Selfsufficientish.com

oldjerry wrote:...d'you live in perpetual fear of a car accident?

Ha! Now don't get me started on cars!

Cheers, 2RM.

Mustardseedmama wrote: So we take guns away from law-abiding citizens, people who'd never in a million years dream of hurting another human being with those guns. This leaves them vulnerable to all those "nasty boys" who can, do, and will, still get guns illegally.

Crickleymal wrote: I think this is one of the crucial points. It's an argument that is trotted out every time by the gun supporting lobby. What I would like to see is some proper data about how many times law abiding citizens have had to defend themselves. I personally don't believe it happens very often at all. But show me the data and convince me otherwise please.

It is, as you say, a crucial point. America has a problem; each individual perceives a need for guns because (s)he suspects each other individual has guns. Even if any one individual wants a gunless society, (s)he cannot make the first move towards disarmament because it leaves him or her vulnerable to everyone else. The best global outcome is total disarmament. That way, everyone is safe. However, given that gun ownership is legal, the rational choice for each individual is to tool up to the max, to enhance their own personal safety, seeing that this is how everyone else is going to be thinking. It's a prisoner's dilemma scenario that only a top down authority such as the state or a universal religion can resolve, and even then, only on a gradual basis.

Cheers, 2RM.

[quote="2ndRateMindIt is, as you say, a crucial point. America has a problem; each individual perceives a need for guns because (s)he suspects each other individual has guns. Even if any one individual wants a gunless society, (s)he cannot make the first move towards disarmament because it leaves him or her vulnerable to everyone else. The best global outcome is total disarmament. That way, everyone is safe. However, given that gun ownership is legal, the rational choice for each individual is to tool up to the max, to enhance their own personal safety, seeing that this is how everyone else is going to be thinking. It's a prisoner's dilemma scenario that only a top down authority such as the state or a universal religion can resolve, and even then, only on a gradual basis.

Cheers, 2RM.[/quote]


Out of curiosity, which state or "universal religion" would you propose?

Your own state, or your own religion. By 'state', I mean the nation, rather than it's subdivisions. As for religion - pretty much all of them call for peace and universal brother-/sisterhood. Take your pick.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You say that any one individual can't make the move. But you are assuming that everyone else is going to start killing the weak as soon as they show themselves to be unarmed. I would suggest that not even most criminals would go that far.

2ndRateMind wrote:Your own state, or your own religion. By 'state', I mean the nation, rather than it's subdivisions. As for religion - pretty much all of them call for peace and universal brother-/sisterhood. Take your pick.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh.



Well, I have a long day of work ahead of me...this discussion has been very interesting.

Have a lovely day!

2RM - You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that every adult US citizen owns and carries a gun. Not all own a gun. Not all who own guns carry them.

Mike

I believe that all bears have the right to arms.

Well I don't.......Have you seen the size of those big hairy B------s.??

Two right arms? Surely that can't be right.

Mike

Arms are for hugging

( I read that somewhere)

As far as I am concerned no one in a civilised society needs a gun, even to shoot rabbits, however in Britain it was not illegal to own or carry a gun up until the First World War and thugs would openly flaunt them, tucked into their belts.
In France, probably most men in the country still appear to have guns, rifles for hunting. They have licences but I've known neighbours to take the guns away from people if they think the guy is depressed or unstable for some reason. Although clearly from recent events in France that is not sufficient state or communal control.

To be serious for a bit,how would you control foxes Graham? In an ideal world,nothing would be killed,but I'm not sure humans haven't always hunted for meat,and to be honest,a firearm is by far the LEAST cruel way of killing animals.

Even though I used to farm myself,I've always had this recurring thought that killing wild animals to eat is somehow morally superior to domesticating them,so I'm not sure that's an alternative.

I know you're a vegetarian,and I'm sure you have a completely different take on this,but coming back to the point,aren't all weapons different degrees of the same thing?

O.J. I love your new sig line!!!

Oldjerry, I'm not actually a vegetarian, although I do not eat a lot of meat, I do have a lot of sympathy with the view that you should kill and butcher it yourself. However I'm not sure that you need rifles to do that, in fact rifles have only been used since the times when this source of food has become an insignificant part of our diet.
As for foxes, I live in an area that probably has the highest density of foxes than anywhere else on the planet - London. Despite this people keep chickens and get on with them without much trouble.

France has a tradition of hunting with rifles, whereas in Britain, hunting in general is not so popular - why because for many years until relatively recently it was illegal for anyone (including tenant farmers on their own land), except landowners, to kill wild animals, on pain of hanging, expatriation to Australia or later just fines or imprisonment.

In France also it has only become a mass sport since the 2nd World war, talk to old people and they will tell you that the amount of wildlife has deteriorated massively since everyone took up hunting with rifles.

Sorry if I'm rambling a bit, I just think guns are unnecessary and that governments should ban or at least strictly control their use, for where they are strictly needed not just for sport or 'self-protection'.