Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81

Thread: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

  1. #41

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion View Post
    You have hit the nail on the head here. But, is there really a need for people to own a gun when it can cause so much devastation and loss of life with just one bullet.

    The amendment to the constitution needs to be changed. In a 'developed' country there should be no need for the public to own a gun to take the law into their own hands.
    the same applies to so many other things:

    1) you can cause so much devastation and loss of life with just one airplane crash
    2) ditto for one stab from a kitchen knife
    3) ditto for one explosion from a faulty water heater
    4) ditto for one falling flower pot aimed at the right part of the head

    i would certainly agree with you if you do bring up the point that.. perhaps airplanes are necessary, kitchen knives too, water heaters as well, same for flower pots. but that's not the point is it? you can't say guns bring no benefits either. not everyone is bruce lee and can snatch guns from assiliants and use it on them. in some sense i guess many people/households who have guns keep it as a necessary evil, it's sort of something that you only need when you need it, but you'd be glad that it's there when you need it.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    You're the one spouting rubbish in every post. Seems like your favorite word.

    Have you even done a simple mathematical division of the no of police per sq km for Singapore and US?

    If you really understood how big the US is, you'd understand why they have an illegal immigrant problem that's far larger than Singapore's for instance. And why it's so much tougher to solve, even with a huge fence along the Texas-Mexico border.

    Notwithstanding that people have legitimate need for guns (eg ranchers to protect themselves against wild animals, farmers who live in isolated communities where the nearest police station is 30 miles away), do you think that you could wipe out illegal arms even if you were handed control of all US police forces?

    What a joker!


    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion View Post
    This is rubbish. Whilst size makes it harder it is not unstoppable, just because a country is bigger doesnt make it impossible. They have more police and more manpower compared to Singapore, so that makes up for its size.

    The problem is its written into the constitution, and everyone in America treats this as the bible. The only way to enforce a no arms policy is to make the price of the weapons extremely high or place a huge fine on anyone with a firearm. Whilst gangs and people will still be getting weapons, the troubled teens that have been shooting teh country to pieces will find it extremely difficult to do so.

    The freedom to own a fire arm has now come at the expense of peoples lives. This is no longer a freedom but a burden on the people. Something must be done.
    Last edited by waileong; 6th December 2007 at 10:32 PM.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Virgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    West of Singapore
    Posts
    4,816

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Let's face it. Humans are complicated beings. We won't know what the others are thinking or intending to do. Banning of arms is the only thing to do. I will always support the Singapore government on this.
    Kind Regards
    My Picture Website

  4. #44

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    You also lack an understanding of how much reverence Americans place in the Constitution, how difficult it is to change, how powerful the media, lobbies and pressure groups are, how strongly Americans feel about their hard-won freedoms, and how they distrust politicians.

    America is not Singapore where you can just do what you want and the papers will kowtow to you and suppress all other dissenting viewpoints and you can pass Constitutional amendments anytime you want.

    For Americans, the Constitution is indeed like the Bible. And the word of God is not easily changed. I don't think they've made an Amendment in over 50 years now-- it's that sacred.



    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion View Post
    The problem is its written into the constitution, and everyone in America treats this as the bible. The only way to enforce a no arms policy is to make the price of the weapons extremely high or place a huge fine on anyone with a firearm. Whilst gangs and people will still be getting weapons, the troubled teens that have been shooting teh country to pieces will find it extremely difficult to do so.

    The freedom to own a fire arm has now come at the expense of peoples lives. This is no longer a freedom but a burden on the people. Something must be done.

  5. #45

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Alistair Cooke once mentioned in his "Letters from America" that context of this right is that the populace had a the right to bear arms as part of a militia. In other words, the intent was for them to have a right to to take up arms against a tyrannical government, or against a foreign invader.

    Quote Originally Posted by bousozoku View Post
    It's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution but it's there because it was once important for each house to have a firearm of some sort. At the time it went into effect, they had recently won independence from England and there weren't a nationwide network of police and phones and radios didn't exist. People were called quickly to go after criminals and they had to have a weapon.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Clementi, Singapore
    Posts
    2,836

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    You're the one spouting rubbish in every post. Seems like your favorite word.

