Bad Things are Bad.

[Deadbolt]

Aren't they? How can we fix that?

Oh! I know! We can makes laws against it! *clap clap* Isn't that a GREAT idea? Then we won't have to worry about bad things. After all, when we illegalize things like drugs or alcohol, that works GREAT doesn't it? I mean, people wouldn't break the law would they? I'll bet if we illegalized Pornography, strip clubs and swearing in public it'd be a HUGE SUCCESS! people would see how wrong they are and stop doing bad things, then all would be sunshine and rainbows! =D *hugs self*

 

[chaz345]

Just like when we make guns illegal in some areas, "gun free zones" it makes it impossible for gun violence to occur there. NOT.

Many of the worst recent mass shootings have occurred in such so called gun free zones.

 

[NeTrips]

Would politicians still be exempted from following the laws?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Just like when we make guns illegal in some areas, "gun free zones" it makes it impossible for gun violence to occur there. NOT.

Many of the worst recent mass shootings have occurred in such so called gun free zones.

The problem is the massive proliferation of guns in the first place. Enacting gun free zones doesn't magic away the weapons themselves, nor the trigger-happy mentality the US's lax policy has engendered.

 

[TheReasoner]

I love it when people argue heatedly over a topic without knowing what they talk about.
You know, like saying "gun control is a terrible thing" without looking at differences between nations who have gun control and nations which don't have it.

On this particular topic it should be mentioned that 'control' does not mean 'elimination'. Something quite a few Americans don't seem to know.
Gun control here means controlling who can have a gun. How many he can have. Making sure he has a reason for having them. And, always knowing (as much as possible) where a gun is, and who owns it. Which can be immensely helpful in resolving a lot of crimes. And, it can ensure that should a person destabilize mentally, he won't be allowed to buy a gun.
What it does NOT mean is banning guns.




Making certain things illegal will not make them vanish, and of course things should not be illegal or legal just because. Legalizing prostitution won't do any good for instance. Nor will legalizing softer drugs do any good. Or banning alcohol for that matter. My point is, such decisions should be weighed and measured up against facts. And how it will be received culturally of course. Legalizing alcohol in certain Muslim countries for instance might cause some ruckus there. However, banning it here would be at least as bad if not worse.

 

[chaz345]

The problem is the massive proliferation of guns in the first place. Enacting gun free zones doesn't magic away the weapons themselves, nor the trigger-happy mentality the US's lax policy has engendered.

It's still a case where you are trying to deal with a bad thing by simply banning it. If that were going to work then wouldn't the existing ban on killing another person be effective?

Replace guns with drugs in your post and see if it still makes sense.

My point is that many people who are against banning bad things because it isn't effective are all for effectively banning guns. Why, if it isn't effective and shouldn't be done with some things does anyone think it will be effective with guns?


ANd the numbe rof guns is not the problem. Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership rate and less violence. I suspect that the same is true if you look at urban America versus rural. Probably more guns per capita in rural areas and definitely less gun violence. Then there's the fact that DC, with the strictest gun control laws in the country has the highest or second highest murder rate in the country for a long time running. Gun control costs lives, it doesn't save them.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's still a case where you are trying to deal with a bad thing by simply banning it.

I am doing no such thing. I advocate the removal of guns from North American society in its totality.

If that were going to work then wouldn't the existing ban on killing another person be effective?

Only on people who are staunch legalists.

Replace guns with drugs in your post and see if it still makes sense.

"The problem is the massive proliferation of drugs in the first place. Enacting drug free zones doesn't magic away the narcotics themselves, nor the pill-popping mentality the US's lax policy has engendered."

As far as I can tell, my point still stands: simply defining drug-free-zones will not magic away the inclination to use drugs, nor the drugs themselves.

My point is that many people who are against banning bad things because it isn't effective are all for effectively banning guns. Why, if it isn't effective and shouldn't be done with some things does anyone think it will be effective with guns?

Because people are idiots, quite frankly.

ANd the numbe rof guns is not the problem. Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership rate and less violence. I suspect that the same is true if you look at urban America versus rural. Probably more guns per capita in rural areas and definitely less gun violence. Then there's the fact that DC, with the strictest gun control laws in the country has the highest or second highest murder rate in the country for a long time running. Gun control costs lives, it doesn't save them.

Hmm, no: it's the guns. No guns, no shootings. I don't understand why this isn't obvious

 

[chaz345]

Hmm, no: it's the guns. No guns, no shootings. I don't understand why this isn't obvious

Again,more people die in DC, which has the strictest gun control laws in the country. They might not get shot, but they are still dead. Less guns may equal less shootings but it also seems to equal more dead people.

And looking at the converse more guns equals more deaths. Canada, with it's higher per capita gun ownership and lower gun violence disproves that.

The problem of violent crime(not just gun violence ) is a complex one and simplistic solutions like "get rid of the guns" will never be effective.

 

[Parmenio]

I am doing no such thing. I advocate the removal of guns from North American society in its totality.


Only on people who are staunch legalists.


"The problem is the massive proliferation of drugs in the first place. Enacting drug free zones doesn't magic away the narcotics themselves, nor the pill-popping mentality the US's lax policy has engendered."

As far as I can tell, my point still stands: simply defining drug-free-zones will not magic away the inclination to use drugs, nor the drugs themselves.


Because people are idiots, quite frankly.


Hmm, no: it's the guns. No guns, no shootings. I don't understand why this isn't obvious

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force."
- Bruce Montague

Honestly, I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms. Though our country may be great, it is not permanent. So often the general populace has been required to step in to correct their government's misdeeds, and I doubt seriously that my government will never require such a correction in the future.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

"One cannot have a right to life without the right to defend it with deadly force."
- Bruce Montague

Honestly, I would never willingly give up my right to bear arms. Though our country may be great, it is not permanent. So often the general populace has been required to step in to correct their government's misdeeds, and I doubt seriously that my government will never require such a correction in the future.

If it was a Constitutional right that you could rape underage girls, would you be so vhement in upholding it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Again,more people die in DC, which has the strictest gun control laws in the country. They might not get shot, but they are still dead. Less guns may equal less shootings but it also seems to equal more dead people.

Correlation does not imply causation. Can you demonstrate a link between the increased gun control and the increased death rate?

And looking at the converse more guns equals more deaths. Canada, with it's higher per capita gun ownership and lower gun violence disproves that.

The number of muders with firearms:

The US has 0.0279271 per 1,000 people.
Canada has 0.00502972 per 1,000 people.
The UK has 0.00102579 per 1,000 people.

Guess which nation has fewer guns per capita.

The problem of violent crime(not just gun violence ) is a complex one and simplistic solutions like "get rid of the guns" will never be effective.

I cite my own United Kingdom as evidence to the contrary.

 

[chaz345]

If it was a Constitutional right that you could rape underage girls, would you be so vhement in upholding it?

What greater good would be served by such a right? I ask because while the right to bear arms obviously has it's downside, the things that the previous poster cites makes it on the net, a good thing that is necessary to preserve essential freedoms.


But getting sort of back to the original post, even if one does see the guns themself as where the bad lies(a point I disagree with) how does making them illegal solve anything? The OP talked about the ineffectiveness of banning drugs or alcohol or any number of other things. How would eliminating guns even begin to address the fact that some people want to kill other people and how would it stop them from doing so? If you want to try to solve the problem of violence by banning the tool used you're going to have to ban a lot more than guns.

Note to the poster who said that gun control is not the same as banning guns: WC has clearly stated that it is their desire to eliminate all guns.

 

[chaz345]

Correlation does not imply causation. Can you demonstrate a link between the increased gun control and the increased death rate?


The number of muders with firearms:

The US has 0.0279271 per 1,000 people.
Canada has 0.00502972 per 1,000 people.
The UK has 0.00102579 per 1,000 people.

Guess which nation has fewer guns per capita.


I cite my own United Kingdom as evidence to the contrary.

Getting rid of guns only lowers gun violence. Of course fewer guns means fewer GUN deaths. But does it necessarily mean fewer TOTAL deaths?

And looking at your list of countries, Canada has a HIGHER per capita gun ownership than the US so clearly fewer guns equals fewer gun deaths is not always true. There's something else in play that the elimination of guns clearly won't address.

 

[Billnew]

The OP was pretty general, so I guess the
gun debate isn't really going off topic.

Simple thing: The world has nothing to fear from a law abiding gun owner, the world has everything to fear from a criminal with a gun.
in the USA, 95% of gun owners are law abding citizens,
so why unilaterally disarm the law abiding citizens, when you should be going after criminals.

Faith:
Who can own guns?
Anyone without a conviction of felony or history mental illness.
How many?
Why worry about how many? 1 or 100, if law abiding they are harmless to a law abiding society.
Reason for owning:
if they want a firearm, and meet the qualifications above, and aren't buying to comit a crime, who cares what the reason is? Self defense or target practice,
good enough.

Knowing who has and where the firearm is:
Makes it very easy for goverment to take all guns from all private citizens.
In the USA, Very few people that obtained a concealed carry(CCW) permit comitted crimes.(Last I heard only one, and that was person forgot he had his gun, and went into a gunfree area.)Hundreds of thousands CCW's
with limited crime. Why would a criminal spend $100+ to get a permit, when they were planning on breaking the law
anyway?

Making guns illegal except for goverment permission would probably cause as much a ruckus in the USA, as legalizing alcohol in Muslim countrys.

 

[Parmenio]

If it was a Constitutional right that you could rape underage girls, would you be so vhement in upholding it?

Are you serious? I bolded the fact that it is my right but didn't even use that as an argument. If you'll note the actual post, you'll see what my argument is.

 

[bgrass1234]

Aren't they? How can we fix that?

