but hey, how often do you really get to pick apart an anti anyway?
You want a debate on gun control?
Reply By: beerslurpy from THR(Anonymous User) Posted: Thursday, May 26, 2005
"There's nothing wrong with killing people as long as the right people get killed."
Dirty Harry said this. He may be a fictional character but he was right. There are many situations in which using potentially lethal force is by far the lesser of many evils.
If someone tries to kill you, should you let them or should you fight back?
If someone breaks into your house, should you welcome them or should you defend yourself?
If someone wants to violate your orifices, is shooting them not preferable to suffering such an indignity (and probably worse afterwards)?
The only harm comes when people lack the ability to distinguish between a good reason and a bad reason for killing someone. Fortunately, history, both modern and ancient shows that the vast majority of people are well equipped to make this distinction and only rarely err on the side of violence, even when it might be perfectly justifiable.
The only benefit to disarming the law-abiding is that it makes it easier for criminals and governments to do bad things to them. Since I am neither a criminal nor a government, I oppose this.
One thing I've always wondered. Everyone anti-gunner always pulls up the statistics of gun homocides to say that the US needs to ban guns. But how many of those murders would have happened anyway with knives, clubs, or other weapon? Is it okay to be killed with a knife but not a gun? Secondly, a gun is only a mechanical device. Obviously, to murder (as in, willfully and intentionally kill, not accidently kill) someone with it, the murderer needs a desire to operate the gun to kill the individual.
In 2003, the total murders were 14,408. The total firearms murders were 9,638. This data is from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. I would say there is a serious problem with the US in that many people have the desire to murder others. Europeans don't seem to have the same desire, thus the lower murder rates. However, what I cannot fathom is why so many people believe that banning guns would remove the desire to murder. I don't want to prevent gun murders, I want prevent any murder, regardless of the weapon. I don't think murders will end simply by banning guns. Murders will only end when the desire to murder is removed from the people.
In Switzerland, where people are required to own assault rifles, there isn't rampant gun crime. Across the US state gun laws vary widely as do the state murder rates. Maine was given a grade of D- by the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence for its lax gun laws and yet its murder rate was 1.2 per 100,000, the lowest murder rate in the country! Obviously, Maine residents aren't prone to killing each other, despite easy availability of guns. Idaho was given an F+, yet its murder was 1.8. California was given an A- and yet its murder rate is 6.8. The Brady Campaign grades each state according to how strict the gun laws are so you would imagine that higher grades would equal fewer murders. In fact, after charting all the grade levels with the murder rate of each state in that grade level, it's been shown that gun control laws have no effect on the murder rates. Some states in the low grade levels have high murder rates, some have low. Same with high grades, some murder rates are high, others are low. In fact, each grade level is split about 50/50 where half of the states have high murder rates, the other half have low rates.
Banning guns may reduce gun murders, but not total murders. People will continue to murder because they have the desire to do so. Or is murdering someone with any weapon but a gun just fine? Will banning guns really, truthfully prevent murders? Can anti-gunners say with absolute certainty that no one will decide to use a knife or club to murder someone since a gun is not available? Or is the goal of anti-gunners to simply reduce gun murders but not total murders?
America's tradition with guns is based in its tradition of liberal democracy and the concept of the inalienable rights of man (Hobbes, Locke, Calvin and Jefferson). According to this political philosophy, the governed consent to government. It exists only by their leave. They have the right to change or dissolve it at will. (see Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States)
The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution was written to codify that agreement. In it, certain right were expressly reserved for the people. Rights to practice religion and to not be bound by a state religion. Right to assemble. Right to political speech. Rights to disagree with the government. Quite a few others but most importantly, the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is particularly significant because it gives teeth to the other rights. What use is the right to protest your government if that same government is restrained only by its own sense of fair play?
The American founding fathers were distrustful of government. They framed checks and balances into the Constitution and gave the people the ultimate CHECK...an armed populace.
Throughout history armed people have been able to defend themselves against tyrants and free themselves. The English forced the Crown to sign the Magna Carta. The French deposed a despotic royal dynasty. The Americans dumped an oppressive colonizer. So did the Dutch. A handful of starving Jews were able to hold off the SS in Warsaw.
At the end of the Second World War, there was an explosion of wars of national liberation. Oppressed people, suddenly had guns and the power to say "NO" to the clenched fist of tyranny. Some exchanged their colonial oppressors for communist or fascist ones which quickly made it a point to round up the guns (Poland, Yugoslavia, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, Cambodia). Others were able to make the transition and recognized the right of the people to be armed (Israel). Both outcomes are the result of the government understanding that it is ultimately accountable to an armed polity.
Contrary to assumptions, America's gun owners are the most evolved of citizens. They are self reliant and don't rely on the strength of the tribe for safety. They are willing to take risks for the greater good. They are more likely to 'run to the sound of the guns' in order to secure safety for their fellow man. How many times has America offered up its sons and daughters to war for its exclusive benefit? In the 20th Century, America went to war twice in Europe and thrice in Asia for the benefit of others (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq). Americans as a culture prefer not to rely on others for protection. Our relationship with guns reflect that and our Constitution codifies it.
I own an interesting rifle that is illustrative of a ruler's distrust of the ruled. It is a Short Magazine Lee Enfield, standard issue to British troops in the majority of the 20th century. This one was originally manufactured in the 30's but was altered for use by Home Guard (civilians nominally attached to the military during WWII). The magazine that held the bullets was removed and replaced with a block of wood. The barrel was rechambered so it would no loner accept the marvelous and effective .303 round. Instead it was rebored to accept a .410 shotgun shell. The government was concerned that 'civilians and revolutionaries' (read Irish) might acquire such weapons and propose a threat to current rule.
There is an oft repeated saying among us gun folks, "Fear the government that fears your guns."
:banghead: :banghead: I guess that they just don't get it.Doctors' kitchen knives ban call
A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.
A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase - and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.
They argued many assaults are committed impulsively, prompted by alcohol and drugs, and a kitchen knife often makes an all too available weapon.
The research is published in the British Medical Journal.
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.
They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.
None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.
The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.
In contrast, a pointed long blade pierces the body like "cutting into a ripe melon".
The use of knives is particularly worrying amongst adolescents, say the researchers, reporting that 24% of 16-year-olds have been shown to carry weapons, primarily knives.
The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.
French laws in the 17th century decreed that the tips of table and street knives be ground smooth.
A century later, forks and blunt-ended table knives were introduced in the UK in an effort to reduce injuries during arguments in public eating houses.
The researchers say legislation to ban the sale of long pointed knives would be a key step in the fight against violent crime.
"The Home Office is looking for ways to reduce knife crime.
"We suggest that banning the sale of long pointed knives is a sensible and practical measure that would have this effect."
Government response
Home Office spokesperson said there were already extensive restrictions in place to control the sale and possession of knives.
"The law already prohibits the possession of offensive weapons in a public place, and the possession of knives in public without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade not exceeding three inches.
"Offensive weapons are defined as any weapon designed or adapted to cause injury, or intended by the person possessing them to do so.
"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.
"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."
A spokesperson for the Association of Chief Police Officers said: "ACPO supports any move to reduce the number of knife related incidents, however, it is important to consider the practicalities of enforcing such changes."
I do not need to justify this opinion to anyone.
Many people (including everyone on this board) believe a human has the right to keep and bear arms. But when it comes right down to it, it is ultimately an opinion. If it were a fact, you could objectively and logically prove you have a right to keep and bear arms.Keep in mind that it is a right, not an opinion...
Many people (including everyone on this board) believe a human has the right to keep and bear arms. But when it comes right down to it, it is an opinion. If it were a fact, you could objectively and logically prove you have a right to keep and bear arms.
Nope. I'm sick of listening to the same old witless hysteria of the anti-Second Amendment bigots. Their idea of a "debate" is to tell lies, launch a few ad hominem attacks, and hide.
I also believe we have inalienable rights, granted by God or whoever. But note in the first sentence that you used the word "believe." This means it is an opinion. Now you might claim it is a fact that has yet to be proven. But the problem is that it will never be proven via objective & logical means. Therefore it will always be rendered an opinion. In light of this, the last two words in your second sentence should be "this belief," not "that fact."Honestly, I believe that we have inalienable rights, granted by... God or whoever. Our whole concept of government and law and morality hinges on that fact.
That statement just cracks me up!...decent people don't need guns because they will just end up shooting other decent people...