What about the UK? While I respect the what you've done for your country, and I understand your ideology.. when in recent history have average American citizens ever had to use guns to fight for freedom against it's own citizens/against a foriegn threat? Am I missing your point? I don't see how a government has full control just by limiting the use of firearms.. the average Joe changes what he can by voting. Pointing a gun at George Bush's head won't change anything. I just don't get why America is so paranoid.. you're the most powerful country in the world, yet many of you are scared that your current democracy is going to metamorphise into a totalitarian dictatorship. If that ever does happen, the war - if there is one - will be fought with bombs, not guns.
Bad analogy. Toilets are for sanitation and stopping the spread of disease, not killing someone more easily. Don't get me wrong though.. I do see the pro-gun point.. we might not be so civilised now if it weren't for them, and banning/controlling them could spell the end of that. There are other alternatives to consider though.. for instance, there are some places in the middle-east that could be considered as less civilised (although it'd be more accurate to say they have less money) that have access to guns.. and I don't believe that their utilisation will encourage growth of their society.. it will just end up with more people being murdered and opressed.
The problem with gun control is that if someone want to keep their gun badly enough, you need someone else with a gun to take it from them. Prohibition didn't work with alcohol, prohibition doesn't work with marijiuana, prohibition won't work with guns.
First we are a republic, this is not a democracy. Secound just because you vote doesnt alway mean things happen the way you want them, the electrol collage over rides the popular vote, so voting doesnt always vote in the favor of the people. Third all supream court judges are picked by the president and his party so they are going to be people that agree with his agenda not the judges the people want. Fourth with the patriot act if i said i hate the government and i want to start a violent revolusion i will be arested as well as anyone who agrees with me, making it next to impossible to ever seriously discusse revolusion openly, that right there violates freedom speech, one of our basic human rights. Fifth one day there will be another revolusion it might not be for another 500 years but it WILL happen and when it does the people need to atlest have a chance. Sixth this country was founded so government would stay out of the lifes of the people as much as possible, by us giving up our guns that makes them have a littile more power over us, creating more laws and a stronger hold on our lifes. Seventh a president can veto a bill once this happens congrees has to go though ALOT to get it passed and alot of stuff isnt brought up again because of the process that it has to go through, look at andrew johnson he vetoed every civil war bill he could so congress brough up charges against him, i belive he was right in vedoing the bills, but peoples own agendas turned the whole ordeal into a huge problem during the reconstruction of the south, the whole idea of the three branches of government is to balence power, not create more problems with in its own system and the fact that either side can manipulate the other creates alot more problems. it is not that everyone is afread, this country was founded for the people and by the people, to be a goverment run by the people, it was set up so the government couldnt get bigger then it should, and that if problems bad enough effected the people, collective change both violent and peaceful could be put into effect with minimal opision from the government, the point was so that when the time came again for the people to defend there civil rights they could, you totaly missed the points and i can tell know nothing of life in the US or the history of it, or what it stands for or what it took for it to even be here, and our government at this point in time puts the shame what our forefathers fought for and created.
Well, I didn't claim to understand the history of US. I just replied to a guy from the US claiming that gun-control would lead to total government control. However I do know the difference between democracy and a republic, I guess it's just a force of habit that I called it a democracy after hearing so many Americans describe it as one. It wasn't my aim to condescend anyone or your political ideals. Sorry if I offended you, anyway. That was a huge generalisation on my part, but to be fair it is the impression I get when hearing people here arguing about gun control. I still believe though that wanting to own a gun/weapon is a result of paranoia (whether justified or not)/being scared, or greed/criminal intent/a lust for power. It's the latter that fuels the former. If our justice systems were fair, if everyone was well off and lived comfortably, if everyone was happy with how they were treated, which are the things that our sociteys are supposedly progressing towards, there would be no need/use for any weapons. People will always have a lust for power but they won't get it, and we would not have to fear it, if we took away their means.
well, the justice system is fucked and people will always want power and will have greed, we should work toward a socity that has non of these problems but we have them and always will but hopefully some day not and the same level, i still think people should own guns for protection as well as other reason just not for revolusionary use alone but i do think that is the main reason, i own guns for many reasons and i am by far paroniod, i dont sleep with a .38 under my pillow or a .357 next to my bed, or even in the same room or floor for that matter, guns are a tool, they are a tool for killing but a tool non the less there are other reasons to own guns other then to stop a person(s) from forcing harm upon you weither it be large scale or small, this debate is pretty pointless people arguing over damage done by sertin guns, violence statistics, non lethal means of pertection it goes deeper then that tho this is a technology that has been one of the greatest inventions of mankind, what happens when you take away a techogoly of any kind and make it illegal or legal, who is disiding this and on what grounds, should the majority suffer for the falt of some or is the majority causing its own suffering, either way there will be suffering and making guns illegal in the end wont change anything, there will be hate and evil in the world, before gun where invented people killed each other, i know most of you think that "guns dont kill people, people kill people" qoute is bullshit but think about it, its not guns its why gun where invented what they are used for and what they have become, the whole ideas behind them, and to think that you can suddenly do away with them in this socitey is stuiped, thats like saying well car are polluting the world so lets just get rid of them, then what? how many people will be affected positivly and how many negitivly whos to diside which is better, or could we just step back and say wait how can we still use this to our benifet but see how we can make it safer and better and just as effective and cut down of the negative effects and try and keep the positvie ones, if you take away guns people will still be living with the same amount of hate and greed and parionia and those are the real problems, with every new technology and new discovery new evils and goods come with it
again pepole equate guns with only one porpose (to kill other human beings) this is not the case if i allow you to take my pistol what will you want in the futer? my rifel my bird gun my garden my mother my child ?? call the cops? thats laughable how am i gona call the cops? my phon lines already been cut!! and what and who protects my family from the cops? are they so morally supirrior than the rest of us that they should be the only ones armed? ya thats a good idea! so i will ask what would you do when a 280lb man comes into your house and wants your 6yr old child? call the cops and wait 1/2hr for them to come and then another taking a report? when you cant afford to feed your family and the world is in chaos and looters want what you have what you gonna do? call the ghost busters? dont think it will ever happen? it does it is and it will !! you think you will be able to procure food as a vegitairian if there is a wide scale natural disaster in your area? i have said this before in outher threads if you dont have the ability to possess or use a firearm responsibly please please dont get one !! i beleive and correct me if im wrong but very few who are for banning guns have never lived in the country (meaning a rural area) with very little paying work available ! and have no idea what it takes to put food on the table!
I disagree.. equating putting food on the table and guns makes no sense to me, but then I've never lived in a rural area.. although I'd like to, call me crazy. I do agree with alot of your points though. Guns make solving those problems much easier.. although I suppose many of them come from living in such a disconnected and untrusting environment, in terms of people. Most of the points you mentioned could be solved if you had the help of others/worked together.. we wouldn't have to rely on the cops, 3-4 people could take on a 280lb man, if we shared our food no-one would want to steal it, growing food isn't all that hard, killing animals without a gun to eat is not all that hard either (and tbh I don't think you'd find very many in the midst of a natural disaster, maybe bugs). Working together is, after all, one of the reasons we became the dominant species. I think that's the one thing we've lost as society has progressed. We've all become much more self-orientated.. In the UK hardly anyone knows their neighbors anymore.
Hmm... ok... but that wasn't against it's own citizens, it was against a bunch of GI's who probably weren't thinking about the consequences. Sure, the citizens were defending their right to freedom with guns, but the GI's had guns themselves, that's how the whole thing started. Take guns out of the equasion altogether, and everyone would have been able to vote. Really doesn't sound so pro-gun to me.
Did you read the article? The GIs (citizens) were the ones who kept a corrupt local government from seizing power over the county. Using guns. The whole thing got started when a tin star dictator decided he didn't want to step down from power. Ever notice that when governments disarm people, they tend to keep their own guns?
Yep, my mistake.. 5 in the moring isn't the best time to post. Makes much more sense on the re-read While I agree it's a justifed use of guns, my idea of it is that gun control stems to every one apart from the armed forces, and guns should only be used against foriegn threats/attacks. Seems unreasonable that government officials and the people who work for them should keep their own guns, otherwise things like what was mentioned in the above article happen. I know it's pretty much never going to happen though, people in power will want to keep it that way.. and I suppose, in that case, if they keep theirs, a stalemate is better than total control.
My views on hunting: It is an ancient practise that many indigenous and traditional folk rely heavily upon for sustainance. When used correctly, an animal can give food, warmth, and tools with its meat, fur, and bones. Hunting for this purpose is not evil, and therefore using guns for it is also acceptable. HOWEVER In modern times, people are hunting very wastefully. They kill a dear, saw its head off, stuff it, and gloat to their drunken hockey buddies about how big it was, while the poor deer died in vain to be some trophy to some asshole with too much testostrone. Elephants die for the riches that grow off their faces, and their bodies are disrespected, and rot in waste. People shoot at animals because they think it is a fun sport. Some stupid, stupid people (mainly politicians) "accidentally" shoot their hunting buddies. Not only should these people be denied huntng permits (and punished in a very draconian way for violating this law and butchering animals for nothing), but they should also not be allowed to buy so much as a wooden bullet. Gun control is needed. Too many people are dying because of assholes with guns. Forget the war on drugs, the drug trade isnt nearly as bad as the arms trade. That is where enforcement should crack down on. Hell, in Toronto, it is easier for a person to illegally buy a gun than to find some pot (which is ridiculous, and a testament to the douchebag conservatives that run this country, even if they called themselves "liberals"...and now we dont even have that!). Gun control should vastly reduce the sale of legal guns (only to sane, rational, non-militia people) and completely obliterate illegal arms sale. How can this be done? even illegal guns are made in legal factories. Stop making bullets for automatic guns, and you stop their usefulness.
As an American, I used to believe the axioms of wisdom used by the NRA, until I moved to a country that has strict gun control - the Federal Republic of Germany. Not just totalitarian governments use gun control; responsible democratic countries use gun control, like all of the European Union nations. Why does the NRA always use the putsch-scenario as a gun-owning-right argument? When was the last time a putsch was - thank God - routed by gun-owners in the U.S.? Chicken and egg argument? Maybe the gun control has to be tightened BECAUSE OF violent crimes involving guns. Did you know what else Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had in common? They were all democratically elected to office by a majority of voters. Guns are not an insurance policy against totalitarian government. Or would you believe that a gun could stop the enactment of a further series of "Patriot Acts" that would cancel the Bill of Rights and allow a president absolute power?
What about cuntries in Europe that have quite lax gun laws and very little crime, such as Finland and Swizterland Did you miss the point that violent crime has risen since gun laws were tightened Hitler was only semi-elected to power, he ran for president, but lost to Hidenburg, the Nazis were short an absolute majority in parliment, but with an alliance with the nationalist party, they could get the majority, and bring the parliment to a standstill with constant walk outs, Hindenburg did not want to make Hitler chanchelor, he wanted Papen with Hitler as vice-chanchellor, but Hitler would only accept the full thing, so Hindenburg's thinking was if he gave Hitler the leadership of the parliment, he could keep the Nazis quiet and they would fade away in the next election since their numbers were falling, didn't happen obviously As for Stalin and Mao being elected, what history book are you reading? Mao's little red book?
It would appear that you imply that countries that have no weapon control laws have the best law abiding citizens. How does owning a firearm make one more law-abiding? Implication that crime increases only when firearm restriction increases is an error in logic. It automatically excludes other reasons for crime increases.
Yes, I understand your logic, Dirk, but the point that I didn’t succeed in making is that: 1). Making guns illegal in one, single city (surrounded by a vast number of large and small communities) has all the effectiveness of a non-existent legal system. 2). Making guns “illegal” is only a weak step rather than “banning them” altogether. ….. so coming full circle …… if (from your original post) one believes that simply making guns illegal will effect an INCREASE in gun-related crime then you may as well say that we ought to make murder itself LEGAL. That way we could save lives not only from guns - but knives, rocks, baseball bats, fireplace pokers, arson, pre-meditated foul breath, and over-abusive language.
