Currency re-vamp

[LuvSpudz]

You know, a friend of mine had a brilliant (or at least insane) idea for a perfect society protected with weapons. It goes as such:

Everyone gets one grenade. Just one. You cant get any more. And you can use it whenever you wish, but then you're defenseless. If you die without using it, your grenade gets passed on to your children/relatives.

The strongest families would be the ones with the most grenades.

I don't know why grenades are the weapons of choice, but it was his idea not mine! I can see it now, people with grenade medallions walking the streets. Fake Grenade merchants peddling their wares.

Of course there's always the Chris Rock method - make the bullets for guns incredibly expensive, so it becomes unprofitable to kill anyone unless for protection.

 

[Tasslehoff]

We get the impression every family has at least 2 cars - each the size of a small village.

Col

My family of four has six cars. A work-truck, an expedition for family vacation's, my mom's car, my dad's car, my sister's car, and my car.

 

[Bodisathva]

I don't make snide remarks, I'm rather suprised you accused me of that.

snide-supercilious: expressive of contempt

What surprised you?

I own guns. I do not sit in the corner, listening to the voices, cleaning the guns, awaiting the next armed assailant. I have many different types of guns. They all have a purpose, just as a flat-blade screwdriver is different from a phillips-head, from an allen wrench, from a box wrench, etc. I do not look at any one of my guns thinking "I'll slaughter the next *#$&*&$ that breaks in here" or "Dont *#&$* with me, this'll fix ya". Although, any one of the weapons contained in my cabinet would be suitable for such a task...but so would my machete, utility knife, car, truck, lawnmower, or any one of the spoons in the silverware drawer if I was sufficiently motivated. If you don't understand, that's fine. I don't understand half of the culture of Britain, but guess what...I'm not British, I don't have to. Can't you just accept it as a cultural difference of a country which was "tamed from the wilderness" in a time that the gun was prevalent as opposed to swords, spears, and armor?

Or, you could assert that Britain learned the dangers of having an armed society by the end of 1776 and your society has developed such an aversion to private weapons out of a government's fear of losing their own island.

 

[KenHigg]

Or, you could assert that Britain learned the dangers of having an armed society by the end of 1776 and your society has developed such an aversion to private weapons out of a government's fear of losing their own island.

Surely not -

Maybe it's just the royals that fear losing it -

I wonder how many guns they have?

 

[Tasslehoff]

.-----------------TTTT_-----_______
/''''''''''(______O] ----------____ \______/]_
__...---'"""\_ --'' Q ___________@
|''' ._ _______________=---------"""""""
| ..--''| l L |_l |
| ..--'' . /-___j ' '
| ..--'' / , ' '
|--'' / ` \
L__' \ -
- '-.
'. /
'-./

Has this become a gun thread?

 

[KenHigg]

Or, you could assert that Britain learned the dangers of having an armed society by the end of 1776 and your society has developed such an aversion to private weapons out of a government's fear of losing their own island.

Surely not -

Maybe it's just the royals that fear losing it -

I wonder how many guns they have?

 

[Bodisathva]

Has this become a gun thread?

of course!
money(everybody wants it) -> Religion (no one understands it) -> guns (need them to acquire more money and convince the infidels of religion)

stick around, I'm sure we'll see:

guns ->Iraq (needed guns to steal the oil) -> environmentalism(we needed all the oil 'cause W said "screw Kyoto") -> money (...because Kyoto is too expensive for the current economy) -> religion ('cause god said so) -> guns( I said, god said so) -> ad infinitum

 

[Matt Greatorex]

This depends on the demand of that something. If there is a high demand for that something (which there is for both drugs and guns) then steps will be taken for that demand to be met. Regardless of the legality of that supply.
If you are intent on having a gun then steps will be provided for you to get one. As long as there is some money in it for the trader.

The key sentence being that last one. If the number of people who wanted guns dropped, the number available would drop. If, as I suggested, not everyone would continue to own a gun if they were illegal, then unless the criminals bought extra, to take up the slack in the arms trade, then the number out there would have to drop. Nothin you've said here contradicts my original argument.

Exactly my point. Illegality does not affect consumption by those who don't care for the law. Demand for guns will remain high regardless of stricter gun control thus illegal steps will be taken to supply that demand. Thus accessability for those who wish to consume will remain unaffected. You've actually supported my argument here.

Yes, as I keep saying, the people who are willing to break the law will still get guns. The point I'm trying to make is that not everyone will break the law. Therefore, the number will have to go down. Not supporting anything other than my original contention.

The demand has to be great enough for a profit to exist. This doesn't necessarily mean that 'every single current gun owner' has to seek out the supply. Just enough to make a profit. There is a big illegal gun market in the US right now. The demand already exists without new gun laws!

Supply is about appeasing the demand. The illegal traders are intelligent enough to 'educate' those in demand to where the supply is..

True, but to go back to the original point, not everyone will choose to break the law. It makes no difference if the gun dealers are selling their stock from an ice cream van playing a tune. The fact remains that if people know owning one is illegal, they will not all buy one. The demand will lessen, so the supply will reduce.

You were arguing a different point that had nothing to do with the original assertion. Of course there would be a natural wastage if guns were outlawed. Some would simply not bother to go the illegal route. However the ones who would be prepared to take this route would be catered for and dare I say it these are the people who we need to legislate for.

Please don't tell me what I was or wasn't doing. The point I was arguing was that gun control would reduce the number of guns out there. Since the original statement was (and I quote) "Does gun control make guns less available? No." I think my argument was perfectly on-point. Of course criminals who want them will still get them, that applies to anything, but that wasn't what I was arguing with. If less people choose to own something, the supplier drops his stock levels, thereby lowering the overall number available.

Do you see that I'm not arguing with the fact that there are plenty of illegal guns out there? I am arguing with one statement made in the original posting which just doesn't hold true.

 

[ColinEssex]

I own guns.

why?

I have many different types of guns. They all have a purpose,

How many, and for what purpose are they for?

Can't you just accept it as a cultural difference of a country which was "tamed from the wilderness" in a time that the gun was prevalent as opposed to swords, spears, and armor?

It seems that culturally, many of your countrymen (and women) still think its an untamed wilderness. Hence the need for some to go round armed to the teeth and ready to kill anything that steps over their property boundaries.

From various US posters here, I get the impression that Americans are paranoid of someone breaking in to their house, thats why they are ready to kill without question. Number one on the list is always "for protection". . . . against what?

Col

 

[bwrobel]

How many, and for what purpose are they for?
Col

You know like Homer Simpson, one gun to change channels on the TV, one to open his beer.

No, he's probably talking about hunting one for deer, one for turkey, one to scare the neighbors and so on

 

[Bodisathva]

why?

'cause god said so

How many, and for what purpose are they for?

more than a couple but less than too many. Shall I really start listing the normally accepted uses for various gauges, caliburs, and configurations or are you being rhetorical?

Number one on the list is always "for protection". . . . against what?

the French

 

[dan-cat]

Of course criminals who want them will still get them, that applies to anything, but that wasn't what I was arguing with. If less people choose to own something, the supplier drops his stock levels, thereby lowering the overall number available.

I just see this point as being rather mute. An individual who wishes to gain a gun illegally is the irresponsible law breaker. They are the ones that the proposed legislation is aimed at. The supply will be made available to satisfy their demands illegally, that is, regardless of legislation. Availability to the law breakers, which is the relevant issue here, will not drop.

Do you see that I'm not arguing with the fact that there are plenty of illegal guns out there? I am arguing with one statement made in the original posting which just doesn't hold true.

If you want to hold to the statement that they will be less available to the law abiding citizen then yes because the illegal route is closed to them. Why on earth would I argue against this point? But how is this relevant?

The legislation is aimed at the law breakers, to reduce gun-related crime. The availability to the law breakers can only increase because of the sole recourse to get guns illegally when the legal route has been closed. Thus the illegal supply will increase.

 

[dan-cat]

its up to the person who is saying something does exist when it clearly doesn't.

Unfortunately this isn't what happened. Nobody said God exists before you said He didn't. If you're not prepared to offer the facts that you demand of others to support this assertion why should anybody else?

If I say X is Y, and you say no it isn't. It's up to me to prove to you why X is Y. Otherwise what would be the point of theory?

You obviously can't prove your god exists otherwise you would have done it by now. (what with you being a good ol' American an' all )

I said nothing about anything being provable. Just where the burden of proof lay.

If you took the time to read my posts instead of being so picky, you would see I have posted many valuable comments.

I know you have, but for me, this was not one of those occasions.

I would like you to explain though, how I can be both picky and non-attentive to your posts though

 

[Bodisathva]

Unfortunately this isn't what happened. Nobody said God exists before you said He didn't. If you're not prepared to offer the facts that you demand of others to support this assertion why should anybody else?

If I say X is Y, and you say no it isn't. It's up to me to prove to you why X is Y. Otherwise what would be the point of theory?

