peterb (15-12-2012)
So does explosives, or poison, or bows, or crossbows, also guns are still available on the black market if you really want one, hell you could just mow people down with a 4x4. Legally acquired guns and knives aren't the only tools in the nutjob's toolbox. Really screwed up people will do really terrible things when they're determined enough to do so regardless of legal constraints (a given, it's already illegal to murder). The only real solution is to nip those problems in the bud before they fester to that point.Originally Posted by peterb
Maybe,the culture of trying to use guns as a way to solve problems,might be the slight problem here.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 15-12-2012 at 07:57 PM.
As a fair few Americans have said, I think even on this forum, the answer is to give everyone guns so everyone is afraid to use them.
Sorry no
The solution is getting Americans to stop reaching straight for a gun as soon as they don't like something.
Or if that does not work get rid of them all.
If a kid is throwing a block at another kid and hurting them do you take away the block being thrown or do you give the other kid a block to throw back?
I think a summary of the issue is this:
No guns in the world = no gun crime
Guns in the world = Gun crime
Since guns in the world = 1 and since the chance of removing all guns from the world = 0 (pretty much)
Then Gun crime = 1
The question then is how do we minimize gun crime?
Usually suggested option A - Remove as many guns as possible because less guns = less gun crime
Usually suggested option B - Advocate the responsible ownership of guns by the vast majority of the population because most gun criminals use guns because they believe it gives them an advantage - a weapon of power. Balance that out and the incentive to use guns is removed.
The objections to (A) are usually:
i) The right to own and carry a fireman is part of the legal and cultural fabric of the USA. It is written into the Constitution.
ii) In as large and modern a country as the USA where guns will always be available some crime will always happen.
iii) The passing of laws is a far cry from the enforcement of laws. Additionally, crime is committed by criminals - ie. law breakers. Gun-removing laws only serve to remove guns from the law-abiding.
iv) Since (i) (ii) and (iii) are true, and some people will always have guns, I want (and have) the right to use a gun to defend myself and those around me.
Objections to (B) are usually:
i) Well, actually, they're usually not made. The argument is generally taken to be self-evident.
Objections to the 'self-evident' defense are varied but usually based on historical examples, some of which may be:
i) Norway - A country with extremely strict gun laws. Recently though Anders Breivik managed to obtain and carry into a 'gun-free' zone a shotgun, a handgun and an automatic weapon.
ii) UK - Knife crime 'epidemic' - in number and type knives have been pretty much constant in the UK, so there must have been another reason behind the problem. Since the problem arose at a time after which numerous knife-laws had been put in place the idea that less weapons = less crime isn't self-evident.
iii) UK - gun crime. Another country with very strict laws and yet in the past year two horrific incidents. This would be an example of where an individual could argue that gun laws don't stop gun crime and since that's the case, in such circumstances, an individual would want the right, in the USA, to defend themselves.
A different objection given to (B) (more guns) - though not often heard for some reason - is that it is an 'ideal' solution just like 'no guns at all' is an 'ideal'. The reality, it may be argued, is that less and less people want the responsibility of owning a firearm. As sad as that thought might be to some people, the argument is that widespread, responsible gun ownership with the mindset to defend oneself and others using deadly force, is a dream that cannot be reality. Instead, the prevailing ideal is to give that power and responsibility to those trained individuals who are desirous to bear that responsibility - ie. the police. Additionally, the police should be working hard to remove firearms from all other individuals. Thus to reach the ideal of as few firearms as possible (reducing the chance of events like this recent one where easy access to firearm was likely a significant factor) whilst also have a trained and responsible body prepared to deal with any other situations that might arise.
This though does not come without objection from the other side:
i) Advocating individual responsibility is important for any society and is, arguably, a founding principle for the USA carried in much of the mindset of life there. It is a bad thing to advocate the shirking of responsibility and a good/healthy thing to advocate the growth and taking of individual responsibility.
ii) None of this removes the right of an individual to defend themselves. Especially when..
iii) A trained and responsible armed force who is infallible is also just an 'ideal'. It would be impossible for any such force to respond to every single in time to prevent deaths. Also, government organisations generally don't have the best record in terms of efficiency and adequacy. Instead...
iv) It's likely that the centralization of power would give rise to abuses. This is the basic argument in defense of public gun ownership. Permitting the government to remove all firearms from the public and retain them themselves would in itself give them an improper sense of superiority. It would also give them all the power to do as they please without fear of repercussion. Often objected to as being alarmist in nature, the response is that history is full of examples where this has occurred and is precisely why, after all those examples, the founders of the USA wrote into law the 2nd amendment. It's one of those situations where the truth of something won't be seen unless and until it's already needed - too late.
What's left then, is risk.
Ban guns, remove them from the streets and everyone has to face the risk that they have no option for defending themselves or their family from criminals, face the tyranny of a government which has accrued too much power, and, the argument goes, tip the balance towards more crime, not less.
Advocate responsible gun ownership and give people the capacity to defend themselves and their community, to remind the government that they do not hold total power, but risk the use of those weapons by irresponsible individuals and the reality that few people will take on that responsibility.
In the end it all comes down to risk and responsibility.
For me that is a choice the people should make, not the government. Referendum?
The last word in all of this for me, is that no matter the gun laws passed or not, the issue here in this horrific event and others like it, is that a young man, for whatever reasons or by whatever cause, had it in his heart and mind to murder both his parents and then slaughter children. Clearly there are issues there that have nothing to do with firearms. The tragedy isn't that firearms were used. The tragedy is that a family was broken part, self-destructing and especially that many lives, many young lives were taken. As was seen in China on the same day, this sort of action can still occur even if firearms aren't around. If the President and America is truly upset about what went on, if it's important to do something about firearms, it's even more important - most important - that something is done to deal with the root causes of these incidents.
I think that's the thing that gets lost in all this. Even in the President's speech, his anger seemed to be more leveled at the gun issue rather than the societal one. Maybe nothing could have been done about this young man. Maybe in this situation the absence of firearms might have been the only way the situation could have been 'better'. Nevertheless, the most important thing is to figure that out.
That, for me, is the tragedy of this event and one that America needs to look at urgently. The UK too, following the rampage of just a little while ago.
Peace be with those families, and may healing come swiftly.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
0iD (17-12-2012)
Never said it was the right answer, just one that a lot, read all the gun toting vocal ones, of Americans have convinced themselves is the only answer.
An interesting article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...united-states/
Look at Americas foreign diplomatic solutions over the years - hell look how easy it is to sue through their law at the slightest thing, and then you will get bigger picture .
Americas whole mentality is built on his wheelhouse of their way or the high way ,and if you dont like it too bad because we can blow the BEEP out of you any way.
Their not interested in benefiting any one other themselves , just like the global elite ,so it becomes the rule for how everyone else should "win " at the expense of someone else who wont .
People are doing it every day - whether its guns or money .
What worse a tormented kid shooting like that , or rich well off businessmen profiting from a war that kills far more people just to serve their own needs ?
m
Last edited by melon; 15-12-2012 at 11:56 PM.
Melon, please name a country for which this is not also true.Their not interested in benefiting any one other themselves
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
of course , but when your a superpower you have responsibilities too - or should - in not having to resort to those means otherwise it just creates a trend .
As a above so below - thats might whole point - change needs to come from a "higher power " spiritual or otherwise .
you lead by example - or try too , not wage dirty wars or import dictators to control other countries and then re invade them when they've reached their end .
Violence does not solve violence - esp in understanding what caused it before its too late.
m
Last edited by melon; 16-12-2012 at 01:03 AM.
Just something I read ..
Im actually for weapons BTW , but only for those vulnerable as means of choice and defence .
I know some say this would make us target , but the way I see it in this society, we're a target any way because its obvious.
m
Gun culture is the American way, the country is founded on the principle. Still, media has a lot to play in desensitising successive generations; whether that be TV, Films or video games. They all play their part.
Then there's the issue of availability. Prettymuch unlimited range of lethal weaponry readily available, poorly stored and controlled.
Poor mental health facilities, but then so do we.
Cultural, commercial, media, psychological, so many factors.
[
Corruption is the universal theme though..
The same president who ok drones to kill innocent children cries for them when its infront of the camera .
And thats the same guy running the country- at least on tv.
m
They need to fix their Gun Laws, it makes it a hell of a lot easier for things like this to happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
