Also, who wants to stake their life on the kindness of criminals and trust them not to kill?
Printable View
Also, who wants to stake their life on the kindness of criminals and trust them not to kill?
*clears my throat a bit in preparation*
Gentleman....
WONDERFUL discussion going on here! BUT... getting a bit close to flaming on some of those comments.... *looks around at the potential suspects*
Everyone take a step back and this thread won't get hurt...
*giggles*
Serious Guys... please keep it civil. My edit button and I are on the outs at the moment!
yes Mod Annie. hugs ya.
I don't think it's ok. I think stealing is wrong. You and WB are creating a mythical monster that doesn't exist. I stole because 1) I needed money and 2) I felt somehow justified. I also felt extremely sorry for myself and used that emotion to cover up any other emotion I might have felt about doing damage to others. I don't defend what I did or think it was justified. It was down to simple survival. When one is out of options morals erode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
I'm sure that it's the same kind of dynamics among every criminal group in the entire world. The important thing to remember is that guns would not have stopped me or my friends. We would still have stolen stuff, only adapted it to incorporate guns. Never forget that just because you can see options they can take in their life, doesn't mean they see it.
The people in my gang either grew out of it, (like me) or they moved onto hard drugs and died. I can't think of a single person of them who's still into crime....or scratch that. I don't know a single person from my old gang who's into crime where there's victims.
To quote an old friend of mine, "I think everybody should go to jail for a while so they stop being so fucking scared of it". I don't agree with him at all but can you imagine the mentality of the man saying it? Can you imagine the shift in morals required to reach that mental space? That guy is a lunatic though. Crazy mofo.
edit: my point is that guns are irrelevant. If you want to stop criminals stealing you have to remove the underlying reasons. Which usually are extreme poverty.
edit: I was also incredibly lucky in that I was never caught. There's a huge difference in the options available to the people who get caught for their youthful transgressions. Anybody who's done jail time is effectively shut out from getting any legit job. No matter why they ended up commiting crime to begin with. One of my closest friend back then is a high boss at IBM rational. He was 1) heavily into heroin and any drugs he could find. 2) a career criminal doing everything he could. But he grew out of it. He never got caught so he had options in life. And now he's clean and responsible. Another friend but who got caught, and now he's got some loser job within the porn industry. Another friend who went to jail had to start an IT company of his own because there was no way he could get hired. He's raking in the big bucks now. But it was all but obvious he would make it for years.
I'm ranting now. But don't judge peoples character too harshly because they find themselves on the other side of the fence. Extreme situations will create extreme measures no matter who you are.
As someone who owns guns for both self defense and pleasure (and as someone open carries a gun from time to time), I can say that I don't wish to shoot or kill anyone and the thought of taking anyone's life gives me sickening feeling and certainly does not give me a "rush." But I would rather shoot someone than let myself or loved ones be murdered. I also don't consider my self a macho man who wants to feel big about himself. In fact I hate confrontation and will gladdy capitulate if it means avoiding a fight.
And I find such statements about law abiding gun owners such as myself to be personally insulting.
I also see how "disarmed = subject" can be insulting as well and I generally steer away from using the "copy and paste" info in the OP when discussing gun control.
Yes, I can agree on that as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by bthest
If we forget the stealing aspect of this so that we don't feel sorry for the criminal element and focus on all the lives that have been taken by low life vermin just so they can get their kicks maybe it would be a little easier to understand why some people feel safer in protecting themselves rather than letting it up to the police to do that for them.
I am about to take a refresher course to renew my CWP license which means my first one is about to expire and they last for 4 years. In that almost 4 years I have never once carried my weapon with me because I really don't want to ever be faced with the decision of having to pull it and actually fire it at another "human being." I am renewing my permit because I feel it is my right, as a law abiding citizen, to be able to carry if I so choose. No more, no less. I also feel it is necessary that we who believe as I do continue to fight so that others may keep the right to bear arms.
I see what our law makers and our laws do to our citizens now and don't like all the rights and privileges I have lost in the last 60 years. I shudder to think how much worse it would be without the ordinary citizen having the right to own weapons.
I have seen and been in discussions like this before and I have never seen anyone change their mind in their beliefs. However, I do think discussions like this are healthy.
Good Post WB, and you are right.. opposing sides rarely change sides.
is why these discussions get so intense. They bring in past emotions with some. I've had some very heated ones in the past.
I understand and I get upset once we get something going and the threat of flaming appears. Sometimes it is no more than emotions speaking and after all we are all adults or at least we say we are when we sign up here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
I'm not advocating calling anyone a dumb mother fucker. I'm only saying that we should be treated as adults. If one of us is on the verge of flaming then we should be warned and not left guessing who the comment is directed at. If I said anything that was close to flaming I want to know about it otherwise it may happen again and again without me knowing it was even close to being considered a flame.
It does at times make it very difficult to say what you want but I have not seen one instance here where I personally would have even considered anything a flame.
Now back to gun control. I'm against it as you may guess. However I am not against training to make it safe to own and carry a weapon. Enough said.
I really like this thread. I'm still undecided towards guns, sometimes I think the world would be better without them, and sometimes guns are just as dangerous as a regular knife found in a kitchen.
This thread is giving me a lot to think about, thank you people, from both sides of this arguement.
aaaah I wondered where this thread went.
I think that the main reason why we get such a heated discussion here is because Tom and I live in Sweden where we havent had a war for the past 200+ years and you in the US have had lots of fighting in the past few hundred years.
Our societys look different and we dont have the same amount of violent crimes nor the same amount of people carrying guns. There might not be a link between the two or there might.
Swedes cant get a permit to carry a concealed weapon at all and we dont feel as "scared" of what our government does as it seems like you do from your posts. We never had the need for every person to carry a gun to defend themselves even.
Simply put our past and present look very different and that is why our opinions differ.
It is most definitely an interresting discussion though.
my 5 eurodollars ;)
Well, the last war here was 150 years ago so we aren't that far off from you guys.:blurp_aniQuote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
I think it has to do with Europe's long history gun control which dates back to the middle ages. People just accept it as normal.
Where as in America, guns were necessary for survival among regular folks and therefor we have developed a society that favors unrestricted gun ownership.
I agree difference in war here and wars abroad is very different ...
People have forgotten that it can and will come home again one day.
WWI and WWII was not internal.
political conflicts using military , police actions, etc should not be called wars.
Examples Korean War wasn't ours truly. Vietnam Wasn't a war although it felt like it to those who went. Grenada wasn't a war. Gulf War I & II are hardly war, though the government is waging a form of it. I do not think it's the same or we would have the draft back. ( which may yet come, if they don't bring the troops home. see sustainability in searches. )
Way I look at it .. We've only had two wars here.
And I won't go into the second one ATM.
I don't think that's the reason at all. First off I think it's the fact that USA has a lot more poverty than western Europe that's the big difference. Western Europe has a lot more welfare and state aid to people in shity situations. This means that we don't get as many desperate down and outs over here. I think that the root of virtually all crime is poverty and/or lack of hope in life. Increased crime rates is just a natural development of USA's economic policies. I don't think there's an obvious right or wrong here. We make choices and pay the price. USA is as a whole a lot richer than Europe, so I'm sure it's policies benefit USA in the long run financially. But it creates a lot harsher life for them now. No matter if you're rich or poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
The gun issue is completely separate. I think that the combination of poverty induced elevated crime rates makes it so very dangerous to legalize guns in the USA. Finland and Austria being prime examples of how legalising guns is in itself not a bad thing. Just looking at the guns themselves I don't think is helpful to understanding gun crime, no matter your stance.
A couple of years ago I was in a business meeting with an older Hells Angels guy. Hell's Angels is Sweden's most infamous Mafia organisation. This meeting was nothing to do with crime at all. They've got plenty of legit business ventures and this might have been one of them.
Anyhoo... To cut a long story short. We had a long discussion and ended up having a heart to heart. When I told him that I didn't understand the appeal of joining an organisation like the Hells Angels he said something along the lines of, the Mafia is for people without strong father figures. It's for people with no structure or purpose in their life who need a firm hand and a clear social function in life.
I thought it was pretty profound. Beside never ever have expected to hear such a candid or well formulated answer from that low-browed massive mound of meat. Never forget that the people who join this shit are all very young. My interpretation was that, they might tell other or even themselves that they're in it for the bitches, money and drugs...but as always it's never that simple. And as we all know. Once they're in they can't leave so they off-course adjust their morals to fit.
For me personally. The state finally took custody over me and gave me money and a place to stay so I didn't need to steal stuff any longer. I was still up to no good and got into a lot of trouble. But the increased security in my life meant that I went on to other types of crime. A little bit more safer and friendly things. I ran a string of illegal all-nighter clubs. Selling alcohol without a permit is very illegal in Sweden. And then as I said, I went legit all together. I have a feeling that my early life story is pretty common for any criminal. But I never got convicted of anything. Which I think was the key to how I could get out of it.
There's no special criminal mind and I doubt there's any evil gene. I'm sure there's a violent gene. But that doesn't in anyway have to lead to crime, or even violence. It wasn't until I was 23 that I realised that I'd been in a constant state of semi-panic attack all my life. The first time I ever felt calm and safe was when I was then, at 23. It's hard to explain. But if you've never experienced an emotion. It's very hard to long for it or to figure out what you might need in life to feel it. It's very hard to think straight when your mind is in a state of panic. I was never all that into drugs, but if I'd been...wow....that would have been fucked. awww... it's hard to explain. But this issue is so far beyond good and evil or right and wrong. It's about survival. Both mentally and literally.
My old gang friend at Rational got a girl friend who helped him get off heroin and straighten up his life. I don't actually know his back story but he was very young when he got into crime life to. According to him, he stopped doing crime the second he could see another viable option for him in his life. Nobody knows his background where he works now. Nobody would believe him if he told them.
It's not only my experience but it's also science. When you punish criminals harshly and put them away, all you're doing is breeding criminals. The worst thing that can happen is that they identify with it. Which tends to happen in jail. Seeing it as a way of life rather than a tool to survive. All the old friends I have which went to jail are all such fuck ups. They all have at best dead end jobs, still do drugs and fuck teenage chicks even though they're waaaay too old for it. And the ones with kids are even worse. They're hardly working hard to make the world a better place. All thanks to the forces of justice. It's not that they're all that bad people. But who the fuck hires an ex-convict for anything interesting?
As I said. The only way to combat crime is to take away the underlying reason. There's no obvious simple solution. Especially not carrying guns like some vigilante macho nerd protecting the good from the evil. It might feel like you're doing something good but until the criminals needs can be met some other way he'll just keep going. As a crime victim your only two options that make any difference is 1) shoot to kill. Problem solved for ever. 2) just forget about it and call your insurance company. Or your goal is simple revenge. Can't really argue that one. But it will only make matters worse. The state pays for jail time which comes from your pocket. Unless you're a criminal in case it won't. It's a lose - lose.
Guns as a deterrent against crime doesn't work. There's plenty of research to back that one up. I doubt if it's a deterrent against ones government turning into a dictatorship either. There's a massive difference between a soldier and a private citizen other than just guns.
I'm very ranty now. And I apologise for that. But this is something I both feel strongly about and know a lot about. Since this was a very long time ago I've gotten a lot of perspective.
I have not looked at this thread for a while, so am weighing in late. I am going to come down on the side of people owning weapons though. What I see happening in the US can only be stopped if enough people have the power to speak up. The erosion of our freedoms since 9/11 is inexcusable, and I know that Bin Laden is laughing his fool head off at the Patriot Act.
The ACLU is able to speak up and fight in court because there are a bunch of people who own guns who will fight the government if it tried anything against them. And anyone who thinks democracies are safe need not even look to history for examples of democracies gone bad. Look at what is happening in Nicaragua. Chavez was elected there, bit there will never be another election as long as he is alive. This is not speculation, it is what is happening now.
Gun control does not work. I know that proponents can point to Switzerland and a few other countries as proof that it does, but are they really examples of gun control working, or of national pride? Switzerland has a long history of being independant, and there army is respected on reputation more than ability. If any country were to seriously decide to attack Switzerland they would fall rather quickly, despite the advantages that they have defensively from the Alps, and the fact that every able bodied person is technically in the Swiss Armed Forces, which is almost a militia in structure.
Since the original framers of the US Constition envisioned a militia more than an army, perhaps the reason that Switzerland actually has effective gun control is that they have a well armed militia. I wonder what will happen to the citezens of Switzerland if the movement to disband the army ever actually succeeds.
Sorry about stealing the thread away. I can get a bit emotional about this. So that's why it's so incoherent.
According to Pinker we all like to think of ourselves as if we understand the world a little bit better than everybody else. We like to think that we are a little bit more moral than everybody else. The problem is off-course that it's never or very seldom the case. No matter how much it looks like it to us. That's a quote BTW.
I understand that we need to create these mythical evil and vicious people who are purely destructive people to maintain the image of our own moral greatness.
Just like those gang bangers WB was describing. It's obviously bollocks. What possible gain could they or the gang get from killing a random person? They'll get the cops on their case for one! I don't believe that has ever happened no matter what the paper says. Beside the fact that the murder of a random person is immoral to everybody, no matter your stance. Nobody thinks murder is "nothing" or "cool". Whenever people get killed because of street crime I think is mostly down to freaky random shit that nobody had planned. I think it's at best sensationalist press talking.
I beg to differ. You don't seem have much knowledge on US self-defense laws, gun laws and the gun owning culture (which represents over 80,000,000 people in the US). Such as resorting to stereotypes such as "macho men" and "vigilante" which couldn't be further from the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
Just my observations.
Sorry. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the motives to commit crime. And you are quite correct in that I don't understand why US citizens feel the need to carry weapons. If that's down to lack of knowledge I'll leave open. All the motives I've heard so far have all been pretty superficial though. But hey, who am I to judge? I don't live there. But if you look at statistics of murder rates in USA and compare them to most other countries we all see that something is amiss in USA. Whether it's down to the gun laws, gun culture or something else is an other debate all together.Quote:
Originally Posted by bthest
I could argue much is amiss in other countries.
Much is amiss when .gov decides it can defend citizens better than they can themselves.. while elderly are beaten regularly for the measing things that are taken. where is the government then?
What is amiss when the goverment decides to gas defenseless people as it did in Iraq?
What is amiss when people can't walk this planet without worrying of manmade borders and walls that prevent us from enjoying all that is natural nad beautiful.
What is amiss when culture overrides the knowing and understanding your fellow man regardless of language?
Yes ToS much is amiss but it does not all reside in the US.
Open your eyes and stop reading so much and look around and experience the world as it is.
It seems to me that the debate here is not about guns, but about crime. THere is so much more to guns than defending yourself if your house is robbed. As a teenager I learned how to handle guns at around 14 years old. For my family and I it is a sport. Why should something I enjoy doing be illegal just because some idiot gets a hold of a gun and decides to shoot people? Now given the chance if need be I am sure that I would use it in defense; but owning a gun would not make me feel safer or make me feel macho. The only reason I do not own a gun right now is because my hobbies cost more than what is in the bank. Given the chance I will buy a gun; and no I will not use it to shoot someone. The real question here is why does the government feel the need for gun control? They have made illegal guns that are semi automatic because they are dangerous. Sorry but I think a bullet from a .22 can kill someone just as much as anything coming out of a semi automatic. I feel that if people were more educated on the use of guns that maybe it wouldn't be such a problem. There will always be some idiot out there that will get a hold of a gun and shoot someone or a bunch of people. More than likely that idiot who does so will get that gun illegally. Obviously it is the law abiding citizens who are being punished for other's stupidity. But, that's how the world is.