    Have you even done a simple mathematical division of the no of police per sq km for Singapore and US?

    If you really understood how big the US is, you'd understand why they have an illegal immigrant problem that's far larger than Singapore's for instance. And why it's so much tougher to solve, even with a huge fence along the Texas-Mexico border.

    Notwithstanding that people have legitimate need for guns (eg ranchers to protect themselves against wild animals, farmers who live in isolated communities where the nearest police station is 30 miles away), do you think that you could wipe out illegal arms even if you were handed control of all US police forces?

    What a joker!
    I dont see people in ranches out on killing sprees, do you?


    Im not saying abolish all arms, im saying make the availability of arms far harder so would be shooters have a much tougher time in obtaining fire power.

    This is clearly going nowhere because people believe in the 'old system' what was appropriate 200 years ago, no longer is, and should be changed. People do not need the right to a firearm, fullstop.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    You still don't get it, do you?

    They've tried banning things before in the past. It just didn't work. Again-- the immense size of America. Not just of the land, but of their minds.

    Eg. they tried to ban alcohol in the 30's, during the Prohibition Era. It only benefited the gangsters (Al Capone the most famous) who gained from the smuggling.

    They eventually realised that it was not only impossible, and that society has to tolerate a certain amount of alcohol. An outright ban would make problems much worse.

    I think Americans realise the same applies for firearms.

    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion View Post
    Im not saying abolish all arms, im saying make the availability of arms far harder so would be shooters have a much tougher time in obtaining fire power.

    This is clearly going nowhere because people believe in the 'old system' what was appropriate 200 years ago, no longer is, and should be changed.
    Quote Originally Posted by wildstallion View Post
    People do not need the right to a firearm, fullstop.
    Like abortion, your assertion above is one of the most heated debates in America, and one which (like S377A) will never get a consensus.

    In other words,

    (a) what may be right for you may not be right for your neighbour;

    (b) even as President, you'll have near-zero chance of pushing your belief through, assuming you can even get elected in the face of the powerful pro-gun lobbies.
    Last edited by waileong; 7th December 2007 at 07:15 AM.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    no, not rubbish at all

    there are still bombs
    an angsty american teenager could just grab a car and road rage it through the school, especially if his daddy is rich and owns an suv built like a tank

    like i said, so many ways to kill people. why limit yourself to a kitchen chopper?
    it is not that easy to drive an SUV and kill tens of people


    Kind of curious what are the adv. of allowing people to carry firearms? I am kind of curious what sort of arguements are put forward by the pro-gun camp, other than the freedom arguement.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30 View Post
    it is not that easy to drive an SUV and kill tens of people


    Kind of curious what are the adv. of allowing people to carry firearms? I am kind of curious what sort of arguements are put forward by the pro-gun camp, other than the freedom arguement.
    read the links i showed. certainly, but that's just an example to show how silly the logic that "guns kill, so we should ban them" sounds. it doesn't work that way. saying that it's an easy way of killing someone can easily be refuted by so many things. i know i would not want to be at the end of a gun. i also know that i would not want to be in the twin towers on 911. i also know that i would not want to be mowed down by a maniac driver with his super suv.

    in any case one would argue that even if you outlawed guns, there would be no proper means to control the gun population. making it expensive is easy to overcome. just illegal import it, and you still get your source of guns. same argument as how tough anti-drug laws just make things worse.. people just go underground and the situation is not improved, and in some cases worsened.

    i think a good policy which has been implemented in some places is compulsory gun registration. it's like a fine balance.. i.e. the people who would not use it for bad means would definitely have no qualms about registering it, no?

    in short:

    Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug
    trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount
    of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor
    additional gun laws.

    Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their
    proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics
    cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a
    country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned
    civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]

    Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws,
    good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing
    further impediments in the path of good citizens will further
    disproportionately disarm those good people - especially disarming good,
    poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.

    If "better" data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public
    policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim
    disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

    What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding
    citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection -
    guns.[26,27]
    some statistics

    The gun control debate has shifted over the last 20 years. Activists pointed to Britain, Australia and Canada as models of gun control policy; however, the statistics tell a far different story, says John Barnes of the Washington Policy Center.

    * In 1997 Britain banned handguns, and between 1998 and 2003 gun crimes doubled.
    * According the British Home Office, between 1997 and 2001 homicides increased by 19 percent and violent crime increased by 26 percent; meanwhile, in the United States, those same crimes fell by 12 percent.
    * Between 2000 and 2001, robbery increased by 28 percent in Britain but only 4 percent in the United States. Domestic burglary increased by 7 percent in Britain, but only 3 percent in the United States.
    * In 1996 Australia enacted sweeping gun control laws. In the six years following, violent crime rates rose by 32 percent.
    * Canada isn't faring well under its stringent gun control laws. Today Canada's violent crime rate is more than double the rate in the United States.
    Last edited by night86mare; 7th December 2007 at 07:54 AM.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Interesting debate and discussion.

    I remember a few things:

    1) Statistics can always be used and presented in a manner befitting a certain party.

    2) Friends in the UK and Aust have bemoaned that 'Since the firearms ban, law abiding citizens have one less means to protect themselves whereas criminals know where and how to get guns anytime they want'.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by Dream Merchant View Post
    Interesting debate and discussion.

    I remember a few things:

    1) Statistics can always be used and presented in a manner befitting a certain party.

    2) Friends in the UK and Aust have bemoaned that 'Since the firearms ban, law abiding citizens have one less means to protect themselves whereas criminals know where and how to get guns anytime they want'.
    indeed. to present a balanced view there have also been statistics which suggest an otherwise situation, i.e. that most gun-related killings are nothing to do with self-defense.. in fact the majority is centred around suicide and accidents. mostly suicides. but suicides.. well, let's just say that there are also 8000 ways to suicide so i guess it could have happened anyways.

    also, note that most crimes based at home are committed when people are out. also, when you're on the street, what are the chances that you have a gun?

    the funny thing is, people focus on guns even more now that there are school related killings. but how many of these happen? are they happening because of guns? like i've said before, guns have been around forever. they have not gotten easier OR harder to get, i would think, in the average sense. so the perceived increase in "gun massacres", i would say, has nothing to do with gun laws. nothing whatsoever.

  12. #52

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    The problem is a lot of people don't see it that way, or in any other way as it's always easier to blame one thing rather than to take into account the wide spectrum of (difficult and confounding) complexities presented by and to a large people and area. The simplitic approach of an outright ban has proven that it may not work positively or as intended. Complex problems cannot always be swept under the carpet by simplistic approaches and I don't think there's any simpler than a blanket ban.

    Humans have a tendency to being prone to obfuscation.
    Last edited by Dream Merchant; 7th December 2007 at 08:28 AM.

  13. #53

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Chill guys.

    I have not stayed in US, but travel there frequently for business. People there are indeed paranoid, to the nth degree actually.

    Every small little thing (e.g., chickens were culled in an Indonesian farm due to bird flu), which might seem factual to us, is blown up ridiculously by their media and basically scares the living sh*t out of everyone.

    I don't really blame the media, because "Monkey see, Monkey do". The media monkeys see that their government itself relies on the "scare tactic" to get what they want. Americans are under attack! The whole world hates us! There's always someone plotting against us!

    Couple that paranoia "someone's out to get us" mindset, with what every American was taught: this country was founded by fighting our way through. Conquest. Enterprise. Democracy. After all these years, for better or worse, America still is a cowboy town. The strong assert their strength over the weak. Unlike Singapore where regulation (or too much of it) ensure everyone, even those with hopeless survival skills (socially, enterprenually, etc) are given their "place" in the hierarchy to survive, America's social structure is fluid. Very fluid in fact, that everyone firmly believes their upwardly mobile. They will fight their way up. Fight against the strong. And that very spirit, while it's amicable, often results in the weak-minded taking the easy way out by pulling the trigger.

