It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by donwhite
I need your help on two words which I’ve blocked and put in parentheses.
I think you also miscued on Northern Ireland having more homicides.
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.
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.
Originally posted by donwhite
Got any ideas on my Finland theory?
A lot of American gun owners have many weapons.
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]
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.
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.
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 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]
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]
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]
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.
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.
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?
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]
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.
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 dispute the for me laughable claims of “preventing” crimes, but I do know only a handful of CCWs have misused their guns.
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.
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.
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?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?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.What is a crime?
There are two types of crime: