Sex and guns are not even comparable...I swear you people will just compare anything to make yourself be right.
How are they different, in regard to your view? You said you want gun control because you think people who like guns are flawed. If other people think people who have premarital sex are flawed, then premarital sex also should be controlled. What's the difference?
Do you know how to read? Go back two pages.
Do you know how to read? Read the first post I made in this thread.
[qupte]You invoke judgments without knowing. EVERY ARGUMENT made on this thread is emotional with reason behind it. There are many pages...if you don't have the intiative to click and go back, that is your problem, not mine.[/quote]
Every argument made in favor of gun control is based on a foundation of emotion. Arguments against gun control may contain emotional elements, but are usually based on a foundation of reason. If you want to operate on the mental level of a child with an emphasis of emotion over reason, that's your problem.
Corvettes and having the weapons mentioned several pages ago show no valid point. I also don't believe people should be driving Corvettes down the highway because of the high rate of possible damage and end of life that can happen...there are laws against that...you against speeding laws and charges like, "Wreckless Op"?
So you believe that if someone has the capability to speed, or kill, they will? I believe you are projecting. If you can't own a corvette without speeding, that's a problem that YOU have. If you can't own a gun without killing somebody, that's a problem YOU have. Not anybody else.
Ok I'll defend it now.
Pro-Gun Control because:
Bad faith is the automatic mentality of those who believe that a gun ensures self-protection. 'Bad faith' is a philosophical existential view.
So you want to impose your narrow interpretation of the world on everyone else in it. How very morally superior of you. I'm sure it will work great once you kill off the billions of people who don't match your standards.
It is not right for the populace to be able to walk around with lethal weapons and no one knows about that. That is immoral, and gives too many probably dangers. Mental instability is on the rise in the West and the rest of the world. One incident is too many.
It is not right to prevent peaceful, law abiding people from having an adequate means to defend themselves through ineffectual laws that give criminals and evildoers a huge advantage. Mental instability is characterized by an inability to attribute effects properly to their cause (in other words, blaming an object for the action of a human).
I do support a full ban on hand guns because of the ability to conceal it. I support for the ability to own guns that are more efficient at self-defense, not to add more instability to an already unstable populace.
...a position based on fear and not on reality.
When you look at statistics, one can give either side with that. I'll give you an example:
The Chicago Hand Gun Ban...since the ban has been instituted, Chicago's murder rate decreased by 17 percent while American average has lowered by 25 percent.
Though the rate decreased (more slowly than the national average, mind you), Chicago has been one of the highest ranking cities for homicide since the handgun ban. A decreasing crime rate is less significant when the amount of crime is still greater than anywhere else.
People with charges of aggravated assault, manslaughter should not have the ability to have a firearm.
Charges, or convictions? Innocent until proven guilty.
They incited illegal activity and no forgiveness should be given to them...even if their crime had no guns being used. The government, the law has every right to say who can and can't have a gun because if they are going to institute laws that give order and peace, they are the ones to make the judgment.
The government has no such right, read the Constitution.
I do think it is a horrible example of the government to allow gun control for citizens but not make it illegal for people with terrorist organization ties to own a gun.
There is no definition of a terrorist organization. Depending on who is in power, you or I or both of us could be considered potential terrorist threats.
You can even look at Britain's 1997 Gun Control law and then you see a spike in that statistic, but then an up and down trail of lower but it doesn't go lower than what it was before 1968...as far as the information I can find. More reason to have gun control because the populace is not consistent with maintaining order with guns.
What are you talking about? The population is not consistent with child healthcare, should the government regulate who can have kids, and how many?
The Washington D.C. statistic is an interesting look on the issue. In 1976 a hand-gun law and trigger lock law becomes effective. You see a huge increase in homicides right after, but before it was repealed in 2008, you see a big decrease from that spike. Now, its not much argumentation to argue for free usage of guns if the statistic didn't drop below the previous stat before the law was introduced. So again, crime decreasing after a law was repealed. One can argue many angles with this.
Such as... the law was ineffective. I don't even see why you brought this up as it doesn't help your position in any way.
Yes I do believe in collective punishment that if a high percentage of people are killing with guns, people like you, who I assume is a law abiding citizen, to have their rights 'specifically defined' to own a weapon. Some cure to humanities inconsistencies with responsibility with firearms has to come to change my mind...never has happened.
What kind of car do you drive? If people with that model car are more likely to commit traffic violations, should you face greater scrutiny when attempting to buy one? Why should we punish innocent people for the wrongdoings of others?
In the end...the issue is beyond a simple access to guns. When we have countries that have complete gun access having less crime, etc., more blood on the nation's history etc. etc. I just think it makes more rational sense to allow gun control to be a real issue because of the instability of the mind of the human race.
Countries with less crime than the US have vastly different cultures. Maybe you should try Japan. The instability of the mind is a perfect reason NOT to give government- a human institution- overbearing control on individuals' personal lives.
I would have a government pro-active with protecting our nation from the likelihood of the incidents that humanity has been through than to ramble on with what only seems to be political idealism that to be true would require more travesties against humanity to even be reliable point of views in relation to the reality we live in in the 21st century. A reality that nine times out of ten, modernized society will not resort to the acts against humanity that we have seen before. I do at least trust one thing about the evolution of mankind...that we at least, lower the immorality of repetition. If you seriously think it is possible for a modernized country, in the modernized world to go back to something comparable to Stalin or Hitler...you are far behind of learning from the past(in a collective sense).
Germany was a modern country in a modern world. Russia, not so much, but its revolution occurred less than 100 years ago and 30 years ago it was the world's second superpower... until it collapsed. If you think a "modern" nation can't fall or turn to tyranny, you are willingly blind to history. Governments are exclusively responsible for the greatest evils in history; and, every nation falls eventually.
Link used for a reference...which also shows its own references:
Gun Control
[/quote]
Your source provides information that overwhelmingly exposes gun control as ineffective, so why do you still support it?
I'd still buy you a drink.
