Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 231
  1. #181
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I am happy to see you back, it has been a while

    Funny that "AR-15" is just named after the manufacturer of that rifle. It has no inherent meaning of "assault rifle" as is somewhat commonly thought. The media does lean toward a "if the AR-15 were just specifically outlawed, no more mass shootings".

    Not as funny, here in WA ST "we" just decided the Ruger 10/22 rifle my dad gave me when I was 12 is now an "assault rifle".

    ---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------



    Not particularly appropriate example. In Japan after the last major quake/tidal wave was handled with civility. Imagine when that happens to CA in the US. The carnage will not be because of guns, but more of the difference in morality.
    Thanks! Good to be back.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think most Americans can and do agree to a certain level of gun control. We'd like to see gun ownership require some sort of registration. We would like to see guns that can be traced back to their owners. Most of us agree some class of gun, generally those made for combat, should be outlawed for civiliian use. For example, there is general agreement that automatic weapons should be banned.

    However, there is a lot of distrust of the government. Lots of Americans do not believe the government (the individuals that make up government) are acting with the citizenry's best interests in mind. I am one of them to a certain degree. What would/could government do with a list of registered gun owners is one example. Could this be used to compell a gun program whereby citizens are forced to give up their guns? Could it be used to levy taxes on these individuals? LK brought up her own fear that banning a class of guns, such as assault weapons, would lead to a slippery slope that would result in further and more draconian gun bans. While a slippery slope argument may be a logical fallacy, in and of itself, the argument highlights the general fear of gun owners in light of a distrust of those who run the government.

    I think there should be agreement that whatever gun regulations exist must be coherent with the 2nd amendment. The courts have been pretty clear that civilians have the right to own guns. I know there are some people who don't agree with this interpretation. The right to privacy is contested, yet our laws have been forced to comply with this constitutional interpretation.

    Let's look at the cause for this distrust. Democrat Presidential candidate, Eric Swalwell wants to ban and buyback all assault weapons.
    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/04/10/eric-swalwells-grand-plan-to-ban-and-buy-back-guns-gets-a-reality-check-not-for-sale-buddy-743201

    Again, to LK's point, he does not define what an assault weapon is.

    This is what Diane Feinstein once said
    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an
    out right ban
    , picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

    Jan Schakowsky (D - Ill)
    “I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which
    does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun
    ….”

    William Clay (D-MO)
    ” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns

    So, there is a reasonable fear, I think, that allowing for further regulations is a backdoor (or maybe just opening the front door) for those in government that want to get rid of all guns. And those people exist.

    So, in my estimation, there cannot be any gun regulation at this point. The people don't trust the representatives. Frankly, none of the regulations I have heard being proposed would actually reduce violence.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/06/zero-correlation-between-state-homicide-rate-and-state-gun-laws/?utm_term=.30cb52416223


    We can reduce violence in America. I don't think focusing on guns is the way to do it. There are root causes for violence and guns are simply not the root cause.

    I agree. This is a problem here in America. We tend to ban the tool rather than address the real problem. A man shot up a movie theater? Ban the gun. A pitbull mauled a woman? Ban pitbulls. We need to focus on the real issues... not the instruments.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  2. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  3. #182
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Not particularly appropriate example. In Japan after the last major quake/tidal wave was handled with civility. Imagine when that happens to CA in the US. The carnage will not be because of guns, but more of the difference in morality.
    But it is actually. It is the character of a nation that values civility and cooperation that we should try to emulate. Once we do that, then we won't be so eager to protect our right to own and operate lethal weapons in our day to day lives. We won't be fantasizing that we need to fight back against our own elected officials or that random strangers will leap out and try to rape or kill us. It is a better way to live your life. Not that everything is perfect here in Japan, but that aspect of society is much better than in America.

    ---------- Post added at 07:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    We can reduce violence in America. I don't think focusing on guns is the way to do it. There are root causes for violence and guns are simply not the root cause.
    True, though I think if we addressed the root cause, opposition to banning guns would all but disappear. Those who most desire to have them are often part of the cultural current that keeps them protected and which makes them dangerous.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #183
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    "When the statistics are weighted for population, the rate of murders per 100,000 people was higher in London than in New York in February and March."

    ...

    "As of April 9 there have been more than 30 murders in London so far in 2019.

    The most recent fatal stabbing was on April 8 when a man, aged in his 20s, died in Manor Park, East London at around 9.30pm after being stabbed and shot.

    Just five days earlier a man in his 40s died in Harrow, North London following a "machete attack".

    Two people were fatally stabbed in separate knife attacks in the capital, in the first six hours of 2019.

    The first knife murder victim of the new year was Charlotte Huggins, 33, who died in Camberwell, London, just after 4am on January 1.

    A 34-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and has been bailed to return in mid-January.

    The second person to be killed was a Romanian bouncer, Tudor Simionov, who was stabbed to death by gatecrashers outside a New Year's Eve party in London's exclusive Mayfair area.

    He was attacked while working as a doorman at a £12.5million central London townhouse.

    On January 8 Jaden Moody, 14, died after being stabbed in Waltham Forest after his moped was rammed off the road, witnesses have claimed.

    On January 11 the body of a woman in her 30s was found in City Island Way and a 46-year-old man was taken into custody for her murder.

    On January 29 Nedim Bilgin, 17, died in the street on Caledonian Road, North London, after being stabbed in the chest at around 7pm.

    And Polish national Kamil Malysz was found dead at his home in Acton on January 27.

    Two men were arrested on suspicion of murder after a man died following a fire that broke out at a North London hospital.

    The 46-year-old man died after the blaze ripped through Highgate Mental Health Centre in Dartmouth Park Hill, Highgate, on February 3.

    On February 5, a teenager was stabbed to death outside his family home - just 500 yards from Prince George's school.

