Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 72 of 72
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    I hope this doesn't offend anyone but I think that some of the people of America are obsessed with guns and it has gone too far. Let's go back to the time when the school in Connecticut came under attack and many students were killed. Piers Morgan later had a man on his show, they were talking about gun laws. Piers was against the current gun laws and thought that there should not be as many guns. If you saw the footage you would remember that the other man on the show got extremely angry with Piers and started shouting at Piers. That shows how much guns meant to the man and therefore I think there is something wrong. In conclusion, I think many people in America are fine, but I think a certain amount of people cause America to have a gun disease.

  2. Likes Aspoestertjie liked this post
  3. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by jbk1203 View Post
    I hope this doesn't offend anyone but I think that some of the people of America are obsessed with guns and it has gone too far.
    Do you mean that in present day America it has gone too far? So you mean that the 50% reduction in violent crime over the past two decades is too much? Or the fact that in 2013 we had fewer police killed in the line of duty than any time since 1887? To which part of making America a safer place to live do you object, exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by jbk1203 View Post
    Let's go back to the time when the school in Connecticut came under attack and many students were killed. Piers Morgan later had a man on his show, they were talking about gun laws. Piers was against the current gun laws and thought that there should not be as many guns. If you saw the footage you would remember that the other man on the show got extremely angry with Piers and started shouting at Piers. That shows how much guns meant to the man and therefore I think there is something wrong. In conclusion, I think many people in America are fine, but I think a certain amount of people cause America to have a gun disease.
    So one man (I think you're referring to Alex Jones) who does not speak for all gun owners is enough to judge an entire culture? I would disagree. After all, not all Englishmen are uninformed, loud mouthed, arrogant, a-holes that even their own countrymen don't want back just because Piers is.

    Every single day in this country there are a hundred million guns (low-ball guesstimation) that kill no one, are not involved in the commission of any crimes, and do nothing sinister. The same is true of their owners. If you want to intelligently judge a community, do so based on the vast majority of its members, not a few outliers. Judge based on the fact that you are more likely to killed by a cop's stray bullet than an armed citizen's stray bullet. Judge based on the fact that "carry permit" holders in the U.S. are arrested at a fraction of the rate of the rest of the country, law enforcement included. But to judge based on the actions of less than 1% of members of our "community" smacks of elitist bigotry. You would never judge anyone else using similar criteria, so why gun owners?

  4. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes MindTrap028, mican333 liked this post
  5. #63
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    3,908
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well cost mattes, bottom line people don't always have 2k for a 6ft wooden fence around their back yard, much less a 10ft cement barrier around their entire house. It is not that it isn't considred, it is just that there is a cost involved, and buiding code and many other things that come into play.
    We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You are very right to argue that it takes less than 30 seconds to kick out your front door. What if a criminal comes into your house without you noticing it and kills you with your own weapon? I read and heard from several other Americans that some of them leave their doors unlocked? What if they leave it unlocked, someone comes in and kills them and their whole family with their own weapon.

    Maybe the criminals in the US are different from the ones here? If someone wants to come in here they will target the places that are easier to access i.e. houses without proper security fences and guard dogs. They regard these places as easy targets. If they really want to get in they will, but it takes a longer time. Usually your dogs get poisoned, so if and when they die you can expect to get attacked within a week from the dog's death. At least you then know to expect it by then.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    As for the safe thing.. there are many different kinds. Some have keys some don't, the trigger locks are all keyed that I know of.
    So you are talking about a grab bag of different gun boxes. From pad lock, code, key palm reader and voice activate for all I know.
    Well, like I said. It took me 31 seconds to get it out of the safe, and I was walking, not running or in a hurry at all. To conceal your weapon in a safe when not in use or when you do not intend to use it have more benefits than disadvantages in my honest opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Well, that represents a very different approach to the rights nature of guns.
    The idea here is that it is a right so you don't have to justify it to the gov.. if you did then it isn't a right.
    The state has the burden of showing you to be unfit and must have a suspicion to start that line to begin with.
    Of course it will stay the Government's responsibility to make sure you are fit to own a gun. The only way they can do it is by doing background checks and bring in regulations to test whether you as a citizen knows gun laws and especially gun safety. A gun owner who doesn't know how his/her weapon works or who is unfamiliar with gun control is as big a hazard as any criminal out there in my honest opinion.

    Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it; however, most countries similar to the United States have a more secure social network. Higher gun-related death rates can be found in developing countries and countries with political instability.[28][32][33] However, developed countries with strict gun laws have essentially eliminated gun violence.[34][35][36][37]

    From the above statistics it is clear that America has a problem, doesn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Further with the gun example, it wasn't one about carrying a gun, it was about a person in their home that was attacked and they had to go get their gun(Ie in regards to a safe). They were under fire when it occurred, and I contend that if it had been in a gun safe especially a kind they were likely to own then they would have been killed.
    Again in an attempt to support my "seconds count" point.
    A safe is there when you are not home or are going somewhere where you may not take your gun. What if someone breaks into your house when you are not there, steal your gun and then commits a crime or kills someone else with your gun? Many weapons (depending on your laws and regulations) can't be carried with you everywhere, right? So why make your guns easily accessible to thieves?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I think you are advocating "fixes" to a "problem", I don't think you have supported (to this point) that a problem really exists or that your "fixes" would significantly effect it without disproportionate unintended side effects.
    The high rate of gun related crime and/or homicide in the US is evident that there is a problem that needs to be 'fixed' or at least be attended to. To me there are two things that are evident. Guns are too easily accessible and secondly, gun owners are not responsible enough. Switzerland is the safest country in the world, yet they have more or less the same rate of gun ownership as the US. The difference between the US and Switzerland is the fact that people owning guns in Switzerland are highly trained on gun control and gun safety. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the...re-that-works/ Gun safety in my honest opinion is extremely important. Making sure your gun doesn't get into the wrong hands even more so. Putting your guns away from those unauthorized to use them can reduce gun related crimes in the US. The other option is to let gun owners go through a training process on gun handling before a permit is issued to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Well, you simply are not approaching the issue from the stand poing of having a right to guns. When you have a right to guns then the gov simply doesn't have the power to limit how many you have. Just as they can not dictate how much food you have in your fridge. so in that sense, you are absoluty right, the gov doesn't have controll over guns.. and they SHOULDN'T.
    I disagree. They should have more control. Countries like Switzerland have way less crime because of several reasons as I see it. First of all, their Government has better control over their ammunition. They have better control over how guns are purchased. They play a more 'supportive' role and encourage their citizens event to have fire-arms, but in the same breath requires them to register at shooting clubs where they can receive training on how to handle their guns. It really doesn't matter how the US look at this, the fact remains that there is a problem. The problem it seems is a lot bigger than just easy access as I initially thought. Peter Squires said the following: "“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME."

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Regarding that list of school shootings, as I understand it each of those incidences broke in excess of 10-20 laws each.
    so again. There is no "control" (IE law) that is going to magically fix the problem.
    Ok, so owning more guns and having less rules and regulations will be better? How?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    This is the part I don't think you have supported. You have asserted it.
    Don't you think this statistics supports my assertion?

    Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    We started talking about minors and accidents, and you responded with school shootings which is hardly an "accident". It amounts to theft in the home.
    That is a very different problem because you could have your gun under lock and key and your child could aquire it and shoot up a school
    That is hardly "negligence" on the parents part because they didn't have a code lock that you would personally prefer.
    So do you want to discuss negligence and accidental shootings and how we can stop that?
    Or do you want to discuss criminal activity involving guns and talk about how we can stop that?
    This thread is about whether Americans have a 'gun disease'. So I believe the debate is about ALL aspects of gun crime/accidents. When someone dies due to a gun shot, it doesn't matter whether it was accidental or a planned criminal action. In both instances a gun was used. So the thread really covers all aspects of gun control, gun ownership, gun safety and how to change the gun culture in the US in my honest opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    As to the latter, there are 300+million people in the U.S. a handful of school shootings simply isn't significant enough a problem that we should amend the const and restrict the rights of everyone. As it is I think there is a stronger case that more guns are the answer, and that it is specifically the "gun free zones" that are the major problem to be addressed.
    Okay, I will agree with you that there should not be any 'gun free zones'. I will however argue that statistics support my impression that Americans have a deep underlying problem with how guns are handled. Your comment about "a handful of school shootings simply isn't significant enough a problem" is exactly the problem. How can you argue that the deaths of innocent children is simply not enough? How many innocent children should die before Americans will stop thinking about their own rights to have guns and the safety of their children and innocent citizens? The problem in my opinion is the gun culture. The very fact that Americans feel they have the right to bear arms. They do not see it as a privilege. If they did see it as a privilege, maybe they would be more careful and considerate about how weapons are handled. Is it a lack of social responsibility that is the problem? I will say so.

    A weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier (citizen) is as good as a weapon in the hands of your worst enemy. Giving guns out left, right and center without the proper control or without the Government having proper regulations that are in enforced will only cause more deaths in the long run. I do not argue that your right to bear arms should be taken away, only that it should be more controlled and regularized.
    >>]Aspoestertjie[<<

    ODN Rules

    Join our Facebook Page here!

  6. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Okay, I will agree with you that there should not be any 'gun free zones'. I will however argue that statistics support my impression that Americans have a deep underlying problem with how guns are handled. Your comment about "a handful of school shootings simply isn't significant enough a problem" is exactly the problem. How can you argue that the deaths of innocent children is simply not enough? How many innocent children should die before Americans will stop thinking about their own rights to have guns and the safety of their children and innocent citizens?
    The problem with this argument is that it is not actually built out of concern with children but more out of fear of guns. If you really wanted to saved the lives of children you would be far more concerned with cars than guns. Or swimming pools. Both cause more unintentional deaths than firearms. But it's not as popular to tell people that their swimming pools and BMW's are killing children, even though statistically they are killing many more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    The problem in my opinion is the gun culture. The very fact that Americans feel they have the right to bear arms. They do not see it as a privilege.
    Probably because it isn't. It is a right, as in "[...]the right to keep and bear arms[.]"

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    If they did see it as a privilege, maybe they would be more careful and considerate about how weapons are handled. Is it a lack of social responsibility that is the problem? I will say so.
    Greater than 99.999% of all firearms owners in this country will kill or injure no one today, or even this year. So why judge the rest of us based on the actions of a few. For the same reason I will not judge the entirety of South Africa based on its rate of rapes, even though it is among the highest, if no the highest in the world, not accounting for under-reporting nations of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    A weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier (citizen) is as good as a weapon in the hands of your worst enemy. Giving guns out left, right and center without the proper control or without the Government having proper regulations that are in enforced will only cause more deaths in the long run. I do not argue that your right to bear arms should be taken away, only that it should be more controlled and regularized.
    How many more laws would you say would be effective? We currently have over 20,000 laws at the federal, state, and local levels which must be navigated daily by those of us who carry. In addition, it would seem that fewer laws are the answer, not more, since the number of gun deaths continues to decrease as all 50 states now have some form of carry permitted by law and gun ownership is at an all time high. Gun-grabbers always make these arguments that we need tighter controls on our guns while the facts contradict them at every turn. You say that in order to decrease the number of gun deaths they should be more tightly controlled, and yet as people in this country are more free to carry and use them gun deaths continue to decline. On which do you think policy should be based, opinion or documented fact?

  7. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  8. #65
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Venus
    Posts
    3,908
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That would seem to miss the whole point of the U.S. a nation. By allowing states to develop their own legal systems (within the confines of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution) we allow them not only to experiment with which law might be best, but also to tailor the system the their particular culture and way of life.

    The problem, imo, is your assumption that there is a "better law" that can be easily known and adopted. There isn't and so states each try to develop codes that work best for their citizens.

    We've heard this argument before. Why do we have so many different companies making TVs? Surely it would be better if we just had one, it would be lest wasteful and more easily understood. We can apply that concept anywhere we wish, why are there so many research organizations? Why so many political parties?
    Okay, I have a question to ask. (Or rather several).

    Is it illegal to drive without a license in each American State or does each State have a different Law?
    Is it illegal to drive under the influence in each American State or does each State have a different Law?

    The answers to the above is no. It is illegal to drive without a license or to drive under the influence in each of the States. The reason for this is obvious. Not controlling these laws will have a grave impact on the lives of law abiding citizens. Lives will be at risk if it is not controlled and enforced the same way across the board.

    Why then allow something like gun ownership be different in each State? To me it will honestly make more sense to make an important law like this apply across the board.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    I think this misunderstands what a "cost" is. All costs, properly understood are opportunity costs. The lives saved by such a system must not be weighed against an abstract dollar amount, but on the lives and quality of life changed by alternative uses of those resources. If it costs $1B and saves 40 lives is that a better investment or a worst investment than the same $1B moving cancer research forward, or funding a project that reduces poverty in a community?
    Those are opportunity cost decisions that you or I cannot make, they should be properly left to those who are choosing which cost to bear.
    So the 'right to bear arms' magically improves the quality of life for the American Citizens? If so, how?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    And how well do you think those laws, those prohibitions are working? Crime in South Africa is rampant, weapons are not exactly hard to come by and the black market thrives on illegal weapons sales.

    Does prohibition of owning guns without a license materially affect gun ownership in SA?

    And need we remember the origin of gun control laws in either SA or the US?
    To be honest. I took only two or three concepts from the South African Gun Law that I felt could improve the Gun Law in America. South Africa is a third world country in compared to America which is a first world country. We are political unstable, crime is rampant and our Government is corrupted. Our Police Force is pretty much useless. We are the crime capital of the world. I find it strange then that America is suffering the same lack of control we are suffering. Maybe the American Police Force is also corrupt like SA's? Maybe the US Government is as corrupt? Maybe America is no longer the first world country I thought it to be?

    My point is, America should be doing better. It is almost expected that they should have better control as they are socially and economically light-years ahead of South Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    How so, what would have changed about these cases? Cases 1,2 and 4 were cases of other people purchasing the weapons and then selling them illegally or having them stolen. No law would have prevented those shooters from obtaining their weapons.

    Do you notice anything else similar about all four of these cases? They all fell under the same "gun free zone" laws that apply in all states. How well did that work?

    I will say this, the one thing that we know from research that would have limited the casualties at these tragedies? Another gun.
    You prove my point I made in my posting to MT. It is this attitude that killing fire with fire is the only way out. Americans are not willing to compromise their so called 'rights to bear arms' for the safety of their children. They are not even willing to make gun ownership more regulated for that matter.

    What evidence do you have that a gun would have stopped any of those incidents? Why didn't the mother who was killed by her own son defended herself with her own gun? What did it bring her to own an arsenal? She owned all those guns, so why didn't she stop it?

    Why were two teenagers who were clearly mad at the whole world allowed to buy weapons that killed so many students? That was allowed even though it was reported to Police previously that they seem to be mentally unstable?

    Americans are so focused on their 'right to bear arms' that they even gave a convicted murderer not only the 'right to bear arms' but even to mass produce fire-arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marshall_Williams


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Why do they allow one woman to own so many cars? For what reason? You need only to have one car for getting to work, you do not need a garage full.
    A car, just like a weapon can be used to kill people. To own a car and to keep it on the road you need to have a road worthy license. You need to write and pass an exam. You need to prove that you have the necessary responsibility to drive a vehicle. You need to have a license and you need to prove you are worth it. So why not do the same with guns?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Based on what? A small handful of events for which no law would have prevented their access? What about the 162,000 times a year that Americans use a gun to prevent a situation where they would likely have been killed? What increase in fatalities in those instances would result from you making it more difficult for people to have weapons?
    The same reason why you make it difficult for people to own vehicles. America has eight times more homicide than other countries (see post to MT). Somewhere the red lights should flag up, don't you think? Somewhere there is a problem that Americans are clearly trying to ignore very hard.
    >>]Aspoestertjie[<<

    ODN Rules

    Join our Facebook Page here!

  9. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You are very right to argue that it takes less than 30 seconds to kick out your front door. What if a criminal comes into your house without you noticing it and kills you with your own weapon? I read and heard from several other Americans that some of them leave their doors unlocked? What if they leave it unlocked, someone comes in and kills them and their whole family with their own weapon.
    "What if" scenarios are not good reasons for creating policy, especially when the same policies limit the rights of citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Maybe the criminals in the US are different from the ones here? If someone wants to come in here they will target the places that are easier to access i.e. houses without proper security fences and guard dogs. They regard these places as easy targets. If they really want to get in they will, but it takes a longer time. Usually your dogs get poisoned, so if and when they die you can expect to get attacked within a week from the dog's death. At least you then know to expect it by then.
    Do you think those same criminals might rethink their plans if they believed the home owner might put holes in them? In the U.S. criminal surveys show that they are more afraid of an armed victim than the police.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Well, like I said. It took me 31 seconds to get it out of the safe, and I was walking, not running or in a hurry at all. To conceal your weapon in a safe when not in use or when you do not intend to use it have more benefits than disadvantages in my honest opinion.
    Opinions are just as bad as "what if" scenarios. In high stress situations fine motor skills are among the first things to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Of course it will stay the Government's responsibility to make sure you are fit to own a gun. The only way they can do it is by doing background checks and bring in regulations to test whether you as a citizen knows gun laws and especially gun safety. A gun owner who doesn't know how his/her weapon works or who is unfamiliar with gun control is as big a hazard as any criminal out there in my honest opinion.
    I don't need some idiot bureaucrat who knows less about guns than I do telling me I am fit to own a gun he doesn't want me to have. That's the great thing a

    No, because it incorrectly assumes that countries like Mexico are not developed. Mexico's problem is corruption from top to bottom, not the lack of resources, etc. Too often statistics are cherry picked to make the U.S. seem like it has a huge problem with guns, which it doesn't. Over the past 100 years the overall violent crime rate in the U.S. has dropped by 40%, and it is half what it was just 20 years ago. Gun murders are included here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    A safe is there when you are not home or are going somewhere where you may not take your gun. What if someone breaks into your house when you are not there, steal your gun and then commits a crime or kills someone else with your gun? Many weapons (depending on your laws and regulations) can't be carried with you everywhere, right? So why make your guns easily accessible to thieves?
    What if frogs had wings? They wouldn't bump their butts when they jumped.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    The high rate of gun related crime and/or homicide in the US is evident that there is a problem that needs to be 'fixed' or at least be attended to. To me there are two things that are evident. Guns are too easily accessible and secondly, gun owners are not responsible enough. Switzerland is the safest country in the world, yet they have more or less the same rate of gun ownership as the US. The difference between the US and Switzerland is the fact that people owning guns in Switzerland are highly trained on gun control and gun safety. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the...re-that-works/ Gun safety in my honest opinion is extremely important. Making sure your gun doesn't get into the wrong hands even more so. Putting your guns away from those unauthorized to use them can reduce gun related crimes in the US. The other option is to let gun owners go through a training process on gun handling before a permit is issued to them.
    The rate isn't nearly as high as the media outside the U.S. - or for that matter in the U.S. - likes to make it seem. There are 102 countries with higher homicide rates than the U.S. and our rates are continuing to decline. Many of them have tighter gun controls laws than the U.S. indicating that you can't simply legislate crime out of existence. Besides that, your opinions that "[g]uns are too easibly accessible and secondly, gun owners are not responsible enough" are not supported. To support them you would have to show that our "high" rate of gun murders is directly attributable to those causes. Good luck with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    I disagree. They should have more control. Countries like Switzerland have way less crime because of several reasons as I see it. First of all, their Government has better control over their ammunition. They have better control over how guns are purchased. They play a more 'supportive' role and encourage their citizens event to have fire-arms, but in the same breath requires them to register at shooting clubs where they can receive training on how to handle their guns. It really doesn't matter how the US look at this, the fact remains that there is a problem. The problem it seems is a lot bigger than just easy access as I initially thought. Peter Squires said the following: "“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME."
    So how do you account for the fact that Switzerland has a lower crime rate in other areas? I would suggest that there is more than one factor that accounts for their low murder rates. If strict laws was all that it took the U.S. wouldn't be 103rd in the world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Ok, so owning more guns and having less rules and regulations will be better? How?
    Criminals are reluctant to rob or assault someone they believe might shoot them in the face.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Don't you think this statistics supports my assertion?
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Okay, I will agree with you that there should not be any 'gun free zones'. I will however argue that statistics support my impression that Americans have a deep underlying problem with how guns are handled.
    I am not familiar with any research that studies "deep underlying problem[s]" with respect to gun issues. Care to share?

  10. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    447
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    To be honest. I took only two or three concepts from the South African Gun Law that I felt could improve the Gun Law in America. South Africa is a third world country in compared to America which is a first world country. We are political unstable, crime is rampant and our Government is corrupted. Our Police Force is pretty much useless. We are the crime capital of the world. I find it strange then that America is suffering the same lack of control we are suffering. Maybe the American Police Force is also corrupt like SA's? Maybe the US Government is as corrupt? Maybe America is no longer the first world country I thought it to be?

    My point is, America should be doing better. It is almost expected that they should have better control as they are socially and economically light-years ahead of South Africa.
    By what measure is the U.S. suffering the same lack of control as South Africa? The overall crime rate in South Africa is about 20 times that of the U.S. with the murder rate being nearly 7 times ours. Maybe you have a different definition of "the same"?

  11. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    We will have to agree to disagree on this point. You are very right to argue that it takes less than 30 seconds to kick out your front door. What if a criminal comes into your house without you noticing it and kills you with your own weapon? I read and heard from several other Americans that some of them leave their doors unlocked? What if they leave it unlocked, someone comes in and kills them and their whole family with their own weapon.
    In that case the existence of a gun in the home is irrelevant, because such an "if" statement allows for them to killyou with a kitchen knife.
    Unless you think only houses with guns are liable to be so well snuck into.
    In the end I don't see the point or value of such a speculation

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Maybe the criminals in the US are different from the ones here? If someone wants to come in here they will target the places that are easier to access i.e. houses without proper security fences and guard dogs. They regard these places as easy targets. If they really want to get in they will, but it takes a longer time. Usually your dogs get poisoned, so if and when they die you can expect to get attacked within a week from the dog's death. At least you then know to expect it by then.
    Maybe.. but maybes don't forward the discussion.


    It does seem however that you are making a very unreasonable assumption that you will see an attack coming in sufficient time, even weeks according to your example.
    We certainly should not make laws with such wild speculation as its basis.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Well, like I said. It took me 31 seconds to get it out of the safe, and I was walking, not running or in a hurry at all. To conceal your weapon in a safe when not in use or when you do not intend to use it have more benefits than disadvantages in my honest opinion.
    You seem to have missed my point.
    #1 Not everyone is going to have the same kind of safe that you have.
    #2 Not everyone is equally adept to gettin into a safe.
    #3 Seconds still matter, did you leave it loaded on your night stand or under your pillow and time that for comparison? If not then your time is insufficient data to draw any conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Of course it will stay the Government's responsibility to make sure you are fit to own a gun.
    That is not currently the gov responsibility. their current responsibility is toe keep the guns out of prvenly unfit people.
    Such as a criminal who has been denied his right through due process.
    It isn't a case of people proving they are not criminals, it is the case of the gov showing that you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    From the above statistics it is clear that America has a problem, doesn't it?
    Not at all.

    Again, this goes back to what your main concern is. Is it deaths total, or just the scary, bad, taboo "gun related deaths".
    What you quote says nothing to address the total deaths, and we should expect more gun deaths in a country that has more guns.
    It doesn't follow however that there are less total deaths.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    A safe is there when you are not home or are going somewhere where you may not take your gun. What if someone breaks into your house when you are not there, steal your gun and then commits a crime or kills someone else with your gun? Many weapons (depending on your laws and regulations) can't be carried with you everywhere, right? So why make your guns easily accessible to thieves?
    In my locked house isn't sufficent for you? I mean, I'm a victim of a crime and your acting like I'm being negligent because you can think of some better use of my property.

    I want to know why you are going to punish me monitarily for the crimes of others. IE require me to buy XYZ, becuase Bob is a thief.
    Why not punish Bob? why infring on my liberty?

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    The high rate of gun related crime and/or homicide in the US is evident that there is a problem that needs to be 'fixed' or at least be attended to.
    Only if you compare that to total deaths. Further, those numbers come from current gun regulations, such as gun free zones.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    To me there are two things that are evident. Guns are too easily accessible and secondly, gun owners are not responsible enough
    First, guns are always going to be easily accessible, just like drugs are easily accessible now. Maybe not "as easy", but I don't know anyone who sells drugs, but I have full confidence that if I wanted some I could aquire it within the afternoon.

    Second, you haven't supported that gun owners (legal ones) are not responsible enough.
    You haven't supported that their exists even a significant number of negligent gun use especially in contrast to all of the PROPER uses of guns.
    So I'm going to officially challenge you on both points.
    Challenge to support a claim. Support or retract.


    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Switzerland is the safest country in the world, yet they have more or less the same rate of gun ownership as the US. The difference between the US and Switzerland is the fact that people owning guns in Switzerland are highly trained on gun control and gun safety. http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the...re-that-works/ Gun safety in my honest opinion is extremely important. Making sure your gun doesn't get into the wrong hands even more so. Putting your guns away from those unauthorized to use them can reduce gun related crimes in the US. The other option is to let gun owners go through a training process on gun handling before a permit is issued to them.
    Well, is that a gun desease or a lack of education desease? I mean if you are advocating that every american over a certain age should be required to own a fire arm and be trained by the gov in it's use (like switzerland)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...in_Switzerland
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20 in the Rekrutenschule (recruit school), the basic-training camp, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (age 34 for officers).
    Each soldier is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, military police, medical and postal personnel) at home or (as of 2010) in the local armoury (Zeughaus). Up until October 2007, ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while travelling to the army barracks in case of invasion.
    I'm not against requiring military training of all u.s. citizens
    But modeling ourselves after switzerland is cleary a "more guns" solution.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    I disagree. They should have more control. Countries like Switzerland have way less crime because of several reasons as I see it. First of all, their Government has better control over their ammunition. They have better control over how guns are purchased. They play a more 'supportive' role and encourage their citizens event to have fire-arms, but in the same breath requires them to register at shooting clubs where they can receive training on how to handle their guns. It really doesn't matter how the US look at this, the fact remains that there is a problem. The problem it seems is a lot bigger than just easy access as I initially thought. Peter Squires said the following: "“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME."
    I don't see the U.S. being able to conscript the entire population as switzerland does.

    The reason for the controlls in switzerland (wich include subsidizing amunition purchases), is for national protection. Same thing with the U.S.

    Can you even imagine the cost to do in the U.S. for a population of 300M what switzerland does for a population of 9M?
    I don't think it transfers as well as you would hope.

    I will say this though, the U.s. used to have an active shooting class in schools. All of which have been shut down (as I understand it). Bringing that back would be a good way of achieving the education your talking about.
    What do you think? But that would clearly fall into the "encouraging more guns" category.

    Another thing, Switzerland has a much greater ability to controll the importation of guns because of it's size and location. They may have a decent shot at getting rid of illegal guns, the U.S. does not specifically because of it's size.
    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Ok, so owning more guns and having less rules and regulations will be better? How?
    It will allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves wherever they go.
    Citizens are the first responders to any event, and the police and peremidics are second. If a man pulls a gun in a mall or a resturant, and citizens will have the ability to legally defend themselves. (where as now it may be illegal to carry a gun there).

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Don't you think this statistics supports my assertion?

    Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.
    Not at all. Because switzerland is basically militarized city. That is not necissarily a good answer for America.
    Conscript every 20-40 year old male?

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    This thread is about whether Americans have a 'gun disease'. So I believe the debate is about ALL aspects of gun crime/accidents. When someone dies due to a gun shot, it doesn't matter whether it was accidental or a planned criminal action. In both instances a gun was used. So the thread really covers all aspects of gun control, gun ownership, gun safety and how to change the gun culture in the US in my honest opinion.
    O.k. fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    Okay, I will agree with you that there should not be any 'gun free zones'. I will however argue that statistics support my impression that Americans have a deep underlying problem with how guns are handled. Your comment about "a handful of school shootings simply isn't significant enough a problem" is exactly the problem. How can you argue that the deaths of innocent children is simply not enough? How many innocent children should die before Americans will stop thinking about their own rights to have guns and the safety of their children and innocent citizens?
    Appeal to emotion fallacy.
    The problem is, nothing that has been sought as a solution to those events would have had any effect in preenting those events.
    It doesn't follow that because something bad happens that we should then curtail the liberty and rights of everyone else.

    Freedom isn't free, and part of that price is accepting responsibility for that freedom and the cost of it. So having my feelings hurt by people saying mean things is part of the price of freedom of speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    The problem in my opinion is the gun culture. The very fact that Americans feel they have the right to bear arms. They do not see it as a privilege. If they did see it as a privilege, maybe they would be more careful and considerate about how weapons are handled. Is it a lack of social responsibility that is the problem? I will say so.
    Well, I agree that we do see it as a right. Because it is one.
    You may as well argue that we have a speech problem and that the press should be more regulated so that it doesn't lie.

    The major objector is that, at the end of that road of regulation is Tirrany.

    Quote Originally Posted by ASPO
    A weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier (citizen) is as good as a weapon in the hands of your worst enemy. Giving guns out left, right and center without the proper control or without the Government having proper regulations that are in enforced will only cause more deaths in the long run. I do not argue that your right to bear arms should be taken away, only that it should be more controlled and regularized.
    It is the "controlled" part that is the problem. It has done more harm than good in america so far. (see gun free zones).


    -Summary/conclusion
    America as a whole is very good with guns. It is very tempting to compare america with another country like switzerland, but America is not Switzerland.
    I agree that good education is a good thing regarding gun ownership, and it would be very easy to accomplish that by integrating gun education into our schools. I'm for that solution.
    I think that the "gun desease" in America is irrational fear of guns. Which makes people want to stay away from guns, and thus be less educated on guns.
    I also belive that it is ones civic duty to own and be trained in the proper use of guns.

    That said, I don't think it is the gov job to do those thing, nor do I think it is a good thing for the country for the gov to be given the power/authority over it.
    Switzerland has it's standing militia, and thus high gun ownership because that is the best way to defend itself without a standing army. Transferring that structure to America isn't easy/cheap or even a realistic solution IMO.
    America's version of the standing militia is that the citizens have a right to bare arms. So the difference between the two is educational not gun related.
    To serve man.

  12. #69
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,724
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    Is it illegal to drive without a license in each American State or does each State have a different Law?
    Each state has a different law. In some you have to pass a test, some you don't. Some a farm license can be obtained when you are 14 some you can't. These are all state laws, but state recognize the licenses of other states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    Is it illegal to drive under the influence in each American State or does each State have a different Law?
    What constitutes a DUI differs by state. Some have higher levels, some lower. Some include drugs, some do not. A few states include driving while overly drowsy as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    Why then allow something like gun ownership be different in each State?
    First, we do, as I pointed out, so this argument is already invalid. Second, because unlike driving, defending yourself is a fundamental human freedom necessary to the dignity of human life. There is a massive moral gulf between limiting someone's access to a privilege and denying them the right to defend themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    So the 'right to bear arms' magically improves the quality of life for the American Citizens? If so, how?
    Well for 162,000 people (disproportionately women by the way) a year it improves their quality of life from 0 (dead) to something much higher than that, not dead.

    A similar number of women use firearms every year to prevent themselves from being raped every year. Surely you agree that their quality of life has improved right?

    I have several firearms in my house that I not only enjoy for their own sake, but because I have a family that relies on me for their protection, that piece of mind is incredibly valuable to me and is more important to my quality of life than most other purchases I make.


    Further, you seem to have avoided my question. Remember, the costs you were referring to would have been used to better people's lives in some other way right? Identifying that opportunity cost is critical for your argument that this "benefit" is worth the "cost."


    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    To be honest. I took only two or three concepts from the South African Gun Law that I felt could improve the Gun Law in America. South Africa is a third world country in compared to America which is a first world country. We are political unstable, crime is rampant and our Government is corrupted. Our Police Force is pretty much useless. We are the crime capital of the world. I find it strange then that America is suffering the same lack of control we are suffering. Maybe the American Police Force is also corrupt like SA's? Maybe the US Government is as corrupt? Maybe America is no longer the first world country I thought it to be?

    My point is, America should be doing better. It is almost expected that they should have better control as they are socially and economically light-years ahead of South Africa.
    This entire argument relies solely on your begging the question fallacy. You assume that more control over guns implies a more developed nation, I see no reason to accept that premise.

    Gun laws in SA have gotten more strict as the country as declined (it was not always a third world nation), that correlation at least disproves the idea that tighter control reduces violence.

    To be honest, reading your post again I'm shocked that you could support more gun laws. Your government is terrible, the police are failures and you want to remove your ability to defend yourself?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    It is this attitude that killing fire with fire is the only way out.
    That attitude could be called realism. What exactly would you, aspo, propose to stop a mentally ill person with a gun at a school from killing kids? What exactly, besides a gun, is effective?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    Americans are not willing to compromise their so called 'rights to bear arms' for the safety of their children.
    Americans are not willing to compromise their so called 'right to bear arms" to ensure the safety of their children.

    You are proposing a false dichotomy that does not exist. It is not guns or safety, it is guns and safety.

    Gun murders per capita are highest in dense, urban areas precisely where legal gun ownership is lowest.

    Gun murders per capita are lowest in rural areas, precisely where legal gun ownership is highest.

    Why are guns ok to protect politicians? Banks? Money? Gold? But not children?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    What evidence do you have that a gun would have stopped any of those incidents?
    Every empirical study on mass violence supports this conclusion.

    Let me first ask you this. Why does Europe have a similar mass shooting rate when compared to the US?

    To answer your question, I'll point out this. In mass shooting incidents where the police were the agents that stopped the violence, the average fatalities was 14.29.

    When individuals stop it? 2.33

    But again, I'll ask you the same question I asked above. Adam Lanza walks into Newtown. What do you propose will stop him from killing those kids? Please be specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    Why were two teenagers who were clearly mad at the whole world allowed to buy weapons that killed so many students? That was allowed even though it was reported to Police previously that they seem to be mentally unstable?
    They purchased the weapons illegally aspo. Did you not notice that? Doesn't that prove my point, not yours? There were laws that prevented them from buying weapons and they ignored those laws, as is common for mentally unstable individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    Americans are so focused on their 'right to bear arms' that they even gave a convicted murderer not only the 'right to bear arms' but even to mass produce fire-arms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Marshall_Williams
    To be honest Aspo, I'm a bit disappointed in this response. Mr. Williams pled guilty (the jury decided not to convict him) after the police raided his private residence to stop him from producing alcohol (how is that prohibition concept working for you again?) The cops busted down his door with guns. He isn't the one that introduced violence to the situation, the government did.

    Further, lets say he was a bad person. How many lives were saved by his invention of the M1 Carbine? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? We are talking about one of the most pivotal weapons of WWII. It also became the design for the main service rifles for the US army going forward.

    So you would rather that all those soldiers died? That the Nazi's had an easier time of the war? Really?


    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    A car, just like a weapon can be used to kill people. To own a car and to keep it on the road you need to have a road worthy license.
    To own a car you need no license. To drive it public you need a license right?

    To own a gun you need no license (usually). To carry it in public you need a license.

    How are these two things different?

    Bats can also kill people (far more likely than Assault Rifles too), should you need a license to carry one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    America has eight times more homicide than other countries (see post to MT)
    Yep, and how many of those were done with a legally owned firearm? Not that many right? Most homicides (killing a man trying to rape you is a homicide, not sure that that is a problem) are committed by illegally owned firearms, meaning no law you would like to put in place changes that rate.

    America does have an issue, but it isn't a weapon one, its a racial violence issue. If African Americans killed at the same rate as hispanics or caucasians or asians, the US has a lower homicide rate than any European country. That trend has remained high regardless of fluctuations in weapons used.

    America does have a violence issue, how about instead of letting our personal fear of firearms get to us, we evaluate the empirical evidence (which shows that firearm ownership lowers crime, especially homicide) and tackle the real, fundamental issues at hand?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspoestertjie View Post
    What if a criminal comes into your house without you noticing it and kills you with your own weapon?ven
    Given their apparent desire to kill you, what real difference does this make?

    And given the massive disproportionate difference between "people killed with their own weapons" and "people who would have died if they hadn't had a weapon" this risk would seem to be a moot one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aspo
    From the above statistics it is clear that America has a problem, doesn't it?
    Only if you assume that gun violence is a problem, but violence itself is not. Most developed countries have a higher violent crime rate than the US. Many have higher gun violence rates if you remove suicide (which tends to be independent of gun ownership). You are assuming that removing guns lowers violence. That has not been the experience of most European nations.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. Likes mican333 liked this post
  14. #70
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    [QUOTE=
    So one man (I think you're referring to Alex Jones) who does not speak for all gun owners is enough to judge an entire culture? I would disagree. After all, not all Englishmen are uninformed, loud mouthed, arrogant, a-holes that even their own countrymen don't want back just because Piers is.

    [/QUOTE]

    What you've said is true, but when small kids are killed because of a mad man i think that that calls for a change because this isn't the first time that this has happened.

  15. #71
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,657
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Quote Originally Posted by jbk1203 View Post
    What you've said is true, but when small kids are killed because of a mad man i think that that calls for a change because this isn't the first time that this has happened.
    So how about making it easier for sane people to defend children against mad men? That would be a change.
    Last edited by mican333; January 22nd, 2014 at 07:06 AM.

  16. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
    Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  17. #72
    J Davids
    Guest

    Re: Does America Have a GUN disease?

    Fender has a very good point about shooters not having good mental health. You simply don't go out and shoot somebody just because you're mad at them or even if they're doing you wrong, there are other ways to get your own way without going to jail for at least 25 years and maybe even making a little money yourself if it's a civil matter. It's no way to talk about civil matters like that, but there's far better alternatives to shooting someone, that's the point I'm trying to make.


    From my own perspective, I kind of like the ability to go into a gun store, slap money on the table for a Springfield .30-06 and less than 10 minutes later, if my paperwork checks out, walk out of the store with that rifle. When I say paperwork, I mean the gun owner calling the government, giving my drivers license #, description and name to them and waiting for them to run out my track record.


    Mentally Ill people don't have clean track records and therefore cannot buy a gun. But what about someone that doesn't have a history of mental health intending to do harm? Well, the man owning the gun shop is a human being and has the ability to tell if someone's running on all cylinders or not. Meaning that the gun owner can tell if the customer is a potential threat. He can't tell all the time, but running a gun store requires the ability to know what someone's actually buying a gun for. You can tell by body language, eye contact, movement, how they talk and a lot of things.

    What about guns in the home? Parents should keep guns locked in a gun case or a gun cabinet in a separate room from ammunition. No one under the age of 18 should have the direct ability to access a gun without the parent. Inside the case, the guns should also have their own locks, which the parents have the only keys to. This would prevent more accidents with children improperly handling guns.

    The government, instead of limiting the LAW ABIDING citizen's right to have guns, should increase national awareness about guns. yeah, it sounds stupid on the surface, but think about it.
    You're watching TV and it's at commercial break. A cute GEICO ad finishes up. Then a man in a white background comes on holding a rifle. Not in a threatening way, just holding it. He says "You've obviously seen one of these before, in movies and pictures and TV shows. This is a gun. Not a toy gun, a real gun. Over a third of Americans own one. What comes to mind when you think about guns? Do you think about an action hero blowing the baddies away or do you think of a dangerous weapon that does more harm than good? Do you think about a tool once used in every day life to make life easier or do you think of a weapon used to hurt? It's understandable if you do, but also remember that this hunk of metal isn't the only reason we hear about them on the news. It's also the people that use them for their own reasons, not to put food on their table or spend an afternoon with family members, but to hurt and kill, not for self defense, but out of poor mental health and disregard for the welfare of others.
    "Do you think guns should be made illegal? it's okay if you do, just remember that you can make a difference and not have to turn on your TV and see one less terrible story. Visit firearms.us.gov to learn more about guns, gun safety and become an educated voter now. *holding up rifle* So we can have a safer country and still have these around."

    If there were ads like that on TV, there wouldn't be as many shootings we're hearing about. If you don't know proper gun safety, take the time to. Look up a video on gun safety on YouTube, if that's all you're going to do. The guns aren't the problems, it's keeping them out of the real problem's hands. Thank you for reading this.

  18. Likes cstamford liked this post
 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 28
    Last Post: September 11th, 2013, 01:35 PM
  2. Replies: 61
    Last Post: January 9th, 2012, 04:37 AM
  3. Aspartame Disease
    By Snoop in forum Conspiracies
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 10th, 2007, 08:55 PM
  4. Gun exposure and gun control
    By chadn737 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: September 30th, 2007, 12:42 PM
  5. Morgellons disease
    By Snoop in forum General Debate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 25th, 2006, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •