Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...3637383940...44
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.

Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.

Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section

Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.

If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.

As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.

The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.

In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.

Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.

Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.

The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.

Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.

I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.

Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.

Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.

I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.

You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...

In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:

Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"


Pro-guns

National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Anti gun

Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study

Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchIt's not 'diluting' the commandment if that was it's original intent. Come on now stone.

Its very simple Lurch. Thou shall not kill means thou shall not kill. Not the American version wink

I'm not sure if you are misinformed or missing the point. The list of voices placing blame for the Mexican drug war carnage on "weak U.S. gun laws" seems to grow longer every day. In February, it was Attorney General Eric Holder: "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1238728322)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:American version? Thats the UK version from 400+ years ago. Considering pretty much every other translation says 'murder' instead of kill. And all the killing that is condoned by God in the Bible, sorry Stone, but you lose that one.

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchAnd all the killing that is condoned by God in the Bible, sorry Stone, but you lose that one.

Lurch I agree, that it certainly appears to be the case that killing is condoned by God. And I think it would make a great topic for a discussion.


As to kill vs. murder. Id say Im glad the original has not been diluted. Its obviously, the Commandment meant not killing rather than not murdering. Not killing is a principal we can all hold as true. Not murdering, on the other hand means we can kill as long as its not considered murder. However, what is considered murder is a subjective moral judgement, as can be seen by the title of this topic. Also morals change. Not that long ago and probably still in some parts of America today, killing a black was not considered murder. So you see, the original Commandment had to have been not to kill.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
Ok MRC, let's just ignore what the archaeologists discovered and go with your theory. If as you insist, discord is inherent in life then it would appear to me that restricting assess by the general public to assault weapons would be an important for the safety of the community as a whole. Otherwise we end up with anarchy, as we often see in America.
I'm actually curious what archaeologists found that helped them say "oh yeah, they all got along, and no one took the lead or anything." I prefer to think their language was a misleading way of saying that they were highly cooperative.

So I tend to think that because no one is perfect, and probably never was, we have always needed rules. The discord in life is why we have governments and laws and enforcement etc. I don't think I'm explicitly saying that regular individuals have an inherent need for assault weapons. The thing is I don't know that there's a need to ban them outright. I think if we had a far more rigorous screening processes, legal gun ownership would be the tiniest possible percent of any gun crime. I still take to heart the meaning of an armed populace, that it allows them to protect themselves from the government that may one day no longer serve their interests. That's neither here nor there however. I'd like to see gunshow sales banned outright. If someone wants to buy a gun there needs to be serious evaluation no matter what circumstance.

Quote:
Fungible is not a word Im familiar with, Ive never heard it used in conversation; not even on the telly. Given that, I dont think assault weapons are fungible.
Well basically fungibility is whether or not something has the same value, no matter where it comes from.
Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation, considering it isn't necessarily the most concise concept. I'd say a gun(no matter what kind) is fungible. Because a glock is a glock no matter who you buy it from, and no matter what you pay it's use is equal. An AK-47 is still the same gun from the black market or a gun show. So I would say in that regard, guns are as fungible as anything can be. Would you agree with that?


Originally Posted By: Stone
As to kill vs. murder. Id say Im glad the original has not been diluted. Its obviously, the Commandment meant not killing rather than not murdering. Not killing is a principal we can all hold as true. Not murdering, on the other hand means we can kill as long as its not considered murder. However, what is considered murder is a subjective moral judgement, as can be seen by the title of this topic. Also morals change. Not that long ago and probably still in some parts of America today, killing a black was not considered murder. So you see, the original Commandment had to have been not to kill.

I'd liked to point you kill grass when you cut a lawn. You kill a carrot by pulling it out of the ground. Anything living can be killed, and there are a LOT of living things being killed. Bacteria, viruses, veggies, and animals of all sorts. I think the definition of murder is a bit more distinct than simply killing. I would think that murder is killing that serves no utility other than to make something dead. No survival, no sustenance, just death. So I would think that a line should be drawn.

AS for morals changing...that's just part of life. The bible itself is just one particular account of things anyway, and I certainly wouldn't think humanity is bonded to what might have been the since changed opinions of the people who wrote it.

I think it's okay that morals be a little bit liquid. As long as the use of the word is clearly understood, there isn't a real way to live a purely objective life so there will always be subjective language in laws and morals.


Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:arr.. 45pages and it's still waging... :evil: Well done, sports...

Carthage and Binghamton, very recent examples. 22 kills within a few days time...

There is no point in defending against a ban on firearms, pointing out that existing laws are sufficient and just not enforced enough... it's just pointless.

If you approve of killing, then you should also approve of the killing of your own person, because really - right(ful) or not always is in the eye of the beholder.

*sneaks out*

wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Hi Fire Tom wave



Originally Posted By: MRCI'm actually curious what archaeologists found that helped them say "oh yeah, they all got along, and no one took the lead or anything." I prefer to think their language was a misleading way of saying that they were highly cooperative.

They found evidence that they all got along in their settlements, towns and cities; which were not authoritarian in nature.

Originally Posted By: MRCSo I tend to think that because no one is perfect, and probably never was, we have always needed rules. The discord in life is why we have governments and laws and enforcement etc. I don't think I'm explicitly saying that regular individuals have an inherent need for assault weapons. The thing is I don't know that there's a need to ban them outright. I think if we had a far more rigorous screening processes, legal gun ownership would be the tiniest possible percent of any gun crime. I still take to heart the meaning of an armed populace, that it allows them to protect themselves from the government that may one day no longer serve their interests. That's neither here nor there however. I'd like to see gunshow sales banned outright. If someone wants to buy a gun there needs to be serious evaluation no matter what circumstance.

MRC, the bottom line is that apparently there are regulations in place, but as we have seen they are not working. I agree, that if someone wants to buy a gun there needs to be serious evaluation. This is not happening now. I think this need to protect themselves from the government is a crock, and one of the main causes of the world financial crisis.

Originally Posted By: MRCWell basically fungibility is whether or not something has the same value, no matter where it comes from.
Wikipedia has a pretty good explanation, considering it isn't necessarily the most concise concept. I'd say a gun(no matter what kind) is fungible. Because a glock is a glock no matter who you buy it from, and no matter what you pay it's use is equal. An AK-47 is still the same gun from the black market or a gun show. So I would say in that regard, guns are as fungible as anything can be. Would you agree with that?

I agree that an AK-47 assault weapon is an AK-47 assault weapon. No matter if it is in automatic mode or has been modified to semi-automatic mode to sell on to the American market.

Originally Posted By: MRC I'd liked to point you kill grass when you cut a lawn. You kill a carrot by pulling it out of the ground. Anything living can be killed, and there are a LOT of living things being killed. Bacteria, viruses, veggies, and animals of all sorts. I think the definition of murder is a bit more distinct than simply killing. I would think that murder is killing that serves no utility other than to make something dead. No survival, no sustenance, just death. So I would think that a line should be drawn.

AS for morals changing...that's just part of life. The bible itself is just one particular account of things anyway, and I certainly wouldn't think humanity is bonded to what might have been the since changed opinions of the people who wrote it.

I think it's okay that morals be a little bit liquid. As long as the use of the word is clearly understood, there isn't a real way to live a purely objective life so there will always be subjective language in laws and morals.

Id like to point out that we are talking about GOD giving the Commandments to humankind via Moses. And as the Commandments are written in stone, they are absolute. They are not meant to be changed by man to suit mans morals. That's the whole point of the Commandments.

"The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay - has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not."
Thou Shalt Not Kill ~ Exodus 20:13 - Deuteronomy 5:17

Furthermore:

And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. Lev. 24:17

And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. Genesis 9.16

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; Ex. 20:13, Deut. 5:17 and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. Matthew 9:21




Late edit: I'd just like to point out that grass doesn't die when you cut a lawn. Amazingly enough the plant lives, and when more leaves are produced they are in turn cut or pruned as necessary.

EDITED_BY: Stone (1239054903)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: Stone
They found evidence that they all got along in their settlements, towns and cities; which were not authoritarian in nature.
So...does that mean you don't know?

Quote:
MRC, the bottom line is that apparently there are regulations in place, but as we have seen they are not working. I agree, that if someone wants to buy a gun there needs to be serious evaluation. This is not happening now. I think this need to protect themselves from the government is a crock, and one of the main causes of the world financial crisis.
It does tend to make sense that if laws are enforced, they may actually do something. I completely agree that our government's unwillingness to act in the name of its own laws is largely the problem, on a few important issues of the day.

Quote:
I agree that an AK-47 assault weapon is an AK-47 assault weapon. No matter if it is in automatic mode or has been modified to semi-automatic mode to sell on to the American market.
I'm not sure exactly what you intended to convey with that distinction. I would tend to assume it is something contrary, otherwise it wouldn't be there in the first place.

Originally Posted By: MRC
Id like to point out that we are talking about GOD giving the Commandments to humankind via Moses. And as the Commandments are written in stone, they are absolute. They are not meant to be changed by man to suit mans morals. That's the whole point of the Commandments.
The whole...GOD being the slightest bit important is really a subjective issue.

Quote:"The exact Hebrew wording of this biblical phrase is lo tirtzack. One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in the Twentieth Century) -Dr. Reuben Alcalay - has written in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not."
Thou Shalt Not Kill ~ Exodus 20:13 - Deuteronomy 5:17
To quote; "Frankly darling I don't give a damn"

Quote:And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. Lev. 24:17
What other Levitican laws do we follow in our daily lives?

Quote:
Late edit: I'd just like to point out that grass doesn't die when you cut a lawn. Amazingly enough the plant lives, and when more leaves are produced they are in turn cut or pruned as necessary.

Agreed on the grass thing, it was a poor choice of example. However we do simply kill quite a high amount of vegetation, grass or not.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MRCSo...does that mean you don't know?

It means look it up for yourself!

Originally Posted By: MRCIt does tend to make sense that if laws are enforced, they may actually do something. I completely agree that our government's unwillingness to act in the name of its own laws is largely the problem, on a few important issues of the day.

Its not just the Government, its the whole NRA advertising campaign that has sucked in Americans to buy more and more guns, in the mistaken belief that it brings them manliness and freedom. In reality, it only leads to death of innocent people.

For example, By Proliferating Guns In U.S., Gun Lobby and Industry, In Effect, Help Murderers Get Guns Guest Column by Elliot Fineman, April 2009.

Trying to pass sensible gun control legislation is a David vs. Goliath battle. The NRA has an annual budget of $200 million and employs 600 people. By contrast, the Brady Campaign has a budget of $7 million and employs 30 people. Its a stunning mismatch. As I researched the issue I discovered that the NRA is nothing more than a marketing group for the gun industry. They are remarkably good at what they do. They disguise their real purpose by focusing on Second Amendment rights, democracy, freedom, and rights of self-defense.

Originally Posted By: MRC re AK-47sI'm not sure exactly what you intended to convey with that distinction. I would tend to assume it is something contrary, otherwise it wouldn't be there in the first place.

Lost me here. I dont get any of the fungibiliy, which apparently means some kind of substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain.

Originally Posted By: MRC The whole...GOD being the slightest bit important is really a subjective issue. To quote; "Frankly darling I don't give a damn" What other Levitican laws do we follow in our daily lives?

You seem to missing the difference between principles and morals.

Originally Posted By: MRCAgreed on the grass thing, it was a poor choice of example. However we do simply kill quite a high amount of vegetation, grass or not.

That debate is about sentient beings.






happy easter all smile


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Originally Posted By: MRCAgreed on the grass thing, it was a poor choice of example. However we do simply kill quite a high amount of vegetation, grass or not.

To a Buddhist or Hindu this would have been THE exact example that brings all to the point wink

However, does all the killing (morally) affect you?
If yes: why do you follow up on it?
If no: would you approve of the (intentional aor accidental) killing of your friends, relatives and yourself?

It's one thing to fall prey for natures selection - it's another thing to 'play "god"' within ones own race and kind... I guess there are very few races on this planet who pose such an enourmos (deadly) threat to itself...

Still thriving - makes us perennial as the grass (hence it'S not cutting itself) wink

Get the point?

Happy Easter hug


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTomOriginally Posted By: MRCAgreed on the grass thing, it was a poor choice of example. However we do simply kill quite a high amount of vegetation, grass or not.

To a Buddhist or Hindu this would have been THE exact example that brings all to the point wink

However, does all the killing (morally) affect you?
If yes: why do you follow up on it?
If no: would you approve of the (intentional aor accidental) killing of your friends, relatives and yourself?

It's one thing to fall prey for natures selection - it's another thing to 'play "god"' within ones own race and kind... I guess there are very few races on this planet who pose such an enourmos (deadly) threat to itself...

Still thriving - makes us perennial as the grass (hence it'S not cutting itself) wink

Get the point?

Happy Easter hug
I think most people disapprove of friends and family dying but that is just because it personally effects you. It MATTERS in your personal sphere of bias. I think a lot of people like to believe the outside sphere matters to them but largely it doesn't. You can look into the Monkey Sphere/Dunbar's Number here. It's part of the idea that our brains can really only take personal acount of a limited number of things at once. For example I have 13,700+ songs on my computer. I still only listen to maybe 10 bands at most, during any period of time. The rest of the music is just outside of my frame of reference, I can't personalize THAT MUCH all at once.

So the personalized experiences, the people I know, MY pets, things like that...they matter. Because objectively I am capable of it. I can only take so much value in the death of someone I've never met.

That's more statistical curiosity than a statement attempting to legitimize murder or something. I'm just trying to point out people have objective limitations.

Originally Posted By: Stone

It means look it up for yourself!
Riiiight. Maybe don't bring up points that you can't discuss?

Quote:
Its not just the Government, its the whole NRA advertising campaign that has sucked in Americans to buy more and more guns, in the mistaken belief that it brings them manliness and freedom. In reality, it only leads to death of innocent people.

For example, By Proliferating Guns In U.S., Gun Lobby and Industry, In Effect, Help Murderers Get Guns Guest Column by Elliot Fineman, April 2009.

Trying to pass sensible gun control legislation is a David vs. Goliath battle. The NRA has an annual budget of $200 million and employs 600 people. By contrast, the Brady Campaign has a budget of $7 million and employs 30 people. Its a stunning mismatch. As I researched the issue I discovered that the NRA is nothing more than a marketing group for the gun industry. They are remarkably good at what they do. They disguise their real purpose by focusing on Second Amendment rights, democracy, freedom, and rights of self-defense.
I think this is more a statement about the lobbying issue...which sadly I don't think there are many legal ways to limit. I think as long as there is a representative system you will have lobbying. There's not much you can do about that. I don't think I've seen an NRA ad. I see a bunch of anti-abortion stuff in my local area but I don't think I see ANYTHING promoting gun use. I tend to think that the only people who pay attention to them are those who are interested, either positively or negatively. For example...I never see PETA ads. They just never cross my path, but I still hear about their silliness.

The INTERESTED are typically the only people who pay attention to special interest issues.

Quote:
Lost me here. I dont get any of the fungibiliy, which apparently means some kind of substitution, as a quantity of grain for an equal amount of the same kind of grain.
Say you have a .22 round. That round will do the same amount of damage no matter where you got it from. It is the same product regardless. If the difference in the AKs comes down to mods, aa person is capable of doing that themselves privately anyway, but it is still the same machine that dispenses a bullet. The gun, no matter where it comes from, does the same kind of damage. If I bought a glock at a local gun shop, a gunshow, or a guys trunk; it kills exactly the same. So by that route, a gun is fungible. As long as a gun can be had, a gun is a gun. You may pay more, it may be less legal but it is still a dispenser of high velocity projectiles.


Quote:

You seem to missing the difference between principles and morals.
you'll have to explain that one to me. It doesn't make much sense.

First definition I see for morals "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. "

They seem to be the same thing. We attach a certain VALUE to either word. BOTH have been religiously branded at times but both are also absolutely independent of faith. There's actually strong argument to say that morals are an absolute product of evolution. It was to the benefit of our survival that we had an aversion to killing each other.

I don't like that religion has anything to do with this discussion though it isn't surprising as we are talking largely about personal opinions.

Quote:

That debate is about sentient beings.
This is a VERY privileged bias. How can we substantiate the sentience of an organism we cannot communicate with? There are carnivorous plants. Plants that eat insects and small animals. They reproduce sexually and are complex organisms. If for example they had a method of retaining a nervous structure or memory that was different from ours...how would we know? We are coming to an understanding of the brain, imagine a creature with a completely different method? We wouldn't even know it existed. I'm not attempting to argue that plants are sentient, but I'm saying this is basically something we aren't exactly capable of substantiating.

Many large cats kill young males because they are considered a threat to their dominance. Same with crocodiles I believe. Certain fish do this, some animals simply eat each other for food. Piranha, for example, will eat each other when they don't have enough alternative food.

Other animals kill a LOT. Largely they kill for food or social status. To my knowledge I don't think we have seen a lot of animals that kill for "fun." It'd be hard to prove we had a sociopathic chimp.

My point I suppose is that killing happens A LOT. We have a particular vantage point. A bias that makes certain things matter more. Like people who are disgusted at eating dogs. It's no less meat than a cow, might even be leaner. We have simply defined one as a crop and the other as a companion.

I am rambling quite a bit. I suppose I'm just saying it's good if we all come to terms with a certain amount of objectivity here.

A gun is a gun, killing happens, etc. Now I'm in favor of less killing. I'm also in favor taxing couples for having children. Kind of a different subject I guess. I just want this argument to be less emotionally charged, and more objective. What are the CAUSES of these symptoms. What are the most efficient cures. What has worked, what hasn't. I want to see the forest for the trees, and I want the argument to see it too.






happy easter all smile
[/quote]


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: MRCRiiiight. Maybe don't bring up points that you can't discuss?

Hey, MRC I already posted what I looked up from wiki:

Originally Posted By: WikiDuring the Mesolithic as in the preceding Paleolithic period, people lived in small (mostly egalitarian) bands and tribes. However, the Neolithic Revolution involved far more than the adoption of a limited set of food-producing techniques. During the next millennia it would transform the small, mobile and fairly egalitarian groups of hunter-gatherers that had hitherto dominated human history, into sedentary societies based in built-up villages and towns, which radically modified their natural environment by means of specialized cultivation and storage technologies (e.g. irrigation) that allowed extensive surplus production.

Just because some things are out of you experience, in this case history, does not mean they are wrong.

Originally Posted By: MRCSay you have a .22 round. That round will do the same amount of damage no matter where you got it from. It is the same product regardless. If the difference in the AKs comes down to mods, aa person is capable of doing that themselves privately anyway, but it is still the same machine that dispenses a bullet. The gun, no matter where it comes from, does the same kind of damage. If I bought a glock at a local gun shop, a gunshow, or a guys trunk; it kills exactly the same. So by that route, a gun is fungible. As long as a gun can be had, a gun is a gun. You may pay more, it may be less legal but it is still a dispenser of high velocity projectiles.

I think you are right in that all guns kill, but not all guns are the same. There is a lot of difference between a AK and a rabbit gun, as there is between a bolt action and an automatic. Anyhow, if what you say is true, then why did the NRA campaign so hard to put semi-automatic black-butt guns back on the street?

Originally Posted By: MRCyou'll have to explain that one to me. It doesn't make much sense.

First definition I see for morals "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. "

They seem to be the same thing. We attach a certain VALUE to either word. BOTH have been religiously branded at times but both are also absolutely independent of faith. There's actually strong argument to say that morals are an absolute product of evolution. It was to the benefit of our survival that we had an aversion to killing each other.

I don't like that religion has anything to do with this discussion though it isn't surprising as we are talking largely about personal opinions.

I have already explained the difference.

Originally Posted By: MRCThis is a VERY privileged bias. How can we substantiate the sentience of an organism we cannot communicate with? There are carnivorous plants. Plants that eat insects and small animals. They reproduce sexually and are complex organisms. If for example they had a method of retaining a nervous structure or memory that was different from ours...how would we know? We are coming to an understanding of the brain, imagine a creature with a completely different method? We wouldn't even know it existed. I'm not attempting to argue that plants are sentient, but I'm saying this is basically something we aren't exactly capable of substantiating.

Many large cats kill young males because they are considered a threat to their dominance. Same with crocodiles I believe. Certain fish do this, some animals simply eat each other for food. Piranha, for example, will eat each other when they don't have enough alternative food.

Other animals kill a LOT. Largely they kill for food or social status. To my knowledge I don't think we have seen a lot of animals that kill for "fun." It'd be hard to prove we had a sociopathic chimp.

My point I suppose is that killing happens A LOT. We have a particular vantage point. A bias that makes certain things matter more. Like people who are disgusted at eating dogs. It's no less meat than a cow, might even be leaner. We have simply defined one as a crop and the other as a companion.

I am rambling quite a bit. I suppose I'm just saying it's good if we all come to terms with a certain amount of objectivity here.

A gun is a gun, killing happens, etc. Now I'm in favor of less killing. I'm also in favor taxing couples for having children. Kind of a different subject I guess. I just want this argument to be less emotionally charged, and more objective. What are the CAUSES of these symptoms. What are the most efficient cures. What has worked, what hasn't. I want to see the forest for the trees, and I want the argument to see it too.

MRC, you dont actually kill the plant when you harvest grain from annual plants, as the plant has finished it's natural cycle. The same goes for most veges, as well as fruit and nuts from trees.

Killing does not need to happen, thats just your perception of how things should be according to your upbringing. We do not need to kill each other to survive. There is a choice.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

MRC
MRC

Funky Blessings Daily

Member Since: 17th Jun 2008
Total posts: 215
Posted:yeah...never mind.

I shouldn't have bothered coming back to this.


Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Lurch, we have previously discussed conflicts of interest. So, Im wondering how you sit with right wing extremists? The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officers about "rightwing extremist activity". However, it fails to take into account the apparent contradiction between law enforcement officers that reject federal authority in favour state or local authority. Or as you put it your constitutional rights trump state and federal laws.

Obama's election fuels US extremism: leaked report

Originally Posted By: ABCRight-wing extremists in the United States are using economic worries and the election of the first black US president as recruiting tools, the US Government warns in a new report.

Fears of possible new restrictions on firearms as well as troubled veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks," warned the US Department of Homeland Security.

The NRA is an anti-government militia, and it was no accident that terrorists like Timothy McVeigh were card carrying members of the NRA. The ideology voiced by the NRA is fundamentally in line with the most violent right-wing extremists like Gun Owners of America and KKK.

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

Originally Posted By: Washington TimesThe Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:10 years after Columbine, still no action on US gun laws:

Flags across Colorado are at half mast today, and, as it is on every anniversary, the Columbine High School is closed. As America marks the 10th anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings, attempts to introduce tighter gun controls have mostly fizzled. Each day in the United States, 32 people are murdered with a gun, and since the Columbine massacre, about 300,000 Americans have died from gun violence.

While Columbine became a catalyst for a national debate about gun control in the United States, where the right to possess firearms is enshrined in the constitution, attempts to restrict weapons have largely fizzled.

And even a recent surge in gun-related violence has not been met with calls for action. A poll last week by CNN showed that support for stricter gun laws is at an all time low - just 39 per cent. Yet mass shootings alone have accounted for 57 deaths in less than a month. A senior lawyer at the Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence, Daniel Vice, says every day in his country there are 32 gun homicides.

"In a typical weekend in the United States, more people are shot and killed than in an average year in Australia; the same is true in Britain, and other countries that have tougher gun laws," he said.

"We have incredible levels of gun violence. Eight of our children and teenagers are shot every day and so we have a lot of work to do to strengthen our gun laws." ...


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Ouroboros
stranger

Member Since: 23rd Apr 2009
Total posts: 1
Posted:Your not going to change human nature. Your not going to take weapons away from humanity and to be honest taking away weapons should be a goal low down on the list of goals for improving humanity.

Columbine was terrible but you can look at it as "Oh no kids got guns and killed people, guns are the enemy!" or you can ask yourself what would have happened if a school security guard was allowed to carry, how many lives would he have saved? If the parents paid more attention to their kids how many lives would they have saved? If the school system actually addressed the problem of these kids being teased and physically harassed at school to their breaking point, how many lives would have been saved?

You blame guns because its the easist thing to blame.

Of course the governement wants guns to be illegal, its much much easier to control a population that isn't armed.

Its amazing how often I see people advocating for the means of their own enslavement.

If guns weren't the weapons of choice then other weapons would be. The difference these days is that people who don't want to or can't fight have others to do it for them while they sit in safety and complain about the fighting.

To the people who are saying that all forms of killing are bad, guns are bad and the people who are debating their right to defend themselves are bad I say to you that I will gladly admit your right when the day comes that your armed with a gun while a man approaches you and your family with a knife with the intent to kill but instead of defending yourself you fall in line with your belief that killing is wrong and you let that man take the lives of you and your family. I'll applaud your courage and strength in your belief and advocate your cause that day.

Religion really should not have any place in this debate especially when you factor in how many people have been killed in the name of one religion or another, including christianity.

Death is just another part of life. I don't pause and think about how sad it is every time I read about someone dying in the paper or hear it on the news, its just life, it happens. I don't care about people when people are the problem in the world. The world wouldn't stop spinning if we all died this second, life would continue and would more than likely thrive more without us here. I've lost people close to me, a few of them were killed violently in either the military or on the streets of where I live and I do miss them but the only sure thing in life is the fact that it ends. Get over it. Weapons certainly were not the cause of death, just the intrument used, human nature is the cause.


Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Ouroboros, very nice reply

It's a pretty good summary reply to all 46 pages of this thread


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

hamamelis
hamamelis

nut.
Location: Bouncing off the walls.
Member Since: 5th Jan 2006
Total posts: 756
Posted:I'm glad I never went to a school with a security guard, armed or not.. That's a pretty disturbing recommendation to me, personally..

THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!


If that's okay with you?

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: hamamelisI'm glad I never went to a school with a security guard, armed or not.. That's a pretty disturbing recommendation to me, personally..

Hamamelis, well said.


Originally Posted By: OuroborosYour not going to change human nature. Your not going to take weapons away from humanity and to be honest taking away weapons should be a goal low down on the list of goals for improving humanity.

Ouroboros, we dont carry weapons in Australia. So, what you mean is that I am probably not going to change Americas fetish for guns. Well, not until America gets over its paranoia, and evolves a bit beyond survival mode.

Originally Posted By: OuroborosColumbine was terrible but you can look at it as "Oh no kids got guns and killed people, guns are the enemy!" or you can ask yourself what would have happened if a school security guard was allowed to carry, how many lives would he have saved? If the parents paid more attention to their kids how many lives would they have saved? If the school system actually addressed the problem of these kids being teased and physically harassed at school to their breaking point, how many lives would have been saved?

(edit). The point is that Columbine was not an isolated incident. In America kids and adults see guns and violence as the way out of their problems. For example, there has been a wave of murder-suicides that have shocked America, where gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right (by the NRA lol).

Eight shot dead in US nursing home attack
Alabama-shooting-spree
Man-shoots-his-five-kids,-then-himself]Man shoots his five kids, then himself
Mass shootings in US since 1999
New York state massacre
NY shooter left 'have a nice day' note
Mother shoots son, self at Florida shooting range
Christian retreat rocked by latest US

Originally Posted By: OuroborosYou blame guns because its the easist thing to blame.

Of course the governement wants guns to be illegal, its much much easier to control a population that isn't armed.

I just think its stupid to carry around a gun because a person is paranoia and insecure. And lets just say I thought putting assault weapons back on the streets was pretty stupid. The government controlling population through gun laws is just another NRA myth. Again, people living in civilised countries dont feel repressed by gun laws. On the contrary, its quite liberating not to have to carry weapons about the body when one is going to buy milk or attend church. A good example of what happens when there is no gun control is what happened with Katrina, and the guns come out and people start shooting the crap out of each other.

Originally Posted By: OuroborosIts amazing how often I see people advocating for the means of their own enslavement.

Here again, you associate guns with the NRA myth of guns equal freedom. In reality its you who are a slave to the guns; just like an addict is enslaved to drugs.

Originally Posted By: OuroborosIf guns weren't the weapons of choice then other weapons would be. The difference these days is that people who don't want to or can't fight have others to do it for them while they sit in safety and complain about the fighting.

Im not sure what you are trying to say here. Are we back to the primitive association between "bullying" and masculinity?

Originally Posted By: OuroborosI To the people who are saying that all forms of killing are bad, guns are bad and the people who are debating their right to defend themselves are bad I say to you that I will gladly admit your right when the day comes that your armed with a gun while a man approaches you and your family with a knife with the intent to kill but instead of defending yourself you fall in line with your belief that killing is wrong and you let that man take the lives of you and your family. I'll applaud your courage and strength in your belief and advocate your cause that day.

Now we are in fantasy land. I think the problem here is the paranoid that seems to infect Americans in particular. The thing I cant figure out is whats driving this paranoia? Like civilised people dont go around living with the fear you describe. If you were really concerned about your family you would know that the biggest risk of gun violence in the home comes from people they know, and leaving guns around the house.

Originally Posted By: OuroborosReligion really should not have any place in this debate especially when you factor in how many people have been killed in the name of one religion or another, including christianity.

Death is just another part of life. I don't pause and think about how sad it is every time I read about someone dying in the paper or hear it on the news, its just life, it happens. I don't care about people when people are the problem in the world. The world wouldn't stop spinning if we all died this second, life would continue and would more than likely thrive more without us here. I've lost people close to me, a few of them were killed violently in either the military or on the streets of where I live and I do miss them but the only sure thing in life is the fact that it ends. Get over it. Weapons certainly were not the cause of death, just the intrument used, human nature is the cause.

If death is just another part of life then why are you so concerned about being armed, and why are you so afraid ? And hey, just because you associate human nature with guns and killing does not mean that everyone does. The opportunity is to evolve, beyound the world of violence, or do you just like living in a violent world?

EDITED_BY: Stone (1240533166)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:we've gone throught this before stone

we are not afraid

stop saying that we are


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Well said Ouroboros, it's good to see fresh blood in this thread. Don't mind Stone he tries to bully everyone out of here wink

Good to see you back too Faith!

Hamamelis: SRO's (school resource officers) are pretty commonplace, and very very very rarely have to use any sort of serious force. I don't see why it would ever be a *bad* idea to have a police presence at a school. We force schools to have fire drills, have intense fire alarms and sprinkler systems. Fire extinguishers in every room etc. How many kids have you heard of getting burned in a school? Now look at the school violence. I'm not talking shootings, or stabbings, I'm talking violence in general. Schoolyard fights is *not* an "American only" type of thing.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but it's very much the sheep mentality to pretend that it's not there, and balk at any attempt to put plans in place to stop problems. Think of the SRO as the 'fire extinguisher' of schoolplace violence.

Originally Posted By: StoneOuroboros, we dont carry weapons in Australia. So, what you mean is that I am probably not going to change Americas fetish for guns. Well, not until America gets over its paranoia, and evolves a bit beyond survival mode.

You mean you CAN'T carry guns in Australia, you don't have a choice about it anymore.

Originally Posted By: StoneOn the contrary, its quite liberating not to have to carry weapons about the body when one is going to buy milk or attend church. A good example of what happens when there is no gun control is what happened with Katrina, and the guns come out and people start shooting the crap out of each other.

Again, we don't HAVE to carry, we CAN if we want to. I'm not sure in what delusional world less choices = more "freedom"

This thread just keeps getting funnier and funnier. If you insist on being a pacifist that's fine Stone. More power to you, but I have a feeling when it comes down to it you would fight for your life, and maybe even kill if needed to survive. If you're not willing to fight to survive, then what's the point?


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchYou mean you CAN'T carry guns in Australia, you don't have a choice about it anymore.

Lurch, we decided we didnt want people running around with assault weapons in our communities, so we did the best we could to eliminate the problem by getting rid of our guns. That was the choice. We prefer to live without Mass shootings if we can. The question the rest of the world is asking America, is when is America going to do something about its gun violence problem? Which, btw, will only increase as unemployment rises.

Originally Posted By: LurchAgain, we don't HAVE to carry, we CAN if we want to. I'm not sure in what delusional world less choices = more "freedom"

I dont agree Lurch, after all you are only a "sheep" with out you weapons. Or to put it another way, you appear compelled to carry weapons because you are all so afraid. For example, you only have to look at Ouroboros comments, and what you have said many times to see that. It goes along the lines of - a man approaches you and your family with a knife with the intent to kill, and if that day comes and you are not armed then you let that man take the lives of you and your family. You call that choice? That's a made up story, a fantasy to justify carrying weapons. So Lurch, who is living in a delusional world with made up stories about phantiom attackers or if you like delusional stories about weapons of mass destruction? The reality is that most people are shot by people thay know, in their oun homes, with their own guns. Anyhow, if you are not pressured by your conditioning to carry guns, then why carry guns? They are destructive and serve little purpose except to inflate the ego.

Originally Posted By: LurchThis thread just keeps getting funnier and funnier. If you insist on being a pacifist that's fine Stone. More power to you, but I have a feeling when it comes down to it you would fight for your life, and maybe even kill if needed to survive. If you're not willing to fight to survive, then what's the point?

Lurch, have I ever said I was totally against guns? I have always said they have a limited place in society, most with farmers. I just dont think its a good idea to let cowboys run around with concealed handguns and assault weapons. As the links in my previous post will testify. To my way of thinking, it goes against against the nature to survive if you put assault weapons back on the street, and straight into the hands of gangsters who use the guns to shoot at you, and then turn around and call it FUN!

EDITED_BY: Stone (1240622628)


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I'm just curious Stone, since you like to throw terms around.. What is *your* definition of an 'assault weapon'? Don't go look it up, I just want to know what you're envisioning when you keep saying that

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Stone
Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne
Member Since: 13th Jun 2001
Total posts: 2830
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchI'm just curious Stone, since you like to throw terms around.. What is *your* definition of an 'assault weapon'? Don't go look it up, I just want to know what you're envisioning when you keep saying that


Originally, I would have said would have said assault weapons were weapons that were classified under President Clintons weapons ban. The so-called Black weapons, weapons like the A15 a knock off of the M16, and modified AKs. Yes, I know a few sneaked through the ban, but I think it was a good law.

We have seen the carnage that has and is occurring since these weapons were made available again under Bush. Their track record speaks for themselves. There is no place for real or pretend military style weapons in a civilized community. You might remember that it was the misuse of Tommy guns by gangsters that led to the original class III weapons ban, and Id suggest the same thing is happening with these weapons.

Just for the record, President Clintons weapons ban from wiki. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" including military-style semiautomatic rifles, derived from assault rifles but with lesser capabilities.

These days I would include all semi-automatics and hand guns, because they are all used for assault. Banning those weapons would not infringe on legitimate use of guns for say hunting or target shooting. We still have hunting and target shooting in Australia, and its not like it makes you a better shot having a semi-automatic. Quite the contrary Id say. Though I suppose the days of real marksmanship are over if you need a semi-automatic to hunt.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

hamamelis
hamamelis

nut.
Location: Bouncing off the walls.
Member Since: 5th Jan 2006
Total posts: 756
Posted:Originally Posted By: Lurch
Hamamelis: SRO's (school resource officers) are pretty commonplace, and very very very rarely have to use any sort of serious force. I don't see why it would ever be a *bad* idea to have a police presence at a school. We force schools to have fire drills, have intense fire alarms and sprinkler systems. Fire extinguishers in every room etc. How many kids have you heard of getting burned in a school? Now look at the school violence. I'm not talking shootings, or stabbings, I'm talking violence in general. Schoolyard fights is *not* an "American only" type of thing.

I don't mean this as an insult in any way, but it's very much the sheep mentality to pretend that it's not there, and balk at any attempt to put plans in place to stop problems. Think of the SRO as the 'fire extinguisher' of schoolplace violence.


So.. because I went to a school where I seem to remember one real fight, which was broken up by a teacher by threatening both participants with suspension, I'm either a 'sheep', or somehow delusional?

I can think of a few reasons why a police presence in schools would not be a good idea- there's better things to spend money on in education, and an armed security guard is a challenge to a lot of people, one I used to work with always brought a change of clothes to work, because otherwise on the way guys would very often have a go to try prove how hard they were- the kind of kid who would come in armed themselves (especially with the thought of suicide) is not going to be stopped by the fact someone may be shooting back.

I'm not saying there are no schools which would, regrettably, need one, but I don't see why it should be seen as a desirable standard.

Oh, and my house has a fire alarm, but I don't want the police there... can't see the connection myself. wink


THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!


If that's okay with you?

Delete

zyonchaos
journeyman
Location: Anglesey, Wales, UK soon to be...
Member Since: 13th May 2009
Total posts: 77
Posted:I have read quite a bit on Gun laws, being a fan of competition shooting myself I shoot both rifle and pistol (luckily in the military) I have seen what overzealous gun laws (enacted after the Dunblane masacre) have done to shooting clubs and competitions in the UK. The only people that seem to have suffered with these gun laws are the people with the legitimate reasons for having them and collectors.

From personal experience (young and stupid once) it is very easy to get hold of weapons if you look hard enough. They are not as prohibitively expensive as people make them out to be (unless you buy them legitimately).

I also do not believe that computer games and movies and music are to blame with the rise of weaponised crime, I am more inclined however to believe that discipline, either a complete lack of, or in some cases too much discipline is to blame. By too much I mean beatings as a kid and the such rather than a smacked backside. The complete lack of social discipline not just family based is also to blame, as they are fond of telling me when my parents were little there was a local copper who knew them by name. When I was little, the police could give you a one way conversation in a loud voice, and my parents encouraged it and gave me twice as worse when I got home. Now what happens, the police detain some scrote, who then complains and before you know it a human rights lawyer is supporting the scrote and the copper is dragged through the coals.
Someone who has no insurance, no license, no tax and has "Borrowed" someone elses car. They run someone over and kill them, what is there punishment?
A serial rapist is caught, prosecuted and found guilty. What is there punishment?
A murderer is caught, proved guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. What is there punishment?

I will give you a clue in the UK we spend a lot of money looking after their needs, putting them in prisons that are not hard to live in, we give them entertainment consoles to keep them quiet and they dont have to do any hard labour or take part in a work gang wearing jumpsuits saying they are part of a prison programme. Why?? It is against their human rights not to provide them with all this. Next we will start prosecuting the victims of crime.... Oh hang on sorry already do that.

Politicians need to stop wasting money on think tanks and survey groups trying to work out what to ban next, and focus on what we need to improve, and they could do that without focus groups and think tanks. They could try that altogether new concept its called listening to the public that elect them in the first place.

Sorry for rambling

J


From Within Chaos Comes Order

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Nice to see a Brit that's not overly paranoid about guns

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

zyonchaos
journeyman
Location: Anglesey, Wales, UK soon to be...
Member Since: 13th May 2009
Total posts: 77
Posted:Originally Posted By: LurchNice to see a Brit that's not overly paranoid about guns

lol
Its hard to be paranoid about guns and be in the military mate, but a good number of my friends who arent in the forces feel the same way. Its so easy to fall in to the trap of "this is bad lets ban it", but who are we punishing really? The criminals, nah they will still find a way of getting what they want, so all it ends up doing is punishing the law abiding citizens.

My ex girlfriends dad used to have a collection of pistols now this collection covered over 150yrs of weapon history, some would say brilliant thats nice. But when the new laws were brought in he had to get rid of them luckily he found a museum willing to buy them or he would of been out of a lot of money. He had a gun license and they were all registered. Yet if he had kept them he would of been a criminal.


From Within Chaos Comes Order

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:umm

yeah, right - that's only all them criminals going on killing sprees, not the law abiding citizens, right?

Fun part is that many of these guns are illegally owned, instantly making those shooters criminals... Fun part is that up to that point, MOST of these ppl have been law abiding citizens, APART from illegally owning a gun...

To me it's less about "the trap of "this is bad lets ban it"" but more about: "so many who can't handle it so let's regulate it to make the world a safer place"... like... with cars and drivers licenses, or... age of consent... or gambling... many examples where regulations make sense. And where there are not people necessarily dying when things go wrong...

It's easy to sweep away good arguments, as long as you're not affected yourself but attracted... wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

zyonchaos
journeyman
Location: Anglesey, Wales, UK soon to be...
Member Since: 13th May 2009
Total posts: 77
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTomumm

yeah, right - that's only all them criminals going on killing sprees, not the law abiding citizens, right?

Fun part is that many of these guns are illegally owned, instantly making those shooters criminals... Fun part is that up to that point, MOST of these ppl have been law abiding citizens, APART from illegally owning a gun...

To me it's less about "the trap of "this is bad lets ban it"" but more about: "so many who can't handle it so let's regulate it to make the world a safer place"... like... with cars and drivers licenses, or... age of consent... or gambling... many examples where regulations make sense. And where there are not people necessarily dying when things go wrong...

It's easy to sweep away good arguments, as long as you're not affected yourself but attracted... wink

Tom,

I cant really argue with you there, but that is due to the training we have to go through in the military before we are even alowed to fire a weapon. If it was regulated and licensed properly with proper and thorough training. If you look at the US it is so easy to get a gun legally and thats all you do, no training required.

In the UK a lot of people had to get rid of their weapons, that were legally owned and used at shooting clubs and for competitions, not for self defence. They did that but the criminals kept theres.

I dont agree with blanket banning something unless it is 100% without a doubt the best thing to do. Regulation is a lot better as long as it is run correctly. Which lets face it with the governments we have at the moment that aint gonna happen.


From Within Chaos Comes Order

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:zyonchaos: when going back over my personal development in these 46 pages of discussion, I indeed turned from outright banning to stricter regulation. Thus acknowledging that it's not the gun but the guy who has it in possession.

From the sides of those arguing against a ban or further regulations there has been no development - a common denominator could not be found. From this side of the argument, a more thorogh background check, a longer waiting period, a more intense training and mandatory safety measures have been proposed. Further it has been asked why "ordinary" citizens need (so called) assault weapons...

Amongst others, I proposed that those who own guns merely for the use in clubs and shooting competitions could store their guns in those clubs only. It's been proposed to microstamp and limit ammunition... It's a weak argument saying that this would not be practicable and all that has been given in return was mockery and the dull repetition of antiquated arguments. (* in this context: it has been mutually agreed that if there is a madman with a knive vs. a law abiding citizen with a rifle - the madman wins. So please get over this rubbish.)

Laws for regulation already exist (for quite a long time) - it doesn't seem to change much and peoplle seem to have their fingers stuck into their ears quite deeply.

At the same time where a few like to get off on their guns (innocent and law abiding) people are getting killed.

However, this thread is primarily about the US gun laws, as in the EU we do have quite effective laws that get enforced - and in turn there are much less incidences where (a few) people shoot (many) people.

Those who are still not confident with their own government - IMO - in reality don't trust their fellow citizens. It has been proven that (in the long run) no government can successfully establish its power against the will of its people - no matter whether 'democracy', monarchy or dictatorship.

The only reason why there is no outright ban in effect in the US NOW is that there is a lobby and an industry who supports it with loeads of money connected to it...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Page: 1...3637383940...44

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource murder suicide   ...
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]

     Show more..