weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 1, 2015 15:25:58 GMT -5
OK, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's both think of societies in which everyone carries guns around with them, all the time, and let's judge whether these are peaceful, well regulated societies where justice and freedom is a sacred right and where criminal activity is negligible because all the upstanding citizens are packing heat. When I think of places where everyone has guns I think of Syria, of Somalia. I think of Deadwood. I think of some of the South American countries where drug cartels have overrun law enforcement. I'm trying hard, really I am, but I can't think a single blissful utopian society where everyone is always wearing a gun that isn't a dangerous, lawless place. Can you name one single first world country where all the citizens are armed and their homicide/murder rate from guns is lower than ours? If this is the only way for people to live content and happy lives, why don't all the other first world countries issue hand guns to all their citizens? Think of a country like that? no... How about a city? Ever hear of Kennesaw, Georgia... the city that, BY LAW requires gun ownership? Here's their "violent crimes" statistics for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 (from their city "Crime Statistics" page):  Yes... you read that right. 1 murder, 0 manslaughter, and 2 rapes in FOUR years. ETA: and that's not "gun crimes" that's VIOLENT crimes (which would include any "gun" ones)... Hmmm... wonder if the thought that every fricking household HAS TO have a gun in it had any effect on crime there... Kennesaw has a population of 32,000. It's a small village. Can YOU name a big US city of 4 million which has a homicide rate of about 30 a year, like Montreal?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 15:27:10 GMT -5
So your answer to failed restrictions, is more restrictions ? Guess what my description of insanity is. Is your definition of a successful society, a totally controlled one ? More restrictions on firearms will not change mans propensity for violence, it started long before firearms were invented. It will also continue long after firearms are obsolete. One way to reduce violence is to get ones thought process in alignment with the reality that humans always can and will kill one another. Restricting the weapon du jour has been tried and failed for millennia. That is because mans mind is the ultimate weapon. One of the downsides of being the most intelligent critter on this planet. Once that is realized, it might be a first step towards a more peaceful society. OK, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's both think of societies in which everyone carries guns around with them, all the time, and let's judge whether these are peaceful, well regulated societies where justice and freedom is a sacred right and where criminal activity is negligible because all the upstanding citizens are packing heat. When I think of places where everyone has guns I think of Syria, of Somalia. I think of Deadwood. I think of some of the South American countries where drug cartels have overrun law enforcement. I'm trying hard, really I am, but I can't think a single blissful utopian society where everyone is always wearing a gun that isn't a dangerous, lawless place. Can you name one single first world country where all the citizens are armed and their homicide/murder rate from guns is lower than ours? If this is the only way for people to live content and happy lives, why don't all the other first world countries issue hand guns to all their citizens? How about a thought experiment where there are no guns. Prison keeps out guns pretty well, but it is a violent place. Not a fair experiment, but proof that you dont need guns to have violence and violent people will find a way to be violent. |
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 1, 2015 15:38:59 GMT -5
OK, let's do a little thought experiment. Let's both think of societies in which everyone carries guns around with them, all the time, and let's judge whether these are peaceful, well regulated societies where justice and freedom is a sacred right and where criminal activity is negligible because all the upstanding citizens are packing heat. When I think of places where everyone has guns I think of Syria, of Somalia. I think of Deadwood. I think of some of the South American countries where drug cartels have overrun law enforcement. I'm trying hard, really I am, but I can't think a single blissful utopian society where everyone is always wearing a gun that isn't a dangerous, lawless place. Can you name one single first world country where all the citizens are armed and their homicide/murder rate from guns is lower than ours? If this is the only way for people to live content and happy lives, why don't all the other first world countries issue hand guns to all their citizens? How about a thought experiment where there are no guns. Prison keeps out guns pretty well, but it is a violent place. Not a fair experiment, but proof that you dont need guns to have violence and violent people will find a way to be violent. Really? Prisons? Where the population has a violent nature to begin with? |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2015 19:35:29 GMT -5
Think of a country like that? no... How about a city? Ever hear of Kennesaw, Georgia... the city that, BY LAW requires gun ownership? Here's their "violent crimes" statistics for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 (from their city "Crime Statistics" page): Yes... you read that right. 1 murder, 0 manslaughter, and 2 rapes in FOUR years. ETA: and that's not "gun crimes" that's VIOLENT crimes (which would include any "gun" ones)... Hmmm... wonder if the thought that every fricking household HAS TO have a gun in it had any effect on crime there... Kennesaw has a population of 32,000. It's a small village. Can YOU name a big US city of 4 million which has a homicide rate of about 30 a year, like Montreal?
