To starty this debate, lets say that we're starting up a brand new country with no existing laws or cultural prejudices on the issue. This is because it is a much different arguement if you take the U.S., than if you take somewhere like Britain. It prevents arguments revolving around destroying the thousands of jobs in the industry too.
So. Brand new country. What are its gun laws going to be?
Should people have the right to own guns? If so, should they be securely locked away in a cabinet until the country is invaded, or should people be allowed to carry them on the street? Should people be allowed handguns but not assault rifles?
Exactly, goumas. That's the point I was trying to make. We are trying to fix an issue that has deeper roots. It's like sweeping the dirt under the rug. It's still there.
The vast majority of gun crimes and homicides are linked to gangs/mafia.
Fair point. I would deffo say that UK has less gang activity except in the biggest citys and this certainly helps us keep homicide lower. Being smaller is also a factor as there is less to control.
I also think that poverty is one of the biggest reasons people will become involved in crime. If no one was poor and never needed to worry about food, clothing and a place to stay then I doubt that many would turn to crime.
USA may be richer overall but the ratio of poor to rich and the divide between them is even more substantial.
Now add guns to this anger over the unfair divide.
I dont see people with guns. I have no urge to attack them.
That's not the option. The idea is that people who are already in the business of attacking other people would be less willing to attack those with a gun.
How is it illogical?
I didn't say it was :/ I said it appeared illogical and made your statement look weak.
I foresaw such a response to my comment on the rooms. It's not an example because being grouped in rooms of ten would fundamentally alter the situation. I see no purpose in including the idea of "rooms" in your argument. Well, I do see a purpose -- similarity to Nemo's restaurant example -- but your example did nothing but divide some numbers by ten. YOu were just organizing statistics. *shrugs* maybe it made perfect sense to you but was lost on me. That sort of thing happens sometimes.
I have a bias against firearms and will bend statistics (my room for instance) to fit my case. Is that what you are saying?
I'm saying you'll see what you want to see. Moreover, I'm saying that conflict is not a means to its own end.
After that stricter gun laws can be imposed.
...why? If we somehow dealt with gang violence, why would we possibly want stricter gun laws? Most gun crime would be gone, and gun crime is the only reason people are against gun ownership.
Now add guns to this anger over the unfair divide.
I... don't think that's a common motive for homicide, gun related or otherwise.
USA may be richer overall but the ratio of poor to rich and the divide between them is even more substantial.
The gap doesn't really mean anything though.
I also think that poverty is one of the biggest reasons people will become involved in crime. If no one was poor and never needed to worry about food, clothing and a place to stay then I doubt that many would turn to crime.
This is true. However, there will always be poor people who merely refuse to work and you can't do anything to help them but keep giving them opportunities to find work.
The vast majority of gun crimes and homicides are linked to gangs/mafia. Hence I personally believe that if the State manages to reduce the organized crime activity the gun violence will decrease (likewise the criminal offenses, particularly homicides).
...why? If we somehow dealt with gang violence, why would we possibly want stricter gun laws?
Many persons do not want guns around them. They feel less safe surrounded by armed individuals.
Personally I believe that the idea of self-protection is the main thing still keeping guns around. Ergo in my opinion very decreased need for self-protection leads to gun-control legislation.
Many persons do not want guns around them. They feel less safe surrounded by armed individuals.
I feel uncomfortable around Christians, can we restrict Christianity as well?
We can't cater to people merely because they are scared or uncomfortable. If we decreased gun violence by exterminating gangs, then I agree that it would be pointless to push more gun regulations.
Personally I believe that the idea of self-protection is the main thing still keeping guns around. Ergo in my opinion very decreased need for self-protection leads to gun-control legislation.
People use guns to hunt and many collect guns as a hobby or for sport (shooting targets).
I feel uncomfortable around Christians, can we restrict Christianity as well?
I would love to. Lets not limit this to Christians tho. To be part of the Abrahamic religion you need a permit and to pass a test to ensure you believe things blindly, feel all other parts of the same religion are wrong and to want to convert everyone else into believing in a sky daddy...
I... don't think that's a common motive for homicide, gun related or otherwise.
Motive? Anything can be a motive. Im talking about a worldwide problem of have and havenots. Perhaps havesome and havelots would be a far better worldwide position to be in but this is not the case right now. The divide is a major reason people get involved in crime. Dont have? Want? Well one solution is criminal activity.
I'm saying you'll see what you want to see
Which is what I accused you of accusing me of?!? Im not mincing words buddy.
I foresaw such a response to my comment on the rooms
Then why didnt you make a response to fit what you foresaw :P
Your arguing over how Im arguing. Im arguing a point. We are on different levels here. Get to the point!
the USA has the worst homicide rate and the least gun laws.
I've got a lot of sources that say that america has a slightly lower homicide rate than the world average
with a little digging around, I've found that homicide rates rise during the year after a new firearm regulation, as those who use guns for target shooting,for hunting,for an spare for their military work, or just have one "just in case" generally wouldn't break firearm laws. But, if you've honestly reached the point of homicide, would a rule telling you not to buy a gun stop you? probably not
Many people do. Denying people weapons just because they might have a decreased need for self defense is not a reason to restrict personal freedom. It is, in the theoretical situation, a completely arbitrary restriction of personal freedom. I'm sure even Munky would agree.
Motive? Anything can be a motive. Im talking about a worldwide problem of have and havenots. Perhaps havesome and havelots would be a far better worldwide position to be in but this is not the case right now. The divide is a major reason people get involved in crime. Dont have? Want? Well one solution is criminal activity.
That's not what you said the first time. You implicated the anger over the divide itself, which I took issue with.
Which is what I accused you of accusing me of?!? Im not mincing words buddy.
No it isn't. You asked if I was implying you were bending statistics. I never suspected you of anything deliberate or malicious.
I would love to. Lets not limit this to Christians tho. To be part of the Abrahamic religion you need a permit and to pass a test to ensure you believe things blindly, feel all other parts of the same religion are wrong and to want to convert everyone else into believing in a sky daddy...
So you'd rather institutionalize forcing your beliefs down everyone's throats? I'm sorry to hear that.
People may feel uncomfortable around homosexuals, or Christians, or lawyers or women. I hope no one would want to restrict their personal freedoms just because they might make people uncomfortable. So why gun owners?
Then why didnt you make a response to fit what you foresaw :P
I think there should be some restrictions: Age:To own a gun, a person should either be 18 or have their parents approve if they are a minor. Training:People should take classes and pass a test certifying them ready...or be in the military. Criminal record:To own a gun, the person wanting to buy cannot have any record of felonies or more than a couple misdemeanors. Designated "firearm zones":Guns should only be carried in designated "Firearm zones" and only loaded at a shooting range.
And what is it about me that leads you to that conclusion? I understand you get a sense of what someone's about when seeing posts so am interested (almost in a selfish self-interest really) to know why I am likely to come to this kind of decision? Why do you think I would agree?
That's not what you said the first time. You implicated the anger over the divide itself, which I took issue with.
You seem smart and I know you understand the point Im making. Why dont you tell me the point Im making and Im sure I will understand exactly what your issue was because you didnt actually say.
So you'd rather institutionalize forcing your beliefs down everyone's throats? I'm sorry to hear that.
Im sorry to hear that you choose to debate by purposely ignoring the humour in my comment and then using my comment to make a counter argument that was very overgeneralised.
Struck me as a little too meta
What do you mean? I certainly dont think I have given two differing opinions or turned it into something else entirely. Rather I have tried to explain what I think in different ways.
I think you enjoy playing devils advocate rather than actually giving YOUR opinion. All you seem to do is dissect the way I speak or chose to illustrate a point.
As I said. We are arguing on different levels here. Not higher/better/smarter/right/wrong blahblahblaaaah... Your path is parallel. Your debate is running alongside me but actually has nothing to do with the OP. We do not walk the same road. kapeesh?
[quote]I think there should be some restrictions: Age:To own a gun, a person should either be 18 or have their parents approve if they are a minor. Training:People should take classes and pass a test certifying them ready...or be in the military. Criminal record:To own a gun, the person wanting to buy cannot have any record of felonies or more than a couple misdemeanors. Designated "firearm zones":Guns should only be carried in designated "Firearm zones" and only loaded at a shooting range.
Apparently I forgot to copy the rest of my statement before pasting.
I think there should be some restrictions: Age:To own a gun, a person should either be 18 or have their parents approve if they are a minor. Training:People should take classes and pass a test certifying them ready...or be in the military. Criminal record:To own a gun, the person wanting to buy cannot have any record of felonies or more than a couple misdemeanors. Designated "firearm zones":Guns should only be carried in designated "Firearm zones" and only loaded at a shooting range.
May I ask what the training entails? Just general safety training or actual training or what? The rest are generally implemented, except you must be older to own a handgun.
