Guns, guns, guns

sorry but what you describe sounds a lot like a strawman argument in my eyes.

I wasnt asking for the feeling regarding pools if we ever would get in to a debate about pool restrictions we might talk about that. I was more thinking about the feelings regarding guns. If you have children (which I dont know) I would be surprised if you would - hypotheticaly speaking of course - bear the loss of them by explaining they did at least not died by the much more dangerous pools. I hope you see what my intention is. To at least try to get people about to imagine the situation for some minute from the "other side of the fence". It is always easy in arguments to take one side and just explain his own point but one should also be able to at least try to see the situation from a different angle. IT doesnt mean that one has to change his own oppinion. But it helps to not get in extrem thinking.

I do know that this is a very emotional approach. I dont think ANYONE would really take it lightly if he would loose his children, wife or anything. I guess the factor to die by car accident, or from something similar is as well a lot higher then compared to death in a war zone. But that makes war not less extreme or explains why people that have been die hard patriots and supporters before suddenly change their mind when the first flag comes home with the message about the child beeing killed as soldier somewhere. I know this is now a bit exagerated argumentation of course. But still emotions play a very important role when it comes to such a discussion and many enough see it as a cut in ther rights when it comes to firearms and many feel emiditaly like "attacked" personaly.
 
welsh said:
A) We also have to look at the actor that makes the decision to use the gun in a crime, and this is where things may get more complicated.

B) Unless we are going to be racist or prejudiced and assume that the perpetuation of underclass, or the existence of large communities of underprivilged minorities, or ethnic minorities prone to violence...
Click to expand...

'A' only gets more complicated if you ignore the fact that 'B' is completely true.

It is not racist or prejudiced to observe the numbers and then report them. Underprivilged minorities are disproportionally responsible for violent gun crimes.

This is also directly related to illegal drug trafficing.

Anybody ignoring these facts because it is politically correct to ignore facts is just blowing smoke up their own asses.
 
Crni Vuk said:
sorry but what you describe sounds a lot like a strawman argument in my eyes.

I wasnt asking for the feeling regarding pools if we ever would get in to a debate about pool restrictions we might talk about that. I was more thinking about the feelings regarding guns. If you have children (which I dont know) I would be surprised if you would - hypotheticaly speaking of course - bear the loss of them by explaining they did at least not died by the much more dangerous pools. I hope you see what my intention is. To at least try to get people about to imagine the situation for some minute from the "other side of the fence". It is always easy in arguments to take one side and just explain his own point but one should also be able to at least try to see the situation from a different angle. IT doesnt mean that one has to change his own oppinion. But it helps to not get in extrem thinking.

I do know that this is a very emotional approach. I dont think ANYONE would really take it lightly if he would loose his children, wife or anything. I guess the factor to die by car accident, or from something similar is as well a lot higher then compared to death in a war zone. But that makes war not less extreme or explains why people that have been die hard patriots and supporters before suddenly change their mind when the first flag comes home with the message about the child beeing killed as soldier somewhere. I know this is now a bit exagerated argumentation of course. But still emotions play a very important role when it comes to such a discussion and many enough see it as a cut in ther rights when it comes to firearms and many feel emiditaly like "attacked" personaly.
Click to expand...
Emotional responses have no place in a debate about the merits and impact of gun ownership.

My point was that people suck at assessing risks. You'll see a lot of people emotionally ranting about the dangers of guns to children, but you see none of them ranting about the much greater danger of pools to children. Even though pools are 100(!) times more dangerous. What this means, is that emotional responses are worthless.
 
So Dammit Boy-

(1) are you arguing that the reason that we have high crime rates in the US is because we have so many underprivileged minorities or the persistance of an underclass?

Or

(2) are you saying that members of the lower class are more prone to crime because of their relative lack of privileges?

