|
Suspected Santa gunman takes life; 8 others dead (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
i'm not for everyone having a gun, but if you think government controls and regulations will stop people that want guns from getting them, then you are delusional. |
Nothing will ever be 100% controlled, but as I said earlier, something being cost prohibitive except for the most wealthy of the criminals, the number would still go down significantly.
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
big brother?
come on man...we are not living in minority report times here. |
The government won't be watching them 24/7 and the number of people that are in those exclusion areas are insanely small. |
|
|
| Amduscias |
| He killed 9 people actually... |
|
|
| elFreak |
| they can't even stop illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses and collecting welfare...come on man. what you say would work on paper...but guess what no one even uses paper anymore;) |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
they can't even stop illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses and collecting welfare...come on man. what you say would work on paper...but guess what no one even uses paper anymore;) |
I know you are just playing devils advocate here, but it is still bull. |
|
|
| squats |
Solution to gun control:
Teach every1 Jackie Chan Karate. That way if a crazed gun-wielding maniac busts into your home, you can karate chop him to death. |
|
|
| Tranceporter99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
"You're"
Capital letters
Grammar
English
Language
Brain
Surely you guys have schools over there... |
I can write correctly if I choose too; however, you are not clever or the first person to point out grammatical mistakes and syntax errors on an internet forum. Its a moot issue and always has been. Is it really that important to proof-read every post one makes? Get over yourself and offer a legitimate argument. You live in Australia, not America. Do you see me offering blanket generalizations and statements about policies in Australia? No. Why? I don't live there, therefore I know little about your culture. If you had a well researched and articulated angle other than diverting to offering critiques on my prose, you might have a legitimate reason to post. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranceporter99
I can write correctly if I choose too |
you tried so hard yet failed so quick. |
|
|
| Aortik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tranceporter99
The last part though, I think is a little general for how big America really is. The simple fact is that the police are, minimum, 2 minutes away. It took 2 minutes for the police to arrive at Northern Illinois from the first shots. 4 people had already been killed and numerous more injured. |
I agree that police are mostly ineffective at actually stopping a crime in the act. Their utility seems mostly limited to deterrence by intimidation and the enforcement of punishment after a crime has already occurred; they are there to pick up the pieces after tragedy...
| quote: | | Banning guns just allows criminals to use guns and the law abiding populace without the ability to defend themselves. That is the simple truth. |
I do not agree with this however. Did it ever occurr to you that, in the case of the very article this thread was spurred by, there in fact were guns in the house? Perhaps they had an entire room full of assault rifles and enough ammunition to level every post office in their state. But did it do them a lick of good? Obviously not. It was a Christmas party, they didn't have their guns just laying around, waiting for some disgruntled acquaintance to ring the doorbell and proceed to pump round after round into their egg-nog filled bodies. Likewise, I very much doubt you carry your guns with you at all times - not because it's mostly illegal, but because it's just something you don't do: it's annoyingly cumbersome, scares the hell out of people and is quite unnecessary almost all of the time, I would imagine.
Were private firearm possession to be suddenly illegal, it would make people think twice about using them at all. I would posit that an overwhelming number of criminals would not only be deterred from obtaining a gun in the first place were their circulation and availability halted, but if even touching one was a felony, many, many people would simply stay away from them. Most gun-related fatalities could probably be prevented if people merely thought twice about what they were doing - you take away the tools to make a grave mistake and I am certain you will have far, far less crying mothers.
But as stated many times before in this thread, banning firearms wouldn't completely stamp out gun-related homicides. That's simply an impossibility at this point. And men like the one this thread is about would not be stopped, either - they are sick, they are insane, they obviously do not care about the legal repercussions of their actions, and even without the use of a firearm, would probably exact fatal violence upon these people in some other way - prohibition would not stop them, they need actual help, not laws.
| quote: | | Its possible that gun related homicides and violent crimes will decline if there were some drastic gun control legislation passed and enforced, but the truth is America has always had an infatuation, healthy or not, with guns. As I said earlier, its an extension of our desire for freedom and independence. You can have a philosophical argument as to whether owning a gun really grants that; but the right to bare arms will not go away very easy. Even moderate Americans that voted for Obama will give their votes to someone else if he tries something really drastic. Presidential history shows that. |
A fair and interesting point. Guns are an inexcorable part of American History - for better or for worse - it's obvious that people truly believe they have rights to own weaponry that makes them formidable even in the face of approved state or federal militias. But it seems to me that the rights to own weapon technology such as the kind we now have has completely changed the essence of such a right. Without getting too far into one of those oh-so-ing-exhausting "Our founding fathers..." rants, the ability for citizens to defend themselves should their government become suddenly and equally hostile towards them is a far cry from the modern and obvious ability for one person to walk into a building and end the lives of every person there within a matter of seconds. Our ing world has jumped from one brink to another within the last century, re-inventing murder to the point that people are more expendable than ever, and I don't know about you, but I don't feel this is a very progressive development.
There is really no denying there is a gun culture in the United States, which would be fine if there was a stigma upon its utility, but instead we are encouraged seemingly from birth to bear arms and to be ready to use them - this attitude does not lend itself to a mere tool, it's practically a compulsion to achieve through violent means simply because it's as easy as pulling a trigger. Of course this is a simplicity far removed from the actual truth of things, but with vigilantiism and murder blaring out of every television, every advertisment, every consumer ing depot with neon signs and the near hero-worship hegemony of desperado-ism and intimidation, it's really no surprise that people snap and level a Christmas party. Our world is sick and insane, by any standards of face value, and we are animals whose voices speak loudest when we resort to irrationality - we don't deserve guns, we don't deserve the instant gratification of empowerment through destruction, but it's what we crave, it's what we want.
I know better than to believe that Americans would ever give up their weapons willingly and without a fight. We'd probably be looking at another Civil War if we tried to do so - the side refusing to give up their guns obviously in a stark advantage. :stongue:
But is it right? Is it noble? Do guns make our world safer? Not in the least bit. |
|
|
| Tranceporter99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aortik
But is it right? Is it noble? Do guns make our world safer? Not in the least bit. |
agreed and well put. Unfortunately, like nuclear power, pandora's box has already been open. Not really an easy answer to any of it. |
|
|
| Aortik |
That's very true. The best we could do is to encourage social programs to educate people on the responsible use of firearms as well as significantly reform gun possession laws. After Cho's stunt, there was a criminally short inquisition into these laws - people seemingly felt as though they were making any sort of progress by slapping a V-Tech memorial bumper sticker right next to their NRA bumper sticker. There is so much room for improvement through legislation, but the wrong people in power seems to prevent that from happening. Large organizations such as the NRA have so much potential to bring about responsible and good things with their popularity, but they'd rather do seemingly what all of their members do: sit at home, deaf and afraid while the world goes to , ready to shoot anyone who dares impose upon their ignorant sensibilities.
Weapons manufacturing firms don't help either, their lobbyists quite fattened in Washington, pandering to the skirt of a Government content to sell weapons to countries all over the world, invade them, then condemn them for having weapons technology they don't need.
It's a pretty sick process, and the people whom I think suffer the most are those without ready access to education or social programs, ready to make a change for themselves through whatever means is most overwhelmingly available: the gun. |
|
|
| Tranceporter99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
you tried so hard yet failed so quick. |
explain. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| quote: | Originally posted by elFreak
you tried so hard yet failed so quick. |
:haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
|
|