    Lajean Richards, 19, a Domino's delivery driver, was knifed repeatedly in a car park outside a four-storey block of flats where he lived with his mum.

    He is the third teenager to be stabbed to death in London already this year.

    In the early hours of February 10 a Dennis Anderson, 39, was stabbed to death in East Dulwich.

    Another man has died after being stabbed in a central London street before collapsing in a hotel lobby.

    Eleven people have been arrested on suspicion of murder following the horror at The Wesley Hotel at around 11pm last night, February 18.

    The victim is believed to have been knifed in the street at around 10.45pm before stumbling into the four-star hotel on Euston Street, near London Euston station.

    On February 26, a man was knifed to death outside Ilford train station in what was the fourth stabbing in the capital in less than eight hours.

    The victim, aged 20, was stabbed at around 8.48pm in the latest bloodshed to hit London.

    On March 1 Jodie Chesney, 17, was stabbed to death in an east London park.

    And on March 2 50-year-old was found dead with fatal knife injuries at a property in Hendon, north-west London. A 54-year-old man was arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder.

    On March 22, a 17-year-old boy was stabbed to death in Isleworth, West London.

    On March 24, a man was found stabbed to death in Pinner, North West, London

    There were 132 murders in the capital in 2018.

    The total number of London murders, excluding victims of terrorism, has shot up by 38 per cent since 2014."

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/827314...019-stabbings/
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  5. #184
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    If you want to look at murder rates, the real pattern for where they are highest is where you find well established criminal gangs. If you look at cities with the highest per capita murder rates, they are all in the Americas, most of them in Latin America, and a few in American cities. Every one of them has very serious criminal gang problems.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  7. #185
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If you want to look at murder rates, the real pattern for where they are highest is where you find well established criminal gangs. If you look at cities with the highest per capita murder rates, they are all in the Americas, most of them in Latin America, and a few in American cities. Every one of them has very serious criminal gang problems.
    And the dramatic rise in stabbing murders since 2014 in London has been attributed to gangs of Eastern Europeans who immigrated there. The larger point, for this thread, is that the lack of guns hasn't prevented murders from being committed.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  8. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  9. #186
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But it is actually. It is the character of a nation that values civility and cooperation that we should try to emulate. Once we do that, then we won't be so eager to protect our right to own and operate lethal weapons in our day to day lives.
    Still sounds like apple and oranges to me.

    Are you saying that if gun ownership were less restrictive in Japan they would no longer be civil people with values?
    Or the corollary, that if the gun ownership in the US weren't legal people here would be dramatically more civil/moral?

    Now if you could show Japan had a lot of violence in the past. Then put highly restrictive gun ownership laws into affect and the violence dramatically subsided you would have a great point. However I see reality being a bit different:

    https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/mu...fter-gun-bans/
    "Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland."
    "Regarding Japan, the point to make clear is that Japan has had a very low murder rate for as long as data is available, and more importantly, the guns were banned by private citizens. Some point to the drop in homicides after the 1958 gun law, but they ignore the 1946 regulations under the Allied Occupation and the 1950 Order that continued “the general prohibition of possession of guns by civilians.” The issue here is to separate out whether it is gun control or something else different about Japan that is important, and unless you can see a change before and after there has been a change in gun control laws it is difficult to infer anything about the impact of gun control laws."

    ---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not that everything is perfect here in Japan, but that aspect of society is much better than in America.
    Agreed, now if you can show banning guns/particular guns currently, would in and of itself lend a society to be more moral/civil/less damn dangerous, you may be able to win me over.
    Reality is (in CA for instance) the gov't has already told people that they could be on their own for days when the next big earthquake hits. CA isn't Japan and the looting that will take place will only be the beggining. Crime will soar in big cities until the gov't can respond adequately. How would you protect your family in this very likely scenario if you lived in CA?

    ---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True, though I think if we addressed the root cause, opposition to banning guns would all but disappear. Those who most desire to have them are often part of the cultural current that keeps them protected and which makes them dangerous.
    Please don't take this as an insult, but this is a very, very naïve position!

    1. Many in the US like to collect things. Guns are a major one. These people never even fire the weapon! They are displayed similar to art, and indeed, thought of as art!
    2. You totally misunderstand how ingrained hunting is (a passion I do not share BTW) in the US. I work in the construction industry. It is a male dominated field that is also dominated by hunters.
    3. Some people (me included) just like to shoot at targets occasionally.
    4. I personally have needed a weapon for protection of my family until the police had enough time to arrive and take over.
    5. Peace of mind can not/should not be underestimated. If a person feels safer and sleeps better because they have a gun in the house, they will be healthier overall. Even if they never needed it, if it hurts no one and makes some one feel/sleep better....
    6. It's a cliché but, make guns illegal and only criminals will have them is basically true here. The US is a big country with massive borders, as long as there is demand, there will be supply so long as the rest of the world doesn't go along with the ban (this goes back to root causes and differences in values) criminals will still have guns.

    You are aware there are still mass murders in Japan, yes? Is it really better if the weapon is something other than a gun?
    http://time.com/4423216/mass-killings-japan-tsukui/
    "In the early hours of Tuesday, a man entered a care center for mentally disabled people in Japan’s Kanagawa prefecture, about 30 miles west of Tokyo, and embarked on a stabbing rampage. According to initial reports, the 26-year-old man, named as Satoshi Uematsu, was a former employee at the facility, and may have been upset about being fired. He later turned himself in at the nearby Tsukui police station, having killed 19 people and wounding 25 more."


    I know you responded to this comment a few posts ago, but I don't think you did so adequately to rebut the point:
    "Set an explosive by the power meter at any stadium or shopping mall, block an exit or two just prior to the explosion, let people kill themselves trying to get away.
    Pick any large gathering of people and I will tell you a way for mass murder/killing." without using a gun.

    Again, the cause of the violence is ultimately of more concern than the tools of violence, if we are truly interested in less suffering.
    Last edited by Belthazor; April 19th, 2019 at 04:44 PM.

  10. #187
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Still sounds like apple and oranges to me.
    I don't think you understand me. I appreciate the arguments but they are rather barking up the wrong tree.

    Are you saying that if gun ownership were less restrictive in Japan they would no longer be civil people with values?
    Or the corollary, that if the gun ownership in the US weren't legal people here would be dramatically more civil/moral?
    No. I'm saying that if People in America were more peaceful and trusting of one another, and cared more about whether their actions would make others suffer, then they would, like Japan, not see the need for owning so many guns and would be more likely to support significant restrictions on their ownership.

    But the character of Americans is (generally) more selfish, less trusting, and is more prone to violence. They, therefore, like guns a lot more and feel a greater need to own them. Basically, our love of guns reflects very poorly on our social character.

    Those who generally oppose them, well it reflects well on their social character. And those who feel a need for them to "protect themselves" are either showing their own lack of social trust or are legitimately afraid because the character of other Americans makes them fear for their lives.

    Please don't take this as an insult, but this is a very, very naïve position!

    1. Many in the US like to collect things. Guns are a major one. These people never even fire the weapon! They are displayed similar to art, and indeed, thought of as art!
    So buy a replica. It's safer and you can still admire the craftsmanship.

    2. You totally misunderstand how ingrained hunting is (a passion I do not share BTW) in the US. I work in the construction industry. It is a male dominated field that is also dominated by hunters.
    I grew up in Alaska, I'm familiar with hunting. Hunting is also done in Japan BTW. They even use guns for hunting here. Very few gun bans aim to go after hunting rifles.

    3. Some people (me included) just like to shoot at targets occasionally.
    You could use something that isn't designed to kill people to do that.

    4. I personally have needed a weapon for protection of my family until the police had enough time to arrive and take over.
    And does that make you happy or sad that you live in a country where that is a real fear for you? No one worries about that here.

    5. Peace of mind can not/should not be underestimated. If a person feels safer and sleeps better because they have a gun in the house, they will be healthier overall. Even if they never needed it, if it hurts no one and makes some one feel/sleep better....
    Most people who die from guns die from their own guns or the gun owned by a family member. Most of the people murdered by a gun own a gun. It really should not make you feel safer. Statistically, it doesn't make you safer. It makes you more likely to die from violence.

    6. It's a cliché but, make guns illegal and only criminals will have them is basically true here. The US is a big country with massive borders, as long as there is demand, there will be supply so long as the rest of the world doesn't go along with the ban (this goes back to root causes and differences in values) criminals will still have guns.
    And mostly they will use them to shoot each other if they have them. Criminals live a lot longer in Japan too.

    "You are aware there are still mass murders in Japan, yes? Is it really better if the weapon is something other than a gun?
    http://time.com/4423216/mass-killings-japan-tsukui/"

    Yep, there was a guy who stabbed 17 people to death. But check out this quote from the article.
    "In general, mass killings are relatively rare in Japan, where rates for most crimes are among the lowest in the industrialized world. The country also has strict gun laws, making gun crimes of any kind extremely infrequent, especially in comparison with the U.S."

    They also have fewer stabbings, and generally, you can't carry around knives unless your profession requires it. Basically, the idea is they want a peaceful society so anyone keen on carrying weapons around must be looking for trouble.

    And that is the real point. Japan's civil life is peace-loving and trusting. So they don't want weapons being carried around in public. America has too many violent people so everyone lives on edge and feels like they need to be able to fight at a moments notice.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #188
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True, though I think if we addressed the root cause, opposition to banning guns would all but disappear. Those who most desire to have them are often part of the cultural current that keeps them protected and which makes them dangerous.
    I think I understand what you mean, but I don't really follow. You seem to be implying that the most fervent support for guns is based on illegal behavior? Maybe I am not understanding your point. I think if we reduce violence than the issue kinda goes away which may be what you mean, but I don't think people will suddenly become ok with banning guns. There just won't be a lot to talk about so the anti gun crowd would just move on. Although, this is Pollyannaish since the issue isn't going away and the anti-gun folk aren't about to move on.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  12. #189
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I don't think you understand me. I appreciate the arguments but they are rather barking up the wrong tree.
    You mean like when I said we are talking apples and oranges?

    ---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No. I'm saying that if People in America were more peaceful and trusting of one another, and cared more about whether their actions would make others suffer, then they would, like Japan, not see the need for owning so many guns and would be more likely to support significant restrictions on their ownership.
    Um...ok...but the thread is about gun control and it sounds like you are suggesting that limiting ownership of guns will make Americans "more peaceful and trusting" or your comment is non-sequitur.



    ---------- Post added at 05:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Please don't take this as an insult, but this is a very, very naïve position!
    I see you are not a fan of the proposition of charity...

    You said:
    "Those who most desire to have them are often part of the cultural current that keeps them protected and which makes them dangerous."

    I said that was "naïve" because there are many reasons people own guns that have nothing to do with nefarious nor anti social behavior and gave some examples. you missed the point and offered alternatives to those examples (with varying degrees of success - a gun collector generally is not going to collect fakes-the history of the gun can matter a great deal to such a person).

    You are taking offense where none was intended...

    ---------- Post added at 05:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:24 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    They also have fewer stabbings, and generally, you can't carry around knives unless your profession requires it. Basically, the idea is they want a peaceful society so anyone keen on carrying weapons around must be looking for trouble.

    And that is the real point. Japan's civil life is peace-loving and trusting. So they don't want weapons being carried around in public. America has too many violent people so everyone lives on edge and feels like they need to be able to fight at a moments notice.
    The parts of my last post that you didn't respond to are telling.

    Yes, Japan has less gun murders per capita than the US, less murders period per capita than the US, and per my last post, has had since numbers have been tabulated. Gun control in Japan happened after WWII, a relatively short time ago, and their murder rate showed no significant decline after ownership was restricted. So restrictive gun laws had little affect on murder in Japan at ALL.

    Again, if you could show a significant decline in gun murders after restrictions you would have a great point.
    and
    If you can show it, you may just win me over (at least a little bit).
    Can you do that?

    ---------- Post added at 05:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And that is the real point. Japan's civil life is peace-loving and trusting. So they don't want weapons being carried around in public. America has too many violent people so everyone lives on edge and feels like they need to be able to fight at a moments notice.
    I would again just say (also from post #186 as well)

    "Again, the cause of the violence is ultimately of more concern than the tools of violence, if we are truly interested in less suffering."


    (I will also note you gave no response to my CA earthquake scenario. Might will make right in that scenario for days/weeks until gov't can adequately respond.)

    ---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I grew up in Alaska, I'm familiar with hunting. Hunting is also done in Japan BTW. They even use guns for hunting here. Very few gun bans aim to go after hunting rifles.
    Never underestimate incrementalism!

    In WA ST, the Ruger 10/22 rifle my dad bought me when I was 12 is now as ASSAULT rifle! Assault rifles ARE on the chopping block of gun control activists at the moment. Do you really think anyone is going to mass murder with a .22 rifle?

    Would it really be a "better death" if a nut ran his car into the gas meter of a grade school instead of shooting people with a gun?

    "Again, the cause of the violence is ultimately of more concern than the tools of violence, if we are truly interested in less suffering."
    (Belt)

  13. #190
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think I understand what you mean, but I don't really follow. You seem to be implying that the most fervent support for guns is based on illegal behavior?
    No, I'm saying it is based on a lack of social trust. We don't trust other Americans not to attack us or we don't trust our government to respect our liberty. It's not about illegal behavior other than we don't trust other Americans to obey the law.

    Although, this is Pollyannaish since the issue isn't going away and the anti-gun folk isn't about to move on.
    We'll see what happens. If American culture changes in this regard it will take a long time. Japan's prohibition on weapons was forced on them, and they have slowly relaxed it over time. America has guns written into the constitution and its a slow bleed of restrictions since then.

    Mostly I admire this aspect of Japanese society today. They think its kind of crazy to own a gun, because what on earth would you ever use it for? No one is going to attack you. The government isn't going to come and make a slave of you. It's a tool for killing and there is no place for killing in this society outside of fantasy and the exceptionally rare murder by the exceptionally rare crazy person.

    In Japan you can leave a wallet full of cash on the subway and there is a very good chance you will get it back with all the money still in it. Social trust is exceptionally high here and it's really nice.

    ---------- Post added at 08:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:37 AM ----------

    Um...ok...but the thread is about gun control and it sounds like you are suggesting that limiting ownership of guns will make Americans "more peaceful and trusting" or your comment is non-sequitur.
    Again, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying: "If Americans were more peaceful and trusting, they would limit gun ownership, not the other way around as you suggest.

    Please don't take this as an insult, but this is a very, very naïve position!
    I see you are not a fan of the proposition of charity...
    The great irony of it is, you are the one that wrote that sentence in post #186. I just accidentally failed to delete it in my reply. So really you are saying to yourself you are not a fan of the proposition of charity because you are the person who wrote this message.

    You said:
    "Those who most desire to have them are often part of the cultural current that keeps them protected and which makes them dangerous."
    Indeed, I said it and meant it. Look at most of the killers who use guns to attack people. They rather like guns. Many have been loud advocates for gun rights. They rant about how others are out to kill them. Or how the government is a great danger to them. The same arguments I hear from less homicidal gun advocates rather often. On the other hand, you find very few people with a distaste for guns shooting or killing people generally. It's almost like people who like violence like weaponry. Which is not to say all people who like weapons like violence, but there is some correlation there I think.

    You are taking offense where none was intended...
    I took no offense, I simply, by accident, failed to delete your own words. If you think they make me seem angry, then perhaps you should reflect on how they make you look when you typed them.

    The parts of my last post that you didn't respond to are telling.
    Really, they were the parts I thought were irrelevant to my argument due to your misunderstanding of what I was arguing.

    Yes, Japan has less gun murders per capita than the US, less murders period per capita than the US, and per my last post, has had since numbers have been tabulated. Gun control in Japan happened after WWII, a relatively short time ago, and their murder rate showed no significant decline after ownership was restricted. So restrictive gun laws had little affect on murder in Japan at ALL.
    I never claimed they did. My claim is that those gun laws are reflective of a society that has very high social trust and cohesion and that such people will naturally want restrictions on weapons. As where a society rife with distrust and anger will want to keep weapons.

    Again, if you could show a significant decline in gun murders after restrictions you would have a great point.
    Again, if my argument was that gun laws stop crimes you would have a point, but that is not my argument so you don't have a point.

    "Again, the cause of the violence is ultimately of more concern than the tools of violence, if we are truly interested in less suffering."
    Yes, and I agree. Our love of guns is a symptom of our problem as a society, not the cause of it. But if we fix the cause, then we would likely see the symptom disappear as well.

    I will also note you gave no response to my CA earthquake scenario.
    It had nothing to do with my argument, its just you trying to argue that America is violent and dangerous (or you think it is) so people want to own guns. That only supports what I am arguing.

    Never underestimate incrementalism!
    Well, Japan started with an absolute restriction on all guns and swords. They have incrementally softened those rules over time to allow private ownership of both in some circumstances. I like incrementalism. Its great. You make small changes over time to find out what policies work well and which ones don't. It tends to be much wiser than sweeping and dramatic reforms.

    In WA ST, the Ruger 10/22 rifle my dad bought me when I was 12 is now as ASSAULT rifle! Assault rifles ARE on the chopping block of gun control activists at the moment. Do you really think anyone is going to mass murder with a .22 rifle?

