I never called for the right to do anything to anyone. I am speaking about owning a firearm.
Along with all rights comes responsibility. I don't think that the right to own a fire arms should be revoked but as a society we should ensure that theindividual owning that fire arm is responsible enough to do so and I think that is where we are failing.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I am american (well.. half), I have lived and worked in america.. All I can say is that I am happy I am not raising my daughter there. As much as americans clamour about freedom, rights, etc. I believe Europe (well.. let's say the UK because I live here and raise my daughter here), is much more 'civilized' and 'free' than the US. We have a lot less constraints and paranoia... This is not America bashing.. just an observation..
Did you ever notice how people in America aren't constantly demanding that Britain allow guns? This isn't Britain bashing....just an observation.
Maybe we should have kept slavery. We had it before, right? If anything, I guess we should have made more people slaves.
Why would I be proud of a fact? Laws are there, to be observed, to be looked at and to be changed if necessary. That's why we elect our governments - use your vote to change the law. But as a citizen of a country, we by default agree to abide by those laws.... simple. Not that I for or against it... it's just being part of society.....
Your slavery remark is downright stupid.... here we are clamouring for the US to change their gun laws and you are telling I am inferring we keep all the bad laws... :rolleyes:
Why would I be proud of a fact? Laws are there, to be observed, to be looked at and to be changed if necessary. That's why we elect our governments - use your vote to change the law. But as a citizen of a country, we by default agree to abide by those laws.... simple. Not that I for or against it... it's just being part of society.....
You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.
Your slavery remark is downright stupid.... here we are clamouring for the US to change their gun laws and you are telling I am inferring we keep all the bad laws... :rolleyes:
You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.
Did you ever notice how people in America aren't constantly demanding that Britain allow guns? This isn't Britain bashing....just an observation.
OK, next time there is a mass killing with authorised guns in the UK feel free to try and have a constructive debate with us about our gun laws, I hope it will be a long long time in coming...
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Along with all rights comes responsibility. I don't think that the right to own a fire arms should be revoked but as a society we should ensure that theindividual owning that fire arm is responsible enough to do so and I think that is where we are failing.
I absolutely agree with you. I believe in a basic safety course for all gun owners at the expense of the owners. There should be no government cost associated with these courses.
You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.
You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.
You do like the sound of your own voice, don't you? (Or the view of your own words?)....
Of course people will always kill each other but why arm them with the most effective one on one killing machine ever invented?
Don't try and make yourself out to be macho by carrying a gun, it's pathetic, and of course I would defend myself, your comments are ridiculous, grow up...
I don't carry a gun. I do own a gun. And you considered it 'escalation' to defend myself. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I absolutely agree with you. I believe in a basic safety course for all gun owners at the expense of the owners. There should be no government cost associated with these courses.
Absolutely but I would go a step further than just safety courses. To get into some schools you need letters of recommendation. To get a job you need referrals from previous employers and co-workers. Why not have the same to own a weapon?
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
OK, next time there is a mass killing with authorised guns in the UK feel free to try and have a constructive debate with us about our gun laws, I hope it will be a long long time in coming...
Perhaps we should be calling on Britain to ban medicines and doctors then, since that's where your lass "mass killing" came from, I believe. But since you only have a few hundred thousand "authorized" guns in your nation, I doubt you'll have many mass killings with guns.
I don't carry a gun. I do own a gun. And you considered it 'escalation' to defend myself. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.
so are you saying if you start a debate you should expect stupid comments? ok, I guess so...
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Perhaps we should be calling on Britain to ban medicines and doctors then, since that's where your lass "mass killing" came from, I believe. But since you only have a few hundred thousand "authorized" guns in your nation, I doubt you'll have many mass killings with guns.
:rolleyes: this just gets weirder... ban medecines and doctors from what? from who?
...and precisely the point, I wouldn't rule out the possibility but shouldn't everything be done to minimise it?
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
1. You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.
2. You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.
:rolleyes: this just gets weirder... ban medecines and doctors from what? from who?
Everyone except the government, apparently. I mean, you had a private doctor killing off patients. This simply cannot be allowed. Therefore, only the government should be allowed to dispense medicine and medical services.
...and precisely the point, I wouldn't rule out the possibility but shouldn't everything be done to minimise it?
No. "Everything" would include euthanizing everyone in this country. That would reduce gun violence to zero. The cost, however, would be too high. So no, we shouldn't do "everything" to minimize it.
You should expect comments commensurate with the tone of the debate, I suppose. As they say, it takes two to tango.
no worries
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Everyone except the government, apparently. I mean, you had a private doctor killing off patients. This simply cannot be allowed. Therefore, only the government should be allowed to dispense medicine and medical services.
No. "Everything" would include euthanizing everyone in this country. That would reduce gun violence to zero. The cost, however, would be too high. So no, we shouldn't do "everything" to minimize it.
Yes despite the laws and restrictions that did happen, in ONE instance and then action was taken to prevent it happening again...
Everything within reason... :rolleyes:
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
1. You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.
2. You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.
yeah, if you're making a philosophical or moral argument. but i think most people here are making social or reasonable arguments, not ideological ones. ideally, we'd all be free to do whatever we damn well please. but that's just not the case in real life in modern society. there are limits. so we have to determine what limits we can live with and what costs are worth the benefits received.
yeah, if you're making a philosophical or moral argument. but i think most people here are making social or reasonable arguments, not ideological ones.
All "social or reasonable" arguments require a philosophical and moral basis.
ideally, we'd all be free to do whatever we damn well please. but that's just not the case in real life in modern society. there are limits. so we have to determine what limits we can live with and what costs are worth the benefits received.
Ok. The costs of a gun ban exceed any benefits to me. Therefore, I don't want it. So, where does that leave "us"?
Which is decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies...
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Which is decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies...
Hehe....was slavery "reasonable"? How about the Iraq War? How about the Patriot Act? How about the Vietnam War? How about the Sedition Acts? How about Prohibition? How about segregation? Each one, "decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies".....
Hehe....was slavery "reasonable"? How about the Iraq War? How about the Patriot Act? How about the Vietnam War? How about the Sedition Acts? How about Prohibition? How about segregation? Each one, "decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies".....
The price you pay for living in a democracy is that certain actions are taken in your governments name...
Doesn't mean they are right or you agree with them, it goes with the territory, how you respond to them depends on how strongly you disagree...
And how "civilised" society was/is when those decisions were made is debatable too, all subjective, it's not a perfect system but it would seem the best of what's been tried so far
Astoria Crew
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
The price you pay for living in a democracy is that certain actions are taken in your governments name...
When that price violates things I believe are my right and the right of my fellow citizens, I'm no longer willing to pay that price. That means you have to extract it from me. And that means you'll need guns more than I do.
Doesn't mean they are right or you agree with them, it goes with the territory, how you respond to them depends on how strongly you disagree...
And how "civilised" society was/is when those decisions were made is debatable too, all subjective, it's not a perfect system but it would seem the best of what's been tried so far
It is "the best of what's been tried so far". I completely agree.
When that price violates things I believe are my right and the right of my fellow citizens, I'm no longer willing to pay that price. That means you have to extract it from me. And that means you'll need guns more than I do.
In a civilized, healthy democracy, what it really means is that you have to work and organize to have your point of view represented.
Comments
Along with all rights comes responsibility. I don't think that the right to own a fire arms should be revoked but as a society we should ensure that theindividual owning that fire arm is responsible enough to do so and I think that is where we are failing.
Did you ever notice how people in America aren't constantly demanding that Britain allow guns? This isn't Britain bashing....just an observation.
Why would I be proud of a fact? Laws are there, to be observed, to be looked at and to be changed if necessary. That's why we elect our governments - use your vote to change the law. But as a citizen of a country, we by default agree to abide by those laws.... simple. Not that I for or against it... it's just being part of society.....
Your slavery remark is downright stupid.... here we are clamouring for the US to change their gun laws and you are telling I am inferring we keep all the bad laws... :rolleyes:
again.. silly repartie... why would we want crime at the level of the US? :rolleyes:
You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.
You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.
OK, next time there is a mass killing with authorised guns in the UK feel free to try and have a constructive debate with us about our gun laws, I hope it will be a long long time in coming...
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
I absolutely agree with you. I believe in a basic safety course for all gun owners at the expense of the owners. There should be no government cost associated with these courses.
What someone wants seems to be rather irrelevant to your arguments.
I don't carry a gun. I do own a gun. And you considered it 'escalation' to defend myself. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.
Absolutely but I would go a step further than just safety courses. To get into some schools you need letters of recommendation. To get a job you need referrals from previous employers and co-workers. Why not have the same to own a weapon?
Perhaps we should be calling on Britain to ban medicines and doctors then, since that's where your lass "mass killing" came from, I believe. But since you only have a few hundred thousand "authorized" guns in your nation, I doubt you'll have many mass killings with guns.
Both. Thanks for asking. Neither question, however, responds to the point I made.
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
You made a point?
:rolleyes: this just gets weirder... ban medecines and doctors from what? from who?
...and precisely the point, I wouldn't rule out the possibility but shouldn't everything be done to minimise it?
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Two actually:
1. You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.
2. You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.
The post is here:
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4358371&postcount=426
if you'd like to review it.
I'm out of it.... I'm hoping there will not be cause for another debate as this one but somehow, I'm pessimistic.....
Everyone except the government, apparently. I mean, you had a private doctor killing off patients. This simply cannot be allowed. Therefore, only the government should be allowed to dispense medicine and medical services.
No. "Everything" would include euthanizing everyone in this country. That would reduce gun violence to zero. The cost, however, would be too high. So no, we shouldn't do "everything" to minimize it.
You should expect comments commensurate with the tone of the debate, I suppose. As they say, it takes two to tango.
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Yes despite the laws and restrictions that did happen, in ONE instance and then action was taken to prevent it happening again...
Everything within reason... :rolleyes:
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
yeah, if you're making a philosophical or moral argument. but i think most people here are making social or reasonable arguments, not ideological ones. ideally, we'd all be free to do whatever we damn well please. but that's just not the case in real life in modern society. there are limits. so we have to determine what limits we can live with and what costs are worth the benefits received.
"Within reason" would be very nice, yes.
All "social or reasonable" arguments require a philosophical and moral basis.
Ok. The costs of a gun ban exceed any benefits to me. Therefore, I don't want it. So, where does that leave "us"?
Which is decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies...
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
Hehe....was slavery "reasonable"? How about the Iraq War? How about the Patriot Act? How about the Vietnam War? How about the Sedition Acts? How about Prohibition? How about segregation? Each one, "decided by democratic debate and social considerations in civilised societies".....
The price you pay for living in a democracy is that certain actions are taken in your governments name...
Doesn't mean they are right or you agree with them, it goes with the territory, how you respond to them depends on how strongly you disagree...
And how "civilised" society was/is when those decisions were made is debatable too, all subjective, it's not a perfect system but it would seem the best of what's been tried so far
Troubled souls unite, we got ourselves tonight...
Astoria, Dublin, Reading 06
Katowice, Wembley 07
SBE, Manchester, O2 09
Hyde Park 10
Manchester 1&2 12
This is just g'bye for now...
When that price violates things I believe are my right and the right of my fellow citizens, I'm no longer willing to pay that price. That means you have to extract it from me. And that means you'll need guns more than I do.
It is "the best of what's been tried so far". I completely agree.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.