 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Firearms, your thoughts? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 292/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Ultimately I think its the lack of oxygenated blood in the brain... | |||
|
Legion banning people for no reason sure is fun Level: 101  Posts: 4016/5657 EXP: 10399737 For next: 317938 Since: 03-15-04 From: The Crossroads is under attack! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 5 days |
| ||
| You could break it down even further than that. | |||
|
Slay Level: 25 Posts: 113/339 EXP: 85592 For next: 4028 Since: 04-28-05 From: Threshold Between Heaven and Hell Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
The ||bass says... Well if you'll notice, I wasn't quoting you, or I would have actually quoted, like I have in this post. I was paraphrasing to prove a point. The ||bass says... Also, you said this... "People tend to forget the full implications of what they say. They don't consider the further implications their viewpoints might have. " Which is what I was commenting on, because this comment was directed at myself, and this is untrue of me. |
|||
Ephrion Micro-Goomba Level: 7 Posts: 8/13 EXP: 1027 For next: 421 Since: 07-10-04 From: Georgia Since last post: 141 days Last activity: 141 days |
| ||
| ||bass knows what he's talking about. Ok lets face it: You're a theif. Who are you more likely to attack: Defenseless person or armed, very-much-able-to-defend-himself person? The answer is easy. Now what if you don't know if the person is armed or defenseless? Well, then you take your chances. Let's say, 1/10th of the people are armed. That's a pretty good ratio. You can mug quite a lot of people without getting into any real resistance, if you're careful. Let's say the rate is 1/2 of the people are armed. That's definitely not a good ratio. There's a VERY high chance of you getting shot as you try to mug them. You likely wouldn't even try because of how dangerous it would be. Slay - You have to admit, you're wrong on the whole 'guns r bad lol' thing. I used to agree with you, I used to think swords and stuff were honorable and cool and should be used over guns because the emphasized skill in use. That's all fine and good in the arena, where you want to find out who's the most skilled. In personal defense and national defense, I don't want the 'fairest' 'most skill-necessary' weapon. I want the most effective machine possible to eliminate or disable my enemy as efficiently and quickly as I can. That is what the gun is ( ACtually newer technology, such as stun guns are ). A 5'2" woman stands no chance against even a 5'10" man attacking her. Give that same woman a gun and even the strongest person on earth would think twice before attacking her. And for that reason, I think guns should be legal for self defense purposes. Conceal carry and all that. I do NOT think they should be legal for all people though. Alcoholics, criminals, drug addicts, etc. do not get guns. Therefore I think that background checks and screenings are great things. Even with the best gun laws you're going to have shit happent hough. But you shouldn't ban all guns ever just because a few people go crazy, just like you shouldn't ban cars for the same reason. |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 4079/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| So, ummmm...What's your stance on this. If you give people lots of guns then there are going to be bad eggs in the bunch. Hence, this is why there should be strict gun control laws and licensing systems. Just like cars and other things that can cause harm. |
|||
Dracoon Zelda The temp ban/forum ban bypasser! Level: 84  Posts: 3123/3727 EXP: 5514391 For next: 147561 Since: 03-25-04 From: At home Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| Man I HATE this entire thing. You don't need to have an assualt weapon, it has no real use in the real world. Hang guns and such, thats cool, you do need something to protect yourself in those situations. If you make assualt weapons easy to get though, you might be looking down the barrel of ones soon. One person can cause a lot more destruction than you think as long as they're smart and know what they're doing. None of the ways really invovle guns though because with a gun, you can still be shot, however with multiple bombs planted through out the city careful.... you get the idea? Gun are effecient and great to have as a personal protection thing, hand guns that is. Giving people assualt rifles is just plain stupid. |
|||
|
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99 Posts: 4084/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| Yes, but either way. They're weapons. They need to have an element of control about them. Remember with street crime growing, giving people guns isn't solving any sort of problem. | |||
|
Mel (USER WAS TOTALLY AWESOME FOR THIS POST) Level: 47  Posts: 820/991 EXP: 762490 For next: 3713 Since: 03-15-04 From: secure tripcodes are for jerks Since last post: 17 min. Last activity: 16 min. |
| ||
| A derringer chambered for .25 ACP will kill someone just as well as a .50 caliber anti-vehicle rifle. | |||
|
Slay Level: 25 Posts: 157/339 EXP: 85592 For next: 4028 Since: 04-28-05 From: Threshold Between Heaven and Hell Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
| I've chosen to edit this post. It was initially much longer, but I was dissatisfied with it. Rather than quote directly and end up rambling, in light of Ephrion's comments towards me, I offer these words. I believe that guns have acted detrimental to society, to such a degree that any positive spin you could put on the subject is rendered moot. There are many arguments to the contrary, and I intend to refute these with simple logic. "Guns are like cars," some people say, "It's up to the individual to be responsible. They can be used for good or for bad, but just because some people use guns for bad doesn't make the guns themselves inherently evil." Let us consider the initial and continual purpose of automobiles versus that of firearms. Automobiles were originally intended to provide efficient and easy transportation of goods and passengers. Many people do die in car accidents each year, but notice that one word; accidents. Nearly all vehicular-derived death is accidental, not intended, while nearly all firearm-derived death is intentional. What is the original purpose of firearms? Certainly nothing as constructive as improved transportation. The intention of a gun is to kill, to murder, to end human life as quickly as possible, and with such distance and power that the victim is unable to defend themselves. You can claim that firearms should be used for sport and hunting, and that individual use of them for murder indicates the immorality of the individual, not the badness of the guns themselves, but I believe this is untrue. What would happen if there were no cars? The ozone would be better off, polution would be reduced, but humanity would suffer because they no longer have a fast and relatively efficient means of transportation. Perhaps you don't make it to the hospital in time to save someone's life, or the food you're trying to deliver to the poor spoils. But what would happen if there were no guns? Hunters would have to resort to archery and sport archery, stabbing death might rise, but crime and murder by and large would be reduced. Guns aren't just responsible for killing, their threat is used to rob banks and convienance stores. Try robbing a place with a knife; someone could easily knock it out of your hand. You might cut or even stab them, but death is far less likely compared to if you had a gun. "Because guns make killing easier," someone might argue, "The era of the warrior has come to an end, and society can focus more on the arts and sciences. If firearms never existed, we'd still have armies of hundreds of thousands marching across continents to do bloody battle with one another; most people would either be in an army or supplying it by crafting armor and weapons. We'd still be living in the era of monarchs and tyrants." While this is the most logical defense of the existence of firearms, to suggest that many scientific or cultural advances have only been made possible because people don't have to devote as much time to war is preposterous. The vast majority of scientists the world over will not contribute anything significant to medicine or science as a whole. It's those few rare, quirky individuals who stumble across a great advance that has improved our lives. Thusly, even if the nonexistence of guns did cause a decline in scientists and a rise in those contributing to war (either as craftsmen or soldiers), science probably wouldn't suffer many ill effects. We'd still have television, we'd still have automobiles, we'd still have central heating and air conditioning, we'd still have computers and the internet, we'd still have terrific personal hygiene products, and we'd still have vaccines and other treatments for illness. But of course, it's impossible to prove what I say or what others say, as this is mere speculation on what may have been. There's no way to be sure. "The elimination of firearms would mean the return of the warrior. People who want to rob and murder, lacking the easy instrument that the gun is, would devote their lives to becoming physically powerful, and the world would be filled with boorish brutes as it was in past times." Some may argue. This is partly a continuation of the above. It is my belief, and the belief of many psychologists, that criminals are cowards. The only reason that they commit crimes such as murder and robbery is because they can do so easily; with guns. If they didn't have firearms to make their criminal acts easy, they'd simply not opt to participate in criminal acts at all. I don't think it's logical at all to suggest that a lack of guns would constitute an increase in brutish warrior types, because most criminals aren't that dedicated to their work; they only commit crimes because they can. Case in point, Japan. Fewer guns, fewer gun crimes, less crime as a whole. To sum all of this up, I believe that firearms have acted highly detrimental to society. The majority of those abhoring gun control and thinking that life without guns is absurd are, to be brutally honest, descendants of gun-toting ignorant country folk who want to continue their family heritage of gun ownership. But gun owners and enthusiasts are in the minority, and as they say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Some people might be frustrated and discontent with life without guns, but frankly, that's too bad. Society as a whole would benefit from the nonexistence of guns. That is what I believe. (edited by Slay on 06-19-05 11:04 AM) |
|||
beneficii Lakitu Level: 36 Posts: 158/567 EXP: 299656 For next: 8454 Since: 06-27-04 From: Cordova, TN, USA Since last post: 14 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| Well, I believe that people generally have the right to their own stuff. If they want to own drugs, guns, or what not, then they have a right, provided they don't attack other people with it. Prohibiting victimless things (such as gun ownership), I think, leads us down the wrong path, because in the end it only empowers the government to move against its citizens, simply by virtue of being victimless. The reason for victimless crimes causing this is that because there is no victim to report it, the government must take other measures to find and catch people who are breaking their law, thus leading to things like questionable searches and seizures. I think attempts to regulate society as a whole and to force people in a certain direction is wrong and in the end does not work. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 319/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Slay: Counterpoint to Japan: Finland - many guns, low crime. Or how about Australia and the US's broadly comparable crime rates dispite our having far fewer guns? I'm still convinced that there's almost no causal relationship between firearms and crime, because there's so many other more significant factors. |
|||
|
Slay Level: 25 Posts: 166/339 EXP: 85592 For next: 4028 Since: 04-28-05 From: Threshold Between Heaven and Hell Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 day |
| ||
The Arwon says... I must say, it's better to provide an external link with some objective credibility, than to counter one with mere conjecture, at least if you claim counterpoint. I don't necessarily disbelieve your claim "many guns, low crime" in Finland, I just feel that one external link deserves another, that you should offer some proof to the exact numbers. Though I must also say, seeing you use my own argument against me has brought to my attention something relavent. It could have more to do with society, than guns themselves. Japan was, until modern times, very xenophobic, and if I recall correctly, they refused to do trade with other countries until forced to as the end result of a lost war. Guns were brought to Japan during times of war, and their onset brought the end of the samurai. Thusly, there is a deep-seated resentment of firearms in the Japanese psyche. "Some brutes came in, literally destroyed us, figuratively destroyed our culture; I want nothing to do with firearms!" The American psyche, conversely, has a strong affinity for firearms. They were used to defend against British rule, they were used to "tame the wilds" (wild referring to both the land and the natives), the traditional image of the all-American man is the Davy Crocket type, and guns go hand-in-hand with that. "My ancestors used guns to defend their land, to hunt buffallo and expand westward. How dare you try to take away our firearms?" I suppose taking away firearms from Americans would be like taking katanas away from Japanese. So good point, though I know nothing of Finnish culture and little of Austrailian, and you've offered no proof to your claims, so I cannot comment on those instances. I continue to suspect that the existence of guns has a direct effect on crime, though I never claimed they were the sole source, of course. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 328/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland Finland's population is about four million, so two million firearms is a sizable number. Low crime I don't have a direct source for, but it's frikken Northern Europe so it can't be too bad. Just to add to the psyche issue, because its worth exploring, and societal differences are one of those far bigger factors I am speaking of as regards crime rates. Australia on the surface should have a similar frontier mentality to North America. We're a big empty country that killed an awful lot of natives as we carved out our settlements, just as Americans did. However, there were no big mammals in Australia... no-one needed guns to kill wolves or anything like that, and guns ain't much use against the animals that will kill you in this country. No-one really hunted anything, the main inward expansion was carried out by dudes with sheep (I think the term is, for some reason, 'squatters').... there's never been a significant population expansion beyond the coasts, no great equivalent to the American drive westward. So it's a different sort of a frontier mentality... the imperitaves to defend and hunt just weren't there, and the main enemy in Australia's the harsh and unforgiving climate. And ya can't shoot no drought. Moreover, I suspect that Australia's convict origins have given us a different approach to firearms than other countries. Our cops have always been armed unlike Britain, but I guess initially 75% of the populace... during those first few decades, just weren't armed. Philosophically, the fact that we spent most of that late 1700s/early 1800s golden age of enlightenment philosophy and liberal idealism as military dictatorships built on slave labour probably has dampened this country's enthusiasm for ideals of radical individualism and independence relative to the USA. "Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains" must carry a different meaning when sizable chunks of your populace has actually spent time in chains. Hell, from my Australian education I don't even know the difference between most of those old thinkers and they, I'd argue, exercise less influence here than in America. We're more pragmatic and probably more collectivist. --- Other influences I consider to be far bigger factors in crime would be socioeconomic indicators (especially income inequality and standard of living), policing effectiveness and the drugs situation (for example, there's a heroin drought in Australia which has been credited with lower rates of property crime). --- Finally, the lumping of all crimes into a single entity is a big problem in the debate. Assault, Robbery, Homicide and Burglary are very different things. How do guns affect assaults? It can't be the same as the way they effect burglary or the way they affect robbery, the nature of the crime is different. And conflating them all together can be misleading. Australia, for example, has a steadily increasing crime rate, basically because assault's been on the rise for 3 decades... or possibly reporting of assault has been rising. Homicide is statistically insignificant and fluctuates, and robbery and burglary can trend up or down over the course of a few years. But because of the assault influence, people can bleat CRIME RATES ARE SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL on either side (of course, it must be said that most of the country probably doesn't give a shit about gun laws being too restrictive or not restrictive enough), and spuriously blame guns or the lack of availability thereof, with practically no effort to illustrate a causal relationship. (edited by Arwon on 06-23-05 08:02 AM) (edited by Arwon on 06-23-05 08:05 AM) |
|||
ClockExplosion Red Goomba Level: 10  Posts: 6/46 EXP: 3573 For next: 841 Since: 06-24-05 From: Fort Worth, Tejas Since last post: 78 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| All I have to say is this - if it requires rigourous background checks, or banning guns, we need to do the same for knives. There's more to crime then guns. A criminal can use pretty much any pointed object, or projectile. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Firearms, your thoughts? |
| | |
