jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Basically long story short' date=' according to you, if one does not have a gun, one cannot protect themselves. ?".[/quote'] No......Long story short......gunless society =/= safe society......irresponsible people more to blame than guns...... I grew up in the Middle East (spent 18 years) and have lived in the US for about 2 years now.......have travelled to a lot of places around the world like Australia, China, New Zealand, Indonesia, UK, Italy, Netherlands, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, France.....also visit India every 12-15 months..... Gun ownership is not a fashion trend......it is about being able to protect yourself in situations when the authorities can't or fail to......you don't need to own a gun.....but knowing that you can own one as long you meet all the necessary criteria is definitely comforting.....especially if you have to live in a very unsafe area.....
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 You lived in the Middle East? Great, I lived there for 10 years too. I have also visited the places you have visited and a few more. Some have been repeat visits in the last two - three years, staying there for a minimum for 1 week every time I go there. Now, if you have seen other countries getting by without guns, it amazes me on why you keep insisting you need guns for protection. Those other countries also have varying degree of safety problems but you don't see everyone clamouring around for more guns.
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 You lived in the Middle East? Great, I lived there for 10 years too. I have also visited the places you have visited and a few more. Some have been repeat visits in the last two - three years, staying there for a minimum for 1 week every time I go there. Now, if you have seen other countries getting by without guns, it amazes me on why you keep insisting you need guns for protection. Those other countries also have varying degree of safety problems but you don't see everyone clamouring around for more guns. Dubai is my adopted homeland :--D.........going there on the 13th for 3 weeks..... The thing is......I was of the very same opinion as you.....then I lived in America.....completely different kettle of fish with regards to public safety....:nervous:...I've personally seen people getting jumped right in front of shopping malls in broad daylight.....very different cultures.....owning a gun is not mandatory.....but area ke hisaab se......you need to consider it as an option..... different societies require different solutions......
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I have done enough country hopping to realise that guns are not the answer. Carrying around military style sub machine guns in civilian cities on the basis of the second amendment is complete nonsense in the modern day and age, it is just used as an excuse to feed one's ego. And no, the answer to a bad gun with a gun is not a good guy with a gun. No guys with no guns is the answer, as is the case in many other parts of the world. Thats equal to saying if the crime to theft was hands chopped off, you have no theft. Teetotalism is a semi-valid fallacy: semi valid, because it applies to all in theory but can only be put in practice (logically,that is) when it is the only answer. Clearly, in case of guns, we have demonstrated evidence of large population holding on to large number of guns with minimal consequences.(Canada, Switzerland, Finald, for example) Therefore, the teetotalism principle cannot be applied to gun ownership. No guys with no guns often times equals inherent rise in police corruption, because the only feasable way to feed guns into the underworld demand, is through the police or the army. That has been the fundamental failing of the 'no guns for anyone' policy, as demonstrated in South America: their cops and armies are intricately linked to the underworld gun-running business (since there are no good old civillian crooks engaging in it), to disastrous consequences. You also see this to a much lesser effect in UK: You are likelier to find the crooked UK cop/customs officer involved in gun-running than in states/Canada, simply because the drug lords dont *have* to resort to bribing their theoretical arch-nemesises (law enforcement & military) here. Ie, 'no guns for anyone' effectively equals shifting the crooks from being private business owning citizens to police/army employee. Not an alternative,really.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Thats equal to saying if the crime to theft was hands chopped off, you have no theft. Teetotalism is a semi-valid fallacy: semi valid, because it applies to all in theory but can only be put in practice (logically,that is) when it is the only answer. Clearly, in case of guns, we have demonstrated evidence of large population holding on to large number of guns with minimal consequences.(Canada, Switzerland, Finald, for example) Therefore, the teetotalism principle cannot be applied to gun ownership. No guys with no guns often times equals inherent rise in police corruption, because the only feasable way to feed guns into the underworld demand, is through the police or the army. That has been the fundamental failing of the 'no guns for anyone' policy, as demonstrated in South America: their cops and armies are intricately linked to the underworld gun-running business (since there are no good old civillian crooks engaging in it), to disastrous consequences. You also see this to a much lesser effect in UK: You are likelier to find the crooked UK cop/customs officer involved in gun-running than in states/Canada, simply because the drug lords dont *have* to resort to bribing their theoretical arch-nemesises (law enforcement & military) here. Ie, 'no guns for anyone' effectively equals shifting the crooks from being private business owning citizens to police/army employee. Not an alternative,really. I beg to differ. If the vast majority of countries around the world can get by without the need for their citizens arming themselves to the teeth, what is stopping the US?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 ]Dubai is my adopted homeland :--D.........going there on the 13th for 3 weeks..... The thing is......I was of the very same opinion as you.....then I lived in America.....completely different kettle of fish with regards to public safety....:nervous:...I've personally seen people getting jumped right in front of shopping malls in broad daylight.....very different cultures.....owning a gun is not mandatory.....but area ke hisaab se......you need to consider it as an option..... different societies require different solutions...... I lived in Oman for 10 years. Dubai was just a couple of hours drive.
jalebi_bhai Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I lived in Oman for 10 years. Dubai was just a couple of hours drive. Spent in 9 years in Muscat....studied in ISM....lived in Hatat House.....:woot:....then 2 years in Abu Dhabi....7 years in Dubai.....7 awesome years.....
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 I beg to differ. If the vast majority of countries around the world can get by without the need for their citizens arming themselves to the teeth, what is stopping the US? Because the idea that banning guns = reduction in crime does not have an universally supported case. Plenty of places exist where : a) guns are illegal and they have high gun-related crime rates ( Colombia, Mexico, etc) and b) guns are illegal and they have a high non-gun related crime rate ( Ukraine for example). Therefore, your 'ban guns' argument is an invalid argument. We can extend such an argument towards any potentially lethal item. Cars causing too many deaths ? ban cars. Problem solved. The issue you are refusing to address, is why cant you make laws like Canada, Switzerland, etc. where plenty of people own guns and they dont go kill each other with guns ? Again, if you cant handle having guns, it does not justify me not having guns for my recreational value or livelyhood (hunting). You are also refusing to address the problem at its core: outlawing guns have very little impact on the potential availability of guns to crooks. So in a society like the US, where there are plenty of decent gun-owning people and tons of crooks with guns, versus Mexico, where we have plenty of crooks with guns and no decent gun owning guys, i would prefer the US model. Those who confuse guns with crimes simply do not realize that guns does not equal increase in gun related crimes, as evidenced by societies such as Canada, Switzerland, Finland etc. Therefore, i'd rather pander to their approach than teetotalism. I dont see what problem you have with someone's right to own guns for fun. Based on the huge amount of money gun-owners spend at ranges, it is a pretty obvious case that guns are one of many major human recreational activities.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Because the idea that banning guns = reduction in crime does not have an universally supported case. Plenty of places exist where : a) guns are illegal and they have high gun-related crime rates ( Colombia, Mexico, etc) and b) guns are illegal and they have a high non-gun related crime rate ( Ukraine for example). Therefore, your 'ban guns' argument is an invalid argument. We can extend such an argument towards any potentially lethal item. Cars causing too many deaths ? ban cars. Problem solved. The issue you are refusing to address, is why cant you make laws like Canada, Switzerland, etc. where plenty of people own guns and they dont go kill each other with guns ? Again, if you cant handle having guns, it does not justify me not having guns for my recreational value or livelyhood (hunting). You are also refusing to address the problem at its core: outlawing guns have very little impact on the potential availability of guns to crooks. So in a society like the US, where there are plenty of decent gun-owning people and tons of crooks with guns, versus Mexico, where we have plenty of crooks with guns and no decent gun owning guys, i would prefer the US model. Those who confuse guns with crimes simply do not realize that guns does not equal increase in gun related crimes, as evidenced by societies such as Canada, Switzerland, Finland etc. Therefore, i'd rather pander to their approach than teetotalism. I dont see what problem you have with someone's right to own guns for fun. Based on the huge amount of money gun-owners spend at ranges, it is a pretty obvious case that guns are one of many major human recreational activities. In a nutshell, for one excuse or another, they will be holding onto their guns. If not for safety, than for the sake of fun. Redemption is long gone.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Spent in 9 years in Muscat....studied in ISM....lived in Hatat House.....:woot:....then 2 years in Abu Dhabi....7 years in Dubai.....7 awesome years..... I too lived in Muscat. Dubai is like Singapore. I personally prefer Singapore.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 In a nutshell, for one excuse or another, they will be holding onto their guns. If not for safety, than for the sake of fun. Redemption is long gone. Redemption from what ? You act as if Guns are evil minions of some great satan, who will turn you into a serial killer. If people can have fun with guns safely, as demonstrated by the evidence above, whats your problem with it ? So instead of saying 'ban guns', why arnt you saying 'make the situation like in Canada/Switzerland where people can have guns and not use it to kill each other' ? Isnt that clearly the better option here ? Or on the corollary, how can you sustain your 'ban guns' perspective if you are talking to a Canadian/Swiss/Finn ? These folks own guns, yet kill less people with guns than Indians do with pouring gas and setting someone on fire. So why should they get rid of their guns ?
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Redemption from what ? You act as if Guns are evil minions of some great satan, who will turn you into a serial killer. If people can have fun with guns safely, as demonstrated by the evidence above, whats your problem with it ? So instead of saying 'ban guns', why arnt you saying 'make the situation like in Canada/Switzerland where people can have guns and not use it to kill each other' ? Isnt that clearly the better option here ? Or on the corollary, how can you sustain your 'ban guns' perspective if you are talking to a Canadian/Swiss/Finn ? These folks own guns, yet kill less people with guns than Indians do with pouring gas and setting someone on fire. So why should they get rid of their guns ? Mate, your arguments are pretty laughable. Every two bloody weeks, there seems to be a shooting spree in the US. You lot are free to buy as many guns as you want but you still don't feel safe.
asterix Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Redemption from what ? You act as if Guns are evil minions of some great satan, who will turn you into a serial killer. If people can have fun with guns safely, as demonstrated by the evidence above, whats your problem with it ? So instead of saying 'ban guns', why arnt you saying 'make the situation like in Canada/Switzerland where people can have guns and not use it to kill each other' ? Isnt that clearly the better option here ? Or on the corollary, how can you sustain your 'ban guns' perspective if you are talking to a Canadian/Swiss/Finn ? These folks own guns, yet kill less people with guns than Indians do with pouring gas and setting someone on fire. So why should they get rid of their guns ? Not possible as its related to education and culture (gun culture).... Try imparting traffic sense in India just like how it's in Western World.... It'll not happen even in one's life time....
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Mate' date=' your arguments are pretty laughable.[/quote'] Okay. So pretend I am a Canadian. Now tell me why my perspective is laughable. Kindly check out Canada's rate of gun related crimes. Then compare us to places like France or UK or India, where owning guns are illegal for most cases. You will find that our crime rate is pretty much the same, therefore, guns != crimes/violence. So why get rid of them ? You are making a blanket statement but you havnt told us yet why everyone should ban private gun ownerships. Why should Canada,Finland,Switzerland ban guns ? I dont actually buy guns. But i have considered it. I do go to gun ranges often. You should try it, its a lot of fun. And i do appreciate the survivalist aspects of beign competent with a gun. Also, owning guns or not doesnt make me feel any bit safer or not, unless you wish to live in Alaska, where you better wish you had a gun when the local brown bear comes prowling along.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Not possible as its related to education and culture (gun culture).... Try imparting traffic sense in India just like how it's in Western World.... It'll not happen even in one's life time.... Minimum mandatory requirements attached to gun ownership will go a long way. Having guns as a basic right (as the states dumbly believe) does not help the argument, but the idea of a basic right and being proven fit to weild that right are not mutually exclusive concepts per se. '
Crookbond Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Raddish Curry - You can't keep innocent lives at risk until laws turn picture perfect.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 Okay. So pretend I am a Canadian. Now tell me why my perspective is laughable. Kindly check out Canada's rate of gun related crimes. Then compare us to places like France or UK or India, where owning guns are illegal for most cases. You will find that our crime rate is pretty much the same, therefore, guns != crimes/violence. So why get rid of them ? You are making a blanket statement but you havnt told us yet why everyone should ban private gun ownerships. Why should Canada,Finland,Switzerland ban guns ? You have not convinced me on why you need a gun in the first place. You live in Canada, not in the war torn regions of Iraq, right? For those living in Alaska, I can understand the need to carry a gun. That's a different kettle of fish to carrying around guns in civilian cities. I dont actually buy guns. But i have considered it. I do go to gun ranges often. You should try it, its a lot of fun. And i do appreciate the survivalist aspects of beign competent with a gun. Also, owning guns or not doesnt make me feel any bit safer or not, unless you wish to live in Alaska, where you better wish you had a gun when the local brown bear comes prowling along. Outlawing guns would seemingly deprive some people of their "fun". Strange justification for an instrument of death whose primary purpose is to kill.
CSK Fan Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 What purpose has a gun but to kill? How does it have any place in a civilized society in the name of safety or otherwise? How is that the US, so progressive in all other areas, does not see the simple fact? Gun-culture has been ingrained into each part of their society but so was racism in the past, yet they stood up and fought against it. If you live in a society where you are constantly in fear of your neighbors then something is wrong, no matter how developed or rich you are.
EnterTheVoid Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 What purpose has a gun but to kill? How does it have any place in a civilized society in the name of safety or otherwise? How is that the US' date=' so progressive in all other areas, does not see the simple fact? Gun-culture has been ingrained into each part of their society but so was racism in the past, yet they stood up and fought against it. If you live in a society where you are constantly in fear of your neighbors then something is wrong, no matter how developed or rich you are.[/quote'] The bloke I am arguing with doesn't seem to want to outlaw guns on the basis of them being too much fun.
Muloghonto Posted June 9, 2013 Posted June 9, 2013 You have not convinced me on why you need a gun in the first place. You live in Canada' date=' not in the war torn regions of Iraq, right?[/quote'] Because guns are not just weapons, guns are also for entertainment. They get imported by the thousands to be put into movies that you lap up, they are fun to shoot. An instrument is an instrument, its all about how you use it. Guns are fun. Like i said, go check the amount of gun ranges that exist and the volume of gun industry- not just the US but outside the US for recreational use. It seems strange to me that you want countries to ban guns when these countries have no discernable gun related violence and the vast majority of gun owners use it for recreation. Seems strange that you hold a prejudice that somehow a gun can only be used to kill and for no other purpose, despite evidence of the contrary. Sorry, but your reason for banning the gun from consumer use is ill founded and prejudice driven. You are yet to give me one reason why the Canadians or the Swiss should outlaw the gun. Why get rid of a perfectly awesome instrument of fun, that these societies partake in, especially given the absence of gun-related violence in these countries ? Seems like a perfectly good waste of fun for no good reason at all.
Recommended Posts