On this particular board Ive been labeled a liberal by a few.. too hard to qualify by a few.. too much of an academic to label by a few (who I have to think would be absolutely stunned to see my field work), and simply an idiot by a couple.

In fact I have 2 sets of minds on most issues.. the mindset I was raised in and that I would only apply in my hometown.. and the mindset I use in my daily life now, that is liberal in labeling now on most things with a few notable exceptions. A few of my "liberal" viewpoints werent liberal in the recent past, but with science now being labeled at times liberal..well..

Anyway, onto my point. There is one issue that.. stymies me.

Gun control..gun..rights..whatever.

Its my personal belief America would be far better off by restricting them. And I dont think its close. Its self evident with a quick glance around the world.

And I dont believe the 2nd Amendment gives unqualified rights to firearms. On the contrary its long been ruled that even things that seem to be written as absolutes in the Bill of Rights are subject to limitation (speech, assembly, etc.. all have "reasonable" limits put on them).

But.. when I hear an argument that essentially agrees with my viewpoint.. a contrary opinion forms in my head. In particular, and this is weird because Im not particularly nationalistic on the whole, when I hear a non-U.S. citizen talk about how the US should outlaw guns I get relatively outraged.

I cant really consolidate my viewpoint but I guess I sort of come down to this: I believe the US SHOULD outlaw its guns by and large, but for historical and social reasons it never will.

One thing I really hate about the..debate.. on the topic is the irrationality. No one is honest or charitable.

I dont know how one can look at the near daily devastation in the US by firearms and NOT think that a person who wants to decrease that is being reasonable, even if you disagree. Is it really flat out "idiotic" to think that fewer guns would lead to less violence? Ok.. you dont think thats legal..I get it.. but lets not pretend its insane to think so. Its not naive, its not idiotic. Its likely, very likely correct. But if you disagree, there are things you value more. FINE. Lets just say that and have an honest discussion shall we?

And you who think guns should be outlawed..lets not pretend there is no merit to the other side. I disagree as well, but the Supreme Court has essentially decide the "militia" part of the 2nd amendment is incidental, not the meat. Which means, yea, the 2nd amendment protects gun ownership. We can still put reasonable restrictions legally, most likely. But lets not go around the same circle that has essentially be decided. And yea, its a bit loony to pretend in a Western style democracy that the 3 or 4 people at the top are going to go Stalin on us and the people will be at their mercy.. but its not illegal to live in fantasy, and thats not even the most dangerous or prevalant fantasy that is common in US society.

So.. cant people just about it rationally, nicely, and honestly? "Yeah..I know lots of people will die.. but I find it worth it so that not just that government will have the guns".. or "Yeah, Im willing to say I trust my government, elected by you and me, to not go Stalin (and if it does I trust people in uniform, a volunteer army, to stop it) and so I think we should take away guns".

So..thats what vexes me. Thoughts..? Or , more interestingly, is there an issue you might have that forces you to both sides of the argument?

_________________
“If somebody thinks they're a hedgehog, presumably you just give them a mirror and a few pictures of hedgehogs and tell them to sort it out for themselves.”

Indeed the world is not black and white. There are usually a variety of pros and cons to each side and I try to look at all sides of an issue in every situation. Abortion, for example. I totally understand why people are against it, arguing that we are killing a life inside of somebody. On the other hand, how can we turn a blind eye to the benefits we've reaped by allowing people to have them?

As far as gun control goes, I have a hard time believing that restricting access to guns is the only solution. It is possible that it may work, but if americans are having a problem with gun homicides we oughta work it out ourselves instead of looking to the government for a solution to every answer.

Great post, Ross.

For me, the issue is with business regulation. I like capitalism to an extent, I think it promotes free-thinking and gives rise to new, bold ideas as far as business and industry goes. I think the in the long run, it has many benefits to an economy. HOWEVER, I don't like seeing businesses run rampant with monopolies and ridiculous profits just because the public doesn't have a choice. I also don't like to see larger companies manipulating the political landscape and having politicians in their pockets. I'd like to see some regulation to make the capitalist market a more fair and equitable one for everyone. Hard to quantify my thoughts on this, it comes down to not liking the fact that huge conglomerates can get away with basically anything if they work the system just right.

_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ

I kind of agree with you Vet. Gun rights were an issue that was originally very polarizing for me until I actually read some articles about the cities with the highest gun control, as well as some of the countries with the highest gun control. I'm done posting articles supporting my statements on this board, because it seems like no one really wants to be convinced on any issue unless I just confirm that they are right. I used to think that "assault weapons" should be banned, and then I read about operation fast and furious. Then I read about the violent crime rate in the UK, and how after Australia banned a majority of guns, armed robberies wen't up 300%. I watched a Feinstein interview in which she said she would ban ALL guns if she could get the votes. I watched an Obama video saying that he would never push a gun law (prior to him being elected). I've read articles about New York and Chicago being two of the strictest gun control cities in the states, and yet they're crime rate is horrible and their police ignore a lot of calls. I've read an article on how every mass shooting in the last 50 years in the US except one was in a "gun-free zone" and yet no one want's to draw any parallels. I've also read an article about how almost every mass shooter was either on psychotropic drugs, or coming off of them. Anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, anti-anxiety. Just look up the side affects if you want to cringe.

On the surface to me it really made sense to ban assault rifles, because I didn't see why the common people needed them. Now I can see that America can fall under a tyrannical government, but even more than that, I see that if we allow the government to take the bigger guns they will come after the little guns next. I just don't see why the law-abiding citizens should turn in their weapons, while criminals keep theirs. Or even worse, have the government turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by passing some of this legislation. I am pro-2nd amendment more because I think that it hurts criminals, while gun bans help them. There are already too many guns in America for them to actually be effective, we should spend all that time and money on mental health issues and further drug research.

I used to be of two minds on quite a few issues, but I tried to educate myself on them and pretty much all of that was cleared up. Abortion was definitely one of them. I used to be completely pro-choice but then my dad and step mom went through the adoption process and I saw how many couples were desperate for a child of their own but the process was very difficult to go through. They were treated like child abusers pretty much from day one and it took them over a year to be put on a list. Neither one had a criminal background or anything. I just don't see the necessity of abortion anymore, except in the case of incest or rape. There are plenty of families who want children. I still think that a woman has the right to choose, but I now think that the cost of an abortion should only be covered by the government or insurance in the case of incest or rape. I don't know, I'm still a little up in the air about that issue.

The whole republican democrat thing always tore my opinion in two. Nowadays I realize that neither is a valid choice. I thought I was a Democrat when Bush was in office and then a year or two into Obama's presidency I thought I was a republican. Now I just realize that both parties are owned by the same people, and there is very little difference. War, war, war, more taxes for the poor, less taxes for the wealthy. (I include bailouts, and Obamacare as tax refunds and taxes respectively) I don't support either party, and I've only seen one or two semi-honest politicians that I would like in office before. Maybe a member of one of the two parties will come forward and actually stand for something but I'm not holding my breath.

the DMV..

_________________
On to the Next Episode

Sounds like you're pro-free market but anti-corporatism.

Think about the way our system is currently set up. Who sets up regulation for these huge companies? The huge companies. That's why on pretty much every regulatory committee you will see ex-big banks and big business employees who get a job higher up the food chain once their run in these committees are over. The regulations they pass usually help the big businesses while hurting the little guys who are trying to break in. The big guys not only know all the tax loopholes, but they usually make the loopholes themselves when their employees start working in the government. We don't have a free-market, and we haven't actually had one in over a hundred years. A free market would have no regulations on companies, just laws that they would break if they polluted a river or poisoned people or conned someone or something similar. There would be a very simple tax code so no one could benefit unfairly and that's that. There's too much money to be made in the current regulation heavy environment though, so it probably won't ever go back to the way it was.

Veta, you and I have been on opposite sides of issues many times, but I would say that anyone who would believe you to be an idiot because you disagree with them, really isn't using their brain very much. You post some of the most well balanced and thought out posts in here. I realize no two people will agree on ever single thing, but you always bring well reasoned arguments to your side of the equation. Honestly, I look forward to your input on issues, because even though it's often different than mine, I still find that I can learn something by reading through what you have to say.

As for issues, I'd say the one I'm most in the middle over is one very near and dear to you and that is Climate change. Personally I think both sides to the issue like to use extremes to make their point. I can honestly see that the climate around us is changing. I would never make a claim that there is no climate change. But I believe that too many on both sides use extreme arguments to state their cases, and these are the most vocal. It's very much like the gun debate in that way. There is most definitely a middle ground in both issues. With the Climate, I'm most definitely for progressing in ways that will see us have cleaner air and be healthier in the long run. I don't think that turning the issue into a cash cow for those like Al Gore is going to accomplish it though.

With the gun issue, I do believe that we would have a substantial change in homicides if we banned guns, but I don't believe the trade-off is a worthy one. If you really break it down, a lot of gun homicides fall into two categories, criminals killing criminals, and suicides. Criminals killing criminals isn't really a problem, and people who want to kill themselves will always find a way. Taking away one method won't fix that problem. We can't just ban something because it does harm. Hell, like has been stated many times, alcohol kills so many people, and tobacco kills tons of people each year as well, yet even though they are restricted in certain ways (as guns are as well), they aren't being banned outright.

I have a great deal of respect for Vetamur's opinions on most things as he is an educated individual who has seen a lot in his time. That said, I just can't understand the logic behind asking people, en masse, to relinquish their guns, their last means of defense, to one of the most corrupt governments this world has seen in the past 200 years.

I liken our country to Rome, prior to the dissolution of the senate. Corruption abound. It's going to get worse before it gets better, I fear. In the event it does get worse, those who have guns will be glad they have them.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

The decline of the Roman Empire and the evening of the US with the rest of the modern world happened for two very different reasons. Corruption exists in every society and to be honest the corruption we deal with is minute compared to the Roman Empire.

History has taught us that great empires fall. But we also have the incredible power to learn from history.

The only dissolution of the US I see is when the world eventually comes together as a single planet (unless China loses it's mind and invades, but that's so unlikely and seemingly unnecessary).

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Could not disagree more. The corruption in our society is MORE prevalent than that of Rome, due to the monstrous, compartmentalized bureaucracy we have allowed to become our federal government. Our government has become corrupt at its very core, starting with the President, on to the joke we refer to as Congress, on down to the law enforcement agencies, to the mayors, to the sheriffs. Every level of government is wrought with corruption. It's not just the sort of thing which happens as a result of operating a bureaucracy, the sort of corruption we are dealing with today is much more insidious.

_________________
Feel free to contact me if you need legal assistance. I have a great lawyer that helped me with an ex who violated my privacy and kept harassing me on MySpace and Facebook. He's very good. And there is legal precedent. - linuxpro

He is hold back the legion of boom - skater18000

I wish I knew the answer to the gun question. On one hand, I believe in the 2nd amendment; on the other hand, it is obviously too damn easy for people to obtain firearms.

When a person can walk down a Seattle street and openly purchase firearms with the only question being, "How much...," something is wrong.

_________________
If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom

As opposed to the Roman Empire?

Rome had little control outside of the city of Rome. At least in our days there's processes that expose corruption and relatively good control of all territories. Rome also had constant wars and was stretched far beyond it's controllable means.

The only comparison Rome has with the United States is that it was the world power and corruption existed.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

What vexes me is that people believe that outlawing guns will reduce gun violence. All that will do is take guns away from law abiding citizens, leaving criminals who currently obtain illegal (re: automatic) guns even though they are illegal. Short of creating a police state, there is no way to reduce gun violence to negligible amounts. Look at what happened during the prohibition era, people wanted booze so bootleggers started smuggling it in. Are people telling me that criminals won't smuggle guns into the United States because it is illegal? History disagrees with them.

_________________
Brass knuckles and a 2x4.

The UK also disagrees with you.

It's not an overnight process, but limiting the firearm supply DOES reduce gun violence.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

And limiting the knife supply will reduce stabbings... what's your point?

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavli ... d-n1464528

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ecade.html

Couple articles I found that seem to validate my point. Only difference? They call it gun crime.

_________________
Brass knuckles and a 2x4.

How many accidental stabbing deaths are there? Mass stabbing murders in the US? What about that time where that guy went into the school and stabbed 28 people to death!? Are you suggesting that banning a sharp edge is even feasible?

Guns are very different than knives. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

*sigh*

Homicides in the UK using firearms: 58 (2011)

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population
United States 2.98
United Kingdom 0.03

The rate of private gun ownership per 100 people
United States 88.82
United Kingdom is 6.72

Lower private gun ownership.

Lower firearm deaths.

Oh yeah... by the way, they have knives in the UK too.

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population
United States 4.96
United Kingdom 1.2

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Know what else they don't have in the UK besides guns?

Public trash receptacles...Can you guess why not? Well because people hide bombs in them of course, so you mustn't put trash receptacles in any public gathering place because someone could use it for harm.

What's the point? The point is you can ban this or you can ban that, but you can't stop everyone who is determined to kill. There will always be another way to commit the same crime.

Yes, I would imagine in our current times that people will find a way to kill other people. That's not the point. Not attempting to REMOVE ALL DEATH (why does everything have to be removes all or don't try).

But, like I posted last:

Homicides in the UK using firearms: 58 (2011)

The annual rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 population
United States 2.98
United Kingdom 0.03

The rate of private gun ownership per 100 people
United States 88.82
United Kingdom is 6.72

Lower private gun ownership.

Lower firearm deaths.

Oh yeah... by the way, they have knives in the UK too.

The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population
United States 4.96
United Kingdom 1.2

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012