No. I can't... but... there isn't a "big US city" that has the same "Gun ownership required" law. I was making a point that criminals knowing there's LIKELY a gun in the house stops a LOT of violent crime. |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 12:57:33 GMT -5
The only problem I see with a "little bit of regulation" is the fact that all to often it is used as stepping stones for ever increasing regulation, not just for firearms either.  not in my experience.  Just as one example, think how seatbelt laws went from a secondary offenses when stopped for other reasons to "click it or ticket" road stop areas. Stepping stones. Or from simple arrest and trial for drug possession to vehicle confiscation. Stepping stones. You have the experience of observation don't you ? If not a first hand experience ? I've gone through a seatbelt check stop. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2015 13:09:42 GMT -5
not in my experience. Just as one example, think how seatbelt laws went from a secondary offenses when stopped for other reasons to "click it or ticket" road stop areas. Stepping stones. Or from simple arrest and trial for drug possession to vehicle confiscation. Stepping stones. You have the experience of observation don't you ? If not a first hand experience ? I've gone through a seatbelt check stop. did you get a ticket for it? |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2015 13:25:08 GMT -5
Just as one example, think how seatbelt laws went from a secondary offenses when stopped for other reasons to "click it or ticket" road stop areas. Stepping stones. Or from simple arrest and trial for drug possession to vehicle confiscation. Stepping stones. You have the experience of observation don't you ? If not a first hand experience ? I've gone through a seatbelt check stop. did you get a ticket for it? No, I've been wearing seatbelts since their first became available to me. My first car was a '68 mustang and it had them. I'm the physics guy, remember ? I think I wore them for about ten years before it became law where I was. Speed doesn't kill, it's the type and how sudden the stop.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 3, 2015 13:30:52 GMT -5
did you get a ticket for it? No, I've been wearing seatbelts since their first became available to me. My first car was a '68 mustang and it had them. I'm the physics guy, remember ? I think I wore them for about ten years before it became law where I was. Speed doesn't kill, it's the type and how sudden the stop. the reason i asked is because i was pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt and i was NOT ticketed for it. imo, highway patrol is an extortion scam. so, don't get me started. but i wasn't thinking of the CHP when you said "regulations". |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 4, 2015 2:39:58 GMT -5
did you get a ticket for it? No, I've been wearing seatbelts since their first became available to me. My first car was a '68 mustang and it had them. I'm the physics guy, remember ? I think I wore them for about ten years before it became law where I was. Speed doesn't kill, it's the type and how sudden the stop. Just as a aside...my experience with starting to wear them and never stopping was seeing a ad on the TV that mentioned that it took so many seconds to put them on..{ can't remember how many seconds were mentioned..} ..Next morning when I went out to car to go to where ever I remembered the ad..started to count out ..One thousand , two thousand ...and it took me like no time to snap em on...found I was more comfortable wearing them..held one up firmer..never stopped wearing them and years before they became legal to have to wear em...... |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2015 18:37:56 GMT -5
Ohhh goody! The seatbelt debate!
I am not against people wearing seatbelts... I'm against the unreasonable government mandate that people MUST wear seatbelts.
Seatbelts CAN kill. seatbelts CAN cause more injury than not being belted in can cause. Is it more likely to be either of those truths in an single accident? No. But both CAN happen... and because they CAN happen, it should be everyone individual right to choose for themselves.
The government does NOT have the right to tell you to do something that COULD cause your death or cause more serious injury than not doing it... no matter how small the possibility/probability.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2015 13:17:56 GMT -5
Ohhh goody! The seatbelt debate! I am not against people wearing seatbelts... I'm against the unreasonable government mandate that people MUST wear seatbelts. Seatbelts CAN kill. seatbelts CAN cause more injury than not being belted in can cause. Is it more likely to be either of those truths in an single accident? No. But both CAN happen... and because they CAN happen, it should be everyone individual right to choose for themselves. The government does NOT have the right to tell you to do something that COULD cause your death or cause more serious injury than not doing it... no matter how small the possibility/probability. The safety Nazis are taking over the country! Just kidding! I have to agree with you that forcing people to wear them kind of goes against the liberty thing. I really don't have a dog in the seatbelt fight since I've always worn them by choice. |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 8, 2015 14:08:00 GMT -5
Ohhh goody! The seatbelt debate! I am not against people wearing seatbelts... I'm against the unreasonable government mandate that people MUST wear seatbelts. Seatbelts CAN kill. seatbelts CAN cause more injury than not being belted in can cause. Is it more likely to be either of those truths in an single accident? No. But both CAN happen... and because they CAN happen, it should be everyone individual right to choose for themselves. The government does NOT have the right to tell you to do something that COULD cause your death or cause more serious injury than not doing it... no matter how small the possibility/probability. The safety Nazis are taking over the country! Just kidding! I have to agree with you that forcing people to wear them kind of goes against the liberty thing. I really don't have a dog in the seatbelt fight since I've always worn them by choice. One way to look at it is if you could guarantee that anyone in a accident ..seriouse one..is guaranteed to be dead after the event..then , while personally tragic..it effects just the individuals them selves ..their friends and families in grief...but the fact is many do survive..but badly and in some cases permanently injured and now you have the cost of those injuries impacting the rest of us..insurance companies ..which also affects the rest of us in expenses to cover these injuries and upkeep of the injured.. To have society mandate by law certain things for societys benefit..well I guess you can say it is the expense of being very civilized and able to get away from just trying to keep society together and functioning...price of progress...Why we..[society ] mandates by law many things...from animal rights...food controls..industry laws...schooling rules and on and on..seat belts mandated to be worn or else..just another one...I personally have no problem of them... |
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 9, 2015 21:02:14 GMT -5
Just saw this article and it leads into what I was trying to explain my feelings on the topic of a changed attitude possible regarding weapon carrying due to a changed society that we live in.. If I was on the train that this young man was murdered on..brutally according to the article...seems the murderer was completely out of control and wealding a knife...if I was unarmed...while I like to think I would intervene..I really am not sure I would..but if armed , definitely the assailant would have been dead..no question about it..No guarantee the victim would be alive ...but the assailant definitely would be down. I admit that there is always the possibility of those who carry would get into arguments over what ever and now have a weapon to back that up and while some of that might occur..over all..I don't think sit would be a big problem. www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-kevin-sutherland-metro-stabbing-folo-0710-20150709-story.html |
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:50:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2015 13:30:26 GMT -5
|
|
