If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
About the American gun culture....
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Several people have argued our position well. Others have made asses out of themselves. (Please ignor the later.) However several of the most important points have yet to be made. First, our Bill of Rights is only a written confirmation of our "God given rights" mention in our Declaration of Independance. They were not granted by men, only reaffirmed in case they were ever questioned. Second, the United States in one of very few, if not the only country that can not be taken. We can be destroyed but we can not be sucessfully be invaded. Our street gangs alone could take on most 3rd world countries. Yes, I know that also has a bad side. Third point, all governments can and will eventualy go bad. We have the means to control ours. How are you going to stop yours? Next, I work nights and I feel alot better knowing my wife has access to a gun to protect herself and my 3 kids if she ever had too. There's alot more I could mention but Im too tired to think about it anymore. Im sure I'll come up with more later. Before I go I'd just like to repeat something that was said earlyer. Our problem is a complete decline in morals and education. We werent having these problems 50 years ago. Later.
0
Comments
Ah well...personally, I have nothing against guns, they're only a tool. It's whoever's behind the gun you have to worry about, I think the problem with the law is that no matter how it's changed, not everyone will abide to it.
If guns were illegal, people who own them would most likely have them to hurt others, if they were legal, everybody would have one and not only would there be controversy, but also killings would be harder to trace.
Personally, I think that every time there is a crime, we look to blame somebody or something else, for example the media. I guess we could go into the whole nature versus nurture debate, but I'll spare you that. Why do we blame the tool used, or videogames or whatever. A murder is commited for a reason, either A, the person commiting it is mentally unstable or B, something has made them that way.
Well, that's my opinion anyway.
So with one hand on the wheel
The other out the window
With a smile on my face
My middle finger up...
I think one of the main problems these days is that because of todays society, children are being forced to grow up too fast...
The truth is problems where around 50 years ago just on a different scale and less documented.
Violence unfortunatly now seems to stem as being socially acceptable by many which is a shame, I agree that 50 years ago people did not have to lock their houses at night as crime was so low..
I think this also stems with people getting more greedy, when people don't know about something they don't want it, when things are plastered around on TVs/advertisements people have ideas printed in thier heads, TV has mapped this imaginary image of what society is like and what the average person should look/do/own and be like...
With regards to the education system, it has gone better but is not taught or learned with the same respect as it used to because it is so widely available... there is so much competition for jobs these days and its so easy to get information on anything you require...
I'm not saying I agree or disagree about the need for guns, I think that with the violence around people need to be protected but having protection through such an extreme and so widely availablility is that really a good thing? Being the person who wins with the fastest trigger finger...
I agree with Liberty... and those are my views.. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
Next I would like to address some false assumptions posted by Europeans on this board-mainly folks from the UK.
1)The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution. However, the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, rather it enumerates rights that the founders of our nation believed that every human being owns simply by existing. These rights cannot be legitimately abrogated by any lawful government.
2)The amendment process embodied in the US Constitution keeps it from simply being a centuries old out of date document. Our last amendment became part of the Constitution within the past decade.
3)The National Rifle Association as the haven of "redneck fascists." The NRA has over four million members presently. These members are ordinary US citizens combining in free association for a variety of purposes. You might be surprised at how much of our annual budget goes for gun safety education rather than lobbying the government. The NRA as an association has the highest level of education among its members of any non-professional association in the USA.
4) The sucess of lobbying efforts by the NRA.
The National Organization for Women has a membership of 250,000. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has a membership of 500,000. I do not believe that anyone would argue that, in a democratic society, that NOW and the NAACP should not have influence on national policy and legislation. By the same token, the membership of the NRA and its constituency is many times larger than the membership and constituency of the aforementioned groups. It is logical that as a result, it's influence is great.
5)Hunting ammunition that will penetrate armour. LOL! I assume that body armour was meant by this. The fact of the matter is that ANY rifle bullet legal for hunting deer in the US will penetrate ANY soft body armour designed to wear under the clothing. This is not a matter of nefarious design...it is simply a matter of physics. If you get a paper spitball going fast enough it will penetrate body armour.
6) I have halted a potentially lethal attack with a handgun. My attacker had a club and was intent on smashing my skull. For some reason, he stopped his attack when he realized I was drawing a handgun. No shots were fired-he stopped his attack and I stopped my defense. I tend to get somewhat annoyed when folks say handguns have no purpose but to kill for mine saved my life and killed no one. Furthermore, as a logical extension, anyone who says I should not own a handgun is saying that I should have died at the hands of my assailant.
Self defense is a basic human right.
[This message has been edited by Byron Quick (edited 19-07-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Byron Quick (edited 19-07-2001).]
