Michael New. Skar?

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Guns are neither cars nor alcohol. The fact that they share some similarities does not prove a case against other things, because there are other, extenuating circumstances. We're not talking about cars or alcohol, we're talking about guns.

The larger debate however has to do more with the result than the cause. And the result is the same with all three of those misused things, death. For you guys gun death seems like a preventable thing, especially if ownership of them is criminalised. You do not advocate criminalizing anything else that causes unneccisary death which makes supporting the restriction of just guns, just silly.

[Master Xaio]

The larger debate however has to do more with the result than the cause. And the result is the same with all three of those misused things, death. For you guys gun death seems like a preventable thing, especially if ownership of them is criminalised. You do not advocate criminalizing anything else that causes unneccisary death which makes supporting the restriction of just guns, just silly.  

I think both JP and I have said several times that not only guns are outlawed in Australia.  Having any kind of weapon, even a stanley knife, in a public place in Australia is a crime, without authorisation.  So... I do advocate criminalizing other things, its just that the focal point of this arguement is guns, and I believe they are actually the larger issue.

[Master Xaio]

Still, you might get yourself stuck in a situation where you have to be in a bad part of town at night, a flat tire for example. They are less likely to kill you, but remember, they, being criminals, are less likely to be without weapons.

Following that logic Iraq and North Korea etc. should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Cause I mean, hey, they might need them someday.  Hell, lets give nuclear weapons to everyone, they might need them.

[JP Dogberry]

I'm not talking about the end result. Cars are cars, alcohol is alcohol, and guns are guns. Cars can get you to different places, something guns don't do. The mere fact they have a different utility changes the nature of the comparison so completey as to make the comparison redundant.

In Australia, just because said people are criminals, and this has been mentioned several times before, does not mean they are more likely to have guns. You do not easily get guns in Australia. The only criminals who get guns are serious organised crime types, who aren't the sort who mug people on the street.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Unless you talk end result then the whole conversation doesnt have meaning.

After all the sole  reason guns should be banned is that they kill people. The extension of that is that Criminals use guns to threaten or kill people when they use them. The flip side of the argument is that guns are a tool that can serve a good purpose, like any other tool.

Its logical to extend the argument to other things that kill people and can be prevented. After all the crux of the argument is, X kills Y so X should be legislated or criminalized. I understanding that your laws criminalize it, but the bulk of the population of the US doesnt want to criminalize it. Difference in cultures I guess, but we've had an interesting relationship with guns since the 1600's, in addition to hunted food , guns provided protection from hostile animals, and other men. Our rebellion against Great Britain wasnt possible without them, so they are an important part of our heritage. The Declaration of Independece outlines the inalienable rights of man,... you know, life, liberty, and all that stuff...

The liberty part extends in a way to ownership of firearms... no really it does. A person is only as free as they are willing to fight for that freedom.

[Master Xaio]

First off, the figures I were quoting were homicidal gun deaths.  The figures you are quoting are largely accidental car deaths.  Rather large difference.

Please, don't drive for too long, rest.'  In America - its just 'Dont kill each other too much'.

America was the first country to mandate safe driving times for truckers, and to provide stops at good intervals you cant o down the interstate for 60 miles in most places without seeing a blue rest stop sign with a washroom, picnic areas and in many cases restaurants. In areas without rest stops you might see a sign saying last rest stop for x amount of miles, please drive carefully.  

I'm just passing on what an American said.

The end result we're talking about is death by homicide.  Different from just death.

Difference in cultures I guess, but we've had an interesting relationship with guns since the 1600's, in addition to hunted food , guns provided protection from hostile animals, and other men.

Yes, the crux of the matter is different cultures.  We had guns for a while, and unfortunately used them in an attempt to eradicate the aborigines.  

After all the sole  reason guns should be banned is that they kill people. The extension of that is that Criminals use guns to threaten or kill people when they use them. The flip side of the argument is that guns are a tool that can serve a good purpose, like any other tool.

They can serve a good purpose in the right hands.  Like the hands of the military.  Probably not in the hands of the general public.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I'll pass that on the people I know who feed their families around this time of the year with the animals they shoot with their guns.

[JP Dogberry]

I don't think either of us denied that hunting an animal for food is a valid reason to own a gun.

In Australia, if people went hunting, someone like that could get a gun, simply by applying, proving who they are, and have a waiting period. They would also have to abide by a code of conduct, such as being a member of a gun club, and keeping it locked in a certain way, and the weapons allowed are fairly restricted. A rifle or shotgun, which i suspect is all you need to hunt, as opposed to automatic weapons, is likely all you can get.

I do not at all dispute, therefore, that someone who wants to hunt should be allowed a weapon, so long as they can prove they aren't, say, a homicidal murderer and follow some basic safety rules. What I dispute, however, if that somone who lives in a city, doesn't hunt or shoot for sport, or have any other valid reason to need a gun, save something like "To protect us from the government" needs a weapon, especially not something powerful, like an AK, or concealable, like a handgun.

[Master Xaio]

Jeffe, I've already addressed this issue for you.  I'm not arguing to banning guns completely.  I'm arguing for gun control.  Those people can prove they need guns, so they could keep them.  You are missing the point.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Outkast said: "Ok, I can deal with bringing in archaic weaponry.  Cars -- in case you hadn't noticed, we are talking about guns.  Weapons.  And gun control.  Not cars.  And let me just point something out -- you keep on trying to say how gun control doesn't work.  Let me give you a very good example of somewhere it does work: Australia.  So please, don't keep on trying to make out it would inhibit you.  It doesn't"

Uhm... guns are tools too. You two have BOTH admitted that there are uses for guns besides shooting people illegally. USEFUL reasons. GOOD reasons. The comparison between weapons and other tools is completely valid. I still don't see what rarity has to do with it. Explain it to me.

OUkast said:
"I'm just passing on what an American said. "

Damn boy. YOu GOT to learn what exaggeration and sarcasm are. In America, see, we have this thing called 'humor.' If you took such a statement seriously, you need some psychiatric help.  We don't have signs up that say "don't kill each other too much." Most road signs that aren't giving speed limits or directions actually say stupid crap like "please drive gently"

You also need a lesson in applying your own standards to yourself. You claim that we are making irrelevant comparisons, yet you compare the rise of an oppressive government to the growth of a fictional monster growing out of your toe. The previous has been historically documented. I've told you about them here. No, on the whole, the government here is not oppressive. But it can change. It has. This is not a paranoic response. It's an observed phenomenon. Denying it is basically stating you haven't studied history. So what I'd like to know is why preparing for something that has already happened historically, and may happen again is more paranoid than fearing everyone on the street?

[Skar]

 

Now, though america seems to be a lot less free than Aus, despite all the propoganda, I somehow doubt its anywhere near being oppressive.

That can change in the course of a couple of years. Remember Germany in the late 30s?  It seems like you take the freedoms and civilization you enjoy in Australia very much for granted and think it's somehow the natural state of the world to be like where you live.  I assure you the opposite is true.

There is a **huge** difference between Australia and America in terms of culture.  In america, you may have well trained gangsters etc. skilled in fighting roaming the streets.  We don't.  In America, driveby shootings are common.  

Sorry, drive by shootings are not common.  There are cities where they are fairly common, certain parts of New York and Los Angeles for example.  Look to these cities and you will find that they have the most restrictive gun control laws in the whole country.  Making gun control laws overly restrictive has no effect on a criminal who wants a gun, even a petty criminal.  It does affect law-abiding citizens.  And the criminals know this.  If a burglar or rapist knew he was taking his life in his hands every time he tried to practice his trade because his victim might try and shoot him there would be far fewer such crimes.  How do you get around that?

The idea that gangsters need to be well trained in order to be dangerous without guns is not true.  The only difference between a street gang member and regular joe when it comes to violent conflict, with or without guns, is the gangster's willingness to commit violence on another human without provocation.  The thought that those other humans might be able to defend themselves is a huge deterrent to the criminally minded, as evidenced by the results of relaxed gun control in Florida.  Violent crime dropped dramatically when it became easy to obtain and carry a concealed weapon legally there.

Yes, the crux of the matter is different cultures.  We had guns for a while, and unfortunately used them in an attempt to eradicate the aborigines.

 

I bet the aborigines wished that they had the tools with which to defend themselves.

Hey, it's your choice to wander the streets at night in a dangerous area where they're aren't any cops. Me, I'll take my chances using common sense in a country without weapons. Besides, beating someone up with your hands isn't going to result in death unless you get an unlucky strike, or the attacker is rather determined. Generally, if someone is after you at night, i figure they're after money, so they'd just pound you into submission rather than take the extra time to make sure you're dead.

I'd just like to point out that allowing thugs, armed or otherwise, to cow you into not entering "their" part of town through the threat of violence is an imposition on your freedom exactly like what a malevolent dictator would perpetrate, just on a smaller scale.  America is a free country and I should be able to wander where I like without fearing for my life.  JP, the fact that you accept that restriction as though it were normal and OK leads me to believe that you don't value the freedoms you enjoy and therefore don't deserve them.  Go ahead and tell us about how great your country is and how much you like it but don't tell us that we should change our country to be like yours when you don't hold the same values dear that we do.

******

In this thread I see two reasons for having guns easily available to American citizens.  

1: to defend themselves against criminals with guns.

Outkast and JP have been arguing that if you remove guns from the society no one could hurt anyone else with a gun.  This is true.  Unfortunately you run into reality.  In America there are already so many guns that attempting to eradicate them completely, and nothing less would suffice if you wanted to accomplish the stated goal, is a pipe dream.  Perhaps in Australia it's within reach.  Criminals still get guns in Australia though and therefore, instead of saying that the Australian system is working JP and OK should be agitating for ever more stricter gun control laws until they have an effective ban.  Despite OKs insistence that that's not what he is advocating it's the only thing that would accomplish what he seems to want.

2: To defend themselves from the government should the government go bad.

The problem here is that if you go ahead and implement a ban in order to eliminate reason No.1 for American citizens to have guns you also eradicate the ability to act on reason No.2.  And IMO reason No.2 easily trumps reason No.1

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

wait. There's one I missed. Outkast, you think America is LESS free than Australia? don't we have a right to bear arms that you don't? Doesn't that make us MORE free? (the whole having rights you don't thing)


edit: heh, i realized after typing that, that JP and Outcast are going to use that as more fodder for the "you're free so why do you need to fight against an oppressive governmnet" argument. Let me stress that governments can change quickly. I gave a whole list of examples, many of them from the 20th century already.

Please, before you write off this potential scenario as absurd, you should read that carefully. It is a historical phenomenon that governments can go corrupt over a brief period. There's no reason to think it won't happen again. Telling me that this is simply insane shows me that you don't want to argue it, because you are just ignoring the facts presented.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Jeffe, I've already addressed this issue for you.  I'm not arguing to banning guns completely.  I'm arguing for gun control.  Those people can prove they need guns, so they could keep them.  You are missing the point.

No, Im not, and no you haven't... with your frequent quotes about guns having only one purpose. And no you aren't with your insinuation that people shouldn't have guns.

They can serve a good purpose in the right hands.  Like the hands of the military.  Probably not in the hands of the general public.

Oh... I see why you felt the need to attack me,... you were wrong and have admitted to it earlier but still cant incorporate the part of the argument you have been corrected on into your line of thinking. Maybe if you would quit saying guns have no other purpose than killing people, then I would quit reminding you about their other purpose.
Aside from that excuse me for misunderstanding you twisted idea of gun control, where you have to beg pretty pretty please to be able to do something that even the least of our citizens can do here. Sounds real free to me.

Restricting the argument to Homicide related death isn't a good tack either by the way. In our country Drunk Drivers involved in accidents are frequently being charged with murder, and homicide, so are reckless drivers.

[Archon]

Following that logic Iraq and North Korea etc. should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.  Cause I mean, hey, they might need them someday.  Hell, lets give nuclear weapons to everyone, they might need them.

Outkast, be reasonable. First of all, with a country defending itself, other countries are always around to help, unlike cops, who cant be everywhere at once. The Monroe Doctrine basically states that other countries cant just go and take North Korea for a colony. Second of all, how many times has a gun been used for defense. Compare that number to how many times nukes have been used to defend against an enemy invasion.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Well...the Monroe Doctrine only applies to North and South America...

*fades back into the mist*