Knicks · Guns should be banned in US (page 5)
foosballnick wrote:Gunsnewing.....Excellent angle that I never considered before. Regular Gun owner "inspection" would certainly be a game changer and could prevent many crimes. Wpuld also add that one of the inspections needs to be psychological evaluation. The obstacle to this is the NRA lobby. They don't want anything related to guns touched in any way. The problem is ownership was made a constitutional right at the time when people needed guns to protect themselves during war time with the British Army and to hunt for food. That constitutional right does not transfer so well into today's society with millions of people living in close proximity, weapons of mass destruction and supermarkets.
They were not only used for game hunting and against the British... or the French up north and Spanish down south. But I believe the real "enemy" well-regulated militias were to defend against were the American Indians tribes and nations the colonists displaced and were warring against until the early 20th century. It's in this context the amendment makes the most sense. The idea was a standing army was a dangerous forerunner to tyranny, certainly when coupled with an unarmed citizenry, and this nation would instead be able to activate "well-regulated" militias to defend against Indian "raids".
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Vmart wrote:AnubisADL wrote:smackeddog wrote:AnubisADL wrote:Might as well ban sharp objects too.Even better, terminate people with mental illness in gas chambers.
People have been killing each other before guns existed. Banning guns isnt going to change anything.
You wouldn't have the number of casualties if the perpetrator was armed with a sharp object. Seriously, why do people need guns?
Guns are an equalizer. You got psychos out there.
I got finger printer and background checked when I got my carry concealed license.
What if your gun falls into the wrong hands or for that matter you wake up on the wrong side of the bed. Guns need to be banned there is absolutely no reason for civilians to have guns.
Wow. Bend over and kiss your butt goodbye! When the only ones carrying the guns are police and military, what are your chances to survive a totalitarian state?
ZERO.
That is the end game here. Be Warned.
Civilians with semi-automatic pistols versus a paramilitary organization like the NYPD or hell, the Coast Guard, let alone the US Marines: I don't like those odds either, even if armed with a massive amount of cilivian-available firepower.
We are talking about the largest military in the world by far versus self-organized civilian forces who, at best, may consist of the best elk hunters or paintball weekend warriors in their county. If we were serious about making sure the federal or state governments in this country couldn't get so big as to not be checked by civilian militias, the Cold War buildup distracted us, and that ship has sailed. Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight: we are talking about bringing a pistol to a rocket fight. Not to mention incredible intelligence gathering, infiltration, surveillance and propaganda advantages the government would have over its citizenry.
We are also the world's largest arms exporter. Follow the money.
loweyecue wrote:NYKMentality wrote:
You will never be able to eliminate guns in America. When an evil killer want's a gun? They'll get a gun. You don't take away the freedom of a man looking to protect his family due to evil people using guns.Freedom of a man is enhanced by making it easy for every asshole and douchebag out there to be armed to the teeth?
Exactly how many homes have ever been protected against violent crimes by using guns on premises? Is there any data that backs up this claim??
Nah, but there is data that shows home with guns are more likely to use such weapons in violent crimes or suicides.
knickscity wrote:loweyecue wrote:NYKMentality wrote:
You will never be able to eliminate guns in America. When an evil killer want's a gun? They'll get a gun. You don't take away the freedom of a man looking to protect his family due to evil people using guns.Freedom of a man is enhanced by making it easy for every asshole and douchebag out there to be armed to the teeth?
Exactly how many homes have ever been protected against violent crimes by using guns on premises? Is there any data that backs up this claim??
Nah, but there is data that shows home with guns are more likely to use such weapons in violent crimes or suicides.
Even the term "evil people" seems like a distraction to me. There are all sorts of "evil": the hate and paranoia that stews in the heart of a psychopath, the split-second evil that people do out of passion or pride, the evil that is the modus operandi of many criminal enterprises. There is definitely not one simple solution to solve all of these, and as long as state borders don't have customs control, it's a national problem. But we have a huge gulf it seems between our cities and our rural areas on this issue.
This tragedy comes from a place most of us can't understand because our scruples, mental health, and empathy are functional. Crimes of passion is the evil that can emerge from ordinary folks like us on this board. Criminal enterprises use gun violence to ensure profits, and there it's not personal, just business. But IMHO gun control can help limit gun use in crimes of passion, sociopathic sprees, and organized crime... but the results will vary in these different cases... and as long as there is manufacture and millions of guns already out there, it would still be an issue even in an outright ban on all small arms sales.
And it's also a bigger issue with gun culture (cue Bowling for Columbine). Hey, guns are cool. I loved The Matrix and have played GTA III & IV. They make a loud noise and bad guys get dead when they are on the wrong end of one. And we as a country are really good at making them, have been for a long time. I have a hard time imagining small arms manufacture becoming like horsemeat production: we may make it for export but culturally forbidden at home. Our country is what it is in part because of guns: the Wild West and all that. So I really don't know if there is political and cultural will to reverse this trend towards concealed carry and stand your ground.
For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”
Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.
Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure." - NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, NYTimes
Stats show that violent crime rates went up in both countries after a gun ban. In Britain, which has a more easily managed border than either Australia or the United States, gun deaths and crimes went down even as violent crime rates went up. Australia had gun deaths and crimes that went up even though they instituted the gun ban.
We can learn from this and not let tragic incidents such as spree shootings, which is more of an issue of mental health and a cultural desensitizing to violence, pressure the country into taking steps that actually make citizens less safe and more vulnerable to criminals plus does nothing to solve the problems that are the root of the cause of these terrible things happening.
First of if guns will be banned as drinks in 30th or drugs now it will be a huge black market of them available.
Now only criminals need this black market but if guns will be banned this will be a golden era for gun dealers in US.
On top of this if some sick mind want to kill a lot of people he/she can muster this without guns.
Home-made bombs, arson, a little beat of cyanide into school lunch... and here we go.
It is easy to use a car as a weapon also.
We are all packed together in very small space and we will sometimes kill each other no doubt.
It is sad and unfair but this is what we are. A lot of us cannot control our mind so it can trick us into anything.
Nobody can bann human mind from thinking and so people will be killed again and again.
skeng wrote:Also, I still can't see how the Second Amendment is relevant to modern society anno 2012. But I guess that's part of your culture.
I don't think it's as simple as assuming our country would've turned out the same in the absence of gun laws. I know the more social democracies look down at that notion but I think that's crazy... maybe if the civilians in your neck of the woods had been able to arm themselves world War II would have ended a lot sooner and needed less US intervention. Maybe the conflict in Syria would be over by now too
as our single greatest statesman put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Ben Franklin
After 9/11 the US changed the world. Privacy was sacrificed. Torture was a tool. The government turned the intelligence community on its head to make us safer. And there were/are plenty of opinions on whether the measures taken were right or wrong. I personally was all too happy to give up freedoms to try and avert domestic terrorism.
Now it's time give tighten up the freedom to own guns. I didn't vote for Obama but he was right tonight. People have to change. This whole situation in CT is sickening. I don't have kids yet, but I can't imagine having to go through the rest of my life if I was one of the parents affected. The only thing I would think would help me go on was if some meaningful change came and not just speeches. I hope this story keeps its legs. Something has to be done. I don't discount the mental health angle and that has to be addressed just as strenuously. But we have to make it harder for someone to be able to massacre people.
DrAlphaeus wrote:foosballnick wrote:Gunsnewing.....Excellent angle that I never considered before. Regular Gun owner "inspection" would certainly be a game changer and could prevent many crimes. Wpuld also add that one of the inspections needs to be psychological evaluation. The obstacle to this is the NRA lobby. They don't want anything related to guns touched in any way. The problem is ownership was made a constitutional right at the time when people needed guns to protect themselves during war time with the British Army and to hunt for food. That constitutional right does not transfer so well into today's society with millions of people living in close proximity, weapons of mass destruction and supermarkets.They were not only used for game hunting and against the British... or the French up north and Spanish down south. But I believe the real "enemy" well-regulated militias were to defend against were the American Indians tribes and nations the colonists displaced and were warring against until the early 20th century. It's in this context the amendment makes the most sense. The idea was a standing army was a dangerous forerunner to tyranny, certainly when coupled with an unarmed citizenry, and this nation would instead be able to activate "well-regulated" militias to defend against Indian "raids".
^thank you. I made the same point about the reasoning behind the right to bear arms. Because we no longer live in a wild wild west bucktown, the need is no longer there. Also, the presence of POLICE. Back in the day law enforcement officials (ie sheriffs) were few and far between. People lived in areas removed from local settlements (log cabins, etc) and often had no protection against Indians and rogue cowboy posses.
Thousands of kids die in swimming pools accidentially every year , should we ban them too ?
This was before columbine and the other mass shootings that have become all too common but it was scary/upsetting for an entire school of young people.
For those that want to stand behind the second amendment I ask you - if you or your children were sitting in a classroom unarmed and a psychopath came in and started blowing you and your classmates away, would you still feel it was justified for him to have a weapon?
Sure guns don't kill people, people kill people. But a gun is a weapon designed for one purpose - to make killing easy. In 2012 we do not need them. Society needs to choose to move beyond violence.
My proposol would be simple. Nothing that holds more than 3 rounds should be accessable to non military or law enforcement. That means shotguns, handguns, rifles... all of it.
3 bullets is more than adequate for hunting or home protection or self defense.
fishmike wrote:you cant ban guns, but you can ban types and that would have an effect on the culture and level of destruction that can be dished out.My proposol would be simple. Nothing that holds more than 3 rounds should be accessable to non military or law enforcement. That means shotguns, handguns, rifles... all of it.
3 bullets is more than adequate for hunting or home protection or self defense.
You can ban guns. Other countries have done it successfully. When is the last time you heard of someone getting shot in China or Japan?
If your not going to ban then, you make it so that gun owners have to have certain safeguards in place like locked, tamper proof cases and children should not be allowed to play with guns. I don't care how avid a hunter you are, kids lack the mental discipline and maturity to act responsibly.
How anyone in the world thinks its OK to teach an autistic child to use a firearm is beyond me. No one know what is going on in their heads.
The gun did not kill, the person(s) using the gun killed just like a knife, poison, IED, etc. would only kill because the person's using it gave it the power to carry out a function.
playa2 wrote:Most people don't even grasp the concept of critical thinking... example: They talk of gun control to solve the problem when in this situation, the guns used were 'stolen' - no gun control will ever keep the guns out of the hands of a thief or gang members or the insane, yet people still cry out for gun control. It is totally illogical!The gun did not kill, the person(s) using the gun killed just like a knife, poison, IED, etc. would only kill because the person's using it gave it the power to carry out a function.
People are far less likely to use a Knife because of the necessary close quarters. Any coward can pull a trigger though. Poisons (often) take some intelligence and forethought which, is often sadly lacking in the perpetrators. Guns are the most likely medium people use. You take the guns out of peoples hands or, let them know they will be criminally liable for any crime committed with that gun if you intend to own one.
I don't care if they are locked away, placed on the moon, if you buy a gun and someone gets their hands on it to use for a crime, YOU SHOULD BE LIABLE. Liable because you were negligent in your choice of storage.
playa2 wrote:Most people don't even grasp the concept of critical thinking... example: They talk of gun control to solve the problem when in this situation, the guns used were 'stolen' - no gun control will ever keep the guns out of the hands of a thief or gang members or the insane, yet people still cry out for gun control. It is totally illogical!your partially right. There guns where purchased for recreation and or home protection. They were not stolen.The gun did not kill, the person(s) using the gun killed just like a knife, poison, IED, etc. would only kill because the person's using it gave it the power to carry out a function.
And yea.. people kill people. People with weapons that are semi-automatic kill lots more people at a time. You cant stop someone from making a pipe bomb, but you can make it hard to get c4.
This analogy of people drown so lets ban pools is a new level of ignorance. What is the purpose of a gun? What is it created and manufactured for? When you fire a shooting range what is the shape of the target you shoot at?
If you want own a gun for home protection fine. Same if you want to hunt. There is no justification for a civilian to have a weapon that can fire shot after shot without need to reload. End of story.