Global Communications > Development Media

Second Amendment My Ass [Text Walls and Discussion]

<< < (3/4) > >>

Mangley:

--- Quote from: major on October 27, 2012, 09:13:54 pm ---So as far as I see America, we cannot fix the laws, our only chance is to fix the people. I'll still keep my weapon on my side, and no one will know its there till others or my life is in risk.

--- End quote ---

I think I agree with all you said major. I only specifically used school shootings as an example because it set a precedent in the UK for a reform in our firearms laws. In that case it was actually an adult who went onto school grounds with his guns.



--- Quote from: killermonkey on October 27, 2012, 11:30:11 pm ---I think it is hard for someone who does not have so much freedom to understand what it means.
--- End quote ---

Personally I don't want to have the right to own firearms. I don't consider that a freedom. If I have the right it means other people do too. People who are less well balanced individuals. The consequence is that I would pretty much have to carry in order to feel secure right? It's like a meta-social arms race. I have the right to free healthcare, I consider that a much more important freedom.


--- Quote from: killermonkey on October 27, 2012, 11:30:11 pm ---TL;DR
I love guns, I own guns, and I actively defend my rights. I wish the supreme court would "shoot down" all the ridiculous restrictions placed on handguns and concealed carry permits that some states impose.

--- End quote ---

But are your rights right? I mean, laws are entirely arbitrary. At some point somebody, or some group agreed on something and wrote it for all to follow. No law is objective. It's great to value your rights and the laws of your country, as long as people understand that they are arbitrary. The question is does the right to bear arms make a society safer or more dangerous?
People talk about their rights individualistically. You say 'my rights'. The thing is, it's not just you is it? Everyone has the right, and if you believe you have the right, then by those standards you have to defend the rights of everyone else to do the same, however perverse, uneducated or immoral they happen to be. This is why tighter restrictions and licensing are important, right? If someone has a propensity for violence, if they have trouble controlling their anger, and they are not a criminal, should they have equal right to own a firearm? How do you judge someone's character to determine if they are dangerous to society?

Of course, nobody wants to have their rights taken away from them, do they? Even if it's for their own good. Some people can be way too over-zealous and self-rightous about what they feel they are entitled to based off whatever system of law or practices they have always lived under previously. Especially if they are taught to value their rights and freedom in the way that Americans are.



--- Quote from: Emilia on October 28, 2012, 03:06:05 am ---Least in Australia, our police carry firearms. I think a police officer without a firearm is pointless. If a person is going to commit any kind of criminal offence, it is going to be with a firearm.

--- End quote ---

In the UK the majority of crime is carried out with knives or other imrpovised weapons. In most of the robberies committed with a gun, it's generally found that the gun is actually a replica. Our police are equipped with stab vests, batons, tasers and pepper spray whilst specialized armed units are dispatched when guns or serious threats are actually involved. Pretty much only drug gangs have access to guns and they seldom use them. Most commonly shootings are gang feuds.



--- Quote from: Excidium on October 28, 2012, 04:59:56 pm ---Guns dont kill ppl...ppl kill ppl there is no  blaming the tool of destruction

--- End quote ---

If people kill people then why give them guns? :P

I think this rationalization is weaksauce. Yes people kill people. People always have killed people, and they've done it with whatever they had available. But more people kill more people if they have a more easy, efficient and readily available weapon at their disposal. Right? I mean, if like you say the tool of destruction isn't part of the problem then why not just give everyone the right to produce and own chemical weapons and nuclear weapons?

The contrast between needing to get up-close and physical to stab someone to death versus simply pointing a gun at them and pulling the trigger is a big one. Isn't it simply too easy? Don't you stand more of a fighting chance if your assailant has to be in physical contact with you? Even if you're armed, you could even be at a gun range practicing and the guy next to you can just stick a pistol to the back of your head and blow your brains out. It's that easy if someone is so inclined to do so.


Now yes, I am an idealist, and I'll admit society is far from ideal. But idealistically people shouldn't need to carry weapons in order to feel safe or be safe. That should be the direction people as a whole gravitate towards. Safer societies. Yes at the current time it is unfeasible for the US to ban firearms or make restrictions too tight too fast. However, regulations can't be allowed to stagnate as technology moves forward. If the streets can be made safer over time then regulations can grow tighter without people feeling so insecure about 'losing their rights'.

I think there's absolutely no problem with sporting arms, shooting, competitions, firing ranges and that sort of thing. I don't agree with hunting for sport. You should only be hunting if you're literally starving, or if the overpopulation of a species is adversely effecting the ecosystem and needs to be culled for environmental reasons.

Excidium:
I just look at it as the Assailant has something wrong with their mind that goes array and for whatever reason they make the choice..to do the wrong..guns are just another tool that the person uses to destroy whatever is in their way.  If you reform guns in America ppl will use other means ..to get the job done so I dont see guns as the only problem......Weaksauce ...thats ok Im not offended at all I actually can see where you are coming from, But where I live  St Louis  Crime is abundant..poverty is in effect and ppl make life or death choices daily.. I as a citizen follow the laws and earn my way through life by working hard and paying my bills and Taxes..here ppl are crazy killing for whatever reason, stealing your copper lines from your house and air units outside for a quick buck and these ppl will stop at nothing to get it..murder, kidnap whatever..All im saying is Id love the violence to stop and means of guns and weaponry to be limited but this society forces it to be used (in my situation protection of what i work hard for cause this area is scary and I havent a choice but to keep an eye open and watch all shady characters in view). IMO the govt is at fault for the shit economy and making ppl act so desperate as to kill for the food on the table at night or just a damn drug or whatever the need....Life is screwed up and ppl need a damn grip we only live once and its very short.   Didnt mean to act so biased of guns not killing but just being a mere tool of the human. I needed to explain the area and maybe see how it is for me and why I am forced to think that way even tho I know its wrong.  P.S. I plan on moving soon lol get away from it all here ..maybe some open country..as long as there is net. and I can shoot my guns at the next clay shoot meet.

Sam Colt:
The issue is a complicated one for the US. How much violence will it take to break the defense of the 2nd Amendment by US citizens? Far too much - total chaos across the nation. Unfortunately we here are largely used to school shootings, as desperately sad as that is to say. The Columbine Massacre, which was in my opinion the worst of its kind, is already largely out of our national mind. And while more recent shootings like Aurora, Gabby Giffords and Virginia Tech are still in the national conscience, and the debate centers on them, they have not been "bad enough" to really break sides. Shootings like these are so, regrettably, ingrained into our cultural fabric that I think it would take a truly magnificent act of wide spread gun violence to sway the American people, and our elected officials, on the restriction of the Right to Bear Arms.

An important factor to take into account is that the American people are afraid of their government. You can see it most obviously with Obama, and the Conservative reaction to him. Obama mentioned something about enacting stricter gun laws. In response we saw a bunch of paranoid ramblings from the Right about how he's going to take away all our guns, and a subsequent stockpiling of guns and ammo by these people. We also saw it, or at least the distrust, with the last Bush administration, where, at the end, some people were feeling that Bush was going to establish a dictatorship. Of course both these statements are ridiculous paranoid delusions, but they reflect a deep seated fear of the Federal Government which I'd be willing to bet stems all the way back to our founding. This is where the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment comes into play:

--- Quote ---A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
--- End quote ---
We 'obviously' need our guns to protect ourselves against the tyranny of the Federal Government.

Anywho, I think Major is right in saying that there are so many guns out there right now, legal and illegal, that it would be the very next thing to impossible to take them off the streets should guns be banned or heavily restricted like in the UK. There's just too-godamn-many of them out there, and we don't have a flaming clue how many there might really be, so it's better to let the citizens have the right to own and protect themselves with them. Someday this might change, lets hope.

Personally, I do support the second amendment, but within reason. I don't think there's a need for anyone except the military and police to carry or own automatic weapons, nor do I think there is reason for citizens in dense urban areas to have guns (despite the need to protect themselves). If you coupled very strict gun control laws in dense urban areas with programs where you can turn in guns for cash/food/education vouchers/whatever I think it would probably have a positive impact on rates of gun violence. Then again, it might now. I grew up shooting. My dad has quite a few rifles, and that's not even all of them. I love shooting, and I intend to inherit these, government be damned. Yet, I do see the problems in gun ownership in the states.

There is no solution to this problem on the horizon.

Emilia:

--- Quote from: major on October 28, 2012, 06:49:30 pm ---Germany's gun rules sound very similar to Australia. Here is a good video to show the rules and regulations of Australia for gun ownership:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gzJD7eKBX4&feature=plcp

--- End quote ---

I really liked this video. I am not sure how Victorian state laws compare to Western Australia, but a lot of what they said I knew to be right.
A few guys I know wanted to get a paintball rifle licence (yes, you need one for that). They had to do a written exam and then a practical exam. That is how crazy it is just to get a licence for a paintball rifle.

Also, looking at the the comments in the video, I was reminded of our law where we can only use equal force to defend ourselves. If a guy comes in with a knife to try and hurt me, I can only use something of equal force. Just like the saying, one hit is self defence, two is murder.


--- Quote from: Mangley on October 28, 2012, 09:59:23 pm ---I think there's absolutely no problem with sporting arms, shooting, competitions, firing ranges and that sort of thing. I don't agree with hunting for sport. You should only be hunting if you're literally starving, or if the overpopulation of a species is adversely effecting the ecosystem and needs to be culled for environmental reasons.

--- End quote ---

Some people think that hunting for sport is a right too. I believe in the right to live. To kill should only mean to protect your own life, and that is what guns or any weapon should be used for, if not to have fun without harm. That is why I don't believe in culling either, because if you look at it, we are the species that is doing the most harm to this earth. We are pushing animals to the confines of our world, because we are taking up so much space and they no longer have the complete freedom to live as they are.


--- Quote from: Mangley on October 28, 2012, 09:59:23 pm ---
In the UK the majority of crime is carried out with knives or other imrpovised weapons. In most of the robberies committed with a gun, it's generally found that the gun is actually a replica. Our police are equipped with stab vests, batons, tasers and pepper spray whilst specialized armed units are dispatched when guns or serious threats are actually involved. Pretty much only drug gangs have access to guns and they seldom use them. Most commonly shootings are gang feuds.


--- End quote ---

From the training I had the other day, the police officer said that if they get a report that a person is committing an offence with something other than a pistol, that they need to get our specialised team out too. He actually used to be a police officer back in the UK. I should have really asked him if he felt safer carrying a gun or not.

Robberies here are still using guns quite a bit, but more are using syringes...eeek. And those that can get their hands on guns, they are usually from gangs. The fact that the police officer brought in guns that had recently been used in robberies just really confirms how much they are used.

Enzo.Matrix:
There is nothing wrong with guns.

Safety training is key for any dangerous tool.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page