my reasoning is this: if no one is allowed to own a gun, you don't need to protect yourself with one because no one else has one. a baseball bat or golf club should do. clearly this statement isn't to be taken too literal, because: a. obviously gun prohibition doesn't work, there's always ways to get firearms illegally b. some people sure like 'em some huntin' imo an ideal society should have no need for guns. living in a big city you hear about people getting killed by guns much more often than you should. now i know a ban on guns is unrealistic to some, but the gun-related deaths and injuries need to be addressed. as far as the arguments about protecting ourselves against the government, I'll get into that later. from my current standpoint I'm only referring to gun-related deaths and how they can be stopped or reduced. it'll be interesting if i can read any ideas on this from other blades
What is this, I don't even... So instead of people being able to protect themselves with a firearm, you suggest they bludgeon assailants to a pulp with blunt objects? This is your logic? Really? I don't suppose you've considered how such a dependence on physical strength for effective protection would disproportionately disadvantage those who are handicapped, or those who simply have weaker bodies, or lower muscle mass. Women are, on average, physically weaker than the average man; putting them at a disadvantage as well. All your proposition here does is ensure the tyranny of the physically superior. This is also to mention nothing of how much more easier it will become for governments and militaries to effectively oppress masses with their exclusive access to technologically superior weapons. Congratulations. Oh, btw, apparently--by your own logic--you should be advocating for a universal ban of automobiles. 1 in 85 people die as a result of motor-vehicle accidents as opposed to 1 in 300 by firearms. Out of those 1 in 300, I wonder how many of those were in defense of life. http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Documents/nscInjuryFacts2011_037.pdf
Seriously. As Shade pointed out, a gun is an equalizing force. Your argument is that if no one has guns, no one will use a gun to hurt each other. That's a great idea, except for the fact that when there are no guns, people will use other means. In the UK, guns are banned, and guess what, knife slayings have dramatically risen. Imagine if everyone had guns, every last person, don't you think that criminals would be a little more reticient about attacking civilians if they had knowledge that most people carried guns?
like I mentioned in the previous post: you make a very good point. I did a bit of research and found this: "Dr. Gary Kleck a criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the National Research Council, he said while he was once "a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis," he has now moved 'beyond even the skeptic position.' Dr. Kleck now says the evidence 'indicates that general gun availability does not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S.' " if this is the case, if gun-possesion within a society does not increase murder rate, robbery, assault, or rape, than I can only take back what I said in my previous posts.
Well, depending on the accuracy*, not only is there no evidence that the availability of guns increase crime, but it actually decreases certain crimes due to the fact that criminals are reluctant to attack people when they know the general populous has the capability of being armed at any given time, and therefore reacting to an assault with deadly force. Take a look at crime statistics for states that allow the average citizen to obtain a concealed carry permit vs. states that do not allow citizens to carry concealed to see the evidence of this. *Unfortunately, reported gun statistics are often about as accurate as marijuana "statistics". It all depends on who you're asking and how they may be skewing the data in their favor.
Th U.S. is a FEDERALIST REPUBLIC. In #10 of the Federalist Papers, Madison says a republic must be contrasted with a democracy. In democracy, there is no check on the majority party to protect the weaker party or individuals not associated with a party. He says these democracies, "have been spectacles of turbulance and contention" that do not allow security for personal rights and property.
So you were speaking in ideological terms, not saying that it would actually work. I do agree on some level of this. If we are to fight, I think it should be based on your own personal level of fighting skill. Anyone can shoot a gun. People have been killed from babies playing with guns. Of course now it is absolutely impossible to rid guns from society at this point
^^^^ This. Having to read democratic republic in the OP so much was hurting my eyes. The federalists won. They took control of the naational government in the first few terms and shaped it to their liking. The Federalists may have dissipated following the War of 1812 and their political embarrasment involved with suggesting surrender, but every party thereafter was thoroughly federalist in its policies. Its a power structure they like, because it easily keeps them in power. The supreme court and all its precedents-federalist. The President and his powers-federalist. Congress and their laws-federalist.
Replace the word "guns" with "cigarettes" in this paragraph. Tends to put the whole "guns are evil!" into perspective, since gun-related deaths don't even make up the zit on the ass of the deaths related to cigarettes. If we're going to sit here and discuss impossible prohibitions, we might as well go for the gold and attack the real killers out there.
Balance, this isn't logic. First you state that your position is: Banning the gun means no one need require protect themselves from guns with guns. Then you try to provide a scapegoat clause or two, I don't know why. And then you present your opinion which is your definition of an ideal society is one that should have no need for guns. What gun related deaths do you want to stop or lower? Accidental deaths? Murders? Hate Crimes? Accidental death is going to happen regardless, will gun accidental death go down - yes but people will be doing other things than playing with their guns so accidental deaths in other sectors will go up. Unless we want to ban everything that causes accidental deaths we cannot blame the gun alone. Murders, Hate Crimes, etc will also continue to happen regardless of whether a gun is available. And to be honest, I consider the gun to be the humane version of this going down. But if someone prefers to be stoned to death instead, that's their deal. Theft/Robbery/etc - Yeah because these will stop too if guns don't exist. People are innovative. This utopia you touch on for a moment - one that has no need for guns - is silly. How about this - a world where everyone is free to own or not own a gun as they choose and deal with the repercussions of their actions. It's far from a utopia but I'd take that over a world where I'm forced to fit into someone else's definition of ideal.
America started off as something good, but you know Capitalism arose, and was promoted to the planet, and now the corporations rule the world. Yang turns into yin. Yin into yang. What goes up must come down.
Capitalism barely had a chance to rise before it was oppressed by corporatism. Don't know what the hell you think you're talking about.
Ive agreed with a lot of what you've said here, but i would think that corporatism would be a byproduct of capitalism.
Heh, I stand corrected, ok, Corporatism arose out of the US, to conquer the world, and make people unsatisfied, humble, slaves. Slaves even to their own desires or needs.