gun control

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

gun control

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:54 am

bowling for columbine had a pretty pro-gun control theme to it.

the main points in it were that, in the US, atleast, americans are just very violent. they cited statistics that pretty much said that america, which had 10,000 gum related deaths a year, compared to just about every other modern nation, which had deaths of up to a max of 1,000, iirc.

one of the reasons they suggested as to why america might be so much more violent is because of what we watch on TV. the suggestion was made that TV stations try to get ratings by scaring people into watching TV shows. there was the killer bee scare, the syranges in pepsi scare, etc. they also showed footage of what appeared to be local tv stations trying to scare people into watching the local news.

another one of the reasons they suggested was because of lockheed martin, a major weapons manifacture, which apparently runs a bunch of job placement stuff for the unemployed. these people have to work like 12 hour days, and spend most of their time away from home, so kids aren't being raised, anymore, by parents, but by tv, among other things.

they suggested that this is why people buy guns, too. people who have never been victims of crimes buy guns, and lock their doors, out of "paranoria". this was contrasted to canada, which supposedly has no locked doors.

the NRA was also attacked in bowling for columbine. it was pretty much said to be insensitive, based on the fact that they held major gun conventions in the same city that the columbine disaster took place in, and in some other city, right after an elementry school kid shot another kid (in that same city).

US forign policy was also attacked, but i forget why, exactly. they said that one of the largest bombing campaigns to date took place the day the columbine massacure took place, and suggested that the US is just a very violent place, in general, from the general population, to those in power.

anyways, what are your thoughts on gun control?

(also, i may try to find sources to back some of this stuff up, tomorrow, or something)
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:59 am

I believe the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to bear arms and I see no real reason to change it.

If the violent deaths per year were not caused by guns, they would be caused by knives, tire irons or baseball bats.

The small percentage of accidental gun related deaths per year does not warrant stripping the right from all people, IMO but serves as a warning that people themselves need to take responsibility and be more careful.

Ok ... I don't usually laugh at people's typos but this one was pretty funny, you must admit. :)
america, which had 10,000 gum related deaths a year
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Mon Jul 28, 2003 5:02 pm

I believe the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to bear arms and I see no real reason to change it.


well, i, for one, don't think the constitution is necessarily 100% right on everything, but... for gun control... i'm split... guns make it way to easy to kill someone (i'll post more on that later in this post), but... there's a quote that also comes to mind, for allowing people to have guns - that line being... a disarmed citizen is a subject.

If the violent deaths per year were not caused by guns, they would be caused by knives, tire irons or baseball bats.


actually, i disagree. maybe a *small* percentage, but i only think it would be a small percentage. it's a *lot* easier to kill someone with a gun. you shoot, and usually, they're gonna be dead. well, more frequently than with any other weapon. so... say a person goes into a store and robs it. if he were to shoot the clerk, he could kill him. it would be a *lot* harder with a baseball bat, and take a *lot* more time. further, although the robber might not mind killing the clerk, not minding it, and actually *wanting* to do it are two different things. i would also argue that any death involving baseball bats should qualify as a premeditated (1st degree) murder, since killing with a baseball bat takes so much more time. even if you didn't plan on beating someone with a bat, you have plenty of time to think about how hard you're going to beat them, while you're beating them. the premediation would take place when you started the beating, but before they died. with guns, there can't even be that much premeditation. guns make it so much easier to kill people then just about any other weapon that i can very easily see how more guns would lead to more deaths.

Ok ... I don't usually laugh at people's typos but this one was pretty funny, you must admit.


well, there is the exploding gum from misson impossible :lila:
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Dracofrost » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:15 pm

Well, I see no point to taking away guns if they're going to allow us all to still drive around multi-ton battering rams (aka cars) on a regular basis. A rather greater amount of kinetic energy in a car than any ol' bullet, I would imagine... well, unless you counted some sort of 16 inch naval cannon, but those aren't exactly legal for normal citizens, I don't believe. Well, anyways, that's just my somewhat rambly-ish two cents...
User avatar
Dracofrost
Frost Drake
Frost Drake
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:55 am
Location: Crossed into the Blue

Postby tsian » Mon Jul 28, 2003 11:21 pm

Harsh gun control doesn't necessarily work. Bowling's point was hardly anti-gun or pro-control.

Criminal background checks and recquirements to own a gun, those make sense. But, since the vast majority of crimes are commited with stolen / illegal guns, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have every single gun tracked and registered to an extreme degree.