C'mon Dan, you can do better than that. That's like saying if I claim that Bigfoot, Champ, and Nessie doesn't exist it's up to me to prove they don't as opposed to their supporters proving they do. Your assertion does not apply to non-tangeable ideas.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Why on earth would I argue against this point?

I have no idea at all why you're arguing against this point, but you have been.

But how is this relevant?.

It's relevant because it was the sentence that I was disputing. I didn't enter a conversation about whether or not people should have the right to own guns for protection or to feel tough or to hunt or for any other reason.

The original poster laid out a set of statements, some of which I agreed with, some of which I didn't. The single statement I was commenting on was the one I've mentioned repeatedly. Yes, I know his overriding argument wasn't solely about legal gun ownership, but the point being made was diluted somewhat by making a sweeping and incorrect statement amongst the other points.

 

[dan-cat]

C'mon Dan, you can do better than that. That's like saying if I claim that Bigfoot, Champ, and Nessie doesn't exist it's up to me to prove they don't as opposed to their supporters proving they do. Your assertion does not apply to non-tangeable ideas.

I don't need to Bodi.

Look at it this way.

I'm trying to prove that Z is true.
It is a crucial part of my supporting argument to this that X is Y.
Thus it is my burden to show that X is Y.

Let's apply that to this post.

Surely guns are more of a religion in the USA than a so called make believe God?

Well if this assertion is to be shown as true then any supporting argument for it must be shown to be true also. Thus, God must be shown to be 'make believe' simply because it is tied (albeit badly) to an assertion that 'guns are more of a ...'


Perhaps one should not be tied to the other in this way. That's my opinion. That's why I said it was a valueless statement.

 

[dan-cat]

I have no idea at all why you're arguing against this point, but you have been.

I was assuming the context of gun misuse which is the reason for stricter gun controls. If you ignore that context then there is nothing wrong with your argument.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

I was assuming the context of gun misuse which is the reason for stricter gun controls. If you ignore that context then there is nothing wrong with your argument.

Thanks. I shall continue to stay away from the issue of illegal guns.

So, if the US Dept of Justice is to be believed [Guns Used in Crime: Firearms, Crime, and Criminal Justice-Selected Findings. No. 5. Rockville, MD: U.S. Dept of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: 1995. Publication no. NCJ-148201.], in 1995:

20,540 people in the US committed suicide by using firearms
1,610 people were killed accidentally by firearms.

That's just over 22,000 people who, as far as we know, were innocent and law-abiding and who died as a result of legally-owned guns.

Yes, it could be argued that at least some of the suicides would have died anyway, via other means, but shooting oneself is a pretty surefire way to go, whilst taking an overdose may be 'fixable'. Also, it is far easier to go out on a spur-of-the-moment impulse, using a gun.

As far as the accidents go, people are going to have accidents with whatever they use (power tools, cars, etc.). Guns, however, are designed to do one thing, so shouldn't people be more careful around them? If they can't be, shouldn't they be prevented from having one?

Now, it is theoretically possible that twice that number, ten times that number, or, hell, a hundred times that number feel safer each year as a result of owning a gun. That's scant consolation, however, to the ones who died and their family. Perhaps a system of gun control - not banning guns altogether, but controlling them by more closely monitoring the sort of person who can own one - would have prevented at least some of those deaths?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Matt:

The fact of the matter is that if anything that is currently legal were to be made illegal, there would very soon be less of that item in circulation.

If the exception proves the lie, then consider controlled subtance laws. Category A and B drugs (USA FDA schedule A & B) are illegal but the availability is still there.

My contention is that when someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one. Without concern for the law that says they shouldn't have one. Oh, it might take them longer. But if they have to have the equalizer, they'll get it by hook or by crook. All gun control laws do is slow down the process for the good guys. But the bad guys don't have that problem.

 

[Matt Greatorex]

Matt:

If the exception proves the lie, then consider controlled subtance laws. Category A and B drugs (USA FDA schedule A & B) are illegal but the availability is still there.

Is there any evidence to suggest that there wouldn't be more drug use if these substances were legal?

I'm pretty sure that the criminals in the UK and various other countries would love to have guns and I know that a lot of them do, but the fact remains that the difficulty of obtaining one, coupled with the fact that gun use isn't accepted as the norm goes a long way toward keeping the numbers down.

My contention is that when someone wants a gun, they will find a way to get one. Without concern for the law that says they shouldn't have one. Oh, it might take them longer. But if they have to have the equalizer, they'll get it by hook or by crook. All gun control laws do is slow down the process for the good guys. But the bad guys don't have that problem.

Which I don't disagree with, but which still raises the question of legally owned guns being used in an improper manner (see my last posting).