'National psyche' is not an issue here; in fact, I daresay it is a fiction. The low gun-related violence in Finland can be (and has been) accounted for by the low concentration of the population. Worldwide, gun-related violence concentrates in areas of popualation concentration (i.e. cities, especially larger ones). It is to be noted that the correlation is exponential in nature (i.e. there is much more than just a linear connection population increase -> violence increase)
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter.
You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words.
For a stranger there is really nothing you can say to make things any easier for the families who lost their children.[/QUOTE]
wow are we naive here or what? guiliani not only doesnt care about 9/11 victims, he is part of the gang who planned 9/11[/QUOTE]
...and this comes from the same person who thinks Freddie Mercury is god.
You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words.
For a stranger there is really nothing you can say to make things any easier for the families who lost their children.[/QUOTE]
wow are we naive here or what? guiliani not only doesnt care about 9/11 victims, he is part of the gang who planned 9/11[/QUOTE]
...and this comes from the same person who thinks Freddie Mercury is god.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment = the gang that planned 911 [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME] You have to make a difference between an official representative like Bush or Guiliani and private words of support - which can be very helpful if you genuinely care. The Bush statement is just lip service, he made a statement because it goes with the job. I don't think he gives a toss about the families who lost their children. Guiliani was in New York when the WTC collapsed, so he was affected and found the right words. [/QUOTE]
You’re exactly right. There is a difference between comments from public officials and those privately offered. You’re also right that the comments from one were heartfelt and from the other, superficial.
I didn't mean to compare those two men, though, just the different ways support was offered.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter. [/QUOTE]
I find this very interesting. And this is what I'm talking about. If religion is a private matter, does that mean the average person doesn't automatically offer prayers either? In times of need, what do people say if not, "my prayers are with you" or some such thing? Because, here, not just from public officials, but also from the private sector, prayers are offered more than anything else.
You’re exactly right. There is a difference between comments from public officials and those privately offered. You’re also right that the comments from one were heartfelt and from the other, superficial.
I didn't mean to compare those two men, though, just the different ways support was offered.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Publicly speaking about prayers is a very American thing, I think. I have never heard a German politician offering a prayer, that would sound very weird in our ears because religion is a private matter. [/QUOTE]
I find this very interesting. And this is what I'm talking about. If religion is a private matter, does that mean the average person doesn't automatically offer prayers either? In times of need, what do people say if not, "my prayers are with you" or some such thing? Because, here, not just from public officials, but also from the private sector, prayers are offered more than anything else.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]pow wow wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Just because something is part of the Constitution does not make it right, things move on.
I feel this thread is going to go on and on again and frankly there's more chance of Jehovah Witness turning up on my doorstep talking sense than there is some of you blinkered lot. [/QUOTE]
The gun control debate will not go away any time soon - just like the abortion debate. They're issues that whip up passion from both sides.
I don't think there's one answer, nor do I believe one answer will be accepted by everyone. However, the need to revisit existing gun laws certainly exists. I hope the next president - whomever that may be - will have the balls to take on the deep-pocketed NRA and make some much-needed changes.
Just because something is part of the Constitution does not make it right, things move on.
I feel this thread is going to go on and on again and frankly there's more chance of Jehovah Witness turning up on my doorstep talking sense than there is some of you blinkered lot. [/QUOTE]
The gun control debate will not go away any time soon - just like the abortion debate. They're issues that whip up passion from both sides.
I don't think there's one answer, nor do I believe one answer will be accepted by everyone. However, the need to revisit existing gun laws certainly exists. I hope the next president - whomever that may be - will have the balls to take on the deep-pocketed NRA and make some much-needed changes.
Words of support & a promise to pray = both as useless as each other.
Actions speaking louder than words, it's better to just shut up and do whatever it is you were about to 'pledge' to do.
See this is why I'd never be a good mayor though.. I suppose, psychologically speaking, some people need to hear certain things to get on with their lives.
Actions speaking louder than words, it's better to just shut up and do whatever it is you were about to 'pledge' to do.
See this is why I'd never be a good mayor though.. I suppose, psychologically speaking, some people need to hear certain things to get on with their lives.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]'National psyche' is not an issue here; in fact, I daresay it is a fiction. The low gun-related violence in Finland can be (and has been) accounted for by the low concentration of the population. Worldwide, gun-related violence concentrates in areas of popualation concentration (i.e. cities, especially larger ones). It is to be noted that the correlation is exponential in nature (i.e. there is much more than just a linear connection population increase -> violence increase)[/QUOTE]
National culture would indeed play a limited role in nations so large and diverse as the United States, as well as Europe as a whole. It's also a valid point that population density also contributes to an increased volume in violence. There is also a correlation to income level and standard of living.
I think I might even agree that banning guns would reduce levels of gun violence. Alcohol consumption was reduced during prohibition, and recreational drug use is reduced when it is illegal. However, much the same, gun violence will certainly never be eliminated (or reduced to a significant level) under any circumstances. The main issue, for me, is that, with strict gun control laws, the only way for me to protect myself from a gun-wielding aggressor is to openly break the law. I simply do not, and never will, trust the government to protect me or anyone else.
If guns were more prevalent, never again would a one-sided massacre ever occur. Everybody would be given an equal opportunity to survive. Perhaps gun violence is minimized in the situations of absolute gun control, and absolute gun freedom. Therefore, in compromising, the United States would be inadvertently maximizing gun violence.
If the only utility of a gun were aggression, I'd certainly agree to ban them. However, in addition to the several uses that do not involve killing people (by far the vast majority), there is also the utility of being the only possible way to protect yourself against gun-wielding aggressors.
National culture would indeed play a limited role in nations so large and diverse as the United States, as well as Europe as a whole. It's also a valid point that population density also contributes to an increased volume in violence. There is also a correlation to income level and standard of living.
I think I might even agree that banning guns would reduce levels of gun violence. Alcohol consumption was reduced during prohibition, and recreational drug use is reduced when it is illegal. However, much the same, gun violence will certainly never be eliminated (or reduced to a significant level) under any circumstances. The main issue, for me, is that, with strict gun control laws, the only way for me to protect myself from a gun-wielding aggressor is to openly break the law. I simply do not, and never will, trust the government to protect me or anyone else.
If guns were more prevalent, never again would a one-sided massacre ever occur. Everybody would be given an equal opportunity to survive. Perhaps gun violence is minimized in the situations of absolute gun control, and absolute gun freedom. Therefore, in compromising, the United States would be inadvertently maximizing gun violence.
If the only utility of a gun were aggression, I'd certainly agree to ban them. However, in addition to the several uses that do not involve killing people (by far the vast majority), there is also the utility of being the only possible way to protect yourself against gun-wielding aggressors.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zebonka12 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Words of support & a promise to pray = both as useless as each other.
Actions speaking louder than words, it's better to just shut up and do whatever it is you were about to 'pledge' to do. [/QUOTE]
I agree in part. Actions do speak louder than words. But sometimes, if they're the right words, they can help a person recover from whatever it is they needed support for in the first place.
When I had to put my first pet to sleep, years ago, the vet said something to me that still affects me today. My dog was 16 and he said the time I had with her might not have been enough for me, but 16 years of living was a lot for her. She'd lived her life and it was time for me to let her go. I've found an odd comfort in that and have drawn on it several times since then. So, words of support are not always useless.
Actions speaking louder than words, it's better to just shut up and do whatever it is you were about to 'pledge' to do. [/QUOTE]
I agree in part. Actions do speak louder than words. But sometimes, if they're the right words, they can help a person recover from whatever it is they needed support for in the first place.
When I had to put my first pet to sleep, years ago, the vet said something to me that still affects me today. My dog was 16 and he said the time I had with her might not have been enough for me, but 16 years of living was a lot for her. She'd lived her life and it was time for me to let her go. I've found an odd comfort in that and have drawn on it several times since then. So, words of support are not always useless.
Since it seems like this topic is going off on a bit of a tangent anyway, I feel the need to jump in and justify a few things (besides, everyone knows how much I LOVE a good debate)
I know that I've said this before, but having guns available for purchase legally doesn't mean that everyone will go out and commit crime, just like banning guns doesn't mean that all violent crime will cease. The UK for example, has very strict gun laws compared to the US. But when I was in Glasgow in December/January visiting my friends, I walked past a location where someone was stabbed and bled to death on the campus of Strathclyde. In addition I talked to friends who had been threatened by the "Neds" as they call them with being stabbed for refusing to give them money for a bus fare. As I talked with people (both U of Strathclyde students and others I met) and listened to the news of the past year and goals for the next year in Scotland and the UK in general, I found out that Glasgow has a HUGE knife problem. Japan has the same thing; violent crime still exists, its just the method that is used to perpetuate it changes. Banning guns is not going to stop violent crime.
National psyche may not play a big role to us who don't feel particularly beholden to a national identity, but lets face facts here...most people are not like us and very quickly and powerfully identify to their national identity. Myself, for example: I don't identify as an American and I probably never will; I identify myself as a member of the human race who happens to come from a country called America and I'd rather not be judged for being an American. But I am the exception to the rule, most Americans are very proud to be what they are. Like it or not, guns have played a major role in American history for a number of reasons. First is the frontier mentality...like it or not when Europeans showed up in this country they had to fight and defend their lives and families from Native Americans whom they viewed as inferior and savage. Guns were key to this; so in the American mind guns have become equated with people able to protect their lives, family and property. The EXACT same thing happened in Europe during the Middle Ages (only with other weapons and against Pagan "barbarians"), so they are no better. But they have had the advantage of time...the Middle Ages were a LONG time ago, which allows society to mature and remove itself from that idea; The frontier days in America are less than 200 years ago, less than the blink of an eye in the historical mindset. The second thing that plays a role is the American obsession with independence: Americans were terrified of government, and first made a government that was so weak that it collapsed. They made one that worked, but they were terrified to amassing to much power there. Guns were intended to be the protection of citizens from the government if it ever got over-zealous and tyrannical. This is bred into the American psyche; a fear of strong government and the equation that the more government you have, the more you have to fear. Especially in a period of war, people identify more strongly with the ideals of what their country is, and these are two VERY important ideals, and ideals that will never be removed most likely. And the prayer thing...that is very American. But that goes back to the founding of the country and the ideals of puritanism and what not...
Incidents like this will never be prevented; you cannot predict when someone will just go crazy and snap (which is ALWAYS what happens in these cases). To prevent the issue, you can't just take away the weapons they use, you'd have to know who it is and prevent them from snapping. It's the snapping that kills people, after that it's merely a matter of how many and by what method. Since you cannot go inside the psyche of people, determine that they are going to snap and lock them away, things like this will always hap
I know that I've said this before, but having guns available for purchase legally doesn't mean that everyone will go out and commit crime, just like banning guns doesn't mean that all violent crime will cease. The UK for example, has very strict gun laws compared to the US. But when I was in Glasgow in December/January visiting my friends, I walked past a location where someone was stabbed and bled to death on the campus of Strathclyde. In addition I talked to friends who had been threatened by the "Neds" as they call them with being stabbed for refusing to give them money for a bus fare. As I talked with people (both U of Strathclyde students and others I met) and listened to the news of the past year and goals for the next year in Scotland and the UK in general, I found out that Glasgow has a HUGE knife problem. Japan has the same thing; violent crime still exists, its just the method that is used to perpetuate it changes. Banning guns is not going to stop violent crime.
National psyche may not play a big role to us who don't feel particularly beholden to a national identity, but lets face facts here...most people are not like us and very quickly and powerfully identify to their national identity. Myself, for example: I don't identify as an American and I probably never will; I identify myself as a member of the human race who happens to come from a country called America and I'd rather not be judged for being an American. But I am the exception to the rule, most Americans are very proud to be what they are. Like it or not, guns have played a major role in American history for a number of reasons. First is the frontier mentality...like it or not when Europeans showed up in this country they had to fight and defend their lives and families from Native Americans whom they viewed as inferior and savage. Guns were key to this; so in the American mind guns have become equated with people able to protect their lives, family and property. The EXACT same thing happened in Europe during the Middle Ages (only with other weapons and against Pagan "barbarians"), so they are no better. But they have had the advantage of time...the Middle Ages were a LONG time ago, which allows society to mature and remove itself from that idea; The frontier days in America are less than 200 years ago, less than the blink of an eye in the historical mindset. The second thing that plays a role is the American obsession with independence: Americans were terrified of government, and first made a government that was so weak that it collapsed. They made one that worked, but they were terrified to amassing to much power there. Guns were intended to be the protection of citizens from the government if it ever got over-zealous and tyrannical. This is bred into the American psyche; a fear of strong government and the equation that the more government you have, the more you have to fear. Especially in a period of war, people identify more strongly with the ideals of what their country is, and these are two VERY important ideals, and ideals that will never be removed most likely. And the prayer thing...that is very American. But that goes back to the founding of the country and the ideals of puritanism and what not...
Incidents like this will never be prevented; you cannot predict when someone will just go crazy and snap (which is ALWAYS what happens in these cases). To prevent the issue, you can't just take away the weapons they use, you'd have to know who it is and prevent them from snapping. It's the snapping that kills people, after that it's merely a matter of how many and by what method. Since you cannot go inside the psyche of people, determine that they are going to snap and lock them away, things like this will always hap
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Incidents like this will never be prevented; you cannot predict when someone will just go crazy and snap (which is ALWAYS what happens in these cases). To prevent the issue, you can't just take away the weapons they use, you'd have to know who it is and prevent them from snapping. It's the snapping that kills people, after that it's merely a matter of how many and by what method. Since you cannot go inside the psyche of people, determine that they are going to snap and lock them away, things like this will always happen. The best we can do is try to limit the damage they can cause, and if they give signs of being at risk we can try to prevent it, but they have rights and freedoms just like everyone else; we cannot take that away from them just because we "think" they are a risk. [/QUOTE]
I have to take issue with this... did you expect anything less? :-)
Yeah, it's the snapping that kills people but you said right here that the best we can do is limit the damage they can cause. The best way to limit the damage is to take away the weapons that can cause the most damage. Guns vs. knives, for example. Chances are, a guy with a knife will be tackled and stopped before too much damage is done, while a guy with a gun will do as we've seen done too often on school campuses and elsewhere.
AND... in this particular case, like several others, this guy was on medication. He stopped it. He WAS a risk. But bought himself 4 guns. He should not have been able to purchase those guns in the first place. And, if proper laws were in place and/or enforced, he shouldn't have been able to buy them on the spot.
At the very least, there should be a long waiting period between applying to buy a gun and receiving it. To drive a car, you need to take lessons, pass a written test, a vision test and a driving test. What do you have to do to get a gun?
Incidents like this will never be prevented; you cannot predict when someone will just go crazy and snap (which is ALWAYS what happens in these cases). To prevent the issue, you can't just take away the weapons they use, you'd have to know who it is and prevent them from snapping. It's the snapping that kills people, after that it's merely a matter of how many and by what method. Since you cannot go inside the psyche of people, determine that they are going to snap and lock them away, things like this will always happen. The best we can do is try to limit the damage they can cause, and if they give signs of being at risk we can try to prevent it, but they have rights and freedoms just like everyone else; we cannot take that away from them just because we "think" they are a risk. [/QUOTE]
I have to take issue with this... did you expect anything less? :-)
Yeah, it's the snapping that kills people but you said right here that the best we can do is limit the damage they can cause. The best way to limit the damage is to take away the weapons that can cause the most damage. Guns vs. knives, for example. Chances are, a guy with a knife will be tackled and stopped before too much damage is done, while a guy with a gun will do as we've seen done too often on school campuses and elsewhere.
AND... in this particular case, like several others, this guy was on medication. He stopped it. He WAS a risk. But bought himself 4 guns. He should not have been able to purchase those guns in the first place. And, if proper laws were in place and/or enforced, he shouldn't have been able to buy them on the spot.
At the very least, there should be a long waiting period between applying to buy a gun and receiving it. To drive a car, you need to take lessons, pass a written test, a vision test and a driving test. What do you have to do to get a gun?
they want to ban guns so you can be a good slave later on when all your rights will be removed.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Yeah, it's the snapping that kills people but you said right here that the best we can do is limit the damage they can cause. The best way to limit the damage is to take away the weapons that can cause the most damage. Guns vs. knives, for example. Chances are, a guy with a knife will be tackled and stopped before too much damage is done, while a guy with a gun will do as we've seen done too often on school campuses and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
But if guns were more prevalent, odds are the assailant would also be suppressed before too much damage had occurred. The only difference is that if guns were illegal, there's still a chance that the assailant would have access to a gun. Additionally, if someone had broken the law by carrying a weapon to defend themselves and others, they would be punished for saving everyone from the massacre.
Yeah, it's the snapping that kills people but you said right here that the best we can do is limit the damage they can cause. The best way to limit the damage is to take away the weapons that can cause the most damage. Guns vs. knives, for example. Chances are, a guy with a knife will be tackled and stopped before too much damage is done, while a guy with a gun will do as we've seen done too often on school campuses and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]
But if guns were more prevalent, odds are the assailant would also be suppressed before too much damage had occurred. The only difference is that if guns were illegal, there's still a chance that the assailant would have access to a gun. Additionally, if someone had broken the law by carrying a weapon to defend themselves and others, they would be punished for saving everyone from the massacre.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] But if guns were more prevalent, odds are the assailant would also be suppressed before too much damage had occurred. [/QUOTE]
Or more people would be killed as they get caught in the crossfire. Cops are experienced handlers of guns, yet... I forget the term... when in a tense situation, if one cop shoots, then the knee-jerk reaction of the others is to shoot, too. Imagine the knee-jerk reaction of laymen with guns.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The only difference is that if guns were illegal, there's still a chance that the assailant would have access to a gun. [/QUOTE]
That's the interesting part of this. Street crime would still be an issue if there were an absolute gun ban - which there won't be. However, these types of attacks - the school shootings and such - always seem to be carried out by people who are more likely to buy their weapons legally than from some underground dealer. So, a ban of sorts on gun sales would definitely help this type of situation.
Why can't there be a 30-day waiting period? Why can't there be mandatory gun-safety training classes for people wanting to buy a gun? I'd love for there to be a mental evaluation on them, too, but I don't see a fair way to administer that. But then, when buying a weapon that can kill, maybe fairness to the potential victims is more important than fairness to the person carrying. I dunno.
Point is, there can be a reduction in the amount of gun crime and the magnitude of each incident if buying a weapon were not as easy as it apparently is now.
To think, I promised myself I'd stick to the point of this thread and not go off about guns. Blah. So much for promises... :-/
Or more people would be killed as they get caught in the crossfire. Cops are experienced handlers of guns, yet... I forget the term... when in a tense situation, if one cop shoots, then the knee-jerk reaction of the others is to shoot, too. Imagine the knee-jerk reaction of laymen with guns.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The only difference is that if guns were illegal, there's still a chance that the assailant would have access to a gun. [/QUOTE]
That's the interesting part of this. Street crime would still be an issue if there were an absolute gun ban - which there won't be. However, these types of attacks - the school shootings and such - always seem to be carried out by people who are more likely to buy their weapons legally than from some underground dealer. So, a ban of sorts on gun sales would definitely help this type of situation.
Why can't there be a 30-day waiting period? Why can't there be mandatory gun-safety training classes for people wanting to buy a gun? I'd love for there to be a mental evaluation on them, too, but I don't see a fair way to administer that. But then, when buying a weapon that can kill, maybe fairness to the potential victims is more important than fairness to the person carrying. I dunno.
Point is, there can be a reduction in the amount of gun crime and the magnitude of each incident if buying a weapon were not as easy as it apparently is now.
To think, I promised myself I'd stick to the point of this thread and not go off about guns. Blah. So much for promises... :-/
I suppose, technically, all I'm really against is the inane banning of guns. I really wouldn't mind if there were some sort of mandatory process toward gun use that is similar to the process toward automobile use.
In New Jersey, at least, obtaining a hunting license is very similar to obtaining a car license. I remember having to take a course which emphasized safety and proper use of a firearm. Additionally, there was a written examination, as well as a test in firearm competence. Everyone who owns a firearm should demonstrate competency, as well as have a clear understanding of gun safety. A proper shooter respects his weapon and the lethality of which it is capable.
Then again, I realize that not everyone in the world is responsible. Is it appropriate for a few bad apples to spoil the bunch? Perhaps - I don't really know, and you all put forth valid opinions. All I know is that I would feel oppressed if I had to forgo my right to possess a firearm.
In New Jersey, at least, obtaining a hunting license is very similar to obtaining a car license. I remember having to take a course which emphasized safety and proper use of a firearm. Additionally, there was a written examination, as well as a test in firearm competence. Everyone who owns a firearm should demonstrate competency, as well as have a clear understanding of gun safety. A proper shooter respects his weapon and the lethality of which it is capable.
Then again, I realize that not everyone in the world is responsible. Is it appropriate for a few bad apples to spoil the bunch? Perhaps - I don't really know, and you all put forth valid opinions. All I know is that I would feel oppressed if I had to forgo my right to possess a firearm.
And I apologize for contributing to the derailment of your thread.