SuAside said:
welsh said:
Suaside- you argue that a person (and in that you are basically saying any person) has a right to suicide.
no, i argue that a person found sane 'enough' should be free to make his choice.
What would be ´sane enough´ - would the person be very sane or just a little sane? Would this be a person suffering a disease that can´t be cured, is unlikely to be cured, could be cured but it would be difficult or doesn´t really want to be cured?
When do you begin to define limits. BEcause of one person can commit suicide by merely showing he´s ´sane enough´- then I wonder how many people might kill themselves for being depressed.
welsh said:
Otherwise, you´d get people committing suicide every day for no apparent reason except that they thought, ´ gosh, I might try suicide today.´
you argue that if it's a possible 'legal' choice, people will start offing themself constantly? pffft. i really doubt it. you don't kill yourself that easily.
I don´t think its that difficult to kill yourself, not if the person has sufficient will.
And if you normalize suicide as an acceptable practice, yes, I think you will have more people committing suicide.
This may sound cruel, but suffering is also part of life. People do survive depression and illnesses. And even if they continue to suffer, there have been some remarkable leaps of creativity from people who suffer depression. Does that justify their right to commit suicide? I think if a person wants to commit suicide so badly, the law is not going to stop them in any event. But in making it legal, you sanction it as normal and acceptable. That´s a jump.
welsh said:
A person is depressed needs a shrink because a rational person, a person with choices and is not psychology damaged, wouldn´t choose depression.
you're acting as if shrinks are the solution to all problems... newsflash: psychology is one of the LEAST developed medical sciences to date.
we cannot help everyone. you have to know your limitations.
No you can´t cure everyone, but psychology seems to be improving. And reducing the number of suicides seems a good incentive for continuing the advancement of psychological treatments.
Again, I am not arguing that it isn´t reasonable for people to commit suicide, only that its generally irrational.
------------------------------------------
welsh said:
As for the ´most criminals commit crime with illegal guns´
(1) I think there are quite a few people in prison who killed someone with a gun who weren´t thinking that they were going to use the gun or go to prison when they bought that gun. There are a lot of folks in prison who didn´t plan on one day going to prison.
sure, 3 deaths by legal guns every year in belgium. including accidental discharge.
Then consider yourself lucky that the gun deaths are so few. In the US we still have a lot of people killed by legal guns- not done by criminals but by friends, acquaintainces and family members.
I highly suspect that many of the íllegal´guns in circulation in the US were bought legally - through straw purchases, gun shows or were supposedly ´stolen´from friends who didn´t want to be charged with conspiracy. No matter, I think controlling the guns moving into criminal hands is something worth regulating, and should include controls on the industry- both manufacturers and retailers.
not to mention that a lot more people beat their wives to death, or stab them with a steak knife or something.
While it might be impossible to end the homicidal impulses of individuals, we can make it more difficult for people to commit suicide.
If guns were harder to get, would there be fewer murders done with guns and more with knives- maybe. But in the US most homicides come not by being clubbed to death or stabbed to death, but from a shot from a gun.
as far as i'm concerned that kinda pales in comparison of lets say 2500 SECOND hand smoke related deaths each year in belgium.
You Europeans smoke too much. I also support smoke free areas in planes, restaurants, and other places. No one should have to die because of another person´s habits or hobby.
welsh said:
(2) As for how you Europeans take care f your East-block weapons or old ordinance weapons- that´s your problem. I acknowledge you´re problems are yours.
as if military weapons dont get stolen (or 'lost') in the US
but yeah, it's mostly comm block stuff, which you basically cant stop from entering the country.
While I am rather sure we have gun thefts in the US, to be honest, I don´t think these are significant. Not only are military bases policed, but the fines for using an automatic weapon are steep. Plus, one can get handguns, shotguns and even assault type rifles easier from detailers than military bases. Possession of an automatic weapon often involves very significant jail time.
welsh said:
My point is simple- tight gun regulations make guns expensive for criminals and thus increase the cost of crime. SO they are a good thing.
as shown ad nauseum in this thread:
that's a false statement...
for instance the brits and the aussies tightened guncontrol severly (and already had a rather small weapons market at that), only to be faced with a substancial increase in gun crime... so your little theorem might work with wannabe criminals 'in the hood', but not quite so in other environments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1741336.stm
We have argued before that crime is not caused by guns, merely that guns make crime easier. England´s problems may have more to do with drugs, immigration and inequalities as well as the spread of organized crime. Honestly, I don´t know why crime is on the rise in England and considering England´s number of ports, I doubt its very difficult to bring guns into England.
according to this- gun reatled crime went down after restrictions were imposed in Australia-
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
But given that, the question is not whether gun crime happens, but what increases or decreases gun crime.
Assuming that guns alone are the single variable driving the rate of crime is foolishly short sighted. But is that variable a catalyst? Are criminals more likely to commit crimes if guns are more freely available?
Criminals in the US generally don´t use automatic weapons because the penalties are too high. That would suggest that gun controls on automatic weapons work- both in restricting access and punishing their use.
If you increase the difficulty for a criminal to get a gun, they are less likely to use them in crime.
Furthermore, the domestication of violence has been an essential variable in the improvement of quality of life and economic progress. That domestication becomes difficult if individuals are able to form groups that have the capacity to use violence for predation against peaceful society.
another example would be switzerland. about every family has one assault rifle, with ammo. one would expect a lot of violent crime, but switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in europe.
same goes with finland. this country has the most relaxed gunlaws in the EU. you can buy suppressors over the counter, without paperwork. yet, the country has amongst the lowest crimerates in the EU...
Yes, and as argued before, I believe inequality has more to do with crime than guns. What is the inequality in Switzerland and Finland? Does it make a difference that these countries have some of the highest quality of life indicators in the world? Probably.
In the US we have some regions that enjoy a quality of life like that found in Switzerland and Finland. But we have areas that look a bit more like bad neighborhoods in Sao Paolo.
SO maybe its not guns that make Switzerland and Finland peaceful, but rather their high quality of life indicators and low levels of crime.
in the end, only law abiding citizens follow gunlaws... violent crime has more to do with the society in question than it does with gunlaws.
Generally speaking yes. Yet even law abiding citizens going into a bar and drinking a bit too much, end up insulting each other, and then, each knowing the other has a gun and egos being what they are, they begin a shoot out.
Those lawful citizens suddenly become criminals. Yet maybe they wouldn´t be shooting each other if they didn´t fear the other had a gun.
Insecurity is also a social construct that might lead people to arm themselves and wrongfully use guns.
http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/pressreleases2006/pr060619_arms
To the benefit of gun manufacturers.
As mentioned earlier- in the US at least you have two types of gun violence- that which lies in the poor inner city and that which lies in the middle class generally white society. In the inner city there is an illegal economy at work that promotes the use of guns for self-help (either for defensive use or offenseive use) in economic interactions.
In the other case, guns are often used to kill people they know- fathers killing sons, husbands killing wives, boyfriends killing ex-girlfriends, or just some asshole shooting some other asshole.
though there is one parallel to be drawn: extreme gunlaws (extreme freedom or extreme restrictions) lead to more violent crime. everything in between, has very little effect at all.
Singapore has pretty extreme gun laws and there is little gun crime there- despite inequalities. How do you account for Singapore?
You might also wish to consider Germany´s experience with gun control laws as well-]
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Savelsberg1.html
