posted
Let's re-phrase that, laddie, so you can see just HOW daft a proposal that is.
Given that far more people are killed each day by automobiles, by your reasoning the following restatement is perfectly logical.
"We know that most people may be responsible enough to own a [car], but whether you agree or not, there's aways going to be people steping out of the line. It is not the general population that's causeing all the troubles nowaday, but rather these [speeders, drunk drivers, people who use cars to commit crimes].
So, I ask you, do you want to risk your safey because of few non-important rights, or stop the problem at the source with minimal cost?
I can promise you that the world will be a much safer place to live in without [cars], and for all you pro [car] people out there, can you promise the same?"
Simply put, you DO NOT punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. This is WRONG.
Incidentally, you may be interested to understand that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm. That's why you can't sue the police for arriving too late to keep the bad guys off of you, even if you'd already obtained a restraining order and called the police in advance.
The police, unless they are physically present (and sometimes not even then) cannot prevent crimes from occurring. They can only follow-up, after the fact. By then, it's usually too late. You're robbed, beaten, or dead, depending. Prevention is up to YOU, the potential victim. You can either give UP your ability to defend yourself, and trust to the 'mercy' of the homicidal maniac, the ability of the police to catch a crook, the ability of the prosecutor to get a conviction, and the ability of the prison system to keep them there.
Now I don't know about you, but that's entirely too many people of dubious ability to trust already.
Yes, in an armed society, you have the potential for someone to go on a rampage. But you have that anyway. However, you also have a much higher potentiality of an armed citizen bringing such a rampage to an abrupt halt, as has happened SEVERAL times recently, but you don't hear about those on the news, for various reasons.
My father , brother and I all own guns. We practice, obey the rules of gun safety, and are fairly good shots. My father is a qualified marksman.
We have never, in ANY of our lifetimes, had an "incident" involving guns that was are fault.
We have each, on occasion, displayed (but fortunately never had to fire, yet,) our weapons to defuse a potentially hostile situation in our favor.
(An example: my brother used to deliver pizza. Sometimes he made runs to a particularly bad part of town. At one particularly bad neighborhood, he was walking from his car to his delivery, when he was approached by three -as he described them- 'mean-looking punks.' Balancing the pizza with one hand, my brother put his keys in his pants pocket -- in a sweeping gesture that brushed back his jacket and displayed his hip holster. The three stopped in their tracks, whispered for a moment, then quickly turned and walked away, glancing over their shoulders.)
And before you ask, no, they did NOT turn out to be the people who had ordered the pizza.
This is reason enough.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Yes but cars are useful. If the only use of having a gun is because other people have them, then removing guns from circulation would make guns useless. If all cars were taken away cars would still be needed, thus we could bot justifiably take away all the cars.
IP: Logged
posted
First: I hear what your saying .. I'm not saying that you are going to go and kill someone .. But for Christ Sakes !!!! DOn't compare Auto accidents to kids shooting kids ...
I haven't heard any kids driving drunk and killing ppl in the streets .. But in the last 6 months I've heard of 4 stories of kids possessing guns and killing 1, 2 and as high as 4 ppl and injuring others .... The two are apples and oranges ...
------------------ -There can be only Nine !! ..mmm.. maybe 10 !!
posted
Simon: Well, guns are useful in the event that you find yourself living under a government that no longer cares about your best interests. But, hey, that could never happen. How many people here watch Babylon 5?
Alshrim: Lots of kids are killed in car accidents, though.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
[This message has been edited by The Shadow (edited March 07, 2000).]
posted
Sure I've heard of those. But not as often as I've turned on the news and saw a newsflash about some children - innocent, wonderful children - who had nothing to do with anything shot dead because some motherfucking loony had gotten his hands on a gun.
How common are these compared to intentional car murders? How many times has an entire classroom dies INTENTIONALLY (Nos because their bus crashed) due to an automobile.
It's fucking oranges compared to fucking apples.
Oh well. I'm just glad I live in Canada, where I can go to school and not worry about whether or not I'll still have the back of my skull intact because I looked at some guy funny.
------------------ "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." -Mark Twain
[This message has been edited by Ultra Magnus (edited March 07, 2000).]
posted
Damn, do we have some twisted argument here.
Just about anywhere in the world, if you're without a car, then your mobility is pretty much crippled. The primary function of a house hold car is not as a weapon, but rather as a transportation device.
How about guns? If you do not own a gun, would it limit any of your everyday activities? And let's look at this at another point, is gun really a weapon of destruction, or a neccessary tool for us to get on with our life?
You can argue that guns is a mean of deterrance, but deterrance itself is not a positive thing.
Right is not fundimental and is define by law. It can be taken away if the governing body see fit, so when "the right to own a gun" endanger the general public, the big guys sitting in the office can take it away, and I won't blame them for it.
I guess when it come down to it, it's either a choice of "right" or "safety". I personally think that it is sometime neccessary for the needs of the many to out weight the needs of the few, if it means some of us have to give up our guns to help decreasing the crime rate and see less people dying because of it, then go ahead.
If you think that occational "child shooting" and gang warfare with guns is unavoidable because illegal arms is going to be out there no matter what, or maybe you think that rights is way more important then human life and should not be sacrafice, sure, it's your choice.
Although I do think that America's high crime rate have something to do with it's fire arm system, after all, America does have one of the higher crime rate in the G7 countries.
posted
"Sure I've heard of those. But not as often as I've turned on the news and saw a newsflash about some children - innocent, wonderful children - who had nothing to do with anything shot dead because some...loony had gotten his hands on a gun."
Yeah, and the media always reports everything that happens everywhere.
"Oh well. I'm just glad I live in Canada, where I can go to school and not worry about whether or not I'll still have the back of my skull intact because I looked at some guy funny."
Unless someone has an illegal gun.
"Man, stop for a sec, and think about how many horrible things you could do with guns compare to the good thing you could do with it!"
I could commit a crime. Or I could stop a crime. Seems pretty balanced to me.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "He's Satan. And not the good kind. I hate him. If there is a god, I hope Jebus has him fry in hell." - DT, in reference to me
posted
"So, what the hey, illegal guns are out there no matter what, so who gives a damn. Hell, there's always going to be lunitics out there shooting and killing, if we can't stop them, why even try?"
Blue, that makes no sense whatsoever. The lunatics with illegal guns are stopped by the law-abiding citizins with LEGAL guns.
"So, I ask you, do you want to risk your safey because of few non-important rights, or stop the problem at the source with minimal cost?"
1: UNIMPORTANT RIGHTS?!?! You, sir, are either a complete blithering idiot, or rediculously sheltered. What happens if your government decides to VIOLATE your rights? How do you stop them? What happens when someone tries to break into your home and kill you? How do you stop them?
2: Again, it wouldn't stop the problem. There'd still be illegal guns out there, and shootings like the six-year-old would still happen.
3: You think it would only require minimal cost to eliminate the .25 BILLION guns in this country? See point one, sentence two.
"deterrance itself is not a positive thing"
Think about that for a second, would you, Blue? If you have any shred of intelligence, I'm sure you'll realize it's really stupid. First's brother could very well be dead right now if it weren't for the deterrent of his having a gun.
"Right is not fundimental"
To which I respond "We hold these truths to be self-evident... that [all men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
"[Rights] can be taken away if the governing body see fit"
Is this what they teach in Cannadian schools? Power flows from the people to the government, not vice versa. The government doesn't give us rights. We give the government rights. The rights of the GOVERNMENT can be revoked at any time, but the government can not revoke the people's rights.
"I guess when it come down to it, it's either a choice of "right" or "safety"
"You can have freedom, or you can have security, but don't count on having both at the same time," eh? What you don't realize is that security is an illusion. If you give the government the power to make you secure against all other threats, what secures you against the government? I'll take freedom, thanks.
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
What you're talking about is "fundimental freedom", and it is different then "rights", don't believe me? Get any social text book and check it out.
So, what do you propose, people taking laws into their own hands with guns? That sound like total anarchy to me. I mean, why have police and law around? "WE" are always responsible and fair, "WE" are capable of playing judge, jury, and persecutor all at the same time, if some suspicious people are walking around, forget about phoneing the police, let's just take our guns and shoot them all!
If deterrance is a good thing, then hey, we should go back to the era of Cold War, since that it's the biggest "deterrance" in the history of mankind. Deterrance involved a balance of horror on both side by equal amount of force, if you think that's appropreate, well...no comment on that one.
If .25 billion dollars worth more then all the lifes lost because of gun related incidents, then God save us! It seem to me that money certainly MEAN A LOT for some people! And who says that the cost of gun related incidents are not more then the cost of recycle and prohibit them?(not that I'm religious or anything, and no offence, it's just an expression)
If not to ban fire arm, can you came up with a better and sure way to combat gun related incidents? Hey, I'm all ears, if u can come up with a good solution, then by all means, keep the guns. Answer this question before debating or quoting the minute detials!
One last thing, rights(not fundimental freedoms) are meant to be changed, because customs and value are changing through the passage of time. Guns certainly are creating massive negative impact in our life today, so "gun right" should be change, or maybe even voided!
posted
"So, what do you propose, people taking laws into their own hands with guns?"
If their lives are at stake due to a person or persons trying to infringe on their rights, then they have every legal and moral right to kill the person. It's called "self defence". Would you prefer that people just LET themselves get shot, or LET their houses get robbed? That seems to be what you're infering.
"If not to ban fire arm, can you came up with a better and sure way to combat gun related incidents?"
Well, since we've already shown that banning firearms would be completely unenforcable, and would actually EXPAND the number of gun-related crimes, I suggest you come up with one that could actually work in any possible scenario first. Then I'll decide whether to counter it or not, depending on whether it's a good idea, and get back to you.
"Guns certainly are creating massive negative impact in our life today..."
First, care to quote your statistic on how many crimes are prevented with guns every year?
""WE" are always responsible and fair, "WE" are capable of playing judge, jury, and persecutor all at the same time, if some suspicious people are walking around, forget about phoneing the police, let's just take our guns and shoot them all!"
You might want to actually pay attention to what I said. This has nothing to do with it.
"If .25 billion dollars worth more then all the lifes lost because of gun related incidents, then God save us! It seem to me that money certainly MEAN A LOT for some people! And who says that the cost of gun related incidents are not more then the cost of recycle and prohibit them?"
Same answer to this one. I have no idea how you made this connection. Is English not your first language?
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
