If you outlaw guns, then only....
 

"He had a 9-milimeter semiautomatic pistol, two shotguns, a stun gun, two knives, two cans of gunpowder and 600 rounds of ammunition."

"They're still looking for an AK-47 he stole from his parents' house," Sergeant Gervasi said."

:rattat: :shotgun: :rollanim: :cop:

Yay America!!! Yay NRA!!! Yay guns!!!

If I don't like this country, I should move to another. Netherlands? Sweeden?

We've got some pretty strict gun laws over here Panglo. :) You're not even allowed to own a hand gun unless you're in a gun club and even then there are very strict laws as to what is acceptable and what's not. You can't own a semi-automatic unless you're a farmer and even then again, it's sometimes difficult. You can own a shotgun though, or just about any kind of rifle provided it's not semi or automatic.

Try Switzerland....


Their laws require every household to have access to arms......

when did you last hear of a school massacre in Switzerland?

And laws also require every person be trained even more than what is required for a driver's license. Not everyone in Switzerland has a gun. Some are denied guns for obvious reasons. Extensive, repetitive training and responsibility tend to identify and deny guns to those who are not responsible. In America - screw responsibility. One can be so irresponsible as to be denied a driver's license - and still have rights to a gun.

Again, no one (except extremists) is talking about banning guns. Responsible behavior that is missing in America and not missing in Switzerland. Why so much hype about rights and so little demand for reponsibility? Without responsibility, then no rights exist. Or do guns instead provide those rights?

You can be smart around firearms or stupid around them.

Fear often leads to stupidity.

Perceived fear is the enemy here. America has a screwed-up idea of media to thank for that.

Remove the prejudice from media and you have your solution, just how that’s ever going to be achieved I don't know, especially when we consider how much political power and media are so heavily intertwined in this modern world.


EDIT: An unhealthy obsession with guns and ammo & shit doesn't help much either. Perhaps a change in role models is required.

Indeed...and do take that animistic idea that objects can be implicitly evil (rather than people) with you.

Phobias aren't healthy either. Hoplophobia comes to mind.

This thread is balanced. That makes me warm and fuzzy inside. Carry on.

I noticed that hoplophobia, which I at first thought was the fear of rabbits, is not recognized in the DSM.

I think I'm suffering from pseudophobiaphobia!:rolleyes:

Don't get all noodley on us.

What does the gun freedom contingent propose as a solution? The facts that they lay out seem to be, and please correct me if I'm wrong:

- Guns are no more responsible for the high rate of firearm deaths in our country than spoons are for the low rate of spoon deaths - if it weren't for humans, there would be no deaths from either weapon.

- Everybody who passes "the screening" should be able to carry a handgun, and should carry said weapon.

- Americans have a constitutional right to possess firearms, and the constitution should not be changed, including all that stuff about no slaves and allowing women to vote.

- Eliminating hand guns would not reduce the level of damage being done, any more than making rocket propelled grenades legal and easy to get would increase the level of damage.

- Fear and stupidity are leading causes of problems associates with firearms.

- Making guns illegal would ensure that only criminals had guns, making the rest of the population helpless victims, just as those of us without guns are helpless victims now.

- Making guns illegal will create a whole new “gun smuggling” industry.

- As much damage can be done using a knife as using a gun.

- A rifle or shotgun will not be as useful defending yourself/your possessions as a handgun will be.

- There are many armed bad people near all of us, just waiting for us to be unarmed, so that we can be killed or our possessions taken from us. Shooting those people is obviously the only way this situation can be resolved.

- Since it’s illegal for students and teachers to possess gun on school grounds, they won’t.

- A legally armed person is less likely to soot someone than an unarmed person.

- Having the right to possess a handgun is more important than saving the lives of innocent young girls. Especially Amish ones.

Wrapping up: the availability of handguns in our society is not the problem, since other countries have even greater rate of handgun possession, but not nearly the rate of handgun crime that we have. So, all you second ammendmenters, how do we lower the rate of handgun-associated crime in the US?

Enforce other laws. Drug laws, crimes committed with firearms laws, etc. Send felons found in possession of illegal firearms back to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200, etc.

Stop rewarding broken families.

Interrupting the inner-city culture where drug dealers are seen as being cool, successful, and hip is the hard part. Selling someone on working for minimum wage at Mickey D's over the hundreds that fall out of your pocket by working your way up in the drug trade is not an easy thing.

Heritage of Violence
 

This country has a long tradition of using violence to solve problems, as well as a very deep anti-intellectualism. The ideals of the Enlightenment were not pronounced in the Colonies, and by the time of Westward expansion, guns & violence (with a heavy dose of Christian righteousness) were par for the course. When the British occupied Boston and used guns to do so, the locals resorted to guns themselves; this is not surprising. Debate over the 2nd Ammendment often centers on what was meant at the time by the "right to bear arms" as opposed to what people today want it to mean. As you pointed out, it's important to consider the historical context of the Constitution and its Ammendments. Slavery and sufferage, as well as "the right to bear arms," were all part of a historical and philosophical evolution, one that still is going on today.

Maggie overeacts by posting that presumptuous and condescending article about an alleged "phobia" of those who, like me, just don't care for guns and have found that many gun-owners are themselves fanatical, paranoid, and equally phobic in their own way. Besides, I'm not taking away Maggie's gun or her alledged "right" to own it. If I did, she'd probably shoot me anyway.

I gotta go to my black helicopter now.:neutral:

What you fail to understand about Maggie, is that she would never shoot you, unless she was in threat of losing her life.

This is what separates Maggie (and myself) from the homies that are engaged in population control in North and West Philadelphia lately.

Don't Shoot
 

OK. I suppose. At least she would shoot me virtually, wouldn't she? I'll do it for her:

:shotgun: :neutral:
Maggie Pangloss62


That actually felt pretty good...I must be a masochist.

On this topic at least, you can refer to wolf's opinions to get mine. Slang too, iirc. Guns=good. Lock away those who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us alone.

That is a great point, Shawnee!

Why, thank you. I'm staying out of the debate because I've had all the conflict I can take for one week, but I thought it was important to note!

Not EVERY household, just those where men between the ages of 18 and 60 reside. Switzerland has a true militia. All adult men train for 6 weeks every year or two years (I forget which). They keep their guns at home in case there is a national emergency where Switzerland must quickly deploy to protect its borders. Obviously, the Swiss do not issue a gun to a guy who is schizophrenic or something, but other than that...

This armed citizenry was one reason Hitler never invaded Switzerland. He could have done it, probably, but at an extremely high cost which he was not willing to pay.

As others have mentioned, the problem here in the US is cultural. We are a far more diverse country than Switzerland. Switzerland also has far less stringent drug laws. You can walk into a Swiss pharmacy and buy nearly anything you want WITHOUT a prescription. And finally, Switzerland does not suffer from the legacy of slavery which we in the US must stil deal with every day. For example, one in six black American men between the ages of 18 and 30 are in or will be in prison.

We need to work on US societal issues, not ban guns.

My great grandfather should have stayed in Switzerland.

No, she would shoot someone if she thought she was in threat of losing her life.

So those folks don't think they are in threat of losing their lives? Really?

Why do we always blame guns instead of the crazy bastards who use them to commit atrocities? Would we want to outlaw hands if he'd just raped and strangled them after?

Crazies are crazies. Tragedy is tragedy. The biggest tragedy in the Amish case is that the crazy SOB didn't just kill himself first and leave the innocents out of it. Some broken people can't or won't be fixed, and they do really bad things. This guy was a self-professed child molester from his teenage years, apparently, and it just went downhill from there. If he hadn't had access to guns, how do we know he wouldn't have just gone and stabbed them all to death, or bludgeoned them?

An interesting question. Is a drug dealer shooting a rival drug dealer constitute a justifiable shooting in self defense?

That's pretty easy ... the answer is "no."

There's a word for people like you, you HANDOPHOBE you! :rolleyes:
:)

Hey, I'm all for a Federal Hand Control Law. I think the way they do things in Muslim countries would also belie the old saw, "When hands are outlawed, only outlaws will have hands"...'cause they cut 'em off.

Oh yeah? Well, you can have my hands when you pry them from my cold, dead...uh, hands? (sheepishly backs away)

Classic.

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with, Wolf.

Except that, in sandier parts of the world, that phrase is more like, "You can have my hands when you hack them from my warm, blood-gushing wrists".

It's your brush, I just dipped it into a different color of paint for you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...

I'm 100% against gun use and guns in general.

But as long as there ARE guns, everyone fit to own one should be allowed to. Either everyone or NO ONE. And I mean like, shutting down every gun plant, every bullet factory, everything, melting down ALL the guns... etc.
This, of course, will never happen. Therefore, I'm going to stay out of gun laws. I can't with a clear conscience pull for the LOOSENING of gun laws, but I can't pull for tightening them either.

All I can say is, I aint gonna get one.

Are you saying that most of the killings in Philadelphia are

?

Are you in favor of enforcing the laws on the books?
A number of years ago they started a system of instant checks. When you want to buy a gun you have to fill out a form. The seller then calls the info in and they give him a yes or no, on whether you are eligible. Thousands of people who are not eligible have tried unsuccessfully, hoping it would slip through, even though just trying it is a federal crime.
Guess how many of those thousands of people have been prosecuted?





zero. :eyebrow:

I won't put words in wolf's mouth, but *I* think they are.

Criminals with illegal guns can't go to the range to practice, so their aim sucks (even if in the unlikely event they're not high at the time), so the collateral damage rate is very high.

I'd say the vast majority of the shootings in Philly are young males shooting at each other over drugs; either territory or money. In the case of shootings over women, it's both territory and drugs, the drug being testosterone.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.

I disagree. There are lot's of reasons for shootings, not just the knee-jerk racist (no I di'int) conclusion that it must be crime/drugs. I heard an interesting take on the news this morning. A young black man (who would know better than a mature suburban woman) said that it was all about pride. If someone gets the better of you (nonlethally, of course), you're likely to go get your piece and show him who's a bitch. That's in his neighborhood, anyway. Could be a woman, basketball, parking spot, anything that disses someone.

Diss This
 

Indeed. I think it's this notion of having felt "dissed" that fuels much of the violence, particularly within urban AA culture. And responding to being "dissed" is elevated to an extreme level. That is why I see so many young Black men here in the ATL wearing Scarface T-shirts. The Scarface character takes on hero status for the way he responded to being dissed ("Say hello to my little friend!!!":rattat: ).

Of course, having such a character as a "hero" is very disturbing. In fact, I see so many disturbing things in much of urban AA culture that it makes me feel awkwardly racist. But I can't help noticing.:worried:

It's too bad that that particular moment in Scarface is what makes it so popular. He's so coked up that he can't feel the fact that he's been shot multiple times. Great.

Scarred for life
 

It's gonna be on the tube this weekend. I never watched it all the way through. Is it worth the time? 4 out of 5 stars? 3 stars?:neutral:

I liked Dog Day Afternoon myself.

I don't think so. Michelle Pfeiffer's character nailed the whole movie when she said something like "Does every other word out of your mouth have to be "fuck?"

If it's about "pride," then what's different in the nature or nuture of young black men that they feel the need to kill each other over stupid crap like that?

They don't have much else to be proud of (and this goes for Hispanics, White, Asians, all who get into this society). For the most part they come from a poor family with a lack of unity, schools that are underfunded with teachers who are overworked and who are not even "good" teachers because those schools cannot attract them, the unemployment rate is high, substance abuse is high...and the upper classes look down upon them and make them feel worthless. They are acting out and if they cannot make themselves respectable to the upper classes, atleast they can make their own peers respect/fear them.
That is why reform is so necessary, we need to concentrate our resources on improving schools, healthcare, employment agencies, scholorship funding, afterschool programs, immigration laws, ect ect. NOT on banning guns, stopping those awful gays from ruining heterosexual marriage, building more prisons, jailing homeless and prostitutes (what a ridiculous law!), all these things and more waste money that could go towards mending our societal problems at the root, not just pruning the leaves.

Stupid Crap
 

Maybe they don't feel like they have more important stuff to kill each other over.:neutral: I don't really know the answer. But it's an excellent question. I would consult a team made up of an anthropologist, psychologist, and a sociologist. Or perhaps ask the young black men themselves.:neutral:

Why not start a new thread for that?

Is anyone watching this season of "The Wire" on HBO? It gets into a lot of the stuff in morethanpretty's post.

Pride, need to win, gang mentality, no respect for a human life, fear of others, a mistake ... it all comes from the same mindset. Like it or not - and most apparently don't like the expression - it is called a 'big dic' mentality. A concept not just reserved for lying politicians. Common when the brain does not do the thinking. A problem not limited to one sex.

I was hoping this was a flash-in-the-pan phrase, but if you're going to keep using it, for God's sake it's spelled "big dick."



To me, the nonchalant violence in urban culture was always reminiscent of the Asian social concept of "honor." Which is weird, when you think about the drastically different direction each group went with it.

Or maybe "big dice"

Ibram, do you believe that there is such a thing as justifiable homicide (e.g. killing another person in self defense or to save another's life)? A perpetrator doesn't have to have a firearm to pose a lethal threat; so, even if ALL firearms were absent from society a lethal threat level would still exist. If you accept justifiable homicide, what do you believe would be the most effective and humane way of accomplishing this if not with a firearm? :confused:

dictiphone?

That's why I cited "territory" and included testosterone as a drug. You can dismiss me as "living in the suburbs" today, but I grew up in Northwest Philadelphia and live only a few miles from John Street's hometown of Norristown.

I would say calling crime and drugs a "knee-jerk racist conclusion" (especially considering up until that point nobody had mentioned race that I noticed) would have to be itself a "knee-jerk racist conclusion". A cultural value that endorses soothing injured self-esteem with assault with a deadly weapon isn't a racial value...is it? It's a crime.

And regardless of whether it's racial or not, I'm unwilling to be disarmed on the excuse "there's cities full of young males who are violent because they are victims of society and can't help themseves; it's easier to 'solve' these problems by disarming you than by jailing them and those who illegally sold them their weapons.".

http://www.capindex.com/images/produ...onal_tract.pdf should be interesting viewing for folks who know the Philadelphia area and have the patence to wait for the download and subsquent PDF formatting.

And there's another conflict. You have voiced opposition to taxes in the past. Who pays for the prisons, guards, etc? Since these guys surely shouldn't be allowed back on the streets ever (:rolleyes: ) the cost will be staggering, not to mention the space that'll be needed to contain these people. Got a solution to that?

So there is an excuse you would be willing to be disarmed on? Which excuse is it? :)

There isn't one.

Maybe we end the War on Drugs and use the empty cells for violent criminals? Of course a lot of the violence appears to be around the illegal drug culture so maybe those cells would stay empty.

The real cost of the war on drugs make Iraq look like pocket change.

Also, if you allow someone to dis you in front of your home boys, you'll have to leave town and not come back. If you shoot the scumbag that had the nerve to dis you, you'll be cool. If you get caught and go to jail, you're still leaving town but you can come back....at a higher status too.
The whole concept, the reasoning behind that attitude just blows my mind.:smack:

Ok, gun control aside, would there be fewer deaths in America if there were no handguns? Simple question: only Yes or No answers accepted.

My answer: Yes.

There were 2,400,000 deaths in the US in 2004. Apx. 30,000 of these were due to handguns. More than half that number are suicides.

The handgun self-defense rate is said to be much, much higher than the handgun murder rate. I vote no, more deaths without handguns.

No. People will just kill each other with rocks and baseball bats. If you have murder in your heart, it will come out one way or the other.