"Gun Control"
|
As an American, I have a different approach to the debate of gun control. The question I feel must be answered in principle is simple.
Can we legislate behavior? With an open mind, think to yourself the behaviors of Americans that are illegal, yet still occur daily. The first examples that come to my mind are the following: -Violence, in general -Drug use -Speeding -Drinking and driving These are all illegal acts that occur frequently in our society. My proposal is that any gun legislation will not change the behavior of society as a whole. The act of choosing is the catalyst for all human behavior. Choice, regardless of culture or religion, is something that occurs in every society on earth. Should the focus not be on what effects choices made by people? As stated throughout history, a free society must be a moral society. Is it possible that violence committed with a firearm is heavily influenced by the lack of morality in society? Do guns kill people, or do people kill people? If a person becomes overweight, do we blame the spoon? In my opinion, a morally sound person is far less likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than an immoral individual. Is it possible that a more rational, moral and free society would result in less gun crime? If heroine were legal tomorrow, would you use it? I wouldn't, because my moral compass says no, not because of legislation. If John Doe kills someone with an AR-15, why should Jane Doe who responsibly hunts with an AR-15 be considered a criminal? Objects utilized by people for illegal acts are not to blame, the people are. If a person uses a vehicle to run over a crowd on a sidewalk we convict them of vehicular manslaughter or murder. We don't ban vehicles. So my questions are simple. Why ban or legislate guns, when people and their choices are to blame? Is there a bigger issue at hand? Would the government fear a disarmed society? Historically, what follows the banning of firearms in countries around the world. Is it freedom or oppression? Does the media feed off emotion or logic to influence society? As with all topics like this, there are opposing views. What do you think? IGN - ManaFisting Last bumped on Jun 16, 2016, 6:04:22 AM
|
|
|
Religion is mostly to blame. Other fanatic ideologies as well that have been passed down to generation after generation. Hatred is not innate its learned, taught. Guns are not to blame... They are convenient weapons.
There is no law that can eliminate stupidity. There's only one solution... This may sound weird. Woman are the only ones that can stop the madness. This is men's fault for the belittling woman. Woman have been abused, tortured and raped by men throughout history. The outcome are offsprings that grow up to have tendencies of their generation, evil tendencies. Woman are forced into fixed marriages, woman are taught to seek a wealthy man instead of s sane man and woman are taught that being hitched early is better than waiting for the right man. I believe in love, I do but woman now have s greater responsibility. They must choose wisely... And if they have to ask important questions, then by all means do. The woman in our family have used technology to help them find a mate. Background checks Meet the family References DNA tests It sounds ridiculous I know, but knowing ahead of time saves lives. "Another... Solwitch thread." AST
Current Games: :::City Skylines:::Elite Dangerous::: Division 2 "...our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong." -Adam Bear |
|
|
First of all , people kill people, the gun is just a tool.
But I think it's silly and illogic to make it easy for those people ( that want to kill ) to acquire the tools in the first place. The Orlando killer was suspected of terrorism, was questioned several times, could not be arrested because they didn't find anything ( and I'm ok with that) and he still could go and LEGALLY buy an assault rifle? That's where I think it's absurd. You can have people in a no-fly list yet you cannot have people in a no-guns list? "Metas rotate all the time, eventually the developers will buff melee" PoE 2013-2018 Last edited by Wazz72#5866 on Jun 14, 2016, 4:16:43 AM
|
|
" well if you consider the media an extension of society - nay, the mouthpiece of the zeitgeist - yes, of course media influences society. and we already legislate behaviour. civilised society generally seeks to punish indecency, deceit, anger, and so on, though the nuances of what constitutes such "depraved" actions may vary. |
|
" People continue to murder, despite the fact that it's illegal. Why do we even bother? Make murder legal. " Do you honestly think the US government fears an armed society? This revolution fantasy is fucking hilarious to me. Like any revolution has ever happened when the general populace is as well fed and entertained as ours. And, you know, good luck shooting at drones. There are numerous examples of countries who confiscated guns, and are just as free and happy as can be. " What do you think. A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 |
|
" the only problem with using this argument is that it's actually somewhat legitimate if we're talking about something like drugs. why ban illicit substances, if people are going to seek them out and use them anyways? make them legal and start introducing harm reduction. the difference - what is a gun's endgame? they are primarily to intimidate, wound, and/or kill. what is a mind-altering substance's endgame? entertain, educate, and/or mask reality. now that's not saying drugs are totally and completely fine. unsafe use can lead to things like overdoses, or they can put the user in a state of mind where they are susceptible to hurting themselves or others. but the main point is that a gun is pretty direct in its intentions, and often times there's no coming back from that intention. psychological trauma and bodily damage from shootings is very serious, and can be difficult to overcome, but the fact is that death is pretty much irreversible puts gun usage and restrictions on a whole nother level. and even though you can be "safe" with guns by firing warning shots", "shooting to wound", or "using rubber bullets", we all know that bullshit is pretty much pointless when it comes to actual gun use. the root of the problem is human logic (or rather, illogic) and lack of empathy. aka, the only TRUE solution to solving this "gun control" argument is by turning it into a "mind control" argument. once the technology is possible to pacify people with some kind of brain implant, i would suggest every human being be fitted with one. that would bring about true world peace, and humanity wouldn't know any better about this emotion of hate and otherness they don't feel, since its a nasty feeling anyways and we'd all be better off with not having to think such things. or we could learn how to resurrect people. that'd be cool too. Last edited by Juicebox360#1700 on Jun 14, 2016, 6:04:49 AM
|
|
" There is a very simple counter-argument to this. If the penalty for an action is the biggest downside of the action, then the penalty is the problem, not the action. (From your post, you're in the "legalize" camp already.. just sayin) " You're going way, way, wayyyyy off the deep end. Unnecessary. I think I should clarify that I'm very pro-2nd amendment. What I disagree with is that it somehow is above any kind of scrutiny; that it somehow differs from the 1st amendment, which has very clear limitations. I go back to the bazooka example a lot. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks the general populace should have free access to bazookas (and actually entertains any form of serious thought). Listen to the audio of the shooting. The rate of fire is unacceptable unless your intent is to: 1) Kill as many humans as quickly as possible 2) "Practice" If your firearm is only useful for those two things listed above... it has no acceptable place in the hands of a civilian. A comprehensive, easy on the eyes loot filter:
http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1245785 Need a chill group exiles to hang with? Join us: http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1251403 |
|
" For the same reason, speeding is forbidden, drug abuse is forbidden and drinking and driving is forbidden, guns in private hands should be forbidden: less dead people. "All firearm deaths Number of deaths: 33,636" (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) Of course, to some extent murders would be performed with different weapons, but the chances for deadly accidents will be lower. Last edited by Schmodderhengst#7293 on Jun 14, 2016, 6:48:36 AM
|
|
" If the intent of the second amendment was self defense against other citizens - then it makes no sense for citizens to have bazookas, tanks or weapons with an extreme rate of fire. If we step back in time and ask who the revolutionaries were fighting with their well armed militia, it wasn't criminals breaking into their homes to rob them. It was the official government at the time, which was England. The "free state" they were defending didn't exist as a legal entity. Interpreted in that light: The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms could be construed to be for people to be able to defend themselves against an unjust government. *IF* that were the case, than bazoookas would be included. I don't have the background to know for sure which way they were leaning when they wrote that, or if they meant to leave it open to interpretation. It is clear that the courts haven't interpreted the Constitution in that light. If it were up to me, I'd sit down with the leaders of the House and Senate and tell them we have a real problem that hasn't been solved for a very long time, and if they aren't willing to be part of a solution, they should resign now, because there will be one soon, and they can be part of it if they want, or be derided by history. The law would be very narrow. It wouldn't originally be written by the president, the house, or the senate. I'd bring the NRA to the table, let them know the intent, and tell them they had the choice of crafting a very narrow and specific law - with no riders or amendments allowed - or we'd make a concerted effort to amend the constitution to specifically exclude certain weapons. It would happen. It just takes someone willing to solve the problem instead of forcing their particular solution onto the issue. Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910
|
|
" "deaths" do not equal murder. Deadly accidents with fire arms were 505 of those 33,000. Murders were 11,208 of those 33,000. 21,175 of those deaths by firearms were suicide. 84 National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 64 No. 2, February 16, 2016 Table 18. Number of deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates for injury deaths, by mechanism and intent of death: United States, 2013 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Suicides in total were 41,149 (Having a firearm in the house does raise the chances that a person who is at risk for suicide will be successful - the highest I've seen in studies say double the chance, while other historical ratings have it as a 10-25% increased risk factor. The current most prevalent suicide diagnostic tool, the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (considered the most accurate) doesn't include guns specific ratings, but rather includes - at what stage of A planning and B resources for carrying out the plan, has the potentially suicidal person reached. http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/clinical-practice/Columbia_Suicide_Severity_Rating_Scale.pdf Piety's story http://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/2081910 Last edited by DalaiLama#6738 on Jun 14, 2016, 7:30:07 AM
|
|
