Er... personally I am always amazed that conservatives heads don't explode from the massive cognitive dissonance.
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
This leaves the only true reason why guns are so prevalent in the US. People who own guns like the feeling of personal power that they give. However, in a sane society regulators will recognize the consequences of this and act accordingly. Unfortunately in the US the vested interests in the gun lobby are so strong th
If allowing gun ownership is a matter of ethical principle and human rights, than the "rate of gun deaths" and other such evidence is pretty much irrelevant.
If free speech cost lives, what death rate would convince us to abandon that right? 1%?
The correct answer, of course, is that the risk is irrelevant. Self defense (and free speech) is the right and perview, first and foremost, of the individual, and shouldn't be taken away based on comparative statistics.
If I use a gun to kill a poisonous snake about to bite me when I'm changing a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, how does respect come into play?
If a farmer or rancher uses a gun to kill a coyote ravaging his livestock, how does respect come into play?
If a hiker/camper fires a gun to scare away a bear that is charging him, how does respect come into play?
If I hold at gunpoint, or shoot, a criminal, committing a criminal act against me, why should I have or show any respect for the person who has already sh
Because criminals aren't animals. You're making the PETA mistake of equating human and animal rights.
Farmers here in the UK have guns, a lot of people in the UK countryside will have either had experience shooting things like rabbits or at least know people who do it. Guns in the city, however, are verboten.
Hey, I'm not the one making the decision to break into people's homes, or randomly mug people on the street, or whatever. I'm saying I have a right to defend myself and my property. Like it or not guns are rampant here, restricting them will only remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of the criminals, who will only become more brazen.
If one chooses to live a life of crime, one chooses a lifestyle that could have dire consequences. Much the same as if you chose a lifestyle that included unsafe, unprotected sex, you would have chosen a lifestyle that could lead to your premature death as a result of AIDS, some other nasty STD, or even a jealous husband. There are consequences to the lifestyles we choose, and like it of not, we have to live, or die, as a result of those choices. The criminals, whatever their motive, chose a riskier lifestyle than most of the rest of us. If put in the situation of dealing with a criminal, I will do what I can to get out of the situation with minimal loss or damage to myself. If it's a show of force, no harm no foul, fine, if I'm left with no non-lethal solution, heaven forbid, fine too. We choose our own lifestyles, we choose our own risks. If you choose the criminal lifestyle, you know there are people like me in the world and you know you know you are placing the value of your own life below whatever potential gain you may see.
Probably a product of the culture in which I was raised. Had we been neighbors growing up, we would probably see eye-to-eye on the issue. Depending on which location that would have been would determine which of our views we would believe to be correct.
Don't feel bad, you are not alone. So far, no one has convinced me that I should not be able to use force to defend myself, my family, or my home.
None of what you said justified killing a person in the same way you would kill an animal. Sure, if you're being attacked and you have a gun then you have a right to shoot. It's not OK to shoot an unarmed robber in the back as they are trying to escape - not that you directly said that, but it did seem implied what with the animal comparison.
A guy in the UK called Tony Martin turned into a tabloid hero for doing that, the press went mental when he got sent down for murder. But still, a jury of twelve peers
You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.
God, please let this be true. (Score:5, Funny)
I want to see liberals' heads explode when they realize that Socialized medicine is being used to buy people guns.
LK
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
A kid raped by her father who gets an abortion is a despicable murderer. But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
Life is sacred 'till you're born. Then you're fair game?
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
But... we should arm more people with guns whose only real purpose is to kill another human being.
This Pandora's box has been open for a very long time. I'm afraid that even hope will escape it should we try to close it.
The mere existence of these weapons in the population makes them a deterrent for some crimes against the elderly and disabled. Even if it isn't a deterrent for some criminals, I would rather see the scumbag criminal breaking into an old person's home die than the old person getting killed, robbed, or otherwise abused. Dead criminals don't commit additional crimes.
If guns were banned t
Absolutely correct (Score:-1, Flamebait)
...if you were arguing strictly from logic.
Unfortunately, none of those arguments are valid when put in the light of the overwhelming evidence coming from other countries that don't have guns.
This leaves the only true reason why guns are so prevalent in the US. People who own guns like the feeling of personal power that they give. However, in a sane society regulators will recognize the consequences of this and act accordingly. Unfortunately in the US the vested interests in the gun lobby are so strong th
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If free speech cost lives, what death rate would convince us to abandon that right? 1%?
The correct answer, of course, is that the risk is irrelevant. Self defense (and free speech) is the right and perview, first and foremost, of the individual, and shouldn't be taken away based on comparative statistics.
Re: (Score:2)
"Gun ownership" is neither an ethical issue nor any thing to do with human rights.
Human rights and ethics are about respecting people. Freedom of speech is good example of this, requiring that we respect to opinions of others.
No matter how you use it, a gun is not about respect.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
If I use a gun to kill a poisonous snake about to bite me when I'm changing a flat tire in the middle of nowhere, how does respect come into play?
If a farmer or rancher uses a gun to kill a coyote ravaging his livestock, how does respect come into play?
If a hiker/camper fires a gun to scare away a bear that is charging him, how does respect come into play?
If I hold at gunpoint, or shoot, a criminal, committing a criminal act against me, why should I have or show any respect for the person who has already sh
Re: (Score:2)
Because criminals aren't animals. You're making the PETA mistake of equating human and animal rights.
Farmers here in the UK have guns, a lot of people in the UK countryside will have either had experience shooting things like rabbits or at least know people who do it. Guns in the city, however, are verboten.
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:2)
Hey, I'm not the one making the decision to break into people's homes, or randomly mug people on the street, or whatever. I'm saying I have a right to defend myself and my property. Like it or not guns are rampant here, restricting them will only remove them from the hands of law-abiding citizens, and leave them in the hands of the criminals, who will only become more brazen.
If one chooses to live a life of crime, one chooses a lifestyle that could have dire consequences. Much the same as if you chose a lifestyle that included unsafe, unprotected sex, you would have chosen a lifestyle that could lead to your premature death as a result of AIDS, some other nasty STD, or even a jealous husband. There are consequences to the lifestyles we choose, and like it of not, we have to live, or die, as a result of those choices. The criminals, whatever their motive, chose a riskier lifestyle than most of the rest of us. If put in the situation of dealing with a criminal, I will do what I can to get out of the situation with minimal loss or damage to myself. If it's a show of force, no harm no foul, fine, if I'm left with no non-lethal solution, heaven forbid, fine too. We choose our own lifestyles, we choose our own risks. If you choose the criminal lifestyle, you know there are people like me in the world and you know you know you are placing the value of your own life below whatever potential gain you may see.
Probably a product of the culture in which I was raised. Had we been neighbors growing up, we would probably see eye-to-eye on the issue. Depending on which location that would have been would determine which of our views we would believe to be correct.
Don't feel bad, you are not alone. So far, no one has convinced me that I should not be able to use force to defend myself, my family, or my home.
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you said justified killing a person in the same way you would kill an animal. Sure, if you're being attacked and you have a gun then you have a right to shoot. It's not OK to shoot an unarmed robber in the back as they are trying to escape - not that you directly said that, but it did seem implied what with the animal comparison.
A guy in the UK called Tony Martin turned into a tabloid hero for doing that, the press went mental when he got sent down for murder. But still, a jury of twelve peers