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.