It's a simple question about human rights. If you believe in human rights, you accept the necessity of self-defense. Without self-defense, there can be no human rights, only the illusion of them.
When a person employs the use of lethal force against an attacker, that attacker becomes unable to spread certain genetic deficiencies which poison the human genome affecting the quality of life for the future of humanity. It's a scientific fact, irrespective of what anybody believes, that every action or inaction will have a future consequence or reaction of some sort. It's already been established that a deficiency must be present to violently rape another person, no reasonable person would do it.
If you believe people are utterly incapable of determining when they need to defend themselves, then continue your gun control crusade. But if you believe you could identify an attack against yourself, and choose when it's reasonable to defend yourself, then gun control is an oppression on your ability to enact a dire need to defend yourself.
This is just so much bullshit it burns my eyes...
1/ No it's not a question of Human rights. The declaration of Human Rights says nothing about self defense but about security, and considering that violent crimes and rapes are more frequent in the USA than in Europe I'd say security is better here. It's a question of pros and cons of letting the people own killing machines nothing else!
2/ This utter bullshit implies that criminals have some perticular "crime genes" which is, not only stupid and not proved scientifically, but is also implying that being a criminal has nothing to do with your social status/condition/education but is all in your genes.
3/ Well go look at the number of deaths by firearms and massive killings in the USA and I'd say it's rather logical to assume that some people absolutely have no sense of control and it's far better to let the guns to the police.
Please attempt to keep this civilized, I'm not interested in dramatic episodes and name calling. If you're interested in an actual discussion, I'll oblige.
1. Human rights are an individual issue, every person is entitled to 100% of their share of human rights. As long as violent crimes and rapes occur, security is an individual effort. You're discounting the human rights of the victims by looking at the issue from a collective perspective. From the standpoint of a collective, some rate of violent crime is both expected, and acceptable. However, from the perspective of the individual, no rate of violent crime is acceptable, or expected, and these events directly affect the individual. I don't expect everyone to understand, there has been a tremendous level of propaganda targeted at minimizing the importance of the individual for years...
People are killing machines, bred through the fires of war, capable of immense destruction. Guns are a construct from the minds of man, and honestly they aren't nearly the most dangerous or insidious of those constructs. It's simply a coincidence that they are utilized in the commission of violent crimes...
2. I didn't say they have "crime genes" but studies have shown genetics to directly affect many contributing factors which lead to the commission of crimes. Impulse, attitude, disposition, compassion, cognitive processes; all affected by genetics. While external factors also affect the occurrence of crimes, genetics certainly plays a part in it. This is natural law, I'm sorry but you can't reasonably discount this fact any more than you could discount the existence of reality; no more than when a person claims to live in an imaginary world as a figment of their own dream, to an external body such assertions are baseless and the proof is self-evident...
3. I think humanity is plagued by people who refuse to see the problems for what they actually are. It's easy to see things on the surface, but more difficult to think critically and discover the roots of an issue. Even when a problem appears so obvious on its face, as with gun control; to propose a solution which doesn't address any of the underlying root causes will guarantee failure. Murder will exist, people are flawed, and police are people too. Balance in nature enables life, imbalance leads to extinction. Is it really the guns that bother you, or is it the murder? If it's the murder that bothers you, gun control isn't the solution...
Also, since America is clearly so full of guns; ask yourself, how many of the victims (without gang affiliation) were armed at the time when they were raped or murdered? Perhaps that should be included in statistical analysis...
That's an honest question which I feel is of significant importance to the question and the issue at hand...
