Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
Can you explain? From my viewpoint it's like an arms race: law-abiding citizens feel they have to arm themselves because they are convinced all the criminals have guns (and they made not be wrong about that). Furthermore, when everyone has a gun, routine disputes are often deadly. When your country is awash in guns like America is, there is bound to be a lot of gun violence - no?
Actually the biggest places for gun violence in the United States tend to be the areas where the gun laws are the tightest.
Nowhere in America are there more firearms related deaths than in DC, the place with the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Odd how that works. You'd think that the legal avenues for gun access weren't the only potential source of firearms and that when the legal market is banned outright the black market has a way of filling the gap.
You'd also think that the legal avenues for gun access, which are generally the safest and most convenient way to get a gun when guns are legal, insist on basic firearms safety courses that teach restraint and insist on law abiding behavior while the black market as part of the nature of the critter has no such compunctions.
If you want to think of it as an "arms race," gun restrictions are like handicapping law abiding citizens and making them safer for the still-armed criminals to shoot. Unless you know you can take ALL guns off the streets, the law abiding citizens are usually the first to be disarmed. Because they obey the law. And that means open season for those who will ignore the law until caught.
I dunno about you, but I'd rather permit everyone to be a little better armed than making being a law abiding citizen a handicap in the struggle to survive in an armed society.
Actually the biggest places for gun violence in the United States tend to be the areas where the gun laws are the tightest.
Nowhere in America are there more firearms related deaths than in DC, the place with the most restrictive gun laws in the country.
Odd how that works. You'd think that the legal avenues for gun access weren't the only potential source of firearms and that when the legal market is banned outright the black market has a way of filling the gap.
You'd also think that the legal avenues for gun access, which are generally the safest and most convenient way to get a gun when guns are legal, insist on basic firearms safety courses that teach restraint and insist on law abiding behavior while the black market as part of the nature of the critter has no such compunctions.
If you want to think of it as an "arms race," gun restrictions are like handicapping law abiding citizens and making them safer for the still-armed criminals to shoot. Unless you know you can take ALL guns off the streets, the law abiding citizens are usually the first to be disarmed. Because they obey the law. And that means open season for those who will ignore the law until caught.
I dunno about you, but I'd rather permit everyone to be a little better armed than making being a law abiding citizen a handicap in the struggle to survive in an armed society.
Come on... it's logical that gun laws won't work if very lax gun laws are in place right nextdoor. You can't pass a bunch of gun laws in DC, then let any Tom, Dick or Harry in Virgina buy whatever kind of gun he wants, and cite that as proof that gun laws don't work.
You're telling me America wouldn't be a safer place if it weren't flooded with 300 million guns - really?
Come on... it's logical that gun laws won't work if very lax gun laws are in place right nextdoor. You can't pass a bunch of gun laws in DC, then let any Tom, Dick or Harry in Virgina buy whatever kind of gun he wants, and cite that as proof that gun laws don't work.
You're telling me America wouldn't be a safer place if it weren't flooded with 300 million guns - really?
Tell me. Where do you stand on the War on Drugs and why?
Tell me. Where do you stand on the War on Drugs and why?
Why do I get the feeling you're trying to set a trap for me?
First of all, I think the War on Drugs is irrelevant to your premise, as plenty of people in other countries seem to be able to take illegal drugs without killing each other in large numbers - because there's no Second Amendment in place in those countries to make it possible.
But since you asked, I think the War on Drugs has been a pathetic failure and a terrible mistake. Politicians in the 1970s (starting with Nixon) responded to a wave of urban violent crime by toughening drug laws - rather than focusing on the sharp rise in unemployment that was the root cause of the increase in violent crime. The result, to this day, is that America locks up more of its citizens - a lot more - than any other country. And as a side effect of that, companies began to realize they could make a lot of money by getting prisoners to produce their goods at slave wages. Hence the lobby to keep the drug laws in place is much stronger than the lobby to change them. Vicious cycle, massive problem.
No trap, just trying not to assume what you believe.
My question is, if they can't get all the illegal drugs off the streets, why do you think they'll have any better luck with the illegal guns? And do you really think the side affects would be any less nasty with lethal weapons than they are with merely potentially dangerous chemical compounds?
Or did you think signing a law banning guns would just make them all evaporate?
No trap, just trying not to assume what you believe.
My question is, if they can't get all the illegal drugs off the streets, why do you think they'll have any better luck with the illegal guns? And do you really think the side affects would be any less nasty with lethal weapons than they are with merely potentially dangerous chemical compounds?
Or did you think signing a law banning guns would just make them all evaporate?
Well then now I guess you didn't read my posts - what I said is that the cat is out of the bag and the NRA has a) the Republicans wrapped around its finger and b) the Democrats completely cowed, so that the gun laws will never change (unless it's a change toward less regulation).
If there had never been a Second Amendment, America would be a safer and better place (in my opinion). I think guns are a scourge that unfortunately America will have to deal with forever.
For Americans, guns give a phony sense of being in control of their lives. The feeling after convincing yourself that you carry something that holds the power of life and death over another person can be a very addicting sensation.
That's really all it boils down to. I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the country, with one of the highest violent crime rates. I do not own, and have never owned, or carried a gun. I have never felt unsafe, or never felt the need to carry a weapon. I guess I just don't need that safety blanket telling me I'm in power and in control.
Well then now I guess you didn't read my posts - what I said is that the cat is out of the bag and the NRA has a) the Republicans wrapped around its finger and b) the Democrats completely cowed, so that the gun laws will never change (unless it's a change toward less regulation).
If there had never been a Second Amendment, America would be a safer and better place (in my opinion). I think guns are a scourge that unfortunately America will have to deal with forever.
Let's assume that you could get past all that and make all guns illegal though.
Do you really think that will take them off the streets or out of the hands of those most inclined to use them?
It's one thing in Europe, where populations are very dense and thus cities and towns are close together, making a police presence simpler. In America, even in very populated parts of the country the population is heavily suburbanized, and there's a large amount of rural regions. America has about 30 times the land of a nation like France, and only five times the population. And France is one of the harder-to-patrol European regions.
Since patrolling the entire United States successfully is virtually impossible, or at least extremely difficult, the culture is more laissez-faire almost by default, and the people must be counted on to protect themselves to an extent. In that culture enforcements of substance bans turn into mere suggestions. And so would a weapons ban, even if seriously enforced.
Let's assume that you could get past all that and make all guns illegal though.
Do you really think that will take them off the streets or out of the hands of those most inclined to use them?
No, would take decades to get 300 million guns out of circulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
It's one thing in Europe, where populations are very dense and thus cities and towns are close together, making a police presence simpler. In America, even in very populated parts of the country the population is heavily suburbanized, and there's a large amount of rural regions. America has about 30 times the land of a nation like France, and only five times the population. And France is one of the harder-to-patrol European regions.
That has nothing to do with anything. If anything, it would mean more violent crime in Europe because of more people living in urban areas. The reasons people in Europe don't shoot each other at the same rate as Americans are that 1) most Europeans don't have guns and 2) Western Europe is a more equitable society than America, with a smaller gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Since patrolling the entire United States successfully is virtually impossible, or at least extremely difficult, the culture is more laissez-faire almost by default, and the people must be counted on to protect themselves to an extent. In that culture enforcements of substance bans turn into mere suggestions. And so would a weapons ban, even if seriously enforced.
I'm sorry, but this sounds completely ludicrous to me. There is actually less violent crime in rural regions, not more of it. And it's not because everyone in rural America is scared that they can't assault people because the other guy might have a gun. I grew up in rural America. Everyone knows everyone else. Everyone knows who the criminals are, and the cops know whom to arrest when a crime is committed. The idea that everyone in rural America needs a gun because there aren't enough cops is just silly.
I'm sorry, but this sounds completely ludicrous to me. There is actually less violent crime in rural regions, not more of it. And it's not because everyone in rural America is scared that they can't assault people because the other guy might have a gun. I grew up in rural America. Everyone knows everyone else. Everyone knows who the criminals are, and the cops know whom to arrest when a crime is committed. The idea that everyone in rural America needs a gun because there aren't enough cops is just silly.
You're missing my point. When you impose official solutions on a problem like this, you're counting on the cops to enforce them meaningfully, and also to replace the protection firearms possession provided. That is not a realistic option for American law enforcement as constructed
You're missing my point. When you impose official solutions on a problem like this, you're counting on the cops to enforce them meaningfully, and also to replace the protection firearms possession provided. That is not a realistic option for American law enforcement as constructed
I don't understand the point of the comparison then .... Europe doesn't have to deal with this problem because it never had a Second Amendment in the first place. That's America's problem, and I already admitted the problem is never going away.
I now live in Vienna, Austria, by the way. Something like 20 murders a year (using any kind of weapons, not just guns) out of a population of 2 million. And most of those are either domestic disputes or Yugoslavian mafia related. It's true that someone probably could get hold of a gun if they really wanted to, but most people can't be bothered - and as s result, the inevitable disputes between people are almost never deadly.
So Im planning on getting my gun license in a few weeks and was wondering what your opinions on guns are. I guess it's a lot different in the states, but up here a lot of people that I know were very surprised to hear that I was getting one. I guess there is a bit of a stigma against it here, especially in Vancouver. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with owning one, as long as people aren't carrying it around with them in public (unless you're hunting or camping).
OT: Also does anyone know how easy it is to get a gun in Australia. Im moving to Brisbane and im thinking that I might need one to deter any possible theft (it is a country of criminals afterall )
Well it depends on what you're planning on using it for. Hunting, recreational target shooting, home protection etc.
I'm not armed. Frankly I don't trust myself with that kinda power. I respect anyone else's right to arm themselves however. I'm safer personally when a lot of other people on the same street could potentially be armed.
It's like a shell game you don't want to win, pick a lot of potential victims and have to wonder who has the gun. As long as it could be literally anyone the streets are just that much safer.
I'm not armed. Frankly I don't trust myself with that kinda power. I respect anyone else's right to arm themselves however. I'm safer personally when a lot of other people on the same street could potentially be armed.
It's like a shell game you don't want to win, pick a lot of potential victims and have to wonder who has the gun. As long as it could be literally anyone the streets are just that much safer.
Yikes. Have you posted in the "U.S.A. - Society of Fear" thread yet?
I think one of the problems in this thread is that it seems assumed that people have guns merely for protection. I grew up in Delaware, where hardly anyone had a gun, but since then I have lived in North Carolina and Alabama over the last 20 years, and, especially in Alabama, you would be hard pressed to find a family who either did not own several guns or have relatives who do (sorry for the run-on sentence). The only reason you know they have guns is that when hunting season starts, they go hunting.
I don't know anyone with any sort of semi-automatic weapon; everyone I know has various shotguns and rifles which they use for hunting. I have never met some person who is "all about" guns. It seems to me that the people who live in areas with few guns seem to fear them, whereas the people who have lived around people with guns don't have as much of a problem with them.
I have never met anyone who has been involved in any type of accidental or self defense shooting. This is probably because you have to be stupid to rob a house with people home in Alabama, since most people have guns.
Now that I know you're from Washington County this is even funnier. That place is like Teletubby land - there's no crime there!
You assume there is no crime in Teletubby land. Are you so sure those tubbies aren't hiding some dirty secret? Meth lab perhaps? Their house is somewhat obscure and hidden...
Gun (rifle) owner here. I seriously think that an IQ test should be required along with a clean criminal record to get a gun, because most people are idiots. Should probably devise a personality test as well, as arbitrary as those might be. I can't say I would ever feel comfortable on the street in the US, where almost every jackoff with an ID can go to the nearest corner store and get a gun. Once the nutcases are weeded out, there are those of use who know how to use guns responsibly.
Guns are fantastic. If I choose to live out here in WV for good, I will be buying a few for sure.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
)
