See, here's where I'd like to see a source. I don't really care about what people do with guns they buy legally on their own time, so long as they're not bringing heavy armaments into the streets. However, having loose gun control laws and/or more guns in the public inherently means more gun access to criminal because it's not that hard for somebody to figure who owns guns in the neighborhood and break in when they're not around.
Both of those points (criminals using illegal guns and having access to illegal guns as being stolen from private residences) show up in these articles:
There this, but primarily there's this. Some heavier reading there.
To pop a few quotes from the document:
According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft, and 28% had acquired it through an illegal market such as a drug dealer or fence. Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least one gun, and 11% had sold or traded stolen guns.
From a sample of juvenile inmates in four States, Sheley and Wright found that more than 50% had stolen a gun at least once in their lives and 24% had stolen their most recently obtained handgun. They concluded that theft and burglary were the original, not always the proximate, source of many guns acquired by the juveniles.
However, taking something else from the article here:
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations occurred in 1993, including 4.4 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.*
Only 29% faced an offender with a firearm. That doesn't go a long way to showing that guns themselves are the problem.
Additionally, if guns are being stolen from a private residence, it's because they're being carelessly stored or there's easy access.
I mean, I have a sword on my wall, but to get into my building you need a fob, and to get onto my floor you need a fob that belongs to my floor. Not a lot of break-ins on the 13th floor of an apartment building. If you have a house, you should be keeping your gun in a safe.
So, unless you're suggesting that Congress should be legislating what people can and cannot do in the privacy of their own home, which would be a stunning breach of personal freedom; there's not much that can be done there.
But I wouldn't call that a sufficient point to make an argument from - it's the meaning of the word that matters in this case, not the word itself. Syntax is useless unless it means something, and just because something is evil in one way does not mean the other definitions of the word apply to it. So yes, morally, an object or phenomenon cannot be evil. Though one can be detrimental. But once again, I'd consider myself correct, at least in relation with the definition of 'evil' I was using.
I was not suggesting that at all. I suppose my experience with Grand Jury has colored my view of where criminals get guns. Doing more background research showed that the major problem is actually corrupt dealers rather then stolen weapons, and while both could be reminded by making the sale of firearms illegal, it seems that it would be easier and more effective to just have longer wait periods, deeper background checks, and more watch of dealers.
So yes, morally, an object or phenomenon cannot be evil.
They can be. You're still only looking at this with your definition of evil which apparently includes something to the effect that only things with free will can be morally evil. I'd say that since people have at times considered a huge variety of objects evil (ex. computers nuclear weaponry, alcohol, and tobacco have all at some point been said to have intrinsic properties that made them evil in the views on individuals) you can't say that objects cannot be morally wrong. Even if you don't agree with alternative definitions, by ignoring them you will at best just argue past other people without understanding each other, and at worst be acting in an intellectually malicious manner.
I was not suggesting that at all. I suppose my experience with Grand Jury has colored my view of where criminals get guns. Doing more background research showed that the major problem is actually corrupt dealers rather then stolen weapons, and while both could be reminded by making the sale of firearms illegal, it seems that it would be easier and more effective to just have longer wait periods, deeper background checks, and more watch of dealers.
Ah, I see - I wasn't quite sure what you were arguing for; I'm inclined to agree though. I don't have problems with legislation for proper distribution/sale of guns - removing them altogether though seems unnecessary.
I'd say that since people have at times considered a huge variety of objects evil (ex. computers nuclear weaponry, alcohol, and tobacco have all at some point been said to have intrinsic properties that made them evil in the views on individuals) you can't say that objects cannot be morally wrong.
I'd say alt has a point there though - what if (as silly as it may sound) we found ourselves in conflict with an extraterrestrial species, and nuclear armament fired at their craft in orbit around the planet was an effective means of combating them? Are they evil then, if their use protects our species from extinction and destruction?
you can't say that objects cannot be morally wrong
Morally wrong and morally evil are two different things.
Also, I just realized that our entire debate over whether an object can be morally wrong is somewhat fallacious,m considering that all morality is subjective.
Also, my phrasing may have been unclear, as you seem to miss my point.
Because objects cannot possess morality, they cannot be morally evil. However, they can be 1) regarded by some people as morally evil, and 2) be evil as in 'bad' or 'detrimental.'
Guns can be good and/or bad depending on how you use them. Officers and the Military use Guns to free people from the oppression of others while Thieves, Thugs, Terrorists, etc. use them for their own selfish purposes.
So you see, It all depends on who wields the firearm.
I don't think that people should be able to walk around with assault rifles in public. But I don't see what's wrong with owning a gun for protection. If a person wants to kill someone, they are going to do it, with or without a gun. It's not the guns that kill.
Statistically, people who own guns are more likely to get shot than those who don't.
In America, it's another story due to their anachronistic constitution, but I say, why do you need a gun? I have lived in a large crime ridden city for years, and have never been in a situation where me having a gun would have been beneficial.
It's a myth that widespread gun ownership deters crime. It increases it.
Since marijuana is illegal, obviously no one does marijuana anymore, so thus gun laws would so obviously work because the criminals certainly won't obtain them illegally.
Oh, please. If guns are banned: 1. Law-abiders will turn them in. 2. Criminals will not. If they do, they will be able to obtain them again. 3. Violent crimes using firearms will escalate.
You don't have to think for more than a minute to figure that out.
this will shut you all up and you can quote me on it
guns don't kill people people kill people i mean really? you guys are that dumb? come on guns were made by humans for killing humans i don't see anamals inventing stuff to kill eachoutter
Oh, please. If guns are banned: 1. Law-abiders will turn them in. 2. Criminals will not. If they do, they will be able to obtain them again. 3. Violent crimes using firearms will escalate.
if this reasoning would be true, then how come that the us(which has none or almost no gun limitations) has an enourmous higher amount of murders and other crimes including firearms, then countries with restrictive gun limitation.
your reasoning is true for organized criminals and people how live from crime.
but what about all those desparate people who dont see a way out of a situation and simply take their gun to commit a crime? not everyone commiting a crime is a long known criminal.
Let me say that guns have two sides. They hurt people, yes, but they are also used to protect people. Let's say someone was robbing a bank. What would the police use to protect the denizens of the bank and the money within? Guns. And we also use guns for entertainment, hunting. But yes, guns do hurt people, although they are just as many times used in self defense. Let me say this. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If we blame a gun for shooting someone, then are we also to blame a computer for harassing someone via the internet? Or a pen for writing an error? No! Because the items themselves are not responsible, and we should not shun them because of what people use them for, because we depend upon such items in our lives. And even if guns were banned, do you really think that would matter? If anything, that would deteriorate the situation. Criminals would find a way to get guns, and regular people and policemen would have no way of stopping them. And if guns were never invented, we would still use knives or swords. And if knives or swords were never invented we would use rocks. And if rocks didn't exist, we would use our fists. What I'm saying is that humans are a violent nature. We fight to settle a disagreement, we fight for greed, or hate, or whatever. But even if we take away the tools that make fighting easier, humans will still kill each other. We can't blame the tool.
if this reasoning would be true, then how come that the us(which has none or almost no gun limitations) has an enourmous higher amount of murders and other crimes including firearms, then countries with restrictive gun limitation.
First, you don't know anything about buying a firearm. I can tell you probably have never even tried to buy one. If you had, you would know how thorough the process is, provided you go through legal channels. You can't just go up to a respectable gun store and say you'll have an AK-47-full auto, with a Beretta and a couple boxes of Black Talons, then the proprietor asks if you want fries with that, then you walk out with it.
They would look at you like you were joking and probably call the cops. That's because Black Talons are illegal, you need a class three weapons permit to own/sell automatic firearms(and you need to actually own a gun shop to even apply for one), and the Beretta would take about two days to buy, assuming you're twenty-one. Also, that kind of combination just screams that you're about to do something illegal.
There are plenty of limitations that are used, and more being put into legislation. In first world countries the US has the strictest gun control laws, short of outright banning everything but shotguns.
I would go into detail about these laws, but I already feel like a broken record. I also assume that anyone on this site can operate a search engine, and you can verify this if you actually care that much. Just go to your states laws, they're there. Just look out for the whack-jobs that say that all guns need to be legal and should be allowed in school, because they give responsible gun owners a bad name.
