|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/21/2008 8:45:51 PM | An Acronym...
As a Retired American Veteran who volunteered at 17 to serve his country in military service, I have a much different opinion than you do.
No one today has earned such a right.
I personally, have "earned" that right. And I earned it by putting *my* life at risk to save others, and preserving that right for the rest of my country. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign, and domestic. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/21/2008 11:33:03 PM | This issue is as much of a charged topic as abortion. So, I will keep my guns and the others won't buy them. I will keep being armed and others won't arm themselves. Whatever floats your boat.
I know it it my constitutional right to have arms, I know that is my right to carry a concealed weapon since I have the license. I know that it is my right to protect myself and my family from harm and I should be able to do that with the same firepower that a criminal has.
If you want to have an abortion do it. If you think abortion is wrong, then don't do it. It's YOUR choice.
My choice is to be prepared and armed. That is MY choice. Your choice may be different. But there is no way that my choice as a law abiding citizen is keeping you from your choice.
Guns do not equal violence and abortions do not equal killing. It's a personal choice! Learn to live with it. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 12:02:24 AM |
Just as an aside, and so it will have been said, private citizens cannot rely upon the Police to protect them as an individual. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the duty of law enforcement is the safety and security of the community, not the individual citizen. The duty of one's individual safety and security falls to the individual citizen. Ergo, one of the many reasons why so many are such staunch defenders of the right to keep and bear Arms.
I've been wondering about that very point. It seems to me that in a free society the police can really only enforce the laws after the fact. Otherwise, we're all presumed innocent. So, if I want to _prevent_ a crime against myself, that's apparently on me.
No wonder people seem to want to advertise their willingness to shoot burglars--unseemly though that attitude might appear.
I stand corrected to a certain extent. However, there is a big difference between being willing to do what's necessary and being eager to swagger over one's ability to do so.
Any 6-year-old can point and shoot a gun. There's nothing macho about that. And that's exactly why they need to be locked up.
For those who say that kids can get into anything, that's not entirely true. And besides, keeping them locked up sends a very clear message that kids understand. So does _not_ locking them up. That sends a very _wrong_ message. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 12:08:45 AM | Ken,
Thank you for your service. I was against your war but I understood your choice to go. I felt that our leadership at that time put you men and women in an unteneble position and I'm glad you made it back!
<div class='quote'>Cigarettes - 440,000
Automobiles - 42,366
Second Hand Smoke - 35,000
Guns - 29,338
So the obvious choice is to work on guns first!!!! That is retarded!!!!
Of those, which is almost entirely outside the control of the victim?
The fact that you have some degree of choice in whether or not you smoke, ride in a car, or hang out with smokers means that people, especially tobacco sellers, makes those risks seem a lot less scary.
The fact that your life could be placed entirely in the hands of some random idiot with a gun is unbearable to most people even if they're willing to take much higher risks upon themselves.
But I do agree with you. The fact that our nation got started by a bunch of nicotine dealers notwithstanding, tolerating tobacco these days is just plain retarded! | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/22/2008 7:00:36 AM | "In conclusion: Australia freely waives the right to bear arms, and I'm glad of it. While there are some handguns in circulation and rifles and shotguns are routinely used in holdups and so on, we really don't have the levels of gun violence that exists there, and I'm glad of that. "
Perhaps more accurately it might be stated that in Australia you can legally own firearms as a private citizen, but the issue is not as controversial here as it is in the U.S.
The issue from a U.S. perspective is not just about guns but also about the Constitution and its interpretation. Generally the Constitution is one of the key sources of law in countries which have one, and it needs to be taken into account. The U.S. constitution allows U.S. private citizens to bear arms. The Australian constitution on the other hand, has no such provision, most likely because historically the birth of Australia as a nation did not occur in a violent revolution. It is perfectly understandable though, for historical reasons, why the U.S. constitution allowed the right to bear arms provision at the time it was drafted, as the nation was threatened by an external power and the general able-bodied population had to have means at their disposal to quickly arm themselves if need be.
As the constitution is still a major source of law and legal thinking, it is relevant to the issue of gun ownership for this reason alone. But in itself the U.S. constitution is not a valid philosophical argument that demonstrates owning firearms is either good from an ethical viewpoint, or a political right that is valid in a universal sense in that every democracy should enshrine as a fundamental right the right of the private individual to own and use their own weapons, including guns. To demonstrate those points, more substantial arguments are needed.
In my view many of the arguments used by the pro and anti-gun lobbies are quite dubious, and often appeal to bad reasoning or the emotions. I am quite happy in the case of the U.S. to leave it as with other political issues in that country, for them to decide. Here in Australia the firearm issue came to a head with the Port Arthur massacre and the laws were changed accordingly to prevent another one. Violent crime, including those that use firearms, still goes on, but there is little evidence to suggest that Australia's gun laws or their laxity or rigidity are the root cause of violent crime. Other factors, such as drug abuse, psychological disorders, abusive or disavantaged backgrounds, and of course existing criminal influence are often far more important.
I do not see the need at present to have a firearm to defend myself from danger. It is possible having one might give me a means to defend myself, but it is also possible it might aggravate a dangerous situation as well. Personally I would prefer to possess a non-lethal weapon such as a taser which would stun and cripple someone for long enough for me to escape from danger or call for help, without killing the violent aggressor. I would prefer to resort to lethal force only as a last resort. Even so, the sensible person will take many steps and precautions to avoid dangerous and provocative behaviours which often lead to violent assaults and confrontations and also murderous violence. In any case, statistics generally show it is more likely you will be killed in a car accident or be killed by someone you know, than it is you will die at the hands of a random killer. My concerns for my well being would be better addressed by getting my car serviced and not driving drunk, than arming myself to the teeth with weapons. | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/22/2008 1:28:50 PM | I just finished reading what was termed a scientific look at the Port Arthur Massacre that happened in Australia. The report was written by Joe Vialls, and I must say, it was quite an interesting read.
Australia freely waives the right to bear arms, and I'm glad of it.
It would appear that not all Australians hold this point of view.
Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve firearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown.
The only visible cause and effect that can be laid at the door of the Port Arthur massacre is that the effect of the obscene action caused public hatred to be directed against Australian sporting shooters, who were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a massive funded campaign to disarm the Australian people in spite of significant external threats to our national security. Joe Vialls, Australia's Port Arthur Massacre Government and Media Lies Exposed, pub. 11/04/97
The issue from a U.S. perspective is not just about guns but also about the Constitution and its interpretation. Generally the Constitution is one of the key sources of law in countries which have one, and it needs to be taken into account. The U.S. constitution allows U.S. private citizens to bear arms. . . . It is perfectly understandable though, for historical reasons, why the U.S. constitution allowed the right to bear arms provision at the time it was drafted, as the nation was threatened by an external power and the general able-bodied population had to have means at their disposal to quickly arm themselves if need be.
Factual United States history show that very little, with the exception of the sophistication of the Arms used, and the method of attack, have changed, since the United States Constitution was originally drafted, which specifically states "the people's right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
As the constitution is still a major source of law and legal thinking, it is relevant to the issue of gun ownership for this reason alone.
Says who? What facts are available to support this proposition?
But in itself the U.S. constitution is not a valid philosophical argument that demonstrates owning firearms is either good from an ethical viewpoint, or a political right that is valid in a universal sense in that every democracy should enshrine as a fundamental right the right of the private individual to own and use their own weapons, including guns. To demonstrate those points, more substantial arguments are needed.
Private gun ownership is not a "political right" in the United States; private gun ownership in the United States is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Just how many facts, in addition to the legal foundational basis, are needed to point out the obvious
when it comes to private gun ownership in the United States?
Here in Australia the firearm issue came to a head with the Port Arthur massacre and the laws were changed accordingly to prevent another one.
Following is what one Australian, who happens to be an investigative reporter, had to say about the Port Arthur Massacre:
On Sunday April 28th, 1996, at the tourist site of Port Arthur in Tasmania, 35 people were killed and more wounded by a rampaging gunman, in what has become known as the Port Arthur massacre.
* * *
Was the massacre in Port Arthur a completely spontaneous act carried out by a single nutcase with unbelievable efficiency?
Or was it deliberately designed to distort public perception and direct maximum hatred against a particular group of people?
All of the available hard evidence suggests that it was.
Martin Bryant, now in gaol having been officially convicted of the shootings, could not under any circumstances have acted alone, and may possibly not have acted at all, other than in an orchestrated ‘patsy’ role.
Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the Port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world. His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world.
There were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Martin Bryant at Port Arthur because an Australian newspaper circulated his photograph nationwide, thereby totally corrupting any and all police line-ups, photo boards, or controlled shopping mall parades. All the eyewitnesses could legally claim seeing was a “tall man with long blonde hair”, which was no impediment to the media who tried and convicted Martin Bryant in less than two days, in one of the most blatant and disgusting displays of media abuse ever seen.
As an investigator I insist on dealing only with hard facts because it is the only way to avoid being swept along by the avalanche of misinformation put out by the media on a daily basis.
Hard scientific facts were deliberately excluded by the frenzied media pack and not one attempt was made to establish the real identity of the shooter. Long blonde hair did not prove that the shooter was Martin Bryant, and the media somehow forgot to remind the Australian public that long wigs are the most common form of basic disguise ever used.
American video evidence submitted to the Supreme Court has already been scientifically proven a forgery.
Without a single shred of credible evidence, someone somewhere decided that gun dealer Terry Hill would be the "fall guy" who provided "murderer" Martin Bryant with the weapons he allegedly used at Port Arthur.
The Tasmanian Government and Police Service went to great lengths to "fit up" gun dealer Terry Hill as the man who provided Martin Bryant with the weapons alleged to have been used in the massacre. This draconian activity culminated in a civil court case against Hill, seemingly launched by survivor Quin for damages and breach of statutory duty. Active in the case was Roland Brown, solicitor for the Legal Aid Commission and Chairman of the Coalition for Gun Control. On 5th March 1998 the case against Terry Hill was suddenly discontinued.
Despite the fact that he has never been charged with any offence relating to Port Arthur, the police refuse to restore his gun dealer licence on the grounds that he, and his wife Dorothy, are not suitable people to handle firearms. This is rubbish, easily proved by the fact that shortly after the gun dealer licences were revoked, the Tasmanian police renewed both of their personal firearms licences without question.
In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, government went to great lengths to ignore or suppress all evidence suggesting that the official story of the day was unsubstantiated rubbish.
Are we to believe that a bunch of planners sat round a table and arranged the premeditated murders of 35 Australians?
Unfortunately the answer is yes.
All of the hard evidence at Port Arthur bears the distinctive trademark of a planned “psyop”, meaning an operation designed to psychologically manipulate the belief mechanisms of a group of people or a nation for geopolitical or military reasons.
In the immediate aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, politicians developed collective verbal diarrhoea in the House of Representatives as they joined the feeding frenzy designed to undermine Australian national security by removing defensive weapons from the hands of the public.
There is now also convincing hard evidence that the gun control proposals accepted by Police Ministers in May1996 were prepared before the massacre, by an ideological senior bureaucrat with United Nations connections.
Since the psyop at Port Arthur more than 400,000 reserve firearms have been pulped instead of stored by the Federal Government, leaving our nation and people terribly exposed to just about anyone interested in taking over the natural resources jewel in the southern hemisphere crown.
The only visible cause and effect that can be laid at the door of the Port Arthur massacre is that the effect of the obscene action caused public hatred to be directed against Australian sporting shooters, who were innocent of any crime at all. Directly linked to this was a massive funded campaign to disarm the Australian people in spite of significant external threats to our national security. Joe Vialls, Australia's Port Arthur Massacre Government and Media Lies Exposed, pub. 11/04/97
If what Mr. Vialls asserts in this article are true, and he does support his conclusions with facts, as well as logic; it would appear that 35 innocent Australian citizens had to die, so that a gun ban could be pushed through and made the law of the land in Australia. Thus, leaving Australia with an unarmed population; which means that the population has no means by which to resist tyranny of any kind.
Hmmmmm, smells a lot like Germany in 1939. | |
|
| Interesting Statistics Canada v United States Gun Related Deaths
Posted: 2/22/2008 1:58:12 PM |  Germany again
Seriously, I believe that the decision to own a gun or not is a personal choice, and should be respected. If a person chooses to own a gun, as long as the person is qualified and knows how to use it properly, he or she should be able to do so. But "rules of the road" such as registration don't mean future confiscation. That is so silly. Since I know how to drive a car and don't abuse the privilege, I don't have to fear my car being confiscated because it is registered with the state. Registration serves a purpose--to help identify the rightful owner when a vehicle (or gun for that matter) is stolen. Someday I may buy a gun for target shooting, and I would make sure I got the proper training and followed all appropriate laws. That, my friends, is responsible gun ownership, of which I favor.
I also feel that the person who equated gun usage with a person potentially being a murderer to be hogwash. Some gun users may become murderers but the vast majority own them for hunting (venison is yummy ), target shooting, or for personal protection.
Well, I'd need protection if I ever went hunting with Cheney He needs to go to Smith and Wesson's school to learn proper marksmanship
 Cheney would miss this bouncing smiley It's harder to hit a moving object | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 2:30:55 PM | FACTS TO PONDER :
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(Calculation) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Department of Health Human Services.
Now think about this:
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million.)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(Calculation) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of the FBI.
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.
We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek a gun and medical attention. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 2:44:12 PM |
Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek a gun and medical attention.
LOL love it | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:14:02 PM | We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
   | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:33:42 PM | "If everyone were armed and knew how to use a weapon"
Sorry, but I will never consent to 14 yr old boys owning a gun....As long as children and immature, impulsive people have access to guns, there will always be alot of violence in communities by guns.....It doesnt matter if someone is taught how to use a weapon..The risk for them misusing that is high if they are drunk, or lose their temper or want revenge, which includes ALOT of people out there....I grew up in Texas and saw what happens in a place where is no gun control and everyone had free accees to guns.......Do I want that again?.....I dont ..f..cking think so!....NO THANK YOU! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:38:01 PM |
I dont ..f..cking think so!....NO THANK YOU! Then don't buy one that is your choice and your right. Just don't try to remove the rights of others in your zeal. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 3:49:33 PM | | ...dreadstalker...I will fight everyday for the laws that prevent 14 yr olds from having a gun just like I would with them driving....Ditto for anyone to purchase a gun with out a thorough background check ...My office is full of scarred, traumatized people hurt by others who used violence against them, including using guns.....All on medication paid for by your health insurance company and on disability paid by you thru increased work hours and reduced work benefits....The trickle down theory applies here....Im not going to turn the other cheek and ignore that and passively allow people to live in dangerous situations that can be prevented alot of the time thru gun control..Fist fighting causes injury at most...Guns cause murder at most...There is no reason for people to have unregistered guns or massive arsenal of weapons....Ive seen what happens when they do both as a child and an adult.....Since people often cant control their impulsive temper or have any tolerance for frustration when angry, they use guns when they have them ....I dont want to be around them when that happens.....The most skilled person with the most knowledge about guns could lose it and crack one day.....Id rather not take that risk and live in a world where that is less possible than not....Without easy access to guns, they couldnt kill people near as often as they do here in the USA...Its no secret as to why the South has a higher rate of deaths by gunshot than the Northern states....The South has more liberal gun laws than the North, so more people have access to them....Im proactive rather than reactive...Prevention is the best way to avoid violence... | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 4:33:51 PM |
Im proactive rather than reactive...Prevention is the best way to avoid violence...
It is also said that the best defense is a good offense.
You seek to deprive others of their constitutional rights.
Your work in no way allows you to speak for others. You can only speak for yourself.
Therefore your claimed knowledge is in most cases second hand.
Lets say you even achieve your dream of banning firearms. The only ones who would give them up are the already law abiding citizen who has every right to firearms under the 2nd amendment. Do you truly think that criminals are going to give them up as well. Not a chance.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:21:05 PM |
No one ever uses guns properly, as the tool they really are, but rather, they are all intending to hone the ability to kill someone.
Let's not pretend that a firearm is really anything other than what it is here.
From it's very beginnings, the firearm was designed as a weapon of war. It was designed to wound and kill more quickly and efficiently while placing the shooter at the least level of risk possible.
Throughout time, firearms have been redesigned, over and again, to improve their reliability and efficiency for the task of wounding and killing.
That is the history of the firearm and that is the fact of the designed purpose of the firearm.
Paint it as you will but the fact remains... "a rose by any other name..."
I am a shooter and I support gun control.
I go through at least 200 rounds a week (minimum 2 boxes a day, 2 days a week), every week but even I have no illusions about the designed purpose and intent of firearms and that is why I support gun control (to try to keep firearms out of the hands of the macho, the unstable, and those who can't seem to understand the designed purpose of firearms). | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:33:49 PM | "You seek to deprive others of their constitiional rights"
Automatically owning a gun isnt a right, its a privledge....People need to earn that privledge....Thats why Im for some gun restrictions and laws...My knowledge comes personally and professionally..Thats more than most people and enough to convince me...Offense isnt the best defense...People shoot a person accidently and impulsively before they know all the facts or in the heat of passion in the process of behaving "offensively"......People jump to conclusions without guns way too much anyway, I witness that everyday...There is no tolerance for frustration, they simply react impulsively when they are angry.....Screaming, yelling, road rage, and cursing, hitting, threatening, ruining property....Imagine what they will do with a gun?....I dont want someone like that owning a gun and theres plenty of them out there....I speak for the thousands of clients Ive worked with every year who have been victims of domestic violence involving handguns...This isnt just about me...Thats where people really need to get educated and aware....It concerns alot of people who are traumatized and harmed by gun violence, namely children........... Petty criminals wont have the opportunity to own them in as large of numbers if they are restricted and harder to get | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:38:36 PM |
I will fight everyday for the laws that prevent 14 yr olds from having a gun just like I would with them driving....Ditto for anyone to purchase a gun with out a thorough background check ...
Children, well under the age of 14, have been asked if knew how, and how long it would take, to get an illegal gun on the streets. Nearly every child asked knew where, and how, to get a gun on the street. Oh, the length of time to get that illegal gun? Less than 30 mintues, on average.
My office is full of scarred, traumatized people hurt by others who used violence against them, including using guns.....
As a former Police Officer, I got to those people, long before they landed in anyone's office. I got to see them up close, and personal, smell the blood, and terror, where they were. Got to try to resolve the situations that many of these people returned to, time after time.
It's rather ironic, that very seldom was a gun ever involved. The weapon of choice was usually fists, baseball bats, butcher knives, and in one case, a Teddy Bear, and it nearly killed the guy.
Im not going to turn the other cheek and ignore that and passively allow people to live in dangerous situations that can be prevented alot of the time thru gun control..
Nor will a great many others turn the other cheek, and passively allow those who think because if you argue the loudest that you're right, to take away a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The fact that anyone is able to voice any opinion at all, is because of "the people's right to keep and bear Arms," and because a great many before us have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of all of our Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Fist fighting causes injury at most...Guns cause murder at most...
This statement cannot be supported by fact, or logic. At least one person, has been arrested for murder, and the weapon used were his bare hands; he hit the man one (1) time. I defy, even the most ardent opponent to handguns, to show one, just one, handgun, or any gun for that matter, that can be loaded, and fired, without human intervention of any kind.
It's been said many times over, guns don't kill people. People using guns kill people.
There is no reason for people to have unregistered guns or massive arsenal of weapons....
There is also no valid, or plausible, reason for guns kept by the law abiding to have to be registered.
Ive seen what happens when they do both as a child and an adult.....Since people often cant control their impulsive temper or have any tolerance for frustration when angry, they use guns when they have them ....
One's individual experience may be unique to them. However, while one's experiences may be unique to them, others may well have had very similar experiences. I too have seen as a child, and as an adult, both up close and personal, what can happen when someone cannot control their impulsive tempers, and they use guns. These people are commonly referred to as criminals, and/or felons. They are generally arrested, and once convicted, sent to prison.
The most skilled person with the most knowledge about guns could lose it and crack one day.....Id rather not take that risk and live in a world where that is less possible than not....
Utopia does not exist, and likely never will.
Without easy access to guns, they couldnt kill people near as often as they do here in the USA...
Before guns were invented, people were killed, wholesale, with knives, swords, arrows, rocks, sticks, various farm implements, and in some cases, with an attacker's bare hands. The least preventable crime is murder; anyone who has ever studied criminal justice has been taught this. Taking guns out of the equation will not prevent murder; not by any stretch of the imagination.
Just because one can make the loudest noise in the debate, does not make their chosen position the right one. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:43:15 PM | Gun control laws in the US have been established to set guidelines for gun use and ownership in an effort to reduce crime and public safety. It is however always up to debate when crime contiues to go up, should our laws become even more restrictive.
If you take a moment to listen to the local news within just about any city, the majority of the crimes commited with guns are from those who have unlawfully obtained their firearm. You must be 21 to purchase a handgun and 18 for a rifle. No felonies, no domestic charges, mentally sane, and if someone is under the influence of any drug or alcohol, it is unlawful even with a concealed permit to carry.
Keep the current laws in mind, the typical crime with a handgun is commited by an individual under the age of 18, or at least under 21. Those that are of legal age usually have a vast prior history of criminal activity and charges and would not pass a background check to obtain a weapon of any sort. Gangs are the main threat to society as far as handguns are concerned and most have received criminal charges as juvenille, so they do not pass the application process. They also usually commit their crimes within a pack of at least 2 or more.
Not all crimes will be stopped even if their target has a gun, but some have been prevented. Law Enforcement is well over their head with all the current laws on the books now and they cannot be everywhere. People need to get smarter about their environment and pay attention to who is around them.
In Orlando, they are getting attacked at work because they know most people are not allowed to carry a firearm into their place of employment due to the company's own restrictions. I believe that the laws need to be tougher on the known gang members when they commit the crimes and not give them probation due to overcrowding.
The criminal mindset does not care about any laws on the books, it is their belief that whatever they desire, they will get, laws or no laws....
 | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:50:56 PM | Right ...
Everyone who uses a gun therefore, is a potential murderer, and every gun is a means of murder. Outlawing guns means murders will stop. Do you actually believe that crap??? What kind of totally twisted logic is that anyway? Outlawing guns, does not even get rid of guns. In fact, it has virtually no impact, on the usage of guns, by felons. That has repeatedly been statistically proven.
^^ Yes - everyone who uses a gun is a potential killer ... be it by choice or in self-defense or by accident. That includes you, me, little Billy all of 2 years old playing with a discarded handgun.
You mention a guy walking in the beauty of the woods, admiring all nature has to offer and getting practice to "kill" things ... dude - read what you wrote in that sentence - it's counter-productive to what you're attempting to argue in the above quoted paragraph.
With that said, no where am I against gun ownership.
Gun collectors, guns as gifts, etc. - that's all fine and good - but it does present problems.
Again - let's make this clear: guns are made, solely, to do harm. I am flabbergasted how so many are trying to cover this fact up. Even those who shoot targets are using a weapon created to do harm. No one buys a gun saying "Hmmm - I could use that for a good meat-tenderizer" or "That would make a great door stop" and etc.
Own all the guns you want, just don't pretend they are some innocuous "tool" created for any other purpose but to do harm. Really, it's getting preposterous how people are actually attempting to state that guns aren't created to kill, harm, scare, etc.
And no more fallacy arguments, please. Doctors kill more people than guns, cigarettes kill more people, drugs and alcohol and plane crashes and watching more than x2 episodes of Dr. Phil in a row kill more people than guns ... bringing other statistics in, concerning how they can cause death, has no place within this current discussion. Planes, cars, Teddy Bears, Dr. Phil, etc. were not conceived to kill people. Granted, planes can drop bombs, cars can become modified tanks, etc. - but that wasn't their original purpose. A gun's original purpose, and continuing purpose in modern day, is to harm another - there is absolutely no counter argument on this.
When is the last time someone stuck up a bank holding a cigarette? Or a Teddy Bear?
When is the last time someone shot at a target, be in in the backyard or in the winter Olympics, with a copy of Dr. Phil vs. Richard Simmons DVD or a screw driver or hammer?
Again, my sole point here is that guns are meant to kill, harm, scare. That is their birth and sole purpose. Forgive me, but I can neither see any other rationale for arguing against this fact. Be they a gift to Royalty or used to scratch your back - a gun's sole created purpose is to be a tool of death or intimidation depending on how it's used.
Why people are arguing against this truth is beyond me ... | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:58:47 PM | >>>Automatically owning a gun isnt a right, its a privledge...
Not according to your constitution.
I'm sorry, I just have to bask in the irony here- you believe that simply because you believe something, that laws and rights do not matter.....thereby completely defeating your oringial stance, since, if other people equally hold your conviction that they DO have a right to a gun, laws and rights do not matter. It's self defeating logic. Your beliefs actually prove that your beliefs could not work.
>>>People shoot a person accidently and impulsively before they know all the facts or in the heat of passion in the process of behaving "offensively"
Equally, lives are saved by acting offensively. Lets not forget that in the shuffle.
>>>People jump to conclusions without guns way too much anyway, I witness that everyday...There is no tolerance for frustration, they simply react impulsively when they are angry
And how does controlling guns stop people from jumping to conclusions? From being frustrated? from acting impulsively? Sounds like you're attempting to treat the symptom and not the disease. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 6:11:28 PM |
owning a gun isnt a right, its a privledge....
Ever read the constitution. Try the second amendment
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
My knowledge comes personally and professionally..
Always trying to lean on the fact that you treat other people. That in no way means that you automatically have the right to speak for them.
People jump to conclusions without guns way too much anyway, I witness that everyday.
quite right just as you jump to conclusions about gun owners and the second amendment not being a constitutional right.
I speak for the thousands of clients Ive worked with every year who have been victims of domestic violence involving handguns...
No you speak for yourself or are you trying to deny people the right to free speech as well
Petty criminals wont have the opportunity to own them in as large of numbers if they are restricted and harder to get
Right and I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell too. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 6:32:16 PM | I don't have the time to investigate or refute the arguments of Mr Vialis point by point. But the thrust of his argument seems to suggest the Port Arthur massacre was set up by the government as a conspiracy to disarm Australian citizens and therefore increase the power of the government to control people's lives.
Personally I think Vialis's investigation makes a strong overinterpretation of a few facts, and he doesn't seem to engage in much critical thinking or impartiality in his investigation. I think rather he commits the logical fallacy of assuming as true a certain viewpoint, and sets out to prove that thesis, even in the face of contrary evidence.
The government which introduced more restrictive legislation, the Howard government, was strongly conservative and was a lot like the Thatcher and Reagan administrations, which believed in a smaller government role in the life of citizens. Its legislation and social and economic policy has reflected this, and anyone who is interested in Australian politics can investigate this for themselves.
Reading between the lines I think Vialis also makes some rather wild and spectacular claims. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If the government was in a massive conspiracy with the police and judiciary to systematically strip people of their rights, beginning with the right to bear arms, then once gun laws were introduced other rights would have been quickly eroded. If we are making the comparison with Nazi Germany, ironically a favourite of just about every bad slippery slope argument and appeal to fear I see from pro-gun advocates, as well as those who argue against things like abortion and euthanasia or stem cell research, the Nazi government's program was not so much focused on taking away firearms (and in the face of a well-organised and armed militarised state such as that of the Nazis, private militias or citizens usually don't go well, unless they fight guerilla war) as on stripping minorities such as the Jews of all of their rights, as well as the regular citizenry.
I think a good barometer of the potential for barbarism in a country is the amount of hatred, fear, prejudice and ignorance allowed to fester in that country, or is actively formented and encouraged by the state or some other group seeking power for political ends. When the majority of the population succumbs to these sentiments, or is convinced by a demagogue like Hitler to do so, it is generally then that with the consent of the people that brutalities and the stripping of people's rights in contempt of the rule of law happens. In the 1930's Germany descended into this form of barbarism, as did Japan and much of the rest of the world. Australia now however, is a very tolerant and progressive country generally speaking, in its willingness to accept people of different views and religions. The fact we don't tend to fracture much along issues bandied about by special interest lobby groups, religious fundamentalists or ethnic groups, is a good sign the political franchise here is in good health. Australia does have its shortcomings and problems, but overall I don't think the role of the state here is too powerful or intrusive. While some politicians have been demagogue-like (such as Pauline Hanson) their influence has thankfully been extremely small on mainstream Australian politics, and the rights of citizens (including against the government) here are fairly well protected by a strong and independent judicial system.
I would agree the historical record shows the Nazis showed absolute contempt for the rule of law, political rights of individuals, and towards the dignity and sanctity of human life, but it is a long shot to demonstrate any contemporary government in the West is in any way like the Nazis. If I was asked to give an example of a country I thought was like the Nazi regime, i.e. a brutal Totalitarian dictatorship, I would point out Sudan or Zimbabwe, but certainly not Australia. The Nazi government is an interesting example of Totalitarian rule, but I think the comparison here is fallacious, as the Howard government went in the opposite direction, preferring to privatise government services and functions and also in its economic and social responsibility, put more burden on the individual to support themselves.
In any case, our natural resources are in the hands of private companies and corporations (such as Rio Tinto or BHP) and the state and federal governments have not engaged in any systematic system of nationalisation of national resources or assets in the past 15 or so years. Government assets like Telstra and also holdings in other companies such as electrical or water companies have been privatised and split up, to promote competition and economic efficiency. Our willingness to reform and minimise the role of the government in the economy is one of the reasons why we have been able to take advantage of a big boom in demand for our resources and also have an unprecedented level of prosperity and economic growth. The Nazis on the other hand, nationalised industry and focused on a massive program of military build up and expansion. There has been nothing of the kind here in Australia in the time since 1995.
In any case, private citizens here can still buy, own and use firearms. We have laws which regulate that, but the Port Arthur massacre did not lead to a blanket ban on any private citizen owning guns. The laws simply made certain types of high powered weapons like the ones used in the Port Arthur massacre, illegal to own and also made the background checks on those attempting to obtain guns more stringent. Bryant was a dangerously deluded individual who never should have been able to have access to the weapons he managed to get.
Guns and gun ownership are not a litmus test issue here politically, and to be honest I find it puzzling why some of the more extreme elements in the U.S. gun lobby regard it as a life or death issue. For me it is not an issue of vital importance that I can or cannot own a gun and I think political theorists and philosophers have far more important issues in the modern world to worry about, such as rising income inequality, poverty, climate change, proliferation of WMD, globalisation and its effects, the rise of China and India as world powers, terrorism and so forth. | |
|
| |
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 6:59:01 PM | Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to the entirety of the latest post. However, one statement sticks out, that I must respond to.
Bryant was a dangerously deluded individual . . .."
Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the Port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world. His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world.
Intellectually impaired registered invalid, dangerously deluded, and is able to kill 35 people in a very short period of time.
Even with a fully automatic rifle, that would still be some kind of shooting, in my humble opinion.
Maybe one of the veterans on here would care to comment on how hard it would be to shoot, let alone kill, 35 people in a crowd, and about how long it would take.
I just don't see someone who hasn't had some rather good training, and a great deal of practice, shooting 35 people in a short period of time; especially since crowds tend to scatter rather quickly after the first couple of shots. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/22/2008 7:01:39 PM | "Before guns were invented people were killed...taking guns out of the equation will not prevent murder"
"..As a police officer, I got to those people long before they landed in everyones office"
"Utopia doesnt exist"
It will prevent some murders of those who could use guns and are impulsive....Just because you cant stop every murder does that mean you do nothing to prevent it at all???.As a therapist, I have worked years with people that police officers like you spend 10 minutes with the person then move on to the next person.....You dont see everyone whos been affected by violent crime..Its hardly enough time to know how badly hurt someone is and how bad they are traumatized...I recently had a woman client witness a gun and car accident in a large city..The police interviewed her for 10 minutes then sent her on her way rather than referring her to the hospital to address post traumatic stress disorder.....She could not drive home nor could she eat, sleep or function for 5 days before seeing me...You dont see that and never will in your job.....The police should have taken her to the hospital but because they are not educated about PTSD and dont know what that looks like, they "assumed" she was okay......I had to explain that to her.... So I was the first one to deal with that, not the police...You dont get to everyone affected by violence....Theres alot that you as a police officer dont even deal with in people traumatized by violence...As a result you dont see the long term affects of gun violence when you as police officer only come face to face with that over a very immediate , short period of time...You see them for several hours at the very most...I see them for years and witness the full fledged fallout and conseqeunce of gun violence..Thats what drives my desire for gun control..That awareness and experience with people..As far as Im concerned, what I bear witness to is the truth and that is my right to express that to others..Whether or not they can hear that or accept it is up to them..Owning guns is a privledge left to those who are mature enough to handle the repsonsibility of doing so....Just because some unstable folk manage to get them illegally doesnt mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater and let everyone own them..We arent talking about utopia here, we are talking about making the world safer, not perfect....And its a fact that those who are unstable and impulsive and immature are far more likely to use guns in retaliation...Its about lowering those risks, not making the world perfect....Guns are not for every immature, dangerous , unstable person who simply walks into a store and demands a gun like hes ordering Chinese food...They certainly arent for children....Denying gun accessibility to children wont stop all of them but it will stop some of them...That is good enough for me.....Would you ignore school fighting simply becuse it happens and you cant stop every fight that occurs?.....Funny how Europe and Britain understand that perfectly...As a result their murder rates by handguns are much lower than anywhere in the USA...We Americans in our ignorance, denial and emotional immaturity still have a long way to go with that... | |
|
|
| Page 53 of 93
|
39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 |
|
Home
login 
