See? That's what I'm trying to point out. People buy guns because they want to kill stuff. If they wanted to defend themselves, they'd buy some mace or a tazer.
TASER's aren't legal in all states. And TASER's have been known to kill people, not often but they are not exactly "safe". Look, you clearly have made your mind up on this subject and I won't belittle your intelligence by arguing, but it's not as simple as you seem to think, and stats don't tell everything. And you're right, I think most guns are used for hunting, not for defense, but I find nothing wrong with this arrangement. But a huge part of American philosophy revolves around "balance of power" and "too much power corrupts", and it would just scare a lot of people if the right to own a gun was taken away. Most non-Americans I know seem to be under the misapprehension that a lot of Americans own guns and it's totally normal, but most people I know have never even fired a gun, and they are illegal in certain cities. It has nothing to do with being trigger happy but about the deeply rooted belief that if rules and rights don't extend to everyone, then the public is in danger of tyranny. You might think it's stupid that potentially dangerous people can get their hands on a gun, but as you so wisely pointed out, that's what the police are for. I find it more stupid that someone has to implicitly trust the goodness of certain people in power rather than having many legal options at their disposal.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi
If tasers have been known to kill people, you know that's not a point in favor of guns, right? The odds of survival are still way higher when you're being tazed than when you're being shot.
I've never had the belief that weaponry should be available to the general public. And that's probably something I'll never agree on with most Americans. But my opinion is not absolute.
There is no objective way to say what's right or what's wrong. Especially not when it comes to gun control. If there was, there'd be no need for this discussion. I can't deny that guns save lives in some cases, and gun owners can't deny that gun deaths play a major part in US crime rates.
Maybe you think stats don't prove anything, but I think they have authority to some extent. You can't dismiss stats as 'just numbers'.
About Ghandi's quote: this is about the time when Great Britain colonized India. If a foreign country invades the US to exploit it, then the public should be given the possibilities to fight back.
However, I'm astonished by what American citizens think of their government. I live in Belgium, and for me, it's unthinkable that a government is something you should fear.
If you allow me to criticize the US a little: I have my doubts about American democracy. Especially since presidency keeps shifting between two similar special interest groups.
How come that's something that never gets adressed? I'm mainly educated in European politics, so I know I'm not the right person to criticize the US. But... maybe if people started voting more for third parties, instead of just voting for who the media tells them to, then things could make a change for the better. With more political diversity, there's less need for US citizens to fear that the US will become a totalitarian state.
There's a pro-gun which makes sense to me, and I hear it pretty often: people want guns to protect themselves from the government. But in itself, that thought is horrible. A government shouldn't be like that. Maybe we should get the system to change, so it's almost impossible for one group to oppress the country as a whole.
I started this debate with my European mindset, which is probably why my opinion differs so much from US citizens. If the situation in the US is really that horrible, then you need a gun. But I find it hard to believe. I never thought things are so much different in your country from Europe.
But guns should only mean as a last resort. I feel that a lot of people don't think that way. They want to prepare for a possible civil war, but almost nobody is actively trying to prevent one.
I hope I'm making sense here, sometimes I forget we live on two different continents.
I actually appreciated this response, it was well-thought out. I will just reply with my thoughts and critiques:
I agree that guns cause a lot of pain and can be dangerous, but that really isn't the main issue for me. Many, many things can be misused and cause problems, but that usually signifies an underlying, greater problem. The fact that dangerous assholes use guns in horrible ways does not make guns any more or less than what they are: tools with deadly power.
I never discounted statistics, I took several statistics classes in college, I merely said that they don't tell everything. Stating the rate of gun crime in the US is valid, but your conclusions need to be backed up by a ton of data, no matter how valid is your source. Is the crime in the US mostly urban or rural? Minority or majority ethnic groups? Gang related? Alcohol related? I don't know, and I am guessing you don't either, that information may not even be available to the public. Unless you have a complete picture, how can you compare two completely different countries and point to gun laws as the definitive underlying cause? There are sooo many variables! Also, you didn't mention Switzerland; gun ownership is widespread and restrictions are more lax than in the US in many cases, but the crime rate is very low. Thus I think your conclusions about the relationship between gun ownership and crime in the US is flawed, or at least way over-simplified. I don't think the problem has anything to do with guns; I think we have a problem, and it is manifested in gun-related crimes. HUGE difference. If we took away guns tomorrow, the same people would start killing each other with shivs. We need to figure out the real problem, which probably has more to do with unemployed, under-educated men getting sucked into gangs, or a culture of "bad-assery" being cool (ridiculous), before we just start looking for an easy answer.
My Gandhi quote was supremely apt, because the US was also a British colony that was being exploited. When tensions started rising and people died in the Boston massacre, colonists started stock-piling weapons, and the British tried to disband the militias and take the weapons away. I don't want to over-extend the comparison, different continent, different time, different history, but this was my point: the American philosophy about government, self-defense, and self-reliance came out of a deep disdain for strong government and the deeply held conviction that when people have too much power, the little guy gets trampled. It seems silly now that the US is a huge and relatively successful country, but try to keep in mind that absolutely everyone here is descended from immigrants who arrived at the earliest in the 1600s, or they are natives who got screwed over by the immigrants. Everyone I know can trace a relative to either slavery, fresh off the boat from their home country (which apparently they thought was worth leaving, so they weren't exactly thriving there), western "frontier" people, or a native American reservation. I can trace relatives back to all four. Thus, even though it is completely academic and sort of sub-conscious, I think most Americans are very proud of our "scrappiness" and self-reliance. It's not like most of us really do fear our government or law enforcement, we just like having a safety net. Is that really odd? Guns are very effective tools at getting people to fuck off, and it's nice to have an ace in your back pocket so to speak. It maybe wrong, but still reassuring to many.
Lastly, the US is less urban than most first-world countries. Until pretty damn recently, people carried guns as a way of life, particularly while moving west. We still have huge game animals, and it was an absolute necessity for pioneer families into the 1800s. Of course, that is a laughably obsolete reason to own a gun now, but please don't discount the effect this fact has on the American psyche. Our great-great-grandfather needed a gun to survive, our great-grandfather used a gun, our grandfather learned how to shoot a gun. Trends don't just disappear overnight.
Perhaps a more valid comparison among countries with drastically different gun laws would be to examine the rate of "violent crimes", ignoring the number of deaths that resulted from these attacks. This is one interesting stat I found from The Telegraph (UK): "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population." Not a US source, mind :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Maybe more people would be alive with stricter gun laws, and I would certainly applaud that, but I don't want to upset the American way of life and take away a right which was an integral part of our early "revolutionary" days, and take away the right of people to protect against tyranny, unless I am convinced that violence, not just gun crimes, would diminish. And I am not convinced of this at all.
Sorry I wrote a book, I am not trying to look like a smart ass, I just love debating with people who are polite :) Feel free to disagree and persist in your opinion, that's very American ;)
No need to apologize for the length. There's no way to write a short text about this subject without oversimplifying things.
I think you're right. Most pro-gun arguments I read are "Get offa mah gunz!" with nothing more to add to the debate. But this one was worth the read.
The problem is certainly deeper than gun ownership. Like you say: "We need to figure out the real problem, which probably has more to do with unemployed, under-educated men getting sucked into gangs, or a culture of "bad-assery" being cool (ridiculous), before we just start looking for an easy answer."
People are scared of the future, they don't have any certainties anymore. Your job, your income and your safety are things you can lose in a matter of days. Even well-educated people don't get a guarantee to a good life. Maybe that gun gives them the feeling that they still have something to say. That they still count.
I feel that there are more political parties out there who want to cultivate those uncertainties rather than doing something about it. Fear is excellent for drawing voters to you.
But how can we solve all that? I hope you know, because I don't. ;)
Oh well, if you want, you can always move to Europe. We have exquisite wine, cheese, beer and chocolate. :D
What's your opinion on gun control?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
See? That's what I'm trying to point out. People buy guns because they want to kill stuff. If they wanted to defend themselves, they'd buy some mace or a tazer.
--
LPrttyktty2791
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
TASER's aren't legal in all states. And TASER's have been known to kill people, not often but they are not exactly "safe". Look, you clearly have made your mind up on this subject and I won't belittle your intelligence by arguing, but it's not as simple as you seem to think, and stats don't tell everything. And you're right, I think most guns are used for hunting, not for defense, but I find nothing wrong with this arrangement. But a huge part of American philosophy revolves around "balance of power" and "too much power corrupts", and it would just scare a lot of people if the right to own a gun was taken away. Most non-Americans I know seem to be under the misapprehension that a lot of Americans own guns and it's totally normal, but most people I know have never even fired a gun, and they are illegal in certain cities. It has nothing to do with being trigger happy but about the deeply rooted belief that if rules and rights don't extend to everyone, then the public is in danger of tyranny. You might think it's stupid that potentially dangerous people can get their hands on a gun, but as you so wisely pointed out, that's what the police are for. I find it more stupid that someone has to implicitly trust the goodness of certain people in power rather than having many legal options at their disposal.
‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Ghandi
true story.
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
If tasers have been known to kill people, you know that's not a point in favor of guns, right? The odds of survival are still way higher when you're being tazed than when you're being shot.
I've never had the belief that weaponry should be available to the general public. And that's probably something I'll never agree on with most Americans. But my opinion is not absolute.
There is no objective way to say what's right or what's wrong. Especially not when it comes to gun control. If there was, there'd be no need for this discussion. I can't deny that guns save lives in some cases, and gun owners can't deny that gun deaths play a major part in US crime rates.
Maybe you think stats don't prove anything, but I think they have authority to some extent. You can't dismiss stats as 'just numbers'.
About Ghandi's quote: this is about the time when Great Britain colonized India. If a foreign country invades the US to exploit it, then the public should be given the possibilities to fight back.
However, I'm astonished by what American citizens think of their government. I live in Belgium, and for me, it's unthinkable that a government is something you should fear.
If you allow me to criticize the US a little: I have my doubts about American democracy. Especially since presidency keeps shifting between two similar special interest groups.
How come that's something that never gets adressed? I'm mainly educated in European politics, so I know I'm not the right person to criticize the US. But... maybe if people started voting more for third parties, instead of just voting for who the media tells them to, then things could make a change for the better. With more political diversity, there's less need for US citizens to fear that the US will become a totalitarian state.
There's a pro-gun which makes sense to me, and I hear it pretty often: people want guns to protect themselves from the government. But in itself, that thought is horrible. A government shouldn't be like that. Maybe we should get the system to change, so it's almost impossible for one group to oppress the country as a whole.
I started this debate with my European mindset, which is probably why my opinion differs so much from US citizens. If the situation in the US is really that horrible, then you need a gun. But I find it hard to believe. I never thought things are so much different in your country from Europe.
But guns should only mean as a last resort. I feel that a lot of people don't think that way. They want to prepare for a possible civil war, but almost nobody is actively trying to prevent one.
I hope I'm making sense here, sometimes I forget we live on two different continents.
--
LPrttyktty2791
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
I actually appreciated this response, it was well-thought out. I will just reply with my thoughts and critiques:
I agree that guns cause a lot of pain and can be dangerous, but that really isn't the main issue for me. Many, many things can be misused and cause problems, but that usually signifies an underlying, greater problem. The fact that dangerous assholes use guns in horrible ways does not make guns any more or less than what they are: tools with deadly power.
I never discounted statistics, I took several statistics classes in college, I merely said that they don't tell everything. Stating the rate of gun crime in the US is valid, but your conclusions need to be backed up by a ton of data, no matter how valid is your source. Is the crime in the US mostly urban or rural? Minority or majority ethnic groups? Gang related? Alcohol related? I don't know, and I am guessing you don't either, that information may not even be available to the public. Unless you have a complete picture, how can you compare two completely different countries and point to gun laws as the definitive underlying cause? There are sooo many variables! Also, you didn't mention Switzerland; gun ownership is widespread and restrictions are more lax than in the US in many cases, but the crime rate is very low. Thus I think your conclusions about the relationship between gun ownership and crime in the US is flawed, or at least way over-simplified. I don't think the problem has anything to do with guns; I think we have a problem, and it is manifested in gun-related crimes. HUGE difference. If we took away guns tomorrow, the same people would start killing each other with shivs. We need to figure out the real problem, which probably has more to do with unemployed, under-educated men getting sucked into gangs, or a culture of "bad-assery" being cool (ridiculous), before we just start looking for an easy answer.
My Gandhi quote was supremely apt, because the US was also a British colony that was being exploited. When tensions started rising and people died in the Boston massacre, colonists started stock-piling weapons, and the British tried to disband the militias and take the weapons away. I don't want to over-extend the comparison, different continent, different time, different history, but this was my point: the American philosophy about government, self-defense, and self-reliance came out of a deep disdain for strong government and the deeply held conviction that when people have too much power, the little guy gets trampled. It seems silly now that the US is a huge and relatively successful country, but try to keep in mind that absolutely everyone here is descended from immigrants who arrived at the earliest in the 1600s, or they are natives who got screwed over by the immigrants. Everyone I know can trace a relative to either slavery, fresh off the boat from their home country (which apparently they thought was worth leaving, so they weren't exactly thriving there), western "frontier" people, or a native American reservation. I can trace relatives back to all four. Thus, even though it is completely academic and sort of sub-conscious, I think most Americans are very proud of our "scrappiness" and self-reliance. It's not like most of us really do fear our government or law enforcement, we just like having a safety net. Is that really odd? Guns are very effective tools at getting people to fuck off, and it's nice to have an ace in your back pocket so to speak. It maybe wrong, but still reassuring to many.
Lastly, the US is less urban than most first-world countries. Until pretty damn recently, people carried guns as a way of life, particularly while moving west. We still have huge game animals, and it was an absolute necessity for pioneer families into the 1800s. Of course, that is a laughably obsolete reason to own a gun now, but please don't discount the effect this fact has on the American psyche. Our great-great-grandfather needed a gun to survive, our great-grandfather used a gun, our grandfather learned how to shoot a gun. Trends don't just disappear overnight.
Perhaps a more valid comparison among countries with drastically different gun laws would be to examine the rate of "violent crimes", ignoring the number of deaths that resulted from these attacks. This is one interesting stat I found from The Telegraph (UK): "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe. Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland. By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population." Not a US source, mind :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Maybe more people would be alive with stricter gun laws, and I would certainly applaud that, but I don't want to upset the American way of life and take away a right which was an integral part of our early "revolutionary" days, and take away the right of people to protect against tyranny, unless I am convinced that violence, not just gun crimes, would diminish. And I am not convinced of this at all.
Sorry I wrote a book, I am not trying to look like a smart ass, I just love debating with people who are polite :) Feel free to disagree and persist in your opinion, that's very American ;)
--
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
No need to apologize for the length. There's no way to write a short text about this subject without oversimplifying things.
I think you're right. Most pro-gun arguments I read are "Get offa mah gunz!" with nothing more to add to the debate. But this one was worth the read.
The problem is certainly deeper than gun ownership. Like you say: "We need to figure out the real problem, which probably has more to do with unemployed, under-educated men getting sucked into gangs, or a culture of "bad-assery" being cool (ridiculous), before we just start looking for an easy answer."
People are scared of the future, they don't have any certainties anymore. Your job, your income and your safety are things you can lose in a matter of days. Even well-educated people don't get a guarantee to a good life. Maybe that gun gives them the feeling that they still have something to say. That they still count.
I feel that there are more political parties out there who want to cultivate those uncertainties rather than doing something about it. Fear is excellent for drawing voters to you.
But how can we solve all that? I hope you know, because I don't. ;)
Oh well, if you want, you can always move to Europe. We have exquisite wine, cheese, beer and chocolate. :D