The money spent on harsh gun control would be far better spent on teaching people proper respect for guns and on crime prevention (prevention, not policing).
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby lorien1 » Thu Aug 14, 2003 9:25 am

Hi There.I beleive hand guns should be banned.I know about the "consitution" but beleive in gun control.Hand guns were banned over here (Scotland/UK ) after a gunman shot pupils and teachers in Dunblane.Other shootings have occured,with loss of life.People can still hunt etc with rifles,i don't see any use for a hand gun,other than law enforcement.Colin.<*>.
Image"Hope Is All We Have.Do You Have Something Worth Living For"
User avatar
lorien1
Recruit
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:11 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby Dracofrost » Thu Aug 14, 2003 5:47 pm

Well... if someone is going to go so far as to commit murder, what's breaking some relatively minor gun control or ban laws? Gun control laws only controls those who abide by the law...
User avatar
Dracofrost
Frost Drake
Frost Drake
 
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:55 am
Location: Crossed into the Blue

Postby Toby » Fri Aug 15, 2003 1:38 am

DEATH IS NOTHING DEATH IS FOR THE WEAK
Formerly 'The Muffin Man'
User avatar
Toby
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1837
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 2:12 pm

Postby tsian » Fri Aug 15, 2003 5:15 am

What a completely vapid comment :).

Lorien does have a point though. If you truely wish to eliminate gun crimes, then you simply need to eliminate all guns. Since most nations do not believe that is practical, the trick then becomes finding the right balance between control of firearms and the amount of money said controls cost vs their effects.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby lorien1 » Fri Aug 15, 2003 3:29 pm

tsian wrote:What a completely vapid comment :).

Lorien does have a point though. If you truely wish to eliminate gun crimes, then you simply need to eliminate all guns. Since most nations do not believe that is practical, the trick then becomes finding the right balance between control of firearms and the amount of money said controls cost vs their effects.


What does anyone need a hand gun for? Rifles/Shotguns for sport,hunting.Eliminate hand guns,okay criminals wont comply.That should leave criminals/law enforcement with hand guns,a far smaller part of the population now with hand guns.The new gun control policy over here, also limited the number and type of legal weapons for the licence holder.I think it's the way to go.Colin.<*>.
Image"Hope Is All We Have.Do You Have Something Worth Living For"
User avatar
lorien1
Recruit
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:11 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby tsian » Fri Aug 15, 2003 6:36 pm

Well, a properly trained person can use a handgun for defense.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby lorien1 » Fri Aug 15, 2003 7:35 pm

lorien1 wrote:
tsian wrote:What a completely vapid comment :).

Lorien does have a point though. If you truely wish to eliminate gun crimes, then you simply need to eliminate all guns. Since most nations do not believe that is practical, the trick then becomes finding the right balance between control of firearms and the amount of money said controls cost vs their effects.


What does anyone need a hand gun for? Rifles/Shotguns for sport,hunting.Eliminate hand guns,okay criminals wont comply.That should leave criminals/law enforcement with hand guns,a far smaller percentage of the population now with hand guns.The new gun control policy over here, also limited the number and type of legal weapons for the licence holder.I think it's the way to go.Colin.<*>.
Image"Hope Is All We Have.Do You Have Something Worth Living For"
User avatar
lorien1
Recruit
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:11 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby tsian » Fri Aug 15, 2003 7:47 pm

But, again, the answer as to what people need handguns for is that some people perceive it as an added defense mechanism.
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Postby lorien1 » Sat Aug 16, 2003 3:38 pm

tsian wrote:But, again, the answer as to what people need handguns for is that some people perceive it as an added defense mechanism.


Hi.You can get "defence" aids, gas spray,stun weapons to replace hand guns.If you carry a gun,you are likely to use it!! :MIB Colin.<*>.
Image"Hope Is All We Have.Do You Have Something Worth Living For"
User avatar
lorien1
Recruit
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:11 pm
Location: Scotland

Postby tsian » Sat Aug 16, 2003 8:26 pm

But, again, gun ownership doesn't necessarily lead to higher crime. We have far less gun deaths per capita in Canada then the US (though, admittedly, the gun death rate is significantly higher then in Britain or Japan... it would be better to get murder statistics).

[i]If you carry a gun,you are likely to use it!!/i]

Really? Just use it out of the blue?
Or are they likely to use it simply when threatened?
Vive le titre de deux.
In an ironic twist, the only trait I find completely appaling is intolerance.
User avatar
tsian
Castle Guard
 
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 4:19 am
Location: BC, Canada

Next

Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron