You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Crongresswoman Shot: AZ
- Thread starter dennisr
- Start date
seventeen said:Politics aside, I never got the obsession the US have with guns, banning them won't solve the issue, but the correlation with gun ownership and homicides makes sense..
well in a nutshell, a country is more difficult to be taken over by a dictator or tyrannical government if its people are armed.
this was the concern and the reasoning the founding fathers used when drafting the constitution and including the 2nd amendment.
i agree with you that banning guns will solve nothing because it is not the real problem. violent gun use is only a symptom of the core problem.
redrum said:well in a nutshell, a country is more difficult to be taken over by a dictator or tyrannical government if its people are armed.
this was the concern and the reasoning the founding fathers used when drafting the constitution and including the 2nd amendment.
i agree with you that banning guns will solve nothing because it is not the real problem. violent gun use is only a symptom of the core problem.
All the weapons that would be useful to overthrow a dictator or tyrannical government in the United States are already illegal. Improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, road-side bombs: as we have seen, these are the tools of an effective insurgency. Possessing any one of them would land you in a federal penitentiary faster than you could get a shot off at a democratic member of Congress. And yet no one complains about their rights being "infringed" by the laws that prevent owning weapons of mass destruction. The idea that your little Glock 9 is going to protect you from Big Brother is nothing more than laughable fantasy. As Iran, North Korea and all the other rogue states resisting American "tyranny" already know, nothing less than an atomic bomb will protect you from Big Brother. So why isn't the NRA demanding the legalization of private nuclear weapons?
That's the problem with gun owners in America: they lead fantasy lives, dreaming of playing Charles Bronson against the false enemy of progressive liberalism. Seriously, how many of these NRA guys jack off the minute they get home from the shooting range? That's why they don't want gun control. To accept a world without guns is to accept a world without vengeance and that means that your miserable, pathetic, consumerist life is nothing more than that and never will be anything more than that. Without your guns and their violence, your fantasies are meaningless and your life is undeniable pointless. Guns are the last refuge for a man without purpose or ideas.
Gun control may not solve the "core" problem with violence in America. Nothing short of the end of our species can solve the "core" problem with human violence. But violence can be managed and reduced with good policy. And of all the realistic options available to reduce unnecessary violence, gun control is the least intrusive and most effective. To argue otherwise is pure fantasy.
Choripán said:All the weapons that would be useful to overthrow a dictator or tyrannical government in the United States are already illegal. Improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, road-side bombs: as we have seen, these are the tools of an effective insurgency. Possessing any one of them would land you in a federal penitentiary faster than you could get a shot off at a democratic member of Congress. And yet no one complains about their rights being "infringed" by the laws that prevent owning weapons of mass destruction. The idea that your little Glock 9 is going to protect you from Big Brother is nothing more than laughable fantasy. As Iran, North Korea and all the other rogue states resisting American "tyranny" already know, nothing less than an atomic bomb will protect you from Big Brother. So why isn't the NRA demanding the legalization of private nuclear weapons?
That's the problem with gun owners in America: they lead fantasy lives, dreaming of playing Charles Bronson against the false enemy of progressive liberalism. Seriously, how many of these NRA guys jack off the minute they get home from the shooting range? That's why they don't want gun control. To accept a world without guns is to accept a world without vengeance and that means that your miserable, pathetic, consumerist life is nothing more than that and never will be anything more than that. Without your guns and their violence, your fantasies are meaningless and your life is undeniable pointless. Guns are the last refuge for a man without purpose or ideas.
Gun control may not solve the "core" problem with violence in America. Nothing short of the end of our species can solve the "core" problem with human violence. But violence can be managed and reduced with good policy. And of all the realistic options available to reduce unnecessary violence, gun control is the least intrusive and most effective. To argue otherwise is pure fantasy.
MY GOD!! Get off your high horse!
FACT: Number of gun related homicides in 2009: 12,632 (CDC)
FACT: Average CAR related fatalities in 2009 in the U.S.: 33,400. DOWN approx 5,000 from 2008 and 8,000 from 2007.
FACT: 50% of the 34,598 suicides were committed without guns. So we should also ban all drugs, ropes, knives, cleaning liquids, ovens, etc.
When will you actually start using facts in your "arguments". So how is gun control the most "effective"?
Until you start calling for the banning of cars and basically everything else we can kill with, shut the hell up!
Oh yeah, 1 in every 25 deaths is alcohol related. Guess we should ban alcohol as well.
Choripán said:All the weapons that would be useful to overthrow a dictator or tyrannical government in the United States are already illegal. Improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, road-side bombs: as we have seen, these are the tools of an effective insurgency. Possessing any one of them would land you in a federal penitentiary faster than you could get a shot off at a democratic member of Congress. And yet no one complains about their rights being "infringed" by the laws that prevent owning weapons of mass destruction. The idea that your little Glock 9 is going to protect you from Big Brother is nothing more than laughable fantasy. As Iran, North Korea and all the other rogue states resisting American "tyranny" already know, nothing less than an atomic bomb will protect you from Big Brother. So why isn't the NRA demanding the legalization of private nuclear weapons?
That's the problem with gun owners in America: they lead fantasy lives, dreaming of playing Charles Bronson against the false enemy of progressive liberalism. Seriously, how many of these NRA guys jack off the minute they get home from the shooting range? That's why they don't want gun control. To accept a world without guns is to accept a world without vengeance and that means that your miserable, pathetic, consumerist life is nothing more than that and never will be anything more than that. Without your guns and their violence, your fantasies are meaningless and your life is undeniable pointless. Guns are the last refuge for a man without purpose or ideas.
Gun control may not solve the "core" problem with violence in America. Nothing short of the end of our species can solve the "core" problem with human violence. But violence can be managed and reduced with good policy. And of all the realistic options available to reduce unnecessary violence, gun control is the least intrusive and most effective. To argue otherwise is pure fantasy.
BRAVO !!! THIS IS JUST GREAT, TOTALLY ACCURATE WRITING - THE BEST !!!!
Jared, would you just chill out my man?!?! Do a google on countries with super strict gun control and lax gun control. Notice the countries with Liberal rules pertaining to gun ownership and use have a much higher murder by gun/bullet rate. Check it out my man and get that B/P down before you pop a blood vessel in the brain. Chill dude, just CHILL my man. Dudester
redrum said:well in a nutshell, a country is more difficult to be taken over by a dictator or tyrannical government if its people are armed.
this was the concern and the reasoning the founding fathers used when drafting the constitution and including the 2nd amendment.
i agree with you that banning guns will solve nothing because it is not the real problem. violent gun use is only a symptom of the core problem.
Certainly that was the intent, but it is a different world now with weapons that can wipe out masses all at once.
No matter what 'well-armed militias' there might be out there currently, if almost any government wants to subdue it's people, it can and will easily. No semi-automatics, certainly no handguns, rifles, etc., could outlast/outpower the range, power and quantity of weapons that most governments have access to.
muppditt said:Certainly that was the intent, but it is a different world now with weapons that can wipe out masses all at once.
No matter what 'well-armed militias' there might be out there currently, if almost any government wants to subdue it's people, it can and will easily. No semi-automatics, certainly no handguns, rifles, etc., could outlast/outpower the range, power and quantity of weapons that most governments have access to.
i don't believe things have changed all that much.
while it is true that it is highly unlikely that a citizen army could ever overcome the organized, better equipped military of a government - name me one tyrannical government that would be willing to take that chance. any dictator knows that it would be much more difficult to control the mass populace if they are armed.
why wouldn't the citizens of china, north korea or cuba be allowed to easily own guns then? why didn't stalin give guns to ordinary russian citizens?
the first step to shutting down a democracy is to disarm the public.
having strict gun laws will not stop the violence if there are deep rooted social problems. plenty of mass shootings have happened in countries that do have strict gun laws.
Strict German gun laws fail to prevent school shooting
Teenager gained access to gun despite living in country with some of the world's toughest firearm controls
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/11/germany-school-shooting-laws
as we all know, strict gun laws will only disarm the public while the criminals will still be armed. by the way, i am not a gun nut. i own no guns. one only needs to study history to see how patterns repeat however.
Choripán said:All the weapons that would be useful to overthrow a dictator or tyrannical government in the United States are already illegal. Improvised explosive devices, rocket propelled grenades, road-side bombs: as we have seen, these are the tools of an effective insurgency. Possessing any one of them would land you in a federal penitentiary faster than you could get a shot off at a democratic member of Congress. And yet no one complains about their rights being "infringed" by the laws that prevent owning weapons of mass destruction. The idea that your little Glock 9 is going to protect you from Big Brother is nothing more than laughable fantasy. As Iran, North Korea and all the other rogue states resisting American "tyranny" already know, nothing less than an atomic bomb will protect you from Big Brother. So why isn't the NRA demanding the legalization of private nuclear weapons?
That's the problem with gun owners in America: they lead fantasy lives, dreaming of playing Charles Bronson against the false enemy of progressive liberalism. Seriously, how many of these NRA guys jack off the minute they get home from the shooting range? That's why they don't want gun control. To accept a world without guns is to accept a world without vengeance and that means that your miserable, pathetic, consumerist life is nothing more than that and never will be anything more than that. Without your guns and their violence, your fantasies are meaningless and your life is undeniable pointless. Guns are the last refuge for a man without purpose or ideas.
Gun control may not solve the "core" problem with violence in America. Nothing short of the end of our species can solve the "core" problem with human violence. But violence can be managed and reduced with good policy. And of all the realistic options available to reduce unnecessary violence, gun control is the least intrusive and most effective. To argue otherwise is pure fantasy.
well......let's look at it logically. if you were a resistance fighter and your country was being occupied by an invading army, would you ONLY want alternative weapons such as bombs and explosive devices to fight the enemy?
the answer is no.
you would want to have guns AND alternative weapons. in fact, you would want to get your hands on anything and everything possible. it would make zero sense to have no guns and solely rely upon explosive devices.
do the Iraqi insurgents only fight using alternative weapons? of course not. they've all got AK-47s as well.
again, i'm not some nra gun nut but i'm able to see the benefits of an armed citizenry because we have the benefit of the hindsight of history. i am neither left nor right but i've seen enough evidence to know that i do not 100% trust the federal government.
just my 2 cents.
redrum said:having strict gun laws will not stop the violence if there are deep rooted social problems. plenty of mass shootings have happened in countries that do have strict gun laws
It won't stop the violence altogether, but it can reduce the lethality and the number of potential casualties. A man armed with a cricket bat is unlikely to kill as many as the man armed with a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine.
Mass shootings may still happen in countries with strict gun laws - but they happen a lot less for having said laws.
jp said:It won't stop the violence altogether, but it can reduce the lethality and the number of potential casualties. A man armed with a cricket bat is unlikely to kill as many as the man armed with a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine.
Mass shootings may still happen in countries with strict gun laws - but they happen a lot less for having said laws.
in theory you might be right. it won't work in practice unfortunately. there are already so many, far too many guns out there. those guns are not simply going to disappear.
it would also be politically impossible to outlaw all guns - culturally impossible.
i can guarantee you that if stricter gun laws were passed there would be a tremendous black market that would open up. it would only exacerbate the problem as then the guns would be even more difficult to trace/track.
i believe that the whole talk about gun control is yet another attempt at a grab for power by our corrupt federal government. it is disingenuous on its face. just as the phony war on terrorism is a complete fraud - another excuse to impose tighter and tighter controls and restrictions on US citizens.
they do NOT really care about saving lives, give me a break. total yearly deaths caused by guns are minuscule compared to the tens of thousands of people who die from medical malpractice, emergency room mistakes and prescription drug errors. yet you don't see the newspapers splashed with outcries for tighter controls or harsher penalties on hospitals/doctors.
how about the thousands that die each year from auto accidents? it's not about saving lives.
the media and the politicians either create and/or jump on any crisis in order further advance an agenda that, on the surface, appears to have the general public's interest at heart but in truth is no such thing.