Free speech and gun control.
CplDavis
I hunt the arctic Snonos Join Date: 2003-01-09 Member: 12097Members
I hunt the arctic Snonos Join Date: 2003-01-09 Member: 12097Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Why the US wont act either way.</div>This isnt so much a debate but more a possibility of why there is always so much debate and so little action done either way.
You know what I was just thinking about the recent washington DC court ruling.
For our over seas forum friends, handguns were basically totally illegal to posess even in homes
for anyone in Washington DC,
still gun related crime was big, lots of criminals with guns, victimising non criminals. Of course as you could imagine pro gun people had been arguing "Well considering handguns are banned in DC, The criminals still have them anyways so why cant I as a responsible law abiding citizen?"
The court case went all the way to US federal court. The federal court ruled that Washington DCs longtime ban on owning a handgun in your own home was unconstitutuional. It stated that the 2nd Constitutional Amendment did not require citizens to be a part of a miltia etc.
Im not going to state whether i care about this or not. i simply needed to describe it for what Im about to say.
I was thinking that if this decision does make its way up all the way to the surpreme court and is upheld, well any type of handgun restriction could then be violating the 2nd amendment.
And my point being whether you agree with gun control or not, perhaps why america is so unwilling to address the topic definitivly one way or another is that it would require a change to the amdendments. In effect a change to the constitution. Its not like this hasnt been done in the past (banning alcohol) but if you can change such a long standing and highly debated amendment such as the 2nd? Well why stop there? Lets amend the the 1st amendment as well.
if gun control policies are put into place for the reasons of "benefiting society" well why not change what peope can and cannot say as well... To benefit society.
Just look at Don Imus. he gets fired from both his radio show and TV simulcast for saying a "racially charged comment"
Imus is white, the people who spoke in reffernce too are black.
Needless to say the black community was outraged and understandably so.
But then again what Imus stated was from a direct qoute from lyrics written and preformed by black music preformers. Who make a living through rap and hip hop music that is filled with sexually demeaning and racially charged lyrics. Double standard?
If we are going to limit what a talk show host can say, will we stop there or continue on now with everyone else who already uses negative language? Artsits? musicians? Movies? games?
It seems to me that one possiblity as to why the US wont take any action either way in both these topics, (lots of debate, little change) is that we are afraid of where it might lead. the Pandoras Box of losing our perosnal freedoms if you will. aka the slippery slope.
Whether your benefiting society or not you would be damaging or imposing restrictions on what what america stands for, even if it can be hurtful.
What are everyone elses thoughts?
You know what I was just thinking about the recent washington DC court ruling.
For our over seas forum friends, handguns were basically totally illegal to posess even in homes
for anyone in Washington DC,
still gun related crime was big, lots of criminals with guns, victimising non criminals. Of course as you could imagine pro gun people had been arguing "Well considering handguns are banned in DC, The criminals still have them anyways so why cant I as a responsible law abiding citizen?"
The court case went all the way to US federal court. The federal court ruled that Washington DCs longtime ban on owning a handgun in your own home was unconstitutuional. It stated that the 2nd Constitutional Amendment did not require citizens to be a part of a miltia etc.
Im not going to state whether i care about this or not. i simply needed to describe it for what Im about to say.
I was thinking that if this decision does make its way up all the way to the surpreme court and is upheld, well any type of handgun restriction could then be violating the 2nd amendment.
And my point being whether you agree with gun control or not, perhaps why america is so unwilling to address the topic definitivly one way or another is that it would require a change to the amdendments. In effect a change to the constitution. Its not like this hasnt been done in the past (banning alcohol) but if you can change such a long standing and highly debated amendment such as the 2nd? Well why stop there? Lets amend the the 1st amendment as well.
if gun control policies are put into place for the reasons of "benefiting society" well why not change what peope can and cannot say as well... To benefit society.
Just look at Don Imus. he gets fired from both his radio show and TV simulcast for saying a "racially charged comment"
Imus is white, the people who spoke in reffernce too are black.
Needless to say the black community was outraged and understandably so.
But then again what Imus stated was from a direct qoute from lyrics written and preformed by black music preformers. Who make a living through rap and hip hop music that is filled with sexually demeaning and racially charged lyrics. Double standard?
If we are going to limit what a talk show host can say, will we stop there or continue on now with everyone else who already uses negative language? Artsits? musicians? Movies? games?
It seems to me that one possiblity as to why the US wont take any action either way in both these topics, (lots of debate, little change) is that we are afraid of where it might lead. the Pandoras Box of losing our perosnal freedoms if you will. aka the slippery slope.
Whether your benefiting society or not you would be damaging or imposing restrictions on what what america stands for, even if it can be hurtful.
What are everyone elses thoughts?
Comments
Im making it very clear that i think America's gun laws are utterly outdated and stupid. the premise to which they are maintained are outdated, that being that its everyone's right to be ablt to defend themselves. The war for independence was over 200 years ago... theres no nasty imperial power for you to rise up against anymore, neither do most americans have deer or duck to shoot at.
GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. thats the bottom line. Gun lobbiests may say that its every mans right to bear arms, but its also every person's right to not be scared of being shot. What a backward and naive idea it is that guns in a community can make it MORE safe. Coincidence that America seems to have a school/ university massacre every year and countries with gun control dont.. NUP!
And i reject the idea of a slippery slope. WHy would the banning of guns inevitably threaten things like free speech? And even so the idea that constitutions are infallible and should never be adjusted is ridiculous.
Unless you are in the military or law enforcement
There's no reason for you to own a gun that:
1. Has Magazines/Clips
2. Has Fully Automatic Firing
3. Is a Long Range Sniper Rifle
_
Anything else, by all means.
Magazine/clip covers just about EVERYTHING except for revolvers and single shot guns...
Fully auto weapons ARE illegal in most places in the US (I think Nevada might have some sort of regulation that allows for them).
Define "long range sniper rifle". Most normal hunting rifles can kill something at relatively extreme ranges (as they are designed to let you be rather far away from the animal). One of the most famous school shootings was mostly done with a over the counter hunting rifle.
Here in Ireland, we have had several constitutional referenda in the last 10 years ( mainly due to EU treaties - our constitution contains a clause that requires any leglislative foreign treaty to be ratified by referendum ).
The debate should be about whether gun control is good or bad for the US <b>now</b>, not about what was important when the second amendment was drafted. You cannot hold onto a constitutional framework simply because the founding fathers thought it was a good idea. It needs to make sense in a contemporary context and in order to determine if this is the case you need a healthy and open debate on the topic from the public, and politicians with the sauce to do what is right for their country.
Freedom of speech is protected by the government, not by the corporations who hire you. If he said it off the air in a public ground, he can't get persecuted by the government. But it's bad for his media image and that's why he got kicked off the air. Rappers saying stuff like "work that ho" get good PR for that because apparently a bunch of black and white people are hypocrites and hold massive double standards.
Welcome to America.
For gun control:
There should be little, if any regulation on the sale and possession of guns in this country. This country is founded primarily on freedom so long as it does not infringe on another person's freedoms. Owning a gun does not violate another person's freedom. Killing a person with a gun does. But so is killing a person with a knife, a bat, a car, an electrical cord, and all of the other countless items that you can kill people with.
Freedom is a public good. All people trade and curb their freedoms to a government in order to provide order. But laws designed to regulate potential actions is bad. That's why the owning and possession of firearms should not be infringed. That's also why I believe the ban on drugs should be lifted. I'm a libertarian. It's all about freedoms. And for all you people outside the USA, you're living in a less free society than ours. Because in our society, it's the community that keeps you in check. Everywhere else, the government is. And that makes all the difference.
USA USA USA!!!
Oh, and GreyFalcon:
Sure, I don't need a Chicago Typewriter, but would I want one? Hellz yeah. People don't NEED gas guzzling SUVs, but do they want one? Hellz yeah. What about the house you live in? Surely you don't NEED a tv? Or a fridge? It's not about needs. It's about wants. Wanting something and having the ability to procure what you want is freedom. In this country, let freedom ###### ring.
Grey, I have to admit I am sorta confused.
Magazine/clip covers just about EVERYTHING except for revolvers and single shot guns...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So? Good enough for self defense and sport hunting.
<!--quoteo(post=1621494:date=Apr 17 2007, 03:59 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Apr 17 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]1621494[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Define "long range sniper rifle". Most normal hunting rifles can kill something at relatively extreme ranges (as they are designed to let you be rather far away from the animal). One of the most famous school shootings was mostly done with a over the counter hunting rifle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats one's definantly a more grey area.
But could easily be some sort of threshold there.
<!--quoteo(post=1621494:date=Apr 17 2007, 03:59 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Apr 17 2007, 03:59 PM) [snapback]1621494[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Owning a gun does not violate another person's freedom. Killing a person with a gun does.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So driving 120mph infront of a pre-school is legal just so long as you don't crash?
You do not have the right to put others at mortal risk.
The use of OFFENSIVE force is not legal for you.
Defense? By all means.
But you don't need an automatic assault rifle, a sniper rifle, or a machine pistol to accomplish that.
Those are explicitly designed for offensive use.
Virginia Tech had a gun control policy, you couldn't carry any weapons on campus, even with an appropriate permit.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's exactly the slippery slope of allowing firearms, people that don't have one are heavily disadvantaged and places where firearms are obviously a bad idea, like on cam######es, are vulnerable.
Firearms are too dangerous to let everyone have access to. Incidentally, it reminds me abit how the west views N. Korea and Iran as being too dangerous to possess nuclear weapons.
And I am speaking on principle. I don't like our ban on drugs, campaign contributions, etc. That's the libertarian philosophy. Of course the government has to exist and function to some degree, but the amount of regulation and bureaucracy we currently have is ridiculous.
The difference is that I'm for banning things that directly infringe on another person's liberties such as murder, rape, assault, and robbery and negative economic externalities. Banning guns simply because they COULD kill people is stupid. As the old saying goes, guns don't kill people, stupid motherf***ers with guns kill people. They could just as easily use a knife or put together some rudimentary bomb.
Tighter gun control or banning them outright takes them out of the hands of good citizens and keeps them in the hands of criminals (who by their definition break the law).
Speeding is legal unless you get caught
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lol
_
Well either way,
What would probably be far more effective than a ban is to just enforce waiting periods, and better background checks.
_
That Virginia Tech kid,
He was able to buy some high power guns so easily that he still had the reciept in his backpack.
Banning guns simply because they COULD kill people is stupid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think many are asking for a ban, and of those that are, I doubt many of them are asking for it becuase they 'could kill people'. There are much more structured arguments for <b>more gun control</b>. It's easy to support your point by arguing against the most extreme opposing view. Try arguing against the middle ground, I bet you'll find it takes a lot more effort.
And for all you people outside the USA, you're living in a less free society than ours. Because in our society, it's the community that keeps you in check. Everywhere else, the government is. And that makes all the difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->how is getting terrorized by an over-conservative community, a media that is strongly biased towards the reigning (mal)administration (which was, by the way, elected with a minority of the votes) and a country full of trigger happy nutters who kill 10000 people every year the most free society in the world?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sure, I don't need a Chicago Typewriter, but would I want one? Hellz yeah. People don't NEED gas guzzling SUVs, but do they want one? Hellz yeah. What about the house you live in? Surely you don't NEED a tv? Or a fridge? It's not about needs. It's about wants. Wanting something and having the ability to procure what you want is freedom. In this country, let freedom ###### ring.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
umm... i dont know what kind of society/culture youve been living in but i believe that if you absolutely WANT a gun, WANT it just to fiddle with it and practice using it and to feel the sleek metal... then you should really get some treatment, and i dont mean from the NRA
I like my steel and wooden tools. Just a note. Just because we like guns doesn't mean we need to seek treatment.
how is getting terrorized by an over-conservative community, a media that is strongly biased towards the reigning (mal)administration (which was, by the way, elected with a minority of the votes) and a country full of trigger happy nutters who kill 10000 people every year the most free society in the world?
umm... i dont know what kind of society/culture youve been living in but i believe that if you absolutely WANT a gun, WANT it just to fiddle with it and practice using it and to feel the sleek metal... then you should really get some treatment, and i dont mean from the NRA
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For starters… what news channel have you been watching?!? If something else doesn’t take the spotlight, I see nothing but “failed war on terror” and “Bush’s failed policy on X” while watching the news. I guess that’s what I get for watching CNN, ABC, and the like.
If you’ve never been over here, the media unfortunately isn’t the best place to get all your facts from. While they have the “if it bleeds it sells” mentality, it’s a no-brainer or should be to figure out what is going to dominate the news. It’s been a few years since I checked the numbers, but you’re probably still more likely to die from falling in the US or getting hit by a car than to die by a gun. Even if you take the collective number of gun deaths.
Heck, all this crap that I hear from anti-gun organizations is just as misleading as crash test for these “smart cars”. (ie. They don’t tell people that these cars have superior crash test rating ONLY when an object of equal mass is used “hitting a wall” in contrast to using a full sized truck or SUV in a head-on collision test…)
“i dont know what kind of society/culture youve been living in”
Then your opinion of what we should do is voided right there. If you don’t even have an understanding of society over here, how do you think that should affect the validity of your opinions then? I DO live over here. And at the same time, I’m not going to tell YOU how to live over there.
I’ve been around guns all my life, so have my parents and their parents and so on. They’re nothing new, I know how to safely handle them, never had any fatal or non-fatal accidents with them, and honestly don’t see what the big deal is. And no, there’s never been a gun related death or killing in my family.
I could put a gun on the counter top in the middle of the house and nothing would happen… mainly because EVERYONE in the household KNOWS how to and how not to use a gun (that and none of us have genetic or drug induced mental problems either).
A gun is no different than anything else mechanical in my house. Without the proper care and use a hammer, saw, drill, nail gun, sledge, wood grenade, maul, tractor, bush hog, sickle bar mower, boom pole, spud bar, crow bar, post driver, torque wrench, air hammer and even my 15 gal air compressor can be made into a deadly weapon. I shouldn’t even need to go into how deadly the capacitors in my TV much less ECM blower motor could be if misused. And the list can go on, but I think you should at least get the point.
There’s a LOT of potentially deadly stuff around us all the time. And with the wrong mindset, and given no better option, well you should know what the wrong people would do.
And just like everything else, if you keep misusing it can be deadly. That’s where upbringing and education come into play with the RIGHT amount of gun control, not waaaaayyy to much or none.
Some people are gun enthusiasts. Others like to hunt. Others to protect their home and family. There are millions of reasons to own a gun. By the way, calling a person insane just because they like guns is retarded, narrow-minded, and the same type of shallow, narrow-minded thinking that you accuse the American populace of being.
And is a ban that extreme? Plenty of countries in Western Europe outright ban it from civilian possession. Can that be so extreme? MORE gun control is self defeating because, again, it will only deter honest citizens from getting guns, not the criminals. Check out the flourishing black market in arms trade in France and you'll know what I mean.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
how is getting terrorized by an over-conservative community, a media that is strongly biased towards the reigning (mal)administration (which was, by the way, elected with a minority of the votes) and a country full of trigger happy nutters who kill 10000 people every year the most free society in the world?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I'm getting tired of hearing these same regurgitated arguments.
First off, have you seen the American news? Practically every day it's full of articles blasting the current administration. More Iraqi casualties. The cost of the occupation. The Alberto Gonzales controversy. Spending 500 dollars on a hammer. No-bid contracts. Et cetera, et cetera. At least our news is privately owned, unlike the state sponsored organs found in practically every European country.
As for American elections, you don't need to win the majority of the total amount of votes, you only need the majority of electoral votes. Theoretically a candidate could carry 50.1% majorities in 11 states and have the Presidency. This was how it was since the beginning of our nation, and some people (such as yourself) disagree with the system, but that's how it is. Get used to it or come to America, apply for citizenship, serve in the Senate, and change the damn Constitution. By the way, in a country like the UK, the head of government isn't elected and the head of state is determined through primogeniture. In France, their system is even worse than ours. A bunch of countries only require pluralities to elect candidates, which means the majority voted against the elected official in the first place. Nobody's system is perfect, and don't pretend the US' is worse than whatever country's system you're part of.
American politics is traditionally conservative, get over it. The majority of Americans are generally more "conservative" than the majority of Western Europeans. And how is the American people terrorizing the minority? They pander to it. That's why we get programs like Affirmative Action (which I doubt you know anything about), and gender/ethnic quotas at work.
Actually, the number of gun homicides (including justifiable ones like self defense and police shooting criminals) is around 12,000 per year. That's about 4 in every 100,000. It's not exactly spotless, but we're not exactly gun-toting maniacs who regularly gun people down in schools and on the streets either.
The community <b>observes</b> a number of unwritten <b>expectations</b>. Governments <b>enforce</b> a nuber of legislated <b>laws</b>. That's the difference. And that's why I'm betting Americans have a hell of a lot more rights and freedoms than citizens of your country.
High powered guns? It was a glock 9mm and a .22 pistol. That's some hard hitting stuff right there...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair point. However thats why it's probably better to focus on purchase policies rather than focusing on the guns types.
Shouldn't be quite so easy as buying groceries.
[...]First off, have you seen the American news? Practically every day it's full of articles blasting the current administration. More Iraqi casualties. The cost of the occupation. The Alberto Gonzales controversy. Spending 500 dollars on a hammer. No-bid contracts. Et cetera, et cetera. At least our news is privately owned, unlike the state sponsored organs found in practically every European country.[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm singling this part out because I'd like to respond to it. Germany and Denmark both have privately owned news (as seen on the privately owned channels) and publically funded news (as seen on the public channels). I think that's healthy. Purely government-controlled news run the risk of becoming propaganda, whilst purely privately owned news run the risk of becoming sensationalist and shallow. Having the two compete against each other keeps them in check. The public news forces the private news to have at least a modicum of relevance. The private news prevents the public news from having the "monopoly on truth." Checks and balances.
... yes well the problem is that every country in the world, yes including America which you seem to think is some kind of utopia, there ARE stupid motherf***ers. Guns make it easier to kill people, MUCH easier. u think that someone could undertake a school/uni massacre with a knife, electrical cord or stick? Get real dude. These shooters tend to be loners or kids who were bullied, not skilled martial artists. Sure you can have brawls where guns arent involved. but honestly wat do you think would have more casualties? A gangwar with GUNS or a gangwar with IMPLEMENTS.
So you're gonna dissmiss the 12 000 gun-deaths a year because its a small proportion of Americas population and your not all american "maniacs"? Wow im sure your statistical reasoning would be lovely comfort to those who have lost loved ones on account of your country's stupid gun laws. If gun violence affected you or your family in the future im sure your views would take a swift 360.
Oh and just quietly, thats a huge proportion of gun deaths a year compared to most western democracies. Being at risk of others shooting you is not liberty, neither is being exposed to drugs that are rightfully banned. So stop crying out "FREEDOM" like mel gibson in braveheart because the argument that the right to bear arms constitutes freedom is freaking stupid.
RIP all victims of needless gun violence in America.... hopefully pro-gun morons will one day wake to the human impact of their stubborn arrogance.
So you're gonna dissmiss the 12 000 gun-deaths a year because its a small proportion of Americas population and your not all american "maniacs"? Wow im sure your statistical reasoning would be lovely comfort to those who have lost loved ones on account of your country's stupid gun laws. If gun violence affected you or your family in the future im sure your views would take a swift 360.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't try to bring guilt into an argument on gun control. Someone could have a family member who got stabbed and develop a terminal fear of knives, that doesn't mean we're going to destroy all the knives in the world.
For a slightly abstract example: I don't drive and I could just as easily say "cars should be banned, look at all the crazies that go drive around drunk and kill 16,000 people a year; and look at those accidental deaths, that's another 35,000 - cars are evil and should be kept out of the hands of the populace!" Now you may argue "cars are useful, people need them to get around!" Which may be true for some people (just like guns, ba-zing!), but I think you'd find that without cars public transportation would improve, bicycling would become far more popular, and there'd be far fewer drunkenness-related fatalities. You don't need a car anymore than you need a gun, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having for leisure, for emergencies, for daily activities and for collection.
(Plus car pollution is one of those things out to destroy the world, when's the last time you saw a gun give off massive amounts of harmful chemicals?)
And I'm going to go off a tangeant (compared to replying to someone's post), by saying that the second amendment still has a modicum of validity. Even as recently as WW2 the famous Yamamoto quote, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Which holds true in many respects. Already in this thread someone spoke of the over 200,000,000 legally owned firearms. Now consider how often legally owned weapons are actually used in violent crimes (<a href="http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/942388/posts" target="_blank">this</a> speaks of 96 guns per 100 Americans, with only about 1/5 of the population actually owning a gun). You get to see each gun shooting on the news, and you get to see numerous car crashes (...the media does enjoy the big pile ups, with lots of ambulances), and even the occasional heart disease (...if you can get to tear-jerking little kid in the frame). Gun deaths (along with, coincidentally, car crash deaths) are part of the 5th leading cause of death in the US (<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html" target="_blank">over here</a>).
This thread should be less about guns killing people, and more about poorly taught dietary habits killing people...but I digress. <a href="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf" target="_blank">Over here</a> we discover that handguns are the most-used weapon in crimes, while any sort of automatic or assault weapon is essentialy negligible...and that a little under 2/3 of the registered firearms are shotguns or rifles, and not handguns.
Plus, no more "we don't have any guns" from you Europeans, there's about 18 guns per 100 people over there (albeit, mainly concentrated in Scandinavian countries).
I demand stricter gun acquisition requirements, a longer waiting period, and random psyche evaluations. Plus, criminal acquaintances and such...since a majority of stolen weapons just kind of get stolen again. I could actually do with out handguns; as long as I get to do cool practice shooting with some bolt-actions (...now, let's see someone go all 'Lee Harvey Oswald' with one of those).
Sorry but this is a convoluted argument. Cars are not made for the specific purpose of killing people. If that kid in virginia drove into the campus, rubber burning, trying to run people down, people would get the hint and run out of the way. Sure he may run over and kill a feww people.. but there is NO WAY he would kill newhere near 32 people with a car. Neither have i ever heard of a car accident with newhere near that many fatalaties. Same goes with a knife... you really think 32 people could get massacred by one dude with a knife? WRONG. he would get tackled or people would just run away from him.
And another thing... dont try and compare accidents with intentional killing! It doesnt help your argument at all. My point is that guns make it EASIER than basically ne other means to kill someone. A person firing a gun does not have to be concerned with his own martial prowess, only his ability to point and shoot. new gun laws wouldnt neccessarily mean the end of recreational shooting by the way. and really the only other reason for them is killing people.
and OMG! Some of u make arguments about homeland defense.... yeah sure. Im sure America with its HUGE military really needs militia support... get real. And say they army staged a coup.. well im sorry you would lose with or without guns. But this is just to adress hypothetical, and incredibly unlikely, two outcomes.
... yes well the problem is that every country in the world, yes including America which you seem to think is some kind of utopia, there ARE stupid motherf***ers. Guns make it easier to kill people, MUCH easier. u think that someone could undertake a school/uni massacre with a knife, electrical cord or stick? Get real dude. These shooters tend to be loners or kids who were bullied, not skilled martial artists. Sure you can have brawls where guns arent involved. but honestly wat do you think would have more casualties? A gangwar with GUNS or a gangwar with IMPLEMENTS.
So you're gonna dissmiss the 12 000 gun-deaths a year because its a small proportion of Americas population and your not all american "maniacs"? Wow im sure your statistical reasoning would be lovely comfort to those who have lost loved ones on account of your country's stupid gun laws. If gun violence affected you or your family in the future im sure your views would take a swift 360.
Oh and just quietly, thats a huge proportion of gun deaths a year compared to most western democracies. Being at risk of others shooting you is not liberty, neither is being exposed to drugs that are rightfully banned. So stop crying out "FREEDOM" like mel gibson in braveheart because the argument that the right to bear arms constitutes freedom is freaking stupid.
RIP all victims of needless gun violence in America.... hopefully pro-gun morons will one day wake to the human impact of their stubborn arrogance.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quit blowing all that hot air and get back to a civil discussion. Parroting old childish guilt trip lines won’t get you far except with those who already agreed with you in the first place. If you can’t see this tragic incident for what it’s screaming in every anti-gun extremist’s face, it’s time you gave Mr. Obvious a phone call.
I’d say you're the one who needs to wake up from your own ignorance, but that doesn’t require you yo acknowledge what’s right in front of you..
<!--quoteo(post=1621664:date=Apr 18 2007, 08:31 AM:name=wankalot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wankalot @ Apr 18 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]1621664[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Sorry but this is a convoluted argument. Cars are not made for the specific purpose of killing people. If that kid in virginia drove into the campus, rubber burning, trying to run people down, people would get the hint and run out of the way. Sure he may run over and kill a feww people.. but there is NO WAY he would kill newhere near 32 people with a car. Neither have i ever heard of a car accident with newhere near that many fatalaties. Same goes with a knife... you really think 32 people could get massacred by one dude with a knife? WRONG. he would get tackled or people would just run away from him.
And another thing... dont try and compare accidents with intentional killing! It doesnt help your argument at all. My point is that guns make it EASIER than basically ne other means to kill someone. A person firing a gun does not have to be concerned with his own martial prowess, only his ability to point and shoot. new gun laws wouldnt neccessarily mean the end of recreational shooting by the way. and really the only other reason for them is killing people.
and OMG! Some of u make arguments about homeland defense.... yeah sure. Im sure America with its HUGE military really needs militia support... get real. And say they army staged a coup.. well im sorry you would lose with or without guns. But this is just to adress hypothetical, and incredibly unlikely, two outcomes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Convoluted? Explain please since you are claiming to know for a fact the intent behind each and every gun ever made, being made, or will ever be made, period.
I thought a (typical) gun’s sole purpose was to reliably and effectively propel projectile(s) in a certain direction with a certain amount of force. What you seem to be claiming to know is where said projectile(s) are supposed to go and for what purpose. So I’m to assume now that you believe that you’re some sort of Ms. Cleo who can tell the future, read minds and all that nonsense?
why?
I mean obviously if there were better background checks (such as a mental evaluation for example) this "whacko" in virginia would not have been able to get a gun so easily.
wholesale death is often a cause of reform in other matters that concern public safety.. why should gun laws be any different?
why?
I mean obviously if there were better background checks (such as a mental evaluation for example) this "whacko" in virginia would not have been able to get a gun so easily.
wholesale death is often a cause of reform in other matters that concern public safety.. why should gun laws be any different?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cost
Practicality
Total ACTUAL impact on crime
Unintentional negative effects
I'm not going to pretend that guns don't make it easier to kill people, but if you get rid of guns there's just going to be something else that makes it 'easier to kill people with this thing than that thing, so let's ban this thing'. They almost make it as easy to kill people as typing another character and spelling 'any' correctly is[low blow]. Generally crimes that involve guns are not wide-spread shootings; they are limited incidents involving two to three people, where a knife would likely result in the same action. The other usage is mostly related to drugs, weapon-trafficking and other illegal activities, where the guns would still be accessible without government permission (look at the ATF source linked above).
Now, I don't want to appear to have any of that American 'exceptionalism' that seems so prevalent, but don't knock the US use of guns until you've lived here for a few years. I'm not about to go to Australia or Germany to knock their gun laws. That said, there are specific differences between the US and a lot of other countries: a tradition of militia involvement (everyone apparently wants to still be friends with George Washington, fighting off the evil Redcoats); an abundance of hunting ground (many people own acres upon acres of land (or know someone that does), and hunting is an easily accessible past-time);
...here I'd also like to point out that a majority of hunters use rifles and shotguns, the tools least often used in violent crimes...
a history of competition and gunsmithing (some of the most prestigious companies in earlier years were gun manufacturers like Colt, Smith & Wesson, Remington, etc. - other countries gift their leaders exotic animals, palaces, art, plaques and statues? We used to give ours gold-plated revolvers and other engraved firearms); a belief in some kind of percieved freedom that is associated with the free right to purchase and retain assorted firearms (I say this because I, personally, don't believe it's anything particularily special to be able to own 10 handguns, but some crazy militias in Montana or something would disagree); and, a history of vigilateism stemming from the 'old west' which wasn't actually all that old. Coincidentally, some of these aspects can also be applied to Australia. I suppose you could tack on 'personal defense' but no one needs a gun for this reason besides little old ladies and guards (if your neighborhood is so bad that you fear enough for your well-being to necessitate a gun, maybe you should move...).
Everyone always acts like it's some guy who unlocks his gun and runs out and goes and shoots people; but this is just often not the case. A majority of guns used in crimes are illegal weapons (stolen, not befitting ATF requirements, etc.). The case at VA Tech is a rare exception, where Cho was able to purchase a Glock and ammo for $571 - so it's one of those rare 'legal' weapons. And before any defamation of my character takes place: I am not a member of the NRA (now there are some crazy people), I do not own any firearms (...or swords, or spud guns...I do own an airsoft gun), I am an American citizen, I <i>have</i> had firearms related incidents in my family (my Dad was held up at gunpoint; but then again my former neighbor was held at knife-point and mugged), the only firearm remotely close to me (...at home) belongs to my mother, and is a .22 revolver locked in a box locked in another portable safe.
I see all of the cries for more strict gun control to be the same groups that claim that monitoring private freedom for public safety should be a priority. I'll tell you now: I feel perfectly safe riding around on my bike or on foot outside. I've been to New York, LA, Minneapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee and the only time I've ever felt threatened at night was on a side-street in Prague. The moral to this small paragraph: don't believe sensationalist American private media.
[edit] I'm sure someone would jump on the "more car-related deaths than guns" typo...[/edit]
I see all of the cries for more strict gun control to be the same groups that claim that monitoring private freedom for public safety should be a priority.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude... Seriously... Take sometime to think about this sentence again.
Anyway, I really hated these kind of logics: Even with these controls, people that wants it can still get it, so let's not do it. Let's legitimize it and bring it out in the open.
This logic applied to everything under the sun. Drug, bombs, prostitutes, rocketlauncher..
I mean it in the sense of some groups having "you can't say this, because you could potentially, at some point, in some place, possibly make one person feel bad." The hyper-sensitive "everyone is special, unique and interesting in their own way" people. The 'crazy' people. The old addage is cliched, crushed, disemboweled and reassembled in so many ways that I even hate to bring it up again, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I still stand by my sentence (notice tha it is an <i>opinion</i>) - with all replaced by 'many of'.
And you might hate that kind of logic, but that doesn't make it any less plausible. If you ban it, people that want it are still going to get it (...coincidentally, I think a pistol might be a bit harder to stuff up your rectum than a balloon full of coke); but that's a stupid reason to ban weapons or to legalize them. It's not a reasoning, it's just a plausability. What you <i>don't </i> want to do, however, is apply criminal use of something to the legal use of it. I see all this "criminals shot up a convenience store!" Zomg, stolen guns...now how does that mean that legal gun owners are at fault?
This is why the VA tech case is such a compelling case, because at least one of Cho's weapons was legally obtained. Which actually leads to the xenophobic-sounding argument that legal aliens should be allowed to purchase firearms in the US. This is one of those events that should actually pique interest in gun law changes. Not "ban them!" or "legalize them all!" but "4 week waiting period with personal references" or "psych evaluations for handguns" or something to that effect.
The focus should generally not be on the type of gun (personally, I think a rampant, untrained individual with a fully automatic weapon is probably going to kill fewer people than with a semi-automatic weapon), but on how people acquire guns in the first place (this is probably why German or Norwegian gun laws seem more secure, not because they don't allow guns, but because they check the people they're giving them too...but such laws need to be custom tailored to their society. Unfortunately, NRA lobbyists aren't very compromising, and soccer moms are too strict, so you just get very steep rifts with no actual development.
He may not be a citizen.. but in all other senses he would have been an American (accent, cultural tastes etc.). im disturbed how the media are emphasising his nationality so strongly. Do Americans feel more comfortable with the idea that a guy who is not technically American committed this horrible act?
It shouldnt matter WHO did it, it should be examined how it did. The most obvious issue here, whether ure pro gun or not, is how the hell firearms found the way into the hands of an obviously very mentally disturbed young man.
The man's race is IRRELEVANT, and i wish the media would stop emphasising it!