Why?
The most basic instinct of any organism is self-preservation. When in danger, you will do most anything to survive. If you say otherwise, you are probably just lying to yourself. It isn't likely you would just sit there and let someone stab you to death or beat or otherwise injure you.
Justin hit on many points primarily education. 40 years ago most schools in the uSA taught marksmanship and firearms safety. Saddly few if any do today. It is a fact that children trained in firearm safety and use are far less likely to use a firearm to vent hostility towards another human being. Most of what children learn about firearms today is from the movies. Much of the crap that comes out of hollyweird these days is pure garbage. Gratuitus violence and no regard for human life. It seems that schools today no longer teach children to be individual thinkers but rather group mentality. All this politically correct thought has got to stop because we are after all is said and done individuals, not ants. Socialiism, pure and simple.
I once heard that if you strike an Englishman on the face he will turn the other cheek. If you strike him again he will walk away. If you strike him again he will kill you.
Beware the lollypop of mediocrity, lick it once and you will suck forever.
In the post initiating my participation in this thread, I stated that I had used a handgun to defend my life. Does anyone really believe it would have been more moral to allow my assailant to kill me?
[This message has been edited by Byron Quick (edited 19-07-2001).]
WHY does the fact life-forms have a self-preservation instinct entail that they have a 'right' to life? Instincts can be wrong, you know.
Please, don't come back at me with more random assertions of entitlements. If I ask WHY the sky is blue, I'm not disputing that it is blue. I am looking for an EXPLANATION, preferable involving differential diffraction of light of different wavelengths. So, I'm looking for REASONED EXPLANATION, please.
MacKenzie,
Do I own my life and my body? If your answer is no, then who does own my life and body?
If I do own my life and body and it is destroyed, will I get another to replace it? The available evidence would suggest that the answer is no, I will not get another body or another life. Since this life is mine and is apparently irreplaceable, I believe that self defense can (very) reasonably be considered a right. To my mind, an entitlement is something that is bestowed upon you through some other agency while a right is something that is integral to existence as a human being and can be neither granted nor removed by an outside agency-only infringed upon by superior power.
Do you think so little of human life that you think it fair for a mugger to come and kill you for your wallet? I guess those Hitler was ok then really considering those pesky Jews shouldnt have had a right to life. May as well kill the lot of em eh?
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Q) How can you justify self-defence as a pose to protection of your property?
For example, a man breaks into a house and you hear him from upstairs, you worry for your own and families safety and you go to investigate taking a fire arm... you catch him in the act, your angry and afraid, he makes a run in your direction to get out the door and you shoot him, he later dies from his injuries... The man had no armed weapons on him, how do you justify self-protection?
Under the legal system in many countries, you would be prosecuted for man slaughter, the judge might add that you should of shot them in the leg or perhaps condemed your actions, if so then that doesn't stand your 'right' in very high stem...
I'm not saying its right, but the one thing I always think is that if you have a gun near you your more likely to use it...
Its a very thin line between justifing your right...
[This message has been edited by Justin Credible (edited 19-07-2001).]
I for one am a Christian. So for me life is a gift from G-d. Only G-d may dictate who lives or dies by whom evers hand. G-d has given me a means to protect myself and my family and my nation in that order. I would be unable to protect the later should I fall so I must remain because it is my duty and my honor to do so. Lately there has been an assault on character, virtue and the very nature of man. Remember the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Human beings have a responsiblity to each other and to this society on earth. Sheep have no responsibility. They only consume and go where they are herded untill they are sheared or slaughtered.
I have a seven year old son that constantly asks why. I some times get frustrated trying to explain the simplest things in terms that he may relate to but I understand it is his lack of experience that promts his questions. You Mckenzie seem to be an intellegent individual but you are asking question that are not worthy of my seven year old. I can only sumize that you are jerking my chain. Can you do better?
Beware the lollypop of mediocrity, lick it once and you will suck forever.
If god dictates, then why use a firearm? If in sure he decides whether you live or die then surely regardless of if you have a firearm the fate of yourself is up to him...
Remember the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Human beings have a responsiblity to each other and to this society on earth.
Exactly my point, people need to set examples for others... you keeping a gun in your house states to others that as a society its fine for everyone to have firearms and live in fear of each other, surely it would be more of a responsibility to say and indeed show kids that guns are dangerous and not for people to use, if kids grew up with such a image then maybe the next generation would have a more sensible approach to fire arm law and useage.
Beware the lollypop of mediocrity, lick it once and you will suck forever.
It is up to him but he has given me the means to carry out my protection just as David sleuth Golieth with a weapon.
As far as setting an example you must remember that man is oportunist by nature as well as a creature of habit. He will take the path of least resistance. Weapons in my home are my resistance to an other wise formadable force that could or would be used against my family. Likewise governments are less likely to trample our rights as we are armed and will offer resistance to tyranny.
Beware the lollypop of mediocrity, lick it once and you will suck forever.
If your justifing shooting a theif on entry to your property that can't always be defined as self-protection but more of vengence for property invasion and I'm sure in a govenment court your actions would be deamed unlawful.
I think it would be a better approach to teach children about the dangers of guns, make it unlawful to have a gun and therefore numbers of such arms within the country would decrease, it would be interesting to view the safety and mortality figures in a country where fire arms have just been introduced as lawful, then we'd be able to see just how justifible the 'gun in every household for protection' really is...
I'm sure the mortality rates would increase as guns became more readily available..
Of course, 'subjects' ought not be allowed any weapon lest they revolt.
Diesel
88888888
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin
[This message has been edited by Yukon (edited 19-07-2001).]
We always hear references to America when we hear of gun violence but remember in America there is not a gun in every home. I would be interested in seeing the crime stats for somewhere that has a gun in every home. I believe theres a town in Georgia, Kennesaw? where every household is required to have a gun within. Take a look at their crime stats, they speak for themselves.
I also come across the argument that if homeowners have guns to use for self-defence then the criminals will simply use bigger guns. Well with gangsters running round London with AK47s blazing at police I dont think they can go much bigger.
If EVERY household is armed then maybe the criminals will get the idea not to break into peoples houses.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
Or possibly they'll break in to steal the guns so they can go rob someone using a cash machine, or a liquor store, or an old lady walking down the road.........
There's a lot of threads and discussion on gun rights, control and misuse at the moment. Guns only represent the potential for death, not the intent of the person holding them. If you look at a country like Switzerland which is rife with guns there is no noticable gun violence (or at least none that makes international news), because the background social structure and education is very good and supportive. If Switzerland's social structure was to rapidly decline I think you'd see more firearm related crime there, but if all the firearms there were abolished I don't think you'd see a decline in the social structure.
My point is the ownership of firearms should be taken in the context of society, a healthy society can continue with or without guns.
Only users lose drugs
In the various states of the US the details of the laws on self defense vary. Most derive from English Common Law. The most common concept is that of the "reasonable man." I.e, would a reasonable man in the same situation have been in fear of their life or of grave bodily injury. In some states you have a duty to attempt to retreat if possible, in others you do not. Some states allow lethal force in defense of property in very narrow circumstances,i.e, the burglary of a residence or (in Texas) you are allowed to use lethal force against someone using the cover of darkness to steal your property.
Here in Georgia, if someone who is not an occupant of the residence forcibly enters that residence you have the right to use lethal force against them. They do not have to be armed, they do not have to steal, all that is required to be within the law is that they forcibly broke into your home.
Oh, the deal about shooting to wound is a fiction promulgated by the movies. Even with a world class shooting competitor...in the stress of a life or death situation this type of accuracy is problematical, to say the least.
How do you know what their intent is? Well, when a stranger was swinging a three inch piece of hickory three feet long at my head that day...somehow I didn't think he was trying to squash the mosquito on my head. Maybe he didn't like the way I part my hair <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
[This message has been edited by Byron Quick (edited 19-07-2001).]
It is simple survival. It is seen in the animal kingdom. One animal either has abilities to hide or defend while others have abilities to hunt and kill. Human ability is mental (not all, just a great deal of it), we get creative in our means of survival.
Or, roughly translated, "We can't justify these statements so we shall assume them regardless and cover it up with a statement designed to make any doubter look foolish."
I think that the outlawing of slavery made it pretty clear that 'ownership' of a human life is not a concept the USA is prepared to recognise.
I think it's pretty sad that you feel the need to insult someone for asking a question. I think it's pretty sad that you feel unable to question something you've always held as true. Your nation owes its existence to men who refused to let their minds be blinkered (excuse the mixed metaphor, and see above about "self-evident truths").
I venture to say that the mugger would, most of the time, be in the wrong. But I don't exclude the possibility that he may be right. How many action movies have there been in which the hero STEALS something? You see my point?
I am reminded of a certain American politician who said "I am a free man, an American citizen, a United States Senator and a Democrat - in that order."
More pitiful is the armed man who doesn't know how to use his weapon properly i.e. when and WHY.
The constitution declares "SELF PRESERVATION" a RIGHT.
The socislists in our country don't like us being armed. They are affraid of us.
That is what the anti-gun movement in the U.S. is all about.
The liberal media likes to paint another picture.
There are far more young people killed in traffic accidents in this country, especially from inexperienced teens driving hiperformance cars.( Mustangs, camaros etc.)
Than are shot by firearms.
But not one article in the press about this.
The fact is that the Liberals don't really care about saving childrens lives. They care about their own socialist agenda.
Guns do deter crime, Kennesaw Ga. passed a law that all homes in their city must by law own a gun. They did this because thr hoodlums from Atlanta were burgularizing the hell out of the affluent community.
Liberals feared the Population would be shooting themselves in the streets. quite the oppisite has happened. The Crime rate in Kennesaw has dropped double digit.
Mark my words unless the people of England rise up and demand the repeal of Tony's Gun Bans your violent crime rate will continue to escilate.
Your police can't protect you. They will only pick up your bodies and make a report.
God bless you all... and Good Luck
[This message has been edited by Stonehenge (edited 19-07-2001).]
My quote was followed by a smilie face to emphasize that it was not my answer to your question. I suppose I did not adequately convey my intent.
The US and British experience with slavery both emphasize that one human being can no longer legally own another. However, in no way does the abolition of slavery prevent self-ownership.
Tell me something. Have you studied geometry, algebra, or logic? In all three fields, there are unproven assumptions which function as the basis for all that follows.
I can see no reason where someone mugging and killing or injuring someone in the process can possibly be right. However, if you need to refer to fictional movies then I think you have some issues.
"An Englishman's never so natural as when he's holding his tongue." --Henry James
All three - I'm an undergrad mathematician. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif">
And that's precisely the point. All reasoned systems require a starting set of axioms. Even laws. Even - heaven help us - the US Constitution and Bill of Rights!
The point is, there's no guarantee that our choice of axioms is 'right,' whatever that means in the context in question. Refusal to accept that fact is what gets up my nose, not the taking of the axioms themselves.
The reason, then, that I keep on badgering you guys with 'Why?' is because (excuse the quote) "You cannot argue with someone who denies the first principles."
Actually, the tightening of UK gun laws was enforced after the Dunblane massacre which was during the Conservative government of John Major.
I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the UK's crime rate is only growing in robberies, not murder. This IS just a recollection, and by no means a fact.
I maintain that a proliferation of guns would see a rise in the murder rate simply because more people will see (and enact) deadly force as an option.
The concept of "rights" means nothing unless you're dealin' with "civilized" beings. The concept of a right is something humans use to facilitate peaceful coexistance. A shark, or a lion or a spider has no concept or use for "rights" and deals with His surroundings through brute force and sneak attack. That his prey may not wish to be killed and consumed is of no importance to Him. He'll take what He can get HOWEVER he can get it.
The "right" to self defence is just a ("civilized") human acknowledgement that others should not be viewed as prey. Some humans don't recognize this concept or find it "inconvenient" to their wants. We call them sociopaths.
A childs desire to be free from sexual abuse is of little concern to the pedophile. He finds the whole notion of "rights" to be unproductive to his goals and ignores them.
If given a choice between existance in a society that recognizes "rights" (moral absolutes) and one of sociopaths, which would you choose? Those under 6'4" and 280lbs find themselves at a serious disadvantage in such company.
As far as what IS a "Right"? A moral absolute. (Again, established and recognized by people to facilitate coexistance in something a bit higher than a pit of vipers)
Those who claim that moral absolutes do not exist would have you believe that the rapists "moral" position may be as "legitimate" as His victims desire to remain unmolested or that "sometimes" it IS OK to gas Jewish women and children (we have to consider the perpetrators wants/needs). The feeling that these things are wrong is our notion of a moral absolute. Without that concept, it's a very dangerous world.
So, the "right" to self protection is a concept We use (and extend to others) in the attempt to make life among our nieghbors more than an endless series of "Kill or be killed" conflicts with each other. A group of humans living without such a concept would have very interestin' if somewhat short, lives.
correct - robberies on the up, homicides decreasing. interestingly, the number of gunshot wounds admitted to hospital in the US is something like 10-20 times higher than in the UK. so its not just the would-be victims of crime that are better off, its the ordinary man in the street who is less likely to get shot too.
guns are there to kill people, not to protect them from getting shot. your right to personal safety is upheld by the police, not by any firearm. perhaps people will always commit crimes in pursuit of their (misguided) dreams. but if they can do it with something other than a gun, it leaves the rest of us a lot safer.
columbine,
thurson,
Lincoln,
Parker,
Heath,
Pearl,
Jonesboro,
where does it end?
oh, and going back to something Byron said earlier - B, do you really assert that 'all men are created equal' is not a self-evident truth??????
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum