planetf1.com

Johnston wrote: Yes they are and you forget it's not just the IRA over here.

Not the 'ra but Paramilitary.

No, I'm very much not forgetting, just because I didn't list them all one after another doesn't mean I do not know full well.

Johnston wrote:They have made money from an array of illegal...

Fair enough.

Johnston wrote:Also it's not a case of hiding it but simply not making their way into papers. Many a time did something happen local to me that never hit the media (At one time I lived near the local quarry they liked to use) police used to wrap on the Mrs door every weenend as she had waste land out her back in the middle of the estate.

I know, I said that myself. .

Johnston wrote:One Pimp is probably insignificant. But if one lot of gangsters supply their own and others that one pimp quickly becomes a lot.

A lot of guns made their way here from the states. Somehow I don't think these guys sold their whole stock to Irish shores. If they only sold a percentage to here then that means a percentage stayed home. I only used ghadaffi as a name of someone willing to trade arms with people. Mainly as he's the only name I remembered off the top of my head. If he was willing to supply the Irish do you not think their would be people willing to supply gangsters in America to put illegal guns on the street?

But the point is that the illegal guns in America are from internal sources anyway, therefore restricting the gun access their it restricts them getting elsewhere. Then they only need proper boarder controls to stop them getting in.

Johnston wrote:As for the cars there is a parallel . Lots of people have them and lots of people die because of irresponsible users. As for being necessary. Well a car is a more modern invention than the gun. I believe the right to bear arms is in the American constitution however there is no right to drive cars

Yes and before that we used horses, horse riding kills more people than ecstasy, yet riding a horse isn't illegal. Cars are necessary to our societies, one day they probably wont be, but they are, yet we still have tight (although I feel they should be tighter) laws about ownership and use. Prolific gun ownership was once necessary, it is no longer, yet they still have relatively lax laws about them, and as I explained earlier, only recently legally extended the meaning of the context within which the "right to bear arms" is enshrined.

The bottom line is, per head, massively fewer people get killed by guns even in Northern Ireland than in the US, they have a serious problem, and bringing in tighter gun laws is one way to help deal with it. To suggest that they should not change their laws in light of the scale of the problem is baffling, almost as baffling as to compare it to other issues that governments around the world are actively bringing in tighter laws to restrict the damage caused by them.

Very good post Toilet.

daytona81 wrote:

If the penalty for possession and/or distribution of either were high enough, both would be off the streets.

daytona81 wrote:

So do you think heroin and meth should be made legal?

daytona81 wrote:

No one wants to completely ban guns. They want stricter control. Drugs are illegal and there is no control over them. Some of them (not necessary meth) could be make legal with some strict restrictions and control imposed over them, like with guns. Remember that black market fuels the illegal guns usage and other related crimes. For some users the legal drugs may be enough and they won't need underworld services or some dealers may find an opportunity to legalize their business. Certainly there are many flaws and black market will never be eliminated. History have shown that prohibition and other bans aren't solution, but some sure compromise may work.

It's been going round my head for a few days now... I have no idea why anyone would want to own an assault rifle like the one used in the massacre in Connecticut. I've used them on multiple occasions as part of OTC and they're a blast (no pun intended) but I would never consider having one under my bed. They're not made for protection (I can understand (maybe not agree with, but understand) a case for handguns to be placed in this category), they're not made for hunting, they are made for the sole purpose of killing people in the most efficient way possible. I don't want to judge the USA but I think a society where you can pop down the local sporting good store and pick up something that, without wanting to be hyperbolic, is an instrument of death, has some issues.

Please remember xenophobic remarks are not appropriate.

Such an immature response from Daytona81. Drugs do kill people but a nutter can't go into a school and kill over a dozen kids on the spot with drugs. They can with a gun.

If guns were banned for the public to own then people would be far less inclined to use a gun to sort out their disputes. Less people would die as a result. It would take a long long time to get rid of guns already in circulation but it would be so worth it if it meant we didn't have to watch a news report on how a bunch of innocent kids have been shot dead by some nutter.

One can only presume that those who are against a gun ban own a gun themselves and feel that protects them. Shame on you I'd say. Protect your kids by getting rid of your guns. You can't allow this kind of incident to happen again.

daytona81 wrote:

As another poster said, feel free to legalise heroIN and meth then...

toilet wrote: You miss the point, if someone was pro-drink driving, they would be the villains too, in fact drink driving is one of the greatest social taboos. So not only is the government doing everything it can to prevent it, but the majority of members of society are also advocating stamping out drink driving. No one's pro-drink driving.

Johnston wrote:Another stat from the CDC website

Cigarette smoking causes about 1 of every 5 deaths in the United States each year.1,6 Cigarette smoking is estimated to cause the following:1
443,000 deaths annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke)
49,400 deaths per year from secondhand smoke exposure
269,655 deaths annually among men
173,940 deaths annually among women

so again Ciggies are a much bigger killer than guns.
I wonder how many anti gun campaigners smoke?

Which is why smoking in public places is being criminalised across most of the western world. Smokers are generally seen as social outcasts now. So again, both governmental, legal constraints to prevent smoking related deaths, but also social pressures too. Not to mention that while technically it is possible to kill someone with second hand smoking, to actually kill someone, let alone many people, by your smoking you'd have to be some sort of miracle worker. Try raping someone with just a fag as your "weapon", then try doing it with a gun in your hand instead, you'll likely find you get a rather different outcome.


We, most western societies, are actively doing all they/we can to limit people's ability to murder each other, surely having tighter restrictions on those who can and cannot have access to something designed so effectively to kill or maim is only an entirely logical, reasonable, step to take.

wouldn't you say that if they were doing everything they can do against it, banning people from driving would be equal to banning people owning guns? However driving legally is seen okay whilst legally owning a gun is not. Why? Going by the stats a car is more likely to kill than a gun.


As for the smoking. My point is more people die from smoke than guns. It's a stupid comparison maybe BUT it puts perspective on things. Same with the car crashes. I know everyone wants some sort of utopian society but the fact is we will never get it (Some say it wouldn't even work that the human psyche (SP?) wouldn't be able to cope) But there are far worse evils out there. There are things out there that kill more people and are seen as perfectly fine.


Then when you think the Massacres that get the attention are a small percentage of gun deaths (suicides over 50% of total doubling the figure in this thread). They are usually done by nutters . Does anyone think they would just forget their plans to kill simply because they can't get a gun? Or just bump up some other stat? Would suicides come down or would they find another way?

But here's an interesting site/organisation.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/ ... and-youth/

What’s not well-known is that the vast majority of the approximately 12,000 annual gun murders and 66,000 non-fatal shootings are committed by people who have no legal right to a gun. How do criminals and other prohibited people get guns so easily? Through a highly efficient, organized, and profitable business of gun trafficking that moves guns from legal manufacture to dealers to criminals and young people who can’t buy guns legally.

Their tact seems to be it's not the guns but the law and law makers.

I was going to copy and paste. But this whole page is worth a read.

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/ ... -get-guns/

If what they say is true. To me the guns aren't the problem. It's the guys they sell them too and let sell them.

Johnston wrote: If what they say is true. To me the guns aren't the problem. It's the guys they sell them too and let sell them.

But if the guns were controlled, these guys wouldn't have anything to sell/buy?

Ban the grilling guns!

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

Johnston wrote: If what they say is true. To me the guns aren't the problem. It's the guys they sell them too and let sell them.

But if the guns were controlled, these guys wouldn't have anything to sell/buy?

Unemployment is a vote killer

Johnston wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

Johnston wrote: If what they say is true. To me the guns aren't the problem. It's the guys they sell them too and let sell them.

But if the guns were controlled, these guys wouldn't have anything to sell/buy?

Unemployment is a vote killer

Break a few eggs to make an omelette and all that...

I'm just watching a thing about the Mayans and tomorrow.

It has just interviewed a guy preparing for the apocalypse by preparing his own arsenal. He reckons there are two types of people . Those prepared (Those with guns) and those not prepared.

I'm beginning to think it's not the guns that are the problem but Americas mental health policy

Johnston wrote:I'm just watching a thing about the Mayans and tomorrow.

It has just interviewed a guy preparing for the apocalypse by preparing his own arsenal. He reckons there are two types of people . Those prepared (Those with guns) and those not prepared.

I'm beginning to think it's not the guns that are the problem but Americas mental health policy

I agree totally. I believe both Canada and Switzerland have higher gun ownership rates than the US but nowhere near the gun crime rate. Their societies are, for want of a better way of putting, more well developed and mature (they also have universal healthcare and other stuff like that which would have the wingnuts, who use them as an example of why gun control isn't needed, spitting feathers). Until the US reaches that state though, gun control is a necessity to ensure weapons aren't getting into the hands of people like the one you described.

the thing is that US citizens have a right to bear arms. Rights are afforded to people and in this case enshrined in the constitution, but this is only a good thing if the rights are in line with the values that society places on them - and values change over time.

The fact that the general US population still places value on their right to bear arms is the fundamental problem. You can change laws, restrict those rights etc and you'd obviously get an immediate effect on the gun crime rates because there would be fewer of them, their price on the black market would increase, and folks like the killer in this recent massacre would probably have to seriously try hard to get hold of one. But if you want to get at the root cause, you have to tackle the way that society values weapons.

In the US, a weapon is like a fashion accessory - something everyone should have. The value placed on owning a weapon needs to be changed, and that can only take place with government support, just like governments have tackled smoking in Europe. Gradually people's values have been "forced" to change by the negative advertising, campaigning and legal restrictions.

Sure, at first, some people may die because they didn't have a gun to protect themselves, and that would be bad - but someone has to make the first move in order to begin the de-escalation, rather than the ever escalating situation we have now. In the long run, criminals wouldn't need guns, police would shoot fewer criminals, fewer victims would be shot and fewer victims would shoot criminals. This doesn't mean crime-rates would fall, just that there'd be less gun-crime and presumably fewer deaths as a result.

It's not a magic bullet (excuse the pun), but restricting gun supply, availability and access by law has to be the single most obviously logical step to take. There's no point in my mind banning assault rifles, but allowing you to keep five high-velocity rifles, a shot-gun and ten semi-automatic pistols in your house instead though. The steps taken in the UK I think were the right ones. To most people now, the thought of owning, or needing to own, a hand-gun is abhorrent.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

Johnston wrote:I'm just watching a thing about the Mayans and tomorrow.

It has just interviewed a guy preparing for the apocalypse by preparing his own arsenal. He reckons there are two types of people . Those prepared (Those with guns) and those not prepared.

I'm beginning to think it's not the guns that are the problem but Americas mental health policy

I agree totally. I believe both Canada and Switzerland have higher gun ownership rates than the US but nowhere near the gun crime rate. Their societies are, for want of a better way of putting, more well developed and mature (they also have universal healthcare and other stuff like that which would have the wingnuts, who use them as an example of why gun control isn't needed, spitting feathers). Until the US reaches that state though, gun control is a necessity to ensure weapons aren't getting into the hands of people like the one you described.

I wonder how the conversation went at the gun shop.

I'll have 3 double bore shot guns, 6 9mm pistols and 5 of those rifles and 10,000 rounds for each.

No problem dude but what you want all those guns and bullets for.

Oh just getting ready for the zombie apocalypse that's coming.

Whoa dud that's heavy, what makes you think there's a zombie apocalypse coming

Oh some calender some ancient dudes made like 7000 years ago is coming to an end.

Okay mate you pass the physic eval you're perfectly sane here do you want some grenades with that?

Johnston wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

Johnston wrote:I'm just watching a thing about the Mayans and tomorrow.

It has just interviewed a guy preparing for the apocalypse by preparing his own arsenal. He reckons there are two types of people . Those prepared (Those with guns) and those not prepared.

I'm beginning to think it's not the guns that are the problem but Americas mental health policy

I agree totally. I believe both Canada and Switzerland have higher gun ownership rates than the US but nowhere near the gun crime rate. Their societies are, for want of a better way of putting, more well developed and mature (they also have universal healthcare and other stuff like that which would have the wingnuts, who use them as an example of why gun control isn't needed, spitting feathers). Until the US reaches that state though, gun control is a necessity to ensure weapons aren't getting into the hands of people like the one you described.

I wonder how the conversation went at the gun shop.

I'll have 3 double bore shot guns, 6 9mm pistols and 5 of those rifles and 10,000 rounds for each.

No problem dude but what you want all those guns and bullets for.

Oh just getting ready for the zombie apocalypse that's coming.

Whoa dud that's heavy, what makes you think there's a zombie apocalypse coming

Oh some calender some ancient dudes made like 7000 years ago is coming to an end.

Okay mate you pass the physic eval you're perfectly sane here do you want some grenades with that?

domdonald wrote:the thing is that US citizens have a right to bear arms. Rights are afforded to people and in this case enshrined in the constitution, but this is only a good thing if the rights are in line with the values that society places on them - and values change over time.

It's the "right to bear arms" - this does not mean the right to own every possible type of gun - owning assault rifles (or indeed owning any type of gun) can be controlled or banned without violating the constitution.

And even if the constitution was written it meant guns specifically - back then guns had a fraction of the power and took an age to reload. Modern assault rifles make a single man as powerful as a mini army from the 18th century. Laws get updated as society and technology develop.

What's that, the constitution is binding and can't be changed under any circumstances? Ok, better get rid of all those amendments then. What was number 2 again?