If you argue (1) than what you are saying is that minorities the underclass may be both more prone to violence and persist as an underclass because they are genetically predisposed to be so. This is eugenics. Your social behavior is shaped by your nature- you are born with bad genes.

If the answer is (2) then the problem is socio-economic problems which, if fixed, could reduce the number of homicides in the US by creating greater opportunities for those minorities to get out of poverty and enter the mainstream "middle class" or at least to a quality of life standard in which crime is no longer a viable alternative.

It would be easy to say that (1) means your a nazi/klan member/racist dickhead, while (2) means your a communist/socialist/liberal weanie. But that's what happens when you go to extremes.

Personally, I would go with (2) over (1) because Nazi/Clan men are mostly assholes and dipshits. The eugenics arguments have been largely disconfirmed. (2) Means that you are a consequence of your context.

I think its safe to say that certain policies regarding the lower class have driven the problem of homicides. That many cities deindustrialized in the 1980s, a period that corresponded with a reduced price in cocaine, heroin and the introduction of crack, and that policies that have dealt with drugs more as a police problem than a public health problem contribute to that.

Then we go back to the question- guns? Would these communities be better if they had more guns or less? Would we increase the number of fatalities by easing up on restrictions for guns? Would that violence spill over into "everyone else" and increase their risks.

We are already seeing the spill over effects. That urban drug dealers ship drugs to "gun permissive" in exchange for weapons means that you've got an increase in drugs (and all the problems associated- including gangs) in new areas. My town in Central Virginia has rival gangs vieing for power in part because of new opportunities to deal drugs and access to weapons. Atlanta- the subject of so much earlier discussion, has become a major trading point in the movement of drugs between the US and Mexico.

Drug dealing, being illicit, requires self-help for insurance and protection (to defend territory and money) since you can't turn to the police. That means guns.

But at the same time, I am not sure we can dismiss gun violence in the US as being strickly a minority/white or a rich/poor issue.

Does having a gun in the house make a person more prone to violence? Does it increase the risk of a fatality in normal disputes? If we factored out "drug or gang related homicide" do guns increase or decrease human insecurity? If having a gun in the house or on your person increase your capacity for life saving "defensive use" is that use off-set by the risks of increased shootings do to accidents, recklessness or merely escalation of normal disputes among people you know.

I think those questions need to be answered.
 
If I was to say anything, I'd say you are a wordy sumbitch who uses 4 paragraphs for every sentence required to get your point across.

I'd also say, quit telling me what you want me to say. here's a novel idea, you say what you think and I'll say what I think. Assumptions need not be applied.

I'm stating a fact. The whys and hows are irrelevant.

Minorities in inner city communities take the easy fast way out and deal drugs, get involved in gangs that deal in drugs, and commit gun violence in drug war related crimes.

You can talk socio-economic bullshit all you want, you can't help those who will not help themselves. We've been fighting a 'war on poverty' for decades with zero results.

It is what it is and it does skew the numbers.

I'd say change our drug war policies if you want to see a change, But I doubt that is happening anytime soon. Guns aren't going away either. Get over it.
 
I am contra excessive gun control. For example the NC gun laws around 2002 where fine and the assault rifle ban under Clinton or the current gun laws in germany are not, as far as I am concerned. I have my reasons and I don't care if other people might think differently, as long as they don't make it hard or near impossible for me (law abiding tax paying citizen) to own guns.
 
DammitBoy said:
snip
Click to expand...

Did I hurt your feelings, Dammit Boy? Are you a closet racist/cracker/klansman/Nazi? Did that point that those who argue genetics are basically dickheads hit too close to home? Poor you.

I am so sorry I hurt your tender little feelings.
("cry me a river...")

You can either try to solve the problems or not. Instead you're cool with letting lots of people people die as long as you get all the guns you want. No wonder you'd like to have more liberal gun laws, because that way more minorities can get guns and more people can die as a result.

You're also wrong about the solution. In the 1960s, about 65-75% of African Americans lived in poverty. By the 1980s, that number had been reduced dramatically, so that only a minority remained in poverty. Currently that number is about 24%. So I guess all that "War on Poverty" stuff kind of worked. Or it did until Reagan decided to cut programs for Blacks. Crack followed soon after and African American prosperity was rolled back about a decade. Even so, going to 24% poverty from what it was in the 60s is one of the great achievements of any major democracy in the 20th Century. You missed it because you were fondling over your guns or caving in to your racist fears. You can't see if you hide your head in the sand.

Why are you even in this discussion? If the point of gun control is to reduce homicides, your position is to foster more homicides, and thus increase social fear justifying more guns. Dude, you're a poster boy for the gun industry.

Better yet, your argument is therefore "I think minorities are genetically predisposed to violence?" That makes you a racist. Congrats with that.

You want to increase the number of guns because the NRA and the other gun nuts tell you that guns make you safer. I am sure the gun lobby adores you for buying their weapons, just like they'll adore the person who uses a gun on you. Seriously, you don't cite your sources, and when I track them down, its usually from the gun nuts.

You also support policies that normalize gun use as a response to social violence and in the process increase the risks of violence to your children, especially if you have girls (because among white folks, its usually females that killed by males). Great future you're making for your kids. I guess they will have to live in a world where they have to pack a gun too.

There's also no point discussing this with you because you'd rather just hide your head in the sand, believe what you want, and ignore any other argument. You make smug statements that are soundbites you steal from others, but which aren't substantive correct. You mistake your own flatulence for cleverness.

Poor Dammit Boy, to think he has to live with.... Negros! Latinos!... To think that his country is becoming increasingly minority dominated, that white folks become minorities pretty soon. What a horror for you. But hey, you got guns so don't be too afraid. You can keep them in your bedroom with you and lock the doors to the outside. You might be safe. You got guns. But then, so does everyone else. Oh, and sadly, white crackers will be a minority as well. I wonder if you'll have to live in an inner city with few opportunities but deal drugs?

Please do us all a favor and practice your stupidity elsewhere. Here, you're just advertising it.
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzXOO_aAxVQ[/youtube]
(by the way dont get to worked up about it, its a satire)


J.P. said:
I am contra excessive gun control. For example the NC gun laws around 2002 where fine and the assault rifle ban under Clinton or the current gun laws in germany are not, as far as I am concerned. I have my reasons and I don't care if other people might think differently, as long as they don't make it hard or near impossible for me (law abiding tax paying citizen) to own guns.
Click to expand...
Its an important part of modern societies and democratic/republic insitutions to listen as well to other arguments and oppinions even if they are not part of your own oppinion and respect their point and trying to understand their argument which of course does not mean that you have to agree with what they say.

If you would explain your reasons why you want guns I would just as well try to understand it and respect the oppinion.
 
@ Crni Vuk

Yeah, I saw bowling for columbine and this cartoon is pretty funny. I don't completely agree about what it is trying to say, even dough it might be partially right. It sais one interesting thing dough. According to the cartoon the first american gun law was established to prevent black people from having guns. That is quite similar to the first gun laws in germany, which where put in place by Hitlers regime to disarm the jewish population in preperation for the holocaust.

What I meant was that you can go ahead and not like guns, I won't force you to buy one. I'm not even going to try and convince anybody to like guns if they don't identify themselves with the idea of self defence by those means. It's a personal choice. Just don't forbid or make it a pain in the ass for me to own guns. I do realize that violence and a violent death is an ugly thing. I'm a paramedic, I often have to perform work on the result of agression.
 
J.P. said:
@ Crni Vuk

Yeah, I saw bowling for columbine and this cartoon is pretty funny. I don't completely agree about what it is trying to say, even dough it might be partially right. It sais one interesting thing dough. According to the cartoon the first american gun law was established to prevent black people from having guns. That is quite similar to the first gun laws in germany, which where put in place by Hitlers regime to disarm the jewish population in preperation for the holocaust.
Click to expand...
Huh? The first gun laws were put into effect right after World War 1, in part to comply with the Treaty of Versailles. They were extremely strict, making it illegal to own a gun under any circumstances.
This changed in 1928, with gun ownership being legal, but permits being required for nearly everything else. In 1938 this further changed to deny Jews the right to own firearms, and to make it easier for government officials, NSDAP members and people who owned an annual hunting license to obtain guns.
So, no, the first gun control laws in Germany had absolutely nothing to do with Jews.

Also, Bowling for Columbine is a shitty movie that has no place in any reasonable debate of gun control.
 
@Sander

This ain't what I read. Makes no difference anyhow. Point is that Hitler and friends put in place and abused gun control laws to make it easier for them to follow through with their evil plans.

I ain't even gonna get into personal prefferences about liking or not liking any movies...
 
Sander said:
...
Also, Bowling for Columbine is a shitty movie that has no place in any reasonable debate of gun control.
Click to expand...
While its credibility is extremly questionable and I agree that Moore is just a controverter using many tools of "propaganda".

But, important is that the US media and news reporting focus much around "fear" which is not only ciricised and noticed by Moore.
 
It is a regular pattern of state building that the government will seek to contain or control the means of "self-help" in a society, which in turn, means controlling the capacity of society to perpetrate acts of violence.

Historically, people had to rely on themselves and their kinfolk for protection and this led to all sorts of problems. One clan gets angry with another clan over something that's been done, and it leads to war. Examples- in Botswana, clans would war with each other over water and cattle and slaves. In many places, the stealing of women might lead to violence. American Indians would go to war over the theft of horses or women. But within clans, people would kill each over based on who was sleeping with who's wife or who was stealing whose lands. Violence would perpetuate more violence and civil war would occur.

Sometimes violence would be used against others who were racially or religious different, a form of discrimination. For example, in many places the homicide rates against recently freed slaves dramatically increased in the first years after the Civil War as a means of social repression against blacks. Later that violence took the form of lynchings. If you look in other parts of the world you can see that ethnocentrism, the fear of others, frequently led to violence. Sometimes violence was used against those with different property interests (one argument for the Salem Witch trials was conflict over property).

With the absence of a state, that violence would become more pronounced. Violence in the old west often corresponded with a relative absence of "police." Even when the police existed, they were often local politicians, tax collectors or in some cases gunmen who often worked both sides of the law - people hired to do violence on behalf of others. Tom Horn, a famous gunman, was only hung because he shot the wrong person. The stockman who launched the Johnson County War managed to escape liability for the people they killed in part because of their political connections.

Frequently its not the state you have to be careful of, but other factions or members of society.

States disarm society because of the danger that factions of society might utilize violence against other members or against the state. The state seeks to replace that capacity for violence with its own police, and therefore domesticate violence for its own use. It seeks to control violence and ideally mediate social conflicts in a peaceful way. That's one of the functions of a successful state.

Why disarm? Because while violence requires an actor (or as some of you have argued "guns don't kill people, people kill people), but these actors also need the instrumentality to commit violence. The question then is "does the instrumentality enhance the power of the actor." Arguably yes, a person has greater potential to commit violence with a weapon than without. The next question, "once made powerful, is a person likely to change their behavior." Some of you guys have said no. Yet power exists in two forms- kinetically, in action, or potentially, as the potential to do something. Does having the power change you?

As you guys point , there is a central problem for the state. A state with the power to control the violence in a society is also a state that can abuse its power against society. So a powerful ruler can turn his police against society, turn tyrannical or dictatorial and next think you know, you get a Hitler, a Pol Pot, a Stalin or a Mao. Alternatively a state that is constrained from abusing power through its constitutional forms (divided government, separation of powers) or is forced to form compromises with society (protection or property rights in return for taxes).

That said, unless the state can domesticate violence, the state can't really undertake its function as a facilitator of economic growth. States are necessary for the continuation of market mechanisms and exchange of goods. For instance, if you buy a product and its defective, you can sue the person that sold it to you. If a person cheats you on a contract (to buy a car), you can take him to court. Without the state, you'd be forced to rely on self-help. You might shoot the person that sold you a bad car. Good luck trying to shoot the corporation that sold you poisonous pharmaceuticals.

So instead you turn to the court and the state, and if the state and the court are just, than you have a fair chance in court to redress the wrongs that are done to you. The exercise of law, essential for the function of the economy, depends on the state's capacity for coercive violence- the power of law is backed up with sanction. Note however, that if the state is tyrannical and predatory, or where there is no state, than there is little potential gain from long-term investment.

Therefore, the problem of state building is fundamentally about controlling and domesticating violence and how that violence is to be used. It can be put to peaceful and economically developmental purposes. Alternatively, it can be put to dictatorial and tyrannical purposes. Whether the state uses violence for peaceful economic development or for predatory tyranny, depends on the constraints on the state itself- its institutional checks on power and the capacity of society to constrain the state. The outcomes - constrained democratic states allowed for greater long-term investment and prosperity. Predatory or tyrannical states often ended up in bankruptcy and collapse. Compare, Imperial Spain or Imperial France vs England of the same periods, or the Communist Bloc vs the West?

Robert Bates, in Prosperity and Violence, makes this a pretty easy point. If you live in a country in Africa where violence is recurring, where it makes little sense to plant crops when war might destroy them before you can bring them to harvest, or where someone might shoot you before you can harvest your crop, than there is little incentive for economic development. Uncertainty in this case, the danger of violence, undermines an individuals willingness to undertake risky long-term investment.

Consider
(1) If you have a city where there is widespread violence, why you invest and develop and take a residence there? Consequently, increase in violence in inner cities in the US led to capital flight and "white flight" from US urban areas in the 1980s. New approaches to policing and economic programs led to revitalization for some (New York) but not others (New Orleans). In those regions where you have high violence, you have migrations out and reduced economic interaction.

(2) Why are people bringing guns to political rallies in the US? Is it because they want to advocate their 2nd amendment rights? Is it because they are afraid of violence done to them? Or is it because guns somehow give them more power. Are they really afraid of tyranny and is that tyranny reasonable? Note the pictures," the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants." Who are the tyrants - a democratically elected president and Congress? Are they using the potential for violence to enhance their bargaining power against those without the means of violence? Why bring a gun to a political rally if not to send a message. Most of these debates are about health care, not 2nd Amend rights?
 
@Welsh

I'm shure your post was well intentioned. Still, I stick to my opinion. What you wrote sounds nice, sadly life often writes a different story. Have you ever been to a crime scene? Do you still believe the "police protection myth"? I mean if you do then thats fine. You got some excellent points dough. Yes, toating a gun to a political rallye about healthcare is retardet. I know there are some people who like their guns just a tad too much. Just to give you an example of my idea of non excessive and fair gun regulation I can say that the NC gun laws as of 2006 where good in my judgement. You have to understand that some people don't want to rely on someone else when it comes down to life or death. And please remember, I'm not trying to convice you or anybody else, I'm just explaining why I feel the way I do.
 
J.P. said:
@Sander

This ain't what I read. Makes no difference anyhow. Point is that Hitler and friends put in place and abused gun control laws to make it easier for them to follow through with their evil plans.
Click to expand...
Except that they didn't. The strictest gun laws were not put in place by Hitler at all. The argumentative tactic of tying everything to Hitler is stupid, dishonest and annoying. Stop doing that.

That said, yes disarming a populace they are afraid of is something dicators do. They want to have a monopoly on force, for obvious reasons.
But that isn't actually relevant in the context we're discussing it, which is modern-day democratic societies.

J.P. said:
I'm shure your post was well intentioned. Still, I stick to my opinion. What you wrote sounds nice, sadly life often writes a different story. Have you ever been to a crime scene? Do you still believe the "police protection myth"? I mean if you do then thats fine. You got some excellent points dough. Yes, toating a gun to a political rallye about healthcare is retardet. I know there are some people who like their guns just a tad too much. Just to give you an example of my idea of non excessive and fair gun regulation I can say that the NC gun laws as of 2006 where good in my judgement. You have to understand that some people don't want to rely on someone else when it comes down to life or death. And please remember, I'm not trying to convice you or anybody else, I'm just explaining why I feel the way I do.
Click to expand...
If you don't have anything to add to a debate, please stay out of it. You're simply repeating "I have my views and I'm never changing them no matter what!!!" along with anecdotal evidence that *doesn't mean anything*.

Oh gee, there are crime scenes where the police wasn't able to protect people? What a surprise. That's not the relevant issue. The relevant issue is whether overall it would be safer with or without guns, this actually has very little to do with whether or not the police is able to solve everything - because guess what, guns don't come remotely close.
 
Crni Vuk said:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzXOO_aAxVQ[/youtube]
(by the way dont get to worked up about it, its a satire)
Click to expand...

The problem is that many people don't understand that it is satire. Many people thought "Bowling for Columbine" was a true documentary and wasn't a load of bullshit propaganda.

These are the same people that get their "news" from The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart
 
J.P. said:
@Welsh

I'm shure your post was well intentioned. Still, I stick to my opinion. What you wrote sounds nice, sadly life often writes a different story. Have you ever been to a crime scene? Do you still believe the "police protection myth"? I mean if you do then thats fine. You got some excellent points dough. Yes, toating a gun to a political rallye about healthcare is retardet. I know there are some people who like their guns just a tad too much. Just to give you an example of my idea of non excessive and fair gun regulation I can say that the NC gun laws as of 2006 where good in my judgement. You have to understand that some people don't want to rely on someone else when it comes down to life or death. And please remember, I'm not trying to convice you or anybody else, I'm just explaining why I feel the way I do.
Click to expand...

J.P. before we get off topic, let me be clear, I don't believe that if you have a killer trying to get to you in your house, the cops will respond in time.

But I do believe that the chance of that happening to you is probably pretty low, depending on your socio-economic background.

If you're a minority, inner city kid, than chances are that if you get shot, it will be due to some kind of gang or criminal involvement. If you are "everyone else" chances are that if you are murdered with a gun, it will be fired by someone you know and possibly your family.

Why? Generally, inner city minorities are killed by inner city minorities, whites are generally killed by whites. You chance of being killed go down when you move from poverty to middle class, from city to suburb or rural small town. That said, there are still risks. For a while there was a rash of shooting of small country convenience stores across Virginia- mostly because they were easy targets. If I owned a convenience store along a quite country road, I might keep a shotgun under the cash register. Increased drug dealing is also likely to increase the amount of criminal violence in suburban and rural areas, but not like it does in poor areas.

Does that mean you shouldn't own a gun? Honestly, I don't know. But I think one of the things that the film does get right is that people often buy guns because of self-defense and because they are afraid. I also know that many of the cases of "justified shooting" don't work out well for the shooter in court. For example, shooting someone who is trying to steal your car, isn't justified (although shooting someone who breaks into your house is). The film is also right that the fear of violence is making people insecure and making gated communities more popular. They are all over Hilton Head (and in the process, kind of ruins it).

What would worry me is whether the gun you buy to protect yourself from a phantom criminal that you are afraid of might be used by someone you know, your child or your wife, against someone they know or, against themselves in a moment of depression or despondency or even by accident.

This I don't know- does the rate of gun violence increase merely by possessing a gun in the house? Or, to put it another way, does having the instrument (the gun) promote the use of it in ways that might be lethal to the owner or the owner's family? Does the added security of having a gun outweigh the increased risk of having a gun? I really don't know.

But I suspect that when we reach a point where everyone feels like they need to carry a gun to be safe, than we're in trouble. There seems little reason for this insecurity when, for most of us, the chances of being murdered has generally been going down (although not for some folks).

You say you are happy with your state's gun laws, that's fine. But at least you can debate that law and vote for it. That's important. You should be able to debate and argue about these issues. You community should be able to decide this for itself. That's why state laws are different and states are considered to have some sovereignty.

Note that there are things that NC doesn't allow-

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

(note restrictions on different weapons in addition to guns and your inability to carry a gun in certain establishments).
No teflon bullets, no bringing guns in certain business or public places, don't bring a gun to a public demonstration, etc. Schools can forbid guns if they want and parents are somewhat liable if they leave guns around the house.

But note- in NC a licensed gun dealer can't sell a handgun to a kid under 21. But an unlicensed gun dealer can. Does that make sense? Aren't you basically encouraging dealers of guns to children to remain unlicensed?

Also, you can buy a "junk gun" which has undergone no safety tests- in other words, a dealer can sell you a gun that is defective and, by the way, neither you nor the state can sue the maker if the gun goes off in your face.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/state/viewstate.php?st=nc

Honestly, that's kind of nuts. Basic products liability says that if you buy a defective bicycle and go off the road with it and injure yourself, you can sue the manufacturer. Likewise, if you own a saw and a blade comes off due a defect and cuts you open, you can sue. You can sue if your car has a design or manufacturing defect or if your cell phone shocks you, our your lap top catches fire and burns down your house. But somehow guns and the makers of guns are exempt? That's kind of fucked up. If you're going to buy a gun, best make sure it works.
 
[PCE said:
el_Prez]
The problem is that many people don't understand that it is satire. Many people thought "Bowling for Columbine" was a true documentary and wasn't a load of bullshit propaganda.

These are the same people that get their "news" from The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart
Click to expand...
I have to say Bolwling for Columbine was pretty entertaining. From one point.

Not cause of Moore or his way of filming (and yes its not a documentation, just a form of polemic) since its way to biased. But what is interesting and still noteworthy the part about people and the feeling regarding the massacre where all sorts of groups would blame anything and everyone that is out of their reach. Meaning that its "abstract". After Columbine (like after many other amok) it happens that certain parts of culture get blamed which makes actualy no sense. Certain part of music for example (Korn, Marilyn Manson etc. ). Same as they do politicaly always automaticaly blame "Killer Games" (Counter Strike, Unreal etc. etc.) for amok in schools here. A pretty near-sighted view. Which also counts in the same way with heavy "Pro" and "Contra" gun lobbies which in extrem situations defend weapons or blame weapons when it makes no sense.

THe issue I see is one in society and media. Violance in form of amok, which does not need a gun happens since recorded history. In the same way like many other kinds of crime. Just today with modern media news can be get from everywhere in real time which is a pretty important difference compared to the past. And all together is changing like always the perception of people. Till a point where you have to many "extrems". And I can here only agree with Sander


welsh said:
But I suspect that when we reach a point where everyone feels like they need to carry a gun to be safe, than we're in trouble. There seems little reason for this insecurity when, for most of us, the chances of being murdered has generally been going down (although not for some folks).
Click to expand...

as I said earlier somewhere. Weapons seem in general to receive a different treatment considering how they are perceived by the population and retailers/manufacturer with some kind of levity. This is where I see a danger. And now if it proves to be really true (for some states) that you can sell a flawed weapon to some person without the fear of punishment it ads a whole new level to it and makes it worse then I ever would have imagined.

