Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Over 100 Shooting Deaths (U.S.) and counting Since Sandy Hook. Updated to 12/21/2012 @7 pm EST Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, April 18, 2013 11:09:09 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
fesselnd wrote:



Because what you guys are doing is symptome-fighting and not cause-fighting. Guns dont kill people. People who use guns kill people. But they could use knifes, selfmade bombs, etc.

The point is that people - who want to harm other people physicially - will always get their weapon for it. Illegally or selfmade if necessary. So when you ban guns you will only harm the people who have them for self-defence.

As an example about the Batman-Shooting. If there is no one in the cinema where the shooting starts all you can do is run away. If one of the people got an gun for self-defence he could liquidate the shooter before he could do more harm.




Instead of working on the actualy cause linked into society you found your scapegoat, push out some tears and thats it. But scapegoating never solved problems.



Just a few examples:


- Since 9/11 you got more and more police and safeties in your country. Yet the number of terristic acts and gun-rampages is increasing. -> The higher "safety" isnt working, yet you give up freedom because of it

- You have violence in every media. Your people are exposed to violence each day. Think thats healthy? Common Sense tells me its not.

- Your goverment is in constant war and therefor an bad rolemodel. Around 120.000 Civil deaths alone in the Iraq-war since 2003. And thats just direct deaths. Not even involved indirect deaths of the destroy infrastructure.

- Of all the school-rampages it is proven that more than 95% of the shooters were on constant pharmaceutical drugs. No one blames medics though who can later your personality.

- Increasing proverty is forcing desperate people to become criminal.

- Your prison-system is an whole lobby earning money with laws.

- Instead of educating the people to solidarity and cooperation your whole system forces egoism.

- 80-90% of your medias is owned by 6 companies (GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner & CBS) and you still think you get neutral news coverage.






Now think about if scapegoating on guns really is the right way to fix things or if you start opening your eyes and search objectively for the cause of the problems and dont get hyper and emotional about the symptoms (terroristic acts)


Thank you. I agree with much of this. And I for one am not advocating for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment or some sort of widespread confiscation of weapons. Few really are, actually. What I'm most frustrated about is the NRA's recalcitrance when faced whith even the most common-sense of measures. They've made it clear they won't give even an eighth of an inch, and therefore don't care who purchases guns. They'd rather criminals be able to access guns than support any sort of background check procedure beyond what's already in place. Most of right-wing America is following their lead, and this is not helping matters. I think your point about having a gun in that movie theater is a bit crazy, but otherwise you're right about all of the environmental contributions to violent society. In this case though, none of that is on the table. All we're talking about with yesterday's vote is requiring a background check, some minimal accountability, when purchasing a gun outside of an actual store.

So, to sum it up, here's the complete list of those who benefited from yesterday's Senate vote:

1. Gun purchasers who would've failed a background check had it been required.



Outstanding.



fesselnd
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:10:15 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/14/2012
Posts: 16
Location: Germany
LadyX wrote:

So, to sum it up, here's the complete list of those who benefited from yesterday's Senate vote:

1. Gun purchasers who would've failed a background check had it been required.


Outstanding.






Well. Here is the question how far you want to go without cutting too deep into someones personal life and freedom. Sometimes freedom and safety are contradictions.


The problem here is that if you need an basic background check before ordering an gun (mentally and specific criminal records like theft) you completely give away your right to the government.

Lets for example say this would go through and there would be an basic agency opened up where you need to send an small request to when buying an weapon. They check and send you an positive or negative letter back.

So you give away the control to this to the goverment and they could just say inside this agency: "Refuse all requests."
So even if your right would be to order one and the law allows it, you dont get it.

Furthermore documents can easily be faked.



So in theory it sounds completely reasonable and I agree on this, but you would have to think about the practical use as well. And here I see some issues which needs to be overcome before you go through with an law like this.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 8:42:36 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
fesselnd wrote:




Well. Here is the question how far you want to go without cutting too deep into someones personal life and freedom. Sometimes freedom and safety are contradictions.


The problem here is that if you need an basic background check before ordering an gun (mentally and specific criminal records like theft) you completely give away your right to the government.



Life in any society involves trade-offs. Complete and unfettered freedom does not exist, here in the US as well as in every other developed society. One cannot drive a car without a background check and a renewed registration, for instance. Yes, I suppose if you want to venture into tin-hat conspiracy territory, it's possible that "the government" could execute some sort of power grab, but let's face it, if that happens, they'll do it with or without some sort of legislative foothold. By the way, they won't. If you choose to believe otherwise, then effectively, you've written off the rule of law in general, and all of this becomes moot.
fesselnd
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:46:50 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 3/14/2012
Posts: 16
Location: Germany
LadyX wrote:


Life in any society involves trade-offs.


Of course it does. But those should be wighted up against each other. As I said earlier. All the security in your country in form of security checks, more police, etc you have didnt helped you to decrease terrorism. Maybe you should start thinking about some other options to fix those problems.




LadyX wrote:
Complete and unfettered freedom does not exist, here in the US as well as in every other developed society. One cannot drive a car without a background check and a renewed registration, for instance. Yes, I suppose if you want to venture into tin-hat conspiracy territory, it's possible that "the government" could execute some sort of power grab, but let's face it, if that happens, they'll do it with or without some sort of legislative foothold. By the way, they won't. If you choose to believe otherwise, then effectively, you've written off the rule of law in general, and all of this becomes moot.


Why need to get personal? I am just offering you examples of what could happen and what are the risks. The government might or might not be corrupt, BUT it can become at any time or place and here it is necessary to think today about the consequences in law. If you give away all your power to the goverment without an backup plan you are literally inviting possible abuse of this power. There needs to be an balance between power the goverment has and power the people have.

And that doesnt have to do anything with tin-hat conspiracy, but with thinking about possible consequences.
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:26:26 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 8,287
Location: California
fesselnd wrote:



Because what you guys are doing is symptome-fighting and not cause-fighting.



You have to fight symptoms to cure an illness. Any doctor will tell you that. That's like saying. "Don't take cold medicine because that just alleviates discomfort. Since we don't know how to get rid of people having colds to begin with, let's do nothing and just live with the symptoms."

fesselnd wrote:



Guns dont kill people. People who use guns kill people. But they could use knifes, selfmade bombs, etc.



True, a human has to pull a trigger... A human has to use a detonator or pull a pin to make a bomb go off as well right? So bombs don't kill people, people kill people, by your rationale. SO then why is it illegal to own bombs? Why do you have to have all kinds of licenses and paper trails going on if you want to buy dynamite for construction purposes? Could it be be because bombs make it easier to kill a bunch of people at the same time? If bombs aren't the problem because like you say... It's the people that kill people... then why is it illegal to own bombs?


Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:32:22 AM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 8,287
Location: California
Master_Yoda wrote:
Placed my fully loaded colt ar-15 on my lawn chair facing the street the other day. It laid there for 8 hours. People walking by looked, the mail man looked confused. After siting there for 8 hours I picked it up, pulled the clip out. Not a single shot fired, at this point I am thinking either I have the worlds laziest gun, or it's people who shoot people. Well that's my rant, I got to run. I hear spoons are making people fat.


1. That is not your rant. You read that on the internet. You just changed shotgun to ar-15.

2. Leaving a loaded weapon on your lawn is grossly irresponsible. The only point made by this is that the person that did this is lucky that gun didn't fall into the wrong hands.

3. The spoon comment is neither clever or a valid comparison. You can't kill a dozen people with a spoon in minutes.

4. This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Ever.

LadyX
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58:52 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
fesselnd wrote:


Why need to get personal? I am just offering you examples of what could happen and what are the risks.


And I'm skeptical of the likelihood of the risks that you're presenting as possible. The extent to which you take it personally is your prerogative, I don't intend to hurt your feelings. But a scenario in which the government goes rogue and uses a legislated background check to deny gun purchases across the board sounds a lot like martial law. In other words, I feel that if they take that step, we all have a lot more to worry about than whether I'll be given a fair shake in my attempt to buy a 9mm pistol on EBay.

Obviously you disagree with this, and in suspecting that there really might be some sort of stealth gun-grabber motive in government, believe that the trade-offs discussed are not worth it. You're far from alone, I just think it's misguided and paranoid. For me, it's easily worth the trade off that the criminals won't in fact be approved for a gun purchase.

We both agree there is much to be dealt with in American culture. But common sense background checks does nothing to curtail the right to own a firearm (unless you're a convicted felon or have a record of mental instability). To assume otherwise is to traffic in suspicion of conspiracy above consideration of possible lives saved.



Monocle
Posted: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:13:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 301
fesselnd wrote:

Of course it does. But those should be wighted up against each other. As I said earlier. All the security in your country in form of security checks, more police, etc you have didnt helped you to decrease terrorism. Maybe you should start thinking about some other options to fix those problems.


Interesting point you make. All the effort, money, and sacrifice of rights we've undertaken to curb terrorism, and we've lost about 3400 citizens to it in the last 40 years.

And here we are fighting universal background checks that would only prevent criminals and crazy folks from making purchases they currently are able to make, and we've lost over 900,000 people to gunfire in the last 30 years.

If background checks stopped only 1 gun death in 300 it would save more than the entire domestic war on terror in the same period of time.

Does that cost/rights sacrifice vs. death balance seem seem well balanced to you?
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.