If you own a gun and not a farmer youre a coward
10-27-2009
, 06:58 PM
10-27-2009
, 06:59 PM
10-27-2009
, 07:02 PM
10-27-2009
, 07:02 PM
10-27-2009
, 07:08 PM
10-27-2009
, 07:09 PM
Quote:
So after wading through 6 pages of trolling, I have decided to make my BBV debute in this politics type thread.
Its interesting how this thread has become mostly an AUS vs. USA type thread, where logic seems to be mostly absent, and trolling is rampent. My 2 cents:
1) I cannot and will not dispute the murder rate in the US, it is significantly higher than (most) of the western world. However, as discussed many times over in this thread, this is a problem with violence and culture, not guns in themselves. The socio-economics of the US cannot be compared to most of AUS and the EU. We are a true melting pot, with the poverty level of many ghettos riveling that of the 3rd world countries we are not allowed to compare this too. The racial and economic diversity in the US, while being the basis for our country, also contributes to vast crime. If you think other countries deal with this problem easily, just look at the race riots in AUS the situation in S. Africa. Large numbers of disenfranchised poor who feel their only hope is crime contribute to a majority of the the homicides in the USThere will always be a % of the population in this type of situation in most countries including Australia. Your situation is not unique.
2) That being said, the argument can be made that without easy access to guns, many crimes could be prevented. JA and Bogan, this seems to be a point you are very set on, and I understand it. However, it is not a reasonable undertaking at this point. It is unrealistic to think we could un-arm the criminal class in the US without vast civil liberties violations, and even then it would be ineffective. We cannot control the flow of illegal narcotics into our country (a multi-billion doller industry), and we will not be able to control criminal access to guns. You can make comments all you want about how this makes the US inferior and full of cowards, but it is fact. We would have better luck de-criminalizing drugs and decreasing their street value than attempting to take guns away from those who use them to protect their livelyhood.In most cases, it is also unrealistic to think that guns can be used as a deterrent, when a criminal that has his mind made up that he is going to gets things done only needs a few quick shots at you before you get the thing out of the holster.
3) If the above paragraph is correct, we have conculded that it would be very unlikely to succesfully disarm those in the US we do not feel safe having guns. If this is the case, we can return to the argument that if we criminalize guns, only criminals will have themObviously there will be a police force in place, its not complete anarchy
. I, and most people would agree that this is a bad thing. If it were possible to go back in time and make it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves, your arguments hold more waterWhy would this be more difficult than say in the mid 90s?. This is not possible however, and with that being the case, the argument for taking guns away from law abiding citizens loses credibility. I am proud that those of you in Australia and other countries are able to defend yourselves with cricket bats and fists, however if a criminal breaks into my house I am not willing to take that chance. Maybe I am a coward. It is also important to understand that fists, bats, boots, knives, ect can kill. I work as a firefighter/paramedic. I spend ~72 hours a week working on an ambulance in mid sized city in the US. I see violence on a daily basis, and murder victims on occasion. People can very effectively injury and kill each other with many things other than guns. I've seen college kids killed in fist fights where they got knocked out and then hit their head on the ground causing sub-dural bleeds and then death. I've also seen people shot through the face with a 9mm pistol. Both people were equally dead.I am also involved in the medical profession, and can understand what you are saying here. However, the likelihood or a gunshot causing instant death is far greater than being hit with a weapon imo
If you want to write me off as another "redneck" gun loving American, thats fine. I probably don't fit your stereotypes, as I am fit, college educated (uni for those of you outside of the US), I don't live in a trailor, I'm well traveled and work in a job that attempts to give back to my community, and one that most would not describe as "cowardly". I played rugby, and have been in fights. However, I own guns. I own guns to hunt with, and a .45 handgun for personal safety. Due to my line of work, I have recieved death threats, and can be a target due to my access to narcotics. Am I a coward for wanting to be able to protect myself from a potentional armed criminal? I would like to think not, but I can't control your opinions.For each normal, well-adjusted individual such as yourself, there will be some nutcases that get their hands on guns that shouldn't do. This is inevitable due to how easily available they are. This will only escalate the problem, with more law-abiding citizens wanting guns. The solution is to limit the total number of circulating guns, therefore limiting the total number of murders (this last point obviously cannot be considered fact, but based on papers I quoted earlier itt and the above logic, that is my humble opinion).
Its interesting how this thread has become mostly an AUS vs. USA type thread, where logic seems to be mostly absent, and trolling is rampent. My 2 cents:
1) I cannot and will not dispute the murder rate in the US, it is significantly higher than (most) of the western world. However, as discussed many times over in this thread, this is a problem with violence and culture, not guns in themselves. The socio-economics of the US cannot be compared to most of AUS and the EU. We are a true melting pot, with the poverty level of many ghettos riveling that of the 3rd world countries we are not allowed to compare this too. The racial and economic diversity in the US, while being the basis for our country, also contributes to vast crime. If you think other countries deal with this problem easily, just look at the race riots in AUS the situation in S. Africa. Large numbers of disenfranchised poor who feel their only hope is crime contribute to a majority of the the homicides in the USThere will always be a % of the population in this type of situation in most countries including Australia. Your situation is not unique.
2) That being said, the argument can be made that without easy access to guns, many crimes could be prevented. JA and Bogan, this seems to be a point you are very set on, and I understand it. However, it is not a reasonable undertaking at this point. It is unrealistic to think we could un-arm the criminal class in the US without vast civil liberties violations, and even then it would be ineffective. We cannot control the flow of illegal narcotics into our country (a multi-billion doller industry), and we will not be able to control criminal access to guns. You can make comments all you want about how this makes the US inferior and full of cowards, but it is fact. We would have better luck de-criminalizing drugs and decreasing their street value than attempting to take guns away from those who use them to protect their livelyhood.In most cases, it is also unrealistic to think that guns can be used as a deterrent, when a criminal that has his mind made up that he is going to gets things done only needs a few quick shots at you before you get the thing out of the holster.
3) If the above paragraph is correct, we have conculded that it would be very unlikely to succesfully disarm those in the US we do not feel safe having guns. If this is the case, we can return to the argument that if we criminalize guns, only criminals will have themObviously there will be a police force in place, its not complete anarchy
. I, and most people would agree that this is a bad thing. If it were possible to go back in time and make it more difficult for criminals to arm themselves, your arguments hold more waterWhy would this be more difficult than say in the mid 90s?. This is not possible however, and with that being the case, the argument for taking guns away from law abiding citizens loses credibility. I am proud that those of you in Australia and other countries are able to defend yourselves with cricket bats and fists, however if a criminal breaks into my house I am not willing to take that chance. Maybe I am a coward. It is also important to understand that fists, bats, boots, knives, ect can kill. I work as a firefighter/paramedic. I spend ~72 hours a week working on an ambulance in mid sized city in the US. I see violence on a daily basis, and murder victims on occasion. People can very effectively injury and kill each other with many things other than guns. I've seen college kids killed in fist fights where they got knocked out and then hit their head on the ground causing sub-dural bleeds and then death. I've also seen people shot through the face with a 9mm pistol. Both people were equally dead.I am also involved in the medical profession, and can understand what you are saying here. However, the likelihood or a gunshot causing instant death is far greater than being hit with a weapon imo If you want to write me off as another "redneck" gun loving American, thats fine. I probably don't fit your stereotypes, as I am fit, college educated (uni for those of you outside of the US), I don't live in a trailor, I'm well traveled and work in a job that attempts to give back to my community, and one that most would not describe as "cowardly". I played rugby, and have been in fights. However, I own guns. I own guns to hunt with, and a .45 handgun for personal safety. Due to my line of work, I have recieved death threats, and can be a target due to my access to narcotics. Am I a coward for wanting to be able to protect myself from a potentional armed criminal? I would like to think not, but I can't control your opinions.For each normal, well-adjusted individual such as yourself, there will be some nutcases that get their hands on guns that shouldn't do. This is inevitable due to how easily available they are. This will only escalate the problem, with more law-abiding citizens wanting guns. The solution is to limit the total number of circulating guns, therefore limiting the total number of murders (this last point obviously cannot be considered fact, but based on papers I quoted earlier itt and the above logic, that is my humble opinion).
10-27-2009
, 07:16 PM
10-27-2009
, 07:53 PM
Last edited by bicolor_le_bond; 10-27-2009 at 07:56 PM.
Reason: "Having the option" ironically is a consequence of having more gun-wielding criminals to deal with