Even though many disagree on this issue, I am proud of everyone in this thread for keeping the topic civil. It seems rare for such hot discussions to survive in misc so long. This topic, and others, are often TNZ material. This has been a nice debate from both sides of the opinions.
Why Gun is Civilization...
- Thread starter msbae
- Start date
Okay. "Need" like a kid might "need" a security blanket.
I figured I was missing something there.
I will say that I don't really agree that carrying a gun is a civilized act either...anymore than keeping a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, or having an alarm system installed is a civilized act.
...but I wouldn't exactly call them uncivilized acts either. A precaution (reasonable or not, we might not agree on) against your failure of civilization, but not uncivilized in and of themselves.
Guns might be because of a failure of civilization, but they're certainly not the reason for it.
W3rd.
Also, I was going through my Photobucket account and found these little gems...
Ah, sardonic humor...
- msbae
No, more of a symptom. Although the extremist subculture they've created is also a perpetuating factor; there's a big difference between saying, "Crap, looks like I'll need a gun" and saying, "My precioussssss."
Where are these statistics available?
My guess is that, if this relationship exists, it's not guns that cause it. Rural areas have more gun ownership per capita, and less violent crime than urban areas. Urban areas also tend to have more strict gun ownership laws. Saying that it's a lack of guns that cause crime is like saying that tall buildings cause crime.
I realize the situations aren't exactly comparable, but here in Canada, handguns are not permitted, and our number of homicides is, percentage-wise, far lower than the US. Gun violence is rising, though, particularly in cities with US traffic. I don't know if I believe in a ban for the US *now* - the *change* would probably only affect law-abiding people. But if we're talking about establishing a set of rules, I far prefer Canada's. I think American citizens have two bad choices when it comes to gun ownership.
Aren't there societies in existence today where all citizens are required to own guns? What's the rate of gun violence, and crime in general, in places like that?
Wherever this happens, I'm glad it's not here in the US. Despite appearances to the contrary, I don't hate all guns - or gun owners (though I admit being somewhat frightened by both) - and I do not want to ban guns. But I also don't want to be forced to carry one, since I can be clumsy, I can also be very hot tempered, and I just generally don't trust myself with a gun. Isn't that understandable?
I also have another question to the gun crowd. If I understand you correctly, you do recognize that there are certain places - bars, for example - where carrying guns should not be allowed. (If I've misunderstood you on this, please correct me.) Since you place a very high priority on personally protecting yourself, then how often do you actually go to places like that? I think we'll all agree that a bar can be a violent place, especially when people are drunk and angry. In general, then, do you recognize the right of property owners such as businesses to ban the use and carriage of guns on their own property?
Wherever this happens, I'm glad it's not here in the US. Despite appearances to the contrary, I don't hate all guns - or gun owners (though I admit being somewhat frightened by both) - and I do not want to ban guns. But I also don't want to be forced to carry one, since I can be clumsy, I can also be very hot tempered, and I just generally don't trust myself with a gun. Isn't that understandable?
I also have another question to the gun crowd. If I understand you correctly, you do recognize that there are certain places - bars, for example - where carrying guns should not be allowed. (If I've misunderstood you on this, please correct me.) Since you place a very high priority on personally protecting yourself, then how often do you actually go to places like that? I think we'll all agree that a bar can be a violent place, especially when people are drunk and angry. In general, then, do you recognize the right of property owners such as businesses to ban the use and carriage of guns on their own property?
Absolutely.
I do believe guns and alcohol should NOT mix. IIRC, some states already have laws on the books that don't allow carry in bars. I would support an all-out ban on carrying guns in bars.
To answer your other question, I've never gone to a pure bar. I have no interest in doing so. The bar crowd does not appeal to me at all due to some of the reasons you listed.
I HAVE gone to sports bars (where dinner is also served), but I've never seen an unfortunate incident in local sports bars. Sports bars appeal to me cause one can get dinner, and watch games in peace. Even when fans of different teams get together to watch a game, it was always been good natured exchanges during the times I've been in.
Of course.
It is their business, so it is their right to ask patrons to not come in unarmed. However, I would NOT patronize such a business that did this.
Not sure on that.
But I firmly am against requiring people to own guns.
It should be a free will personal decision. Not everyone wants to take on the responsibility, and many are not capable of taking on responsibility.
It should be up to the individual, IMO.
^ He might be thinking of Switzerland where gun ownership is massively high and all men are required to under go Militia training in their late teens and remain reservists until they are 30. You are not required to own a gun after this point but many do.
Crime and murder rates are very low there, but it isn't a very useful comparison as their attitude towards firearms training and ownership could not be more different to America's, which obviously does not have compulsory service and firearms training for young people.
Crime and murder rates are very low there, but it isn't a very useful comparison as their attitude towards firearms training and ownership could not be more different to America's, which obviously does not have compulsory service and firearms training for young people.
Exactly; I feel 100% the same way.
Exactly; I feel 100% the same way.
I second that motion.
Also, I found a few news articles that are at least tangentially-related to this thread...
Obama continues to drive Gun sales...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/16/firearms-associations-claim-obama-drove-surge-gun-sales/
History's most terrifying conventional weapons...
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,476045,00.html
The World's deadliest conventional weapons
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,473985,00.html
Notice how most of those deadliest/most terrifying conventional weapons have virtually nothing to do with Small Arms? Interesting...
Yeah, we trade our illegal drugs for your illegal guns. We so get ripped off. It sucks.
Indeed. I guess that means you guys should legalize gunships, laser guided bombs and landmines for civilian use. After all, you are supposed to be able to rise up against your oppressive government now and then and water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and kittens and nitrogen rich slow release fertilizer.
Go troll someone else. I'm not interested in playing with you.
Hey, if one of the major arguments for the "right" to bear arms is to overthrow your government if it goes all mustachioed and mirror universe on you, you have to allow the citizenry the same weapons as the military, otherwise people are fucked.
Wanna watch me?
That says it all right there. What all does it say? First, it says this man is doesn't really realize what he thinks.
If the gun enables him to be unafraid, that means he was afraid to begin with. If you are not afraid, then you do not need an enabler to make you unafraid. You're just not afraid.
But what it really says is that is life is dominated by unrealistic fear.
It really says that the gun makes him feel more powerful.
It really says that he feels inadequate without the ability to kill (or at least scare the everlivingshitoutof) that which he feels may threaten him.
Funny you should pick this, because this guy is really the sterotype of the most frightening type of gun owner.
I feel far less threatened by gang bangers, random break ins and the like than I do this man.
You, unlike the OP and blogger, have quite a bit of training, a great deal of personal responsibility as well as respect for the massive force you keep in your pants.
Which is not a counter, it's just clever rhetoric.
Interesting how? What's even your point?
Has anyone in their right mind EVER argued that small arms are the deadliest conventional weapons ever created (in a single-use - they probably are the deadliest if you count all gun-related deaths together over time vs. other forms of conventional weaponry - except possibly bladed weapons).
I bet you thought that was such a profound commentary when you resurrected this topic too, as if suddenly everyone was going to see the light and the error of their ways with your completely irrelevant argument.
Tell that to Washington's Colonial Regiment. Their weapons weren't worth a Continental and they still won. Also, it's too damn easy to use low-tech solutions to defeat high-tech weaponry.
Warfare has fundamentally changed since then. Since that now silly law hasn't, you should be able to pick up a good sized tank at wal-mart, just past the nuclear warfare department in aisle 7 right next to their wide range of RPGs.
Similar threads
