Thursday, October 25, 2007
Another popular topic
well with the overwhelming popularity of the views expressed in my last blog cough* cough* here's another. Gun control, the idea behind it is that if we control gun distribution it will curb gun crime. That seems to make sense but look at it this way. If someone wants to rob a bank or murder someone and cant get a gun at a store what will they do? they'll get one illegally. Another thing is that if most people are alowed to own guns the likelihood of their houses being broken into goes significantly down. So why should we make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns when the ones who want guns to commit crimes with will get them anyway?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I, again, agree with 100%. you basically took the words right out of my mouth.
I do not like your approach, arrogance or self promoting.
I do not know the amount of thought you put into this, your sources of research, or who you are trying to persuade.
Not enough, and not me.
I am not innocent of anything, I fail to be many things, not limited to humility, but I do not plan to participate in your ego-trip.
my goodness I was just saying people have the right to own guns. philistine youth if you disagree with me tell me why. Personal insults arn't necessary. I mean I made spelling errors for crying outloud (I do intend to correct thoughs however)this wasnt an ego trip I was stating my views
"well with the overwhelming popularity of the views expresses in my last blog cough* cough* here's another"
to me that sounds arrogant.
in this statement,
assuming you can in a single sentence explain the motivations behind gun control,
that you can anticipate the response of people whose right to firearms is reduced.
I do believe you to be on an ego trip when you convey things like how overwhelmingly popular your views were. It says more to me when people make connections or pose questions than saying they think the exact same thing.
It has nothing to do with poor spelling, and I'm not saying you suck, I'm saying you need to be aware of what you're doing or not doing to further your points.
I am asking you to cite your sources,
explain the origin and motivation of the ideas expressed,
and for me personally, explain who you are trying to reach with your ideas.
Though it may be the case, I didn't express that my views differ from yours, I said "I do not like your approach" meaning, you need to better form your argument, fix your tone and make clear what makes this idea your personal belief, to me your argument sounded used, a sort of non sequitur.
Now,
I recognize that I may be being unfair to you because I disagree (as outlined in my original post) and if that is the case, I apologize. I've been having trouble communicating without being harsh lately, and you may have suffered from that.
If this trend of me being unable to communicate fairly continues, I will be on hiatus.
that first comment was sarcasm because I only had two positive comments on my last blog and I realized my fews are not shared by most. It had nothing to do with my ego just my dry sense of humor.As for my sources its common knowledge that there is a blackmarket for guns. Also the idea that people will think twice about robbing someone if they have a gun is just common sense. I have however researched this topic and if you really would like I can give some URLs of articles that support me.
oh and who im trying to reach in with this are those with similar or differing views who would enjow a disscusion on the topic
Nixon,
What do you mean by "people will think twice about robbing someone if they have a gun"? If someone had gone so far as to obtain a weapon, I'm not sure they would be thinking twice about much of anything.
tiger lily,
i think what he means by that is that, if guns are hard for people to obtain, law abiding citizens wouldn't have the guns, but criminals would obtain the weapons regardless of whether or not there are laws against it. so the criminals would have an upperhand when breaking into a house because the home owner most likely wouldn't have the same defense mechanism for protection, but if the laws aren't very strict almost everyone would have a gun, so a criminal wouldn't just barge into a random person's house because they know they'd probably be armed, therefore making the criminals chances of success very slim.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If I wanted to kill someone, right here and now (which I don't, only hypothetical don't worry) I am pretty sure there are hundreds of other daily household things that I could use to kill a person. Sure, it wouldn't make a cool bang noise or have long range capabilities, but it would get it done.
My point is that gun control laws are fine the way they are now. Say I'm a gun collector, I buy hundreds of guns a year just to look at them and clean them, mabye target shoot them just for kicks. Does that make me a murderer? Why make it so much harder, and most likely so much more expensive for somebody to do that, if there will always just be a black market anyways?
ahahaha...
now here is a site i can relate too..
gun control...how i wish there was more of it...(the control being that the guns are controlled by more people)
want one of my reasons??
if everyone had a gun..incidents like robberies...wouldn't exist. Taking away everyone's guns would solve nothing. In fact, it just might make crime rates worse. Because then guns would become a black market commodity, and therefore if you had one, (which a person attempting crime could easily get one) then criminals would have an easier job, with less opposition; because their victims would no longer have a chance to defend themselves, if they would've originally carried a gun.
nixon....you are amazing.
and as far as taxing is stealing. i think taxing is necessary. The way the United States does it however , in their socialistic fashion, is corrupting the whole system of taxation. Back when the taxes were established, if you didn't contribute to society, you starved. No work, no food. Now thanks to our socialism, you can just sit on your ass and mooch off the government. Nixon, i agree with you, something has gone drastically wrong, from what our government was first established as.
And fyi...i am not saying all welfare programs are having lazy ppl mooch...but the majority is.
One example is in Midland itself.
Midland's center for handicaped, had it's own CEO person comment that it should be as nice as a five star hotel. Personally i do not live all the time in conditions of a five star hotel. So why should those that my parents tax money contribute to that? for people who don't contribute any tax money to society? something in our society has gone wrong.
tiger lily said, If someone had gone so far as to obtain a weapon, I'm not sure they would be thinking twice about much of anything.
If you care about people like I do, you'll avoid things like guns, which are designed to kill them.
I do not mind hunting, and I think there are some people who use weapons to kill things like deer to feed their and other's families. This hunting in moderation and when well monitored is okay with me, so far as I understand it. http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/25448.html
But I don't think you need automatic weapons for anything but killing people.
I think the 2nd amendment is too vague, "there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
when you talk about self defense, I wonder how far you want to take that, nixon, and death sploosh especially.
I feel threatened by people carrying weaponry, I wonder if they are so paranoid as to consider me a threat, I wonder whether they are upset by violence like I am, and if they aren't how careful they will be with their ability to kill.
Also the intimidation ability of people holding a firearm, they don't need to say "this gun can kill you if you don't obey" it is something that will be factored in to someone's actions. I don't like that one bit.
Mutualy assured destruction, Thats what kept the Cold War from going nuclear. Its also what makes the free ability to carry guns safe. In the end thieves and rapists and most murderers want what they do to be easy. If they know that the person whoes rights theyre about to violate also had a gun they would be far less likely to risk theyre life.
"Thats what kept the Cold War from going nuclear."
The cold war was all nuclear. and it is one of the last examples I would use if I was talking up the greatness and freedom in weaponry.
Mutually assured destruction does not equal safety for either party.
Your point there is really poorly formed. I mean it may be ideal to think that guns stop murderers and rapists, but it's pretty clear that that isn't the case.
Especially when comparing the relatively gun proliferated United State's crime rates with countries that have similar demographics (social or economic), and fewer guns.
it is no different someone is less likely to commit a violent crime against someone else if they think theres a chnace of them dying, and mabey you should take a look at the UKs crime statistics since putting restrictions on gun sales. Personaly I think id have a much better chance of stopping someone breaking into my house if I had a loaded gun in my closet
Post a Comment