curlyguy18 wrote:What's your opinion about gun violence in the USA?
Guns should be forbidden.
chi chi wrote:Guns should be forbidden. They are only made for one reason: to kill people.
sbaustin wrote:chi chi wrote:Guns should be forbidden. They are only made for one reason: to kill people.
chi chi's personal opinion aside, guns are made for protection against criminals and governments. I think most Americans realize that there will be gun deaths but that isn't enough a reason to remove them from society. In fact, it is a constitution right in the United States. You can read a little more about the history of it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_k ... ted_States
And a little snippet from the constitution:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
tomsax wrote:Okay so it's not enough of a reason because of the constitution. And people are proud of the constitutuion. I know its almost a crime in the US to say it, but for the moment, forget the consittution, decide on the basis of what is right
sbaustin wrote:chi chi's personal opinion aside, guns are made for protection against criminals and governments.
falconagain wrote:I would say that a signal of improvement within Peru is the allowance of
gun ownership to their citizens.
sbaustin wrote:tomsax wrote:Okay so it's not enough of a reason because of the constitution. And people are proud of the constitutuion. I know its almost a crime in the US to say it, but for the moment, forget the consittution, decide on the basis of what is right
If you want an opinion independent of the Constitution I think a majority of Americans believe it is a right, a moral right, to allow law abiding Americans the opportunity to protect themselves and their property with a gun.
The people against gun rights often talk about innocent people being killed by guns (it happens and is sad) and I think that most Americans understand this but still support the right to bear arms. Criminals and governments are part of the reason why the second amendment exists by the way, not sure why you are questioning that.
To your comment about crime, check out some of the info in this Havard report. There are some interesting statistics about countries with strict gun laws and the murder rates/etc: http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/org ... online.pdf
That's fine, possibly you are against the right of law abiding citizens to have guns, but many don't agree with you and feel like their ability to protect themselves is more important than you feel it might be.
can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others
teamoperu wrote:Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.
gringo from uk wrote:teamoperu wrote:Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.
I agree - Violence in movies, in sports, in video games. I am not sure,but I believe Canadian government made a campaign,where they bought back guns from gun owners some 30 years ago. The campaign was a success.
All applicants for gun license should be screened with ultimate care.Various video games should be banned from the market yesterday.It is a fact, the violent video games, are the reasons for various public shootings.
sbaustin wrote:can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others
There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.
tomsax wrote:
I do think that if someone accepts (as I do) that controlling gun ownership would reduce the death of innocent people killed by guns, then if they still oppose gun control, then that is morally questionable.
ironchefchris wrote:It's refreshing to see that even in a conversation about as controversial a topic as guns and the nature of violence that, in spite of differing opinions, the level of conversation is such that there is no name calling, threats of legal action or use of physical violence to beat someone up, or even something as extreme as popping a cap in someone's ass, simply for having a differing opinion or questioning the opinion of another.
sbaustin wrote:tomsax wrote:
I do think that if someone accepts (as I do) that controlling gun ownership would reduce the death of innocent people killed by guns, then if they still oppose gun control, then that is morally questionable.
I find it immoral to limit my ability to protect my family so that's just a difference of opinion. All that said, there are many other things that kill us more frequently than guns and based on your logic we should be morally obligated to regulate them as well. Cancer and Heart disease in the USA account for over 50% of all deaths each year (1.5 million) and we'd save more lives by a factor of 10 or 100 by regulating sugar, salt, and fried foods than by worrying about guns.
Gun deaths in the USA have dropped about 50% in the last 20 years. One of the interesting theories I read about the violent crime reduction which plays into this figure comes from the economist Stephen Levitt. He postulates that the legalization of abortion reduces crime and is an interesting theory.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun ... 24998.html
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abor ... u-believe/
tomsax wrote:his is the problem with statistics-
chi chi wrote:
Guns should be forbidden.
chi chi wrote:
They are only made for one reason: to kill people.
chi chi wrote:
Not all people that got killed by a gun got killed in a criminal context. Often children find the gun of their parents and play with it with disastrous consequences.
chi chi wrote:Protection against governments??? In Syria, they are presently protecting themselves against the government with the use of guns. What a mess!!
chi chi wrote:falconagain wrote:I would say that a signal of improvement within Peru is the allowance of
gun ownership to their citizens.
That will be disastrous. Peru will become the wild west.
chi chi wrote:In the UK, Japan, Australia and Ireland there are very strict gun laws so there's very little crime involving guns.
sbaustin wrote:There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.
chi chi wrote:I don't understand what the topic has to do with Peru.
gringito wrote:A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens.
gringito wrote:I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!
teamoperu wrote:Guns do not kill people: people kill people. It is not the guns per se, if not used they would be no problem, it is the culture of violence that is the root problem. Violence in movies, in sports, in video games, even in foreign policy (do what we say or we will bomb you). Gun violence is just an expression of the violent culture, not the cause.
sbaustin wrote:can understand the argument about people wanting the right to bear arms, but the whole point of morality is that you take a view not based on what is good for you, or even good for you and your family but on what is good for others
There is nothing inherently immoral about gun ownership which seems to be your argument.
sbaustin wrote:tomsax wrote:his is the problem with statistics-
You didn't really provide an opinion on guns only commented on mine so are you arguing that because an innocent person can be killed by a gun that they should be banned?
28 de julio wrote:Surely that's a relative judgement. Owning a tool that's specifically designed to take a life, or many lives, could be considered by many to be immoral.
tomsax wrote:...y but I certainly think there should be more gun control yes. Not just becuase an innocent person "can be killed" but because I'm sure it would reduce the number of innocent people shot and considering a range of rights, not just the right to bear arms which seems to be a fixation peculiar to the States.
sbaustin wrote:I think ironchefchris's comment about trust was with regards to the framework for the government trusts citizens over the government which is why Americans are allowed by right to have guns. The actual government does not trust its citizens which I don't think is unusual for any government in the world at any time.
chi chi wrote:gringito wrote:I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!
Effective means? Do we have to arm everybody now? Schoolteachers, the cashier at the checkout at the supermarket, the busdriver, the bartender. And all flight attendant and pilots? Why not? There's no police presence at 30000 ft.
gringito wrote:chi chi wrote:gringito wrote:I agree! There is nothing wrong to dispose of effective (!) means to defend yourself or your family, loved ones etc.
Would anybody rip the claws and teeth out of a cat?
A country that allows its citizens to bear arms trusts its citizens!
Effective means? Do we have to arm everybody now? Schoolteachers, the cashier at the checkout at the supermarket, the busdriver, the bartender. And all flight attendant and pilots? Why not? There's no police presence at 30000 ft.
Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
Maybe YOU do not like guns. That's ok! But do not dictate how other persons should defend themselfs.
On who' s side are you on, BTW? On the side of the criminals????
Nearly every person I know that was personally seriously victimized supports guns or other effective weapons for self defense.
If my girl can defend herself in a dark Lima or Miami night and shoots a thug...OK!!!![]()
Better SHE survives!
But I will definitly not tell her "forget effective self defense means...and when it happens..well...then lay back and enjoy the ride!".
I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!
gringito wrote:Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
Maybe YOU do not like guns. That's ok! But do not dictate how other persons should defend themselfs.
On who' s side are you on, BTW? On the side of the criminals????
Nearly every person I know that was personally seriously victimized supports guns or other effective weapons for self defense.
If my girl can defend herself in a dark Lima or Miami night and shoots a thug...OK!!!![]()
Better SHE survives!
But I will definitly not tell her "forget effective self defense means...and when it happens..well...then lay back and enjoy the ride!".
I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!
Timmy69 wrote:Now, that is just a silly argument about women and old people - I'd imagine that most 200lb criminals who attack people want to commit robbery and are going to have a gun.
Timmy69 wrote:Pulling a gun on a criminal who is already holding one to your face will just get you shot.
Timmy69 wrote:All advice when you get mugged by a criminal is to give them your valuables and walk away with your life.
Timmy69 wrote:And look at Aaron Alexis, he entered a navy facility where there were plenty of armed people to stop him, but he still managed to kill a dozen people and maim countless others.
Timmy69 wrote:
I think most people who worry about guns aren't quacks, but are worried about the easy availability of assault weapons and their child, husband or brother will be shot by someone with a grudge who has easy access to guns.
...
I don't think the argument is about being anti-gun, but about guns being so easily available.
Timmy69 wrote: If I lived in a dangerous neighbourhood, I would certainly feel safer with a gun beside my bed. However, I wouldn't dream of wandering the streets with it.
Timmy69 wrote:So being against easy access to guns is very different from saying all guns bad and standing up for criminals and lunatics. It's the easy access to guns that makes life dangerous.
chi chi wrote:So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?
chi chi wrote:gringito wrote:Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!
So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?
Having a photo of Klaus Kinski as an avatar, who famously threatened Werner Herzog with a gun on the sets of both Aguirre Wrath of God and Fitzcaraldo, doesn't inspire confidence in someone who suggests we'll only all be safe from criminals once we're all heavily armed to the teeth. I can't say I'd like to have an argument in a bar with Gringito over the subject of gun control. He'll probably be packing something under his jacket and after a few beers if I push him the wrong way, who knows what he'd do with that weapon. Scary.
Timmy69 wrote:chi chi wrote:gringito wrote:Tell this to a 50lbs women or an 80 year old man that gets attacked by a 200lbs ex-con!
Shall they defend themselfes with bare hands?!
I really do not understand anti gun quaks that pamper criminals and protect them like victims while at the same time the real victim is rendered helpless and left alone by justice, government and vox populi.
THIS is immoral!
So, what do you mean? That everybody should buy a gun and walk around with a gun all day long?
That seems to be Gringito's argument, Chi Chi. Wants us all walking around with AK47s to protect us from the 200 lb ex-cons. There appears to be a 20,000 word justification of his position, which I'm sure is a nicely argued and coherent response to my comment, and definitely not a gibberish rant, but I don't have the time to read it.
Having a photo of Klaus Kinski as an avatar, who famously threatened Werner Herzog with a gun on the sets of both Aguirre Wrath of God and Fitzcaraldo, doesn't inspire confidence in someone who suggests we'll only all be safe from criminals once we're all heavily armed to the teeth. I can't say I'd like to have an argument in a bar with Gringito over the subject of gun control. He'll probably be packing something under his jacket and after a few beers if I push him the wrong way, who knows what he'd do with that weapon. Scary.
gringito wrote:Even in case of extremly strict gun control, criminals will opt for other "tools". Great Britain is an example: After extensive gun control measures knife crime increased dramatically. Now Great Britain implemented strict knife laws. What do you think will happen next?