The Second Amendment

[Fightflight]

I can only respond to this here currently, as I've become rather tired, and these discussions usually go nowhere anyway:

And as far as that hippy talk about not fighting violence with violence? If in the dead of night' date=' I hear someone breaking into my home, where I have two little girls and my wife to protect, I'm going to be thinking of them before I think about some asshole that just invaded my domain. Gandhi never went through this. So please, don't be ridiculous.[/quote']
To say that violence cannot be stopped with reasoning and peaceful tactics is really shortchanging the human race. "I have family, I'm going to protect my family using violence" is actually based on chimpanzee-like instinct to protect one's territory with scratching and biting and whatnot. Chimps are nasty creatures, and unfortunately, we evolved from them.


Of course, while we have a chimp's territorial tendencies, this does not mean we are chimps in their entirety. Ghandi certainly went through this, on a much grander scale. His home was invaded. His country was his home at that point (he had, in a way, adopted India, even though he had grown up and graduated from college in the UK). The criminal invading his home and threatening his family (Indians) were the British. On that huge, massive scale, he managed to stop an entire invasion with non-violence.


So who can say it can't be done again on a tinier scale?


It's not ridiculous. You can't stop violence with violence. It simply doesn't work that way. Besides Gandhi, here is an example of lower violence. In fact, it lowers all crime, period with zero violence.


In Norway...

They have come up with a prison system that actually treats the vast majority of its population nicely -- to the point that it seems like inmates might as well be in summer camps rather than correctional facilities. In Bastoy Prison' date=' for example, residents (don't call them "prisoners" -- that's not sensitive) sentenced there actually seem to live the good life. Convicted pedophiles, drug dealers and even serial killers have access to a movie theater, tanning beds and even an occasional game of football with the guards. Also, their cells look like this:

During the summer, Norwegian prisoners go horseback riding and have barbecues. In winter, they freaking ski jump. And if they don't like the food the prison offers them, they're allowed to cook for themselves -- they're even issued knives.


Norway has an incredibly low recidivism rate -- within two years of being released from jail, a Norwegian offender is only a third as likely to commit another crime as criminals from, say, the United States.


This is because unlike the U.S. justice system, which relies heavily on retribution, the Norwegian system believes in rehabilitation. The whole point of their prison system is to fix the criminal and turn him into a productive member of society. And, when you look at the statistics, it's working like there is no tomorrow.

And while this is jailing, and not direct crime, our prison systems are all kinds of awful, and, as Cracked.com pointed out, are all about retribution, not rehabilitation. This was Norway's crime rate in 2008:


"In 2008, Norway recorded 34 murders for the year. The 2008 murder rate was 0.69 people per 100,000 head of population."


And this is Norway's gun law.


"The law for storage of firearms are strict.


For shotguns and rifles, the requirement given in the weapons act is to have the firearm, or a vital part of it, securely locked away. Generally, this means an approved gun safe, securely bolted to a non-removable part of the house. (A vital part is considered to be the bolt group—the bolt head will suffice—for rifles, the slide for pistols, or the barrel of a shotgun.)


The police are allowed to make a home inspection of the safe. An inspection must be announced more than 48 hours in advance, and the police are only allowed to see the safe and make sure it is legally installed.


Ammunition is generally only sold to persons with valid weapon license. However, if one is in possession of a legally unregistered shotgun bought before 1 April 1990, and is in the hunter registry, one can purchase shotgun ammunition. Without a special permit only 10,000 rounds of ammunition can be stored by a single person, or 15,000 rounds if 5,000 of them are 22LR or smaller calibre. Two kg of black powder may be stored in a separate building if the person has a license for a black-powder firearm.


Older rules stated that the ammunition must be locked away separately, but these rules were abandoned in the latest revision of the weapons act."

 

[Serano]

As has been stated many timed with the Gahndi however, is that I doubt he would of been as successful, or even as well known, had he of been in one of the Soviet Bloc countries. The fact of the matter is that the Soviets would of come in, and probably ran him over with a tank. There are times where violence is the only recourse.


And I would counter your Norway example with Switzerland, who have a 0.7 people dead per 100,000 head of population. There, you are not only allowed to carry a firearm, but until recently (or perhaps still in affect, I'd have to double check) were *required* by law to have a rifle in the home. And not simply any rifle, but a government issued automatic rifle. Heck, the government would even issue ammunition. At a certain age, you could still keep the battle rifle, but it would no longer be automatic and instead a semi-automatic version. This example just goes to further prove that it isn't the availability of guns that affect murder rate.


As far as the conditions of Norway's prisons, I'm sure the families of those who have been murdered and molested are greatly comforted that they have such luxurious accommodations.

 

[Fightflight]

*Gandhi. Gandhi was not a title, it was his last name. There is no "the" there.


Your hypothetical is ridiculous. Britain in its day was a violent mass of imperialism, while Russia was full of people who froze to death. And also? They aren't exactly the bloodthirsty robots you seem to be envisioning them as. Russians are still people, and any person will crumple if they fight and that person isn't fighting back in any way. It's called psychological warfare, and it works far better than more violence.


As for Swizerland, no thanks. I'd rather not go there if I know everyone has a dangerous military weapon in their homes.


And now back to Cracked.com, this time on your argument that guns save lives (while not word for word, this appears to be the point you are trying to make).

After last week's shooting' date=' some are saying that the tragedy could have been avoided if someone in that audience had been holding a gun. Ignoring the intense panic and huge crowd, the tear gas filling the theater and the body armor the shooter was wearing, sure, maybe someone could have gotten a good shot off. After all, there are many success stories of defensive gun uses, or DGUs. Around the Internet, many people toss around the number "2.5 million," as in "There are 2.5 million DGUs a year." That's quite a lot of lives possibly saved. Now compare it to, say, the 75,684 gun-related injuries back in 2000, or the 31,224 gun-related deaths in 2007. Two and a half million! Wowzers!
Except "2.5 million" comes from a single study back in 1993. A study that involved calling 4,977 people across the country, asking them a few gun questions and then adjusting the number to fit the population of the whole country. The number is both highly cited and highly disputed. Not only are the figures not enough to make an accurate estimate (other studies range from 50,000 to 2 million), but the results don't actually translate to "lives saved thanks to gun use." They refer to a gun being involved in the presumed protection of a person or thing. This could be a life-threatening situation or a situation where a gun wasn't needed at all. DGUs include people who were in actual danger of losing their lives, as well as people who were George Zimmerman. Regardless, the general consensus is that 2.5 million is a gross exaggeration.


So we have a mixed bag of "guns saving lives" scenarios. In some cases, guns will stop a crime. In others, guns will kill a maybe criminal. In others still, they will be a part of a terrible accident. It's quite a gamble. Like Russian roulette, only no one knows they're playing it. And now, since the Dark Knight shooting, gun sales have gone up thanks to a healthy dose of fear. More potential to save a life, and just as much more potential to end one. I of course don't want to belittle the success stories, though. A life saved is fantastic, and however many lives saved is however many fantastics.


But the real problem with a "guns save lives" argument is the language used. People talk about "defensive gun uses" and their right to defend themselves and their property. But there's actually nothing defensive about a gun. They are all ATTACK. They are made and used for offense. "Defense," on the other hand, is resistance against an attack. Defense is protection, something that STOPS an attack. Wearing a condom is defense, whereas punching yourself in the balls is offense. Protection is a bullet-proof vest, or mace, or a security system. A gun is not defense. The widespread use of an actual defensive weapon would potentially save more lives than a gun because, again, guns are for killing, not protecting. The sooner we are all provided a weapon LIKE a gun that merely incapacitates a person, the sooner we can safely defend ourselves, instead of defending ourselves by killing each other.


The truth is, "Guns Have Saved Lives. Guns Have Ended Lives. Guns Are Meant to Kill." The issue isn't whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves and others, it's whether or not guns are the best instrument to do the protecting.

 

[Serano]

At the same time that Britain was allowing their colonies more and more autonomy, you saw the Soviet Union brutally cracking down and freedom protest in the Warsaw Pact countries Hungary and Poland. Point to me one occasion where the British did the same. In fact, give me one instance where the Soviet Union gave up control of a country, like the British did to it's former colonies. They ran over people with tanks in the streets, killed thousands. Your assertion that the Soviets at the time were the Same at the British is the definition of ridiculous.


While cracked.com seeks to argue about semantics about whether guns "saves lives" because if someone is threatening you, then your not "saving a life" is just laughable. In the situation with the theater, I actually agree that were an exchange of fire to happened, it would of been likely that innocents were caught in the crossfire. Again though, it all goes back to whether you want to be a victim, someone who's only recourse is to run away and hope not to be shot, or to turn and fight and at least attempt to save others.


Look at a case like the luby's massacre, where 50 people were shot and 23 killed. Two of those people were the mother and father of Suzanna Hupp. The irony, is that she did bring a handgun to the restraunt that day. But due to the laws the way they were at the time, she was forced to leave it in the car. She was helpless to stop the madman as he murdered her family in cold blood. So talk about semantics and statistics all you want. If I'm in that situation, and I have a chance to save my family, you damn well believe I'm taking that guy out. And I doubt the families of those 23 that died that day wouldn't of minded.


Ultimately, the gun control debate comes down to fear. Those who are against guns are afraid of them, and for good reason too. They aren't to be taken lightly, and she be treated with the utmost respect. But where people in the gun control argument miss the point, is they see guns are simply mass killing machines that can do only harm. I ask you again, and anyone who is for getting rid of guns together, put into the position of Suzanna Hupp, would you rather have your gun locked up in the car? Or have it on you where at least you have the chance to defend your family and the others in the restraunt.

 

[Fightflight]

I find that this conversation is going nowhere, and that nothing I say can budge you from your stance. I'll be dropping the topic for now. It's gotten a bit old. As for Ms. Hupp, it's simply a shame that people didn't crack down HARDER on the gun control, otherwise, how did the murderer even get the gun in the first place? Ugh here I said I was going to stop, but I can't help but continue. Alright, I'm actually done here.

 

[Serano]

Interesting, because I was going to say the same to you. . Alas you are correct that everything that needs to be said on the topic has thus been said, and we can move on. It has been fun though.

 

[Fightflight]

Aye, nice to have a debate that doesn't devolve into name-calling for once.