    Would it really be a "better death" if a nut ran his car into the gas meter of a grade school instead of shooting people with a gun?
    I don't really care to be honest. Dead is dead. I prefer a society where people are not as often intent on killing one another or as afraid of it happening to them.

    "Again, the cause of the violence is ultimately of more concern than the tools of violence, if we are truly interested in less suffering."
    And again, this is non-responsive to my clearly stated argument that if America had a better civic culture, we would rarely want tools of violence because we would not be violent or afraid of violence.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  14. #191
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Again, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying: "If Americans were more peaceful and trusting, they would limit gun ownership, not the other way around as you suggest.
    ---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 PM ----------

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And again, this is non-responsive to my clearly stated argument that if America had a better civic culture, we would rarely want tools of violence because we would not be violent or afraid of violence.
    I see, then I did misunderstand. I thought you were responding to the Op, my bad...

    So cultures that are nicer in general, respect others rights, positive morals, etc likely would have less violence, gun (or otherwise).

    Ok, I agree.

    Now on to the Op which clearly stated concerns about gun control:
    "I am curious to know where people on this forum stand on the current controversy of guns. As far as I can see, there is a large group of people who are trying to ban the ownership of a specific gun: The AR-15.

    I am of the mind that banning any gun will not have an effect on mass shootings. They will still occur because the people who are intent on killing others will find other ways to do so. Making laws for people who don't follow laws is idiotic. It makes no sense at all. I believe if you ban the AR-15, these disturbed individuals will find other methods to commit mass murder because they are disturbed and they wish to take life (for whatever the reason). I know this is a slippery slope argument, but I do worry about what will be banned after the AR-15. What is to stop the rest of the firearms from being banned for "safety reasons"? After that, how many other constitutional rights will we revoke?"

    I have clearly stated why some one without ill intent would like to possess a gun.
    I have supported that gun control laws have not restricted violence where it has been tried.
    I have shown a simple .22 rifle can be classified as an assault weapon and the assault weapons are at the fore front of gun control advocates (ban a gun by reclassifying it is easier than just banning the gun).

    Would you care to discuss any of that?

  15. #192
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Ok, I agree.
    Excellent, thank you.

    Now on to the Op which clearly stated concerns about gun control:
    "I am curious to know where people on this forum stand on the current controversy of guns. As far as I can see, there is a large group of people who are trying to ban the ownership of a specific gun: The AR-15.
    That is what I was responding to, it's just that my view of the current controversy is that what most people argue is somewhat irrelevant. I think there are two more meaningful points to consider....
    1. That guns are a symptom rather than a cause and the cause is what we should address.
    2. That many people who own guns are making a bad decision and for foolish reasons, so they should voluntarily disarm themselves for their own benefit and for the benefit of others.

    That is my stand on the current gun controversy. I don't care about AR-15s in particular.

    I am of the mind that banning any gun will not have an effect on mass shootings. They will still occur because the people who are intent on killing others will find other ways to do so. Making laws for people who don't follow laws is idiotic.
    The idea is that if the intended use of a tool is to kill, then anyone who has that tool is likely intent on killing. So if you ban the tool, you can identify those who intend to use it for its intended purpose before they kill anyone. Bombs are restricted because the purpose of a bomb is to blow things up and it's not something we want people doing. You can use explosives if you can show you have a legitimate purpose for it. Same with guns in countries with significant restrictions. But wandering around with a weapons saying "its to fight bad guys" is basically saying I don't live in a society, I live in an anarchy. And saying that is the way you prefer it, bespokes a love of anarchy and a desire to avoid society.

    It makes no sense at all. I believe if you ban the AR-15, these disturbed individuals will find other methods to commit mass murder because they are disturbed and they wish to take life (for whatever the reason). I know this is a slippery slope argument, but I do worry about what will be banned after the AR-15. What is to stop the rest of the firearms from being banned for "safety reasons"? After that, how many other constitutional rights will we revoke?"
    I agree it won't get rid of crime. But your fears are largely irrational in my opinion. There are many countries with very strict gun restrictions and they are not dystopian nightmares where people have no rights. They often rate higher in the freedom indexes than America does. Having the ready ability to kill people does not make you more free. It puts you and others at greater risk in most cases.

    I have clearly stated why someone without ill intent would like to possess a gun.
    I have supported that gun control laws have not restricted violence where it has been tried.
    I have shown a simple .22 rifle can be classified as an assault weapon and the assault weapons are at the forefront of gun control advocates (ban a gun by reclassifying it is easier than just banning the gun).

    Would you care to discuss any of that?
    Not really, I don't think those points are very important.

    Would you like to discuss how owning firearms can put you and your family at greater risk of death and injury?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #193
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, I'm saying it is based on a lack of social trust. We don't trust other Americans not to attack us or we don't trust our government to respect our liberty. It's not about illegal behavior other than we don't trust other Americans to obey the law.



    We'll see what happens. If American culture changes in this regard it will take a long time. Japan's prohibition on weapons was forced on them, and they have slowly relaxed it over time. America has guns written into the constitution and its a slow bleed of restrictions since then.

    Mostly I admire this aspect of Japanese society today. They think its kind of crazy to own a gun, because what on earth would you ever use it for? No one is going to attack you. The government isn't going to come and make a slave of you. It's a tool for killing and there is no place for killing in this society outside of fantasy and the exceptionally rare murder by the exceptionally rare crazy person.

    In Japan you can leave a wallet full of cash on the subway and there is a very good chance you will get it back with all the money still in it. Social trust is exceptionally high here and it's really nice.
    I think people into hunting would disagree with this. Maybe? You are kinda hoping for a redefinition of the American spirit. Would we still be Americans if we had the same belief in our President/government as the Japanese have with their emperor/government? Their faith in authority also made it acceptable to invade China and perform suicidal missions (aka Kamikazes). No culture is perfect but we should be careful what we wish for as the saying goes.