    It's a social problem. Can it be solved by banning fire arms? Sadly no. Social campaigns? Too freakin' big a country, so not feasible. It's a complex problem, something unfortunately that has no solution to this day.

    My prayers go to those who were lost in this senseless act.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    read the links i showed. certainly, but that's just an example to show how silly the logic that "guns kill, so we should ban them" sounds. it doesn't work that way. saying that it's an easy way of killing someone can easily be refuted by so many things. i know i would not want to be at the end of a gun. i also know that i would not want to be in the twin towers on 911. i also know that i would not want to be mowed down by a maniac driver with his super suv.
    Actually there is nothing wrong with the logic "gun kills so we should ban them".

    I have read the examples you quoted about airplanes, kitchen knifes, SUV, etc. But you have COMPLETELY missed the point. All those things you mentioned serve very useful purposes. The gain from keeping them far outweighs the additional safety from losing them.

    So let me ask again, what in the world does an average citizen needs a gun for?

    I think the obvious point is self defence. protecting your home. Perhaps it does deter a potential buglar if he knows that the owner could be armed with a shotgun... Or maybe it will just cause the buglar to get himself a bigger shotgun. In singapore, a buglar would probably not be armed to the teeth

    You yourself have mentioned the majority of the cases are suicide cases, disturbed people killing. And then you say there are no way to effect the ban as some guns will always get through. Common, if you are a hard core criminal determined to get a gun illegally, I say ya, it is possible. What we are talking about here is disturbed teenagers who decision to kill is not something set in stone and neither his motivation cast in iron. If there isn't such an easy access to firearms, many things could happen. He doesn't have the willpower nor the means to get a firearm OR in the process of obtaining one, he gets caught. Or He changes his mind halfway through.


    OF COURSE, everyone knows it is not the gun that kills and the fault lies in the hand that pulls the trigger. Ultimately, I feel the point is what is the benefits of gun possession have compared to the harm it does. It is not where the blame lies but rather which course of action is more beneficial for the country.
    Last edited by wind30; 7th December 2007 at 09:23 AM.

  15. #55

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by wind30 View Post
    Actually there is nothing wrong with the logic "gun kills so we should ban them".

    I have read the examples you quoted about airplanes, kitchen knifes, SUV, etc. But you have COMPLETELY missed the point. All those things you mentioned serve very useful purposes. The gain from keeping them far outweighs the additional safety from losing them.
    not true.

    if you were to weigh the absolute benefit and absolute deficit the presence of one additional car brings to the world, then i would say that it is entirely possible that you might actually end up with a net deficit, like it or not. think pollution, road congestion (perhaps some benefits, while immediate are not that realistic after all). i am sure that someone can walk faster in orchard road when it is having a traffic jam, than in a car. you must also consider what we would call, externalities.. things that actually reduce the social benefit of any commodity.

    there are other uses for guns. hunting (yes, people derive pleasure from the killing of harmless animals), defense against not just PEOPLE, but also other things, like animals, especially if you are a farmer. you might also say, what does a nonprofessional photographer need a professional camera for? what does a non-physicist need a physics textbook for?

    if you must have more solid examples which are fairer comparisons to guns per se, then perhaps kitchen implements for a person who does not use them, axes, chainsaws, the list goes on. you simply have no way of proving that someone does not need a gun in his lifetime, that is my point. if we say that we don't need to prove it, then we should just BAN people from not buying cars that they don't drive - yes it happens.. BAN people from buying knives that they collect.. you do see where i'm going do you? back to the freedom part. are we to say that if someone buys something that could be a killer tool, but he doesn't actually use it, that it will eventually end up harming society? the answer is clear.

    If there isn't such an easy access to firearms, many things could happen. He doesn't have the willpower nor the means to get a firearm OR in the process of obtaining one, he gets caught. Or He changes his mind halfway through.

    OF COURSE, everyone knows it is not the gun that kills and the fault lies in the hand that pulls the trigger. Ultimately, I feel the point is what is the benefits of gun possession have compared to the harm it does. It is not where the blame lies but rather which course of action is more beneficial for the country.
    yes, many things could happen. do you think all depressed teenagers find that the easiest way to kill people to relieve their pent up frustrations is all the time a firearm? or that without a firearm teenagers are resourceless? there are so many other things, like i've said. a simple household cleaner mixed with food to toxic levels, or other sorts of chemicals readily accessible to anyone and everyone. school labs have chemicals easily available within reach.

    you have to read my whole argument as a whole, it does not come together without you piecing it together, and i do not have time to type an entire essay where the structure is solid. i have mentioned all this before already, if you had bothered to read. it is all very easy to sit back and say that we all know the absolute benefits that gun possession bring to society, that it is negligible, and that it brings more harm. but have you ever stopped to think that the media hypes things up for its own purpose?

    think again - how many countries have people who get killed by guns, who are on the global scene? yet you only have so many reports flowing out from countries.. which i think you'll find have had guns on the political plate at one point in time or another.

    the media is a powerful tool. it can build up artistes from zero to hero - just look at the mtv success stories. i'd wager that if the media keeps drumming on the fact that falling flower pots claim xxx lives per year, people would start making noise about how their neighbours have flower pots on their ledges, and start asking for a law to prevent this. but how often do you get a totally clean media? you get varied reports (as in the case of guns, even in statistics).. it all depends on your agenda to start with.

  16. #56

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    on another note, a short search on google on gun law issues reveals a quote from a book supposedly about what we are discussing:

    Lott, an economist, is a good researcher and writer. His account of the multiple murder at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, VA in January, 2002 is an eye-opener.

    Lott did a search in the media database called Lexis-Nexis to find articles written about the shooting. The base contained 208 unique articles, and one of them by the Associated Press would have been picked up by literally thousands of newspapers. Other articles would have also had widespread distribution.

    Of the 208 articles about the law school shooter, only four mentioned that there had been a defensive gun use. Indeed, two students upon hearing the shots, ran to their vehicles and brought their guns within the 1,000 foot gun-free zone that has been unconstitutionally established by federal law. They encountered the murderer as he was finishing reloading. At the sight of their guns drawing down on him, he surrendered.
    what i said ^^

    source page

    appalachian school of law shooting article, wikipedia - seems to back up what the article says

    think again. i suppose.. those two students might not have done better if they went bearing gifts and homage?

    4/208 that gives a result of 1.9%. so while we are whining away about the freedom of press versus bias here in our backyard, we neglect the fact that the same thing goes around everywhere. just because someone is given absolute freedom doesn't mean they will do the right thing. only 1.9% of the accounts are possibly balanced? oh please. wake up and open your eyes.
    Last edited by night86mare; 7th December 2007 at 10:55 AM.

  17. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    west
    Posts
    1,257

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by garou12 View Post


    People in general seem to forget that its not guns that kill people. Its people who kill people.
    agreed.
    people kills people
    the tools might vary but in the end it is the mentality
    but while we cannot change mentality and thinking over a short period of time
    we can however deny those who are not capable of rational thoughts the use of a firearm
    again we can argue that they can use other tools

    I know where everyone is coming from, but i feel that more can be done to help

  18. #58

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Reading through I think everyone misunderstand liao.

    Banning firearms in US might be out of question because will such killings might be reduced, it would increase armed robbery and other darker trades where citizens doesn't have the deterrent "arms". I don't know if any country have security like Sg, not only the police force but "tamed" citizens.

    Only see US meh? How about Africa?

    At the end of the day, constitution or not, the govt can educate and influence mindsets.

    wildstallion might be ranting, but I do agree to a few of the points he brought up, as in to tax guns more heavily, just like what Sg do to cars and petrol prices. Maybe with RFID technology, specific disabling features can be implemented.
    Last edited by CYRN; 7th December 2007 at 11:58 AM.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN View Post
    How about Africa?
    Here's some food for thought: In Africa they have a saying: In Africa whoever has the power over life and death is god.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Rights to bear arms for some have resulted in lost of rights to live for others

    Quote Originally Posted by garou12 View Post
    Here's some food for thought: In Africa they have a saying: In Africa whoever has the power over life and death is god.
    there's sure many gods there then.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •