And regarding countries being more stable w/out guns, every country is different. What works here may not work somewhere else, and thats a fact. Regarding your slaves comment, our 'founding' fathers indeed owned slaves, but they didn't think it was right, it was more profitable and the could not survive w/out them. Besides, guns and slaves have nothing in common to compare in this debate. ------------------ Im too drunk to walk ... Im driving home!
Space Ghost: You're right, I'm not incredibly tolerant if the completely irrational. Especially when it's self-righteous. What I meant was... most of us decimated his arguments. How do people reply to this? Not by countering our arguments... but by these wild assertions of "guns are good! we have rights!" Nothing was refuted. That's annoying and useless. Look, you're a smart guy. But how exactly did you reply to my arguments? You addressed one of them by answering "every country is different." How so? How does a seemingly universal international trend of guns making places less stable somehow change in ONE country? Doesn't seem reasonable to me. Studies of the US have indicated that people who own guns are more likely to be killed, their children are more likely to die in an accident, and the overall safety rating of a home with a gun diminishes, even if the gun is optimally looked after. The "tyranny" arguement is pure silliness. It doesn't stand up to historical tests... and is actually contradicted by them. Am I here to trash Jim? Not specifically. I am here to vociferously attack beliefs that have NO grounding in logic or statistics. Blind assertions have NO grounds in policy. The obsession with guns is DANGEROUS. Our culutural obsession has resulted in many deaths that otherwise would not have occurred. Look, it's somewhat intuitively attractive that possessing a firearm would make you safer. The problem is, if you look below the surface, this is in no way substantiated by any form of truth. I'm going to reject such wild assertions harshly, because I think they're so damaging. Until people learn that they have to use their heads, not their testosterone, we're going to live in a violent, gun-ridden culture. The slave issue merely demonstrates the fallibility of our "founding fathers." They're often revered a bit too much. It's ok to refer to the quotes from such people occasionally, but it shouldn't be used to make an argument for you. That's a huge fallacy. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
Then I'm sorry to have to do this to you haven but I feel as if I must follow your precepts... Explain that to the citizens of Switzerland. Every citizen there is REQUIRED by law to own a gun (I think a rifle, but I'm not sure about that). Yet the jurder rate there is extremely low. It may not seem reasonable to you, but it's true. You can even call it completely irrational if you want but it won't do any good. Cite this studies. Never mind, you don't have to becuase almost all of these studies are flawed. They are almost all based on a late 70's or early 80's study (I have the indfo available, just don't feel like looking it up right now. let me know if you want it) that had two serious flaws. First of all they did account for suicide in their mortality findings. In this case it is folly to suggest that the gun made life more difficult or unbearable. But this is minor to the most serious flaw: the researchers did not state whether the victim was even killed with the guns they kept in their house! It is very plausable to believe that those who chose to own guns are at a higher-than-normal risk of being targeted for crime. Maybe they are involved with some bad people. Maybe they live in a crime-ridden neighborhood. Maybe they are single women or elderly people, people perceived as easy targets. Until you present me with evidence that shows this I believe you are supporting an irrational statement. Meanwhile concealed weapons have been shown to have a postitive correlation in Texas. This may indeed be a coincedence. The trouble is concealed weapons have also been shown to have a positive correleation with reduced murder and rape in many other states that have instituted shall-issue liscences. Once may be a coincidence. Twice is stretching it. Beyond that you have to wonder about people who deny causation. I agree completely with all of the above which is why I am writing this. I hate guns. I've never fired anything more than a BB gun. Not a rifle, handgun, shotgun, anything. I will never own a gun. But I do feel safer knowing there people in society who are law abiding citizens who have a liscense to carry a concealed weapon. Those are people who make it safer for me. ------------------
I wonder if some of the gun control people here are anti-gun or anti-death? If you are anti-death (i.e. you think too many people are dying needlessly and want to do something about it) then in addition to banning guns you should also seek to ban liquor. Tons of people die each year from drunk driving accidents plus tons of lives and families are ruined because of alcaholism but you don't see people trying to ban alcohol do you? Maybe it's because it was tried and didn't work (I personally don't think banning or regulating guns will "work") or because it's easy to try to take away a freedom enjoyed by "someone else" (but heaven forbid you try to take away one of "my" freedoms!). Guns are one of those things that polorizes people. Some people love them, some hate them. It's very easy for citizens to choose go give up one of their freedoms if they don't personally partake in that freedom. I don't own a gun (or even plan to plus I've been on the "wrong" side of guns twice - a machine gun even!) but it is a very slippery slope you stand on when you start taking freedoms away from people. Once again, if you have the good intentions of trying to prevent needless deaths, then it's not just guns that are killing out there. ------------------
Rather than rehashing gun control, here was the last debate about it. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Just don't try taking away my small nuclear arsenal. You'll be taking my favorite antique Korean war era warhead over my cold dead hands, right before it blows up me, you and Rhode Island. Note to any Federalies, the above is fiction and only used to illistrate the point that most reasonable people agree that there should be some limits on the "right to bear arms"--even if this violates the spirit and text of the constitution. Thus the debate should be about where do we draw limits concerning weapons people can legally own and use. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 08, 2001).]
Is that a nuclear warhead in your pocket or are you just happy to see me? ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
guns are good for when your lame ex bf talks about you with your other ex bf.....once again guns are good. ------------------ Love begins with a smile, grows with a kiss, and ends with a tear
monkey, why do you even bother posting? ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
Leave monkey alone I like her or something..she adds sugar and spice to the other bland poster offering. ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
heypartner, I have only responded once to beto and that was to ask him how he will take out a tank. It is people like haven and desert scar that play with him too much. Why can't we just keep banning this guy? I know he always comes back, but maybe he would eventually grow up... ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
Ban a burping Bevo Bovine You ever been in a coffee shop, bar or party and some obnoxious guy it spending a little too much energy trying to label himself with platform debates. Do you challenge him to debate, while your girlfriend looks *really* impressed by your wit and wisdom for making her stand there while the doof peers down her cleavage to inspire him even more? Do you realize the futitity and then ask management or the host to remove them? If maybe he was arguing basketball it would be fun to go at it, I mean that is why we are here. But these platform debates so people can stamp labels on their forehead...? Gun Control Abortion China Trite Race Issues Comments?? ...go start a bball thread for once rimbaud!
heypartner, I generally ignore pompous asses in public places. So that does not really apply. I realize he is harmless, I just think it could be fun to ban him all the time. As far as basketball threads go...the main forum has turned into incomprehensible drivel. I will post in there when it is not bombarded by 13 year old illiterates who put 18 exclamation points on every word. Ha ha...seriously, nothing interesting right now. ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
rimbaud & heypartner : its guys like you who make me glad im not old and mean yet=) ------------------ Love begins with a smile, grows with a kiss, and ends with a tear.
