Gun laws

As some Noolers find some of the comments on the thread about the latest shootings in America tasteless Thought it best to start a new thread to deal with all matters about this topic....

My opinion on the matter is that of course these things are more likely to happen in a country where guns are easily available.

Yes the UK has had tragedies of it's own, however after Dunblane the gun laws were tightened and then tightened again after Hungerford.

this is not to say that this couldn't happen here, guns are available on the black market, but the fact that there are far fewer guns available to people and laws in place for illegal gun ownership make it a whole lot less likely.

I find the view of if everyone is armed then there will be less killings frankly insane

Sure restricting the access to deadly weapons will reduce the number of innocents killed. No argument there.

If somebody really wants to get a gun, they always will find a way. Criminals and gang members don't seem to have any problems in getting them.

It is true that guns don't kill people, but people who use guns kill people.

Restricting access to guns is a good move in my book.

After all how many people can you kill in a stabbing rampage.

And reduce the number of accidental deaths and injuries that gun owners cause to themselves or others

NOOLigan wrote:

After all how many people can you kill in a stabbing rampage.

Dunno

I'll report back after I have finally snapped

Minx wrote: And reduce the number of accidental deaths and injuries that gun owners cause to themselves or others

very true.

Minx wrote:

NOOLigan wrote:

After all how many people can you kill in a stabbing rampage.

Dunno

I'll report back after I have finally snapped

I'm expecting a full report.

Well, one view here is that if everybody is armed, nobody will want to cause trouble, because they could be shot dead. And if somebody does go on a rampage like today it will end quickly.

The other view is that it will lead to more heat of the moment killings.

And then there's that whole Second Amendment mess. A more awkward sentence could not have been written:

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.

What exactly does that mean? We can all carry guns? If so, then why mention a militia?

Or does it mean we can all carry guns if we serve in a "well-regulated" state militia? And if so, then the fact that the "well-regulated" state militias essentially disappeared with the federalization of the military, and have been replaced by the armed forces and the National Guard, makes the Second Amendment a meaningless appendage.

Sale of certian weapons should be forbidden, such as fully automatics and .50 caliber and above. There simply isn't any real need for a civilian to need these. If so, there better be a letter from the Predsident or Congress or something.

Hand guns and rifles shouldn't be banned though. Hunting is a large sport that uses rifles (other than that rifles are a bit unnecessary).

It usually takes 30 minutes for police around here to be able to react. ALOT can happen in 30 minutes. I prefer the ability to protect my family if necessary.

Guns shouldn't be handed out to just anyone, but a good extensive backround check and training in using a weapon.

If guns are banned, only the law abiding people will listen. Criminals will not listen to these laws. So banning is actually empowering the criminals.

EdelBrock wrote: ...fully automatics and .50 caliber and above. There simply isn't any real need for a civilian to need these...

Not even in rush hour traffic?

I'm one of these people that believe the ownership and use of guns is so ingrained in American culture, that if the laws were reversed, it would give a huge boost to the illegal firearms culture.

In the UK, thats the method of obtaining firearms, be it through cash in a brown paper bag or the internet. If you really want a gun,and have the cash, you can get one.

The media must shoulder vast chunks of the blame surely? Be it cop shows, war coverage, dramas, films etc, or just plain news.

EdelBrock wrote: Sale of certian weapons should be forbidden, such as fully automatics and .50 caliber and above. There simply isn't any real need for a civilian to need these. If so, there better be a letter from the Predsident or Congress or something.

Hand guns and rifles shouldn't be banned though. Hunting is a large sport that uses rifles (other than that rifles are a bit unnecessary).

It usually takes 30 minutes for police around here to be able to react. ALOT can happen in 30 minutes. I prefer the ability to protect my family if necessary.

Guns shouldn't be handed out to just anyone, but a good extensive backround check and training in using a weapon.

If guns are banned, only the law abiding people will listen. Criminals will not listen to these laws. So banning is actually empowering the criminals.

And what about all the shootings done in the heat of the moment? no one has a good old fashioned punch up they just pull out their guns.

And what about the fact that the guns you own for your protection can be stolen from you...or are they carefully locked up away from your kids ? in which case how can you use them to protect your family if you have to go and unlock them???? oh and the accidental injuries and killings?

People are always quick to blame our gun laws.. which I will admit is partly the problem, but the other issue is how the country deals with mental illness. It's not taken seriously and most insurance companies don't even cover it. How does someone with the capacity to kill 30 people in a few hours go unnoticed?

Cath wrote: People are always quick to blame our gun laws.. which I will admit is partly the problem, but the other issue is how the country deals with mental illness. It's not taken seriously and most insurance companies don't even cover it. How does someone with the capacity to kill 30 people in a few hours go unnoticed?

Yep, that's at the root of these rampages.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Cath wrote: People are always quick to blame our gun laws.. which I will admit is partly the problem, but the other issue is how the country deals with mental illness. It's not taken seriously and most insurance companies don't even cover it. How does someone with the capacity to kill 30 people in a few hours go unnoticed?

Yep, that's at the root of these rampages.

It always is.. and there's always the same signs.. antisocial, kills animals, passive aggressive tendencies.. etc etc.. but no one cares or takes it seriously until the lunatic kills a bunch of people.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Cath wrote: People are always quick to blame our gun laws.. which I will admit is partly the problem, but the other issue is how the country deals with mental illness. It's not taken seriously and most insurance companies don't even cover it. How does someone with the capacity to kill 30 people in a few hours go unnoticed?

Yep, that's at the root of these rampages.

It's an issue of course, but I'd rather deal with an unarmed mentally ill person than an armed one

Cath wrote:

It always is.. and there's always the same signs.. antisocial, kills animals, passive aggressive tendencies.. etc etc..

I ran over another duck the other day.

Minx wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Cath wrote: People are always quick to blame our gun laws.. which I will admit is partly the problem, but the other issue is how the country deals with mental illness. It's not taken seriously and most insurance companies don't even cover it. How does someone with the capacity to kill 30 people in a few hours go unnoticed?

Yep, that's at the root of these rampages.

It's an issue of course, but I'd rather deal with an unarmed mentally ill person than an armed one

Definitely.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Cath wrote:

It always is.. and there's always the same signs.. antisocial, kills animals, passive aggressive tendencies.. etc etc..

I ran over another duck the other day.

Do you own a gun

Minx wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Cath wrote:

It always is.. and there's always the same signs.. antisocial, kills animals, passive aggressive tendencies.. etc etc..

I ran over another duck the other day.

Do you own a gun

no, I live in the UK, we dont own guns. It just hit the bumper, and I felt no urges to go out and shoot it too. Only urge was to clear my windscreen of feathers.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Minx wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Cath wrote:

It always is.. and there's always the same signs.. antisocial, kills animals, passive aggressive tendencies.. etc etc..

I ran over another duck the other day.

Do you own a gun

no, I live in the UK, we dont own guns. It just hit the bumper, and I felt no urges to go out and shoot it too. Only urge was to clear my windscreen of feathers.

How's the van?

NOOLigan wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Minx wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

Cath wrote:

It always is.. and there's always the same signs.. antisocial, kills animals, passive aggressive tendencies.. etc etc..

I ran over another duck the other day.

Do you own a gun

no, I live in the UK, we dont own guns. It just hit the bumper, and I felt no urges to go out and shoot it too. Only urge was to clear my windscreen of feathers.

How's the van?

The van died on a highly traumatic Valentines Day. I'm currently trying to ruin the bosses wifes car.

Van man no more. :D

NOOLigan wrote: Van man no more. :D

Well i only drove one to avoid parking tickets. Never carried anything. Now I drive around faster but have to park at a distance and walk. grr

I don't really have any opinion about US gun law, its up to the Americans to decide. I think perhaps the sad thing is there's a clash of culture, that for a good portion of Americans gun ownership is part of their culture, while for the rest it isn't, and its in the nature of the topic that it isn't really possible to satisfy both groups. (I do wonder if the South had won the civil war, whether the North would have developed more of a European political culture, with European style gun laws, while the South became like Apartheid South Africa before eventually ending up a black-majority nation, like post-apartheid south africa...but, um, thats a bit of a tangent).

Anyway, guns don't kill people, criminal and crazed people kill people, unfortunately US society seems to produce an awful lot of those. I'd think that was an argument for changing the society more than banning the guns.

I also think its supremely ironic that, apparently, some of the hostility to the US in Iraq has been partly fuelled by the US forces attempts to disarm the population, gun ownership being very widespread under Saddam (not that that seemed to do much to 'prevent tyranny'). Did the NRA have anything to say about US troops raiding people's houses in Iraq to sieze household guns?

But even in the UK, with, I think, the tightest gun control laws in the world, shootings seem to become more and more frequent. They are certainly commonplace in South London now, where once they were almost unheard of. It seems there's some sort of inevitable increase in the destructive power available to individuals, whatever the law says.

South London's always had its fair share of shootings. You just hear of it more through media, as the focus is clearly on youth behaviour/crime and random murders. This is due to a lack of news, (i.e. something to report), rather than an increase in frequency. If anything the media reports are aimed at knife crime.

Once again, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, 404 Error. Bizarre country, the U.S., split down the middle the way it is.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Once again, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, 404 Error. Bizarre country, the U.S., split down the middle the way it is.

Agreed to that.

However, in Iraq, every household is allowed one AK-47. What they aren't allowed is mass quantities, and stockloads of the weapons. These weapons weren't owned (for the most part) by the iraqis before the war, but after the many stockades were plundered after the invasion.

Minx wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Sale of certian weapons should be forbidden, such as fully automatics and .50 caliber and above. There simply isn't any real need for a civilian to need these. If so, there better be a letter from the Predsident or Congress or something.

Hand guns and rifles shouldn't be banned though. Hunting is a large sport that uses rifles (other than that rifles are a bit unnecessary).

It usually takes 30 minutes for police around here to be able to react. ALOT can happen in 30 minutes. I prefer the ability to protect my family if necessary.

Guns shouldn't be handed out to just anyone, but a good extensive backround check and training in using a weapon.

If guns are banned, only the law abiding people will listen. Criminals will not listen to these laws. So banning is actually empowering the criminals.

And what about all the shootings done in the heat of the moment? no one has a good old fashioned punch up they just pull out their guns.

And what about the fact that the guns you own for your protection can be stolen from you...or are they carefully locked up away from your kids ? in which case how can you use them to protect your family if you have to go and unlock them???? oh and the accidental injuries and killings?

Fortunately technology has caught up with these problems. I have a fingerprint safe. Opens quick, and doesn't let anyone other than my wife or myself into the safe

fingerprint safe

I also have taken my son (9) (my daughter isn't old enough yet) to a range and taught him the safety rules, and proper use of a weapon. I also showed him what damage can be done by one. I've taught him to respect the dangers of such weapons. Plus the added fact that he knows that if I caught him playing with a gun, it would be his ass.

There are ways to be responsible with weapons, and there are idiots. The one on the campus earlier today was the latter.

EdelBrock wrote: There are ways to be responsible with weapons, and there are idiots. The one on the campus earlier today was the latter.

I can't agree with that. This wasn't a guy playing with a gun he didn't know how to handle. This was a guy who intended to kill a lot of people.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: There are ways to be responsible with weapons, and there are idiots. The one on the campus earlier today was the latter.

I can't agree with that. This wasn't a guy playing with a gun he didn't know how to handle. This was a guy who intended to kill a lot of people.

Ok, but he was still an idiot.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: There are ways to be responsible with weapons, and there are idiots. The one on the campus earlier today was the latter.

I can't agree with that. This wasn't a guy playing with a gun he didn't know how to handle. This was a guy who intended to kill a lot of people.

Ok, but he was still an idiot.

Mentally ill. There's a difference. He might also have been an idiot, or might not have, but mental illness is behind today's tragedy, not his lack of intellect.

Like cath said, the warning signs are there, if people would just notice. He needed help, and either nobody noticed, or nobody bothered when they did notice. Dunno what one could do anyway if one did notice.

MINX, I respectfully disagree. I'm so glad we are not like Britian and the rest of Socialized Europe. For someone who hails from a country that does not allow guns, you sure fancy yourself as knowing a lot about them..

The places in the USA that RESTRICT guns the most, also have the highest number of gun incidents.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Jon Murphy wrote: The places in the USA that RESTRICT guns the most, also have the highest number of gun incidents.

Well, without going and looking things up, I'm going to guess that you are referring to New York and California...but could the fact that those are two of the most populous states have anything to do with them having high numbers of gun incidents??? Maybe???

Hmmmmmmmmm....

So you're saying we should analyze gun incidents per capita, instead of just looking at raw numbers? Why, you just might be on to something there, Jeffari-al-Texani!

Obviously there is no corelation between owning a gun and shooting someone, and not owning a gun and not shooting someone. I dislike the things intensely.

There seems to be a consensus among the disparate views on gun control (for/against) that only a "madman" would commit an act like today's.

But by what, or who's definition of madness? Madness, mental illness, is more often than not a societal construct, and it's often a way of describing a mode of personal behaviour someone else finds "odd" or "off". (e.g. it can be threatening, alarming, worrying, or even just mildly bloody annoying etc). What made/makes this person mad? The fact that he killed, or the fact he killed so many? Or the fact that it wasn't sanctioned by the state? Are the mass murderers sanctioned by state's throughout history not also madmen?

Is it any wonder so many kill? Living in a society that glorifies gun's and violence, and upholds war as heroic and glorious. Where life's dirt cheap and profit is put before people?

Wanting to own or use a gun, seems like a mental illness to me! Violent death is always horrific.

ps talking of offensive madness that should be banned, I've just noticed Jeffari-al-Texani's avatar/pic, and I think he should be banished to a Siberian gulag forthwith for such an affront to humanity. I am shocked and deeply upset!

It's a silly anarchist bookstore comparison you're making, MIMX. You can't just lump all people who kill into the same basket, and label it either "mad" or "sane." Some state-sanctioned killers are mad; some aren't. Some civilians who kill are mad; some aren't. If some guy hears voices in his head telling him to kill everybody on the street, that's not just a "social construct," it's an illness.

Or do you believe that all illnesses are a social construct?

Or do you believe that only somatic illnesses are not social constructs?

That said, the Navajo recognized the problem you're talking about, and have a ceremony for returning warriors that exorcises their madness.

It's haulf five in the mornig here, I've been up awe night, I've never set foot in an anarchist book store in my life, and yes unless it's madness caused by a genetic fault or some form of psychical injury to the brain, diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!

In order to think you need something to think about, the material world is the real underpinning of thought (even the means of coherent thought; language, is a societal construct) it's par for the course that a sick society will throw up sick individuals.

ps in fact even the exact nature of this outrage backs up what I'm saying, this is just the latest in a line of school/college/uni killings; it's not something completely independent and fresh this guy has just dreamed up independently! Which further begs the question just how mad was/is he? Fucking cuckoo, obviously but you get the point.

MIMX wrote: It's haulf five in the mornig here, I've been up awe night, I've never set foot in an anarchist book store in my life, and yes unless it's madness caused by a genetic fault or some form of psychical injury to the brain, diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!

Well, I won't disagree with you about what causes disease. It can be nature-- some chemical imbalance, or a physical injury to the brain-- or it can be nurture. In the U.S. at least, if you track unemployment rates, as unemployment goes up, there's a couple months lag, but then you start to see substance abuse and domestic violence go up too. It's obvious that one's social situation, or family, or some other aspect of society can also make one ill.

What I disagree with is the notion that these people aren't ill. For some reason, we all recognize something like pneumonia, or cancer, or AIDS, and we acknowledge that the person is ill. And we don't then proceed to punish that person for manifesting their illness-- at least not directly. But if somebody is mentally ill, we often don't recognize that as an illness, in terms of being something that can be and should be treated, like pneumonia or cancer, and if the mentally ill person violates some law as a result of being mentally ill, we label that person a "criminal" and punish them.

What you argued sounded to me like the mirror image of that-- not recognizing mental illness, by saying nobody is mentally ill.

Sorry for the anarchist bookstore jab, it wasn't fair.

Here's another thing about mental illness in America. if you're on the right, there are no mentally ill. There are people who don't take personal responsibility for obeying laws. And therefore, there's no need to provide mental health care. But there is a need for prisons and executioners.

If you're on the left, again, there are no mentally ill. So you advocate for the right of the mentally ill to live and die on the street. Again, there's no need to provide for mental health care, because it's all about personal freedom.

And that's a crock. I'd expect it from the right, but leaving the mentally ill to live and die on the street is NOT a program of the left. Except in America.

Fucking left here is utterly lost up its own arse. Has NO agenda for governing America, because it doesn't believe in America, and therefore has utterly abandoned any sense of responsibility for putting forth a coherent social agenda of governance, so it ends up adopting anti-social cause celebres as its agenda-- leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves being but one example.

MIMX, I suppose what you are discussing then is the human race in general. If you look through history, all races,ethnicities, social clans, religons, and any other way you want to lump them have had sick individuals in them. I suppose you could blame society, civilization, modernism, or nature's call; regardless, it is not set on one nation. In the light of that thought, why not exterminate the entire race? and yes, that would include yourself.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Here's another thing about mental illness in America. if you're on the right, there are no mentally ill. There are people who don't take personal responsibility for obeying laws. And therefore, there's no need to provide mental health care. But there is a need for prisons and executioners.

If you're on the left, again, there are no mentally ill. So you advocate for the right of the mentally ill to live and die on the street. Again, there's no need to provide for mental health care, because it's all about personal freedom.

And that's a crock. I'd expect it from the right, but leaving the mentally ill to live and die on the street is NOT a program of the left. Except in America.

Fucking left here is utterly lost up its own arse. Has NO agenda for governing America, because it doesn't believe in America, and therefore has utterly abandoned any sense of responsibility for putting forth a coherent social agenda of governance, so it ends up adopting anti-social cause celebres as its agenda-- leaving the mentally ill to fend for themselves being but one example.

Never thought I'd ever agree when you talked on politics, but this time you are spot on.

I should run for President. :D

Almost, but why does the Left here have New Order's agenda.....I didn't know Barney and Hooky didn't believe in America

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

What I disagree with is the notion that these people aren't ill. What you argued sounded to me like the mirror image of that-- not recognizing mental illness, by saying nobody is mentally ill.

MIMX wrote:

Wanting to own or use a gun, seems like a mental illness to me!

MIMX wrote: ... diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!
... it's par for the course that a sick society will throw up sick individuals. Which further begs the question just how mad was/is he? Fucking cuckoo, obviously but you get the point.

What I'm suggesting is that any murder, whether state sanctioned or not, is always abhorrent and should be viewed as mental illness.

EdelBrock wrote: MIMX, I suppose what you are discussing then is the human race in general. If you look through history, all races,ethnicities, social clans, religons, and any other way you want to lump them have had sick individuals in them. I suppose you could blame society, civilization, modernism, or nature's call; regardless, it is not set on one nation. In the light of that thought, why not exterminate the entire race? and yes, that would include yourself.

Yes, I suppose I am saying all hitherto existing society's were to a greater or lesser degree sick, including the capitalist society's extant today. But of course as the common denominator of all these society's is class struggle, it's hardly surprising that the strife and violence inherent to these struggles, sometimes express themselves through the deranged actions of violent madmen.

It's not gun laws or mental health provisions which caused this outrage, but capitalism and it's ruling ideology. A sick society and a sick philosophy!

Burt Reynolds wrote: South London's always had its fair share of shootings. You just hear of it more through media, as the focus is clearly on youth behaviour/crime and random murders. This is due to a lack of news, (i.e. something to report), rather than an increase in frequency. If anything the media reports are aimed at knife crime.

I don't know if thats statistically true or not, (there must be some actual _facts_ out there somewhere, dammit) I can only say that growing up and going to school in South London I remember almost no shootings, and certainly not with hand guns or automatic weapons (admittedly the ticket collector at the local tube got shot dead by someone with a shotgun), whereas now I seem to see places I know well appearing on the telly with police tape all around them all the time (e.g. Streatham ice rink) and find myself walking past those yellow 'police information sought' signs regarding shootings or armed robberies disturbingly frequently. I mean, its definitely nowhere near US levels, but it does seem to be getting worse. When I lived in the US a drug dealer got shot dead a hundred yards from my parents house in South London, just when I was being smug about our less violent society, goddamit.

I note its now reported the killer in Virginia was a South Korean. Just after I blame US society for producing maniacs. Teach me not to post till all the facts are in.

I think its generally true that the amount of damage a single person or small group can do is increasing all the time. the 911 plotters wouldn't have been able to cause as much carnage before we had huge skyscrapers and huge airliners. Things like that Tokyo nerve gas attack I find more scary than any threats from Iran or North Korea.

NOOLigan wrote:

It is true that guns don't kill people, but people who use guns kill people.

They do Ron Ron Ron, they do Ron Ron.

Anyway, it's "guns don't kill people, rappers do".

404 error wrote: But even in the UK, with, I think, the tightest gun control laws in the world, shootings seem to become more and more frequent. They are certainly commonplace in South London now, where once they were almost unheard of. It seems there's some sort of inevitable increase in the destructive power available to individuals, whatever the law says.

Burt Reynolds wrote: South London's always had its fair share of shootings. You just hear of it more through media, as the focus is clearly on youth behaviour/crime and random murders. This is due to a lack of news, (i.e. something to report), rather than an increase in frequency. If anything the media reports are aimed at knife crime.

404 error wrote: I don't know if thats statistically true or not, (there must be some actual _facts_ out there somewhere, dammit) I can only say that growing up and going to school in South London I remember almost no shootings, and certainly not with hand guns or automatic weapons (admittedly the ticket collector at the local tube got shot dead by someone with a shotgun), whereas now I seem to see places I know well appearing on the telly with police tape all around them all the time (e.g. Streatham ice rink) and find myself walking past those yellow 'police information sought' signs regarding shootings or armed robberies disturbingly frequently. I mean, its definitely nowhere near US levels, but it does seem to be getting worse. When I lived in the US a drug dealer got shot dead a hundred yards from my parents house in South London, just when I was being smug about our less violent society, goddamit.

I note its now reported the killer in Virginia was a South Korean. Just after I blame US society for producing maniacs. Teach me not to post till all the facts are in.

I think its generally true that the amount of damage a single person or small group can do is increasing all the time. the 911 plotters wouldn't have been able to cause as much carnage before we had huge skyscrapers and huge airliners. Things like that Tokyo nerve gas attack I find more scary than any threats from Iran or North Korea.

True, we can criticise the US's 'Right To Bear Arms' laws which fuel gun use but in the UK we also have problems with youth's - some scarcely into their teens owning, using and sometimes willing to kill with guns. Yes South London has been making all the headlines recently but shootings occur to a greater or lesser degree in every town/city in the UK, and sometimes they're over petty disputes boiling down to disrespect and/or which area the individuals are from. The flow of illegal guns is something we need to address here just as much as the 'Right To Bear Arms' issue in the US. All I know is events like this end up in tragedy and loss of someone's son/daughter and all you can hope for is it doesn't affect yourself and the people around you. Cheers!

I don't like guns, and I've a distrust of people who feel the need to own them. There's defineatley something lacking in an individual if they feel the need to own a gun. If you're into shooting at targets then just hire one when you get to the shooting range. If you're into stalking animals or humans then you're a sick fuck and always will be in my book.

That said, if anyone seriously thinks that banning guns would prevent things like what happened yesterday from happening then you are wrong.

I may think you're a sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak for wanting to own a gun but I'll defend your right to be a sick-fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden gun toting freak til the cows come home.

GlasVegas wrote: I don't like guns, and I've a distrust of people who feel the need to own them. There's defineatley something lacking in an individual if they feel the need to own a gun. If you're into shooting at targets then just hire one when you get to the shooting range. If you're into stalking animals or humans then you're a sick fuck and always will be in my book.

That said, if anyone seriously thinks that banning guns would prevent things like what happened yesterday from happening then you are wrong.

I may think you're a sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak for wanting to own a gun but I'll defend your right to be a sick-fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden gun toting freak til the cows come home.

Thanks glas for sticking up for us!

regards, One sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak

Regardless of the 2nd Amendment issues, which I think are glossed over by the courts, there is a legitimate concern that people have about being able to protect their families if necessary. You can't necessarily count on the police to do it for you. On the other hand, violent crime isn't as pervasive as one might believe if one watches the news and crime dramas. Still, it only takes that one time.

I've had my own share and then some of run-ins with would-be criminals in this town, so it does happen.

Jon Murphy wrote: MINX, I respectfully disagree. I'm so glad we are not like Britian and the rest of Socialized Europe. For someone who hails from a country that does not allow guns, you sure fancy yourself as knowing a lot about them..

I don't think I know a lot about them at all, I'm just voicing my opinion on the subject.

For example I wasn't aware of the fingerprint safe until it was mentioned by EdelBrock; I think that it's a great idea and does solve one of the concerns that I raised.

I however am glad that I don't live in a country where any half wit has the right to own a gun and where unfortunately not all gun owners are as responsible as EdelBrock is.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

MIMX wrote: It's haulf five in the mornig here, I've been up awe night, I've never set foot in an anarchist book store in my life, and yes unless it's madness caused by a genetic fault or some form of psychical injury to the brain, diseases of the mind are caused by living in a sick society!

Well, I won't disagree with you about what causes disease. It can be nature-- some chemical imbalance, or a physical injury to the brain-- or it can be nurture. In the U.S. at least, if you track unemployment rates, as unemployment goes up, there's a couple months lag, but then you start to see substance abuse and domestic violence go up too. It's obvious that one's social situation, or family, or some other aspect of society can also make one ill.

What I disagree with is the notion that these people aren't ill. For some reason, we all recognize something like pneumonia, or cancer, or AIDS, and we acknowledge that the person is ill. And we don't then proceed to punish that person for manifesting their illness-- at least not directly. But if somebody is mentally ill, we often don't recognize that as an illness, in terms of being something that can be and should be treated, like pneumonia or cancer, and if the mentally ill person violates some law as a result of being mentally ill, we label that person a "criminal" and punish them.

What you argued sounded to me like the mirror image of that-- not recognizing mental illness, by saying nobody is mentally ill.

Sorry for the anarchist bookstore jab, it wasn't fair.

I agree with you Commie, An illness caused by environmental factors is still an illness, for example cancer caused by exposure to dangerous chemicals is still as bad as any genetically caused cancer, the same is true of mental illness a mental illness that is caused by being abused as a child for example can have all the same physical symptoms as one that is genetic IE fundamental changes in brain chemistry. and one is no better or worse than the other nor easier to treat.

Minx wrote: For example I wasn't aware of the fingerprint safe until it was mentioned by EdelBrock; I think that it's a great idea and does solve one of the concerns that I raised.

I however am glad that I don't live in a country where any half wit has the right to own a gun and where unfortunately not all gun owners are as responsible as EdelBrock is.

awww, shucks

GlasVegas wrote: I don't like guns, and I've a distrust of people who feel the need to own them. There's defineatley something lacking in an individual if they feel the need to own a gun. If you're into shooting at targets then just hire one when you get to the shooting range. If you're into stalking animals or humans then you're a sick fuck and always will be in my book.

That said, if anyone seriously thinks that banning guns would prevent things like what happened yesterday from happening then you are wrong.

I may think you're a sick fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden freak for wanting to own a gun but I'll defend your right to be a sick-fuck, socially inadequate, "issue" laden gun toting freak til the cows come home.

What's struck me, in my very limited experience, is that I've known Americans (and Canadians) who owned guns who were perfectly normal decent ordinary people, whereas the only Brits I've encountered who were into guns (members of a gun club) were, well, a bit odd. (Out of curiosity I tried a session in the gun club once - completely boring, making holes in a bit of paper at the end of a room - what _is_ the point? Why legalise lethal hardware just for such a dull 'sport'?)

In the US people own them for hunting and out of a sort of philosophical conviction that they are entitled to defend themselves...here they are not part of the culture and it seems only the oddballs actually want them. (And far fewer criminals have them, and burglars strike when homes are empty not occupied as they are wont to in the US).

But still, it is true that by most crime stats Brits are easily as violent, if not more so, than Americans (probably why we rush to join in every war thats on offer, no matter how ill-advised it is), yet we don't kill nearly as many people. Which does suggest that gun availabilty makes a difference. But can you ride roughshod over many people's cultural identity just to put a brake on an increase in violence that is ultimately caused by something else (that 'something else' I'd say in the UK's case is 25 years of no-such-thing-as-society all-that-matters-is-how-much-bling-you-have Thatcherism). If I were an American politician I'd stand on the platform 'guns don't kill people, unrestrained capitalism kills people' and thus alienate everyone and get no votes at all.

Actually I think American culture is much less aggressive and violent than British culture. Maybe its true that 'an armed society is a polite society'. Brits are drunken aggressive and rude, but will only give you a kicking at worst, while Americans are polite and good natured, right up to the moment when they shoot you.

404 error wrote: Brits are drunken aggressive and rude, but will only give you a kicking at worst, while Americans are polite and good natured, right up to the moment when they shoot you.

That's right there, better be nice to us, don't want to have to pull out my piece now.....

Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit. - Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998

Crazy gators!

I don't like guns. I've held one a few times and I've gone hunting exactly once as a boy.

That said, I want to point out the the Right To Bear Arms is in the US Constitution for one reason only: to protect the people from their own government.

The social and political climate in this country grows more toxic every day, and until the new Democratic Congress begins impeachment proceedings I won't feel safe from this administration.

I don't want to own a gun, but I will defend myself against an oppressive government if I have to - and as an openly gay, educated athiest that day may come sooner than anyone dares to think.

I do believe most types of guns should be illegal and the hurdles one should jump to obtain a gun should be far more difficult - extensive background check, extensive training, etc.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Once again, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, 404 Error. Bizarre country, the U.S., split down the middle the way it is.

I've been having similar thoughts about the so-called United States of America recently. There are differences of opinion in other countries but whilst in the UK the centre ground of politics has become crowded in the last decade the USA seems to be polarising into two groups (conservatives and liberals), each of which has their own heartlands. I can imagine these two bitterly opposed groups eventually deciding to divide the USA into two separate countries, one where evolution is taught in schools, abortion is legal and gun ownership is heavily restricted and another where creationism is taught in schools, abortion is illegal and gun ownership is almost unrestricted.

It's not an original theory: in 2004 there was a message board discussion about "Jesusland" and someone created a map showing Jesusland and "The United States of Canada" and this idea has been discussed in newspaper articles. However, I think this theory will become a reality and I think it could happen soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

Guns don't kill people, to be sure. Guns in the hands of psychos like this guy kill people. The fact that he managed to buy them legally, and for a pretty fair price, suggests that maybe we should do a better job of screening the folks who buy them. For every law-abiding citizen who simply wants one for protection, there's one guy or gal who has a beef and can't take it out except through violence.

Taboo # 7 wrote: Guns don't kill people, to be sure. Guns in the hands of psychos like this guy kill people. The fact that he managed to buy them legally, and for a pretty fair price, suggests that maybe we should do a better job of screening the folks who buy them. For every law-abiding citizen who simply wants one for protection, there's one guy or gal who has a beef and can't take it out except through violence.

Tabsy, is this your one serious post for the year?

Shellshocker wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote: Guns don't kill people, to be sure. Guns in the hands of psychos like this guy kill people. The fact that he managed to buy them legally, and for a pretty fair price, suggests that maybe we should do a better job of screening the folks who buy them. For every law-abiding citizen who simply wants one for protection, there's one guy or gal who has a beef and can't take it out except through violence.

Tabsy, is this your one serious post for the year?

Probably

£50 Note wrote: The social and political climate in this country grows more toxic every day, and until the new Democratic Congress begins impeachment proceedings I won't feel safe from this administration.

I don't want to own a gun, but I will defend myself against an oppressive government if I have to - and as an openly gay, educated athiest that day may come sooner than anyone dares to think.

Is V For Vendetta your favorite movie?

Taboo # 7 wrote: The fact that he managed to buy them legally, and for a pretty fair price, suggests that maybe we should do a better job of screening the folks who buy them.

This I agree with. I feel that that the problem is that the screening process is done too quickly and things get missed. I don’t think that screening alone will ever completely stop something like this from happening; mostly due to people who want to get their hands on guns will find other ways to do it; if they get turned down during the screening process.

Psy

Fingers wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Once again, you've hit the nail squarely on the head, 404 Error. Bizarre country, the U.S., split down the middle the way it is.

I've been having similar thoughts about the so-called United States of America recently. There are differences of opinion in other countries but whilst in the UK the centre ground of politics has become crowded in the last decade the USA seems to be polarising into two groups (conservatives and liberals), each of which has their own heartlands. I can imagine these two bitterly opposed groups eventually deciding to divide the USA into two separate countries, one where evolution is taught in schools, abortion is legal and gun ownership is heavily restricted and another where creationism is taught in schools, abortion is illegal and gun ownership is almost unrestricted.

It's not an original theory: in 2004 there was a message board discussion about "Jesusland" and someone created a map showing Jesusland and "The United States of Canada" and this idea has been discussed in newspaper articles. However, I think this theory will become a reality and I think it could happen soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

Ths US has been much closer to dissolution in the past and it never happened. The slavery issue was much more divisive and threatened the union from the time before the Consitution was even written. Other things like how the countries debts should be paid after independence was achieved also threatened to destroy the union. Still didn't happen, so I can;t believe it's gonna happen any time soon. OK, so there was that little thing called the Civil War, but e'en so...Of course, the polititions were more, for lack of a better word off the top of my head, noble back then. In spite of their big differences, they remained commited to keeping the country together. P.S. Just in case, I'm glad to see I'll be in the United States of Canada. :)

Taboo # 7 wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

Taboo # 7 wrote: Guns don't kill people, to be sure. Guns in the hands of psychos like this guy kill people. The fact that he managed to buy them legally, and for a pretty fair price, suggests that maybe we should do a better job of screening the folks who buy them. For every law-abiding citizen who simply wants one for protection, there's one guy or gal who has a beef and can't take it out except through violence.

Tabsy, is this your one serious post for the year?

Probably

I'd throw in my 2 cents on the matter, but it seems like everyone else has it pretty well covered.

404 error wrote:

What's struck me, in my very limited experience, is that I've known Americans (and Canadians) who owned guns who were perfectly normal decent ordinary people, whereas the only Brits I've encountered who were into guns (members of a gun club) were, well, a bit odd. (Out of curiosity I tried a session in the gun club once - completely boring, making holes in a bit of paper at the end of a room - what _is_ the point? Why legalise lethal hardware just for such a dull 'sport'?)

In the US people own them for hunting and out of a sort of philosophical conviction that they are entitled to defend themselves...here they are not part of the culture and it seems only the oddballs actually want them. (And far fewer criminals have them, and burglars strike when homes are empty not occupied as they are wont to in the US).

But still, it is true that by most crime stats Brits are easily as violent, if not more so, than Americans (probably why we rush to join in every war thats on offer, no matter how ill-advised it is), yet we don't kill nearly as many people. Which does suggest that gun availabilty makes a difference. But can you ride roughshod over many people's cultural identity just to put a brake on an increase in violence that is ultimately caused by something else (that 'something else' I'd say in the UK's case is 25 years of no-such-thing-as-society all-that-matters-is-how-much-bling-you-have Thatcherism). If I were an American politician I'd stand on the platform 'guns don't kill people, unrestrained capitalism kills people' and thus alienate everyone and get no votes at all.

Actually I think American culture is much less aggressive and violent than British culture. Maybe its true that 'an armed society is a polite society'. Brits are drunken aggressive and rude, but will only give you a kicking at worst, while Americans are polite and good natured, right up to the moment when they shoot you.

I think that crime and violence are mainly caused by large socio-economic differences between the classes (i.e., when poverty is high, so is crime) and I also think that drug abuse is a big cause (e.g., people needing money for drugs). A relatively small percentage caused by mental illness. I agree with you that removing handguns won't lower crime, but that it will reduce the murder rate, since it's obviously much easier to kill someone with a gun than by other means.

So that's my two cents for what it's worth, which is probably only a cent and a half. :)

Ironwill wrote: Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit. - Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998

Crazy gators!

What are the stats on an alligator with a gun

Doctor? wrote: Obviously there is no corelation between owning a gun and shooting someone, and not owning a gun and not shooting someone.

Could not have put it beter myself Doc

Minx wrote:

Ironwill wrote: Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit. - Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998

Crazy gators!

What are the stats on an alligator with a gun

Well, from an animal rights anti-hunting viewpoint one could perhaps argue for the right to arm bears.

Shellshocker wrote: Is V For Vendetta your favorite movie?

No, I'm not generally entertained by dystopain society.

404 error wrote:

Minx wrote:

Ironwill wrote: Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit. - Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida Game andFresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998

Crazy gators!

What are the stats on an alligator with a gun

Well, from an animal rights anti-hunting viewpoint one could perhaps argue for the right to arm bears.

£50 Note wrote:

Shellshocker wrote: Is V For Vendetta your favorite movie?

No, I'm not generally entertained by dystopain society.

Sounds painful. Can't you get some kind of Rennie or something?

£50 Note wrote:

Shellshocker wrote: Is V For Vendetta your favorite movie?

No, I'm not generally entertained by dystopain society.

Well, that's the point. The "hero" fights against the dytopian society.

oldmonkey wrote: Sounds painful. Can't you get some kind of Rennie or something?

It's not too bad if I keep drinking. ;)

This is great......the 1944 Miss America uses her gun to shoot out the tires on a would-be-thief.....while balanced on her walker.

Great shot, wish there were more like her.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18237342/?GT1=9246