USA's 2nd Amendment Discussion

All the news that's new and approved. We want your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Moderator: EG Members

reiketsu
imanewbie
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm

Post by reiketsu »

Tempest wrote: I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but I can't tell for the life of me what the fuck you just said. If you could, please rephrase it.
No, you're not being mean. As I'm not an english speaker, I often type thinking in my own idiom.:wink:

What I tried to say was: only because the human being is "evil" in it's basic nature, does it mean we should accept monstrous deeds like what the shooter did or, going back into the history, what all those Nazi adepts did in the past just because it's part of our nature?
Tempest wrote: You also stand the risk of being hit by some maniac in a speeding car everytime you go out for a ride. Does that still stop you from driving? Besides, MANY states do not have concieled weapons laws, so you cannot legally take a gun out with you in public anyway.
But there are laws that forbid people from drive like a crazy maniac. Once someone start doing it, it won't take long until it has few police cars on his track.
As for the last part of this paragraphy... how does it add for your speech? If it's not concieled, than people simply won't carry a gun everywhere. Plus, why would any govern allow civils to freely carry weapons?
Tempest wrote: What do you do if you run into a crooked cop? Or if you don't feel that your local police can adequately protect you? (In Britain for example, the regular street walking police can't carry guns). I'm not saying citizens should all go out and arm themselves to the teeth, but they should have the right to protect themselves as long as they are properly trained.
What would you do if you run into a crooked cop? Aim a gun at him? Shot him? Either way, you'll have the wole police department trying to raw the skin from your ass. They're very sensitive about having one of them being manaced by anyone. In most of the cases, they doesn't know if their partner are or are not corrupt.

I read somewhere that the Britain police has their own tactitcs and equipments to attempt to stop fellons, before have to appeal to guns and suchs. I think we need to consider it.

Have you ever checked how many kids accidentally kills a friend or, in the worse case, kill a relative because there was a gun in their house? It's fact that having weapons in house brings more risk them defense. If we'll train people to use guns, then why waste money with police? You'll say that in Swiss every citzen are a potential soldeir, but you'll have to consider their instruction and cultural level. Compared to them, we from the Americas are barbarians. (unfortunately....)

In the same way a honest and decent person could go buy and get trainned in the use of arms, a psychopath could do the same. The most fearsome and dangerous psychos from the history were normal people like you and me (!!), above any supect that, one day, decided that he could go and do what he wanted for so long: kill.
The Future is uncertain, and the end is always near�
Shaka Zulu
Buzkashi wannabe
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Zulu Land

Post by Shaka Zulu »

"Did anyone else lose the power last night?... I slept with a gun underneath my pillow; shot at anything that moved. Woke up this morning three of my children were dead. Someone must've crawled in the middle of night, damn black out. They only visit one weekend out of the month and this has to happen."
Until the lion learns to speak, the tales of the hunt will be(weak) told by the hunter
Tempest
Dirty Sennin
Posts: 2286
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:40 am
Location: The Eye of The Storm
Contact:

Post by Tempest »

Eldo wrote: The point is gun restrictions will limit the amount of deaths in these shootings. If a related scenario such as Columbine or VT occurred again, but this time with a knife, the death toll and the injured would not be in two digit figures. If there were tougher gun restrictions, Cho would not have been able to purchase two semi-automatic pistols whilst having a record for psychotic behaviour. Also, who could categorise who would use the guns responsibly, or who wouldn't?
I still maintain that if he had not gotten the guns from a shop, Cho would have gotten the guns illegally, just like the Columbine killers did themselves. Would tighter gun laws have made it harder for Cho to do it? Yes, but he got those guns almost a month before the killings, so he had the presence of mind to wait, plan, and record all those messages and probably wouldn't have minded using some time to aquire some other weapons. Nothing short of being institutionalised and/or medicated would have stopped him from doing something bad. As far as adding mental health issues as part of the backround checks, that is a tricky issue. The same laws that might prevent the next Cho from legally obtaining his weapons might stop a mother who had post-pardom depression 10 years ago from being able to go out hunting. Or it might keep someone with OCD from buying a gun for himself. The problem is that not only can we not draw the line as to what type of mental illnesses forbid the ability to own a gun, but also to what degree of mental illness forbids it.
Eldo wrote: With Tempest's point about cars, alcohol killing people, what was the last documented event of an individual using a car to mow down an entire crowd of people intentionally, and when was the last time an individual tried to get themselves hammered so they could kill 30+ people with their bare hands?
Check the statistics on drunk driving in America and you'l see that it's not quite as easy to dismiss my point. According to an estimation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, In 2003 over 17,000 people were killing in the US in alchohol related accidents (That represents 40% of the total traffic deaths in the US, so according to that info CARS KILLED over 42,500 people that year) According to the FBI and the Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics, 66% of the 16,137 murders in the US in 2004 were commited by firearms. That's about 10,650 for those of you playing the home game.
reiketsu wrote: Have you ever checked how many kids accidentally kills a friend or, in the worse case, kill a relative because there was a gun in their house? It's fact that having weapons in house brings more risk them defense.
I have looked up those statistics, and though I may sound like an evil, horrible person for saying it, accidental shootings are some of the most overblown crimes in America. Don't get me wrong, every single one of them is tragic and I wish this on no one (No matter how lax your gun safety may be), but accidental gun deaths in the US are nowhere near as common as you might think they are. How many? According to the National Safety Council, in 2003 there were about 900 accidental deaths by firearms. For a reference, the number of accidental deaths by drowning reached over 3,300 that year.

Want to lower that number to nearly zero? I suggest a law that if your gun is used in a fatalty (unless it was previously reported stolen by you), that you be convicted of manslaughter (Or maybe even 2nd degree murder) and given the maximum sentence. That ought to teach people to at least safely store their firearms, and that will make a world of difference.
ImageImage
reiketsu
imanewbie
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:46 pm

Post by reiketsu »

Tempest wrote: I still maintain that if he had not gotten the guns from a shop, Cho would have gotten the guns illegally, just like the Columbine killers did themselves. Would tighter gun laws have made it harder for Cho to do it? Yes, but he got those guns almost a month before the killings, so he had the presence of mind to wait, plan, and record all those messages and probably wouldn't have minded using some time to aquire some other weapons. Nothing short of being institutionalised and/or medicated would have stopped him from doing something bad. As far as adding mental health issues as part of the backround checks, that is a tricky issue. The same laws that might prevent the next Cho from legally obtaining his weapons might stop a mother who had post-pardom depression 10 years ago from being able to go out hunting. Or it might keep someone with OCD from buying a gun for himself. The problem is that not only can we not draw the line as to what type of mental illnesses forbid the ability to own a gun, but also to what degree of mental illness forbids it.
But get a gun illegally is slightly more dificult, and more expensive. And there's always the risk of be caught.

Keeping a track of the mentally instable individuals would prevent them from buy guns, however it wouldn't be done blindly. A mother that had postpardom deprssion ten years ago obviously would had to have sessions with a psychologist, which would result in relatories about her state, diagnosing if she is able or not to go out to hunt, for example.

Tempest wrote: Want to lower that number to nearly zero? I suggest a law that if your gun is used in a fatalty (unless it was previously reported stolen by you), that you be convicted of manslaughter (Or maybe even 2nd degree murder) and given the maximum sentence. That ought to teach people to at least safely store their firearms, and that will make a world of difference.
Or everything or nothing, uh?
The Future is uncertain, and the end is always near�
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

Think of it this way, we have two sides: Everyone can have guns or Nobody can have guns.

On either of those sides we have LOW gun related deaths for obvious reasons.

But each side is the polar extreme we define as Anarchy and Police State.

No one wants to live in either extreme for very long, so there must be a balance. However, in that balance, the deaths due to gun related crime go up.

We get an upside down U graph.

So where on this graph is the best place to be? Anarchy <--> Police State
Shaka Zulu
Buzkashi wannabe
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: Zulu Land

Post by Shaka Zulu »

FYI the Swiss have a way more guns per person ratio then the US. They train their citizens as first defence line to the country, everyone from early on is taught how to handle guns, in which sitautions to use them and to treat it with respect. Bit like a para-military kinda policy like Israel has. They get through alot of lessons on how to deal with guns.


While in the US it seems more like you romanticise it and has a bit of a naive and childish notion to guns. A bit rebellious and unrealistic attitude of its to straighten the govt in check etc (or that guns will solve every people you may have). Everyone being able to buy it off the shelves of walmart means no real education or respect to guns. Any joe schmo can buy it without getting a single advice of to deal with it or so on. England is the same with how they really teach their gun owners exstensively in how to use it and to respect it before they sell it or allowed to keep it. More respect for the gun, less likely to use it to kill others. Less likely to have warped view of guns being toys.
Until the lion learns to speak, the tales of the hunt will be(weak) told by the hunter
User avatar
ZoddsNo1Fan
This is my new home
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 pm
Location: US, east

Post by ZoddsNo1Fan »

I totally agree with Shaka on this matter. More respect for the weapon, more knowledge of its power, more wisdom of how to use it/store it safely is the best way for the US to go. Even saying this, the government would probably make money out of this. Say, you need to take a three day gun safety course, in which you get a certificate, and which costs say 40$. Thats money in the bank for the government whilst still protecting the people! Its a win win for all.
Eldo
Of The Abyss
Posts: 7435
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Yours or mine?

Post by Eldo »

Tempest wrote:I still maintain that if he had not gotten the guns from a shop, Cho would have gotten the guns illegally, just like the Columbine killers did themselves. Would tighter gun laws have made it harder for Cho to do it? Yes, but he got those guns almost a month before the killings, so he had the presence of mind to wait, plan, and record all those messages and probably wouldn't have minded using some time to aquire some other weapons. Nothing short of being institutionalised and/or medicated would have stopped him from doing something bad. As far as adding mental health issues as part of the backround checks, that is a tricky issue. The same laws that might prevent the next Cho from legally obtaining his weapons might stop a mother who had post-pardom depression 10 years ago from being able to go out hunting. Or it might keep someone with OCD from buying a gun for himself. The problem is that not only can we not draw the line as to what type of mental illnesses forbid the ability to own a gun, but also to what degree of mental illness forbids it.
The question here is not when he got the guns, it's how he was able to. He had easy access to the guns. So did the killers at Columbine, they were able to get their friend to purchase it from at a gun show or something with no background checks. This needs to be fixed. Maybe Cho did take a month to orchestrate this massacre, but it's a fact that he wouldn't be able to plan for this if he couldn't have come in a possession of a gun. And seeing how Cho had no friends (as the media portrayed him), he couldn't have gotten his gun elsewhere, unless he stole it off someone at campus, who broke university code by carrying a handgun.
Tempest wrote:Check the statistics on drunk driving in America and you'l see that it's not quite as easy to dismiss my point. According to an estimation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, In 2003 over 17,000 people were killing in the US in alchohol related accidents (That represents 40% of the total traffic deaths in the US, so according to that info CARS KILLED over 42,500 people that year) According to the FBI and the Department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics, 66% of the 16,137 murders in the US in 2004 were commited by firearms. That's about 10,650 for those of you playing the home game.
Note that I said 'intentionally', and not 'under the influence'. I am well-aware of the drink-driving statistics, and the amount of bloody idiots in America. But what's the statistics for a person intentionally using a car as a weapon as means to murder a bunch of people? A gun is used with the intention to harm people. Cars however, not so. We have police officers patrolling the streets late at night to give people breath tests. Other strategies employed has also reduced the amount of drink driving deaths in Australia.
Tempest wrote:Want to lower that number to nearly zero? I suggest a law that if your gun is used in a fatalty (unless it was previously reported stolen by you), that you be convicted of manslaughter (Or maybe even 2nd degree murder) and given the maximum sentence. That ought to teach people to at least safely store their firearms, and that will make a world of difference.
Yes, that would work. But would a law like this necessarily stop a massacre? When a shooter like Cho is adamantly about a killing rampage, and killing himself in the process, I'm sure he doesn't care about the ramifications of breaking the law.
Image

I don't think half the toilet seats in the world are as clean as I should like; and only half of those are half as clean as they deserve. - tsubaimomo, July 26, 2010 3:00 am
User avatar
psi29a
Godo
Posts: 5386
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52 am
Location: The Lonely Mountain
Contact:

Post by psi29a »

Eldo wrote:Yes, that would work. But would a law like this necessarily stop a massacre? When a shooter like Cho is adamantly about a killing rampage, and killing himself in the process, I'm sure he doesn't care about the ramifications of breaking the law.
Can any law stop a massacre? That is the bottom line through all this. This isn't an accidental shooting, this is methodical man who took his time. Guns or no guns, the guy probably would have done major damage with house hold cleaning agents rigged up for an explosion in his backpack, wrapped with steel ball bearings. There any number of mass casualty ways of killing people that do not need guns. Just so happened that the path of least resistance was the guns over a long period of time.

Current gun laws prevent the spare of the moment gun appropriation and popping someone because they slept with your wife kind of thing.

This was thought out for a long time.

Changing gun laws is treating a symptom, but is not the problem in and of itself.
Tempest
Dirty Sennin
Posts: 2286
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:40 am
Location: The Eye of The Storm
Contact:

Post by Tempest »

Eldo wrote: The question here is not when he got the guns, it's how he was able to. He had easy access to the guns. So did the killers at Columbine, they were able to get their friend to purchase it from at a gun show or something with no background checks.
You just proved one of my points and you don't even realize it.
ImageImage
Eldo
Of The Abyss
Posts: 7435
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Yours or mine?

Post by Eldo »

Changing gun laws is treating a symptom, but is not the problem in and of itself.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. With explosives, it could have been made faulty if they constructed it on their own, and not have the desired damage as intended. Yes, the loss of live would still be significant in that case, but not as much as walking around and shooting people.
You just proved one of my points and you don't even realize it.
My argument was that it was too easy to get a gun. For the killers at Columbine, if their friend wasn't able to purchase a gun with the proper background checks, then they probably wouldn't haven't gotten guns so easily. I'm not saying that gun control would stop massacres, I'm saying that it would restrict the accessibility of guns, and in addition, minimise the chances of a massacre from happening.
Image

I don't think half the toilet seats in the world are as clean as I should like; and only half of those are half as clean as they deserve. - tsubaimomo, July 26, 2010 3:00 am
User avatar
Brainpiercing
Crusher of Dreams
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: somewhere far beyond

Post by Brainpiercing »

A law can never stop a person really determined to go out and kill people, nor will a law ever stop lunatics. A law will never reduce criminal intent.

It can, however, stop a person from picking up his gun from the bedside table and blowing away people for a variety of minor reasons - usually closely related people like wifes, parents, neighbours. The law can do this by not allowing a person easy access to the means to become a criminal.

There is also another aspect: Imagine a burglar breaking into a house, knowing that there most probably won't be any guns in it. Will he find it necessary to bring a gun, too? If, however, he must expect people to have guns, then he will probably also take one, just in case. Even if in both cases he brought the gun, in which case do you believe it will be more probable for him to actually use it, after being discovered by a tenant?
Brainpiercing
"Beer cures poison" - (almost) Guts.
Image
Post Reply