Motivations are irrelevent. What counts is actions. As for the notion that freedom requires all the information, that's not true Nexxo. Everyone in life makes the best choices they can with the information they have to go on, that's part of our imperfection, but it's the way things are. Freedom does not require all the information, since having all the information available on all topics (despite being impossible) would naturally breach the right to privacy of many a person which in itself breaches their freedom of choice. It doesn't matter what owning guns is about, although I think you're generalising and displaying an overall dislike for guns anyway. What matters is what the right to own guns. The idea that having rules created by those in power would prevent abuses of the powerless, where-as the right to live as one chooses would somehow endanger the powerless is baffling to me. You know as well as I do that the rules are created by an elite in most countries - the powerless are not protected by these rules, they are immorally bound by them and made yet more powerless. Since a citizenry with firearms is more powerfull than a citizenry without firearms (I don't care how repugnant you find that notion, it's true - get used to it). Yes, they are. If you're a member of an independant community, in order to protect your community from other communities (or even full countries) at anything like a competitive level you need firearms (or any modern weaponry). A community can be truly independant if it feeds itself, cares for itself, and protects itself. The latter of those three is illegal though. Self-protection and self-preservation is no longer legal. Ok well if every single person who owns a gun is automatically defining themselves as having an adversarial relationship with society then I'm giving up here, because that's an irrational generalisation which I think is beneath your usual high level of argument, and signals to me that we've reached a pointless level of discussion. I'll see you in the next one . edit: And, regardles - thanks for the debate everyone, it's been a good one mostly - nice to get a good bit of banter goin' on once in a while.
someone should name the effect that a change of gun laws makes on a forum... as like the one that makes you post lolcats and post comparisons with nazis.....
Not all topics; only those that affect you. I realise this is all getting a bit abstract and removed from the original debate. But freedom of choice depends on access to information. It is why politicians lie or withold information --to influence people's choice, which then is not free anymore. Just because rules are generally poorly applied does not invalidate the principle of having rules. The Swiss would probably agree --yet at the same time demonstrate an armed citizenry that does not carry guns on their person or have them in the bedside cabinet. There are other ways of doing things. That is not entirely true in both directions. People are allowed to defend themselves and their homes, and gun ownership does not guarantee protection and self-preservation. Some people end up at the wrong end of the barrel. Whoa now, I don't mean to sound judgemental. What I'm saying is this: you live in society. You see crime, and you're concerned about the safety of you and yours. You have several options now. You could work with your community to make changes that prevent crime. Neighbourhood watch, community center for the kids, creating links with deprived groups, with community services, improving community cohesion. There are some interesting projects in the US such as the "Ceasefire" initiative in Chicago. You and I know that guns don't create crime; deprivation and marginalisation creates crime. This solution is slow and labout-intensive, and works best in smaller, contained communities, but it works. Another option is to buy a gun and carry it on your person, or keep it at home for protection against intruders. This is an individual approach, not a community one. "Me vs. the criminals" rather than working together with the community to minimise the contributors of crime. I'm not saying that there is no justification for this position. It may not be a matter of choice: not much community cohesion going on in places like Aston, Birmingham for instance, or as nigelleg argues, in South Africa, which is teetering on the brink of anarchy a bit. But it is, in the end, an adversarial approach, not a cooperative one. I suspect that you think I'm attaching a serious negative value judgement to that. I'm not. But in terms of crime, I don't see any evidence of it improving things. Well, you really make me work at arguing my position. If it is any consolation: you make a good argument for people having the right to own guns, and I feel compelled to agree with you. Even though in practice I don't think it works, because most people are too stupid to handle such a responsibility very well (then again, I think that many people shouldn't be allowed to vote or drive ). I'm just not sure that there should not be a public register.
I would guess it would be logical to assume that this forum would feel no effects of possible gun laws past (as for various participants and/or readers one could logically assume it would be a different matter), as would it be sobering to think that comparisons made would have been understood, yet regardless of any confusion and/or misunderstandings participants might have been left with those very same could surely be solved thru a PM. This thread has reached, if not its end, so its momentum since it appears as if though most participants have had their say feeling content, than again; I can only speak for myself and admittedly, I do feel content. Having said that, and in closure of my own participation in this thread; I myself, found it to be most illuminating and a great read. Cheers
Godwin's law: "As a thread continues, the probability of a comparison invovling Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Nexxo's law: "As a thread continues, the probability of a LOLcat or ORLY owl picture being posted approaches 1." DXR_13KE's law: ...?
Strange, considering at 6 pages this thread has seen neither a comparison to Nazis or Hitler, nor a LOLcat or ORLY picture. Someone is falling down on the job, methinks! -monkey
naa, i am going to dedicate this to spec: spec's law: "As a gun related thread continues, the probability of it derailing into a freedom vs safety debate, that is completely out of topic, and then dying abruptly, approaches 1"
Than where does it end? What have these people done, that is illegal, to deserve to be placed on a public list. From the way you address it; gun ownership is viewed as a negative thing and should be placed on a public list like pedophiles, convicted felons and the rest... Whats next? Do we place all people who are known to consume alcohol on a public list? After all- drunk driving kills more people over a year a hundred times over that of registered gun owners... and, by your logic, im not saying they cant consume alcohol- just that how much and when should be made public... for safety reasons of course... Or better yet? How about we make a public list of all Islamic citizens! The extremest form of the religion has proven itself very dangerous... Im just saying... your logic doesn't make any scene...
I think that having a gun at home for protection, is like a big step up from having a guard dog for protection. Many place "beware of dog" to both deter criminals and warn the public to not jump the fence to get their ball etc, but i've maybe seen like two houses ever that had a sign such as "owner has a shotgun" tho! Having a warning on the front of your house can be a good deterent, but when every second house has it, it doesn't hold much weight. Having an official register however, will definitely serve to protect owners of guns by detering criminals, well those that do their homework anyway It also makes those that do not have a gun look like alot more attractive, easy to get targets. I've said it before, i don't get the whole "gun for personal protection" thing. You want protection, get a dog, and a good security system with a few cameras around your home. Burgulars don't like cameras, and don't worry about the camera's making your place look like you are loaded - the car you drive gives that away. As for keeping a gun for protection, the only way to have that, is to keep a few loaded guns hidden around the house, that can still be quickly accessed. If you hear a burgular breaking in at night, or even in daytime, you don't have the time to run to the gun safe, unlock it, get your gun, run to your ammo safe, unlock that & load your gun.... the burgular would have popped a few caps in your a$$ by now
Nope. But if I want to sell alcohol to be consumed on or off the premises (since you mention aclohol) I have to be on a public register, because it is considered to possibly affect the public order. Same thing. Actually, in the US some politicians have seriously proposed that. But public gun ownership records? Oh, noes! Funny how they are happy to consider the former, but won't touch the latter. I'm not sure how it makes sense to keep the fact that you own a gun private. It is only a deterrent if people know about it, after all. And deterrence, in my view, is preferable to defense: prevention is better than confrontation. Don't be such a thread Nazi!
"Or better yet? How about we make a public list of all Islamic citizens! The extremest form of the religion has proven itself very dangerous..." The extremest form of most religions ( xtian just as bad if you give them an excuse) are very dangerous. Lets just dump all these religious fairytales that have held back humanity for so many years & are dragging us back to the middle ages rapidly.. Never gonna happen unfortunately
