On the issue of guns.

[axver]

Apparently the American state of Florida has passed a law that authorises "gun owners to shoot anyone in a public area who they believe threaten[s] their safety". My only knowledge of this law comes from that (poorly written) article, so I obviously am in no position to discuss it specifically, but it does bring into my mind generalised ponderings

Comments

[purplicious]

Very well thought out.

[axver]

Thank you, darling. :)

[purplicious]

:)<33

[liamtreasure]

Cool!

[liamtreasure]

I mean, uh, that sucks...kinda?

[liamtreasure]

I mean I'm really angry. Five dollars if you can guess why...

[liamtreasure]

I mean, Joy Division > All.

[timothius]

Florida isn't the most perfect setting for your democratic political ponderings, now is it?

[axver]

I'll remember that the next time I write an entry praising corruption. ;)

[fbiagentwannabe]

"How about a gun? It's designed for the express purpose of maiming or killing something else. It is inherently offensive. Why do many people own a gun? In case of threat, to kill that threat."

That's the best argument for gun-control I've seen! Hehe. Mm, but I do have to disagree with that last sentence though. Guns only kill when used correctly and accurately... shooting someone in the leg or shoulder doesn't mean they die.

As for everything else... you took my thoughts and put them in writing. If we could take all the evil out of the world, sure, guns would go along with it. But we can't.

[axver]

'Guns only kill when used correctly and accurately... shooting someone in the leg or shoulder doesn't mean they die.'

Right - people just own them with the desire to "kill that threat". I think part of the problem with guns is when people mistake what they believe to be a threat.

Ultimately, we need to combat the root causes that lead to the necessity of guns, but while evil still exists in the world, I do believe restrictive measures are required to lower the ability of people to act on their desires through the use of guns. How far such restrictions should go is a very good question ...

[paradoxicalbum]

a criminal breaks into your house and is going to rape your wife - if you had a gun, you could take him out, but because you don't have one and he's stronger and more fiercely armed than you, you're beaten into submission. Is a reason like that a legitimate reason to own a gun? You can intellectually detach from the situation and argue points either way, but if put in that situation - I wouldn't hesitate to blow the bastard's brains out of his skull and I'd damn well expect the law to praise me as saving my wife rather than prosecute me for killing someone who deserved to die a much slower death than what I gave him.

I suggest that you not move to the UK then. They have essentially legislated all right to self-defence out of existence there.

[screendoor3]

And the people murdered die slower, more painful deaths. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We don't need to eliminate guns, we need to eliminate the motivations of murder, which won't happen in our life time or possibly ever.

Our constitution promotes independant gun ownership. The people who want stronger government want to moot out the second ammendment. Why? It'd give the government the means to suppress us in case of a revolution or something equally powerful.

I'm for gun ownership, though I think it should be controlled. I'm crossed on whether or not people should be able to dual in public. (Not that it's a hot-button issue.) I think it would control gang violence and make it more civilized. Or we could fight a real war on drugs and do away with gang violence by taking out the roots.

[axver]

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We don't need to eliminate guns, we need to eliminate the motivations of murder, which won't happen in our life time or possibly ever.'

This is true and we should continue striving to rid the world of violence and evil, but in the meantime, I would suggest a valid interim measure is to try to combat the ways people choose to express harmful desires. By that, I mean placing restrictions upon the ownership of guns. It's simply that I don't know just how far such restrictions should go, and how one can determine who will safely use a gun - or, indeed, who will lock up their gun so that it is not accessible to irresponsible people.

'Our constitution promotes independant gun ownership. The people who want stronger government want to moot out the second ammendment. Why? It'd give the government the means to suppress us in case of a revolution or something equally powerful.'I've a number of points to make in reply

[screendoor3]

People don't respect guns. People should learn to respect them.

1. Sames reasons people defend it today.
2. I agree with most of that.
3. You never know who will take power.

Dueling is the awesome.

Drug lords, poverty, etc.