Preserved Topic: Gun Control (Page 1 of 1)

Yes or No? Why?

My comments following.

-Jestah

I sometimes have problems controlling my gun. This is usually solved by my wife threatening to cut it off.

No. I am against gun control. I am for Learning How to be Responsible while Handeling Guns & Weapons, though. A good friend of the family taught me when I was 6 about guns, how to handle, clean and shoot them. He installed in me a great respect for all weapons (not just guns) and the responsiblility that one bears regarding carrying and using them.

The main reason I am against gun control? Because then only those 'lisenced' for gun use are allowed to use them (which normally means government/authorities) and they don't have pretty good track records in human history regarding such powers...and of course, gun contol does not prohibit criminals from acquiring guns, leaving one weaponless in the face of such a threat...no, I am against gun control.

Personally I'm all about melting every fucking one of them down and building shelters for the homeless out of the salvaged scrap...but that's just me.

Gun control itself is foolishness for its stated purpose though: "Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous and criminal citizens"...


Uh...right...so Joe Bob and his "hunting" crew aren't dangerous....ayup. As for the criminals...well...they're criminals, yes? Making a law to limit criminals is like writing "NO" on a bag of donuts so that bears won't eat it.

Dig?

Nice idea, but the execution is horrible. HOWEVER, the minute any single simpering Amerikan mentions the constitutional right to bear arms, I usually start laughing uproariously and questioning their ability to tie their own shoes without the help of Budweiser and porno.

~slow grin~



: : pixelflo : :

ICQ:# 10237808

quote:

---

Nice idea, but the execution is horrible. HOWEVER, the minute any single simpering Amerikan mentions the constitutional right to bear arms, I usually start laughing uproariously and questioning their ability to tie their own shoes without the help of Budweiser and porno.

---

So that's why I haven't been able to tie my shoes lately!

I think it has worked well here in the UK (we have the strictest in the worl no?). Harden criminals will always be able to get there hands on them but supply and demand works here too the lower the number of guns available the higher the price and the less likely they are to fall into the hands of petty criminals so guns tend only to be used in the upper end of crimes. I could seen things starting to get out of control here in the early '90s (kids offering me guns, guns available for a few hundred pounds, a number of people 'flashing their pieces' in pretty minor situations some of them were only teenagers, I was once shot at, etc.) and it has all calmed down somewhat (or at least its not as bad as it could have been).

Anyway I feel safer and people just don't worry about gun crime (at least in this part of Liverpool). Kids don't get pissed off by bullying and run amok in schools. I haven't seen or been offered a gun in years. I don't have any need for a gun (although I should have taken up the offer, from a Palestinian I knew, for an AK47 just in case civilisation collapses - if it hasn't done so already) and although I feel sorry for the our sporting shooters I feel its a small price to pay for having a slightly safer world.

I'm not saying everyone would be better off following that lead just that I'm not concerned about the way things have worked out here.

Emps

i support the gun control.
In my china,the gun use is under strictly control.SO we feel very safe in campus .we also can see that quite a lot of gun criminals happen in us due to gun out of control.
gun control can not clear all the gun criminals ,but it is really reduce the chances of the gun criminals.

i love beatles

And of course, when the government decides to 'crush' demonstrators, with 'gun control' (i.e. only the police/military have guns...), then there is really not that much that one can do against it, now, is there?

Why the government police will crush demonstrators?
think of this question
that is their job according the law.
If they crush the people without the law permitting them .

It means the society is really out of control.
At that time
We dont need to discuss the issue "gun control"
What we should discuss is "whether we need a revolution "


i love beatles

Ok, good point. And how does one go about changing a law that doesn't allow one to demonstrate against it? Or, for that matter, any type of protest?

I think Ghandi called it 'Civil Disobedience'....and when one uses armed forces to put down such an action, I feel that that is wrong. So what other avenue is left open? Armed revolt? Only if one has access to weapons...and are allowed to have them...isn't that how present-day China established itself?



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-29-2002).]

*Ahem*

Stay on target, Luke

(Let's not let the China discussion spill over here )

I would have to agree with DG. I don't like guns and I would like to see them melt every freaking one of them down. The time for people needing to hunt is over. That is why we have grocery stores.

I think that not only are guns accessible to criminals that would do harm, but there are a lot of people that I could just "snapping" one day and if there were a gun laying around, there would be a few less people in the world. Know what I mean?



Later,
C:\


~Binary is best~

No. You could do the same with weapon (insert appropriate name). It doesn't matter if it is a gun, knife, 2 by 4, or whatever. That is treating the outcome, and not the source of the problem. The weapon is just an object, it is how it is used, that decides the outcome.

Melting down every gun (weapon) on the planet would not solve the problem. Just as getting rid of all nuclear explosives doesn't solve that problem. The threat that someone will build (and use) such things drives others to do so, as well.

Example: America and the USSR. The Cold War. Afterwards, attempting to reduce (eradicate) the nuclear arsenals, and then the buildup between India and Pakistan. You see? One stops, others start. We come to our senses, others lose theirs. It's the information that is dangerous, the knowledge. And the will to use it. Just my opinion.

I've been trying to stay out of this thread (well, at least in a serious manner), but I just can't help myself anymore. I've got to go with WebShaman on this one. The weapon itself doesn't matter--it could be anything. In fact, human beings don't even need a weapon to kill other human beings. If I "snapped" and there was no weapon handy, I would simply beat someone to death. The problem is not the weapon. It is the people who use the weapon.

*Sigh* So much for the sidelines...

Yeah, sometimes it's hard to stay on the sidelines..even though I do agree with DG, we just don't live in an ideal world...

Treat the problem, not the end result...and the problem here is a human problem, not an object problem...

Mabe we should all be limbless...

People talk about armed revolt.
Revolution is an important aspect of democracy. We all hope it never gets that far that the rule of law is overshadowed by the rule of the gun...but it happens. Sometimes for the better.

Now, let's think about what any of this has to do with gun control...
Nothing. Nothing at all. One can not justify citizens owning guns by saying they might be needed to overthrow a dictatorship.

Why?
Because nobody in their right mind would advocate citizens owning Howitzers, tanks, .50 caliber machine guns, anti-tank rockets, F-16's or B-2 bombers.

Just in case people here in the states haven't been paying attention, the above mentioned list is the stuff that wins wars. Pistols don't win wars, .30-06 hunting rifles don't win wars, double barreled, sawed off, 12 g shotguns don't win wars. For that matter, M-16's don't win wars.

Get together 150 of your closest buddies, give 'em all M-16's (undoubedly the very best personal assault rifle in the world) and 5 or 6 clips of ammo...think you can stand up to a few Apache helicopters, flown by professionals? ...or an artillery barrage? ...or a couple tomahawk missles? You can't.

If you're talking about a revolution, the stuff you need to win is all illegal anyway...and should be.

mobrul

I want to ask some of you :
why must you have some guns?
If you have a gun ,what purpose will you use it ?IF you can use the gun in right way ,can you garanteer other guys will use it in right ways?
If the mistake is not the gun itself ,(it is the owner),how should we resolve this question ?by
education ?
Here came the other question :there is a research show that there is something wrong
with some of the gun violence maker s brain when they were brought to the world.
Can the education resolve this problem?
without the enviroment,i think ,the violence will lose the soil .



i love beatles

Ahhh...no. You are wrong. Why? You seem to think that a revolution is a stand up fight, with drawn lines. A revolution is not primarily done with weapons - it's a belief. It only becomes an armed conflict when all other measures are ruthlessly crushed. Normally by a ruling few, who have control over said arms of government. For it to become a true revolution, the majority must not only want it, they must support it.

History speaks against you. Only rarely, does it speak for your point. Of all the lands that were 'colonized', most are free from their 'colonizers'. Through revolution. Either through the use of force, or through the use of power, of belief.

A few 'rednecks' so to speak, who group together to start a revolution, are hardly to be considered as 'true' revolutionaries...and in America, wouldn't be met with all these weapon systems...they would be met with the FBI and the ATF. A true revolution in America is protected under the Constitution. For example, if the state of Texas decided that they didn't want to be a part of America anymore...well, then they would put it to a vote. And then...bye-bye. Now, if the Federal Government decided that they didn't want that (or wouldn't accept that), then maybe it would de-generate into an armed conflict. Can't see that really happening, though. There are no legal grounds to attack a state that wants to seperate from the Union. We had that once before, if you know your history. At that time, the North had to have a 'reason' to convince its people to invalidate the Souths claim to Sovereignty...and that was slavery. And it was the bloodiest conflict in Americas history (aside from the indian massacres...).

...so you strengthen my arguments.

We both agree that the possession or non-possession of a fully automatic 9mm (insert your favorite model) sub-machine gun is of virtually zero consequence in a revolution.

We both agree that the possession or non-possession of an unlicensed .45 pistol is of virtually zero consequence in a revolution.

So, to say we can't have gun control because 'we may need these weapons in a revolution' is silly.

We 'control' lots of things in our society. We test and license people to practice law, medicine, drive a car, sell alcohol, build a house, get married, get divorced, operate a business...hell, most cities even require a license to hold a damn parade!

Does anybody really think that requiring gun owners to show they are responsible, knowledgeable about gun safety, limiting the access of civilians to military grade weapons, limiting where one may brandish a gun, and requiring a license to own a gun is really going to be the difference between a successful and a not successful revolution?

If a revolution is really going to be successful, it must have the full force of the people behind it...registering your pistol, your hunting rifle or your shotgun is not going to matter.

Notice, I'm not saying in this argument that all guns should be outlawed...I'm simply arguing that the 'revolution' argument against gun control is seriously flawed.

mobrul

OK, I'm a tad confused here. Who said that we need guns for a revolution? Are you referring to what WebShaman said in reply to vanvanta up there? I don't think he was saying that we need guns just in case we want to revolt--he was replying to vanvanta with the knowledge of another thread in mind, and I think it might have gotten taken out of context here. I think we're pretty much all on the same page when it comes to the "guns for revolutions" argument.

quote:

---

without the enviroment,i think ,the violence will lose the soil

---

vanvanta: so you are saying that without guns violence will disappear? That is basically saying that violence is inherent in the guns, not in humanity. As has been mentioned before, people can (and do) kill perfectly well without guns. This is my personal opinion, but I don't think violence is an external thing, I think violence is a part of human nature. This is why nations solve their disagreements through war, and people often resort to violence on a personal level.

SOHU1004:
I want to make it clear that I dont mean if we clear all the guns the criminals will disappear.
A guy can kill people by a knive,poison,a chair even a spoon

But ,do you find that in these kinds of "weapons",guns will do more damage to people,it means it is more dangerous.
I got a bad news recently:In germany ,a students kill more than 10 students in his campus.
if he does not gain this gun,i mean,if he use other weapon ,such as knife or chair ,can he kill so many people?

Except this way,i want to know ,what else way is more efficient to reduce that kind of criminals.


i love beatles

To mobrul - no, I don't support the fact that one needs access to weapons in case of a 'revolution'. No amount of 'Gun Control' would prohibit access to weapons in such a case, so the point is moot. To the point of responsible gun-ownership, I agree. Totally. Just not sure that the Government should handle it.

To vanvanta - yes, there are other ways to do way more destruction that with just guns...I think recent events have proven that. Namely, bombs and biological agents present a much bigger threat than guns ever will. And are much more efficient at killing large amounts of people (not to mention easier and safer).

vanvanta: True, a gun may be more destructive than a spoon, but one way or another people like the guy you read about are going to obtain a weapon to do their killing. Personally, I think focusing on the root of the problem would be more effective. I do, in fact, agree with what you said originally: removing the environment for violence is the key. But that does not mean eliminating guns, it means dealing with basic social issues and human nature. Obviously, this is a lot harder than just controlling guns, and politicians usually go for the easy (and more visible) way out.

Webshaman:yup,the bomb and the biological agent are also dangerous,it is obviously that we must control them.
In fact ,quite a lot of countries have put it into pratical.The gun control is also realism problem just like them.

sohu1004:Please tell me what measures we should take to deal with the social issues and human nature in detail.
I am very interesting at your suggestions.

i love beatles

click me

Arthemis:

quote:

---

Angelfire does not allow direct linking
from offsite, non-Angelfire pages,
to files hosted on Angelfire.
This practice of 'remote linking' reduces
our ability to serve out the homepages
of our members quickly and efficiently.

---

vanvanta: well, for starters, I think education is key. Of course, the education that WebShaman mentioned at the very beginning is important, but I also think education in the family these days is lacking. Parents expect that their children will learn everything they need to know in school, and this is just not going to happen. Also, much of society focuses on and even glorifies violence. Now, I'm not saying we should eliminate all violent video games or something like that, but isn't the amount of violence in society sometimes disturbing? For example: most of the popular Korean movies these days are about gangsters, and they glorify violence. These are the kinds of conditions that breed the tragedies we read about. Or, as the Pet Shops Boys said (and I'm sure someone else, too), "Violence breeds violence."



What does it mean?

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 05-01-2002).]

Yes ,education is a efficient way .

THis is quite a complicated problem:
a child which borned in a one-parent family ,often beat by his parent,often discriminated by his teacher and friends.......will become a criminal.
there are so many things to evoke violence,

another way to resolve it ,i think ,is the whole society should pay more attention to the that kind of people ,

love

is
a good method.

i love beatles

[This message has been edited by vanvanta (edited 05-01-2002).]

Hmmm...gotta disagree with this statement :

quote:

---

a child which borned in a one-parent family ,often beat by his parent,often discriminated by his teacher and friends.......will become a criminal.

---

Why? Because that is a very good description of me...and except for in the country of Iraq, I could hardly be thought of as a 'criminal'...well, unless you are BSS...

Fact is, one can take control of ones own life. I think much of becoming a criminal is a personal choice. However, sometimes the surrounding environment has much to do with that, as well. Why I never became a criminal is beyond me, especially when I look back and consider that all of my childhood friends are either dead, or in jail...maybe it's because we moved around so much, that the surrounding environment never really had a chance to permanently affect me....

I think you misunderstand me.what i mean is that the child in that kind of enviroment

will become criminals more easier than other people,not every one will become (such as you ).

sometimes ,people has instinction to survive ,if one guys will starve without doing sth wrong ,he will be
more easier to become criminals.


i love beatles