How can anyone oppose the second amendment?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[Alls that does matter is that not too long ago a guy shot and murdered two people because they were stealing his neighbour's TV and that was a-ok. I find that just awful. And i brought up the UK as an example of a country were guns are limited but, contrary to what you make out, people are not constantly robbed and murdered by gun-owning criminals.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="worthyofnote"]

It's a constitutional right, originally set in place for the people to arm and protect themselves from an oppressive government. Of course, times have changed since it's inception.

worthyofnote

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]

[Alls that does matter is that not too long ago a guy shot and murdered two people because they were stealing his neighbour's TV and that was a-ok. I find that just awful. And i brought up the UK as an example of a country were guns are limited but, contrary to what you make out, people are not constantly robbed and murdered by gun-owning criminals.

Ninja-Hippo

"hey thief, is that my plasma TV you have there? oh, fine! but i'm calling the cops on you! hopefully they find you! Hee Hee!"

:|

positivebalance

"hey thief, is that my plasma TV you have there? oh, fine! but i'm calling the cops on you! hopefully they find you! Hee Hee!"

:|

positivebalance

If we're willing to accept that criminals will have access to weapons regardless of the law, then we must also accept that said thief could very well have a weapon of their own. Which raises the question: at what point is it preferable to risk your safety and/or the safety of others in order to confront a criminal (nevermind criminals)?

The hero fantasy of using a gun to ward off some would-be criminals is ludicrous: you won't necessarily know if they're armed, or how they'll act in a confrontation, or if you'll be able to get the drop on them, or even how many there are. Unless you're certain the criminals are violent and plan to harm you/someone else (and I'm willing to bet that's a pretty damn rare occurrence in the western world), why would you ever risk confronting them?

It was a joke.:(LJS9502_basic

Well they have a high percentage of knife deaths...and the gun crimes are rising while decreasing in the US...but my point was that the UK does not allow individual ownership like the US but they DO have gun crime. IE..illegal firearms.LJS9502_basic

Oh and by the way Ninja.....that was in response to why condoms aren't used. I wasn't speaking for myself. You were incorrect. I'd edit...but I'd get the numbers again.....:xLJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Oh and by the way Ninja.....that was in response to why condoms aren't used. I wasn't speaking for myself. You were incorrect. I'd edit...but I'd get the numbers again.....:xNinja-Hippo

wherever there are people, there will be psycho killers ready to kill you for no reason at all. there will also be coward bystanders who'll just walk by if you're getting mugged. even with strict gun laws, street gangs and thugs will always find a way to get weapons one way or another.

pretty much, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

positivebalance

Stringent gun control can dramatically reduce the number of guns in the country and thus the number of violent crime committed with guns. You won't get rid of all the guns, but you'd drastically reduce access to them for even criminals. Knives/blunt objects can still seriously hurt you, but they're less dangerous and give you more of a chance to defend yourself.

Not saying I agree with outlawing guns in the US, but I don't see how you can't at least understand the opposite position, even if you disagree on how effective it will be.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Oh and by the way Ninja.....that was in response to why condoms aren't used. I wasn't speaking for myself. You were incorrect. I'd edit...but I'd get the numbers again.....:xLJS9502_basic

That's why i said it's one of those things i think people adopt/dismiss whenever its convenient. One can indeed feel threatened when someone enters their home. That really convenient, arbitrary and incredibly rare scenario doesn't really justify killing another person or owning a gun to do so in my eyes however. Ninja-Hippo

I don't think anyone has ever said you couldn't have that opinion.

The problem, in my eyes, is people trying to make their opinions law when they have no idea when something horrible like that might happen. You might think you are protecting the vast majority, but that hasn't been proven in a society that used to have guns, but implemented a ban on them.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]That's why i said it's one of those things i think people adopt/dismiss whenever its convenient. One can indeed feel threatened when someone enters their home. That really convenient, arbitrary and incredibly rare scenario doesn't really justify killing another person or owning a gun to do so in my eyes however. airshocker

I don't think anyone has ever said you couldn't have that opinion.

