Guns came about through the desire for a more efficient way to kill. Arrows came about through desire for a more effective way to kill animals for food. Income equality will always exist, you're right. Even with a properly functioning economy, there will be income inequality. It's one of those "necessary evils" we all learn about. The problem is, those in power want to see 2 distinct economic classes. The rich and the poor. They don't want a "middle class" anymore. We're slowly moving back to the days of "steal from the poor to pay the rich". Just look at the "Healthcare reform" that was past in the US. You either pay for health insurance (which a large portion of the US can't afford) or you pay a financial penalty for not having it.
I laughed, I really did. You think we behave like kids because we find guns fun to shoot? Where does that logic even come from? Have you ever shot a gun in your life? I highly doubt it. Me and my best friend are highly educated and have enough guns between us to start a small army. All for fun. AR-15's, handguns, Russian stuff like Mosins, etc. And there's nothing anyone can do about it, because this is a highly conservative state with almost no restrictions. I have the legal ability to walk down the street with a gun hidden on my person if I deem it necessary. And guess what? I don't do it. I don't see the point of escalating a situation to lethal force over a petty robbery of some sort. However, I enjoy having the ability. It's cute and insulting that you think I'm "childish" for enjoying the scope of my rights responsibly. Having large scale access to guns doesn't magically turn a population violent, just like restricting them doesn't magically make tragic acts stop occurring. If people want them, they will get them, whether through legal means or not. For every Aurora or Utøya shooting (it's not always in America since a lot of Europeans seem to conveniently forget), there are millions of safe and warranted instances of gun use, from sport shooting to personal defense against a home invader. I refuse to let the principle of "one rotten apple spoils the bunch" to apply when it comes to guns. You can apply this slippery slope principle to literally everything in life that you don't like or that has negative aspects. I guess Americans and Europeans will never see eye to eye on this issue. And that's fine, because it's not changing here any time soon Also, given this thread is partly a quip at American culture/law, it's squarely over the "political" line. Now we've all been civilized enough so far, but If I see a single post about what a "civilized" country does with their guns, or any flaming, it's over.
^ Thank you for common sense. A lot of people don't realize that guns are used every day by law abiding citizens to deter criminals. That doesn't mean the weapon was actually fired, it means the person pulled it out, pointed it at the criminal and the criminal ran. But you hardly ever here those stories of people protecting themselves with a gun because the media will only focus on the criminal or loony-person who successfully wounds or kills someone. This subject will always have polar beliefs and I don't honestly care if some people think guns are evil. All I know is when someone breaks into my home I'll have a means to protect myself while those who don't can rely on their phone call to the police.
I have lived in your part of the world extensively, and with a very few exceptions these "manliest men" are drunkards too obsessed with kissing their own biceps to accomplish anything beyond harassing school girls and scaring stray dogs with their body odor. :3eyes:
If you mean my specific part, people here twats and utter posers. If go a bit more north and east picture change drastically.
Guns or bullets do not kill people. It's the finger that pulls the trigger which does. However, whether having the right to own guns is truly about "freedom" or "democracy" or not, is another matter entirely IMHO. Personally I think access to weapons should be restricted. Or at least access to ammo, kinda like in the military (you have a weapon, but you're given ammo only when you need it). In a modern world you needn't hunt for food, so neither do you need guns. I somewhat understand having one as means of home defence, but even that is arbitrary. Especially as that weapon could just as easily be used against its owner. Just my opinion though.
Valid point that has to be considered when you want to use a gun for self defense. And that's the one funny thing about guns. Merely being able to point and pull the trigger doesn't mean you'll be able to kill someone effectively. You have to TRAIN. A lot. Just to ensure you can hit what you want to and not get yourself killed. I'm still not comfortable enough with my marksmanship yet. Maybe another 5 years from now, I'll consider that. Until then I'll just have my big dog as defense, and keep using my guns for fun and practice.
Even with training, not everyone is capable of killing another person and some of those who are capable, aren't capable of dealing with the mental/emotional consequences. Owning a gun and being unable to kill another person if the need ever arises could potentially be worse than being unarmed.
That's why the crime rate in America is so low, unlike just over the border in Canada where there are restrictions on gun ownership and the crime rate is exceptionally rampant. This is despite Canada having many more police officers per 1000 of population. Much safer to live in a place like Los Angeles than Vancouver .
You can post all the statistics you want; it really doesn't matter. The culture in Canada is completely different. It also doesn't event have a 10th of the population that America does. Not to mention the racial mix isn't even close to comparable. A place like Los Angeles has far more racial tension than Vancouver. Latin American and Black gangs are historically violent towards each other, and drive the statistics way up. They also don't buy their guns legally, so.... The funny thing is that I'm actually a Canadian living in America. Living here has taught me how crappy Canada's gun laws really are. Can't own a handgun with a barrel 4.21 inches or less? Blow me.
I used Los Angeles as an example, there are plenty of other cities I could have said . Of course, you could cherry pick cities like a politician would, and say that is proof, but that's hardly a reasonable comparison. Also, of course the number of crimes should be lower in Canada if they have much less population. My argument was based on the average crime rate, over all of Canada, per 100,000 people, compared to the average crime rate over all of the US, per 100,000 people. That is a comparison that you can do that's valid. The figures for different types of crime significantly high in the US than Canada or other countries with gun laws. If the argument that gun ownership is a significant deterrent for crime, it would mean that the US is full of nothing but murderers, rapists, kidnappers, people involved with violent crime etc.
The stats still don't change the cultural differences. I get that you're trying to counter what I said about guns serving as a crime deterrent, but that's more of a common sense argument that's not really provable either way. Especially considering good stats for how many crimes that the presence of guns actually deters is nearly impossible to obtain. It doesn't help that "suicide" is a gun crime.
Suicide is only a "gun crime" if a gun was involved. It's a "drug abuse" problem if someone takes Ritalin and dives off a building.
what was it? guns kill people r , people kill people? or religion kill people? or cancer kills people?
It's the usual standard argument that it lowers crime and that people are less likely to piss each other off because there armed. I'm also against UKIP's hand gun legalization campaign. While some might say that owning a gun isn't the deciding factor for committing a crime, it certainly does make it easier.
