Posted: 5/17/2007 10:17:04 AM EDT
This article REALLY pisses me off. They are completely ignoring the main cause of of gun deaths....CRIME. Absolute gun control would leave people defenseless, while the strong deterrent of gun ownership allows people the opportunity to defend themselves and act to prevent their victimization. Suicide victims will turn to drugs when the instant off switch on a gun is taken away from them, so I doubt gun control will lead to a big reduction in suicides. While the gun control advocates love to point to low levels of gun deaths in countries with gun control, they fail to point out the great volume of assaults and thefts that occur when criminals are free to take what they wish without risk. Are we supposed to live out our lives in fear? Are we supposed to live behind locked doors and barred windows? I thought we built a civilization, not a concrete jungle. We need to take the streets back. www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVIII/Issue_6/Opinions/opinions2.shtml |
| I think the article is accurate. I don't think however that he draws the right conclusion regarding the practicality of disarming the country. He paints it as a political problem. It is not, it would be a practical nightmare. In fact, given the number of privately held arms in this country, it would be an impossibility to accomplish such a task within a century. |
He fails to realize that disarming the population is not just costly, it is impossible. We can't keep 12 million illegals from crossing the border, there is no shortage of illegal drugs, etc.. There is no way we can eradicate guns from the population. This makes his conclusion that "disarmement would work" incorrect. This means by default the only solution from his list is "the right’s position (“More Guns, Less Crime”) makes sense in the absence of an existing federal gun-control policy that is 100% effective." |
exactly and since he states it "is the most practical option" in the opening paragraph, everything that follow is based on flawed logic |
|
Actually the article looks like it’s meant to oppose gun control. No one really thinks guns can be removed from American society completely. Not only that but the flaws (crimes can be committed with things besides guns) in some of his arguments are glaringly apparent and would be noticed by everyone. Anyone who reads this article and accepts his premise would be forced to conclude that gun control is a bad idea. |
|
He also fails to take into account the violent crimes committed with non-firearm weapons in those countries with very strict gun control. Basically, he's a liberal moonbat retard living in a fantasy world where bad people would turn into good people if they didn't have guns. |
No, he simply is not addressing those other crimes and drew no conclusions from or about them. He is simply addressing crimes with firearms involved. In this sense, his premise is correct. It is a matter of two practical choices. His first choice is unattainable, therefore we are left with the second choice as the only one that is workable. |
You guys must be reading a different article than I am.  The article I read says either get rid of all guns, or get rid of all restrictions, without advocating one or the other as the better solution. I pretty much agree with the article: the only way for gun control to work would be to outlaw civilian ownership and disarm everyone; basically retroactively abolish the 2nd amendment. Since this would probably be logistically impossible (and morally unpalpatible as far as I'm concerned), then the only viable option is to remove restrictions on gun ownership. All or nothing.
|
It's like global warming. The idiots have decided they can think their way through a problem they simply don't understand. They believe their rational power will overcome any obstacle, when the world's cronic problems are largely irrational. They can't wrap their heads around the idea there are people who simply want to steal, murder, burn, maim and enslave. They won't change, even if they have the opportunity. Some people would rather rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven. |
Exactly:
I suspect that the writer's personal opinion is that guns are bad, but he's conceeding that gun control will never work in America. ETA: this is a VERY interesting article considering its source. |
|
The problem with all the "Country X does this with guns" is that crime is dependent upon a whole lot more factors than the types of weapons available. For instance, Switzerland has a lot of guns, and little crime, while Nigeria has a lot of guns and a lot of crime. Similarly, Singapore has strict guns control and few crimes but Jamaica has strict gun control and a lot of crimes. Culturally, the countries most similar to our own are England, Canada, and Austrailia (i.e., the Anglo-Saxon countries). Two of those countries have recently enacted severe gun control, and had increases in gun crime (England and Austrailia). Canada attempted strong gun control with its registry, which turned out to be a disaster wasting millions of the taxpayers money on an utterly ineffective system. Should we enact gun control, it is much more likely that we will resemble England, Canada, or Austrailia then the vastly different Singapore culture. |
Chris Seck doesn't know what a libertarian is. Virginia Tech was a “gun-free zone” because it was required by VA law, not because the faculty of VT wanted victim disarmament all by themselves! Or are there state run schools that I'm not aware of that allow students and staff to carry a gun?  He failed to mention the "classic" example of Switzerland, which also has one of the lowest crime rates in the world and where homeowners are REQUIRED to own and maintain a machine gun. Sounds a lot better than Singapore!  If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that this was an attempt at libertarian bashing.
|
|
The debate is over as far as I am concerned and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ended it. The Second Amendment does allow regulations as part of a "a well regulated militia...." The Court looked at the "Militia Act," which held that all white male property owners between the age of 18-45 were members of the militia. The 15th Amendment does away with the race component. The 14th Amendment does away with the sex, age, and property ownership requirement as long as the individual is a born or naturalized citizen. The D.C. Circuit found that "Selective Service" is a modern day accounting of the "Militia". Under the "Militia Act" those individuals otherwise qualified to bear arms were excluded if they were criminals or insane. I believe that all small arms capable of being used for a military purposes are legal to own under our Second Amendment. That the only restrictions or regulations that can be placed are those based on criminal records or a legal finding of insanity that would disqualify a person from service in the militia. If the Congress wished to place further restrictions on ownership than they would need to Amend the Constitution to allow them to do so just as an amendment would be required to prevent flag burning as a form of political speech under the First Amendment. |
|
"ALL", as in a total ban on firearms, is a complete fantasy. Even with a huge enforcement effort, I think it would be almost physically impossible for the gooberment to succeed. Even then, it wouldn't solve the CRIME problem, of which violence is a symptom. "ALL" is not a choice we have in the real world. Since he's trying to force us into Aristotelian yes/no choice, excluding the practicable solutions to gun crime and violence.... I'll go ahead and vote "NOTHING".  |
|
The one thing I can draw about gun control from like cultures is that it reduces murders but increases overall crime. However, violent crime in controlled countries like Britain is rising to match ours, so soon it might be safe to say that gun control simply increases all crime. As already stated, crime depends on culture, and criminals without guns are still criminals, they're just holding another weapon (even if it is less efficient at killing). Most importantly is what I believe the founding fathers of this country had in mind with the 2A, in that an armed populace can throw off an oppressive government, therefore maintaining a balance of power between the populace and the government who (should) serve them. Without a means to rebel we are more or less all awaiting a corrupt leader to make us slaves. Would the world be better if firearms were never invented? That's a stupid rhetorical question of course, although it would be kind of cool to get "Sword and Bow" carry licenses It might be, but the truth is it's not and I'm going to protect my family and I with the best means possible. |
VT is a "gun free zone" because of school policy, not state law. You would not faced any legal repercusions from carrying there. |
You need to keep your finger on the Democratic pulse. Over at DU they see this as an irrefutable argument for a complete gun ban and confiscation.....of ALL guns. And they have NO shame!
|
The carbon footprint of my gun is going to be less than that of the assholes who try to take it away from me. Incidentally, what the FUCK is a 'carbon footprint' anyway? Sounds like more made-up bullshit that means nothing and has no bearing whatsoever on reality. |
That's what conservatives concede, huh? How 'bout that conservatives? Any of you out there conceding guns might fire off accidentally? I'm going to check all mine right now and make sure they don't have a mind of their own. |
Singapore is a authoritarian state. Complete control over every aspect of it's citizen's lives. Even chewing gum is illegal. Flogging is common. Freedom is a word in the dictionary, not a concept it's subjects know. Does this shit stain want that here? Surrender all his rights? Because that's what it would take to make it work. I, for one, say "Give me liberty, or Give me death." Cause I won't live like a Singaporian. You'll have to kill me first. |
Thanks to a HCO, I can buy all the guns I want. Buy your freedom from enviroterrorism today! |