Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

Do you think it's okay to own, let's say heroin because it's just owning a thing?

[Flying Dice]

Nadaka, there seems to be a cultural problem here. Around most of the world, the right to own gun is seen more or less like the right to kick puppies. Yes, it's technically a "right", but the less people actually use that right, the better, and we'd be much better of if no-one did. Gun ownership as a right is really an american thing.

As long as you hold the concept of ownership of material as valid, the right to own a gun is universal.

I believe that the more people who exercise the right to own a weapon, the better. It provides perspective on the fragility of life. It provides an equalizer in the face of a physically superior threat. It provides the opportunity to hunt. Legal gun ownership does not increase crime. I really don't see any way in which a disarmed populace is in any way "better". Easier to oppress and victimize? yes. But that is a far cry from being "better".

I beg to differ. In particular, note the difference between the US and other first-world countries (i.e. nations with strict gun control).

For those who don't want to bother reading the link, these are the average numbers of homicides per 100,000 people in a few nations, as of the most recent data:
US: 5.0
UK: 1.17
China: 1.12
France: 1.09
Switzerland: 0.66
Japan: 0.40

Apart from the US and Switzerland, every one of those nations has relatively strict gun control, typically either making private ownership illegal or only allowing firearms used for sport and hunting. Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership because of the structure of their military, which is primarily militia-based, in which citizens are expected to undergo military training and store their weapons at home. Currently, only special rapid deployment forces and the military police store ammunition at home. When discharged, militiamen have the option of having their weapon converted to a semiautomatic and keeping it. In short, very little like the situation in the US, in which people with little or no training have access to firearms.

But nope, obviously no correlation between ease of gun ownership and homicide rate, no sir.

[Nadaka]

Nadaka, wide availability of guns turn crime into much more dangerous crime. Or so it's seen in most of the world. (Because I don't want this to spiral into a gun control argument we had tons of them). From anyone's point of view, but the americans, having a lot of gun is a bad thing, because it's the police's job to protect you, they're supposed to have a monopoly on violence, and having everyone being able to kill someone by the press of a button isn't good. You may not agree with this view, but it's widely held outside the US.

In the US, the police have no obligation or expectation to protect you. Their only purpose is to respond after the fact.

Everyone can already kill someone with the throw of a punch or a simple push. People are fragile, and violence of any kind always carries the risk of death. Some people are naturally a much greater physical threat than others, but everyone is equal at the point of a gun. Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

[Nadaka]

Nadaka, there seems to be a cultural problem here. Around most of the world, the right to own gun is seen more or less like the right to kick puppies. Yes, it's technically a "right", but the less people actually use that right, the better, and we'd be much better of if no-one did. Gun ownership as a right is really an american thing.

As long as you hold the concept of ownership of material as valid, the right to own a gun is universal.

I believe that the more people who exercise the right to own a weapon, the better. It provides perspective on the fragility of life. It provides an equalizer in the face of a physically superior threat. It provides the opportunity to hunt. Legal gun ownership does not increase crime. I really don't see any way in which a disarmed populace is in any way "better". Easier to oppress and victimize? yes. But that is a far cry from being "better".

I beg to differ. In particular, note the difference between the US and other first-world countries (i.e. nations with strict gun control).

For those who don't want to bother reading the link, these are the average numbers of homicides per 100,000 people in a few nations, as of the most recent data:
US: 5.0
UK: 1.17
China: 1.12
France: 1.09
Switzerland: 0.66
Japan: 0.40

Apart from the US and Switzerland, every one of those nations has relatively strict gun control, typically either making private ownership illegal or only allowing firearms used for sport and hunting. Switzerland has a relatively high rate of gun ownership because of the structure of their military, which is primarily militia-based, in which citizens are expected to undergo military training and store their weapons at home. Currently, only special rapid deployment forces and the military police store ammunition at home. When discharged, militiamen have the option of having their weapon converted to a semiautomatic and keeping it. In short, very little like the situation in the US, in which people with little or no training have access to firearms.

But nope, obviously no correlation between ease of gun ownership and homicide rate, no sir.

You are right... There is obviously no correlation between gun laws and crime. You didn't include Canada, India, Mexico, etc. And you didn't isolate all the other cultural and historic differences. Culture is far too complex, it is impossible to isolate a specific aspect in the way you imply.

It also ignores the fact that communities in the US where guns are most restricted are often the most violent. That communities that have had those restrictions lifted have become less violent. In these cases the differences in cultures are minimized, but it is still impossible to separate these policy changes from other cultural and economic changes.

[Sheb]

Well, I obviously disagree with you, and I think this particular argument is total bullshit. I won't respond on this forum, because I don't want it to be derailed into gun control. I'll respond by PM if you want.

Now, another thing to remember is that this report was made mostly for the domestic Chinese audience (Because who's going to listen to China about human right? They're even more hypocritical than the US). From this point of view, putting gun crime first make perfect sense, since as RedKing told us, many (if not most) Chinese are convinced the US is some kind of wild west were everybody has family member that were gunned down. It's obvious the Chinese government will insist on that (since it's a thing were they have the edge over the US) rather than issue that seems more important to american eyes.

[scriver]

There is no "right to own". One does not have a right to own whatever one wants. That's a very childish and egoistic viewpoint. As you do not have a right to harm others, you do not have a right to own things that harms others unless you have a good reason got it.

Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

This doesn't happen at all. If anything it just makes sure criminals bring guns for smaller crimes.

Easier to oppress and victimize? yes.

Yeah, that's why USA is the least totalitarian state in the West and who's people are the least oppressed. Ohwait. It's the other way around.

[Nadaka]

There is no "right to own". One does not have a right to own whatever one wants. That's a very childish and egoistic viewpoint. As you do not have a right to harm others, you do not have a right to own things that harms others unless you have a good reason got it.

Owning a gun does not harm others, therefore your argument is based on a false statement and your logic is completely invalid.

Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

This doesn't happen at all. If anything it just makes sure criminals bring guns for smaller crimes.

Tthe US has experience with reducing or eliminating gun prohibitions at the local level that seems to contradict this.

Easier to oppress and victimize? yes.

Yeah, that's why USA is the least totalitarian state in the West and who's people are the least oppressed. Ohwait. It's the other way around.

We are far from perfect and I hate the oppression and loss of liberty we have endured. But in no way will taking away the right to own a gun change that.

[Sheb]

Okay people, can we please all agree that the gun debate is futile and not worth pursuing (Even if we all know that the other side is WRONG and stupid for holding their stupid baseless opinions)?

We know nobody is going to change this mind because we had this debate before, and I don't want this topic to derail into a 15-page sterile debate.

At least start another thread.

[Nadaka]

Quite frankly, if they wanted to make the argument that they do not believe that the right to own a gun isn't worth the cost, I wouldn't argue.

However, they are saying that it is not a right. And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

[Flying Dice]

-snipped WoT-

Quite frankly, if they wanted to make the argument that they do not believe that the right to own a gun isn't worth the cost, I wouldn't argue.

However, they are saying that it is not a right. And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

When did I say it isn't a right? I said that it is a bad idea, that it increase the homicide rate, and you answered with unsupported statements.

In any case, I'll discontinue this as well.

[scriver]

Owning a gun does not harm others, therefore your argument is based on a false statement and your logic is completely invalid.

There is no reason to own a gun except for hurting other people. And don't say "hunting" or "sport" because no gun control country disallowed hunting weaponry and there is no need to own your own gun to practice sport shooting - the range/shooting club can own the guns.

Everyone owning a gun means that the only crime that criminals will be willing to do are the crimes they are willing to risk their life for.

This doesn't happen at all. If anything it just makes sure criminals bring guns for smaller crimes.

Tthe US has experience with reducing or eliminating gun prohibitions at the local level that seems to contradict this.

Every other country has experience with criminals not bringing guns to lesser crimes (even though they are available on the black market) because the risk of them getting shit or having to shoot to defend themselves is smaller.

Easier to oppress and victimize? yes.

Yeah, that's why USA is the least totalitarian state in the West and who's people are the least oppressed. Ohwait. It's the other way around.

We are far from perfect and I hate the oppression and loss of liberty we have endured. But in no way will taking away the right to own a gun change that.
[/quote]

Yet by your logic gun ownership should have protected you from it. Otherwise one would have to draw the conclusion that gun ownership does not protect you from oppression.

Quite frankly, if they wanted to make the argument that they do not believe that the right to own a gun isn't worth the cost, I wouldn't argue.

However, they are saying that it is not a right. And it is incredibly hypocritical to claim to be progressive and refuse to acknowledge a right.

I'll admit it is a right in the USA, but it is by no means any kind of universal right just because of that. But hey, I'll agree to it if you admit it is a right for state governments to kill their own citizens to keep them supressed. Or that it is a right to take dumps on others' doorsteps. Those are just as much "right" as the "right" to own guns. And they are just as progressive.

But hey, I think the real problem here is that we've run into your idea of "objective morality" again and your inability to understand that just because you think something is right or wrong it doesn't make it a universal standard.

[Sheb]

Also, the Chinese government isn't claiming they're progressive. The whole point of this report is to say "Okay, the US is blaming us, but look at them. They're hypocritical human right abuser that don't even try to protect their own population!"

I wonder if the USSR used to do similar report.

[penguinofhonor]

This argument seems to be developing a bit so I think it's cool for now. I mean, it's just been like 20 posts. I'm keeping my eye on it, though.

[ChairmanPoo]

I wonder if the USSR used to do similar report.

Yes, they did. They used to zero on racial segregation, IIRC

[Sheb]

Yeah, I remember reading something about youg Komsomol going to some American exhibit in Moscow being trained to ask questions about segregation.

I guess it's fair game: attack your enemy on points you have the moral high ground, no matter what's your general record is. Similar to how "War Crime" after WWII were defined as anything bad the Allies didn't do.