    I should also point out that in Japan you basically see Japanese people. You look at their international sports teams, for example, and; Surprise! They all are Japanese. It is a fairly homogenous population. So, yeah, the amount of tribalism and trust among its citizens is probably higher than it is here in the U.S. However, I'd point out that the progressive movement to downplay the importance of assimilation probably isn't making us trust each other more.

    I'm just saying different cultures are different and it does not make a lot of sense in trying to shoehorn Japanese culture onto ours.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  17. Likes Squatch347, MindTrap028 liked this post
  18. #194
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Excellent, thank you.
    No worries, but this really means little. It's like saying generally if there are less clouds during the daytime, there will be more sunshine.

    It doesn't really relate to the Op because it doesn't speak to people owning guns, just less likely to use one to kill.
    IOW, a respectful society(etc) could still posses guns for some of the reasons already stated, and still not use them for violence against others.
    It's not a one or the other proposition.

    ---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The idea is that if the intended use of a tool is to kill, then anyone who has that tool is likely intent on killing.
    This is where you start wondering off the trail.
    1. The sole purpose of a gun is not to kill.
    2. You will need to support that anyone that owns a gun is " likely intent on killing"

    ---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    So if you ban the tool, you can identify those who intend to use it for its intended purpose before they kill anyone.
    1. I have already supported that crime/violence/murder/etc does not go down where guns are restricted
    2. How can you identify some one who wants to murder by banning guns?
    3. There are between .8 - 1.13 guns per person in America. If what you are proposing were true, gun murders would be exponentially higher than they are.

    ---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I agree it won't get rid of crime. But your fears are largely irrational in my opinion. There are many countries with very strict gun restrictions and they are not dystopian nightmares where people have no rights.
    (I realize you were responding to LadyK here but...)

    LadyK's only "fear" in the Op was guns being banned. She made no political statement, nor was discussing a gun for protection. She was talking about her right to own a gun being taken away, that's all.

    ---------- Post added at 04:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Not really, I don't think those points are very important.
    I can understand why as those points undermine you argument that guns are for violence period.

    If gun control laws do not stem violence, why restrict them in the name of saving lives/less violence?
    If some one likes having a gun from WWII displayed on their wall so what (collectors)?
    Shooting a target with a gun does not make me any more likely to kill some one than shooting a target with a bow and arrow.

    ---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Would you like to discuss how owning firearms can put you and your family at greater risk of death and injury?
    Ok, "shoot"
    (sorry for the pun but I like humor in my argumentation and couldn't resist.)

  19. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  20. #195
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think people into hunting would disagree with this.
    I have yet to see anyone, in the general gun debate, say we need to get rid of guns used for hunting. Japan uses guns for hunting. Guns for hunting are fine. They are not indicative of social violence or distrust.

    Maybe? You are kinda hoping for a redefinition of the American spirit. Would we still be Americans if we had the same belief in our President/government as the Japanese have with their emperor/government? Their faith in authority also made it acceptable to invade China and perform suicidal missions (aka Kamikazes). No culture is perfect but we should be careful what we wish for as the saying goes.
    Pre WWII Japan had a completely different government and view of government. The Emporer is a figurehead these days. It's mostly not relevant to modern political life here and the laws against weapons in private hands were created after WW II and put into place by America.

    I should also point out that in Japan you basically see Japanese people. You look at their international sports teams, for example, and; Surprise! They all are Japanese. It is a fairly homogenous population. So, yeah, the amount of tribalism and trust among its citizens is probably higher than it is here in the U.S. However, I'd point out that the progressive movement to downplay the importance of assimilation probably isn't making us trust each other more.
    True and irrelevant to my arguments in this thread. I am not arguing how likely it is America will become more peaceful and trusting, I'm only here to argue that if they did, they would not value civilian gun ownership nearly as much.

    I'm just saying different cultures are different and it does not make a lot of sense in trying to shoehorn Japanese culture onto ours.
    None the less, the results of that culture is that there is far less violence and far less crime than in America. So if we would like to reduce crime and violence, we might consider changing our attitudes in some regards.

    ---------- Post added at 10:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No worries, but this really means little. It's like saying generally if there are less clouds during the daytime, there will be more sunshine.
    Yet people seem intent on keeping their guns, and those people seem to represent a larger share of those who have little social trust and cooperation.

    If I need to choose which people I should support, those who insist we need to keep deadly weapons ready at hand, or those who don't, I'll generally side with those who represent a more peaceful and trusting world view.

    This is where you start wondering off the trail.
    1. The sole purpose of a gun is not to kill.
    That is not the sole purpose, but it is the primary purpose. They were invented as weapons, used to kill. That is their primary purpose. A sword is also created to kill, it can be used to cut paper, but scissors do a better job of it. I can make a gun that shoots, say T-Shirts, but that's not the kind of gun I'm discussing. If you want to keep a non-lethal gun, I don't see why you shouldn't. But for some reasons people who like guns don't much like non-lethal ones, its almost as if making them non-lethal defeats the purpose of them.... I wonder why they feel that way.

    2. You will need to support that anyone that owns a gun is " likely intent on killing"
    Really, so if I talked to someone carrying a gun, and asked, "Is there any situation in which you would use that to kill something?" they would say "No, there is no way I would use this to kill anything ever." I only have this for decorative purposes or some such.

    The only people who could make such a claim are target shooters, and this doesn't come up much as a constitutional argument. It's also quite possible to make arrangements such that you don't need to transport live loaded weapons to go target shooting. Remember that my case is that if we prohibit the carrying of deadly weapons then those who have them will likely be intent on using them for violence, not that this is the case in America today.

    1. I have already supported that crime/violence/murder/etc does not go down where guns are restricted
    Doesn't matter to my point at all.

    2. How can you identify some one who wants to murder by banning guns?
    Because to use one in murder you would have to be carrying it and most other law abiding people wouldn't be carrying them.

    3. There are between .8 - 1.13 guns per person in America. If what you are proposing were true, gun murders would be exponentially higher than they are.
    No, because now there are lots of legal reasons to be carrying a gun around. So if you see someone with a gun they may well have a legal purpose for carrying it that is not murder.
    Were it not legal to carry them then most law-abiding people would not carry them or would have a permit to carry them. Having a loaded gun would be highly suspicious behavior.

    If gun control laws do not stem violence, why restrict them in the name of saving lives/less violence?
    Because they are a symptom of a violent society and if you are not a violent society you don't want them to be uncontrolled.

    If someone likes having a gun from WWII displayed on their wall so what (collectors)?
    Then why not render it inoperable?

    Shooting a target with a gun does not make me any more likely to kill someone than shooting a target with a bow and arrow.
    No one said it did. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about whether people who want to live in peace are attracted to owning a deadly weapon.

    Ok, "shoot"
    (sorry for the pun but I like humor in my argumentation and couldn't resist.)
    Humor and a little colorful commentary is always welcome with me.

    If your family has any of these risk factors...

    1. A history of domestic violence
    2. Clinical depression (diagnosed or otherwise)
    3. Gang-related criminal activity
    4. Persistent thoughts of suicide
    5. Persistent fantasies of violence against others, especially family members
    6. A criminal record for violence
    7. Having young children and not storing all firearms in a safe or similar secure location
    8. A history of drug abuse (including alcohol)

    Then owning a firearm is more likely to result in the death or injury of one or more family members than it is to protect them from violence.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  21. #196
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I have yet to see anyone, in the general gun debate, say we need to get rid of guns used for hunting. Japan uses guns for hunting. Guns for hunting are fine.
    1. Nobody had been pushing to classify a .22 rifle as an "assault weapon" until last year either. Incrementalism. Getting people to accept a small infringement at a time to a goal that they would never allow otherwise.
    2. That "hunting rifles are fine" is your opinion, do you have any support?

    ---------- Post added at 04:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True and irrelevant to my arguments in this thread. I am not arguing how likely it is America will become more peaceful and trusting, I'm only here to argue that if they did, they would not value civilian gun ownership nearly as much.
    I would say this is an interesting point to discuss, but it is really a point for another thread. This thread is about a constitutional right to own a gun and the laws governing them.

    ---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yet people seem intent on keeping their guns, and those people seem to represent a larger share of those who have little social trust and cooperation.

    If I need to choose which people I should support, those who insist we need to keep deadly weapons ready at hand, or those who don't, I'll generally side with those who represent a more peaceful and trusting world view.
    Ok....

    Again, the point I agreed with was basically societies that are less violent are less violent

    ---------- Post added at 04:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That is not the sole purpose, but it is the primary purpose. They were invented as weapons, used to kill. That is their primary purpose.
    I was responding to your comment:
    "The idea is that if the intended use of a tool is to kill, then anyone who has that tool is likely intent on killing"

    Please support that:
    1. the intended purpose of a gun is "to kill" (humans)
    2. "anyone" that owns a gun currently is "likely intent on killing"

    I believe even the person carrying one for protection hopes that if they had to pull it out the assailant would run or if they did have to shoot most people expect to wound the assailant. Hell people expect cops to "shoot to wound not kill"!
    This is the opposite of how police are trained, but most people think it is how because a death is not the goal when using a gun for protection in most peoples minds.



    ---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, because now there are lots of legal reasons to be carrying a gun around. So if you see someone with a gun they may well have a legal purpose for carrying it that is not murder.
    I'm confused???
    (Let's just stick with owning one not carrying it around for a moment.)

    You say the sole/primary purpose of a gun is to kill, but also submit the are lots of legal reasons to own that don't involve killing.

    ---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No one said it did. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about whether people who want to live in peace are attracted to owning a deadly weapon.
    Well the Op is and so was I.
    It is another interesting conversation point but non-sequitur regarding the Op.

    However, I think most Americans (not necessarily in gov't) want to live peacefully with the rest of the world. I also think most Americans know we have to have a strong military to remain "free". I think the relates to how most think of guns in general.

    ---------- Post added at 04:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Then why not render it inoperable?
    Off Op and misses my point that there are reasons to own a gun that do not have to do with killing, however,

    cause it lowers the value of the gun
    (unless you are just removing a piece that can be replaced)

    ---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Then owning a firearm is more likely to result in the death or injury of one or more family members than it is to protect them from violence.
    If you are one of the unlucky victims of domestic violence the "weapon of choice" by your abuser is rarely a gun.
    But what about violence in general:
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-us-by-weapon/

    Rounding assaults off for 2017 #'s:
    128,000 used a knife
    188,000 personal weapon
    195,000 firearm
    230,500 other weapon

    Firearms seem to be used only about 36% of the time...

    ---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Doesn't matter to my point at all.
    Only because your point does not refer to the Op or my points.
    Again,
    More restrictive gun laws have not lead to less violence where it has been tried and the Op is discussing banning weapons/particular weapons.

    ---------- Post added at 05:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Because to use one in murder you would have to be carrying it and most other law abiding people wouldn't be carrying them.
    Actually, in this scenario, NO law abiding citizen would be carrying one, but htat still does not mean they were looking/waiting/wanting to kill some one. This conclusion would need support.
    ---
    do you mean some potential murderers might be able to be scrutinized for owning a gun if they were illegal even though most murders do not involve guns?

    ---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    No, because now there are lots of legal reasons to be carrying a gun around. So if you see someone with a gun they may well have a legal purpose for carrying it that is not murder.
    Were it not legal to carry them then most law-abiding people would not carry them or would have a permit to carry them. Having a loaded gun would be highly suspicious behavior.
    No, because you missed the point entirely.

    If there is nearly one gun per person in America and (per you) the primary reason to own one is to "kill", then the murder rate in America would be exponentially higher than it is.

  22. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  23. #197
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,444
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I have yet to see anyone, in the general gun debate, say we need to get rid of guns used for hunting. Japan uses guns for hunting. Guns for hunting are fine. They are not indicative of social violence or distrust.

    I was just being snarky. However, Americans have a history of guns for a multitude of reasons.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Pre WWII Japan had a completely different government and view of government. The Emporer is a figurehead these days. It's mostly not relevant to modern political life here and the laws against weapons in private hands were created after WW II and put into place by America.

    And that last part should mean something. We took away their guns as the de facto conqueror. Kind of like Chavez took away the guns of the Valenzuela's and I'm sure many would like them back.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True and irrelevant to my arguments in this thread. I am not arguing how likely it is America will become more peaceful and trusting, I'm only here to argue that if they did, they would not value civilian gun ownership nearly as much.

    And I'm arguing that if we did, we wouldn't really be Americans. We'd be something else. Better? Worse? I dunno. Should we really trust our government? Not just us, but any nation of people?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    None the less, the results of that culture is that there is far less violence and far less crime than in America. So if we would like to reduce crime and violence, we might consider changing our attitudes in some regards.
    Or maybe it isn't just an attitude problem. Part of what makes us a great nation are probably many of the same qualities which produce things like crime and violence. The American defiance towards authority can lead to wonderful things, but can also produce bad things. I'd be hesitant to wish we'd snuff it out thinking it'd make things wonderful. There just seems to be this sort of prevalent thought that if only we'd be more like (fill in the blank) then all our problems would be solved. And it is never that simple and, quite frankly, the idealization of it is much more desirable than what it would actually be in my opinion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  24. #198
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,468
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And that last part should mean something. We took away their guns as the de facto conqueror. Kind of like Chavez took away the guns of the Valenzuela's and I'm sure many would like them back.
    Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since. Taking guns away when people misuse them seems pretty rational to me. It was not some prelude to terrible oppression or exploitation.

    And I'm arguing that if we did, we wouldn't really be Americans. We'd be something else. Better? Worse? I dunno. Should we really trust our government? Not just us, but any nation of people?
    Lots of Americans don't own any guns and would like to live peacefully. Is being American tantamount to enjoying violence and crime? I'd be happy to see America as a less violent place. Better I think, much better in fact. Should we trust the government? To a degree. If you don't you should be an anarchist. The government is made up 100% of other Americans and it's chosen 100% by Americans. If we don't trust it at all it means we don't trust ourselves at all.

    Or maybe it isn't just an attitude problem. Part of what makes us a great nation are probably many of the same qualities which produce things like crime and violence. The American defiance towards authority can lead to wonderful things, but can also produce bad things. I'd be hesitant to wish we'd snuff it out thinking it'd make things wonderful. There just seems to be this sort of prevalent thought that if only we'd be more like (fill in the blank) then all our problems would be solved. And it is never that simple and, quite frankly, the idealization of it is much more desirable than what it would actually be in my opinion.
    Carry that attitude forward and you end up saying that we should never learn or change, that perhaps we are perfect and incapable of improvement. Its rubbish I think.

    If other people do something better than you, you should learn from them. Being violent jerks is not our inherent strength. I'd say our real strength is our embrace of change and progress over dogma and tradition.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  25. #199
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Lots of Americans don't own any guns and would like to live peacefully. Is being American tantamount to enjoying violence and crime?
    Most Americans that own guns DO live peacefully!
    Since there is roughly one gun per person in America, if life here were the way you describe, murders by guns would be exponentially higher!

    ---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Carry that attitude forward and you end up saying that we should never learn or change, that perhaps we are perfect and incapable of improvement. Its rubbish I think.
    Of course we should strive to be better.
    Now if you could show disarming Americans would necessarily lead to a more peaceful/respectful society you would have a great point!

    As it is you, show a great deal of idealism and nothing but emotional support for your position, since you agree a gun used in anger is a symptom of the real issue not the issue itself.

    IOW, guns in and of themselves DO NOT cause violence, period!
    Taking them away completely will not stop most violence, because most violence by far (in America) does not involve a gun at all!

  26. #200
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed we took the guns, they had been using them to wreak havoc on their neighbors and on us. Seems a reasonable thing to do. And it's worked pretty nicely ever since. Taking guns away when people misuse them seems pretty rational to me.
    I'm not sure you have Japanese history on this issue correct. Gun control in Japan goes back a bit before WWII:

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/japan.php
    "Gun control was instituted in Japan soon after guns were introduced there, and the country has a long history of policies that restrict gun possession by members of the general public."
    "During the Tokugawa period (1603–1867),[4] gun control was expanded. The Tokugawa Shogunate issued the following regulations and decrees:
    Year
    Regulation/Decree
    1629:
    The use of guns for the control of pests was permitted upon submission of a written declaration that the gun would be used properly.
    1645:
    The use of guns in Edo (Tokyo) was prohibited except by gun officials.
    1662:
    The possession of guns other than by hunters was prohibited. Hunters were registered and prohibited from renting out guns to others.
    1676:
    Crackdowns on illegal gun possessors would be conducted
    1685:
    Persons who turned in or reported shooters of illegal guns would be rewarded.
    1687:
    Villages without hunters were allowed to rent guns.
    1717:
    Even hunters were prohibited from possessing guns in Edo and its outskirts. Guns could be rented for pest control for limited periods.
    1729:
    The rental conditions imposed in 1717 were tightened: the gun rental period would be for one year, a rental document would have to be submitted annually, and the number of boars and deer taken in the previous year had to be reported.[5]"

    Obviously, gun control has a long running theme in Japan, which has always enjoyed a low murder rate (by any means).

 

 
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 10:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 09:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 08:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 10:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •