Gun laws.

[Vaudille]

More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.

Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.

I'm too tired to decipher your post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's hard to debate when even the judges are totally lost in your maze of random words.

 

[Clone552]

Guns are a part of American society, and will more than likely remain that way for a long time to come. Guns are not the problem and were never the problem. The problem lies with people and their ignorant, uninformed, or biased views on firearms (I'm not saying all who oppose firearms are that way, some just don't care for them). If people were taught about firearms from a young age, to respect them and to understand what they can do is what will help more than banning them outright. However, even that will not stop crimes being committed with firearms. If someone wants to shoot someone else no amount of laws will stop it. Increasing the average intelligence level and standard of living among all people is what will help more than blaming guns.

However, when it gets down to it there will be people who oppose guns and those who are for them. Most will not be easily swayed, if at all. What makes America different from some other countries is that Americans have the choice. They have the choice to own a gun, or to not own one. Whether or not you dislike guns or love them is irrelevant. Even if banning them would help, it's not an option. That would go against what America is. America gives people freedom, for better or worse.

Also, even if gun control works in other countries, there is no guarantee that it would work in America. Americans have a much different mindset than those elsewhere. It's the way Americans are, they have always had the freedom to choose what they want to do. Taking that away would only cause more problems.

I know very well that any argument put forth by either side is ultimately futile in changing most opinions on the matter, but all should respect firearms at the very least.

 

[Ultrajoe]

More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.

Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.

I'm too tired to decipher your post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's hard to debate when even the judges are totally lost in your maze of random words.

random words?

ill break it down for you.

Now thats just pointless mockery - Here i am making a jovial reprimand at your post, jovial though, i am trying to build rapport

Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock - Here i make the statement that a society in which everyone is armed, to me, is not exactly safe.

Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point. - Here i reprimand myself for exaggerating even when i previously had go at you for doing it yourself... hence the 'Hypocrisy' comment.

Although i don't know how you didn't get that.

 

[Ultrajoe]

In this day an age we simply haven't outlawed guns because war is different.
Who remembers Pearl Harbor? (wierd question to ask.) Let's get our facts straight though. When they bombed Hawaii, they weren't just aiming for boats. Don't be so naive. They didn't give to shits about who they hit. They wanted as many Americans dead. (And we responded, showing that if they show little regard for civillians, we will take them down.)
Fast forward. 9/11. They didn't give two shits who they killed. Look at what happened and tell me they thought about kids whose parents would not come home. There were no soldiers there.
The War against terrorism. We go over there, with the sole intention of rooing out terrorists. They respond, by killing every man woman and child who is from America that they get their hands on. (And not in quick pretty ways either.)
We are one of the few coutnries playing by the set rules of war. (Perverse, see: UT3)
You have to understand that (slightly off topic, but bare with me) if we pulled out so soon, they'd bring the war to us. (Don't fool yourself into thinking life is that simple. War is born from signs of weakness.) It's not as simple as most people think. They hate us, as much as we hate them. See: 9/11. (don't give me that inside job BS.)
If we pull out without a clear victory, you can bet they will move the war to our borders. And unlike us, they won't care who they hit. To them, every man woman and child is an American soldier, and to them, we are a plague. They will come in like, (to quote Lamb of God) "a hailstorm of broken glass" killing anything that isn't them. No mercy, no compassion, no rules, no holding back.
If we were to abolish guns and pull out, we'd lose. They would come and kill our civillians, and we'd be unable to do anything about it.
And that is why we don't abolish guns. Because the second Amendment was made so that civillians would be able to protect themselves when the wars come to their homes, as it is a very real possiblity. It's not about want, it's not about need, it's about "what if". It's a "what if" that is certainly abused, but's it's not just a right, it's a measure taken. And I can guarentee you, when we pull out, gun sales will sky rocket, and I will be inline.

I don't think America should pull out, that country needs you there now and if you pull out now it would ruin the nation for decades to come.

I might be a pacifist but i do know a bit about politics and logistics.

On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.

 

[Ultrajoe]

On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.

It is. But in 1776, those weren't their only concerns. When the Britts came over, there was no millitia. The country needed someone to fight for it. And that's heald true today. If we are invaded, we'll still need security in our own homes. When the war comes to our turf, it's no longer just the military who will fight and die.
The idea that was implimented for overthrowing an out of control government was used for many reasons. French Revolution was fought mostly with pitch forks by peasants. If we tried to break from Brittain with no wepaons, we'd be screwed.

The idea of the second ammendment was to help protect the American citizens from foreign oppression as well as at home problems. Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, "For a government to truly work, it should be overthrown and rebuilt atleast every two-hundred years" or something like that. I think the number was smaller.
But the point is, yes, Washington knew that men could be corrupt, he understood above all men the tragedies of oppression. (Whether or not he was alive when the second ammendment was written would be pointless. Just covering that base, my history isn't perfect.)
The constitution was built as a mandate and procedure for our government, as well as our freedoms within reason, and the ability to protect said freedoms. If our government went nuts, yes we'd need a way to fight it. However, it's a little, well, naive (maybe not naive, just, I don't know, absent minded?), to think it was the only reason it was made. Given the timing and all.

i'm not saying it has no other uses, but the primary one i've always thought was to prevent the country evolving into something other than what it began as.

But back on topic, if a country's citizens require guns to feel safe, surely you can see that something is wrong with the way weapons are working in that country. Even if you think everyone should have access to weapons, can you concede that perhaps the integration of weapons into that culture is a little over-progressed?

 

[Facemelter]

Two points:
2. With the might of the US military, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to own guns. If our "fearless leader" decided to take the country hostage and install himself as dictator, do you really think the UN or NATO or anyone else could do anything about it if we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves?

Yes, a bunch of gun toting red necks with .22's will hold back the US military. Though I suppose teens with old soviet equipment are doing just fine (See: Afghanistan)

In Australia, since the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people where shot and 37 other injured by Martin Bryant, the Federal Government has tightened gun ownership laws considerably and as a result, during the period of 1991 and 2001 the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%. (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html)

If I remember correctly from a documentary I watched a while back, Australia has something like 20 gun related deaths per year, most of which are police shooting someone. Japan have even less. Why does America have gun deaths in the thousands?

 

[Clone552]

The gun toting rednecks line is offensive and ignorant. I've known plenty of "rednecks" that are better people than the so called educated and tolerant I've met. Judging someone like that doesn't help your argument.

Besides, you can't compare Australia with America. They are different, so banning or reducing guns in America might not do the same thing it did there.

 

[Xhumed]

In the UK we never had lots of guns, but after we had Dunblaine (guy goes nuts, shoots up a primary school) tighter restrictions were imposed, and demanded by the public. Now its mostly criminals and Farmers who have guns here (and farmer's mums). And our murder rate is still lower than the USA, even though people don't have guns "for protection." Im honestly suprised after all the high school and college shootings in the US people aren't clammering for gun control, but no, they'd rather blame it on Marilyn Manson and Doom, and not address the proper causes.

 

[Clone552]

Actually, a great deal of people blame firearms. But guns are not the issue in those crimes. It's the mental health of the people that committed them. And just because your murder rate is lower, doesn't mean that all murders that occur in America are caused by guns. In '05 only about 9% of violent crimes had guns involved, if I read that right. There is no way that number could have jumped so high as to warrant any kind of backlash against guns. Heck our non-gun murder rates are higher than most European total murder rates. All that means is that there are more people willing to kill in America than in the UK. Besides, we already had a higher murder rate even before the UK had such gun control laws. It's not the weapon, it's the person.

 

[Clone552]

That has nothing to do with the citizen's mindsets and ideas regarding gun control. I was saying you can't just say the policies of one would work in another. If you want me to believe that a comparison between the two is really such a good idea, you need to put forth a better argument than that.

 

[Xhumed]

Actually, a great deal of people blame firearms. But guns are not the issue in those crimes. It's the mental health of the people that committed them. And just because your murder rate is lower, doesn't mean that all murders that occur in America are caused by guns. In '05 only about 9% of violent crimes had guns involved, if I read that right. There is no way that number could have jumped so high as to warrant any kind of backlash against guns. Heck our non-gun murder rates are higher than most European total murder rates. All that means is that there are more people willing to kill in America than in the UK. Besides, we already had a higher murder rate even before the UK had such gun control laws. It's not the weapon, it's the person.

My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?

 

[Vaudille]

My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?

The truth is? Tell me why I'm more likely to shoot a family member then a criminal? Give me a statistic.

Secondly, I've noticed a lot of people referring to Rednecks here, so let me explain to you.

Contrary to popular opinion, Rednecks don't all own guns, don't all live in trailer parks, and don't all dream of shooting a homosexual in the ass for being gay.

They're actually intelligent, kind people who you must think are crazy because you've never had experience living in their area. The idea that you think all Rednecks are crazy and gun toting is about the same as someone else thinking all blacks are from the hood and will shoot you up if you try to talking to them.

It's plain baseless discrimination.

Ultrajoe: Constantly, mate, you're trying to bring the argument to a personal level and I refuse to take your bait. Unless you can do this civilly, or at least semi-civilly, I don't think you should be posting.

And the deal between comparing Australia to America. Does Australia have serious drug cartel immigration problems they need to reform? Does Hugo Chavez send Australia 4000 jobless refugees every time he gets a little angry?
Did terrorists attack Australia's major city by ramming a plane into a building filled with thousands of people?

No. contrary to popular belief, a great amount of crimes are commit by those illegal and refugee parties who do not pay to become normal citizens and cannot be traced after commiting a crime, not just drunk rednecks shooting a place up. We can thank god there are no terrorists on our soil, though.

 

[Saskwach]

Besides, you can't compare Australia with America. They are different, so banning or reducing guns in America might not do the same thing it did there.

Oh goody, the old "Such-and-such is different to such-and-such, so you can't compare them" argument.

I'd actually say there's a lot of room for comparison between America and Australia. They're both countries that were colonized by emigrating Europeans. They both displaced the natives who were living there before. They both became independent from the countries that settled them. They both have crap beer... No, I think we should compare them

Actually, whether the gun banning here Down Under achieved anything is still under debate:

SMH article quoting a study of homicide rates before and after the gun ban [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html]

The study. Pretty unambiguous stuff. [http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/GunLawsSudden%20DeathBJC.pdf]

Article looking at the long history of gun control in Oz. Obviously biased but I don't see where the facts are disputable. [http://www.gunsandcrime.org/aussiegc.html]

Even if all these sources are totally wrong (I doubt they can be that far off) I posted this simply because I'm amazed people are quoting the Oz gun banning like many Christians quote the Bible- without studying the damn thing (this is not an attack on Christians; just the dumb ones).

 

[Alliednations]

Actually, a great deal of people blame firearms. But guns are not the issue in those crimes. It's the mental health of the people that committed them. And just because your murder rate is lower, doesn't mean that all murders that occur in America are caused by guns. In '05 only about 9% of violent crimes had guns involved, if I read that right. There is no way that number could have jumped so high as to warrant any kind of backlash against guns. Heck our non-gun murder rates are higher than most European total murder rates. All that means is that there are more people willing to kill in America than in the UK. Besides, we already had a higher murder rate even before the UK had such gun control laws. It's not the weapon, it's the person.

I agree; we wouldn't blame a bomb for killing people, we blame the planters of the bomb. The weapon makes little difference, people were able to kill before the invention of firearms. Serial killers still existed; it's not as if they sprouted up from the ground once they invented guns. Anyone heard of 'Jack the Ripper'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_the_Ripper

He didn't kill people with an AK-47, he killed them with a knife. Although one theory suggests he strangled them first, it doesn't change the fact that people were able to kill before the invent of firearms. We don't outlaw fists or knives because they are able to kill, which is what banning firearms does. Hell, you could kill with a block of cheese if you tried hard enough.

But I do understand the other side of the story. Blocks of cheese aren't the main weapon for many armies of choice - cheese has many uses, and one odd one would be as a murder weapon. The same goes for knives or fists. You won't use it to kill only, it's just a possibility. But with guns, it only kills. There is little else it can do. It could be a hammer, a flashlight, or a night vision tool, but that's stretching it.

It makes sense to put some blame on guns when a person kills, but it is really the fault of the person who used the gun to kill. Guns are just a tool, neutral until used by a human. We could blame the laws that limit access to firearms, but not the gun itself; it is an object. By all means, create gun laws, but if the murderer uses a gun to kill innocent people, its the person's fault, not the gun. The gun is just what he used. A tool.

We don't congratulate the hammer for building the world's tallest scyscraper, we congratulate the builders. In the same sense, we don't shun the water hose for hitting the neighbor in the head with water, we shun the man using the water hose.

 

[WlknCntrdiction]

*Points to Lord of War*

Go watch it.

 

[Xhumed]

My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?

The truth is? Tell me why I'm more likely to shoot a family member then a criminal? Give me a statistic.

Apologies, that should have read, "your gun is more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder"
see here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/4/741
and: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm

I notice people keep saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people, etc. The gun does help though, surely? mowing a group of people down with a knife isn't particularly easy. And saying there should be restrictions to stop crazies getting their hands on guns- well, aside from the fact that that is a form of gun control, where do you think most criminals and crazies get their guns?
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#guns (the guns in the wrong hands section)
The questions i ask are: why do you want to keep them so badly? why do you think you need them? If guns were banned completely in the U.S, what do you honestly think will happen?
So far all you've done is suggest that you're a country full of murders and lunatics. It doesn't seem logical that you don't think guns should be controlled, on that basis.

 

[Silver]

Did terrorists attack Australia's major city by ramming a plane into a building filled with thousands of people?

Now what the hell does that have to do with gun control? Would it be better if everyone on the plane was armed and there was a gunfight that caused it to crash? No, not even you have guns on planes. Would you shoot it down before it hit the building? I may be stupid but I don't see the relevance.

 

[Vaudille]

My point was that saying you need guns for protection from criminals is not really true. the truth is, you are more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. and im not sure what your point actually is- are you saying you should have no gun control because America is full of psychos?

The truth is? Tell me why I'm more likely to shoot a family member then a criminal? Give me a statistic.

Apologies, that should have read, "your gun is more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder"
see here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/4/741
and: http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm

I notice people keep saying, guns don't kill people, people kill people, etc. The gun does help though, surely? mowing a group of people down with a knife isn't particularly easy. And saying there should be restrictions to stop crazies getting their hands on guns- well, aside from the fact that that is a form of gun control, where do you think most criminals and crazies get their guns?
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#guns (the guns in the wrong hands section)
The questions i ask are: why do you want to keep them so badly? why do you think you need them? If guns were banned completely in the U.S, what do you honestly think will happen?
So far all you've done is suggest that you're a country full of murders and lunatics. It doesn't seem logical that you don't think guns should be controlled, on that basis.

Unintentional firearm death is estimated to be 2.82% of all firearm deaths.

Thus, I don't understand how my gun is more likely to kill my family then the criminal robbing my house.

Since everyone on this forum has clearly graduated from the College of Foreign People Hating America with a degree in attempting to understand things that go on in another country without ever having experiences them, you should know all about the Gangster Wars of Prohibition.

The government tried to outlaw alcohol, make it un-purchasable. What happened? Entire smuggling rings were formed to import the stuff.

If you look on that piece of history I'm sure you learned in "Why America Sucks, 101", you can tell that completely outlawing something in a country with millions of people will not work.
Applying that to guns is very simple. If the FBI went around searching for every REGISTERED gun in America and put them in a pile to burn, what would that leave? It'd leave all the criminals who buy their guns from secondary dealers, and, gasp, the guns there are not registered. Who knew? A criminal, who commits acts that already break the law, not buying registered weapons!

Silvertongue, you missed my addendum: "We can thank god there are no terrorists on our soil, though."

 

[Vaudille]

Two points:
2. With the might of the US military, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to own guns. If our "fearless leader" decided to take the country hostage and install himself as dictator, do you really think the UN or NATO or anyone else could do anything about it if we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves?

Yes, a bunch of gun toting red necks with .22's will hold back the US military. Though I suppose teens with old soviet equipment are doing just fine (See: Afghanistan)

In Australia, since the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people where shot and 37 other injured by Martin Bryant, the Federal Government has tightened gun ownership laws considerably and as a result, during the period of 1991 and 2001 the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%. (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html)

If I remember correctly from a documentary I watched a while back, Australia has something like 20 gun related deaths per year, most of which are police shooting someone. Japan have even less. Why does America have gun deaths in the thousands?

Posts like this truly disgust me. This entire topic is about Gun Control in America, not Australia.

Furthermore, talking about everyone who owns guns as "a bunch of red necks with .22's" is both rude and discriminatory. We have many different guns. We've got 30-30s, 30ot6, Ar-4, .38s, .357s, 9mm, .45s, and .40s. Don't be ignorant by understating the number of guns we're packing over here.

 

[ReepNeep]

In this day an age we simply haven't outlawed guns because war is different.
Who remembers Pearl Harbor? (wierd question to ask.) Let's get our facts straight though. When they bombed Hawaii, they weren't just aiming for boats. Don't be so naive. They didn't give to shits about who they hit. They wanted as many Americans dead. (And we responded, showing that if they show little regard for civillians, we will take them down.)

I'm sure you will pardon me if I call you on your bullshit. I could say much worse about your jingoistic diatribe, but I like to think I have SOME tact. Less than 60 civilians died that day, compared to more than 2300 military personel. Now you tell me what you think that says about their target selection.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a precision strike on military targets with the aim of crippling the US Pacific Fleet to the point that the US would be unable to bring serious challenge in the Pacific.

There were two things that went wrong with it from their perspective;
1: They didn't sink any of our carriers. This is especially important because battleships were nearly worthless by comparison.
2: They underestimated just how stubborn we can be about these things.

They didn't take parachutes, they even had to strip the radios out of the planes and communicate with hand signals because they needed to cram as much gas into the planes as possible to even make the flight. You think they had ammo to waste on non-military targets? The Japanese did plenty of horrible things during that war, but Pearl Harbor was a straight-up professional military operation directed at another country's military. Any attempt to portray it as otherwise is disingenuous.

What we did to Japanese cities near the end of the war was several orders of magnitude beyond anything the Japanese did to us. We basically leveled every major city in Japan, civilian targets or not. We used primarily firebombs specifically because they would start the mass fires that Japanese architecture was particularly vulnerable to. The goal of American air raids was to burn the city to the ground, civilians and all. Add the gratuitous nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and we subjected them to far worse than they ever even had planned for us.

You also seem to talk about 9/11 as if it was the beginning of the 'explosive' relationship we have with that part of the world rather than the perhaps inevitable result of decades of antagonism from both sides, but I don't feel like getting into that one.

Go read a history book. *EDIT* Hell, even wikipedia would be a good start for you.