Guns. Please vote.

[Breton]

If you want to discuss fox hunting, you can make a new thread for that

 

This one's about guns.

[primalunderdog]

Originally posted by Rogue15

give me guns. lots of guns. and some assault rifles and you might as well through in some m136's and frag grenades.

 

I think assault rifle is pushing it a bit, unless it's semi-automatic.

 

thats true because a ruger 23 is semi auto,and a m-16A1 is too,but they are semi auto because then they would be to dangerous.You can make these guns full auto but the only point would be to kill someone.So thats why i think all civillian should only have a semi auto assault rifle.If someone sneaks into your house the only thing you need is a 30-30 or a 20 gauge,a assault rifle could be used for hunting if you wanted to,so why even get one in the first place?If you do see fit to get one i think it should be semi automatic.

[Shok_Tinoktin]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

This is what I think it should be like:

1) Handguns: OK but you have to be over the age of 18 and be examined for background, mental health, ect. Expensive to make sure as little get them as possible.

 

The problem with making them expensive and thus harder to get, is that criminals will buy cheap, illegally imported guns and thus the typical criminal is armed, and the typical honest person cannot afford to be armed. Doesn't sound so great if you ask me.

 

Having guns for protection doesn't mean you have to kill someone to protect yourself. If most people carry a concealed weapon, then a criminal is less likely to risk trying to do something to you.

 

I think that instead of making it harder to get guns, we could reduce gun violence by making punishments for it more severe. That and the fact that making it easier for responsible people to have guns will also reduce gun violence.

 

Edit:

Originally posted by THE BADGER:

Alot more often than you think.

About 2.1 million a year, thats about 740 occurances per 100,000 people.

 

The majority of the time, if someone is breaking into a person's house solely with the intent to kill them, it is gang related. I find it kind of difficult to base government policy off of protecting the gangsters.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin

The problem with making them expensive and thus harder to get, is that criminals will buy cheap, illegally imported guns and thus the typical criminal is armed, and the typical honest person cannot afford to be armed. Doesn't sound so great if you ask me.

 

They already do. It makes no difference. Paranoids will still buy guns, cheap or not.

 

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin

Having guns for protection doesn't mean you have to kill someone to protect yourself. If most people carry a concealed weapon, then a criminal is less likely to risk trying to do something to you.

 

Criminals will still risk trying to do something to you. Arm yourselves and they'll go one notch on top of you. You won't end poverty and criminality with guns.

 

Originally posted by Shok_Tinoktin

I think that instead of making it harder to get guns, we could reduce gun violence by making punishments for it. That and the fact that making it easier for responsible people to have guns will also reduce gun violence.

 

There are punishments for gun violence. How can you decide who is responsible and who isn't? What's to stop a responsible person to go crazy one of these days? You cannot read a person's mind nor their future.

There is no sure way to decide who is responsible and who isn't.

[primalunderdog]

Thats true but you can't stop killing of other humans,if you take away guns then people will use swords or axes,or bows and arrows,it's human nature,we have done it from the begining of time and will continue.So there realy is no point in banning guns.

[Shok_Tinoktin]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Criminals will still risk trying to do something to you. Arm yourselves and they'll go one notch on top of you. You won't end poverty and criminality with guns.

 

 

You will not end poverty and criminality with anything. You will reduce it, if would-be criminals are afraid for their lives.

 

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

There are punishments for gun violence.

 

 

That was a mistake, it is fixed now.

 

 

Originally posted by primalunderdog

Thats true but you can't stop killing of other humans,if you take away guns then people will use swords or axes,or bows and arrows,it's human nature,we have done it from the begining of time and will continue.So there realy is no point in banning guns.

 

 

Actually, in countries where guns are outlawed (or near outlawed) the people who might otherwise committ an act of gun violence, are likely to committ an act of bomb violence.

[Drycopas]

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, was quoted as saying "When a country loses its freedom the only way to get it back is through blood in the streets". Moreover Jefferson predicted (wrongly I might add) that American would go through numerous episodes of "Blood in the Streets". So in its original context the constitution was written in a way to encourage gun ownership as a means of keeping the freedoms which our countrymen fought for. Now in hindsight we may see this prediction as terribly cynical and wholely unfounded. However, given the time it was spoken, it actually makes logical sense. Up till this point the civilizations which enjoyed the greatest civil liberties was arguably the ancient romans or the ancient greeks. Both societies were plagued by uprisings and constant warfair, so a peaceful America (relatively speaking of course) was the exception rather than the rule. Now what does this have to do with guns? It as a matter of fact, has everything to do with guns. In the greco-roman days the state of the art weapon was the 18 inche two-edged sword. While it was an effective weapon, in order to use it effectively you had to be completely and expensively trained. This is something most of the citizens could not do. So when a new Caesar came into power there was no way for the citizens to protect themselves from the government. With the invention of the gun this all changed though. A peasant with no rigourous training could just as easily kill a fully trained soldier as the other way around. So the gun acts as a way to give the people equal power to the government. For this reason I alone I think universal gun ownership should be subsidized if not encouraged. However let us assume that Jefferson's prediction was correct and there were regular revolutions in America's past. You may point to guns to be the source of this evil, but I would point to guns as the source of this good!

 

Constant revolutions mean lots of bloody murder. While this may initially sound terrible, it is important for the evolution of our species both in terms of genetic fitness and in terms of cultural advancement. My arguments for this are Darwinian. Only the most fit will survive. This will slow down the accumulation of negative mutations which have so plagued our species since modern civilization. Not to mention over time Humans would eventually become "gun resistant" and war may no longer be viewed as a terrible evil, but as an ejoyable and wholesome activity for the betterment of mankind! (Not to mention it could keep overpopulation in check)

 

Now I also said cultural advancement, while this may initially sound ludicrous let me explain myself. The countries who have contributed the most to our world intellecuctually, and scientifically made these contributions in times of war! The microwave, the jeep, jet engines, atomic energy, SONAR, and Global Positioning Satelites are all byproducts of war! Now you may say that those are great but we can create so much more in times of peace. Let us look at Switzerland. In 300 years of peace and prosperity the most innovative thing to come from Switzerland was the Cukoo Clock! War has also given some of our greatest minds the opportunity to think fulltime! Here are just a few of the great minds: Archimedes, Davinci, and Oppenheimer.

 

Now I may have strayed off topic a little bit so let me recalibrate my post with this little deduction...

 

If everyone owned gun, then there would always be someone nearby to put an armed criminal (not necessarily with a gun) to rest.

 

The number of criminals in that country would be scared/die off.

 

Therefore widespread gunownership reduces crime! (Not to mention that guns make people who are normally easy targets for criminals into beings much more dangerous than the most ferocious lion!)

 

So in essence guns both add to the betterment of our species and make our societies safer with only minimal cost!

In conclusion I say let us own guns! Lots and lots of guns!

[SkinWalker]

First let me say welcome to the LucasFourms and thank you for making the Senate Chambers the location of your first post!

 

Beyond that, I'd like to say, "poppycock!"

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers, was quoted as saying "When a country loses its freedom the only way to get it back is through blood in the streets". Moreover Jefferson predicted (wrongly I might add) that American would go through numerous episodes of "Blood in the Streets".

 

I would argue that there exist numerous examples of "blood in the streets" that range from accidental shootings to "drive-by" shootings to "road-rage" shootings to just plain, sensless violence.

 

Our freedom is being threatened within. To be held hostage to the gun culture pisses me off. I'm thinking about buying one just because I know first-hand the number of guns on the street and don't want to be out-matched in a break-in. Until then, I sleep with a large, foot-and-a-half bayonet under my bed. If I awake to an intruder, he'll wish I bought the gun!

 

But I'd rather see a reduction in the number of guns in the country. I'd rather see the gun manufacturers held accountable for their marketing practices in the way drug manufacturers would if they did the same type of marketing for drugs like Percocet and OxyContin.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

So in its original context the constitution was written in a way to encourage gun ownership as a means of keeping the freedoms which our countrymen fought for.

 

But in the end, it's just a piece of paper that can be corrected. Particularly since it should be fair to say that the Founding Fathers probably didn't anticipate the size of population, the acceptance of a standing army as opposed to a ready-militia, and the brutal effectiveness of modern firearms -civilian versions of which have cyclic rates of fire equal to the speed with which one can move his finger.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

My arguments for this are Darwinian. Only the most fit will survive. This will slow down the accumulation of negative mutations which have so plagued our species since modern civilization. Not to mention over time Humans would eventually become "gun resistant" and war may no longer be viewed as a terrible evil, but as an ejoyable and wholesome activity for the betterment of mankind! (Not to mention it could keep overpopulation in check)

 

And here is the poppycock I was refering to. First, It is an oft misapplied notion that natural selection automatically leads to a higher form of life. This is not so. Natural selection only searches out that which is most suited for the environment.

 

Second, in order to interfere with deleterious alleles prior to the fecund period of the species, juveniles would have to be slaughtered at a rate which would become extremely unacceptable to society, therefore negating your later argument that guns are good for society in that they ensure peace. Cultures that rely on this as a selective pressure, therefore, will regress... as the alleles of diversity in chromosomes will be eliminated as efficiently as the deleterious alleles. Unless you are suggesting somehow that only the people with deleterious alleles are likely to weild a firearm.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

Now I also said cultural advancement, while this may initially sound ludicrous let me explain myself. The countries who have contributed the most to our world intellecuctually, and scientifically made these contributions in times of war! The microwave, the jeep, jet engines, atomic energy, SONAR, and Global Positioning Satelites are all byproducts of war!

 

It still sounds ludicrous if critical thinking is applied and one considers that the arguement is cum hoc ergo propter hoc. In other words, it mistakes correlation for causation. War doesn't foster invention, necessity does. The steam engine is an example: capitalism demanded that a method be created to move goods and services to the west from factories in the east. What war initiated the necessity for the telegraph (which, I might suggest is the ancestor of all modern communication)? What war necessitated the invention of the automobile? The telephone? The loom? Writing? Cuneiform was first introduced as a means of accounting.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

Let us look at Switzerland. In 300 years of peace and prosperity the most innovative thing to come from Switzerland was the Cukoo Clock!

 

Are you not forgetting the first antihistamine, the pressure cooker, velcro, the first tranquilizer, decompression for deep-sea diving, the "Pascal" programming language, the scanning tunneling microscope, high-temperature superconductivity, the "Logitech" mouse, and a really cool game from the 1980's called "Elite."

 

I take it back. You probably didn't forget these things, you probably just didn't know that the Swiss invented so many things (these and many, many others since the neolithic).

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

War has also given some of our greatest minds the opportunity to think fulltime! Here are just a few of the great minds: Archimedes, Davinci, and Oppenheimer.

 

Wars didn't make these men great. They were thinkers beyond their times and each regretted their contributions to the destructive natures of their governments. Da Vinci hid some of his inventions and concepts of war machines because of the "evil nature of men" and referred to war as pazzia bestialissima, beastly madness. Plutarch describes Archimedes as a man who resents the impure use of his science and probably regrets his the war machines he created for King Hieron, evidenced by Plutarch's indication that Archimedes, "would not deign to leave behind him any commentary or writing on such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid and ignoble the whole trade of engineering, and every sort of art that lends itself to mere use and profit..." Oppenheimer was accused of interfering with the investigation of Soviet Agents who stole the atomic bomb plans and opposed the hydrogen bomb.

 

Da Vinci said, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory." When he went running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka - I have found it," Archimedes was referring to the Principle of Buoancy rather than some new weapon. Oppenheimer said, "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true."

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

If everyone owned gun, then there would always be someone nearby to put an armed criminal (not necessarily with a gun) to rest.

 

They called that Dodge City, Kansas, a place where everyone wore a gun and killings were common. I'd rather be a blond-haired, blue-eyed civilian contractor lost in Baghdad than live and work in 1800's Dodge City. Interestingly enough, the place became civil and law-abiding once the restrictions on firearms were enforced.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

So in essence guns both add to the betterment of our species and make our societies safer with only minimal cost!

In conclusion I say let us own guns! Lots and lots of guns!

 

I still say, "poppycock."

[Loopster]

The human race is doing just fine at killing itself and gaining technological advances out of it without arming the entire population.

 

Advancements such as SONAR and atomics are more a technological phenomena as opposed to a cultural one. War has certainly defined specific cultures throughout history, but on a species-wide scale it has done little in that endavor. Wars have come and gone and we are generally the same people we were six thousand years ago. We work, eat, sleep, make babies, and that's about it for 99% of us. We've got computers and the dreaded cellular phone now, but our core behavior remains little changed. Whether or not future wars would change that is up for debate, but given the thousands of them that have been fought and the millions who have died, it seems unlikely.

 

I'm not disputing that war can act as a potent stimulus for economic and technological growth, however.

 

Nature must strike a delicate balance between unreserved destruction and stifling control. Arguably, it has done this well, as we have as a species advanced in some respects without being wiped out. Enlist too heavy of a hand in either method of development and extinction on every level can become an imminent reality.

[Drycopas]

First of all let me say that the notion of being held hostage by the number of guns is absurd. It merely requires that the majority of the population own guns. If everyone owned a gun then to commit any felony would become extremely hazardous. In fact one could probably get by just fine so long as he just looked like he had a gun. Granted at first the number of deaths may rise but shortly thereafter the number of deaths would drop to an ultimate low. The people who had "felon genes" would be killed off leaving only the respectable people.

 

I would also like to add that when I quoted to "Blood in the Streets" I was referring to large scale massacres not deaths here and there.

 

Secondly it is important to destinguish between the benefits of war and the detriment of constant war. Constant War merely leads to the loss of resources and leads to the pessimicm (and thereby loss of the will to make new innovations). In order for a war to benefit human kind both sides must have hope of winning. So the ideal situation isn't for war to continually drain our resources, but instead to have one or two major catalclysmic every generation. Far enough apart that all sides have time to rebuild, and close enough to purge every generation of unfit individuals. Think of it this way. The peacetime is the growing season, and war is the harvest where we separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

For my next point I would like to continue with my social darwinist reasoning. It doens't matter what society deems as acceptable. If everyone had their way no one would die at all! Now I do admit that there is a difference between what we permit to happen and what we don't permit to happen, but they are all subjective to the culture! In political scale cultures hundreds of people could be killed on a regular basis simply for ceremonial reaons! It doesn't matter what the individual wants, but only what is most beneficial to the Gene Pool.

 

Secondly it is important to note the difference between domestic and international peace. People living within a country are more likely to be related to one another. So they need to not kill each other as much. In the "Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, he writes that it is in the individual genes best interest to assist close kin in procreating when it helps the kin greater than it harms the individual. Since it is more probable that people living within the same country will be more closely related to each other than to people in another country it is important to have strong Nationalism. Thus everyone owning a gun can prevent the needless fighting of close kin and direct that selfishness to another power (not to mention to kill the imbecile who tries to rob a blind beggar). Thus making guns and war extremely important for the continuation of our species. At the current rate our genotype is accumulating a net change of 3 negative mutations per generation! War and guns are just the way to solve this!

 

When measuring progress it is unnecessary to look at some of the regrettable costs. If we only built something when we were 100% sure it didn't have negative consequence we'd live in a culture where the most sophisticated devices would be Teletubbies and Teddy bears! Innovation is a risky trade. There is no knowing what could happen!

 

Finally I would like to say that war has insurmountable effects on culture. Nothing like it can bring a country together. Moreover some our greatest literary titles were about war and its consequences! Many of our greatest authors were profoundly influenced by war. Let us just look at the lives of Earnest Hemmingway, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Sigmeund Freud. War had an incredible effect on all of them. Even if they themselves did not write about war, it still undoubtedly affected their writing.

 

I would like to close by saying that war and guns do not make us great, but they do make us fit.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Drycopas

The people who had "felon genes" would be killed off leaving only the respectable people.

A certain man with a mustache keeps coming to mind when I read this.

 

Remember children, violence only brings more violence.

[Loopster]

Yeah, I think that's his point.

[Drycopas]

Please draw the destinction between setting up an environment for genetic fitness and a facist government. Facist governments may say that a certain group of people may have the best genes but such a statement is utterly arbitrary. The only reason they may say such a thing (from a genetic point of view) would be to spread his own genes (and the genes of his closest kin).

 

A good example of a group of people who have been accused of bad genes are the Jews. However even a superficial analyses of them doesn't reveal such a thing. Many of our greatest thinkers were Jews including the likes of Einstein, Freud, Asimov, Josephus and Karl Marx. So it seems that if there WAS (and I do emphasize WAS) a master race the Jews would be it! And why would this be so, quite possibly because they have been persecuted so many years leaving only the fittest to survive! Now I am not recommending that we install them as world dictators, if this happened they would lose what gave (the apparent) advantage they have. So in the long run persecution (from the persecuted point of view) may be a darwinian advantage (however cruel or miserable it may be).

 

So I say let not the government pick who is to live and who is to die, but let it be from random events (ie war, famine, disease, or bank robbers killed by vigilante octogenarians). Because in the average, the human race will become stronger!

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Drycopas

First of all let me say that the notion of being held hostage by the number of guns is absurd. It merely requires that the majority of the population own guns. If everyone owned a gun then to commit any felony would become extremely hazardous.

 

Preposterous. This sort of anarchical society has already existed in U.S. history as I've pointed out. The end result was the need to remove firearms from the general populace while in public. It was the proliferation of firearms within high population densities that created lawlessness and random, frequent homicide.

 

Simply stated, a lack of firearms in a society equates to a lack of firearm related deaths and accidents. Period. All current data supports this. For instance, in England and Whales in 2003, there were 10,248 firearms related offenses (Povey, 2004). This is inclusive of homicides, suicides, non-fatal accidents, brandishing, etc. In the United States, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in 1999 (United States, 2001). That is only homicide, suicide, and fatal accidents. Those figures do not include brandishing, non-fatal injuries, etc.

 

Even compensating for population sizes, there is a significant disparity between the two nations in firearms related crime. The major difference: the volume of firearms available to the general public.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

In fact one could probably get by just fine so long as he just looked like he had a gun.

 

Right. Or one could get shot in the back rather than be faced by someone too afraid that you might have a gun. Again, I point you to what we know: our own history in the "wild west."

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

Granted at first the number of deaths may rise but shortly thereafter the number of deaths would drop to an ultimate low.

 

There's no evidence to support this assumption/speculation and every indication that the opposite will be true (that homicides and suicides will increase proportionally to population possessing firearms).

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

The people who had "felon genes" would be killed off leaving only the respectable people.

 

The "felon genes?" Poppycock. Your reading of Dawkins is flawed. While he coined the term "memes" in describing what he believes is a process of cultural "DNA," this is all but admitted speculation on Dawkins' part and has never been demonstrated true. While there may be some "predispositions" to aggressive or passive behavior that resides within some allele, there certainly has been no identifiable phenotype that manifests itself that can be described as a "felon gene." Moreover, this is reminiscent of the Social Darwinist arguments made back in the 19 th century to explain the shortcomings of various races of humans compared with the purity of the Anglo-Saxon line. I would suggest you re-read Chapter 13 of Dawkins, starting at page 235 to clarify "phenotype."

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

I would also like to add that when I quoted to "Blood in the Streets" I was referring to large scale massacres not deaths here and there.

 

There are those that would argue that a death rate of 80 per day is a massacre.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

It doesn't matter what the individual wants, but only what is most beneficial to the Gene Pool.

 

Indeed you did misread Dawkins. You might want to review Chapter 1 where he discusses atruism (or the lack of it). From his perspective, altruism doesn’t exist and even the sacrifice of one's own life has some selfish meaning, such as the survival of an offspring (giving one's own life to save that of a child). My thoughts on gun control coincide with this. I see random ownership of firearms as a risk to my offspring.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

In the "Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, he writes that it is in the individual genes best interest to assist close kin in procreating when it helps the kin greater than it harms the individual. Since it is more probable that people living within the same country will be more closely related to each other than to people in another country it is important to have strong Nationalism. Thus everyone owning a gun can prevent the needless fighting of close kin and direct that selfishness to another power (not to mention to kill the imbecile who tries to rob a blind beggar).

 

Two problems: 1) History doesn't bear this out, and there's no reason to believe we can act any different that the days of Dodge City and Tombstone. Indeed, recent history of gang violence in urban environments indicates that human nature is to look out for close kin, but retaliate on rival groups. The retaliation becomes a never-ending cycle and puts close kin at risk. This same behavior is echoed from inner city gang culture, to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to Baboon and Chimpanzee warfare.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

At the current rate our genotype is accumulating a net change of 3 negative mutations per generation! War and guns are just the way to solve this!

 

Bullsh*t. I truly think you're acting as a provocateur by making such comments, but on the chance your serious I'll respond. First, Nachman and Crowell (2000) estimated that there were 175 mutations per generation with 3 being negative. It's important to note that the rate of deleterious mutation to diversity is bloody low! Second, unless those 3 mutations manifest themselves phenotypically as bullseyes, how is it you suggest that war/guns will solve it? How do you convince the Klebolds of the world to shoot only the people with mutated alleles?

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

Finally I would like to say that war has insurmountable effects on culture. Nothing like it can bring a country together.

 

And yet, while our nation is at "war," we find ourselves in the most divided of times.

 

Originally posted by Drycopas

I would like to close by saying that war and guns do not make us great, but they do make us fit.

 

I don't see where you've made that case at all. But, I suppose if our aspiration as a species is merely to remain the most powerful of primates on the planet, then guns are as good a method as any. Thus, as we continue to engage in Chimp warfare with each other, we need not worry about using our inefficient canines to get the job done.

 

But if we should aspire to evolve beyond this...

 

References:

Nachman MW, Crowell SL, (2000).Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304

 

Povey, David (2004) Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2002/2003. Supplementary Volume 1. Homicide and Gun Crime. National Statistics.

 

United States (2001). National Vital Statistics Reports 49:8

[toms]

this is crazy! You just have to watch ANY western ever filmed to see why this strange theory of "give everyone guns and there will be no criminals" is such nonsense...

 

All that does is legitimise the violence. Next time a mugger shoots someone and then gets off because he says "well, they had a gun too... so it was a fair fight" we'll see how happy people are.

 

The causes of violent crime are a highly complex issue, involving notional psyches, governments, histories, laws, detection rates, poverty, drugs and many other things. You can have countries like japan with violent media, but low crime (laws? psyche?) ones like canada with lots of guns but low crime, ones like america with lots of guns AND lots of crime, ones like iraq with lots of guns and less crime, ones like england with few guns, but a growing gun culture. And so on... these issues are all to complex to work out.

 

However, within the limited scope of the US psyche and culture it is clear that MORE guns do not equal LESS crime. It may not be clear that LESS guns equals LESS crime either, but that is a different issue.

 

If you give everyone guns, then expect the "normal citizens" to be better with them and more likely to use them then you are making a big assumption. 98% of humans have a very hard time killing anyone. Many will subconciously miss or just not shoot, EVEN when their life is in danger. A musket in the civil war was found with 18 shots in it. A guy had stood there, under fire and loaded it 18 times but never been able to pull the trigger. Most humans, even gun nut americans, would probably completely fail to defend themselves sensibly against an armed attacker... even if they were equally or greater armed themselves. The attacker on the other hand (either a seasoned veteran, or desperate or crazy)would have MORE of a reason to act with lethal force.

 

The number of accidental shootings would go up exponentially.

 

The number of "heat of the moment" arguments that got fatal (and otherwise would have cooled off) would increase.

 

The number of innocent people who overeacted to some guy in a dark alley and shot him thinking he was a mugger and went to jail would increase dramatically.

 

The more "legally" held guns there are the more illegal guns there will be. If you get a gun then the odds are higher that it will be stolen and used in a crime than they are that it will be used in self defence. So everyone who decides to protect their home is actually making everyone's home more dangerous.

 

The vast majority of crime in the US is related to drugs, a smaller proportion of violent crime to gangs. Neitehr of these issues is going to be solved by more guns in the hands of the citizens.

 

I won't even go into the issue of high powered weapons for "home defence". *choke*

 

The very fact that guns place huge power into hands WITHOUT requiring any discipline or investment to obtain it is exactly what makes them so dangerous.

 

Reducing the weird obsession with gun culture in the US would be in everyone's benefit (including our's as our kids are starting to try and be like US gang members too now, as are many in other countries).

[Drycopas]

The Wild West was indeed a dangerous place but not because of the high number of guns. The Wild West was indeed WILD! However today there are no frontiers that are available for human habitation (aside possibly from the moon but not in the foreseeable future). Many of the settlers in the Wild West were social outcasts anyway, which would predispose them towards gun violence anyway. If there were no guns in those days the gun number of gun deaths would indeed go down, but it doesn't mean that the violent deaths would! This is why even in the most civilized of cultures we still need law enforcement. It took only the introduction of large enough law enforcement of the west for the gun violence to go down (not to mention the death of many social outcasts).

 

Secondly I would like to say the comparison of gun death rates in the United States and Great Britain is absurd! Let us try comparing two countries in which guns are legalized (or at least not overtly restricted). A comparison between the US and Britain is like comparing apples and oranges! Let’s try a much more gun friendly country such as Canada. In Canada (and I might possibly be wrong on this though I highly doubt it) the number of guns per person is higher than it is here in the United States yet they have a much lower gun death rate. I therefore would like to claim the number of gun deaths is linked to poverty. Now you might say the percentage of people in Canada living below the poverty line is much lower in Canada than it is here. This is where I would like to point out that life as a person living in poverty is different in the US than it is in Canada. There are many more social programs to prevent gun violence by helping out those poor Canadians than us poor Americans.

 

I will admit that the "felon gene" is indeed speculation. However I do not at all consider it unfeasible. If a gene can be attributed to the likelihood to groom ones partner, or whether or not a partner will leave her spouse why couldn't it account for (some of) our felons?

 

I did indeed read Dawkins correctly (I don't like when people tell that I misread). It is true that he did not believe in group selection. But the best way (as put by Adam Smith) to best help the majority is to help yourself (I do not consider this a topic of amiable discussion because it seems to be more a matter of philosophy than anything else). So seeking the interest our own selfish genes does indeed help the gene pool and is helping others (not to mention I did mention the appearance of altruistic behavior that should be in the situation of nationalism).

 

I would also like to say that I addressed the issue of Eugenics in an earlier post. I would also like to say that simply because an argument was invalid when it was first made doesn't on its own mean that it is invalid now.

 

I would like to say that the gang violence idea is ad hoc. It seems apparent to me that the reason gang rivalry is due to poverty (the being on your own kind not in the socialist since). We have plenty of reason to believe we won't behave like those in Dodge City of Tombstone. First of all we don't live on the frontier. This is important because there are no distant hideouts brigands can go to after robbing stage coaches (although this is only a trivial example it does speak truly of the fact that felon can’t simply travel around anymore due to a more unified (and less corrupt) law enforcement agency. I would also like to say that we can believe we can act differently both because of Canada's fine example and because we have a much more effective police force. If we really wanted to we could eliminate crime in gang heavy areas (either by subsidizing life to the point where poverty is no longer an issue or simply by killing all gang members) but most of us consider the cost too great.

 

I would also like to add that we are not in a "cataclysmic war" in the sense that I meant it. Considering only around 1000 soldiers of ours have been killed! I was thinking more along the lines of hundreds of thousands when I wrote "cataclysmic war".

 

Now I would like to address the rate of harmful mutations in our geneotype. We don’t all have the same harmful mutations! It changes from region to region. Besides you need to look at the issue in terms of great eons of time. If an unfit person has a 55% chance of falling in battle whereas a fit person has only a 50% chance in falling battle, you aren’t going to produce superior warriors in a single year! It may take many hundreds or thousands of years. The big thing is that we are currently losing our genetic edge! War is a way of maintaining it!

 

(By the way it isn’t the fairness of a fight that legitimizes it, it is whether or not it was in self defense/defense of another. It is also true that most people may not be able to pull the trigger if they need to be, but at the same time if I was a criminal I wouldn’t want to be the one to find out. The important thing is that it increase the risks of crime thereby stifling it. Other accidental shootings would only go up only until those who are “unfit” for handling weapons would be killed only leaving more “fit” individuals. It is also important to remember that there would still be strict gun violence laws, in the case of mere fair fights, and that the changes I am talking about take time. Rome wasn’t made in a year!)

[lukeiamyourdad]

You said it yourself. Social programs to help the poor lower gun violence. Why not apply this instead of giving guns to everyone?

 

No logic in that at all.

 

So war eliminates the genetically weak eh? Nice. Sieg Heil.

 

nuff said

[CagedCrado]

Some of you dont understand the second ammendment.

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.

 

It doesnt say IN ORDER TO. It just states that a well regulated militia is necesary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, that means that the right for people to have weapons cant be taken away. The reasons are just as much here now as they were then, we also still have a regulated militia so anyway you look at it, the law still applies.

 

Also banning guns would start a civil war, on atleast a small scale, and the people crying to ban guns would have no self defense anyway.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Also banning guns would start a civil war, on atleast a small scale, and the people crying to ban guns would have no self defense anyway.

 

In the same way that banning alcohol started a civil war?

 

I REALLY doubt that the civilian population of America is going to want to start a revolt against the country with one of the best trained armies. Methinks THAT revolt would end REAL quick.

[CagedCrado]

Who says that many members of the army wouldnt support the revolt?

 

Also small scale revolts are legal, they are called protests and or demonstrations.

 

Banning alchohal DID start a civil war, in many cities the mob was more powerful than the government by far. In many cases, the mob was the local government. Thus a small scale revolution happened.

[El Sitherino]

Technically wouldn't the national guard be the regulated malitia?

and I don't see how average crazy ass gun nut's can be considered a well regulated militia.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Banning alchohal DID start a civil war,

 

I think your definition of civil war differs from the rest of the world's definition of civil war..

[CagedCrado]

Did i ever say a full scale revolution EVER?

 

no, i said a small scale revolution. Thus it wouldnt be full blown.

 

Read.

[SkinWalker]

I think you're blowing it out of proportion. The majority of the opponents to current gun laws don't seem to want all out bans on firearms. The merely want the useless, crap firearms removed from the market. There's no need for cheap .25 Raven pistols, semi-automatic sub-machine guns that can easily be modified to full-auto, or AK-47's.

 

The collector argument often presented is hogwash. He can take up stamps or pokemon cards.

 

Maintaining a militia and allowing citizens to keep and bear arms can be satisfied by the volunteer army, the national guard, the army reserve, the coast guard, and flint-lock rifles for everyone else. But I'd be happy with bolt action rifles and breach loaded shotguns among the populace.

 

If the general populace is concerned about protecting themselves and their families, they can eliminate fatty foods and processed sugars from their diets. Heart disease is by far a greater threat than armed thugs kicking one's door in.

 

Arguments for gun ownership amount to little more than redneck noise. The Constitution of the United States is but a piece of paper. It can be (and has been) changed.

[CagedCrado]

There is nothing wrong with collecting guns. There are gun collectors that never even fired the weapons they own. It is no different than collecting swords or any other type of weapon.

 

Just because something doesnt have a use doesnt mean that it is useless. And those weapons do have a use, sport shooting and target practice. There is no reason not to allow sport shooting with any type of weapon to test your mental skill and ability with fire arms.

 

Guns are part of our culture, our society, our future and our past. Our weapons are what have made us a people and destroyed us as people.

 

It isnt about self defense, it is about the right to do what you want to do.

 

Also to the person comparing gun deaths from the UK to the US, there are more gun deaths in the UK per population, even if you consider you didnt take full information from the US.

 

US population: 293 million (cia world factbook)

UK population: 60 million

that is a 5:1 ratio, so there should be 5 times more gun deaths in the united states, or about 50-60,000. Which there arent according to you.

 

To change any of the first ten ammendments is a violation of my unalienable rights, and will be the end of my residency in the united states. To outlaw firearms is the same as outlawing freedom of speech. The same as if they outlawed computers or star wars or the media, or whatever you liberals do for entertainment.

 

I dont own guns, but i know an infringement on unalienable rights when i see one.