It does increase their options for self-defence, but before I proceed, are we still talking about carrying a concealed gun or keeping one at home? Using the fire extinguisher analogy as an example here, since most people don’t carry them concealed nor in public. Would that mean we should bin the fire extinguishers since people would be inclined to use them come a fire? point is that it serves a purpose, you don’t purchase a fire extinguisher because you expect your house to catch fire, you get one in case of a fire, of course you have the fire brigade, but they most often don’t live next door. Me and my missus bought one of the safest cars we could find recently, we did not do so thinking we would end up in an accident but did so thinking it would give us the best chance of survival in case of an accident, we could of course have bought a more environmental car, but choose to opt for this one instead. On that I believe most of us would agree, albeit from different perspectives. Come to think off it, it would appear as if they are not very good at linking up decisions and consent with long term consequences either. We can all go on all night long with different analogies (loved the chemical plant one) but it tends to lead to circular arguments and it sidesteps the core issue, that of privacy and freedom, which by no means are reserved just only to gun ownership and their use. Viewers discretion (beware, delusional rants below) As an aside yet not. (second one, love sticking me neck out) The eroding of privacy and freedoms did not end (nor begin) with restricting guns and gun users, this mentality and mindset, of looking to Big Brother for guidance and security only makes matters worse, why? because it makes it easier to remove that privacy and freedom since the vast majority of fellow sheep would accept it and its restrictions without much opposition, and I view the logical conclusion and outcome as carved in stone… It would in the end result in an orwellian state where you would have no privacy and no freedom. Freedom is about responsibility in the end, if you give away that responsibility to Big Brother (or someone else) you give your freedoms away! Bluntly put. Cheers
And as I think I've already made obvious, something being enshrined in law doesn't in any way make it morally correct. There's not really much point in using the argument that "the law states x" with someone who is arguing that another law is moraly corrupt - I quite clearly do not consider the law to have much relation to what is morally correct. However, if you look next door and you see a chemical plant, you can move - that's your choice. The idea behind moral law is that you make any punishment for spectacular failure so severe that it's more than worth it for the company to do everything in their power to ensure that spectacular failure does not occur. Owning a gun or having a CCW does not impact on your life in any way either. I completely disagree that freedom is within the context of community. The concept of freedom contains all the provision required for community to exist without freedom being compromised in any way by the existance of said community. And of course, no man is an island, I'm not advocating that belief and I suspect you know it. But impacting negatively upon others should only be punished when it happens, not selectively when the potentiality for it to occur is present. Who decides what? What the laws are? A collective in theory, in reality a group of power hungry rich men elected by an ignorant prejudiced collective. I belong to me though, not a collective. I am an individual, and I should not be restricted from making choices that only affect me and others who choose to involve themselves in my life. I argue that people living in a community who rationally follow their own interests will as a group benefit each other in the long term naturally. Deviation occurs, hence we have laws for punishing people who breach others freedom. However laws increasingly are extended to control the way a society lives, and acts, and behaves. And laws are increasingly being used not just to punish those who disturb the freedom of others, but to punish those who do not, simply because they may.
No, but we should realise that it affects people's behaviour in a fire. Occasionally, it gives people a false sense of control over the situation. Freedom from Big Brother is achieved through people taking control of, and responsibility for their own lives and their community. Owning a gun has nothing to do with that. I would argue that carrying a gun essentially defines your relationship to the rest of society as an adversarial one, not a cooperative one. Crime becomes something to defends oneself against, rather than to prevent from occuring as a community. It is interesting that people in the US are more concerned about their right to own guns, than people's entitlement to equitable health and social care. Yet it is deprivation and marginalisation that leads to violent crime, not the inability of a citizen to defend themselves with a firearm. Cowboys carried six-shooters, but the quakers did not. I know who had more balls. Only if you know that it is a chemical plant. If you're not aware, you cannot make any choices about it. Your choice not to live next to a chemical plant is taken away from you. Bye-bye freedom. As I said before, freedom can only exist when there is freedom of information.
You do not have an inherent right to know about all potential dangers though Nexxo. That is not freedom, and you have a ****ed up view of freedom if you think security is a natural component of it. In the above case, strong laws protect you while respecting the privacy of all concerned. If the chemical company messes up, they pay a hefty price. You think? For the most part, a lot of the legacy beliefs held in the US are actually based in the idea of maximum freedom. They're slowly being replaced, but the above is a great example of a strong belief in freedom of choice and responsability. The ownership of guns is coherant with a free society. It causes no deprivation of freedom of anyone in and of itself. Socialised healthcare and social welfare require people to have money extorted from them in order that they can be forced to support others. That most definitely does contradict ones freedom of choice. It may be not be pretty, it may not be what everybody in the world would like, it may mean that people die when they could live - but that's freedom. Better freedom and a hard life than comfort in slavery. You're not serious, are you? You're talking of responsability for ones life and ones community while simultaneously arguing against ownership of firearms and for prohibition of an item which can be used to take care of ones life and ones community? This feels a little like talking to hardcore christians who are physicists for their day jobs - how on earth do you reconcile two such mutually exclusive points of view? You are right, of course. Freedom from the collective does happen through people taking control and responsability of their own lives, and of their own community. But the state restricts this more and more in the name of security - it's now illegal to take care of yourself at a level competitive enough to ensure the survival of an independant community within the geographic region of Britain. The last sentence there totaly depends on ones mindset and you basically seem to be generalising and catagorising all people who choose to carry a gun into one neat little "them" group
i would love to see what would happen to the USA if one day everyone had guns.... as in pistols with them and shotguns at home....
I would love to see what would happen to Portugal if one day everyone had guns.... as in pistols with them and shotguns at home....
let it happen there, i am here safe in my island, were gun crime is negligent.... as for the effects of it.... it would be very different from what would happen in the US. by the way spec, what is your hypothetical perfect society?
There can not be a perfect society so long as humans are human. You can only legalislate for a fair and just society*. That is what I want though, fair and just. * Although that itself, is I suppose, debatable - given that legislation requires government, government requires taxation, and taxation requires the partial or complete slavery of the people who the government serve. That is getting off-topic though.
Not in the slightest. I just thought the implication that the US would suddenly self-destruct and by virtue of the US's very mention that a european country would somehow manage not to was a bit silly and was illustrating that by replacing the US with portugal. Of course, it worked better before I had to s-p-e-l-l i-t o-u-t.
i was not implying that.... really i was not. i was thinking: "if they want guns then lets give them guns, LOTS OF THEM!! lets do what the NRA wants!! then lets study the effects of it and then apply it to the rest of the world if it causes lower crime" i am going to push another time: what is your almost-perfect society? as in laws, health, gun rights, government size and importance, taxes,... etc.... i am highly interested. edit: should i start another thread to discuss this?
You were suggesting that Portugal would also 'go to hell in a handcart' if everyone was armed as DXR_13KE was suggesting for the US. Except that it could *never* happen in Portugal... but no-one would be entirely surprised if it happened in the US. A sizeable proportion of the US thinks freedom involves doing whatever you want, every man for himself, no federal government, no taxes, etc. Whereas the vast majority of Portugese feel that freedom involves partaking in a civilized and mutually beneficial society, and that following some rules frees them up to thrive and enjoy life without having to watch their back all the time. The security afforded by a civilized society is liberating in itself.
It's probably not worth it DXR. Even PMing me is probably pointless, my answers aren't especially interesting. Whatever though, it's a free country (supposedly). You misunderstand what the NRA want. They don't want everyone to own guns, they want all adults to have the right to own a gun if they choose. There is a huge difference there. I want everyone to have the right to engage in homosexual acts. That does not mean I want absolutely everyone to be gay Not in the slightest. I was pointing out that US citizens aren't inherantly more homocidal than portugese citizens simply by virtue of being US citizens. Well, obviously most people are pretty stupid. I can't really be bothered going over the same points I've been going over for most of this thread, to reply to your above points though. Reading through my posts so far in this thread you should be able to figure out why I oppose the notion of security at the cost of freedom providing freedom.
i think i remember them saying that every student should go to school armed to avoid school shootings..... edit: hmm, you seam to want a soften version of Anarchy.... at least its what you make me think.
You define freedom as the ability to make choices. Doesn't mean anything if those choices can't be informed ones. This is why free press is important in a democracy, for instance. It is also why power often depends on asymmetry of information: on knowing what others don't. Let's face it, why do people want to carry concealed firearms? The people who argue for more freedom are usually the ones in a position of power. They want more freedom to do what they want, while the powerless generally just want rules so that they do not become the victim of abuses of those in power. Owning guns is just about wanting to feel more powerful, not more free. They're not -- you just think that they are. Many communities function generally quite well without people carrying the means to kill others on their person. No, those who carry guns do.
I just think its far to easy for you Nexxo to sit behind your keyboard making lots of generalisations and making up little scenario's and comparisons to try make your stance creditable add to that your personal fan club chipping in which looks to boost your crusade So far you have compared guns to toxic waste alchohol fire extinguisers to name a few Can I then compare them to Diamonds and large sums of cash ..if so then can I not say their should be a list made public of all people who keep large sums of cash and diamonds in their houses. Can I then object to my neighbour having these items as it may pre empt a robbery which could affect my safety? You know my kids in the garden robbery takes place next door etc etc If you were a diamond dealer would you be happy with me telling you it must be made public how many diamonds you have... I think not Sadly here are some truths not little made up stories that you are so fond of People Die over here daily they are murdered for cell phones and even their bicycles The police are unable to protect the public It is not uncommon when phoning the police for them to tell you they dont have a working car can you come and fetch them..."sure let me just ask the criminal if I can pop out" In this society I have 2 choices to take responsibility myself for my familys safety or leave it to police / goverment (the 2nd option is not viable) THIS is my freedom of choice Unfortunately where I stay murder and rape are now piggy backing on your housebreaking and theft So when before they would be happy to break in and rob you but leave you unharmed they now like to throw in esp rape and often murder. You can hand over your wallet as you stated earlier but expect to get stabbed into the bargain anyways When you give them the keys to your car its roll of the dice if they decide to maime or kill you even though you have co-operated..Sorry this does not fit into your fairy tails you use often to make your cases Sorry these real life scenario's dont match yours By owning guns you have a responsibility which includes their safekeeping they have a value and are sort after by criminals If you own specific guns for sport and competition these are much more sort after esp semi automatic rifles shot guns etc which are widely used in sport If you own these items you try to draw as little attention to your self as possible as you dont want your house broken into or worse them to break in when you are there looking for the guns If a list was made public do you not think you are now posing an added risk to these law abiding citizens as you have now in effect posted a shopping list for obtaining all sorts of guns subject to need. Please note before you are allowed these guns the police interview your neighbours they inteview your wife they interview friends they inspect your house and your safe / security measures etc etc I personally dont want anyone to know what I have for this exact reason I dont want to be robbed or attract attention because guns are kept in my house. I keep some for self defence and some for sport (Dont think it doesn't worry me that they could attract attention because it does) Hidden safes etc and no one knowing about the guns are the best defence. I am sorry but to have a lsit made public would offer far more negatives than benefits When people you know are robbed and these guys decide as a bit of fun to rape the wife infront of the husband it tends to make your choice to be armed and willing to stand up and protect your self pretty easy Add to that the fact that when he tried to stop them they shot him and she now spend's her life taking care of him and changing his nappies. I wish this was a made up fairy tail like yours but its not I would rather die trying to defend my family than die after watching them be raped and murdered. Sadly I have enough of these true stories to quote for every post you typed and they are all real they are all real people I have real reasons for not wanting lists to be made public I have real reasons to own guns I have a need for it to be my choice. Its easy for you as it does not really have any effect on you or your life So carry on.... Specofdust I have alot of respect for you and your post's I think you are fighting a losing battle though
I feel the need to clear up a few things. Most people that own a gun, don't necessarily have a concealed weapons permit. As well, some states don't even allow concealed weapons. In order to get a concealed weapons permit, at least in AZ, you have to take a training class and jump through some hoops for the license. Most people you don't want having this license, aren't likely to get one, however they can still buy the gun. As well, you don't actually need to even register the gun, and only have to when buying it from a store. However it's not required when buying it from another person. The point I guess I'm getting at is the smart person who likes to go to shooting ranges, and do competition shooting are usually intelligent, handle weapons with care, and register them properly. Where as the idiot who shoots someone in traffic probably doesn't have the gun registered, or concealed permit. The point I agree with with nigelleg is that having an open public record of people who own weapons would probably cause more problems then any it would solve. It's like giving a person a map so they can get a weapon to use for something and not have it traced back to themselves but to who it's registered to. Also, forgot who stated it, but I strongly believe anyone who is robbing a house, no matter what type of gun they have, if they hear or see someone else with a gun, they are less likely to stick around. If only for the reason a shoot out would hinder their goals. The cocking of a shot gun is possible one of the best deterrents other then a barking dog.
I think you are getting personal now. Let's keep this discussion rational. Others are managing to, while making some very good counter-arguments. Yes you can, if you can make it a valid comparison. I explained why you could compare a gun to toxic waste or a fire extinguisher. In the first case, a gun, like toxic waste, is a potentially dangerous thing to have around if it is not kept safe and handled capably and responsibly. In the second comparison, the gun, like a fire extinguisher, is a tool used to contain danger. I think that it would be pretty obvious that a diamond dealer has a number of precious diamonds in their possession (he will advertise. It is his business). But I'm sure even you would object if through neglect he made himself particularly vulnerable to armed robbery while you live next door. You know, we have similar crap happening over here in the UK. Yet the beat bobbies here don't even carry guns. The place has not descended into anarchy yet. We have similar crap in Europe, but citizens generally manage to survive without owning guns. You argue that crime in South Africa is really bad; well, sorry, but you guys have the liberal gun laws. If guns were such a big help, shouldn't things be better than over here? As I said before (and you keep forgetting this), in a scenario where a victim could possibly have a gun, the smart criminal will simply assume that they have, and bring their own weapon. It doesn't matter whether they know for sure or not --they'll simply assume the worst-case scenario and prepare accordingly: From the criminal's point of view, in a situation of uncertainty (whether the victim is armed or not), it is always best to take a weapon, because the Criminal Armed scenarios have a better outcome either way than the Criminal Unarmed scenarios. Knowing for sure that the victim has a gun makes no difference: the criminal will pack heat either way. If the criminal intends to do some murdering and raping, he'll defnitely pack a gun either way. Now you'll rightly argue that from the victim's point of view, it is best to have a weapon as well. But at best you'll achieve a shoot-out in which (hopefully) the criminal takes the low-risk option and runs. At worst, you'll have a confrontation with a criminal who is more prepared and experienced at this whole shooting people thing. A reasonably smart criminal will never put themselves in a scenario where the victim is likely to have the upper hand. Because criminals like to minimise risk to themselves, they generally wait until you are out of the house (62.4% of home burglaries occur between 6.00am and 6.00pm), which, frankly, is more desireable from the victim's point of view --you are not at personal risk. Guns can be kept in safes, and therefore kept inaccessible to the average burglar. In a society where people can keep guns, criminals will generally assume there is a gun. Now I don't know about you, but if there was a criminal outside my door contemplating burgling my place and raping/murdering my family, I wouldn't want him to wonder if I might have a gun. I would want him to know for definite that I have a big-ass gun. I would want there to be no ambiguity whatsoever: I would want him to understand beyond any doubt whatsoever that entering my house = a real and present cap in his ass. Deterrence is much, much preferable to an unexpected confrontation. Sorry, but who is relying on stories now? I'm not saying these tragedies don't happen, because they do. They even happen over here. But for every story you tell, I can tell one of kids shooting their little brother's head off with daddy's gun, school shooters killing their classmates, neighbours shooting each other over trivial disputes, rejected husbands and boyfriends killing their ex out of obsessive revenge. For every story you tell, I can tell you another. That doesn't make you wrong and me right, it just means that there are two sides to every issue. This debate is not about whether you can own a gun. It is about whether it should be public knowlegde. You are under the assumption that hiding the fact that you have a gun from criminals gives you a tactical advantage. I'm saying that criminals will always assume that you have a gun in any case. If being confronted by a victim with a gun deters them, then just knowing about the victim having a gun will deter them also. If it doesn't, then a face-to-face confrontation won't either. Better check those locks. I have a lot of respect for Spec as well. He brings good arguments that I really have to think about to challenge. This is not a battle, and I don't think he is losing the argument at all. There is no animosity involved. I may not (entirely) agree with his opinion, but I still respect it as a valid and rational opinion. Doesn't matter. Ideally you should keep it inaccessible to the casual burglar anyway. If you find your gun stolen, you report it. If the burglar leaves trace during the burglary, he'll connect himself to the murder that the weapon was used in. Real, serious criminals do not have to resort to burglary to get their hands on a gun --there are lower-risk ways of getting one that leaves less evidence. I mean, think about it. One of the main arguments of people against gun control is that restricting legal gun ownership won't stop criminals from obtaining guns anyway. They dispute that legal guns are a vital source for criminals, and argue that there are many illegal, black market sources of guns for criminals. Yet now it is suggested that criminals need to burgle homes to get their hands on firearms? In that case, we should stop people from owning guns, in order to limit the supply of guns to criminals. You are absolutely right (see the matrix above). Fleeing is always lower risk than a shoot-out, as far as the criminal is concerned. Now suppose the criminal knows about your gun before they even enter the house? Don't you think that knowledge would deter them? Or are they so concrete in their thinking that they have to hear you cock the gun first? People make the mistake of thinking that uncertainty (i.e. the criminal not knowing for sure that you have a gun) will give a tactical advantage. It will not. The criminal will either decide to risk it, or not. If they decide to risk it, they will assume and prepare for the worst.
nigelleg, i don't blindly follow Nexxo, i digest what he says, simulate it in my perspective of the world and test its validity. i have an idea: i think there should be 2 types of concealed weapon permits: A) civil use: were the general public knows you have a gun, if they want to, as in your community will want to know you have a gun so that they don't get on your bad side. B) commercial and security use: this is for security guards, bounty hunters, police men, etc.... this way you have the best of both worlds observation: to add to Nexxo says, imagine that everyone had a gun, robbers would not give you a chance to live, they would come out behind you, pump a cap in your head and then take your wallet.... yeah, like what they are doing in Brazil. and these days silencers are not that difficult to get.... edit: and yes, nigelleg, i know the harsh reality of South Africa.