Yep... and I actually agree with this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by nk_lion
1) Bows and crossbows are hard to conceal.
2) I'm rather skilled with edged weapons. They're so much more up close and personal.
But it was also much easier to kill someone who gave offense and get away with it... so... maybe the world wouldn't be a better place... where the strongest man gets to bully you.
"God made man. Colt made men equal."
Careful there me bucko. Some might say Sweden remains neutral so they can sell weapons to both sides.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic1
On the other hand, you took in a lot of refugees.
But don't knock us for coming to the rescue when our friends were in need. (I know, that's a simple statement in a complex world... then and now.)
IMO, That's splitting hairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
The last war Sweden "waged" was during the Napoleonic era and their policy of neutrality comes around 1812... because they lost A LOT of territory back then. Finnland, for example...
We also had a war in 1812. Call it what you want, we fought... Mexico, American Indians, ourselves, more indians, Spain, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, Germany again, Italy, Japan, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, Cuba, Greneda, Panama, Iraq twice.
Well, I think WB got the motivation wrong... but they do in fact initiate members by random violent crime... and the worst of the gangs do so by murder. Kind of hard to turn on your fellow members if you yourself are a murderer. Even harder for law enforcement to infiltrate a gang if he has to kill someone to do so. THAT, in part, is why they initiate the way they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
This is also a very good point... Why automatic and semi-automatic weapons? Because I can spray bullets? I can do that with a shotgun too. And most of the countries with gun laws omit shotguns... the ultimate sporting weapon... but also a military weapon back when automatics weren't available.Quote:
Originally Posted by nia25
In humor, I suggested that cars with automatic transmissions should be outlawed because when using a car as a weapon, more people use cars with automatic transmissions than with standard transmissions. And it's easier to jump a curb or change directions with an automatic.
To me... it's the same kind of logic. :rolleyes:
Ok I did not want to post anymore but I have to put my 2 cents in on this.
First of all blaming someone’s criminal behavior on poverty is absurd. How about getting a fucking job instead of stealing and robbing from others who work hard for what they have weather it be a little or a lot.
Second there are criminals that do kill people because they are witnesses the mafia is notorious for it along with child molesters rapist and here in America the 3 time losers (people who will do life in prison for committing a third felony)
Third We have the right to bare arms in America not just so we can defend our self’s from other countries invading but also so we can over throw our own if we feel the need that it has become unjust,
Fourth do we need to fear our government? Yes we do, do I need to remind every one about what happened in Waco Texas. Sure David Koresh was a total nut job, but did our government need to do what they did causing the deaths of 74 men women and children all because some minor gun charges he was facing keep in mind at the time no one knew about the child molestation that was going on.
Second example Ruby Ridge Idaho another example of our government gone wrong Randy Weaver was facing again minor guns charges. The FBI/ATF decided to storm his house and as a result His 14 year old son was killed and later on a sniper shot his wife while she was standing on the front porch holding a baby.
Fifth we have serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and just plain old murders here in America these criminals have no conscience they do not care about what they do to get what they want if you are they you are just in the way.
So do not think that the government does not do wrong it happens.
So in closing I own guns and I love to hunt. Would I use a gun to protect myself or my family or a complete stranger? Hell yes I would. Like I stated before if we made it illegal to have guns here and by some miracle every single last gun was turned it or people killed to get them because some of us won’t just hand over our guns. Would crime stop? Would murders stop? Hell NO! They would use knives, so what now? Outlaw those too? Then well they would use chainsaws…..not what outlaw those too? A criminal will use whatever it takes to get what they want period
Masterstone that is what Australia is doing. gone from firearms to long blades .. last i heard they were considering baseball bats. small chuckles
TOTALLY agree with that one... LOL It's almost as though they feel they can control everything... wait they almost can!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozme52
Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterStone
Well said... and there are always ways to get guns illegally!
Hmm...exactly what, then, do you mean by "liberal democracy"? Personally, I interpret democracy fairly generously, but also, I think, fairly conventionally as a governmental system in which a free vote of a sizable portion of the population leads to laws and leadership. TRUE democracy, to my understanding, is a decision by simple majority upon all governmental decisions by all members of the population...which has never existed in national government (and, imo, never will or should).Quote:
When people today say "democracy" I'd say that they by default mean "liberal democracy" and the interpretation of the opposite is mostly down to a know-it-all trying to shine a bit isn't it?
Again, I'm curious as to your definition of liberal democracy. There is only one(!) decision made by vote by all Americans able to vote, once every four years -- the President, someone to make decisions for us. Even this is not by simple majority (meaning a majority vote does not always win; a minority vote can -- and has -- elected presidents). Even in this vote, there are many people excluded: non-citizen residents, minors, and felons. I never voted on marraige laws, health care, or going to war.Quote:
USA wasn't a fully functioning liberal democracy until 1920 with every state allowing women to vote. No matter how often George Washington use the word "freedom" in 1776.
And for the record, the writers of the Constitution abhorred the excesses of democracy and the carnage and repression of the French Revolution, and took exceptional steps to ensure the US was NOT democratic, but instead Republican. It was only in later reinterpretations (particularly beginning with Andrew Jackson) that we imagined "of the people" equated "democratic."
Hrm...I guess one could claim that Hitler's Germany, and FDR's US, weren't functioning liberal democracies, as both were under martial law and suspension of civil rights at the time...but those suspensions were per democratic (my interpretation) constitutions and followed elections, so that seems a bit of a stretch to me.Quote:
A very important thing to bear in mind is that there to date have still not been any armed conflicts between two functioning liberal democracies.
And..."know-it-all trying to shine a bit"...refuting knowledge with rude comments is beneath you, Tom. I invite disagreement, I welcome it -- I learn nothing from nodding heads -- but please be polite. End of rant :)
Ok, that's fine, but this attitude is actually at odds with the idea of liberal democracy. The government should defend the citizens better than they can defend themselves to make sure everybody is equal under the law. The border between defending and being proactive isn't exactly clear, is it? When does the proactive measure become a one sided aggressive act? How is the law supposed to address that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
I don't have any problems with people defending themselves when they're attacked. It's the part of doing it better than the cops or army that I've problems with. The state should be better than it's citizens to ensure that the laws of the country are upheld, and not the strong citizens own vigilante book of law. The law of the strong is what we're trying to avoid by liberal democracy, isn't it?
If Bush would seize power with the army in USA, you'd be fucked. No matter how much guns you have. USA has the most powerful and experienced army in the world. Backed up by extremely powerful CIA and FBI you wouldn't have a chance in hell to stop him. But this is all assuming the army would back a dictatorship up in USA, which would be a first. There is no examples in history of a stable democracy with a generation having grown up with democratic traditions reverting to a military dictatorship, (or a shit loads of generations since 1776).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
I hear that as an argument against gun control all the time, and even if it sounds good, it has no relevance to USA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
But I'm not for gun control as such. I'm just for anything that can make the world safer. If guns lead to a safer USA I'd like to see something to back it up. I know off-course that statistics can be read very liberally depending on what you're trying to prove. :) But do somebody really deny the vast number of murders committed in USA? If it's not guns that's the problem, then what is it?
I'm talking about the criminal lifestyle. Not white collar crime. Off-course there's plenty ways to commit crime which I'm not addressing at all. I'm talking about people breaking into your home and stealing your VCR or your car. If it's not poverty motivating them, then what is it? Fun?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterStone
ok. Nobody has anything to either back it up or refute so let's just leave this.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterStone
Seriously. What if some nutty right wing or communist government would come to power in USA. They'd been elected!!! Would you really take arms against it even though it had been democratically elected? Isn't the whole point with democracy that we hand over power to the government and put up with shit we might not agree with just to keep the peace.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterStone
Your examples are a bit silly. The cops have the mandate they've received from the people. If you don't like the cops enforcing laws you've voted for, then vote for something else. Considering the number of grass roots lobby organisations and how fast USA adapts new science into policy, (compared to Europe). I'd say USA has the worlds most well functioning democracy. We might not like what's been voted for. Like creationism in Kansas. But the fact that it almost became law in USA means that the people feel empowered. Democracy is more an attitude and tradition rather than the set of rules in the constitution.
So, government and cops fuck up. That's not the issue here. The issue here is whether private citizen protecting themselves with guns, will fuck it up more than the law enforcers....with guns?
Here we go again with the mythical cold hearted evil criminal mind. Yes, a criminal will use what ever it takes to get what they want. But how that is an argument against gun control is beyond me. They will get what they want. If not from you then somebody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterStone
I suggest looking at interviews with criminals on youtube. It's fun. Beside from the loony ones, because there's a fair share of those. But the sane ones. They all talk about eating vast quantities of ****** and various tranqilizers before comiting their crimes. Does that seem like people with no conscience? Cold blooded killers? Does that sound like people who don't know they're doing wrong?
Very few criminals make enough money from their life style to make it worth it more than having any old shity down and out job. Career criminals go in and out of jail all the time. What kind of person would rather do that than get a job do you think? Is it laziness? Idiocy? The search for status among teenagers?
People here seem quite comfortable hypothesizing about the criminal mind without seeming to feel the need to explain it. It's treated as if it's the truth. Even though the people described are the most inhuman of monsters. I need more than that. I don't believe in monsters under the bed either.
Again. I'm not for gun control as such. The issue is a lot more complicated than being about just the guns alone.
Sorry, I didn't think you'd take it as an insult. I think I may have needed a smiley there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectricBadger
"Liberal democracy" is pretty well defined. You can look it up anywhere. It's not really open to interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy
Yeah, I think I would argue that Hitler's Germany was not a fully functioning democracy. Considering the fact that he was elected on a vocal anti-democratic platform. Since the people obviously didn't believe in the merits of democracy it's an indication the democracy isn't working.
Yeah, try living in Chicago. People can and do kill people for no reason at all every single day. When I lived on the West side, gun fire was merely background noise. I got used to it! Now that's scary!Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
There is quite a difference in how people in the USA view guns, depending on the area in which they live. Here in the city people are horrified to hear that my dad taught me how to use a gun when I was eight; To know that my mom and her husband carry concealed weapons; That my youngest sister got her first shotgun when she was 13. In the city people tend to view guns as these horrible things that only gang bangers and cops have and don't see any reason for an upright citizen to have one. Out in the country it seems that everyone has a least one just to go hunting at the very least, but they will also tell you it's for their own protection. They will also tell you that if you are taught responsibility along with that gun then there is really very little danger of it being used for ill purposes.
I don't have time to make this as clear as I would like, but I will come back it as soon as I can.
ToS discussing something with you involved in the thread is frustrating at times.
I'd suggest you haven't made a convincing arguement. Of all the people here (at the library,) Tom has been one of the most willing to modify or moderate his position when the arguement has convinced him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfscout
I think you're upset because his counterpoints have merit.
Oz, not to me, but then .... what does that matter, eh?
*Sighs and attempts this again...*
Ok everyone...
Still a great discussion... but my edit button is back to working and if things continue as they are there will be items considered as flaming.
You may disagree and argue and state your point as many times as you wish. BUT... do not make personal comments or statements about others.
This is the 2nd... and the last warning on this. Next time not only will posts be edited but warnings will be given and further action taken if need be...
*gives my bestest sternest MODly look... *
No problems annie..
I saw the situation already. But not editing my posts anymore
I think the issue here is a difference in mentality about guns and the causes of crime.
However well a argument is presented, with whatever evidence, the discusees ( is that a word?) will always come back to their own opinions, and probably be able to support them with statistics too, so the argument will always be circular.
rach