• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 39
    Like Tree11Likes

    Thread: just random stories, pics, and opinionated articles of mine

    1. #1
      Member MartialArtsBabe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      LD Count
      maybe5?duno4sho
      Gender
      Location
      Lost in the Dream Realm
      Posts
      18
      Likes
      6

      just random stories, pics, and opinionated articles of mine

      The Debate of the Century
      Gun control is one of the most debated topics of the 21st century since the shooting in a Colorado theatre that killed twelve people and injured fifty-eight, and the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that killed several children and teachers. The gun violence in America is too frequent and too severe. This topic has been debated about for throughout America’s history, but the debates have never been more vicious. If the government passed a law that limited the amount of guns a person could own and buy, or at least taxed the ammunition, then the gun violence rates would go down drastically. Firearms claim over 30,000 live each year, so if gun laws are passed, then that death rate will be lowered considerably.
      In 1968, Congress passed the Gun Control Act designed to “provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence”. This law prohibited the private sale of rifles and shotguns by mail. Various organizations have expressed opposition to some or all of the GCA's provisions. “The assassination of John F. Kennedy, who was killed by a mail-order gun that belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald, inspired this major revision to federal gun laws. The subsequent assassinations of Martin Luther King and presidential candidate Robert Kennedy fueled its quick passage” (Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation). This law was passed after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King to help try and prevent mail-ordered guns from getting into the hands of the wrong people. Mrs. Leo Lesnick wrote in a letter on June 20, 1968 to Montanan Democratic Senator Mike Mansfield “As to registering and licensing guns, I do not know the answer. But it does seem to me that if handguns in particular were licensed and stiff license fees charged then there might be fewer people who would have them. Surely the events of the past three months make some sort of action a necessity’ (Sticking to His Guns:
      Mike Mansfield, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Election of 1970). Senator Mansfield supported the GCA even while many Montana citizens did not. He later replied that he did not expect gun control would be a cure-all problem; however, he did believe that the gun was a plague to the land. When Senator Mansfield reran for Senator, he used the GCA as a persuasion for reelection. Gun control has been an issue for decades, and this act was only the beginning.
      The Crime Control Act of 1990 bans manufacturing and importing semiautomatic assault weapons in the U.S. Also, "gun-free school zones" were established, carrying specific penalties for violations. The Crime Control Act is mainly a law that protects America’s children. While this law focuses mostly on keeping children and school zones drug-free, this law also created gun-free school zones and enhanced penalties when caught using short-barreled rifles, shotguns, or other destructive devices while committing a crime of violence or a crime related to drug trafficking.
      The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, signed on November 30, 1993 by President Bill Clinton, imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns. This law was passed twelve years after the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, which also lead to the shooting of Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, DC officer Thomas Delahanty, and Jim Brady, who was press secretary to President Reagan. The gun used to shoot President Reagan, Jim Brady, Agent McCarthy, and Officer Delahanty was purchased at a pawnshop in Dallas, Texas. “The gun was a Roehm Model RG14, a six-shot, double-action revolver designed to fire .22-caliber, rim fire ammunition. The shooter, John Hinckley, lied about his address when he purchased the gun and used an old Texas driver's license as ‘proof’ that he lived there. A background check would have caught that lie” (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
      Center-city teens and residents who own or carry guns do so mainly for personal security. “We asked teen inmates and students to agree or disagree: ‘in my crowd, if you don’t have a gun, people don’t respect you.’ Eighty-six percent of the inmates and ninety percent of the male students rejected this statement, most of them strongly” (James D. Wright and others). This statement clearly states that owning firearms is not about popularity or respect. “We also asked them to agree or disagree: ‘My friends would look down on me if I did not carry a gun.’ Eighty-nine percent of the inmates and ninety-one percent of the students also disagreed with this statement, again most of the strongly” (James D. Wright and others). Again, firearm carrying is clearly not a popularity issue.
