In a gun-free/defense free society this is all that would happen...

[etgryphon]

The comments about lawyers is a cultural conversation.

The murder\crime rate is a cultural problem not a problem with guns. I think one of the ills and 'red flags' is the number of lawyers that we have. Where as Japan, they're is more personally responiblity. Here is a good article on The Great Hanshin Earthquake where it shows the difference in cultures. The yakuza, the criminals, were a part of the relief effort. Why is that? Personal responibility. Americans do not want to take personal responsibility. I think that is another reason why the gun control crowd wants to ban guns. Guns are an easy enemy. We don't want to look to ourselves as the answer to the problem.

That is one of the reasons that I own a gun. I want to personally take responsibility for the safety of myself, my family, and my property. We need more people taking responibility for their actions and their well-being and you will see the crime rate fall.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The murder\crime rate is a cultural problem

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
We don't want to look to ourselves as the answer to the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace 'answer to' with 'cause of' in the second quote and I think you'll see why these two statements contradict each other.

Or, less Socratic-ally - if you think the murder rate is a 'cultural' problem (putting aside whatever problems we might have with differentiating between the definition of society and culture, as they're not particularly interchangable; lets term it something like 'macro') - but if you think the murder rate is a 'macro' problem, I don't think it makes sense to say the answer is found 'in ourselves' or some other appeals to the individual.

Or, even more bluntly - lawyers don't kill people, people kill people.

[etgryphon]

How?

By puting "answer to" instead of "cause of" we now have injected hope into the situation. This is another problem, we spend so much time trying to assess blame that we lose sight of paths to a solution.

-Gryph

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
How?

By puting "answer to" instead of "cause of" we now have injected hope into the situation. This is another problem, we spend so much time trying to assess blame that we lose sight of paths to a solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, a few things:

1) By saying 'lawyers contribute to the cultural abyss, and this leads to murder,' you're assessing blame. So let's not be hypocritical here.

2) By saying 'lawyers leads to bad culture --> bad culture --> murders,' you're claiming there's a large, widescale, societal problem that needs to be resolved.

You then claimed this problem needs to be resolved by making appeals to individual responsibility; but keep in mind, you're claiming that our culture undermines individual responsibility; so, how to solve that problem? Your answer (by default, I would think) has to be something 'macro' and can't involve turning the individual.

Think of it as circular logic or a Catch-22: how can individual responsibilty solve the problem of a culture which undermines individual responsibility? I don't think a coherent answer is 'individual responsibility', lest the expected response be that 'hey, you just said our culture undermines individual responsibility'.

Understand that I'm not challenging the notion that we have a culture which undermines personal responsbility; only that the solution isn't 'personal responsibility'.

To tie this in with gun control, murders, and lawyers - I don't think it's fair to say lawyers cause cultural problems; even if we assume to be true that there's a lack of personal responsibility in society, lawyers are likely a symptom of this problem, not the cause. And I think gun control advocates would likely turn this argument on its head – if we concede there’s a complete disregard for personal responsibility in society, even more reason to control access to guns - because lawyers don't kill people, irresponsible people with guns kill people; and we live in a society which legitimizes irresponsibility.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but aren't there virtually gun-free societies in other countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Japan is *relatively* gun-free,

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost every western democracy I know of is gun free or in comparison to the US gun free. I'm British and I have never seen a gun (thats activated) in anyones possesion other than very few police officers guarding our parliment etc. Over here if you want to protect yourself you don't need a gun as the person robbing or attacking you doesn't have one either. Of course there are guns, and infact there has been a big influx of gun crime recently, a lot of that coming from Yardie gangsters, but that is still a tiny tiny percentage. Gun free societys work and have less crime. People feel safer knowing that people don't go around carrying weapons. Afterall there are a lot of crazys out there and It only takes a momentary lapse of sanity for someone to pull a trigger, whilst beating someone to death with your bare hands or with a knife is a dammn site harder, apparantly [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
The US has a problem that gun ownership is so wide spread and so many criminals own and use them, that to persuade people to reliquish their weapons is going to be one hard job. I wish them luck as a lot of lives will be saved, but it needs people to take that leap of faith and realise guns have no place in a civil society.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

1) By saying 'lawyers contribute to the cultural abyss, and this leads to murder,' you're assessing blame. So let's not be hypocritical here.


[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I understand some of the confusion now. I wasn't clear. I do not think that lawyers cause the cultural abyss and thus cause the murder rate. I consider the volume of lawyers to be a RESULT of a cultural problems namely the lack of personal responsibility. I also think that the murder rate is a RESULT of the cultural problems. I think the lawyers are providing a needed service to meet the demand.

Is that clearer?

[ QUOTE ]

2) By saying 'lawyers leads to bad culture --> bad culture --> murders,' you're claiming there's a large, widescale, societal problem that needs to be resolved.


[/ QUOTE ]

It more bad culture -> leads to murder\crime and we are showing a penchant for lack of responsibility by being litigious and thus providing jobs for all the lawyers.

[ QUOTE ]

You then claimed this problem needs to be resolved by making appeals to individual responsibility; but keep in mind, you're claiming that our culture undermines individual responsibility; so, how to solve that problem?


[/ QUOTE ]

That is the question that needs to be asked. For one the War on Poverty has been a failure and we have not given people a hand up, we have only given them a hand out. This is undermining personal responsibility. We don't need program designed like welfare that undermine family structure in order to help people. We need to reevaluate all social programs and improve them. Increase accountability. Here is an idea that I have to increase accountability and to give the public a stake in the effort to help their fellow citizens.

[ QUOTE ]

Your answer (by default, I would think) has to be something 'macro' and can't involve turning the individual.


[/ QUOTE ]

Macro in the sense of rolling back the laws and responibility to the people rather than the federal government in all its waste.

[ QUOTE ]

Think of it as circular logic or a Catch-22: how can individual responsibilty solve the problem of a culture which undermines individual responsibility? I don't think a coherent answer is 'individual responsibility', lest the expected response be that 'hey, you just said our culture undermines individual responsibility'.


[/ QUOTE ]

We can change the future with one person at a time. That is the whole notion. You increase people awareness of their ability to solve their and their neighbors problems then you will see results. We keep looking for someone else to fix the problems.

[ QUOTE ]

Understand that I'm not challenging the notion that we have a culture which undermines personal responsbility; only that the solution isn't 'personal responsibility'.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it can be any other solution.

[ QUOTE ]

To tie this in with gun control, murders, and lawyers - I don't think it's fair to say lawyers cause cultural problems; even if we assume to be true that there's a lack of personal responsibility in society, lawyers are likely a symptom of this problem, not the cause.


[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree.

[ QUOTE ]

And I think gun control advocates would likely turn this argument on its head – if we concede there’s a complete disregard for personal responsibility in society, even more reason to control access to guns - because lawyers don't kill people, irresponsible people with guns kill people; and we live in a society which legitimizes irresponsibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. You have a majority of society who WANTS to take responsibility for their safety. We should encourage people who take responsibility for things. Hold them up as role models. It is a complete myth that the there are LOTS of people who are irresponsible with lawfully owned guns.

The irresponsible people who own guns that commit all these murders and crime are by in large CRIMINALS who are not allowed to own guns by law. So how is adding MORE laws going to keep them from having the guns that they already have and can get. You have only disarmed the very people who shoudl have guns.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but aren't there virtually gun-free societies in other countries?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that Japan is *relatively* gun-free,

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost every western democracy I know of is gun free or in comparison to the US gun free. I'm British and I have never seen a gun (thats activated) in anyones possesion other than very few police officers guarding our parliment etc. Over here if you want to protect yourself you don't need a gun as the person robbing or attacking you doesn't have one either. Of course there are guns, and infact there has been a big influx of gun crime recently, a lot of that coming from Yardie gangsters, but that is still a tiny tiny percentage. Gun free societys work and have less crime. People feel safer knowing that people don't go around carrying weapons. Afterall there are a lot of crazys out there and It only takes a momentary lapse of sanity for someone to pull a trigger, whilst beating someone to death with your bare hands or with a knife is a dammn site harder, apparantly [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
The US has a problem that gun ownership is so wide spread and so many criminals own and use them, that to persuade people to reliquish their weapons is going to be one hard job. I wish them luck as a lot of lives will be saved, but it needs people to take that leap of faith and realise guns have no place in a civil society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The UN says otherwise...

Do you disagree with the UN assessment of your country?

No lives will be saved lives will only be destroyed by increased gun control.

Crime is on the rise in Canada, Australia, and UK after they have implemented gun control. It is just ignorant to think otherwise. There has never been a reputable study that has shown that increase gun control has had any effect on saving lives.

The UK will start to come around again after the public get fed up with the increasing crime.

-Gryph

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Over here if you want to protect yourself you don't need a gun as the person robbing or attacking you doesn't have one either.

[/ QUOTE ]

HAW HAW!!! Oh, you're serious.

First of all, isn't it *illegal* to protect yourself over there?

OK, let's assume that all guns are magically vaporized, and all knowledge of how to make them is erased. Are you safer? Now a big guy with a baseball bat can attack little old ladies, confident that the grandma won't be able to stop him. The same big guy with a gun isn't nearly as much of a brute-force favorite over a grandma packing a 357.

[ QUOTE ]
it needs people to take that leap of faith and realise guns have no place in a civil society.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Thugs* have no place in civil society.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
you leave a loaded gun in your car all day?!?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

What good is it if its unloaded?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What good is it if its unloaded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, according to some here, guns are ONLY for deterrent value, and aren't bought to kill. So I think it's a good question, but apparently some think an unloaded gun has as much value as a loaded one. I wonder what the hell those guys even buy bullets/ammo for. Maybe it's just to prove they really (and by really, I mean don't) mean business.

On the surface, it may seem like a petty point; yet I think gun right supporters should just come out admit they like their guns as lethal as possible (it's probably not a very big concession for some) - and may shed light on why they disapprove of some gun controls.