[Rictor]

that reminds me

http://drudgereport.com/flashss.htm

let them eat cake.

[Ford Prefect]

He's so clueless.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by 01010
This is a bigger issue than simply gun control, there are a lot of angry, depressed, confused and unsatisfied people out there and the problem stems from what western "culture" has evolved into, people are bankrupt mental health wise, products of barrages of advertising in every form of media, misinformation from vast media monopolies, lies, hypocrisy, a lack of spirituality (which is a very different beast to religion) and a vast consumer culture that's making whores out of us all.

You address these problems and maybe you can stop the rage that these people are feeling, the pure anger at being ousted by a society that demands conformity and uniform.

Of course, he could just be a definite crazy. Who knows?

Couldn't have said it better myself. How can anyone be expected to display ever increasing conformity while the world is growing crazier and more restictive to our nature by the minute? To be act "normal" in a insane world, thats the true insanity.

[Mongoose]

Just to clarify an earlier statement, and without any political commentary on the thread topic, the Bill of Rights is no more secure from potential changes than any other part of the Constitution.  That being said, the odds of any part of the Bill of Rights being repealed/edited are slim to none, partly because of their historical significance, partly because, in such a short list, they lay out an historically unprecedented declaration of civil liberties that is still just as relevant today (for the most part; "quartering of troops" isn't that big of a deal anymore) as the day they were written.  Most politicians wouldn't even propose such a change, and I doubt most well-informed people would agree with one, either.

[aldo_14]

Surely that would depend on what that change was?

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by Gank

Wappers do

Sorry

Yes!

My opinion: If people don't have guns, they can't shoot people. Take away the guns, and you'll have a staggering reduction in gun crime. Nobody needs a gun, so why should they be allowed to have them? And we're talking about assault rifles here. Military-grade weapons. How on earth is it acceptable for people to own military hardware?

This reminds me of Medieval Europe. Remember when everyone used to wear swords? And how there were huge numbers of deaths and serious injuries from duelling? Well, there aren't many of those any more. Can you guess why?

[Rictor]

The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.

Anything can be a potential weapons. A grown adult of average intelect and with a desire to do harm can kill hundreds before he is caught, more if he's smarter and more determined. You can't take away the means, you have to take away the reason.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.

Anything can be a potential weapons. A grown adult of average intelect and with a desire to do harm can kill hundreds before he is caught, more if he's smarter and more determined. You can't take away the means, you have to take away the reason.

Crime isn't always committed by victims of society, y'know - it's a quick, easy way to make money as well.  There are always going to be people who take that option; you can't just rely upon the intrinsic good nature of the human race even if you iron out the problems with society.

And weapons control is also about protection of the innocents - a gun can accidentally kill someone, after all (i.e. if a kid gets hold of one).  And what is the benefit of legalising lethal weapons anyways, and how does it outweigh the lives lost through intentional or inadvertant gun use?

[pyro-manic]

Originally posted by Rictor
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.

Anything can be a potential weapons. A grown adult of average intelect and with a desire to do harm can kill hundreds before he is caught, more if he's smarter and more determined. You can't take away the means, you have to take away the reason.

I have to disagree. A gun is not "potentially" dangerous. It is designed purely to kill, to take life (be it human or otherwise). What else are they, what else can they be for other than to allow a person to kill another person incredibly easily? You take away that ease, and you'll find that most people won't bother. True, they may still have a burst of murderous rage, but if they don't have an instrument of death immediately to hand, then chances are they'll give up or calm down before they vent their rage on a person.

A knife can be used for many things. A gun can only be used for one.

EDIT: heheh, kara summed it up sooo much better than I did...

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
The arguement is similar to banning pitbulls (which is something Ontario is in the process of doing) Yes, they (guns) can kill, but they can also not. What right does anyone have to make simply possesion of a *potentially* dangerous object a crime? You are in essence being charged for a crime you have not commited, and will most likely never commit.

So why not give everyone bazookas and be done with it then? Strike a blow for the rights of the common man!

[icespeed]

so what about farmers and things who may need guns to deal with dying livestock or to defend them against random invading predators? completely banning guns may not be viable, although i agree that more stringent measures are probably a good idea, especially in the case of america.

you know, when we were little, it seemed like living in america might be close to paradise. now, it's just like, ew, america?

[pyro-manic]

That's a fair point. Of course, we haven't got lots of dangerous predators here (foxes are about the worst, though people seem to think the best way to deal with them is chase them for hours and have hounds rip them to pieces), but I don't think that anything above a shotgun (a 1 or 2-shot, break-barrel type, not a pump-action) would really be necessary. But then licences should be required, and they should be thoroughly checked and followed-up. Selling weapons like they were hand tools is reckless, dangerous and (in my opinion) asking for trouble.

[Thrilla]

I wouldn't shoot a fox with a shotgun.  A .22 rifle is more to my taste.  I've rarely gotten close enough to a fox to shoot it with a shotgun.  I used to own cattle, and killing feral dogs and coyotes is a must if you want to keep your calves.

And on the Medieval Swords, people still kill each other with them.  There was a girl a couple months ago down the road from my house was killed with one.

[Rictor]

I see its going to be one of those conversations. OK...

My point is that its not the law thats in need of reform, its people. As long as people want to kill, they will find a way to do it. If crime is made possible by physical violence, taking away guns just drops the level of sophistication. Look at Rwanda. No nukes, no jet fighters, barely even a few guns. And yet at the end of the day, there were still hundreds of thousands of corpses, due to what...? Machetes and clubs.

Lets say that all guns are outlawed tommorow. And let say that its possible to enforce the ban against those most likely to abuse them: criminal organizations. Well, crime isn't going to go away. But now, instead of drive-bys, you're going to get people using improvised weapons like baseball bats and make-shift swords or whatever.  Yes, guns are a means to commit crimes, but they are certainly not the only means.

And just to clarify, yes, a gun is *potentially* dangerous, because there is a chance that it will not be used to harm anyone. Which percentage of gun owners do you think have ever used them to commit a crime? I would be surprised if it was 1%. The arguement that there is no other purpose which guns serve is moot. You're not banning it on the grounds that its useless, you're banning it on the grounds that its useful. I have the right to keep as many useless objects as I wish. By the same token, no one should be allowed to keep swords, since what purpose do they serve other than to harm people?

Like I said, taking away the means doesn't solve the problem, you have to get at it some other way. And just to state the obvious, I'm not implying that everyone who uses guns to kill people is poor and oppressed, but the arguement is no less valid for real criminals.

[Ford Prefect]

This is where Ford rains on Rictor's parade by asserting that people are essentially incapable of that sort of change, and thus have always been, and will always be, the same.

Seriously though, I certainly agree that taking away guns isn't going to make people stop wanting to kill each other, but it's a matter of degree. Guns make violence more efficient. If they had been more plentiful in Rwanda, the Tutsis probably would have had an even bigger party.

In short, you can't stop violence by taking away guns, but it would probably help.

[pyro-manic]

Of course taking away guns won't stop crime. I never said it would. That would be a stupid thing to say. The problem is, with your argument, you'd have to impose Brave New World-style brainwashing and conditioning on people to get them to behave acceptably all the time. People are fundamentally evil bastards - they've been like that forever, and you're not going to be able to change them, no matter how much you try. It's a nice dream, but nothing more. Idealism is all well and good, but you have to look at reality occasionally to see how unlikely it is that your vision will ever come to be.

If you take guns away, deaths will drop. You must be on another planet if you think otherwise (I don't mean that personally).

[Flipside]

Thing is, unless you are dealing with something bigger than a large dog, a Rat-Catcher or similar weapon is more than sufficient to driving off presdators, the only problem is a lot of farmers think that reduceing the predator to pate with a Shotgun is the only way to be sure.

While just about anyone can lay their hands on a weapon that can kill people, then just about everyone can lay their hands with a weapon that kills people. I wouldn't buy a hammer if I wasn't planning to hit a few nails with it. Theres no point to someone in a city owning a gun unless they intend to use it on other people.

[aldo_14]

Crime is a combination of means & motive.  The best solution is to try and minimise both.

[Flipside]

Well, criminals commit crimes, and no matter how Utopian a society we create, I think we will always have those who will try to exploit or deface it. When desperation is gone, Greed, Control and Power will be the motives.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Flipside
When desperation is gone, Greed, Control and Power will be the motives.

I find this very interesting. Desperation is only a motive for the lowest level of criminal. Petty thieves and the like. Greed, control and power already are the motives, the further you move up the ladder, the more this is the case. So then, at the very top, you have the criminals in which these motives are the most powerful, and who subsequently wield the greatest power of society. We call them politicians, businessmen, religious leaders and media moguls. Love of power is one of the cornerstones of any organization, its not avoidable, and love of money is a subset of that. What bigger and more powerful organization exists than a state?

Petty criminals break laws, powerful criminals make them.

--------------

pyro: I never implied that Brave New World style "education" is what I would advocate to fight crime. Quite the opposite. Society is fundamentally composed of individuals, and to curtail the rights on the individual in favour of the rights of the group, is to me repulsive. It is becuase I think that people are flawed that I don't support severe gun resitriction. I think its quite short-sighted to give one group, any group, a monopoly on force. Because at the end of the day, you can guarantee you freedom only through force. Cynical, yes, but can you deny it?