One should remember that those kind of thinking or behaviour also gets transfused a lot on a national or global level in the way that enough companies and politicals use explain "the rights to sell firearms" to third world nations which in exchange hand out resources, money or just control (in economical way) with the "born right of everyone to own a weapon". It is one thing in a social enviroment like the US with its relative stability and safety for individuals to own guns. But its a completely different thing in my eyes to sell 10 tons of assault rifles, grenades and other arms to rather politically questionable local groups in the african continent. And that all legal. Which is not just true for the US but also France, Brittain, Russia and China just to name the bigest one. Without the intention to tourn this in a "US is the most evil" which is also not true (since it really counts for many nations in the same way) its certain that no one can dispute seriously the economical factor of legal world wide weapon dealing to politicaly and social instabile areas. And the US weapon industry has here just as much involvment like any other nation.

And exactly here I see many of those arguments brought up in the same or similar way by the industry as by many individuals which vehemently defend the anti-gun restriction side (like as well the need to own 50cal weapons or automatic weapons like assault rifles). Now I just ask my self in what way one can defend his position by supporting a industry that takes "legaly" a quiet important role (really regarding ALL nations) in the mass murdering of 100.000 of people. For purely economical reasons. Or simply political reasons as most of the groups that get their arms just plane hate each other.
 
welsh said:
Did I hurt your feelings, Dammit Boy? Are you a closet racist/cracker/klansman/Nazi?

You mistake your own flatulence for cleverness.

Poor Dammit Boy, to think he has to live with.... Negros! Latinos!...

I wonder if you'll have to live in an inner city with few opportunities but deal drugs?

Please do us all a favor and practice your stupidity elsewhere. Here, you're just advertising it.
Click to expand...

Stupidity is posting that nonsense and then pointing a finger at someone else.

I never said any of what you posted and your feeble trolling is a blatant lie.

Try to stay on topic little feller and stop trying to make me the subject of the discussion.

I said minorities in poor urban center are responsible for the majority of gun violence and crimes. Which is true.

You claimed I said it because I'm afraid of / hate blacks and hispanics, which is not true.

Get over yourself...
 
@Welsh

Hey, I think you sound like a reasonable guy. What you wrote I can mostly agree with. I don't even feel like what you wrote really contradicts my take on the issue. I do think that you might get me the wrong way.

I said I can settle for NC gun laws (by the way I don't live there anymore) and not that I think they are 100% on point. And don't tell me about junk guns, I've had one. Terrible piece of shit. That thing was a safety hazard. They should have a safety commission or quality controll (or whatever) for guns anywhere. You are completely right.

Yes, a lot of americans buy their weapons out of fear and keep them in a way that their children might gain access. Everybody should have to decide for themselves whether they need to buy a safe and keep their guns in it. I would most certainly keep my guns locked up if I had a weapon, especially in a household with children. Isn't the safety of a mans family his own responsibility dough?

Since you stated that people who have used a gun on a criminal didn't do to well in court I could tell you a story about a neighbor of mine (in NC) who didn't even have to go to court after he shot a drug abusing criminal who was trying to break into his house. Could he have resolved that situation more peacefully? Maybe. But I guess he wasn't willing to jeopardise his wifes life to find out.

Also, where I live your american black/white cliches do not apply. I rarely meet other black people here in bavaria. And if I do then they don't live in ghetos. Understand that for me the gun question is in no way a racial question.

I also agree that a gun shouldn't be fired just at any poor sucker who is trying to steal your car (I did, however, recently discuss using a pellet rifle on bicycle vandalists with a friend, who constanly gets his bicycle vandalized :) ). A gun should be used against a human only to ensure ones and ones family and friends personal well being. However, I do not want to forbid anybody to use his gun to protect his property if he wishes so.

When your buying a gun and are counting on using it then you might be getting it for the wrong reasons to start with anyways. In my opinion, a gun is to be kept in a safe just to be taken out for the range and cleaning it. It is a fun sport and a great opportunity to socialize and have fun. But when shit hits the fan (however likely that is) most grown men should have the means to defend themselves, their family, their community and their country because without those one is not a man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top