Gun control logic

by Gregor 174 Replies latest social current

  • Satans little helper
    Satans little helper

    of course I am trying to incite, I am trying to incite real debate beyond the blinkered desire to combat anger and violence with more anger and violence.

    As a nation you have by far the worst violent crime stats of any developed first world nation and I think that the reason for this is societal. We have just as many whack jobs and nuts in Europe/Australia as you do but people's first reaction is not generally to resort to violence. In America it seems to be the default response, look at how many people here have advocated arming more people in response to a tragedy caused by someone having guns who should never have been armed in the first place.

  • MsMcDucket

    How about tranquilizer guns. It beats water pistols and is less force than a Sherman Tank.

  • Gill

    The 'Right to bear Arms' argument does not stand in this day and age simply because in those days there were no automatic weapons. Your 'shooter' might well shoot at you once but then if he missed you had a chance to tackle him.

    After the tragedy of Dunblane and Hungerford in the UK, automatic weapons were banned.

    It's difficult to kill a room full of people with a knife. You are more likely to be tackled and overcome than if you stand there with an automatic weapon.

    Automatic weapons are the really big problem. Even worse are the idiots who make and sell them. The ones who buy them are another problem all together. And though the USA has sadly gone down the road that anyone can understand why an American citizen would feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, it really is something to be ashamed of rather than something to have pride in.

    No doubt people carry knives and other weapons but none of these weapons work by a switch of a trigger and can wipe out a room full of people with one movement. Other weapons at least give you some kind of chance of fight back, defence and possibly even disarming the offender.

    Americas total obsession with fire arms is a symptom of a sick society. If the US put its mind to it it could bring this problem under control BUT there is big money in guns and its the rich who make the rules.

    Perhaps its too late for the the USA. Perhaps it can't solve this problem of guns. In that case, what the hell is it doing in Iraq and how does it plan to disarm all the insurgents who are armed in Iraq? If it already considers disarming a nation as impossible, perhaps it should gather its troops together and get out of Iraq.

  • IP_SEC
    Perhaps its too late for the the USA. Perhaps it can't solve this problem of guns.

    I hope you are right gill

  • zagor
    Personally I believe in having very strict gun control in any country, but with 200 million guns (probable more) floating around in the USA I'm beginning to believe it's probably too late for strict gun controls in the US.

    And as a side point, if I lived in the US I think I'd want a gun too.

    I was thinking exactly the same thing today. I want to say though that Americans are great people, I'm yet to meet one I didn't like. Generosity expressed by so many Americans by far outstrips what many other nations give and do. And I'm always surprised with extent of self sacrifice. Just yesterday I've heard from a very dear friend there who was taking her free time to help homeless and abused kids. I mean these kinds of things warm your heart like nothing else.

    So I hope what I'm saying here is not taken in any "Anti-American context" at all. But I do believe that your "right to bear arms" is from another time when such thing was necessary however with passage of time have become a huge liability and menace on this great country of yours. Why am I saying that? not only because of seeing what happened in last few days but because through the set of crazy circumstances a decade or so ago I found myself in a very friendly European country on a visit.
    So friendly that they had no problems in obtaining Winter Olympics even though there were much richer bidding rivals at the time. It was a country where many nationalities lived happily side by side with no animosity whatsoever; and for the most part, lived like that for centuries. This country though had a tradition of every house having at least one gun.
    It stemmed from their historic fight with Ottoman (Turkish) empire.

    With a fall of communism this country along with many neighbors was basically over night plunged into economic chaos with rapid inflation and people losing their jobs just like that. What do you think happened next? What you probably know about that country today is only what happened after they as a society hit economic bottom and meltdown.

    If you haven't guessed by now, would it change anything if I told you that was Bosnia.

    It may seem preposterous to some of you to even compare these two countries, but it is really not. At the time of crisis whether personal or as a society people turn inward no matter of nationality or origin and don't trust anyone anymore and start seeing enemies wherever they go. As the pressure intensifies, they start feeling more secure if they have a loaded gun or two or three ready "just in case" - just in case of what? Imaginary enemies suddenly become real ones through the well known process of self-fulfilling prophecy. What started as a self-defense strategy on a mass scale turned into a civil war.

    I'm not saying that is what awaits US but do you see my point? Availability of guns and time of crisis in our times make a very, very potent mix, not to mention that Hollywood makes sure we find violence fun anyway so people get desensitized before they even get to the life and death situation. What happens after that is just a rapid progression of events.

  • Gill

    Anyone can understand, why in a country with the social problems that the US has, people feel the need to carry a gun.

    But, what do you do to stop that need?

    And why does anyone need automatic weapons in a 'civilised' society?

    A hand gun for protection is one thing, but automatics, machine guns etc. This is a society that is off its head with fear of its neighbour.

    Case in question, a young british tourist in Texas, I believe. It was a few years ago. Someone had tried to mug him late in the evening and he had run away and gone to the first house he came to in a nice enough neighbourhood. He knocked at the door to ask for help. The householder took out his gun and shot him dead as he thought he was there to rob him! No charges brought I believe.

    The USA resembles many a war zone, except with a veneer of civilisation thrown in.

    Paranoia is understandably rife and everyone wants to be the one who shoots first.

    Those supporting guns here know they have a lot to fear in their country. In that case, stop invading other countries and get your government to sort out your own country first.

    How about universal health and dentistry care?

    Whatever it cost to go blow up Iraq could have easily covered the cost of that and US citizens might all feel a lot happier with themselves and a little more secure.

    It would at least be a start to let all your people know, including the very poorest that they are all valued.

  • golf2

    Repeat; "People kill people not guns".


  • Gill

    People USE guns to kill other people in a swift and unfortunately very efficient manner.

    A Person has to hold and fire the gun but the gun fires the bullet that kills the person.

    The gun is a tool. An automatic weapon is a grade 'A' killing machine. It serves no other purpose. You can't dig your garden with it, hoover your lounge or use it to wash the pots. Guns kill. That is what they are for!

    I don't deny you have a need for concealed weapons in the USA.

    But sadly some people seem to have a great reverence for this killing tool and as long as that attitude continues there will be more Columbines, Virginas and slaughter of innocents. That is a horrifying and unacceptable catastophe to most people in the world who look at the tragedies and nod their heads in despair that a person can, in the US, walk into a shop and buy a machine that slaughters people in seconds and serves no other purpose.

    I prefer to give reverence to the innocents but I understand your need in the US for the gun.

    It is just like watching Iraq and other countries where mass killing is part and parcel of life instead of the abhorrent atrocity that must be stamped on and the tools that give the ability to perform such atrocities banned.

    I believe, that if the US had the will power it could take arms from the criminals in the country. There would always be some that slip through the net, BUT it could be controlled, at least in the form of automatic weapons. Where there's a will there's a way. But, as I said previously, weapons are BIG MONEY for the rich and there is no will.

  • zagor

    Check this out, it just came up on news

  • Mary

    OK, I'll add my two cents worth on this. With regards to Americans 'Right to bear arms', I don't believe the intent was for everyone and their brother to be allowed to carry assault weapons around on a daily basis. This was written at a time when men were armed with swords, not AK-427's. This 'Right' was intended for the defense of the country and was a carryover from England. If you read the preceding words it says:

    "...A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

    The British Declaration of Rights, written in the late 17th century, affirmed the Right of Protestants to "have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." When the Revolutionary War broke out, the Colonists (Americans) wrote this Right into their new Constitution and it's been there ever since.

    I don't necessarily have a problem with Americans being allowed to purchase guns, but for Crissakes there really needs to be a more thorough background check done on people before they're handed weapons. Instead of just a background check to see if the person has a criminal record, shouldn't there be a background check done to see if they're mentally stable? I don't care if someone has to give up some of their "Right to Privacy" for this----that's what needs to be done. It's not going to be rid of the problem, but it could at least prevent something like this from happening.

Share this