      Findings from a survey from 170 United States cities indicate that: “… (1) gun prevalence levels generally have no net positive effect on total violence rates, (2) homicide, gun assault, and rape rates increase gun prevalence…” (Journal of Quantitative Criminology). If certain crime rates were to decrease, then the gun prevalence levels would also decrease. A study done in Chicago this year shows that crime rates actually are beginning to decrease from last year. In March 2012 alone, there were fifty-two homicides in Chicago. This year, March 2013, there were only sixteen homicides, which is a sixty-nine percent decrease from last March. The homicide rates for the first three months of this year, from January 1st to March 31st are down forty-two percent. “This is not a victory. Zero murders would be a victory. But this is certainly progress.” (Superintendent Garry McCarthy, Chicago Police Department).
      If the government restricted the types of guns available, taxed ammunition or the guns themselves, or at least required more extensive background checks, tragedies such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut or the Colorado theatre would happen less often and be much less horrific. A study of youths who were incarcerated for gun use shows that a revolver is their first choice of weapon, and an automatic gun, which have been illegal since 1934, and semi-automatics, which were banned between 1994 and 2000, are their close second. “… the revolver was the most commonly owned weapon; 72 percent had owned a revolver… Next in popularity was the automatic or semi-automatic pistol, typically chambered for 9mm or.45 caliber rounds” (James D. Wright and others). A move toward tighter gun laws seems to be happening, slowly but surely. Cook County in Illinois has passed a law that requires a twenty-five dollar tax fee on firearm sales. Even the National Rifle Association is talking change. “…perhaps a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban which, between 1994 and 2000, prohibited the sale of a list of the most militaristic weapons, or an end to the ‘gun-show exemption’ that allows people to buy weapons without the usual background checks…’ (The Economist).
      Many people may argue that gun control is a terrible idea, but in reality, it is a good idea. Some will say that people will not be able to defend themselves in dangerous situations if the government pursues the gun control laws. However, this statement isn’t all truth. There are several other objects that can be used as self-defense. A person could use a stun-gun in a dangerous situation. This object can easily bring down an attacker without seriously injuring, or even killing that person. Another option is a very strong pepper spray. This will temporarily blind the attacker, leaving the perfect opportunity to disarm the attacker and flee safely.
      Gun violence isn’t the only kind of violence. If the government takes away the guns, then the people who commit crimes will just find another weapon to use. While this may be true, the other weapons that criminals use will be less lethal than a firearm. The weapons they use may cause damage, but they will be less likely to cause death. A knife or another type of weapon not related to a firearm has a less likely chance of killing, paralyzing or otherwise hurting a person permanently.
      Gun control will be a cause of more violence. People who are legally able to buy a gun or are legally able to own one will begin to riot and protest. There is no doubt that people will protest, but if a person is smart, they will protest peacefully. If a group of people protests with violence, then it is assumed that the firearm control will have a less likely chance of being revoked, because the violent reaction to the control of firearms shows that human beings are, for lack of a better word, addicted to guns. Humans are addicted to the false sense of security that firearms give to them, when in reality they do not see the violence that is caused by the one thing they are addicted to. “…300m guns are ’out there’ in the Unites States, more than one for every adult’ (The Economist). Guns don’t have to be taken from ALL Americans. As long as the government tries harder to keep firearms regulated and out of the hands of criminals, there is no need for protests or riots.
      Guns claim over 30,000 lives every year, but with gun and ammunition control, the death tolls could be decreased dramatically. While gun control has been debated about for over a hundred years, the debates may be coming to a conclusion. The government sees the way guns impact society, and appear reluctant to pass a law controlling firearms. They see that while firearms protect Americans’ freedom by using them in wars, Americans are also using firearms to commit heinous crimes such as murders. If gun laws are passed, there is still a way of defending oneself in a threatening situation without using a gun that can kill an attacker. Also, center-city residents can feel much safer knowing that they will not have to carry a firearm just to defend themselves. Ultimately, if the government passes laws controlling firearms, then America would be much safer.

    2. #2
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      <s><span class='glow_9ACD32'>DeletePlease</span></s>'s Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2010
      Posts
      2,685
      Likes
      2883
      DJ Entries
      12
      Switzerland doesn't have a standing army, they've opted for citizens army. The majority of the citizens are trained in firearm-use and are required to keep a rifle in their homes. Even though the Swiss are armed to the teeth, they don't have nearly as many mass shootings as America.

      Why? Because the guns aren't the problem, it's the fact that America harbors a violent society and instead of dealing with this issue, it glorifies it as a nation when it gives these mass shooters a near celebrity status. Thus giving these types of people exactly what they want - attention and the knowledge that they incited mass panic. Other borderline people see the way this is handled on the news - with non-stop coverage of the shooters for months on end and they go "Shit, maybe I should..."

      Banning guns in America wouldn't work, all that would do is trigger a huge boon in weapons trade on the black market. The market for guns is there (violent society), so banning them would be pure folly. Say they ban assault rifles, what do you think the countless gangs across America will start doing? They're going to start stocking up on these rifles because they know that the black market price of these things will skyrocket. Many of them would also buy up these automatics hoping to have more firepower then rival sets, creating an arms race of sorts.

      That being said, there does need to be some regulation. Not by banning assault rifles (which does nothing but intensify gun violence in already-troubled areas) but by enforcing the rules that are currently being ignored. Background checks, not selling weapons to people who seem to be erratic or intoxicated, only selling guns to people who provide ID and a gun licence, regular inspections of gun shops to make sure everything is up to code, encouraging people to treat these weapons with the appropriate level of respect by acknowledging how dangerous they can be instead of glorifying them, etc.

      You can't just outlaw something whenever you run into a problem - "band-aid solutions" like that never work, the War On Drugs is evidence of that. American society needs to change - it needs to stop sensationalizing and glorifying acts of violence, it needs to start focusing more on mental health and treatment, etc.

      But outright banning guns or specific types of guns? That simply won't do anything but make matters worse. I can buy a gun by the end of the day today, and I don't even know if there are any gun shops in my city. Hell, I've never even heard of any gun shops in my province. But I do know I can easily find someone to supply me by simply walking over to any main bus station or asking around local high schools... just like everyone else in North America can.
      Last edited by GavinGill; 04-28-2013 at 05:27 AM.
      dutchraptor likes this.

    3. #3
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      MartialArtsBabe, I am going to ask you what nobody can ever answer for me. If guns are banned, I agree that people who care what the law is and who care about going to prison are going to be owning guns in much smaller numbers. However, what will make the criminal thugs stop having guns? Reducing the number of people who have guns is not the same as reducing the number of sack of shit thugs who have guns. What will gun control do to keep guns out of THEIR hands???????????????????????

      Also, if the pieces of shit continue to have guns, how will they be affected by the fact that their targets no longer have guns?

      That is what I never see anybody getting around. You might scare average Joes and Janets out of having guns, but what is going to end the underground market, and how will the underground act when their potential victims are no longer armed in the numbers they once were? Do you see the problem here?

      I will tell you some facts about the area where I live. One of the well known residential areas in Jackson is Belhaven/Fondren. That's two big neighborhoods, but they exist together as one big community. It is an art district where lots of left leaning, far out types live. People in that area generally express themselves as liberals who do not believe in owning guns. Well, that community gets its ass robbed blind on a very regular basis. My brother was held up at gun point when he lived in Belhaven. Fondren gets robbed all the time too. After living in both neighborhoods, I moved back out to the suburbs of Rankin County. It is farther away from the "ghetto," but it is also an area where every criminal knows that there are more guns than people. I am not exaggerating. It's good ole boy territory where I am now. We don't have a problem with burglaries, muggings, or car jackings. Thugs know not to screw with this area. If anybody burglarized a house out here, it wouldn't just be the residents going after the scum with guns. Everybody on the street would be after them with guns. Could that perhaps be why houses out here don't get robbed? There is more money here than there is in Belhaven/Fondren, but we very rarely get screwed with. What is your take on this?
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 04-28-2013 at 04:18 AM.
      gab likes this.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    4. #4
      gab
      USA gab is offline
      Administrator Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Stickie King 25000 Hall Points Populated Wall Huge Dream Journal Referrer Silver Tagger First Class 10000 Hall Points
      gab's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2011
      LD Count
      306 events
      Gender
      Location
      California Republic
      Posts
      9,575
      Likes
      10556
      DJ Entries
      783
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Also, if the pieces of shit continue to have guns, how will they be affected by the fact that their targets no longer have guns?
      That is what I never see anybody getting around. You might scare average Joes and Janets out of having guns, but what is going to end the underground market, and how will the underground act when their potential victims are no longer armed in the numbers they once were?
      Exactly. It's illegal to shoot someone now. But that doesn't stop a criminal from doing so. So outlawing guns will not take them away from criminals. They usually don't buy their guns in gun shops. If they prohibit selling guns, all it will do is that it will stop a law obiding citizen from owning a gun, because he will not buy on black market. Thughs will keep buying same way they are buying them now.

      There should be harsher penalties for killing people.

    5. #5
      Member MartialArtsBabe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      LD Count
      maybe5?duno4sho
      Gender
      Location
      Lost in the Dream Realm
      Posts
      18
      Likes
      6
      @Universal Mind: Maybe people want to try to avoid the richer places because they have great security systems?
      @GavinGill: when you say that there isnt an actual PLACE that sells guns around you, youre lucky. just recently, it was announced in my towns paper that a sports shop was going to open across fro my high school. they would be selling school spiritwear. They also will be sellig firearms. ACROSS FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL! Its completely illogical and absurd. the government is allowing this guy to opeb this store, and the town approves? the government needs tp at least start with the idiots that are doing these kinds of things. im dont mean tht they should try to take guns away from everyone, they just need to do what you said: re-enforce laws that need to be enforced.

    6. #6
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by MartialArtsBabe View Post
      @Universal Mind: Maybe people want to try to avoid the richer places because they have great security systems?
      I think so. Those security systems are called guns.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    7. #7
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      I'd like to point out that lower income areas are statistically at higher risk for burglaries regardless of the number of guns around.

      Also I think y'all should should check this out: Harvard School of Public Health » Harvard Injury Control Research Center » Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

      I'm sure myself and most people posting here should be allowed to own a gun. Unfortunately it's difficult to make the distinction between reasonable people and jerks who just want to prove their manhood or whatever.

    8. #8
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by FriendlyFace View Post
      I'd like to point out that lower income areas are statistically at higher risk for burglaries regardless of the number of guns around.
      I didn't go into much detail in my last post. I was drunk and in more of a comedy mood than an explanation mood. The area where I live now is not all rich. There are relatively poor areas out here, but they are what many would consider "redneck" areas. There is a neighborhood out here called Barnett Bend, and it is not at all a rich area, but there are about 10 guns in every house. I don't know of a single story of a burglary in that neighborhood. The Belhaven/Fonderen area I discussed at first has lots of big houses that rich people live in, and that attracts burglars, muggers, and car jackers, especially because the criminals are not afraid of getting shot. Those criminals have guns, and they tend to buy them illegally in the underground market. A gun ban will not change that, but it will make them feel even safer about robbing decent people.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 04-28-2013 at 05:19 PM.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    9. #9
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      Are you aware that in general firearms that are acquired illegally started out by being sold legally (inside the US) to the wrong people? If guns were banned, there is no doubt that criminals would have a much harder time getting their hands on them. I don't lean one way or the other on the issue. I do, however, think that it's ridiculous for someone to keep ten guns in their house. Seriously, what possible reason could there be for owning ten guns unless you are starting a militia, selling them illegally, or have a very small penis?
      melanieb and dutchraptor like this.

    10. #10
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by FriendlyFace View Post
      Are you aware that in general firearms that are acquired illegally started out by being sold legally (inside the US) to the wrong people? If guns were banned, there is no doubt that criminals would have a much harder time getting their hands on them. I don't lean one way or the other on the issue. I do, however, think that it's ridiculous for someone to keep ten guns in their house. Seriously, what possible reason could there be for owning ten guns unless you are starting a militia, selling them illegally, or have a very small penis?
      It scares the Hell out of potential burglars. The crazy appearance of the situation, which you described, is an extra factor that makes criminals want to stay out of the neighborhood.

      The fact that underground guns came from legal guns does not mean that banning guns will end the underground market. There is a demand, so there is going to be a supply. Guns can be created illegally, and they can be brought into the country illegally. Isn't that how it works with drugs? How is the war on drugs coming along?

      That reminds me of something. Banning guns will make the illegal gun cartels much more powerful, and there will be turf violence among them. Guns will be more expensive, so there will be more crime committed for the purpose of buying guns. That is exactly what the war on drugs did to society. Why would a war on guns not have those major problems?
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    11. #11
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      I'll say again, I don't support a gun ban, nor do I oppose it. By the way, you just gave examples of how it would be harder for criminals to get guns if they were banned, although you could be right about other problems it may cause. I don't pretend to understand all of the issues. I do however think that if we're going to let people have guns, there needs to be a lot more control over them. These are machines specifically designed to kill people, and no one should be able to buy ten of them. That undoubtedly directly contributes to the problem of illegal guns - if you can buy all the guns you want, you can sell all the guns you want on the black market. Also, I think we need to be way more careful about who we allow to buy firearms. I'd feel much safer knowing that there's a slim chance my TV might get stolen than knowing that the crazy drunk redneck next door who beats his wife has a full arsenal of deadly weapons. Anyway, just my two cents. I'll shut up now.
      Last edited by FriendlyFace; 04-28-2013 at 06:21 PM.

    12. #12
      Banned
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      LD Count
      Counts fingers
      Gender
      Location
      Austin
      Posts
      4,118
      Likes
      4859
      DJ Entries
      111
      But what if burglars break into your house specifically to steal your guns?

      No one stays home forever. An empty house known to contain guns is a target for criminals.


      Australia banned guns and has done well since, but it's been hard to determine a relation between the law and the result. Read here: PolitiFact | Stephen King says since Australia cracked down on guns, homicides by gun dropped 60 percent

      However, people in general tend to act lawful, and I believe most people would support tougher restrictions on guns. Statistics and polls in the U.S. support my belief. If we enacted real legislation against handguns and assault weapons crime using guns would go down.

      I hate it when people argue that gun laws wouldn't prevent gun use. It's a stupid argument. We have laws against stealing, killing, hurting people and speeding, yet no one goes around freaking out about those laws and their ineffectiveness.

      I would hate to imagine a world without those laws.

    13. #13
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Gun laws would make it harder for decent people to get guns because guns would be more expensive and have to be bought by street criminals, but the scum that wants to use guns in crimes is going to get guns. That is a fact. The gun laws will put the bad guys at a major advantage and the good guys at a major disadvantage. I still have not seen a way around that.

      People might steal guns when they rob houses, but what difference does it make? We are not talking about rare jewels here. The person who breaks into a house is most likely going to have a gun. Why not try to scare him out of breaking into the house? Gun laws just make for good symbolism, like drug laws. They make voters feel good, but they don't help society.

      Why would a war on guns work better than the war on drugs? I do believe in laws against robbery and so forth because getting a robber off the streets results in less robbery. Getting a gun or drug dealer off the streets just makes the next one more powerful. Do you see the difference? Also, getting gun owners out of society and into prison makes responsible people scared to own guns, and that makes them easier targets for the people who ARE going to have guns. That is a huge problem.

      There is another problem. Gun bans result in good people going to prison, just like drug bans do. Evil people deserve to go to prison, but good people do not. I think that owning a gun in the United States will be completely understandable, even more understandable, if guns are made illegal. People who own them for self-defense will not deserve to have their lives thrown down the drain, but it is what will happen. Isn't that one of the problems we are seeing with the war on drugs? The war on drugs is an enormous disaster and an enormous injustice, and a war on guns would be both of those things too.

      It is hard to find an unbiased article on Australia. What seems to be the case is that gun violence has gone down while other forms of violence/murder, home invasions, and armed robberies have gone way up. Is that accurate?

      Even if gun violence goes down as a result of a gun ban in the U.S., people still deserve chances at defending themselves and their properties. If guns are banned in the U.S., I'm still keeping mine. I'm not going to weaken myself while robbers get even more of an attitude. Anybody who thinks I should go to prison for that can go to Hell.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    14. #14
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      Just gonna jump in once more and say that if you think anything in your house or wallet is worth the life of another human being, wretched as he or she may be, you're probably the one going to hell.

      Not to mention that when you try to "defend your property" you're just as likely to get killed as the other guy.
      Last edited by FriendlyFace; 04-28-2013 at 07:14 PM.

    15. #15
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3041
      DJ Entries
      6
      The solution to these situations is almost always to same. Complete freedom or prohibition never work, it only works when you control something, people go power hungry when they can do what they want and feel constricted when they they cant. You have to give them just enough space to feel satisfied without feeling as if they are being controlled.
      This problem comes up with drugs, gambling etc etc and the solution which always works best is regulation.

    16. #16
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by FriendlyFace View Post
      Just gonna jump in once more and say that if you think anything in your house or wallet is worth the life of another human being, wretched as he or she may be, you're probably the one going to hell.

      Not to mention that when you try to "defend your property" you're just as likely to get killed as the other guy.
      I would not just be defending my property. I would also be defending my life. A person breaking into my house when I am home is inherently a threat to my life. Why do you want him to have the advantage?

      Anybody who breaks into my house deserves to die. Have you ever had your house broken into when you were home? I have. You don't quite get what an injustice it is until it happens to you.

      Quote Originally Posted by dutchraptor View Post
      The solution to these situations is almost always to same. Complete freedom or prohibition never work, it only works when you control something, people go power hungry when they can do what they want and feel constricted when they they cant. You have to give them just enough space to feel satisfied without feeling as if they are being controlled.
      This problem comes up with drugs, gambling etc etc and the solution which always works best is regulation.
      Drug regulation has worked better than having no drug laws? Please explain. We didn't have a drug problem in the U.S. before drug prohibition. Those laws were passed for corrupt reasons, and now they are ruining the country.

      By the way, to REALLY bring violence down in the U.S., we need to legalize drugs. The turf warring drug gangs and the hunt for illegal drugs are responsible for the vast majority of the crime in the U.S. Regulation is not the answer. It is the problem.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    17. #17
      Banned
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      LD Count
      Counts fingers
      Gender
      Location
      Austin
      Posts
      4,118
      Likes
      4859
      DJ Entries
      111
      I would like to add something before anyone reads my replies...

      I respect each of you for your feelings and opinions. Just because we disagree doesn't mean anything else but a disagreement.

      It's okay to challenge me and my opinions even though I'm staff. That doesn't change anything as long as no one is calling names.

      I just wanted to say that. I read a lot of ED threads and I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression.



      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Gun laws would make it harder for decent people to get guns because guns would be more expensive and have to be bought by street criminals, but the scum that wants to use guns in crimes is going to get guns. That is a fact. The gun laws will put the bad guys at a major advantage and the good guys at a major disadvantage. I still have not seen a way around that.

      Guns would have to be bought by street criminals? Do they have to buy them? Perhaps it would be harder for them to buy them if they couldn't obtain them from any gun-show parking lot where there is no trace of the sale.


      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      There is another problem. Gun bans result in good people going to prison, just like drug bans do. Evil people deserve to go to prison, but good people do not.
      Why would good people go to jail? It's unlikely anyone would ever come to your door demanding your gun, and if they did and you fought the people using your gun it would automatically turn you into a bad person.


      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      It is hard to find an unbiased article on Australia. What seems to be the case is that gun violence has gone down while other forms of violence/murder, home invasions, and armed robberies have gone way up. Is that accurate?
      I don't believe the crimes have gone way up but I haven't done enough research so I won't try to argue the point until I do (if I do ).

      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Even if gun violence goes down as a result of a gun ban in the U.S., people still deserve chances at defending themselves and their properties. If guns are banned in the U.S., I'm still keeping mine. I'm not going to weaken myself while robbers get even more of an attitude. Anybody who thinks I should go to prison for that can go to Hell.

      I have never seen how possessing a gun makes anyone strong or suddenly enables them to be a perfect protector of their property. I've seen people rob others and the criminal is always just as scared as the victim. Nothing I have is worth my life or theirs and I can protect my family without a gun.

      I'm not a valuable enough target to risk shooting, even if I am being robbed.

      Fearing the "unknown potential" weakens me/you/us more than taking strength from a device designed solely to kill people.
      FriendlyFace likes this.

    18. #18
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      Stop comparing guns to drugs. Drugs aren't something people use to kill other people. You could say there would be less crime involved in slave trade if it were legal, but that doesn't make it right. I have in fact had my house broken into a few times, and on two of those occasions, yes I was in the house. I guess I'm not as bloodthirsty as you are, since on neither of those occasions did the thought cross my mind that killing the intruder would be worth it, nor did I feel physically threatened as I know that a burglar isn't at all likely to hurt you unless you fuck with them. Police don't pay much mind to burglaries. They do, however, care a great deal about assaults/homicides. The burglar knows that. If you think risking your own life to save your stereo is a good idea, then so be it. To me it seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

    19. #19
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      I'm pretty sure that if somebody broke into my house I sure as hell wouldn't be as complacent as you are. A person isn't going to attempt to steal from me and get away with it. Also, armed robberies are a thing.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    20. #20
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      I've always felt safer not instigating violent situations. What can I say. It works for me.

    21. #21
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Quote Originally Posted by FriendlyFace View Post
      I've always felt safer not instigating violent situations. What can I say. It works for me.
      Do you feel no need to defend your property? Or in the case of armed robbery, your life? The lives of your family?
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    22. #22
      Member Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      FriendlyFace's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2013
      Location
      Baltimore
      Posts
      131
      Likes
      114
      DJ Entries
      6
      I value my life more than my property. Once again, an armed robber doesn't want to harm you. He wants your shit. If you give him what he wants, he'll go away. If you try to attack him, there's a pretty good chance you'll get hurt or even killed. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. I don't feel my life is worth risking for material possessions. This is how I have stayed alive.

    23. #23
      It Was A Flood Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Populated Wall Made lots of Friends on DV 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      Phased's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2013
      LD Count
      Who's Counting?
      Location
      Australia
      Posts
      471
      Likes
      244
      DJ Entries
      11
      Over here Assualt Rifles are completely stamped out, handguns are hard to obtain also. And even those that have them, use them for recreational target shooting. We have not had any serious gun related issues since well, a long time ago. No one here complains, no one here asks for looser laws, it just works. I don't know, that's just Australia.
      melanieb likes this.

    24. #24
      Member Achievements:
      Made lots of Friends on DV Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class Populated Wall 1000 Hall Points Veteran Second Class
      dutchraptor's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2012
      LD Count
      0 since my last
      Gender
      Location
      Tranquility
      Posts
      2,913
      Likes
      3041
      DJ Entries
      6
      Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
      Drug regulation has worked better than having no drug laws? Please explain. We didn't have a drug problem in the U.S. before drug prohibition. Those laws were passed for corrupt reasons, and now they are ruining the country.

      By the way, to REALLY bring violence down in the U.S., we need to legalize drugs. The turf warring drug gangs and the hunt for illegal drugs are responsible for the vast majority of the crime in the U.S. Regulation is not the answer. It is the problem.
      You and I seem to have a different understanding of the word "regulation". I am not talking about regulating, to an extreme extent, what the people take but what shops would sell. By regulation I mean that if one feels the necessity to do hard/soft drugs they can, but the product they are buying has been properly tested and approved and is accessible to whomever is fit to use it.
      FriendlyFace likes this.

    25. #25
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Quote Originally Posted by FriendlyFace View Post
      Stop comparing guns to drugs. Drugs aren't something people use to kill other people. You could say there would be less crime involved in slave trade if it were legal, but that doesn't make it right. I have in fact had my house broken into a few times, and on two of those occasions, yes I was in the house. I guess I'm not as bloodthirsty as you are, since on neither of those occasions did the thought cross my mind that killing the intruder would be worth it, nor did I feel physically threatened as I know that a burglar isn't at all likely to hurt you unless you fuck with them. Police don't pay much mind to burglaries. They do, however, care a great deal about assaults/homicides. The burglar knows that. If you think risking your own life to save your stereo is a good idea, then so be it. To me it seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do.
      Owning a slave is inherent victimization. Owning a gun is not. Also, owning slaves is controllable since slaves can run away and talk. It is controllable. I have not yet seen an argument that banning guns will keep the people I am worried about from having guns. If they are going to have guns, I deserve to have guns. Do I not? It doesn't mean I am blood thirsty. It just means that banning guns is about as effective as banning drugs (ineffective), so banning guns will not keep guns off the illegal market. With that being the case, I should be able to have guns too. Banning is not equivalent to making inaccessible. Making it harder is not equivalent to making inaccessible. So don't try to take away my ability to defend myself from people who are going to have guns regardless.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 7
      Last Post: 03-22-2013, 02:23 AM
    2. User Articles
      By Alex in forum Category
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: 09-08-2010, 08:57 PM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •