Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering whether we as a country could slowly phase out the use of guns. Obviously it's not going to happen tomorrow, so don't bother with kicking-down-doors straw man attacks here.
The problem is that guns are a part of our culture and have so many proponents. They're even enshrined in an amendment to our Constitution, though pointing to that as justification is incorrect because the amendment process still exists. I'm sure owning guns is a fun hobby, but can't we collectively realize that the proliferation of these machines is inevitably going to result in some casualties? We ban drugs which can only kill ourselves, yet the concept of extensively banning tools designed to kill others with maximum efficiency is considered laughable by many. Why can't we change as a culture?
I agree it is a matter of culture. There are countries where there are virtually no guns around compared with the US, still they don't have dictatorships or more crime, usually less so, actually.
I guess one would have to ask why there is so much crime and violence in the first place, as those make people feel threatened and defensive. And that again is a cultural matter. Why is there violent crime? Usually because some people want something they don't have, but feel like they can't get in a decent way. I am sure that feeling exists around the world, but for some reasons in other countries people don't act out on their envy. Maybe it is the feeling of being on your own, not being part of a huge family, i.e. society, that is there for you when you need it. Thus other people don't really matter to you, they become more like obstacles rather than fellow human beings to like and take care of.
The problem of "gun control" is only complex when framed incorrectly.
The issue is predation, not weaponry.
What happens to a government instituted to fight predators when it becomes infiltrated with predators?
Tolerance of predators.
Simple.
Disarmament of the prey favors the predators.
A "Civilized" society is intolerant of predators. When it tolerates predators, self defense becomes a more pressing matter.
No one needs an assault weapon - or any weapon - until under assault.
Then one needs as much firepower as one can muster.
Being armed is being prepared.
Guns do not prey on people - PREDATORS prey on people.
Disarming people only benefits the PREDATORS who hate it when the victim can shoot back.
Compromising one's safety to empower predators is not logical.
It is always better to have a weapon and not need it, than to need a weapon and not have it.
So, why are there so many predators in the US in the first place? Why don't many other countries have that problem, at least not to that extent?
It is a bit like with those survivalists. They put so much effort and money in their preparation for day x, and it will probably never come. I won't run around with one of those multi-functional Swiss knives just because I might need a tiny screwdriver one day, either
My default attitude towards society is one of trust. I don't consider others a threat, that saves me from paranoia... Someone who is armed loses their innocence, which in turn makes potential predators feel less compassion for that person, instead they will either get even more deadly weapons or think of even meaner tricks to get what they want, or they will go and attack someone else who cannot defend him or herself. Either way, society as a whole suffers from such an arms race.
So, why are there so many predators in the US in the first place? Why don't many other countries have that problem, at least not to that extent?
It is a bit like with those survivalists. They put so much effort and money in their preparation for day x, and it will probably never come. I won't run around with one of those multi-functional Swiss knives just because I might need a tiny screwdriver one day, either
My default attitude towards society is one of trust. I don't consider others a threat, that saves me from paranoia... Someone who is armed loses their innocence, which in turn makes potential predators feel less compassion for that person, instead they will either get even more deadly weapons or think of even meaner tricks to get what they want, or they will go and attack someone else who cannot defend him or herself. Either way, society as a whole suffers from such an arms race.
Britain's violent crime rate is 2034 per 100,000
USA violent crime rate is 466 per 100,000
Per capita, Britain with tough gun laws, has more than 4x's more violent crime, than the USA.
The murder rate per capita is equal. Guns just make it quick, without suffering.
If every Afghani, or Iraqi was armed to the teeth, would we be tromping around those nation's as we are.
Britain's violent crime rate is 2034 per 100,000
USA violent crime rate is 466 per 100,000
Per capita, Britain with tough gun laws, has more than 4x's more violent crime, than the USA.
The murder rate per capita is equal. Guns just make it quick, without suffering.
If every Afghani, or Iraqi was armed to the teeth, would we be tromping around those nation's as we are.
What is your source? Here it says the homicide rate is 4.2 for the US vs. 1.2 for the UK...
My default attitude towards society is one of trust. I don't consider others a threat, that saves me from paranoia...
Paranoia :
A mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality
Suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification
- - -
However
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Someone who is armed loses their innocence, which in turn makes potential predators feel less compassion for that person, instead they will either get even more deadly weapons or think of even meaner tricks to get what they want, or they will go and attack someone else who cannot defend him or herself.
When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are the pockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
Either way, society as a whole suffers from such an arms race.
Tolerance of predators is unmerciful to their next victim.
Location: In a Galaxy far, far away called Germany
4,300 posts, read 4,408,773 times
Reputation: 2394
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic
I'm wondering whether we as a country could slowly phase out the use of guns. Obviously it's not going to happen tomorrow, so don't bother with kicking-down-doors straw man attacks here.
The problem is that guns are a part of our culture and have so many proponents. They're even enshrined in an amendment to our Constitution, though pointing to that as justification is incorrect because the amendment process still exists. I'm sure owning guns is a fun hobby, but can't we collectively realize that the proliferation of these machines is inevitably going to result in some casualties? We ban drugs which can only kill ourselves, yet the concept of extensively banning tools designed to kill others with maximum efficiency is considered laughable by many. Why can't we change as a culture?
Your "strawman" about having doors kicked in a reality that happens.
Notice it also states that violent crime has been dropping for the 9th straight year in a row.
I have been looking around for the UK numbers but have not been able to find an originating source from a government agency as of yet.
If you can find some statistics on the number of "violent crimes", it may help. As for using wiki, I wouldn't bother as it is an extremely poor source for such political topics (besides, your wiki only says homicides).
I will say, that there is a lot of numbers out there that show the UK to be much higher in violent crimes (similar to the posters numbers you were responding to), but the sources are vague and I can't track them to an originating source that is valid.
I haven't worked really hard though, the FBI numbers were easy to find, but like I said, the UK numbers are difficult.
I would be really nice to see sources from the actual reporting agencies combined with the methodology of their collection and reporting to see exactly how they compare in such, but... this subject is so political that it will be difficult to obtain.
I will say that just from the "general buzz" on the internet (ie various news sites reporting on such a comparison), the UK is being shown as a higher violent crime rate than the US. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen.
Is eating more than 2000 calories a day 'necessary'?
Yes. At 6'-7" and 250 pounds, I require a minimum of 3,750 calories per day. At 2,000 calories per day I would weigh 133 pounds. In other words, I would already have been dead at least a week before I can reach that weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS
Is having anything more than a bicycle 'necessary'?
Ever try riding a bicycle 50 miles in a -40°F blizzard with 60mph winds? Neither have I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS
Once you start asking if things are necessary, you are basically saying you are a fascist.
Correction: It is okay to ask yourself whether or not something is necessary. It only makes someone a fascist-wannabe if they ask others whether or not something is necessary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At 2,000 calories per day I would weigh 133 pounds. In other words, I would already have been dead at least a week before I can reach that weight.
Neither have I. 
