Asimov Posted January 1, 2006 Author Share Posted January 1, 2006 Guns? They're effective, but they lack a certain finesse in most hands. I tell you, though, there are few things more terrifying or deadly than an angry trained swordsman in his own home. * pats his katana * 'Course, I have a friend who's apparently a natural with throwing knives. Which is something that would be freaking scary to come up against. Not as clumsy as a blaster, a relic of a more civilized age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad3232132 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I as more or less against gun control. However this is a non-issue for me as far as voting goes. There are about a thousand more important issues to me than "needing to wait 5 days to buy a gun." Any non-Christian who votes for right-wing nuts purely over the issue of gun control is just "shooting themself in the foot" so to speak. Remember, if everyone voted for candidates purely based on who the NRA endorsed we'd probably be living in a full-fledged theocracy in the U.S. Just curious, but what do you guys think is the reason behind the far higher firearm murder rate in the U.S. as opposed to Canada? I mean guns aren't exactly outlawed in Canada. In fact they have a high rate of gun ownership in Canada too. I've heard many different explanations. I suppose we are a more violent culture in America. Fear is heavily woven into the minds of a large % of the country. So much so that most Americans favor constantly increased military spending without ever really having any accountability as to where that money goes. Funny how we have enough money to fork over billions of bucks for more stealth fighters to sit and accumulate dust while American troops fighting and dying in Iraq can't get the basic armor they need! It's really sad that these people live in such fear. Then again it's not surprising. These are the same right-wing white fundies who fled the cities in fear after blacks gained equal rights, and went to buy homes in the suburbs so they could feel safe. I suppose they'll buy any nonsense the military-industrial complex has the government tell them. prithsd, how soon you forget your Nation's history: Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi You may think your actions are meaningless and that they won't help, but that is no excuse, you must still act. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi Noncooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good. -- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi kL Anyone care to guess how many Indians would have die had Gandhi led a violent uprising instead of a peaceful one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I think "gun control" really should be considered as part of a bigger issue - that of "weapons control". I assume most people don't think individual citizens should have the right to own personal nuclear devices or ground-to-air missiles or even functioning armored tanks. Yet, all of these weapons would seem to be covered by the 2nd amendment's guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Unless you are in favor of individual nuclear devices (nivek? ), then you agree that there are some limitations on the 2nd amendment. In other words, there should be some level of weapons control. That's the camp I fall into - I think citizens should be able to carry weapons appropriate for personal defense and for hunting, target practice, etc. This would include some styles of guns, but probably not all types of guns (that's my opinion). I think what's needed is some standard of what's appropriate based on the threat you are protecting yourself from. Should that standard be protection against one person, a gang of four people, a mob of 30? I don't know the answer to that question, but it seems to me the right direction to look to come up with some idea of what arms should be allowed and which shouldn't. Some people's idea of the standard seems to be that we should be able to protect ourselves from our own government. If that's the standard, then those of us in the USA would have to be allowed the individual nuclear devices along with nuclear subs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad3232132 Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I assume most people don't think individual citizens should have the right to own personal nuclear devices or ground-to-air missiles or even functioning armored tanks. Apparently you've never been to states like Oklahoma, Kansas, or Wyoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted January 1, 2006 Share Posted January 1, 2006 I assume most people don't think individual citizens should have the right to own personal nuclear devices or ground-to-air missiles or even functioning armored tanks. Apparently you've never been to states like Oklahoma, Kansas, or Wyoming. Any time I visit Oklahoma I take my Stealth Bomber armed to the teeth with bunker-busters. I just feel safer that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 3, 2006 Share Posted January 3, 2006 I assume most people don't think individual citizens should have the right to own personal nuclear devices or ground-to-air missiles or even functioning armored tanks. Apparently you've never been to states like Oklahoma, Kansas, or Wyoming. Any time I visit Oklahoma I take my Stealth Bomber armed to the teeth with bunker-busters. I just feel safer that way. As well you should. When we see a Texan acomin', we draw the big guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Toronto has seen some startling rises in gun violence this year. It was quite terrifying on Boxing Day when some asswipe punks decided to discharge arms on Yonge street and my baby bro had gone off to shop downtown with his girlfriend. The shootings are causing some to call for gun control measures, however, I think more emphasis should be put on reducing gang activity in Toronto. That means dealing with our lack of police in the city, their crappy pay, dealing with poverty issues (mostly for black families), and the appaling state of our rec centers and parks, dealing with low employment for young black males, and all that other stuff that the government doesn't seem to want to deal with. I don't care about guns, 'cause they don't shoot by themselves. Where's the gang control in Toronto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 You see, Joe, guns do not murder. If by gun you mean human, then yes, guns murder: mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. However, since a gun is not a human you are wrong. According to some statistics I found, in the year 2001 there were 2, 778 motor vehicle accidents resulting in deaths in Canada. In 2001 there were 842 gun deaths (not just homicides). Wow. The bottom line is: Cars murder. End of story. How many death by car accidents have a premeditated malice behind them?When was the last time you heard a 14 year old kid going on a murder ramage in his car? I think a better comparison would be murder by Knife or baseball bats. Do you have statistics for that? I think the questions that most anti gun lobbist are asking, what's use of semi automatic/automatic guns? Pro guns say that criminals have them, but if they were prohibited by the law in the first place, would they have access to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 New York now has the lowest crime out of any big city in the states. Wasn't this done by putting more enforcement on the streets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 Interesting aside from this past week in the uS Capitol: NEWS RELEASE GUN BANS DON'T WORK, AND MARION BARRY IS LIVING PROOF, SAYS CCRKBA BELLEVUE, WA – The armed robbery Monday of Washington, D.C. Councilman, and former Mayor, Marion Barry should not have happened to him, nor should any citizen in the District face such a crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today. "Unfortunately," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "Barry and his anti-gun colleagues on the city council have steadfastly opposed repeal of the gun ban in the District. It is mind boggling that in the capitol of the Free World, where the original Constitution of the United States resides, that the citizens of that city may not exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. "This may not mean much to Mr. Barry," Gottlieb observed, "because his crack cocaine conviction in 1991 disqualifies him from legally owning a firearm. But it would mean a great deal to law-abiding citizens without criminal records who desperately need the means to defend themselves against criminals who currently enjoy a risk-free working environment." According to the Associated Press, Barry was robbed at gunpoint by some youths who had helped him carry his groceries to his apartment. They took his wallet containing cash and credit cards. "What happened to Marion Barry is a symptom of a larger problem," Gottlieb said. "Over the years, since passage of the notorious handgun ban, there have been anecdotal incidents of VIPs being mugged and hard evidence that disarming law-abiding citizens has done nothing to stop armed criminals from committing violent crimes. Barry, of course, could easily discuss this phenomenon, since he is walking proof that laws against smoking crack cocaine don't stop people from doing that, either. "It's time," Gottlieb continued, "to tell anti-gun city leaders like Barry that ‘we've tried it your way, and it was a disaster; now let's try it a different way.' It is time for citizens in Washington, D.C. to once again be secure in their homes and businesses, and the only way to accomplish that is to make it possible for them to fight back. "If the gun ban had worked," he said, "Marion Barry would still have his wallet." -END- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkepticOfBible Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 New York now has the lowest crime out of any big city in the states. Wasn't this done by putting more enforcement on the streets? Well what kind of crime are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad3232132 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 New York now has the lowest crime out of any big city in the states. Wasn't this done by putting more enforcement on the streets? By lowest crime rate I assume you aren't talkign about murder, armed robberies, rapes, or any other serious crime measure. Because if you are, you're flat out wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted January 4, 2006 Author Share Posted January 4, 2006 New York now has the lowest crime out of any big city in the states. Wasn't this done by putting more enforcement on the streets? By lowest crime rate I assume you aren't talkign about murder, armed robberies, rapes, or any other serious crime measure. Because if you are, you're flat out wrong. Interesting since I read an article in my paper which stated that New York is now the safest large city in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Using the same logic that Joe uses, we should ban anything that hurts anyone or has the potential to hurt anyone. And that goes for anything from plastic knives to shovels. Thank you, Asimov. Well-stated and entirely true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 Pro guns say that criminals have them, but if they were prohibited by the law in the first place, would they have access to it? Do criminals not have access to drugs....??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The law doesn't affect the black market. That's why it exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 The law doesn't affect the black market. That's why it exists. Exactly... I heard on the news today an SFU criminologist (Simon-Fraser University - not Shut the Fuck Up) said that after analyzing the gun culture in both the states and in Canada, the Liberals proposed plan to ban handguns was the closest to the solution he's seen. He also stated, though, that most gun crimes were the result of gangs and they don't obey the law anyways, regardless of how strict the penalties are...so there needs to be another solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 He also stated, though, that most gun crimes were the result of gangs and they don't obey the law anyways, regardless of how strict the penalties are...so there needs to be another solution. Precisely - the rise of gangs and the rise of gun violence are closely related. Why this seems to elude the gun control crowd is beyond me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Maybe think owning a gun makes one prone to becoming a gang member. Wouldn't put it past the idiots that want to take guns away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Maybe thing owning a gun makes one prone to becoming a gang member. Wouldn't put it past the idiots that want to take guns away. They had gangs before guns, though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts