|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/20/2009 8:37:09 AM |
If one steps across the boarder into Canada, a different reality seems to exist from the American one. Gun crimes, although they exist, are quite rare. This would seem to fly in the face of the logic of the NRA, and Canada's experience is replicated in many other countries that see the right of gun ownership to also carry with it responsibilities.
You didn't mention that most of our gun violence is a result of having a 5,000 mile border with the US and its "Guns are a right, not a responsibility" laws. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/21/2009 8:21:01 PM | AceofSpace
I guess the statement is a bit ambiguous. It's also redundant and a bit sarcastic on my part. I meant to say that when the day comes that we can trust the governments word then we can give give up our weapons. I know that idea is not expressed by the second amendment but it is something that needs to be in the back of our heads. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/22/2009 9:34:36 AM |
I meant to say that when the day comes that we can trust the governments word then we can give give up our weapons.
Overall, I'd have to agree that the track record when it comes to trusting governments hasn't been very good. At least Western governments pay lip service to protecting individual rights, and many even do so to a far larger extent than in prior eras.
Still, I do not fault anyone who feels that it is important for them to own guns. Those who own them but do not keep up on their training are a different matter. I simply have no respect for the idea that a person can possess a deadly weapon without taking full responsibility for it.
It is so easy to lapse into black-and-white thinking on issues like this. When we don't trust our neighbors, how can we trust our governments?
Here's where it gets difficult. Are we better off by trusting one another or not trusting anyone? If all I can really trust is my aresenal, what sort of a life is that? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/28/2009 8:15:21 PM | Just the name "GUN CONTROL" strikes fear in Americans, that have been prepairing for the worst.
If it was called "GUN READINESS",...or "SELF DEFENSE PREPAIREDNESS",.....it wouldnt sound so intimidating towards Gun Owners.
As far as Trust goes,.........I TRUST in SMITH & WESSON,....and SAMUAL COLT !
There will ALWAYS be,....a problem with having GUNS in a Free Society,.....people go NUTS,...and KILL,........be it with a GUN,..or a KITCHEN KNIFE,....its a FACT !
But just because of a few bad apples,...Anti Gunners, wants to take away the Legal Rights of Law Abiding Citizens ????
What part of,.....
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",...
do you NOT understand ? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/29/2009 4:10:27 PM |
There will ALWAYS be,....a problem with having GUNS in a Free Society,.....people go NUTS,...and KILL,........be it with a GUN,..or a KITCHEN KNIFE,....its a FACT !
But just because of a few bad apples,...Anti Gunners, wants to take away the Legal Rights of Law Abiding Citizens ????
What part of,.....
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED",...
do you NOT understand ?
Well, as has been noted many times here, it is much harder to kill a second or third or fourth person with a kitchen knife. There was another mass murder this morning. Somebody decided to shoot up a nursing home in Alabama.
There is a difference between infringement and reasonable regulation, and as long as gun owners claim their rights without discussing their responsibilities, there will be a backlash. For example, your shouts of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" sound pretty damn childish in the face of this morning's tragedy.
If this is what we can expect of unrestricted gun ownership, you can bet that a lot of people aren't going to see much value in your "right."
So tell me, what makes it worth a risk like that? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/30/2009 2:38:40 PM |
There is a difference between infringement and reasonable regulation, and as long as gun owners claim their rights without discussing their responsibilities, there will be a backlash. For example, your shouts of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" sound pretty damn childish in the face of this morning's tragedy.
You seem to wish to ignore the responsibility of the individual and blame the gun.
For example, your shouts of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" sound pretty damn childish in the face of this morning's tragedy.
Your calling this childish sounds pretty ignorant of history and the writings of the Founders. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/31/2009 12:25:43 AM | | I honestly don't think that the Founders had any intention of giving license to grown men invading nursing homes and shooting helpless old ladies and the nurses who cared for them. Nor do I think that there is any possible reading of history that would condone something like that as mere collateral damage. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 3/31/2009 12:27:58 AM |
I honestly don't think that the Founders had any intention of giving license to grown men invading nursing homes and shooting helpless old ladies and the nurses who cared for them. Nor do I think that there is any possible reading of history that would condone something like that as mere collateral damage.
If only all those seniors had been carrying a fire arm this tragedy could have been averted. Dementia is no excuse for allowing yourself to be vulnerable. Damned socialists sucking on the teet of the nanny state. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 7:04:13 AM | Yes the Nursing Home, yet another senseless shooting where innocent people are ruthlessly gunned down by a deranged gun with a madman.
Actually what we were probably dealing with is another one of those wonderful “GUN FREE ZONES” you know one of those oh so wonderful & magical places where we are all so safe because, as we have seen so many times those signs endued with magical powers proclaiming this place or that to be a “GUN FREE ZONE” are oh so effective and work oh so well as to discourage crazy, deranged, or mentally unstable people from bringing a gun into the area and killing others.
And of course the killing continues until a man “with a gun”, (an important fact usually overlooked) I.E. a police officer or armed security guard shows up and ends it by shooting the gunman with a ‘gasp, horror, shock’ gun.
I wonder how many employees of that nursing home left their guns at home because they work in a magically protected and oh so safe “GUN FREE ZONE”, I wonder how many left their guns safely stored and locked away in their cars out in the parking lot because hey, after all they work in that fantasy land known as a “GUN FREE ZONE”, I wonder if anybody tried to point out to the gunman that he was breaking the law by bringing a GUN into a “GUN FREE ZONE”, and did anyone think to hold up one of those “GUN FREE ZONE” signs and invoke it’s magical protective powers to bring this situation to an end ?
[Quote] Damned socialists sucking on the teet of the nanny state.
First thing I think I’ve ever agreed with you about,
After all it is the growth of the nanny state that has allowed so many people to be lulled into becoming sheep, simply and blissfully awaiting the arrival of the wolf, or to be led to their slaughter.
 | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 7:43:20 AM | It's always funny when people actually take the position your making fun of. Obviously the solution to mass shootings is to have people who're incapable of even living independently armed with fire arms. Or have nurses packing heat while doing their jobs.
After all it is the growth of the nanny state that has allowed so many people to be lulled into becoming sheep, simply and blissfully awaiting the arrival of the wolf, or to be led to their slaughter.
Absolutely, that's why the USA has fewer mass shootings than Canada, the UK, or other first world countries.
No wait, that isn't true at all, those countries with stronger "nanny" states in fact have far fewer mass shootings. Odd. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 8:32:21 AM | ^^^^^
I was hardly advocated arming the people “incapable of living on their own” as you imply, (but you knew that, you’re just throwing up the typical strawman argument), but who knows, not everyone living in a retirement facility is completely helpless.
And what’s wrong with allowing the staff to carry their personal weapons ? Not all of them are just nurses, I’m sure there are administrators, cooks, groundskeepers, orderlies, ect… plus I bet grandpa might think twice before pinching the nurses ass if he knows she’s packing
And I’m pretty sure the difference in the sheer numbers of these type of incidents, is related to population size, US 300 million people, Canada 30 million people, & the UK 60 million people.
No doubt though that your acceptance of the nanny state probably does have some influence, however for now at least a majority of Americans still find that whole idea as distasteful.
My point (which you completely overlooked or conveniently ignored) was that most of these incidents take place in locations where people have been denied their right to protect themselves with gun laws that do nothing to deter criminals or crazy people and simply turn the law abiding amongst us in to potential victims.
But then you knew that too………..  | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 10:14:45 AM | Hello U.S.A.
Us in Canada have strict gun regulation.
As for example can have as many rifles, shoot guns as i want.
All Guns { Please not a GUN is a God Done Artillery weapon!}
are keep trigger locked in a locked case. All ammo is keep in a
Fire proof Case or apart.
I have a Gun registered license to purchase and have at home.
each gun carries It`s own regestry permit.
So if I go hunting for Four- legs! I have my permit the rifles permit, and the hunting Licence. and the permit what I`m Hunting.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda or Insurgents No permit Needed at 500Meters.
God Done Wright!
And yes all Marine Corps Snipers shoot in Meters NOT Yards. And at the
U.S.M.C. Sniping School ! should have a BIG Canadian Flag, where the
heck you think you Corps Finest learnt how to Shoot?
In The Canadian Armed Forces Shooting School~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~X
Operation Anaconda One shot one Kill! The Corps was so Impressed 2340M Priceless Shined their Boots and put on ther Blues. And handed the CDN boys Medales!
God Bless the Corps! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 1:24:55 PM |
My point (which you completely overlooked or conveniently ignored) was that most of these incidents take place in locations where people have been denied their right to protect themselves with gun laws that do nothing to deter criminals or crazy people and simply turn the law abiding amongst us in to potential victims.
That madman without a gun would have had a much harder time killing anyone, and so yes, it does occur to people that one way to reduce such killings is to restrict access to guns.
If you want to argue that restricting access won't work, you can't ignore the evidence that in countries where access is restricted the per capita incidence of such incidents is far less.
But it's so much easier to preach to the choir and cast anyone who regards that evidence as credible as a mindless gun grabbing sheeple.
Just because someone agrees with the 2nd Amendment and the reasons for it--to ensure that the People can protect themselves from a corrupted government--doesn't mean that they have to shut down their brains.
If it's worth the risk of an occasional madman going off with a gun to have unrestricted access, then just say so. If it's not, and some reasonable measures could reduce that risk, what might those measures be? Not every reasonable regulation has to be the start of the slippery slope--an argument that is just as misleading as the straw-man argument you rightly called out. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 2:24:42 PM |
If you want to argue that restricting access won't work, you can't ignore the evidence that in countries where access is restricted the per capita incidence of such incidents is far less.
And of course that is the only relevant factor, right?
Other than the restrictions on access, all those other countries are just like the US, right?
Same society, same legal system?
Dream on. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 2:39:16 PM | Well, yeah, it is the only relevant factor.
Canada and the USA has pretty much the same urban/rural composition, immigration history, popular culture, dominant language....everything.
But we don't let every nutbar that wants one buy an assault rifle or handgun. They have to go across the border and get it there. Not much of an impediment, and most of our gun violence comes from guns smuggled across the border, but enough of one that we have a small fraction of the gun violence per capita that you do.
Hell, even Mexican criminals get most of their guns from your country. If you had sane gun controls you wouldn't be getting anywhere near the number of illegal aliens from there, since so many of them are fleeing the violence you have exported to their nation. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 10:15:36 PM | In my travels throughout the world you can almost measure the chaos, poverty and criminal activity in a country by the necessity businesses feel to have armed guards for protection. Honduras for example has shotgun armed guards at it's Texaco gas stations. Mexico and Malaysia have armed guards at their banks; the Malaysians appear to favor SMGs at their banks. Once when I spoke to a guard we had a discussion about security and the necessity of these things. He was surprised at my answer that our police force was the primary means of dealing with these sorts of criminals, but agreed that it apparently worked for us.
As far as I know none of these developing nations despite their high crime rates have ever felt it necessary to have armed nurses at retirement homes. First world countries do not require it either. If the citizens of the United States truly feel that this is a neccssary step it's time for some serious introspection about what is wrong with a society that requires killing tools to be at hand at every moment of the day for fear of a mass shooting. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/1/2009 11:53:46 PM | Ace
I agree with you on the Black and White statement. It alway seems to be a balance. Now I havent read all the thread as I dont have time.
On a related note I would like to see all of society taught how to fight. " An armed society is a polite society." Again, accountability. Were corruptible. With an equal ability to fight how can we be controlled? More irony in that some conservative ideals are tinged with the classical ideal of socialism albeit with a different approach. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/2/2009 11:34:15 AM | Tallskier,
Remember a while back when you were beating me up right an left for not citing evidence? So the moment I do you say it isn't relevant. Face it, your mind is closed and anyone who challenges your viewpoint is an enemy of your cause as far as you are concerned.
As far as I'm concerned, the 2nd Amendment is there to protect all the others, particularly the one that recognizes my freedom to discuss any apparent conflict between individual rights and public safety like a responsible adult.
If you don't like it you can stick it up your ... rifle barrel.
And in case you're wondering about it or feel like whining--as if you think you can turn the tables on me by doing so--that was a personal attack and I meant it.
Grow the hell up. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/2/2009 12:32:37 PM |
Remember a while back when you were beating me up right an left for not citing evidence? So the moment I do you say it isn't relevant.