The problem, in my eyes, is people trying to make their opinions law when they have no idea when something horrible like that might happen. You might think you are protecting the vast majority, but that hasn't been proven in a society that used to have guns, but implemented a ban on them.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] That's why i said it's one of those things i think people adopt/dismiss whenever its convenient. One can indeed feel threatened when someone enters their home. That really convenient, arbitrary and incredibly rare scenario doesn't really justify killing another person or owning a gun to do so in my eyes however. LJS9502_basic

The UK used to have guns, but now has strict gun control. The people are not at the mercy of gun toting thugs day in day out. I'm also not trying to make anything law. I don't think gun control could ever work in America. Ninja-Hippo

You're comparing two different time periods and two different countries. They're not comparable.

Perhaps if guns weren't ingrained in our society from it's inception, gun control MIGHT work. But this far in our country's existance? It would do much more harm than good. That's been proven.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] That's why i said it's one of those things i think people adopt/dismiss whenever its convenient. One can indeed feel threatened when someone enters their home. That really convenient, arbitrary and incredibly rare scenario doesn't really justify killing another person or owning a gun to do so in my eyes however. Ninja-Hippo

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

airshocker

Everyone deserves compassion. Compassion does not entail giving someone whatever they want; it entails acting with their best interest in mind and out of no malice, anger, hatred, or spite of any kind. The abandonment of compassion is the abandonment of one's humanity and the poisoning of one's soul for scant temporary benefits.

I swear, if I see the quote "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" one more time I'm going to shoot someone.

Everyone deserves compassion. Compassion does not entail giving someone whatever they want; it entails acting with their best interest in mind and out of no malice, anger, hatred, or spite of any kind. The abandonment of compassion is the abandonment of one's humanity and the poisoning of one's soul for scant temporary benefits.

GabuEx

They don't deserve compassion at the expense of somebody else, though.

It makes no sense, to me, to care more about the criminal than the victim.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

GabuEx

Everyone deserves compassion. Compassion does not entail giving someone whatever they want; it entails acting with their best interest in mind and out of no malice, anger, hatred, or spite of any kind. The abandonment of compassion is the abandonment of one's humanity and the poisoning of one's soul for scant temporary benefits.

Just a few thoughts on the topic: 1) The picture you paint of gun control is that nobody will have a gun, and therefore all the 'outlaws' will have guns and the world will be powerless to stop them. Guns are outlawed in the UK and we are not all at the mercy of gun-toting mobs of criminals. Shootings and killings by firearm are a teeny fraction of what they are in the US (taking into account population of course). So that's that point dealt with. 2) If outlaws DO have guns, that does not mean everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. In America you can shoot and kill another human being over a TV. I would much rather people be able to get away with stealing a TV once in a while then live in a society were property and goods are valued higher than life. 3) The fewer guns there are out there, the easier it is for police to deal with criminals who use guns via identifying the weapon/casings they used. In a city with very high gun ownership/use, the police haven't got a chance of narrowing something like that down. :)Ninja-Hippo

No violent crime should be tolerated.

A person who needs to steal anything from another person doesn't deserve mercy or compassion.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Guns most likely do not help with public safety. However, the issue is about personal freedoms and rights.

positivebalance

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]The UK used to have guns, but now has strict gun control. The people are not at the mercy of gun toting thugs day in day out. I'm also not trying to make anything law. I don't think gun control could ever work in America. airshocker

You're comparing two different time periods and two different countries. They're not comparable.

Perhaps if guns weren't ingrained in our society from it's inception, gun control MIGHT work. But this far in our country's existance? It would do much more harm than good. That's been proven.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]The UK used to have guns, but now has strict gun control. The people are not at the mercy of gun toting thugs day in day out. I'm also not trying to make anything law. I don't think gun control could ever work in America. Ninja-Hippo

You're comparing two different time periods and two different countries. They're not comparable.

Perhaps if guns weren't ingrained in our society from it's inception, gun control MIGHT work. But this far in our country's existance? It would do much more harm than good. That's been proven.

At a guess.....the past when the UK had gun ownership which you brought up...and the US today.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="MaxPred2010"]liberals LOVE using the Constitution for Freedom of Religion, whenver they defend that Ground Zero mosque. But when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, all of a sudden they don't have much love for the Constitution.bbkkristian

I think this would be good for everybody to read. Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

I think this would be good for everybody to read. Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

whet40

Lol. Great read.

they gun shy

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Because they live in a place where they don't witness the death and destruction criminals cause. The second amendment is also in place so the government could never control the population by force.

The UK used to have guns, but now has strict gun control. The people are not at the mercy of gun toting thugs day in day out. I'm also not trying to make anything law. I don't think gun control could ever work in America. Ninja-Hippo

If I recall gun crime in the Uk went up after the gun control laws.

The Founding Fathers knew all too well that King George could take away private citizens' weapons if he so desired.

They felt that private gun ownership should be a right, and I wholeheartedly agree.

Responsible gun owners should not be penalized.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Everyone deserves compassion. Compassion does not entail giving someone whatever they want; it entails acting with their best interest in mind and out of no malice, anger, hatred, or spite of any kind. The abandonment of compassion is the abandonment of one's humanity and the poisoning of one's soul for scant temporary benefits.

airshocker

They don't deserve compassion at the expense of somebody else, though.

It makes no sense, to me, to care more about the criminal than the victim.

Who's caring more about the criminal than the victim? If someone was robbed, one may easily have compassion both at what happened to the victim, and to desire to rectify their situation, and at the state of mind that lead the criminal to his chosen course of action, and to desire to have him see the error of his ways. I don't understand why people often make this out to be a binary choice between caring about the criminal or about the victim, as though one implies the impossibility of the other. People don't commit crimes because they're evil; they commit crimes because the path they have been placed on in life - their parents, their place of birth, their friends, their schools, their neighborhoods, and whatever else - have lead them to see it as the best option for them in life. And that is nothing but pitiable. It doesn't excuse their actions, but neither does it excuse those who treat them as though they are no longer human simply because of their chosen path in life.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Everyone deserves compassion. Compassion does not entail giving someone whatever they want; it entails acting with their best interest in mind and out of no malice, anger, hatred, or spite of any kind. The abandonment of compassion is the abandonment of one's humanity and the poisoning of one's soul for scant temporary benefits.

They don't deserve compassion at the expense of somebody else, though.

It makes no sense, to me, to care more about the criminal than the victim.

Who's caring more about the criminal than the victim? If someone was robbed, one may easily have compassion both at what happened to the victim, and to desire to rectify their situation, and at the state of mind that lead the criminal to his chosen course of action, and to desire to have him see the error of his ways. I don't understand why people often make this out to be a binary choice between caring about the criminal or about the victim, as though one implies the impossibility of the other. People don't commit crimes because they're evil; they commit crimes because the path they have been placed on in life - their parents, their place of birth, their friends, their schools, their neighborhoods, and whatever else - have lead them to see it as the best option for them in life. And that is nothing but pitiable. It doesn't excuse their actions, but neither does it excuse those who treat them as though they are no longer human simply because of their chosen path in life.

i disagree you commit crimes because you made a choice a voluntary choice. if a person voluntary decides to invade my house im voluntary shooting its not how i was raised its not how he was raised choices were made it is me or him and quite frankly im pulling for me. sure things can influence this decision but at the end of the day i dont care if its a mentally unstable person at age 30 commits a murder try him like any other person and im tired of the oh poor criminal his hard life lead him to this decision crap. look i almost killed myself was high as a kite at some points and fallen off the deep end yet somehow i never killed anyone and if i did would you feel sorry for me if i hurt your mother? i highly doubt it. that article posted above was golden and true and its really what the second amendment is about defending yourself from a massive overgrown tyranically government sort of like that one we have now and have been getting for years now. thats why liberals are in favor of control they deny this fact and its often considered crazy what a king in a american your nuts but are gun owners really nuts? is it so far fetched that politicians want to be treated as royality?kayoticdreamz

Sure, you made a choice, a voluntary choice. But you don't make a choice in a vacuum. You make a choice because it is what you feel to be the best option for yourself. And what you consider the best option for yourself is based on your desires in life. And your desires in life do not come arbitrarily. They are the culmination of your entire history, your entire background, and what it has lead you to value in life. There's a reason why the cliche that one ought to walk a mile in a man's shoes before judging him has become a cliche. It's because it's true. Unless I have experienced a person's life; unless I have lived through what a person has lived through; unless I have felt every last piece of his pain; unless I am given his brain and everything that might be wrong with it - unless all of that comes to pass, I am in no position to judge that person. That does not mean I am in no position to stop that person from achieving his goals, should I find those goals to be mutually exclusive with my own goals and my own values. But it does mean that I am in no position to call him evil, to call him bad, or to call him deserving of a merciless and uncompassionate treatment. Would I feel sorry for you if you hurt my mother? Absolutely I would. I would stop you from hurting my mother if I could, and I would restrain you and prevent you from hurting anyone else if I could. But that doesn't mean I would fail to feel sorry for you.

It's quite easy, actually. If one perceives the right to gun ownership as being a threat to other liberties which he/she considers more important (which is a bit like the reasoning behind criminalizing the act of killing other people), then he/she can conclude that for the sake of protecting the other liberties, the liberty of gun ownership must be restricted.

And it's not like giving the population a bunch of guns is actually going to deter a potential tyrant from going totalitarian on the U.S. - you can't possibly expect to put up a resistance against a mechanized force who can hit your house with a 500 pound bomb if all your rifles do against a fighter-bomber is fail to hit it. Unless you want to go to the extent of letting everyone own their own personal SAMs.

It's quite easy, actually. If one perceives the right to gun ownership as being a threat to other liberties which he/she considers more important (which is a bit like the reasoning behind criminalizing the act of killing other people), then he/she can conclude that for the sake of protecting the other liberties, the liberty of gun ownership must be restricted.

And it's not like giving the population a bunch of guns is actually going to deter a potential tyrant from going totalitarian on the U.S. - you can't possibly expect to put up a resistance against a mechanized force who can hit your house with a 500 pound bomb if all your rifles do against a fighter-bomber is fail to hit it. Unless you want to go to the extent of letting everyone own their own personal SAMs.

Barbariser

I've met people who seriously believe that the second amendment implies that personal nuclear bomb ownership is a Constitutional right.

Who's caring more about the criminal than the victim? If someone was robbed, one may easily have compassion both at what happened to the victim, and to desire to rectify their situation, and at the state of mind that lead the criminal to his chosen course of action, and to desire to have him see the error of his ways. I don't understand why people often make this out to be a binary choice between caring about the criminal or about the victim, as though one implies the impossibility of the other. People don't commit crimes because they're evil; they commit crimes because the path they have been placed on in life - their parents, their place of birth, their friends, their schools, their neighborhoods, and whatever else - have lead them to see it as the best option for them in life. And that is nothing but pitiable. It doesn't excuse their actions, but neither does it excuse those who treat them as though they are no longer human simply because of their chosen path in life.

GabuEx

The state? By passing the costs of helping said criminal off to the tax-payers. If caring means I have to pay more to help these people, then I pick the other option: Not caring and looking uncompassionate.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, I feel criminals should be punished as harshly as is reasonable. I wish it could be different, but until I don't have to pay for them, we shouldn't be treating them with kid gloves.

[QUOTE="Barbariser"]

It's quite easy, actually. If one perceives the right to gun ownership as being a threat to other liberties which he/she considers more important (which is a bit like the reasoning behind criminalizing the act of killing other people), then he/she can conclude that for the sake of protecting the other liberties, the liberty of gun ownership must be restricted.

And it's not like giving the population a bunch of guns is actually going to deter a potential tyrant from going totalitarian on the U.S. - you can't possibly expect to put up a resistance against a mechanized force who can hit your house with a 500 pound bomb if all your rifles do against a fighter-bomber is fail to hit it. Unless you want to go to the extent of letting everyone own their own personal SAMs.

GabuEx

I've met people who seriously believe that the second amendment implies that personal nuclear bomb ownership is a Constitutional right.

Can you actually twist the "letter of the law" to fit that? I mean, the "right to bear arms" covers a lot of things, most of which would probably be something a Founding Father would consider outright magic.

The state? By passing the costs of helping said criminal off to the tax-payers. If caring means I have to pay more to help these people, then I pick the other option: Not caring and looking uncompassionate.

There are always exceptions to the rule, but for the most part, I feel criminals should be punished as harshly as is reasonable. I wish it could be different, but until I don't have to pay for them, we shouldn't be treating them with kid gloves.

airshocker

I'm saying nothing about how they should treat them. I'm saying everything about the reasons for why you treat them in whatever way in which they are treated. No one should ever do something out of hatred for or anger at another person.

Can you actually twist the "letter of the law" to fit that? I mean, the "right to bear arms" covers a lot of things, most of which would probably be something a Founding Father would consider outright magic.

Barbariser

I don't know, but that one guy I knew certainly tried. :P

I'm saying nothing about how they should treat them. I'm saying everything about the reasons for why you treat them in whatever way in which they are treated. No one should ever do something out of hatred for or anger at another person.

GabuEx

That's much easier said than put into practice, Gabu.

It's very hard not to be angry at a system that wants more money but doesn't show good enough results.

wherever there are people, there will be psycho killers ready to kill you for no reason at all. there will also be coward bystanders who'll just walk by if you're getting mugged. even with strict gun laws, street gangs and thugs will always find a way to get weapons one way or another.

pretty much, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

positivebalance

The US has relatively lax gun laws. It has 0.028 murders committed with firearms annually per capita.

Canada has stricter gun laws. It has 0.005.

The UK has even stricter gun laws. It has 0.001.

(Source)

Correlation doesn't equal causation, but it seems to me that this really ought to render the argument of "if you restrict guns then only criminals will have guns" null and void. The uniquely American need to always have guns has always struck me as being a bit bizarre, and perhaps a bit unhealthy too, although perhaps the ill health stems from the atmosphere that would spawn such a feeling of necessity rather than the feeling itself.

GabuEx

Well, considering the fact that there are significant relevant factors regarding differences in socioeconomic levels, cultural discrepancies, the fact that the U.S. has always had higher crime than those countries, the fact that U.S. has higher knife rime than Britain, all seem to point out factors which do play a significant role in gun crime, and seemingly more adverse to the U.S. Furthermore, gun bans in the U.S. have an consistent statistical correlation to rising murder and gun murder rates when controlled for local and national trends. Another item worthy of consideration is that legislation that is effective in Europe for instance, may very well NOT bring comparable results here, in part due to the previously mentioned factors as well as the colossal number of firearms within the U.S. that other countries never did. Another anomaly which I find points towards the fact that high gun ownership rates don't inherently increase murder rates is the fact that Switzerland has a very high private gun ownership, and for many citizens is compulsory. Their murder rates are lower those that of Britain. One final note, don't compare gun murder rates, compare murder rates. Criminals can and do use different weapons to kill, and laws for guns affect the overall murder rate, which is a more important statistic to follow. Other methods of murder are affected by gun laws, so overall murder rate is the only way to hold those factors constant. Using that metric, Canada has approximately the same murder rate as the U.K. All facts considered, I don't think gun bans are a good idea, some other regulatory measures do seem to be effective though.