NationStates Jolt Archive

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

In before the "YOU'RE HURTING MY SECOND AMENDMENTS!".

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

Yours seems pretty good

Shoot anyone who supports gun ownership.

in before the "you're hurting my second amendments!".

you're hurting my second amendments!

Let it be? Maybe?

Hey, it's the only form of culture the US has so cherish it.

Shoot anyone who supports gun ownership.

Hydesland: Pardon me, could I see your gun?
Gun Owner: Ummm, sure
Hydesland: Is it loaded?
Gun Owner: Of course not, that would be stupid.
Hydesland: Mind if I load it?
Gun Owner: Do you know what you are doing?
Hydesland: Certainly
Gun Owner: Well, okay then...

Hydesland loads gun and shoots Gun Owner.


:D


Let it be? Maybe?
Nah...
Although actually this is what I am in favor of

Let it be? Maybe?

Whisper words of wisdom?

Hydesland: Pardon me, could I see your gun?
Gun Owner: Ummm, sure
Hydesland: Is it loaded?
Gun Owner: Of course not, that would be stupid.
Hydesland: Mind if I load it?
Gun Owner: Do you know what you are doing?
Hydesland: Certainly
Gun Owner: Well, okay then...

Hydesland loads gun and shoots Gun Owner.


:D

Hey, that's unfair. I'd totally ask if he could tell me where his gun owning friends are first, then I'd shoot him!

Don't force people to give up their weapons, in the first place.
That could potentially lead to...bad things.

Let it be? Maybe?
No. It's dangerous and has led to a number of problems. Just look at how many shooting deaths the United States has relative to other countries with high numbers of gun ownership.

Our problem isn't firearms. It's the gun culture that deifies them.

Hey, it's the only form of culture the US has so cherish it.

Nie! We have more culture! :(

Hey, that's unfair. I'd totally ask if he could tell me where his gun owning friends are first, then I'd shoot him!

Is this better?

Hydesland: Pardon me, could I see your gun?
Gun Owner: Ummm, sure
Hydesland: Is it loaded?
Gun Owner: Of course not, that would be stupid.
Hydesland: Mind if I load it?
Gun Owner: Do you know what you are doing?
Hydesland: Certainly
Gun Owner: Well, okay then...
Hydesland: By the way, do your friends own guns?
Gun Owner: Yeah...
Hydesland: Where do they live?
Gun Owner: Why?
Hydesland: I want to start a gun club.
Gun Owner: Oh *tells Hydesland where his friends live*

Hydesland loads gun and goes on killing spree.

Hey, it's the only form of culture the US has so cherish it.

you're forgetting about Jazz.

Anyway I say nothing. It's pointless, gun crimes will never go away.

I would only say anyone who buys a gun should have a mandated safety course and if someone is shot with that firearm by accident (not as a form self defense) they should have it revoked from them. Just like a drivers license.

Responsibility, try advocating THAT sometime people.

you're forgetting about Jazz.

Anyway I say nothing. It's pointless, gun crimes will never go away.

I would only say anyone who buys a gun should have a mandated safety course and if someone is shot with that firearm by accident (not as a form self defense) they should have it revoked from them. Just like a drivers license.

Responsibility, try advocating THAT sometime people.

Indeed. Mandated safety and usage courses.

I say usage along with safety, because knowing how to use a gun makes one a lot less dangerous than not knowing how to use again. Along with the gun culture--and probably because of it--we have far too many people taking a gun and trying to use it without knowing what they're doing with it. That leads to a lot of accidental deaths that could easily be avoided.

Hey, it's the only form of culture the US has so cherish it.

There is also bacteria... that makes two.

Is this better?

Hydesland: Pardon me, could I see your gun?
Gun Owner: Ummm, sure
Hydesland: Is it loaded?
Gun Owner: Of course not, that would be stupid.
Hydesland: Mind if I load it?
Gun Owner: Do you know what you are doing?
Hydesland: Certainly
Gun Owner: Well, okay then...
Hydesland: By the way, do your friends own guns?
Gun Owner: Yeah...
Hydesland: Where do they live?
Gun Owner: Why?
Hydesland: I want to start a gun club.
Gun Owner: Oh *tells Hydesland where his friends live*

Hydesland loads gun and goes on killing spree.

Perfect. :D

Address why people use guns in crimes. Guns, like everything else, is just a tool.

Address why people use guns in crimes. Guns, like everything else, is just a tool.

We should certainly target the causes of crime. That is, however, peripheral to the debate at hand, and not really the subject for discussion.

Nothing at all.

We should certainly target the causes of crime. That is, however, peripheral to the debate at hand, and not really the subject for discussion.

You asked what to do about the gun culture the USA has....

You asked what to do about the gun culture the USA has....

Yes I did. I am speaking about the deification of firearms and the extreme obsession over owning one, and how owning one elevates one's status, and such and so on.

Not about their use in crimes.

Yes I did. I am speaking about the deification of firearms and the extreme obsession over owning one, and how owning one elevates one's status, and such and so on.


Oh?

Oh?

What?

What?

I never realized that having a gun elevates ones status. Silly me, I didn't see glocks hanging in trophy cases or AR-15s dangling over the foyer.

You try to classify something you know nothing about. "Gun culture" is not one thing, or one way of looking at firearms, if such a thing exists at all.

I never realized that having a gun elevates ones status. Silly me, I didn't see glocks hanging in trophy cases or AR-15s dangling over the foyer.

You try to classify something you know nothing about. "Gun culture" is not one thing, or one way of looking at firearms, if such a thing exists at all.

I have seen such things....

I never realized that having a gun elevates ones status. Silly me, I didn't see glocks hanging in trophy cases or AR-15s dangling over the foyer.

You try to classify something you know nothing about. "Gun culture" is not one thing, or one way of looking at firearms, if such a thing exists at all.

I meant the perception, not that it actually truly elevates your stature.

I meant the perception, not that it actually truly elevates your stature.

And again you assume that owning a gun makes people perceive you in a better light then what they do.

And again you assume that owning a gun makes people perceive you in a better light then what they do.

And I am stating the fact that I have seen such things. What Kyronea is saying here is true. There are such perceptions.

And I am stating the fact that I have seen such things. What Kyronea is saying here is true. There are such perceptions.

I disagree. I think Kyronea's theory is incorrect. I have never experienced such perceptions.

I disagree. I think Kyronea's theory is incorrect. I have never experienced such perceptions.

I live in rural America, I work for a country music station... I see this ALL the time.

I live in rural America, I work for a country music station... I see this ALL the time.

I'm sorry...
:(

I disagree. I think Kyronea's theory is incorrect. I have never experienced such perceptions.I have.
Accuracy with aforementioned weapon is a plus.

Am I the only one who sees guns as a tool for protection and not masturbation material?

I think the problem is not enough gun culture. Shoot those outside the culture. Cheaper that way since the gun culture people have guns and like shooting.

I live in rural America, I work for a country music station... I see this ALL the time.

I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where hunting is life. There are more hunters in Michigan then any other state. Everyone and their sister has a gun up there. If there was some mystical gun aura, I would know it.

Oooh, Michigan vs. Pennsylvania, fight fight fight...

Oooh, Michigan vs. Pennsylvania, fight fight fight...

We win, we have more landmasses.

We win, we have more landmasses.

Yea, but PA has more historical landmarks.

I'm sorry...
:(

Thank you, thank you so very much, but however, your pity will not save me from my horrible fate.

I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where hunting is life. There are more hunters in Michigan then any other state. Everyone and their sister has a gun up there. If there was some mystical gun aura, I would know it.

Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever witnessed when someone breaks out the old family shotgun for junior and tells him "My Grandad gave me this gun, and someday I will give this gun to you. On that very same day you will be expected to kill some helpess creature to make me feel like a real parent." ?

Because I have (I kinda paraphrased but that's the gist of the message) and I found it sort of creepy. Perhaps you haven't personally witnessed this, or perhaps you are part of it and of course wouldn't realize it. But some people honestly do behave as if firearms have a mystical or god like quality to them and this is what Kyronea is concerned about.

We win, we have more landmasses.

I see your landmasses and raise you Coal! :P

"Gun Deification" is only really prevalent (if at all) in rural areas. On the other hand, most of USA's gun crimes are committed in urban areas. (I'm lookin' at you, D.C.)

I really don't believe the "gun culture" is the problem.

Just because you haven't seen it does not mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever witnessed when someone breaks out the old family shotgun for junior and tells him "My Grandad gave me this gun, and someday I will give this gun to you. On that very same day you will be expected to kill some helpess creature to make me feel like a real parent." ?

Because I have (I kinda paraphrased but that's the gist of the message) and I found it sort of creepy. Perhaps you haven't personally witnessed this, or perhaps you are part of it and of course wouldn't realize it. But some people honestly do behave as if firearms have a mystical or god like quality to them and this is what Kyronea is concerned about.

Just because you say it exists does not mean it does exist. You're providing at best anecdotal evidence for something which, in my years supposedly in the heart of gun culture, I have yet to see.

But, I do see where you are coming from. Perhaps some people in inner city gangs do see it as a status symbol. This brings up the issue that I brought up in a previous post. Gun Culture, as a seperate thing, I do not believe exists. Instead, guns mean different things to different cultural groups. To mine, it represents a tool, a component (if vital) for an old way of life that we have preserved. To others, it may very well be a status symbol. But we cannot say that about all cultural groups that are in contact with firearms.

I see your landmasses and raise you Coal! :P

I see your coal and raise you Water. Glorious fresh water. All ours (and Canada's, but we're homeboys)

I see your coal and raise you Water. Glorious fresh water. All ours (and Canada's, but we're homeboys)

I raise you The Underground Railroad!

I raise you The Underground Railroad!

I raise you that Michiganders always carry a map with them.

I raise you that Michiganders always carry a map with them.

I think that we should probably stop spamming Kyronea's thread.. take it too a new one maybe?

No. It's dangerous and has led to a number of problems. Just look at how many shooting deaths the United States has relative to other countries with high numbers of gun ownership.

Our problem isn't firearms. It's the gun culture that deifies them.


Yeah but how many of those deaths were cause by someone who legally possessed the firearm in question, and the firearm was used in self defense?

It's not really gun culture so much as the idealization of hyper-masculinity. Violence should be looked down upon rather than commended, that would solve the problem. Guns are simply an example of the real, much broader problem.

But really, it requires a change in what people teach their kids, and perhaps, what society teaches people through schooling. If we teach people that violence (in general) should not be engaged in, in the same way they preach abstinence (in OK), then I think you would see a lot less crime, with guns and without.

It's not really gun culture so much as the idealization of hyper-masculinity. Violence should be looked down upon rather than commended, that would solve the problem.

Violence on its own doesn't necessarily need to be looked down upon. Self-Defense and all that.

Aggression without personal responsibility, that's a problem.

I think that we should probably stop spamming Kyronea's thread.. take it too a new one maybe?

As long as we can all agree that Ohio really is the pits.

As long as we can all agree that Ohio really is the pits.

You won't need to try and convince me of THAT

Yeah but how many of those deaths were cause by someone who legally possessed the firearm in question, and the firearm was used in self defense?Less than 1% by 2001 statistics (the most recent (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm)I could find...)

Less than 1% by 2001 statistics (the most recent (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm)I could find...)

Just curious, how did you come to the 1% conclusion. Technically, isn't a self defense shooting where the aggressor dies a homicide?

Just curious, how did you come to the 1% conclusion. Technically, isn't a self defense shooting where the aggressor dies a homicide?Good question, I'd assumed it was under undetermined but have found no confirmation. Looking at other statistical sites has added confusion, many sites lump legal intervention with accidental deaths. The only source I could find that clearly seperated justified shootings was for a single state, not the US as a whole and that was for the year 1996. The figure was 7 out of over 1100 deaths so the less than 1% is correct in that instance. I'm need to leave for work so any other confirmation or rebutal is your own to research.

And again you assume that owning a gun makes people perceive you in a better light then what they do.

No, what I'm saying is that one buys a gun and believes it makes others perceive them better, not necessarily that others do so.

That is, it's a belief by the owner, not those around him/her.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

If programs were put together with the help of the NRA, GOA, etc, I'm sure that most firearms owners wouldn't object.

Shoot anyone who supports gun ownership.

How the hell are you going to do that? We're the ones with the guns.

stop MANUFACTURING guns.

don't tell anyone they can't have them, just make it so that they have to learn gunsmithing and make them themselves if they want one.

(which would of course, go for the various departments of the government itself as well)

Yea, but PA has more historical landmarks.

Landmarks and landmass are irrelevant. It's the amount of game animals that counts.

Am I the only one who sees guns as a tool for protection and not masturbation material?
Well, I can understand having a gun as masturbation material, not for protection...

edit:
Four things that would improve the gun culture in ze US would be to:
- Reality check, guns kill people. Teach 7-8 year olds that movies are fiction.
- Trust your damn government, no amount of personally owned guns is gonna make you any safer against the government and its military
- Let the professionals take care of protecting you. You waving a gun will only mean the criminal will wave a gun back at ya.
- Gang culture should be made gunfree. :p

Am I the only one who sees guns as a tool for protection and not masturbation material?

no. actually this delusion is a fairly common one.

I see your coal and raise you Water. Glorious fresh water. All ours (and Canada's, but we're homeboys)

*Ohio quietly pollutes Michigan's water supply.* Heheheh

only got up to page 3, but as I see it, the big problem is the taking AWAY of guns, when it's a crime to have a gun then only the criminals will have guns (DC is a great example!)

in those states where guns are available to be carried, either openly or concealed, assults and similiar homicide crimes carried out with a gun tend to go down, while manslaughter crimes with a gun go up. but what is ignored is the manslaughter ones in most cases would have happened just the same, only with a blunt instrument or whatever gets grabbed first. But since they with a gun, the brady bunch and the million nutter march mob goes nuts, while remains resolutely silent on the tire iron, knife, 2x4 and baseball bat manslaughter figures.

So it's not increasing the number of crimes, it's shifting the incidences.

- Let the professionals take care of protecting you. You waving a gun will only mean the criminal will wave a gun back at ya.



That reminds me of a sig line I see a lot "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"

Cops are the guys that clean up the sidewalk after the crime, they can't be everywhere in all places at all times and stop crimes, they can only try to catch the crims AFTERWARDS! they're of zero use DURING a confrontation.

Well, I can understand having a gun as masturbation material, not for protection...

edit:
Four things that would improve the gun culture in ze US would be to:
- Reality check, guns kill people. Teach 7-8 year olds that movies are fiction.
- Trust your damn government, no amount of personally owned guns is gonna make you any safer against the government and its military
- Let the professionals take care of protecting you. You waving a gun will only mean the criminal will wave a gun back at ya.
- Gang culture should be made gunfree. :p

Well intended but flawed. I own guns. Not one of them ever moved on its own. People kill people. People kill people with many things, not just guns. A gun on its own is just an object. Responsibility and a healthy respect for a firearm is key to preventing accidents and promoting gun safety. If a kid is taught what a gun is and its potential power to destroy, then the mystique is gone. What you said about movies being fiction will be readily understood. Consequentially, if someone has a kid who has a hard time telling the difference between TV behavior and how one should really be, I would keep anything sharp and pointy away from him, forget a gun. The kid is not mature enough to handle it. Some people are never mature enough to be entrusted with potentially dangerous things.

"Trust your damn government" probably the most horrifying four words I've come across. Uncle Sam hasn't been doing a good job lately, the farther away he is from me the better.

The police only pick up the pieces after a crime has been committed, you can't carry a cop on your back to keep you safe all the time. And I cannot understand this notion I see on the BBC that having a gun will make you a victim of gun crime. Criminals look for the path of least resistance, the easiest targets. Any interview with a crook in jail always reveals that they look for the least imposing targets. No need to brandish a piece on you, but better to be able to defend yourself than be an easy victim. A gun is the only equalizer of power between a 70 year old lady and a 230lb. 20 year old.

If you have a plan of how you'll make gangs turn themselves off to guns, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

I think it's important to remember that criminals do not follow the law. Determined, they will always get weapons. Guns, knives, pointy sticks, whatever. Notice how the DC gun ban, enacted in 1976 and repealed this year, affected crime. Washington DC had the highest murder rate in the country. Only the bad guys had the guns, they controlled the streets and terrorized with impunity since they knew nobody could stand up to them.

That reminds me of a sig line I see a lot "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"

Cops are the guys that clean up the sidewalk after the crime, they can't be everywhere in all places at all times and stop crimes, they can only try to catch the crims AFTERWARDS! they're of zero use DURING a confrontation.
So instead you have a gun always at hand and wave it at his or her face and then get shot by the criminal who is accustomed to using a gun and shooting people with it?

In case you're robbed, you simply give your stuff away. It's most likely insured anyways, at the very least it less valuable than your life, and if the crook is ever caught you get even bigger compensation.

It's a win-win situation, nobody loses their life and there's no risk getting innocent bystanders, like your 4 year old daughter, injured.

a gun is a convinient object for not very bright people to kill other people with. they should have to earn the privelage by learning how to build their own.

just as a gun never killed anyone on its own (though there are many instences of it killing or injuring someone no one had wished for it to), neither has it ever "protected" anyone who wasn't skilled in both its psychology as well as its physical use.

- Trust your damn government, no amount of personally owned guns is gonna make you any safer against the government and its military


Gotta disagree with you there without guns it would make fighting back nigh impossible. Its always possible to fight our own military Guerilla Warfare style I mean we are having a hard enough time fighting in Iraq because of so called guerilla warfare imagine half of America doing it. The point I'm trying to make is in the probability of our government becoming too powerful and taking away our individual freedoms and enslaving would you rather use a pitchfork to fight back or a Magnum?

So instead you have a gun always at hand and wave it at his or her face and then get shot by the criminal who is accustomed to using a gun and shooting people with it?

In case you're robbed, you simply give your stuff away. It's most likely insured anyways, at the very least it less valuable than your life, and if the crook is ever caught you get even bigger compensation.

It's a win-win situation, nobody loses their life and there's no risk getting innocent bystanders, like your 4 year old daughter, injured.

and if you're female, 18, pretty, slim and with nice tits, walking home from school/college night classes and some hoodlum with a knife shows up and wants more than your money? would you rather lie back and wait for him to finish or try to remove his balls with a barrage of .45's before the fucker reaches you?

The point I'm trying to make is in the probability of our government becoming too powerful and taking away our individual freedoms and enslaving would you rather use a pitchfork to fight back or a Magnum?
Against a tank, stealth bomber, high explosives bomb and a government determined to stamp the rights of the individual at any cost? Neither, I'd duck and cover.

Consider this too: Did the guns help in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Burma, Sudan, Congo, etc...?

and if you're female, 18, pretty, slim and with nice tits, walking home from school/college night classes and some hoodlum with a knife shows up and wants more than your money? would you rather lie back and wait for him to finish or try to remove his balls with a barrage of .45's before the fucker reaches you?

Dunno, I'd probably panic and would run away throwing my purse to the ground. The chances are that being slim, athletic and having a nice rack I'd be able to outrun the hoodlum instead of getting stabbed in the guts while reaching for my loaded gun from my purse?

...can I fondle myself now? :fluffle:

So instead you have a gun always at hand and wave it at his or her face and then get shot by the criminal who is accustomed to using a gun and shooting people with it?

In case you're robbed, you simply give your stuff away. It's most likely insured anyways, at the very least it less valuable than your life, and if the crook is ever caught you get even bigger compensation.

It's a win-win situation, nobody loses their life and there's no risk getting innocent bystanders, like your 4 year old daughter, injured.

Please prove that nobody was ever killed after cooperating with a robber.

Please prove that nobody was ever killed after cooperating with a robber.
Why should I try to prove something that's obviously false?

I'm talking about probabilities here.

Avoiding stuff like this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=JtN&q=+site:query.nytimes.com+resisting+a+robbery

edit:
Those results even have a link to this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E02E6DD1238F932A25751C1A962948260):
DON'T RESIST ROBBERY, CHICAGO STUDY WARNS

Resisting an armed robber drastically increases the risk of death to the victim, according to results from a new study done at the University of Chicago.

Why should I try to prove something that's obviously false?

I'm talking about probabilities here.

Avoiding stuff like this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=JtN&q=+site:query.nytimes.com+resisting+a+robbery

edit:
Those results even have a link to this (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E02E6DD1238F932A25751C1A962948260):
DON'T RESIST ROBBERY, CHICAGO STUDY WARNS

Resisting an armed robber drastically increases the risk of death to the victim, according to results from a new study done at the University of Chicago.

Because you said this:

So instead you have a gun always at hand and wave it at his or her face and then get shot by the criminal who is accustomed to using a gun and shooting people with it?

In case you're robbed, you simply give your stuff away. It's most likely insured anyways, at the very least it less valuable than your life, and if the crook is ever caught you get even bigger compensation.

It's a win-win situation, nobody loses their life and there's no risk getting innocent bystanders, like your 4 year old daughter, injured.

Not sure if this has been posted:

40 Reasons for gun control:
http://www.kc3.com/editorial/40reasons.htm

Because you said this:
The chances are that when you co-operate with the robber, you won't get hurt, the robber won't get hurt and neither do innocent bystanders.

Trying to pull a gun on the robber makes the situation a coin toss.

So, in a default scenario my assessment is correct. I even provided a link supporting my view.

I think the best way to reduce the number of guns by Americans is just to make them register for owning a gun with compulary training and facts about gun use (Facts supplied by the anti-gun lobby of course) ;)

Replace American gun culture with an american sword culture, then nobody gets shot.

Replace American gun culture with an american sword culture, then nobody gets shot.
I shit you not, we Brits actually used to have a football based sword culture in Newcastle and Sunderland.

What To Do About Gun Culture in the United States?
Promote it. Stimulate more responsibility, develop it to a higher level.

Particularly, we need to break the "old gun nut" image, and extend appeal of responsible gun ownership and use to younger people. I think a school-based campaign like that Apple did would be a nice way. Just a decade ago, Macs were old computers for old geezers, and today they're the hot new youth fashion thing.

So the campaign should focus on giving firearms a more modern, sporty, youthful image. Restyle some weapons themselves, bring public attention to high-tech guns and accessories. Pay particular attention to shooting sports, from plinking and organized target practice to mixed sports such as biathlon.



Guns without culture are just shooting sticks; the government should dedicate more effort to making the culture pass through generations and grow.

Promote it. Stimulate more responsibility, develop it to a higher level.

Particularly, we need to break the "old gun nut" image, and extend appeal of responsible gun ownership and use to younger people. I think a school-based campaign like that Apple did would be a nice way. Just a decade ago, Macs were old computers for old geezers, and today they're the hot new youth fashion thing.



You could get some rapper like 50 Cent to front the campaign...

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

Very simple. Tight regulation.
If you want to drive a car, which is potentially a very dangerous tool, you have to pass an exam and undergo to regular medical examination (at least here in Italy). Your driving license can be suspended or revoked if you behave in a potentially homicidal fashion (like speeding 60km/h above the speed limit, or driving under influence of mind-altering substances).

Same should go for weapons, expecially firearms. A firearm is designed to be a very dangerous tool: so people should have to pass an exam to get a firearm licence and undergo to regular medical and psychological examinations to keep it. Also people who have been judged guilty of violent crimes in the past could be banned permanently from having firearms.

Btw:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, the second amendment is about arms in general, not firearms. Since US citizens are forbidden to keep and bear some kind of arms - like nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles - this gives the possibility to limit the type of arms that can be kept and borne. So everyone could have a dagger, but not a pistol.

Also: the second amendment isn't in positive form. That is, it doesn't GIVE people a right to carry arms: it poses a limitation on the State, saying that the State cannot break that right. One should have another legal source stating in a positive form that the People HAS such right.

One could also discuss whether the collective right of the People (not of the citizens: collective noun vs plural individual noun) automatically extends to the single individual - this has been disputed already in some US court, but I don't remember exactly.

btw: wiki
United States v. Cruikshank
Main article: United States v. Cruikshank
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that because "[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government…", the federal government may not punish individuals for depriving citizens of their right to bear arms. The courts did not recognize the doctrine of incorporation at this point in the 19th century.[77] Though many of the federal rights delineated in the federal Bill of Rights have subsequently been incorporated by the Court as rights against the states, the Court has not done so for the Second Amendment. Significantly with respect to the meaning of the amendment, the court found that the Second Amendment prohibited the national government from infringing on the right of individuals "to bear arms for a lawful purpose".

This is an example of law about a danger, plus a "reserve of law" (don't know about the correct term) calling back on the law to determine whether the purpose is lawful. The State could rule, with a law, that carrying a firearm into a school is forbidden: hence entering a school while carrying a firearm would be unlawful per se; and the State could "infringe" the right of carrying arms in that situation.

Wasn't the right to bear arms meant to be instead of having a standing army? Perhaps getting rid of the standing army and making a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq compulsory for all gun owners would work.

So, the second amendment is about arms in general, not firearms. Since US citizens are forbidden to keep and bear some kind of arms - like nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles - this gives the possibility to limit the type of arms that can be kept and borne. So everyone could have a dagger, but not a pistol.
That would be infringement of the right. By your logic, you could say that "everyone could have a wooden stick, but not a knife".

Banning heavy weapons, while technically an infringement, is justifiable by relative lack of lawful purposes for them. Personal firearms have perfectly lawful purposes.


Also: the second amendment isn't in positive form. That is, it doesn't GIVE people a right to carry arms: it poses a limitation on the State, saying that the State cannot break that right. One should have another legal source stating in a positive form that the People HAS such right.
Nonsense. You automatically have the right to do anything that is not explicitly forbidden.


Wasn't the right to bear arms meant to be instead of having a standing army?
No, it wasn't. If it were, then the amendment would read along the lines of "The State will be permitted to have a military force [...]".

I grew up in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, where hunting is life. There are more hunters in Michigan then any other state. Everyone and their sister has a gun up there. If there was some mystical gun aura, I would know it.

In my dealings with out-of-staters over the years I've come to the conclusion we're a bit different on this issue.

Also: the second amendment isn't in positive form. That is, it doesn't GIVE people a right to carry arms: it poses a limitation on the State, saying that the State cannot break that right. One should have another legal source stating in a positive form that the People HAS such right.

No part of the Bill of Rights is in positive form. The Founders were operating under the assumption of the idea of "natural rights" and that governments could not bestow rights. However, while I do agree that it's not an absolute right I believe we live in a permissive society and that the state should require a very compelling reason to prevent me from owning certain objects, as from "they're scary and you could hurt someone" that is.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

Us NRA folks like the idea of gun safety being taught at schools, particularly through shooting teams and clubs. We are not the bad guys. The bad guys are the gangsters not the good well armed law abiding citizens. I have never heard an NRA member sing worshipfully about his his mac 10 or other gat.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

I've heard a similar proposal from NRA folks on campus and elsewhere, actually.

Heller spelled out what kinds of weapons were covered under the Second Amendment and to broadly paraphrase, it stated that it covered weapons normally found in a home for self defense purposes. So according to Heller and SCOTUS, it doesnt give anyone the right to carry a nuke.

I'll drop my gun culture as soon as the French drop the wine culture *nods*

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

This strikes me as incredibly arrogant of you from top to bottom. First of all there is a gun culture in the US. Period. It is here and thrives for good reason. Its not a disease that needs to be sent to the doctor for counceling and a cure. Its something that a vast majority of the people that live here believe in and support.

Who are you to tell anyone what role thier gun has to be? If someone wants to use it as a tool what business is it of yours? If someone uses it as a defensive weapon what business is it of yours? If he wants to hang one on a wall as Art, what business is it of yours? If he rubs it all over his body every night and masturbates to it, what business is it of yours?

Should we send Mac people to counseling too and should we mount a public education effort to deglamorize Apple?

The NRA isnt a fringe wacko group, its the largest political organization in the US. You know why? Because so many people believe in it and support its views. When that happens in a democracy, traditionally you will find laws supporting that behavior. Even the Democrats have finally figured it out and changed their traditional platform on the issue.

This strikes me as incredibly arrogant of you from top to bottom. First of all there is a gun culture in the US. Period. It is here and thrives for good reason. Its not a disease that needs to be sent to the doctor for counceling and a cure. Its something that a vast majority of the people that live here believe in and support.

Who are you to tell anyone what role thier gun has to be? If someone wants to use it as a tool what business is it of yours? If someone uses it as a defensive weapon what business is it of yours? If he wants to hang one on a wall as Art, what business is it of yours? If he rubs it all over his body every night and masturbates to it, what business is it of yours?

Should we send Mac people to counseling too and should we mount a public education effort to deglamorize Apple?

The NRA isnt a fringe wacko group, its the largest political organization in the US. You know why? Because so many people believe in it and support its views. When that happens in a democracy, traditionally you will find laws supporting that behavior. Even the Democrats have finally figured it out and changed their traditional platform on the issue.

I almost agree withyou here, and then I read

Should we send Mac people to counseling too and should we mount a public education effort to deglamorize Apple?

and thought, noo mate they are two differant things. f anything in the world was designed to kill, then it wasn't a Mac, you can use both gun and mac in all of the ways you say above, and correctly delcare 'what business is it of yours' but you can't shoot somebody with a Mac.

and thought, noo mate they are two differant things. f anything in the world was designed to kill, then it wasn't a Mac, you can use both gun and mac in all of the ways you say above, and correctly delcare 'what business is it of yours' but you can't shoot somebody with a Mac.

But you can aggravate someone to death by (irrelevantly) prattling on about the superiority of Mac over PC.

Shoot anyone who supports gun ownership.
How the hell are you going to do that? We're the ones with the guns.
\/ points \/
Hydesland: Pardon me, could I see your gun?
Gun Owner: Ummm, sure
Hydesland: Is it loaded?
Gun Owner: Of course not, that would be stupid.
Hydesland: Mind if I load it?
Gun Owner: Do you know what you are doing?
Hydesland: Certainly
Gun Owner: Well, okay then...
Hydesland: By the way, do your friends own guns?
Gun Owner: Yeah...
Hydesland: Where do they live?
Gun Owner: Why?
Hydesland: I want to start a gun club.
Gun Owner: Oh *tells Hydesland where his friends live*

Hydesland loads gun and goes on killing spree.

Not sure if this has been posted:

40 Reasons for gun control:
http://www.kc3.com/editorial/40reasons.htm

For those linkaphobes out there:
1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

\/ points \/

Yes, because all firearms owners are that stupid. :rolleyes: Or not.

Yes, because all firearms owners are that stupid. :rolleyes: Or not.

It wasn't meant to be realistic...

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

How do we counter gun culture in the USA? Simple. Get rid of the second The whole gun culture stems from that outdated and vaguely worded amendment. Take that out and the gun culture will die out in two to three generations.

I almost agree withyou here, and then I read



and thought, noo mate they are two differant things. f anything in the world was designed to kill, then it wasn't a Mac, you can use both gun and mac in all of the ways you say above, and correctly delcare 'what business is it of yours' but you can't shoot somebody with a Mac.

But if a Mac were redesigned to kill via post facotry mods it would do so much more efficiently.

I saw a movie. In it, some rugged individual from the USA (maybe a maverick cop?) was beset upon by forces that nearly overwhelmed him. Fortunately, he was far better at violence than his enemies, and ultimately prevailed.

I then saw a similar movie. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. Etcetera.

It's not gun culture that's the problem. It is the glorification of violence as a problem-solving tool. Maybe you should stop making action films, comic books, and video games that sell this idea.

I saw a movie. In it, some rugged individual from the USA (maybe a maverick cop?) was beset upon by forces that nearly overwhelmed him. Fortunately, he was far better at violence than his enemies, and ultimately prevailed.

I then saw a similar movie. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. Etcetera.

It's not gun culture that's the problem. It is the glorification of violence as a problem-solving tool. Maybe you should stop making action films, comic books, and video games that sell this idea.

Or at least attempt to make the depiction of violence more realistics.

I saw a movie. In it, some rugged individual from the USA (maybe a maverick cop?) was beset upon by forces that nearly overwhelmed him. Fortunately, he was far better at violence than his enemies, and ultimately prevailed.

I then saw a similar movie. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. And another one. Etcetera.

It's not gun culture that's the problem. It is the glorification of violence as a problem-solving tool. Maybe you should stop making action films, comic books, and video games that sell this idea.

Ive seen the same movies, and then some. Yet oddly I have yet to ever go out on a shooting spree. How can this possibly be after all the thousands of shoot outs in movies ive watched i just dont know. Just to offer full disclosure, i have also never engaged in a high speed police car chase either despite the thousands and thousands i have seen on TV and in the movies. Could someone please help me and explain to me why i havnt done any of these things? Will watching more help me? I too want to engage in shootouts and car chases like everyone else who watches this stuff gets to do. Please help.

Ive seen the same movies, and then some. Yet oddly I have yet to ever go out on a shooting spree. How can this possibly be after all the thousands of shoot outs in movies ive watched i just dont know. Just to offer full disclosure, i have also never engaged in a high speed police car chase either despite the thousands and thousands i have seen on TV and in the movies. Could someone please help me and explain to me why i havnt done any of these things? Will watching more help me? I too want to engage in shootouts and car chases like everyone else who watches this stuff gets to do. Please help.

lol

“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, the second amendment is about arms in general, not firearms. Since US citizens are forbidden to keep and bear some kind of arms - like nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, anti-tank missiles - this gives the possibility to limit the type of arms that can be kept and borne. So everyone could have a dagger, but not a pistol.

Also: the second amendment isn't in positive form. That is, it doesn't GIVE people a right to carry arms: it poses a limitation on the State, saying that the State cannot break that right. One should have another legal source stating in a positive form that the People HAS such right.


Are we really trying to play word games, here? What's the point?

It's easy to forget that that the people who wrote this had just fought a war against a tyrannical militia. Gun control was also used by the church in the middle ages to keep a hold of power over its nations in Europe because pistols took no skill at all.

How do we counter gun culture in the USA? Simple. Get rid of the second The whole gun culture stems from that outdated and vaguely worded amendment.

Not really, at least not everywhere. Many, if not most, people I know own a gun or two but they own them for hunting or target shooting (both of which are very popular passtimes where I'm from) and not for self defense or because the constitution says they can. The "gun culture" where I'm from is centered around sporting and tradition not fear and nationalism like people here seem to be implying. But again, as I told TSI, I suspect where we're from is a bit different than many other parts of the US.

It's not gun culture that's the problem. It is the glorification of violence as a problem-solving tool.

This. Simply owning guns doesn't cause problems, it's the desire to use them on other people that's the problem.

Ive seen the same movies, and then some. ...I too want to engage in shootouts and car chases like everyone else who watches this stuff gets to do. Please help.

A disproportionate (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter2/sec12.html) amount of US teenagers do exactly that.

From 1990 to 1995, the United States had the highest rate of firearm-related deaths among youths in the industrialized world (CDC, 1997). The rate for children below age 15 was five times higher than that of 25 other countries combined.

A disproportionate (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/chapter2/sec12.html) amount of US teenagers do exactly that.

which is still lower then the rate of death from traffic accidents, drownings etc. far better things to work on to save human life.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?

nope, you won't be getting such reaction from the NRA. infact, they might be your biggest and best supporters. The NRA is for Education and respecting the Firearm. not worshipping as people like Micheal Moore would have you believe.

also, tone down the entertainment media's use of guns. perhaps more McGuyver-type heroes that solve problems without guns (or by taking them apart.) or more martial arts type where discipline is also part of the training.

CHiPs never fired their guns. the Original Knight Rider didn't use a gun, same with The Bionic Man so it is possible to have action shows that don't use guns.

nope, you won't be getting such reaction from the NRA. infact, they might be your biggest and best supporters. The NRA is for Education and respecting the Firearm. not worshipping as people like Micheal Moore would have you believe.

That's been my experience with the organization, and now that Heston is no longer the public face, that's more what we're seeing as the popular face of the organization as well.

also, tone down the entertainment media's use of guns. perhaps more McGuyver-type heroes that solve problems without guns (or by taking them apart.) or more martial arts type where discipline is also part of the training.

CHiPs never fired their guns. the Original Knight Rider didn't use a gun, same with The Bionic Man so it is possible to have action shows that don't use guns.

That's something I noticed in entertainment. And, you know what, I liked those corny old shows a whole lot better than I like gun-oriented stuff now.

which is still lower then the rate of death from traffic accidents, drownings etc. far better things to work on to save human life.

Yes. Banning cars in urban areas would reduce deaths in urban areas far more than solving all gun violence, but since the thread is about gun violence, we are discussing that. Perhaps you should read the thread.

Yes. Banning cars in urban areas would reduce deaths in urban areas far more than solving all gun violence, but since the thread is about gun violence, we are discussing that. Perhaps you should read the thread.
Gun culture, not violence. :)

Yes. Banning cars in urban areas would reduce deaths in urban areas far more than solving all gun violence, but since the thread is about gun violence, we are discussing that. Perhaps you should read the thread.
We aren't talking about outright banning. there is this other culture in America called the car culture.
WE could make people take a driving test once every few years. We could rewrite the movies so the Hero isn't driving around but riding a bike or taking mass transit everywhere.
If you are so insistent to take on the gun culture lets focus on a far more widespread epidemic the car culture. If the gun culture is so evil then the Car culture must be Satan compared to the gun culture given its much higer cause of death.

Not really, at least not everywhere. Many, if not most, people I know own a gun or two but they own them for hunting or target shooting (both of which are very popular passtimes where I'm from) and not for self defense or because the constitution says they can. The "gun culture" where I'm from is centered around sporting and tradition not fear and nationalism like people here seem to be implying. But again, as I told TSI, I suspect where we're from is a bit different than many other parts of the US.
Gun ownership and hunting might not be the problem, I agree. The depiction of violence and the glorification of guns as problem-solver are the problem. But they all come from a larger trend I see in USA: The glorification of the founders and of the constitution.

The mentality seems to be "Since the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution, it MUST be good. We should have guns since the fathers of confederations deemed it important!".

Remove the second amendment and you'll have something like Canada where there is a lot of guns, a lot of hunting and a lot gun ownership and collecting but far less gun violence. Why? I don't know. Must be the difference in education which don't hammer into our brain that the constitution is good and the framers were minor saints in their own right.

It can't be the violence on TV or video games 'cause we watch the same shows. It must be something else. Maybe we're too far into socialism? I dunno.

We aren't talking about outright banning. there is this other culture in America called the car culture.
WE could make people take a driving test once every few years. We could rewrite the movies so the Hero isn't driving around but riding a bike or taking mass transit everywhere.
If you are so insistent to take on the gun culture lets focus on a far more widespread epidemic the car culture. If the gun culture is so evil then the Car culture must be Satan compared to the gun culture given its much higer cause of death.

that would work. except you are trying to restrict cars from one area.

sure, more movies and entertainment that stress safe driving. like the fact that more shows nowdays show people wearing seatbelts. (less car chases would be nice outside of cop shows)

perhaps a zany Sitcom about a Driving instructor teaching a class? that might work.

Can't really do much about it, enshrined in the constitution and all. Bit of a shame, mind.

We aren't talking about outright banning. there is this other culture in America called the car culture.
WE could make people take a driving test once every few years. We could rewrite the movies so the Hero isn't driving around but riding a bike or taking mass transit everywhere.
If you are so insistent to take on the gun culture lets focus on a far more widespread epidemic the car culture. If the gun culture is so evil then the Car culture must be Satan compared to the gun culture given its much higer cause of death.

...since the thread is about gun violence, we are discussing that. Perhaps you should read the thread.

...since the thread is about gun violence, we are discussing that. Perhaps you should read the thread.

I am just saying since the thread is about curtailing the gun culture to save lives, that efforts/money would be better directed toward ended the car culture. It would not only save more lives but help that pesky global warming thing.

I am just saying since the thread is about curtailing the gun culture to save lives, that efforts/money would be better directed toward ended the car culture. It would not only save more lives but help that pesky global warming thing.

well, not all the suggestions are about curtailing it, but perhaps, more changing the focus to more responsible ownership and use.

well, not all the suggestions are about curtailing it, but perhaps, more changing the focus to more responsible ownership and use.

We can do the same with the car culture as well. Stop having police chases and wild driving as a mainstay of our movies and Tv shows.
Reckless driving in movies seems far more prevalent then reckless gun use.

A few points:

1. Every gun owner I know is very careful about their firearms. We don't play with them like television characters do, nor do we drive our cars like a stuntman in a Hollywood production would. We are adults. We know reality from fantasy.

2. Guns are for stopping government. I suspect a lot here have... disagreements... with the current POTUS. It's gun owners who keep him (and anyone else in government) from establishing open tyranny. It's too bad the quiet tyrrany has grown this far.

3. The militia is not the skinhead neo-nazi racist bunch you always see on TV. The real militia is quietly underground, its members do not espouse violence against others except in self-defence, and can be trusted like you trust your neighbors. Odds are they may be your neighbors already anyway.

4. The kid who shot himself with the Uzi was a tragic accident, and is probably due to negligence on the part of his parents and the "instructor" - It's not a good reason to attempt a wholesale ban on firearms any more than drunk driving accidents justify banning wine, beer, and the automobile.

We can do the same with the car culture as well. Stop having police chases and wild driving as a mainstay of our movies and Tv shows.
Reckless driving in movies seems far more prevalent then reckless gun use.
*cough*
;)
that would work. except you are trying to restrict cars from one area.

sure, more movies and entertainment that stress safe driving. like the fact that more shows nowdays show people wearing seatbelts. (less car chases would be nice outside of cop shows)

perhaps a zany Sitcom about a Driving instructor teaching a class? that might work.

I think a better question for this thread would be: "How do we curtail irrational fear of guns?"

This strikes me as incredibly arrogant of you from top to bottom. First of all there is a gun culture in the US. Period. It is here and thrives for good reason. Its not a disease that needs to be sent to the doctor for counceling and a cure. Its something that a vast majority of the people that live here believe in and support.

Who are you to tell anyone what role thier gun has to be? If someone wants to use it as a tool what business is it of yours? If someone uses it as a defensive weapon what business is it of yours? If he wants to hang one on a wall as Art, what business is it of yours? If he rubs it all over his body every night and masturbates to it, what business is it of yours?

Should we send Mac people to counseling too and should we mount a public education effort to deglamorize Apple?

The NRA isnt a fringe wacko group, its the largest political organization in the US. You know why? Because so many people believe in it and support its views. When that happens in a democracy, traditionally you will find laws supporting that behavior. Even the Democrats have finally figured it out and changed their traditional platform on the issue.
Here's the thing. Firearms can be extremely dfangerous if they're not used properly by people who know what they're doing with them.

The gun culture in the United States has a tendency to encourage people to go out and purchase firearms and then use them without bothering to be safe first. A large number of easily avoidable deaths happen due to accidents, and a large part of it is the gun culture to begin with.

We need to treat firearms as they are, rather than deifying them.

Only one way to handle it. Shoot all the bastards that want to take my guns from me.

Here's the thing. Firearms can be extremely dfangerous if they're not used properly by people who know what they're doing with them.

The gun culture in the United States has a tendency to encourage people to go out and purchase firearms and then use them without bothering to be safe first. A large number of easily avoidable deaths happen due to accidents, and a large part of it is the gun culture to begin with.

We need to treat firearms as they are, rather than deifying them.

YES!

I also think there is a positive and a negative gun culture in the U.S. Weekend hunters, survivalists, boyscouts, and defense activists are usually the people who respect their guns. Although, a lot of what we hear about in the news is illegal drug related violence. Drive by's, turf wars, gang initiations. I think over half of all murders in the U.S. are related to drug deals or drug dealers. This is most likely a result of drug prohibition and I don't think tightening or loosening guns laws is going to make a difference.

YES!

I also think there is a positive and a negative gun culture in the U.S. Weekend hunters, survivalists, boyscouts, and defense activists are usually the people who respect their guns. Although, a lot of what we hear about in the news is illegal drug related violence. Drive by's, turf wars, gang initiations. I think over half of all murders in the U.S. are related to drug deals or drug dealers. This is most likely a result of drug prohibition and I don't think tightening or loosening guns laws is going to make a difference.

So we could decrease the murder rate by half just by legalizing drugs and leaving guns well alone. Quick start printing the pamphlets!

*cough*
;)

yeah seat belts are mentioned. but what about driving a bus up a ramp to get by an incomplete section of Highway. Or the children who died trying to pulling a Mcfly (skate board behind a car). seems that movies still glorify reckless driving far more then the put on your seat belt counterbalances.

It's like the only culture we have really. Although I agree I do not trust people who think guns are so awesome, like something to idolize, because they are not. Even though I myself have so many... =P

yeah seat belts are mentioned. but what about driving a bus up a ramp to get by an incomplete section of Highway. Or the children who died trying to pulling a Mcfly (skate board behind a car). seems that movies still glorify reckless driving far more then the put on your seat belt counterbalances.not just seat belts. I mention safe driving also. funny you missed that.

again, sure I'm all for showing the dangers of doing such actions. but then again, movies like "Jackass" where they do show idiots doing stupid things getting hurt also is a form of "glorification".

so yeah, removing the skateboarders doing the hitching a ride on a car, or driving a bus up a ramp on an incomplete highway should be removed.

My opinion is that movies now days pay more attention to the thrills and less on the story.

2. Guns are for stopping government. I suspect a lot here have... disagreements... with the current POTUS. It's gun owners who keep him (and anyone else in government) from establishing open tyranny. It's too bad the quiet tyrrany has grown this far.
Now this is just bullshit. For so many reasons. First of all, because you legitimize an assassination of the president on the grounds that you disagree with his politics with that idea and thus nullify the democracy you pretend to protect. Secondly, because private gun ownership will not have any damned effect against a government that turns into a tyranny, open or "quiet".

3. The militia is not the skinhead neo-nazi racist bunch you always see on TV. The real militia is quietly underground, its members do not espouse violence against others except in self-defence, and can be trusted like you trust your neighbors. Odds are they may be your neighbors already anyway.
I don't trust my neighbors at all, and your milita is obviously not made up of human beings if you for one second think you can guarantee that none of the members of it would ever espouse violence against others except in self-defence.

not just seat belts. I mention safe driving also. funny you missed that.

again, sure I'm all for showing the dangers of doing such actions. but then again, movies like "Jackass" where they do show idiots doing stupid things getting hurt also is a form of "glorification".

so yeah, removing the skateboarders doing the hitching a ride on a car, or driving a bus up a ramp on an incomplete highway should be removed.


What a horrible vanilla life people like you would create for everyone if you had that power.

Jackass may or may not be the glorification of anything but i do know it was funny and the free market agreed. So "Jackass" has the full support of the freedom of speech and content and has the full support of the marketplace due to its profitability. If you dont like the content, dont censor it, instead write something yourself with the message you feel needs to be sent instead of crapping on the content of others. If your message is so great youll be rich. If not, then we really dont need your opinion on what part of a movie we should or shouldnt be allowed to see.

Violence on its own doesn't necessarily need to be looked down upon. Self-Defense and all that.

Aggression without personal responsibility, that's a problem.

What I mean is aggression without cause (or for fun).

What a horrible vanilla life people like you would create for everyone if you had that power.

Jackass may or may not be the glorification of anything but i do know it was funny and the free market agreed. So "Jackass" has the full support of the freedom of speech and content and has the full support of the marketplace due to its profitability. If you dont like the content, dont censor it, instead write something yourself with the message you feel needs to be sent instead of crapping on the content of others. If your message is so great youll be rich. If not, then we really dont need your opinion on what part of a movie we should or shouldnt be allowed to see.

So, what do you think should be done about the disproportionate amount of gun violence in the USA?

So, what do you think should be done about the disproportionate amount of gun violence in the USA?

Do your best in enforcing laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, and allow responsible law abiding citizens free and easy access to weapons.

Do your best in enforcing laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill, and allow responsible law abiding citizens free and easy access to weapons.

Isn't that what's already happening? It doesn't seem to be working.

As a guns rights activist I staunchly support less gun control because the people need to overthrow their government! Also, as a staunch Republican I support expanding the military and spending on defense.

It makes sense.

What a horrible vanilla life people like you would create for everyone if you had that power. which is why I don't want that power. and had you asked, I would've told you that. :p

Jackass may or may not be the glorification of anything but i do know it was funny and the free market agreed. So "Jackass" has the full support of the freedom of speech and content and has the full support of the marketplace due to its profitability. If you dont like the content, dont censor it, instead write something yourself with the message you feel needs to be sent instead of crapping on the content of others. If your message is so great youll be rich. If not, then we really dont need your opinion on what part of a movie we should or shouldnt be allowed to see.
and if you read my posts, I said I'm for making movies that has less car chases, less gunfights and what not if it doesn't move the story forward.

I like the old Bond films that had him investigating first, finding out the plot then stopping the bad guy.

but the latest ones are simply "Here's your target, Sic em!"

What's wrong with our gun culture?

What's wrong with our gun culture?
It decieves people into being blasé about the actions of a government that it thinks it can remove by force for some reason?

It decieves people into being blasé about the actions of a government that it thinks it can remove by force for some reason?

Why can't it work?

Why can't it work?
1) The government has better guns and organisation than you.
2) What the hell would you replace it with?
3) You're setting a very dangerous precedent for yourselves in the future.

1) The government has better guns and organisation than you. like say... Vietnam or Iraq?
2) What the hell would you replace it with? something else.
3) You're setting a very dangerous precedent for yourselves in the future. like Washington, Adams, Franklin and all those other ruffians?

So, what do you think should be done about the disproportionate amount of gun violence in the USA?

Interestingly enough, it's 'disproportionate' in economically poor, urban areas in comparison to the rest of the nation, laws now withstanding. For example. Chicago, IL has some of the strictest laws in the nation including defacto bans on most firearms. It also has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state (and climbing) where firearms are more common. Mostly located in 3 areas of the city.

Economic, social, and cultural factors play a much larger part than firearm ownership.

Improve schools, renovate neighborhoods, encourage job growth are just three things that can be done to lower crime rates.

Isn't that what's already happening? It doesn't seem to be working.

No, that's not what's happening. The laws aren't being enforced and the repeat criminals are let loose on the streets.

like say... Vietnam or Iraq?
Aye but without the logistical problems or international support of your enemies.
something else.
Uhu... picked how?
like Washington, Adams, Franklin and all those other ruffians?
I'm pretty sure that already-wealthy landowners are not going to be the people at the attacking the American government this time.

Aye but without the logistical problems or international support of your enemies.

Uhu... picked how?

I'm pretty sure that already-wealthy landowners are not going to be the people at the attacking the American government this time.

Ya know, gun stores have lots of ammo, and we have guns. Its as simple as robbing gun stores.

Picked by me.

No, but its not the wealthy landowners that tend to rise up now is it?

Ya know, gun stores have lots of ammo, and we have guns. Its as simple as robbing gun stores.
Uhu... and then all gathering together to plan yer ops, work out how to run a government, etc. etc.
Picked by me.
Aye, there's your problem.
No, but its not the wealthy landowners that tend to rise up now is it?
Alright, what utter plebs were the driving force behind the American Revolution and ended up with executive positions, then?

Aye but without the logistical problems or international support of your enemies. nope, just the psychological one of ordering soldiers to fire upon fellow Americans.

Uhu... picked how? however the Victor chooses.

I'm pretty sure that already-wealthy landowners are not going to be the people at the attacking the American government this time.
don't have to be wealthy. they just have to believe in their cause.

The American Revolutionary War was an entirely different picture from the one you're painting. In that, the governing structure of the colonies chose to reject the higher structure of the British government because of a lack of representation. The situation you're painting isn't anything like that at all, and you know it.

Aye but without the logistical problems or international support of your enemies.
Wait, what?

I agree there would be fewer logistical problems, but you've got to be mad if you think the rest of the world would stand by and let a dictatorial government take power in the United States. If nothing else, it'd present a serious problem for the security and safety of the rest of the world, and thus I don't see why the European Union and other democracies WOULDN'T get involved.

nope, just the psychological one of ordering soldiers to fire upon fellow Americans.
Aye, pretty sure that PMCs will shoot at just about anyone for the money.
however the Victor chooses.
Aye, I'm sure I speak for most foreigners in the world when I say "the doubtless psychopathic militia leader with few scruples who wins is not a man we want to deal with on the international stage".
don't have to be wealthy. they just have to believe in their cause.
How will they keep their campaign going?

Wait, what?

I agree there would be fewer logistical problems, but you've got to be mad if you think the rest of the world would stand by and let a dictatorial government take power in the United States. If nothing else, it'd present a serious problem for the security and safety of the rest of the world, and thus I don't see why the European Union and other democracies WOULDN'T get involved.
It would have to be a hell of a situation for the EU to get involved in. And if we're talking "at the stage when the people themselves are rising up", the government would have had to have done horribly reprehensible things, and probably to the EU. No idea, infact, of when this would ever happen.

Aye, pretty sure that PMCs will shoot at just about anyone for the money. then it's not the Government fighting back.

Aye, I'm sure I speak for most foreigners in the world when I say "the doubtless psychopathic militia leader with few scruples who wins is not a man we want to deal with on the international stage". never said the new government would be 'better in the eyes of the world'.

How will they keep their campaign going?whatever it takes.

then it's not the Government fighting back.
... well aye it is if they're hiring them...
never said the new government would be 'better in the eyes of the world'.
Aye well if you've just come out of some nightmarish dictatorial state, you'll be wanting extra wubs off the world to get your shit back together, let's be honest.
whatever it takes.
One of the principal things that it takes is cash.

It would have to be a hell of a situation for the EU to get involved in. And if we're talking "at the stage when the people themselves are rising up", the government would have had to have done horribly reprehensible things, and probably to the EU. No idea, infact, of when this would ever happen.

Indeed.

So, then, we agree.

Furthermore, we also agree this is unlikely to ever happen, and that people are overreacting when it comes to using firearms to defend against an oppressive government.

On the other hand, I do still agree with the basic principle of defending against an oppressive government. I know that I'd always choose to fight back against a government of this nature.

The thing we need to realize though is that it's not likely to happen, and we're better off using peaceful methods to prevent what little chance there is from increasing rather than going ahead and planning our revolution.

Now this is just bullshit. For so many reasons. First of all, because you legitimize an assassination of the president on the grounds that you disagree with his politics with that idea and thus nullify the democracy you pretend to protect. Secondly, because private gun ownership will not have any damned effect against a government that turns into a tyranny, open or "quiet".

I never advocated assassination. I was referring to the fact that law-abiding freedom-loving firearm owners outnumber the military at least 20:1 and are an effective deterrent to martial law. You are far too quick to make assumptions.

I don't trust my neighbors at all, and your milita is obviously not made up of human beings if you for one second think you can guarantee that none of the members of it would ever espouse violence against others except in self-defence.

Assumptive speech. The militia members I know are the most peaceful people around until there's an immediate threat. Gun owners seem on average to be far more emotionaly stable than the others in the community.

... well aye it is if they're hiring them... nope. because ultimately it will come down to one person pulling their strings.

and then you also have the chance of those mercs being hired by someone else.

Aye well if you've just come out of some nightmarish dictatorial state, you'll be wanting extra wubs off the world to get your shit back together, let's be honest.I am being honest. you're the one tossing in outlandish conditions. a change in government that is instigated by internal strife is not guarenteed to produce a government that is better than the one overthrown.

One of the principal things that it takes is cash. wrong.

Indeed.

So, then, we agree.

Furthermore, we also agree this is unlikely to ever happen, and that people are overreacting when it comes to using firearms to defend against an oppressive government.

On the other hand, I do still agree with the basic principle of defending against an oppressive government. I know that I'd always choose to fight back against a government of this nature.

The thing we need to realize though is that it's not likely to happen, and we're better off using peaceful methods to prevent what little chance there is from increasing rather than going ahead and planning our revolution.
Quite.
nope. because ultimately it will come down to one person pulling their strings.

and then you also have the chance of those mercs being hired by someone else.
Uhu. And what if the government is just a rich oligarchy with about half of the entire wealth in the US in their pockets? Can't really outmatch that.
I am being honest. you're the one tossing in outlandish conditions.
And I'm trying to be honest - owning guns will not stop government tyranny. It will just lead to people thinking that their state is constantly being checked.
a change in government that is instigated by internal strife is not guarenteed to produce a government that is better than the one overthrown.
Quite.
wrong.
*sighs*

OK then, what does it take?

Uhu. And what if the government is just a rich oligarchy with about half of the entire wealth in the US in their pockets? Can't really outmatch that. don't need to, you just need to out maneuver them.

And I'm trying to be honest - owning guns will not stop government tyranny. It will just lead to people thinking that their state is constantly being checked. again nope. owning guns won't mean the state will constantly check on you. MISUSING guns will do that. ;)

*sighs*

OK then, what does it take?
Will, Determination and Planning.

When the Americans rebelled against the British, the British had better ships, better Guns, more money and definately better training. but the Americans had the Will, and Determination.

planning can get around things like lack of money, Resources and equiptment. Only a fool goes into a stand-up fight against a superior armed force. but a smart man will deploy what he has with intelligence.

I say forget the second amendment and enforce a total firearm recall and then make the selling, manufacturing, and usage of firearms illegal with high penalties. This way we can melt down the millions of repossessed guns and sell the scrap metal to pay off the national debt. Kill two birds with one stone.

I say forget the second amendment and enforce a total firearm recall and then make the selling, manufacturing, and usage of firearms illegal with high penalties. This way we can melt down the millions of repossessed guns and sell the scrap metal to pay off the national debt. Kill two birds with one stone.

Riiiiight. And all the gang bangers will line up to turn in their gats.

1. Scrap iron isn't worth that much.

2. Only the law-abiding abide by laws.

3. Outlaw guns and I'll be an outlaw ;)

4. Will cops and soldiers disarm too? I don't trust ANY administration enough to allow them to have a gun while I'm unarmed.

5. Let's see - it's about 15 minutes average response for a 911 call. That's assuming I could call 911. It's a matter of seconds to have my shotgun ready.

6. I live in cougar country. there are also bears and wolves. I want a gun in case I am forced to face one of them despite my best efforts to avoid trouble with ol' ma nature.

I say forget the second amendment and enforce a total firearm recall and then make the selling, manufacturing, and usage of firearms illegal with high penalties. This way we can melt down the millions of repossessed guns and sell the scrap metal to pay off the national debt. Kill two birds with one stone.

Congratulations. You just caused massive riots.

It's a simple question. How do we counter the effects of the Gun Culture in the United States? Preferably without actually curtailing Second Amendment freedoms.

My first suggestion would be a comprehensive public education program, operating through schools and such, that would essentially work to deglamourize guns, and relegate them to the proper place: tools and defensive weapons, but not something to worship.

Though this has the potentiality of serious counterreacting from the NRA and similar organizations, with the possibility of acting like gay marriage in the next Presidential election.

So, what are your suggestions?
Your suggestion, but instead of getting rid of it, change it to include safety. Which a large part of it already does.

Your suggestion, but instead of getting rid of it, change it to include safety. Which a large part of it already does.

That's essentially what my suggestion does. What would remain of the Gun Culture would be more along the lines of attitudes about being safe and responsible with your firearms and not treating them as Magical Objects of Supreme Power or some jazz like that.

I say forget the second amendment and enforce a total firearm recall and then make the selling, manufacturing, and usage of firearms illegal with high penalties. This way we can melt down the millions of repossessed guns and sell the scrap metal to pay off the national debt. Kill two birds with one stone.

Sorry, but my rifle was lost in an unfortunate boating accident in Long Island Sound. ;)

Congratulations. You just caused massive riots.

More like mass uprising.

More like mass uprising.

I honestly would not be surprised.

Sadly, the results would probably be horrible anarchy. :(

Well, I can understand having a gun as masturbation material, not for protection...

edit:
Four things that would improve the gun culture in ze US would be to:
- Reality check, guns kill people. Teach 7-8 year olds that movies are fiction.
- Trust your damn government, no amount of personally owned guns is gonna make you any safer against the government and its military
- Let the professionals take care of protecting you. You waving a gun will only mean the criminal will wave a gun back at ya.
- Gang culture should be made gunfree. :p

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was a court decision somewhere along the lines (one that I only know because I've seen it sourced here before) that established that the police are not obligated to protect you.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was a court decision somewhere along the lines (one that I only know because I've seen it sourced here before) that established that the police are not obligated to protect you.

...what?

What are they there for then?

...what?

What are they there for then?To enforce the law? Protection of people is just a bonus, by their definition, I suppose.

Gun ownership and hunting might not be the problem, I agree. The depiction of violence and the glorification of guns as problem-solver are the problem. But they all come from a larger trend I see in USA: The glorification of the founders and of the constitution.

I really don't see violence stemming from the overglorification of the founders, which I do agree exists.

The mentality seems to be "Since the right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution, it MUST be good. We should have guns since the fathers of confederations deemed it important!".

Only that's not the mentality, at least where I live. Where I live the cause and effect are the other way around, the assumption is the founders put it in because owning guns is good, not that owning guns is good because the founders put it in. Of course, the US is a very large place and maybe it's like you say in some parts.

Remove the second amendment and you'll have something like Canada where there is a lot of guns, a lot of hunting and a lot gun ownership and collecting but far less gun violence. Why? I don't know. Must be the difference in education which don't hammer into our brain that the constitution is good and the framers were minor saints in their own right.

Again, I'm not seeing the connection between worship of the founders and violence.

It can't be the violence on TV or video games 'cause we watch the same shows. It must be something else. Maybe we're too far into socialism? I dunno.

I don't have the time at the moment but I'm willing to bet a comparison of poverty rates, not reported rates but poverty using the same measure in both places, would be telling.

3. The militia is not the skinhead neo-nazi racist bunch you always see on TV. The real militia is quietly underground, its members do not espouse violence against others except in self-defence, and can be trusted like you trust your neighbors. Odds are they may be your neighbors already anyway.

This is the "real militia", at least where I live.

The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.

The rump militias you're talking about (like the infamous Michigan Militia) are indeed part of the unorganized militia, but no more so than anyone else who meets the requirements no matter how much they may think otherwise.

Interestingly enough, it's 'disproportionate' in economically poor, urban areas in comparison to the rest of the nation, laws now withstanding. For example. Chicago, IL has some of the strictest laws in the nation including defacto bans on most firearms. It also has 5x the murder rate of the rest of the state (and climbing) where firearms are more common. Mostly located in 3 areas of the city.

Economic, social, and cultural factors play a much larger part than firearm ownership.

Improve schools, renovate neighborhoods, encourage job growth are just three things that can be done to lower crime rates.

So, the reason that the USA has a higher rate of gun crime is due to the fact that they don't invest in their social infrastructure the way more 'socialist' nations like Canada and the Nordic countries do?

No, that's not what's happening. The laws aren't being enforced and the repeat criminals are let loose on the streets.

How do you know the laws aren't being enforced? That seems like a big claim. If they are not being enforced, why not?

and if you're female, 18, pretty, slim and with nice tits, walking home from school/college night classes and some hoodlum with a knife shows up and wants more than your money? would you rather lie back and wait for him to finish or try to remove his balls with a barrage of .45's before the fucker reaches you?
No, you disarm him, kick him where it hurts, gouge his eyes with your thumbs or the good old pepper spray to the eyes trick.

It's also possible to carry these really loud things where all you have to do is pull the pin and it makes a lot of noise drawing attention to your plight.

At any rate, conventional weapons are most often turned against victims in suck attacks.

6. I live in cougar country. there are also bears and wolves. I want a gun in case I am forced to face one of them despite my best efforts to avoid trouble with ol' ma nature.

Be a man, take down a bear with a hunting knife!

well compulsory gun education starting young (i.e 3rd grade or so) where you just learn how to recognize a gun and what to do if you see one then up to around 10th grade the learn how one works and eventually get to shoot one (blanks of course) and even later graphic videos of what guns are capable of

That's essentially what my suggestion does. What would remain of the Gun Culture would be more along the lines of attitudes about being safe and responsible with your firearms and not treating them as Magical Objects of Supreme Power or some jazz like that.

About 10 years ago, the NRA offered the schools the Eddie Eagle program, to teach about gun safety and legal use of firearms. However, the NEA (teachers union) fought it with all they had. It was a good idea, but was never allowed to be tried in the schools.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was a court decision somewhere along the lines (one that I only know because I've seen it sourced here before) that established that the police are not obligated to protect you.

Warren v DC (1981)

Re-enforced by Castle Rock v. Gonzales

No, you disarm him, kick him where it hurts, gouge his eyes with your thumbs or the good old pepper spray to the eyes trick.

It's also possible to carry these really loud things where all you have to do is pull the pin and it makes a lot of noise drawing attention to your plight.

At any rate, conventional weapons are most often turned against victims in suck attacks.

Source?

No, you disarm him, kick him where it hurts, gouge his eyes with your thumbs or the good old pepper spray to the eyes trick.

It's also possible to carry these really loud things where all you have to do is pull the pin and it makes a lot of noise drawing attention to your plight.

At any rate, conventional weapons are most often turned against victims in suck attacks.

Damn those suck attacks

Damn those suck attacks

You know you're supposed to just lay back and enjoy them, right?

Give them what they want.

Be a man, take down a bear with a hunting knife!

Haven't you read the news? knives cause mass stabbings in Japan. No, knives are inherently dangerous and should be outlawed. :p

Funny how it seems the folks in the big cities, where a very small percentage of the total population in that city owns a firearm (and the crimes committed are nearly all by illegally obtained firearms), are always crying about gun crimes and the banning of guns or making gun ownership illegal.

I'm also think it is interesting to note that while rural areas have a higher percentage of the total population that owns a firearm, they have the smallest percentage of gun related crimes and violence. The rural firearm owners seem to also be well aware of firearm safety and proper firearm handling. It is almost as if this is really only an issue in the big cities....

Humm....

Just curious, how did you come to the 1% conclusion. Technically, isn't a self defense shooting where the aggressor dies a homicide?

Actually it is called a justified homicide.


Well, I can understand having a gun as masturbation material, not for protection...

edit:
Four things that would improve the gun culture in ze US would be to:
- Trust your damn government, no amount of personally owned guns is gonna make you any safer against the government and its military
- Let the professionals take care of protecting you. You waving a gun will only mean the criminal will wave a gun back at ya.


I snipped down your text a bit. Trust the Government...give up your freedoms for security...(sarcasm)I believe some great statesmen once said something about giving up your freedoms for security was stupid and meant that you should have neither...but I can't recall...(/sarcasm)

As for your second comment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, June 27 2005, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado, that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Police do not have a constitutional duty to "Serve and Protect" the people. The Colorado appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed later. Let the professionals take care of protecting you? The police don't have to do so if they do not feel like it. How's that fit for you?


Let the professionals take care of protecting you? Well if some yahoo breaks into your apartment/home intending on raping your kids/wife/you/dog/cat (whatever), would you just call the police and let the yahoo do whatever they wanted because...hell...Let the professionals take care of protecting you and your family? Yeah, not so much. If you didn't have a firearm, you'd go after them with anything readily available to defend you and yours. People like to use guns for defence because firearms can be intimidating. You don't have to fire a gun to make a criminal stop an obey. Just the mere sight can stop most in their tracks.

Personally, I am against this idea that guns need to be banned. I'm an avid hunter and to be perfectly honest with you, I only hunt what I am going to eat and no, I don't take any pictures of my kills or have anything mounted/stuffed. It goes from the field, to the cleaning station, to my freezer or oven or stove. Now on top of that, I couldn't see myself killing someone. Yes I have firearms. Yes I know how to use them properly. The only time I could ever see myself aiming my firearms at another human would be if they were, without a doubt, looking to harm me or my family. If I'm in a store and it is being held up, here is my wallet. In a bank? Have at the cash man, my money is federally insured so what the hell do I care? In my home uninvited? Things are going to be interesting.

Haven't you read the news? knives cause mass stabbings in Japan. No, knives are inherently dangerous and should be outlawed. :p

We all know the murder rate for knives in Japan is as high as the murder rate for guns is in the US, too!:rolleyes:

Just move to Japan. Problem solved.

Funny how it seems the folks in the big cities, where a very small percentage of the total population in that city owns a firearm, are always crying about gun crimes and the banning of guns or making gun ownership illegal.

I'm also think it is interesting to note that while rural areas have a higher percentage of the total population that owns a firearm, they have the smallest percentage of gun related crimes and violence. The rural firearm owners seem to also be well aware of firearm safety and proper firearm handling. It is almost as if this is really only an issue in the big cities....

Humm....

Yeah, that's because it is.

I live in the sticks; all of my friends (we're in our early 20s) and I have rifles, pistols, and permits to carry concealed weapons. We're part of the majority, even the larger towns have a larger group of gun owners (a lot of older people from NYC fit into this group actually). Every gun related crime gets published in the local paper, and every gun related crime involves an illegal firearm. I've not once heard about any crime committed by someone who legally owned a firearm, or who had a permit for concealed carry (which is why I previously asked if anyone knew of any statistics about crimes committed by people legally possessing firearms, because I can't seem to find any). There's been a couple instances where people were saved from harm by a person with a concealed carry permit as well.

There really isn't a gun culture around here, it's kind of an accepted fact that people have guns. It's not like we worship them or anything, but we do enjoy getting together on a weekend and going shooting, getting to know each other's guns, seeing who has the best aim, stuff like that. I think that makes us safer when we use them and makes us have a much different view of guns.

What I'm trying to say is that i believe the problem lies in that there isn't an opportunity in the city to have awareness of firearms like we do, especially from a young age. The only awareness that they have in the city is that of violence, and gangs with guns kill (generalization).

Silly city slickers ... guns are for us country folk.

Let the professionals take care of protecting you? Well if some yahoo breaks into your apartment/home intending on raping your kids/wife/you/dog/cat (whatever), would you just call the police and let the yahoo do whatever they wanted because...hell...Let the professionals take care of protecting you and your family? Yeah, not so much. If you didn't have a firearm, you'd go after them with anything readily available to defend you and yours. People like to use guns for defence because firearms can be intimidating. You don't have to fire a gun to make a criminal stop an obey. Just the mere sight can stop most in their tracks.

And what about calling 9-1-1/9-9-9? Even with the best computer aided dispatch equipment, and under ideal situations (which are almost non existent at almost all 9-1-1 centers) it takes about 1 to 3 minutes to process the call. This will depend mostly on how hysterical the caller is, and can they give us the right location of where the crime is occurring; and about 10-15 seconds to give the call to the officers. If you are in the city, the response time can be anywhere from 3-5 minutes, if the officers assigned to the area of the call are not tied up on other calls. And if you happen to live out in the county with no city police, it takes anywhere from 10-20 minutes for a sheriff deputy to get there.

The officers will respond in emergency mode, and they will bust their asses to get to you. But the reality is that unless the officer is right there (almost never), it takes 4-8 minutes on a great day to get help to you. And that is a very long time when you are getting your ass kicked and fighting for your life.

Of course, we could demand that our district attorneys and judges enforce the laws that we have on the books instead of pleading every case.

Yeah, that's because it is.

I live in the sticks; all of my friends (we're in our early 20s) and I have rifles, pistols, and permits to carry concealed weapons. We're part of the majority, even the larger towns have a larger group of gun owners (a lot of older people from NYC fit into this group actually). Every gun related crime gets published in the local paper, and every gun related crime involves an illegal firearm. I've not once heard about any crime committed by someone who legally owned a firearm, or who had a permit for concealed carry (which is why I previously asked if anyone knew of any statistics about crimes committed by people legally possessing firearms, because I can't seem to find any). There's been a couple instances where people were saved from harm by a person with a concealed carry permit as well.

There really isn't a gun culture around here, it's kind of an accepted fact that people have guns. It's not like we worship them or anything, but we do enjoy getting together on a weekend and going shooting, getting to know each other's guns, seeing who has the best aim, stuff like that. I think that makes us safer when we use them and makes us have a much different view of guns.

What I'm trying to say is that i believe the problem lies in that there isn't an opportunity in the city to have awareness of firearms like we do, especially from a young age. The only awareness that they have in the city is that of violence, and gangs with guns kill (generalization).

Where I live, a permit is required for concealed carry, but there are no restrictions on open carry whatsoever except for in government buildings and such. And the last murder committed in the area was with a hammer. Yeah, the pervasive gun culture really endangers everyone. According to CNN (hey, at least I'm not citing FOX :p ) a hunter is three times as likely to die from a heart attack as a stray bullet while in the field. The worst gun crime problems per capita are in cities with the most restrictive gun laws. Drop the gun restrictions and criminals will decide crime is too risky. Occupational hazards increasing dramatically along with no additional gain? Simple economics even a hoodlum can understand.

About 10 years ago, the NRA offered the schools the Eddie Eagle program, to teach about gun safety and legal use of firearms. However, the NEA (teachers union) fought it with all they had. It was a good idea, but was never allowed to be tried in the schools.

Right idea, wrong application. Schools are probably not an appropriate environment for that because the last thing we need to do is encourage even more child use of firearms.

I'd say, if you have to do that, have it at upper highschool/college level instead.

Right idea, wrong application. Schools are probably not an appropriate environment for that because the last thing we need to do is encourage even more child use of firearms.

I'd say, if you have to do that, have it at upper highschool/college level instead.

Why not, I'd argue that the problems arise from irresponsible use of firearms, education is a way to try to eliminate that.

Right idea, wrong application. Schools are probably not an appropriate environment for that because the last thing we need to do is encourage even more child use of firearms.

I'd say, if you have to do that, have it at upper highschool/college level instead.

As far as I can recall about Eddie Eagle is that it's message was "if you see it, leave it alone and call an adult".

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Actually, I just looked it up. Here's the NRA's site. If the site description is truthful, then it actually seems to be a phenomenally well balanced and well intentioned program to try to keep kids safe.

Right idea, wrong application. Schools are probably not an appropriate environment for that because the last thing we need to do is encourage even more child use of firearms. I'd say, if you have to do that, have it at upper highschool/college level instead.
I've passed both the Army TRADOC rifle safety test for high school marksmen, and the Alabama hunter safety course. Both of which focus primarly on firearm safety, maintenance, and operation.
I have never been involved in a firearm accident of any sort. Mostly because of what I was taught by studying for those test.
I took the AHSC in 10th grade, and have taken the TRADOC test every grade since 9th grade. :p

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Actually, I just looked it up. Here's the NRA's site. If the site description is truthful, then it actually seems to be a phenomenally well balanced and well intentioned program to try to keep kids safe.

...

Oh I see...that's not exactly the impression I had gotten.

In that case, I find this program highly approvable, and would gladly encourage its utilization in schools.

Right idea, wrong application. Schools are probably not an appropriate environment for that because the last thing we need to do is encourage even more child use of firearms.

I'd say, if you have to do that, have it at upper highschool/college level instead.

But grade school sex ed is OK?

Education is what cures societal ills, right? Saying something is taboo is primitive superstition, right? Gun safety classes are a very sensible school program.

nope, just the psychological one of ordering soldiers to fire upon fellow Americans.

Didn't do squat when it came to the Civil War did it now? And you can always draw on the ranks of the "KILL THE COMMIE TRAITOR AMERICANS!" crowd.


When the Americans rebelled against the British, the British had better ships, better Guns, more money and definately better training. but the Americans had the Will, and Determination.

They also had French shipments of gunpowder, muskets and other war material. And the British also had to contend with French and Spanish, superpowers of the time, attacking their assets.

Where are you going to find the help of a superpower here I wonder? Especially one who won't wait until both sides have exhausted themselves and then come in and scoop all the loot.

But grade school sex ed is OK?

Education is what cures societal ills, right? Saying something is taboo is primitive superstition, right? Gun safety classes are a very sensible school program.
You'll forgive me. I misunderstood how the class was to be taught. My issue was with the potentiality that it might encourage more children to try to mess with firearms, when children and firearms do not belong together.

But since it teaches exactly what I want...

(And I'm not sure where you're getting this idea about grade school sex education...education about avoiding strangers and what to do if someone tries to molest you, sure, but I don't think sex education belongs in elementary school. When the children start maturing, yeah, that's when it gets taught.)

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Actually, I just looked it up. Here's the NRA's site. If the site description is truthful, then it actually seems to be a phenomenally well balanced and well intentioned program to try to keep kids safe.

However, the NRA is not considered to be "PC", so the NEA does not want any part of the Eddie Eagle program in any public school nationwide. Too bad that a program that promotes safety is being kept out of the schools.

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

Actually, I just looked it up. Here's the NRA's site. If the site description is truthful, then it actually seems to be a phenomenally well balanced and well intentioned program to try to keep kids safe.

The NRA is the largest political organization in the US.(That or the AARP im too lazy to look it up) This is not a group of nutjobs and fringe lunatics but instead a cross section of mainstream America. Most members are loving parents who want their children to safely enjoy a hobby that they themselves enjoy, just like any other parent does with any other child.

I don't think that accidental shootings are the main problem in the US (not that it is a problem). I think the real problem is the 'gun culture' that surrounds guns in the US. Most Americans don't realize it but in Canada we have a lot of guns, about half unregistered (even though it's against the law) -- and we don't have nearly the number of shootings.

I don't know the numbers in the states but in Canada about 27% (according to Wikipedia) have licensed firearms. In the boonies, where I used to live, I'd say gun ownership was higher than 50% and the majority were unregistered... And *all* of them were either rifles or shotguns. It's also just plain illegal to carry concealed firearm in Canada ...

Statistically it seem that guns and cities don't mix well... It's the minority of gun owners that are the problem - criminals. And we have those in Canada as well ...
But *I think* the main reason we have fewer shootings is because It's not *cool* to have a gun.

I know it's stupid but I think that in the US if your in a gang or if you want to seem tough ... you have to have a gun. That means that all the wrong people have guns. The thinking among Canadian criminals is different -- it's not so much about looking cool or survival in a shootout it's about what happens if your caught with carrying a gun. Just having a gun is a liability because it's something the police can charge you for ...

The end result is more stabbings than shootings in Canada.

As for gun control. I dont think it's so bad -- but I do think it's important to allow the public to be armed. But perhaps it is taken too far in america... I mean why do you need to have a pistol ... or a macine gun? And why should you be allowed to carry a wepon inside you jacket ...it's just asking for trouble if you ask me.

That would be infringement of the right. By your logic, you could say that "everyone could have a wooden stick, but not a knife".

Banning heavy weapons, while technically an infringement, is justifiable by relative lack of lawful purposes for them. Personal firearms have perfectly lawful purposes.

Ahem... Isn't one of the purposes of possessing weapons that of keeping the government from taking too many libertyes from the people?

Anyways, the statement everyone could have a wooden stick, but not a knife is equal to everyone could have a knife, but not a gun is equal to everyone could have a gun, but not an RPG is equal to everyone could have an RPG, but not an attack helicopter and so on.
I don't understand the reason why you justify one limitation and not the other.

Gun violence isn't really a problem amongst people who actually care about the second amendment. Gun violence is worst in areas that vote against guns.

Gun violence isn't really a problem amongst people who actually care about the second amendment. Gun violence is worst in areas that vote against guns.Hmm, lets check... Googling 'shooting spree'... Lessee what we got here, Washington state, Minnesota, Tennesee, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado...that's just in the first coupla pages..... those are all strict gun control states right.....


Oh...wait..... they're not.

Hmm, lets check... Googling 'shooting spree'... Lessee what we got here, Washington state, Minnesota, Tennesee, Virginia, Michigan, Colorado...that's just in the first coupla pages..... those are all strict gun control states right.....


Oh...wait..... they're not.

And just where did the 'shooting spree's ' occur in said states? What were the local ordinances?

And just where did the 'shooting spree's ' occur in said states? What were the local ordinances?Grasping at straws?
What 'local ordinance' is gonna make a difference if some kid wants to go into a mall or his school with a rifle or shotgun?
I literally gleaned that bit in 45 seconds on google, simply making sure the reference was to firearms, it involved multiple shootings and it happened in the last couple of years. I never went beyond the third page and I didn't include one's in New Jersey and Seattle. If you want the specifics, google it yourself, but I really doubt you're gonna find any of 'em were in tightly regulated cities or townships. I'm not gonna bother, I'm off to bed in a couple of minutes and it's really not that important to me...

Didn't do squat when it came to the Civil War did it now? And you can always draw on the ranks of the "KILL THE COMMIE TRAITOR AMERICANS!" crowd. are you sure? can you honestly say that those Union and Confederate soldiers were not hesitant?

Add to how fast first hand accounts can be spread and how hard it is to keep the truth covered. comparing morale between the civil war and now is like comparing moldy apples to fresh oranges.

They also had French shipments of gunpowder, muskets and other war material. And the British also had to contend with French and Spanish, superpowers of the time, attacking their assets.Thanks for proving my point.

British forces still held their own while dealing with the rebellious Americans as well as the French and Spanish interferrence only shows how good they were. also, the French and Spanish did NOT bring their full might into play. they were only assisting the Americans with supplies, some training and very little more.

Where are you going to find the help of a superpower here I wonder? Especially one who won't wait until both sides have exhausted themselves and then come in and scoop all the loot.
Which goes back to my answer to Yootopia's question. ;)

Grasping at straws?
What 'local ordinance' is gonna make a difference if some kid wants to go into a mall or his school with a rifle or shotgun?
I literally gleaned that bit in 45 seconds on google, simply making sure the reference was to firearms, it involved multiple shootings and it happened in the last couple of years. I never went beyond the third page and I didn't include one's in New Jersey and Seattle. If you want the specifics, google it yourself, but I really doubt you're gonna find any of 'em were in tightly regulated cities or townships. I'm not gonna bother, I'm off to bed in a couple of minutes and it's really not that important to me...

Of course you're not going to bother because most of the 'shooting spree's ' have been in 'gun free zones' like schools, malls, or churches. At least you admit that the laws won't make a difference.

Of course you also forget about Chicago, which has just re-gained the city w/ the largest number of murders, most by firearms.

British forces still held their own while dealing with the rebellious Americans as well as the French and Spanish interferrence only shows how good they were. also, the French and Spanish did NOT bring their full might into play. they were only assisting the Americans with supplies, some training and very little more.

I'm sorry, what? The British were fighting the French, Spanish and their allies around the globe. It wasn't full, open war but it was certainly a large, difficult conflict for the British. Globally there were more French and Spanish regulars involved than the US had regulars.

The French intervention was initially maritime in nature and indecisive but was turned absolute when in 1780, 6,000 soldiers of Rochambeau were sent to America. In 1779, 6,000 French had already faced 3,000 British in the Battle of Savannah, but the French attack was too precipitated and badly prepared, which led to its eventual failure. The Battle of the Chesapeake (1781) caused a part of the British fleet to flee, destroyed the remainder, and encircled Cornwallis in Yorktown, where he hopelessly awaited the promised British reinforcements. Cornwallis was trapped between American and French forces on land and the French fleet on the sea. The French alliance was crucial in the decisive victory of the Patriots at Yorktown (October 17, 1781), which could not have been achieved if not for the French Navy under Admiral François Joseph Paul de Grasse. After useless counters, Cornwallis formally surrendered on (October 19, 1781). The major fighting was now over and only some skirmishes were left. Britain, however, would not formally end the war until 1783.

Over important naval battles between the French and the British were spaced out around the globe. In the ensuing battles, the British and French confronted one another for the domination of the Antilles, which France lost to Britain after the 1782 Battle of the Saints. The combined Spanish and French forces were able to defeat the British and successfully capture Minorca in February of 1782. In India, the Kingdom of Mysore, allied with the French, were able to successfully overpower the British. The French regained control of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon from the British in 1783. However, the Great Siege of Gibraltar was a failed attempt by the French and Spanish to regain the Gibraltar peninsula from the British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#French_Involvement

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#War_fronts

As well as other conflicts (sparked by our revolutionary war, I might add) the British had to contend with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Mysore_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War

The NRA is the largest political organization in the US.(That or the AARP im too lazy to look it up) This is not a group of nutjobs and fringe lunatics but instead a cross section of mainstream America. Most members are loving parents who want their children to safely enjoy a hobby that they themselves enjoy, just like any other parent does with any other child.

I thought it was the NAAPC or American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)...Hey I learned something new! Thanks (no sarcasm)

Grasping at straws?
What 'local ordinance' is gonna make a difference if some kid wants to go into a mall or his school with a rifle or shotgun?
I literally gleaned that bit in 45 seconds on google, simply making sure the reference was to firearms, it involved multiple shootings and it happened in the last couple of years. I never went beyond the third page and I didn't include one's in New Jersey and Seattle. If you want the specifics, google it yourself, but I really doubt you're gonna find any of 'em were in tightly regulated cities or townships. I'm not gonna bother, I'm off to bed in a couple of minutes and it's really not that important to me...

So you admit that the crimes commiteed are by people who illegally obtained a firearm for the express purpose of committing a crime.

So banning firearms from lawabidding people makes complete and utter sense. You know, because that guy that hunts upland game (birds like pheasent and quail), water fowl (like ducks or geese), or big game (deer or elk), is really the guy we want to take firearms away from. The guy that participates in accuracy competitions and skeet/clay target competitions is really the guy who should have laws placed against him.

You know those folks are the real problem with firearm ownership. It's not the shady dealers or illegal black-market dealers offering guns to crazy people. It's can't be criminals that laugh at the gun laws already in place, and only know enough about firearms in how to load them and which end to point away from themselves.

It is like the anti-gun crowd never thinks beyond their own narrow view of the world and realize that by making gun ownership by private citizens illegal will do nothing to end gun crimes. I think DC is a prime example of this where guns were illegal but they had a very high level of gun related crimes happening daily.

Guns are not something to fear. They are to be respected and treated approprately. It is the burglers, muggers, gang-bangers, Mobsters, and other criminals that you need to fear. Even if you eliminated all firearms with a wave of your hand, you know that crime wouldn't stop.

Criminals would go on using knives instead. Gang-bangers would go back to the 60-70's style gang fights with bats, pipes, razors, broken bottles, chains and all sorts of other weapons.

I want to point out the fact that England did ban guns (or was it just london?) and what happened? A sharp increase in knife related violence. Home invasions shot through the roof and criminals became more violent physically.

Instead of gun laws that do nothing to curb any gun violence, how about outlawing gangs? How about laws that make it a felony to be in a gang? Automatic 5-10 years in prision for using a weapon during the commission of any violent crime. Minimum 10 years in jail and life-time parole for anyone that uses a gun in a commission of a crime.

Things like that may help more than the laws you have now. I'm not going to willingly give up my rights to a hunting rifle (which is basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16) or my hunting shotgun (which is a semi-automatic version of an automatic assult shotgun used by police), just so you can have an illusion of safety.

I want to also point out the North Hollywood shootout. Bank robbers armed with automatic weapons (illegally bought and illegally modified), steel-core ammunition (imported) and armored vests (illegally purchased materials to create their own armor) didn't care about gun laws. They bought their goods from black markets dealers and shady importers. Not a single gun law helped stop this incident. Not a single gun law stopped any of the school shootings.

What do you think will happen by making guns illegal? You honestly, in your heart and mind, believe that gun crimes will end? That violence in the city will end and you will be as safe as someone living in a small town in rural North Dakota or Nebraska is?

I'm sorry, what? The British were fighting the French, Spanish and their allies around the globe. It wasn't full, open war but it was certainly a large, difficult conflict for the British. Globally there were more French and Spanish regulars involved than the US had regulars.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#French_Involvement

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_in_the_American_Revolutionary_War#War_fronts

As well as other conflicts (sparked by our revolutionary war, I might add) the British had to contend with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Mysore_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Anglo-Dutch_War

true, but it doesn't negate my point.

true, but it doesn't negate my point.

You mean the fact that the French and Spanish (especially the French) assisted the Americans with troops, naval support and the opening of several new fronts doesn't negate your point that the French and Spanish didn't do any of those things?

You mean the fact that the French and Spanish (especially the French) assisted the Americans with troops, naval support and the opening of several new fronts doesn't negate your point that the French and Spanish didn't do any of those things?

that wasn't the point. the point was that the British were better trained than the Americans, had better equiptment and could feild larger forces.

yet the Americans still fought on while being broke, hungry and ill-equipted.

I want to point out the fact that England did ban guns (or was it just london?) and what happened? A sharp increase in knife related violence. Home invasions shot through the roof and criminals became more violent physically.

Completely unrelated. Hardly anyone actually had a gun before they were banned, and even then, self defence wasn't a valid reason to own one.

It's not as if criminals suddenly realised they could break into any house they wanted because nobody had a gun. Nobody had a gun anyway.

The gun ban in the UK is kind of an irrelevance, because it wasn't meant to stop gun crime, and doesn't really affect most people's lives. It was just the result of public outcry and media hysteria over guns, after some nutter went into a school in Scotland and shot some little kids. It went through because nobody really had any reason to oppose it.

that wasn't the point. the point was that the British were better trained than the Americans, had better equiptment and could feild larger forces.

yet the Americans still fought on while being broke, hungry and ill-equipted.

Yes, and without the assistance of the French and Spanish, as well as the British being occupied with several other wars, we'd have lost.

And now with the US army busy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and various outposts in dozens of other countries it'd be that much easier to overthrow a rogue US government! It'll be 1776 all over again!

1776 is the answer to 1984, you know.

Yes, and without the assistance of the French and Spanish, as well as the British being occupied with several other wars, we'd have lost.

and your point?

and your point?

Actually, I'm curious as to yours.

Actually, I'm curious as to yours.

it was commented that money is the backbone of every fight. even a fight against the Government who would also have more men and better weapons.

my point is that it's not the weapons, nor the cash flow, but the will of the fighters that determine who wins.

my example was that America, at the start of the revolution, was poor, ill-equipted and out numbered yet they still fought because they believed in the cause and had the will to fight.

if the fighters don't believe in their cause, then they won't win. no matter HOW much money or resources they have.

if the fighters don't believe in their cause, then they won't win. no matter HOW much money or resources they have.

So what you're saying is, an army of heavily armed, well supplied mercenaries can never defeat a starving rabble of zealots?

So you admit that the crimes commiteed are by people who illegally obtained a firearm for the express purpose of committing a crime.

So banning firearms from lawabidding people makes complete and utter sense. You know, because that guy that hunts upland game (birds like pheasent and quail), water fowl (like ducks or geese), or big game (deer or elk), is really the guy we want to take firearms away from. The guy that participates in accuracy competitions and skeet/clay target competitions is really the guy who should have laws placed against him.

You know those folks are the real problem with firearm ownership. It's not the shady dealers or illegal black-market dealers offering guns to crazy people. It's can't be criminals that laugh at the gun laws already in place, and only know enough about firearms in how to load them and which end to point away from themselves.

It is like the anti-gun crowd never thinks beyond their own narrow view of the world and realize that by making gun ownership by private citizens illegal will do nothing to end gun crimes. I think DC is a prime example of this where guns were illegal but they had a very high level of gun related crimes happening daily.

Guns are not something to fear. They are to be respected and treated approprately. It is the burglers, muggers, gang-bangers, Mobsters, and other criminals that you need to fear. Even if you eliminated all firearms with a wave of your hand, you know that crime wouldn't stop.

Criminals would go on using knives instead. Gang-bangers would go back to the 60-70's style gang fights with bats, pipes, razors, broken bottles, chains and all sorts of other weapons.

I want to point out the fact that England did ban guns (or was it just london?) and what happened? A sharp increase in knife related violence. Home invasions shot through the roof and criminals became more violent physically.

Instead of gun laws that do nothing to curb any gun violence, how about outlawing gangs? How about laws that make it a felony to be in a gang? Automatic 5-10 years in prision for using a weapon during the commission of any violent crime. Minimum 10 years in jail and life-time parole for anyone that uses a gun in a commission of a crime.

Things like that may help more than the laws you have now. I'm not going to willingly give up my rights to a hunting rifle (which is basically a semi-automatic version of the M-16) or my hunting shotgun (which is a semi-automatic version of an automatic assult shotgun used by police), just so you can have an illusion of safety.

I want to also point out the North Hollywood shootout. Bank robbers armed with automatic weapons (illegally bought and illegally modified), steel-core ammunition (imported) and armored vests (illegally purchased materials to create their own armor) didn't care about gun laws. They bought their goods from black markets dealers and shady importers. Not a single gun law helped stop this incident. Not a single gun law stopped any of the school shootings.

What do you think will happen by making guns illegal? You honestly, in your heart and mind, believe that gun crimes will end? That violence in the city will end and you will be as safe as someone living in a small town in rural North Dakota or Nebraska is?

Well said.

So what you're saying is, an army of heavily armed, well supplied mercenaries can never defeat a starving rabble of zealots?

depending on alot of things.

yes.


if those starving rabble of zealots play their cards right, they can pull public opinion against the army of well armed mercs.

if those starving rabble employ the right tactics, they can outlast the Mercs and even pull a victory.

if you're only thinking of a straight, stand-up firefight in an open field. then the rabble gives up all their advantages to the mercs and thus deserve to lose.

a fight or battle isn't just two forces meeting on an open field. it can be door to door with innocents in the way. and I'll bet you the mercs would not be looked upon with friendly eyes when innocents start dying.

I think the best way to stop gun violence in the USA would be to focus on alleviating poverty in urban areas. So, it would be a good idea to invest in things like public healthcare, public education, urban infrastructure like playgrounds and community centres, public libraries, affirmative action programs, and other such measures.

Once we've done this, the causes of crime will be gone, and gun crime will be a thing of the past. Then we can repeal most, if not all, of the gun control laws.

So, all you gun enthusiasts, remember to support a healthy social welfare program!

Easy solution per Chris Rock- Charge $5000 a bullet. There would never be bystander shootings if bullets each cost $5000. If it costs $5000 to shoot something then that thing must be real important.

Easy solution per Chris Rock- Charge $5000 a bullet. There would never be bystander shootings if bullets each cost $5000. If it costs $5000 to shoot something then that thing must be real important.

That won't work, as it's not rocket science to make your own ammunition.

That won't work, as it's not rocket science to make your own ammunition.
As proven by all the not-any-kind-of-scientists doing it.

As proven by all the not-any-kind-of-scientists doing it.

Yes

You know, my friend does a lot of handloading of his cartridges. I think it does save him money, and once well versed, it gives him quite a bit of fine-tuning control over his rounds.

That said, I find it too much of a pain in the ass. If I go to my part time job for an hour, I earn enough for fifty rounds of all but the most exotic rounds. Once you figure in brass, primeser, powder, cleaning medium, etc, even if you amortize the cost of the press and dies to almost nothing, its just not cost effective for me.

Still, I'm told there is a level of precision that benefits greatly from custom loads.

I think the best way to stop gun violence in the USA would be to focus on alleviating poverty in urban areas. So, it would be a good idea to invest in things like public healthcare, public education, urban infrastructure like playgrounds and community centres, public libraries, affirmative action programs, and other such measures.

Once we've done this, the causes of crime will be gone, and gun crime will be a thing of the past. Then we can repeal most, if not all, of the gun control laws.

So, all you gun enthusiasts, remember to support a healthy social welfare program!

*crickets chirping*

I think the best way to stop gun violence in the USA would be to focus on alleviating poverty in urban areas. So, it would be a good idea to invest in things like public healthcare, public education, urban infrastructure like playgrounds and community centres, public libraries, affirmative action programs, and other such measures.

Once we've done this, the causes of crime will be gone, and gun crime will be a thing of the past. Then we can repeal most, if not all, of the gun control laws.

So, all you gun enthusiasts, remember to support a healthy social welfare program!
I agree to an extent. I should point out, however, that these problems aren't going to automagically disappear, and they will go through a long period of painful decreasing.

A long period, I should point out, where people will probably try to say that "It's not working, so forget it."

are you sure? can you honestly say that those Union and Confederate soldiers were not hesitant?

At shooting at people shooting at them? Not very much, given the number of casualties produced.


Add to how fast first hand accounts can be spread and how hard it is to keep the truth covered. comparing morale between the civil war and now is like comparing moldy apples to fresh oranges.

It's actually very easy to suppress information if you are the formal structure for the entire information network. Graphite bombs will kill unhardened electrical power sources and electronics, and you can always blow up primary network hubs or shut off/shoot down communications satellites.


Thanks for proving my point.


It doesn't actually, since your point was all about how "will and determination" trumps superior weapons, numbers and force projection ability.

A more modern example of that would be Japan some 60 years ago. No one can deny that they had incredible will and determination to win, whatever the cost. They still lost to superior numbers, tactics and weapons.


British forces still held their own while dealing with the rebellious Americans as well as the French and Spanish interferrence only shows how good they were. also, the French and Spanish did NOT bring their full might into play. they were only assisting the Americans with supplies, some training and very little more.

The French and Spanish were quite busy raiding Britain, meaning Britain had to split resources between the two fronts, and only gave up because they were more worried about Napoleon. If Napoleon and the other superpowers of the time were busy elsewhere, Britain could have brought in greater force on the colonials, crushing them utterly.

And it was also the aid of the French Navy that helped cut off British reinforcements to their fortifications in the Americas might I remind you.

A truly despotic government of America unconcerned about collateral damage would probably not even bother with direct infantry level engagement beyond containment tactics in a civil war. Contain rebellious cities and then begin a campaign of chemical warfare. At the end of the day, what few survivors are left can be rooted out from their hiding places with liberal use of infantry level thermobaric weapons, flamethrowers and demolition charges.

In fact, it could quite simply decide to appear harmless, allow the rebellious people to gather in one location by appearing to retreat, and then drop a strategic nuclear weapon on it, claiming it to be the act of the rebels.

Any successful rebellion against a first world country will require the aid of external help, be it weapons, supplies or training. And it will not be small quantities of it either, or just at the small arms level. Without that, it will inevitably fail.

*snip*

Napoleon only took power 16 years after the American Revolution. Why were the British worried about him?

I think the best way to stop gun violence in the USA would be to focus on alleviating poverty in urban areas. So, it would be a good idea to invest in things like public healthcare, public education, urban infrastructure like playgrounds and community centres, public libraries, affirmative action programs, and other such measures.

Once we've done this, the causes of crime will be gone, and gun crime will be a thing of the past. Then we can repeal most, if not all, of the gun control laws.

So, all you gun enthusiasts, remember to support a healthy social welfare program!

I'm a gun enthusiast and a socialist so yeah, I do agree.

Also, I promise I'll get back to your points, JuNii.

At shooting at people shooting at them? Not very much, given the number of casualties produced. "fighting" takes on many forms. the devil is in the details. you're thinking direct combat only.

It's actually very easy to suppress information if you are the formal structure for the entire information network. Graphite bombs will kill unhardened electrical power sources and electronics, and you can always blow up primary network hubs or shut off/shoot down communications satellites. and yet information still manages to get out.

It doesn't actually, since your point was all about how "will and determination" trumps superior weapons, numbers and force projection ability. nope, again not my point.

A more modern example of that would be Japan some 60 years ago. No one can deny that they had incredible will and determination to win, whatever the cost. They still lost to superior numbers, tactics and weapons. nope. they lost because their Emperor "lost the will to fight".

A truly despotic government of America unconcerned about collateral damage would probably not even bother with direct infantry level engagement beyond containment tactics in a civil war. Contain rebellious cities and then begin a campaign of chemical warfare. At the end of the day, what few survivors are left can be rooted out from their hiding places with liberal use of infantry level thermobaric weapons, flamethrowers and demolition charges. like say... Vietnam?

In fact, it could quite simply decide to appear harmless, allow the rebellious people to gather in one location by appearing to retreat, and then drop a strategic nuclear weapon on it, claiming it to be the act of the rebels. and the Government won't be sure 1) such a lie would be believed. 2) they got "all" of the rebels.

and should a nuclear weapon be used, you can bet international scruitiny will be applied. "How did those 'rebels' get their hands on Nuclear weapons." then when the truth is uncovered, you can bet the rebellion would gain more power than the government.

Any successful rebellion against a first world country will require the aid of external help, be it weapons, supplies or training. And it will not be small quantities of it either, or just at the small arms level. Without that, it will inevitably fail.again, you are thinking a stand-up, in your face, fight in a 'standard' battlefeild.

Also, I promise I'll get back to your points, JuNii.
fine, but not really necessary. since it's seems to be rather off topic.

I never advocated assassination.
Don't be dishonest. You were implicitly.

I was referring to the fact that law-abiding freedom-loving firearm owners outnumber the military at least 20:1 and are an effective deterrent to martial law. You are far too quick to make assumptions.
Uh-huh. The "law-abiding freedom-loving firearm owners" who would be ready to break the laws if they were having "disagreements" with the government. Yep. Sure. And none of them would ever dream of, you know, joining the side of despotism. Because gun owners are a collective hive mind and are all thinking the same.

I would bet you that a fair share of your "law-abiding freedom-loving firearm owners" wouldn't mind seeing the right president becoming President for life.

And why would it be a deterrent for martial law? Should the government think twice about instituting martial law in a time of crisis now as well?


Assumptive speech. The militia members I know are the most peaceful people around until there's an immediate threat.
Sure they are. I bet the have a wide definition of what an "immediate threat" is though.

Gun owners seem on average to be far more emotionaly stable than the others in the community.
The seem to be quite the opposite, actually.

america has the highest death rate by guns in the first world. So there needs to be a scape goat pick some out of

a) Gun lobby
I blame them as they are close to the politicians

b) politicians
Well they seem happy with the current soft laws but the public votes for them

c) Illegal gun ownership
Because only illegal guns kill people? Yeah right. most are legal altho illegal contributes

d) video games
Hell no. Thats a sad right wing excuse for me. Ignorance causes violence not video games. Thinking of it its almost mid day. Time for Grand theft auto 2

e) media
By showing shooting deaths they create copy cats? kind of true I think but people should know regardless

f) violent history
Worst excuse ever. Germany? Russia? Japan?

g) general low intelligence
Well for Americans im sure alot will agree but I blame culture not IQ

h) lack of gun ownership
There have been laws passed to force gun ownership to stop gun deaths. Somehow if everyone can shoot each other there are less shots fired. Go figure

"fighting" takes on many forms. the devil is in the details. you're thinking direct combat only.

Ghandi esque resistance? Perhaps. Sabotage? Perhaps. It all falls apart if the government decides it is easier to kill all suspected resistance members at the city level.


and yet information still manages to get out.


Because there hasn't been a true effort to suppress information yet. China comes close, but isn't doing so thoroughly.

Shut down the ISPs, the private telcos, and before long, you'll be left with only word of mouth and letters to.


nope, again not my point.


And what is your point then, if not the argument of "will" versus "superior force"?


nope. they lost because their Emperor "lost the will to fight".


Hardly. Japan was already losing. It could barely defend its cities, military assets dwindling to the point of near non-existence it's populace starving, most preferring to kill themselves en mass than face the horrors they believed the Americans would inflict on them, helped in no small part by the American practice of taking Japanese human bones as trophies and necklaces, and the practice of firebombing had taken monstrous casualties on its civilian populace.

The surrender was merely the final step of acknowledgment that it had lost. If it had not, it wouldn't have faced losing. Japan would have faced wholesale annihilation.

Even then, the Emperor's intention to announce a formal surrender was strongly opposed by certain parts of the military high command, and IIRC, was only barely prevented from stopping the announcement.

Saying that they lost because their Emperor "lost the will to fight" is a rose tinted view of history, the bloody mess it has left behind, and quite handily spits on the dead.


like say... Vietnam?


Name an instance in Vietnam wherein the VietCong were allowed to gather in major cities before a widespread campaign of chemical warfare (poison gas not defoilant) was launched on them. Agent Orange and the atrocities wrought by American troops then do not come close to what I describe.


and the Government won't be sure 1) such a lie would be believed. 2) they got "all" of the rebels.

Winners write history. Or rather, who is left writes history.

And one doesn't need to get "all" of them. One only needs to get most of them, in a display of horrific carnage so great, it would create an environment of fear strong enough that the few who would question the official history, or rebel, would never speak out.


and should a nuclear weapon be used, you can bet international scruitiny will be applied. "How did those 'rebels' get their hands on Nuclear weapons." then when the truth is uncovered, you can bet the rebellion would gain more power than the government.

And how would the international community speak to the citizenry? The internet is easy to block out totally, as are international lines. Satellites can be shot down, and radio waves jammed.

Or are you proposing that the international community start an invasion hmm?


again, you are thinking a stand-up, in your face, fight in a 'standard' battlefeild.

The argument was about what value firearms would have in the event of a despotic government correct? Then there would be a fight, be it an outright rebellion or an insurgency. Trying to imply that it would be only a stand up fight for my examples is silly and misleading.

Unless of course, you completely give up the idea that an armed citizenry would be able to topple such a government, and merely reduce itself to nuisance level guerrilla activity.

I think the best way to stop gun violence in the USA would be to focus on alleviating poverty in urban areas. So, it would be a good idea to invest in things like public healthcare, public education, urban infrastructure like playgrounds and community centres, public libraries, affirmative action programs, and other such measures.

Once we've done this, the causes of crime will be gone, and gun crime will be a thing of the past. Then we can repeal most, if not all, of the gun control laws.

So, all you gun enthusiasts, remember to support a healthy social welfare program!

I don't agree with your prescriptions, but your heart is in the right place.

Has anyone accurately defined "gun culture" yet? Sounds like it's being used as a synonym of "crime" judging by the first few pages. Whether you're talking about gun collectors or hunters or trap shooting enthusiasts makes some difference. The black market trade in guns and gun violence in general probably isn't a matter of culture.

Has anyone accurately defined "gun culture" yet? Sounds like it's being used as a synonym of "crime" judging by the first few pages. Whether you're talking about gun collectors or hunters or trap shooting enthusiasts makes some difference. The black market trade in guns and gun violence in general probably isn't a matter of culture.

Uh, I accurately defined gun culture quite extensively.

Basically, the gun culture is the concept that owning a gun makes one super cool, that everyone will look upon you as if you are that, and it deifies guns to a super extent, making people care so much about their guns and their 2nd Amendment rights that they ignore everything else.

Along these lines, I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a bit on how a lot of people are buying up as many semi-automatic and automatic weapons as they can before Obama gets elected, because they're "really scared he'll take away their 2nd Amendment rights."

This is what I mean. It's ridiculous.

Uh, I accurately defined gun culture quite extensively.

Basically, the gun culture is the concept that owning a gun makes one super cool, that everyone will look upon you as if you are that, and it deifies guns to a super extent, making people care so much about their guns and their 2nd Amendment rights that they ignore everything else.

Along these lines, I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a bit on how a lot of people are buying up as many semi-automatic and automatic weapons as they can before Obama gets elected, because they're "really scared he'll take away their 2nd Amendment rights."

This is what I mean. It's ridiculous.

Stocking up on guns is a little weird. But being concerned about Constitutional Rights in this country is not.

Stocking up on guns is a little weird. But being concerned about Constitutional Rights in this country is not.

No, it's not.

It's the amount of concern, the sheer overwhelmingness of the concern that is the problem. Obama is not going to remove all 2nd Amendment Rights, and no form of gun control could ever get away with that in this country.

The fact that people who deify guns so much don't realize that scares me a little.

No, it's not.

It's the amount of concern, the sheer overwhelmingness of the concern that is the problem. Obama is not going to remove all 2nd Amendment Rights, and no form of gun control could ever get away with that in this country.

The fact that people who deify guns so much don't realize that scares me a little.

Maybe because it's only you who sees it as "deifying" guns. They like guns. So what? They're predominately men, and perhaps it's a bit of a stereotype but that doesn't make it untrue - we like our machines and gadgets and toys. Now you might not see the gun as qualifying, as being actually worse and inherently immoral or something, but then I might see the automobile the same way, and plenty of guys 'deify' cars.

The real problem is the divisiveness in this country so that voting for party A means you're patriotic, right-thinking, moral, good, decent, honest, while voting for party B means you're anti-American, stupid, immoral, evil etc. Doesn't matter which party, you get this radical division on both sides of the spectrum, and it's making politics a media-fueled, industrialized "lifestyle choice" instead of simply voting. The fact that some gun owners fit the bill and paint Obama as the embodiment of evil is hardly surprising given the times. It's not just Obama vs McCainPalin, or Republican vs Democrat, or left vs right, or liberalism vs conservatism, it's Good vs Evil. If most people in this country weren't so ridiculously apathetic, I would be concerned about possible civil war. Yes, and I'd have to be less apathetic too, of course.

Why does this smiley seem so appropriate in this thread?
http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/748_angry_smiley_shooting.gif

violent death rates (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html)

Uh, I accurately defined gun culture quite extensively.

Basically, the gun culture is the concept that owning a gun makes one super cool, that everyone will look upon you as if you are that, and it deifies guns to a super extent, making people care so much about their guns and their 2nd Amendment rights that they ignore everything else.

Along these lines, I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a bit on how a lot of people are buying up as many semi-automatic and automatic weapons as they can before Obama gets elected, because they're "really scared he'll take away their 2nd Amendment rights."

This is what I mean. It's ridiculous.

Given that every federal gun control law was passed under a Democratic president, it's not a stretch.

Due to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (thanks Bill!) for 10 years you could not legally buy a semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm. Or a clip that held more than 10 rounds. Or... (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban )

YET the Democrats are trying to take away LEGAL ownership rights again with HR 1022.
Worse, the new bill is even more restrictive than the original, as it calls for the Attorney General to decide what is and what is not "a sporting gun", and bans "copies" which the manufacturers used to "get around" the ban the last time. So now you're having a government official saying "no, you can't have that". Gee, that's worked so well with drugs and alcohol (under Prohibition).

Semi automatic = 1 round expended per trigger pull. Complaining about that is like complaining about cars with automatic transmission. :D

Stocking up on guns is a little weird. But being concerned about Constitutional Rights in this country is not.

It's more about the annoyance factor of not being able to buy what you want. Kind of like how when I find a pair of shoes that I like, I typically buy 3 pairs.

The US gun culture is certainly dangerous, and has little to do with gun ownership or the Second Amendment debate. Switzerland, for example, requires by law that every male of military age keeps an assault rifle in his home, and yet Switzerland has virtually no gun crime.

Just tax it. For every gun you have, you pay $3000. This money can be used to cure the victims of guns.