APTYP said:
In Russia, americans are widely considered infantile and mentally inferior to russians. Yet you are on their side? Anyway, if you have more crap to share with me, use PM. Briosafreak, do something, you're admins for god sakes.
APTYP- That's regretful, especially since so many Russians come to the US for its schools. I have always thought that Russians were a bright people with many leading scientists and scholars, which has generated much to culture and civilization. I think most Americans probably think that way, even if they feel sorry for the bad state that Russia is in.
That Russians feel such sentiments is probably why you find so many Americans being defensive about their country to foreignors and often disgusted by what they hear from abroad about the US. There is a certain pride in the US, that I think most Americans should have that.
But it is frustrating when many in the US try to benevolent to people abroad and yet receive so much malice from those with whom we have no ill will. It's no wonder many in the US are turning away from the problems in foreign countries.
If you don't get it, try putting yourself in this position. You offer someone, a stranger, a hand in friendship or even an offering hand and that person spits in your hand. Do you offer it again. Now, Americans have been getting that for over 30 years. You can almost understand why many in the US would prefer if we just ignored the rest of the world.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Americans are perfect. In fact, often the label "Ugly American" is much deserved. Americans can be arrogant, self-centered, and boastful. But we should not stereotype (least people all say that Russians are all insane commies, drunks, sex offenders and criminals). Such stereotypes are often true, but you can find insane republicans, drunks, sex offenders and criminals in the US probably as easily as in Russia (well not Republicans, thank God!)
APTYP said:
There is a logical arguement that's being often forgotten and ignored because both sides seek proof that their solution is best for the society. And it is that every man has a right to defend his life and property, with lethal force if necessary..
I am going to ignore most of the distinction you raise between handguns and rifles because this is the more important point.
The position you are taking here is a bit extreme. It is in fact more extreme than any other argument posted thus far. In essence you are suggesting that the right ot self-defense should be unfettered. One always has the right to defend themselves.
The notion of self-defense, comes from the right to be secure in the person, to live the life you want to- and thus ties itself to individual rights or civil rights. Civil Rights were at the heart of early US constitutional development, as found in the Bill of Rights. When it comes to rights, most Americans still think in terms of civil rights and is one of the reasons why gun control is such a big issue in the US while not so much in Europe.
But the notion of civil rights has not interpreted to mean that those rights are unconstrained or even universal. For example, many would accept the right to procreate and have a family, but not the right to rape or incest. Many would argue for the right to vote, but not to everyone (criminals, children and the mentally incompetent are often denied this right). The right to speech is constrained against libel, conspiracy to commit crime, "shouting fire in a theater." Right of religious freedom is constrained (no virgin sacrifices please, but also no spoking peyote). The notion of government, from the civil rights view, is based on the idea of having a government that will give fruit to what are believed to be these inherent rights.
Empirically, the notion of inherent rights is flawed. There are no inherent rights. We are merely born, what we get as rights is a consequence of political and social history. THe notion of inherent rights is a constructed idea, an idea traceable to a religious idea that the world is a system of logic and order, and that from this logical and ordered world we can discern rights.
So the right to have self defense is not without constraint. Remember the notion of self defense can be seen as part of the right to live, right to live a life of one's choosing, the right to be secure. When rights conflict then we have to use that sound logic and order to make sense of our world and start making choices about what rights matter more.
Now I mentioned civil rights- in the US this means basically individual rights. But there are economic and social rights too. The right to labor, the right to work, to unionize, etc. These rights are a consequence of economic history, primarily of industrialization. There is also the right of society- of ethnicity to be recognized as such, to have social identity, etc.
Now in the US we are big for civil rights- the rights of the individual over that of society. In Europe there is more communitarianism. THey have their notion of civil rights but they are also more keen towards economic and social rights, generally. Thus Europeans are more likely to have stronger constraints against the individual excess than the US.
Now compare the emprics, as provided by Briosafreak and one finds a startling finding. Generally the Europeans are living a less murderous lifestyle, that there are fewer gun related homicides, that the society is safer. One could also look to Europe and examine quality of life issues and in many ways find the Euros to be better off than the Americans.
APTYP said:
This is the arguement. Not a cure for crime and not accident-proof, a gun is not a magic wand that turns a peaceful neighborhood into a gangland or the other way around. It is simply a tool to protect a right far more ancient than Constitutional Rights or Moses' Ten Commandments....
If you mean to go back to the law of the jungle, the state of anarchy, than you are right. But according to Hobbes, the anarchical world makes life "nasty, brutish and short" - ironically much like Russia today.
The notion of law is, in many ways, an attempt to constrain that anarchical world through the power of religion and the fear of higher supernatural forces.
But the big question you don't answer- are unregulated guns more likely to create a peaceful neighborhood or a gangland environment. That's the issue that you have basically sidestepped.
APTYP said:
By the way, welsh: in Britain, if a criminal can't buy a gun, he makes one. So much for banning firearms...
As discussed with CHolor Ex, they do that in Indonesia too.
In Singapore I was told that a person with a part of a gun, not a complete working gun, could be thrown in jail for breaking the law. Yes they have the occassional robbery and murder, but the crime rates in Singapore are incrediably low. Compare that wiht less regulated or regulable countries of Asia and you find that these are less safe.
But that's the point here. Since a society should reflect the values of the people. But values are not cast in stone. They change, they adapt. In a democracy the country should promote those values while recognizing the rights of the minority. However, special interests often advocate ideas, on either end of the spectrum, in order to influence opinion. And sometimes those interests lie.
That's why we are having this discussion, isn't it. Not just to bullshit and advocate, but to know what is real and what is false?
