|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Actually it is a very common belief. It is also not just a subjective opinion, but one based on logic and reason. I'd *love* to see you even attempt to refute it in a logical argument, without resorting to the ridiculous fallacy of cultural relativism. |
I am not going to write a philosophical manifesto on where rights come from, because I have a job and I can't spend all day on Dave's. But I have defined what I consider a fundamental right (a definition that I did not "pull out of thin air," but the standard, most commonly used definition) and offered logical reasons for why I don't think the right to bear arms is one of them.
You, however, have called my arguments "stupid," stated that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right for no other reason than that it is "obviously so," and now you are asking me to refute your "logic and reason." I went back through the thread to try to find the part where you defended your point with logic, and I couldn't. All you have done is point out dubious fallacies in my arguments and said that you are right because your opinion is self-evident. As soon as you offer a logical basis for your opinion, I will be happy to refute it. Until then, you are essentially just saying, "I think x, prove that I'm wrong."
| Quote: |
In the first place, how on earth do you know what "most" citizens of developed nations think? They may have capitulated to living in a police state (just as many Americans are doing), but that doesn't mean they are all a-okay with it. |
How do you? I admit that my statement is only based on my personal experiences, but I have met barely any non-Americans who care about the right to bear arms. Throw it out if you want, it's not important to my argument, I was just trying to point out to you that your concept of gun and property rights is somewhat atypical, because you seem to think it is common. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but you are wrong if you think much of the world agrees with you.
| Quote: |
Being safe is not a right (you can never be completely safe, not even in the most stifling police state imaginable). Protecting yourself is a right, however. For that, I would recommend owning a gun (unless you actually think the police are going to save you)... |
Again, I challenge you to explain, with reasoning and examples, why we should have the right to own a gun but not to live in a safe society. I believe that while neither of these rights is unalienable or fundamental, where a peaceful society is possible, denying it is a violation of the people's rights, while where a peaceful society is not possible, denying the people means to protect themselves is a violation of their rights. I believe we live in a society capable of significantly reducing violent crime through stronger regulation of guns, based on the results in almost every other society that has done so. I assume we can agree that the primary role of government is to protect its people's rights. The most important right is the right to live. Guns can either protect that right or endanger it, and should be treated differently depending on the situation. The situation in the US is that they are more dangerous than protective.
| Quote: |
False dilemma. Owning guns does not preclude living in a more dangerous society. Rather the opposite, I would say, for law abiding citizens (since criminals will have guns regardless of whether it's legal or not, kind of like in the UK, where gun crime has risen 89% in a decade, despite heavy gun restrictions). |
I don't readily accept that single example as proof that gun regulation leads to more gun crime, considering there are dozens of other countries with strong gun laws and extremely low rates of gun crime.
| Quote: |
Absolute nonsense. The "common good"? Who do you think you're kidding? So basically, I'm supposed to give up my most basic rights to live my life how I see fit (so long as I'm not infringing upon others) so that the government can protect me? And because you feel entitled to things you aren't actually entitled to (like being completely "safe")? It's not going to happen. |
I feel "entitled" to safety. You feel "entitled" to own guns. You are still just assuming you're right and I'm wrong without telling me why. And yes, that is pretty much the definition of government. It's a social contract. Individuals give up some individual rights to make a better society for everyone. It does not benefit you directly to pay taxes on gasoline, but if everyone in society does, we get to have roads to drive on. Likewise, it doesn't benefit you directly to give up your right to own a gun, but if everyone does, you are even safer than when you had a gun to protect yourself with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Should every adult be allowed to own (insert object X) because accidents can happen with it?
Possible Object Xs
water
gasoline
cars
heavy objects
paint cans on ladders
ladders
knives
bicycles
rocks
pets
bricks
timber
tile floors
stairs
furniture with corners
stoves |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
duke of new york
Joined: 23 Jan 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is a uniquely American belief that property rights are the most important thing in the world. |
Locke and Rousseau were American? |
No, but in the present, Americans are more religiously devoted to property rights than the rest of the world. Generally speaking of course.
| Quote: |
Well if protection is a right, reasonable citizens can certainly seek to limit firearms possession if they feel it protects them. If the citizenry seeks to do so through a Constitutional Amendment and local legislation, then that is their right in accordance with the right of protection.
| Quote: |
| That's what society is about: giving up some less important rights and privileges (not fundamental or unalienable rights) for the common good. That's why we pay taxes and have speed limits, and why we shouldn't have guns. |
The common good should be up to the citizens, the common good is not you your opinion on guns. |
I agree entirely. It's all about the right of protection, and it's only valid if the people want it. I never said that the common good is my opinion though, I agree that it is up to the citizens. But I am a citizen, so my opinion is valid and part of that collective opinion, so I am allowed to argue for its merits. I think many citizens do not support things that would be good for them out of ignorance or opinions based on propaganda, which is why it is important to have rational discussion.
| Quote: |
I don't think the development of the rifle would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
|
What about the development of the fully automatic rifle, the rocket-propelled grenade, the guided missile or the atomic bomb?
| Quote: |
The real issue is the law and how would one practically go about making guns illegal?
Could the anti-gun crowd please address the Constitutional implications of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and how one would practically go about removing guns from American society and dealing with unintended consequences?
You do realize America is a representative democracy and you can't just wave a wand and make laws happen, right? |
I don't think that really is the issue, since this is just a hypothetical discussion of whether guns should be legal, but I will answer anyway. I think guns need to be gradually more regulated at the state level. It is so easy to travel between states, that a state regulation on certain kinds of firearms is almost meaningless, but the 2nd amendment makes federal anti-gun laws unconstitutional. Honestly, I don't see anything remotely resembling a gun ban happening in the US in the foreseeable future.
I think it's even more important to deal with the issues of economic inequality in our cities, which I believe is the more important underlying cause of violent crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Should every adult be allowed to own (insert object X) because accidents can happen with it?
Possible Object Xs
water
gasoline
cars
heavy objects
paint cans on ladders
ladders
knives
bicycles
rocks
pets
bricks
timber
tile floors
stairs
furniture with corners
stoves |
Don't understand emoticons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What about the development of the fully automatic rifle, the rocket-propelled grenade, the guided missile or the atomic bomb? |
Gun nuts who argue for the legalization of things are the reason I'm not totally gung-ho on the whole gun rights angle.
I'd say that the term bear arms means something that would be a standard issue infantry weapon, and while gun-nuts might argue this means Automatic Assault Rifles, I think we can draw the line with keeping the semi-auto and limiting say, magazine size.
To paraphrase Jim Beaver in "Breaking Bad"
"If you can't do it in semi-auto, and you can't do it in 10 shots, fully auto and another 20 probably won't seal the deal".
Wouldn't this refute the whole self-defense and anti-government hot air put out by the extreme gun nuts. The guys who preach good shooting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is a uniquely American belief that property rights are the most important thing in the world. |
Locke and Rousseau were American?
| Quote: |
| Protecting yourself is a right, however. For that, I would recommend owning a gun |
Well if protection is a right, reasonable citizens can certainly seek to limit firearms possession if they feel it protects them. If the citizenry seeks to do so through a Constitutional Amendment and local legislation, then that is their right in accordance with the right of protection.
| Quote: |
| That's what society is about: giving up some less important rights and privileges (not fundamental or unalienable rights) for the common good. That's why we pay taxes and have speed limits, and why we shouldn't have guns. |
The common good should be up to the citizens, the common good is not you your opinion on guns.
| Quote: |
| They had smokeless powder, rifled barrels, and rifle cartridges in the 18th century? |
They had those two.
I don't think the development of the rifle would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, we can differ over whether a gun is a natural right or whether it would be effective and whether its safe and blah blah blah.
The real issue is the law and how would one practically go about making guns illegal?
Could the anti-gun crowd please address the Constitutional implications of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and how one would practically go about removing guns from American society and dealing with unintended consequences?
You do realize America is a representative democracy and you can't just wave a wand and make laws happen, right? |
You darn well know that most firearms in those days were smoothbore and fired lead balls (so they were slow to load and highly inaccurate). You also know that even the best marskmen with the best rifled muskets could only hit a target with a consistent level of accuracy (under the best of conditions) at a distance no greater than 250m in those days, something I can teach you to do in 15 minutes with a modern rifle (5 if it has a telescopic sight). You also know that I wasn't talking about paper cartridges but the modern ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is a uniquely American belief that property rights are the most important thing in the world. |
Locke and Rousseau were American?
| Quote: |
| Protecting yourself is a right, however. For that, I would recommend owning a gun |
Well if protection is a right, reasonable citizens can certainly seek to limit firearms possession if they feel it protects them. If the citizenry seeks to do so through a Constitutional Amendment and local legislation, then that is their right in accordance with the right of protection.
| Quote: |
| That's what society is about: giving up some less important rights and privileges (not fundamental or unalienable rights) for the common good. That's why we pay taxes and have speed limits, and why we shouldn't have guns. |
The common good should be up to the citizens, the common good is not you your opinion on guns.
| Quote: |
| They had smokeless powder, rifled barrels, and rifle cartridges in the 18th century? |
They had those two.
I don't think the development of the rifle would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, we can differ over whether a gun is a natural right or whether it would be effective and whether its safe and blah blah blah.
The real issue is the law and how would one practically go about making guns illegal?
Could the anti-gun crowd please address the Constitutional implications of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and how one would practically go about removing guns from American society and dealing with unintended consequences?
You do realize America is a representative democracy and you can't just wave a wand and make laws happen, right? |
You darn well know that muskets were smoothbore, that the minie ball was only invented in the 1840's and that I wasn't talking about paper cartridges.  |
Rifles existed before 1800 but it was only with the invention of the minie ball that they became practicable for regular line infantry to use.
Integrated cartridges appeared during the War of 1812, certainly within the lifetime of many of the Framers. Now it is true that metal cartridges did not appear until the mid 1850s.
Rifled barrels and the concepts behind them had existed well before the 1700s.
Breech-loaders were around during the time of the Revolution.
I don't think the Founding Founders would have suddenly changed their opinion of the 2nd Amendment if they saw a Springfield or even a Henry Repeater or a Martini-Henry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| You're overlooking the most basic argument for gun control: that if guns were illegal or better regulated, there wouldn't be as much violent crime to protect ourselves from. |
There is a word-wide supply of guns. Probably several billion. Guns are most definitely here to stay, whether you like it or not, and any attempt to outlaw them will only insure that criminals (and police, who are often just as bad) have exclusive access.
| Quote: |
| Besides, what makes gun advocates think carrying a gun makes them invincible? You can still get shot; in fact, if a mugger sees that you have a gun, they are probably much more likely to kill you to defend themselves, whereas they would otherwise just take your wallet. |
In the first place, you'd have to be a complete fool to try and draw a gun on somebody who is already holding you up. But there are many other scenarios where having a gun on hand would be a boon. For example, you could shoot the criminal as he tries to get away (having robbed and/or assaulted you), or perhaps an armed bystander might have seen what was happening beforehand and held up the criminal.
There are many scenarios where being armed would be beneficial, and very few where it would ever be a liability. In a society where most people are armed, criminals are also be less likely to commit such crimes against innocent people in the first place (whereas in a disarmed society it's like taking candy from a baby). The most obvious situation where having a gun would make a huge difference is during a break-in, in which case it could make the difference between you or your family being robbed/assaulted/raped/killed, or else getting the drop on the criminal. Again, without a gun you would be a sitting duck.
| Quote: |
| which seems to actually support my entire point that armed civilians cannot possibly stand a chance against a much better armed military. |
Oh gawd... So you're asserting that a population should just sit back and let the government have its way?
Obviously an armed population has a much, much better chance of defending itself against tyranny than a disarmed one (I suppose you would have also considered militias fighting the British during the War of Independence to be futile as well?). Why else do you think tyrants have disarmed the public throughout history? African Americans were prevented from owning weapons for much of American history (even after being freed from slavery) and were terrorized and defenseless as a result.
| Quote: |
| just that the police are better armed and better organized than a civilian or even a civilian militia, and in any armed conflict between you and the cops, you are inevitably going to lose. |
No, you are not "inevitably" going to lose. And even if you do lose, if you're having an atrocity committed against you, it's still better to go down with a fight.
Last edited by visitorq on Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A silly video, but it does illustrate an obvious point: owning a gun is quite pointless (as well as dangerous, mainly to yourself) unless you train yourself to use it properly and treat it with the respect it deserves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| duke of new york wrote: |
| But I have defined what I consider a fundamental right (a definition that I did not "pull out of thin air," but the standard, most commonly used definition) and offered logical reasons for why I don't think the right to bear arms is one of them. |
That's fine. I just totally reject your definition.
| Quote: |
| You, however, have called my arguments "stupid," stated that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right for no other reason than that it is "obviously so," and now you are asking me to refute your "logic and reason." I went back through the thread to try to find the part where you defended your point with logic, and I couldn't. All you have done is point out dubious fallacies in my arguments and said that you are right because your opinion is self-evident. As soon as you offer a logical basis for your opinion, I will be happy to refute it. Until then, you are essentially just saying, "I think x, prove that I'm wrong." |
Actually, ontheway did a pretty tidy job (see his post, which I quoted a page or two back, it is quite logical). Anyway, I'll grant it's not reasonable for me to expect you to write a philosophical treatise on here (since I also do not have the time to do so myself).
| Quote: |
| How do you? I admit that my statement is only based on my personal experiences, but I have met barely any non-Americans who care about the right to bear arms. Throw it out if you want, it's not important to my argument, I was just trying to point out to you that your concept of gun and property rights is somewhat atypical, because you seem to think it is common. That doesn't mean you are wrong, but you are wrong if you think much of the world agrees with you. |
In my own experience I know it is common, because I have spoken with many people from all over the world who share my views on guns (I suppose it may be birds of a feather, but nevertheless). But as you said, it's neither here nor there, since neither of us speaks for "the rest of the world", but then I certainly never claimed to do so...
| Quote: |
| Again, I challenge you to explain, with reasoning and examples, why we should have the right to own a gun but not to live in a safe society. |
Because society doesn't actually exist, only individuals do. The right of the so-called "collective" therefore does not exist. Only individuals have rights, and many individuals can certainly decide they wish to live in a community that doesn't have guns if they so please. But to impose that limitation onto other law abiding people would be a gross infringement on their rights. It would also be a case of guilty before proven innocent.
And more obviously, you are not entitled to anything. To claim you are entitled to be safe is absurd. You can never be entirely safe, so stripping away peoples' rights in the name of security is the slippery slope to total subjugation. I suppose if we were all locked away in padded rooms, it might eliminate crime... but basically you are responsible for your own safety.
| Quote: |
| I believe we live in a society capable of significantly reducing violent crime through stronger regulation of guns, based on the results in almost every other society that has done so. I assume we can agree that the primary role of government is to protect its people's rights. The most important right is the right to live. Guns can either protect that right or endanger it, and should be treated differently depending on the situation. The situation in the US is that they are more dangerous than protective. |
Uh huh. Well maybe I believe we could "significantly reduce violent crime" by keeping people under house arrest, having roving police checkpoints set up on the streets to ID people, cameras on ever corner and inside peoples' homes, IC chip and biometric tracking systems recording everything you do (where you've been, what you've purchased, what you've been reading on the internet). Etc. Etc. Etc. Unfortunately I can't achieve my utopia without infringing on your basic rights. But hey, it's for the "greater good", so too bad for you...
| Quote: |
| I don't readily accept that single example as proof that gun regulation leads to more gun crime, considering there are dozens of other countries with strong gun laws and extremely low rates of gun crime. |
That wasn't ever my claim. More crime is caused by having a culture of criminality, not having more guns. The war on drugs is the cause of most crime in the US, namely by young males who are members of gangs and shoot each other. Gun restriction most certainly does not improve anything (Washington DC, for example, has a gun ban, and is one of the most violent places in the country due to all the drug-related crime).
When it comes to crime, gun ownership is merely incidental. Switzerland is an obvious example of a country where most people own guns, and yet the crime rate is very low. Other countries like the UK have very strict restrictions and high crime. Regardless, criminals can get guns since there is a huge market and a word-wide supply, but in a society with a high crime rate, it is much better for regular law-abiding people to be armed to defend themselves and their families. This is obviously less of an issue in a country like Japan or Korea, but even in those countries the criminals can get guns if they want them.
| Quote: |
| I feel "entitled" to safety. You feel "entitled" to own guns. |
Wrong. My owning a gun does not come at your expense, but the opposite cannot be said. To achieve your aims you would first have to disarm me against my will: a direct infringement of my liberties. I, on the other hand, would only be infringing on your liberties if I shot you with the gun, but even considering that extremely remote possibility you do not have the right to treat me as guilty before the fact and demand I give up my guns.
| Quote: |
| It's a social contract. |
Nonsense. I certainly did not sign any such "contract", nor could you even produce it if asked to do so (since it is a figment of your imagination).
| Quote: |
| Individuals give up some individual rights to make a better society for everyone. |
Says who? The government? The government cannot enforce such an arrangement, except by force (ie. violence). In other words, it is not a morally tenable position in the least.
| Quote: |
| It does not benefit you directly to pay taxes on gasoline, but if everyone in society does, we get to have roads to drive on. |
I refute this completely. Government is not needed for my to have roads to drive on. I also maintain that taxation is little more than theft (but I suppose that debate is beyond the scope of this thread).
| Quote: |
| Likewise, it doesn't benefit you directly to give up your right to own a gun, but if everyone does, you are even safer than when you had a gun to protect yourself with. |
To paraphrase ontheway earlier in this thread: governments should be disarmed, not people. That would be the most free, prosperous, and safest society imaginable.
Last edited by visitorq on Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico Palazzo
Mod Team
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gentlemen and women don't call each others opinions stupid or crock.
Don't test our patience and be professional.
Thank you.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is a uniquely American belief that property rights are the most important thing in the world. |
Locke and Rousseau were American?
| Quote: |
| Protecting yourself is a right, however. For that, I would recommend owning a gun |
Well if protection is a right, reasonable citizens can certainly seek to limit firearms possession if they feel it protects them. If the citizenry seeks to do so through a Constitutional Amendment and local legislation, then that is their right in accordance with the right of protection.
| Quote: |
| That's what society is about: giving up some less important rights and privileges (not fundamental or unalienable rights) for the common good. That's why we pay taxes and have speed limits, and why we shouldn't have guns. |
The common good should be up to the citizens, the common good is not you your opinion on guns.
| Quote: |
| They had smokeless powder, rifled barrels, and rifle cartridges in the 18th century? |
They had those two.
I don't think the development of the rifle would have affected the wording of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, we can differ over whether a gun is a natural right or whether it would be effective and whether its safe and blah blah blah.
The real issue is the law and how would one practically go about making guns illegal?
Could the anti-gun crowd please address the Constitutional implications of a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and how one would practically go about removing guns from American society and dealing with unintended consequences?
You do realize America is a representative democracy and you can't just wave a wand and make laws happen, right? |
You darn well know that muskets were smoothbore, that the minie ball was only invented in the 1840's and that I wasn't talking about paper cartridges. |
Rifles existed before 1800 but it was only with the invention of the minie ball that they became practicable for regular line infantry to use.
Integrated cartridges appeared during the War of 1812, certainly within the lifetime of many of the Framers. Now it is true that metal cartridges did not appear until the mid 1850s.
Rifled barrels and the concepts behind them had existed well before the 1700s.
Breech-loaders were around during the time of the Revolution.
I don't think the Founding Founders would have suddenly changed their opinion of the 2nd Amendment if they saw a Springfield or even a Henry Repeater or a Martini-Henry. |
They would have probably changed their minds if they knew about nuclear weapons and drones (you don't need militias when your military kicks ass), saw assault rifles and knew about kids using them in gang violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| They would have probably changed their minds if they knew about nuclear weapons and drones (you don't need militias when your military kicks ass), saw assault rifles and knew about kids using them in gang violence. |
You just don't get it. Militias are for protecting the countries against enemies foreign and domestic. The founding fathers were nowhere near as simple-minded and short sighted as you are portraying. No doubt they wouldn't have changed a single word written in the 2nd Amendment, even if they had known all that we know today. Regardless, your interpretation/speculation as to the "real" intent of the founding fathers doesn't mean squat. Guns are absolutely here to stay (no matter how much the gun grabbers try and twist things and spin lies), so you'd better get used to it...
As for gang violence, it is caused above all by drug laws (in other words government policy), just as organized crime grew up around Prohibition. Simply end the ridiculously failed war on drugs, and presto: no more gangs going around shooting each other. In the meantime, the rest of us WILL use guns to defend ourselves from criminals, and also from the increasingly corrupt/criminal government if it comes down to it. Nobody is forcing you to own a gun - but again, if you think American gun owners will ever be manipulated, duped, or forced into giving up such an obvious and beneficial right as the right to bear arms, you are very much mistaken. It will never happen. But keep banging your head against the wall if it makes you feel better... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Militias are for protecting the countries against enemies foreign and domestic. |
So the mobs can better persecute the Loyalists if they returned asking for restitution?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Loyalists#Persecution_of_the_Loyalists
Really, you're missing the point. I like firearms (like I previously said, I've been shooting since I was 8 and I've shot weapons that you have to be in the military to touch). But, I think something needs to change in the US. Maybe firearms aren't the problem at all. Maybe it's the glorification of violence. Either way, you've got problems and someone needs to come up with some concrete solutions (Yes, crime rates have apparently been going up, but I don't think stricter laws, which only serve to profit the prison industrial complex, are the solution. I read somewhere that the greatest number of prisoners in the world are in the US, or something to that extent).
You need to remember that Canadians see Americans as family. We don't always agree on everything, but we still like you (whether we'll admit it or not). Heck, many of us actually have family that lives in the US. We only want the US to be a better place to live. You don't wish ill on your neighbors or your family. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 12ax7 wrote: |
| Really, you're missing the point. I like firearms (like I previously said, I've been shooting since I was 8 and I've shot weapons that you have to be in the military to touch). But, I think something needs to change in the US. Maybe firearms aren't the problem at all. ... |
No, firearms are not the problem at all. Guns in the hands of the public reduce the incidence of criminal acts.
The number one cause of violent crime in the US (and exported from the good 'ol USA to Mexico as well) is the War on Drugs.
We should legalize all drugs, end the war on drugs and make it easier to own firearms for self-protection. This will end the number one cause of crime and would go a long way towards ending violence in the US and Mexico.
If we want to do more, we should end all taxes on income and property, end the licensing required to enter over 800 different professions, end the minimum wage and end the welfare system to help encourage two parent households and keep families together and both allow and encourage individuals to go to work instead of being idle or entering into a world of crime. This would end the number two cause of crime and violence in the US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
