# Who has seen ...



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

......'Bowling For Columbine ' ? 

I rented it out on DVD and watched it tonight.  :shock: 

I glimpsed some of my aussie 'naivety' when I was in the U.S , just from some situations where I was relaxed and not worried but my american friends were... 
example : walking back ( at night ) to our B&B motel on the Esplanade from Bourbon Street ,New Orleans ( 15-20 minute walk)... I took it for granted there was not much danger in that ( yet I am always ever-watchful , I dont take safety THAT much for granted  ).Did the same thing in New York.
Apparently, you just dont walk at night lol.

Moore raised very good points and questions .. one in particular......

Western countries are exposed to , relatively , the same kind and same amount of violent media. We watch the same movies , listen to the same sorts of music etc etc.
We all have good access to firearms. ( well in Australia this changed a few years ago after we experienced a shooting spree at Port Arthur which ignited a "Gun buy back ' scheme....That was controversial amongst hunters etc , as you would expect....)
Yet the number of people killed by guns each year in the U.S is staggering compared to other western countries....
Australia was something like 63 a year.... England was around 68 or so ....
America = 1128 ( round abouts ) !  :shock: 

Is it just a case of MORE people having guns ?  

Why is this ? Its got me ,genuinely, wondering....:scratch:
Would like to hear some of your theories / thoughts on this .....

P.S When it all gets a lil too crazy for ya's there in the good ole U.S of A ... you are welcome to come lob at my place anytime


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 5, 2004)

> P.S When it all gets a lil too crazy for ya's there in the good ole U.S of A ... you are welcome to come crash at my place anytime



i'm comin! ooooh oooooh, pick me! pick me!
:::raises hand wildly in air, like horseshack from welcome back cotter::::

heheh.
seriously though, i'm wondering if it's because we have more angry people??
that's my first reaction, but i'm gonna have to go off and think about this one...
i'll get back to ya...............


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

I edited so it read * ya can come LOB at my place * instead of crash , coz it just didnt SOUND right :LOL:
Ok Tobes , I'll let ya go off and have a thunk and all ... but your brain WILL be picked on this one !!!   
Lol ya might have a point ... too many people feeling like unheard and 'invisible' citizens , repressed , up against a rock and a hard place ....? No sign of government reform to the point where the pres stops bombing other countries and starts to pay attention to the people that are hurting right in his own backyard ......? Sinking more funds into medical care and realistic programs for people of welfare is one place they might start...
I'm in no WAY saying that people such as the kids that were responsible for the Columbine shootings cant be held accountable for their own actions , they most definately CHOSE to murder ppl.....just wondering how much of a hand did outside influences/situations have in this and how much of it was just from their own basic nature.....
Whoever figures that out should bottle it , sell it then write the book on it , they'll be a squillionaire lol.

P.S Goes and makes the bunk bed ... *Hollers out * "Tobes ya want top or bottom bunk ?"


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 5, 2004)

first of all in the united states, its entirely too easy to get a gun. you dont even have to wait anymore, and people pass guns around like its a kids toy.

secondly, the united states IS a state of angry pissed of people. we have grown pompous and shallow because we have lived our whole lives knowing that, military speaking, we are superior to every other opposing country. and that we take everything we have for granted.

ill tell ya lumi, if it gets any worse around here, im movin in with you!!! :evil: 


md


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

Well hurry up and git ya ass down here so ya can knock me off my soapbox and we go paint the town purty colors and whatnot !! 

Do you want bottom bunk or top .. Tobes hasnt dibs on either yet !?


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 5, 2004)

If it weren't for my parents and Kel's parents, I'd seriously consider trying to move to either England, Australia, or NZ.  It's getting so that I just don't really like the American culture all that much anymore.  As MD said, we are a country of shallow emotions, shallow entertainment, and road rage.  It's very disheartening at times.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

And stop and pick up Manda on the way !


----------



## airgunr (Jun 5, 2004)

Americas no better or worse than any other place.  You have to look at more than just numbers as they can be skewed any way you want.  You might also look at the total population of each country.

Big citys anywhere in the world are pretty much the same.  I grew up in Chicago and have traveled extensively around the U.S. and the world.  The only continents I haven't been to are Africa and Antartica.  The only place I've ever been exposed to crime was on my last trip to Spain.  I got robbed in Barcelona.

I don't hold that against Spain.  There are a**holes all over the world.  You just need to use common sense, if your walking along in Hong Kong, New York, New Orleans, Paris, Sydney, (pick a city) and you look down a street and go, "boy that doesn't look good",  then don't go down there.  All citys I've been to have "Bad" areas that you should stay out of.

I think one of the major factors in the pervasivness of crime in the U.S. and around the world is the "War on Drugs".  There is SO MUCH MONEY in it that it breeds crime from the junkie in the gettos getting money for his next fix to providing funds for street gangs and terrorists around the world.

Legalize it and you remove that insentive.  The taxes that it would generate would more than pay for treatment as well as emptying a large part of the prision populaton.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 5, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> first of all in the united states, its entirely too easy to get a gun. you dont even have to wait anymore, and people pass guns around like its a kids toy.
> md



 Absolute B*** S***!
 There is a Federal requirement for a mandatory waiting period and a background check for any firearm transfer, even between individuals.
 Check out the firearms and violent crime rate in the UK since they effectively banned private firearms ownership, it's climbing exponentially!
 It's also worth checking the violent crime rate in the States in the USA that have introduced "shall issue" concealed weapons permits and comparing them with ones that haven't.
 Opinions are like armpits but I believe the frustrations of modern society are simply a result of too many people.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

I dont believe yours is a country of 'shallow' emotions Sharkman .....America has a multitude of positive attributes and awesome ppl !
Also I'm hoping none of ya are taking what I say in the wrong way ... I've always been fascinated by your country to the point where I wanna live in it for a year or two and see as much of it as I can... 
Airgunr you're right , there ARE sadistic and truly horrible ppl anywhere in the world ....personally I rely on gut instinct mixed with common sense all the time .. its always on to some degree or another. Good point on the per capita too. 
The guns are just an object ... they dont pull their own trigger .. the question is WHAT does ( besides the obvious ) ... and how that comes to be , in such huge numbers...
The jury is still out on the issue of legalizing drugs ... I'm leaning towards pro ....havent thought it out properly yet tho.

Utopia , unfortunately , does not exist yet ...dunno if its possible considering human nature ... but that doesnt stop most of us from hoping we'll find it /create it


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 5, 2004)

mrsid99 said:
			
		

> MDowdey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



slow down sid!! i agree with you completely!! but the point im trying to get across is that in the inner cities of america, where there are no background checks, and there are no mandatory waiting periods, guns ARE passed around. When a 13 year old boy posseses a .45 caliber semi automatic 1911 pistol, and a police officer is forced to shoot and kill him...there can only be one answer..the gun was given to him or he found it. in any case, i think swifter laws on handguns should be required...not for people like you and me sid, that OWN MULTIPLE handguns, but for the average everyday thug that has to have a gun to make himself part of a gang or feel better about himself. for possesing a firearm of that magnitude, UNLAWFULLY, you should be behind bars for a long time.

md


----------



## voodoocat (Jun 5, 2004)

Moore brought up the point that 70% of people in canada have a gun.  They leave their doors unlocked yet still have a much lower homicide rate.  So it's not the guns. 


> There is a Federal requirement for a mandatory waiting period and a background check for any firearm transfer, even between individuals.


What about gun shows?  I don't remember when they closed that loophole.  I still think most criminals aren't going to go through the front door to buy a gun.

I can definately see Moores main theory on what causes the violence.  The media constantly pumping stories out that cause people to fear.
Then you've got companies that profit from this fear.... And a president that plays on that fear to sign bills that take away rights and start wars for ficticious reasons.


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 5, 2004)

im sorry but i hate these threads. they cut too close for alot of people and they serve no purpose, plus, i havent even seen the movie. all i know i that violence breeds violence, and stupidity breeds stupidity. its only going to get worse.


md


----------



## ormia (Jun 5, 2004)

My only problem with that movie is that part where he visit Canada. He shows the town where I was born and raised, Windsor Ontario, and talks about how even thouhg it's right across the river from Detriot we have such a low crime rate and asks a local how long it's been since there's been a murder. I can't remember exactly what I guy answered but it was something along the lines of several years. That's bull. People get murdered here every year. My second cousin was murdered here. The crime rate is lower than Detriot, thats for sure,  but its not like you cross the border and you're in candyland. We have shooting deaths, more and more of them each year. I don't like that Moore simply took what one guy in a gun shop(? can't remember exact location) said and used that as a soild fact. Stuff like that makes me question other things in the movie.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

voodoocat said:
			
		

> Moore brought up the point that 70% of people in canada have a gun.  They leave their doors unlocked yet still have a much lower homicide rate.  So it's not the guns.



Thats a point that supports where I'm coming from here , thanks Voods.
When Moore was interviewing Marilyn Manson....as much as Manson makes me uneasy ( well , his alter ego does  ) he actually made a good point also when he bought up the 'nurturing of fear' by news broadcasters , followed by intermissions of advertisements ...with their pleasant imagery , beautiful ppl , happy families , upbeat music etc .... from all the violence .......then suddenly... the lulling of " it's all ok folks , buy this car , that fridge , this toilet paper and hang on to your ( false ) sense of security....  ! "
And now Lumi really DOES sound paranoid lol ! 
Seriously tho ... thats why I have given up tv in the past and I might just do the same again...along with staying away from the big commercial media outlet 'news'... just numbs ya mind. Do a little experiment and dont watch the tv for a month or so .. watch how much more your brain and creativity kick in !


----------



## malachite (Jun 5, 2004)

> What about gun shows? I don't remember when they closed that loophole.



We don't have a waiting period here in AZ but background checks are done even at gun shows. Only takes about 5-10 minutes.


----------



## manda (Jun 5, 2004)

I try so hard to stay away from these threads because they always have American people defending guns in them and that just makes my blood boil.

The thread the other day where voods said his window smashed...someone just matter of factly said "did you check for bullets?"
That wouldn't even enter people's heads here in Australia. 

Sure its society, its people, but it is also guns. 

The reason a gun is made is to kill.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 5, 2004)

manda said:
			
		

> I try so hard to stay away from these threads because they always have American people defending guns in them and that just makes my blood boil.
> The reason a gun is made is to kill.



 Why does it "make your blood boil"? Could it be that you can't stand someone disagreeing with what you know is a a purely emotional viewpoint?
 A gun is indeed made for killing but it can also be used for many other things, it all comes down to the person who has it as to what it's used for.


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 5, 2004)

lets look at it this way.

mechanically speaking, the gun was used to nourish families by using it to hunt. sure thats killing, but its acceptable. now, flash forward a couple hundred years....

would we rather be under the regime of nazi dictatorship? or southern oppression and tyranny? those guns have preserved our way of life.

its tough because i agree with manda, but i also value the things i own and the freedoms i have.

i think this thread is gonna get emotional if we dont watch out...


md


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

I can understand Manda feeling that way ..... its a frustrating and , like you said MrSid , emotional topic. Its not the difference on opinions so much as its just the issue at hand.
Yes there are people who will use guns for things such as hunting for food etc .... and they would never entertain using their gun for anything else.
Compared to the people that will use them for harm/illegal purposes...they are unfortunately , the minority.
The reason why I posted this was because I was thinking about the state we are in , where , even kids grab a gun , take it to school and just shoot their classmates without seeing anything wrong with it or even raising a sweat. I see a new generation emerging that are becoming more fearful of the future yet desensitized to violence........
Combine this with the reasonably easy accessibility to guns ( and other weapons ) .... ... :shock:
Columbine hasnt happened yet in Australia ( Knock on wood ! ) but I think of my nephews going to school in a few years time .... damn the most me and my generation had to put up with at school was someone bullyin ya a little or punchin each other etc ..... will it be that kids soon will have to worry about another kid goin home , grabbin their daddy's gun and comin to school and blowin them away ? Its goin down that path kiddos .....
Ok I'm depressin myself here damn lol. 
I just think its worth thinkin about......


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 5, 2004)

i'm still thinkin, but i had to weigh in again with a request:

please, if you're gonna post a response in this thread, do not stoop to making it a personal attack.  please allow everyone to state his or her opinion, whether it agrees with yours or not.  we can do this, and i think we need to do this.  we are a microcosm of the world, let's see if we can have a discussion that even if it bears no fruit, at least it let it bear no poison, either.  whether one is ready to accept it or not, we are all in this together.   let us proceed intelligently, but mostly let us proceed with respect for one and with respect for all.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 5, 2004)

Luminosity said:
			
		

> The reason why I posted this was because I was thinking about the state we are in , where , even kids grab a gun , take it to school and just shoot their classmates without seeing anything wrong with it or even raising a sweat.



 Interesting point raised here....in the major cases such as Columbine where kids attempted and actually did kill classmates the individuals that perpetrated the crimes knew it was wrong but reportedly they felt they had nothing left to lose and wanted some payback or to make a statement.
 Doesn't seem to fit in with the de-sensitising theory.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 5, 2004)

I agree Tobes...I was starting to think I should've stayed away from the topic lol...
I was doing some further reading and realised I stuffed up on the numbers in my first post.. Moore quoted U.S's number as 11, 127 shooting deaths.I know I seem to be contradicting myself , but those numbers cant be taken as reliable.
I think its important to realize that , even Moores 'shock-u-mentry' should be taken with a huge grain of salt .... but if it gets people thinking about an issue...
MrSid , I know what you're sayin re. the columbine shooters as KNOWING they did wrong ( I realized I worded some things the wrong way ) and were 'making a statement' so they turned to a gun to make it....
A drug addict's system , over time , develops a 'desensitization' to the drug , so the addict has to increase the drug intake/dosage to feel an effect...
Same with SOME ppl , kids in particular , and violence.Its not enough to just hit someone now ...but shootin em 'makes a statement '.
Man , my mum wanted to make a statement too when she was a teenager ... so she made a placard and marched in peace protests lol.
The HIPPIE !


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 5, 2004)

man i love hippies....  



md


----------



## manda (Jun 5, 2004)

mrsid99 said:
			
		

> Why does it "make your blood boil"? Could it be that you can't stand someone disagreeing with what you know is a a purely emotional viewpoint?
> A gun is indeed made for killing but it can also be used for many other things, it all comes down to the person who has it as to what it's used for.



Its got nothing to do with anyone disagreeing. Its living in a world where thousands of people are murdered every year and then to have intelligent people turn around and defend the inanimate things that were used to do so.

Tobes, I dont think anyone has made a personal attack. 
Mr Sid and I always lock horns on this issue.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 5, 2004)

Manda, you can't put the genie back into the bottle.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 5, 2004)

> Tobes, I dont think anyone has made a personal attack.
> Mr Sid and I always lock horns on this issue.



nope, no one has made a personal attack, not yet anyway.  i'm saying i would like to see it stay that way.  i think it is absolutely healthy for two people who are polarized on a particular issue, such as you and mr. sid, to have an open and provacative conversation.   all too often, however, these threads deteriorate into mudslinging.  i find this topic very interesting, and would love to see it stay an intellectual discourse.
  8)


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 5, 2004)

> A gun is indeed made for killing but_ it can also be used for many other things_,



what can a gun be used for other than killing?


----------



## manda (Jun 5, 2004)

Mrsid, thats not a strong argument. 
In other words, guns are here and here to stay, and nothing can be done to make the situation better?
Come on.

Yes Toby, I'd like to know what else their purpose is.
Remember we are talking about guns in the hands of citizens here.


----------



## Karalee (Jun 5, 2004)

I saw that bowling for columbine movie. I watched it like this :shock:. It was really insightful I thought. I went to Australia about 8 years ago and that was the first time I had ever seen Police Officers actually PULL OUT their guns. Then when I moved here I heard what I thought were firecrackers and was more than suprised to hear that it was actually gunfire. Im not sure what American can do to deal with this dilema but it was real food for thought.
And you guys cant tell me you didnt laugh at that Cartoon about the guns 
Im hoping to be able to see Fareinheit 9/11 whenever it comes out


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 5, 2004)

manda said:
			
		

> Mrsid, thats not a strong argument.



 And a purely emotional one is of course?


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 5, 2004)

so what can a gun be used for other than killing?
target practice?
then we would have to say that the secondary purpose of a gun, target practice, is to get better at the primary purpose of the gun, which is killing.
other than target practice, what can a gun be used for?  hunting?
and hunting is.....?

so i ask again:  for what else can a gun be used?


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 6, 2004)

During the movie they showed a stand up routine by Chris Rock ( ? ) ... Comedians are a wonderful thing as they take the serious topics we face in the world , make them funny and digestible yet they're still highlighting something we all need to face about ourselves. His routine went something to the tune of 
" If bullets cost $ 5,000 each there'd be no more innocent bystanders. Coz you just know ... if someone gets shot , you'd be all " MAN ! You musta done SOMETHIN to REALLY P*** that person off !!  A guy would be all worked up and fighting with someone else and he'd be like " You know what ?! I'd shoot you if I could afford it ! ... Yeah ... I tell ya somethin .. I'm gonna go get a job and save up some money .... THEN I'ma come back and kill ya ! God help us if they have lay-away available......."

Yeah I know I'm makin a joke about it but  , hey ..... 
By the way ... even tho guns and shootin deaths are a big prob in the U.S ... its still a world , human issue we all need to face.

"If everyone howled at every injustice, every act of barbarism, every act of unkindness, then we would be taking the first step towards a real humanity".  ~Nelson DeMille


----------



## manda (Jun 6, 2004)

Mr Sid, what issue where there are 2 very opposing sides is ever not based on emotion?
I don't understand why you keep making the same comment about emotion.
The facts speak for themselves.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 6, 2004)

manda said:
			
		

> Mr Sid, what issue where there are 2 very opposing sides is ever not based on emotion?
> I don't understand why you keep making the same comment about emotion.
> The facts speak for themselves.



 So why don't you mention facts?
 You obviously don't want to move away from emotion.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 6, 2004)

mrsid99 said:
			
		

> manda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What cold hard facts ,in particular, are you looking for ? 
When we argue, we argue based on what we know and our personal beliefs and of course emotions are tied in with these beliefs. You have a differing opinion obviously ,   yet somewhere in there would be some emotion tied in with your arguement as well. 
Emotion doesnt mean clouded judgment.


----------



## manda (Jun 6, 2004)

The facts are that people die because of guns, and people will continue to die because of guns.


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 6, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> so i ask again:  for what else can a gun be used?





protecting your family.



md


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 6, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> Osmer_Toby said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and with a gun this means killing.  no one, not even mr. sid, can deny that the purpose of a gun is to kill.  
gun proponents need to have some guts and step up and admit this much at least.  it's asinine to suggest that guns can be used for anything other than killing.  

a gun is a tool.  it's purpose is to kill.  only a coward or a fool would argue otherwise.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 6, 2004)

i have a couple questions i'm chewing over:

1) statistically, does the us have more gun homicides _per capita _relative to other countries?

2) what percentage of all us homicides involves a gun?

3) is our murder rate per capita (murder by any means, not specific to guns)  higher than the rest of the world's?

anyone have any idea what the _cold hard facts _are in answer to these?


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 6, 2004)

no one is disputing the fact that a gun is a weapon....as a matter of fact, it is the most effective weapon ever created.

what im merely trying to say is there are two sides to it. sure, it has been used to commit murder, destroy families, instill fear...but...it has also preserved EVERYONES way of life, without a little force, your country or state or town would be pushed over and taken over by the next big thing...

md


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 6, 2004)

a couple related questions:

1) what would the ramifications be, assuming the results are universal and include the criminal element, if guns were not accessible to the general population?

2) why did the founding fathers include the second ammendment in the first place?

3) have social needs changed since the addition of the second ammendment relative to the original impetus for including the right of the average citizen to bear arms?


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 6, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> no one is disputing the fact that a gun is a weapon....as a matter of fact, it is the most effective weapon ever created.
> 
> what im merely trying to say is there are two sides to it. sure, it has been used to commit murder, destroy families, instill fear...but...it has also preserved EVERYONES way of life, without a little force, your country or state or town would be pushed over and taken over by the next big thing...
> 
> md



ok, good, that argument has some merit.  so you say the reason we need to have the right to bear arms is so we can prevent some as yet unnamed or unidentified undesirable power from taking control of our country?  by this do you mean some foreign element or do you refer to a domestic threat to our way of life?


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 6, 2004)

1) what would the ramifications be, assuming the results are universal and include the criminal element, if guns were not accessible to the general population?*People would still kill others. those guns that were no longer available to the public would be stolen or sold illegaly.*
2) why did the founding fathers include the second ammendment in the first place?
*Because they were aware that one day every shoemaker, cobbler, breadmaker, and carpenter would have to take up arms to defend the very soil on which they live. and one day we might too.*
3) have social needs changed since the addition of the second ammendment relative to the original impetus for including the right of the average citizen to bear arms?*no.*



md


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 6, 2004)

> People would still kill others. those guns that were no longer available to the public would be stolen or sold illegaly.



i underlined _including the criminal element_, though, so this has no merit.  it's a hypothetical question- if no one in the us other than regulated militia had access to  guns, what would the ramifications be?  by this i mean there are no guns available to _be_ stolen.

please don't tell me this is an impossible scenario- i say again, it's a hypothetical question- i concede from the outset that in reality, divesting the population, and especially the criminal element, would be next to impossible.  for the sake of this argument, however, assume it is possible--- how would this affect the murder rate in the us?


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 6, 2004)

> Because they were aware that one day every shoemaker, cobbler, breadmaker, and carpenter would have to take up arms to defend the very soil on which they live.



i think you're right on this one.  my next question would be- what threat did the founding father's envision?  the english?  the spanish?  the native americans?


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

What can I say about a gun.....

Guns are illegal in Holland, unless you're a cop or are a member of a shooting range.

I don't think you need a gun to protect your family. Hardly anyone in Holland has a gun and they all go to bed feeling safe.

In a land where guns are available at almost every corner, then of course small time burglars will have a gun and therefor it's useful to have a gun to "protect" yourself.

I have to admit, a DE.50 looks cool, but it's purpose is crap.

I'm sure that if guns were legal in Holland we'd have more gun victims here. Maybe America should follow our example, smoke weed, ban guns.


----------



## manda (Jun 6, 2004)

Dandy-Warhol said:
			
		

> Maybe America should follow our example, smoke weed, ban guns.



Bwahaha 
That is one of the funniest things Ive read in ages.

Yes, and I totally agree with the other points you made. Nobody in Australia needs to protect themselves with a gun. Even when our gun laws werent as strict as they are now, nobody had a gun in their house to protect themselves.
We have had the Colombine type shooting sprees here. We had one in the suburb I went to high school about 10 yrs ago. Luckily it wasnt a school day and all the kids that would have been in the exact place(including me) werent there.
We then had another major shooting in Tasmania. 
That was enough to bring in extremely tight gun laws.

Some Police in our states don't even carry guns.


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

Maybe we should all go back to the days when there weren't guns and just use samurai swords instead


----------



## manda (Jun 6, 2004)

Yeah!
Bow and arrow!
All that LOTR style fighting is all the rage at the mo.
Law enforcement officers could move pretty swiftly with a bow and arrow methinks!

"Stop! Or I'll Draw!"


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

did you know that it's still legal to kill a scotsman with bow and arrow in scotland?

i read that somewhere

those scots make me laugh with their skirts and such


----------



## manda (Jun 6, 2004)

i did not know that.
dont call them skirts or you might get an arrow in your back!

the scots are insane.


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

I'm not Scottish, so it's not legal to kill me


----------



## oriecat (Jun 6, 2004)

Dandy, if you're against guns, get it out of your avatar, man! 

Umm yeah, other than that, I'm staying out of this...


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

LOL! I'm not against guns, but I'm also not PRO guns.

I think that policemen and women and such should have one, but normal civilians, not really.

And Quentin is cool!


----------



## steve817 (Jun 6, 2004)

Dandy-Warhol said:
			
		

> What can I say about a gun.....
> Maybe America should follow our example, smoke weed, ban guns.



Well... your half right    I'll let you guess which half.


----------



## Corry (Jun 6, 2004)

In the original post in this thread, Luminocity said something about not walking at night in New York, or New Orleans.  I live in an EXTREMELY small town (pop. 1000) in the midwest, and *I* don't walk at night alone! That due to an incident I had two summers ago with a pervert who thought he'd walk up to me and 'show me what he's got'.  uke-rig: Thankfully, that's all that happened.  So...I no longer feel safe ANYWHERE.  Not even my teeny-weeny home town.


----------



## mrsid99 (Jun 6, 2004)

manda said:
			
		

> The facts are that people die because of guns, and people will continue to die because of guns.



 Patently false, no gun has ever of its own volition just upped and killed someone.


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

steve817 said:
			
		

> Dandy-Warhol said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, most of you already smoke weed 

But not LEGALLY


----------



## airgunr (Jun 6, 2004)

Luminosity said:
			
		

> Yes there are people who will use guns for things such as hunting for food etc .... and they would never entertain using their gun for anything else.



Why are there people who WOULD think of using them for something else?  That is the heart of the problem.  

When I was a freshman in High School (obviously a long time ago) I would bring my Winchester 62 and a brick of 22 calibre (1000 rounds) of ammo to school with me on fridays.  Put it in my locker and after school we'd go down to the basement of the gym for rifle club.  None of us would ever have thought about shooting up the school.  Today I would be arrested and ostricised from the community as a nut.

There are a host of reasons but the violence is a symptom, whether it is gun, knife, baseball bat, brick, car, (pick anything) that is used it is not the weapon it'self.  Why do some people feel the need to resort to the violence?  Personally I would argue that it is the disinigration of the core family structure along with the desensitisation (sp?) of kids to violence through modern media.

What other reasons do you folks see as the root cause?  I personally feel focusing on the weapon (whatever it is) obscures the real issue.


----------



## deencarolh (Jun 6, 2004)

One of the reasons is Moore himself... Just look at his latest release..  sickening!

Dee


----------



## Dandy-Warhol (Jun 6, 2004)

I've heard about that, can't wait to see it.


----------



## vonnagy (Jun 6, 2004)

oi! 60 + post and no ones made any sexual references yet :shock: Whats the tpf coming too????

I don't think there is any quick solution for America's gun problem. Applying a dutch, aussie or swahili solutions to the States just would not work and it should not be imposed just as American laws should not be on other nations.

Gun ownership was probably not as prevelent anywhere else in the world as it is in the US.  Simply stated, most countries have no history of widespread gun ownership as America does. I've been to Europe, and the only people other than police/military I have met that owned guns were wealthy hunters. America is quite different because your average Joe had the ability to legally own guns - so there is history there that other countries simply don't have. Simply saying x policy should be applied in the US cause it works in x country just doesn't hold water. You have to take a holistic approach and dig deeper.

I believe owning guns is normal, however our perception of gun owners has changed; times in general has changed. I think the problem is that people look at the problem from a period of time of 15 years or so (thats a microcosm of total time of the right to bear arms). The question should be asked, if American always had guns, why is NOW it because such a hot issue?

I grew up in a small town in north georgia and kids would have rifle racks in the back of the pickup trucks. It was normal, no one ever went on a killing spree back in my day. 
ldman: 
We had 'firearm education' which was mandatory in our school to teach us gun saftey. My father was given a .38 pistol for helping the local police capture to excaped convicts. I for one think guns are fine, i get a kick out of shooting them. I would not have a problem owning a gun, i just don't see a need for it.

Just because something is dangerous, doesn't mean it should banned. Responsibility is the key issue. Knowledge is alot more dangerous than any weapon fashioned by man, should knowledge be banned?

Though I think Michael Moore has done well to bring the gun issue to the forefront, you have to remember he is out to sell movies. He is an entertainer as much as he is a documentarian.  The problem is that most folks take is word for gospel. Its a good starting point for raising the issue. It annoys me how much nz'ers take his word for truth! He seems to pull out the most extreme cases of fanaticism in his films because that sells. I admire him for his audacity and humour, but they are tinged with his own biases as well. Though I don't doubt his patriotism, he is by no doubt cashing in on the current tide of anti american sentiment.

thats me own .05 cents, take it for a grain of salt maties!

and why the heck has no one used this emoticon yet??!!!: 
you guys are getttin sooooooooooooo slack!!!

oh speaking of samauri swords, this story freaked me me out last year:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?thesection=news&thesubsection=&storyID=3097444


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 6, 2004)

Good Question 


			
				vonnagy said:
			
		

> The question should be asked, if American always had guns, why is NOW it because such a hot issue?



It was on HBOS (I think?) started watching but could not take it. Ticks me off that hes caponizing on those who die at Columbine. Maybe I should try to watch the whole move the next time it on again. But I aint rent it

I dont own a gun, have not done any shooting in years, the last time was about 10 years ago at my cousins house in Kentucky after a family reunion, the only think that got shot where poker chip set up as targets, the only thing I hide was dirt LOL, but it was fun.


----------



## Geronimo (Jun 6, 2004)

I have a gun, several in fact.  The reason for them is to protect me while I am in the back country.  There are other uses then to simply kill.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 6, 2004)

Yikes theres been a few posts .. dunno where to start.
Quite a lot of you have addressed very good points and come back with your own good questions.... 
Issues in society become so ingrained sometimes that we just stop SEEING it and THINKING about it.Then a tragedy strikes again and its in the news for a few weeks and we're saddened but we continue on , hanging on to the misconception "these things happen to other people".
The point ISNT the gun... a gun is just a chunk of metal ...until a human picks it up and points it at another living thing. 
Why is this weapon , in so many ppl's possession,  a problem today .....?
Could it be one reason is that violence in media etc has reached a high saturation point in America ?
Society /media culture is creating a pressure cooker where lives are cheap and weapons are quick to grab.
If it/they doesnt satisfy you/isnt fast enough/angers you..... throw it away/trade it in/strike out at them.
Guns are often the weapon of choice because they're in everyones reach , and are QUICK and easy.You dont have to raise a sweat killing someone these days. It just wouldnt do to have to actually get up and personal with someone , it might actually make you think twice.
Plus the movies /tv shows make it look so cool ...... 
However I don't believe gun bans are the answer. 
We need to start valuing human life again.We need to stop making ppl so expendible.
Australia isnt anywhere near the point where ordinary citizens feel the need to own a gun for protection. YET. If we dont watch ourselves we'll walk down the same path one day.
Although , Melbourne has had a few samauri sword incidents lately :shock: ...ppl goin around thinkin they're in the next Kill Bill  movie :roll:

P.S  Oh and for Vonns sake ...... SEXUAL REFERENCE  !!! ..... there ya go :LOL:!


----------



## manda (Jun 7, 2004)

mrsid99 said:
			
		

> manda said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did I say guns get up and kill people? I said people die *because of* guns.
The guns don't do the killing, but put it in the hand of a child and your argument goes nowhere. Children should be accountable for killing themselves or someone else because they pulled the trigger? Please.


----------



## havoc (Jun 7, 2004)

I came into this late but i got lots to say on the issue as well. 

As for the Michael Moore movie, I thought it was very good, definitely enlightening on the subject. As for those who say he is an entertainer and looking for a buck, you must not have seen the special features on the DVD. This man is passionate about gun violence. In the features they showed one of several speeches he did well after the movie came out (so its hard to say it was just for publicity) where he was literally in tears and absolutely livid about gun violence in america and our governments handling of it.  He may make a buck or two but the man is an artist, just like a painter, only his canvas is social issues and bringing attention to them. 
As for the movie itself, he mentioned many reasons for the violence in america, i would agree with most of them. The underlieing message was fear. In one of his speeches he mentioned Columbine. While police were waiting 2 OR MORE HOURS to go in, there were all the parents waiting there behind a little piece police line tape. When the cops went in they found that the kids were already dead for 2 hours or so. How many victims bled to death in that time. How many didn't have to die if we weren't too afraid to go in there and help them? 
Why were parents waiting behind a piece of tape to know whether or not thier kids were murdered?
THe answer is fear. And he is absolutly right about it. No one wants to get shot. I know i don't, but if we are to afraid to protect our own children, then there is something wrong with our species. Oue children are who we are, and if we are too afraid of a bullet to protect them, then we can't protect anything. 
One person did storm the police tape to see if thier child was OK, they got about 20 feet past the tape before the cops pulled their guns on the parent. WTF is that! Thats a pure and simple abuse of power right there. No one should have the right to keep me from protecting my children, at least finding out if they are alive. And no one should withhold aid to innocents that need our assistance, especally not a cop. They weren't protecting anyone there. They were waiting until they thought it was safe for them to go in.  Because they are afraid as well. 
I have to say the single best moment on that video (besides Charlton Hestons insanity of course) is when he brought those two comumbine victims to the K-Mart headquarters to return the bullets that the Columbine murderers bought there. It was typical to see K-mart ignore them all day, and it was even more typical to see how quickly they responded after he brought the media with them the next day. 
Marilyn Manson was the most intellegent person he interviewed in the entire movie. Say what you want about him and his act, he is a smart guy.  There is something to be said about Windsor Canada. 6 deaths a yr to gun violence. In Detriot over 100. In the movie he found people from detriot in recreating in Canada because they thought they could feel safeer there. Anyways, it was a great movie, and he deserves to make a few bucks on it. Its sad for someone to say he is happily profiting from it. 

As for some other things i read in this thread.  Core, the reason you didn't want to walk hoime late at night in a small town was because of fear. Seems to be a common thread here. We are afraid to walk late at night. We are afraid so we carry guns, even though they are more likely to hurt you then the bad guy. Because we are afraid we have guns, and because we see them so much our kids want them, and because kids can't understand what death really is they shoot each other. It becomes a way of life, and they get dehumanized to it. Thereby making it easier to kill. Its a vicious cycle. There is no way to stop a determined pychopath from killing you. Because he can get a gun anywhere. Government is corrupted by one of the biggest lobbies in america (The NRA). The problem isn't the guns we are selling, its the guns that are already sold. There are more guns then people in the US. With those kinds of numbers its easy to get ahold of a gun, whether you can legally have it or not. 

As for the second amendment. People quote the first line, Right to bear arms, but they don't quote the rest because it effectivley says that unless your in a milita you don't need a gun. Thats not so popular a line for gun companies and the NRA, (which has elected to leave that part off its propoganda). The second amendments time and place has passed, much like a lot of our amendments and original constitution. It wasn't made to function today, it was made to function 200 yrs ago, and unfortunatly times do change. The reason for the second amendment was because we just got out of an occupation  (The british Empire) and america didn't have enough regular army to defend it. That is why it mentions the militia in the amendment. Because at the time we needed citizens to defend the country. Not anymore. We have one of the largest regular armies in the world. Some would make an argument that we are not free if we are not givin the tools to defend ourselves from us or our government. But in doing so, we have created a bigger fear, and that is the fear that Core 17was talking about. We are afraid to leave our house unlocked at night. We are afraid to walk down the street. We are afraid to live, because we have been conditioned to fear, which in turn conditions some to kill. 

Some have said that americans are violent because we are pompous and arrogent. Come on, the british are arrogant, (no offense to any brits here) but they aren't killing each other left and right. America is violent because we have a vilent history, paved in blood with the revolution and civil war. Bullsh*it Every country has a violent history. Look at Britain, Germany, Japan. All have violent histories, but one have our problem with gun violence. 

I am not saying that people shouldn't own guns. I am not a gun owner, but i would not be opposed to having one. Responsible gun ownership is like responsible driving, drive drunk and you could kill someone, behave irresponsibly with a gun, and someone could die. If we weren't so afraid to live, and weren't so conditioned to see gun play as no big deal i.e. movies/media then it would be easier to own guns responsibly. 

Democracy is great, but govenments have to be fluid, and be able to change without being influenced by lobbies that are only looking to make a buck. I could talk all night about this, i gotta go to bed, but i look forward to reading all opinions.


----------



## manda (Jun 7, 2004)

I think you made some wonderful intelligent points Hav.
I've never understood the constitution thing myself, but then I'm not an American. 
Something that was written so long ago has no place to be dictating what you can do in a society that is so altered from the one existing when it was written.

It is about fear, but I do think that fear is perpetuated by the fact that guns are allowed to be kept by ordinary citizens.

The point about educating people...it won't ever work. There are always going to be stupid people in our world who cannot be trusted to get themselves educated. Stupid people will always exist. 

What I think on this issue is not going to change and I doubt MrSid's is either, so I think I'm done.


----------



## AMcNeice (Jun 7, 2004)

> I grew up in a small town in north georgia and kids would have rifle racks in the back of the pickup trucks. It was normal, no one ever went on a killing spree back in my day.
> 
> We had 'firearm education' which was mandatory in our school to teach us gun saftey. My father was given a .38 pistol for helping the local police capture to excaped convicts. I for one think guns are fine, i get a kick out of shooting them. I would not have a problem owning a gun, i just don't see a need for it.
> 
> Just because something is dangerous, doesn't mean it should banned. Responsibility is the key issue




Same here, except replace Georgia with South Carolina.   I was one of the people who had the pickup with the gun racks.  I was out at the hunt club pretty much every day of deer season because it's something I enjoy.

I own a couple of guns and have no problem with people owning them.  However, I think the laws should be stricter and there definitely needs to be much more gun education laws for the general public.  

I had to sit through a couple weekends worth of gun safety as well as classes on wildlife regulation to get my hunting license and I learned a great deal especially considering I had grown up with them. (My pops is an avid hunter)

As for the whole home protection idea for owning them, I think that is a load of croak.  Any responsible gunowner imo should have the guns and bullets locked up in a gun cabinet to help avoid all the accidental deaths you hear about in the news.  I can tell you there is no way I'm going to be able to get into my gun cabinet in the middle of the night and get one of the guns out in the middle of the night if I hear someone breaking in.    I think I'll be better off with my Louisville Slugger and brute strength anyway 

I could go on forever on this subject but the problem is that too many uneducated stupid people have access to them, there is no need for  Walmart should not be selling guns (not to mention they only sell crap).


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 7, 2004)

manda said:
			
		

> Children should be accountable for killing themselves or someone else because they pulled the trigger? .



Where do you draw the line of 'child' though?  In my eyes, a 16 yr old (legally a child) that accidentally kills his buddy in a hunting accident is tragic, a 12 yr old (legally a child) that joins a gang and kills his rival is criminal.


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 7, 2004)

Wow, this is quite a thread.  

I haven't put my thoughts together yet on this subject.  I do agree with much of Moore's logic but will point out that his movie is documentary and not a statement of absolute fact.



			
				Geronimo said:
			
		

> I have a gun, several in fact.  The reason for them is to protect me while I am in the back country.  There are other uses then to simply kill.



How are guns used for protection other than to kill?


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 7, 2004)

deencarolh said:
			
		

> One of the reasons is Moore himself... Just look at his latest release..  sickening!
> 
> Dee



Why would it be sickening?


----------



## Mitica100 (Jun 7, 2004)

OK, my two cents here:

I live in Arizona, I own two guns (a 22mm and a 9mm), both never fired and hope never will. What determined me to get them? Well, to me they were a symbol of freedom, as wrong as that might sound, the freedom to own guns which I never had prior to coming to the US. For 31 years I lived under a severe lack of basic freedoms in a dictatorship-style governing country. Today I regard them as an 'equalizer' in case my or my wife's life is ever threatened by an intruder and we both attended courses in how to handle and care for them. I bought them from a gun shop, never had to wait more than 10 minutes to finish the transaction. 

Draw your own conclusions on how easy is to buy a gun here in Arizona, if you may. 

The problem with owning guns anywhere in the world is the lack of *education* about them, what they can do and what they can't, how to handle them and how not to. Of course, there are so many people feeling empowered by owning a gun but only few know how to handle that power. Then there is the curiosity factor. Having served in the military in my youth, I had a chance to learn about guns, from AK 47s to grenade launchers, handguns, grenades and such. I am not curious anymore, I know how they function and their purpose.

Statistics, while majority of them are true, serve no reason at all save for promoting one's ideals or ideas. I agree with Moore's points overall but I think *education* should be enforced before purchasing a gun. Have a mandatory fire arms safety course with a binding evaluation before being able to purchase a gun. The problem with that though is the illegal sale of firearms, on streets or at gun shows. What do you do about that kind of thing? What can you do? Not much...  Sadly enough!


----------



## Mitica100 (Jun 7, 2004)

deencarolh said:
			
		

> One of the reasons is Moore himself... Just look at his latest release..  sickening!
> 
> Dee



Dee,

Have you seen his latest release? If so, where?? I'm sure you're talking about his 'Fahrenheit 911', right?  :scratch:  :scratch: 

Another question begs being asked:

If you thought before hand that Moore is 'sickening', why did you go see his latest release?


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 7, 2004)

This is a beautiful thread, IF we can hold the mature tone all along.



			
				MDowdey said:
			
		

> 1) what would the ramifications be, assuming the results are universal and include the criminal element, if guns were not accessible to the general population?*People would still kill others. those guns that were no longer available to the public would be stolen or sold illegaly.*
> 2) why did the founding fathers include the second ammendment in the first place?
> *Because they were aware that one day every shoemaker, cobbler, breadmaker, and carpenter would have to take up arms to defend the very soil on which they live. and one day we might too.*
> md



I have not seen the movie yet and not a pro in constitution. I'm planning to see this movie as well as the Farenheit.

MD,
1. Did you mean ordinary citizens like you and me? OR Gang war. If you are talking about gang war, I can understand. No matter what, they will source their weapons.
But why would we (ordinary citizens) shoot our neighbor (_hypethetical example_) for x reason?

2. Your point on defending the soil sounds good. But which country is US afraid of right now, so that normal citizens can take to the street with their guns at the sound of fighter planes? 

Someone was mentioning about the "responsible" use of the gun. Good point!
Question: How do we know who is responsible and who belongs to the irresponsible cadre, so that the govt. can issue license to the "responsible" folks?
Drunken driving is illegal because no one can draw a line on who a responsible drinker is. 
Is it possible to draw a line re. the gun issue?


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 7, 2004)

1) i mean anyone who has the urge to kill another human being will find a weapon.

2)its not that we are afraid of anyone. i was speaking specifically of the past.

let me stress my point further by stating that GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. when the little fed up, picked on 16 year old goes on a rampage and kills 20 of his classmates, he should be lynched, plain and simple. by the way, that has happened in other countries not just america. as the times change people are also getting more and more stressed, this generation is dealing with things their parents never dealt with, and sure enough this will lead to a new set of problems in the future.

md


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 7, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> 1) i mean anyone who has the urge to kill another human being will find a weapon.
> 
> 2)its not that we are afraid of anyone. i was speaking specifically of the past.
> 
> ...



1. You are right. 
So you think it is advisable to own guns?



> by the way, that has happened in other countries not just america.


Of course, shootings happen all over the globe. 

But I thought we were talking about the US constitution/2nd amendment/civil war/past.



> as the times change people are also getting more and more stressed, this generation is dealing with things their parents never dealt with,


like ?


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 7, 2004)

over crowding, inflation, immigration, oil shortages, stress, depression, obesity, advertising, media, reality tv shows...

you name it, but whatever it is, its rotting the brains of ALL of us...people need to turn off their tv's and throw them away.

as far as rebutals to your responses...

1) I believe it is more prudent for one to own a handgun to protect oneself in the case of home invasion or all out war...

2)I UNDERSTAND we are talking about the US, but the point im trying to make is not everyone that is pro 2nd amendment is a gun totin hillbilly murderer.


md


----------



## Chase (Jun 7, 2004)

One thing that bothers me in this whole discussion is one question.

If I am a law abiding citizen (let me be more specific: never convicted of a crime), what gives someone the right to tell me whether or not I am allowed to own a gun?


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 7, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> over crowding, inflation, immigration, oil shortages, stress, depression, obesity, advertising, media, reality tv shows...
> 
> you name it, but whatever it is, its rotting the brains of ALL of us...people need to turn off their tv's and throw them away.
> 
> ...



1. You sound like a responsible gun owner, which is very good! 
The question is; what if your neighbor is not? What if he feels one morning to shoot down all the people in your street?

2. True, we are talking about a bunch of insane irrresponsible folks. Those who wants to kill might kill, but a ban on weapons may cut down the widespread toy-like usage of guns by kids and old alike. 
I now recollect Mayor Bloomberg's  ban on cigerette smoking in public places. I'm not saying all the smokers in NYC quit smoking (hehe...thats impossible ); but a recent study found out that the number of smokers in NYC have decreased considerably after the ban!

over crowding- Is that a reason to kill someone?
inflation-Is this the first time in world history that we have crossed paths with inflation?
immigration-Could you elaborate on this term, if you dont mind?
oil shortages-I recently read from some place that the price of gasoline 25 years ago was same as of today! I cannot confirm the authenticity of the info.
stress, depression, obesity, advertising, media, reality tv shows...-Are these sufficient reasons to become a gun trotin hillbilly murderer? 

Let me emphasize that my words are merely for the purpose of this constructive discourse. I'm *not* pointing fingers at anyone or anything.

We are just airing our our observations, arent we ?


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 7, 2004)

none of the reasons i listed were in no way justification for killing someone. however if you were to come in my house unlawfully and threaten my family or me...i would put a full clip in you, reload and empty another clip.

ther reasons i listed were merely to state that the pressure of todays society is inclined towards making the average everyday person snap alot quicker.


md


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 7, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> none of the reasons i listed were in no way justification for killing someone. however if you were to come in my house unlawfully and threaten my family or me...i would put a full clip in you, reload and empty another clip.
> md



If someone was to do the same thing to me, I would try to defend my family either by calling 911 or swing a baseball bat to knock him unconcious and let the cops do the rest of the job. I would not want to think of taking his life. But thats just me!



> ther reasons i listed were merely to state that the pressure of todays society is inclined towards making the average everyday person snap alot quicker.



So, the issue here is Anger Management!


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 7, 2004)

no the issue is the media, and idiots breeding idiots. but thats just my 2 cents.

im done with this thread, however intriguing it all is...i hate discussions like this...

peace out.

md


----------



## Big Mike (Jun 7, 2004)

MDowdey said:
			
		

> however if you were to come in my house unlawfully and threaten my family or me...i would put a full clip in you, reload and empty another clip.



OK, I can understand that attitude.  Self preservation is basic human nature.

As pointed out, crazy gun toting maniacs can be anywhere.  So why not shoot your neighbor because he may pose a threat to your family because he owns a gun?   Then why not travel to the other side of the world and kill some people there because they have the means to become a threat to your family?

I have no problem with your responsible gun ownership.  However I'm not a fan of the fundamental idea that everyone should be able to have a gun based upon the idea that they need it in case of threat.  By your having a gun, you are more of a threat to your neighbor.  Soon everybody has a gun to protect them selves but the biggest threat may be from other people who are protecting themselves from your guns.  This is hypothetical but it's not too far removed from a global arms race.  

Look at the Terminator movies for example.  An intelligent computer is created and then threatened by humans.  It's solution to stop the threat was to eliminated the humans.  How far off are we from trying to eradicate anyone who poses a threat?


----------



## havoc (Jun 7, 2004)

I hate when people state an opinion and then say they are done talking about it. If your going to put your two cents in then you need to be ready to accept others comments on them. 
There is valid reason for any citizen to own a gun, though it is there right and i respect that. home defense is bullshit. Statistically speaking the percentages of criminals using guns in home invasions is very small. More likely they will have nothing and hope to do their business withut waking you up. If they do want to do harm to you, they won't pick a gun because it makes too much noise. More then likely they will use a knife or blunt weapon if anything at all. And in either case your going to be quicker and do more harm with a baseball bat then you will fumbling for your gun, loading it, and hoping that you shoot straight in a panic. If nobody had guns then you wouldn't need one on the street either. Since they do have guns. The responsible way of handling it is to take the guns out of their hands. Carrying one yourself is going to prove more problematic then its worth in most cases. Again with the statisitics, If someone pulls a gun on you, you are more likely to survive if you run away rather then fight. They will get close up to you. If you try and pull a gun you will already be dead if they are really looking to use it. If you run away then you create distance between the you and your attacker. 90% of the time they have had no training on how to use one, and couldn't shoot straight to save their soul. They say if you run away their is only a 20% chance of getting hit, and another 20 % chance on top of that to be mortally wounded. If you stay and fight its like 60% that you will be killed. I would rather run and takes my chances.
Even in consealed weapons training classes they tell you that if your withen 20 feet of your attacker, a knife will do you more good then a gun. A gun takes to long to pull out make ready, aim and fire. It only takes about a second and a half for someone to knock you to the ground from 20 feet away.

As for children shooting children being criminals. Its not as easy an issue as to just see they should be lynched. Sure they commited a criminal act, but a person is not fully aware of the world and consequences at 16, certainly not at 12 or 10 either. What needs to happen is educate kids on why they shouldn't use a gun for any purpose, and then also deny any access to them whatsoever. For the kids that have used guns you need to find out why they feel they need it, and eliminate that feeling of need. I am not ready to write off some poor kid (even at 16) for killing another kid. They are not aware of what they are doing. Sure there must be punishment for it. But trying children as adults and giving them the death penalty is not the solution. I don't want to support them in jail forever when they could be rehbilitated. And they can be if people focused on that instead of punishing offenders.


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 7, 2004)

Havoc said:
			
		

> I hate when people state an opinion and then say they are done talking about it. If your going to put your two cents in then you need to be ready to accept others comments on them.




im trying very hard to not say something that crosses a line here, so ill leave with this...ive accepted others comments graciously for 5 pages now, i just chose to tell danelec99 that i couldnt think of anything else to say about it. if you have a problem with the way i conduct discussions, please feel free to PM and let me know what ive done wrong, but DO NOT bait me in front of others.

matthew


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 7, 2004)

Havoc said:
			
		

> As for children shooting children being criminals. Its not as easy an issue as to just see they should be lynched. Sure they commited a criminal act, but a person is not fully aware of the world and consequences at 16, certainly not at 12 or 10 either. What needs to happen is educate kids on why they shouldn't use a gun for any purpose, and then also deny any access to them whatsoever. For the kids that have used guns you need to find out why they feel they need it, and eliminate that feeling of need. I am not ready to write off some poor kid (even at 16) for killing another kid. They are not aware of what they are doing. Sure there must be punishment for it. But trying children as adults and giving them the death penalty is not the solution. I don't want to support them in jail forever when they could be rehbilitated. And they can be if people focused on that instead of punishing offenders.


But I do NOT for one instant buy that there is some magical line in the sand.  One day you're a child and the next you're not.  That's what that 18-is-an-adult thing is all about, and IMO it's utterly ridiculous.  That was the whole point of my analogy.  If you take away all but the barest of facts, in case #1, a 16 year old is dead at the hands of another 16 year old; in case #2 a 12 year old is dead at the hands of another 12 year old.  Both cases are of gunshot wounds.  Looking at just that, you could either say that both shooters are children and should be let off, or you could say that the 16 year old is close to being an adult, and should be tried as an adult.

But there is a WORLD of difference in terms of criminality, fault, and blame.  

I am surrounded day in and day out by 13 year olds.  While there are many that are children, there are many that think like adults as well.  Being an educator, I have a pretty good background in developmental psychology, and true biological adulthood can hit anywhere between 13 and 18 for boys, 10 and 17 for girls.  Mental (or psychological) adulthood usually runs later, but again there's a wide discrepancy in terms of when a person starts having the cognitive facilities of an adult.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 7, 2004)

To make it much simpler though, the act of shooting at someone with the intent of killing them is really a matter of right and wrong, and the vast majority of children around 10 years of age (plus or minus a year or two of course) are fully aware of the socio-cultural difference between right and wrong.


----------



## deencarolh (Jun 9, 2004)

I get too upset to continue this thread.. I feel hurt, threatened, frustrated..so many feelings.  I find this very emotional for me.  so I will just drop out and not read anymore thank you. 
Dee


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 9, 2004)

deencarolh said:
			
		

> I get too upset to continue this thread.. I feel hurt, threatened, frustrated..so many feelings.  I find this very emotional for me.  so I will just drop out and not read anymore thank you.
> Dee



Didn't you know we all dropped out long time ago?


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 9, 2004)

Don't drop out.

Be cool, stay in school!


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 9, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> Don't drop out.
> 
> Be cool, stay in school!



 :lmao: 

... or not.  right now, i'm stuck in a classroom with no ac and temps projected to hit 95F.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 9, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> Shark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## doxx (Jun 9, 2004)

coming from Germany and living in the US my observation is
that "needing a gun to protect my home" is a very american thing
(no offense here, okay).
Sh*t like this happens all over the place and it gets worse, because
some members of our society simply lack responsibility.

Why do kids have access to guns? Because guns and ammo are 
all over the place. If parents would be more responsible, the kids
would NOT have access to a gun and take it to school in the first
place. If I recall it right the ammo in Columbine was bought at a
K-Mart? If the salesperson would be responsible, the 'right'
person gets the ammo.

In Chicago it's impossible to buy booze in a store after midnight
to prevent drunk driving? Buy your booze before midnight, get lit 
and hail a cab...

I'm 33 years old and obviously look like it - but sometimes I get
carded to buy cigarettes or beer? Now - that's a responsible 
cashier.

All I'm trying to say here is that I think it's time to update a few 
twisted laws and the constitution to v2 (it's 2004 already). 
Things just worked differently 150 years back... Again, just an 
observation - no offense here.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 9, 2004)

doxx said:
			
		

> All I'm trying to say here is that I think it's time to update a few
> twisted laws and the constitution to v2 (it's 2004 already).
> Things just worked differently 150 years back... Again, just an
> observation - no offense here.



In a lot of ways I agree with you.  It seems like our entire legal system is sort of like a computer hard drive that needs defragged.  There's just been too much accumlated garbage over the years.  I'm not really a religious guy, but in many ways I think our legal system (and society) would work better if we followed more of a ten commandments approach--NOT for the religion side of it, but just the common sense side--don't kill somebody, don't take something that's not yours, etc.  KISS principle, ya know?  Or maybe I'm just talking out my butt.  :|


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 9, 2004)

Hey Doxx, not to hijack, but you said you're from germany originally.  Do you know Geisen?  My wife had to go there on business a couple times.  3/4 of my family is from germany (about 2 generations back)


----------



## doxx (Jun 9, 2004)

hey Shark, I have never heard of Geisen.
If you mean Gießen - I know the Autobahn
exit   



> NOT for the religion side of it, but just the common sense side--don't kill somebody, don't take something that's not yours, etc. KISS principle, ya know?



now that would be opening another can of worms  :roll:


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 9, 2004)

amen, doxx.  the second amendment is outdated.  i believe havoc was the first to point this out in this thread- it was one observation for which i had been waiting.  the founding fathers included the second amendment to protect us from the established military engines of the day- most notably the english.  pre-rev. war, the king of england had decreed that colonists did not have the right to bear arms- this was a strategy intended to strengthen his own hand here in the colonies.  the second amendment was a direct response to this threat to our sovereignity.  there is no such threat today, as we have a well established military of our own (in case you hadn't noticed).  thus, the original impetus for the right to bear arms no longer exists.

as for the argument that guns kill, not people, this is ludicrous.  gun control advocates would do well to concede this point.  people kill people.  guns are merely a tool.  let's take that a step further, though. the purpose of the gun is to kill.  gun rights advocates would do well to concede this point.

so, that brings us to the question: should guns be allowed in the hands of ordinary citizens?  hmmmm.....

i find it hilarious that we have banned smoking almost everywhere in this country, because cigarettes cause cancer and are harmful to non-smokers who inadvertantly inhale the second hand smoke, yet we can not get an assault weapons ban passed on a permanent basis.
why is this same logic (cigarette ban) not applied to guns?  guns kill much more definitively than second hand smoke, yet some argue that they have the right to own a gun regardless of the danger it poses to other citizens.  ahhh, now i hear some of you saying: well, if you're gonna outlaw guns for the ave. citizen, using that logic, you must outlaw knives, and baseball bats, and any other tool that can be used to kill.   to that i reply: it  is the efficiency of the gun that makes the arguement for it's ban.  no other tool kills as easily, and thus no other deserves such consideration.

guns are designed to kill.  i'm ashamed for the conditions in my country which allow for our inability to curb the danger caused by the rampant proliferation of guns on the street.  i firmly believe the founding fathers would be appalled, too.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 9, 2004)

Well concluded!


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 9, 2004)

I think we need to clarify one point.  With all the hoopla for years now about the "assult weapons" legislation, we need to make clear that that what you probably think of as an assult weapon is NOT legal for the average joe-schmo to own.  

Yes, you can go out and buy an AK-47, AK-74, AR-15, M-16, or whathaveyou.  In fact, I know of a couple places where given the cash, I could put my hands legally one any or all of those guns within probably a day.  What IS illegal (and has been for as long as I can remember) is to have any weapon like that that will fire _fully automatic_ (or even 3-round burst).  All those weapons sold legally are semi-automatic.

In my eyes, it's really apples-to-oranges.  If you ban so-called "assault weapons", great, more power to you, but you will most definitely _not_ remove fully automatic firepower from the hands of criminals; in fact you probably won't even make a dent in it.  It would be a reactionary law that would make the uninformed public feel good, while really all you'll do is shut down the firearms collection hobby.  You or I might go out and plunk down $1500 on new camera gear, the guy down the street might drop $1500 on an AK.  That AK will have less "killing power" than most hunting rifles that you can buy at the local Wal-Mart, and will fire in exactly the same way--one pull of the trigger = one shot fired.


----------



## Geronimo (Jun 9, 2004)

Toby said:
			
		

> why is this same logic (cigarette ban) not applied to guns? guns kill much more definitively than second hand smoke, yet some argue that they have the right to own a gun regardless of the danger it poses to other citizens. ahhh, now i hear some of you saying: well, if you're gonna outlaw guns for the ave. citizen, using that logic, you must outlaw knives, and baseball bats, and any other tool that can be used to kill. to that i reply: it is the efficiency of the gun that makes the arguement for it's ban. no other tool kills as easily, and thus no other deserves such consideration.
> 
> guns are designed to kill. i'm ashamed for the conditions in my country which allow for our inability to curb the danger caused by the rampant proliferation of guns on the street. i firmly believe the founding fathers would be appalled, too.



You are treating the end result, not the symptons.  Following your logic here, why not stop the catalyst for a lot of violence?  Drugs ( both alrealy illegal and legal drugs), Alcohol and etc. Why not elimate cars as well.   They kill a lot of people too.  They are efficent as well arent they?   

As far as the 2nd adm. intentions being out of sync with today's society, I find that to be wishfull thinking.  What if we the people would need to *fulfill our duty* to stop a repressive gov't sometime, not now but sometime.  This was the intend of the 2nd adm.  I find arguements against  this idea, just as unfounded as the need to remove the Electoral College.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 9, 2004)

> Following your logic here, why not stop the catalyst for a lot of violence? Drugs ( both alrealy illegal and legal drugs), Alcohol and etc. Why not elimate cars as well



i'm confused- are you saying that drugs and cars are tools which often result in death, or are you saying that they are things which lead to violence and the use of guns?  if you mean the former, i fall back on the argument that guns are designed for the express purpose of killing, and are far and away the most efficient in fulfilling that purpose, thus making them a class by themselves.  they should be regulated.

as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long, and those odds have to be balanced against the odds that guns will be utilized here and now in such a manner that our very society is torn apart.  as for this last, the odds are not very long at all- in fact we are confronted daily with news of just such occurances.


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 9, 2004)

"In 1996 there were over 34,000 gun deaths in the U.S." --LA TIMES/CDC



"Tobacco companies make a product that kills 440,000 Americans a year."--CDC/THE TRUTH

"Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined."--CDC/THE TRUTH


im not quite sure how anyone can sit here and claim a gun is the most effective killing device...

md


----------



## oriecat (Jun 9, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long



I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed.  At least that's how I read it...


----------



## MDowdey (Jun 9, 2004)

oriecat said:
			
		

> Osmer_Toby said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



exactly.


----------



## Chase (Jun 9, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> i'm confused- are you saying that drugs and cars are tools which often result in death, or are you saying that they are things which lead to violence and the use of guns?  if you mean the former, i fall back on the argument that guns are designed for the express purpose of killing, and are far and away the most efficient in fulfilling that purpose, thus making them a class by themselves.  they should be regulated.
> 
> as for bearing arms against some unforeseen threat that our own military can't or won't defeat, i think the odds of that are extremely long, and those odds have to be balanced against the odds that guns will be utilized here and now in such a manner that our very society is torn apart.  as for this last, the odds are not very long at all- in fact we are confronted daily with news of just such occurances.



You mentioned that guns should be regulated. Currently, they are, and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that they shouldn't be. What method or level of regulation are you suggesting?

I think you are also focusing a little too heavily on the topic of military threats, which is only one piece of the puzzle. What about situations of civil unrest? I agree that currently I don't see much of an organized threat from other countries, but what about problems right here at home with our own citizens. One example would be the Los Angeles riots back in 1992. If you lived or worked in that area, how effective do you think the police were at defending homes, businesses and individuals? In this situation, why shouldn't a law abiding citizen have the right to have a gun as a tool to protect themself from the threat surrounding them?


----------



## Geronimo (Jun 9, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > Following your logic here, why not stop the catalyst for a lot of violence? Drugs ( both alrealy illegal and legal drugs), Alcohol and etc. Why not elimate cars as well
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The bearing of arms arguement I made was directed towards our own gov't or agencies of the gov't.  That was the purpose of the 2nd adm.  

The other things I had thrown out there (drugs and etc.) was to show the catalysts of violence.  For if you are truely worried about the affects of guns (i.e. your repeated statement about guns are only made to kill) then you should be looking into the causes of violence, not the tools used to carry the violence out.  I.E.  Cars are effective killing machines when trained on a person or under the control of a loose mind.  See the point is not that guns can kill, but that they are simply tools.  Just as knifes are tools made to kill.  Yes they were made to kill and ripe thing apart.  

Not that I agree with your guns are only made to kill statement.  They are made to protect.  I dont have a gun to kill things with, but to stop things from killing me.  But here again is the point of the causes of violence should be brought up.  I dont want to kill things but a criminal or drunk or distraught person might or even intend to kill something.  There are too many theories on why but the simple truth is the the "motive", lack of judgement or what ever you want to call it, is the thing that kills.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> then you should be looking into the causes of violence



elimination of all causes of violence would involve a fundamental change in humanity itself.  would love to see it happen.  it won't.



> What about situations of civil unrest?


  good point.  only thing is, situations of this magnitude are very few and far between.  weigh that against the daily violence perpetrated with guns and i think it is clear the balance tips in favor of gun control.




> I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed


  thank you for the clarification.  this is a tough one- if it comes down to street fighting to overcome a corrupt government, i'm not so sure the right to bear small arms, which is all we have now, would do any good what-so-ever against tanks and fighter jets.  if we need a law for this contingency, all americans need to be armed with tow anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft batteries.  



> "Tobacco companies make a product that kills 440,000 Americans a year."--CDC/THE TRUTH
> 
> "Tobacco kills more Americans than AIDS, drugs, homicides, fires, and auto accidents combined."--CDC/THE TRUTH
> 
> ...



another good point.  cigarettes ought to be banned, too  
but seriously, how many of those deaths were caused by second hand smoke and how many were the primary smoker?  the reason i ask is because at least with cigarettes, you can choose not to smoke.  with guns, if someone decides to shoot you, you have no choice in the matter.



> You mentioned that guns should be regulated. Currently, they are, and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that they shouldn't be. What method or level of regulation are you suggesting?


today's gun regulation laws are a joke.  we couldn't even get an assault weapons ban made permanent.  at the very least, laws should be enacted which will keep these heavy-duty type weapons out of the general population, perhaps along with handguns.  i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, simply because they do have legitimate reasons for use other than killing another human.  even when employed for the latter, it's a helluva lot easier to see a shotgun coming than a concealed .44 mag., and you have at least a decent chance of getting the hell out of the way.


----------



## manda (Jun 10, 2004)

argh
i said i was done 

how can u seriously compare guns to cigarettes??
you are talking about inanimate objects and not what the intent is using them is, which is the real issue!

as so many of you argue for your side of the story, its not the guns, its the people. of course its the people.
so what if more people died from cigarettes than guns.
the person who takes up a cigarette does not point it to someone else's head with the intent to kill them.

i dont think guns should be compared to anything on the planet.

cigarettes are not made for the sole purpose of killing.
cars are not made for the sole purpose of killing.

you simply can't compare them.

toby and doxx, your points on the 7th page of this thread were awesome.


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > What about situations of civil unrest?
> 
> 
> good point.  only thing is, situations of this magnitude are very few and far between.  weigh that against the daily violence perpetrated with guns and i think it is clear the balance tips in favor of gun control.



Regardless of how common these situations are, they do happen, have happened, and will happen again. We have the right to protect ourselves. I can't control what another person does when they have a gun, but that shouldn't negate my right to protect myself with one if I choose do to so.



			
				Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > I think Gero meant the bearing of arms against our own military or gov't, should it become corrupt and need to be forcefully removed
> 
> 
> thank you for the clarification.  this is a tough one- if it comes down to street fighting to overcome a corrupt government, i'm not so sure the right to bear small arms, which is all we have now, would do any good what-so-ever against tanks and fighter jets.  if we need a law for this contingency, all americans need to be armed with tow anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft batteries.



I disagree, small arms have been amazingly effective in street fighting situations. As we have seen in Iraq (and I'll ask everyone to leave further Iraq comments out of this situation, this is purely for supportive evidence), a relative few can defend themselves rather effectively against all of the weapons you mentioned when it comes down to urban combat.



			
				Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > You mentioned that guns should be regulated. Currently, they are, and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that they shouldn't be. What method or level of regulation are you suggesting?
> 
> 
> today's gun regulation laws are a joke.  we couldn't even get an assault weapons ban made permanent.  at the very least, laws should be enacted which will keep these heavy-duty type weapons out of the general population, perhaps along with handguns.  i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, simply because they do have legitimate reasons for use other than killing another human.  even when employed for the latter, it's a helluva lot easier to see a shotgun coming than a concealed .44 mag., and you have at least a decent chance of getting the hell out of the way.


You mentioned "heavy-duty" type weapons, but I am curious what your definition of heavy-duty is. A majority of the weapons that were banned were arguably not heavy-duty at all. In fact, many of them were a different style (looked different) than the hunting rifles which people are more comfortable with, but fired the exact same bullet at the exact same firing rate. What would make one of these more heavy-duty than one that was not listed in the ban? In my honest opinion, most of the guns that were listed in these bans were banned based more upon how scary they looked than being any more dangerous than other weapons. 

You also mentioned the term assualt weapon, again I'm curious what your definition is. Out of curiousity, I looked up a formal definition on dictionary.com and found an entry which was somewhat vague...



> An infantry weapon, such as an assault rifle, designed for individual use.



This entry mentioned assault rifles as an example, which lead me to 2 more definitions:

1. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

2. any of the automatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

In the first definitiion, it mentioned any rifles designed for use in combat. Which brings me back to my point that in many cases these "military style" rifles have very little difference between an average hunting rifle. A common difference is what material the gun stock is made out of (wood vs. other materials), which makes very little difference as far as how dangerous a weapon is.

The second definition specifically points to automatic rifles which, to my understanding, are already banned.

The bottom line to me is that I can understand people not wanting others to have guns, but that doesn't mean the right to own guns should be taken away. 

As for some of the discussion on the 2nd Amendment...



> John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann





> Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.




Boy...was that long enough for everyone??


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> I disagree, small arms have been amazingly effective in street fighting situations. As we have seen in Iraq (and I'll ask everyone to leave further Iraq comments out of this situation, this is purely for supportive evidence), a relative few can defend themselves rather effectively against all of the weapons you mentioned when it comes down to urban combat.



do you really believe the us military in iraq is exercising its full strength?  the only reason the "relative few" are not ashes in the wind is because the us military is constrained to fight with one arm, hell, both arms tied behind its back- the relative few are hiding in areas where if we go after them full-bore, we'll lose completely the propaganda war being waged worldwide.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> I can't control what another person does when they have a gun, but that shouldn't negate my right to protect myself with one if I choose do to so.



using this logic, _nothing _should be illegal: i can't control what another person does when they have ___________, but that shouldn't negate my right to have __________ if i chose to do so.  

insert any illegal substance or item into blanks.


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > I disagree, small arms have been amazingly effective in street fighting situations. As we have seen in Iraq (and I'll ask everyone to leave further Iraq comments out of this situation, this is purely for supportive evidence), a relative few can defend themselves rather effectively against all of the weapons you mentioned when it comes down to urban combat.
> 
> 
> 
> do you really believe the us military in iraq is exercising its full strength?  the only reason the "relative few" are not ashes in the wind is because the us military is constrained to fight with one arm, hell, both arms tied behind its back- the relative few are hiding in areas where if we go after them full-bore, we'll lose completely the propaganda war being waged worldwide.



No, I don't. But by the same token, I'm not sure the military would excercise its full strength against its own people either.


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > I can't control what another person does when they have a gun, but that shouldn't negate my right to protect myself with one if I choose do to so.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the logic is relatively clear. If someone uses an object for a "bad" purpose, that shouldn't automatically take away my right to own such an item. That is similar to punishing a group of people when one person in that group does something wrong. In the end, how does that solve the problem?

Making it illegal to own items as a whole, doesn't solve issues. I know this is a tired argument, but many drugs are illegal...how hard is it to get any of them? Why would it be any more difficult to get illegal guns (which already happens anyway) if all of them were banned? 

It also concerns me when people talk about banning items, because where does it stop? Is someone going to promise us, for example, that only "dangerous" items will be banned? Assuming we believe that to begin with, who then gets the right to define what a dangerous item is?


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> I think the logic is relatively clear. If someone uses an object for a "bad" purpose, that shouldn't automatically take away my right to own such an item.



no, it shouldn't, and i agree.  not just any old "bad" object should be banned, but what you have to take into account is the degree of "badness," as well as the overall effect it has on society.  caffeine is a drug, yet consumed daily by the public at large with nary a second thought.  crack cocaine is also a drug, but is illegal.  why?  what's the difference between the two?

crack is illegal because, in the hands of a significant number of individuals, it is highly destructive to society as a whole.  same with certain classes of firearms.


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > I think the logic is relatively clear. If someone uses an object for a "bad" purpose, that shouldn't automatically take away my right to own such an item.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your last statement implies that certain classes of firearms in the hands of a significant number of individuals would be highly destructive to society as a whole, which I disagree with. 

Society is in the process of breaking down for a number of reasons, but I don't believe owning a gun is a major contributing factor. Gun use may increase along with the problems a society faces, but the gun use is a result of the societal issues, not a cause of the societal issues. If gun ownership were the cause, you'd see the negative effects of gun ownership in places like Switzerland and Israel where gun ownership is high, yet gun related crimes are low. What is the difference between those places and here? Its not the guns, it is society and culture in general.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> Society is in the process of breaking down for a number of reasons, but I don't believe owning a gun is a major contributing factor. Gun use may increase along with the problems a society faces, but the gun use is a result of the societal issues, not a cause of the societal issues



been to the inner city recently?  for responsible people like you and me, owning a gun does not contribute to the rapidly accelerating decay of our society.  in the hands of those who could not care less what their actions portend, access to guns is a very real contributing factor to that decay.  ask any beat cop who works the inner city.  every single damn one of them are sure to tell you they favor handgun control.

whether you argue a cancer is a cause or a symptom, does it not make sense to cut it out before it metastizes further?


----------



## photogoddess (Jun 10, 2004)

I agree with Chase wholeheartedly. I lived near the area of the LA riots and it was a very scary time. My husband had to work right in the middle of some of the riot zones and carried a gun in his vehicle for protection. He was a Marine so I know that he was well aware of how to use it to protect himself if need be. Illegal yes, but we firmly believe that we would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. The fact that we have had the need to arm ourselves in our lifetime should be a strong reminder of why our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment. The police were either incapable or unwilling (scared?  justifiably so) to protect the citizens. Many people and their businesses survived through that time due to the peoples ability to arm themselves. 

Just because some people choose to use a tool (yes, a gun is a tool) to commit crime, doesnt mean that it should be banned. Many other tools have been used to commit some pretty horrific crimes. For example, it has been told that box cutters were used to hijack the jets that were flown into the Twin Towers. How many were killed in those instances? I havent heard anyone rally to ban box cutters. Guns serve many purposes in our lives. Recreation, something to collect, to protect our families and yes, sometimes to kill.

Some of the reasons that are used to set a certain weapon aside as an assault weapon are ridiculous. Example, the Russian SKS which is a rifle that was used by the military. Its just a plain old rifle and is completely legal to own - Unless it has a bayonet lug on it. With the bayonet lug, it is considered an assault weapon and is consequently a federal offense to own one. No other difference in the gun  just a bayonet mount. Obviously some politician was either completely swayed by the scary appearance of the bayonet mount or was concerned about a possible rash of drive by bayonetings. 

Toby said today's gun regulation laws are a joke. we couldn't even get an assault weapons ban made permanent. at the very least, laws should be enacted which will keep these heavy-duty type weapons out of the general population, perhaps along with handguns. i think rifles and shotguns should be allowed, simply because they do have legitimate reasons for use other than killing another human. even when employed for the latter, it's a helluva lot easier to see a shotgun coming than a concealed .44 mag., and you have at least a decent chance of getting the hell out of the way. 

I am surprised that people really feel that way. This isnt directed specifically at Toby but to anyone in general who shares the above logic. Personally, I can hit 6 shots in a 4 group with my hunting rifle at 300 yards. If I were a cold-blooded killer and was aiming at you from 300 yards away, do you really think you would see it coming? Rifles are pretty much worthless at close range. Even with shotguns, you still have to have a distance between you and your target to be effective. The reality is, if someone attacked you with a handgun, you would see it coming long before you saw a bullet headed at you from 300 or more yards away.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> Personally, I can hit 6 shots in a 4 group with my hunting rifle at 300 yards.



how many inner city kids buying a gun on the street can claim to do this?  compared to how many inner city kids buying a gun on the street can claim to be able to put a bullet in cashier's belly after walking in the store and looking quite innocent right up until he pulls the gun out of his jacket?


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> Some of the reasons that are used to set a certain weapon aside as an assault weapon are ridiculous



your bayonet example is one very specific example of a stupid codicil- using this as the basis for the argument that it should be ok to own _any_ assault weapon is ridiculous in itself.  just because some stupid laws have been passed does not mean every subsequent related law is as baseless.


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

> I havent heard anyone rally to ban box cutters



the box cutters became highly effective in very specific circumstances.  in those circumstances, there damn well has been a rally to ban  boxcutters.  been through airport security lately?


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > Society is in the process of breaking down for a number of reasons, but I don't believe owning a gun is a major contributing factor. Gun use may increase along with the problems a society faces, but the gun use is a result of the societal issues, not a cause of the societal issues
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I work in and live near the inner city, and I used to spend every day of the week driving all over downtown Los Angeles to make a living. In those areas, I was more scared of my car breaking down and finding myself the victim of a beating than of being shot.

As far as every cop favoring handgun control, I believe that is a blantantly false statement. Here is an excerpt from a web site on the issue:





> when the National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a mail survey of 15,000 sheriffs and police chiefs in 1996, 93 percent said they approved of law-abiding citizens arming themselves for self-defense.



In regards to your cancer scenario, although I don't think it is a good comparison for this debate, does cutting out the cancer do anything towards the overall cure for cancer?


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

And for a little more information:



> 1993 Poll-Southern States Police Benevolent Association
> 
> The Southern States Police Benevolent Association became the nation's first major law enforcement group to conduct a professional, scientific survey of its membership. The 1993 poll of nearly 11,000 rank-and-file peace officers by the SSPBA found these results, summarized from the nearly 100-page analysis of the survey, including cross-tabulations, charts and graphs:
> 
> ...



Based upon this information, it would appear my initial belief that policemen would be fairly evenly split on the debate is incorrect. Based solely upon this limited information, it would appear that the majority of police officers support the right of citizens to bear arms.


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > Some of the reasons that are used to set a certain weapon aside as an assault weapon are ridiculous
> 
> 
> 
> your bayonet example is one very specific example of a stupid codicil- using this as the basis for the argument that it should be ok to own _any_ assault weapon is ridiculous in itself.  just because some stupid laws have been passed does not mean every subsequent related law is as baseless.



I believe she was simply using this as an illustrative example of the lack of a solid foundation for many of these "assault weapons" to be singled out when compared to nearly identical weapons that were not included in the ban. I further believe that the point she was attempting to make was valid. In no way did she state the bayonet example as a basis of why it should be ok to own any assault weapon and to call your version of what she said "ridiculous" was uncalled for.


----------



## terri (Jun 10, 2004)

"Glorified G"

got a gun, fact i got two
that's ok man, cuz i love god

glorified version of a pellet gun
feels so manly, when armed

glorified version of a pellet gun
glorified version of a pellet gun
glorified version of a pellet gun
glorified version of a pellet gun

don't think, dumb is strength
never shot at a living thing

glorified version of a pellet gun
feels so manly, when armed

glorified version of a pellet gun
glorified version of a pellet gun
glorified version of a pellet gun
glorified version of a...

always keep it loaded
always keep it loaded
always keep it loaded
kindred to be an american...

life comes...i can feel your heart...
life comes...i can feel your heart through your neck...
life comes...i can feel your heart through your neck...
like some...i can steal your heart from your neck...
glorified...glorified...

-Eddie Vedder, Pearl Jam


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 10, 2004)

When I was a kid, I bought a Ruger 10-22.  It's a small calibre (.22) squirrel gun.  Typical small bore rifle--semi-auto, 10-round clip, heavy wooden stock.  Something you'd buy a woodsy 12 year old at wal-mart or the local hunting/fishing store.  I put a nice, but inexpensive bushnell scope on it and used it to hunt squirrels, bullfrogs, and the occasional snapping turtle.

A couple years later, I ordered a new stock kit and a couple accessories for it.  Now that _exact same rifle_ has a black carbon fiber body with a folding wire stock, a military style sling strap, and either a 30-round bananna clip or a 50-round drum magazine (like the old tommyguns used to use).

My point is, now it _looks_ like what most people would consider an "assault rifle".  It's just the same damn squirrel gun that many 12 year olds in the rural midwest have.  Should it be banned on looks alone?  Its performance hasn't changed one whit.


----------



## photogoddess (Jun 10, 2004)

Osmer_Toby said:
			
		

> > I havent heard anyone rally to ban box cutters
> 
> 
> 
> the box cutters became highly effective in very specific circumstances.  in those circumstances, there damn well has been a rally to ban  boxcutters.  been through airport security lately?



Actually, I have been through airport security lately. Since 9-11, they have changed the rules about what you can and can't bring on a plane pretty dramatically. Besides banning box cutters on board, you can not bring metal nail files, tweezers or screw drivers on the plane. My point is that there still isn't a nationwide rally to ban box cutters overall despite the facts of 9-11 hijackings.


----------



## photogoddess (Jun 10, 2004)

California is pretty strict about buying and selling guns and I actually happen to believe that background checks are a good idea. I'm not even that opposed to waiting periods but it's getting really silly. It used to be that I could show my hunting license (or my hubby's military discharge papers), pay for a gun and pick it up in 15 days. Now, I have to take a gun safety class despite proof that I have already taken more than one, wait the 15 days and buy a trigger lock no matter how many I already have. My husband as a former member of the military also has to take the class since his proof of 6 years in the armed forces is no longer acceptable evidence that a he has learned how to safely handle a firearm. 

Despite all of the gun control legislation, the criminals are still getting guns illegally. Since our leaders can't seem to figure out how to stop that, they pass more legislation. This is legislation that does nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to buy firearms. To me, it's nothing more than window dressing designed to make the uninformed feel comfortable that their leaders are "actually" doing something. 

I know that many people have strong feelings on the subject and I can respect that. However, respect is a two way street and the people that disagree with me need to respect my views as well without attacking. Thanks to our founding fathers, I have as much of a right to arm myself as everyone has to have and state their opinions.


----------



## oriecat (Jun 10, 2004)

I'm proud to know all you people.  I think everyone has been very nice and respectful and I'm amazed this thread got to 9 pages without exploding considering the volatility of the subject.  And with that I just want to say.... _sex romp_


----------



## malachite (Jun 10, 2004)

oriecat said:
			
		

> And with that I just want to say.... _sex romp_



Oooo......guns and sex. Now we're talkin'


----------



## Chase (Jun 10, 2004)

Should we officially close this thread on a nice happy sex note?


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 10, 2004)

got your heart racin' when you saw i posted another response to this thread, didn't it?  

sex is a good way to end almost anything, i say.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 10, 2004)

Sex...what's that?



:sigh:


----------



## voodoocat (Jun 10, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> Sex...what's that?
> 
> 
> 
> :sigh:



:scratch:


----------



## Geronimo (Jun 10, 2004)

Toby said:
			
		

> then you should be looking into the causes of violence
> 
> 
> elimination of all causes of violence would involve a fundamental change in humanity itself. would love to see it happen. it won't.



I was not implying the elimination of all the causes of violence, just that if you want to limit, stop, or reduce the amount of gun violence, then the solution is to find and attack it.  Much like the cancer example; find a cure instead of just removing a tumor.  It is the society, from the suburbs to the inner city that need to re-evulate their thoughts on guns and violence.  

And to end of a sexy note, I shall shot the ladies with my love _gun_


----------



## photogoddess (Jun 10, 2004)

voodoocat said:
			
		

> Shark said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know you both knew at one time what sex was!  :cry: 

Here's a hanky.  :hug:


----------



## StvShoop (Jun 11, 2004)

Toby said:
			
		

> elimination of all causes of violence would involve a fundamental change in humanity itself. would love to see it happen. it won't.



i'm probably hijacking the meaning of the rest of this thread; if so, just put me on the back burner

violence isn't just human death or human murder or human knees scraped. these convos were started on the note of "gun violence" *connotations ensue!* so the definition of "violence" everyone has been using is the purple.
love is violent, thunderstorms are violent, the garish blast of color in lots of tv commercials is violent, Jane's Addiction: "Sex is Violent!"
I think the definition of violence is... anything which one percieves as too intense to survive or understand.
I'm saying "hey, we need violence!  but we need to understand and respect it more." we need contrast, we need oppositely charged intensities, i need to know there are things out there that are scary! so that i can have something to work against.

...oh yeah, i'm not condoning killing people. that's bad.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 11, 2004)

I think this thread has achieved what it was set out for...  .
Excellent points and arguements ppl ! :cheer:

It got violent , it got emotional , it got ...... sexy ... 

:scratch:

Theres ya answer kiddo's ..... Make lurve , not war ! :love:


----------



## manda (Jun 11, 2004)

Love makes the world go round :love: :heart: :love: :heart:


----------



## steve817 (Jun 11, 2004)

Loves stinks yeah yeah


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 11, 2004)

steve817 said:
			
		

> Loves stinks yeah yeah


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 11, 2004)

Only because men think once they're in love , its a licence to dutch-oven their woman  :no smile:


----------



## steve817 (Jun 11, 2004)

Luminosity said:
			
		

> Only because men think once they're in love , its a licence to dutch-oven their woman  :no smile:




Guess she doesn't know the song.


----------



## Luminosity (Jun 11, 2004)

Nah uh I dont know the song :scratch:......


----------



## steve817 (Jun 11, 2004)

The J. Geils Band---Love Stinks 

You love her 
But she loves him 
And he loves somebody else 
You just can't win 
And so it goes 
Till the day you die 
This thing they call love 
It's gonna make you cry 
I've had the blues 
The reds and the pinks 
One thing for sure 

*Come on everybody sing it with me!!!!!*


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Jun 11, 2004)

LOVE STINKS, YA YA

(deep bass voice)

LOVE STINKS....


----------



## oriecat (Jun 11, 2004)

Loooove hurttttsssssss
Loooove scarrrrrrrssssss
Loooove wouuuundssss 
and marrrrssssss


----------

