Quote from luftrofl :

Why do we even HAVE the power to amend the constitution? It's always right and has always been right. Slavery, women's suffrage, etc. you name it and it's always been in there!

I don't understand how your question/statement pertains to my statement. Of course this amendment can be changed or stricken from the Constitution, and if you want to legally remove the second amendment, you're more than welcome to try.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

The issue is not the right to carry arms. We can all agree that you do have that right. The point was that the God given right to carry weapons does not "guarantee a free and peaceful society", although evidently some Americans seem to think this is the case. Furthermore, the extent into which some people (and not just Americans) are willing to go to assert their right to have specific rights is somewhat scary.

Please recognize this as your opinion, unless you've got some really good numbers to bring to this conversation that might show otherwise. You may believe that it doesn't, some believe that it does. Without quality statistics both statements are pretty much baseless.

If you don't understand why Americans are willing to assert their right to have specific rights then you don't understand American society. I don't mean that as an insult any more or less than it'd be insulting for you to tell me that I don't know what it's like to live in Finland.

Speaking of gun laws and gun ownership, there're quie a few observations I find rather interesting.

In many countries where guns are practically banned for most civiliians, gun crimes are...drum roll...VERY low.

Let's see, Japan. Almost no civillian guns and surprise surprise, VERY low gun crime rates. BTW, has anyone heard of school shootings in South East Asia? Bet not.

Isn't it possible that if heavy armament was required for peace, then the problem isn't the presesnce of guns or not? Isn't it possible that this is due to some deeper fundamental problem that strikes the people of that area to the core?

It is amazing that people have a remarkable ability to completely IGNORE root causes of problems. Like hyperactive kids. Oh, I know, lets just pump them up with PROZAC! Easy, cheap and very profitable. PERFECT!

Lonely autistic kid gets picked on in the cruellest and meanest possible ways all the time. I know let's pick on the easy target and have some sick and twisted fun! MUHAHAHA! The real solution is to of course get some true friends for this poor fellow, but NO, that's no good. Too "expensive" for the us cheap and nasty lots. Let's just squash him while we can and if he retaliates, just get rid of him! Or label him as a monster or moron, etc. EXCELLENT.

And bullying. There is simply no good excuse for picking fun on anyone that has not done you any intentional harm. It is amazing how so many people think bullying is acceptable. If it's "normal" then it must be correct, right? In some societies, "honour killing" is "normal" and actually encouraged. These 2 situtaions are in essence the same things.

Let's see, big and rich country bullies small and poor country. Poor country eventually gets on its last straw. Poor country wants revenge. Next thing we know it's WAR. Rich country simpy labels poor country as a terrorist nation, poor country cries out and lables rich country as "the almighty oppressor" or "the great satan" or whatever. Sound familiar?

If the fear of getting shot by a firearm is the thing that's keeping the peace, it doesn't mean that firearms are the solution to peace. It is in fact just another form terrorism and tyranny.

I wonder if most people remember what true freedom is anymore.

Quote from Jamexing :

In many countries where guns are practically banned for most civiliians, gun crimes are...drum roll...VERY low.

Let's see, Japan. Almost no civillian guns and surprise surprise, VERY low gun crime rates. BTW, has anyone heard of school shootings in South East Asia? Bet not.

Crime is crime. Who cares if a crime was committed with a gun, knife, steel pipe, toothpick, or with a bomb strapped to your chest?

Didn't somebody kill a bunch of people in recent years in Japan by setting off a chemical weapon in a crowded public area? How is that different than somebody shooting up a school? Either way a bunch of people die. I can come up with more examples of this, but you should get the point that this type of behavior is not limited to places where guns are legal.

Fear of getting shot may or may not keep the peace. People are always going to flip out and try to kill/rob/rape one another. But I can guarantee that if I, or any other person I know who supports our right to own a gun was in that building and was armed, not nearly as many people would have been hurt or killed.

Quote from Mykl :

Didn't somebody kill a bunch of people in recent years in Japan by setting off a chemical weapon in a crowded public area?

If only the victims had been armed with sarin gas cannisters, that atrocity could have been averted!

(Sarcasm, BTW, before anyone jumps on me)

Serp.

Quote from Serpentine :

If only the victims had been armed with sarin gas cannisters, that atrocity could have been averted!

(Sarcasm, BTW, before anyone jumps on me)

Serp.

If only somebody at VT had a nuke, that would have stopped the killer!

erm... actually, my post was intended to highlight the ludicrous tenet of the pro-gun lobby. :rolleyes:

Quote from Serpentine :

erm... actually, my post was intended to highlight the ludicrous tenet of the pro-gun lobby. :rolleyes:

That's fine. I chose to not take it seriously because I feel that no reasonable person will see sarin gas as a viable means of personal self defense.





If you're happy in your anti-gun world, stay in it. If you're not comfortable around guns, or wouldn't be comfortable in a society that allows almost anybody to have one, then stay where you are. I wouldn't be comfortable in a society where I have no right to personal protection, so I won't be moving any time soon.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

By your logic then, police also should not have guns either, since they are obviously completely useless. I think perhaps you need to rethink your argument.

Erm... The police don't use their guns for protection like you. They use bulletproof wests for that.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

Great Britain is surrounded by water, with no porous borders for the smuggling of arms. Even despite these huge obstacles, guns are in the hands of criminals and gun crimes are committed. Please explain.

Could it be that they have been smugled from over seas? You know with boats and ships? They float on water, it's boyance. Besides there is the canal tunnel, if you didn't know. And last time I checked they are still using those things that fly. What are they called? Those big things with wings that fly around and carry cargo and passengers. Wait it's on the top of my tongue. You must have seen them flying in the sky. What was it... oero... eore... AEROPLANES! That's it!

What kind of hickswille you live in? Must be really far in the sticks since you don't know that there are boats and aeroplanes in this world?

And before you start to froth at the mouth explaining to me how you can't smuggle weapons on aeroplanes after the 911. There was a short story somewhere about a guy who flew to america from Israel and then took a domestic flight to his destination. Only when he started to unpack his luggage did he notice that he had brought a gun with him in his handluggage. It was a legal gun and he had a permit for it. Of course he went to the police about it and they were very surprised. This was after the 911 incident and the airports were on that extra security mumbo jumbo alert.

C'mon now... is that tone really necessary? It seemed obvious to me what he was hinting at. The point is that it's a whole lot easier to smuggle something in and out of a territory if you can simply walk across a border, or approach one many road border crossings. At no point did he say it was impossible to smuggle guns in, he merely implied that is more difficult. Example... in the recent past the United States has had a difficult time regulating the immigration of people from Cuba and Mexico. Logically, I would say that it's a whole lot easier to deal with illegal immigrants coming from Cuba... but that's just me.

Also, in a sense the police do use guns as protection. In the sense that if you're an officer who's drawn on somebody with the intent to arrest, that person is probably not going to give you a chance to test out your vest.

Quote from Mykl :

Please recognize this as your opinion, unless you've got some really good numbers to bring to this conversation that might show otherwise. You may believe that it doesn't, some believe that it does. Without quality statistics both statements are pretty much baseless.

You're talking to the wrong guy here, I was merely paraphrasing what was said by someone else, because you replied to the post but not the content.

Quote :

If you don't understand why Americans are willing to assert their right to have specific rights then you don't understand American society. I don't mean that as an insult any more or less than it'd be insulting for you to tell me that I don't know what it's like to live in Finland.

Perhaps I worded my original post incorrectly. What I meant was "I agree with what was said, and hold no further interest in the matter". The sole point of my post was to clarify that you answered what was not implied in Nihil's post.

Quote from NotAnIllusion :

You're talking to the wrong guy here, I was merely paraphrasing what was said by someone else, because you replied to the post but not the content.


Perhaps I worded my original post incorrectly. What I meant was "I agree with what was said, and hold no further interest in the matter". The sole point of my post was to clarify that you answered what was not implied in Nihil's post.

My apologies.

As for the sarin gas incident, guns wouldn't have helped. It wasn't a VIOLENT act of terrorism. It was a stealth attack with a weapon invisible to the naked eye. As they say, you can't shoot at what you can't see.

The problem as a personal protection device is that even if the one with it is a sane and reasonable person, it doesn't mean that he could use it effectively to save lives. These weapons are more a danger to yourself if you aren't familiar with their use and maintanece. A person who can't shoot straight could easily be more dangerous than someone who was trying to hit you.

Besides, it's one thing to do well in target practice. Most civillians simply do not have the experience, training and will to use firearms effectively against dangerous people.

Then there's the problem with escalation. Criminals have AK-47s, so we should arm ourselves with M16A3s? Then they come up with bazookas, so we should counter with stinger missles? What kind of neighbourhood is this? Is this just another scene from ROBOCOP 1/2/3? Oh man, we've got a war zone down here! And to get to this level shows how messed up and corrupt a society has become. Welcome to (insert a south american country)

And of course, social problems need to be addressed and seriously reduced if not elminated. Like it or not, people don't kill people randomly for absolutely o reason at all. And hatred doesn't come from thin air. People hate people because they're stepped on, feel so or been manipulated into believing the target of their hatred has done them harm in some way. I again stress that these are just some of the social problems that people around the world need to seriously address.

Sometimes it's just amazing how mean kids under 10 years old can be to their peers. They do an amazing job of sowing the seeds of hatred even from such a young age. And to bully someone else doesn't prove you're better then them. It just means you're a sorry excuse for a human that can't achieve happiness without inflicting pain on others. Basically an empty shell with no life worth mwntioning and living.

It's not a matter of armament. It's down to the effective function of society itself. Guns are the treatment of last resort when things do go horribly wrong. In the end prevention is >>> cure/treament.

That's a bit of a slippery slope there eh?

The point I was trying to make with the sarin gas incident is not that it could have been prevented with a gun, but that no matter what weapons you ban or restrict people are always going to find ways to kill each other. Some people are so passionate about killing other people that they would tape explosives to their torso and detonate them in the group of people he wanted to harm.

It doesn't take much skill or experience to shoot somebody with a shotgun in their home. A shotgun of course being the most effective tool available for home defense. It's all about training, and just because somebody is a civilian does not make them incapable of maintaining those basic self defense skills.

Going to the slippery slope thing... in the United States where such weapons can be purchased, you'll find that they're in the extreme minority in the "gun crimes" statistics. Generally speaking people buy AK47's or AR15's (M-16) because they're hobbyists and enjoy having them just to have them. Point being that they're here, they're readily available to pretty much anybody, and there's no arms race like the one you describe.

We can talk about societal issues all we want. But that's the last thing that would be on my mind if somebody breaks into my home. All I'm thinking about in that situation is what do I have to do to avoid getting hurt or killed.

The simple fact is that people always have, and always will find reasons to hate one another. As long as people are different in some way from one another, you will always be able to find an excuse to do something bad to somebody who is not like you.

Quote from Jamexing :

Speaking of gun laws and gun ownership, there're quie a few observations I find rather interestings.

In many countries where guns are practically banned for most civiliians, gun crimes are...drum roll...VERY low.

Let's see, Japan. Almost no civillian guns and surprise surprise, VERY low gun crime rates. BTW, has anyone heard of school shootings in South East Asia? Bet not.

You have to take into account not just whether or not guns are legal, but the disposition of the society as well. Japan is a good example of a relatively peaceful country that has no firearms. Switzerland is an example of a country that has more guns per capita than almost anywhere else in the world, yet is still peaceful. So, you can see that it cuts both ways. The only way you can truly compare is to take a society that allows guns and remove them, or vice versa. If you study these scenarios you'll find that in virtually every single case crime rises when guns are removed and drops when guns are reintroduced.

Isn't it possible that if heavy armament was required for peace, then the problem isn't the presesnce of guns or not? Isn't it possible that this is due to some deeper fundamental problem that strikes the people of that area to the core?

Quote :

...your long rant about prozac, bullying, and whatever else....

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, or who you are trying to convince. I've already said several times in this thread that poverty and mental health issues are the reason for crime. But that is a totally separate issue than gun rights.

Quote :

Let's see, big and rich country bullies small and poor country. Poor country eventually gets on its last straw. Poor country wants revenge. Next thing we know it's WAR. Rich country simpy labels poor country as a terrorist nation, poor country cries out and lables rich country as "the almighty oppressor" or "the great satan" or whatever. Sound familiar?

I think we're all quite familar by now. Perhaps you'd like to explain this concept to our asshat of a president?

Quote :

If the fear of getting shot by a firearm is the thing that's keeping the peace, it doesn't mean that firearms are the solution to peace. It is in fact just another form terrorism and tyranny.

For reasonable people, the threat of violence is not necessary. Unfortunately, people rarely use reason when they act. If these people are made aware that their actions could have serious consequences (such as getting a bullet in their ass), they generally stop, think a moment, then decide maybe it's best to let it slide and go on with their life. The fear of getting shot only comes into play when someone is doing something they shouldn't be in the first place, such as attacking another person, robbing a house, carjacking, etc. Don't do those things and you generally don't have to worry.

Quote :

I wonder if most people remember what true freedom is anymore.

True freedom is anarchy. In the case of an anarchistic society, you can bet your ass that EVERYONE would be armed to the teeth, because there would be no police force or government to regulate the behavior of their fellow citizens.

You sure you want true freedom?

Quote from Jamexing :

The problem as a personal protection device is that even if the one with it is a sane and reasonable person, it doesn't mean that he could use it effectively to save lives. These weapons are more a danger to yourself if you aren't familiar with their use and maintanece. A person who can't shoot straight could easily be more dangerous than someone who was trying to hit you.

Besides, it's one thing to do well in target practice. Most civillians simply do not have the experience, training and will to use firearms effectively against dangerous people.

I'm sorry to inform you, but you are blatantly incorrect. Most police officers (it varies by jurisdiction) are only required to have a few hours per year of target practice time. Me, and many of the people that I know, go to the range once or twice a month for two hours at a time. So, in essence, we are better trained than the police at how to use our firearms. Mykl already did a good job of addressing shotguns and home defense.

One more thing I'd like to point out, that none of the anti-gun crowd seems to acknowledge and that is, that a gun does not have to be fired to be useful. The sight of a pistol grip or the sound of a shotgun racking are MORE effective than a gun being fired. Guns are used as crime deterrents thousands of times a day, without ever being fired. How many other tools are just as, if not more, effective without even being used?

Quote :

Then there's the problem with escalation. Criminals have AK-47s, so we should arm ourselves with M16A3s? Then they come up with bazookas, so we should counter with stinger missles? What kind of neighbourhood is this? Is this just another scene from ROBOCOP 1/2/3? Oh man, we've got a war zone down here! And to get to this level shows how messed up and corrupt a society has become. Welcome to (insert a south american country)

You watch way too many movies. AK47s and M16s are collector guns. They are already regulated and virtually never used in gun related crimes. Anti-gun legislators like to throw around the word "assault weapon", but it's totally meaningless. Approximately 2% of gun crimes in the US are caused by such "assault weapons". Anyone who thinks that fully automatic firearms are a major problem has been seriously misled.

Quote :

It's not a matter of armament. It's down to the effective function of society itself. Guns are the treatment of last resort when things do go horribly wrong. In the end prevention is >>> cure/treament.

I think on this point, we are in agreement.

I think my stance on this issue is clear at this point, but I'll elaborate...

I'm a big fan of government that represents the will of it's people. If the will of your people, in your territory, doesn't want guns... then I feel that it is the government's responsibility to restrict them within their sphere of control.

The United States has relatively lax gun laws. I believe this accurately represents the will of the citizens of this country. Many of us here view it as a right given to us by those who drafted our constitution, and we are quick to defend that right. You might think it silly, but we take it seriously.

Quote from Cue-Ball :

True freedom is anarchy. In the case of an anarchistic society, you can bet your ass that EVERYONE would be armed to the teeth, because there would be no police force or government to regulate the behavior of their fellow citizens.
You sure you want true freedom?

You seem to know very little about anarchy, and I'm talking as a post-communist anarchist. I recognise - as a practical person - that my dreams won't be fulfilled, at least during my life, but since there are so many offsprings of the original concept of anarchy you shouldn't use that term so loosely if you're using the word to describe a political idea. If you're using the word "anarchy" as the loose definition of "total lack of control" you may be right, but your sentence isn't built like that, so I guess you lost your bet. And YES, I want true freedom. As Jello Biafra said, "real freedom scares you 'cause it means responsibility". Therefore, I am willing to accept responsibility of my freedom. And that means: "My freedom stops where your freedom starts". Was it Martin Luther King or Voltaire to say these words originally? I don't care. Whoever said them was right.
But then again, as Orwell observed, some words whose meaning is only ideal (and "freedom" is one of those words) are used widely in all parts of the political spectrum with different meaning, so they are meaningless.
All I see in what happened at Virginia Tech is a madman who felt bullied and went on a killing spree with a very easy access to firearms, and my first priority in dealing with such cases would be trying to prevent them, not dealing with them when they happen.

Quote from Albieg :

If you're using the word "anarchy" as the loose definition of "total lack of control" you may be right, but your sentence isn't built like that, so I guess you lost your bet.

I'm using the word anarchy, just as it is meant, and as it is defined in the dictionary. Anarchy is absence of government, and absolute freedom of the individual. This means that everyone is free to do anything they wish, whether or not those acts infringe on others. I would be free to shoot my neighbor, with no lawful consequences. He, on the other hand, would be free to shoot me. Again, with no lawful consequences (though, we would both face possible consequences from the society around us, since they would be free to avenge either of those acts. And so on, and so forth).

The point I am making is that the more free you are, the more risks you take, and the more responsibility rests in your hands (I believe this is what you were saying, as well). It seems to me that many people in the world are unwilling to accept that responsibility. People like myself believe that the reward of being armed outweighs the risk. Being unarmed does nothing to decrease the risk, and causes the populace to depend on the government for protection, thus becoming subjugates of the state.

Quote :

All I see in what happened at Virginia Tech is a madman who felt bullied and went on a killing spree with a very easy access to firearms, and my first priority in dealing with such cases would be trying to prevent them, not dealing with them when they happen.

The question becomes, how do you prevent them? Do you address the underlying issue of what would drive a person to commit such an act, or do you take away one weapon, which others lawfully use, knowing full well that other weapons are just as easily available, and even more destructive? I vote for the former.

Quote from Mykl :

Many of us here view it as a right given to us by those who drafted our constitution, and we are quick to defend that right. You might think it silly, but we take it seriously.

Actually the clinging to the right is not silly at all. Because in the background there is the fear of "If we give in on this then what is next?". But that is ecxatly the same thing with stricter gun law societies.

Cue-ball, resorting to a dictionary to state the obvious isn't my cup of tea. Your one-line idea of anarchy (which is indeed the lack of a government) has no strategic vision, and this leads you to believe anyone would be armed to the teeth. Reading a few more lines helped me understand there is more than a single possible outcome (a fact that somebody should tell the strategists at the White House because they don't seem to understand it yet).

For you the former, for me the former and the latter. I'm used to think that places that are commonly shared between people (like streets, pubs, public buildings) should be completely devoid of firearms. But I don't need to worry about things like that here, luckily. To each his own.

Speaking of freedom, I wonder why people define as a animalistic, anarchist state of affairs. Well, guess most humans still run on caveman/woman psychology.

Freedom. What about freedom to access education to better oneself? Freedom to live happy and peaceful lives? Freedom to achieve prosperity without stepping on other people to make oneself taller? Freedom to achieve ones positive dreams without political and financial oppresion? The list could go on forever, but the point is that these basic freedoms that many peace loving and productive individuals desperately want remain remarkably neglected. And yes, true freedom (at least in my sense of the term) does mean responsibility. This does not go down very well with lawyers in litigious societies though.

If there's one good thing that's good about this thread is that people haven't tried to label me as pro/anti gun. Don't get me wrong, I'm a military enthusiast and I like everything from desert eagles to F-22 raptors, but I also don't believe that guns could solve a society's problems. They're good for suppresing violence to an extent, but when one responds to hate induced aggression with more reasons to perpetuate the hate, it's a dead end. Remember the Vietnam war?

Statistically the Americans were winning, if kill to loss ratios are of any indication. But years of brutality and atrocities commited by both sides didn't go down to well with many people around the world. It's a vicious cycle. You've got civillians that just want to be left alone to live peaceful lives, then the Vietcong show up and start forcefully drafting them to military service. America responds to this new threat by removing acres of forest and wiping out many civillians, their property and their homes. This feeds into the anti-American hatred, and this cycle of positive feedback goes on and on and on.....

The sad thing is that Americans went into this mess of a war knowing it was very likely to become a complete mess. The motive of stopping communist spread didn't quite add up if one understands how countries such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, etc operate. Let's face it, communist atheism won't go down well to countries with religious backbone. As i said by the art of war, "Know thy enemy, Know thyslef, Know when to Strike". The Americans simply didn't know their enemies too well.

I'm also glad that some here have actually understood one of my points about my Japanese comment. Yes, due to complicated cultural differences, what works in one place at the present time would fail miserably at another.

To see how bad racist stupidity and all the associated just could get, just search youtube for clips on the Virginia Tech Massacare. Just take a look at the majority of the comments posted on some obviously racist and hate-inciting videos and you'll all understand why I'm so genrally disgusted. One poor emotionally beat up boy is dead along with 32 others, and the last thing we need is to throw blame and labels around, wishing America to be free of Asians.

Hatred, believe it or not, goes far deeper than just simple differences. It's something that's complicated and havily intertwined into many facets of human experience, history and existance, so I won't try too hard to explain it in a forum. Yes, differences do cause misunderstandings and unintended quarrels. But in my experience, it takes much more than spilt milk to induce a cycle of hatred.

Another good thing is that at least quite few here have actually realised that the only real solution to a social problem is to address the root causes. As an ancient Chinese saying goes: "To permanantly remove grass, one must eliminate its roots".