We dont have a great depth of history to cling to over here, and being all spread out and from many different places the one thing our fake national identity is based on is freedom, afforded to us by the great constitution, fought for by our wonderful founding fathers. Somehow that national identity has turned into a reason to cling to the wisdom of the day....but that "day" was hundreds of years ago and things change. Not enough people understand that. The 2nd Amendment wasn't included as a means for citizens to protect themselves from each other, but to protect themselves from a tyrannical government overriding the checks and balances put in place by a group of people ever fearful of the controlling hand of distant monarchs. Does anyone here pay attention to that? No of course not because our education system is a joke and they probably missed out on that bit completely, so all they know is "the constitution says we have the right to guns, and we are nothing without our rights, so RAWR!!!!" Everything in US politics is framed that way...vote for our decision to invade other countries so they can have FREEDOM like us. You're unamerican if you don't support this protection of our freedom. We must infringe on your freedom by listening to your phone conversations or throwing you in prison with no due process because if we dont terrorists could take our freedom. But..but...but...yeah. See how that works?

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

domdonald wrote:the thing is that US citizens have a right to bear arms. Rights are afforded to people and in this case enshrined in the constitution, but this is only a good thing if the rights are in line with the values that society places on them - and values change over time.

It's the "right to bear arms" - this does not mean the right to own every possible type of gun - owning assault rifles (or indeed owning any type of gun) can be controlled or banned without violating the constitution.

And even if the constitution was written it meant guns specifically - back then guns had a fraction of the power and took an age to reload. Modern assault rifles make a single man as powerful as a mini army from the 18th century. Laws get updated as society and technology develop.

What's that, the constitution is binding and can't be changed under any circumstances? Ok, better get rid of all those amendments then. What was number 2 again?

Agreed!

A couple of things I can never get my head around (as an outsider) is:

The constitution is held by many as sacrosanct, but was this part of the constitution not amended quite specifically to deal with a particulary problematic period of (now historical) events, and the clue is in the title 'the second amendment, by definition having an 'amendment' means the constitution can be amended to deal with relevant situations, so why is it so provocative to suggest amending this again to reflect current circumstances?

Secondly, the constitution says you have a right to bear arms, but it seems like many view this as a rite of passage, an instruction to own a gun, rather than a right.

I don't know much about US history but it seems the argument is slightly out of kilter.

I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

nike2die4 wrote:I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

I agree with some of that, BUT when you say 'people' kill people not the object (guns in this case); yes people kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without them, so that is not a sensible argument.

Also when you say, "The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws".... Well that is completely spurious and bears no relation to facts, this is just a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument.

Why not turn the argument around and say; 'We want guns, and therefore will live with the odd massacre, because we believe this is the best way of doing things', and a few dead children are worth it?

[Edit] nike2die4, I wasn't getting at you as you make some really good points, I just get a bit frustrated with this whole justification thing that is going on - simply reduce the number of guns available and less people will die, can anyone argue against that? [/Edit]

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

domdonald wrote:the thing is that US citizens have a right to bear arms. Rights are afforded to people and in this case enshrined in the constitution, but this is only a good thing if the rights are in line with the values that society places on them - and values change over time.

It's the "right to bear arms" - this does not mean the right to own every possible type of gun - owning assault rifles (or indeed owning any type of gun) can be controlled or banned without violating the constitution.

And even if the constitution was written it meant guns specifically - back then guns had a fraction of the power and took an age to reload. Modern assault rifles make a single man as powerful as a mini army from the 18th century. Laws get updated as society and technology develop.

What's that, the constitution is binding and can't be changed under any circumstances? Ok, better get rid of all those amendments then. What was number 2 again?

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this one. My point, probably badly made, was actually that the support/validity of the constitution is a reflection of the values that society at the current time places on the concepts enshrined within it - as values change, so should the constitution and the nation's moral compass. The fact that people cling to the constitution in this case is a sign that actually, US society's underlying values haven't changed. Pointing to the consitution and saying "I can, so I will" is an easy way of avoiding the real issue: why does your average US citizen place real value on owning a deadly weapon?

Biffa wrote:

nike2die4 wrote:I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

I agree with some of that, BUT when you say 'people' kill people not the object (guns in this case); yes people kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without them, so that is not a sensible argument.

Also when you say, "The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws".... Well that is completely spurious and bears no relation to facts, this is just a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument.

Why not turn the argument around and say; 'We want guns, and therefore will live with the odd massacre, because we believe this is the best way of doing things', and a few dead children are worth it?

[Edit] nike2die4, I wasn't getting at you as you make some really good points, I just get a bit frustrated with this whole justification thing that is going on - simply reduce the number of guns available and less people will die, can anyone argue against that? [/Edit]

but is that really true? let's take Brevik's case an example,do you think he won't have gotten his hands on explosives and assault rifles if there were stricter gun laws?

nike2die4 wrote:

Biffa wrote:

nike2die4 wrote:I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

I agree with some of that, BUT when you say 'people' kill people not the object (guns in this case); yes people kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without them, so that is not a sensible argument.

Also when you say, "The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws".... Well that is completely spurious and bears no relation to facts, this is just a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument.

Why not turn the argument around and say; 'We want guns, and therefore will live with the odd massacre, because we believe this is the best way of doing things', and a few dead children are worth it?

[Edit] nike2die4, I wasn't getting at you as you make some really good points, I just get a bit frustrated with this whole justification thing that is going on - simply reduce the number of guns available and less people will die, can anyone argue against that? [/Edit]

but is that really true? let's take Brevik's case an example,do you think he won't have gotten his hands on explosives and assault rifles if there were stricter gun laws?

He would have had a much harder time of it. He tried to get certain guns illegally and failed so went down the legal avenue.

There was a picture put up somewhere and I can't find it.

But it gave all the recent Massacres in the US and the stats. One was the guns legal or illegal.

I was very surprised to see quite a few used both. So making the guns harder to get wouldn't have necessaraly done anything as they went to the trouble to get illegal ones anyway.

I guess it depends what you count as an "illegal" gun though, doesn't it? The vast majority of guns are legal at the start of their life, then they get stolen or whatever and become illegal.

Well I would sort of take illegal as a gun that wasn't bought through the legal channels.

So a gun that was licensed and bought through a gunstore all above board, legal.

A gun bought with out the proper paperwork, illegal.

Personally I would take any gun not used by the license holder as illegal but I think in the stats guns owned by parents etc get accounted for as legal.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

nike2die4 wrote:

Biffa wrote:

nike2die4 wrote:I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

I agree with some of that, BUT when you say 'people' kill people not the object (guns in this case); yes people kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without them, so that is not a sensible argument.

Also when you say, "The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws".... Well that is completely spurious and bears no relation to facts, this is just a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument.

Why not turn the argument around and say; 'We want guns, and therefore will live with the odd massacre, because we believe this is the best way of doing things', and a few dead children are worth it?

[Edit] nike2die4, I wasn't getting at you as you make some really good points, I just get a bit frustrated with this whole justification thing that is going on - simply reduce the number of guns available and less people will die, can anyone argue against that? [/Edit]

but is that really true? let's take Brevik's case an example,do you think he won't have gotten his hands on explosives and assault rifles if there were stricter gun laws?

He would have had a much harder time of it. He tried to get certain guns illegally and failed so went down the legal avenue.

yes he would have had a much harder time but they would still have been available for purchase...that's my point,he went the legal route because it was available,if it was banned,he would have dug deeper and somehow in his sick mind that would give him more justification to do what he did.

nike2die4 wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

nike2die4 wrote:

Biffa wrote:

nike2die4 wrote:I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

I agree with some of that, BUT when you say 'people' kill people not the object (guns in this case); yes people kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without them, so that is not a sensible argument.

Also when you say, "The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws".... Well that is completely spurious and bears no relation to facts, this is just a 'grasping at straws' kind of argument.

Why not turn the argument around and say; 'We want guns, and therefore will live with the odd massacre, because we believe this is the best way of doing things', and a few dead children are worth it?

[Edit] nike2die4, I wasn't getting at you as you make some really good points, I just get a bit frustrated with this whole justification thing that is going on - simply reduce the number of guns available and less people will die, can anyone argue against that? [/Edit]

but is that really true? let's take Brevik's case an example,do you think he won't have gotten his hands on explosives and assault rifles if there were stricter gun laws?

He would have had a much harder time of it. He tried to get certain guns illegally and failed so went down the legal avenue.

yes he would have had a much harder time but they would still have been available for purchase...that's my point,he went the legal route because it was available,if it was banned,he would have dug deeper and somehow in his sick mind that would give him more justification to do what he did.

Yeah he went down the legal route but he actually tried the illegal route first and failed. If he wasn't able to go down the legal route (i.e. there were stricter gun controls in place), maybe he wouldn't have got his hands on any guns (given that he had already had a go and failed at procuring them illegally).

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/ ... ed-states/

Anders Behring Breivik wrote in a 1,500-page manifesto that he bought 10 30-round ammunition clips for his .223 caliber rifle from an unnamed small U.S. supplier, which then in turn acquired the clips from other suppliers. Norway forbids the sale of clips for hunting rifles that hold more than three bullets, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.

Doing a bit of reading it only seems he failed in the illegal route because he thought he could walk into Prague and buy some.

nike2die4 wrote:I don't think gun laws are the issue. It's the overall mental health of the country. More and more people with "issues" are cast aside and given a pill when counseling and help groups would do wonders, maybe even dare I say a change in our society all together. American's are known as the richest, most dead inside people in the world. they feel that they always have to strive to be the best, but considering that's an unobtainable childish fantasy to the majority, some people can't take the defeat and either snap or go through life feeling inadequate or depressed. The values as a whole are backwards, the things that are truly important in life are often neglected in their culture for the pursuit of money and materialistic gain. Guns, knives, objects don't kill people, people kill people -- why do we think banning guns is going to do any good? The countries with the strictest gun laws are often the most dangerous because criminals don't pay attention to laws, only good law-abiding citizens do, and they will be the ones to suffer. We always look at and attack a problem the absolutely wrong way, tackling a symptom rather than a cause. That's my thoughts on it at least, perhaps I'm wrong.

Leaving aside the question as to whether or not it's possible to judge the personality characteristics of 311M people (I'm really not a great fan of sweeping generalisations), you might be interested to know that although there are a staggering number of firearms in private ownership in the US (up to 300M depending on who's stats you believe), the actual number of households with guns has been steadily declining for nearly 40 years.
Also, according to a 2007 survey by Harvard, 20% of gun owners posses 65% of the privately owned guns and, as of 2010, 20% of American citizens admitted to personally owning a gun of one sort or another but at the same time 40% of households had a gun somewhere on the premises. This means that 80% of Americans do not own a gun and 60% don't have access to one.

Just to complicate matters, exit polls carried out during the 2008 presidential elections showed a quite dramatic variation in gun ownership between Republicans and Democrats, 60% of Republican households had guns vs. 25% for Democrats - are Democrats more likely to become victims of violent crime than the more heavily armed Republicans? Seems like your typical gun owner is far more likely to be a god fearing white, successful, middle class Republican, than some deadbeat who's become disillusioned by the American dream.

I do however agree that for some people at least, gun ownership is more about attitude than necessity, and most of the spurious pro-gun arguments are nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the real reasons for wanting to own guns.

As demonstrated by countries like France, it is possible to allow people to own guns (mainly for hunting or target shooting), but at the same time have a very low rate of homicides (by gun), so stricter laws wouldn’t necessarily mean a sudden surge in crime, and they should reduce the number of accidental deaths, successful suicide attempts, and spontaneous crimes involving firearms – e.g. domestic violence, random nut cases etc.. Obviously the determined nutter is always going to find a way, but at least you could make life more difficult for them and potentially limit the amount of damage they could do.

In my opinion the US needs to seriously look at what types of weapons people can own, who is allowed to own them, and where/how they're kept.
e.g. if you want a semi-automatic assault rifle you can have one, but it has to be kept at a reigistered (safe) gun club, and only used in a controlled environment, and if you want to keep hunting rifles at home, then you need a proper gun safe, etc. etc.
Never going to happen though because no one in the US is capable of have a rational debate about the subject.

ashley313 wrote:We dont have a great depth of history to cling to over here, and being all spread out and from many different places the one thing our fake national identity is based on is freedom, afforded to us by the great constitution, fought for by our wonderful founding fathers. Somehow that national identity has turned into a reason to cling to the wisdom of the day....but that "day" was hundreds of years ago and things change. Not enough people understand that. The 2nd Amendment wasn't included as a means for citizens to protect themselves from each other, but to protect themselves from a tyrannical government overriding the checks and balances put in place by a group of people ever fearful of the controlling hand of distant monarchs. Does anyone here pay attention to that? No of course not because our education system is a joke and they probably missed out on that bit completely, so all they know is "the constitution says we have the right to guns, and we are nothing without our rights, so RAWR!!!!" Everything in US politics is framed that way...vote for our decision to invade other countries so they can have FREEDOM like us. You're unamerican if you don't support this protection of our freedom. We must infringe on your freedom by listening to your phone conversations or throwing you in prison with no due process because if we dont terrorists could take our freedom. But..but...but...yeah. See how that works?

Thanks for painting such a bleak and disturbing picture of the USA, ashley. Thanks applying for the broad brush of condemnation of our country.

I left this thread because it was obvious the rest of the world knows what to do to solve the problems with the USA and now I wish I had not looked back into to it to see where things were going... as it only depresses, frustrates and in some cases, angers me. I should have stayed the hell away the forum as I planned, and I probably am being foolish in even posting my feelings now.



I am an American, and proud to be one. I don't pretend to have all the answers to our problems and I sure as hell do not have the answers to the problems of other countries... which is why I don't rant or rave on them. Maybe I should follow the examples here and start.

Oh, how I wish I did have the answers to the serious issues that we face here in the USA. As a father, a grandfather, a former teacher (25 years) and one that was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth and a Ferrari or even a Mercedes or BMW in our driveway, I can only speak with certainty to what I can control... my own life. And all too often I have not even done that well.

I don't own a gun, never felt the need. I do not totally understand the need of others to own anything other than their hunting guns, but there is little I can do about it. I would like to see much tighter gun control laws and I have written many a congressman over the years to express my thoughts, not just after this incident.

I would like to see our educational system improved in many ways, starting with changing our lack of emphasis on World Affairs and World Geography... and our move away from the arts... The emphasis on Science & Math is, in my opinion, hurting the goals of a well rounded education. I have no idea how to better educate children on gun controls though.

I believe in our freedoms, bemoan the loss of some of those freedoms, particularly those lost by the Freedom Information Act which Ashcroft & other used to walk all over individual privacy in the name of anti-terrorism. Yet I also understand that things have changed in this world and some of the ways of the past just do not work any more... terroristic activity or individual assaults such as what happened in Connecticut are so difficult to anticipate and stop. Yet, if it means giving up some of my privacy, being inconvenienced in security checks to make my life and that of others safer, then I accept it. That does not mean that I accept abuse of the system... just in case some of you are reading it that way.

I must admit to be fascinated by all the thoughts on the "mental health" of this country... WTF is that? How do we address it? Just how do we identify every one of the potentially mentally unbalanced out of over 300,000,000 million citizens and get them into counseling so we can be mentally healthy? Trust me, I would love to have everyone who needs mental health go to a counselor... but heck, I couldn't even get my ex-wife to visit a marraige counselor with me prior to the divorce. Do they know they are mentally unbalance? I seriously doubt that ever crosses their minds. Do I look at a neighbor and in some know he needs counseling and somehow be able to force him to visit one?

What will a background check for gun ownership find that would have prevented most of the crimes of passion that we have seen recently and indeed, on smaller scales forever? Will background checks determine that a husband is likely to kill his wife and kids and then blow his own brains out? How? How can they anticipate that, and then how do they prove it in order to deny the gun purchase? Primarily they look for criminal record or intent in a persons past, but that is seldom the person who commits a crime of passion such as I described.

Does every psychiatrist call the police and have anybody they suspect is mentally unstable under surveillance 24 hrs a day? Go to their house and take away any guns they might have or look for other weapons? I agree that would be nice... provided the person was really a danger, but is it practical for every client the psychiatrist has? I am just asking... how much can we do, should we do... and would YOU tolerate if you were the "suspect"?

There are so many complications involved in all of these issues. The Constitution is part of it (I too believe that the forefathers never intended it to be used as it is, but then they are not around for to ask any more either). There is also the simple fact that guns are but the tool used, and if guns were not available the truly mentally unhinged would and could still find ways to create the desperate acts ... be it with a bomb, other weapons, their car or whatever. I am in favor of whatever gun control can be used to help with the situations, but recognize that gun control by itself is not going to eliminate the danger.

All that said, I fully agree that the USA has some problems, we are far from perfect, as a nation and as individuals. For the most part this nations is not comprised of heartless individuals who are dead inside, bullies, or murderers as some are seemingly suggesting. Maybe it is because I live in a rural area (by choice) in the middle of the country that I am a bit more optimistic about my country and it's ability to find some answers. Maybe it is because I am a old fart who has lost family who have fought for my freedoms and the way of life I have available to me that I am somewhat defensive when I see a lot of unknowing criticism of the USA (and NO, I am not saying that criticism is not deserved... just bashes by those who have no clue). Perhaps it is because, despite our problems, I still realize that I have it pretty good here in the good ole USA... I have a roof over my head, food on the table, cloths on my back, a job and a car to get there. I am grateful for all of those things, but I try not to take them for granted. But for where I was born, I might be living a life far different, far more humble, far less food....and even far more dangerous.

So... in conclusion of my rant... I will repeat that I am still proud to be an American. I wish we had all the answers, and hope that we continue to work to find them. I do not apologize for the USA, but I apologize to anyone who feels that I have offended them. On that note, I am back into seclusion... let fire as you feel the need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EccDw0h ... Q&index=17

11 year old takes hand gun to school....

Blake wrote:

ashley313 wrote:We dont have a great depth of history to cling to over here, and being all spread out and from many different places the one thing our fake national identity is based on is freedom, afforded to us by the great constitution, fought for by our wonderful founding fathers. Somehow that national identity has turned into a reason to cling to the wisdom of the day....but that "day" was hundreds of years ago and things change. Not enough people understand that. The 2nd Amendment wasn't included as a means for citizens to protect themselves from each other, but to protect themselves from a tyrannical government overriding the checks and balances put in place by a group of people ever fearful of the controlling hand of distant monarchs. Does anyone here pay attention to that? No of course not because our education system is a joke and they probably missed out on that bit completely, so all they know is "the constitution says we have the right to guns, and we are nothing without our rights, so RAWR!!!!" Everything in US politics is framed that way...vote for our decision to invade other countries so they can have FREEDOM like us. You're unamerican if you don't support this protection of our freedom. We must infringe on your freedom by listening to your phone conversations or throwing you in prison with no due process because if we dont terrorists could take our freedom. But..but...but...yeah. See how that works?

Thanks for painting such a bleak and disturbing picture of the USA, ashley. Thanks applying for the broad brush of condemnation of our country.

I like the rest of your post, but this line here I must respond to:

It may be bleak and disturbing, but what she says is true. It's not the whole story, obviously, but it is definitely a part of it.

The first step to solving the country's problems is admitting that this country has some serious problems. It's not enough to say that it's better here than it is elsewhere. That shouldn't be good enough, especially in this country with the sort of potential this country has.

I like this video, the day after the shootings, they report some of the gun crime that took place on the Saturday.

SnakeSVT2003 wrote:

Blake wrote:

ashley313 wrote:We dont have a great depth of history to cling to over here, and being all spread out and from many different places the one thing our fake national identity is based on is freedom, afforded to us by the great constitution, fought for by our wonderful founding fathers. Somehow that national identity has turned into a reason to cling to the wisdom of the day....but that "day" was hundreds of years ago and things change. Not enough people understand that. The 2nd Amendment wasn't included as a means for citizens to protect themselves from each other, but to protect themselves from a tyrannical government overriding the checks and balances put in place by a group of people ever fearful of the controlling hand of distant monarchs. Does anyone here pay attention to that? No of course not because our education system is a joke and they probably missed out on that bit completely, so all they know is "the constitution says we have the right to guns, and we are nothing without our rights, so RAWR!!!!" Everything in US politics is framed that way...vote for our decision to invade other countries so they can have FREEDOM like us. You're unamerican if you don't support this protection of our freedom. We must infringe on your freedom by listening to your phone conversations or throwing you in prison with no due process because if we dont terrorists could take our freedom. But..but...but...yeah. See how that works?

Thanks for painting such a bleak and disturbing picture of the USA, ashley. Thanks applying for the broad brush of condemnation of our country.

I like the rest of your post, but this line here I must respond to:

It may be bleak and disturbing, but what she says is true. It's not the whole story, obviously, but it is definitely a part of it.

The first step to solving the country's problems is admitting that this country has some serious problems. It's not enough to say that it's better here than it is elsewhere. That shouldn't be good enough, especially in this country with the sort of potential this country has.

I don't want to get caught up in an argument here of which i know next to nothing about (i.e. America's gun laws/control) but what I can see from the 3 posters quoted, is that there is possibly a differing opinion due to age difference. I'm saying if anyone is right or wrong, but maybe it is how the 'youth' (I hope I'mright un thinking both Ashley and daytona are under 30) of America view themselves as a nation compared to those of Blake's generation?

I also have to say, like Daytona, i fully agree with lots of Blake's post especially regarding education. Which is where gun safety and the likes should be addressed with kids from a young age. In mu school in the UK we had been taught about (and i do mean taught, not just told 'it's bad, don't do it') sex, contraception, sti's, drugs, smoking, and a lot of other similar things before i was 12. I don't know if there is anything similar nation wide in the states, but surely this is where responsible gun handling and ownership could be taught?

As for diognosing people with mental illnesses, it is unfortunately the case that family or friends would usually need to recognise the symptoms and recommend they see a doctor to get further advice. From personal experience, i had to actually drag my own wife to see the doctor as she refused and it this kind thing that we all need to do for each other as it is simply financially not feasible for any government to carry out mental health checks on all its citizens on a regular basis.