Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Rederic]

Can I take your reply to mean that you don't think the US has a gun problem?

Rederic,

I think there is an illegal gun problem, both gun running (domestic and international) for criminal intent. I do not think there is a gun problem with the general law abiding gun owners. The gun problem is always being hijacked from the true problem to try to diminish the right to bear arms.

http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/09/the- ... e-problem/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rh ... gun-facts/

Thanks Misty. I read the first link but couldn't open the second. It was very big on statistics (you know what they say about statistics) but very small on humanity & empathy.

I'm so glad that I live in England.

May need to type in 2nd one.

Misty

[Robert66]

Robert66,

The story was just a bit of fun

We know what that story was Robert. Your story was posted in a desperate attempt to make us look like crackpots. I didn't work. I think the fact that you won't take honest responsibility for the intent of your post is indicative of the inherent gun-control mindset that merely attempts to skirt personal responsibility.

I'm not attempting to undermine anyone's positions or suggesting that they are necessarily unwarranted or unjustified in keeping firearms. I have no problem with your enjoyment of your legal right to keep firearms.

Yes, I think you are attempting to undermine the gun owner's position and are suggesting that they are necessarily unwarranted and unjustified in keeping their firearms. You do have a problem with our legal right to keep firearms.

Stay committed to your intents and let's maintain some honest continuity here.

I may address those criticisms when time permits.

I'm looking forward to our discussion on that.

I'm just saying that the Australian government's drawing of the line to restrict the use and storage of certain weapons and ammunition, to reduce the number of weapons held privately, and to better record the registration of weapons, and to do all this at a federal level, not leaving laws in the hands of the states, has been vindicated.

On this point, do you honestly believe that if you remove any particular outlet used for the expression of any given individual's emotional compulsion that such emotional compulsion is somehow satisfied and is thus resolved?

>>>

It is impossible to get rid of all tools/weapons that can kill others. A peanut is enough to kill those who are allergic to them. A gun, knife, fork, ice pick, foods, medicines, etc.. are inanimate objects that are lifeless, per se, and are neutral, but, the people using these items are the ones who need to practice self control, as one controls the natural tools/weapons of the self.

Thank you Misty for that synopsis. People must be held responsible for their actions. The principle of gun control does not hold people responsible for their actions, it merely scapegoats the tools used in their actions.

Who is going to protect the masses from the government if the government decides to take all personal freedoms away? The government will still have guns, just like the criminal will still have guns. That is why the constitutions says the people have a right to bear arms.

Please Misty, don't feed the Rederic.

A gun is also designed to deter aggression, not just to kill or maim.

A gun is designed to launch a projectile from the muzzle at a high velocity. Anything past that is the design of the person using the gun.

Read my story however you like, SpiralOut. It is just a story. I notice you haven't commented on UniversalAlien's various fictions. You didn't call him/her a moron etc. No, we are not that moderate, are we?

You appear to be a representative of U.S. cultural imperialism, a major symptom of which is exactly what you accused me of: a 'mindset that merely attempts to skirt ... responsibility'. Why did Australia change after Bryant killed so many in '96? Because we refused to give in to a mindset which argued "Guns are not the problem; people are etc. etc." and we took responsibility for finding a better way to deal with guns. The USA, faced with an ongoing problem with guns, deliberately shirks all responsibility to her many citizens who would prefer a safer society with fewer guns/better control; shows in fact an irresponsibility to the world by constantly glorifying guns and violence via a colossal entertainment/propaganda machine.

So show me where I have argued against your right to legally and responsibly possess firearms.

And while you are doing that, try and answer the question put to you way back, which I will repeat:

Where is the evidence to support your claim that the level of violence is equal in every nation?

("Where's the evidence. Look around you ... bitch-slapping etc" is not an answer, for obvious reasons)


In response to your question ... 'do you honestly believe that if you remove any particular outlet used for the expression of any given individual's emotional compulsion that such emotional compulsion is somehow satisfied and is thus resolved?' I answer:

No. But I do honestly believe that the expressive use of certain weapons leads to a greater societal level of violence, evidence for which can be found especially in the USA.

If most or all of us are at times emotionally compelled to use violence, and some of us may at times be prone to mental derangement, and of these, some will have access to the kind of automatic or semi-automatic weapons which many rational people would argue, along reasonable lines, should be banned or extremely restricted, and your best response to all this is just to arm yourself, then you are at the same time admitting a serious problem within society, and providing the means for its continuation, rather than responsibly addressing and trying to solve the problem.

[Misty]

Thanks Misty. I read the first link but couldn't open the second. It was very big on statistics (you know what they say about statistics) but very small on humanity & empathy.

I'm so glad that I live in England.

Rederic,

Most people love their own homeland. The other website was very good but I have checked it and I cannot figure out why we can't click on it. I get it fine when I go out online and find it.

It really isn't fair to compare the United States with a country that is the size of one of the 50 States. England is the size of 1 of 3 - Michigan, Wyoming or Oregon. Of course the U.S. will have more of everything. When something is on the news over and over again it is bound to be skewed. I travel all the time (have seen all but 2 states) and I have never witnessed what is heard on the news. (12 years travel in U.S.)

I found many websites that say England has many problems with gun crime and gangs as well.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... are-banned

I hope this site works.

Misty

p.s. I clicked onto the site above and it works. Oh yeah, I am glad to be living in the United States!!

[Spiral Out]

Lee Rigby was a British Army soldier. His life was not saved by the gun laws in the UK. In fact, his murder on the afternoon of May 22nd of 2013 was more brutal and gruesome because of it. Instead of being shot, he was run over with a car and then brutally stabbed and hacked to death (and at least partially decapitated) with a knife and cleaver.

This happened on Wellington Street, a relatively busy downtown public street in the daylight of the afternoon with multiple bystanders present. It took armed officers nearly 15 minutes to arrive on scene. In that time, if that had occurred in the US, an American citizen(s) with a CCW permit could have easily stopped both attackers before they had a chance to do any more harm after the initial incident with the car.

In the absence of legal guns (although Adebowale was reported to have had an unloaded handgun in his possession), Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale used the tools and means available to them in order to carry out their violence. The general intent to remove guns as an option did nothing to prevent their violence from being carried out.

This is a prime example of my point that removing guns from the general population will not cause any substantial equivalent decrease in overall violent crime, only violent crimes committed with guns. But what good is that on its own? When you simply shift the means and method of violence to another form then absolutely nothing has been accomplished.

The removal of access to guns by lawful and responsible people does nothing to prevent violent crime because lawful and responsible people simply don't commit violent crimes.

The removal of access to guns by violent criminals does nothing to prevent violent crimes because (as in the Lee Rigby case) violent criminals will invariably commit violent crimes with whatever is available to them.

I'm quite sure Mr. Rigby suffered more pain, suffering and agony in being run over and then hacked to death than if he had been shot. This is not to say that being shot is any more acceptable but it illustrates that violence will inevitably emerge from those who are determined to commit it.

Gun control laws simply don't work other than shifting one particular type or method of violent crime to yet another, which is utterly useless other than superficially satiating the emotional sensitivities of the general public who are mostly uneducated in, and unfortunately unconcerned about, the principles of Human sociology and psychology.

>>>

Read my story however you like, SpiralOut. It is just a story.

It's a "story" with an obvious agenda. You've been called on it. Own it.

I notice you haven't commented on UniversalAlien's various fictions.

If UniversalAlien wishes to engage me in debate then I will comment accordingly.

You appear to be a representative of U.S. cultural imperialism

I'm a representative of level-headed common sense. You're having trouble countering my logic which is why you've repeatedly resorted to emotional absurdities.

Why did Australia change after Bryant killed so many in '96?

What changed exactly? Did you miss the information I had provided a while back in this thread about crime reporting and the fundamental nature of statistical anomalies in relation to types and methods of particular crimes?

So show me where I have argued against your right to legally and responsibly possess firearms.

So you agree that I, as a lawful and responsible citizen, should be able to privately own assault rifles and PDWs such as the FN P90?

Where is the evidence to support your claim that the level of violence is equal in every nation?

What are you looking for, an "official report" that specifically says "violence in every nation is equal"? As with all other "evidence" it requires some education, critical thought and some common sense as well. Can you use your intelligence to figure these things out on your own with some common sense or do you require people to do all your thinking for you?

Try thinking for yourself for a change.

I do honestly believe that the expressive use of certain weapons leads to a greater societal level of violence, evidence for which can be found especially in the USA.

You're only considering one type of violence. You have tunnel vision. Open your eyes and look at the bigger picture.

If most or all of us are at times emotionally compelled to use violence, and some of us may at times be prone to mental derangement, and of these, some will have access to the kind of automatic or semi-automatic weapons which many rational people would argue, along reasonable lines, should be banned or extremely restricted

That is the same tired and absurd argument that always fails under proper scrutiny. You want to ban "this" or "that" just in case someone misuses it. In essence, you're treating everyone as being equal with criminals via their mere potential. You've established a kind of "pre-crime" unit a la "Minority Report". You've set a precedent of "guilty until proven innocent".

That's not the American Way. You choose safety over freedom. I choose freedom over safety. Who is correct and why? Justifications and rationalizations will be thrown around like 'hand grenades' in an attempt to establish our own superior position.

We can live in an unsafe world. After all, it is the default natural condition of a physical life. We cannot live in an unfree world, nor can we live in a world where there is no real risk of harm. That world in a word: boring!

[UniversalAlien]

Robert66 wrote:

Read my story however you like, SpiralOut. It is just a story. I notice you haven't commented on UniversalAlien's various fictions. You didn't call him/her a moron etc. No, we are not that moderate, are we?

You appear to be a representative of U.S. cultural imperialism, a major symptom of which is exactly what you accused me of: a 'mindset that merely attempts to skirt ... responsibility'. Why did Australia change after Bryant killed so many in '96? Because we refused to give in to a mindset which argued "Guns are not the problem; people are etc. etc." and we took responsibility for finding a better way to deal with guns. The USA, faced with an ongoing problem with guns, deliberately shirks all responsibility to her many citizens who would prefer a safer society with fewer guns/better control; shows in fact an irresponsibility to the world by constantly glorifying guns and violence via a colossal entertainment/propaganda machine.

'No, we are not that moderate are we??? NO, especially you who distort the truth and the facts for you agenda. Yes, I wrote one fictional allegory to illustrate my point but for over two years now I have been quoting statistics and facts proving assertions such as yours are in fact fictitious - Did you read any of them, or does your mind automatically, like an automatic weapon black out the truth. And talking about Australia did you read the truth about gun control and its consequences? OK for you benefit I'll give it to you again?

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent. During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent. Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women. While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

Source quote {scroll down page to see full article at source link}: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php/i ... e_ID=17847

UniversalAlien wrote:

As this debate has progressed - And as the gun control ideologues have continued to shoot their best shots, only to have their opinions destroyed by truth and facts, the more I see that their misgotten ideology is not only a threat to the 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' of Americans - But in fact their ideology is a threat to the life and liberty of all peoples of this planet.

I believe in the power of mind and reason - In such a paradigm people who distort and even lie about the truth by denying the evidence and the facts are a much greater threat to me and people generally than any type of gun

And again as a summation of statistics and facts of history which has shown that gun control {as it applies to citizens of countries} has done little if anything in making the world a safer place and in fact has been instrumental in genocides which have cost many, many millions of lives. We won't get fooled again, those so called humanitarians advocating gun control are in fact advocating people control with no remorse as to how it is done and to what consequences it may lead to - They are the ones that cheapen the value of human life - their minds and agendas are much more dangerous than any gun

[Simply Wee]

Its never the gun's fault, its always this and that is to blame for the carnage. Maybe they ought to arm the American army with this and that, rather than anything designed specifically to kill, this and that. I guess.

[Spiral Out]

I would really like to hear what you feel are the steps that need to be taken to address the problems we're talking about.

One thing is to remove the novelty, curiosity and mystique surrounding guns by a) exposing kids to them early on and frequently in normal everyday settings and have a mandatory class in schools that teaches kids about the history, legal & social issues, function & design, safety & handling and other general useful information about guns, and b) removing the social stigma that guns have in society through promoting truths about guns and preventing the sensationalization of news stories (i.e. FOX "news") regarding incidents involving guns.

By the time they're adults ready to use them unsupervised then they will not have any special power over their psyche in times of distress, anger or other emotionally heightened states.

Basically, we need to remove the social stigma in talking about guns (as with sex, drugs, etc.) and make guns just another mundane and unexciting part of everyday life.

Right now there is so much apprehension and taboo surrounding guns in society that it creates an attractive thing for immature people to turn to when they think they have to make a statement about something. The suppression of a greater dialog about guns (other than gun control, which doesn't teach anyone anything) is creating this mystique about guns that draws impressionable people to them for the wrong reasons.

[Misty]

Its never the gun's fault, its always this and that is to blame for the carnage. Maybe they ought to arm the American army with this and that, rather than anything designed specifically to kill, this and that. I guess.

How can inanimate objects have "FAULT"? "This and that" objects still need a mover in order to kill. INANIMATE objects are the tools used by killers to kill, except when a killer uses their own hands, teeth, feet, etc. as a weapon to kill.

-- Updated Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:04 am to add the following --

I would really like to hear what you feel are the steps that need to be taken to address the problems we're talking about.

One thing is to remove the novelty, curiosity and mystique surrounding guns by a) exposing kids to them early on and frequently in normal everyday settings and have a mandatory class in schools that teaches kids about the history, legal & social issues, function & design, safety & handling and other general useful information about guns, and b) removing the social stigma that guns have in society through promoting truths about guns and preventing the sensationalization of news stories (i.e. FOX "news") regarding incidents involving guns.

By the time they're adults ready to use them unsupervised then they will not have any special power over their psyche in times of distress, anger or other emotionally heightened states.

Basically, we need to remove the social stigma in talking about guns (as with sex, drugs, etc.) and make guns just another mundane and unexciting part of everyday life.

Right now there is so much apprehension and taboo surrounding guns in society that it creates an attractive thing for immature people to turn to when they think they have to make a statement about something. The suppression of a greater dialog about guns (other than gun control, which doesn't teach anyone anything) is creating this mystique about guns that draws impressionable people to them for the wrong reasons.

Again, EDUCATION is the way to safer gun use. Spiral Out, it would be good for the education to include knives and body parts and other objects used to murder. Very good post, Spiral Out.

[Lucylu]

Basically, we need to remove the social stigma in talking about guns (as with sex, drugs, etc.) and make guns just another mundane and unexciting part of everyday life.

I'm glad you said that. Its a little confusing given your views as the author of another post in which you say you see drug users as the cause of the problem, as by that same logic then gun users would be the cause. I haven't checked that out lately though so maybe you've changed your view on that one? Just as I have changed my view on guns.

I've been thinking also about education, ultimately, as the solution. (Isn't it always?) but my initial reaction is that teaching children about violence and how to use guns is wrong. But maybe the solution is counter intuitive and facing the reality of the situation is best. If it would save lives and mean a more peaceful society then why not?

This kind of shift in ideas takes real time though; perhaps several generations to fully sink in.

Another thought I had, for the short term, was perhaps being able to prosecute parents, if they have allowed their child access to a gun which is later used. And I still like the idea of making safes mandatory. It would be much like bike helmets are now legally required.

Universal Alien:

I cant quite equate your earlier comments about the wonders of the British Empire with your passion for freedom and self determination. In my understanding, European Imperialism was built on the invasion and oppression of other cultures by force and the arrogance, materialism and pure anthropological ignorance of Western European culture. This is what causes war. The American Indians, the Maoris, the Boers, the Aborigines, the Zulus, the Indians, and many more all found themselves subject to an 'alien' invasion by Britain. Many ideas such as improved sanitation spread happily but many did not.

The then newly founded media press may have propagated the idea of the 'Great British Empire' to please the crowds but those in the know found that it was a very costly and messy affair to hold undeveloped territory overseas filled with 'reluctant' indigenous people, and that the real money was in trading with industrialised nations. Once all the Western European Imperialist nations weren't distracted by competing for territory anymore, they realised that the tensions at home, in Europe, were the real threat, hence the devastating World Wars to follow.

'The Empire' does have its remaining benefits though, as we wouldn't all be having this conversation if we didn't speak the same language. And not that it really matters but it was a British man who invented the computer (specifically to meet the challenges of the Second World War) and another British man that invented the internet, well after the end of colonial times (so there is life in the old girl yet!). Perhaps you are using size and might as your criteria for good or worthy?

[Spiral Out]

Lucylu,

Its a little confusing given your views as the author of another post in which you say you see drug users as the cause of the problem, as by that same logic then gun users would be the cause.

In the drug thread I blame the user as the root cause of the Human behavior problem with drugs. By the same logic, I blame the violent criminal as the root cause of the Human behavior problem with violence. I hold neither the drugs nor the guns responsible for the problems erroneously named for them. They are neither a "drug" problem nor a "gun" problem. They are inherently a Human behavior problem.

I've been thinking also about education, ultimately, as the solution. (Isn't it always?) but my initial reaction is that teaching children about violence and how to use guns is wrong.

It's not necessarily teaching kids about violence and how to use guns, it's teaching them about responsibility and how to respect and handle guns safely and responsibly. Perhaps your perspective is still fundamentally negative on this issue.

Another thought I had, for the short term, was perhaps being able to prosecute parents, if they have allowed their child access to a gun which is later used.

You seem to want to create an atmosphere of all sticks and no carrots. Do you consider yourself a strict disciplinarian?

And I still like the idea of making safes mandatory.

Agreed but as long as there is a 'rapid-retrieval' feature available for an emergency situation should one arise.

It would be much like bike helmets are now legally required.

I'm not one for protecting people from themselves. Nanny-state laws are unnecessarily intrusive. I'm more for holding people responsible for their decisions.

Thanks for your thoughts, Lucylu.

[Simply Wee]

Misty wrote.. 'How can inanimate objects have "FAULT"? "This and that" objects still need a mover in order to kill. INANIMATE objects are the tools used by killers to kill, except when a killer uses their own hands, teeth, feet, etc. as a weapon to kill'.

The fault is in them being so readily available, people choosing guns rather than people being chosen to use them. Power ought to be achieved, not bought. Guns are power, if it were not so, those in power would not wield them.

[Misty]

Misty wrote.. 'How can inanimate objects have "FAULT"? "This and that" objects still need a mover in order to kill. INANIMATE objects are the tools used by killers to kill, except when a killer uses their own hands, teeth, feet, etc. as a weapon to kill'.

The fault is in them being so readily available, people choosing guns rather than people being chosen to use them. Power ought to be achieved, not bought. Guns are power, if it were not so, those in power would not wield them.

Guns don't make guns available, people do.

"People choosing guns rather than people being chosen to use them." What does this mean?

"Power ought to be achieved, not bought." Guns are power, if it were not so, those in power would not wield them."

These statements are odd to me. Would achieved power guarantee those in power would not wield guns? Guns, per se, have no power. It is the criminals who use guns that wield power.

[Lucylu]

Perhaps your perspective is still fundamentally negative on this issue.

I did go on to say that the answer is counter intuitive, at least for me. I know I don't have the same comfort level with guns as you, but that's to be expected I think. I haven't grown up with guns and my gut reaction is what it is. I've always been taught that guns breed violence from a young age so my conditioning is pulling me the other way. For some reason I have a high comfort level with drugs when other people are repulsed by them naturally so I understand that this is largely learnt behaviour and personal beliefs. If this repulsion is compounded by the misconstruing of facts and assumed lethal effects, then it grows in to fear. And once it gets to that level it is obviously much harder to change someone's mind as they are just acting on impulse really.

You seem to want to create an atmosphere of all sticks and no carrots. Do you consider yourself a strict disciplinarian?

I don't think so. If anything I'm too nice and let people walk all over me, and then eventually snap! Healthy, huh? I'm working on it. But the question of guns is a good case in point, actually, as if there were stronger, lets say, boundaries placed around the responsibilities of owning a gun then the general anti gun public would feel more respected and then there wouldn't be the same backlash when something goes wrong. It would be taken as a genuine accident, rather than an accident waiting to happen.

I agree that your rights should not be infringed in any real way, but taking the example of helmets for bike riders, I think people just don't always know whats good for them and dont always realise just how dangerous something is until its too late. Its like that saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I think after the A&E (accident and emergency) departments take in so many serious yet avoidable injuries whether through not wearing a seat belt, speeding or not wearing a helmet on a bike, it is reasonable to create a law to prevent this. As the person who doesn't live to tell the tale cant pass on this new found insight! I wouldn't be here if I hadn't been wearing my seat belt in a car accident so I'm happy that I was expected to do this, despite my own arrogance.

I think the difficult part for me to education about responsible gun ownership in schools is that yes, this would be of benefit, but if we are thinking really long term wouldn't the ideal be to teach children about communicating and meditation so there is no need for violence? It seems a little like they are being introduced to guns as the answer to protecting oneself, when the ideal is actually using communication, self respect and tolerance. It still seems like a relatively short term response and may be introducing something in to the situation which doesn't need to be there.

Plus there are many people who feel passionately that they don't want guns in society who would ask that their child not be forced to attend, but I suppose they could sit out like they can on religious grounds. I don't know if school is the right place for this kind of teaching. I think maybe these classes should be taught by parents and also at the point of purchase, again making it more in line with learning to drive.

My other concern is that the class (if in schools) would be too light weight, a little like sex education class doesn't really help much with the realities of sex as a teenager. It deals with using condoms etc but not the social realities and expectations which are largely driven by the media and peer pressure.

Take smoking cigarettes for example. Now, we all know what the real effects are, but there are still many die hards and many 'new recruits'. Its not so easy to get teenagers to stop experimenting, even if they know the facts. For example, the BMA (British Medical Association) estimate that 10% of all 15 year olds smoke (in the UK). And that half of those who smoke from a young age will go on to die from smoking related illness. But try telling that to a 15 year old?

They just don't think on that level. They aren't able to imagine themselves as being old or fallible. They cant really understand consequences, or assess risks in the same way adults do- their brains are different. So it is up to adults to educate them, of course, but also to ensure that they cant buy or access cigarettes and hopefully one day tobacco smoking just wont be part of our society and wont be sold in shops at all.

We have to be realistic and accept the limitations of young people and our own adult responsibilities, is what I'm saying.

It was just a thought but I don't have a problem putting people in prison if they have directly or indirectly caused a school shooting through their inaction or carelessness. It is the gun owners responsibility to secure their gun and this should be taken seriously. I'm not suggesting the parent/ gun owner should be tried for murder but there needs to be some consequence, some assumed responsibility. And this would act as a deterrent to irresponsible gun ownership and make all gun owners treat this with a more appropriate level of responsibility. Maybe I am being too harsh, I don't know. I'll have to think about it some more.

The solution needs to come from come from all levels; the immediate, the short term and the long term. For me, its a case of some carrots and some sticks and also some really massive carrots! See what works- if it doesn't, change it. If it does, do it more. But something definitely does have to change as its clearly not working the way it is.

I did finally think of a counterargument for the 'innocent until proven guilty stance' to being able to own guns (not that its really relevant anymore but I'm still keen to know your response):

By owning a gun for personal protection, aren't you treating the world as guilty until proven innocent?

[Misty]

Hi Lucylu,

I know the question is for Spiral Out but I could not help but want to answer.

"By owning a gun for personal protection, aren't you treating the world as guilty until proven innocent?"

People own hands that are used for personal protection, does the same question apply?

Misty

[Lucylu]

"By owning a gun for personal protection, aren't you treating the world as guilty until proven innocent?"

People own hands that are used for personal protection, does the same question apply?

Hi Misty! No no, my question is open for all. My idiocy is open for scrutiny by all!

Anyway..

We don't 'own' hands. We are born with them. We evidently have evolutionary expectations that we will need to use our hands, to hold on to our mothers, to pick things up, to eat, to make things and if necessary to protect ourselves. We aren't bound to own guns. That is a choice.

It was a while back that this first came up but I think Spiral Out felt that my ideas in placing stricter regulations around owning and buying a gun suggested that the individual was guilty until proven innocent. But doesn't buying a gun for personal protection assume that others are guilty of wanting to harm us. If we then say no, it is 'just in case' and to protect ourselves, then the same can be said of the tighter restrictions on gun ownership. We don't have a choice to have hands, or to own knives for the essential daily activity of cooking and eating, but buying a gun for personal protection is a choice to specifically 'bear arms'.

I know that the very pro gun people like to say that guns are neutral and 'its people that kill people', which is essentially true, but it is also true from the anti gun perspective that guns were designed to shoot and kill others and are, in fact, a weapon.

Its true that you could also take a formula one race car and only drive it around the public streets, keeping to the speed limit, but that isn't really what the F1 car was designed to do. If you want to believe that it is then you are deluding yourself. If you are a proud gun owner, why not admit that you own guns because they are weapons, and you want to- why be defensive and say that they are the same as hands and knives?