A personal Gun story you won't see on the news!!

page: 23
247
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


Eyecandy...I think you need glasses mate.




posted on May, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by splitlevel
 


That was sarcasm... I think you need to understand sarcasm.

T



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by splitlevel
 


I never said that the British could carry in the street. However, if you look at the reports by Britian's Home Office sexual assault and domestic abuse have been steadily rising since the 1997 hand gun ban. Sorry chum but the English government has said that domestic abuse and sexual assault is a rising problem.




Your mentaility would be to legalise guns in a country that already has a well known reputation for violence...real clever, I gotta say.


Nope my point is real simple. Take that plank out of your eye before addressing the splinter in mine. When your country (not you but Euros in general) is more dangerous than mine don't preach to me about the dangers of my guns. It is out right hypocritical to hammer Americans over guns when our country as a whole is safer than several EU countries.

You and I have discussed this and I understand your position. You don't think you need a gun and I understand that. I don't know why you are taking umberage torwards a post not directed torwards you. I haven't said anything that can't be backed up as true with a little research. Then again you said you can't be arsed to do research, so a stale mate there.




There are social reasons behind most violent crimes...most.not all


I don't think there is. I believe that it is more psychological than social. I do think that social constructs play a large part in it though. That is a whole different thread. I think depending on what you mean by "social" we might not be far apart. That being said, I don't care about somebody's social reasons for wanting to attack me. I truly feel sorry that in the UK the self defense laws have fallen apart in such a large way. I'm not just talking about guns.

The best deterent to violent crime is knowing that the victim can fight back. It has been verified in studies and surveys of convicted felons. They avoid the target that can effectively fight back. I hate it that any place on Earth has gotten it so backwards that they believe self defense is a crime.




Your staing that the US if far less violent, it probably is but I doubt thats down to guns,


I've said before that it isn't all guns. I know it takes more than that to shift crime rates. However, I think America has proven that legally owned and regulated guns do not increase the crime rate. Gun ownership is at an all time high. Millions of people are licensed to carry guns on their person in public. Still our crime rate falls.




but rather witch neighbourhood you live in, or shall i rephrase that by saying white enough to live in haha.


Yes some places are safer than others. I don't get your joke here. Are you saying that minorities are more violent by nature?

America has a law that makes it illegal to discriminate against someone based on race, religon, marital status, or handicap status in regards to housing. In other words if a person of color wants to move in to a neighborhood nobody can stop them.




Lets arm all of them...atleast it would cut the population in half overnight. May aswell as the country went to the dogs years ago anyhow.


Wow, you rambled on for a long time about what you thought I said instead of what I said.


edit on 19-5-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 





Guns are bad


Can you please tell me how an inanimate object with no nervous system and no consciousness can be good or bad? It can not. It has no ability to act based on its own will. There for it can be neither good or bad.




it is irrelevant if it's the person using the gun which is the one doing the killing, without the gun they'd have to resort to other weapons which, statistically, don't kill quite as often as a gun does.


This reminds me of a great story I read in the Gotham Gazette. They were praising Bloomberg for his stance on illegal guns and all the success he had achieved. The number of guns found at murder scenes had dropped. However, they also begrudgingly admitted that death by knifes had made up for 80% of the decline in deaths by guns. They also admitted that the murder rate was actually up.

The moral is a simple one. People are going to murder if they want to. Not having a gun isn't going to stop them. In fact, in New York the murder rate continues to rise despite deaths by gun falling. That isn't an anomaly. In America crime rose in the areas that inacted stricter gun laws.




Less guns on the streets = less kids being killed by them.


About 398 kids under the age of 16 are killed by guns every year. It is estimated that guns are used about 989,000 times a year by civilians to prevent violent crimes. It is a shame that 398 kids die every year. I would be destroyed if my child was one of them. However, I do not think that 398 lives outweigh the 989,000 defensive uses every year. If America banned guns how many more children would die every year? Do you not think that more than 398 kids were saved in the 989,000 defensive handgun uses?




As for the numbers, please show me recent statistics which prove European or other countries with stricter gun laws have higher gun crime than the US.


I never said European countries had higher gun crime rates than the US. I said they have a higher violent crime rate. It is also arguing off the point. My point was real simple, your countries are more violent than America. Lecture us about the dangers of guns when you get your house in order.

It is actually safer to live in America than the UK, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Finland, and France. The UK has 2,000 crimes reported per 100,000 people versus the US's 466. So, please keep your smug high handed comments about guns to yourself. It looks like we are handling ourselves more responsibly than our European couter parts that aren't even allowed to own them.



edit on 19-5-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Dear Mike,
I'll respond, but i'll ask you to keep the tone civil. Smug high handed tone (at the end of your post) isn't what I call civil. If you want to get into that kind of a discussion, I suggest you go to a bar, drink a lot and talk to your neighbour, ok? Glad we got that sorted.

Guns are bad. Your response was a good one, however you completely miss the fact that guns aren't made to help you get your kids ready in the morning, or to assist in baking a cake. They exist for one sole purpose, to kill or maim people, hence by the very definition of their existence, they are not made for good, they are made for bad. Perhaps we will disagree on that fact, i'm sure we will.

You kind of went off on a tangent with the following parts of your "arguement" about safety and other crimes. Again I repeat let's stay on topic. I am not discussing anything but gun crime or gun related crime here. You side stepped completely every other point and went right into the "other" violent statistics. Therefore, I simply can't discuss this with you unless you stay on topic, see?

If we stay on topic then ok, we can continue to discuss this. And simply put, there are more gun related crimes in the US than there are in countries which don't allow people to carry guns. That's it, the end of my statement. I watched in horror the news when a kid not much older than my nephew went around killing kids in a school in the US. I was horrified, truly.. both for the parents of the shooter and the kids and parents of the victims, in light of that I continue to think (perhaps totally against what you believe) that the root cause can only be that his parents or someone he knew had a gun and he got access to it. If that person didn't have a gun, well it would be a totally different outcome, right?

Not much more to add to be honest. This debate will continue to go on and on, and kids will continue to die from guns all over the world. People on your side will argue it's a deterrant, people on my side will continue to state it's just causality.

T

edit on 19-5-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


There were a couple more things you wrote I wanted to address.




If you read my post objectively you wouldn't be jumping on the boring bandwagon and rolling out the boring facts which prove pretty much nothing.


In your first post you say the statistics speak for themselves. Then you say that facts prove nothing. Which one is it. You either look at all facts and come to a conclusion or you look only at the facts that suit your emotional response. Which one is it? Do facts prove something or not?




Daddy owns a gun and the kid has access to it is the only thing I can think of, and following on from that my reasoning is very simple: If daddy (or mommy) didn't have a gun for the kid to get hold of, then perhaps, just maybe, that kind of crime would be reduced.


Actually the most violent school shooting was the Columbine incident. In that case the guns were actually black market guns. They did not belong to the parents. If you look at school violence over all there have been more incidents of parents, teachers, and professors killing people than students. They have used every thing from an axe to dynamite.

Most of the modern school shootings happen at college campuses and involve people that had a history of mental trouble. In fact the Secret Service has found that prior to most incidents, other people knew about the attacker’s plan to attack. They also found that the attacker had usually engaged in activity that caused concern and fear in others. They usually act in ways that signal a need for psychological help. Plus most of the school shootings are not impulsive acts. They are planned out in advance and there is a high probability that other students were involved or had some knowledge of the plan.

In other words most school shootings happen because no one intervenes before hand. It isn't about the guns. It is about the failure to reach out and help the mentally damaged.




As for the justification as to why people need to own guns in the US, it's just purile. It's in the constitution..


Yes it is in the constitution. It is great that our founding fathers believed in self defense against all forms of tyrany enough to codify the right to own arms. If you want my justification I'll give you two reason why I carry a gun.

For every twelve murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, and roberies one perso is convicted. That means the people responsible for the other attacks are still out there roaming free and getting braver because they weren't caught.

A study of 272,111 convicted felons showed that with in three years of release 21.6% of them were back in jail for new violent offenses. Despite going to jail one in five violent felons become repeat violent offenders.




Or is it possible that because the average American civilian thinks, due to a misguided part of the constitution that because it is their "right" to own a gun, then gun crime has escalated and everyone is now shooting everyone else?


Gun shot wounds make up 0.05% of all emergency room visits in America. So, no you are quite wrong. In America you are more likely to die of accidental poisoning, a car wreck, or any number of things than a gun shot wound. It isn't even in the top fifteen reasons for death for the American population as a whole according to the CDC.

Then there is the simple fact that US Department of Justice numbers from 2008 show that only 8% of all crimes are committed with a gun. So, again you are wrong.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


First comment where I discuss facts prove nothing was regarding your comments about "other" crimes, ie those which have nothing to do with guns. You rolled out some statistics about violent crimes having raised in the UK (or maybe it was other european countries), hence those were not relevant. Hope that clears that up.

As for the rest, i'm just going to agree to disagree with you because I don't think any further "discussion" is going to change mine, or your point of view.

I'll just leave with this comment: Perhaps if guns weren't so easy to get hold off, blackmarket or otherwise the people with "mental issues" as you state wouldn't find it so easy to shoot others with them. Just a thought from someone sitting on the other side of the fence where i've never seen a gun or had a gun used against me in violence.

I wish you well, I have no angst against you personally, I just think you're living in a society which condones things which I couldn't condone even if a gun was held to my head... pun intended.

Peace

T



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 





And simply put, there are more gun related crimes in the US than there are in countries which don't allow people to carry guns.


That simply is not completely true. Brazil does not allow the purchase of hanguns by civilians. They have one of the highest "gun" murder rates in the world. Mexico has some of the strictest rules in the world about who can own guns and what calibers are legal. Guess what, it isn't working for them. The cartels are smuggling guns and grenades from around the world and racking up a tremendous body count. (Less than 20% of guns used in Mexican Cartell violence come from America.) I could keep adding to the list. Venezuala has strict gun control laws. Their gun violence rate got so far out of hand that Hugo Chavez refuses to report it anymore.

Yeah there are more gun related crimes in America than in European countries that ban guns. That is like saying people that don't drive have fewer car accidents. However, gun crime isn't all that important when the violent crime rate is 400% higher in England than in America. Is there something that makes it more honorable to get beaten and raped instead of shot? Most people that get shot survive just like most people that get beaten survive.




They exist for one sole purpose, to kill or maim people, hence by the very definition of their existence, they are not made for good, they are made for bad.


Actually I have used a handgun to hunt food for my family.

I have also used a hand gun to put down a feral Pit Bull that had my wife and child cornered in the car. I tried throwing rocks, spraying water, yelling and much more. The dog would not back down. Was I just supposed to tell my wife to sit in the car with our baby untill the dog got tired? I tried calling animal control they said it wasn't their problem.

I used a rifle to stop two men from breaking in to my neighbor's home. She was an 80 year old invalid. The cops told me the response time was 15 to 20 minutes because of the ice and snow. How dead might she have been in 15 minutes? I never had to fire a shot and no one was ingured. However, knowing that I was there and prepared to act drove them away from her door. Is that not a noble use of a gun?

A man in a bank parking lot pulled a knife on me and my mom and told my father that he would kill us if he didn't turn over his check. He pulled his revolver and the man fled. I lived, my mother lived, and we were able to eat dinner that week. I consider that a noble use of a handgun.

The gun it self can be niether good or bad. Its nobility or lack there of is completely determined by the person wielding it.

I think we can decide whether we should go back and forth rather easily. Do you believe it is exceptable to use lethal force against someone attempting to use lethal force against you? Do you believe that lethal force is justified to stop rape, grievious bodily injury, or death?

That is the most basic form of this whole debate. You either do or don't. Because, honestly the guns are out there. You aren't going to get rid of them. There are still 7,000+ firearms crimes per year in England. Mexico is bogged down in a constant state of war. The guns will get in to the hands of those that want them.

In the 1950's street gangs would use a block of wood or a car aerial and a few household supplies to make guns. Criminals seeking the advantage over their victims will find a way to gain leverage. In England they ended up banning starter pistols because a guy began converting them in to working guns and selling them to criminals. They even arrested cops for selling confiscated guns back to criminals.

How far would you have to go to get rid of all guns? It would take door to door sweeps. Then as fast as they were gone somebody with a rudementary machine shop would start turning out copies of the Liberator .45acp.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 






I wish you well, I have no angst against you personally, I just think you're living in a society which condones things which I couldn't condone even if a gun was held to my head... pun intended.


You are a pacifist to some extent? If that is truly your moral and spiritual standing then I respect that. I just ask that I not be told to live the same way.

I come from a much different school of thought. Marko Kloos summed it up pretty well. He is talking about responding to lethal for or a actionable threat of lethal force.


And then you need to put that fury to good use. Yield nothing, not an inch, not a penny, not a hair on your head, without fighting for it tooth and nail. Do your level best to ensure that if someone has to end up in a body bag this hour, it won’t be your body in that bag. And even if it should happen to be your turn to take your seat in Valhalla, you might as well put your best effort into making sure that you arrive there with your attacker in a firm headlock.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by mantic
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


And that is how you handle ones self responsibly.
Only Cowards hide behind guns. Like Kenny Rogers says, You gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run.

Hats off and thanks for sharing the story.
edit on 11-5-2011 by mantic because: lyric error



You got that dead to rights. In general, only a fool or a coward pulls a gun to hide behind it, while praying that its presence alone will be the trump-card in the encounter and enable him to walk away unaffected.

It seldom works that way; more than likely the perp will take the weapon away from those too timid to shoot.

The only time an enemy should see your weapon is the split second before you use it to bring him down; otherwise hesitation might find you disarmed and still at the perp's tender mercies.

The ONLY time an enemy should see your weapon is when you have decided it will be the last sight on Earth he ever sees.


I have to disagree with you. In some instances, it is better to display your firearm to ward off an impending attack.
For example, take for instance: A couple in there sailboat or fishing vessel, on the high seas, or a big lake that is known for pirates or drug cartels that frequent the area.

They see a boat or a trio of jet ski's approaching there boat at high speed. It should be apparent that the locals might be hostile. The recomended action to take, is to display your weapon in a non-hostile manner. Preferably a Thompson submachine gun whether in full or semi auto. This would give you a distinct psychological advantage over your would be attacker's; by making them believe that you are willing to put up a fight {with a submachine gun} and that they should retreat and go off looking for easier prey.


Cheers,

Erno86

edit on 19-5-2011 by Erno86 because: typo



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
People people! just for the record, if I shoot someone and they are "crawling" away from me...I would shoot them in the back and make sure there dead. Call it murder, call if excessive force, call it whatever you weak minded pansies need too, but later on that week as I put my children to sleep and lay down with my wife, I know at least one criminal that will not be coming back to my house in the night.

Now you ladies can allow the criminal to live and get released from jail early because of prison over crowding (racially), but I can't live with that variable. I choose to isolate and eliminate it. This is the same attitude all red blooded Americans had before the 1960's before the damnable civil rights bill ruined America.

If you children are too scared to use your guns, then get rid of them. I was taught to shoot to kill....whether it takes one shot, or 15.



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 



Call it murder, call if excessive force, call it whatever you weak minded pansies need too, but later on that week as I put my children to sleep and lay down with my wife, I know at least one criminal that will not be coming back to my house in the night.


How are you going to do that from jail?

If you shoot them in the back as they try to escape, you will go to jail. There is no self-defense law in the country that authorizes that. Instead, some big tatted out bubba will be tucking you in sweetly in your cell after he makes love to you, and some new man will be doing the same to your wife. I guess you will have the comfort of knowing that you killed someone after they were already defenseless, so that should take the sting off those first few prison rapes.


I am all for shooting to kill. Make it count when you shoot, and there shouldn't be any problem, but don't shoot them in the back as they crawl away, you will certainly go to prison for that.

As I said before, if they happen to roll over, and they happen to reach for their weapon, and you have to finish them off, well it is your word against a dead criminal's word, so you should be fine, but you will never be able to justify shooting them in the back. Unless of course you can master the act of "I pulled the trigger over and over until it started going click, I panicked, I don't know what happened, are they dead?" That has worked in court before, but I doubt your ego will allow you to play that card.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Dear Mike,


Originally posted by MikeNice81
You are a pacifist to some extent? If that is truly your moral and spiritual standing then I respect that. I just ask that I not be told to live the same way.


Yes I am, to a large extent. I think the escalation of violence has been exacerbated by countries like the US allowing civilians to carry guns. It may be my narrow minded blinkered European view, or as one of the posters after you put it, I am a "pansy" or "pussy" *rolls eyes*. Added to that violence on TV, the formation of gangs, publicity associated to gun violence, the school killings in the US, etc.. I think we, that is global society, are becoming more and more akin to the animal world. Kill or be killed and it just doesn't sit right with my personal philosphy. Nor, should I add, would I ever presume to "tell" you what to do Mike.. that just isn't me at all.

Regarding the analogies you made, what do you want me to say Mike? In every example I would agree with you regarding the animals, so ok I didn't include that guns are made for killing game/animals. The other points well.. we go back to the catch 22 I was discussing. I wouldn't say it's because of a specific spiritual standing that I feel this way, I think it is more to do with fear, fear for what society is going to be like for my kids because simply put, issues here in the UK are escalating and I don't ever see an end to it. Are gun laws in the US the cause of that, well.. possibly. I certainly don't think they help, when you see teenagers here and the way they are going it just doesn't seem like there is any alternative.

Regarding your last comment, how would I disarm a nation/country, that is a very tough one. In the UK the police have, from time to time, a gun amnesty whereby civlians can bring in firearms for disposal without the fear of prosecution. It works to a greater or lesser degree, but of course it is solely based on the "moral fibre" of the individual to actually bring in their weapons. I think the first step, globally, would be to ban the fabrication/sale of all firearms except for specific purposes: Army/police, shooting ranges, game hunting. After that, yes you are right it would take a door to door search, and even then you probably wouldn't recover much more than 30% of the guns and the cost would be exorbitant.

I fear it is too late, which kind of makes my posts somewhat futile, but it is still my opinion and my gut feeling that it's all going to go to hell for all of us.

I appreciate your responses very much, it is somewhat enlightening to know not everyone is a gung-ho shooting maniac over there, not that I thought that, but you know what I mean I am sure.

Peace,
T
edit on 20-5-2011 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


I'm suprised you could understand some of the things I said. My spelling and gramar has been horrible. I wish I could blame it solely on the fact that I am under the weather.




It may be my narrow minded blinkered European view, or as one of the posters after you put it, I am a "pansy" or "pussy" *rolls eyes*.


Well it is generally acknowledged by all civilized human beings that people like him are. . . Well let me just say that the average gun owner is more embarrassed by guys like him than we can express. Anyone that condones murder and excessive violence is on the very fringe.




Added to that violence on TV, the formation of gangs, publicity associated to gun violence, the school killings in the US, etc.. I think we, that is global society, are becoming more and more akin to the animal world.


When I look at history I have a different view. I don't believe we ever got far from being beastly animals. I look at things like the Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, China's Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot's "cleansing" of Cambodia, and the rule of Pinochet in Chile and see the absolute animal nature and depravity of man.

I think the formation of gangs - in America - comes more from a sense of hopelessness than anything. It is a long a deep discussion that I can write about from personal experience. I think part of it can be chalked up to the globalization of our world, but not the sharing of cultures.

My thoughts on school killings takes multiple paths. First they are tragic. Second we need students and teachers to speak up when they have information that these plots are being developed. I don't mean call the cops because billy is talking about his hunting trip. Third, we need parents to get involved in their kids lives again. There are usually early warning signs that can be acted on if people would just get involved in their kid's life.

Fourth, the truth of the matter is that school violence has been going on for centuries. It is not the sole responsibility of America. It is not a modern thing. It is an age old issue that, historically speaking, is more often caused by the authority figures and parents. Getting rid of guns will not end the problem. The people that commit these crimes will do it anyway. Most schools in America have security cameras and other security measures. That hasn't stopped them. Criminals are criminals and will break the law anyway.

I personally think that more interaction between parents and kids would go much further in preventing these issues. Most parents are too wrapped up in their own lives and trying to provide to be there for their kids. The ones that are there seem to be too busy working about being their kid's friend. We need a stronger sense of authority from parents and teachers.




I wouldn't say it's because of a specific spiritual standing that I feel this way, I think it is more to do with fear, fear for what society is going to be like for my kids because simply put, issues here in the UK are escalating and I don't ever see an end to it.


We both acknowledge the same cultural and social problems. We just have a different way of responding to it. Your style is pacifism. Which if can be truly mastered in spirit, thought, and action is honorable. I on the other hand take the moderate approach.

I avoid violence as much as is humanly possible. I stay out of places with increased probability of incidences, I use situational awareness to avoid problems as they arise, I walk away, and generally take evey step I can to avoid a fight. However, I find no spiritual or moral honor in being a victim. If I am backed in to a corner, I will fight like a cornered cat. I don't believe that submitting to becoming a victim helps move society in the right direction. I believe only when citizens stand up to the criminals and the miscreants will they learn to choose another life style.

I'm not talking about being a vigilante. I am talking about standing your ground and making the person think twice next time. If that person is attempting to use lethal force against you, then make sure they don't get a next time.

In America one in five felons will beome repeat violent offenders. We know that for every twelve rapes, murders, assaults, sexual assaults, and robberies the police ony arrest and convict one person. That means the "justice system" isn't going to be able to get them all or deter them all. Only by facing a society that stands up will the criminal element be detered.

If they never return handguns to the people of England I wish they would return the right to self defense. I believe that in large part would help. If a man breaks in to your house at 3am with a baseball bat you should not go to jail for stabbing him. That just tells criminals to go for it because the next guy is going to roll over and take it.




Are gun laws in the US the cause of that, well.. possibly. I certainly don't think they help,


I'm not trying to be thick, but could you explain that in detail? I don't understand how gun laws here are effecting the youth of England. How do our gun laws directly effect crime there?




but it is still my opinion and my gut feeling that it's all going to go to hell for all of us.


I actually agree with you on that point. I think if the discussion was on another topic we might agree on why in many cases.




I appreciate your responses very much, it is somewhat enlightening to know not everyone is a gung-ho shooting maniac over there, not that I thought that, but you know what I mean I am sure.


I understand. Gun owners are often potrayed as being less than intelligent and a little more angry than the average person. We are the crazy cousin every body likes to pick on. At least that is how it feels watching American media. I can only imagine what they say about us in England.

That is why I enjoy these conversations. We need to communicate and start looking at each other as invidual humans again. We need to squash this group think that has permeated our cultures. Fifty years ago people sacrificed their lives in the streets of America to be considerred human. They didn't want to be seen as a group any more. They wanted to be seen as individuals with unique experiences and talents to contribute to the world. Some how we have forgotten the lessons they tried to teach us about humanity.

By talking we realize that there is much less to fear and we can all live more comfortably together.
edit on 20-5-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Dear Mike,

I really do appreciate our conversation, I must state that again. I think in a lot of respects we are both on the same "page" just perhaps seeing things from different sides of the proverbial fence.

With regards this quote of mine: "Are gun laws in the US the cause of that, well.. possibly. I certainly don't think they help" It would be my pleasure to elaborate. The UK is now very similar to the US and I would actually go as far as to say the UK is the US's little cousin so to speak. Now on to the point, I think that the prevalence of guns in the US society, for whatever reason we don't need to rehash this, has a direct impact on youth in the UK and also on crime, or specifically crimes of violence.

Teenagers here, those void of good parental control, will see and perceive the whole gang theme in a more glorified sense than anything else. Simply put rap videos, games, documentaries and such like have a huge impact on the already easy to influence kids in today’s society. It isn't the laws themselves which have a direct impact, it is the perceived social standing that is portrayed of a man (read boy) holding a gun and being all macho. Since the UK doesn't really have laws which allow civilians to own hand guns (well they do but it is extremely more difficult to obtain a legal license here) the influence seems to come directly from the US in my honest opinion anyway.

I am not sure if that makes sense, I hope it does. There are really two very distinct points here, one is my perhaps ignorant beliefs in a more pacifist society without the availability of firearms, and the other is again a personal opinion of how the escalating availability of firearms, even in another country, has a direct correlation as to how our kids will be, or more importantly will wish to be, in the very near future. They see their cousins in gangs, wielding weapons and think it is cool, that is what truly frightens me. Should all of this be put on the shoulders of Americans with guns, no. Can some of this be placed on the shoulders of the laws and administration, I think so.

Regards,
T



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


Wouldn't that cultural influence be the fault of the media and society in general instead of the guns and gun laws?

And, if that glamourized version of macho gun ownership was the problem, wouldn't it be even more prevalent here in the US than in the UK? I don't see how US kids owning guns and glamourizing them in videos would cause UK to have a higher rate of violence than the US?

In fact, I would say that your argument supports the fact that gun ownership lowers crime. I agree that violence is overly glamourized, and it has a major impact on youth, and it is a social problem, but here in the US where many people are legally armed, the impact is lessened compared to the UK where many people are defenseless victims.

Once again, the gun actually helps and improves the situation, even when society at large has a major problem with romanticizing and glamourizing violence. There is a major societal problem, but the areas with higher gun ownership are less susceptible to that larger problem, while the areas with less gun ownership are seeing high rates of violent crime, largely due to the media, sitcoms, video games, and movies.

There is another thread up about a 16 year old male having sex with his 37 year old teacher, and she is going to jail for it? It is ok for a 16 year old to murder hookers playing Grand Theft Auto, watch CSI Miami with graphic depictions of violence, drive a 2500lb 100mph car, take a job, earn an income and pay taxes, but if he has sex it is a crime? Our society definitely has some major problems, but guns are not one of them.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Dear Getready,

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by torqpoc
 


Wouldn't that cultural influence be the fault of the media and society in general instead of the guns and gun laws?


That I simply don't know, it's a chicken and egg situation. The media glamourises what is in existence today, and that is .. well do I need to repeat myself? If it wasn't there, would it still be glamourised?



And, if that glamourized version of macho gun ownership was the problem, wouldn't it be even more prevalent here in the US than in the UK? I don't see how US kids owning guns and glamourizing them in videos would cause UK to have a higher rate of violence than the US?


Again this could be my ignorant perception of things, but when I see UK kids here playing Bloods and Crips in the council estates I can only find one reason for that.


Once again, the gun actually helps and improves the situation, even when society at large has a major problem with romanticizing and glamourizing violence.


I don't agree with that statement, I personally think it worsens it, but again i'm sitting on the other side of the fence. From the information Mike provided it would seem that to a certain degree gun ownership acts more as a deterrent in the US than as a tool to commit murder, but again I just can't find myself able to agree that it is a "solution".



There is a major societal problem, but the areas with higher gun ownership are less susceptible to that larger problem, while the areas with less gun ownership are seeing high rates of violent crime, largely due to the media, sitcoms, video games, and movies.


Totally agree with you that society as a whole has a large part to play in controlling violent crime. I must reiterate that my point of view is limited only to guns. Not other forms of crime like mugging, robbery, rape etc..


Our society definitely has some major problems, but guns are not one of them.


Again, agreed GetReady, but not on the last part. I just don't see it.. i'm sorry. I think guns are a problem everywhere, everywhere where they can be used in an act of violence. There's far too much hatred and violence already, I see them simply as an extension of that. Personal views, slightly cookie English pacifism, call it what you will.. they don't sit well in my sphere of "being".

Regards,
T



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by torqpoc
 


Ideally, guns would only ever be used for hunting, but our world is not yet ideal.

An acquaintance of mine had her fiance and father murdered just a couple of weeks ago, and she almost died herself. I didn't know her, but she was very close to a good friend of mine. The double (almost triple) murder did not involve a gun.

The last major murder in our area also did not involve a gun.

Either of those cases could have been prevented by a gun!

The gruesome depictions overseas often involve beheadings, machetes, even stones. The brutal rapes and murders in the Congo and other parts of Africa rarely have anything to do with guns.

According to This research project. The US preferred method of suicide for men was handguns, for women it was poison and hangings were very low, but compare that to the UK where the rate of hangings matched that of firearms in the US. In other words, the suicide rate was very comparable, in without access to a gun, they just hang themselves or poison themselves instead.

As the cliche goes, guns are just a tool. A very convenient and effective tool, but without a gun, people still find a way to be violent. I love my cordless drill, but when its batteries are dead, I pick up a hammer and nails, I don't give up the project. Criminals are just as determined, take away the gun, they grab a machete.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If I could I'd give you 50 stars and 50 flags just for the last post. Well put good sir.



posted on May, 20 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Wow that was an awesome read getready. I don't know how I'd go in a tense situation like that but I suppose when you're a big dude (like yourself) it bolsters your confidence to keep a cool head. And having a loaded pistol in the back of your jeans couldn't hurt.





new topics
top topics
 
247
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join