Guns, Culture and Crime in the US
We look at why the debate over gun control is so polarized and travel to West Virginia - a place where shooting guns is a sport that has been passed down over generations - to find out what fuels the love for guns in this country.
Are American people as divided as their politicians? The Newtown shooting, which left 20 school children and six teachers dead, has dragged the issue of gun control back into the national agenda.
For the first time in years, US politicians are discussing serious gun control measures. But millions of people in the country's inner cities live with the threat of gun violence on a daily basis.
In Baltimore, one of the most dangerous cities in the US, the police have re-framed their 'war on drugs' as a 'war on guns'. We travel to Baltimore to meet those trying to stop gun crime and others who say owning a gun is sometimes a matter of survival.
Lyle gun. now knock it off.
The second amendment is for the protection of Americans against tyrannical threats be they foreign or domestic and while the present administration only wants to restrict access to certain guns can you guarantee the same can be said when the next president is sworn in? Or the next. or the one after that? I fear that we Canadians have become too complacent about our own personal freedoms and rights in the face of Acts of Parliament designed to curb them. Case in point: A new law which requires any Canadian who to have a Canadian passport to fly back to Canada. Suppose I were to drive to Mexico (no passport required) and while there learned there was a death in the family, I would be barred from flying back for the funeral because I don't have a piece of paper with a federal seal on it. That is tyrannical in my view and something definetely impacts my right to self-determination and my right to freedom of association (or dis-association).
5:35......"free society"?????? Post Patriot Act, there is no freedom in the USA, only the perception of freedom built on fear. Well done President Cheney and the Retarded Texan, ( good to see the "No child left behind" literacy program worked :-) )
It is kinda cute that Americans beat their chest and claim they are free as they "liberate" another oil rich country. If You understood the meaning of irony, you would see the humour in that claim.
You have the right to bare arms, it is your country and it is no one else's business how you manage domestic laws, but in fighting to keep that right, don't piss and moan when some nut job Redneck shoots up a school with an AK or M16, live by the sword, die by the sword.
Why should I give up my rights so you can feel "safe"? I feel safer having the freedom to protect myself, but you feel safer having me not being able to protect myself? pleas get professional help
I'm just putting my opinion out here so don't attack me if you disagree, but I personally disagree with Gun culture as a whole. I don't think you should just "accept" shootings are going to happen if we give Americans gun rights. Even if more people can be killed with bombs and such, we have to try to the highest extent we can to prevent any death, even if it is only one, by getting people to understand that gun culture has way more cons than pros. I say this because I believe every life has value so even if only one person is killed in a shooting, it still means something, it still causes pain. We shouldn't measure the severity of an incident by the number of deaths, in fact we shouldn't measure the severity of any incident. Every incident or accident where a life or lives are lost is a severe tragedy, to one or more families. I know that what I'm saying isn't particularly realistic but it is my opinion.
The "gun culture" feeds from the "fear culture." Powerful interests use fear to mold public opinion in order to shape foreign and domestic policy. The resulting enhanced perception of danger creates a fertile market for personal weapons.
Here in the US "the market is king" and the weapons industry has been in max-production servicing that demand for quite some time. A culture saturated with firearms will inevitably have incidents where those weapons amplify the damage that deranged people can inflict. .
That is all part of the fabric of the life we live. Irrational shootings are a "death tax" that we pay for the right to defend ourselves.
In my view the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be abridged since it ultimately is a check on the tyranny of the state. That's why it is in the Constitution. Like everything else, it has a price: "Freedom ain't free"
To put things in perspective: A mad man can kill more people with 5 gallons of gasoline than he can with an assault rifle.
both sides are using fear. Those against personal ownership fear the private gun ownership, but instead want them only in the hands of our government and those paid to protect the elites. Those for personal ownership fear the creation of a protected class where only those that can afford protection get any. In the private ownership group is a quiet belief that a French Revolution could rescue us from the tyranny of the Bush's and Obama's of the world while the anti private ownership group fears the chaos that can happen in small events and large crises by not having a strong hand at the helm without the distractions of individualism.
It's a rough argument with valid points on both sides based on cultural and personal experience. There is mud in the water based on weapons obtained through illegal channels added to results of those obtained legally creating challenge for the private ownership club. There is mud in the water with news reports of police corruption and federal overreach corrupting the anti-private ownership group's belief in a benevolent ruling class.
I don't know that answer, but nothing is as cut and dry as it first appears. Rational decisions need to separate fear from logic.
Guns don't kill people, Americans kill people. You tell me how we can keep killing so many people without easy access to guns. If we didn't have guns we'd just find another way. Americans kill people, not guns. In fact, Americans kill people all over the world. We've got our reasons and it has something to do with freedom. That's good enough for me.
We've got our reasons for what?
Terry, I know nothing will change your thinking; however I can't let some of your statements pass without comment. 1) While there are other ways a person can kill another person, a gun allows the killing to happen from a distance and allows one person with a gun to kill many unarmed and innocence people--just as a car can do. That's why we license drivers and register cars. 2) You justify killing people for the sake of freedom? Whose freedom? Yours? What about the freedom of people who've been killed? No, Terry, it shouldn't be "good enough" for you or anyone else. Freedom and peace do not come from guns and killing.
I agree, though I am inherently pro gun... Lemme make a statement of clarity though to expand on your own. The ramifications of gun culture are accepted by gun advocates due to it's benefits, just as the ramifications of automobiles are accepted for their benefits while they're shunned by others such as the Amish et c. It's just a different way of looking at things it's time that we accept that both pro-gun and anti-gun supporters have valid opinions/ views. Both aren't willing to compromise and both won't back down. They shouldn't infringe on one another's rights and shouldn't intimidate one another. Above all else we should find answer to this whatever it may be. IMHO Total gun bans or legislation leading to it, and harassment of either side is not to be tolerated...
I think if you wanna die a slow death... by smoking or drinking your life away.. by all means go ahead.. the fact that someone can violently take your life.. not the same thing. Everything should be controlled to a certain extent...
I agree.
Stay Paranoid America. Gun sales depend on it!
You know, I want to be mad, but I can't. This is very true.
The american constitution gives the right of owning guns but was written when rifles were loaded with a long metal stick. Now we have machine-guns, automatic guns, etc,etc. A person can kill dozens of others in seconds. The scenery has changed completely, don't you think ?
The reason the gun control advocates are loosing this campaign is because they became too over zealous and over killed with their demands! If they want success, thet have to use the right clubs as in golf! One should not use the driver to put a 30 footer!
I'm sure we're all aware that the worst massacre at a school was committed in 1927 with a car bomb. How about Oklahoma City no guns there. The gun is not the problem and never was, unless you're a tyrant.! It's sad to think that people are so out of touch with history. Imagine a world with no murder even by the governments. Dream on, dream until your dream comes true.
But the issue is not just what was the worst massacre at a school. That is a small part of the issue. I thought you intelligent people were aware of that.
Compare those isolated, though horrible, examples against the ongoing statistics of gun deaths and you'll have a better picture. The gun is not the problem, but it is a problem our society needs to solve so that sportsmen have the right to their guns but citizens and society at large are protected from illegal and ruthless destruction of life. And just because freedom from violence is a dream today doesn't mean it won't grow into some kind of reality tomorrow. You seem to think we're bound by the past, Tim. We never have been and we can only hope, in this regard, that we never will be.
That is a great thought, and one I think we would all like to see as a reality someday, but I don't think it will ever happen. Even if it did, a few generations later... Did you see that stupid movie where nobody lied and then one guy figured out he could? Well, like that, but with home invasions and rape.
the problem is liberals ar the ones doing ALL the killings
I'm not so worried honestly nobody is taking my guns.
Are American people as greedy as their politicians.
This gun controversy is just something to occupy the lime lite to keep our minds busy and try to let us forget the real issues of today. Might as well bring in abortion, the pill, gays,immigration you know ( all the stuff that gets the people to fight each other ) while the real issues are totally disregarded. I think the sheep should replace the eagle as our national emblem, let me rephrase that, the sheep represent the people and the eagle represents the private banks. Every time the gun issue comes up it actually increases gun sales across the country, which I don't think is a bad thing, but it is a response to another fear tactic and help the rich get richer. If and when we need guns there will always be plenty around we can get them from the black markets, I am sure they won't be on the governments side. Have you forgotten about the 911 cover up, illegal wars all over the world for oil to back up the private banking "petro dollar", the slaughter of millions of innocent woman and children and citizens of the world. Hey gun control, global warming, abortion rights, gays, immigration thats the real important stuff. WAKE UP SHEEP or should I say BAA BAA BAA.
Michael Moore had it right in Bowling for Columbine. The number 1 employer in Columbine is Lockheed Martin, (makers of weapons of mass destruction)yet the parents cannot understand how their little darlings would carry out such a devastating act of insanity. (disconnected, brainwashed, and hipocritical) The bottom line is the American public does not have to worry about needing guns to protect them from their government, because they have already surrendered their freedoms/safety to fight for the corporations. On a final note: Has anyone in America seen the latest release of the movie Red Dawn. You know, where North Korea invades the USA, (yeah right) and the citizens use guerilla warfare to fight back. I keep waiting to see them redefined as 'terrorists' under the same measuring stick the U.S uses to define those who take up arms to defend themselves against their attacks. Yes, I am so surprised why America has such gun violence, (14,000 a year) and more incarcerations per a capita then any other country in the world! Personally, I think the USA needs less alcohol, more dope, and a lot less guns. The only real solution to reduce violent crime is global cooling. This is why Canadians live in relative peace by comparison. People are to busy trying not to freeze to death 7 months out of the year.
So our increasingly militarized police forces, in this case in California, only had to shoot at a few pickup trucks with innocent civilians in it. They did not have to murder the cop-killer cop - they didn't - they said so!
He just happened to jump into a burning, smoke-filled crater that happened to appear in a cabin he took refuge in on a last-ditch escape effort, and after hiding out in a different cabin yards from the police command post for days.
Good job, coppers. Top notch case work - this is one for the books. They'll be teaching this in cop war college soon.
There is no excuse for what happened with to the people in the pick-up truck in Torrance and the officers who shot at them should be removed from the force. As for Dormer, he brought his death upon himself and that's it. So your apologist strategy simply won't wash.
The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist
John Maynard Keynes
Why use philosophy when everything else is working so well.
I both understand and appreciate your defense of philosophy. Unfortunately I was not waxing philosophic. It's not talking theory if it is reality.
Sorry, I was replying to robertallen1, thinkagain2.
To the contrary, don't apologize- at least to me. I liked your comment.
Yet none of the present laws and none of the proposed laws and none of every law, rule, or regulation proposed on this site would prevent me from walking next door and borrowing my neighbor's gun. She would be more than happy to lend it to me.
Laws can be written ad infinitum but there are 300,000,000 guns at my disposal. In America if you can't get your hands on a gun you quite literally are the person who cannot get laid in a whorehouse. Law or no law.
Just to be sure for the record I have no attraction to guns. All I stated, although true, is the antithesis of all I am.
Why dont the US state sue the gun manufactures like they did with the tobacco industries, they could even use simular arguements in some aspects. And you Yanks love to sue. I'm sure the gun makers would soon alter the way they conduct there business if it started to effect there profits
And just how are the gun manufacturers negligent?
P.S. Your other posts don't have so many typographical and orthographical errors.
About your P.S. I'll have to blame my medication for that I'm afraid.
If the weapon manufacturers design and build a weapon for the defence system and then through profit they release it to the general public are they not responsable for there action.
I was more thinking on other ways to curb the availabilities to these weapons, as it appears that trying to find common ground at the grassroot level seems to have failed. I know that statement as basic as it was, sound ludicrous to say the least however if gun control is paramount to the safety of our children shouldn't we look at all options to eleminate that threat.
Normally, the manufacturer sells the product to a distributor or wholesaler who then sells it to a dealer. Therefore, the manufacturer is responsible only for defects in the product, just as the tobacco companies were held liable for the harmful effects of smoking.
Let's face it. There's no way to eliminate the threat. Let's also face it, an all-out ban on possession of firearms is not the solution for, among other things, it's as unenforceable as Prohibition and cannot be extended to weapons purchased legally, for that would violate Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws. In addition, such a ban would be unfair to gun owners and collectors who act responsibly--and considering the ratio of crimes committed with a gun to the number of gun owners and collectors in this country, this constitutes most of them. In other words, it's despicable to have the many penalized for the actions of less than a few. Also, making an enemy out of the NRA (which could do with a change in leadership to bring it back to the way it was from its inception to the late '80's) is no solution, for its members are clearly not the problem--and frankly, these are the people who should be consulted.
With all the politicization in this country, there is probably no way the problem can be solved. Ban on future sales of certain types of weapons, more stringent background checks and better sharing of information, while constructive, areno more than feel-good band-aids. As I've mentioned before, I don't pretend to have a solution.
Thank you for your comments as I find them informative.
From an outsider looking in it appears that neither side of this debate will not look at trying achieve some type of common ground. Aren't our children our future and is it not our responsability to ensure their well being and development can be fully achieved without fear.
If backgound checks save one innocent life hasn't it been a success, we register near on everything else, why not weapons.
I'm lead to believe that that how branding animals was one of the first form of registation. it is more the case that if a firearm is registered and that weapon is use in a criminal act the registered owner may be held accountable.
I know that my opinion is not important however one of my previous post on another subject may give a better insight why I think that gun control is such an important issue for me.
Of all the horror I've seen through out my career I can honestly say the muslim radicals are by far the most dangerous. I can recall a patrol we were conducting when we seen a shepard and his boy hearding their goats. The old man had large pole he was using for a walking stick, his boy (may-by 9 or 10yrs old) was carrying an AK47.
After a very short discussion we proceeded to proform our duty, I will never forget that moment as I drew the short straw so to speak as that was my postions within our section.
Then I here these muslims saying how we the allied forces are the terrorists, which is BS as we would never give a weapon to a child with the intension of killing another human being.
Any person that hides behind their religion to justify mass murder of their own people and give kids weapons with basic instructions to kill their enemy (ME and MY SECTION) are not fit to be allowed to practice their religion. Most of the villagers proformed these acts of violence through fear of there own people.
We also cannot penalize people who have done nothing wrong, which is to say most of the gun owners and collectors. While I am in favor of more comprehensive background checks, sharing of information and restrictions as to the type of weapons and ammunition to be sold and definitively registration, as I mentioned in my previous post, I don't delude myself into thinking they are any more than band-aids. While I don't have anything resembling an answer--and once again, perhaps there isn't one--I am hypercritical of the approaches taken so far for the reasons outlined in my last post.
While your last three paragraphs are off-topic, all I can say is we have no business in those countries and our biggest mistake has been putting ourselves in a position of having to deal with them. Let them keep their oil or whatever it is that we are after.
the same reason you cant sue ford because of a drunk driver
I actually just sent an email to CREDO, asking to be the first person to register as a non-gun owner. I think it would make a great webpage.
You heard it here first! And maybe last...
You could be the founding member of the Notional Rifle Association ;)
Maybe if everyone that bought a gun was forced to be an organ donor fewer people would buy guns. That or the donor shortage would be over :)
'Guns make the woods more interesting' says the man looking at a cardboard box. Apparently that's how boring the woods are, the wilderness is much improved by bullet holes. What a plonker. Can't help but wonder what people would think if others took to pootling about with swords hanging at their hips, or a machete slung over their shoulder. And 300 million guns in the country does not look much like gun control. Why even bother with a background check? Who doesn't have a gun there and if some don't, why do some need two or more? All sounds a bit slack to me and in a slack system things go missing, must be millions of guns floating about waiting for the wrong hands to find them. It also seems that along with owning a weapon, goes the idea that it's ok to dish out a bit of justice when it suits.
That's the answer - register if you DON'T have a gun. It will save on paperwork time and money.
good idea, but will never work just like having gun owners do it, some will, most smarter ones wont
Saw this quote and comment after a story regarding the cop-killer cop in LA - "officers from the Hollywood division blazed at a pick-up truck in Torrance, thinking it was Dorner's grey Nissan, firing more than a dozen bullets, only to find they had hit two women who were delivering newspapers.
And there are those who argue that making sure the "good" guys have guns is necessary to protect the people?"
I hope you're not making an argument for disarming the police due to this unfortunate and rare incident.
I'm sure you heard the argument put forth by the head of the NRA. I thought the association was obvious, but I guess not.
The only answer to bad guys with guns is good guys with guns, or words to that effect. Wayne LaPierre
Yes, I heard it. I just wanted to ascertain the reason for your post. The incident clearly requires a detailed investigation. "Mistaken identity" seems a weak excuse.
Just thought the irony was worth the (re)post.
If you're talking about the two women delivering newspapers, the article I read said it was 4am, so dark except for any streetlights that may have been on, and they were driving without lights through the neighborhood. I'm guessing they thought they were being courteous to their customers.
Yes, the police should have been more careful, but it's not like it was broad daylight.
This was not mentioned in the articles I read. While the police should have been a lot more careful, this incident is hardly a case for stricter gun control. Although I don't have all the information, there are quite a number of questions which come to mind--and they're all for the police. I am eagerly awaiting the results of the investigation.
Be more careful? You mean shoot first ask questions later was not being careful enough? And by the way Torrance Police have shot at two trucks (no injuries in second shooting)
So what we have is a cop who shot cops being chased by cops who apparently open fire without identifying the target and shoot civilians.
And of course with all that you offer a million dollar reward. This will be sure to bring the yahoos out looking for a million dollar payday.
Brilliant. Just. F**king. Brilliant.
I wasn't defending the shootings, just saying there was a car with no headlights moving in an area where the cops were on high alert.
Yes, the cops should have been more careful. They were in a residential neighborhood. Carrying weapons.
There's a 'cowboy' mentality on both sides of the law.
In Philadelphia, it's led to one incident after another of id!ots chasing each other down city streets, in row home neighborhoods, firing at each other and hitting everyone BUT their targets.
You know, like they were in the movies or something. It's stup!d.
I know you're not defending the shootings. It isn't a matter of the cops being more careful. This morning the LA Times carried a more complete picture of this shooting. There is a picture of the truck. If you see it you will be dumbfounded. How anyone made it out of that truck alive is beyond my comprehension. It wasn't just the truck, the cops shot up the whole neighborhood. Out-of-control cops is the more apt description. This is to my point.
Guns. Define the problem. It's not the 2nd amendment, it's not rights this and rights that, it's not school shootings, it's not criminals and it's not crazies. It is guns.
So what do you propose?
It isn't a matter of what I propose. The important thing is to realize that if I, you, or anyone and everyone needs a gun to walk across his own country, his own state, his own city, down his own street, in his very own home - if that person needs a gun to do those things, then he is not a free man. Quite the contrary, he is a man living under tyranny of the worst sort. The tyranny of the gun.
O.K. Now, what do you propose?
That is my proposal. The realization that guns enslave rather than insure freedom. I have no doubt that realization will come about. I also have no doubt that it's going to be a long, bloody, national tragedy until it comes but it will come.
Philosophy is useless.
"Philosophy is useless."
Again with this opinion. I hope you are saying that you believe that in this case of guns, philosophy is useless, not in general.
Surely you must admit that John Locke gave voice to many of the freedoms in the writings of the founding fathers. I think some of his ideas on property were just wrong, but he was a major influence as a philosopher on the ideas espoused by first US leaders, IMO.
I did see your argument about the uselessness of philosophy and philosophers on the critical thinking doc, which I have not watched. Perhaps it is just a carry-over from that? Or you may just have no use for scrutiny. Were you born with every idea you have now?
I have no use for philosophers period. They are merely the tin cans on the tail of the dog. The only people who count are the doers.
That's clear enough. I think it is somewhat bizarre, but I now know that you meant exactly what you said.
How do you get your ideas? How do you form an opinion? Do you just borrow them? I think it is possible, but would be very hard for me in some cases. I am referring more to the logic and reason side of philosophy than metaphysics.
If I want to know something about science, I'll consult a scientist, not a philosopher. If I want to know something about law, I'll consult a law book or attorney, not a philosopher. If I want to learn something about a work of fine art, I'll go directly to the source, not to a philosopher. If I want to know something about plumbing, I'll consult a plumber. If I want to know something about nothing, I'll consult a philosopher.
I gave you a few other ideas, such as logic and reason. Apparently you feel none of the professionals you mentioned use logic or reason, and they just do as they were taught.
The so-called logic and reason used by professionals comes with doing, i.e., experience and training, not with reading what some philosopher has to say. Don't put words in my mouth.
I'm merely using the definition of philosophy. You seem to be ignoring it or have a fear to admit to it. Probably sent a kid or two to a high-priced college who studied philosophy and now flip burgers in a fast food joint and now you can't get them out of your house.
You are the ones attributing words to me, not the other way around. You keep talking about philosophers (I don't know too many) when I am talking about philosophy.
Philosophy--who needs it? Once again, nothing takes the place of hands-on experience.
P.S. You know nothing about my background. So don't make yourself look foolish by guessing. In short, you're wrong.
I get it - you agree but can't say it. Understood!
Wrong again. If I agreed with you, I would tell you.
Yup! Wink, wink, nudge, nudge! Got it!
Is this the best you can do?
Afraid so.
robertallen1
you asked "So what do you propose? " i know it was directed at another poster but i will give my two cents.
1.require all guns be registered and properly secured. and lay heavy fines for any breach of these rules
2. the proposed assault weapons ban should be instituted allowing for a grandfather clause (i think that is already included)
3. require manufacturers to make it extremely difficult to "convert" weapons to full auto. in many cases it is far too easy to convert these weapons.
4. limit the magazine sizes (again grandfather existing) to a reasonable size
5.get rid of loopholes in the law that allow a shoot first ask questions later mentality like the "stand your ground " laws.
6.implement and enforce mandatory waiting times
7. if you are not a resident of a particular state you cannot purchase a firearm in that state unless the gun meets the conditions set by your home state including private sales
this would be a great start. i personally would like to have more restrictions but i feel that anything more would be impossible to implement based on the current conditions and attitudes. the majority of guns entering my country that have been legally purchased in the states. and that is infuriating and gives me a horse in this race.
As this is a public site, you have just as much right as anyone to put in your two cents--I do it all the time.
I agree with just about everything you propose with the following emendations:
3. change "extremely difficult" to "impossible."
4. change "reasonable" to "7" or perhaps "10."
5. Refine the "stand your ground" laws rather than eliminate them.
7. Suggest elimination, as it would require each state to be cognizant of the gun laws in all the other states. It would be far better to mandate that if a firearm is purchased out of state or out of country, now matter by what means, it must be registered in the state in which the purchaser resides, say within a week of purchase.
I would like to add another: Make firearm registration a simple and painless process for which nominal fees would be charged.
Your #7. is what we have to do with vehicles, makes sense to me.
Your last suggestion, make it easy...Absolutely.
In this day of the internet, I register my vehicle online, pay my parking tickets online, get prescriptions from my doctor online--in fact, there's a huge amount of our lives, registered online. Why should guns be different?
If gun shows can sell guns by using hand-held card swipes and wireless internet access to their card merchant service, then *surely* they could also verify the legality of the purchaser--i.e., swipe their driver's license and get their purchase registered.
This is no longer the equivalent of brain surgery, it should be a quick and easy process. If it scares off the criminals and crazies, so be it. I'm not worried.
Nothing scares off criminals and crazies, just as nothing can eliminate the gun-related incidents of late. One way or the other, I must reiterate that what I proposed is merely a band-aid.
I only meant that such a quick and easy way to register a gun would invariably lead to gun show sellers complaining they were losing that market share, lol.
You're right, it's a band-aid, but at least it might stop a little bleeding.
There's no real fixing violence that permeates a culture. The participants need to choose to change, first.
@over_the_edge, the NRA's leadership has to choose to change itself before the rest of us can take it seriously any more.
IMO, they've painted themselves into the 'criminals and crazies' corner by their policies over the last 30 years, by choosing to uphold the rights of the most extreme of gun owners over the safety of the law-abiding majority of gun owners.
Even if by some stretch I might choose to become a gun owner, I would not join the NRA because of their leadership. That mistrust is a PR problem they have built for themselves.
Guns. Design purpose: to kill things. Point taken.
@robert, I think your earlier point of the NRA getting off its recent path is a good start.
Other comments about gun registry is a good start.
Giving the police a better way to search gun ownership, bringing it into the 21st century is a good start.
IMHO, its ridiculous that we can google-earth just about any location on earth and get street-views, but worry about guns being tracked by serial number.
Conspiracy theorists should not be running our country. it's time for gun owners to register their weapons and stop acting like such special cupcakes.
I also think that bringing the NRA into the equation rather than treating it as an enemy is a good start too.
It's also time that private sales of guns be subject to registration just as private sales of motor vehicles or real estate and while we're at it, perhaps there should be some form of licensing, again a la motor vehicles.--what a wonderful way to bring in revenue for further enforcement and research. However, such requirements will only help track a firearm used in a crime, not eliminate the potential for the crime itself which not even the banning of firearms, naively recommended by some posters, will accomplish.
Which is worse - lots of guns or infected Romanian horse meat sold as beef? I'm inclined to go for a nice corn-fed beef cow and take my chances on being slaughtered by a nut with a gun and a plan. Lots of guns and beef in WI. Mass human slaughter isn't a huge factor here, but beef is sacrosanct!
Regarding Occupy, check out this chart. It looks impressive.
directory dot occupy dot net
Occupy McMerdo Station, love it :)
Looks like Wisconsin, US.
An internal arms race in the USA? Well I am surprised. I blame John Wayne.
Automatic weapons, grenade launchers, drones and nukes? What next Robocop? Perhaps your own personal version? Or maybe an army of them? And while you’re there why not a fully armed automatic defence system built into your home?
I don’t mean to make light of a very serious and obviously painful subject but farce is often excruciatingly funny. Wholesale mass murder on regular basis is just not tenable whatever an individual’s rights may be. Greater good etc. I’m not criticizing here; I’m genuinely baffled why after so much killing the American people are not making what seems like an obvious decision in demanding and getting constitutional changes to individual rights to bear arms.
This culture of fear and weaponry to accommodate it will not end well for all of us unless those that see its insanity really make their voices heard. How many more Sandy Hooks, 10, 20, 100?
“I got a rat writ, writ for a rat” or something like that.
The Crucified One
I think that Prohibition would have taught us the futility of a constitutional amendment prohibiting firearms.
Where did I say anything about prohibition? Why the Capitalization?
You recommended changes in the Constitution. So just what are you suggesting? When referring to the period from 1919 to 1933, Prohibition is normally capitalized.
Thanks for your partial answer. That’s the second time you have avoided a direct question! As you know I am not an American citizen but I’m sure you and your country could think of something a little more sensible than this regular slaughterfest? Or maybe you can’t or won’t?
And just what was your direct question?
I don't understand why law abiding gun owners would be against registration we all have to register our cars, phones, Internet access, hell you have to register to comment on this video!! a stolen gun is capable of killing more than a stolen car as it can be reloaded but a car can only take so much damage. and then when criminals get caught with guns we'd know where the gun came from.
First of all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Second of all, majority of the guns used in crimes aren't those of law abiding citizens', they are illegal firearms that enter the country through the border and have no identifying marks on them.
do you have proof that "majority of the guns used in crimes aren't those of law abiding citizens', they are illegal firearms that enter the country through the border and have no identifying marks on them." a link to the proof would be appreciated.
as for "guns don't kill people, people kill people" . to quote Eddy Izzard
They say that 'Guns don't kill people, people kill
people.' Well I think the gun helps. If you just stood there and yelled
BANG, I don't think you'd kill too many people
Occupy seems to have raised awareness on some issues - the banksters are still in their nice offices instead of prison. There is a glimmer of hope, but I am not optimistic.
And they will remain there. Today's "occupiers" are tomorrow's banksters.
That comment reminds me of the picture they always show of the first picture of Hitler at a rally after WWI, standing in the crowd like every other nobody.
I know that picture taken in 1919. Hitler has a full moustache. One way or the other, the pattern has repeated itself throughout history, so I take as much stock in the "occupiers" as I did in the "radicals" of the '60's.
I don't see how one can even be accused of breaking a law when there is no law to break.
The government/military/fear-mongers are abusing the citizens of this country. They are not afraid of any citizen's guns. They are afraid of people understanding their plan to keep us under their collective thumb.
Our media reports what the gov't wants and keeps quiet about what the gov't says. The fourth estate is dead, and our constitution is very ill from lack of interest and abuse by the corporations and fascists running this country.
So what are we supposed to do about it?
It appears that it's not only your citizens are at the mercy of your terrorist gov't, as shown by what they have done to citizens of other countries (allied countries at that). Julian Assenge, one of American gov'ts worst nightmare is being prosecuted because he was able to expose the lies they told and are telling the rest of the world about their war on terror. If there currnet form is anything to go by (David Hicks) when the USA finally get there grubby little hands on him I have no doubt that another Kangaroo Court will be held to ensure a conviction. I'm not saying he has no case to answer however I'm of the belief that he will not receive a fair hearing in the States going by there track record.
The issue is moot. All charges against Mr. Hicks were dropped in 2012, based on a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
I agree that the David Hicks saga has been resolved, however I was using him as an example on the bias your gov't appear to portray to the majority of the rest of the world, when it comes to defending the lies it tells.
If you're saying the whole thing is dishonest and despicable, you're right--and rationalizing this conduct on the grounds that other governments throughout history have done the same does not remove the stigma. We're supposed to be better--or at least we claim to be, ask Hillary and Condoleezza. The sad thing is that with all that's come out, Obama is just as right wing as Bush, only in many ways he is a bigger hypocrite.
The Second amendment "The right to bear arms", has long since been distorted.
