<p>iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>Y'know, plenty of sociologists seem to agree that it's the media. I think I agree with you here.</p>
<p>My comments probably rehash what you have already discussed with Brew but please indulge me.</p>
<p>Like Ari, I was under the impression that most murders are committed by people in the context of domestic violence. Ari suggests that we find some way to "turn off the spigot. Reduce the incentive to commit crimes in the first place." A noble goal, Ari, but I don't see how you plan to do this. How do you reduce the incentive of a person, who may be reasonable and normal, to murder their spouse in a moment of anger? What you must really mean is let's limit their access to weapons and since we never know who might "go off", we'll have to limit everyone's access to weapons. We can decide to do this as a society, but let's first consider the cost. </p>
<p>In exchange for protecting the victims of gun-related domestic violence, everyone in America will have to give up the right to use guns to protect themselves. People who live in rural areas won't have the right to protect themselves from pests (and by pests I mean things like snakes and coyotes and mountain lions, not people). Homeowners and small business owners will have to rely on the police for protection rather than self-protection. The criminal element will know that people are gun-less and will act accordingly. Even if they don't use guns, criminals can rely on other weapons, superior numbers, or size to disable victims.</p>
<p>We focus our policies on domestic violence because typically the victims are women and innocent children but I'm not sure we can ever truly protect them. Even where we have it, gun control alone doesn't work so government is slowly eroding family privacy. Even with that, it's difficult to stop domestic violence. From a societal standpoint, is it worth it to impose burdens on so many when the benefits may be limited?</p>
<p>There is a great different between gun ownership in urban and rural areas. The gun ownership in urban areas is to protect one's self from the OTHER people that own guns. Its just a self repeating cycle.</p>
<p>No, it's not a self repeating cycle. </p>
<p>Criminals, even those with guns, don't attack potential victims with guns. Period.</p>
<p>Gun ownership the way our founding fathers saw it was to prevent a tyrannical government.</p>
<p>Every genocide of the 20th century was preceded by gun control.</p>
<p>You fail to bring up that it was the government or group in power that committed those genocides...do you think that the next president that does gun control measures is going to create a genocide?</p>
<p>DRJ4,</p>
<p>Most crimes, outside of crimes of passion, are committed because of ostensible benefits to the criminal. That's the spigot we need to turn off. Of course, offering a better social safety net to people also helps, but goodness forbid we admit that the nuclear family isn't the only way to structure a society.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What you must really mean is...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Don't tell me what I mean. I mean getting rid of criminal incentives. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Criminals, even those with guns, don't attack potential victims with guns. Period.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It depends. If criminals can get to the victim before the victim can get to the weapon, there goes the protection. Having a gun in a safe in your basement doesn't do you a lot of good when a burglar comes through your window. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Every genocide of the 20th century was preceded by gun control.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, this is true. But it's not necessarily a causative factor. There are plenty of nations that lack the right to own firearms that haven't committed genocide against their citizens. The citizenry not having guns makes it easier, but genocide also requires a few other things, including a massive psychological movement to allow it to happen in the first place.</p>
<p>im a little late on this thread...and didnt bother reading ahead but....</p>
<p>"Socially I'm quite liberal, but on economic policies I would be quite conservative. Hell if the GOP could just stick to their party line and not become distorted by the religious right I'd probably be a republican."</p>
<p>I just dont see how someone can be socially liberal and economically conservative. i admit, i suffer from fallacies of black and white and oversimplification. But i think that everything goes hand and hand. to be socially liberal you Must be economically liberal as well. and vice versa. please enlighten me b/c i really just dont see it</p>
<p>im still on the first page...so bare w/ me. </p>
<p>but to tomslawsky and iloveagoodbrew,</p>
<p>how is gun control anti-freedom? without laws there is chaos. our nation is built on laws and if everytime a new law restricting "freedom" was made and someone cried anti-freedom, there would be no foundation to the united states. the laws dont serve to take away freedoms but rather to prevent abuse of freedoms, which we all know exist w/ the 'right to bare arms'</p>
<p>
[quote]
how is gun control anti-freedom? without laws there is chaos. our nation is built on laws and if everytime a new law restricting "freedom" was made and someone cried anti-freedom, there would be no foundation to the united states. the laws dont serve to take away freedoms but rather to prevent abuse of freedoms, which we all know exist w/ the 'right to bare arms'
[/quote]
You are equating laws with regulations and restrictions. There are certain laws that are necessary, but some laws are immoral and goes against freedom. Remember, at one time, there was a law saying blacks are property. Wanna pull out that 'nation of laws' argument about slavery? You are committing an error in equating all laws as equally valid. </p>
<p>Some laws are antithetical to freedom, such as ones restricting guns. If you believe that there is a right to life, what good is it if you don't have the right to protect life? You cannot prevent abuse of firearms by legislation. For the simple fact that criminals tend not to follow laws in the first place. What else do you want to know about it? I hope I answered clearly enough.</p>
<p>im not as informed on the topic of gun control as everyone else seems to be but...what a/b the "accidents" or teenagers who find guns and want to play with them not yet having the mental maturity to understand everything that comes along with it. further what about guns among gangs. i know in gang battles most people do own guns and still fight one another, which i guess is an argument against people dont attack other people with guns.
it seems that everyone is saying that without guns there is no safety, i.e. other types of crime rates rising, and that perhaps is the problem. maybe we should have enough trust in the police force (or they should give us a reason to have more trust) to protect us. or Maybe we can pass the legislation that Will protect us. like UCLari said, most crimes are commited when there is an incentive, the person feels that they can get something out of it. if the law prevents such a thing from happening...then they wont have anything to gain and perhaps some sort of cultural conditioning will occur and the crime rates will go down...maybe...just an idea...
that being said. there will always be an outlier. there will always be an abuser, thats the basis of capitalism. you can always find an example to support your cause but you have to look at the bigger picture and the long term.</p>
<p>ok, what a/b another topic from liberals?</p>
<p>the law of blacks in regards to property was a reflection of the time. the law was changed. no one is saying make an amendment to the constitution. what is a law but a tough restriction?</p>
<p>further i never said that all laws were equally valid. you made that assertion on your own. there is a reason for restricting guns because people abuse that freedom. as ive already said. certain laws serve to prevent abuse of certain freedoms. im not saying all laws are just but i believe there is a justification for gun-control.</p>
<p>Guns among gangs are most likely not legally registered guns in the first place.</p>
<p>Esperame: I am a social liberal and economic conservative - the highest amount of freedom granted in both cases. Social liberals wish to give everyone the freedom they are granted by natural rights in the areas of social matters - gay rights, abortion, adoption, freedom of speech(including unpopular speech), etc. Economic conservatives wish to give everyone the freedom they are granted by natural rights in the areas of economic matters - freedom from extortion known as progressive income taxes, freedom from extortion for worthless socialist programs, etc.</p>
<p>Ask me anything. ;)</p>
<p>I agree, everything has to be so black and white. These stereotypes are why I hate the two party system we have in America. I'm liberal on most issues, however I happen to agree with Mr. Bush on abortion and gay marriage. However, this works itself out because those two issues are personal and the government should have more pressing matters to deal with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ask me anything
[/quote]
Who is Marcellus Wallace?
Who framed Roger Rabbit?</p>
<p>Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>
[quote]
[DRJ4]: What you must really mean is...</p>
<p>[UCLAri]: Don't tell me what I mean.
[/quote]
My statement was clearly a rhetorical device and not an attempt to frame or limit your speech. Honestly, Ari, sometimes you can be so argumentative.</p>
<p>Dont tell UC-Ari what he means, he's mean enough; vicious on offense but, suspiciously, very, very sensitive when playing defense, something of a pussycat, really.</p>
<p>WHY LIBERALS ARE LAME
BY: UVAJOE</p>
<p>Because i said so.</p>
<pre><code> the end
</code></pre>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>Pot, meet kettle. </p>
<p>And the only time I've ever gotten terribly offended by you was when you brought my girlfriend into it. That was just low. </p>
<p>DRJ4,</p>
<p>It's hard to tell online, my apologies.</p>