Victory for the Constitution! | 119 comments (119 topical, 0 hidden)
False (none / 0)

 


Since the world already contains a large number of guns ,and criminals by definition do not follow the law, all gun control does is assure asymetrical power between a criminal and his victim.  With legalized guns at least the victim has a choice to be on equal footing and the criminal has to wonder if his target is a dangerous wolf of a docile sheep.  


Then, basically let everyone in the society be armed? Thats absolute insanity, I barely trust people to vote let alone to hold everyone else's lives in their hands. I do not own a gun, none of my friends families own guns, yet we seem to be relatively safe. This logic you present is non-existent outside of the US, no where is this argued apart from the US. Basically no one here would buy this specious argument because its transparently bull-shit. Civilized countries and cultures realize that "an eye for an eye makes the world go blind"...sorry for the cliche, but its true. The end of gun crime has to start somewhere, it is a question of the chicken and egg, so lets just pick one or the other and get it done with. In addition, how many innocent people are killed when people ASSUME they are doing nefarious things and are not? Its just a all-round HORRID idea, created by the gun-lobby to SCARE the American people into supporting their profits. American, right-wing politics = politics of fear, no logic necessary.


"The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate demand.  Supply side solutions are pointless."


Err...wrong, the solution is to BAN HAND GUN PRODUCTION (including bullets)...problem solved. Yes gun crime will continue after the ban, but over the years through attrition the rate of gun crime will decrease to near nil. Again, re-read what I wrote not what you want to read.

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 02:21:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I've got an idea (none / 0)
Why don't you focus on WHY people kill eachother and not WHAT they use? 

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 04:35:58 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Bc (none / 0)
thats only dealing with 50% of the problem...no guns...no gun crime...crime will always exist so why empower the scum? If there are no guns...and no gun crime...then normal people do not need them! OMG LOGIC!

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:28:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Realism (none / 0)
Because your logic only works in your simplified imaginary world.  Sure wouldn't it be great if everyone could live in peace and we could magically make all guns and weapons disapear?  Group hug anyone? 

Unfortunatly the real world doesn't work like that.  Guns have been invented so they will always exist, you can't uninvent technology.  You can pass laws banning guns.  You can limit manufacturing.  However there are already hundreds of millions to billions of guns in existance.  You can't get rid of them all.  And even if you some how could, you couldn't prevent people from manufacturing guns and ammo underground.  It doesn't take much to mold bullets from melted wheel weights.  Gunpowder is simply charcoal, sulfer and potassium nitrate. 

As for the practicality of confiscating weapons. the US has had over 100k troops doing house to house searches all over Iraq and they can't even come close to even slowing down the avaliablity of arms.  The only practical outcome is a situation where the opressive government and criminals have guns and law abiding citizens can only hope they both decide to leave them alone.  As even you have admited there will always be crime and since you can't really eliminate guns there will always be gun crime.  I will grant you that with highly restricted firearm avaliability criminals may decide to stick to swords and knives, but this still gives  them an advantage over law abiding citizens because they can't carry weapons in your "safe" world. 

I do however support more training and education about gun safety and responsible gun ownership.  A big part of America's problems (guns, alcohol, sex etc) stem from the fact that our culture both celebrates them and demonizes them at the same time.  Becasue we spend so much time telling our kids that they are all bad we are never really honest with them and teach them how to use them reasponsibly.  The swiss don't have problems with gun violence despite their high ownership because the people who own them have been trained how to use them properly.  The french don't have a bunch of alcoholic high school students because they are tought to drink casually and don't have to wait till their parents leave to have a major kegger behind their backs.  The real problem in America is that we have been so coddled and tought to think that everything is someone else's fault that we have completely lost all sense of personal responsibility (credit card debt and mortgage crisis anyone?).  Fix the core problem and maybe we can talk about limiting gun ownership. 

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 10:05:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Imagination (none / 0)

I was listening to Sviridov's classic Time Forward...enjoying life...then I read your post!

"Because your logic only works in your simplified imaginary world.  Sure wouldn't it be great if everyone could live in peace and we could magically make all guns and weapons disapear?  Group hug anyone? "

Where did I say to ban all forms of gun production, and where did I say that all guns were to disappear? The one with the imagination here is you, making up arguments that aren't there...since this is the thesis of your entire argument...you really wasted your time. Grade: F *I mark papers...and you would fail in my class* :)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 10:39:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You were right about one thing (none / 0)
I certainly am wasting my time with you!

Rebuttal:

"Where did I say to ban all forms of gun production, and where did I say that all guns were to disappear? "

Post before:


" If there are no guns...and no gun crime...then normal people do not need them! OMG LOGIC!"

Logic?  I feel for the poor schmucks that get stuck with you as their TA!

by alphasigmookie on 06/28/2008 11:03:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong... (none / 0)

Before, I made a qualification specifying which forms of guns should be banned from production:

If there were less guns, there would be less gun related crime (duh!), by less guns I mean not merely restricting the access to guns but to stop production of hand guns.

 Err...wrong, the solution is to BAN HAND GUN PRODUCTION (including bullets)...problem solved.

Secondly, I never said I was against every form of gun ownership:

I am ok with firearms for hunting, or recreational use, but I do not see ANY utility in hand guns. 

ERGO, you lose...all refernces to guns after those qualifications, implied those qualifications to be assumed by the astitude reader...you get a F still....burn! 

 

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:35:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Funny goy you are! (none / 0)

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/28/2008 11:57:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What the hell (none / 0)

would know about freedom and liberty? You would mount government controlled cameras in your home if it meant getting a tax break.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Ben Franklin, one of our founders.

"During time of war, the president is given far-reaching executive authority to prosecute the war. Even the Bill of Rights do not supersede this authority."

KenTX, neo con boot licker. 

by z1p101 on 06/29/2008 01:16:45 AM EST

[ Parent ]
z1p101 knows what's up! (none / 0)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. "

Ben Franklin, one of our founders.

I love that quote!  Based on that statement i'm assuming you're supporter of the 2A!  Without the 2A the rest of the BOR is virtually useless! 

by alphasigmookie on 06/29/2008 05:31:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Of course (none / 0)

you can't pick and choose which ones you like and which ones you don't for political expediency like Ken does.

by z1p101 on 06/29/2008 01:01:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Outrage? (none / 0)

I only have enough left for what has happened not for what might have happened.

"Zippy is much more concerned about the warrantless surveillance of a cell phone conversation between an al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan and another al Qaeda operative in Iraq."

If that were the case I would not be concerned. However, the White House has admitted to wire tapping people within our boarders without warrants. They say they were only doing it Al Quada members. Why should I believe them? True Conservatives and Libertarians are distrustful of government by nature. What does that make you? I suggest you take your test again and be honest this time.

Don't bother telling me about your football carrier or your dad or calling me gay because I don't care.

"Zippy is much more concerned about the constitutional rights of an al Qaeda operative, taken prisoner on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He wants to give them a jury trial in the American courts."

There are many documented cases of people who were picked up in the "Afghanistan sweep" who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and were falsely accused. Don't bother to link to your "they rejoined the battle" stories because if I was picked up for no reason and shipped off to a secret prison where I was put in "stress techniques" for years all I would be thinking the whole time is if I get out of here I will look for payback. If you were half the man you claim to be you would understand that but you would most likely go back to your boot licking ways.

"Zippy is much more concerned about military personnel interrogating al Qaeda detainees with stress techniques."

Living in a society that prides itself in liberty, freedom and democracy is not the safest way to live but you do need to lead by example.

To sum up, if you allow them to take one part of your Bill of Rights away it will not be long before they want them all. If they can throw "them" into secret prisons forever it will not be long before they come for you. History teaches us that and in my opinion it is not worth a lousy tax break. The odds that I will be shot to death are higher than any other industrialized country but I accept this risk because I believe in our way of life. Isn't that what you are always trying to explain to Nick? Since you are such a Libertarian and a Goldwater fan you should understand these concepts.

by z1p101 on 06/30/2008 03:05:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
stubborn (none / 0)
for some stupid reason I kept thinking he is capable of reasoanble thought.  I guess I was wrong.  Oh well, I tried...

by alphasigmookie on 06/29/2008 05:35:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You better not (none / 0)
be talking about me Mr. illiterate.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 06/29/2008 11:34:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Victory for the Constitution! | 119 comments (119 topical, 0 hidden)