Historically it was an amendment that sought to protect the US from foreign invasion because the early american military demanded that individuals rally together as a militia groups to fight off both foreign and domestic threats.
Problem is that today, there is no longer any need for personal militia's and likewise the need to bear arms (muskets) to rally with. There is already a well trained military that uses a sophisticated arsenal to do its bidding (for good or bad)
As a result the amendment needs to be repealed, as it has nothing to do with personal protection, or the right to hunt animals or any other selfish personal desires.
Gun toting Americans who use the second amendment as justification have no clue as to its original meaning.
It's often said that people kill and guns are merely the tools. But having said that if the tools were restricted or abolished than killing of innocents would be increasingly more difficult, aka no school shooting that leave dozens of a children dead
It's time Americans citizens dropped their ridiculous obsession with dangerous weapons because it doesn't serve any positive good.
Ultimately a gun only serves one purpose and its a destructive one, Hopefully rational people will come to this same conclusion and shut down the gun crusaders of America.
"Shut down the gun crusaders of America." So what do you propose?
@ Robertallen1,
Use the law to gradually make the owning of firearms illegal; with the exception of a few services. (police, security, etc)
It won't solve the problem over night, but it would certainly be a start in the right direction, one which the justice system could implement in a piecemeal fashion.
And just how do you propose enforcing this? What about those who already own guns? What about the criminal element?
@ Robertallen1
The same way all law is enforced, by 'enforcement'.
There are also clever ways to reduce gun ownership.
Proclaim that all owning of guns are unlawful, Cease the immediate selling of guns, while also offering programs that will enable gun owners to benefit from bringing in their gun (step one). For example offer a 50$ government check for guns brought in. etc..
(step two), after a period of time repeal the generous offer of buying guns from civilians and enforce the law in the same way that drugs are enforced. aka "War on Drugs"/ "War on Guns". the strategy should work well
The sales of guns, and unlawful ownership of guns won't be completely eliminated, nor will the process be a quick and easy one. But over the coarse of time, the limiting and restricting guns will aid in saving lives.
Suppose someone doesn't want to sell his gun which he lawfully purchased? What about gun collectors?
And most important of all, how are you getting to get the legislative bodies, in particular the U.S. Congress, to proclaim the ownership of guns to be illegal. By comparing the ownership of guns to the ownership of drugs, you clearly demonstrate that you have no grasp of the situation.
I would hate to see anything that resembles the "war on drugs." It is a repeat of the Volstead Act in legislating morality. The 18th Amendment made the sale and manufacture of alcohol illegal, and the 21st amendment ended the hypocrisy.
Nixon's drug scheduling, which bypassed sensible legislation, created a nation of "criminals." Too many resources go towards punishing users. During Prohibition, drinking itself was not illegal, as I understand it.
While Volstead created the mob's biggest success, drug laws do create a huge incentive to make easy money; it also makes criminals of casual users that get caught.
I would think closing the gun show loophole and background checks would help, I would not see value in banning guns in toto.
That may sound inconsistent - I don't know. I don't use drugs or drink or smoke, but did use all long ago and was addicted to all but drugs. I have never owned a gun.
Hahah, wow. You really don't know how the world works. Go back to the American Democrats, where "all of their plans will work because people think exactly how we think". And really? You're going to compare this to the War on Drugs? Because the War on Drugs has been so successful! "The strategy should work well", hahah, such naive, wishful thinking.
So no hunting, no target practice, no defense of one's household.
If I legally own a firearm and obey all the laws, why should I be penalized?
The Second Amendment is not about to be repealed so you might as well disembarras yourself of that idea.
i'm just gunna throw this out there... and i'll probably get crucified for it (especially because i'm Canadian).. but as a US citizen, you have a right to bare arms right? arms are just weapons. I understand owning a hunting rifle, maybe even a hand gun for protection. And maybe it's because of my cultural upbringing, but it seems to me that everyone is so focused on "protecting" this right for themselves, that they're willing to allow others to infringe on others right to life by trying to keep guns easily available. Just seems a little self centered to me, but like I said, I'm Canadian, and although i grew up in a border city, there are HUGE cultural differences between Canadians and Americans on the whole.
So what? I don't go for the idea of being penalized for the actions of others.
I can't even watch anymore of this crap. OMG! LOL Please go read the journals of the revolutionists!
Citations please!!! Whata bunch a sh*t!!
But the constitution says...
But the bible says...
Bloody ancient texts!!
Except that the U.S. Constitution is still operative.
Unfortunately they both are...
Not in a legal sense which is all that matters.
why is what's legal all that matters?
Because you cannot be incarcerated for doing something which goes against the bible, but you can be for doing something against the law. It's all a practical matter.
Now I am off to a better documentary somewhere. There is learning to be done!
For philosophy, I recommend you Google Michael Sandel and the Justice series at Harvard. It is available there or on YouTube. Philosophy is not useless.
Who cares what some political philosopher says?
I don't necessarily care what any philosopher says, I care how they think.
You have to put pressure on the tip. Quite the distraction, the nail gun.
They are useless, except perhaps in the classroom.
I’d just like to add that your Sandel recommendation is a really good one for anybody interested in what Justice means and its various interpretations. So good in fact I’ve watched it all twice and it is possibly the finest exposition on the subject I have ever seen. Sandel is a joy to listen to and his open discussion Q & A format really gets you thinking. A bit of a pot boiler but totally delicious.
The Crucified One
I am on at least my third run for some, if not all lectures. It is very good stuff.
I wish I could see a 2013 version of the same topics. There is a lot to discuss and I would personally like to see his take on presidential power and how to make sense of it.
I am baffled. There is very little distinction between the two parties in their actions right now, if not as much in "principles," which I have to put in quotes to keep from retching.
Yeah, I know what you mean. It’s all vomit inducing business principles and nothing else.
Hmm you just reminded me I watched that several years ago, and it is worth a second viewing. Thanks for the reminder!
I thought I grew up in a place where guns were not. My best friends aunt shot herself last year. I knew her well. We all know she didnt plan it, it was just one week moment and in that weak moment a gun was there (not hers). Its not just guns been handed out to ''good people'', this acceptance and availability of guns means that seemingly perfectly reasonable people when they have a weak moment, fit of rage etc have guns to hand to blow theirs or anyone elses f#####g brains out. And its quite often not their own gun anyway. You're all gone mad if you think having a load of guns around is going to lead to a safer community.
I AM an AMERICAN and I want to keep ALL OF MY RIGHTS. I feel that our
forefathers new what they were doing by adding the amendments to OUR
beloved CONSTITUTION.They knew there were going to be modern improvements on guns and thats why THEY put in the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in it.They were trying to curb GOVERNMENTAL TYRANEY.The PEOPLE are supposed to be the GOVERNING entinty.NOT the FEDS.
look what happins in China and other countrys that take RIGHTS from there citizens. Also I like my guns,and THEY have NEVER KILLED ANYONE.
I am a law biding citizen,why should I give up my rights to BEAR ARMS of any KIND.When laws already there arn't being enforced.WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS....Shooting is a sport just like nascar, tennis or football,using a skill for PLEASURE and FUN.
nascar is a sport? c'mon...spelling is a sport!
4wheelNeal
you ask "why should I give up my rights to BEAR ARMS of any KIND" so you are all for any American having a cruise missile? how about a nuclear weapon? how about taking a gun onto a plane?
Let him interpret the second amendment literally if that's what he is sure he wants. That will cause him no end of problems.
Here's an example and it is silly but no one can tell me it is not a literal reading of the second amendment. I can see the right to bear arms. Not carry guns - the right to bear arms as in grizzly bear arms.
Taken literally.
This was a response to thinkagainagain. I thought it would post that way. I might add to said thinker that it seems to me that although the sixth amendment does not use the word "fair " (a word that in my opinion should be thrown out of all political and legal discussion) it pretty well describes conditions for a trial that preserve as much as possible the rights of the accused.
Fair is a word used in all philosophical discussion on natural rights. It is an important word in deciding what is right morally and what is the right of a person. How could you leave it out of any discussion?
Because although the term is colloquially juxtaposed to trial, it is only relative--i.e., there are different ideas of fairness. As usual philosophy is useless.
Wow! Useless? Not a fan of scrutiny?
Well, you may know more about it in a philosophical context than I do, but in the general discourse prevalent in the U.S. today it as an ill-defined amorphous word of great use to the demagogue to sway opinion while analyzing and clarifying nothing. (For example, paying one's "fair share" of taxes; a humpty-dumptian phrase if ever there was one.)
I think it interesting, going back to the original point, that rather than stating that a person has a right to a fair trial, the framers of the bill of rights actually described the types of actions needed to ensure one.
Obviously a fair trial was implied by the framers of the Sixth Amendment for the opposite would have been ridiculous--and notice the word impartial.
One way or the other, we don't need some social philosopher to tell us what is fair and what is not. That's up to the courts and in the there are volumes of cases demonstrating that they have been doing this for the last 250 years.
Yes, you have to define what is fair and why it is fair, but to say the word lacks meaning or is misleading as a blanket statement is not "fair" to the word. I certainly do not want to just pay lip service to fairness.
I'm no philosopher king, I just happen to be (re)watching some lectures on it. I find it fascinating.
Not exactly, I would say. It starts with an explanation of the amendment's constitutional purpose. Then it states it as a right without limits--'shall not be infringed" (infringed=transgressed upon, violated, encroached upon. ) The only possible argument for limitation based on the text then becomes whether or not the militia clause states exclusive conditions for gun ownership rights, which is the constitutional argument being waged, at least by those who still care about the constitution.
However the Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue in the Heller decision of 2008. Scalia (for the court) stated that the Second “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,. . . .” but does protect "an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."
As much as anything this seems to have been a practical decision on the court's part, an instance in which technology has outgrown the amendment. Ordinary citizens do not have the right to own SCUD missiles for example, and I don't think the argument that they do would get very far.
If stare decisis holds then, it seems to me the standard for limitation have been pretty well set, and the argument moves to what types of weapons fall outside constitutional protections. I'm not a gun owner, but the arguments of people who actually own these things and know them make a lot of sense to me. The chief Obummer says if he can save one life it is worth it, but really he is just deciding which lives to save when he proposes such things as limiting clip size. In my view, if government regulation prevents one person from protecting self and family, the loss is unacceptable.
There is no constitutional right to a fair trial- amendment or otherwise.
The Sixth Amendment provides for the right to trial by a jury of one's peers.
I don't believe the Sixth Amendment says anything about a jury of one's peers.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, BY AN IMPARTIAL JURY of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
What other type of jury is there except of one's peers?
I think you can ask for a judge to rule on any case, can't you? He/She would then be judge and jury.
That's merely a matter of choice. One way or the other, the right to a trial when being prosecuted for a crime is absolute.
Unless the government suspects you are a terrorist! Somehow, that amendment is ignored in such a case.
Show me one case where this has happened to an American citizen.
At least one American has been killed by Obama. No trial there.
"Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S. citizen killed by a targeted drone strike."
Where have you been?
Was he formally accused?
I think his death by drone got in the way of that happening, but maybe. Kind of pointless now, don't you think?
Now try to find a case where a person was accused of a crime and was sentenced without a trial.
P.S. I despise what happened.
What about extraordinary rendition? No trial, no charges even! Just suspicion. And I would call torture a sentence. And the whole world does it. I suppose that makes it easier to say we didn't do it to our own citizens - the Israelis did it. Quid pro quo, and all that.
I'm not discussing what the Israelis did.
And when was torture or extraordinary rendition declared legal by a U.S. court of law?
It is extrajudicial in nature. Who needs a court or a congress or even a constitution when the government can do whatever it wants. At best, it was an executive order, or more than one.
As I said, any other nation willing to play that game is welcomed by the US. Quid pro quo. You take our citizens to a black site, we'll take yours to a black site. What fun! Thank you, 9/11 for a perpetual war on terror - anything goes - it's for your safety!
I have a glue gun, stick 'em up! :)
I liked it twice. :)
Love Me Two Times Baby! ;)
Get a room!
Excuse me if I sound rude however as I find your posts and/or opinion very informative, I would like your opinion of the USA unlawful imprisonment of David Hicks
Terrible. The court of appeals did not the right thing when it invalidated his conviction on the grounds that the law which he was accused of violating was not in place at the time it was ostensibly violated.
So all juries of peer are impartial?
What does that have to do with anything. You're trying to change the subject--won't wash.
With these arguments you can claim the right to own a bazooka. Oh bazooka is too dangerous? NO! Bazooka doesn't kill, people do! And so on.
There's nothing to debate. The Constitution gives Americans the right to bear arms, period, end of story. If you don't like it you can move to another country.
If the Constitution can be amended, it's open to debate. period. end of story.
The floor is open!
Certainly doesn't mean it should be. Stories not quite ended after all.
No right is limitless and no right is absolute. The 2nd amendment itself places the first limitation on the right to bear arms.
So no right is limitless and no right is absolute. How about the right to a fair trial? How about the right to due process? Just to name two.
Unless you've been shot dead by a fellow American...
first off. as far as i know the proposals do not take away existing guns. just like full automatics the ones already in existence can be kept. and if the government starts mass round ups of guns i will defend your right to keep them. just like the 1994 assault weapons ban did not take the grandfathered guns away.
secondly. when people start repeating the "second amendment" nonsense they forget that their right to bear arms is already limited. the above mentioned full automatic ban as well as many other types of arms are already limited so that does not fly with me. also the claim that this is just the first step to taking all guns is nonsense.
as i had to state on the other recent gun doc. this subject is not about atheism/theism so please stay on topic
As I mentioned a month back to another poster, grandfather clauses are made part of legislation to prevent ex post facto. You are certainly correct about the power of the government to limit the weapons of its private citizenry--I tried to by a fully-loaded Sherman tank and couldn't. So I tried to settle for a bazooka, but the gun store I went to would not sell me one and explained that anyway it was fresh out of stock. So I settled for a sling shot--and a defective one at that.
robertallen1
speaking of bazooka are they legal to own there? i saw a story on a recent gun turn in event in California where multiple (can't remember how many) rocket launchers were turned in.
As far as I know, they are illegal, except by collectors--and even this must be inoperable. Should I ask the NRA.
Speaking of the NRA, if it were smart, it would go back to the way it was in the '30's and introduce on its own progressive legislation relating to gun control. It is simply bad PR to be on the defensive all the time.
robertallen1
as far as i know the NRA used to be for reasonable controls. until the late 70's when there was a change in leadership.
That's what the documentary brought out and that's what I recall in the '60's and early '70's. Obviously, it needs to change back, for it's creating a false and sinister image. Its members are not the ones we need to worry about, but are the ones who should be consulted and made to feel that they are an important part of the solution, if there is one, and not the problem. Again, this is just bad PR all around and on all sides--and there shouldn't be sides on this issue.
Oh no it doesn't fly with you! You completely disregard the FACT that the main reason for the second amendment is to keep control in the hands of the people.
Ok time for a smoke, beer, and some target practice.
So...this is what I hear living in the States.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
True, but guns make it much easier.
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
True, unless you stop bad guys from having guns in the first place.
"It's my right to have a weapon"
True, but it's your right to have eighteen baby mommas too.
"The government is going take my right away"
Why? Are you an inner city a**hole who bought a gun for $50. bucks of your crack whore's brother?
The NRA used to lobby to protect us and restrict arms to people that shouldn't have them. Now they lobby to sell guns.
The inner city problem demands that we be more creative in problem solving, not only be concerned about ourselves. It's like Congress...we have to work together.
Wake the F**k up!
You've said absolutely nothing.
Well obviously you don't know how to listen, but you sure are opinionated.
All you're said is we must work together which is to say nothing, absolutely nothing.
No; I said people have to stop hiding behind others lies. Psychopaths with a purpose lie, and before you come back with some rationale that everybody lies, psychopaths and sycophants involved in the NRA lie with potentially dangerous results. People who want to restrict weapons use do so with much less potential for harm. I thought you'd understand that. But I am happy to explain it to you.
Take the gun away from the bad guys, then you won't need a good guy to kill them with their gun.
You still haven't come up with anything.
Neither have you.
At least I admit it.
I only shared info I knew to be criticized by you who admits he knows nothing. You don't make sense.
I did not admit to knowing nothing, but rather to not having a solution. Why don't you learn to understand what you read?
Guns don't kill people ... bullets do
Guns just get em going really really fast
Bullets should cost like 2 grand so if you shoot someone you'll really think about it first :)
People kill people, guns ,knives and other devises or implements may be use for the purpose of killing, however the fact remains people kill people....
This is where your argument falls apart:
Guns are single-use technology; their sole design purpose is to kill things. There's no alternative use that I'm aware of. So of course, that's what people use them for.
Here is a serious question, as the 'people kill people' argument keeps dancing around it:
What is even one benign use of a gun that puts it on the same footing as a blade, which is used for many different benign uses?
E.g., I remove unwanted body hair with my razor, I chop veggies with my kitchen knife, I remove $#(@*$( plastic otherwise- unremovable packaging with my scissors.
Now, Wald0 pointed out that killing unwanted animals in a rural setting is a use, but it's hardly benign to the animal being killed.
Also, there are other technologies available to perform that function, with less innate destructive ability, though; I knew some vet students that raised or hunted their own food animals, and they were bow hunters.
I never heard of a mass shooting using bows, though.
WaldO has a point with respect to killing unwanted animals in a rural setting. A gun is simply more efficient and effective. Try bringing down a marauding grizzly with a bow and arrow.
Again, I mention Annie Oakley.
Ever heard of a nail gun?
The design purpose of a nail-gun is to drive nails through lumber in order to build things, a benign purpose that causes no harm to anything except lumber.
The primary, and as far as anyone has said so far, *only* design purpose of a gun is to kill things, whether game or human. "What's the benign use for this item?" was the question I asked.
I'm just pointing out that people keep comparing guns to other items that can *also* be used as a weapon but whose primary purposes are something else, generally benign. Like the nail-gun you mentioned.
I'm not opposed to gun ownership.
P.S. What has Annie Oakley got to do with anything? It's not like you to throw out nonsequiturs.
As mentioned earlier, she never killed anyone and used firearms only for clearly benign purposes. Remember, you agreed. The documentary also began with a shooting range in West Virginia, clearly a benign purpose.
Annie Oakley trapped and hunted to feed her family at a time in history when there were a lot fewer humans and a lot more animals roaming wild. Benign for her family, not so much for the animals, and she was using her gun in its design purpose which was to kill things.
Target practice just increases one's skill level, and makes one more effective in using the gun for it's design purpose, which is to kill things.
This can go on all day long, but still doesn't change the design purpose of the gun, which is to kill things.
I just want to get rid of the pretense that there is any other use for a gun.
Once we agree on that, then we can have a better dialogue on the societal issues of personal vs. public safety, which is the real debate, I think, and the one which the current iteration of the NRA avoids.
I hope you make an exception for the nail gun and target practice for the sake of target practice.
Now, just what do you suggest we do about this problem?
An exception for nail guns? What kind of exception? Why? It's not like the boards are going to sue or anything.
Target practice is target practice--whether one ever uses the skill acquired to kill things or not, one has acquired the skill to do so.
I don't have answers. I just want to get the bullsh!t out of the way.
Nail guns and target practice reflect a benevolent use of firearms.
Perhaps there are no answers. As I mentioned in an earlier post, neither those interviewed in the documentary nor any of the posters on this thread have come up with anything practical or potentially effective. While the NRA certainly needs a new board of directors to bring it back to what it was from its founding to the late '70's, not to mention a change in PR, more might be gained if it were treated as an ally rather than an adversary.
I still don't get why you keep bringing up nail guns; their primary design function is driving nails into lumber.
But exactly. The answers aren't easy.
There are sometimes situations on a farm where a firearm is necessary. I've seen it here in Aus where a couple thousand sheep have had to be 'put down' due to drought. A firearm was the only practical and 'kind' way.
I've eaten things I've shot, and fed my dogs. I wouldn't be capable right now of stalking a rabbit with a bow, but I can still get one with my .22
Also, protection of farm animals. Foxes are one example, there are multiple others. In Queensland, it is a land owners job to control the wild dogs on their property. Baiting can be used, but is indiscriminate, firearms are better, and if done properly is more humane . And, believe it or not, culling some animals still is an important job, which a gun is often the best tool for. Dogs, goats, pigs for example. It makes some people shudder, but we have to cull Kangaroos from time to time in some area's of Aus, given the choice I'd rather be shot then starve.
Edit- I shot my own dog, my best mate of 17 years, to save him some pain. It would've been much harder (for me) to put him down with something other then a gun.
Not to mention the sport of shooting, in it's various forms. It is an Olympic sport. It's not as easy as it would seem being accurate with a firearm. I've taken people to my local shooting range who had a fun afternoon shooting paper targets. Some of those people would never shoot at anything alive. It is a sport in it's own right, not only for 'practice' killing things.
Unfortunately shooting other people seems to be the most common use, but they are a required tool still in some situations.
I understand there are situations where killing something is necessary and that a gun is the tool for the situation. I don't disagree with that and I have no problem with it. =)
I just don't want people to pretend it has any other *design* purpose, no matter how much target shooting is done.
In other words, I'm separating the design aspect from the use aspect, whereas conflating the two seems to be a smokescreen used to deflect any talk of gun control.
I have no problems with gun ownership; I have no problems with gun control, either. But it seems the only talk is 'either/or', never 'and/both'.
@docoman
A touching story about your dog mate, thanks for sharing. There’s no doubt guns/rifles have their uses. Did you hear about that guy who survived for weeks marooned in the outback because he badly broke his leg? Just him and his dog and his rifle. Although he couldn’t move much he could shoot. The dog, Rover, his lifelong friend would retrieve these occasional kills and he would cook and eat them. After a few weeks however and on the point of starvation he decided he had to shoot and eat his dog or die.
When asked by reporters how he felt after doing this he said “It was him or me, I had to do it, afterwards when I looked at his bones by the fire I thought ...what a crying shame...Rover would have loved those”
Wow, I hadn't heard that one. Good dog Rover, that would've been hard to do. And they'd probably have both died without the rifle.
I saw awhile back on the news here an old bloke had a stroke and was mostly paralyzed, his kelpie kept him alive for a few days taking a towel, dropping it in the toilet to get it wet, then took it to the old bloke and put it so the old bloke could suck on it to get some water. His daughter found him alive a few days after the stroke, thanks to his dog.
There’s a good reason you haven’t heard that one mate. I made it up. Sorry, it was how I try to see humour in the most desperate of situations.
Haha, ya got me ya mongrel. :) Good 1 :) Mine was a true story according to the news... so it's probably 50/50 lol.
and a damned good one it was too!
I don't get why you are referring to a nail gun as a firearm.
Because it is fired just the same as any other type of firearm.
Where do you buy your nail guns? I haven't seen anything like what you describe at Lowes or Home Depot.
For safety, nail guns are designed to be used with the muzzle touching the target. Unless specifically modified for the purpose, they are not effective as projectile weapons.
There are 10's of thousands of injuries every year, not surprisingly.
Kateye knows what one is. Why don't you?
Have you specifically asked for one?
Kateye said, "I still don't get why you keep bringing up nail guns; their primary design function is driving nails into lumber."
I think you are the mistaken one.
Once again, a nail gun is a gun in every sense of the word. Don't you dare tell me I'm mistaken until you have looked this up and read about how it works.
I'm beginning to think you might be nutty and that is probably not the case, so I will repeat this once and then leave you be.
"For safety, nail guns are designed to be used with the muzzle touching the target. Unless specifically modified for the purpose, they are not effective as projectile weapons."
They are for nailing things together, capiche? Generally compressed air driven or by electromagnetism, more rarely by explosive charges. They are a hammer replacement, not a gun replacement.
Nevertheless, the ones driven by explosive charges are firearms (guns) in every sense of the word. Their inability to make effective projectile weapons is as irrelevant as their use--capiche?
Unlike a nail, this is pointless. Enjoy yourself.
One way or the other, it is still a firearm although its use is a benevolent one.
Need a license?
What difference does that make?
Not licensed as a firearm, it is not a firearm. Doesn't mean it won't kill you dead. If I have a rubber band gun, does that make it a weapon we should be discussing because it has the word gun in it?
A bullet is placed in the chamber and it is fired; therefore, it is a firearm.
A rubber band gun does not use gun powder. Therefore, it is not a fire arm. The same with a grease gun.
Neither does the most common nail gun, it generally uses air pressure.
Argue it all you want, i'm done.
Once again, the ones that use bullets are firearms in every sense of the word.
We're talking primary design purpose, remember?
What's the primary design purpose of a gun? To shoot projectiles into living beings rendering great harm.
What's the primary design purpose of a nail gun? To shoot nails into lumber in order to build things.
The interwebz are full of people doing strange and amazing things to each other and themselves using any number of objects in ways their designers clearly never intended...
So are you arguing that the type of nail gun that operates with a bullet is not a firearm?
it is not relevant to this documentary that is for sure...
Any tool can be used for purposes other than their designed intent.
The kind of nail guns you're referencing are designed specifically for heavy construction use.
What can a gun be used for, other than to shoot bullets? Guns are designed as weapons. Nail guns are designed to drive nails.
Primary design purpose, remember? Focus!
But, done for the evening, y'all take care.
Are you saying that purpose, as opposed to method of operation, is all that matters when defining a firearm?
You're the only person I've ever heard refer to nail guns, used in construction, as 'firearms'. They certainly never did on 'This Old House' or any of the 'how to' shows that are so popular, so I can only assume that is a specialized type of nail gun.
It's the older type which uses a .22 or .38 caliber bullet to drive a missile into a wall.
And by missile, do you mean a nail or stud for the purpose of construction?
Yes or brad or staple or whatever.
Our nail friend is behaving like a troll. There is only one way to handle a troll.
Oh, its a friendly back and forth =)
A nail gun has the same safety requirements as a firearm. Nail guns can kill, see safety. Although no match for @Kateye70" Grizzly's in NJ.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_gun
Same place I got my info.
You're right. They can kill. Ever see "The Toolbox Murders" with Cameron Mitchell where he nails a girl in her bath because she's doing "unclean things to herself?"
I use a rifle for target practice but the type should be single shot or max 3 round mag bolt action. Automatic assault rifles are not that accurate in comparison (snipers use bolt action) No recognised international shooting comp's use auto's for this and other reasons. Assault rifles are for rednecks to shoot the s*it out of 44 gallon drums on the weekend!
If the school shooting had been carried out with a nail gun, crossbow, single shot rifle bolt action with a 3 round magazine the number of sad deaths would have been MUCH MUCH less. I am sure the US government is not calling for the the banning of all guns just ones designed with the sole purpose of killing HUMAN beings en-mass, in an efficient manner, as required (sadly) in war. We are talking about " INAPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERE" for redneck wonderland!
You know, grizzly b'ars are big problem in NJ these days...just sayin'.
Did you read about the case in Georgia last month where a woman shot a home intruder five times while clearly protecting her children?
No, but I remember when I lived in Atlanta years ago, a mother who bought a gun, after her home was burglarized 3 times in 2 months, killed her own daughter who got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom.
My older sister drove an intruder out of the motel room she was staying in with her three young children using her long fingernails and a mother's rage.
She made me nervous as hell, years later when I was traveling with her and she put a gun in the nightstand drawer between us...I begged her not to shoot me if I got up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night.
Did the intruder have a crowbar in his hand when your older sister drove him away? Was the intruder twice the size of your older sister?
There is no doubt that the woman in Georgia did the right thing--only it would have been better had she killed the intruder instead of just wounding him.
While unfortunate, the incident in Atlanta is no argument against having a firearm or two in a private home for protection. Do you have a link to the story?
As far as my sister's incident goes, size-wise, I think he was pretty big, don't know if he had any weapons or not. She went for his face with her fingernails and was close enough to scratch him, so she may have been his intended target--but he was so startled by her attack he ran away. She was very lucky, which is why she had a gun with her when we traveled. I understood, but it still made me nervous.
I simply brought my story up as the 'counter' to your anecdote. It was so long ago, (pre-internet days) that I doubt there is a link.
This can go back and forth all day, but as I've said elsewhere, we have to first admit there is no other design purpose for guns, take into account that the world has changed since the 18th and 19th centuries, and deal with our problems now.
Fine. Killing has become easier than it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. Once again, what do you propose?
I agree totally with you about what fire arms are designed for.
Although no guns would reduce violent crimes, it would not eleminate them completely.
What other purpose deos a bow have?
I'm sure that someone experenced with a bow could actually be more effective in killing masses due to the silence of the weapon.
Meh, the multi-shot crossbows I saw were slow, noisy and only had a few arrows in their 'clips.' Guns replaced bows as the long-range weapon of choice a long time ago. Besides, when was the last lone bowman massacre?
You mentioned a crossbow so from your original statement of bow you have now refined it to cross bows, however useing a standard bow is silent ang that is my point to your previous statement, changing your statement after short coming were presented to you appear to be an attempt to misrepresent your original points
Bow designed for one purpose to my knowledge...
As the crossbow one would assume however, it appears your knowledge of weaponry far exceed my so please continue as I'm always willing to learn for anyone with superior knowledge on any subject than I have myself.
No, no, I made a mental leap from bow to crossbow, as crossbow is the one that would allow multiple shots, and just assumed that would be the archery weapon of choice for a mass murder.
Bows are the precursors to guns, are they not? I've never heard of anyone walking into a school or workplace with any kind of bow with the intent to commit mass murder, though.
True, but like a gun, other than target practice, isn't the primary purpose of a bow and arrow to kill? For that matter, other than target practice, isn't the primary purpose of a sling shot to kill or at least do grievous bodily harm? Yet, I do not hear people crying out for bans or controls on these weapons. Is the hue and cry about firearms merely a form of damage control?
I've never heard of anyone rampaging through a school or office or mall with a slingshot or bow, have you?
My only point is that like guns, they are designed to kill or maim; yet, nobody seeks to curtail or ban them, probably because they are not as efficient as firearms and for no other reason--i.e., damage control.
You have to admit, guns are lightyears ahead of bows and slingshots in the amount of damage they can do in a very very very short period of time.
Particularly the automatic weapons so popular with mass killers; we're not talking 18th century front-load muskets here.
I have mentioned damage control at least twice so far.
Maybe I'm not understanding your point. I'm getting tired of making mine.
When I did my firearm's license course here after our new laws came in a few years ago now, I recall them saying that Queensland police consider 'anything that can propel a solid, liquid or gas that can harm someone' to be a 'firearm'.
So, a water pistol, with something like acid, or petrol in it, COULD be considered a firearm here. They talked about a case where a woman with a can of hairspray and a lighter in her bag was asked by police why she carried it, and her reply of 'self defense' was enough to get her charged with firearms offenses. (obviously they wanted to 'throw the book' at her)
Under their definition, a nail gun used to harm someone could/would be considered a firearm. (propels something that hurt someone)
Depends on someone's definition of a 'firearm' I guess.
Most, but not all, firearms are designed to kill something. Some are designed to kill people, some are for generally more 'non warlike' uses like hunting, some purely for the 'sporting' aspect of it. (usually air powered)
Yes, its amazing what can get perverted into a weapon.
My point is that weapons designed as weapons, such as guns, have no other alternative use. What could you conceivably do with a pistol to give it a benign use? You certainly couldn't use it to drive nails with.
This is insane nitpicking over words, which robertallen loves. I'll indulge it up to a point, but my original point has been lost in all the noise.
So here it is again: Conflating an item that is only designed to be a weapon and has no other use, with items designed for constructive purposes and only later perverted into weapon use, is not helpful in deciding what kind of gun controls will be most beneficial to the most people in the US.
As I've said before, I'm not against gun ownership, but I *am* for better controls than the US currently has.
(Edit to add missing word)
A joke I read earlier, related to how you can't predict how people will use something different then it's original design.
An older person wrote a complaint to a deodorant company. "I tried your new stick deodorant, I followed the instructions; Remove cap, push up from bottom.
It hurt some, and hasn't helped my armpits, but every time I fart the room smells nice now." ;)
hahaha! I had to read that twice to 'get it'!
My point is that damage control seems to be the main issue, not wanton killing in general.
Nor am I aware of any Constitutional Amendment that thinks those items are of any use in a "well-armed militia" haha!
The Second Amendment just states "bear arms" and bows and arrows and sling shots could be and were considered arms. "Arma virumque cano . . . " Virgil.
And yet there's no "National Slingshot Association" protecting our right to rampage through a mall with slingshots, is there?
I sure wish there were. Maybe it should be an arm of the NRA which covers pistols as well as rifles.
A mental leap... Only the person making that leap, would be able to fully understand the direction your leap is taken.
With the statement you made that i replied to made no mention or indication that crossbows where what you where indicating.
So as I mentioned changing your definition of your statement could be misconstrude as misinformation
You're right, I made a mental leap no one else could follow. That's what I thought I said.
You know, I remembered why I made that mental leap from bow to crossbow...because we were discussing mass killings. The recent mass killings seem to all be featuring automatic weapons. So what's the closest type of bow that could be reloaded? A crossbow, was what I thought of. I don't believe there are automatic cartridges for regular bows, are there? (Just trying to visualize that hurt my brain!)
Guns don't kill people - people kill people.
But so do monkeys if you give them guns.
Good one. Of course they'd probably go back to sticking their fingers in their butts fairly quickly.
Right. Keeping bullets in the hands of the rich is one way to curb the problem. Now, how about a practical and effective solution.
Ha! I knew it was a comedian! Chris Rock -- the youtube clip is hilarious! Enjoy!
“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Sh!t, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his a$$.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your f*cking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
? Chris Rock
One way or the other, no one either in the documentary or in these comments has come up with any practical and potentially effective solution to the problem. Maybe there just isn't one.
Effective background checks, ownership and safety training courses and biofeedback fire control systems.... should nip the problem for responsible owners...
Has anyone else had trouble with the film? It stops and restarts every few seconds. I'm going to have to stop. Too annoying, though I really wanted to hear what it had to say.
The most stupid is to say: the only way to stop the bad guy with the gun is a good guy with the gun. So if the bad guys start getting bazookas on the streets and handgrades would you sell those to people for protection? this is isnane closed circle based on what? tradition, culture? Tradition just stops people to think and evolve.
who wants to kill will kill....the discussion of gun-law distracts from the root cause of the system producing serial killers like no other society in comparison.social inequality spurred by consumption identity will create sociopathic behaviour like henry ford's assembly line produced t-models.
hi before i watch this documentary, ill like to mention America was only colonized because of the gun, so it is inherent that the society that precedes the colonization would celebrate having guns. Americans wright to the president are just plain dumb! put it this way if i was to be in a room with the president, having a spliff would be a criminal offense and id be jailed, having a license with a gun, oh totally fine!!!!!!! what would you prefer a person in a room to have, a spliff or a gun????????? who is more dangerous?????. i look out to space regularly, and just think how can anyone think a god exists, when life and humans especially are so messed up!!!!
@Lozza Viv Right and people today only justify gun ownership from the 2nd amendment which made sense during the 18th Century but has no merit today. (We learned that in History class)
I mean really... with these shootings happening more and more frequently, when will people EVER learn? It's just mind boggling really..
"...people today only justify gun ownership from the 2nd amendment... "
Well, not really. I am all for a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips but, I think trying to ban ALL guns is really out of the question. For one the bad guys will always have access to some kind of gun, no matter what the government decides, and so it makes sense that the average good guy should also have legal access to a gun suitable for home protection. I also see no harm in allowing people access to certain sporting firearms that aren't really suitable for real criminal mischief. And as a farm owner I realize the utility of a good shot gun to manage the wildlife that decides to attack my livestock or at times, even people. As far as the second amendment, well the tyranny of my government really has nothing to do with me wanting these types of guns to remain available. What possible hope would i or anyone else for that matter have against our government even if we had the best assault rifle on the market and an endless supply of ammo? None, they would send a drone in and wipe me from the face of the earth just that easy.
Don't get me wrong- if I thought it were truly possible to take guns away from every single person- I would do it. But its not, we have to be more realistic than that. We will be lucky to get better back-ground checks and maybe close the loop hole of gun show and personal sells not requiring a back-ground check at all.
can a drone kill millions? doubt it.
I agree with taking guns away from EVERYONE but that will never happen in near generations. I can think of a few good reasons for an AR 15 but still.. not worth the possibilities of mass shootings. A person could easily pull off sandy hook with any kind of weapon, a sword or knife even. We just have to accept the fact that +99% of us who have guns legally will not massacre innocent people. America is much better off than the rest of the world within our borders. The real focus is to stop our bully government from using a good portion of our tax money on war and put it to better use. I'm religious and I believe its POINTLESS and a WASTE OF TIME to be in war in the middle east. They have been fighting what they call a "Holy War" since forever. Its an endless bloodshed and one of the main reasons why we have so many atheist today.
The difference between a knife (or any edged weapon) and a gun is that the gun--like drones--kill at a distance.
To kill someone with a knife or a club, one has to get up close and personal, and feel the weapon sliding into their skin or the club breaking their bones. Yes, there are some people who would take disturbing pleasure in this, but it requires real effort to accomplish.
I seriously doubt the crazy who shot those children was taking the time to look at them or the adults.
As wald0 said, no one is looking to take away legally owned guns, rather just close some of the legal--'loopholes' is too small a word--gaping chasms that let weapons pour into the hands of criminals.
There is no benign use for a gun, it's sole purpose is to kill.
So are arrows or spears, although I think those would technically be considered 'edged' weapons and might be put to a benign use in a pinch.
Anyway, I'm for a reasoned stance on the subject, not a flaming anything for either side. Yes, I do want some kind of gun control that's better than what we have now, which is a joke.
I saw some comedian doing a riff on the idea that the *bullets* should be outrageously expensive. As in, if bullets cost $5,000 each, for example, you'd sure think twice about pulling that trigger! Of course, that brings up the question of the rich people affording many more bullets than poor people, so its a round-robin.
Drones aren't a fantasy, they're a reality in US right now. One drone might not be able to kill millions, but a million drones could--they're getting cheaper by the day. But in all fairness, there are benign uses for that technology.
*sigh* it never ends, does it?
P.S. The war in the middle east had nothing to do with my lack of belief in religion. It was religion itself did that. Sorry, can't conflate the two.
Criminals use legal loopholes to get guns? I'd re-think that statement. Criminals really don't care what the law says loopholes or not. That is why they are called criminals.
Google says there are a plethora of ways for criminals and felons to obtain firearms legally. And that was just a quick search.
That's not the point Jeremy. Sure criminals get guns through legal loopholes. The point is even if you don't have loopholes criminals are not going to be the least put-out. They will still get all the guns they desire. They are criminals. Laws do not stop criminals from getting guns, at least in the USA.
"at least in the USA."
Criminals don't use the loopholes, the supposedly upstanding citizens who sell them to criminals use them. Or rather, they just pour lethal weapons through the giant gaping hole where a loophole might otherwise be in any other piece of legislation. IMHO, of course.
I never heard of Annie Oakley killing anyone.
Ok.
Yes you are right that edge weapons would have been a harder task.. but not unachievable considering the victims were children.
Not unachievable, but certainly takes a more determined effort. And there were 5 adults killed also, were there not?
nobody was killed. I got my associates from a film school. I know Hollywood when i see it. I know tragedy when i see it. ONE ambulance for how many victims? Yeah wake up America
The reason we have so many atheists today is that there is zero evidence to support belief in a god. We need more such people.
5% of the population being atheist is not so many. The latest poll says that 80% of those who once said they are atheists have returned to religion. I guess that is why billboards are going up in places as for people to turn from GOD. Talk about a backfire project... As of 2013 poll taken suggest that less then 2% of Americans claim to be atheist. The number just keeps dropping. Why do you think that is? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hard to be neutral on a one way train is it not? We need more real people with hope.
And just where do your figures come from? "The latest poll" and "As of 2013 poll taken . . . " don't cut it.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is merely an idiotic justification for a belief in something for which there is no hard evidence.
Based on the intelligence and knowledge displayed in your post, we need fewer religious people.
Regurgitated return as usual. Figures Darwidiots think alike. Thank you for the laugh follower.
And thank you for sharing your ignorance and superstition with all of us.
You have friends or just multiple personalities? Ignorance is contagious!
Just what are you talking about or do you know?
Your 8k comments shows your persistence. I gotta hand it to you. You are a hard one to troll. Robert Allen for the win. Cheers M8.
Based on polls, the Republicans expected a landslide win this past election. I wonder how that's working for them?
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but you forgot the ending:
"it [absence of evidence] does not falsify absence, and in fact gives reason to suspect absence."
EDIT: I forgot...Why did the conversation turn from gun control to atheism/theism, again?
God and guns go together, for some strange reason. Perhaps guns work as a convincer! God hasn't shown much interest in anything, if there is such a feller.
Waldo has the answers if you are able to find him.
I like hope, not false hope.
Like I said, we need more such freethinkers. I doubt your poll.
Evidence is the only reason to think something, proof is the only reason to know something.
I do not doubt you doubt it. You have your head on tight. I can't say much for the other geniuses with so much to share with nothing to offer and never answers on how to do anything about it.
"The reason we have so many atheists today is that there is zero evidence to support belief in a god. We need more such people. "--pwndecaf
I'd suggest you reexamine your criteria for what constitutes evidence.
Hard, physical, scientific evidence, the only type that counts.
But all you are really saying is that it's the only type you will accept.
What other type is there?
Feel free to submit your evidence. I'm fairly certain I've heard most of it already, but I'm curious what you think is evidence.
pwndecaf--"Feel free to submit your evidence. I'm fairly certain I've heard most of it already, but I'm curious what you think is evidence."
Thanks for your open-mindedness, but I really haven't the time to do a whole apologetics rap in a web discussion. Books by Josh McDowell or Lee Strobel (among others) could do a better job than I could anyway. Remember there's a difference between disbelieving evidence and deeming it not to be evidence, and also that evidence and proof have different standards. You probably already knew that.
Agree - wrong place for that discussion. I've seen some Lee Strobel stuff. The bible is not evidence.
"The bible is not evidence." I'm wondering why you think that. There is plenty of extra-biblical evidence for the historicity of at least some parts of the Bible, so it might at least get the same benefit of the doubt as other books containing history. It purports to include a good deal of eyewitness testimony to the events it describes, which one might (in fairness,:}) at least come up with a reason to reject out of hand. (I think Crossan's is rather silly myself.)
Nonetheless, you seem to have made your mind up and there's probably nothing I can say to change it. I hope it won't insult you if I wish you godspeed. :=}
And there's plenty of evidence for the non-historicity of many other parts of the Bible--so no benefit of the doubt here. Now, just what is this eye witness testimony of which you speak?
No benefit of the doubt for an extraordinary claim. Just because the bible mentions real cities does not give reason to believe there is a god. Yup, Bethlehem is still there, and Nazareth just down the road. And the source city for much of the world's nonsense and tribulation - Jerusalem. Unlike Lee Strobel's so-called atheist beginnings, I came to it later in life.
I wouldn't believe Lee Strobel if he said he were dying.
Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, two creationist misfits with absolutely no qualifications, except for their big lying mouths.
And no, evidence and proof do not have different standards, but rather are one and the same. Except for a subject like math which relies on logical proofs, evidence is proof.
Now where is your scientific proof (or evidence) of the existence of a supreme or supernatural being?
@wald0 That's not true, look at Japan. They have outlawed guns for decades and the worse you ever see is a knife attack. So that shows just from statistics.
And just where are these statistics?
So you're saying that because it has worked in Japan, it's going to work in the United States.
You still haven't come up with anything practical.
You dont believe there is a god because you have no knowledge on it. Yes there is a God but he gave us the choice to do whatever we want. Some choose to be good some choose to be bad.
Can you prove that there is a god?
See? This is why guns need to be banned forever. Things such as the Colorado Theater shootings, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook would've NEVER happened. I'm sorry but guns just have no purpose on Earth whatsoever~ TRUST me.
And just how do you propose to get rid of all the guns?
@robertallen1 How else? Owners have to give it up. Do you really expect things to just go away? You have to be aggressive and do what's right, and you know what? Banning ALL guns is right.
Suppose I'm a collector or like to hunt or shoot at targets. Why should I have to give it all up? Why should I have to give up the right to protect my family and property?
Do you really think that if a law were passed forcing all people to give up their guns, that they would?
Doing right does not consist of penalizing people who have done nothing wrong.
Banning all guns is like banning alcohol. It clearly does not work.
In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
@robertallen1 because its DANGEROUS and many innocent children and people are dying from it. That's why.
When these deaths can be prevented by just simply not having them, then it's a no brainer really... I mean cmon think and wake up and smell reality for once.
Those who are law-abiding (and this constitutes the vast majority) should not be penalized in any way for the actions of a few nut cases.
What you propose is not only impractical, but moronic.
You're the only one in this whole comment section making sense, thank you.
you lib's wont be happy until you have a chip implanted in your neck.
In the USA, about 438,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses per year. Overall, cigarette smoking accounts for about 30% of cancer deaths. Of every 5 deaths in the USA, 1 is caused from smoking.
Why has Congress NEVER suggested a "ban" on Tobacco??
Corruption. Graft. Greed. Money. Cash. Payola. and so on. We collect taxes on every pack of cigarettes sold in the US.
THAT'S why there's no "ban" on cigarettes.
Oh yeah....Do YOU see any GUNS on this list??
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Heart disease: 597,689
Cancer: 574,743
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
Diabetes: 69,071
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
I didn't think so. I'll give up MY gun just as soon as we can fix THOSE PROBLEMS FIRST!
Accidental gun deaths fall under Accidents
While motor-vehicle deaths dropped 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, gun fatalities are rising again after a low point in 2000, according to the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Shooting deaths in 2015 will probably rise to almost 33,000, and those related to autos will decline to about 32,000, based on the 10-year average trend.
no one is asking you to give up your guns....just maybe make tougher regulations.
There is a huge difference between death by the things you mentioned and deaths caused by guns. Death caused by smoking means I made a choice to participate in a activity known to cause cancer. Now did those children at Sandy Hook make a bad choice that lead to them being shot? I don't think so. Death by heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, etc. is mostly unavoidable, unless again i have made a choice to participate in risk factors known to cause these diseases- either way it isn't comparable to being shot by someone else. Intentional self-harm, well that kind of explains itself doesn't it- Intentional "self" harm. Meaning I made a choice to do something to myself- now how does that compare with someone else making a choice to shoot me? You guys are pathetic, the arguments just get more and more ridiculous, you sound like someone clinging to religion.
The bad guys made several choices including buying the guns, plained the deeds, and they proceed to kill...etc!
As a matter of fact I do see Guns on your list.
Agreed - let's put massive taxes on guns and ammunition, just like tobacco, which use is declining rapidly, btw.
We could tax illness, but it is already not affordable.
I'll take you up on your offer. If it can be shown that those problems are fixed you will give up your gun. Do you accept?
In fairness before you accept you need to look at your list and think long and hard.
Why should anyone give up their guns, are you willing to pay for our lost with market price?
No. You'll have to scroll up and read Dr.DS's comment again. He says he will give up his guns when the problems on his list are fixed first. I still am willing to take him up. I see no reason to pay the good doctor for his guns. He made the conditions.
We don't have a ban on tobacco for the same reason prohibition was repealed.
Feel no sympathy for the school shootings whatsoever bc it's their own fault for having such easy access to guns!
the debate is polarized because the NRA spends millions on PR to convince people a big governmental boogheyman is going to come in the night and take their guns and somehow their liberty as well...After decades of using Hysteria to make their points more urgent and threatening, is it any suprise that hysterical is the only reaction the right wing have anymore?
Charlton Heston once said "out of my cold dead hands".
Which is ironic really because the problem is the people with the guns, making cold dead hands out of other, usually unarmed people.
And he was holding a bolt action rifle at the time he made that statement, which has never been up for discussion for banning...Nobody cares about bolt action rifles.
But the problem is the little details like that...details which the right wing often misrepresent...But if you try telling them that you just get SECOND AMMENDMENT screamed in your face, as if that somehow disqualifies anyone else from having an opinion...Isn't it strange how quickly some people trample all over the first amendment for the sake of the second...seems unethical to me.
Here's round 2 for Grumpy and Joe.
1i
Logic and reason over emotion. Like guns are the only thing that criminals can kill innocents with. I recall an event in my elementary school right after 9/11... A powdery substance mistaken as anthrax on school pizzas. Shut down the school for a day. If it really had been anthrax on those pizzas would it be right to outlaw pizza?
"If it really had been anthrax on those pizzas would it be right to outlaw pizza?"
Wow! What an inane comment. After a school shooting would you suggest that school be outlawed?
show more
that is the most clutching at straws argument i've ever heard in my life...and i've listened to people defend Homeopathy!
Is it any less ridiculous than "I must have a high-powered automatic rifle that has unending bullet clips or I'm not an American!"?
I feel bad for the mother in Atlanta, years ago, who bought a gun to protect her home and family after being burglarized three times--and killed her own daughter who got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom.
There's a million stories like it, and equally as many on the other side.
I agree with Larry, the debate is stup!dly polarized, and there's no such thing as a rational discussion on the issue any more.
EDIT (Sorry, referenced a_no_n instead of Larry)
well considering the size of americans and there death rates from obesity, yes I think pizza in america should be banned.
Doh Nuts first!
Flour aaahhhhhhhhhhh.