Member of Khans said:
Without wanting to get involved in the discussion,
1. it's kinda funny that while I'm considered a gun ownership apologetic in germany, I'd get thrown out of every NRA meeting in the US for being in favor of a stricter gun control than, let's say, Clinton
2. without picking up any of your arguments , welsh, and without any intention in derailing the thread, I have to ask you this: are you in favor of the death penality?
Honestly, I don't like the death penalty. To me it reflects a barbaric side of society- the eye for the eye of Hamurabi's Code.
That said, yes, I support the death penalty. America remains a democracy and, in general, the population supports the death penalty as fair punishment. In the US death is not considered cruel of unusual- and that reflects a rather dark side of American culture. Don't forget, we're a culture that used to hang horse thieves. I also believe that the criminally accused should get a very fair trial and that DNA evidence would help remove many of those who otherwise would go on death row.
That said, if I had my way- death penalty would be enforced not just against murderers, but also major drug traffickers (we're talking about drug kingpins who make over $50K per year through drug dealing) and corporate thieves guilt of corporate intentional crimes that result in a loss of $1 million or loss of 1000 jobs. I also think those guilty of treason should be shot. Scooter Libby and Carl Rove should be shot for betraying a CIA operative.
This seems fair to me. A person who ruins lives by spreading addictive substances in order to gain profit from others misery, well, they've foregone their right to be treated with humanity. If they are making 50K a year, they can do something better with their lives- there is no excuse for them. A person guilty of murder has foregone their right to be treated with humanity and should be treated like a dangerous animal. We shoot dangerous bears and dogs, we should do likewise with dangerous people. Corporate executives who rob from their companies, defraud stock holders and force honest people out of their jobs cause significant damage to others, in some cases ruining lives, for their own greed. They get no love from me. Government members who breach national security for their own personal or political motives have betrayed the trust given them by the people. You don't want the responsibility, then you shouldn't take the job.
The principle for me is one of humanity. You're right to be treated like a human being is contingent on your responsibility to act towards others with the requisite amount of humanity. If you can't, then you don't get to be treated as a human being but as a dangerous animal.
Suffice it to say, if I had it my way, there would be a lot of people pushing up daisy's in the US.
I would also support that executions be public, shown on television. I think a society that allows the death penalty should have the right to watch it, and then judge for themselves whether we should have a death penalty or not. In a sense, if you are a member of a democracy and you voted for the death penalty, than you carry the responsibility of that death on your shoulders.
Besides, again culturally, public executions were common practice.
Is this cruel? Yes. Barbaric? Yes. Democratic and consistent with the customs and traditions of the US? Yes.
But I also believe in a living constitution. If the American people want to change this, then they should. But to do that, they have to take responsibility for their actions.
Which brings me back to the point of my post.
I am not against people owning guns. I am not against gun collections or hunting or owning a gun for self defense. I am fine with that. I will further acknowledge that we need to live with an acceptable probability that some people will die in order for others to have their rights (to own guns) protected. Ok.
But I am not convinced that the number of deaths we currently have is worth it and it troubles me that the number of gun related homicides seems to be increasing. I am also not supporting gun legislation that allows people to have guns because "they think its cool" if that gun legislation leads to a significant increase in mortality of people who don't own guns.
The right to own guns is fine. But we should also protect the right of a person to be able to live in peace and feel no need to own a gun. We should have a right not to live in fear of social violence- be that the result of drive by shooting in a poor urban neighborhood or gunshot from a jealous boyfriend/spouse.
ANd while I can respect and uphold you're right to own a gun, I don't see much in the way of gun owners thinking much about their responsibility to protect my life from other gun owners or themselves. Gun ownership becomes in a sense, a right without a responsibility.
When there is no responsibility taken by the gun owning public, than those responsibilities have to be imposed from above. That is the role of government.
You want to have assault weapons- fine, but how are you going to keep those guns from getting into dangerous hands if you won't impose sanctions on stray purchasers or limit the ability of gun dealers from selling guns.
The common argument is that "bad guys" will always get guns. Maybe, but gun restrictions impose costs on bad guys. Furthermore, those asshole kids at Colombine, or most of the other major shootings we've had over the past few years- where done by people that were not "bad guys" until they started shooting people.
(And lets leave out the cracker shitheads who would shoot a kid who was killed only because the kid was black and in a car with a white woman)
And while the argument that "those who are victims get restitution from the courts" might sound right, its bullshit.
Think about it. Here's a test-
- tell the woman who is dead that her right to breathing (now revoked by some asshole without legal right) will be compensated in court and see if that puts her at ease.
- tell some kid whose mother get shot that court settlement of a million bucks is going to make up for the loss of her mom.
- Try to figure out how you are going to get that compensation when the killer is some stupid kid with virtually nothing in a savings account, but with enough money to buy a rifle at gun fair.
And that's the problem with the courts- first, the recovery is only in dollars and some things you can't recover. Secondly, it depends on whose the defendant. As the lawyers often say, you can't get blood from a stone.
So court protections are not going to work. Then what? Is the government's hands tied?
No - the government can pass laws to limit the potential for violence in society. It can disarm society if society is dangerous or cannot control its ability to utilize violence. In fact, it can be argued that it was the monopolization of violence by a central political authority that is the first principle of governance.
So there it is.
As I said, i am not against your right to own a gun. But I do believe that you're right to own a gun doesn't outweigh the right of some victim to breath.
The problem is that the gun nuts want the guns but none of the responsibilities. There lies the imbalance.
