Gun Control

[retrocomeback]

Civillians owning and carrying guns in reasonably remote places where bears and suchlike are common is one thing, but the same logic should not be applied to relatively built up localities like Newtown. Furthermore, statistics in the main are largely unreliable as they are easily manipulated and misinterpreted by anyone with an agenda. How anyone has the audacity to hide behind the constitution defending gun ownership when innocent little children are gunned down in their school is beyond me, I really pity the individuals that value their firearms over the lives of fellow human beings.

 

[gerryattrick]

The right to bear arms, as specified in the Second Amendment, has been mentioned several times in this thread.

The Amendment was written more than 200 years ago when the US had just fought a war to gain its independence and referred to the importance of having a well-armed Militia to defend it when necessary.

Does anyone believe that this is necessary anymore so why should the Amendment still be relevant?

Time moves on, it is time the US did on this matter, and ignored the gun lobby.

Incidentally, that nutter from the NRA missed a trick when he suggested that teachers being armed would prevent such school massacres. Why not arm all the kids as well to make even more certain?

 

[sylus]

The right to bear arms, as specified in the Second Amendment, has been mentioned several times in this thread.

The Amendment was written more than 200 years ago when the US had just fought a war to gain its independence and referred to the importance of having a well-armed Militia to defend it when necessary.

Does anyone believe that this is necessary anymore so why should the Amendment still be relevant?

What makes you think american gun owners(which again I must point out most are legal and never assualt another human with a gun and from that number, a large amount just enjoy target/range shooting) are not in agreement with you? Most americans are painfully aware a change is needed.

You have to remember, these attacks were at american schools and were american children were attacked, not brits, not belgium not dutch but americans..yes they are aware

the right to bear arms for americans is almost entrenched say as a brits right to have free medical assistance such as the nhs. would someone in france say you brits need to do away with the nhs..brits quite rightly would tell them to poke off (and before some spanner says the nhs doesn't kill..I susggest you do some research).

Even within this forum we often have comments saying "yankee stop sticking your nose into our business" but see the same people see nothing wrong with us doing it to them? interesting

The right to bear arms will stay...what will change will be american people lead updates for the modern times and risks I am sure

Time moves on, it is time the US did on this matter, and ignored the gun lobby.

Bram quoting figures for belgium unless you are quoting them for being bored to death on flat roads or swallowing large amounts of chocolate is a waste of time, should we believe the media on every occasion we would say that a large amount of belgiums kidnap their own and other children, store them in the cellar then rape them for decades and have incestous children with them...which of course would be in correct but if you are easily media led that would be an assumption..just as wrong as every gun owner is a killer

Although the biggest danger to mankind is based in Espace Léopold

your obsession with bears is a funny one do you have many in belgium? I ask because we also mentioned wolves, coyotes, pumas and mountain lions but you keep ignoring them..share the love man share the love

as to the argument then..remote people having guns is understandable but in built up areas it is not..your joking right?? the worst kind of animal is in huge volumes in cities..are called humans

The gun ammendement is an easy fix to a problem very few want to ask about but it is only a thinly disguised viel

The same guns have been around for decades so why now is the problem on the rise

To me it's simple..the internet and bad parenting

some kids have bad or no interactive skills wth other people being alone in their bedroom all the time, being awarded a medal in their cushioned world every time they fart being told they are good when they are bad.

Then the internet, it is no suprise to me that the depression increase amoungst humans largely tallies with internet use and hiding away in pretend worlds rather than deal with the real stuff

so why don't we deal with that..the reasoning behind the murders and not the items used to do them with?

As a race humans are okay with stuff that kills them as long as they enjoy it. Alcohol in the u.k. accounts for more deaths than guns in the whole of america, so why aren't we in uproar? because it's a death rate we are comfortable with and have closed our eyes as acceptable, Passive smoking in the u.s. kills more people than were killed with guns last year but because those people enjoy it they turn a blind eye, more people died in car crashes in the u.k. than in gun incidences but yet we don't try and ban that..why not?

It's okay to seem outraged about death but we all chose modes of life that put us at risk of death every day and happily turn a blind eye to the real issues and try and blame something/someone else because it suits us.

The americans will make changes because it affects them and I am sure most americans fully understand the need for change even though some may disagree how

sorry for the long rant

 

[gerryattrick]

The world is full of people commenting on areas that do not directly involve them - that's human nature, and it shouldn't be a problem. Of course it's the US people that will make the decisions, but there's nothing wrong in other nationalities giving their viewpoints.

Even Americans are not averse to a bit of criticism of others I believe.

I stand by what I said earlier, that the gun lobby hide behind the Second Amendment, which was written for a completely different purpose than it is used for today, and I believe that one day the US will re-write it to recognise that this is not 1790, but in the meantime many more people will die as a result of his archaic principle and the archaic, wild-west attitudes of many in the gun lobby.

Incidentally, I have no problem with having guns for hunting etc. I once had a meal in the house of a miner in the backwoods of South Dakota - a nice man, and devout Christian - where there were a few rifles on the wall. He explained that he used them to hunt for food occasionally and also to scare off bears and wolves that tended to come down to his home in the winter. I think that in his circumstances I might get a gun - but not an AK 47!

 

[Bram J]

One death is to many.

True.

if the man had shot 20 or 1 it does not matter.

Not true. More victims, more heartbreak, more suffering.

Maybe it's indeed best that he has shot himself. But perhaps the victims families would have gotten some sort of explanation if he was still alive. I don't know really.

 

[Bram J]

Even within this forum we often have comments saying "yankee stop sticking your nose into our business" but see the same people see nothing wrong with us doing it to them? interesting

That's a pity.

Bram quoting figures for belgium unless you are quoting them for being bored to death on flat roads or swallowing large amounts of chocolate is a waste of time, should we believe the media on every occasion we would say that a large amount of belgiums kidnap their own and other children, store them in the cellar then rape them for decades and have incestous children with them...

That's Austria you're talking about, the guy's name is Fritzl.

which of course would be in correct but if you are easily media led that would be an assumption..just as wrong as every gun owner is a killer

That would indeed be incorrect, but I think I never stated such a thing. I don't see the whole 'media led' case in this thing. Numbers are numbers. I just stated them, and mentioned that I think that they clearly show something is wrong.

your obsession with bears is a funny one do you have many in belgium? I ask because we also mentioned wolves, coyotes, pumas and mountain lions but you keep ignoring them..share the love man share the love

Add as many wildlife victims as you want to the equation, the number will never even touch the number of gun victims. Who's ignoring casualties here?

as to the argument then..remote people having guns is understandable but in built up areas it is not..your joking right?? the worst kind of animal is in huge volumes in cities..are called humans

Yeah, humans with guns.

I think you made some good points in your post about the fact we need to do something about the origin of the violence rather than doing something about it's tools alone. There are cases that could have easily been prevented by just noticing and acknowledging that someone needs psychological help. It's often so that everyone knows and sees that someone is going nuts/depressed/psychotic, but still no-one will even try to do something about it. When we could fix this completely, which means we could prevent people from going mentally insane, than anyone could own as dangerous a weapon as they wish. On the other hand you've got people that are just nuts, but no-one could ever had suspected it. These are the true psychopaths. It is as a society very hard to protect yourself from people like this. The question here is what kind of weapons do we allow into our society, that might eventually end up with some psychos as well. This is not an ideological issue, but a practical one. It is a classical case of 'where to draw the line'. Where this line has to be drawn will be different in different parts of the world, due to environmental differences and cultural differences. I accept that. I don't think there's anything wrong with this. It is simply my opinion that the US would be better off with stricter gun regulation.

In 2009 we had a similar incident. A young man named Kim De Gelder entered a kindergarten with a knife. He killed two babies and one adult, and injured ten more babies an two adults. Just imagine if he had a firearm, in particular a semi-automatic. Indeed, there probably would have been much more deadly victims. For some the number of victims seems trivial. :? Not so for me.

For the rest I think we're very much on the same side. Stricter regulation would be good, how far this should go is to be discussed.

Valid points made by gerryattrick an retrocomeback too.

sorry for the long rant

You call that a rant?

 

[sylus]

damm double posts..why do they do that and in a delayed way?

anyway..less ranty now

By my standards that was hell of a rant

 

[B77]

Thanks Bram for the diplomatic replies. Here are my rather undiplomatic ones....


The gun lobby constantly reminds us they are not all gun nuts yet in response to the massacre of 27 people they demand trained marksmen because 'To stop a bad man with a gun it takes a good man with a gun' What the **** ? That is from their president for christs sake apparently the most rational and best man they have, not really convincing is it ?
The US is not a young country Austrailia is far younger in terms of settlement, they banned automatic weapons after incidents involving them and they seem to be doing ok.
This whole thing which came across (to me anyway) in Sylus post, 'it's an american problem so you lot don't have a say' kind of attitude, ok, fine. I for one think we should just fence the US off and let them get on with it because as far as I'm concerned a country where the rich can literally get away with murder as long as they have a good lawyer, an a country that epouses it's 'divine right' to invade the a-rabs in the name of democracy, and a country that has an human rights record on a par with China, where anyone has access to methods of killing a lot of people at once is the biggest threat facing the rest of humanity.
When you see some of the incredibly vapid ****-witted media/tv/films that comes out of the states, think, is this what you want your kids to be influenced by and aspire to ?

An incredible country a true land of opportunity where anyone could become president, that could have shown the way for the rest of the human race in terms of integration and tolerance and they dropped the ball, and seem to becoming a terrible parody of themselves.
Pat comes across as a reasonable guy, someone who lives in California, has done his share of mindblowing things and has seen a bit and thought a lot and even he considers guns a pretty neat thing to have, I don't think there is any hope. fence em in.

And Sylus your argument of Coyote/Wolf/Cougar attacks is laughable. I've been looking in a few places,
Fatal Coyote attacks 2,
Fatal Wolf Attacks 0 although some people have died from rabies,
Fatal Cougar 20, since records began around 1865).
That isn't to say people have,'t been bitten but considering the amount of theses animals that are shot for sport each year I think that counts as retribution of a sort.
Internet and bad parenting ? Really ??? Yeah you could have a point.


And before anyone calls me a commie pinko bleeding heart liberal, just for the record

Kiddie fiddlers.....death penalty
Rapists...............death penalty
Pre meditated murder....death penalty


Now THAT is a rant complete with pictures. Instead of a lovely ride in the sunshine today I've been digging shotgun pellets out of 3 cats.

 

[Koupe]

Instead of a lovely ride in the sunshine today I've been digging shotgun pellets out of 3 cats.

:evil: Hope they recovered?


Also, to drag the thread even further off topic (which can only be a good thing) - I've always maintained that instead of a death penalty, murderers/rapists/etc should be used indefinitely for experimental medical and surgical work. That way, society gets something worthwhile back from them (not that it would fully compensate for the crime) and fewer animals get tortured in labs. Win/win.

 

[FairfaxPat]

Well, I guess we'll never be seeing you over here, then B77 And probably not in Denmark either...