Gun Control

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

ahhh… that argument… that was a terrible incident, but where was the parent? why was the gun not secure? also we don’t know why this parent owned this gun or if the parent was careless… why did the child know where the gun was? there is such thing as gun safety… the problem is that our western society has thought of guns in such a manner, via early TV reinforcement, that there cool to shoot at someone else… that is where the tragedy lies… children are exposed to violence everyday… even cartoons could reinforce shooting… a good disney or loony tunes, can reinforce the false sense of security that guns don’t actually kills anyone… it’s all in how they are viewed… then people are killed… and we are given tougher gun laws… and then no protection from intrusion… and the constitutional-abolitment (atleast in the US) of the second amendment…

Oh my goodness. This was pretty rambl-y, and i’m not sure where to begin. First, irrespective of the manner in which the guns were kept, yada yada yada, more restrictive gun laws may well have kept that gun out of the hands of that particular idiot (i.e. poor parent). As for the “violence on TV perpetuating gun killings” - if there were no guns, it would be impossible to shoot other people. Again, this is something the parents should be controlling anyway. As for “protection from intrusion” - i’m still not buying that as a valid argument - especially given the number of violent intrusions into non-gang members homes. As for the second ammendment - well, i’m not sure its that useful a constitution to require an ammendment that allows a nation of violent people to own guns to their hearts content.

what about the parent that is responsible…. if there is someone that knows it’s proper use then why must they be restricted because someone else cannot grow up??? And the responsible person(s) don’t show up in the news… irresponsible ones do… gotta go will expound more later…

I’m not saying Viewing it on tv is making us a violent society, But it doesn’t help and it also reinforces the idea that a gun is “safe”… there needs to be an adult responsible in it explaining it to the child… the problem is not with option 1 because there was a time where children were not getting killed by guns in this country (US and I would automatically assume the Canadians are in this as well) then something happened and we seemingly auto reverted to option 2…

@Janus1:

look, fact of the matter is, a gun is just like any other product. it is very easy to kill someone with a number of things people own around the home. even things when not used as a weapon, proper safety is preached. the situation with a gun is the same thing. proper safety is necessary. you continually confuse guns with a destructive force. they are capable of this, yes, but thats not what they are.

This is exactly what guns are. That is all they are. You can not eat them, you can not till a garden with them. They are very impractical for writing with, they were manufactured for one purpose - to KILL people. They are owned specifically for the purpose of KILLING other people. But of course we are sooo stupid that we are surprised when someone dies as a result of proximity to a gun. A gun is nothing like any other product. I can walk into an area with 10 people and easily kill half of them with little effort. Please tell me you can do this with “any other object”. Even a 12 y/o can kill multiple people with a gun. Give a 12 y/o a knife and send him in to kill a bunch of classmates. Good luck.
Yes we preach safety about a number of objects (studying paediatrics right now - this is one of my functions). Very few of these other objects are so useful in destroying people as a gun. Nope, a gun is a purely destructive force - there are few forces as destructive.

as long as you own and operate your gun safely and smartly (yes, smartly), there is no reason you should not have it.
to say that america is a violent culture is redundant. humanity by nature is violent, this is true of all societys, everywhere on the planet. america gets most of the press however because of our size, and power. whether or not it actually is more violent, i dont think anyone can truly say, but if it is, this is also largely due to its diversity. its a melting pot.

it is not redundant.
There are few societies that have popularized violence the way that America has. It’s best selling movies and video games are the most violent. With the exception of WW II they are the first nation to bomb another and they are quick to generate conflict. It’s not just about “size and power” - it’s about the desire and willingness to use that size and power irrespective of the sovereignty of other nations. Their murder rate is horrendous for a “civilized” country (and i’m not even referring to the death penalty).
As for diversity - Canada is at least, if not more diverse than America. The difference is we’re more of a salad than a melting pot (i.e. less emphasis on assimilation). This has little to do with the fact that America’s love of its guns results in a bizaare number of its citizens being whacked so frequently.

it is destructive but it can serve in the positive realm… Hunting wise it helped man to kill his prey with efficiency and accuracy and still does… it can also threaten in a good sense if your being harassed… although very few other places are safer and I’d rather live in the US (or Canada) then Lybia, guns narrow the threaten level down… obviously they raise a risk but you can make that risk less harmful…

GG

@Guerrilla:

what about the parent that is responsible…. if there is someone that knows it’s proper use then why must they be restricted because someone else cannot grow up???

@Guerrilla:

…it can also threaten in a good sense if your being harassed… although very few other places are safer and I’d rather live in the US (or Canada) then Lybia, guns narrow the threaten level down… obviously they raise a risk but you can make that risk less harmful…

For the first: so you are for some gun control, in the sense that people should prove that they are responsible and capable to wisely secure/own guns?

For the second: I think USies are feeling threatened very easily by a lot of things. And, you cannot make the risk “less harmful” as it is rarely you who shoot yourself, but someone else who shoots you (and you can’t make that less harmful).

Reveiw history and you will see that those who advocated gun(weapon)
control were typically those in power.

The formula is very simple: I can’t control you
if you have a means to defend yourself.

(In Europe all anyone had to do was run to the Lord’s Manor.)

In America People are for gun control because of the violence they
see (and experience) every day.

Criminals will find ways to get guns, be it here, Europe or Australlia!

What folks ought to want to eradicate is not guns, but crime.
And criminals should be treated as crimminals, not “locked up
misunderstood victims”!

Someone here has the tag “Gun control is HITTING your target”
I say amen!

@sherman28:

Reveiw history and you will see that those who advocated gun(weapon)
control were typically those in power.

Review modern times and you will see that those who advocate gun control are usually those who are civilized… only some islamic nations and the US seem to stick out…

The formula is very simple: I can’t control you
if you have a means to defend yourself.

Nonsense. Total Nonsense. Gandhi had no guns. Machiavelli pretty nicely explained why control over your people has nothing to do with weapons and arms.
Which Revolution of “well armed” citizens do you know, and which one was successful? It is more the number(s), and the will … how decided the people are not to let themselves be controlled.

In America People are for gun control because of the violence they
see (and experience) every day.

As i said, i think USies feel threatened very easily.

Criminals will find ways to get guns, be it here, Europe or Australlia!

True. And?

Someone here has the tag “Gun control is HITTING your target”
I say amen!

You can’t be christian, so, using the phrase “amen” you probably are jewish, or is there a fault in my reasoning?

Sadly F_alk, in my country and in the US, the “religious right” seems to back instutions that kill other people - whether it be tobacco companies, the NRA (and its Canadian equivalent) as well as arms companies. This goes for the death penalty, the propensity to “go out and kick another nation’s a$$” etc. Perhaps their only saving grace is their intolerance for abortion.
So one may indeed add an “amen” in North America and claim “Christianity”.
(or were you being facetious? stupid Germans and their language idioms . . . ;))

@F_alk:

@Guerrilla:

what about the parent that is responsible…. if there is someone that knows it’s proper use then why must they be restricted because someone else cannot grow up???

@Guerrilla:

…it can also threaten in a good sense if your being harassed… although very few other places are safer and I’d rather live in the US (or Canada) then Lybia, guns narrow the threaten level down… obviously they raise a risk but you can make that risk less harmful…

For the first: so you are for some gun control, in the sense that people should prove that they are responsible and capable to wisely secure/own guns?

For the second: I think USies are feeling threatened very easily by a lot of things. And, you cannot make the risk “less harmful” as it is rarely you who shoot yourself, but someone else who shoots you (and you can’t make that less harmful).

1. maybe… some Knowledge that the person is responsible, but not complete outlaw gun laws…

2. Yes we feel threatened vy “terrorism”, but are we really scared of a Military guy walking into are house and torturing us to death because we said something slightly wrong?

CC…
Criminals have always found a way to get guns… period. there not trying to get discovored by the police and thinking that gun laws wil slow down armed robbery is crazy…

Just MHO…

You have to make a drivers license to be allowed to drive a car. Is there an equivalent thing for the possession of weapons?

GG, i guess you would not call “the need for a drivers license” “outlawing cars”, would you?

CC, you understood me correclty (yay :) ), i meant that “amen” in a thread about the main tool of violence … it seems just too inappropiate using the end of the prayers in the “love thy enemy” religion when justifying the use of weapons…

@F_alk:

You have to make a drivers license to be allowed to drive a car. Is there an equivalent thing for the possession of weapons?

GG, i guess you would not call “the need for a drivers license” “outlawing cars”, would you?

CC, you understood me correclty (yay :) ), i meant that “amen” in a thread about the main tool of violence … it seems just too inappropiate using the end of the prayers in the “love thy enemy” religion when justifying the use of weapons…

As far as cars, most laws are just useless…

I’ll edit my post and add “maybe” at the top :wink: …

Your last commetn was very well put :D … my religion is not just about "love thy enemy"although that is a major part of it…

Yes I am a Christian. I have not advocated violence on this thread. I disagree with a set of laws that exist in the local, state and federal levels
with regard to the ownership of firearms. So now according to F alk and crypt I’m a conservative right -wing -gun -toting -anti -choice -fanatic?

You are starting to bore me!

@sherman28:

Yes I am a Christian. I have not advocated violence on this thread. I disagree with a set of laws that exist in the local, state and federal levels
with regard to the ownership of firearms. So now according to F alk and crypt I’m a conservative right -wing -gun -toting -anti -choice -fanatic?

You are starting to bore me!

no, I agree with you Sherman28… As a christian, were not supposed to be advocating violence… but what is your stance? a Right winger with a twist perhaps :wink:

Look there is going to be gun control in the US. Like it or not.
It’s politically unfeasible to roll back any gun control legislation such as the Assault Weapons ban. (When that ban was due to expire this Summer
Pres. Bush extended it.) As a sportsman I can tell you that a Military caliber isn’t really that advantageous when hunting deer. Also I don’t need to fire a magazine of 30 rounds at an animal i’m intending to eat.
In short I don’t keep assault weapons because they don’t suit my purpose.
I don’t think it is wrong for people to want to own one.
With all due respect to F alk, people motives for firearms ownbership are their own and none of my business.

I get aggravated with people who have (in their mind) a picture of
a “typical gun owner” and start recklessly throwing lables around.

I find it ironic that folks who label THEMSELVES “Pro-Choice”
seem to have a hard time accepting the choices that others make.

The Assualt rifle thing was related to having one vs. a police tate having one… And I think what you just said unfortanetly sums it up… but most gun owners are not reckless…

There should be three kinds of guns in this country.

1. Guns designed for hunting
2. Guns designed for policemen
3. Guns designed for the military

I challenge you to name for me one reason why you need a gun other than the three above mentioned reasons, if no one else has a gun.

Ok, i"d like to add a few thoughts to the “criminals will get firearms anyway” arguement.
First question is, are we talking about fanatics and terrorists here, or about the “usual” robber, gang member etc. ?

For the first, sure, no weapons ban will have any effect there.
For the second… which i think most people have in mind when they announce the above claim:
These criminals are not criminals “for fun”, but as an occupation. Thus, they want to earn money with it. Outlawing guns makes forces them into the black market, raising the prices significantly.
So, to stay profitable, these criminals have to either commit more crimes … (which doesn’t happen, if you look at the worlds’ statistics) … or they will stick to “cheaper” guns/weaponry. That means, instead of a fully automatic assault rifle they maybe buy (and later use) just by a .22 handgun. (the difference between outlawing guns and drugs is that the gun-user is not addicted, and thus has a choice!)

Sure, any criminal will get any weapon, and any weapon he likes, if he wants to pay the price. But, do we really have to keep the prices down for them? Make it easier for them to get the weapons, just because they would get them anyway? That’s like saying: hell, any terrorist can get hands on handgrenades… we should make them legal…

To sherman:
It seems that this “none of my business” talk is used quite a lot.
Is it my business wether a head of any country tries to improve his armed forces by getting hands on WMDs?
Why is the second so different from the “other peoples firearms are none of my business”? Just because it’s not a personal but national scale?
I don’t understand that difference. Firearms and WMDs are made for one purpose. Please explain.