The Thread Formerly Known As: Kerry Found...

[Arta]

I wonder if Hazard and the rest of the pro-gun lobby notice the parallel between gun ownership and arms, more specifically nuclear, proliferation?

Perhaps elevating the entire argument to an international perspective could lend an interesting perspective. Would you be happy for every nation in the world to be nuclear capable? I mean, if they're not all nuclear powers, then the ones that aren't will be vulnerable to the ones that are. Surely we should give everyone nuclear bombs so that everyone can protect themselves from everyone else?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate that. Even Bush thinks it's a bad idea!

[Grok]

The people with the guns think they are the morally correct ones; that everyone else are criminals or evil empires, and should be prevented from obtaining equal weaponry.

This can be done with background checks, etc.  If the country comes up in background check as being a threat, no arms for them.  No human rights to defend themselves.

Sounds all perfectly reasonable.

[Adron]

The people with the guns think they are the morally correct ones; that everyone else are criminals or evil empires, and should be prevented from obtaining equal weaponry.

This can be done with background checks, etc.  If the country comes up in background check as being a threat, no arms for them.  No human rights to defend themselves.

Sounds all perfectly reasonable.

Human rights apply equally to everyone though. A convicted prisoner doesn't lose human rights. This means that every one must have a nuke, that they may use in case they feel their life is threatened in any way.

[muert0]

Convicted prisoners don't lose their rights? I lost mine I can't vote or own a gun...
Does that mean no nuke for me??

[Skywing]

Convicted prisoners don't lose their rights? I lost mine I can't vote or own a gun...
Does that mean no nuke for me??

Convicted prisoners don't lose their human rights.

[j0k3r]

The people with the guns think they are the morally correct ones; that everyone else are criminals or evil empires, and should be prevented from obtaining equal weaponry.

This can be done with background checks, etc.  If the country comes up in background check as being a threat, no arms for them.  No human rights to defend themselves.

So are you saying that America thinks they are the morally correct ones, and are not an evil empire, because they have 'the guns' and think they can control who gets guns and who doesn't?

Sounds all perfectly reasonable.

Forgive my lack of being able to acknowledge net-sarcasm, but I hope you are joking.

[iago]

Ok, I gave up reading this thread after about 5 pages, but it was beginning to repeat itself anyway.  

The point is, look at other countries.  I live in a reasonbly big Canadian city, where there is strong gun control.  I've never seen a gun, I've never seen or heard of anybody being killed by a gun here.  

We have about 20-25 murders/year here, with a population of just over a million (in the province), and I haven't heard of any being caused by a gun.

Hazard - your main (wait, your only) point is that criminals will get guns anyway, so everybody should have them.  That's obviously wrong, since in places with gun control they don't.  Your entire argument is built on this faulty premise.

If you can prove that there ARE a lot of gun related crimes in Canada then I will totally support your point.

And you keep bringing up the american revolution.  Canada never took up arms and killed our mother country.  Canada has always had strict gun control, supported by our founding fathers.  And guess what?  It's a safer country to live in, and there is less crime.  What more is there to say about it?

[Hazard]

My argument is that all people have the human right to protect themselves, and weapons are the most effective means of doing so.

If you can give me any specific proof that violent crime in the USA will be lowered with a gun ban then give it to me. This goes to any of you.

And you keep bringing up the american revolution.  Canada never took up arms and killed our mother country.  Canada has always had strict gun control, supported by our founding fathers.  And guess what?  It's a safer country to live in, and there is less crime.  What more is there to say about it?

But we did have to take up arms. So get over it. Its our history. Gun control works for you guys, wonderful. You all have much less to worry about as a nation than the USA. Your country is "safer" is your opinion. What more is there to say? You can't compare Canada to the US. The societies and systems are different in many many ways.

Grok, you say that all gun owners view everyone else as criminals and evil. This is not the case. Gun owners recognize the reality of the situation which is you must have means to protect yourself, since we don't have Batman to defend us. All liberals and pro-ban activists are convinced that weapons are the source of all evil and gun owners are gun-toting low-lives.

[muert0]

iago said it first, heh.

[Adron]

My argument is that all people have the human right to protect themselves, and weapons are the most effective means of doing so.

Now you're getting closer to something I might be able to agree with. I still think saying that you have a human right to protect yourself is a little off. You need limitations on it. But at least you didn't say "at all costs" this time.

In some cases, a gun is the most effective means of defending yourself/surviving. In other cases it's not. In some situations, having a gun gets you killed instead of saving you. And the biggest reason I see to restrict guns is the side-effects of having "freely" available guns in the society.

If you can give me any specific proof that violent crime in the USA will be lowered with a gun ban then give it to me. This goes to any of you.

There is no certain proof other than the outcome of trying it.

But there are many logical arguments supporting that violent crime in the USA will be lowered with a gun ban. You can find many of them in this thread.

[Grok]

I think its great that gun owners recognize that there is no Batman.

As far as your proof that violent crime will be reduced if there are no guns, that's a silly argument.  You should be saying "violent crime that results in death by gunshot will go down", which includes proof in the statement.

If all the liquid on Earth evaporated, and you still found a way to drown, I would be convinced that removing guns would not reduce violent crimes by gunshot.

Naturally you will want to say that criminals will have guns.  So what about Canada, are there no criminals in Canada?  No criminals anywhere else there are not guns.  Is there no demand for this "most effective self defense solution"?

Pretend that there never were any guns, ever, would you still advocate creation of guns?

[iago]

You can't compare Canada to the US. The societies and systems are different in many many ways.

This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

[Hitmen]

Uh oh, nothing beats the wookie defense.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Let's also conveniently forget about the population/density difference between Canada and the United States.

I really don't have an opinion on gun control, just pointing that out.

[iago]

Let's also conveniently forget about the population/density difference between Canada and the United States.

I really don't have an opinion on gun control, just pointing that out.

Cities here are comparable to cities there.