Oh! I know! We can makes laws against it! *clap clap* Isn't that a GREAT idea? Then we won't have to worry about bad things. After all, when we illegalize things like drugs or alcohol, that works GREAT doesn't it? I mean, people wouldn't break the law would they? I'll bet if we illegalized Pornography, strip clubs and swearing in public it'd be a HUGE SUCCESS! people would see how wrong they are and stop doing bad things, then all would be sunshine and rainbows! =D *hugs self*

You want to know whats more evil than what you listed. Its the initiation of violence against those doing those activities. To use violence to do anything other than defend yourself from aggression is one of the most disgusting things I can think of. It purely evil and selfish. Yet most of this thread is a discussion over using violence to keep someone from creating, sell and owning personal property. Yet the only arguments made are those of utility. Sence when does the benefit determine morality? Just because more or less people may be harmed is not a justification or opposition of any laws pertaining to gun ownership. It is a question of a moral use of violence and to use violence to keep someone from owning an item is immoral.

 

[Maxwell511]

Nor will legalizing softer drugs do any good. Or banning alcohol for that matter.

I disagree. Banning alcohol would make things worse for people and leaving things like cannabis illegal, or more specifically possess for personal use illegal, causes the situation to be worse than it need be.

In terms of potentially major ill effects the only reason weed wins over drink is because a guy walking that the street with an beer, that is stopped by the Guards, does not suffer the same blow to his career prospects as a guy with a joint.

A hangover can last for a day, a criminal record lasts for life.

 

[TheReasoner]

Faith:
Who can own guns?

You must be over 16 (or is it 18 now?) for shotguns and hunting rifles. 21 for handguns. You must also have a license. Either for hunting, or a membership to a firearms club. Or, a collector's license. Or, of course, a job in the army. And, as you say:

Anyone without a conviction of felony or history mental illness.

How many?

Only as many as you can safely store. (meaning you must have a safe for the weapons if you get a certain amount. And a separate safe, or lockable storage for ammunition)

Why worry about how many? 1 or 100, if law abiding they are harmless to a law abiding society.

You must have a reason for each firearm. You cannot own an unlimited amount of arms. Hunting birds gives a reason to own a shotgun. Deer, a light rifle. Moose a heavier rifle. Target shooting (for a couple of years with a club pistol) for a handgun.

Reason for owning:
if they want a firearm, and meet the qualifications above, and aren't buying to comit a crime, who cares what the reason is? Self defense or target practice,
good enough.

Self defense? Culturally that's nonsense. Besides, I'm pretty sure it would be statistically as well. Mostly guns owned for self defense end up wreaking havoc rather than help defending anyone. Plus, it gives a false sense of safety. What's more, using a gun against a human being requires a heck of a lot more training than shooting at targets or animals does.
Reasons for owning are listed above.

Knowing who has and where the firearm is:
Makes it very easy for goverment to take all guns from all private citizens.
In the USA, Very few people that obtained a concealed carry(CCW) permit comitted crimes.(Last I heard only one, and that was person forgot he had his gun, and went into a gunfree area.)Hundreds of thousands CCW's
with limited crime. Why would a criminal spend $100+ to get a permit, when they were planning on breaking the law
anyway?

Controlling who has weapons will not create a visible benefit for some time. And you'll never gain 100% control anyway. But, if you can control the majority, and reduce the amount of weapons in the hands of criminals, this will have an impact. Which, judging by your crime statistics, is needed.

Making guns illegal except for goverment permission would probably cause as much a ruckus in the USA, as legalizing alcohol in Muslim countrys.

Who said they would be made illegal? That's pretty silly. I don't think our own restrictions could apply to you because of your history. I honestly think it would be better. It works great here. But, in your culture it won't work without certain preparations. Just like socialism for now would not work in the US until you really feel the need for it. We can't force it on you. And trying to force it on yourselves would only work against the intention. Just like forcing democracy on nations who are not read for that works against it's intentions.
BUT; What would be beneficial is some modicum of control of who has guns. The old idea of revolution is - romantic though it may be - holds no real potential in the US today. Unless all the people get together. And you know that will never happen.

 

[TheReasoner]

I disagree. Banning alcohol would make things worse for people and leaving things like cannabis illegal, or more specifically possess for personal use illegal, causes the situation to be worse than it need be.

In terms of potentially major ill effects the only reason weed wins over drink is because a guy walking that the street with an beer, that is stopped by the Guards, does not suffer the same blow to his career prospects as a guy with a joint.

A hangover can last for a day, a criminal record lasts for life.

I never argued for making alcohol illegal. I argued against it. As I argued against making drugs legal.

 

[Maxwell511]

I never argued for making alcohol illegal. I argued against it. As I argued against making drugs legal.

Why should cannabis be illegal and alcohol not?

I can see no possible argument in favour of such a situation. The only way I can even make sense of it is so to assume that people in general are brainwashed into believing alcohol is not a drug. You cannot argue against making drugs (specifically cannabis I don't want to get into the other ones) legal if you accept that it is okay for drink to be legal. Alcohol is a drug.

If you compare the two on a level playing field alcohol is worse. You don't hear of people getting cannabis-poisoning and dying. You don't have emergency rooms clogged up on weekends due to rowdy stoners.

My general point though was that this arbitrary distinction does have negative effects in the long term that are artifically constructed and not necessary. Having things illegal can make things worse.