Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 1 of 17  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 9:24AM #1
CSeab
Posts: 70
Here’s one bound to raise the hackles of many: gun control.

I think the US gun control policy is far too permissive. We have a real problem with variously deranged people taking advantage of these policies to kill, maim, or threaten others with crime and evil deeds. Now, perhaps in a perfect world, we would not need to restrict the availability and power of lethal weapons, but in the real world, such policies lead to death and/or suffering. Even one such incident is too many. All this got me to thinking.

Why, really, do we need to permit ownership by private citizens of automatic or semi-automatic weapons or any high-powered weapon?

I don’t think blowing away a deer with a machine gun is very sporting. Hunting, seems to me, would be much more satisfying and challenging if hunters were limited to single-shot rifles (or shotguns/bows) of moderate caliber. After all, there is no big-game in the US.

A similar argument could be made for handguns. Why do we need high-caliber automatic handguns to defend or protect ourselves? Wouldn’t a six-shot pistol, say 32 caliber or even a 22 caliber, be enough? (recognizing, of course, there are always exceptions, I’m speaking generally)

Furthermore, given the prevalence and lethality of gun-crime, shouldn’t we have strict registration/ownership control? Granted, such systems can and would be abused, but that, I think, doesn’t justify us from trying to implement fair and just laws that both permit legitimate gun ownership/usage while severely discouraging abuse. Modern technology can add significantly to crime prevention and detection if we made the effort to use it.

Couldn’t we, as a society, figure out some way to make such a system work? Seems to me we put so much effort into arguing the case for criminals that we fail to safeguard the victims.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 10:53AM #2
BetteTheRedde
Posts: 2,325
Not as simple as it sounds.

Canada has a firearm homicide rate of 1.85 per 100,000, about 1/2 your 3.6 rate. We have gun control, you don't.

However, while firearm homicides dropped sharply after the first introduction of Firearms Certificates in 77, the rate has crept back up.

I think the problem is much more deeply cultural. There are many parts of the U.S. where it is considered socially normal to have a pistol or semi-automatic gun (rifles and rural folk are a whole different story). In Canada, there are NO places except for economically-disadvantaged neighbourhoods of a few large cities where this sort of gun ownership would be considered normal outside of a very small group of target shooting hobbyists.
"Sometimes they are referred to as the 'radical Right.' But the fact is that there is nothing radical about them. They offer no novel solutions to the problems that plague them; indeed, they offer no solutions at all. They are immensely discontented with things as they are and furiously impatient with almost everyone in public office who can in any way be held responsible for their frustrations. But it cannot be said that they hold any clearly stated objectives or have any specific program either in common or individuals. They are fundamentally and temperamentally 'aginners.' And perhaps the commonest characteristic among them is anger. They can fairly be called, if nothing else, the Rampageous Right."

Alan Barth, New York Times, November 26, 1961
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 3:17PM #3
DoorNumber3
Posts: 1,122

CSeab wrote:

Here’s one bound to raise the hackles of many: gun control.

CSeab wrote:


I think the US gun control policy is far too permissive. We have a real problem with variously deranged people taking advantage of these policies to kill, maim, or threaten others with crime and evil deeds. Now, perhaps in a perfect world, we would not need to restrict the availability and power of lethal weapons, but in the real world, such policies lead to death and/or suffering. Even one such incident is too many. All this got me to thinking.


People who legally own guns are not the ones committing the crimes that kill, maim and threaten others. Most people who own guns legally are very responsible with them. Criminals do not own guns by legal means.




CSeab wrote:

Why, really, do we need to permit ownership by private citizens of automatic or semi-automatic weapons or any high-powered weapon?


We own several high powered rifles because my husband is a deer hunter and I also used to hunt.


CSeab wrote:

I don’t think blowing away a deer with a machine gun is very sporting. Hunting, seems to me, would be much more satisfying and challenging if hunters were limited to single-shot rifles (or shotguns/bows) of moderate caliber. After all, there is no big-game in the US.


I know lots of people who hunt and I have never met anyone who hunts with a machine gun or who would approve of doing such a thing. Do you know that people hunt with machine guns? We hunt deer with rifles (they hold three or four shots depending on the gun) and my husband also bow hunts. As far as satisfying more challenging and satisfying, maybe for some people, but my husbands hunts for food. We eat venison almost exclusively. I very very rarely buy beef. He isn’t hunting for the challenge or the satisfaction, he is hunting for food.

I consider a whitetail deer to be “big game” but I guess that what is and is not “big game” is subjective.




CSeab wrote:

A similar argument could be made for handguns. Why do we need high-caliber automatic handguns to defend or protect ourselves? Wouldn’t a six-shot pistol, say 32 caliber or even a 22 caliber, be enough? (recognizing, of course, there are always exceptions, I’m speaking generally)


I am licensed to carry a concealed weapon and I do carry a revolver. Given a preference I would rather have a gun that shoots something that hurts like hell, that can stop an attacker, but doesn’t kill. As far as I know, that is currently not an option. I hope that when I die one of the things said about me is that I never had to pull a gun on anyone. But if I have to, if I felt threatened, if someone tries to attack me, I would not hesitate to pull my gun to protect myself.



CSeab wrote:

Furthermore, given the prevalence and lethality of gun-crime, shouldn’t we have strict registration/ownership control? Granted, such systems can and would be abused, but that, I think, doesn’t justify us from trying to implement fair and just laws that both permit legitimate gun ownership/usage while severely discouraging abuse. Modern technology can add significantly to crime prevention and detection if we made the effort to use it.


People who buy their guns legally aren’t the ones committing the crimes. They guy robbing the convenience store at gunpoint didn’t get that gun legally. And statistically there is less gun crimes in areas where concealed weapons are permitted.


CSeab wrote:

Couldn’t we, as a society, figure out some way to make such a system work? Seems to me we put so much effort into arguing the case for criminals that we fail to safeguard the victims.


I think that is often true. I think our justice system could benefit from some changes - for the criminals and the victims.

Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 8:25PM #4
mindis1
Posts: 9,330
[QUOTE=CSeab;210226]Here’s one bound to raise the hackles of many: gun control.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you’re going to raise any hackles.  All you proposed was to restrict ownership of certain kinds of guns, some of which restrictions are already in effect in some places.  Why does anyone need to possess any gun? 


[QUOTE]Hunting, seems to me, would be much more satisfying [/QUOTE]

What in the hell does this mean?  Anyone who gets satisfaction from killing a living, breathing, feeling, conscious being is sick!  It’s the same sort of satisfaction that Hitler got from killing Jews, the Roma and gay men. 

How about let’s just not kill the innocent animals?  Their lives are not ours to take, any more than your neighbor’s life belongs to you to take.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 8:34PM #5
mindis1
Posts: 9,330
[QUOTE=DoorNumber3;210799]
Most people who own guns legally are very responsible with them. [/QUOTE]

Where do you get that idea?  A legally owned gun is much more likely to be used to commit a criminal homicide than in an act of self-protective homicide.   More accidental deaths occur with legally owned guns than acts of self-protective homicide. 



[QUOTE]
I know lots of people who hunt and I have never met anyone who hunts with a machine gun or who would approve of doing such a thing. Do you know that people hunt with machine guns? We hunt deer with rifles (they hold three or four shots depending on the gun) and my husband also bow hunts. As far as satisfying more challenging and satisfying, maybe for some people, but my husbands hunts for food. We eat venison almost exclusively. I very very rarely buy beef. He isn’t hunting for the challenge or the satisfaction, he is hunting for food. [/QUOTE]

DN3, you have a picture of a cute little dog for your icon.  How would you like it for someone to hunt him down and shoot him--with just a rifle or a bow and arrow, not an automatic weapon--just so someone can stuff their face?  Or perhaps just wounding him so that he runs off and dies a slow death, like what happens to a huge percentage of deer and birds and other animals that people hunt, particularly deer hunted with bows and arrows? 

Here is a nice account of what happens to deer who are hunted--by “experts”.   Be sure look at the pool of blood where the doe spent the night pressing her body against a log trying to stop the blood flow. 


Be sure to watch a video of the gruesome, lingering suffering of a deer shot by “experts” in a “managed” slaughter.

What is this but senseless cruelty?  Humans do not have the biological adaptations of that either omnivores or carnivores have that enable them to eat animals and remain healthy.  Eating animals is about as smart and healthy for humans as smoking cigarettes.   


[QUOTE]I hope that when I die one of the things said about me is that I never had to pull a gun on anyone.  [/QUOTE]

There’s an excellent way for you to ensure that:  take your guns and bows and arrows to your local artist and ask him/her to melt them into a nice piece of art.  Then take all the extra money and energy you’ll have as a result of not killing and eating animals and campaign to outlaw guns.   

[QUOTE]And statistically there is less gun crimes in areas where concealed weapons are permitted. [/QUOTE]

Garbage.  Compare the UK with the US.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 8:35PM #6
PaulaEdwina
Posts: 1,720
CSeab,

Do you shoot? I ask because you propose some odd ideas - 22 calibre pistol for home defense for example. Have you ever seen a .22?  Who goes hunting with a machine gun? Actually; what do you consider a machine gun? M1 Garand?

Paula
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 9:16PM #7
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753
Interestingly enough, if you go to the NationMaster.com statistics website, and you look at gun violence, you will see that South Africa has the highest overall homicide rate, followed by such countries as Columbia and Guatamala.  The U.S. comes in at #14.  Those of us living Down Under come in 'way down the list, of course.

Then, if you look at percentages of homicides by firearms, you find that Thailand leads the pack with 79%, followed by South Africa, with the U.S. at 7th with 39.5% homicides by gun.

Then again, take Switzerland, a country with very high handgun ownership and very low crime.  Or, what about Japan?  Low gun ownership and low gun crime.  And, Denmark and Finland have high gun ownership and low crime rates.

On the other hand, according to the NCPA website figures, in the U.S. guns account for 66% of the murders committed.

You can throw a lot of statistics around to prove whatever you want to, but the bottom line seems to be that it all comes down to cultural behaviour patterns.  And, I don't know how the Americans see themselves, but I can tell you that those who live offshore look upon the Yanks as having a screw loose where the owning and using of firearms is concerned.  You're scary dudes!
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 9:20PM #8
solfeggio
Posts: 10,753
And, oh, mindis -
I completely agree with what you've said regarding the so-called 'sport' of hunting.  In fact, I had seen that video of that poor doe bleeding out, and it was so ghastly that it brought tears to my eys.

God, I hate it when people start talking about hunting and how proud they are that they kill their own food, as if this somehow justifies this loathesome practise.
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 10:29PM #9
BetteTheRedde
Posts: 2,325
Why is it morally better to have someone else kill your food than to kill it yourself?

Seems to me that if you kill it yourself, you've taken personal responsibility.
"Sometimes they are referred to as the 'radical Right.' But the fact is that there is nothing radical about them. They offer no novel solutions to the problems that plague them; indeed, they offer no solutions at all. They are immensely discontented with things as they are and furiously impatient with almost everyone in public office who can in any way be held responsible for their frustrations. But it cannot be said that they hold any clearly stated objectives or have any specific program either in common or individuals. They are fundamentally and temperamentally 'aginners.' And perhaps the commonest characteristic among them is anger. They can fairly be called, if nothing else, the Rampageous Right."

Alan Barth, New York Times, November 26, 1961
Quick Reply
Cancel
10 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 11:07PM #10
mindis1
Posts: 9,330
[QUOTE=solfeggio;211585]Interestingly enough, if you go to the NationMaster.com statistics website, and you look at gun violence, you will see that South Africa has the highest overall homicide rate, followed by such countries as Columbia and Guatamala.  The U.S. comes in at #14.  Those of us living Down Under come in 'way down the list, of course.

Then, if you look at percentages of homicides by firearms, you find that Thailand leads the pack with 79%, followed by South Africa, with the U.S. at 7th with 39.5% homicides by gun.

Then again, take Switzerland, a country with very high handgun ownership and very low crime.  Or, what about Japan?  Low gun ownership and low gun crime.  And, Denmark and Finland have high gun ownership and low crime rates.

On the other hand, according to the NCPA website figures, in the U.S. guns account for 66% of the murders committed.

You can throw a lot of statistics around to prove whatever you want to, but the bottom line seems to be that it all comes down to cultural behaviour patterns.  And, I don't know how the Americans see themselves, but I can tell you that those who live offshore look upon the Yanks as having a screw loose where the owning and using of firearms is concerned.  You're scary dudes![/QUOTE]


Good work, and good points, Solfeggio.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 17  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook