The Six Legal Evils of the World?

Ban smoking? As a smoker, that would make me pretty angry, considering I would be left with an illegal addiction. Imagine the amount of people that would all of a sudden have a habit that was illegal. People would have to get their cigarettes on the black market which would be insane. I can't see how any reasonable person could be for banning cigarettes. If someone decides that they want to start smoking despite all the information out there about how bad it is for you, then let them smoke.

All this talk about cigarettes makes me need one.

If you want to smoke that is okay and it is your life. However, when you smoke around other people (specifically little kids) it can be extremely harmful to them. You aren't just harming yourself when you lit one up in public (or even in your own home with your family). You have to keep that in mind.

3. Guns
I am strongly against banning guns, mainly because I live in a rural area and I enjoy hunting and shooting sports. I know several families who would starve, or at least be a drain on welfare, if not for the animals they hunt. That being said, nobody in a city has almost no business owning a gun. It should be a very strict process for purchasing a gun, and an unlicensed gun should be a big crime.

I'm 100% all for hunting. I was ignorant about hunting for many years till a couple years ago when I read about how hunting is important for the life cycle and regulation of animal population. To clarify, I should have said handguns or guns that aren't meant for hunting, but meant for "self defense."

What is the thing (cigarettes, alcohol, drugs) that annoy you guys the most?

I don't hang with people that do drugs, I'm not in the same room with a smoker, and I don't mind alcohol. It's not that smokers or drinkers are annoying, but sometimes they don't give the same kind of respect back.

Just a side question but, Indy, how did you take up smoking? Anyone else who smokes can also answer this question. I don't smoke or take drugs (then again, I'm only 16, but counterpoint, there are those who are my age who are drug addicts) and have been interested in the answer to this question from those who do smoke. (I hope this doesn't hi-jack the thread )

Ciggarettes and drinking should be illegal to the public imo. It should only be legal if you smoke or drink outside your home, not in the public like riot said. Smoking and drinking ages should be left as it is though. But if you want to improve the community, just do the simple thing: Don't smoke, drink or do drugs and spread the word.

Why are so many people against having guns for protection? Do you even know the statistics of people owning guns for protection? Let me give you some facts about gun ownership and even some information from police departments in the United States about gun control.

A Florida State criminologist did a study on how often (in America) a gun is used for protection in a year. He came up with 800,000 to 2,500,000 times in one year alone. This is used in self defense for protection and the majority of these uses are from handguns and no shots are ever fired.

The National Institute of Justice did a survey of criminals and over 38% of them said they decided against doing a particular crime due to fear of that the victim could have a firearm. This tells me that criminals are thinking about the citizens right to protect themselves. It goes back to the old question. If you were a criminal looking to break into a house, would you break into the house that a sign that said they support gun control or the one that says they don't support gun control? That answer is pretty damn obvious.

Many of you are going to say something along the lines of, "Well Riot, America has more violent crimes than many other nations and it is because of guns." You would be right, because that is a fact of living in America and whether or not the last part is correct is really up for interuptation. However, the telling statistic is the rate of burglary of occupied residences. America has a lower rate than those nations that have gun control laws. I can think of a good reason why Americans don't get robbed when they are home and it probably has to do something with 38% of criminals not wanting to do a crime out of fear of a firearm by the victim.

There are 35,000 gun deaths in a year in America. That is a very large number (too large) and it shouldn't be overlooked. With that said, for everyone one death over 65 lives are protected by civilian owned firearms. It breaks down to roughly five lives saved per minute. They estimate that over 500,000 of those uses a year actually saved atleast one life. You can't tell me that isn't worth it.

The majority of homicides come from inner cities and those aren't because of gun ownerships. Most of the deaths have to deal with drug trafficking and poverty. If you take away the inner cities, which I admit is a useless stat, then America's homicide rates are lower than most industrial nations. The reason why 35,000 people die in America via firearm isn't because of the right to bare arms but rather the addiction and poverty level of the kids and families in the inner city. If you take away guns from the rest of the country the number wouldn't go down. In fact, there would be even more violent crimes because those 2,500,000 times that gun protection did work would now be lost due to the gun control laws.

The states with the loose gun control laws have the lowest homicide rates in the country but those that have stricter laws have the highest? It is illegal for teenagers to buy guns yet black teenagers are the ones with the highest homicide rate. "The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average." So the ones who do own the guns aren't the ones getting killed! It's the ones who are already banned from getting them in the first place. By placing a ban on guns you aren't taking it out of the hands of the teenagers or the gangbangers, you are taking it out of the hands of those who actually use it for protection.

The National Safety Council says accidental gun accidents are at an all time low (200 accidents per year) and have been falling steadily. This pretty much debunks the myth that having a gun is begging for an accident to happen.

The suicide issue is an interesting one. For those places that have gun control their suicide rate via firearm is actually less than the places that don't. This is the statistic I am given when people are talking about how bad gun ownership is. What they don't look at is that the actual suicide rate doesn't go down, it stays the same. The difference is in those places where they can't get guns they end up killing themselves via auto exhust, hanging, leaping or more. They find a way to kill themselves regardless.

The bottom line is this: having a gun for protection works. It saves lives every year in America. There are statistics to back it up. The vast majority of gun deaths are due to drugs or poverty and take place in the inner city. The telling statistic for me is this: for every one life lost by firearm there are 65 saved by one.

Source #1
Source #2

So what you are saying is people who live in rural areas should have more rights than people who live in the city? Who says those who live in the city don't like hunting, too? What is considered the city? If you live in the suburbs is that considered the city? What you are telling me is you should have the right to own a gun but other people can't just because of where you live in America. That isn't right.

Riot, Riot, Riot. I love how you put words in people's mouth just to make your argument look stronger. I said NOTHING about only people living in rural areas being able to own guns. I just don't think people who use them for purposes other than sport are a little bit misguided. A firearm in the home is far more likely to kill a freind than a foe, and while I don't have the time to find them, statistics back this up. In order to keep a weapon in the home which could potentially be used against an intruder, you would have to either store the gun loaded, or at least in the same place you store the bullets, which is a VERY BAD idea if you have kids around. I just think the whole "gun for protection" thing is very overrated.


Indy, what about those of us who end up paying welfare to people because of their nicotine addictions? To say that people smoking doesn't affect me is silly. I have to pay higher insurance because of those who end up getting cancer and can't foot the bill.

The National Safety Council says accidental gun accidents are at an all time low (200 accidents per year) and have been falling steadily. This pretty much debunks the myth that having a gun is begging for an accident to happen.

But it doesn't change the fact that America has the highest accidental child death by guns rate, regardless of the low number.

for every one life lost by firearm there are 65 saved by one.

Like you said, a very high number of gun deaths take place in America, but that's a given because they have the right to bear arms. The statistic of one life lost with 65 lives saved by one is a given, because every citizen is given the right to bear arms. Instead of setting a situation using words, they go for the gun, because they are immediately granted the upper hand with extreme power. Take away the guns, then maybe they'll go for a knife or actually settle things using words.

As for the low burglary, it's a given because America is a culture of fear. Everybody carries guns, everybody is in fear of one another. The 65 lives saved are because of fear.

I understand what you mean by, if you ban guns, it doesn't stop the murder of those who still possess them illegally. It's kind of a "too late" situation where a culture was built from the fear and protection of handguns. Banning handguns might not work in America after all.

As for reducing burglary, a good home security system would do the trick.

But it doesn't change the fact that America has the highest accidental child death by guns rate, regardless of the low number.

Well, of course because we have more guns. It's like saying something along the lines of..."California has more death by sharks than Minnesota so California should ban swimming in the ocean!" There are good things about having legal gun ownership and there are bad things about it. However, the majority of those who use the gun ownership for protection use it for good and not evil.

Like you said, a very high number of gun deaths take place in America, but that's a given because they have the right to bear arms. The statistic of one life lost with 65 lives saved by one is a given, because every citizen is given the right to bear arms.

The statistic really isn't a "given". I haven't seen anyone mention it or bring it up before in these kind of debates. I hear a lot of people saying it is bullshit that people own guns for protection because it never works or they never use it or some random comment about how it's just an excuse to own a gun. The statistics I posted show you that Americans use guns to protect themselves and they do it rather responsibly. Here is another statistic for you. Americans use their guns (meaning pull it out, not fire) around 2.5 million times a year for protection but only 0.1% of those cases result in the death of the intruder or attacker.

Instead of setting a situation using words, they go for the gun, because they are immediately granted the upper hand with extreme power. Take away the guns, then maybe they'll go for a knife or actually settle things using words.

That is not true and the U.S. Bureau of Justice and other organizations say so. First off, 37% of non-gun owners were injuried before they began self-defensive actions compared to only 13% of gun owners. That tells me right there that owning a gun protects you better. Here are some more statistics they offer regarding owning a gun and not owning a gun.

Code:

“According to U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics data, having a gun and being able to use it in a defensive situation is the most effective means of avoiding injury (moreso even than offering no resistance) and thwarting completion of a robbery or assault.” -talk.politics.guns Official Pro-Gun FAQ 1/2

“The Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey reports that the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than for women resisting with a gun. Men also benefit from using a gun, but the benefits are smaller: Offering no resistance is 1.4 times more likely to result in serious injury than resisting with a gun. Resistance with a gun is the safest course of action for victims to take.” John Lott “Gun Control Advocates Purvey Deadly Myths”, Wall Street Journal 11/11/98

Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed data from the Department of Justice (1979-1985 National Crime Survey public use computer tapes). He found victims that defended themselves with a gun against a robbery or an assault, had the least chance of being injured, or of having the crime completed. Doing nothing, trying to escape, reasoning with the offender, or physical resistance (other than with a gun), all had higher probabilities of injury and crime completion.” http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html

As you can see, owning a gun is the SAFEST and most EFFECTIVE way to protect yourself if you are attacked. You aren't going to be able to talk it out with some guy. You aren't going to be able to get into a fist fight and try to beat the guy up. You aren't going to be able to pull your cellphone out, call the cops and wait 10 minutes before they respond.

As for the low burglary, it's a given because America is a culture of fear. Everybody carries guns, everybody is in fear of one another. The 65 lives saved are because of fear.

Yes, they are scared shitless that a person they attack could defend themselves with a firearm. How is this a bad thing? Do you want the criminals to have no fear? The American government will not protect you from everything. In fact, it's closer to nothing than it is to everything. You have to be able to protect yourself and deal with the realities of the world. If you are a trained and legalized gun owner then you have a better chance of getting out alive and with miminal property loss than if you didn't. Statistics prove that.

I understand what you mean by, if you ban guns, it doesn't stop the murder of those who still possess them illegally. It's kind of a "too late" situation where a culture was built from the fear and protection of handguns. Banning handguns might not work in America after all.

It wouldn't work at all. The criminals would still have their hands on guns. You could still get guns on the black market. All you are doing is taking them away from the law-abiding citizens who are using them to protect themselves or for sport. Therefore, you are basically handing the criminals free food by doing that. You are hurting the innocent and helping the guilty. It wouldn't make sense at all.

As for reducing burglary, a good home security system would do the trick.

Yes, but you wouldn't have the security system on when you are home. The statistic I gave is burglaries when someone at the home is present.

Yes, but you wouldn't have the security system on when you are home. The statistic I gave is burglaries when someone at the home is present.

That sucks. Mainly, I think it's a difference of cultures. In your case, having firearms in America is a good thing because it's used for protection more than for murder, despite the high numbers on both ends. But it's a culture that they surround themselves in.

In Canada, it's very rare for a burglary to happen when somebody is at home. If there's a light on inside the house, a burglary will never happen because people are afraid of getting caught. People leave their doors open often, though I don't do that, but it shows they're not worried such things would happen. I think it's that in Canadian culture, people aren't afraid of each other because nobody carries guns, except for the criminals. If they stay away from gangs and criminal-related activity, the chances of getting shot are minimal.

America is also more dense and we have more people therefore we have more bad apples in a confined area.

I'm sure people in Toronto don't leave their doors unlocked just like people in New York City don't leave their doors unlocked. However, people in the country leave their garage doors open at night in America and don't lock their cars. It depends where you are in the country. Like I said, the majority of gun violence takes place in the inner city and that is more due to drug and gang related activities than anything else. Gun control wouldn't stop those crimes.

I don't feel like doing the whole quoting thing, so I'm just going to address everything I can remember.

1.) Second hand smoking only is harmful to those who are exposed to it on a regular basis. If you go to bars all the time where people are smoking, you'll be effected, or if you smoke around your kids all the time. Smoking a cigarette outside does not make everyone who walks by you sick.

2.) So because something is harmful to your body means that it should be outlawed? Wow, do I even really have to touch this argument? What a stupid thing to say.

3.) I started smoking when I was about 13, I'm 20 now. I don't know how I started, I just tried one and liked it a lot. That's pretty much all there is to it.

1.) Second hand smoking only is harmful to those who are exposed to it on a regular basis. If you go to bars all the time where people are smoking, you'll be effected, or if you smoke around your kids all the time. Smoking a cigarette outside does not make everyone who walks by you sick.

What about waiters and waitresses who are forced to work in the smoking sections of restraunts? Or bartenders who have to breathe in the smoke while at work? What about the innocent kids who have to breathe their parents smoke every single day? You are right, unless you are with a smoker a lot second hand smoke is nothing more than a disgusting feeling.

2.) So because something is harmful to your body means that it should be outlawed? Wow, do I even really have to touch this argument? What a stupid thing to say.

It's not just harmful to your body. It kills millions of people per year. And imo, you should only be allowed to smoke outside your home. Don't smoke to the public, no one around you likes it, and you are subject to second hand smoking. It won't kill you, but it will hurt you. When I was young, I sleept in my uncle's house for about two weeks which was almost full of the smell of smoke. It really kills your lungs to have that smell, I felt like spitting.

Like I said, smoking should only be legal if you smoke outside your house with no one around. I think smoking in the public should be outlawed.

Its a good thing you don't run the country then.

I am against smoking, but there isn't really significant evidence that second hand smoking is bad for anyone. It just makes your clothes smell like shit when you're in smoke infested areas.
There are a few reports but there are so many things wrong about those reports that they shouldn't be considered valid.

Actually, there's a great Chris Rock bit about that gun topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

Sure, it's funny. But he's got a point there...

and what bout drugs? why don't u want to ban 'em!

and what bout drugs? why don't u want to ban 'em!

Cause they ain't legal.

there's laws in place that prevent selling alcohol to people who have had too much. but not people who have had too much junk food or too many cigarettes. i work in a petrol station, and the amount of massively obese people who come in and buy huge packets of chips and chocolate bars and what-have-you is staggering.

so many times have i wished i could refuse service to them. and its the same with cigarettes. women come in that sound like men, and another guy came in, (another fat guy) who could hardly breathe and bought cigarettes.

Where's the consistency?

Here in Australia, smoking is banned indoors. You can only smoke outside. Everyone likes this, except for the smokers.

I'd ban gans, but we don't have any of those here.

I am against smoking, but there isn't really significant evidence that second hand smoking is bad for anyone. It just makes your clothes smell like shit when you're in smoke infested areas.
There are a few reports but there are so many things wrong about those reports that they shouldn't be considered valid.

Explain how there's so many things done with the studies on second hand smoke. I'd never heard anything of that nature, before.

I am against smoking, but there isn't really significant evidence that second hand smoking is bad for anyone. It just makes your clothes smell like shit when you're in smoke infested areas.
There are a few reports but there are so many things wrong about those reports that they shouldn't be considered valid.

Explain how there's so many things done with the studies on second hand smoke. I'd never heard anything of that nature, before.

My guess is that the studies where second hand smoke is harmless are from Big Tobacco.

Actually, there's a great Chris Rock bit about that gun topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

Sure, it's funny. But he's got a point there...

That's true actually. He does have a good point.

I bet the American government could raise taxes on bullets, but they'd lose too many votes from the rednecks.

Except that most rednecks make thier own bullets, meaning the tax would only be on the non-rednecks that buy bullets.

Last edited by Christopherson on Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That's true actually. He does have a good point.

I bet the American government could raise taxes on bullets, but they'd lose too many votes from the rednecks.

Right on the fucking head...