When I'm talking about "gun->bigger gun" problem is that around here no one expects anyone except the police to be armed and therefore burglars etc extremely rarely carries any kind of gun occasional knives and of course tools but almost never guns.
To be honest, the criminals in your country probably don't use guns because your country makes it difficult for them to get guns. If you're willing to have the necessary laws and enforcement gun control can be effective. My entire point, however, is that the gigantic criminal subculture of 1,000,000+ gang-bangers in America makes that virtually impossible without having the National Guard roll into all the bad neighborhoods. And no one is going to let that happen because that would actually start looking like Fascism.
But I think you're projecting a bit too much on these criminals. Burglars almost always hit a home when no one is there, if they're good at their jobs they shouldn't even need guns. Home invasions are a different story. The home invasions that do happen in America don't happen with assault rifles just because the homeowners might have a handgun. Your arms race analogy is pretty much bunk... except when it comes to gang warfare. The gangs do have arms races... but they're all with illegal guns, and it doesn't have anything to do with the average citizens owning handguns. They're far more concerned with shooting each other.
This all goes back to my main point, which you have as of yet failed to address: are you willing to have an overpowered police state in order to get guns off of the street? You seem pretty willing to give away your freedoms, I'm curious as to where you draw the line.
And for me having a gun I don't think I would spend enough time at a range to let it be worth it money wise...
Meh. Like I said, it's a personal decision.
Shooting was fun but the "problem" is that it was so fun to learn how to kill witch disturbs me.
And from that time I also know that they let way to non suitable people in there. And that a lot of people who are "stable" (ie could get a gun license) do NOT treat weapons with the right amount of respect.
Which is why I'm all in favor of thorough background checks and monitoring systems. (Also, I'd say there's a big difference between learning to shoot and learning to kill. There's a pretty common and well documented psychological phenomenon of deliberate inaccuracy when soldiers actually start shooting at enemy combatants, which is why the military uses desensitization as part of their training in addition to marksmanship.)
And of course you should be allowed to defend yourself but the problem is that it's easy to step over the line that makes your defense illegal assault. And having a gun around makes it even easier to just throw a shot against the all of a sudden fleeing criminal and killing said person... and therefore a crime. But if you didn't have the fun but say a stick you would have to run after the person and then you have to think if it's needed and if you really want to waste energy plus that if you do you can even claim you did it whilst "in a fit of rage"(I think it is at least) and even if you accidentally kill the person you might get away with a lower punishment....
Our laws are actually fairly well developed to deal with those sorts of things. We just had a guy be sentenced to prison for 7 years because he shot at someone while they were running away in his back yard. Sure, that might be a problem for an individual, but it isn't a problem for the law.
And I can not see why it should be a "right" to have guns (I really don't care what someone wrote on a piece of paper 200+years ago...) And I'm free to own a gun but it's really hard to get license and buying one is expensive...
Well, as I said above, saying that someone has the right to defend themselves but that they can't own guns is like saying that a person has freedom of speech but isn't allowed to publish books, hand out pamphlets or post things online. At that point the 'freedom' has effectively ceased to exist.
No matter where I am, I am not completely free there are always rules and regulations and therefore my freedom is just an illusive thing. If nothing else you always have moral and ethics that weighs you down, and they are just rules to make you less free so others can be somewhat free at the same time.
That line of reasoning will allow your freedoms to completely erode over time. You have to draw the line somewhere. What you seem to be advocating is that freedoms should be given up if they have any negative side effects. Well, I hate to break it to you, but pretty much all freedoms have some sort of negative side effect.
If the government needs to intervene to protect your own life because it's too dangerous to allow you to do so on your own, then why shouldn't the government intervene in everything else. You can't speak if you're dead, and thus life is a more basic right than freedom of speech. You can't practice a religion if you're dead, so life is a more basic right than freedom of religion. If we allow for limitations to be placed upon your right to live by not allowing you to defend yourself, then I see no reason why we cannot put limitations on anything you say or do.
Sure, an armed populace will lead to more gun deaths than an unarmed populace. Guns are dangerous. But ideas are more dangerous. This is why countries like Germany are exceedingly keen on censorship; they've seen firsthand what dangerous ideas can do. Even the U.K. had banned Clockwork Orange for about 30 years. Supposedly because it would promote street violence, but if you've actually seen the movie it's pretty clear that they banned it because it hit a little too close to home with its social commentary.
But what's next? Criticizing the government is without a doubt the most dangerous kind of speech. The Oklahoma City bomber killed 168 people in order to protest the government. He was heavily influenced by anti-government propaganda. Perhaps if we protected his fragile mind from such dangerous ideas 168 people would still be alive today. So why don't we outlaw anti-government speech?
I generally hate the American jingoism about how we're the freest country on earth, but the fact of the matter is that it's true. Europe seems to be terrified of scary ideas. Sorry if that sounds condescending. Do I like Neo-Nazis? God no. But I'll defend their right to speak their hate-filled minds. And trust me, they are dangerous and so are their ideas. Just look at the a%$hole who shot up the Sihk temple yesterday.
Rare occasions yea that's just what home invasions are... and you are definitely right about stupid decisions about choice of weapon but that also raises a problem someone don't need a .44 Magnum to defend themselves but it could come handy if the attacker are behind a wall/armored/etc ie even less likely situations but should they not be allowed then to have a 120mm tank gun with HEAT ammo etc just in case?...
What the law needs to do is make it a case of reckless endangerment if you fire a high caliber round through the wall. I'm too lazy to check, but I imagine there's already something like that on the books.
I agree in the part of self defense but I see that with guns it's way to easy to step over the defense/assault line...
And I only use the following for the discussion I'm not convinced to any side here.
Yes the government should be having some saying in what you put in yourself because 1. government is chosen by the people and therefore what the people want (theologically at least... not really though) and the people don't want to have to suffer through taking care of what's left of you and 2. seeing "you" (not perhaps you but someone) kill self whilst wreaking havoc etc (destroying stuff taking up medical personals time etc) and money and time is something I rather spend on something positive like research on why we exist instead of taking care of and idiot and its problems...
(But I do find the guy banning huge sodas and "force" breastfeeding hilarious since he is not my problem but yea stupid ideas, but why are they needed I would ask instead... (overweight people for sodas and no idea on breastfeeding..))
I do personally not trust anyone when it comes to self defense because they would screw it up not matter how well armed they where... And whilst screwing up maybe kill me accidentally...
Well... I think the death penalty is actually an apt analogy for gun control. Does the death penalty prevent crime? Let's imagine that it does. The problem is that for every 1,000 people you put down who deserved it, there's inevitably going to be one or two people who are innocent who get strapped into that chair and killed, helplessly. And for every 1,000 or so violent gun deaths you prevent, there will always be one or two cases where a family is over-run by psychos and raped, tortured and killed without the ability to defend themselves, helplessly. Are these rare scenarios? Of course. But there's something so wrong about these scenarios that many people find the whole thing unacceptable because of it. Frankly, that's why I'm against the death penalty.
Going back to Clockwork Orange... I'm just curious... if you have actually had the pleasure of seeing the movie, I was wondering, how you feel about the kind of preventative treatment that the main character underwent? Obviously it had a lot of negative side effects, but let's imagine society another 70 years from now. Neuroscience has been perfected to the point that we can completely rewire people's personalities. Not so that they feel compelled to do certain things... I'm talking COMPLETELY rewiring them so that they actually desire different things, are happy with the way they are after the change, and don't understand why they acted the way they did before the change. In effect, we can make them different people.
Surely this would be a lot more humane than throwing criminals in prison?
Suppose neuroscience actually disproves free will. Suppose it develops to the point that we can predict exactly what a person would do in any given situation by looking at their brains. Suppose we can spot people who are prone to violence before they've committed a single act of violence, and that we can say with close to 100% accuracy that they would act violently or criminally if confronted with certain scenarios.
If you're concerned about preventing terrible shootings and the like, we could install a cortical mesh on people that would monitor their brains from birth and would be able to recognize violent thoughts and alert the government so the individuals can be 'cured'. This is the best way to reach your utopia where violence ceases to exist. Are you willing to make that sort of trade off?
I'm asking you legitimately. I can't see any sane person agreeing to such a scenario, but I don't want to make assumptions.
The problem here is that it's hard to see for many people but everyone has some common interest for example both you and Islamic extremists wants to live in a place that you think is "perfect" (sort of...) what is not in common is what you view as "perfect"..
Umm... no. Interests are not objective things that people have in spite of their desires. Interests are determined by the desires and psychological makeup of the individual. Saying the Islamic radicals have some hidden common interests that they aren't aware of is tantamount to saying that the radicals are just confused. Sure, if they thought like you then they would have the same interests as you. But they don't, and that is the whole point.
The Islamic radicals interest is converting the world to Islam and destroying non-believers. Their definition of a 'perfect world' is not some slight thing that you can get around in negotiations: it's what drives their position. In order to convince them otherwise you'd have to change their beliefs.
When you say that everyone has a common interest what you're really saying is that there is only one right way of looking at the world and one right interest to have. My entire point is that there is no such objective way of looking at the world.
I do personally not care the least if all people in Mauritania wants to run around on burning coals as long as I don't have to... So what I try to push on to people is accepting each other enough to stop bothering each other on what either side is doing/thinking/believing/trusting/fucking/etc as long as they don't try force it on to the other side... Yea I know a paradise where everyone live together in harmony hippie style! But wouldn't that be nice?
To be honest... I'm more concerned with humanity accomplishing magnificent things than everyone living long peaceful lives. A Utopia where everyone sits around contented seems like a slow languishing death for human civilization. Like it or not, human beings become complacent in times of peace. War, as terrible as it might be, drives us to accomplish things we wouldn't have bothered trying to accomplish during times of peace.
If my society is running low on food or resources, I see no reason not to take from other weaker societies. Why should I watch the people who are close to me die or suffer just to protect the rights of a society that is distant from me? I bear them no ill will, but I take care of my own first. That's just the way life works. If you have infinite resources then great, there's no need for such violence.
There can be no good or evil without choice. You seem to be more than willing to restrict people's ability to act in order to prevent suffering because you hold the prevention of suffering to be of higher importance than human freedom. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I want no part of your 'utopia' if it involves converting humanity to a bunch of powerless sheep.
I guess there are some people whose sole meaning in life is to peacefully chew cud, but I don't understand them. As far as I'm concerned, a safe comfortable life where I have no power or freedom is just not worth living. If they want to enslave themselves and eliminate all of their freedoms so that they can be comfortable, they can go do it in their own society, but they better not try to inflict that nonsense on me.
And there is always (for sake of argument at least) a peaceful solution. For example your example:
What if they managed to decide together who would live and not, not very likely and so on, but still possible. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if part one though he was to weak to manage but part two is... or one can not live with killing but "live" with death.. or both decide no one gets it because they don't think it's morally OK to kill... and so on...
And you might be surprised how far some have gotten in their theology (I think it's theology anyway) that they actually manage to go over their basic animal instincts. A bad example is people that walks on burning coals even though their inner "animal" says red coal=fire=hot=ouchie...
Lol. You're right. If you're willing to die or be enslaved there is always a peaceful solution: allow yourself to die or be enslaved. If your value system requires that people be willing to die rather than be violent then all I can say is that the world itself is heavily weighed against your value system.
You can create whatever values you want, but I'm going to stick to things that won't get me killed. Your peaceful solution is only a solution for someone who has already accepted your value system. But you frankly haven't provided me or anyone who is moderately concerned with their own survival a reason to accept your solution. Why in the hell would I accept my own death on the pure luck of drawing a straw when I can fight to live?
So allow me to rephrase, sometimes there isn't a peaceful solution for people who are actually concerned with their own survival.
What if no one would had started killing each other because we could share, would we then not have "missed" things like say the crusades and dark ages... :)
1) Sometimes there isn't enough to share. If your argument is actually that there is always enough to go around, then your argument is just factually incorrect.
2) The crusades and dark ages are bad examples because they were also partially driven by religious beliefs.
3) Societies only develop through the concentration of resources and specialization. That means that things have to be unequal to some extent.
4) As I said before, without organized warfare cities would have never formed, and without conquest and slavery there would have never been any great empires. Some people might prefer to live in primitive communal societies in order to avoid violence. Frankly, I'd rather live in the Roman empire where there's running water.
And since this is an argument I don't really find the following a good idea (in almost any sense) but it is one:
What if we instead of started fighting over land/food we decided to make 90% of all population have suicide or just the "non contributing" population wouldn't that solve that problem?...
But a more peaceful solution here is quite simple, birth control... How and so on is another matter. (China did manage to slow down the birth rate here, not saying their way was good but still...)
That still involves a country being willing to sacrifice its own citizens for the sake of other countries.
If your point is that if everyone was altruistic then then everything would be hunky-dory, then so what? It's never going to happen unless you intrusively go in and change human nature itself with biotechnology.
You seem to have missed my entire point: it's perfectly rational to be self-interested and hurt other people for your own gain.
Finally we do agree on one thing (I think) guns is not something everyone should have, especially in public.
And I think we might be slightly off topic :D
(I do not agree in everything I written, it's for the sake of arguing)
I'll give you that much. Not only that, but as I've said before, I'm totally in favor of having extra background checks and monitoring systems.