Learn the difference between correlation and causation.
You have provided some evidence (by merely making a claim that you backed with no factual references) that crime is lower in other countries where there are more restrictive gun laws.
Even if your claim is factual, it does not prove that the restrictive gun laws are responsible for the lower crime rate, only that there appears to be a correlation between restrictive laws and lower crime rates. To claim that the restrictive gun laws are responsible for the lower crime rates, without examining other factors, is not being intellectually honest.
I'll leave the personal attacks to you. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/2/2009 1:41:41 PM | It's not about crime rates in general. It's about gun violence in particular.
You let any nutbar who wants to buy an assault rifle or handgun free access.
We don't. So we don't have the same level of gun violence you do. Unfortunately, the really motivated types here can head across the line and get whatever they want. So your "rights" kill people here. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/2/2009 2:39:55 PM | To claim that the restrictive gun laws are responsible for the lower crime rates, without examining other factors, is not being intellectually honest.
Well, that's a reasonable, adult, requirement. I _knew_ you could do it!
To claim that guns are not dangerous also without evidence, and in the face of such correlations, goes beyond being unfounded and borders on lying.
When it comes to social phenomena, causality is very hard to determine. That's why the social sciences are "soft." But that doesn't mean a person can't make reasonable inferences about probable causality from those correlations.
I happen to agree with you that access alone doesn't account for the difference--because in Switzerland and in will-issue states the incidence of random shootings is also quite low. In those locales, there is also a required training component, which I believe accounts for the observed difference. My conclusion? Access without training tends to produce more random shooting deaths than can either restricted access or free access with a training requirement.
That's why I favor _training_ as a prerequisite to owning guns over a ban. I not only want law-abiding citizens to have them, I want them to know how to use them.
Would it be fair to say that someone who is willing to ignore the added risk that comes from access without training appears to value their ideology over human life? And would it also be fair to say that once that priority become evident it might weigh a bit more heavily on the mind than a lack of absolute proof when the statistical evidence remains strongly suggestive?
The reason I ask is because that is what I hear whenever someone parrots the line "Guns don't kill, people do." People without guns don't (at least not nearly as much). Trained people with guns don't (unless they have to). Untrained people with guns just might. Why risk it? Appeasing the sloganeers because they're armed and aggressive is simply bad policy. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/3/2009 8:07:14 AM | You let any nutbar who wants to buy an assault rifle or handgun free access.
Where did you get this? This is not factually correct according to federal law.
You cannot *legally* purchase a firearm without a federal background check.
To claim that guns are not dangerous also without evidence, and in the face of such correlations, goes beyond being unfounded and borders on lying.
Who made such a claim, Ace? Why not argue against the things I have not said, instead of making false implications?
I happen to agree with you that access alone doesn't account for the difference--because in Switzerland and in will-issue states the incidence of random shootings is also quite low. In those locales, there is also a required training component, which I believe accounts for the observed difference.
The training to which you refer in "shall issue" states is required only for the concealed carry permit.
| |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/3/2009 9:27:17 AM |
You let any nutbar who wants to buy an assault rifle or handgun free access.
Where did you get this? This is not factually correct according to federal law.
You cannot *legally* purchase a firearm without a federal background check.
It's kind of a self selecting group. With extremely rare exceptions, the act of buying a weapon like this defines one as a nutbar. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/3/2009 9:32:52 AM |
Who made such a claim, Ace? Why not argue against the things I have not said, instead of making false implications?
Every person who repeats the slogan, "Guns don't kill, people do" is making that claim--incessantly--which makes them either callous or stupid. And those are not very good qualifications for gun ownership. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 4/3/2009 10:13:10 AM | It's kind of a self selecting group. With extremely rare exceptions, the act of buying a weapon like this defines one as a nutbar.
So, anyone who buys a handgun or an "assault weapon" (do you have any ide what that even IS?) is a "nutbar"?
You're dancing away from my challenge to your specious claim of "free access".
Every person who repeats the slogan, "Guns don't kill, people do" is making that claim
So you have decreed, Ace - a decree not supported in any way by logic or fact. | |
|
|
| Page 98 of 102
|
62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 |
|
Home
login 
