Guns

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 3:42 AM GMT
    *sigh* There has been another shooting. A nursing home 7 elderly dead along with 1 nurse.

    I wonder sometimes if the 2nd Amendment has out-lasted it's purpose, and that the time has come to begin regulating gun ownership even more. After all, why does someone need a semi-automatic rifle or machine gun?

    Sadly, we need to hunt in order to control the populations of certain species (which is our fault of why we need to do so).

    I'm not sure if gun violence is getting worse. But I think these bloody rampages are becoming more common.

    I guess besides hunting, I don't see any point for there being guns anymore--I actually think some/many collect guns not for historical reasons, but to compensate for some psychological/emotional short-coming or as an ego boaster. Some feel it is cool to hold a gun and will even take pictures of themself holding a gun. I don't understand that.

    If someone breaks into your house, a well placed shot of mace or a tazor would do the trick of immobilizing them... enough time to escape of call 911

    ya ya I know "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." I say, "People with guns kill people."

    I know there will probably be a fire storm of gun enthusists attacking this thread soon. But is the 2nd Admendment worth all the lives that have been lost, and the lives that have been changed, all the family's that have suffered... because of guns?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 4:09 AM GMT
    Simply... no.

    While gun violence seems to be prevalent, you have to take in all of the other ways in which people die. If you did we would outlaw saturated fats, fast food, cars, planes, trains, water, pools, knives, baseball bats, ladders, alcohol, and on and on.

    Yes, firearms can kill people. So can much of the things that are in your own bedroom (including electricity, pillows, gas heating...).

    We do not need to correct overpopulation of animals. It happens with or without us. We do it to protect our human environment. Starving deer, due to overpopulation and a lack of predators (or more predators starving due to a lack of prey population) is dangerous to humans. Both their numbers and their deaths can lead to disease, poisoned water, etc. We correct it to maintain the environment. Without us they would overpopulate and under-populate in herbivore, predator, scavenger order.

    More regulation will not solve the problem. Violence will continue to exist. I for one and more than pleased to maintain my second amendment rights as well as all the other provisions of our nation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 4:12 AM GMT
    I'm not a so-called gun enthusiast, but I'm not anti-gun either. Let's just say that I would rather get killed with a gun than a knife.
    To answer your question, I don't think that the 2nd amendment has anything to do with it - I think that gun-ownership is implicitly allowed in the constitution even without that particular amendment. I think society is the problem - the same society that doesn't smile or say hello to strangers passing on the street is the same society that shoots people with guns. You don't see the Swiss, who apparently all own guns, mowing each other down like Americans. Having said that, hasn't crime gone down?

    PS Cjcscube1984! What are you doing wasting time with this subject matter? Go back to studying your porn!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 4:20 AM GMT
    I cant find the episode of "Family Guy," as I've given it up for lent, but I think Seth MacFarland has it right: It wasn't the "Right to Bare Arms," it was the right to "Bear Arms!" I'm still looking for proper arm coverage during these awful winters here in Palm Springs. No Bears here because they've all been shot to death with the right to Bare Arms. For shame...

    In all seriousness, there's no chance in the 2nd Amendment being re-interpretted to a more civilized and practical condition. When you give the Police assualt weapons in a Country founded in going against the institution, you cant expect the public to go without the right to their defense should the modern institution get out of hand. Not only that, but there are too many hicks appreciative of the right to shoot apples off their buddies heads when they get drunk. What else crazy will they do when they get drunk? The only thing left would be a circle jerk! Somehow, I don't see the NRA backing that!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 4:41 AM GMT
    "If someone breaks into your house, a well placed shot of mace or a tazor would do the trick of immobilizing them... enough time to escape of call 911"

    No..

    - You need to put some effort into aiming either. Can you do that in a panic situation, and in the dark?

    - Mace/pepper spray isn't effective 100% of the time. Some people have delayed reactions. Enough time to rush you and crush your throat. Also, mace/pepper spray can easily be defeated.. Just hold your hand out like a cup and deflect the stream.

    - Tasers require strategic use. Like I said before, you need to aim it. And you better hope the attacker isn't wearing thick clothing.

    - 10 gauge shotgun is 100% effective for home security. Just point in the general direction of the attacker and pull the trigger. If you have issues about killing people that want to kill you, then just replace the buck shot with rock salt. Aim for the head.

    .

    I agree, no civilian needs an assault rifle. But some states do have limits on the types of weapons you own. So that helps. But the problem is a bit more complex. Most guns that are used in crimes are either stolen or have been purchased through straw sales. So it's not like regulating gun ownership even more will stop violent crimes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 4:53 AM GMT
    I used to be more anti-gun than I am now. I'm actually planning to buy my first gun this week. Go figure.

    Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. I'm all in favor of requiring not only background checks, but mandatory safety classes, etc. It's absurd that I can walk into a store in my home state and 10 minutes later walk out with a handgun. You have to take classes and pass a test to drive a vehicle, so why not for gun ownership?

    I do think there's a danger in putting too much emphasis on guns as the problem rather than holding individuals responsible for their actions. Look at Switzerland. It's one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, yet they have very little gun crime.

    We need to hold people responsible and require proper education and training where guns are concerned, not jump to restrict individual rights whenever someone does something crazy.
  • bikj2003

    Posts: 19

    Mar 30, 2009 5:50 AM GMT
    icon_eek.gif
    tradgey YES
    Limit sane peoples ability to own possess or bare a fire arm NO!!!

    We have lost enough of America with out taking away one of the core rights given to our citizens. If this troubled individual had done the same thing with a car would you be calling to revoke the use of cars. 911 did not stop the use of planes in this country.... we are humans hate will always exist,,,,we must learn to identify it before it becomes violent
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 5:58 AM GMT
    buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit

    Big heapin steaming piles of the stuff at that..

    guns are bad mmkay..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 6:37 AM GMT
    I know when I'm in the USA, and I may find myself in one of those many fast food outlets.

    I always sit in the no shooting area.
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Mar 30, 2009 7:54 AM GMT
    But is the 2nd Admendment worth all the lives that have been lost, and the lives that have been changed, all the family's that have suffered... because of guns?

    I don't think guns should be completely outlawed though. It won't fix the problem of people killing other people if they really want to.
    Plus some people need a gun for protection, not just in their home but from animals for example. Chemicals and electricity can be used in many cases but those things just do not have the necessary stopping power in certain kinds of emergency situations.

    I think it can be hard to keep proper perspective in regard to guns just because incidents with them can be so dramatic and a lot of people only have experience with them through movies or gun related violence on the news.

    As a way of creating some perspective, how many people are killed each year related to alcohol abuse either directly or indirectly? How many lives have been destroyed due to alcohol related abuse or addiction? What about the long term medical costs of alcohol abuse and how it affects members of society or even society as a whole?

    Yet most people are fine with alcohol use and it's danger despite the deaths and havoc it has caused and will continue to cause.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 9:09 AM GMT
    All of you have brought up good points... points that actually have actually entered my mind at sometime before.

    I realize the media likes to blow things up, but it does get sickening... hearing about all these shootings.

    I mean a boy from in a small town near my home town took a gun to middle school like a month ago. I live in Maine, stuff like this never happens hear. Going on rampages seems to be "popular.

    However, illegalizing drugs has not rid society of drug use.

    It is just sad, and frustrating--some Gun owners seem to not teach their children how to respect firearms... a problem which has been going on for a while.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 9:13 AM GMT
    scarabboy saidWe do not need to correct overpopulation of animals. It happens with or without us. We do it to protect our human environment. Starving deer, due to overpopulation and a lack of predators (or more predators starving due to a lack of prey population) is dangerous to humans. Both their numbers and their deaths can lead to disease, poisoned water, etc. We correct it to maintain the environment. Without us they would overpopulate and under-populate in herbivore, predator, scavenger order.


    Yes--that is a better explaination of what I was trying to say. We feel a need to correct shifts in the environment's populations. Keystone predators have been destroyed completely or hindered--mostly by human--and we need to help create a balence without them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 1:34 PM GMT
    I think gun control needs to be handled on the state and local level. The statistic I've heard is that 80% of Iowa households contain at least one firearm, yet we don't have hordes of gun-toting criminals running around. And, we're certainly not lacking in gun control in Iowa. If I go to a gun shop to buy a rifle or shotgun, they have to call in the purchase to the Federal Government to get an approval for it. If I want to buy a handgun, I have to go down to the sheriff's department and apply for a permit to purchase. The last time I did that, back in '99, the deputy asked me about my arrest in '84 for possession of fireworks. What more is needed? An official psychiatric profile?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 1:57 PM GMT
    well, its tragic, of course... but i still wouldn't say 'guns did it.' the saddest fact about it is that people just suck. they always have and always will; perhaps guns make it easier through impersonality, but really, without guns.... you'd still have weirdos running through schools and nursing homes beating people to death with sticks or running them through with movie re-creation swords.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 2:02 PM GMT
    Violent crimes have plummeted over the last decade.

    viort.gif

    Which, the good people who wrote Freakonomics have a very interesting take on.

    But, getting rid of guns isn't going to solve crime. People don't commit crimes because they have access to guns. People commit crimes because of poverty or a lack of services (like actually treating bat shit insane people). Sure, access to guns make mowing down toddlers easier but something in between absolute prohibition and absolute access makes more sense.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Mar 30, 2009 2:10 PM GMT
    I am not pro-gun or anti-gun. It's my opinion that fire-arms should be regulated and insured. Owners should be required to be licensed and trained. They should be required to show their license to purchase ammo. i think the majority of fire-arm owners are responsible citizens, and this is just a step to verify.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 3:09 PM GMT
    When I was living in England back in the 90 a crazy man went into a church with a long sword and began hacking away at people. Shooed we ban or regulate long swords? How about a pencil, Kids have killed other kids with that . To think, I can kill you with almost any thing for that matter. I own Guns, Rifles . And even a sling shot !icon_surprised.gif Why because I can . Because my family fought in every US, War, Conflict. or Occupation since 1866, So that I and you my own a gun. Your Tazor comment is Bull shit. And Mace ? All you are going to do is piss off the assailant . If some one invaded your house . You have to get close to that person to take them out . And if you miss the shot, now you are possibly in a world of shit. Putting your self in harms way . Me I own a mossberg 500 tactical Shotgun . I pull the trigger and the only thing that I have worry about is the cleaning my hard wood floor . Yes shity thing happen. But just think If one of the employs had a gun then the outcome my have a different end . You live in Maine for gods sakes ! what are you a fucking pussy? And no. All the family's that are suffering is because of some asshole had fucking issues who opted to use a gun?


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 6:59 PM GMT
    southlakejock saidI used to be more anti-gun than I am now. I'm actually planning to buy my first gun this week. Go figure.

    Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. I'm all in favor of requiring not only background checks, but mandatory safety classes, etc. It's absurd that I can walk into a store in my home state and 10 minutes later walk out with a handgun. You have to take classes and pass a test to drive a vehicle, so why not for gun ownership?



    Just a guess here but it may be that driving is a privilege, while owning a firearm is an enumerated right. Also because it is vastly more likely to kill someone in a wholly avoidable accident in a vehicle.

    I'm not saying firearms are not inherently dangerous, but that cars are used a lot more than firearms in our day to day lives and so pose a greater risk from the uneducated.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 7:00 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidViolent crimes have plummeted over the last decade.

    viort.gif

    Which, the good people who wrote Freakonomics have a very interesting take on.

    But, getting rid of guns isn't going to solve crime. People don't commit crimes because they have access to guns. People commit crimes because of poverty or a lack of services (like actually treating bat shit insane people). Sure, access to guns make mowing down toddlers easier but something in between absolute prohibition and absolute access makes more sense.


    And if I remember correctly, firearm related crimes sky rocketed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
    beeker saidAnd if I remember correctly, firearm related crimes sky rocketed.


    when?
  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Mar 30, 2009 7:32 PM GMT
    xrichx said"If someone breaks into your house, a well placed shot of mace or a tazor would do the trick of immobilizing them... enough time to escape of call 911"

    No..

    - You need to put some effort into aiming either. Can you do that in a panic situation, and in the dark?

    - Mace/pepper spray isn't effective 100% of the time. Some people have delayed reactions. Enough time to rush you and crush your throat. Also, mace/pepper spray can easily be defeated.. Just hold your hand out like a cup and deflect the stream.[...]



    I find this whole line of argument lacking in two important areas: 1) I bloody well hope you'd "put some effort" into properly aiming a gun before pulling the trigger, too, because of area 2) what if someone you don't want to maim or kill happens to be anywhere in the vicinity of who you're shooting at? What if an intruder is holding a family member hostage or using them as a human shield? Or better yet, what if in a half-asleep stupor you mistake your kid/partner/etc for a home invader? Or what if you open fire on a legitimate target and a bullet goes through a wall or window and kills someone else completely at random? Personally, in any of those situations I'd rather be firing pepper spray or a taser-- something not specifically designed to devastate a human target.

    Guns are incautious instruments, and I'm not convinced that wielding them doesn't lend itself to incautious, impulsive use; if your culture makes a point of putting 'point and click' power over life and death into the hands of every undisciplined schmuck who can afford a piece and pass a criminal records check, then I firmly believe that will create far more casualties than it prevents. That is, unless that same culture is rigourously teaching responsibility, self-control, courtesy, respect for life and the gravity of taking one... and as a bystander, I'm not quite convinced that that describes contemporary culture in the U.S. or many other places for that matter.
  • imperator

    Posts: 626

    Mar 30, 2009 7:34 PM GMT
    czarodziej saidwell, its tragic, of course... but i still wouldn't say 'guns did it.' the saddest fact about it is that people just suck. they always have and always will; perhaps guns make it easier through impersonality, but really, without guns.... you'd still have weirdos running through schools and nursing homes beating people to death with sticks or running them through with movie re-creation swords.


    It's a lot easier for a group of people to stand up to-- and disarm-- someone with a stick or a sword than it is someone with a gun. icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 7:35 PM GMT
    cjcscuba1984 said*sigh* There has been another shooting. A nursing home 7 elderly dead along with 1 nurse.

    I wonder sometimes if the 2nd Amendment has out-lasted it's purpose, and that the time has come to begin regulating gun ownership even more. After all, why does someone need a semi-automatic rifle or machine gun?

    Sadly, we need to hunt in order to control the populations of certain species (which is our fault of why we need to do so).

    I'm not sure if gun violence is getting worse. But I think these bloody rampages are becoming more common.

    I guess besides hunting, I don't see any point for there being guns anymore--I actually think some/many collect guns not for historical reasons, but to compensate for some psychological/emotional short-coming or as an ego boaster. Some feel it is cool to hold a gun and will even take pictures of themself holding a gun. I don't understand that.

    If someone breaks into your house, a well placed shot of mace or a tazor would do the trick of immobilizing them... enough time to escape of call 911

    ya ya I know "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." I say, "People with guns kill people."

    I know there will probably be a fire storm of gun enthusists attacking this thread soon. But is the 2nd Admendment worth all the lives that have been lost, and the lives that have been changed, all the family's that have suffered... because of guns?


    To quote the NRA (and I'm pretty gol darn liberal): Guns don't kill people. People do.

    Prohibition won't work any better on guns than it did / does on booze, pot, street drugs, prescription drugs, sodomy, or the like. Prohibition only gives the bad guys (the folks engaged in the subculture that is "crime") and the nut cases (the cops in many cases) the upper hand, and takes power from the people.

    I grew up on a ranch in Nebraska. We had guns and learned to use them at a young age. A stranger knew that, too. I didn't and don't hunt, but, I learned how to use a gun years ago. Strangers don't break into homes where they think the folks can fight back.

    Here in Texas, under the Protect Your Castle law, you get two shots if someone breaks into your home: One to protect yourself, and the second to keep them from getting away. Folks think twice before breaking in around here.

    Hitler understood that disarming the folks was the first step in gaining control. As some may recall, he slaughtered millions, who were complacently lead to their deaths in gas chambers, and before firing squads.

    Whether it's being a fat ass pig (overweight) or having personal liberty, there's no room for complacency.

    If more folks were armed, and shot back, at the THUGS...we'd be a lot better off.

    To any clear-thinking person, removing the defenses of the main stream culture is idiotic, and only weakens the culture of the good. Not at all a direction we should be headed in.

    Every much as I'd defend someone's right to have sex with same sex, I'd say you have a right to be able to defend yourself. PERIOD. It's a no-brainer.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 7:42 PM GMT
    No people with any sense of civility should have guns as a part of their culture

    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people " is at best inaneicon_exclaim.gif

    Guns were designed simply with one basis in mind - TO KILLicon_exclaim.gif

    Guns should be outlawedicon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 30, 2009 7:44 PM GMT
    StudlyScrewRite saidDoes anyone from the U K care to address this? I see how low the crime rate is there since private ownership of guns was banned.
    (FYI: That was saracasm)
    .



    I am from the UK, and yes i am totally against firearms, our police dont carry them either.. i would love to have guns banned in the states,and ideally US police there would be without guns which will never happen. very sad icon_sad.gif