cozumel

So you claim...

__________________

Sandok

You live a democracy right? Thus you believe in the freedom of all? But you're not an arnachist are you? So you do believe the Goverment has some role to play in your country?

If that is the case, the protection and defense is the Goverment's job, not hte citizen's. Criminals shouldn't have guns because the Goverment should make sure that's not possible.

If guns can save lives yes, but the number of times gun save lives versus the number of times guns kill is just unmesurable.

US MASS SHOOTINGS IN 2007
Oct: Asa H Coon, 14, shoots four people, injuring them, at his school in Cleveland, Ohio, before killing himself.


April: Cho Seung-hui , 23, shoots 32 people dead on campus of Virginia Tech university, Virginia, then kills himself.


Feb: Sulejman Talovic, 18, shoots dead five people and injures four at a mall in Salt Lake City, Utah, before being killed by police.


A fourteen year old shouldn't have a gun. Hell a 18 year old shouldn't either (given that you guys can't drink before 21...). There is a fundamental flaw and the simple fact is, the US is the country in the OECD with highest gun mortality rate.

Tinkerhell

Yes basically I do (the USA is), and I do (believe in freedom for all), no I'm not (an anarchist), and yes I do believe that a government has very specific (and should be very limited) roles to play in the leading of the country. The protection & defense of the country is the federal government's job. If Jamaica decides that they want to invade the USA and convert all our breweries so they only produce RedStripe and change over the Jack Daniels plant to produce only rum I'll depend on my government to organise the standing federal military to prevent that from happening. (Though I'm confident that the populous of Tennissee and Wisconsin would be capable of handling any threat posed by Jamaica )

The federal government is not, should not, and was never designed to be any form of protection for my life, liberty & property from average criminals and thugs.
Without turning the world into a complete nanny state, they can't do it.
Period.

The various police agencies in the USA are the closest thing to being able to do that (and even those are really state or municipal entities) and our highest court has already stated, point blank, that those agencies don't have an obligation (as in they can't be held accountable) to protect ME an individual.
So who does that leave to protect me, my wife, and my unborn child?

And as far as the government making sure that criminals don't have guns.. I'm all for that because I am not a criminal and I have a inalienable right to protect and defend myself. What I won't subscribe to is anything that in anyway grants the government power over my ownership of guns - no registration or the like. What the government can grant the government can take away. So with that in mind when the government can come up with a way to keep guns away from criminals I'm all for it. The probelm is, THEY ARE CRIMINALS. Currently you can't legally buy a gun without a full background check. Guess what, criminals get guns anyway. I've said this before, show me the magic bomb that will destroy all the guns in the world but nothing else and I'll support using it over every inch of the planet (then I'll start carrying a sword of course because the bad guys will be). But until you can do that then a bad guy is going to get a gun if he wants one bad enough. I can't stand up to a man with a gun unless I have one also.

Actually it is measurable within the limits of the various parameters of your question. The number of incidents where a gun prevented a crime and/or caught the criminal and/ or saved/reduced injuries is something along the lines of 2 million a year in the US.
Details of this were linked to previously ( I think in this thread).

And I can toss right back at your statement that the places with the absolute most criminal activity & violence in the US are those with the tightest gun restrictions. And of course I'll also come back with the grander scale fact that many of the modern world's worst atrocities have started with gun control. A people disarmed is controllable, a people armed is not nearly as controlable. (obviously I'm taking about a national coup type situation here and not something that we are ever likely to see in the USA, but the point is the same)


Why not?
What a 14 yo shouldn't have is a lousy set of parents that don't educate, disciplene, and teach their child. I agree that a child should not have unrestricted access to buy any kind of gun and carry it when & where he please. But owning a gun is not a big deal. I did. I had two longarms when I was 14. Went hunting with my dad with a small shotgun and had a small caliber rifle that I would hunt & plink with. Prior to that, as early as I can remember, I had a bb gun. It's like saying a child shouldn't have matches either. You teach the child what matches are, what they can do, that they are dangerous, but also that they are a great thing, that they can be very benificial but you have to use them correctly. A gun is just a tool, an item, which can be used for good or bad, just like matches. You just have to raise a child right. That's it.

Actually an 18yo can legally purchase longarms. They can't buy a handgun and they can't drink. I think all of that is stupid. If they can vote & go off to war (and be issued a full auto weapon) at 18 then they are an adult, should be able to drink, buy guns and be held responsible for their actions as an adult. If we don't want to call them adults then don't let em go into the military and don't let em vote.

I don't know much about the OECD but... they also say that violent video games are bad because kids turn killer because of them. And in just the few minuntes I spent checking out their site I found two different reports citing other countries as being the "leader" of armed violence and victimisation, several times higher than the global average (Latin American & Caribbean states) And again this type of statement can be grossly skewed depending on the variables & definitions you are trying to take into account.

__________________
Stupidity should be painful if not terminal.
Darwin for Sainthood!!

Zelig

Are you serious? The state has three basic, necessary functions:

1. To protect its citizens from external agression.
2. To protect the rights of citizens from oppression by other citizens.
3. To provide necessary yet economically unfeasible infrastructure.

Are you seriously stating that if any murderers are on a rampage, it's up to his/her targets to stop him, and not a responsibility of the state?

I'm interested, link?

Link?

__________________
--

cozumel

Wrong. Every state operates the 'background check' in a different way. That is where it all goes pear-shaped. The checks should be made the Federal Government and if it takes 3 months to get a license then so be it.

The Virginia Tech massacre, if you remember, was carried out by an individual with a diagnosed mental health disorder and the 'background checks' failed. The whole system needs to be looked at again. Maybe gun controls are not the way forward if that is the will of the American people, but ensuring that only those who are mentally stable and do not have a history of violence should be allowed to bear arms and purchase these weopons.

__________________

Sandok

First of all, I'll be honest, I'm appalled at your answer. It stands against the very fabric of my being and I find it irresponsible and irrational. Then again, I don't understand a LOT of foreign idealogies.

OECD? You do know what it is right?

Established in 1961 to replace the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC), the OECD is an international organization composed of the industrialized market economy countries, as well as some developing countries, by providing a forum in which to establish and coordinate policies.

In other words, it's all the "rich" and "powerful" countries of the world. Of course Latin America, Africa, Caribbean States, Haiti, Sierra Leon, etc have more gun crime but comparing a superpower to a 3rd world country isn't correct in any way.

However, comparing the US to the UK, Japan, Germany, France and such (in other words, the other large economic powers in the developed world), it's fair to make a comparaison. And here we can see that the US is MUCH further in gun crime and fatalities than the rest of the OECD world.

And although I haven't quoted you, you do say Tink that gun control made the world's worst atrocities? Are you implying that current day Germany or Italy have major problems that are ruining these countries nationally and internationally? Or the UK? Or Spain? Or Sweden? Or any of these other rich countries with high GDPs?

And just to ask, are you saying that 4.5% of the world (US population), the large minority on the grand scheme of things (and one of the few countries to blatently love their guns) is correct when the large majority does exactly the opposite and lives fine?

OldBuzzard

Cozmel

Yes he said that, and I'll say it too. It's NOT the governments place to protect me from another person. The US Supreme Court has ruled so. The police cannot, and will not protect me. If I know that Joe Blow down the street is coming to my house with a gun to shoot me, and I call the police, they will say, "Call us back when he starts shooting at you". So, what should I do, wait till he shoots me, or get my own LEGAL weapon and protect myself? YOU would have me shot, since you think that I shouldn't protect myself, but instead wait for the police.They will not protect me from a threat. They will only respond AFTER the crime has been committed. So yes, if someone breaks into my home, I'M responsible for defending myself and family.

As for 'kids' owning firearms, I owned a .22-.410 when I was 12. I was field stripping M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, and BARs by the time I was 14. I was taught firearm safty, and how to use one properly. Back in the 1930's, 40s, 50s and even into the early 1060's KIDS regurlarl brought firearm to SCHOOL with them. They left them in their cars, and used them for going hunting after school. It was commonplace and NORMAL, and we didn't have kids shooting up schools then, because they had DISCIPLINE that kids today don't have, thanks to the 'touchy, feely, liberal doogooders'!!!

I was on my HIGH SCHOOL RIFLE TEAM for Gods sake. I fired .22 indoor at 50 Ft. for four years. I, nor did any of the other 'kids' in the team or anyone on any of the other HS teams go off and shoot up someplace.

The only 'gun control' that I'm in favor is the control it takes to shoot a 1" group at 100 yds.

__________________
OldBuzzard
Maxtor 6Y160P0, 6B200M0 & 6V300F0
Plextor PX-740A
Audigy2 ZS Platinum
All in a Coolermaster CM690
Koolance EXOS2 cooling the CPU & GPU
24" SGI/Sony FW-900, 20" Sony GDM-3001P
HyperOS 2008 SG with 1 Vista x64,2 XP Pro, and 3 XP Pro x64 installs.

Zelig

Link to a source?

Feel free to read my last post, it's applicable to what you posted as well.

__________________
--

Falstaff

ah jeez...
guns dont kill...
people do.

__________________

Tinkerhell

I'll respond to your big post tomorrow. Not enough time today. For now:


http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005...ice-dont-come/

Here is the relevant paragraph:

I'll leave you to actually go out & dig up the specific case details which the Supreme Court has ruled upon. There have been more than a few that result in the same fact - police are not responsible for protecting citizens individually.

And as for this
That is exactly what I am saying, but then your question isn't really very clear either.
The state/local government & in some cases the federal government has a responsibility to try to locate & capture the rampaging murderers. They have ZERO duty to protect me, as an individual, from those murders and if they get to me before they are caught then no one else is responsible for protecting me & mine except me & mine. Conversely, I'm not a law enforcement officer of any type. I don't want to & it's not my job to go out & track down those rampaging murders and catch them. But have no doubt that if they decide to come rampage into my space, then I won't be depending upon a 911 call and some guy in a uniform 5 minutes away to get to my location and stop them from killing me. I'll make that call as quickly as is reasonable for me to do so but what I'll be depending on is myself and the tools at hand be that a gun, a knife a chair leg or my fists.

Yes, it is unlikely to happen. Yes, I hope & pray that nothing bad ever does happen to me or mine or in my presence. I would be 100% confident in saying that each person that reads this feels the same way. But, you feel the same way when you get into a car right? You hope you won't be involved in an accident. But you still put that seat belt on don't you? You still pay for that car insurance right? You hope you won't get sick, or that you won't need the services of a dentist right? But you pay for medical & dental insurance. (ok this might not apply to a some folks depending on your country but it's true here in the states)
What is different about carrying a gun? If you do so legally & responsibly then it is nothing more than a piece of insurance. You train enough to be confident reasonably capable and you maintain a reasonable state of awareness regarding what is happening around you(something everyone should do all the time anyway) and you do your best to remain calm and in control if something happens. You use your brain.

No matter what you do no one will ever be able to make all the guns go away. The bad guys will get them, and even if they don't get them, they will still get knives, or sticks, or just more bad guys than there is of you. And given that FACT then a law abiding person is screwed without having a gun at hand. And even that is not an iron clad guarentee, but it is a hell of a lot better chance than being without it.

It really is that simple.

__________________
Stupidity should be painful if not terminal.
Darwin for Sainthood!!

cozumel

Whomever it was (you know who you are) that resurrected this thread should be shot.

We had a DH poll shortly before this thread began in Spring 2007. It was concluded from the poll results that we felt nothing really needs to change except:
The laws / controls / background checks should all be identical within every Federal state and that they should be enforced fully and rigorously at all times.

__________________

Zelig

Tinkerhell:

First off, I didn't mention anything regarding gun control. Regardless of my personal thoughts on the matter, gun control is a matter best decided by the majority of the population, I would not advocate further restrictions on legal gun ownership in the United States at this time.

I guess we're seeing different things in that paragraph. What stands out to me is :

Note that this reference to state, and the term when I use it, refers to the concept of the state (ie. the USA), not to states as US federal divisions.

Laws of the state are a function to protect the rights of its citizens, an end to a means, not an end in of themselves.

The idea that the state does not have the function of protecting basic rights of its citizens simply flies against the concept of possesive individualism, and pretty much all basic political works. (Hobbes, Locke, A. Smith, etc.)

__________________
--

Sandok

Well all I know is that you learn by example. Japan has one of the lowest gun crimes in the world because they don't allow people to buy guns.

Fact.

The US is the country in the OECD with the highest gun death rate (if ever Japan is also part of the OECD).

Fact.

And don't act as if Japan doesn't have any criminals or anything either... I dunno, if somebody is doing something better then you, why can't you take a page out of their book?

OldBuzzard