| Author |
|
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 3:17pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
MARCIO: But any of those explain why countries with similar rates of gun ownership have insignificant rates of occurrence of attacks made by crazy lunatics.
...Switzerland have one of the highest rates of gun ownership by civilians and they do not have as many evil crazy lunatics?
*******
SER: To me, that would imply that the U.S. is *less* capable of having free and easy access to guns.
******
MARCIO: I have mentioned before that in my country it is nearly impossible to buy guns legally and yet, a lot more people die here due to the use of firearms, so I don't believe that this is the issue.
***
SER: We can discuss the effectiveness of gun laws but right now, children are dying because people have *legal* access to guns. If the CT shooter got the weapons from his mother, that's a known risk of legal gun ownership.
********
MARCIO: As a father, I cannot describe how it hurts when I read or see children being killed or loosing their lives in car accidents, but in my opinion, banish guns will not "resolve" these situations.
***
SER: Yes, it will. The CT shooter would have needed a criminal contact to the black market to purchase the guns. There would have been the chance for him to either die or be arrested during their purchase and storage. In our current culture, his mother could stockpile weapons legally and he had easy access to them (I don't think there are surprise inspections on gun owners to ensure that their guns are stored properly).
As for your car analogy, the primary purpose of a car is not to kill. I could bludgeon someone with a copy of WAR AND PEACE but it's not designed as a lethal weapon. Consider how an eating disorder is treated compared to alcoholism. Someone has to eat to live, so if their are potential negative consequences to their eating (to excess), that must be carefully monitored and managed -- just as the ownership of cars is regulated. However, if someone is an alcoholic, the simplest and most effective treatment is for them to stop drinking entirely. You can function without alcohol.
Regardless, no one has yet to explain why we live in a country where if I pay someone $1,000 for sex, we've both committed a crime but if I pay someone $1,000 for an assault rifle, I'm exercising my Constitutional freedoms.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132671
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 3:32pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
In one of her humorous essays, Sarah Vowell describes talking to an RCMP officer about why she loves Canada. She admires our northern neighbor, she says, because it is so much less violent than the United States, both presently and thru its history. No gangland shoot-em-ups, no Indian massacres (in either direction), etc."Yes," agrees the Mountie, "but remember, we are a young country." "But," says Ms Vowell, "you're a very well behaved young country!" Sadly, the US (my adopted homeland, wouldn't want to live anywhere else) is a very badly behaved young country. We are still haunted by the insecurities of being small and defenseless when we were "born", and, unlike Canada, having expended westward as an act of war as much as colonization. The "Wild West" still lives in our memories, and for some is an all-too-real thing. A man wasn't a man without a gun on his hip, and that thinking persists. Only now the guns are not six-shooters that misfired as often as not. Now they are assault weapons, firing multiple shots per second. The machine gun, I once read, was invented to turn every soldier into a marksman. It fires a constant stream of bullets that go where the shooter points. Careful aim is not necessary. Neither is the cold, dispassionate decision to select a victim, aim and fire. The machine gun made killing mechanical and somehow distant, and modern weapons continue this. And that, unfortunately, feeds our "Wild West" mentality. In the movie HIS GIRL FRIDAY, reporter Hildy Johnson conjures a defense for an accused killer when he tells her he heard a speaker talking of "production for use". Hildy creates the shooter as a man finding himself with a gun in his hand, and the words "production for use" resonating in his brain. A feeling, I am sure, not at all uncommon to many gun owners. How many of us have thought we would have no use for some new contraption -- a computer, a digital camera, a cell phone -- yet, having acquired one, quickly find ourselves unable to imagine "how (we) got along before without it!" How can guns be any different? Especially handguns and assault weapons, which are "produced" for only one "use" -- to kill people.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Leigh DJ Hunt
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 February 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1570
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 3:42pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I've seen so many on twitter going on about how the same day in China 20 children were killed by a man with a knife.
They weren't. There were no fatalities in the China incident.
Because he only had a knife.
Did the NRA send an email out to all their drones telling them this lie?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Stephen said: To me, that would imply that the U.S. is *less* capable of having free and easy access to guns. +++ I disagree with your statement, simply because it is way too superficial, how come these things don't happen there? It is not a fair statement to suggest that Americans are less capable. And yet, the celebrity issue is not even taken into consideration, when for me this is the "real issue".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 4:38pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
MARCIO:
And yet, the celebrity issue is not even taken into consideration, when for me this is the "real issue".
SER: Let's go to your original statement:
MARCIO: I stick to my perception, the real problem is that American society addiction to "celebrities" (good and bad) is the issue. Most lunatics that are crazy enough to carry out such a despicable act have many things in common, they felt rejected, they were not popular, they were not recognized, and they believed they final act would be a thunderstorm for the entire country.
SER: OK, is that issue unique to the U.S.? If so, why? And if so, it would seem the resolving that problem is more complicated than simply ensuring that emotionally unbalanced people do not have free and easy access to guns.
There's a curious circular logic I've found with many guns-rights supporters who blame societal factors for gun violence.
So, in a pre-celebrity-obsessed culture, without sex and violence on TV and in video games, where children were raised in homes with a mother and father and kids prayed in school, people were apparently less violent and our culture could freely and safely have guns everywhere... but if our society was that safe, then why did we need the guns?
Isn't it more logical that the reason we stockpile assault weapons and advocate for concealed carry laws is because, as a whole, we fear and distrust our fellow citizens?
Either way, how many kids have to die before we remove the means of effectively killing them.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 4:59pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
I am a believer in action. I'm not an American, but I do care about people all around the world. And I believe in direct action - I hope people write a letter to their elected representatives, a strongly worded letter demanding action. It won't change anything over night, but this is not the first time that has happened over there and words from America's lawmakers are simply not enough.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 6:23pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
SER:OK, is that issue unique to the U.S.? If so, why? And if so, it would seem the resolving that problem is more complicated than simply ensuring that emotionally unbalanced people do not have free and easy access to guns. +++ I don't have an answer for that, but it seems that this is stronger in US than anywhere else. If the reason behind the killing is related to my previous comments (and that is all speculation, mind you) perhaps restrict the access would not prevent the tragedy. I advocate that the access to guns should be restricted and controlled, but NEVER forbidden. Weapons in the hands of civilians creates the "right balance" to prevent the government to switch from democracy to autocracy (e.g. China) without any means to fight back. It is like the nuclear weapons, you don't have to use to demonstrate that you can use it when it is really necessary. That is why, in my humble opinion, Switzerland is very good model for the world. Their army is not in the HQ, each man is a soldier, and each man received training on how to use guns, they keep their guns at home, not at the army HQ, each citizen is responsible to defend their country and their families from whatever threat that may arise. Now, maybe, that is why they have very low rates of homicides. What I believe is that it is really weird and scary that someone living next door could be stockpiling weapons, machine guns, etc. But I am not convinced that the main reason for the killing was because guns were available to civilians, I honestly believe that the main reason for the killing was the fact that the attacker was 100% sure that his name would be on national television, that he would be a celebrity (a bad one, but still a celebrity) he would be remembered as the evil child killer, people would talk about him, his life and maybe, they would even make a movie about him. That is the real issue. If the press would not make him an instantaneous "hot topic", maybe he would not have his reward, he could decide that there are other ways to become famous. Who knows....
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 6:30pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
Robbie, I would also write to the media, and ask them about their share of responsibility. I would ask if the culture of instant celebrities in USA is not the real issue behind it. I would ask them to come up with an alternative to make these attacks public.One example, in Brazil, there are criminal organizations that were becoming powerful, only because the general perception of the public was that they were powerful and all that was because the news about them were making people believe in that. I don't know how or who did it, but eventually, they stopped saying the name of the organization, they stopped giving them credit. And that contributed for the people to perceive them as not so powerful. Perception is a very powerful thing, I am not saying that media should have government control, that is dangerous and stupid, but self regulated press should take responsibility for what they are doing.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 7:32pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
MARCIO: Weapons in the hands of civilians creates the "right balance" to prevent the government to switch from democracy to autocracy (e.g. China) without any means to fight back.
SER: Private citizens cannot organize to overthrow the government. There are countless laws on the books (mostly anti-terror, anti-militia) that would prevent this. The citizens would be in captured and imprisoned.
This isn't the 19th Century. The Civil War would be impossible now given advances in technology.
We have legal and non-violent means of "overthrowing" our government through the ballot. There are also multiple checks and balances in place to prevent any one leader going rogue.
**********
MARCIO: But I am not convinced that the main reason for the killing was because guns were available to civilians, I honestly believe that the main reason for the killing was the fact that the attacker was 100% sure that his name would be on national television, that he would be a celebrity (a bad one, but still a celebrity) he would be remembered as the evil child killer, people would talk about him, his life and maybe, they would even make a movie about him. That is the real issue.
If the press would not make him an instantaneous "hot topic", maybe he would not have his reward, he could decide that there are other ways to become famous. Who knows....
***
SER: You're attributing logic to a twisted lunatic who killed women and children with as much thought as you and floss our teeth.
I also fail to grasp your logic. A deranged man killed people because he had access to assault weapons. That is the primary reason these people are dead. No other weapon would have allowed so high a body count so easily. That is undeniable.
I'm not interested in speculation and mind-reading about someone for whom we know nothing about. What we do know is that children are dead because this piece of garbage had access to assault weapons. That is a fact. All else is speculation.
Now, if we find a manifesto in his room stating essentially, "I only committed this horrible act because I thought it would make me famous and if the modern media was not what it is, I would have devoted my life to prayer and fasting," then and only then will I engage in that debate.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4942
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 8:34pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Marcio, here is an editorial that talks about what you are discussing and what I was alluding to a few pages back. What makes the US different? I can't be just about the guns.
In the editorial, there is a line that is prophetic.
"Mark David Chapman gets the fan mail that John Lennon can’t."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4942
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 8:39pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
As for some of the comments above, a while back here in China there was a run of school attacks and many of them ended in the murder of many students, most quite young. There have probably been more but of course the government will hush them up. From what I read, the reason why they were attacking children was that it was the only way the attackers could think of hurting the government. Many of the attackers had had their land taken from them and had been beaten by the police or hired goons. They had nothing to live for so they decided to take it out the only way they could. A few years ago a man who had had everything taken away from him by the government and the police and the corrupt officials went into a police station and killed a large amount of officers with a sword. It was his way of dealing with the end of everything he had.
There is no relationship between what happened in China to what happend in the US.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Marcel Chenier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2723
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 9:06pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
This is a clipping from a conversation I'm having with a friend on Facebook:
The Second Amendment 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 right to bear arms cannot be separated from the idea of a well-regulated militia. So, we see in the amendment itself that regulations play an important roll in the right to bear arms (not to mention gun-ownership being equated with participation in an American militia/military). Therefore, to deny thorough regulations is to deny the amendment itself. This is never included in anyone's argument, and to not include it is to overlook the amendment--and the right to bear arms--itself. Strong regulations must be enforced to adhere to the spirit and letter of the amendment. The only honest and responsible thing to do is to live up to what is contained in the amendment.
Opposition to stricter gun policy in the US will cite everything under the sun *except* the amendment itself in their arguments. And it's no wonder they do so.
Edited by Marcel Chenier on 15 December 2012 at 9:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
