Watercooler

What gun possession implies

+
1 Votes
Locked

What gun possession implies

chdchan
With gun weapons, one can protect or kill. Not too soon after Colorado shooting, Americans are tolling themselves again with the Connecticut shootout.

The U.S. is a country respecting freedom. While the police and soldiers have guns, so do the general public. With freedom in American minds, privacy is also secured by Law, hence one can kill an intruder to one's premises. The reasons behind this practice are: Americans are above-par wealthy and they need some extra security against crime (also reflected in their possession of most nuclear missiles in the world); Americans are relatively selfish and self-protecting (people are putting security of oneself above public safety by advocating gun possession, plus developing nuclear weaponry whilst disallowing poorer countries to follow suit); Americans think they are so morally superior that most people can restrain themselves from gun abuse.

In fact, if some would like to prevent crime with guns, they should first think about how easily guns can cause crime. For the first time in history, after many gun-related crimes, people from the rest of the world should become hesitating when considering emigration or traveling to the U.S. and other gun-approving countries. As Chinese ourselves, we applaud for our own better-off personal safety without undiscriminated gun possession. When guns are publicized for eliminating their inner lack of security, Americans are haunted with even greater homicidal fears.
  • +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    Without trying to sound pro or anti gun. Canadians have a lot of guns at home, from pistols to rifles. My family had 8 guns including old military guns. When I was young my father showed me how to shoot guns. What is really different between us as the USA? I do know our guns have to be locked in a secure storage container, I do not know US laws on gun storage.

    Can it be pure population density? Does the fact that the US has more people clustered together mean that statistically the likelihood of a school shooting is greater? But isn't China and Japan even more densely populated? So what are their school shooting statistics?

    It can't be just that Americans think they have a right to guns is it? How is having the right to have guns different than being allowed to have guns?


    My theory... The typical urban environments lend themselves to less gun safety talks with children. This theory could be tested by checking the gun violence rates in less urbanized states.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    No point in tinkering with "urban" and "rural". The US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 0.1 for England and Wales, according to a 2012 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Total homicides for the USA are 4.3 per 100,000 with 1.2 per 100,000 for the UK.

    We just don't have guns.

    Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100,000 population of which a handful were gun crime. They don't have much murder or guns.

    However, with less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 40 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns so it's just not possible to get any meaningful comparison.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    But I will say this (ask this). You stated that in the US, "..... there are 3.2 firearm homicides per 100,000...."

    Those danged statistics. A smart guy can make them say just about anything.

    Remove a few isolated spots from the USA, and what are the numbers? Take out of the equation New York City (with the Democrat mayor in sheep's clothing, Michael Bloomberg - Mr. Gun Control in a city where such firearms are already illegal); or Detroit, a city with another Democrat mayor, Democrats on the city council, where social programs and unemployment are norm; or Chicago, the murder capitol of the world, the home of out Democrat president, Barack Hussein Obama, and all his Democrat Chicago cronies; and, of course, let's not even mention race in the homicide statistics.

    Or I wonder how many homicide perps are receiving Food Stamps? Or I wonder how many homicide perps are gang bangers battling over turf? Or I wonder how many homicide perps are ........

    Your statistics are meaningless, Neil.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You have this habit of posting questions - "I wonder how many homicide perps are receiving Food Stamps". You answer it, you asked it.

    I posted a single flat statistic which suggests that there is, per capita, thirty times more homicide by guns in the US when compared to the UK where the posession of a handgun is illegal.. If you want to post "therefore what?", feel free but to do it in the way that you do here is just lazy. Remove a few isolated spots from the UK statistics and we can all get different numbers.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    they represent quite a chunk of American population and are part of America. I myself am not decided pro or anti-gun but this type of argument does not help the debate.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    1. gang and organised crime related murders;

    2. those killed by during crimes or resisting capture by police;

    3. individual murders for personal gain or revenge;

    4. accidental while shooting;

    5. accidental while handling a gun;

    6. terrorist related incidents;

    7. crazed gunman attacks;

    8. miscellaneous.

    +
    3 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I have my theories on the cause(s) of not only these mass killings, but other forms of violence and social breakdown, and none of them has anything at all to do with the existence of, or the availability of guns.

    But it's obvious that the anti-gun lobby and the anti-gun sentiment in the USA will actually PREVENT any effort to address the REAL root cause(s). It's easy to blame guns for jumping up and killing people; that way, people don't have to acknowledge the REAL issues.

    I'd bet everything I own (which isn't a **** of a lot at this point) that in not a single one of these "mass killing" cases, or in cases of kids killing kids, the perpetrator had a father who was involved and engaged in his life; or the perpetrator came from a family that provided unconditional love and acceptance; or that the perpetrator was actually GIVEN a gun by his father and taught how to use and respect it; or .........

    But yeah, let's blame the guns. It's too painful to look at the REAL reasons.

    +
    4 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    guns are just the tool...guns don`t kill people, people kill people. Whether it be with a gun, a knife, whatever the tool may be, that is the fact. Unfortunately, guns are a tool for a faster mass violence. And it doesn`t seem to matter what the demographic is either. I hear too many stories where someone took their parents` gun out of an unlocked closet and either accidentally or intentionally shot someone or mulitple people. As Slayer_ said, we`re under pretty tough laws to keep our guns locked up here in Canada. I was raised to understand that a gun was for nothing more than hunting or in drastic measures to protect ones home and family.

    Is it any wonder today`s society doesn`t know right from wrong...we`ve been told we`re not allowed to disipline our children anymore in fear we may hurt their self esteem. I tell ya, my uncle didn`t hurt my self esteem, but he wacked my butt when I didn`t do what I was told; my self esteem is fine and I sure as heck appreciate, love, and respect that man with all my heart. If I didn`t get my own way or a toy that I wanted, I darned well learned to live with (and love) what I did have. So today`s kids need to suck it up, we all don`t get what we want but if you don`t like what you have, I`m sure it can be given to some poor kid somewhere that will adore it. And if you don`t do what you`re told, there`s an app for that, it`s called grounded...no TV, no cell phone, no computer, no gaming system....read a book, better yet (and I`m not a religious girl at all but I do believe in morals) read the Bible; it`s full of lessons and morals that we all should re-learn to live by.

    And that`s my two cents for now.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    but it sure makes it easier, ain't it ?

    +
    2 Votes
    robo_dev

    Obviously guns need a crazy person to pull the trigger to do their damage....so either we need fewer crazy people, fewer guns, or better ways to prevent the two elements from reacting.

    Part of this debate is around how we treat (or do not treat) mental illness, perhaps even a discussion about violent video games, but most importantly, how to have a grown up discussion about how lethal weapons are bought, sold, used, and abused.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    i stated that before but some ppl don't seem to get it. In this case it's guns that are the tool, in other cases, it's something else. You're close to the only one the seems to get that

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    have a total personal car ownership and use ban as well.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    There are far fewer intentional mass killing sprees caused by the use of a car as a deadly weapon.
    It is a useless comparison.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    there are far fewer killing sprees that we know of!

    What with all the road rage etc that goes on now, it's hard to tell what was a rage attack and an accident in many cases.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    both are areas of concern but you will find that a small percentage of deaths at the wheel are caused by road rage.
    According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the American Automobile Association, most automobile related deaths are caused by inexperience, distraction, and impairment. None of those causes have anything to do with an intent to kill.
    The American Automobile Association reported that between 1990 and 1996 there were 12,828 police-reported incidents of aggressive driving which resulted in injury or death. (not just death)
    Interestingly, in approximately 44% of violent traffic altercations, the perpetrator used a weapon such as a firearm, knife, club, or tire iron. In 23% the aggressive driver used the vehicle as a weapon, and in 12% a vehicle and a standard weapon were used.
    I couldn't find any statistics on road rage mass killing sprees in the U.S.; probably because there aren't any.
    I still say it is a useless comparison.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    underlying problem - however we have no idea how many would have ended up as shooting sprees since few involved firearms, but those that did one side was able to quickly drive away. we also don't know how many people have died in car crashes caused by such rage attacks.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    Car related deaths are not the same as mass killing sprees. Period

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    thus not relevant. Yet the causes of unreasonable rage would have the same basic underlying causes regardless of how the rage is displayed.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    Away from guns.
    I will no longer follow you down your rabbit hole.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    this split off as a discussion of the causes as to why people go nuts with guns, and I simply pointed out there are other ways to kill people in numbers if you want to, but few look into why that's happening or the causes behind any of the rage attacks.

    When someone walks into theatre and starts shooting people the media scream "nutter with a gun, let's ban guns." When someone flips for the same reason and drives their car at high speed into a bus load of people killing many passengers and them self the media say "man loses control of car and kills twelve in accident." In the first case it's clear the person was a nutter acting out of rage, in the second it's not clear and totally ignored as a rage attack unless they left a note saying something.

    In any case where someone goes crazy with rage there has to be some reason why, and we (as a society) need to find out what that is and what's causing it so we can treat the illness and no just one observable symptom.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    Slayer - But are guns the real problems
    Maxwell - People in the USA don't care what the root cause(s) is (are)
    PurpleSkys - I don't blame guns
    highlander - Guns don't kill
    me - so does a car - they kill more people than guns do each year, let's
    (admittedly I was being very sarcastic in the way I wrote it)
    then you respond about there being few mass car killings and I responded about not knowing if it was a rage attack and we had a few exchanges on that and causes.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Vehicle Prohibition Act of 1996

    The recent death of 4 innocent pedestrians caused by the actions of a drunken driver in charge of a Stolen Automatic sedan has caused the following laws to be passed for public safety

    Surrender of Vehicles

    On or before 1st July 1997 all vehicles fitted with an Automatic Transmission must be surrendered to police at disposal points to be announced for demolition. It has been decided to include front wheel drive vehicles as well as Go-carts. These vehicles have been declared prohibited and compensation will be paid to owners at an amount to be fixed at some point in the future, payment may be also be made at that time.

    All parts including nuts, bolts, windscreen wipers, ashtrays used or new, and petrol tanks are prohibited. Sale or transfer of the above vehicles is immediately prohibited with severe penalties provided under The Act for infringement.

    The “Buy Back” scheme will be financed by a 5%increase in Statutory Registration charges. If not enough money is collected those surrendering their vehicles will not get full compensation.

    Licences will be allocated by enforcement authorities on a requirement basis, any person who has need for an automatic vehicle has to be the owner of a large property and the license will be allocated for a certain period only.

    Licenses for all vehicles will be allocated on a genuine need basis for a Two Year Period. {Personal Transport will not constitute a genuine need.}

    BREACHES OF THE ABOVE REGULATIONS CARRY A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $5,000,000.00 OR 200 YEARS MOTEL ACCOMMODATION.


    By Order of Council.


    However the only incident that I am aware of where a Motor Vehicle killed numerous people was a complete accident and happened at Le Mans in 1955 if I remember correctly. It involved a Mercedes after hitting a slower moving car hitting some bollards and literally stopping immediately but owing to the type of barrier the Engine & Gear Box and some other bigger parts tore out of the vehicle and traveled through the crowd while it was still running till it's Inertia was exhausted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Le_Mans_disaster

    I'm unaware of anyone deliberately doing anything similar unless of course you want to include using a Motor Vehicle packed with Explosives to kill people and destroy buildings. There are quite a few instances of that but the motor vehicle is more of a afterthought than a prime motivator in those events. It would be just as devastating to use a Horse and Cart to move the explosives or at a pinch The Little Red Wagon that where toys for so many children years ago.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    My point was that the risk associated with driving is in no way comparable to INTENTIONAL mass killing sprees with a firearm.
    Any attempt to bring it up in a firearms discussion is merely there to change the subject.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    of an incident where the driver dies as well is a true accident or an intentional action of some sort - our automatic action is to assume and accident. The recent case in Queensland where a bus went over the edge of a mountain and the driver died is being investigated as an accident, it probably was, but if the driver had flipped and wanted to kill or harm his passengers as well (all tourists from Asia) we'd have no way of knowing. The same applies to any number of cases where people have been driving on a crazy manner while behind the wheel of a car and caused harm to others.

    I admit I may be a lot more aware of this sort of odd rage behaviour than some, having been a significant witness in an event where a fellow in a rage deliberately rode his motorcycle into a crowd at a bus stop at speed in Queanbeyan back in the late 1980s. The only reason it was investigated as murder and not an accident while fleeing police custody was a I, and a couple of others, were able to testify about his rageroid riding half an hour before the police pursuit began. The police were all set to see it as an accident until the earlier behaviour was brought to their attention. It was on when confronted about the earlier sightings that he admitted his rage over his girlfriend dropping him a bit earlier that day.

    Teen on a motorbike killed on girl and put a dozen others into hospital because he rode into the pack of thirty people at 80 plus kph. If he had a car it would have been dozens dead.

    his going crazy and hurting people has an underlying cause that relates to people going crazy with guns, which is the point of the sub-sub-thread that guns are a tool and only a tool that other tools can be just as harmful if the causes aren't researched and treated.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    where cars have left the track and killed people in the crowd - those were clearly accidents.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Any Tool will do when someone goes Nuts?

    Though I have to admit that people with Firearms going nuts do worry me more than people with cars unless of course the person with the car is unlicensed and been prevented from driving.

    Even then it's generally speaking their car and they have to pay the bills for the repair of loss of the vehicle where in this country at least we tend to need Motor Vehicles.

    We have long distances where there is little to no human occupation and large areas where you can live off the land but with considerable difficulty. Lack of water being the biggest issue in AU.

    However by the same token it's not that difficult to get a Fire Arm License here I could in all likelihood get one early next year if I was so inclined without too much trouble. I don't have a Criminal Record or am subject of an AVO and other than working with computers are relatively sane so I really shouldn't have any issues in getting a Long Arm License. I most likely could even get a Pistol License if I so desired but that's highly unlikely as I just don't see any need for one though going by my Uncle I must be doing a lot of Practice as when he dragged me to do some Target Shooting I just placed a big hole in the target with 9 rounds instead of little holes all over the target.

    But even you have to admit that the Laws in NSW are changing in a day or 2 and as of March next year Amateur Shooters can access National Parks and shoot the crap out of whatever it is that they want to aim at. I've seen way too many Armature Shooters seeming to believe that 2,000 rounds to kill an animal is perfectly OK and that if you only take the 1 shot and do the same job it's no where near as much fun.

    I'll admit that people like that scare me and having them let loose in National Parks isn't a place I would be visiting any time soon. What way too many people forget or never knew in the first place is the range of those Rifles that they use and think that a couple of hundred yards is all you have to watch out for. YEA Right give me a break and stay in the Hole you dug till they pass.

    Add in some drinking at night while they argue/boast about the One That Got Away and you have a Recipe for Disaster no matter what the Shooters Association says is something you need to avoid.

    A few years ago I visited a sheep property in Northern NSW which boarded onto a National Park and not only did you not shoot in the National Park but you didn't shoot over it either from outside it no matter what was going on. If there was something that you had to shoot it was fair game on the farm but the moment it went over the fence it was perfectly safe. The main reason for that was you never knew if there where any people just over the river/creek that boarded the National Park and it was a common thing to find Gill Nets in that creek that the Farm Owner reported to the National Park Authorities so there was always a fair chance that there where either National park Rangers or Poachers very close by and you acted accordingly. That place had feral pigs and they where really nasty little beasts so moving around more than a couple of hundred yards from the Homestead without a rifle wasn't an option. Well at least not if you liked walking and not experiencing severe pain and suffering not to mention a slow painful death.

    Skippy's where a nuisance because they competed with the sheep for food but the pigs where a completely different story, you had to be careful. Of course the Exchange Students he had there where thinking of little pink piglets and saying just how cute and harmless they where till they ran into one of them, who took a very dim view of them getting too close to her offspring. They didn't believe that anything would attack a car which was the only thing that saved them as if they had of been walking they would have been in a world of hurt.

    Col

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    including cars, guns, etc over the years. Most of it has been due to no, bad, or poor training in their use. I agree that guns can be a hazard in the hands of a nutter, we've seen that. But those who really want to get them can, regardless of the laws, as has been proven. From the records here in Australia, and also overseas, most rage case nutters end up getting killed or killing themselves - as best as we can tell they start their rage attack with the intent of dying at the end of it.

    In this sub-thread I've been trying to get across three significant points:

    1. It matter not the tool used by the nutter, they can and will kill people unless some one can stop them very early in their rage.

    2. We need to identify and deal with the causes of their rage so they don't go off.

    The way people are focussing on the guns and ignoring the underlying cause, and usually do in these cases, is a major concern as it seems they don't mind the person going nuts, just object to them doing it with a gun.

    3. When some one dies and kills others in a motor vehicle incident we ALWAYS assume it's an accident. Yet we have no evidence that is the case. It could be a case of rage and they decided to use a car instead of a gun. The fact they're dead means we can't ask them.

    In a recent incident a person was involved in a case of road rage, drove off, and smashed into someone else. Not so long back a fellow used his car to attack another several times in a case of road rage, if he'd managed to kill them both it would have been called an accident; because the other got away it's a road rage incident.

    If I wanted to take out a lot of innocent people as a matter of rage, I'd not worry about a gun as it's too limiting. Just wait until near lunchtime in any fair sized city, drive down the road until the pedestrians start crossing, plant the accelerator and plough through ten to fifty (depends on the city) then race off to the next crossing, keep up until stopped. Or I could just drive around running people into roadside obstructions, killing and hurting many, then go head on with a police car - - if I have an open bottle of whisky in the car and the place reeks of it, they'll call it all accidents due to a drunk driver. The point here is the natural assumption is NEVER rage being involved, yet we do NOT KNOW.

    +
    1 Votes
    chdchan

    Are you saying those 20 kids should anyways be murdered otherwise by weapons other than guns or even simply traffic accidents? Your "guns are just the tool" concept means doctors can equally heal so many people without medicine.

    +
    0 Votes

    So

    dogknees

    Max, tell us what you do think the real causes are.

    It's easy to say it's not A and it's not B and ..... How about some positive contribution.

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I've been making positive contributions in these threads for more than ten years. Either you haven't been paying attention, or you consider alternative opinions to your own something other than positive.

    I've hinted (more than hinted) when I said, "I'd bet everything I own (which isn't a **** of a lot at this point) that in not a single one of these "mass killing" cases, or in cases of kids killing kids, the perpetrator had a father who was involved and engaged in his life; or the perpetrator came from a family that provided unconditional love and acceptance; or that the perpetrator was actually GIVEN a gun by his father and taught how to use and respect it; or ......... But yeah, let's blame the guns. It's too painful to look at the REAL reasons.

    (See, you weren't paying attention.)

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    So tell us how we deal with what we have now. The kid has already grown up with problems. What do we do now?

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Right?
    I don't see another way to handle the dearth of fathering. Can't force bums not to be bums.

    +
    2 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    Apart from the fact that your hunch that a father-led family of "unconditional love and acceptance" never produces mass killers sounds like pure wishful thinking, what would that lead you to do? Institute nationwide fatherhood classes, and make divorce harder to get? Can you justify that degree of government intrusion? Think it would work?

    There are, by the way, countries (Scandinavia) where fathers are even less of a household feature than in America, and they don't have our murder rate, and feature fewer mass killings. America has always been a more violent place, it seems. There's something in our makeup that leads us to own more guns, to resort to killing as a way of ending an argument, and in the last 50 years, to mass killings to resolve difficult personality problems. Murder is as American as gun ownership, and if you got rid of all the guns, we'd keep on killing each other. Call it cowboy culture. Countries with few guns and few killings can't credit their low murder rate to gun restriction. They just don't breed as many killers. I think their people are just more passive, more indifferent, about governmental gun restrictions. I don't see cause and effect; I just see two effects.

    Even if you were to try to clamp down, in a country where 300 million guns are present, where so many people want to own guns, and where personal identity is for many people tied inseparably to having a gun collection, there is zero chance you'd ever be able to abolish or even control them. It's politically and logistically impossible.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    bullying by the school jocks sending them over the edge.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    that broken home may be a factor in mass killings but it was not evident in the Columbine incident. Both Harris and Klebold came from two parent homes. Harris even wrote about the fact that his family were the only ones who did not pick on him.
    Deadly seems to have hit the nail on the head that bullying plays a factor. At least it did in this instance. Harris and Klebold were both bullied relentlessly in their school - often while the teachers watched and did nothing.
    I'm not excusing their behavior but just pointing out that the lack of a father's presence was not a factor.

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Like what? People shopping at Walmart even though it means cutting themselves out of a job?


    Or maybe you mean gay marriage? Or divorce? Or any of the other things the US has in common with the rest of the first world, with widely varying degrees of violence to follow.

    +
    1 Votes
    chdchan

    Out of the vast population of North America, the gun-protected population is still far greater than gun-killed population, this makes the very sense....that a minor part of people should die for the majority.

    +
    1 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    because i would not like to believe you mean it the way that i read it....no one should die for the ``majority``

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    Don't you mean you still want millions of guns around if your wife, kids or parents get guns pointed at their heads? What mandates your thought that they are expendable.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    But no one else is more expendable simply because I don't know them.

    +
    1 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    and no i don't...no one is expendible...but for some reason, you think they are. I believe we have a language barrier between us as you don't get my meaning whatsoever. It's pretty simple, guns are for hunting and in extreme cases, protecting your home and family, but you will not find guns in my home, end of discussion on that topic, my husband lost that arguement. I live in a society where the chance of your scenario happening to me is slim to none, not impossible, just impropable.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    I believe .. (it is barrier and not barrior, right ? :-))

    +
    0 Votes

    yes

    PurpleSkys Moderator

    you're right...darn spell check thank you :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    removing the guns from our home....the main reason they are gone is because I believed (like you) that they were not safe around our children.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    i appreciate the fact that you did remove them :)

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    My response was to cdhchan's comments.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    lol...I misunderstood I suppose I could delete it so i didn't feel quite so silly lol...

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    murdered millions with all manner of things from bare hands to vases and all in between and beyond.

    +
    1 Votes
    j-mart

    and have enshrined the right to be better armed than is sensible or necessary in your Constitution.

    I live in a peaceful society, in a backwater of a country, I can have access to hunting rifles and shot guns only, which as hunting and fishing are readily accessible and not very expensive pastimes, is as it should be. Handguns assault rifles machine guns and other automatic weapons are only useful for murdering, maiming and killing the innocent. I know that at the Wharehouse ( similar to your Walmart ) boxing day sale, an irate bargain hunter is not going to whip out a pistol and start shooting to grab a bargain that another customer is also trying to grab. The Police, who are not normally armed are not likely to get involved in a shootout as the bad guys can't easily get firearms. If I desire a firearm for hunting as well as being vetted by the Police, I am required to attend a firearm safe use course, pass this course and also provide proof that I have strong safe lockable cabinet to store these firearms in.

    This makes it harder for nutters and criminals to get their hands on weapons, and extremely hard if not near on impossible for them to get full automatic weapons and assault rifles.

    At the time your 2nd Amendment was added, your country was a wilder and less civilized place, as was the rest of the world. Are you sure that the reasons for the 2nd Amendment still apply ? Which is a more important freedom, Bearing any arms by any sane or insane, law abiding, or not law abiding person may so desire or restricting weapons in your society to types of firearms are made only for hunting not urban warfare eg. pistols assault rifles, and automatic weapons, or the freedom for your children to go to school a much lessened risk that some nut case with a chip on their shoulder will go on a mass killing spree. How many dead children is wide open gun controls worth ?

    As I said its your country, your choice, but I feel much safer and as a result much freer in my backwater of a country with the right sort of guns available and none of the type only useful for evil things

    +
    4 Votes
    robo_dev

    When it was enacted, there was a real power struggle going on between Federal and State government, and the guns (kept in an Armory) were something that the States believed to be critical in case their was some arbitrary Federal action, or some other event, like a war breaking out.

    Therefore the 'right to maintain a well armed Militia' was something that was very important, especially to those who had just fought a war for independence from England. Those people had first hand knowledge of what government tyranny looked like, so the state militias were their counter to that.

    Keep in mind that firearms in 1791 were as far from modern weaponry as they could get, and these were stored in the armory; pistols were very uncommon, and realistically with one bag of lead shot and another bag of black powder, exactly how many rounds-per-second could a muzzle-loading flintlock rifle fire?

    The purpose of the second ammendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership, never has, never will.

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    I do not know the reasons for the 2nd amendment. I do know the reasons Maxwell and the NRA give nowadays, of course, but I doubt that those are the ones the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind. Can someone come up with a relevant quotation from the Congressional debates which led to the Bill of Rights being proposed to the states for ratification?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And he knows my reason for the 2nd Amendment.

    Please enlighten me. I don't recall specifically discussing it, but that doesn't mean I haven't.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    to deal with not having to pay the extra taxes to create a standing army of a suitable size. Thus the amendment that was soon followed by a law requiring white male citizens to purchase what they'd need to be part of the militia and be ready to answer the call. Events soon proved that system did not work at all due to the wide range of what people had in the way of muskets and other guns, and their lack of interest in it.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    A strong antipathy to the idea of a standing army. It was believed a militia would suffice for national defense.

    More information on how the US gun "controversy" got to where it is today: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    When gun-possessing society is more aware of weapon danger, people tend to buy more guns to protect themselves. Despite this undeterrable cause and result, if firearm is banned and gun purchasing power all goes to charity or other positive spending, would it be much better? Some people just do not have enough to eat.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    end of message.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    neither do I...i prefer no guns. I've stated before, there are no guns in my home, nor will there ever be. I was trying to say that if a person feels the need to have to protect their home and family, they don't need multiple guns or semi automatic weapons...one should suffice in necessity.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    I got that, just to make sure of the nuances :-). And on top, I don't live in the U.S. so easy for me to say I guess....

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I'm Canadian and pretty close to the border...but i still don't get it... I often try to guess too...but it eludes me

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I live in Winnipeg, the murder capitol.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    in Colchester....and as much as there's gun violence in the city, here in Truro it's rare....so yes, you're so right

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    even though Halifax is a very small city, it still had 75 shooting incidents last year. If more people in Halifax carried concealed weapons I suspect that number would be higher.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ...... if you don't think anyone else "needs" guns in their homes either, then that's the way it should be.

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    is always putting words in your mouth, you sure like to put words in other's mouths....maybe you should re-read what she said....or is that just what you "think" she said?

    +
    0 Votes

    max

    PurpleSkys Moderator

    i have no need to defend my statements any more than you do. I asked you to explain your statements before and you "didn't feel the need to", I don't feel the need to explain mine to you. I have my beliefs, you have yours....live with it. And Darryl is right, read what I say, not what YOU think I say.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    You don't "need" a car that goes faster than 55.
    You don't "need" a house in a certain neighborhood.
    You don't "need" expensive jewelry.
    You don't "need" a computer.
    etc., etc.

    Just because YOU don't "need" something doesn't mean it should be banned for others.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    particularly given the woefully low limits on your roads, seem to smack your argument down rather hard. You are already controlled within an inch of your life in "The Land of the Free". You limit driving for everyone. Even Sebastian Vettel would have to crawl along your roads.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    You're saying that you "need" a car that goes faster than 55? Or are you saying that you prefer to drive faster and want a car that can perform to your expectations? My argument about "needs" and "wants" still holds but nice try.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Your collective "need" for a gun has contributed to the deaths of one million Americans since the assassination - by gun - of Martin Luther King.

    Because of legislation , the safety of cars is improving all the time, seat belts, tighter restrictions on drunk driving, even stupidly low speed limits.

    Yet guns remain unchecked by proper legislation. Guns proliferate, mental health issues go unchecked, fear escalates.

    By 2015, more people will die by guns than on your roads. I wish you joy of the future of your country.

    +
    1 Votes
    jp85257

    you should do more research regarding the laws already in place regarding gun control. I think you'll find sufficient laws are in place.

    But you don't see any criticism about lack of enforcement. Do you really think that those who already break the law are going to be affected by a bunch of new laws if they decide they "want" another item added to their collection?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You quite obviously did not have sufficient curbs on the ownership of guns else you would not be in the position of having a murder rate by firearms and a suicide rate by firearms that are both multiples of any other western country. I really don't see the point in researching the minutiae of differences in gun laws between the states when the elephant in the room - one million killed by guns in the last twenty-five years - is ingored.

    And, anyway, I don't reckon there is any point in anyone trying to pass any legislation now. You have more legal guns in circulation in your country than anywhere else in world. As a consequence of this, because guns are easier to steal than flat-screen TVs, you have more illegal guns. You, as a country, are painted into the most appalling corner imaginable. You live in fear of armed criminals, so you arm yourselves. You live in fear that your government will disarm you, so you arm yourself more.

    Personally, I'd put severe curbs on posession of ammunition. Then you can still **** away the odd crim, but you won't have enough to toast a school of year two kids.It even gets around that silly Second Amendment. You can bear your arms, but just not fire them.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Why does that upset you so? Are the Chinese implicitly wrong and the straight-shootin' Merkin implicitly right? Get over yourself. Who the **** do you think you are?

    Sttrange as it may seem to you, I live in a society that I consider no less free than yours -possibly more so. I get to make my own mind up.

    Muppet. go and buy another gun - or maybe a monster truck.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    Who said I was upset? I was just pointing out that your view mirrors the view of the Chinese communists who aren't exactly poster children for an individual's rights.

    You seem to be the one who is upset. Take a chill pill and relax, you're starting to hyperventilate.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I was just wondering why you chose to post about them at all. You posted the link for a reason and I question your motives. Were you trying to make me ashamed that I agreed with something coming from such an egregious regime so I would change my mind? What?

    What does it have to do with MY post to YOU that your society is wrong with the way it deals and has dealt with firearms.

    That's all.

    By the way, I'd still like you to answer about the million dead in the last twenty five years and stop with the distractions. But you have no answer so you're trying a bit of a diversion. Relax? It's not my society that has so many dead.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    I posted the link to show some of the types of people that agreed with your views. That's all. Trying to make you feel ashamed? Trying to make you change your mind? Not hardly.

    I doubt if any Internet forum post could change your mind just as I know that your posts won't change mine.

    But you post that "your society is wrong with the way it deals and has dealt with firearms" is only your opinion. Personally I think you're wrong, and since you don't even live here, should leave US politics to Americans that are ultimately affected by any decisions made.

    The million that have died in the last 25 years? I give it as much thought as all of those who have died by disease, drug abuse, wars, and accidents. No more and no less.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Then, I suspect, we would have nothing else to say to each other and I would wish you joy of the future of your society. However, given the jingoistic zeal with which your country seems to want to export your idea of freedom and democracy and suppress the legal governments of others, I have every right to post that I think that you ought to get your own house in order before you push your warped ideas on the rest of us.

    When your senior politicians go on record with garbage like this, "We dont need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values", Newt Gingrich said. "The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.", I have every right to say whatever I like right back at you all.

    What are you going to do? Shoot me? Send a drone missile over to kill my neighbours' kids? What?

    +
    1 Votes
    jp85257

    getting all worked up because someone doesn't agree with you.

    You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong your are. No one should threaten you for stating your opinion. If you think I have, please supply my post so I can see where you misunderstood me.

    I just find it rather sad that people like you use a tragedy like this to further your liberal agendas.

    I'll continue to mourn for ALL humans who have died needlessly while you only seem to care about those that you can use for political purposes.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Americans don't understand irony. Woo! Is that ever true here.

    OK, lets put this to bed. Last post to you. I should have stopped earlier but I like trying to push buttons. I'm not at all worked up.

    It's rather silly of you to suggest that I have a political agenda, liberal or otherwise, as I have no vote in your country and I'm not a liberal. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist humanist, left-wing, sardonic Brit. I can fake "nice" quite well, sometimes. But I see no point in faking it here.

    The senseless Sandy Hook deaths occurred in your country, not mine. Your country, not mine, has a succession of this sort of senseless killing spree. And each time it happens, nothing is done. Nothing will happen this time. And, alas, next time. And the next.

    I'm posting another point of view to you to see if you can accept that the circumstances that pertain in your country, the monstrous quantity of arms available to just about anyone, are anomalous and, to put it simply, stupid.

    I'm glad that you appreciate that the deaths were needless. It's a start.

    What do YOU propose to do so that "suicide by cop" doesn't continue to be a national US pasttime and a national US disgrace?

    I can do nothing. I'm only armed with words and you have a bullet-proof mind.

    +
    1 Votes
    jp85257

    Insinuating that a person would not consider the deaths of innocent children as needless deaths just because they own guns or advocate gun ownership really shows your ignorance.

    I would venture to say that everyone in the world considers these deaths to be needless.

    The argument here is how to stop this type of event in the future. You want to ban the tool. I want to stop the evil person committing the deed. Here you had a very sick person who was known to have mental issues for years and a very stupid individual who left dangerous weapons around for him to access, even though she knew he was violent. It's not the gun's fault. It's the stupid people who won't take the proper precautions and get the proper care when dealing with mentally disturbed individuals.

    But go ahead and keep blaming the tool and ignoring the real cause(s). I look forward to your rants about banning forks to solve the growing health care issues caused by obesity.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You can do BOTH.

    Fool.

    +
    0 Votes

    nah

    PurpleSkys Moderator

    just not issued to those not stable enough to use and store properly.

    I have a soccer mom mini van (because it suits my needs)
    I have a trailer in a trailer court (yep, I'm trailer trash)
    I wish I had expensive jewelery (my simple diamond engagement ring and my simple wedding band to show my commitment to Darryl)
    and I need a computer to do my job (as Darryl requires it for his) otherwise, we don't make a living
    but I don't need a gun, you may (for whatever reason suits you) outside of living in a questionable neighbor, I don't see the need for a semi automatic weapon. If for some reason in the future that changes, I will re-evaluate that if and when the time comes

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Obviously, PurpleSkys has assumed the role of deciding who needs what, so if he/she says you "need" something, end of story.

    How can one person (PurpleSkys and others) have the audacity to suggest what another person may or may not "need"? Who in the **** made him/her the Grand Pubah of Need?

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    then there's obssesive...and once again, you're not reading what i post, but hey, what else is new with you.

    and if you have paid attention at all, i'm a she...a mother with a strong opinion, if you can't take it, too bad for you

    edit to add: most folks are aware that Darryl and I are a couple, max hadn't realized that?

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    it is true that in China one is safer than in the US when it comes to gun violence. But funny you don't mention workplace safety for example ? Or extreme poverty which brings health risks ?

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    I suppose now we need to ban all knives.....

    http://news.ca.msn.com/world/china-stabbing-spree-hurts-22-schoolchildren

    +
    3 Votes
    Slayer_

    A quote from that article
    He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    If there is portable life-terminating laser invented some day, should it be carried all around the streets like knives by our citizens? c.f. ancient people never thought of guns as weapons like we think of life-terminating laser today.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    But workplace safety is not a contributor to gun violence, poverty is but....

    China has greater poverty, but less gun violence.
    http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/12/01/china-usa-comparing-poverty-lines/

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    But I did some searches on google and found numbers between 800 and 3000. And most assume it was higher.

    A search for "number of gun deaths per year in America" shows numbers much higher every year for America, one site said over 32,000.

    Maybe that means the Chinese army was less murderous than the American public.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    the gun related deaths were inter-gang shooting, how many were criminals shot by police during crimes or resisting arrest, or even break them down by hand gun as against rifle etc. There is no way any gun control laws will alter the ownership or use of guns by criminals, and thus those parts of the stats would continue to happen the same no matter what. That's why the raw stats used in this discussion are so misleading.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    I mean, I have most of the civilized globe as proof that gun control works. So where is your proof that it doesn't? You will need proof outside the USA as we all know, the USA is pretty much the worst example.


    Actually, forget proof, why are you so opposed to trying gun control, how can it possibly be worse than it is now? Where people can buy assault weapons at walmart, walk into an elementary school and shoot up the place, or start fires and shoot the first responders. This is terrorist like activities.
    This sort of thing is rare in the rest of the world, but its nearly a yearly occurrence in America.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    by the general public. This has been the case in the United States since the Firearms Act of 1934 was passed.

    An assault weapon must, by definition, be capable of select fire. That is, the shooter can select either semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) or full automatic (one pull spews multiple rounds). The weapons Walmart and other retailers sell are assault-style weapons. They resemble the military weapons they are based on, but they are not capable of fully automatic operation, nor can they be easily converted to fully automatic operation.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    ....That makes no difference as someone still bought a assault-like weapon from Walmart and went and shot children in an elementary school.

    Also, I heard someone recently shot up a police station this time. Maybe it's time America called back its armies and dealt with the terrorism happening with in its own borders.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    But I was struck by the incongruity that in the US, we're allowed to freely discuss our Constitution and leaders on the Internet without fear of imprisonment (or worse). I at least know that if I get shot, it will most likely not be by my own government.

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    or strong social powers, you've got to be miserable, any countries being the same. Is it too difficult to quote an example of political jeopardy or murder in the U.S.?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    they can, after all, detain you indefinitely :^0
    Nice job of that committee to drop the Senate bill to stop it, huh?

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    Why? Because they fear one day those countries will become BANDIT attackers. Every country is saying nuclear weapons are for self-protection; however, Americans want to eliminate that possibility of getting out of control. So why guns are not banned similarly to nullify the possibility of abuse? Is this Americans' "egotistic-privilege-ism"?

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    no...EOM

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    the content and context of your post? it now makes my post redundant.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... (or think you know about the USA), you learned where and how?

    Have you ever lived or visited the USA?

    Tell us, how have you become so enlightened and knowledgeable about a people a half a world away from you?

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    why they don't want any nuclear weapons proliferation now as they've been cutting theirs back for decades.

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    That gun possession is adovcated at the expense of gun crimes. And the TOLLs are justified by the majority of Americans. If you compare gun-killed statistics with knife-killed ones, you can visualize that over-worrying of gun crimes is unnecessary. So let's look forward to next bloodshed(s).

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    Edit to add...looking forward to bloodshed is kinda sick.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    and suggest that there are two major causes.
    One is crime. The US has a lot of it, and lots of crime means lots of criminal enforcing their own kind of justice on each other.
    The other is unhealthy attitudes.
    The Swiss have a lot of (army) weapons in their homes, but they don't really have a desire to own weapons.
    To many in the US, firearms seem to be a symbol of "fuckyeahfreedom". That's not something that engenders a sober attitude towards them.
    So, there, "expert" statement, sure to make Maxwell apoplectic.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    with feeling the need for owning a large number of weapons of mass mayhem, military style, high rate of fire people slaughtering totally unnecessary hardware, could be down to having no real Balls, small di*ks and foolishly thinking a big powerful gun is a way of compensating for this.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    of the Granville Sawyer School of Psychology.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Granville Sawyer is much more intelligent than all those small dic*ed gun toting fools than think freedom is determined by how much firepower one has lying about the place. Real freedom is not weapons but living in a place where people slaughtering guns are not are a requirement. Granville makes much more sense than the NRA and the 2nd amendment.

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Sure, a car can help you get around, but mobility is not freedom.
    Moment you sit behind the wheel, you're clapping a neck-iron and iron shackles on yourself. All of a sudden you're obliged to do a lot of things you don't need to worry about without the car.
    Guns are worse, just owning one (as evidenced with all too great frequency) obliges a person to make sure nobody else gets to it.
    That's not freedom except where the threat of violent subjugation is even greater.
    And even then, getting the fluck out of there would be a much easier and safer way to achieve the same freedom increase, or greater.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The rise in gun purchases following the recent school massacre have been attributed to two causes.

    Firstly there have been a number of people who have bought into the environment of fear that seems to pervade much more of the US population than I, for one, had appreciated. Fear - I/my wife needs a gun to protect my children/property/belongings, etc. There is a lot of that attitude, Even on the threads here despite the fact that burglaries are of about the same per capita rate as the UK although, (you'll be happy to know) more than Finland.

    Secondly, there are a significant number of gun nuts who have gone out and purchased a whole load of automatic weapons just in case the government does have the nuts to do something.

    Lots of people own guns or don't own guns but would restrict legislation simply because of the Second Amendment, which I truly do not understand. But I'm also lacking real understanding in the whole US Constitution with its rhetoric of liberty thing anyway and I just tend to lump it in with the other ancient Holy Books that I can't understand people's facination with.

    But, when it's all added up, more Americans DON'T own guns than own them. It's just got to the situation that those who do own guns now own more guns and more sophisticated and powerful guns.

    Interestingly, all ten of the states with the highest gun ownership rates, 50% or more, are considered staunchly Republican states. I'd rather not speculate on the racial profiling of gun owners lest I hit a nerve. Or speculate whether it's a Christian thing...

    p.s. The Swiss are WEIRD! Any country that has laws that forbids the flushing of a toilet after 10pm (and legislates that men pee sitting down after 10pm) and forbids the washing of a car on Sunday cannot be used to prove ANYTHING. Invoking "the Swiss do/have" is beyond Godwin's Law.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    *whistles innocently*

  • +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    Without trying to sound pro or anti gun. Canadians have a lot of guns at home, from pistols to rifles. My family had 8 guns including old military guns. When I was young my father showed me how to shoot guns. What is really different between us as the USA? I do know our guns have to be locked in a secure storage container, I do not know US laws on gun storage.

    Can it be pure population density? Does the fact that the US has more people clustered together mean that statistically the likelihood of a school shooting is greater? But isn't China and Japan even more densely populated? So what are their school shooting statistics?

    It can't be just that Americans think they have a right to guns is it? How is having the right to have guns different than being allowed to have guns?


    My theory... The typical urban environments lend themselves to less gun safety talks with children. This theory could be tested by checking the gun violence rates in less urbanized states.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    No point in tinkering with "urban" and "rural". The US has 3.2 firearms homicides per 100,000 population compared with 0.1 for England and Wales, according to a 2012 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Total homicides for the USA are 4.3 per 100,000 with 1.2 per 100,000 for the UK.

    We just don't have guns.

    Japan has 0.3 homicides per 100,000 population of which a handful were gun crime. They don't have much murder or guns.

    However, with less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 40 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns so it's just not possible to get any meaningful comparison.

    +
    1 Votes
    maxwell edison

    But I will say this (ask this). You stated that in the US, "..... there are 3.2 firearm homicides per 100,000...."

    Those danged statistics. A smart guy can make them say just about anything.

    Remove a few isolated spots from the USA, and what are the numbers? Take out of the equation New York City (with the Democrat mayor in sheep's clothing, Michael Bloomberg - Mr. Gun Control in a city where such firearms are already illegal); or Detroit, a city with another Democrat mayor, Democrats on the city council, where social programs and unemployment are norm; or Chicago, the murder capitol of the world, the home of out Democrat president, Barack Hussein Obama, and all his Democrat Chicago cronies; and, of course, let's not even mention race in the homicide statistics.

    Or I wonder how many homicide perps are receiving Food Stamps? Or I wonder how many homicide perps are gang bangers battling over turf? Or I wonder how many homicide perps are ........

    Your statistics are meaningless, Neil.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You have this habit of posting questions - "I wonder how many homicide perps are receiving Food Stamps". You answer it, you asked it.

    I posted a single flat statistic which suggests that there is, per capita, thirty times more homicide by guns in the US when compared to the UK where the posession of a handgun is illegal.. If you want to post "therefore what?", feel free but to do it in the way that you do here is just lazy. Remove a few isolated spots from the UK statistics and we can all get different numbers.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    they represent quite a chunk of American population and are part of America. I myself am not decided pro or anti-gun but this type of argument does not help the debate.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    1. gang and organised crime related murders;

    2. those killed by during crimes or resisting capture by police;

    3. individual murders for personal gain or revenge;

    4. accidental while shooting;

    5. accidental while handling a gun;

    6. terrorist related incidents;

    7. crazed gunman attacks;

    8. miscellaneous.

    +
    3 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I have my theories on the cause(s) of not only these mass killings, but other forms of violence and social breakdown, and none of them has anything at all to do with the existence of, or the availability of guns.

    But it's obvious that the anti-gun lobby and the anti-gun sentiment in the USA will actually PREVENT any effort to address the REAL root cause(s). It's easy to blame guns for jumping up and killing people; that way, people don't have to acknowledge the REAL issues.

    I'd bet everything I own (which isn't a **** of a lot at this point) that in not a single one of these "mass killing" cases, or in cases of kids killing kids, the perpetrator had a father who was involved and engaged in his life; or the perpetrator came from a family that provided unconditional love and acceptance; or that the perpetrator was actually GIVEN a gun by his father and taught how to use and respect it; or .........

    But yeah, let's blame the guns. It's too painful to look at the REAL reasons.

    +
    4 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    guns are just the tool...guns don`t kill people, people kill people. Whether it be with a gun, a knife, whatever the tool may be, that is the fact. Unfortunately, guns are a tool for a faster mass violence. And it doesn`t seem to matter what the demographic is either. I hear too many stories where someone took their parents` gun out of an unlocked closet and either accidentally or intentionally shot someone or mulitple people. As Slayer_ said, we`re under pretty tough laws to keep our guns locked up here in Canada. I was raised to understand that a gun was for nothing more than hunting or in drastic measures to protect ones home and family.

    Is it any wonder today`s society doesn`t know right from wrong...we`ve been told we`re not allowed to disipline our children anymore in fear we may hurt their self esteem. I tell ya, my uncle didn`t hurt my self esteem, but he wacked my butt when I didn`t do what I was told; my self esteem is fine and I sure as heck appreciate, love, and respect that man with all my heart. If I didn`t get my own way or a toy that I wanted, I darned well learned to live with (and love) what I did have. So today`s kids need to suck it up, we all don`t get what we want but if you don`t like what you have, I`m sure it can be given to some poor kid somewhere that will adore it. And if you don`t do what you`re told, there`s an app for that, it`s called grounded...no TV, no cell phone, no computer, no gaming system....read a book, better yet (and I`m not a religious girl at all but I do believe in morals) read the Bible; it`s full of lessons and morals that we all should re-learn to live by.

    And that`s my two cents for now.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    but it sure makes it easier, ain't it ?

    +
    2 Votes
    robo_dev

    Obviously guns need a crazy person to pull the trigger to do their damage....so either we need fewer crazy people, fewer guns, or better ways to prevent the two elements from reacting.

    Part of this debate is around how we treat (or do not treat) mental illness, perhaps even a discussion about violent video games, but most importantly, how to have a grown up discussion about how lethal weapons are bought, sold, used, and abused.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    i stated that before but some ppl don't seem to get it. In this case it's guns that are the tool, in other cases, it's something else. You're close to the only one the seems to get that

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    have a total personal car ownership and use ban as well.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    There are far fewer intentional mass killing sprees caused by the use of a car as a deadly weapon.
    It is a useless comparison.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    there are far fewer killing sprees that we know of!

    What with all the road rage etc that goes on now, it's hard to tell what was a rage attack and an accident in many cases.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    both are areas of concern but you will find that a small percentage of deaths at the wheel are caused by road rage.
    According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the American Automobile Association, most automobile related deaths are caused by inexperience, distraction, and impairment. None of those causes have anything to do with an intent to kill.
    The American Automobile Association reported that between 1990 and 1996 there were 12,828 police-reported incidents of aggressive driving which resulted in injury or death. (not just death)
    Interestingly, in approximately 44% of violent traffic altercations, the perpetrator used a weapon such as a firearm, knife, club, or tire iron. In 23% the aggressive driver used the vehicle as a weapon, and in 12% a vehicle and a standard weapon were used.
    I couldn't find any statistics on road rage mass killing sprees in the U.S.; probably because there aren't any.
    I still say it is a useless comparison.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    underlying problem - however we have no idea how many would have ended up as shooting sprees since few involved firearms, but those that did one side was able to quickly drive away. we also don't know how many people have died in car crashes caused by such rage attacks.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    Car related deaths are not the same as mass killing sprees. Period

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    thus not relevant. Yet the causes of unreasonable rage would have the same basic underlying causes regardless of how the rage is displayed.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    Away from guns.
    I will no longer follow you down your rabbit hole.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    this split off as a discussion of the causes as to why people go nuts with guns, and I simply pointed out there are other ways to kill people in numbers if you want to, but few look into why that's happening or the causes behind any of the rage attacks.

    When someone walks into theatre and starts shooting people the media scream "nutter with a gun, let's ban guns." When someone flips for the same reason and drives their car at high speed into a bus load of people killing many passengers and them self the media say "man loses control of car and kills twelve in accident." In the first case it's clear the person was a nutter acting out of rage, in the second it's not clear and totally ignored as a rage attack unless they left a note saying something.

    In any case where someone goes crazy with rage there has to be some reason why, and we (as a society) need to find out what that is and what's causing it so we can treat the illness and no just one observable symptom.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    Slayer - But are guns the real problems
    Maxwell - People in the USA don't care what the root cause(s) is (are)
    PurpleSkys - I don't blame guns
    highlander - Guns don't kill
    me - so does a car - they kill more people than guns do each year, let's
    (admittedly I was being very sarcastic in the way I wrote it)
    then you respond about there being few mass car killings and I responded about not knowing if it was a rage attack and we had a few exchanges on that and causes.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Vehicle Prohibition Act of 1996

    The recent death of 4 innocent pedestrians caused by the actions of a drunken driver in charge of a Stolen Automatic sedan has caused the following laws to be passed for public safety

    Surrender of Vehicles

    On or before 1st July 1997 all vehicles fitted with an Automatic Transmission must be surrendered to police at disposal points to be announced for demolition. It has been decided to include front wheel drive vehicles as well as Go-carts. These vehicles have been declared prohibited and compensation will be paid to owners at an amount to be fixed at some point in the future, payment may be also be made at that time.

    All parts including nuts, bolts, windscreen wipers, ashtrays used or new, and petrol tanks are prohibited. Sale or transfer of the above vehicles is immediately prohibited with severe penalties provided under The Act for infringement.

    The “Buy Back” scheme will be financed by a 5%increase in Statutory Registration charges. If not enough money is collected those surrendering their vehicles will not get full compensation.

    Licences will be allocated by enforcement authorities on a requirement basis, any person who has need for an automatic vehicle has to be the owner of a large property and the license will be allocated for a certain period only.

    Licenses for all vehicles will be allocated on a genuine need basis for a Two Year Period. {Personal Transport will not constitute a genuine need.}

    BREACHES OF THE ABOVE REGULATIONS CARRY A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $5,000,000.00 OR 200 YEARS MOTEL ACCOMMODATION.


    By Order of Council.


    However the only incident that I am aware of where a Motor Vehicle killed numerous people was a complete accident and happened at Le Mans in 1955 if I remember correctly. It involved a Mercedes after hitting a slower moving car hitting some bollards and literally stopping immediately but owing to the type of barrier the Engine & Gear Box and some other bigger parts tore out of the vehicle and traveled through the crowd while it was still running till it's Inertia was exhausted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Le_Mans_disaster

    I'm unaware of anyone deliberately doing anything similar unless of course you want to include using a Motor Vehicle packed with Explosives to kill people and destroy buildings. There are quite a few instances of that but the motor vehicle is more of a afterthought than a prime motivator in those events. It would be just as devastating to use a Horse and Cart to move the explosives or at a pinch The Little Red Wagon that where toys for so many children years ago.

    Col

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    My point was that the risk associated with driving is in no way comparable to INTENTIONAL mass killing sprees with a firearm.
    Any attempt to bring it up in a firearms discussion is merely there to change the subject.

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    of an incident where the driver dies as well is a true accident or an intentional action of some sort - our automatic action is to assume and accident. The recent case in Queensland where a bus went over the edge of a mountain and the driver died is being investigated as an accident, it probably was, but if the driver had flipped and wanted to kill or harm his passengers as well (all tourists from Asia) we'd have no way of knowing. The same applies to any number of cases where people have been driving on a crazy manner while behind the wheel of a car and caused harm to others.

    I admit I may be a lot more aware of this sort of odd rage behaviour than some, having been a significant witness in an event where a fellow in a rage deliberately rode his motorcycle into a crowd at a bus stop at speed in Queanbeyan back in the late 1980s. The only reason it was investigated as murder and not an accident while fleeing police custody was a I, and a couple of others, were able to testify about his rageroid riding half an hour before the police pursuit began. The police were all set to see it as an accident until the earlier behaviour was brought to their attention. It was on when confronted about the earlier sightings that he admitted his rage over his girlfriend dropping him a bit earlier that day.

    Teen on a motorbike killed on girl and put a dozen others into hospital because he rode into the pack of thirty people at 80 plus kph. If he had a car it would have been dozens dead.

    his going crazy and hurting people has an underlying cause that relates to people going crazy with guns, which is the point of the sub-sub-thread that guns are a tool and only a tool that other tools can be just as harmful if the causes aren't researched and treated.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    where cars have left the track and killed people in the crowd - those were clearly accidents.

    +
    0 Votes
    HAL 9000 Moderator

    Any Tool will do when someone goes Nuts?

    Though I have to admit that people with Firearms going nuts do worry me more than people with cars unless of course the person with the car is unlicensed and been prevented from driving.

    Even then it's generally speaking their car and they have to pay the bills for the repair of loss of the vehicle where in this country at least we tend to need Motor Vehicles.

    We have long distances where there is little to no human occupation and large areas where you can live off the land but with considerable difficulty. Lack of water being the biggest issue in AU.

    However by the same token it's not that difficult to get a Fire Arm License here I could in all likelihood get one early next year if I was so inclined without too much trouble. I don't have a Criminal Record or am subject of an AVO and other than working with computers are relatively sane so I really shouldn't have any issues in getting a Long Arm License. I most likely could even get a Pistol License if I so desired but that's highly unlikely as I just don't see any need for one though going by my Uncle I must be doing a lot of Practice as when he dragged me to do some Target Shooting I just placed a big hole in the target with 9 rounds instead of little holes all over the target.

    But even you have to admit that the Laws in NSW are changing in a day or 2 and as of March next year Amateur Shooters can access National Parks and shoot the crap out of whatever it is that they want to aim at. I've seen way too many Armature Shooters seeming to believe that 2,000 rounds to kill an animal is perfectly OK and that if you only take the 1 shot and do the same job it's no where near as much fun.

    I'll admit that people like that scare me and having them let loose in National Parks isn't a place I would be visiting any time soon. What way too many people forget or never knew in the first place is the range of those Rifles that they use and think that a couple of hundred yards is all you have to watch out for. YEA Right give me a break and stay in the Hole you dug till they pass.

    Add in some drinking at night while they argue/boast about the One That Got Away and you have a Recipe for Disaster no matter what the Shooters Association says is something you need to avoid.

    A few years ago I visited a sheep property in Northern NSW which boarded onto a National Park and not only did you not shoot in the National Park but you didn't shoot over it either from outside it no matter what was going on. If there was something that you had to shoot it was fair game on the farm but the moment it went over the fence it was perfectly safe. The main reason for that was you never knew if there where any people just over the river/creek that boarded the National Park and it was a common thing to find Gill Nets in that creek that the Farm Owner reported to the National Park Authorities so there was always a fair chance that there where either National park Rangers or Poachers very close by and you acted accordingly. That place had feral pigs and they where really nasty little beasts so moving around more than a couple of hundred yards from the Homestead without a rifle wasn't an option. Well at least not if you liked walking and not experiencing severe pain and suffering not to mention a slow painful death.

    Skippy's where a nuisance because they competed with the sheep for food but the pigs where a completely different story, you had to be careful. Of course the Exchange Students he had there where thinking of little pink piglets and saying just how cute and harmless they where till they ran into one of them, who took a very dim view of them getting too close to her offspring. They didn't believe that anything would attack a car which was the only thing that saved them as if they had of been walking they would have been in a world of hurt.

    Col

    +
    1 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    including cars, guns, etc over the years. Most of it has been due to no, bad, or poor training in their use. I agree that guns can be a hazard in the hands of a nutter, we've seen that. But those who really want to get them can, regardless of the laws, as has been proven. From the records here in Australia, and also overseas, most rage case nutters end up getting killed or killing themselves - as best as we can tell they start their rage attack with the intent of dying at the end of it.

    In this sub-thread I've been trying to get across three significant points:

    1. It matter not the tool used by the nutter, they can and will kill people unless some one can stop them very early in their rage.

    2. We need to identify and deal with the causes of their rage so they don't go off.

    The way people are focussing on the guns and ignoring the underlying cause, and usually do in these cases, is a major concern as it seems they don't mind the person going nuts, just object to them doing it with a gun.

    3. When some one dies and kills others in a motor vehicle incident we ALWAYS assume it's an accident. Yet we have no evidence that is the case. It could be a case of rage and they decided to use a car instead of a gun. The fact they're dead means we can't ask them.

    In a recent incident a person was involved in a case of road rage, drove off, and smashed into someone else. Not so long back a fellow used his car to attack another several times in a case of road rage, if he'd managed to kill them both it would have been called an accident; because the other got away it's a road rage incident.

    If I wanted to take out a lot of innocent people as a matter of rage, I'd not worry about a gun as it's too limiting. Just wait until near lunchtime in any fair sized city, drive down the road until the pedestrians start crossing, plant the accelerator and plough through ten to fifty (depends on the city) then race off to the next crossing, keep up until stopped. Or I could just drive around running people into roadside obstructions, killing and hurting many, then go head on with a police car - - if I have an open bottle of whisky in the car and the place reeks of it, they'll call it all accidents due to a drunk driver. The point here is the natural assumption is NEVER rage being involved, yet we do NOT KNOW.

    +
    1 Votes
    chdchan

    Are you saying those 20 kids should anyways be murdered otherwise by weapons other than guns or even simply traffic accidents? Your "guns are just the tool" concept means doctors can equally heal so many people without medicine.

    +
    0 Votes

    So

    dogknees

    Max, tell us what you do think the real causes are.

    It's easy to say it's not A and it's not B and ..... How about some positive contribution.

    +
    2 Votes
    maxwell edison

    I've been making positive contributions in these threads for more than ten years. Either you haven't been paying attention, or you consider alternative opinions to your own something other than positive.

    I've hinted (more than hinted) when I said, "I'd bet everything I own (which isn't a **** of a lot at this point) that in not a single one of these "mass killing" cases, or in cases of kids killing kids, the perpetrator had a father who was involved and engaged in his life; or the perpetrator came from a family that provided unconditional love and acceptance; or that the perpetrator was actually GIVEN a gun by his father and taught how to use and respect it; or ......... But yeah, let's blame the guns. It's too painful to look at the REAL reasons.

    (See, you weren't paying attention.)

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    So tell us how we deal with what we have now. The kid has already grown up with problems. What do we do now?

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Right?
    I don't see another way to handle the dearth of fathering. Can't force bums not to be bums.

    +
    2 Votes
    DelbertPGH

    Apart from the fact that your hunch that a father-led family of "unconditional love and acceptance" never produces mass killers sounds like pure wishful thinking, what would that lead you to do? Institute nationwide fatherhood classes, and make divorce harder to get? Can you justify that degree of government intrusion? Think it would work?

    There are, by the way, countries (Scandinavia) where fathers are even less of a household feature than in America, and they don't have our murder rate, and feature fewer mass killings. America has always been a more violent place, it seems. There's something in our makeup that leads us to own more guns, to resort to killing as a way of ending an argument, and in the last 50 years, to mass killings to resolve difficult personality problems. Murder is as American as gun ownership, and if you got rid of all the guns, we'd keep on killing each other. Call it cowboy culture. Countries with few guns and few killings can't credit their low murder rate to gun restriction. They just don't breed as many killers. I think their people are just more passive, more indifferent, about governmental gun restrictions. I don't see cause and effect; I just see two effects.

    Even if you were to try to clamp down, in a country where 300 million guns are present, where so many people want to own guns, and where personal identity is for many people tied inseparably to having a gun collection, there is zero chance you'd ever be able to abolish or even control them. It's politically and logistically impossible.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    bullying by the school jocks sending them over the edge.

    +
    0 Votes
    JJFitz

    that broken home may be a factor in mass killings but it was not evident in the Columbine incident. Both Harris and Klebold came from two parent homes. Harris even wrote about the fact that his family were the only ones who did not pick on him.
    Deadly seems to have hit the nail on the head that bullying plays a factor. At least it did in this instance. Harris and Klebold were both bullied relentlessly in their school - often while the teachers watched and did nothing.
    I'm not excusing their behavior but just pointing out that the lack of a father's presence was not a factor.

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Like what? People shopping at Walmart even though it means cutting themselves out of a job?


    Or maybe you mean gay marriage? Or divorce? Or any of the other things the US has in common with the rest of the first world, with widely varying degrees of violence to follow.

    +
    1 Votes
    chdchan

    Out of the vast population of North America, the gun-protected population is still far greater than gun-killed population, this makes the very sense....that a minor part of people should die for the majority.

    +
    1 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    because i would not like to believe you mean it the way that i read it....no one should die for the ``majority``

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    Don't you mean you still want millions of guns around if your wife, kids or parents get guns pointed at their heads? What mandates your thought that they are expendable.

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    But no one else is more expendable simply because I don't know them.

    +
    1 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    and no i don't...no one is expendible...but for some reason, you think they are. I believe we have a language barrier between us as you don't get my meaning whatsoever. It's pretty simple, guns are for hunting and in extreme cases, protecting your home and family, but you will not find guns in my home, end of discussion on that topic, my husband lost that arguement. I live in a society where the chance of your scenario happening to me is slim to none, not impossible, just impropable.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    I believe .. (it is barrier and not barrior, right ? :-))

    +
    0 Votes

    yes

    PurpleSkys Moderator

    you're right...darn spell check thank you :)

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    removing the guns from our home....the main reason they are gone is because I believed (like you) that they were not safe around our children.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    i appreciate the fact that you did remove them :)

    +
    0 Votes
    dogknees

    My response was to cdhchan's comments.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    lol...I misunderstood I suppose I could delete it so i didn't feel quite so silly lol...

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    murdered millions with all manner of things from bare hands to vases and all in between and beyond.

    +
    1 Votes
    j-mart

    and have enshrined the right to be better armed than is sensible or necessary in your Constitution.

    I live in a peaceful society, in a backwater of a country, I can have access to hunting rifles and shot guns only, which as hunting and fishing are readily accessible and not very expensive pastimes, is as it should be. Handguns assault rifles machine guns and other automatic weapons are only useful for murdering, maiming and killing the innocent. I know that at the Wharehouse ( similar to your Walmart ) boxing day sale, an irate bargain hunter is not going to whip out a pistol and start shooting to grab a bargain that another customer is also trying to grab. The Police, who are not normally armed are not likely to get involved in a shootout as the bad guys can't easily get firearms. If I desire a firearm for hunting as well as being vetted by the Police, I am required to attend a firearm safe use course, pass this course and also provide proof that I have strong safe lockable cabinet to store these firearms in.

    This makes it harder for nutters and criminals to get their hands on weapons, and extremely hard if not near on impossible for them to get full automatic weapons and assault rifles.

    At the time your 2nd Amendment was added, your country was a wilder and less civilized place, as was the rest of the world. Are you sure that the reasons for the 2nd Amendment still apply ? Which is a more important freedom, Bearing any arms by any sane or insane, law abiding, or not law abiding person may so desire or restricting weapons in your society to types of firearms are made only for hunting not urban warfare eg. pistols assault rifles, and automatic weapons, or the freedom for your children to go to school a much lessened risk that some nut case with a chip on their shoulder will go on a mass killing spree. How many dead children is wide open gun controls worth ?

    As I said its your country, your choice, but I feel much safer and as a result much freer in my backwater of a country with the right sort of guns available and none of the type only useful for evil things

    +
    4 Votes
    robo_dev

    When it was enacted, there was a real power struggle going on between Federal and State government, and the guns (kept in an Armory) were something that the States believed to be critical in case their was some arbitrary Federal action, or some other event, like a war breaking out.

    Therefore the 'right to maintain a well armed Militia' was something that was very important, especially to those who had just fought a war for independence from England. Those people had first hand knowledge of what government tyranny looked like, so the state militias were their counter to that.

    Keep in mind that firearms in 1791 were as far from modern weaponry as they could get, and these were stored in the armory; pistols were very uncommon, and realistically with one bag of lead shot and another bag of black powder, exactly how many rounds-per-second could a muzzle-loading flintlock rifle fire?

    The purpose of the second ammendment has nothing to do with private gun ownership, never has, never will.

    +
    0 Votes
    john.a.wills

    I do not know the reasons for the 2nd amendment. I do know the reasons Maxwell and the NRA give nowadays, of course, but I doubt that those are the ones the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind. Can someone come up with a relevant quotation from the Congressional debates which led to the Bill of Rights being proposed to the states for ratification?

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    And he knows my reason for the 2nd Amendment.

    Please enlighten me. I don't recall specifically discussing it, but that doesn't mean I haven't.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    to deal with not having to pay the extra taxes to create a standing army of a suitable size. Thus the amendment that was soon followed by a law requiring white male citizens to purchase what they'd need to be part of the militia and be ready to answer the call. Events soon proved that system did not work at all due to the wide range of what people had in the way of muskets and other guns, and their lack of interest in it.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    A strong antipathy to the idea of a standing army. It was believed a militia would suffice for national defense.

    More information on how the US gun "controversy" got to where it is today: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    When gun-possessing society is more aware of weapon danger, people tend to buy more guns to protect themselves. Despite this undeterrable cause and result, if firearm is banned and gun purchasing power all goes to charity or other positive spending, would it be much better? Some people just do not have enough to eat.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    end of message.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    neither do I...i prefer no guns. I've stated before, there are no guns in my home, nor will there ever be. I was trying to say that if a person feels the need to have to protect their home and family, they don't need multiple guns or semi automatic weapons...one should suffice in necessity.

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    I got that, just to make sure of the nuances :-). And on top, I don't live in the U.S. so easy for me to say I guess....

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    I'm Canadian and pretty close to the border...but i still don't get it... I often try to guess too...but it eludes me

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    I live in Winnipeg, the murder capitol.

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    in Colchester....and as much as there's gun violence in the city, here in Truro it's rare....so yes, you're so right

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    even though Halifax is a very small city, it still had 75 shooting incidents last year. If more people in Halifax carried concealed weapons I suspect that number would be higher.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ...... if you don't think anyone else "needs" guns in their homes either, then that's the way it should be.

    +
    0 Votes
    Darryl~ Moderator

    is always putting words in your mouth, you sure like to put words in other's mouths....maybe you should re-read what she said....or is that just what you "think" she said?

    +
    0 Votes

    max

    PurpleSkys Moderator

    i have no need to defend my statements any more than you do. I asked you to explain your statements before and you "didn't feel the need to", I don't feel the need to explain mine to you. I have my beliefs, you have yours....live with it. And Darryl is right, read what I say, not what YOU think I say.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    You don't "need" a car that goes faster than 55.
    You don't "need" a house in a certain neighborhood.
    You don't "need" expensive jewelry.
    You don't "need" a computer.
    etc., etc.

    Just because YOU don't "need" something doesn't mean it should be banned for others.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    particularly given the woefully low limits on your roads, seem to smack your argument down rather hard. You are already controlled within an inch of your life in "The Land of the Free". You limit driving for everyone. Even Sebastian Vettel would have to crawl along your roads.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    You're saying that you "need" a car that goes faster than 55? Or are you saying that you prefer to drive faster and want a car that can perform to your expectations? My argument about "needs" and "wants" still holds but nice try.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Your collective "need" for a gun has contributed to the deaths of one million Americans since the assassination - by gun - of Martin Luther King.

    Because of legislation , the safety of cars is improving all the time, seat belts, tighter restrictions on drunk driving, even stupidly low speed limits.

    Yet guns remain unchecked by proper legislation. Guns proliferate, mental health issues go unchecked, fear escalates.

    By 2015, more people will die by guns than on your roads. I wish you joy of the future of your country.

    +
    1 Votes
    jp85257

    you should do more research regarding the laws already in place regarding gun control. I think you'll find sufficient laws are in place.

    But you don't see any criticism about lack of enforcement. Do you really think that those who already break the law are going to be affected by a bunch of new laws if they decide they "want" another item added to their collection?

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You quite obviously did not have sufficient curbs on the ownership of guns else you would not be in the position of having a murder rate by firearms and a suicide rate by firearms that are both multiples of any other western country. I really don't see the point in researching the minutiae of differences in gun laws between the states when the elephant in the room - one million killed by guns in the last twenty-five years - is ingored.

    And, anyway, I don't reckon there is any point in anyone trying to pass any legislation now. You have more legal guns in circulation in your country than anywhere else in world. As a consequence of this, because guns are easier to steal than flat-screen TVs, you have more illegal guns. You, as a country, are painted into the most appalling corner imaginable. You live in fear of armed criminals, so you arm yourselves. You live in fear that your government will disarm you, so you arm yourself more.

    Personally, I'd put severe curbs on posession of ammunition. Then you can still **** away the odd crim, but you won't have enough to toast a school of year two kids.It even gets around that silly Second Amendment. You can bear your arms, but just not fire them.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Why does that upset you so? Are the Chinese implicitly wrong and the straight-shootin' Merkin implicitly right? Get over yourself. Who the **** do you think you are?

    Sttrange as it may seem to you, I live in a society that I consider no less free than yours -possibly more so. I get to make my own mind up.

    Muppet. go and buy another gun - or maybe a monster truck.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    Who said I was upset? I was just pointing out that your view mirrors the view of the Chinese communists who aren't exactly poster children for an individual's rights.

    You seem to be the one who is upset. Take a chill pill and relax, you're starting to hyperventilate.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    I was just wondering why you chose to post about them at all. You posted the link for a reason and I question your motives. Were you trying to make me ashamed that I agreed with something coming from such an egregious regime so I would change my mind? What?

    What does it have to do with MY post to YOU that your society is wrong with the way it deals and has dealt with firearms.

    That's all.

    By the way, I'd still like you to answer about the million dead in the last twenty five years and stop with the distractions. But you have no answer so you're trying a bit of a diversion. Relax? It's not my society that has so many dead.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    I posted the link to show some of the types of people that agreed with your views. That's all. Trying to make you feel ashamed? Trying to make you change your mind? Not hardly.

    I doubt if any Internet forum post could change your mind just as I know that your posts won't change mine.

    But you post that "your society is wrong with the way it deals and has dealt with firearms" is only your opinion. Personally I think you're wrong, and since you don't even live here, should leave US politics to Americans that are ultimately affected by any decisions made.

    The million that have died in the last 25 years? I give it as much thought as all of those who have died by disease, drug abuse, wars, and accidents. No more and no less.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Then, I suspect, we would have nothing else to say to each other and I would wish you joy of the future of your society. However, given the jingoistic zeal with which your country seems to want to export your idea of freedom and democracy and suppress the legal governments of others, I have every right to post that I think that you ought to get your own house in order before you push your warped ideas on the rest of us.

    When your senior politicians go on record with garbage like this, "We dont need to go across the planet trying to impose American values, but we do need to go across the planet spreading human values", Newt Gingrich said. "The Second Amendment is a right for all mankind.", I have every right to say whatever I like right back at you all.

    What are you going to do? Shoot me? Send a drone missile over to kill my neighbours' kids? What?

    +
    1 Votes
    jp85257

    getting all worked up because someone doesn't agree with you.

    You're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong your are. No one should threaten you for stating your opinion. If you think I have, please supply my post so I can see where you misunderstood me.

    I just find it rather sad that people like you use a tragedy like this to further your liberal agendas.

    I'll continue to mourn for ALL humans who have died needlessly while you only seem to care about those that you can use for political purposes.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    Americans don't understand irony. Woo! Is that ever true here.

    OK, lets put this to bed. Last post to you. I should have stopped earlier but I like trying to push buttons. I'm not at all worked up.

    It's rather silly of you to suggest that I have a political agenda, liberal or otherwise, as I have no vote in your country and I'm not a liberal. For what it's worth, I'm an atheist humanist, left-wing, sardonic Brit. I can fake "nice" quite well, sometimes. But I see no point in faking it here.

    The senseless Sandy Hook deaths occurred in your country, not mine. Your country, not mine, has a succession of this sort of senseless killing spree. And each time it happens, nothing is done. Nothing will happen this time. And, alas, next time. And the next.

    I'm posting another point of view to you to see if you can accept that the circumstances that pertain in your country, the monstrous quantity of arms available to just about anyone, are anomalous and, to put it simply, stupid.

    I'm glad that you appreciate that the deaths were needless. It's a start.

    What do YOU propose to do so that "suicide by cop" doesn't continue to be a national US pasttime and a national US disgrace?

    I can do nothing. I'm only armed with words and you have a bullet-proof mind.

    +
    1 Votes
    jp85257

    Insinuating that a person would not consider the deaths of innocent children as needless deaths just because they own guns or advocate gun ownership really shows your ignorance.

    I would venture to say that everyone in the world considers these deaths to be needless.

    The argument here is how to stop this type of event in the future. You want to ban the tool. I want to stop the evil person committing the deed. Here you had a very sick person who was known to have mental issues for years and a very stupid individual who left dangerous weapons around for him to access, even though she knew he was violent. It's not the gun's fault. It's the stupid people who won't take the proper precautions and get the proper care when dealing with mentally disturbed individuals.

    But go ahead and keep blaming the tool and ignoring the real cause(s). I look forward to your rants about banning forks to solve the growing health care issues caused by obesity.

    +
    0 Votes
    neilb@uk

    You can do BOTH.

    Fool.

    +
    0 Votes

    nah

    PurpleSkys Moderator

    just not issued to those not stable enough to use and store properly.

    I have a soccer mom mini van (because it suits my needs)
    I have a trailer in a trailer court (yep, I'm trailer trash)
    I wish I had expensive jewelery (my simple diamond engagement ring and my simple wedding band to show my commitment to Darryl)
    and I need a computer to do my job (as Darryl requires it for his) otherwise, we don't make a living
    but I don't need a gun, you may (for whatever reason suits you) outside of living in a questionable neighbor, I don't see the need for a semi automatic weapon. If for some reason in the future that changes, I will re-evaluate that if and when the time comes

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    Obviously, PurpleSkys has assumed the role of deciding who needs what, so if he/she says you "need" something, end of story.

    How can one person (PurpleSkys and others) have the audacity to suggest what another person may or may not "need"? Who in the **** made him/her the Grand Pubah of Need?

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    then there's obssesive...and once again, you're not reading what i post, but hey, what else is new with you.

    and if you have paid attention at all, i'm a she...a mother with a strong opinion, if you can't take it, too bad for you

    edit to add: most folks are aware that Darryl and I are a couple, max hadn't realized that?

    +
    0 Votes
    highlander718

    it is true that in China one is safer than in the US when it comes to gun violence. But funny you don't mention workplace safety for example ? Or extreme poverty which brings health risks ?

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    I suppose now we need to ban all knives.....

    http://news.ca.msn.com/world/china-stabbing-spree-hurts-22-schoolchildren

    +
    3 Votes
    Slayer_

    A quote from that article
    He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    If there is portable life-terminating laser invented some day, should it be carried all around the streets like knives by our citizens? c.f. ancient people never thought of guns as weapons like we think of life-terminating laser today.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    But workplace safety is not a contributor to gun violence, poverty is but....

    China has greater poverty, but less gun violence.
    http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/12/01/china-usa-comparing-poverty-lines/

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    But I did some searches on google and found numbers between 800 and 3000. And most assume it was higher.

    A search for "number of gun deaths per year in America" shows numbers much higher every year for America, one site said over 32,000.

    Maybe that means the Chinese army was less murderous than the American public.

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    the gun related deaths were inter-gang shooting, how many were criminals shot by police during crimes or resisting arrest, or even break them down by hand gun as against rifle etc. There is no way any gun control laws will alter the ownership or use of guns by criminals, and thus those parts of the stats would continue to happen the same no matter what. That's why the raw stats used in this discussion are so misleading.

    +
    1 Votes
    Slayer_

    I mean, I have most of the civilized globe as proof that gun control works. So where is your proof that it doesn't? You will need proof outside the USA as we all know, the USA is pretty much the worst example.


    Actually, forget proof, why are you so opposed to trying gun control, how can it possibly be worse than it is now? Where people can buy assault weapons at walmart, walk into an elementary school and shoot up the place, or start fires and shoot the first responders. This is terrorist like activities.
    This sort of thing is rare in the rest of the world, but its nearly a yearly occurrence in America.

    +
    0 Votes
    NickNielsen Moderator

    by the general public. This has been the case in the United States since the Firearms Act of 1934 was passed.

    An assault weapon must, by definition, be capable of select fire. That is, the shooter can select either semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull) or full automatic (one pull spews multiple rounds). The weapons Walmart and other retailers sell are assault-style weapons. They resemble the military weapons they are based on, but they are not capable of fully automatic operation, nor can they be easily converted to fully automatic operation.

    +
    0 Votes
    Slayer_

    ....That makes no difference as someone still bought a assault-like weapon from Walmart and went and shot children in an elementary school.

    Also, I heard someone recently shot up a police station this time. Maybe it's time America called back its armies and dealt with the terrorism happening with in its own borders.

    +
    0 Votes
    CharlieSpencer

    But I was struck by the incongruity that in the US, we're allowed to freely discuss our Constitution and leaders on the Internet without fear of imprisonment (or worse). I at least know that if I get shot, it will most likely not be by my own government.

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    or strong social powers, you've got to be miserable, any countries being the same. Is it too difficult to quote an example of political jeopardy or murder in the U.S.?

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    they can, after all, detain you indefinitely :^0
    Nice job of that committee to drop the Senate bill to stop it, huh?

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    Why? Because they fear one day those countries will become BANDIT attackers. Every country is saying nuclear weapons are for self-protection; however, Americans want to eliminate that possibility of getting out of control. So why guns are not banned similarly to nullify the possibility of abuse? Is this Americans' "egotistic-privilege-ism"?

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    no...EOM

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    the content and context of your post? it now makes my post redundant.

    +
    0 Votes
    maxwell edison

    ..... (or think you know about the USA), you learned where and how?

    Have you ever lived or visited the USA?

    Tell us, how have you become so enlightened and knowledgeable about a people a half a world away from you?

    +
    0 Votes
    Deadly Ernest

    why they don't want any nuclear weapons proliferation now as they've been cutting theirs back for decades.

    +
    0 Votes
    chdchan

    That gun possession is adovcated at the expense of gun crimes. And the TOLLs are justified by the majority of Americans. If you compare gun-killed statistics with knife-killed ones, you can visualize that over-worrying of gun crimes is unnecessary. So let's look forward to next bloodshed(s).

    +
    0 Votes
    PurpleSkys Moderator

    Edit to add...looking forward to bloodshed is kinda sick.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    and suggest that there are two major causes.
    One is crime. The US has a lot of it, and lots of crime means lots of criminal enforcing their own kind of justice on each other.
    The other is unhealthy attitudes.
    The Swiss have a lot of (army) weapons in their homes, but they don't really have a desire to own weapons.
    To many in the US, firearms seem to be a symbol of "fuckyeahfreedom". That's not something that engenders a sober attitude towards them.
    So, there, "expert" statement, sure to make Maxwell apoplectic.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    with feeling the need for owning a large number of weapons of mass mayhem, military style, high rate of fire people slaughtering totally unnecessary hardware, could be down to having no real Balls, small di*ks and foolishly thinking a big powerful gun is a way of compensating for this.

    +
    0 Votes
    jp85257

    of the Granville Sawyer School of Psychology.

    +
    0 Votes
    j-mart

    Granville Sawyer is much more intelligent than all those small dic*ed gun toting fools than think freedom is determined by how much firepower one has lying about the place. Real freedom is not weapons but living in a place where people slaughtering guns are not are a requirement. Granville makes much more sense than the NRA and the 2nd amendment.

    +
    1 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    Sure, a car can help you get around, but mobility is not freedom.
    Moment you sit behind the wheel, you're clapping a neck-iron and iron shackles on yourself. All of a sudden you're obliged to do a lot of things you don't need to worry about without the car.
    Guns are worse, just owning one (as evidenced with all too great frequency) obliges a person to make sure nobody else gets to it.
    That's not freedom except where the threat of violent subjugation is even greater.
    And even then, getting the fluck out of there would be a much easier and safer way to achieve the same freedom increase, or greater.

    +
    1 Votes
    neilb@uk

    The rise in gun purchases following the recent school massacre have been attributed to two causes.

    Firstly there have been a number of people who have bought into the environment of fear that seems to pervade much more of the US population than I, for one, had appreciated. Fear - I/my wife needs a gun to protect my children/property/belongings, etc. There is a lot of that attitude, Even on the threads here despite the fact that burglaries are of about the same per capita rate as the UK although, (you'll be happy to know) more than Finland.

    Secondly, there are a significant number of gun nuts who have gone out and purchased a whole load of automatic weapons just in case the government does have the nuts to do something.

    Lots of people own guns or don't own guns but would restrict legislation simply because of the Second Amendment, which I truly do not understand. But I'm also lacking real understanding in the whole US Constitution with its rhetoric of liberty thing anyway and I just tend to lump it in with the other ancient Holy Books that I can't understand people's facination with.

    But, when it's all added up, more Americans DON'T own guns than own them. It's just got to the situation that those who do own guns now own more guns and more sophisticated and powerful guns.

    Interestingly, all ten of the states with the highest gun ownership rates, 50% or more, are considered staunchly Republican states. I'd rather not speculate on the racial profiling of gun owners lest I hit a nerve. Or speculate whether it's a Christian thing...

    p.s. The Swiss are WEIRD! Any country that has laws that forbids the flushing of a toilet after 10pm (and legislates that men pee sitting down after 10pm) and forbids the washing of a car on Sunday cannot be used to prove ANYTHING. Invoking "the Swiss do/have" is beyond Godwin's Law.

    +
    0 Votes
    AnsuGisalas

    *whistles innocently*