Gun Control and Crime

http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/ACCC.htm

Guns are used much more often in self-defence than in violent crime. 

>>40

Damn right, and also, calling the police is dandy when you are in a deadly situation, but keep in mind, the burglar isn't gonna sit around and WAIT for the cops to get there.  They do their business and get out and away-FAST.  Would you rather have a cell phone to call the cops, or a good concealed firearm to surprise 'em with?

I say shoot 'em, call after, and explain.  Safest thing to do, both economically (lose less of your stuff), and personal safetywise as well.

http://www.haciendapub.com/humeven1.html

Gun rights make women safer. 

>>26

Compulsory anything wouldn't be in accordance with the values system you would be trying to promote.  That is exactly like Bush saying he is working to protect our freedom (blanking out the fact that the 'protections' involve taking away most of the freedoms in order to safeguard what tattered remains there are).

>>43
Yeah that's true, but then again opposing side is fighting very very dirty too and somehow you gotta educate kids about constitution.

>>43
       "Compulsory anything wouldn't be in accordance with the values system you would be trying to promote."
      When you send someone to prision is it not compulsory, when you get a traffic ticket is it not compulsory, when you pay taxes is it not compulsory, when you go the speedlimit is it not compulsory?
       How is "Compulsory anything" not in accordance with the values we would be trying to promote?

>>45

Libertarians generally think taxes are immoral.  However, they are practical, and see the necessity for some taxes... there is argument among them about how much, and what programs are essential.  Some are laissez-faire capitalists, others are just more economically conservative than republicans (which isn't saying much, Bush is a HUGE spender).

Also, libertarians are against bullshit laws that are not necessary (victimless crimes...such as seat belt laws).  They generally say you should be able to do whatever you want (within reason), so long as that activity doesn't cause direct harm or injury to another person. 

COMPULSORY education, does not exactly fit their bill.  They don't want truant officers dragging kids out of their homes, against their parent's wishes, to be educated in a government institution, if they/their parents really don't want to.  In that respect, they are as pro-family as you can get, really.

Of course, being pro-market capitalists, they are enthusiastic about private education. 

It's not a big deal anyway, 99% of American parents would likely force their kids to go, and do. 

Anyways, if you wanted to teach the ideals of freedom, wouldn't you expect private companies to be more willing and able to do this (private schools) than government institutions, run by government officials and politicians?

>>46

Why not make the education availible, but not compulsory?

>>45

Libertarians are for sending people to prison _if they committed real crimes_ (such as murder, robbery, assault, rape, whatever).

They are (generally speaking) for removing unnecessary compulsion in other aspects of life.  (i.e. , own a gun if you want, but if you murder someone, you'll go to jail... unless it was self defence..etc)

I am actually a republican right now. I dont think i will be for much longer though. Our president is a terrible domestic ruler, and the two party system in general is now too bloated to acomplish anything. Wost of all is the controversy that surrounds everything. Republicans are for capitolism (usually) democrats are for communism. Repubicans are for censership, democrats are for freedom of the press. Republicans are for guns democrats are not. Republicans are for progress, deomocrats are for saveing the environment, republicans are for war democrats are for peace. The way i see it there are several spectrums here not just left and right. There is the freedom vs control spectrum whitch is selectively supported by bolth sides, the Capitolist vs. Communist spectrum whitch has a side each, and the Fight vs. dont fight spectrum whitch also has a side each. The republican party is failing me in propagateing this flawed system. The freedom issues, and capitolism issues should not even be an issue. This nation was intended to be a place where you work for what you have, and do what you like with it. Thus the people who live here should uphold theise values in a good world. War on the other hand is different. Not shure why but when you think of a country as a company the war thing gets really funny, all I have to say on that subject.

Libertarians are pro-freedom, and pro-capitalism.  They are for any freedom guaranteed you in the bill of rights (INCLUDING THE SECOND AMENDMENT).  The libertarians are for low taxes.  They are for letting you keep more of what you earn. 

libertarians=freedom party

>>46
What about drink driving and dangling babies about of windows, as long as no one is hurt it's ok, right?

>>51
What about common sense? It's good to have it right?

>>51

You are asking pretty redundant questions, since nobody would want to do that anyway.  I was thinking more along the lines of completely pointless, bullshit laws, like seatbelt laws, where if you are alone in the car, and you crash (not wearing it) you will only hurt yourself.

>>51

Drunk driving is up for debate.  Drink and drive all you want _on your property_.  As soon as you do it on public property, it is in the public domain, and is not so much of a bad thing to restrict it. 

Note:  Roads are public property.

>>51

Look, as >>53 said, there are just plenty of worthless laws that are essentially pointless.  The seatbelt law is just one example.  What about cigarettes? Why does the government have a say in whether an individual smokes or not?

A valid question to ask is, should the government make any particular lifestyle "illegal"? Should it 'punish' any lifestyle through taxation of the activities of that lifestyle? Some people like smoking, and doing so on their own property hurts nobody but themselves.  There is no reason this activity should be taxed.  If people want to smoke, let them smoke...

People these days just need to live and let live, and mind their own business, imo.  Live free, be free, so long as you don't infringe on other people's right to do the same.  As a very _GENERAL_ guideline, what is wrong with that?

>>51
      Yeah, you did jump the gun on that one.  nobody else was talking about legalizing drunk driving or dangleing babies out of windows.  This debate is about guns anyways and not babies or cars.(btw:>>54  you can legally drunk drive in your own yard as long as it doesn't break any local laws such as public drunkenness, domestic desturbance, noise polution, public indangerment, etc.)
        This is supposed to be about guns and my legal right to have one, or lack thereof.

>>56
That was the point of my post... if done on your property, so long as you don't harm anyone, why the fuck shouldn't you be allowed to ? (I know you can). 

The same goes for drugs... is there any reason why you should not be able to smoke pot -on your property-? Frankly, if my neighbor decided to smoke a joint in his basement, I wouldn't give two shits. 

On the contrary, I'd rather have the folks in the police department in my area actively hunting 'real' criminals, such as rapists, murderers, and thieves, than pointlessly hunting down potsmokers and druggies.

        This is supposed to be about guns and my legal right to have one, or lack thereof.

>>57
Drugs like heroion tend to be common cause in crimes, but legalization could help that as that they would available at low prices, so junkies don't have to rob to get their drugs. Several banned drugs like pot, lsd, shrooms etc. aren't even worth banning. Sure they all can mess up your brain, but it's your brain and you have choice. Only stupid people do drugs anyway and helping them to get them easier helps them remove themselves from world.

>>59
Exactly... the price would drop significantly.  The drugs themselves (in many cases) are not THAT expensive... what is expensive is that when you buy them, you are essentially paying someone to smuggle them through the U.S. to you. 

If they were legalized, this price would be removed, and on top of it, you would likely see large corporations and industries start producing them.  Large businesses and corporations production of them using the methods created during the green revolution (agri-business techniques) would drive the price WAY down. 

With lower prices to get them in the first place, there would likely be a further reduction in violent crime, as the poor folks would be able to buy plenty without stealing (supposing they were corporately produced, in a legal manner).

>>59

Keep in mind a lot of drug-related crimes are likely due to people stealing money so they can buy more of the drugs they want... if they were mass produced by corporations in a legal manner, resulting from the price drop, criminals might be able to buy them with earnings from legitimate work, and crime may subsequently drop. 

>>60
Not to mention that such legal atmosphere would open drug companies new markets and they might be able to create safer drugs similar to current ones. Would also help medical research that has been progressing quite slowly. Hell, we don't even have good medicine to use against AIDS(or any other virus) or cancer. We don't even have actually working weight-loss pills...

>>60
>>61
>>62
       Once again just what does this have to do with gun control?  Start another thread on legalizing drugs, this is about guns and their effect on crime rate.

>>63
No, this thread if about legalizing drugs. Just read  >>60-62 and get with the program.

Tobacco companies have large plots of land just waiting to be filled with cannabis seeds. They actually want pot to be legalized.

>>65
Good thing too.  The drug war is stupid.  Pot legalization would be a big step in the right direction.