But Guns Do Kill Children!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I need your help on two words which I’ve blocked and put in parentheses.


- Blame it on a brain-fart don.

Pedantry was correct and the other word should have been inanimacy.


I think you also miscued on Northern Ireland having more homicides.


- Ooops. Apologies.

You're quite right; I meant to say only NI was 2nd and we just had a neo-civil war.




posted on Oct, 5 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   


posted by sminkeypinkey

- Blame it on a brain-fart don.
Pedantry was correct and the other word should have been inanimacy.

I think you also miscued on Northern Ireland having more homicides.

- Ooops. Apologies.
You're quite right; I meant to say only NI was 2nd and we just had a neo-civil war.



Got any ideas on my Finland theory? A lot of American gun owners have many weaons. Fregeuently of varying calibers and so on. One friend of mine built a .50 cal bolt action rifle at home, but he did buy the barrel. 45 pounds and 2,000 yards range. There is a plce near where I lived in Ky called Knob Creek and they have an annual machine gun shoot. At a buck-fifty or $2 a round, to shoot 10,000 rounds on a wekend takes a lot more money than I have.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
I’m not sure, but here is my position. The more guns you have out there, the more 1) that will be stolen, and the more 2) times a gun will be used in a sudden heat of passion or 3) by an unpredictable rampage, or 4) in an accident.

The gun problem is lethality. 3 people out of 10 who get shot die.


I concede all of these points as very serious problems with the place of firearms in America which must be dealt with, and that as long as there are guns there will be shooting deaths. I think the objective should be to prevent all that can be prevented, so that the remaining "unprevantable" incidents are modest enough that they pose no moral challenge when weighed against the purposes for which we preserve the right to bear arms. There is afterall an underlying assumption to the second amendment that the weight of a loss of liberty is so great that even the most astronomical odds can not wholly diminish the necessity of a certain recourse, and I embrace that premise.

I believe that GPS technology, the licensing of ammunition (and, as has already begun on a metalurgical level, the tagging of bullets), and/or mandatory immobile safes are just as sound answers to gun theft as getting rid of guns once you factor in the certain percentage of guns that will be virtually impossible to actually get rid of due to non-cooperation.

I believe use in the heat of the moment as well as rampages can be best prevented by preventing the carrying of weapons in public. Some 24% of all firearm murders in 2003 were attributed to arguments, the vast majority of those between strangers or very loose acquaintances. I doubt that the majority of those people had to go home for a gun and then track the stranger down again.

This can be accomplished through technological means, including, again, GPS/RFID and more sophisticated metal detectors, and of course also by tactical means, such as appropriate police efforts in areas where crime stats show that weapons are likely to be carried in public. Deterrence in the form of serious sentencing for concealed carry is also very important.

The accidents, I won't pretend we can prevent in full. We can keep them out of kids hands, but the Darwin Award nominees who look down the barrel, dry fire guns they haven't inspected, etc... if we took away their guns they'd probably all die in kitchen appliance accidents: getting their tongues ripped out by egg beaters and the like.

The way I see it, if we viewed the problem in light of the fact that we have three 9/11s every year in gun casualties and made it a serious priority to stop gun violence through serious technological preparation, legal reform, and tactical effort by law enforcement, I think we could make an unprecedented drop- I think we could move it 30% or more in a couple of years. I also think that we could be doing just as well as any European nation (per gun) in about 15 years if we went to work on the underlying issues that promote gangs and drugs, which, in 2003, constituted almost exactly half of all specifically describable motives for murder (incidentally, robbery was the third leading factor, which would naturally have some drug user cross-over)

So in a nutshell, my position is that if you ain't got enough spray to kill all the bugs, you should probably focus on the ones that are actively biting the crap out of you at present and worry about the ones in your lawn later. We have hundreds of millions of "bugs" but only a couple thousand biting us each year. We should be able to fix it.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Got any ideas on my Finland theory?


- I'd tend to agree but there may well be another logical reason for it.

I think the Finnish attitude to guns is totally different.
It's not about 'sport', or laden with the usual Hollywood stupidity (you know, get shot 20 times and still come up smiling and unharmed if a little dazed etc) or even some sort of our own British brand of 'Ali G' wannabe (yeah I know Ali G isn't meant seriously but there are those.....you know) gangsta foolishness.

The Finnish (relatively recent) anxieties re attack, invasion, occupation and/or annexation from their Russian near neighbours place them in a similar category to the Swiss.

Genuine home defence and the need to resist a repeated history of an aggressive neighbour and periods of attack/occupation are obvious and ingrained national traits quite unlike the general US attitude.

It's also true that those graphs show a lesser but nevertheless pretty obvious correlation between ownership and deaths with other countries.


A lot of American gun owners have many weapons.


- I suppose you either 'get it' or you don't.

I don't.

I've been around guns (I'm from a military family myself, from 4 generation back that I know of) and I've used guns myself many times, sometimes for sport and sometimes in the cadet type groups (it's hard not to in Northern Ireland, as kids - this applied to both sides of the 'divide' - we were encouraged to know how to use firearms in case the quiet civil war went loud, seriously)

I can't stand the bl**dy things and I think there's far too strong a tendency for them to attract the very people who ought not to ever be allowed to have them.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   


posted by The Vagabond

I concede all these points as serious problems with the place of firearms which must be dealt with . . as long as there are guns there will be shooting deaths. I think the objective should be to prevent all that can be prevented, weighed against the right to bear arms. [Edited by Don W]



Then you and I agree basically on the “guns issue.” My most draconian idea stems from my military experience. As you may know, EMs are treated like children in the military. The major reason I left early. But it is based on real experience. I was allowed to have a firearm, but I had to leave it at the SS - Special Services - in a locker. I could withdraw it anytime (they were open) for any purpose, but at night, it had to be returned. You cannot allow soldiers to have guns and live ammo in the barracks. Inconvenient, but something you can live with. Officers OTOH were permitted to have firearms in their quarters. The unresolved problem of the military: how do you make one class feel superior? Deprive another class of a privilege.

The new technology you mention should be required if it can be done at a reasonable cost, which I believe it can be.



There is an underlying assumption to the second amendment that the weight of a loss of liberty is so great that even the most astronomical odds can not wholly diminish the necessity of a certain recourse, and I embrace that premise.



You are 100% right in what you say, but I believe that is 100% wrong. There can be no real doubt the Second Amendment addressed the issue of state militias. And that’s all. No one even conceived that the private citizen would not have his or her long gun. That was a non-issue in 1787. OTOH, the issue of state militias had persisted all through the Revolutionary War. Those who became Federalist wanted a standing national army, those who did not wanted to maintain the militias under state control. They won that issue. For support of my position, I refer you to the Articles of Confederation. www.yale.edu... Article 1 gives the name of our country. The major problem with the Articles was the Congress exercised executive power. 13 heads. The term for this was “The United States in Congress Assembled” which meant the executive power. But see Article VI, Par. 4, Clause 3. “but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”



I believe that GPS technology, the licensing of ammunition, and or mandatory immobile safes are answers to gun theft . . 1) [gun] use in the heat of the moment as well as rampages can be best prevented by preventing the carrying of weapons in public . . 2) Deterrence in the form of serious sentencing for concealed carry is very important . . accidents we can [not] prevent in full. 3) I think we could be doing just as well as any European nation (per gun) in about 15 years if we went to work on the 4) underlying issues that promote gangs and drugs, which, in 2003, constituted almost exactly half of all specifically describable motives for murder (incidentally, robbery was the third leading factor, which would naturally have some drug user cross-over) . . 5) We have hundreds of millions of "bugs" but only a couple thousand biting us each year. We should be able to fix it.



Good suggestions, all of them. But let me remark anyway. 1) Very few people actually carry guns openly. I’ve seen that maybe 2-3 times in my lifetime. All but NH had laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons, which to a large extent have been modified by the concealed carry movement of the 1990s. That by the way, has worked out very well. I dispute the for me laughable claims of “preventing” crimes, but I do know only a handful of CCWs have misused their guns. The mystique of carrying a (concealed) gun is appealing to many people, some you would be surprised to learn. I have a valid concealed carry permit, had it from the very first. But I have never carried concealed or otherwise. But if I want to, I can. $60 every 5 years. 2) You know I say if Americans don’t like something, they make it against the law. If that does not stop it, they double the penalty. Law enforcement American style. I hate the notion we can somehow stop something by making the sentience longer. We’ve been on that kick since the 1980s with nothing to show for it except larger jail populations. We need to get smart for a change. 3) Until recently, most European countries had a distinct advantage over us. They were more or less homogeneous, whereas the US of A has always been heterogeneous. The former will “naturally” have less law violations (crime) than the latter. We may never see stats here equal to some European countries. But it is always worthwhile to try to do better. 4) If we depend on lowering the drug violations or gangs, we will never go anywhere. It ought to be apparent to anyone that we cannot end the unlawful use of drugs. Nixon proclaimed the War on Drugs in 1973. We’ve spent 10s of billions and killed 1000s of people and imprisoned 10s of thousands of people all to no avail. Drugs are cheaper today and more readily available. When will we stop this counter-productive approach? I see no help or hope at all in that direction. That’s more window dressing. 5) Which confirms the last remark you made. We must fight smart, not dumb. We cannot sustain th cost of dumb fighting.



[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   


posted by sminkeypinkey

“I'd tend to agree [on Finland] but there may well be another logical reason for it. I think the Finnish attitude to guns is totally different. It's not about 'sport', or laden with the usual Hollywood stupidity or even some sort of our own British brand of 'Ali G' wannabe (yeah I know Ali G isn't meant seriously but there are those . . you know) gangsta foolishness.

The Finnish (relatively recent) anxieties re attack, invasion, occupation and or annexation from their Russian near neighbors place them in a similar category to the Swiss. Genuine home defense and the need to resist a repeated history of an aggressive neighbor and periods of attack occupation are obvious and ingrained national traits quite unlike the general US attitude. [Edited by Don W]



I overlooked that very real and substantive cause in the Finnish case. As you report, that factor - Russian expansionism - is pretty much laid to rest today. I suppose Kaliningrad cures Russia’s need for access to the warm Baltic Sea. And similarly to Switzerland as relates to defense, although I have no doubt Germany could have captured SZ in WW2, but found it more useful as a neutral nation. That move might have ended as a second Yugoslavia for Germany; or as Vietnam (and Iraq) have for us. Not worth the trouble.



I can't stand the bl**dy things and I think there's far too strong a tendency for [guns] to attract the very people who ought not to ever be allowed to have them. [Edited by Don W]



We see that vividly almost every day in the US of A. The mere presence and easy availability offered by 280 million guns raises our cost of law enforcement and the cost of emergency health care immeasurably. If we followed the rule that each entity must bear its own costs and not be subsidized by others who are non-users, then the legitimate tax on guns would drive them out of existence. Or into the hands of the R&Fs.


[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So if the guy choose a hunting knife instead and went in the school and slit the throats of the ten girls they wouldn't have died.
Wouldn't that be more lethal than a gun shot.

Have they found a way to fix a slit throat I haven't heard about.


[edit on 6-10-2006 by spinstopshere]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   


posted by spinstopshere

So if the guy choose a hunting knife instead and went in the school and slit the throats of the ten girls they wouldn't have died. Wouldn't that be more lethal than a gun shot. Have they found a way to fix a slit throat I haven't heard about. [Edited by Don W]



I doubt it.

I doubt the guy would have done what he did without a hand gun. Having no personal experience in killing humans, I have heard that a gun is the weapon of choice for several reasons, the first being it does not require the up close killing required by knives. Another reason is that guns are quicker by far. A third reason is that you can hold a number of people at bay with a gun which is very unlikely with a knife. There are probably more reaons.

No one can know what might have been. I am reminded of this:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

-- Omar Khayyam



[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Here's a bit of food for thought. Untill the Columbine shootings caused changes in the law, it wasn't at all unusual for some of the older Amish students to bring a shotgun or rifle to school so that they might go hunting after school. Now it is illegal to posess a gun on school property.

Funny thing is that the people who obey the laws like this are not the ones you have to worry about. One of those students being able to get their hands on a rifle or shotgun may have made a world of difference.

By the way Minnesota is considering passing a law that would allow teachers to be armed. Talk about going in a complete circle.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   


posted by JIMC5499

Here's a bit of food for thought. Until the Columbine shootings caused changes in the law, it wasn't at all unusual for some of the older Amish students to bring a shotgun or rifle to school so that they might go hunting after school. Now it is illegal to possess a gun on school property. [Edited by Don W]



So are you blaming the law?



Funny thing is that the people who obey the laws like this are not the ones you have to worry about. One of those students being able to get their hands on a rifle or shotgun may have made a world of difference.



Surely you don’t believe that? A 8 year old with a Remington 1100? That was a one room school. I don’t know if it even had indoor toilets. No, J9, that’s called “reaching.”



By the way Minnesota is considering passing a law that would allow teachers to be armed. Talk about going in a complete circle.



Hard cases make bad law. Frustration is another source of bad law. With 280 million guns out there, we’ll likely see more desperate laws. We seem to be able to do everything but deal with the problem. 280 million guns.



[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
So are you blaming the law?

Surely you don’t believe that? A 8 year old with a Remington 1100? That was a one room school. I don’t know if it even had indoor toilets. No, J9, that’s called “reaching.”

Hard cases make bad law. Frustration is another source of bad law. With 280 million guns out there, we’ll likely see more desperate laws. We seem to be able to do everything but deal with the problem. 280 million guns.



You answered your own question with the "Hard cases make bad law." statement.

Amish schools are grades 1-12. Hunting laws in Pennsylvania do not allow unaccompanied hunters under the age of 16. So you won't find an 8 year old with a Remington 1100. I live near an area with a large number of Amish. I meet and interact with them on a regular basis and given a choice I'll trust a 16 year old Amish kid with a shotgun before I will trust most non Amish adults.

I think you are the one who is reaching. If you are serious about dealing with the so called "gun problem" why not favor the death penalty for any crime comitted using a gun?



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   


posted by JIMC5499


DonWhite:
Hard cases make bad law. Frustration is another source of bad law. With 280 million guns out there, we’ll likely see more desperate laws. We seem to be able to do everything but deal with the problem. 280 million guns.


You answered your own question with the "Hard cases make bad law." statement. I think you are the one who is reaching. If you are serious about dealing with the so called "gun problem" why not favor the death penalty for any crime committee using a gun?



Q. I assume you are aware of the Illinois Death Row matter, and Governor Ryan who halted the further imposition of death sentences, pending a review of the whole death penalty system, and who commuted all the prisoners on Death Row to life, and for the reasons he did that?

A. 13 Death Row prisoners over an 11 year period were found to be innocent. This was not done by any court of appeals, but by the Death Penalty Project run by the Law School of Northwestern University. Our whole criminal justice system is broken. But the death penalty cases beg for help because we cannot undo the errors. If anyone thinks their state is better than Illinois, then they are mischievously deceiving themselves. If the death penalty deterred anything, Texas would have more deterrent than any state in the union. One of those on Death Row had been framed by 4 cops.
One policeman's conscience got the better of him and he gave up his 3 partners in crime. 3 got long sentences and 1 got a lesser sentence.

Bush43 holds the worlds record for ordering executions in the free world. He ordered 154 during less than 6 years in office, better than one dead man ever 2 weeks for every year he served as governor. A record no one is likely to break. That’s his L E G A CY. Texas is notorious among the criminal law bar as among the very worst states in the Union to protect accused persons. I should think every decent person would be sick to death of the death penalty.


[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite



posted by spinstopshere

So if the guy choose a hunting knife instead and went in the school and slit the throats of the ten girls they wouldn't have died. Wouldn't that be more lethal than a gun shot. Have they found a way to fix a slit throat I haven't heard about. [Edited by Don W]



I doubt it.

I doubt the guy would have done what he did without a hand gun. Having no personal experience in killing humans, I have heard that a gun is the weapon of choice for several reasons, the first being it does not require the up close killing required by knives. Another reason is that guns are quicker by far. A third reason is that you can hold a number of people at bay with a gun which is very unlikely with a knife. There are probably more reaons.

No one can know what might have been. I am reminded of this:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

-- Omar Khayyam



[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



You would probably be right if it was a high school. But it was little girls he intendend to kill and I doubt 8 year old girls are going to try and take down a 50 or 40 year old man with a big knife in his hand saying shut up or I will kill you.



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 07:49 PM
link   
I find it simply amazing and ironic that the thought of chipping guns and tracking them via GPS is actually considered by anyone. This seems to be acceptable, yet just let us try to track a phone call to deter terrorism and people scream bloody foul.:shk:



posted on Oct, 6 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   


posted by spinstopshere

You would probably be right if it was a high school. But it was little girls he intendend to kill and I doubt 8 year old girls are going to try and take down a 50 or 40 year old man with a big knife in his hand saying shut up or I will kill you.



I had more in mind if the children and teachers - there were teachers there - had all broke and run in every direction at the same time, screaming and yelling and etc., he might have been dissuaded from his malevolent purpose. Not to engage in an arm wrestling contest. But he could not have caught all of them.





[edit on 10/6/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Well, I don't know how many doors there are in a one-room schoolhouse. Two minimum, I would guess. So there aren't a lot of places to run to.



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Hello, hows everyone?? Great... U see America is the country who thought about allot of things before they started the country . Lets see, did the goverment make major highways and streets so u the civilian can take a quick trip to grandpas house???Nope it was built for the army to move its tanks and other artilery more quicker if there is a war at home!! See guns are here for the same reason. Lets say Canada ATTACKS the Unied states. They all come in a suprise attack..By the time all the trrops and NAtional Guards get orginized and ready to fight the canadaians..the civilians will be able to protect them selves and their neghboors withte weapons they have before the US army takes over? Its a smart thing...Is it worth a child dying because guns are legal??? well to u its probably not worth it??? But does the gov really care what u think...It only cares how it is going to save its self. I belive the american gov is way to selfish. Like the war in iraq. Why do they have July 4th and many oher events that are very patriotic. Well its because they wnt u to die for the country. but would the cvountry die for you?? Nope!! If you were in iraq kiddnapped would the US gov trade in Iraqy prisinors to save u??? Nope...

sorry for the spelling errors, and many other grammer errors...I was typing fast...



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
You are 100% right in what you say, but I believe that is 100% wrong. There can be no real doubt the Second Amendment addressed the issue of state militias.


I agree that the second amendment respects militias, primarily state ones, but I believe that it was intentionally worded to provided for the formation of citizen's militias as well.

The change in wording between the Articles of Confederation and the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution is highly conspicuous. The first was a specific positive assertion, that the states shall maintain arms. The second was a sweeping negative assertion, that the keeping and bearing of arms shall not be infringed. ("Shall not" has a weighty precedent behind it... it's probably not by chance that they chose the same words used in the King James version of the ten commandments)

The Articles were quiet on the issue of citizens weapons because, true enough, confiscating them was never even on the table. The 2nd Amendment did however see fit to use incredibly sweeping language which reserved the abilities attendant to forming militias not only to the states, but to anyone.

This makes sense when taken in the context of a group of revolutionaries sitting down to form a strong government over themselves. If the federal government had malfunctioned, for if the Senate had not served its equalizing purpose and Virginia and New York had exercised such power over the other states as the crown once had, a smaller state on its own could not have hoped to maintain enough of a militia to hold its own.

An armed citizenry was a given at the time, but the mobilization of that citizenry may have been the concern that prompted the new wording. The right of citizens to bear their arms together in exercise had to be preserved.

The militia was defined in 1792 and ever since has continued to consist of all able-bodied male citizens 18 years of age (It is now defined in US Code Title 10, Section 311).



I dispute the for me laughable claims of “preventing” crimes, but I do know only a handful of CCWs have misused their guns.


The permits are mostly outside of my point. It's mostly those who carry weapons (usually concealed) in public outside the law who I was talking about getting at. I'm not suggesting that the card necessarily makes someone no threat, and I think that card should be hard as hell to get, but I can see why some would need it.


I hate the notion we can somehow stop something by making the sentience longer. We’ve been on that kick since the 1980s with nothing to show for it except larger jail populations. We need to get smart for a change.


Generally speaking I think it's a bad thing that America is the world leader in incarceration, and on a per capita basis is second only to Rwanda (I mean wow... being near Rwanda in almost any catagory really puts things in perspective), but guns are a little different for a couple of big reasons.
1. The upside is fairly small.
2. There is probably no penalty that could be raised more radically without being morally absurd. If the penalty for smoking pot was death, there'd be very little pot getting smoked in America, but of course the ends simply doesn't justify the means.
On the other hand, an illegal concealed weapon is a murder waiting to happen. Some serious ends can be justified, and if they go as high as they logically can, the rate will drop.

Did you know that you can even brandish a firearm threateningly in California and its a misdemeanor that lands you 90 days in county? (unless the victim jumps into their car for safety... it's a felony to brandish a weapon against someone in a car, go figure).

Small penalties on the other hand are sometimes worse than no penalties at all because they quantify at a low level something that might otherwise be assigned a higher significance on a moral level. Nominal fees assessed by businesses, for example, have at times been shown to encourage the behavior they are designed to prevent.



If we depend on lowering the drug violations or gangs, we will never go anywhere. It ought to be apparent to anyone that we cannot end the unlawful use of drugs.


Actually we could stop it almost overnight. The unlawful use of drugs will stop the split second that drug use becomes lawful, and then Walmart, with it's extensive experience in putting smaller merchants out of business, will clean up the streets without putting a single person in jail. No customers, no money, no gangs... at least certainly not on the level we have right now.

Then we handle the drug use problem from the customer end by leaving employer drug policies a matter of private discretion, fining for public use, etc. (can't do it by tax because that encourages a black-market)



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 04:14 AM
link   
you people are beating a dead horse....

the brady bill did nothing....it expired.

banning guns will do nothing but skyrocket the crime rate....

take a lesson from europe....violent crimes with firearms occur more frequently than before the handguns were banned.

The US constitution protects the right of private ownership of firearms...

if they bother you....dont own one. The people that go on gun rampages will find other ways to do that.

This is the biggest flaw in your logic....how does taking guns away from law abiding citizens stop those who do not abide by the law?



DONT for God's sake make the elections in novembers about gun control...you will have another astounding defeat....

Im all for background checks, etc.

but all out bans on any type on fire arm.....nay!



posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Right or a Privilege?

One common mistake that people make is they believe everyone has the right to a firearm. This is strictly not true, a right be definition is something every human being needs to live a safe life. On a simple level this is food, shelter and clothing. Everything else is a privilege gun-ownership does actually not need to exist because guns do not - the world probably would be a safer, better place if guns didn’t exist and violence didn’t exist but they do. Furthermore, there are limitations on what weapons you can own and with reason these exist and there are also limitations on who can own a firearm - would you want a serial rapist to have easy access to firearms because it is a right?

Due to the fact there are limitations on firearms already in place, more should be put on them. People should have to prove they have taken firearms courses before they can buy such a dangerous tool. Look at everything else in the United State’s, you need to have a licence to drive a motor-vehicle and you can do a lot less damage with a motor-vehicle than you can an automated weapon. You’re naïve to believe that you can’t and there’s possibly something wrong with you if you believe everyone and anyone should be handed a dangerous and possibly deadly weapon.

Time to put the human back into humane!

For the last few decades, social order has been on a decline. Relative poverty around much of the Western World has been increasing and the bridge between rich and poor has became even larger. Social problems have increased and in society many people will always look for the easier option and to many this is crime. Thus in a society with a large number of firearms, social inequalities and Government based problems it is likely that crime will exist and it will be firearms based - however, would things change if firearms were illegal?

The simple answer to this is no! It’s impossible for the United State’s to gain every single weapon back, say if the statistics are true and their exist 280,000,000 firearms open and out their with the public even if 99% of these are returned their will still be millions out their and in the hands of criminals [criminals in name due to legislation change and not in action.] Due to this, the Police will then have to divert man power from many other issues - rape, murder, assault, robbery, to try and chase down these people who still have firearms. If you create another law, you create more criminals, you fill up the prison system, spend more tax money and all in all divert needed resources away from real crimes. The Police force in the United State’s already can not investigate every single act of crime so to increase the crimes and the criminals will not make things any better.

The gangs that exist, won't vanish because weapons are no longer legal. Many of these people are already convicted and can't own firearms. They already illegally have them and they get them through Mexico, from boats from South America and by stealing them within the United State's. The United Kingdom is an island, we can still get firearms shipped into here illegally with the size of coast the United State's has the same will happen.

What do you change?

The real answer is looking straight at everyone on this thread. People have already stated that it is unfair to compare Finland, Switzerland and other Nation’s to the United State’s of America. Why so? The simple answer is because the economic climate is different. Many of the problems faced with the United State’s such as street gangs do not exist in Switzerland on such a scale. However, why ban firearms? Clearly if they can work then the real issue here is one of social inequalities - when the best option for someone is to steal then the problem is with society. Would it matter if guns were legal or not? Can you steal without a gun? The answer is, no it won’t matter if guns are legal because they’re already willing to commit a crime and yes you can steal without a firearm.

The route of all evil, in the United State’s is greed. People want so much and many of them never have the ability to get it. They’re what’s known as Ghetto Babies - they’re born into a life of hardship and although it is possible to get out of it, compared to those with a silver spoon from birth things are more difficult but worse yet is the way these lifestyles are flaunted in front of everyone. You can not go into a grocery store or garage without seeing these magazines showing you what you could have. Worse yet is that minimum wage in many instances, isn’t enough to cover the basic costs of living - especially if you try to live on your own. Due to this, work and an education become insanely difficult. The problem is not with people having a gun, the problem is with a society that’s based on greed.

A recent historian and television presenter described the United States as an “apocalyptic society”. One that wants everything now, not half a second later and if you don’t have that mobile phone, that car, that house you yourself are worthless. It’s a society based on greed and consumption forever needing the people to update and to keep up or be nothing. That’s where the route of these problems exist. There is a problem with a society when mobile phones are targeted at 4 to 6 year olds.

This is what causes crime to spiral out of control, it’s what we see in parts of Africa along with ethnic divide and it is a route the United State’s needs to be careful of taking.

What is a crime?

There are two types of crime:
  • True Crime
  • Government created legislation
True crime, is simply: Any action by an individual or group of people that directly or indirectly causes financial [economic], physical or mental harm to an individual or group.

Government created legislation: This is moral law, these are things that Govern trivial incidents such as personal drug use, age limitations, pornography and so on and so fourth. These do not need to exist.

When a Government comes fourth, re-works the legal system from top to bottom the United States of America will then become a much better nation. The Police will be able to spend all their time focusing on these crimes, capturing real criminals and the money saved from prisons, judiciary issues, et al will be able to correct many of the wrongs that exist.

Don’t blame the guns.
Don’t blame the people.
Blame the causes of crime.

[edit on 7/10/2006 by Odium]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join