Gun Control Debate thread - Page 25 - Snowboarding Forum

**Donutz** · 12-15-2012, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by readimag

^ agreed, also the US is not the place you are most likely to die from guns Jamaica and Puerto Rico have a higher rate of murders with guns. Look at what the IRA did for a long time with England even with all the gun control. If people what to get a gun and do something it will happen, all you can do is prepare.

This doesn't really make the point you'd like it to, I think. You're saying that the US isn't as bad as places that are basically anarchy and war zones (metaphorically). Wow, way to set the bar low.

Unfortunately this HAS turned into a bit of a Canada-vs-US thread, which misses the point. Canada is an example of a country that has very low occurrences of mass shootings. US is an axample of a country that has high occurrences (relatively). US has the second amendment, Canada does not. Is this causation or correlation? Does someone have an alternative explanation? Does anyone have access to some statistics that relate mass-killings to gun-rights on a per-country basis? Does anyone have a reference to a study that isn't partisan-sourced?

Nothing wrong with debate, that's what this forum is for, but it'd be nice if it was more than just another snowball fight.

Howlingsonnets · 12-15-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyder

As I have mentioned before, I don't blame the guns.
How these types of nightmares are prevented is beyond my comprehension. There is not a catch all. I agree people change but there is not a good way to test. Look at all the criminals that fool parole boards. They end up released into our society to just commit another or worse crime.

This is such a complex issue, it can't be dealt with in any type of blanket rule.

Glad you got the chance to shoot many people make assumptions never having touched a gun and not everyone is comfortable around them which is fine as well. You made a personal decision that worked for you and that is really a good foundation and we aren't really on opposite sides here. But isn't your choice of carrying a switch blade not equal to but somewhat on the level of carrying a gun??
I also assume that that is illegal to own and carry??? I don't live there so I don't know the laws there, it is illegal to carry hear.

What part of i have gone to the gun range doesnt resonate that i have never shot a gun?! Its a swiss army knife tucked away in a messenger bag...cannot go off on its own...cant hurt innocent bystanders...and it is way diff from a gun...a swiss army knife is legal here...

slyder · 12-15-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlingsonnets

What part of i have gone to the gun range doesnt resonate that i have never shot a gun?! Its a swiss army knife tucked away in a messenger bag...cannot go off on its own...cant hurt innocent bystanders...and it is way diff from a gun...a swiss army knife is legal here...

No, I understood that you did!!!
Not really sure what/why your calling me out I must have misread a point or something...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlingsonnets

i carry a switch instead....

and your post ^ right there stated that you carried a switch blade

Howlingsonnets · 12-15-2012, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyder

No, I understood that you did!!!
Not really sure what/why your calling me out I must have misread a point or something...

I was referring to the last paragraph u wrote...sounded like that statement was directed at me...not calling u out just replying to that statement...sorry if it sounded like a callout not my intention at all

slyder · 12-15-2012, 10:31 AM

I did say glad you got a chance to shoot not everyone takes that time to see if it is right for them.

It was just a comment to your comment not a call out.
I simply compared the carrying of a switch blade to a gun, and I did mention it wasn't a great comparison

Nor was I trying to pick a fight just making conversations and Ya this topic can/is come off personally at times. I have tried hard not to attack anyone as can be seen in my many posts. It is a great debate over a very terrible ordeal.

FirstChair · 12-15-2012, 10:31 AM

What a terrible tragedy.
Now the inevitable discussion starts...."How could we have prevented this?"
Well IMO , you can't. It is too late.
Before I continue, let me state that I believe in the right to own guns, and I own a revolver and a hunting rifle.
I live in a state where I can legally carry a loaded , concealed handgun with no permit whatsoever.
The amount of violent crime in this state is quite low.
However.......I will get flamed for this, but so be it....
The 2nd amendment said nothing about self defense,hunting or target shooting .
"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."
It is no longer the 1700s.The founding fathers did not foresee the firepower you can now carry on a person.
The people of the US being armed as they are now is absolutely no deterrent against invasion by foreign powers.
As far as us being armed keeping our own government in line....GET REAL.
We would have no chance against today's military. Most Americans probably can't even read a map, and are concentrated in cities.
Basic survival skills are esoteric to most .
The only way you could prevent tragedies of this nature would be to have the military go to everyone's dwelling and property with metal detectors and forcibly remove every firearm and destroy it.Also kill , imprison , or keep under military control anyone with any knowledge of firearms manufacture .Keep all machine shops under military control.
And totally seal our borders to keep any guns from coming in.
None of that is feasible ,of course, so we have to get to the core of the problem.....
People will always do horrible things to other people.
The present gun control laws aren't enforced .
Here is an example:
A buddy of mine works for the sheriff's department.Part of his job was to do background checks on people trying to buy guns(The gun dealer calls him).
I asked him what they do if a felon tries to buy a gun(which is itself a felony) His answer was " we tell him to deny the sale"
"You don't send around a car to arrest him?"
"No, we don't have the resources for that"

**Donutz** · 12-15-2012, 10:56 AM

I'm glad to see some rational comments from firstchair. Let me just throw something out there, based on something someone said earlier in the thread.

The comment was about the pressure that Americans feel and the social disapproval of not being successful (or something like that). Well, take it a little farther. In Canada what we do have are social programs that form a better safety net than Americans have. We also have laws that protect workers much better. Socialist, yes, but what if it's the difference between knowing that you have that backup vs the fear that you could end up living in a box in an alley that's causing people to snap? What if the fear of getting ill and going bankrupt treating it, of losing your job for no reason, of whatever else is what's causing people to snap.

I haven't really thought this through, and I don't have any statistics, but I'm still on this "gotta be a reason" kick. So flame away....

linvillegorge · 12-15-2012, 10:58 AM

The citizenry wouldn't have to fight the U.S. military. Some of the strongest supporters of the 2cd Amendment and the Constitution in general are in the military. I firmly believe the military would turn on the government before they'd turn wholesale against the American people.

Ando · 12-15-2012, 11:21 AM

Been a long time reader of this forum, but a first time poster. I really hate to have my first post be in the politics section, but since my snowboarding plans were cancelled this weekend, I can't exactly ask people if they want to car pool to Mt. St Louis Moonstone (Ontario).

Anyway, when discussing the state of gun control in the US, I strongly believe that you need to examine the two extremes. On one extreme, you have a mass ban where no average citizen is allowed to carry or own a firearm. On the other extreme, all citizens are given the right to own a firearm and are encouraged to do so. Fortunately, there are two countries in this world that fall into both of the extremes.

One of them is Japan - and it is commonly known to be one of the safest countries in the world. There is hardly any violent crime (person-to-person) over there. In Japan, they have strict weapon control (not just guns). It prohibits any citizen from owning a sword or a gun unless you have a special reason to do so (sporting etc.).

The other country is Switzerland. Over there, it actually required that you own a weapon if you're male adult. And it goes without saying that Switzerland, just like Japan, is one of the safest places on Earth.

When looking at Japan and Switzerland, it raises the question of whether gun control is even the relevant factor in preventing gun crime. And in my humble opinion, gun control is indeed relevant, but I do not think gun control alone is sufficient in preventing gun crime.

So what makes USA different from Switzerland and Japan? Well, I'll list down a few points:

- Smaller populations; however, Japan is extremely densely populated when you consider its land mass.
- "Socialist" systems in place (health care, schooling, etc.)
- Social gradient is smaller. Meaning the gap between the rich and the poor is smaller
- Switzerland is a very militaristic state. Meaning that their youth have mandatory service and every citizen is required to have training with guns.
- Japan places a heavy emphasis on education. Students are pressured into being academically successful. You are looked down upon if you do not do well in school.

To me, I really think that reducing the social gradient, reducing poverty are some of the key things in preventing gun crime. If I had more energy, I'd actually link studies as to why a society that has a smaller gap between the rich and the poor tends to be safer and more prosperous than a country that does.

Secondly, if the USA is to allow every citizen to own a gun. Then it is also necessary that EVERYONE goes through training and how to use a gun properly (just like Switzerland).

Thanks for reading. I know it's not much at the moment, and I'll add more later. But I just want to point out that both systems can work, but gun control ALONE is not the solution to preventing gun crime. The government has to touch on other things in order to make things safer.

StreetDoc · 12-15-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howlingsonnets

What part of i have gone to the gun range doesnt resonate that i have never shot a gun?! Its a swiss army knife tucked away in a messenger bag...cannot go off on its own...cant hurt innocent bystanders...and it is way diff from a gun...a swiss army knife is legal here...

like the guy that slashed 22 kids yesterday in china? You're missing the whole point. Going to the range is hugely different then actually having training. Call of duty doesnt count. You talk about how bad philly is.... I'm from Chicago. The murder rate capital of the country. Over 400 murders 3 months ago and still rising... and I'm pro gun. Since making handguns legal there last year there has been quite a few cases of home owners defending themselves with deadly force with a great deal of success. Probably once a week actually.

Comparing canada to the US is retarded also. No offense, canada has ridden our coat tails forever... and no one likes the french. Canada is like the US' snotty nosed little brother.

12-15-2012, 10:31 AM	#245 (permalink)
slyder Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Milwaukee Suburbs Posts: 1,929	I did say glad you got a chance to shoot not everyone takes that time to see if it is right for them. It was just a comment to your comment not a call out. I simply compared the carrying of a switch blade to a gun, and I did mention it wasn't a great comparison Nor was I trying to pick a fight just making conversations and Ya this topic can/is come off personally at times. I have tried hard not to attack anyone as can be seen in my many posts. It is a great debate over a very terrible ordeal. __________________ Thanks -Slyder Last edited by slyder; 12-15-2012 at 10:33 AM.

12-15-2012, 10:31 AM	#246 (permalink)
FirstChair Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Champlain Valley,VT Posts: 91	What a terrible tragedy. Now the inevitable discussion starts...."How could we have prevented this?" Well IMO , you can't. It is too late. Before I continue, let me state that I believe in the right to own guns, and I own a revolver and a hunting rifle. I live in a state where I can legally carry a loaded , concealed handgun with no permit whatsoever. The amount of violent crime in this state is quite low. However.......I will get flamed for this, but so be it.... The 2nd amendment said nothing about self defense,hunting or target shooting . "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." It is no longer the 1700s.The founding fathers did not foresee the firepower you can now carry on a person. The people of the US being armed as they are now is absolutely no deterrent against invasion by foreign powers. As far as us being armed keeping our own government in line....GET REAL. We would have no chance against today's military. Most Americans probably can't even read a map, and are concentrated in cities. Basic survival skills are esoteric to most . The only way you could prevent tragedies of this nature would be to have the military go to everyone's dwelling and property with metal detectors and forcibly remove every firearm and destroy it.Also kill , imprison , or keep under military control anyone with any knowledge of firearms manufacture .Keep all machine shops under military control. And totally seal our borders to keep any guns from coming in. None of that is feasible ,of course, so we have to get to the core of the problem..... People will always do horrible things to other people. The present gun control laws aren't enforced . Here is an example: A buddy of mine works for the sheriff's department.Part of his job was to do background checks on people trying to buy guns(The gun dealer calls him). I asked him what they do if a felon tries to buy a gun(which is itself a felony) His answer was " we tell him to deny the sale" "You don't send around a car to arrest him?" "No, we don't have the resources for that" __________________ You can't idiot proof anything because fools are so damn clever. Last edited by FirstChair; 12-15-2012 at 10:35 AM. Reason: spelling error

12-15-2012, 10:56 AM	#247 (permalink)
Donutz Drunk with power...er beer. Join Date: May 2010 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 3,700 Blog Entries: 177	I'm glad to see some rational comments from firstchair. Let me just throw something out there, based on something someone said earlier in the thread. The comment was about the pressure that Americans feel and the social disapproval of not being successful (or something like that). Well, take it a little farther. In Canada what we do have are social programs that form a better safety net than Americans have. We also have laws that protect workers much better. Socialist, yes, but what if it's the difference between knowing that you have that backup vs the fear that you could end up living in a box in an alley that's causing people to snap? What if the fear of getting ill and going bankrupt treating it, of losing your job for no reason, of whatever else is what's causing people to snap. I haven't really thought this through, and I don't have any statistics, but I'm still on this "gotta be a reason" kick. So flame away.... __________________ Illegitimi non carborundum I hate the parts between winter...

12-15-2012, 10:58 AM	#248 (permalink)
linvillegorge Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Evergreen, CO Posts: 4,540	The citizenry wouldn't have to fight the U.S. military. Some of the strongest supporters of the 2cd Amendment and the Constitution in general are in the military. I firmly believe the military would turn on the government before they'd turn wholesale against the American people. __________________ "People say that marijuana smoking is going to get in the way of my career. I say to them that on the contrary, my fighting career is getting in the way of my marijuana smoking." -Nick Diaz

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-15-2012, 11:21 AM	#249 (permalink)
Ando Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1	Been a long time reader of this forum, but a first time poster. I really hate to have my first post be in the politics section, but since my snowboarding plans were cancelled this weekend, I can't exactly ask people if they want to car pool to Mt. St Louis Moonstone (Ontario). Anyway, when discussing the state of gun control in the US, I strongly believe that you need to examine the two extremes. On one extreme, you have a mass ban where no average citizen is allowed to carry or own a firearm. On the other extreme, all citizens are given the right to own a firearm and are encouraged to do so. Fortunately, there are two countries in this world that fall into both of the extremes. One of them is Japan - and it is commonly known to be one of the safest countries in the world. There is hardly any violent crime (person-to-person) over there. In Japan, they have strict weapon control (not just guns). It prohibits any citizen from owning a sword or a gun unless you have a special reason to do so (sporting etc.). The other country is Switzerland. Over there, it actually required that you own a weapon if you're male adult. And it goes without saying that Switzerland, just like Japan, is one of the safest places on Earth. When looking at Japan and Switzerland, it raises the question of whether gun control is even the relevant factor in preventing gun crime. And in my humble opinion, gun control is indeed relevant, but I do not think gun control alone is sufficient in preventing gun crime. So what makes USA different from Switzerland and Japan? Well, I'll list down a few points: - Smaller populations; however, Japan is extremely densely populated when you consider its land mass. - "Socialist" systems in place (health care, schooling, etc.) - Social gradient is smaller. Meaning the gap between the rich and the poor is smaller - Switzerland is a very militaristic state. Meaning that their youth have mandatory service and every citizen is required to have training with guns. - Japan places a heavy emphasis on education. Students are pressured into being academically successful. You are looked down upon if you do not do well in school. To me, I really think that reducing the social gradient, reducing poverty are some of the key things in preventing gun crime. If I had more energy, I'd actually link studies as to why a society that has a smaller gap between the rich and the poor tends to be safer and more prosperous than a country that does. Secondly, if the USA is to allow every citizen to own a gun. Then it is also necessary that EVERYONE goes through training and how to use a gun properly (just like Switzerland). Thanks for reading. I know it's not much at the moment, and I'll add more later. But I just want to point out that both systems can work, but gun control ALONE is not the solution to preventing gun crime. The government has to touch on other things in order to make things safer.