Gun Gontrol

[Ceroscuro]

Spoiler: Fallofthetyrant

Fallofthetyrant: until you cite a single "fact" that you stated, Andy6000 is right. You seem to make many blanket statements that are honestly borderline trolls. I have no problem with differences in opinion, but you can show difference in opinion in a more formal manner like Raiju, Lene, The Silent Alarm, or Roman Candle have done.

Secondly, do not flame Andy6000 (or any member). You ARE arguing. We all are. Debates ARE arguments. Don't get so offended, he was just trying to tell you to post your information in a more formal manner (Andy, please, if I am putting words in your mouth stop me).

Well, then you say you try to shoot the robber and he kills you? your philosophy won't bring you anywhere except right to the morgue, BRAVO!! Congrats!!

Ah, so you're saying it's better to not be defended at all than to be defended? That logic doesn't make sense to me.

Now, let me see, how comes where I live, (Montreal, Canada) There's no people using owning fire guns?

That's not the issue. Guns are already here and are being used. Whether you or I see that as a mistake is absolutely irrelevant. It is a fact, it cannot be changed. The question is given the fact that they are here, what can be done about it?

I got it, let's see, maybe it is because there's so much poverty in usa, and there's many social and racial issues which cause this criminality to keep jumping and jumping and of course no one is facing this problem isn't it? since, again, usa is so safe

1) These problems exist everywhere. Whether you like it or not.
2) This is not a "who has the better country?" debate, it's a debate about gun control.

personally I got nothing against Usa, but maybe Americans should begin caring about this problem that keeps growing and growing inside their society.

That's why it's been one of the most major controversial issues over the past 40 years or so.

In fact, the whole world should take envision new ways and avoid this non-sense.

I agree with you there, although as... someone said a while back in this topic, the problem is not the guns themselves. People have always killed people. People probably will always kill people. I sure as hell don't know why, but it's generally true.

 

[Roman Candle]

@Raiju

Uh, when did I say that? I believe I said, more than once in fact, that I believed that the number of guns needs to be reduced. Sounds like you're just as guilty of not reading as you're accusing us of being.

I'm sorry, I guess I misinterpretted this

If the root cause can be found and addressed, then it's a much lesser concern that guns are a part of the culture

How about this: You said that it's difficult for Europeans to understand the American position because the cultural differnce is too big. I don't think that makes our comments less valid - if anything, it's even more important to listen to them. Yes, we may not have grown up with the same ideas and assumptions that you have, but doesn't that give us part of a more objective viewpoint? I'm not saying that it means that we can walk in and tell you what to do. But it's always useful to have the opinions around of people who aren't set into the same customs around.

Also, I think something's seriously wrong if you're comparing hunting - 'played' with a gun, to football - played with a football. The day footballers are required to bring a lethal weapon onto the pitch and start shooting the ball is the day I will complain about it.

 

[Lene]

Wait, wait, wait, Canada allows people to have guns. Heck, they're pretty high up that list of gun murders. I don't understand things like:

Now, let me see, how comes where I live, (Montreal, Canada) There's no people using owning fire guns?

Besides, not too long ago a shooting spree incident happened on Canadian soil, so how come some posters aren't demanding Canada ban all their guns too? I'm going to say what I feel to be the real reason here: Because Canada isn't America!

In the long run, making everything horribly stricter and making it a real, real effort to get guns will make things better.

Fine, I agree with you on that. Personally I think there's a middle ground between "Give EVERYONE guns!" and "Ban them ALL!"

You said that it's difficult for Europeans to understand the American position because the cultural differnce is too big. I don't think that makes our comments less valid - if anything, it's even more important to listen to them. Yes, we may not have grown up with the same ideas and assumptions that you have, but doesn't that give us part of a more objective viewpoint?

No, that's not objective at all, that's IGNORANCE (with prejudice on the side). I've seen way too many generalizations and blanket statements that place Europe as the world's save haven from the crazy Americans who are born with guns in both hands, and who use them to kill each other everyday (ETA: forgot to add "in the Bronx"). None of that is even true, not to mention not objective.

One can look at another culture and observe, but making judgment calls about those observations is NOT objective.

I'm not saying that non-Americans can talk and share their opinions, but please don't make the mistake and call it objective thought.

Define stricter. What kind of guns should be regulated? How is the government going to find all the unregistered guns? What are they going to do to collect the hundreds of millions of guns out there? How are they going to make people agree to these laws? How will they be enforced? With what money? Do you begin to see why just "you should do something about the problem" doesn't help?

Co-signed. Someone please send Tony Blair the memo.

 

[Roman Candle]

I don't have disdaign for hunters, (if that was partially implied by the inverted commas around 'playing', they're only there because you don't exactly play at hunting, bit more serious than that, no?), and I do realise that it's important and neccessary. So, in fact, it's nothing like football at all. All I was doing was pointing out that banning hunting is not a good analogy for banning football. Although I don't see how hunting is not more dangerous - not that it's incredibly dangerous, but that it's more dangerous. I can count the number of people who've died playing football on no hands. I'll accept that hunting isn't as dangerous as some people would like to make out, but the fact that you have to own a gun inherantly adds that element of risk.

@Lene
Don't be silly. I never said you should listen to all Europeans. I was pointing out how "You don't understand out culture" is not a valid way of dismissing someone - even if that isn't being explicitly done here.

 

[Lene]

I was pointing out how "You don't understand out culture" is not a valid way of dismissing someone - even if that isn't being explicitly done here.

I'm not being silly and yes "You don't understand our culture" is a perfectly valid way of dismissing someone.

Most Anthropologists study different cultures than their own. However, they only observe and write down what they see. They don't make judgment calls on their observations and therefore it's considered an objective look at a culture.

What I'm seeing is this thread are people, with their own morals, determining their way to be The Best Way and then going ahead and judging other people, who have different standards and morals, and telling them something need to be done.

How is this not biased and subjective? Like I said, I'm not going to ignore someone's opinion because it is of value and listening and talking to people will help more than hurt (it's the keeping quiet part that is bad). However, I'm not going to lie to myself and think that an ignorant (for lack of a better word) perspective is 1) objective and 2) more valuable than others.

I'll accept that hunting isn't as dangerous as some people would like to make out, but the fact that you have to own a gun inherantly adds that element of risk.

Should we ban kitchen tools? Slaughterhouses? Factories? Lots of things are dangerous. Doesn't mean that we have to stop doing them, especially if they serve some sort of a purpose.

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Lene, you are right, there was ONE shooting, not one par year and that's the difference. We don't have the same levels of street violence as USA do.
Now the main problem isn't which country got or not. You shouldn't go all defensive about it and shoot back at us. Actually no one said USA is the most dangerous country lol, there's much more dangerous like par example some south American countries or even African countries, but that's mostly caused by poverty. Now, why the violence is rising up so much?
Cero Oscuro had a point before, humans always killed each other and they will continue, that's life I suppose although I disagree with that way of seeing the future. I think if you keep adding weapons, you keep adding fuel to the fire, but that's not the only reason, there's so many actually that the problem is bigger than that.
The way I see it is well, the guy that killed all these innocent people, is he really a bad person? maybe not, maybe is because we don't see the real problems lying underneath and that's the reason why everything ends up like this every time.
Also Lene, how comes Scandinavian countries don't have the same social problems that USA got? isn't maybe caused by social and racial issues?
Also how comes prisons in Norway (example) aren't in the need to be as severe as in USA? Europe isn't a paradise either. In fact, there's no paradise on earth. Most countries could represent a danger.
From where I come, life was peaceful, but some places were extremely dangerous, why?? well, because of poverty... people being extremely poor, in desperation they would kill you for a few bucks. Same happens in Brazil, Colombia, etc etc.
Although poverty isn't the only reason for criminality, sadly, because if this would be the case then the problem would be easier to resolve.

Peace

 

[Rhazdel]

The way I see it is well, the guy that killed all these innocent people, is he really a bad person? maybe not, maybe is because we don't see the real problems lying underneath and that's the reason why everything ends up like this every time.

There is, and there will never be, ANY excuse for what happened. He was an extremely disturbed individual that lashed out his hate and anger onto people that did nothing to deserve it. He generalized his hatred and made no discriminations. That is completely inexcusable.

Don't blame society for HIS acts. If you want to blame society for the rise in gun violence, that is fine, but DO NOT justify his actions by insinuating that "American society deserved it". This was the action of a psychotic individual that suffered from severe mental disorder.

Don't trivialize the deaths of those involved because you think Americans are just "too out of control" and "had it coming".

 

[Anonymous]

About this 'Lol the police will defend you' and breaking the pattern of 'LOL AMERICA SUCKS'.

About a month ago, I was facing a man who I didn't know who had broken into my house. He was a lot bigger than me, and I was scares shitless. I feel damn lucky that I have a big dog and he ran.

I would have done anything to have a gun then. Even a realistic-looking toy gun. Not to shoot the guy with, but to make me seem like more of a threat than I actually am. Sort of like some animals stick their fur up to look bigger.

In a situation like that, you want to be able to make the person go away without hurting you. If a gun's going to scare them away, that'll do.

I called the police as he ran. My call was pretty much 'police, (my adress), please come quick'. And then I grabbed my hockey stick and went to the door to make sure my dog was safe and he had gone.

The police arrived in 40 minutes. They did their job well enough and they explained that they were understaffed, but 40 minutes would still not be in time to stop a murder.

I am against guns. I hate the things, but I would have killed for one when I was faced with a threat.

I'm all for tighter restrictions, but people deserve to be able to protect themselves. I've gained a rather shameful habit of carrying my hockey stick around the house with me if I'm on my own. I'd never strike someone with it unless they went for me with a knife or something, but it's hopefully enough to intimidate others. I'm sure a lot of gun owners feel much the same way.

 

[Rhazdel]

I'm all for tighter restrictions, but people deserve to be able to protect themselves. I've gained a rather shameful habit of carrying my hockey stick around the house with me if I'm on my own. I'd never strike someone with it unless they went for me with a knife or something, but it's hopefully enough to intimidate others. I'm sure a lot of gun owners feel much the same way.

Very well put.

Although it should be noted that death from hunting is a negligable statistic, and injuries are more often from animals or accidents than from gunfire.

Unless you're Dick Cheney

Automatic weapons are not needed for home defense and, in my opinion, should be banned or severely restricted. But it is not only delusional, but impossible to get rid of guns entirely.

The whole point of "America needs to reform it's society and get it's act together" is getting tired.

Ok, in order to "Get our act together", the United States will institute the following steps:

1. Shut all borders to ALL immigrants and tourists (sorry Canadians and Brits ).

2. Start civil war over trying to force people to give back guns. Quell civil war through brute military force. Write off body count as "necessary sacrifices".

3. Involuntarily commit to mental hospitals any and all persons the government deems necessary for review/observation. When applicable, see #2 for more details.

4. Force all citizens that haven't fled the country to convert to one religion and one language. That way, there won't be any more conflict. Again, see #2 for more details.

The U.S. is one of the most diverse countries on Earth. It has one of the biggest mixes of ethnicities and cultures and is a bastion for people persecuted by their own governments.

The U.S.'s culture is EVERY OTHER CULTURE. That is kind of the point.

"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses."

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

Rhazdel, I wasn't making an excuse for his acts, also I didn't mention American society deserved it. What this guy did is terrible, but lashing out anger the way he did, don't you think he got his reasons? Although I don't agree with this kind of behavior, but you can't just say he was crazy and he deserved to die as well.
Every problem has a cause, and when you find the cause you find the cure, that's pretty logic.
So please Rhazdel, don't assume something I didn't say.
Concerning the USA policy, well, all I can say is Americans should be aware of what happens in other countries. No one says is the "fault" of every American
OF COURSE NOT!... but you have to admit that your country ruined other countries in the past.
Chile, from where I come from, dictator Gustavo Pinochet was set in power by Americans and British. honestly, between Pinochet and Hussein I don't see a big difference you know? although no one really condemned Pinochet?...
Come on, kind of like news in USA are pretty much manipulated no?
I wont enter in other details since this is not what we are talking about.
but you have to admit it, there's a lot of violence in your country whether you like it or not. And if you keep assuming everyone hates your country for being "superior" or something, the problem won't be fixed.
I could state hours of facts while your country became so powerful, but that would get me a warning lol
Anyway, a final point, history is written by men so it's easily manipulated.

Peace

 

[Rhazdel]

Then, I apologize for misunderstanding.

And I do not hold any delusions of my country being non-violent and I know that my government has done, and continues to do, terrible things around the globe. But I cannot answer for the personal agendas of beaurocrats.

Everyone keeps saying that American culture needs to be reformed, but the point I am trying to make is that "American culture" is a mixture of "world culture". Granted, we do have our own take on a lot of things and we validate poor behavior through our media (something I have always been unhappy about), but lowering violence isn't as easy as "take away the guns".

 

[Fallofthetyrant]

That's true, and isn't just the American society that should be reformed but mostly like the whole world. But that's merely an utopia.

 

[Norris]

Justifying gun purchases based on the reason of (crime based) self-protection seems pretty weak to me actually. The majority of home invasions are people after your household contents, not your life. You put your gun into the mix, and things are very likely to get worse.

 

[Ceroscuro]

See Wumpi's post.

 

[Norris]

*Pointing your gun*

"What the fuck are y-"

*Get hit in the head from behind*

Congratulations, you not only have now armed assailants in your house, but pissed off ones to boot!

PS - I've also been through a home invasion.

 

[Lene]

FalloftheTyrant, are you serious? The last time we had a mass shooting of any kind was 1999 if I recall correctly. That's clearly not regularly. Once again, events like VT are not regularly occuring events (thank goodness).

 

[Norris]

There are pros and cons to everything. And from what I see, things have yet to reach a point where the pros significantly outweigh the cons of gun ownership. For the vast majority of people here, “living” DOESN’T REQUIRE you to have a firearm. You can easily live out your life without having to always carrying a side arm in your back pocket. Locking windows and doors, deadlocks, installing security grills, an alarm system even. These also can help. Guns aren’t everything in security.

 

[Kraft]

http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.aspx?cp-documentid=4732850&gt1=9311

This is on MSN today after the shooting.

I am not for a stricter gun laws.
I love nothing more than blowing a TV or old computer monitor up with my shotgun, or shooting other such things that explode.
I mean, yes, I agree that the gun thingy could be improved, but what is the point? how the hell could anyone put a law like that up, and get the publics approval?

Not only are guns for killing people(pretty much their main use), and animals, if you are a hunter (like me) but they are also used for protecting yourself or others.

I mean, how far do you think that Virginia Tech gunner could of gotten if one of the other students was carrying a gun and knew how to use it?

You cant stop people from getting guns, and no law on earth would of prevented the shooting (unless you had a checkpoint thing where you were searched)

If someone really wanted rampage like him, they could find a way to get a gun. $150 down at wal-mart and you got one.

I am not saying that kids should be allowed guns in school, I am just making my point that guns shouldnt be taken away. That would only create more problems if a gunner did get loose.

I agree with Lene, guns dont kill people, people kill people. I mean, seriously, more people die from car wrecks every year than people killed with guns times like 10. Should we ban cars too?

 

[Volrath]

If someone really wanted rampage like him, they could find a way to get a gun. $150 down at wal-mart and you got one.

Gotta love Wal-Mart. You can find incredibly powerful guns there and yet they won't carry NC-17 movies....

I think it's been established pretty firmly that removing all the guns that currently exist in America is just wishful thinking. Those who are saying we should have yet to provide any substantial method as to how that might be accomplished. As Raiju has said, there are some lifestyles where they play a major role...though I would hope we can find a better use for them than shooting televisions...and please, don't compare them to cars. Most people don't need a gun to get to work.

I'm all for a new assault weapons ban (encompassing more weapons than the previous one did) and much tighter requirements to get regular guns. The shooter at VA Tech got his gun in ten minutes, despite a history of psychological problems and referrals to authorities by teachers at the school. Plus the gun he had was made mostly of plastic designed specifically to help avoid detection. There's something seriously wrong there, and I don't think I'm infringing on anyone's constitutional rights by saying so.

 

[Grandor]

The very second amendment to are constitution allows anyone the right to bear arms. Why do you think the founding fathers allowed this? Or thought of this? So, people could go around shooting people? No, it's because by restricting guns you are in a way restricting peoples freedoms. And people don't like it when you take away their freedom. Tougher gun laws and other laws like that really don't do much. It may make it harder for people to obtain guns, but then people will result to other means of getting guns. Illegal means. Guns ain't the problem. Any weapon has the same ability. A person can kill another person without the use of arms. But because a gun can do it easier it should suddenly get stricter laws? I think it's fine the way it is now. If it gets into the hand of a wrong person, well guess what, anyone with a kitchen knife or any household utensil could use the same for a weapon. It's the persons responsibility to handle the gun with care.