I really hate debating politics because at the end of the day, it's unlikely anyone will change their minds. People think he is smart, people think he is stupid...blah, blah, blah. If everyone just minded their own business and didn't encroach on other people's rights it would be unlikely we'd have to deal with these same issues at all. But it seems like when one person shits their pants, people rush in to try to force everyone to wear a diaper. How about you do you, and I'll do me and we'll get along just fine?!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It depends on your definition of what it means to infringe on people rights. The more people who own guns, the more they infringe on my right to safety. What’s more important? Some 19 yo old kids right to own a gun or my right to send my kids to school safely?
kids buy weed and it's illegal. Making guns illegal won't solve the problem...The US issue around mass-shooting is cultural issue that won't be solved via legislation. If these sickos can't find a way to buy guns, they will build bombs with stuff you can buy off the shelf.
What do you think the issue is? If it’s cultural, what aspect(s) of your culture causes this to happen so often?
Respectfully, I disagree. Owning a gun does not infringe on your right to safety. Using a gun in an illegal manner to inflict harm infringes on your right to safety. Guns have been around for hundreds of years, yet now all of a sudden it's a problem and something needs to change? I think there are much deeper societal problems at the root of violence.
I believe we need to address the issue of violence in general versus worrying about changing gun laws just to make people feel better, like the government is addressing the issue.
I totally agree about the societal issues. I think a failing to address these issues is a failure of a lot of governments, not just the US. I don’t think you can ignore the role of guns though. The US has the second highest rate of gun violence ownership in the world and the highest rate of gun violence (amongst modern western democracies). You also have one of the highest rates of homocide in the western world. That seems to be a pretty bit coincidence.
There may be an answer to the gun debate, but I don't think it stems from a ban of any kind. I feel like a lot of the legislation of the last couple of decades have done very little to solve these issues and have just been a legislative bandaid used to garner political favor under the guise of "doing something". I'd be interested in hearing a creative solution that doesn't rely on penalizing the law-abiding gun owners. And I'd be interested in hearing what percentage of gun-related homicides are from legally-obtained guns. It certainly doesn't help things when government officials drop loads of guns across the border for gangs to use. High probability they wound up back in the US with those gangs. Excuse the pun, but this government is shooting itself in the foot.
Just so you know... In the US you DON'T have a right to safety. You DO have a right to a gun. The idea being that, as an individual, with a gun, you are best able to make decisions that maximize your safety.
and I think that’s crazy! But hey! It’s your country so your choice as to how to live your life. It’s just not a culture that I find easy to understand.
But politicians can't "mind their own business" because its their job to enact laws that effect everyone more or less. Laws should be able to effect the greater good in a society and when taking this into account, guns allow for a greater ability to cause death and damage then if they weren't allowed by the populace to begin with.
Now I understand that guns in the US are a cultural thing and peoples' right to bear arms is in the constitution, but this right should be balanced with the damage that they can potentially cause. Most of the rest of the industrialised world have enacted laws that limit this sort of problem and I don't understand why even an attempt to do anything in the US is almost scandalous or blasphemy.
Yes, politicians have the responsibility to enact laws that effect everyone, this is true. Laws "should" effect the greater good, I also agree. Yet congress is exempt from the laws they make, so would they really care how it effects their constituents? I try not to generalize, but the last few decades it has seemed like members of Congress care less about the people and more about their own well being. They play lipservice to the issues and do nothing. But I don't want to get off track here because that is a completely different issue.
Society in general, I feel, has eroded in the last 20 years. When I was growing up, I learned (and felt) the consequences of my actions. As a result, I slid down a hill on ice and hit a parked car. I went door to door until I tracked down the owner so I could take care of the problem and exchange insurance info. Conversely, kids in the parking lot of my work were playing around my car. I walk out later and find a huge dent in the panel. They ran into my car (or leaned on it or whatever) and they caused damage. They ran away. Now I get to pay for it. There is a general lack of respect in much of the latest generations. Many kids are not brought up to understand there are consequences to there actions. This is a problem with society where people either don't understand or don't care about how they effect other people. I'm talking about individuals minding their own business. I'm talking about individuals respecting each other.And I'm talking about individual's freedom. Freedom to do whatever they want as long as it does not harm anyone else's life or property.
I understand guns are an emotional issue, but they aren't the source of the problem. Murder with any other item is still murder. So let's address the societal source of violence and lack of respect for life.
I agree with most of what you said, but I still think societal issues are separate from gun control. There will always be criminals but giving them easy access to firearms only makes the crimes they commit easier to commit and amplifies any damage they can do.
Now I personally am for an all out ban on firearms, but I understand that its an American thing that guns are part of the culture and it would most likely never happen as there are millions of guns in circulation. If firearms were harder to obtain, through either stronger background checks, licencing or having a documented need for one as examples, you could lower the impact of crimes committed with firearms. Addressing only societal sources of violence doesn't take into account the damage of firearms in crime that will happen regardless.
If the gun crime is going to happen regardless, how would legislation limit anything? Criminals, or would-be criminals, will be able to get guns with or without laws against a semi-automatic weapon or high-capacity magazine. When you enact laws, only law-abiding citizens are affected. Want to require gun licenses? Most states already do. Want stricter background checks? We can discuss that, though background checks are already in place as well as mandatory waiting periods in many states.
I think the societal issue is overarching because if you take away a person's inclination toward violence, then you can hand them loaded guns all day and they won't harm someone else with them. But if some element of society has caused their brains to cross a wire and snap or have some desire to cause harm out of past rejection or whatever, then they will use that tool for harm.
If only it were that easy and people weren't inclined to murder as many other people as possible ...
That's the point I hopefully made in my other reply. I think society has been desensitized to violence and that is the root issue that needs to be addressed. Not so much "let's ban another gun component or write another law that will be ignored by criminals".