| Author |
|
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132621
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 10:44am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
If certain types of guns were outlawed, how would the government safely collect the weapons? Seems like there would be a lot of violent standoffs between gun nuts and the police. Something should be done, but its hard to see how it could be accomplished. Just banning future sales would be shutting the barn door after the horses were already out. •• The best way to quit smoking is to never start, and, unfortunately, that is very true here, too.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:02am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Do they really not see the difference between the mayor of a huge city having trained armed guards and ANYONE being able to acquire automatic weapons?
***
I have had my faith in human nature reduced by some of the ludicrous comments I've seen on various news feeds and news pages. Like the one I've quoted above, it's ridiculous. Of course the mayor of a huge city needs trained armed guards.
I've actually read many ridiculous comments over time. There was one in a UK newspaper about two years ago, where someone said it was necessary for Americans to carry guns in case a dictator ever takes over the nation. If that did happen, then, like Mr. Byrne said, all would be lost. They've lost the arguments.
I just hope the MPs in your legislature stop paying lip service to this issue and do something about it. It's not enough, and is rather hollow, if your MPs simply express remorse and talk about how bad it all is and how more must be done. Actions do speak louder than words.
EDIT
Just as an example of ludicrous arguments, a comment on an article I saw just now mentioned how, if we're going to restrict gun sales, we should restrict knives and forks for obese people, limiting their food when we can.
There is a big difference between shootings and an obesity epidemic and to use such a comparison is insulting to the dead, in my view.
Edited by Robbie Parry on 15 December 2012 at 11:06am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132621
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:17am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
There was one in a UK newspaper about two years ago, where someone said it was necessary for Americans to carry guns in case a dictator ever takes over the nation. If that did happen, then, like Mr. Byrne said, all would be lost. They've lost the arguments.•• That's an all-too-popular argument in cases like these. Self-proclaimed "militias" form, claiming they represent the people's right to defend themselves against the government, and, of course, invoking the Second Amendment in support of that claim. Rather missing the point that the Second Amendment supports only "well regulated" militias, and only the government is empowered to regulate. The moment an organization sets itself up in opposition to the government, it abdicates the protections (such as the Second Amendment) provided by that government.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14830
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:18am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
As the Country and the World for that matter becomes more and more Godless and secular, acts like this will continue .In a world where there is no accountability, and no remorse,,, what is to stop it from happening?? The "lights out " theory of death is of course what this mad man had in mind before he pulled the trigger
-----
Hence the data that shows that murder rates and violent crime are lower in secular countries and higher in religious countries. And even within the U.S., you see murder rates the highest in the most religious Southern states, while the states with the lowest religiosity, like Vermont and Oregon, have low murder rates.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:24am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
That's an all-too-popular argument in cases like these. Self-proclaimed "militias" form, claiming they represent the people's right to defend themselves against the government, and, of course, invoking the Second Amendment in support of that claim. Rather missing the point that the Second Amendment supports only "well regulated" militias, and only the government is empowered to regulate.
***
The pro-gun arguments I hear - and believe me, some Brits like the idea of the "right to bear arms" - are very weak. They'll pick and choose things that suit their arguments, whilst avoiding all logic.
We have no idea what the future holds. I could wake up tomorrow and find a dictator has taken over democratic countries. You'd deal with it as it happens, but using such a scenario to defend the right to own all sorts of guns is wrong. What would happen, for instance, if I were to walk around the streets with a very long blade and said, "I need to carry this in case a group of knife-wielding thugs attack me." People would think I was being illogical and would tell me that I am being extremely speculative and hypothetical.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:34am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Michael Kane wrote:
As the Country and the World for that matter becomes more and more Godless and secular, acts like this will continue .In a world where there is no accountability, and no remorse,,, what is to stop it from happening?? The "lights out " theory of death is of course what this mad man had in mind before he pulled the trigger
This is only so much twaddle. I find it offensive. Which God are you speaking about, There are hundreds.
There is no reason to think that someone who does not worship a deity has no sense of accountability nor a sense of remorse. these issues have been with mankind all along. If anything, being aware that I have only this one shot at life forces me to be more truly empathetic toward my fellow man, forces me to really think about the repercussions of my actions, and adjust accordingly.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:37am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
I propose we begin to take the 2nd amendment seriously.
Resolved:
You own a gun, you are now part of the military, considered a first responder ahead of any new recruits and draft age children. Outside of the military/law enforcement there is a total ban on gun ownership. you get caught with a gun, you get sent to the military...enjoy your service.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:38am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I wouldn't call myself an atheist (I think there is something or someone out there, call it a gut feeling), but having known atheists in my life, I know them, on the whole, to be people who, because they belief in one life only, choose to live that life in an altruistic manner.
There are exceptions, of course. However, getting away from the gun issue very briefly, you'd never have a situation where atheists go to war over their non-belief in God. Sure, there have been atheists who have committed evil acts, but they did those evil acts despite their atheism, not because of it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6854
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:38am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Gun nuts and God nuts... two groups that you would think should be diametrically opposed... and yet they keep finding each other!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 132621
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:46am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
I wouldn't call myself an atheist (I think there is something or someone out there, call it a gut feeling), but having known atheists in my life, I know them, on the whole, to be people who, because they belief in one life only, choose to live that life in an altruistic manner. There are exceptions, of course. However, getting away from the gun issue very briefly, you'd never have a situation where atheists go to war over their non-belief in God. Sure, there have been atheists who have committed evil acts, but they did those evil acts despite their atheism, not because of it. •• Invariably the argument is made that religion and faith prevent people from doing "bad things" -- which, of course, completely ignores the history books.
|
| 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 11:50am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
and believe me, some Brits like the idea of the "right to bear arms" ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- I have never heard anyone in Britain think like this. It is usually one of the (few) things that I've heard people say they don't like about America: "it's dangerous there as they are all gun nuts".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 15 December 2012 at 11:54am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
It's been dispiriting to see that for the most part, the reaction to this man-made catastrophe has been the same as always, just more emotional: Those who support gun control argue passionately for it. Those who support gun ownership claim that anything else was the problem. The following are real arguments I've seen so far:
1) If the mother had stored her guns correctly, this wouldn't have happened.
2) Crazy people intent on murder would still commit murder even if guns were outlawed.
3) The problem is with a godless society.
4) He could have caused the same damage with a knife or by crashing a car through the school.
5) Removing guns from innocent people only results in criminals, police, and military having guns.
And I of course give the same response:
1) 20 people -- including the mother -- paid the ultimate price because of the mother's insistence on owning guns and her inability to keep them out of the hands of a lunatic. Obviously, the goal of having guns for her own protection failed.
2) Yes, McVeigh blew up a building with fertilizer. 9/11 terrorists used box cutters. But fertilizer and box cutters have other, non-lethal purposes. A gun's sole purpose is to kill. And it kills far more easily than any other weapon. I don't get the logic that says, "Criminals can kill you with a rope if they want to, so let's not even bother trying to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Cat's out of the bag."
3) If we're a "godless" society, then why do the "god-fearing" want to stockpile weapons? Is that a passage of the Bible that I missed? "Let's not get rid of guns... let's ensure that everyone prays in school and doesn't get gay married and then I can keep my guns that I shouldn't have to use in my fairy tale world."
4) Someone could have disarmed this scum if he just had a knife. He's not a trained assassin. The body count certainly wouldn't be as high. Guns allow for untrained people to kill large numbers quickly from a distance. Few other weapons can do this. Certainly not a car where he would have one shot to do damage.
5) I'm at the point where I wonder what type of "innocent" person wants to own assault rifles. However, this argument always comes down to paranoia. "Criminals" will still have guns -- though logic demonstrates that it would be much harder to get them and if only criminals have guns, then someone with a gun is obviously a criminal. In a concealed carry state, your pastor could have a gun. The worst combination of our guns laws was in Florida, where a teen probably was running for his life from someone he didn't know and then fought back because he saw the guy had a gun... yet, his fighting back under those circumstances was used to provide a "defense" of "standing his ground."
Finally, this is the 21st Century. If the government wants to instill martial law, it doesn't need to remove everyone's guns to do that. What's astonishing is that so many gun rights advocates are also politically conservative and support some of the more restrictive anti-terrorist laws that has been passed since 9/11. All the government has to do is label you a "terrorist" and it's game over. And you can't own enough guns to defend yourself against the U.S. military.
So, the same tired old arguments. And more children die. This country is sick and I fear it's terminal.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
