It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: The Vagabond
It is monstrous to let political programming override your capacity to be concerned for others.
Your unrealized fears for the future do not trump other people's real suffering in the present.
Here's how we handle these things:
1. A problem arises: people getting shot is a problem.
You do not scream what about me when people are getting shot.
2. If it's serious enough it dominates conversation and we start talking about how it happens and how to stop it: getting shot is that serious.
You do not scream what about me during a conversation about other people's serious problems.
3. If we think it looks solvable we start to draw up an actual plan to change things: This is a solvable problem. It does not exist in a comparable form in other developed nations.
You do not scream what about me while we are figuring out how to solve a serious problem.
4. We look at that plan and identify conflicts, drawbacks etc and discuss how to balance everything and make it work: That would be the time for you to say "what about me".
5. If we can answer the "what about me", then after a long inertia-fraught process designed to avoid you from suddenly finding yourself deprived of your rights as you fear, we can actually go forward with our plans to solve the problem.
6. If anything goes wrong for you then, you can go to court and get it undone.
Court is of course the place to not care about others and insist that it's time to solve your problem first.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Nevertheless
Me thinks you've got that bassackwards there buddy... I think you meant European govts have no problem controlling their people since they don't have guns...
Jaden
originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: Helious
When someone loses control of a car and kills pedestrians, do we ban cars? No. But we still mourn the victims.
When someone fires a gun into a crowded area and kills civilians, Do we ban guns? No. But we still mourn the victims.
What's the difference? Cars were not specifically designed to maim or kill a living creature-they are a mode of transport. Enough with the "actually" "however" or "Well..." Nobody in their right mind can deny the purpose of firearms.
"But they protect us..." so does buying a car that has side airbags and a maximum safety rating. Guns are designed to hurt, there is no denying that.
originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Masterjaden
You just said that more guns mean less shootings, that creating something doesn't stop you from lacking it, and that my argument, which was actually just an elementary description of democracy and how you aren't the center of the universe, is asinine.
Let me ask you something, do you think that the second amendment is doing you any good? It's just a law after all. The army can come get your gun and cram your constitution down the barrel- but they don't- they probably WOULDNT right? Obama can't make them because other authorities can neutralize any dictatorial pressure he might attempt to place on the military. Well designed laws have deprived Obama of the opportunity to take your gun, even though he actually has the means and the motive, wouldn't it seem?
originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Helious
As a simple matter of vocabulary, lawlessness is in fact reduced by the creation and enforcement of laws. As an example, the law has prevented your gun from being seized even by politicians who don't respect that law- you don't keep your right to bear arms by threatening people with you gun- the law has successfully prevented the need for that. The proper enforcement of laws against using guns in a criminal manner can succeed as well, better than the threat of more guns can. It won't be necessary to confiscate all guns but it will be necessary to accept the reasons for an armed populace defined in the constitution, which uses words like "organized" and "keep and bear" but says nothing of transfer, concealment, manufacture, unsecure storage, etc- providing a number of legal choke points at which we can force criminals to go to conspicuous lengths to obtain guns, causing a higher percentage of criminals to be caught without a body count. That's all anyone can ask- an honest effort at improvement within the bounds of our system. We don't expect perfect safety or absolute prohibition, and your side has no reason to oppose that, but is encouraged to by professional politicos who phase the debate in all or nothing terms because if this argument ever ends they'll be out of a job.
originally posted by: 0rbital
I live in a society without guns, hence there's hardly any murders by shootings. America is a society with guns ingrained into it's culture, there's millions of guns, hence massive amounts of murders from shootings on a daily basis.
So, not allowing guns in society works, it's undeniable.
The problem is, it's too late for America to disarm itself, way too late, it's really a mute discussion, I don't like guns but if I lived in America I'd most likely need one and own one, so I wouldn't live there. What else could anyone have expected from a country founded on the rooting tooting wild west? Keep your guns, America, you need them, as does any sick society.
originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: Helious
That never happened anywhere. All manner of things have been done with guns, but I can't think of a single time that armed civilians on their own defeated their own army and established a free country in the wake of tyranny.
You as an American are of course referring to a tax revolt that happened in the middle of a world war- one in which a foreign government stepped up to provide more modern military weapons, training and naval gun support to an army that had won virtually no battles up to that point.
The that Wal-Mart shoppers and their 12 gauges have anything to do with protecting liberty is a little ridiculous. Ultimately the only guns that matter politically are the ones that can be moved supplied and coordinated towards a goal- which means in America as in Europe the citizens are utterly unable to individually defend themselves from tyranny by force.
They are however capable of defending themselves politically. The American revolution wasn't about farmers with hunting rifles firing as the British passed thru their town. The fact that the Colonists were capable of raising an army, making procurement for it, and getting it to hold together far from home with little hope of victory, and soliciting assistance for it abroad is far more relevant than what the individual soldiers left home with when they first joined.
In so many words, a gun in the hands of a private citizen in a residential neighborhood is a bigger threat to him and his neighbors than it is to a tyrants army... Which would presumably just roll up in an armored car and set your house on fire without a fight if it ever came to your neighborhood at all.
originally posted by: 0rbital
I live in a society without guns, hence there's hardly any murders by shootings. America is a society with guns ingrained into it's culture, there's millions of guns, hence massive amounts of murders from shootings on a daily basis.
So, not allowing guns in society works, it's undeniable.
The problem is, it's too late for America to disarm itself, way too late, it's really a mute discussion, I don't like guns but if I lived in America I'd most likely need one and own one, so I wouldn't live there. What else could anyone have expected from a country founded on the rooting tooting wild west? Keep your guns, America, you need them, as does any sick society.