Do you think that the US should change the constitution to ban firearms?
- Thread starter The Monkey
- Start date
T
TheWeatherman
Guest
Warbie said:
It's not entirely your fault that you think this way. Although I cannot remember all of the details, there are psychological explainations for the mental equivalent of a computer error message when a person is forced to confront something with which they have no experience.
In your case, I'm guessing that you have no personal experience with the application of force or violence. Despite this, I'm sure you might be able to come to at least a logical appreciation, if not an instinctual one:
Let's assume there is a person that wishes to harm you. It doesn't matter if that is there goal, or just a means to an end.
Now assume that you have the skill or knowledge to stop them.
The time comes when you make the decision to forfeit your safety and well-being or to simply stop them: which will it be? If doing so requires a physical object (bat, knife, gun, etc), why should that implement affect your previous decision?
Warbie said:
So which part is not attractive to you? Is prevention of rape unattractive? Is the neutral act of using a weapon unattractive? Or is it the fact that rapes occur unattractive?
If the answer is the prevention of rape, may you be crushed by a moving van into a flat paste at the soonest opportunity, god willing.
If you don't care for the fact that rapes (or other violent acts) occur, I understand completely.
If you don't care for the use of weapons, even in furtherance of a "good thing", then you are assigning some great fear/aversion to inanimate objects.
The statement regarding greater safety without weapons is also interesting. Just to humor you, I'll admit that there is a slim possibility that weapons could enable harm to the carrier if they were used against them. Obviously, this requires some special circumstances.
If I'm carrying a gun, and I'm assaulted by a person who is so skilled in unarmed and firearm combat that they can disarms and shoot me with impunity, aren't they skilled enough that I should be more worried about them using a firearm to begin with? And since I'm carrying a firearm, they are clearly available, so why wouldn't they have one? This is just a nonsensical scenario, which doesn't seem to stop imagined statistics regarding just this type of event.
Finally, the paranoia you mention initially is another often-cited non-issue. Statistics will clearly show that a person in ANY country runs the risk of being victim to any number of violent crimes. This risk is tiny for most everyone (including the USA), but being prepared for unlikely scenarios does not need to involve a constant fear. A rational person can prepare for the worst while remaining a healthy, balanced individual.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
you're more likely to be killed by an friend/family member/aquaintance than you are a complete stranger
so that throws out that theory
so that throws out that theory
N
Nickcpus
Guest
TV and Film Violence
Does the violence in films and on TV contribute to violence in society?
This question has been debated for decades. During that time some 2,500 books and articles have been written on the effects of TV and film violence on human behavior. In this article we're going to summarize some the latest thinking on this subject. The results of one of the most extensive studies ever done on the subject of violence and TV were released in 2003.
Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, "Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively."
Canada was one of the first countries to extensively research this issue. The results of their studies prompted some of their engineers to devise the "V-Chip." As you may know, the V-Chip allows parents to lock out TV programming they consider objectionable to their children.Although the concern in Canada was primarily violence (hence the V-chip), in the United States there is also great concern about sexual content—probably more than in most other industrialized societies. Hence, the V-chip can be programmed to screen out both violence and sex. The issue of sex, which has resulted in quite different research findings, is discussed here and here, so in this article we'll focus on the issue of film and TV violence.
Because ours is a puritanically-based society and we have problems with depictions of sex, we tend to eroticize violence.For many people this creates an unfortunate, often even unconscious, link between sex and violence. from "Sex Research, Censorship, and the Law"
Cause-Effect Proof
Studies done in both the United States and Canada have shown a positive relationship between early exposure to TV violence and physical aggressiveness in later life. Even so, a clear cause-effect relationship is complicated by the fact that children are typically exposed to many stimuli as they grow up, many of which could play a role in later behavior. For example, during a child's life we can't discount the role of such things as violent video games, the social values of parents and peers, or general living conditions.
If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately get sick, you will probably assume there's a direct relationship between the two. And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eat the same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairly sure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not as readily apparent. A few decades ago you would see doctors in TV commercials endorsing a particular brand of cigarettes. And many medical doctors smoked.
Not today.
Today the evidence is clear: smoking is the number one cause of preventable heath problems and premature death in the United States. Although for years the cigarette manufacturers suppressed evidence that linked smoking to health problems, eventually the cause-effect relationship became obvious to anyone who wanted investigate the facts.Unlike the cause and effect in the example of your eating something and immediately getting sick, the effects of cigarette smoking aren't immediately apparent. It's only years later that many smokers develop lung cancer, heart problems, emphysema, sexual problems, etc. In the same way—after looking at years of accumulated data—we're now recognizing a relationship between violence in the media and social problems. A summary of much of the research and its consequences can be found in the book Visual Intelligence—Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry.
The results of a study released in March, 2002 that tracked 700 male and female youths over a seventeen-year period showed a definite relationship between TV viewing habits and acts of aggression and crime in the later life. All other possible contributing environmental elements, such as poverty, living in a violent neighborhood, and neglect, were factored out of this study.According to one of the authors of the study, the findings help cement the link between TV and violence. The study is detailed in the Science journal.
Violence and TV Ratings
It's well known that TV violence holds an attraction for most viewers and this attraction translates into ratings and profits. Because of this most media executives have been reluctant to admit that media violence is in any way responsible for violence in our society.If it weren't for the ratings and profits involved, producers would undoubtedly be much more willing to acknowledge the harm in TV and film violence and do something about it. Instead, we have such things as the American Medical Association finding that shows that in homes with premium cable channels, or a VCR or DVD, children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders by the time they reach the age of 18. After many high school students died in a shooting rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in April, 1999, many people were quick to blame the media. Violent video games and a well-known film were seen as contributing factors. Even so, millions of young people were exposed to both of these influences throughout their lives without going on a murderous rampage. But when you add extreme anger, easy access to guns, and an indifferent and amoral attitude toward the lives of others, the results can be very different.In 1992, TV Guide commissioned a study of a typical 18-hour TV broadcast day to determine levels of violence. The networks and the more popular cable channels were monitored for "purposeful, overt, deliberate behavior involving physical force or weapons against other individuals."
There were 1,846 acts of violence that broke down this way.
cartoons 471 promos for TV shows 265
movies 221 toy commercials 188
music videos 123 commercials for films 121
TV dramas 69 news 62
tabloid reality shows 58 sitcoms 52
soap operas 34
In looking at the role of the broadcast outlets in the violence equation TV mogul Ted Turner said: "They're guilty of murder. We all are—me too."
The Effects of TV and Film Violence
There are many problems in linking media violence to violence in society. First, as we've suggested, only a small percent of those who watch violence are responsible for violent acts. Most of us are seemingly unaffected by it. Even though we can't establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and violence in our society, we can draw some conclusions from the data. Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place. An extensive study in five Massachusetts communities found a relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, violence, and alcohol use.
Studies also show that media violence also has a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience. History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the famous Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they then demanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became violent, bloody and grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hapless people died in the process of providing "entertainment."
Next, media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified, and even presented as humorous. The "bang, bang, you're dead" sanitized scenario that we so often see on TV or in films communicates nothing of the reality of death or dying. It is only when we see death firsthand or have a loved one killed that we realize that death in film or on TV bears little resemblance to what we experience in real life. Even the sound of gunshots on TV and in films is so different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognize them in real life. Next, the consequences of killing, especially by the "good guys," are seldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready and even acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problems are solved when the "bad guys" are all dead. The unrealistic element of TV and film violence seems to come as a surprise to some. A young gang member who was admitted to a New York ER after being shot seemed amazed to find that getting shot was not only traumatic but excruciatingly painful. He was blaming the doctors and nurses for his pain, since on TV getting shot didn't seem to be all that big of a deal.
Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek
One of the most successful television series in history, Star Trek, was created, produced and (largely) written by Gene Roddenberry, whose primary message was peaceful coexistence. The series started in 1966 and its various incarnations continue today. The series has won scores of humanitarian awards. Colleges have even offered English courses that focus on the series. Anyone who has followed Star Trek knows that (under Roddenberry) gratuitous violence was never seen as necessary. In the end Gene Roddenberry was proud of the message he delivered week after week to millions of people around the world. Earlier, during testimony before Congress, Roddenberry had said:[Television] is the most dangerous force in the world today. Shortly before his death he was asked what he would like to have as an epitaph. Roddenberry said, just say this: He loved humanity.Based on what their work says about their true feelings, I wonder how many TV and film producers can say the same today?
Summary and Conclusions
We have clear indications that the long-term effects of exposure to media violence will lead to undesirable social consequences. These negative social effects will undoubtedly be accelerated as violence becomes more graphic in an effort to attract and hold film and TV audiences. In looking over the evidence of the increasing levels of film and TV violence it is now taking to satisfy viewers and the resulting effects on society, David Puttnam, a noted film director, simply observed, "We are destroying ourselves."
TV producers clearly face a dilemma in dealing with the apparent conflict between the negative effects of TV violence and positive program ratings.
So what's the answer?
First, we have to take a look at how violence is used. Eliminating all violence from the media is not in keeping with the reality of the human condition. Violence has always been with us and probably always will be. But the 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders witnessed by normal TV viewers over 18 years is clearly unrealistic and exploitative.
Violence is being used as a superficial way of grabbing and holding an audience.Many TV and film producers have elected to "take a higher road" and not rely on gratuitous violence to capture and hold an audience. This route typically results in more accolades for their work and more personal respect from the creative community. But the higher road is often the more difficult one. It takes talent to engage an audience through the strength of your storytelling and production expertise.
Could this be the reason.....
Does the violence in films and on TV contribute to violence in society?
This question has been debated for decades. During that time some 2,500 books and articles have been written on the effects of TV and film violence on human behavior. In this article we're going to summarize some the latest thinking on this subject. The results of one of the most extensive studies ever done on the subject of violence and TV were released in 2003.
Researchers followed 329 subjects over 15 years. They found that those who as children were exposed to violent TV shows were much more likely to later be convicted of crime. Researchers said that, "Media violence can affect any child from any family," regardless of social class or parenting. Girls who watched more than an average amount of violence tended to throw things at their husbands. Boys who grew up watching violent TV shows were more likely to be be violent with their wives. Researchers concluded in Developmental Psychology that, "Every violent TV show increases a little-bit the likelihood of a child growing up to behave more aggressively."
Canada was one of the first countries to extensively research this issue. The results of their studies prompted some of their engineers to devise the "V-Chip." As you may know, the V-Chip allows parents to lock out TV programming they consider objectionable to their children.Although the concern in Canada was primarily violence (hence the V-chip), in the United States there is also great concern about sexual content—probably more than in most other industrialized societies. Hence, the V-chip can be programmed to screen out both violence and sex. The issue of sex, which has resulted in quite different research findings, is discussed here and here, so in this article we'll focus on the issue of film and TV violence.
Because ours is a puritanically-based society and we have problems with depictions of sex, we tend to eroticize violence.For many people this creates an unfortunate, often even unconscious, link between sex and violence. from "Sex Research, Censorship, and the Law"
Cause-Effect Proof
Studies done in both the United States and Canada have shown a positive relationship between early exposure to TV violence and physical aggressiveness in later life. Even so, a clear cause-effect relationship is complicated by the fact that children are typically exposed to many stimuli as they grow up, many of which could play a role in later behavior. For example, during a child's life we can't discount the role of such things as violent video games, the social values of parents and peers, or general living conditions.
If you eat something that you have not tried before and immediately get sick, you will probably assume there's a direct relationship between the two. And if at some later date you forget about your first experience and eat the same thing again, and immediately get sick again, you can be fairly sure that whatever you ate makes you sick. No rocket science here, just clear cause and effect. Unfortunately, the cause and effect in many other areas of life are not as readily apparent. A few decades ago you would see doctors in TV commercials endorsing a particular brand of cigarettes. And many medical doctors smoked.
Not today.
Today the evidence is clear: smoking is the number one cause of preventable heath problems and premature death in the United States. Although for years the cigarette manufacturers suppressed evidence that linked smoking to health problems, eventually the cause-effect relationship became obvious to anyone who wanted investigate the facts.Unlike the cause and effect in the example of your eating something and immediately getting sick, the effects of cigarette smoking aren't immediately apparent. It's only years later that many smokers develop lung cancer, heart problems, emphysema, sexual problems, etc. In the same way—after looking at years of accumulated data—we're now recognizing a relationship between violence in the media and social problems. A summary of much of the research and its consequences can be found in the book Visual Intelligence—Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication by Ann Marie Seward Barry.
The results of a study released in March, 2002 that tracked 700 male and female youths over a seventeen-year period showed a definite relationship between TV viewing habits and acts of aggression and crime in the later life. All other possible contributing environmental elements, such as poverty, living in a violent neighborhood, and neglect, were factored out of this study.According to one of the authors of the study, the findings help cement the link between TV and violence. The study is detailed in the Science journal.
Violence and TV Ratings
It's well known that TV violence holds an attraction for most viewers and this attraction translates into ratings and profits. Because of this most media executives have been reluctant to admit that media violence is in any way responsible for violence in our society.If it weren't for the ratings and profits involved, producers would undoubtedly be much more willing to acknowledge the harm in TV and film violence and do something about it. Instead, we have such things as the American Medical Association finding that shows that in homes with premium cable channels, or a VCR or DVD, children typically witness 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders by the time they reach the age of 18. After many high school students died in a shooting rampage at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in April, 1999, many people were quick to blame the media. Violent video games and a well-known film were seen as contributing factors. Even so, millions of young people were exposed to both of these influences throughout their lives without going on a murderous rampage. But when you add extreme anger, easy access to guns, and an indifferent and amoral attitude toward the lives of others, the results can be very different.In 1992, TV Guide commissioned a study of a typical 18-hour TV broadcast day to determine levels of violence. The networks and the more popular cable channels were monitored for "purposeful, overt, deliberate behavior involving physical force or weapons against other individuals."
There were 1,846 acts of violence that broke down this way.
cartoons 471 promos for TV shows 265
movies 221 toy commercials 188
music videos 123 commercials for films 121
TV dramas 69 news 62
tabloid reality shows 58 sitcoms 52
soap operas 34
In looking at the role of the broadcast outlets in the violence equation TV mogul Ted Turner said: "They're guilty of murder. We all are—me too."
The Effects of TV and Film Violence
There are many problems in linking media violence to violence in society. First, as we've suggested, only a small percent of those who watch violence are responsible for violent acts. Most of us are seemingly unaffected by it. Even though we can't establish a simple, direct, cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and violence in our society, we can draw some conclusions from the data. Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place. An extensive study in five Massachusetts communities found a relationship between viewing media violence and the acceptance of sexual assault, violence, and alcohol use.
Studies also show that media violence also has a desensitizing effect on viewers. As a result, specific levels of violence become more acceptable over time. It then takes more and more graphic violence to shock (and hold) an audience. History gives us many examples. To cite just one, the famous Roman Circuses started out being a rather tame form of entertainment. But in an effort to excite audiences, violence and rape were introduced in the arena settings. Subsequently, as audiences got used to seeing these things, they then demanded more and more, until the circuses eventually became violent, bloody and grotesque, and hundreds, if not thousands, of hapless people died in the process of providing "entertainment."
Next, media violence is typically unrealistic, simplistic, glorified, and even presented as humorous. The "bang, bang, you're dead" sanitized scenario that we so often see on TV or in films communicates nothing of the reality of death or dying. It is only when we see death firsthand or have a loved one killed that we realize that death in film or on TV bears little resemblance to what we experience in real life. Even the sound of gunshots on TV and in films is so different from real gunshots that people often fail to recognize them in real life. Next, the consequences of killing, especially by the "good guys," are seldom shown. Violence and killing are commonly depicted as a ready and even acceptable solution to problems. To put it simplistically, problems are solved when the "bad guys" are all dead. The unrealistic element of TV and film violence seems to come as a surprise to some. A young gang member who was admitted to a New York ER after being shot seemed amazed to find that getting shot was not only traumatic but excruciatingly painful. He was blaming the doctors and nurses for his pain, since on TV getting shot didn't seem to be all that big of a deal.
Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek
One of the most successful television series in history, Star Trek, was created, produced and (largely) written by Gene Roddenberry, whose primary message was peaceful coexistence. The series started in 1966 and its various incarnations continue today. The series has won scores of humanitarian awards. Colleges have even offered English courses that focus on the series. Anyone who has followed Star Trek knows that (under Roddenberry) gratuitous violence was never seen as necessary. In the end Gene Roddenberry was proud of the message he delivered week after week to millions of people around the world. Earlier, during testimony before Congress, Roddenberry had said:[Television] is the most dangerous force in the world today. Shortly before his death he was asked what he would like to have as an epitaph. Roddenberry said, just say this: He loved humanity.Based on what their work says about their true feelings, I wonder how many TV and film producers can say the same today?
Summary and Conclusions
We have clear indications that the long-term effects of exposure to media violence will lead to undesirable social consequences. These negative social effects will undoubtedly be accelerated as violence becomes more graphic in an effort to attract and hold film and TV audiences. In looking over the evidence of the increasing levels of film and TV violence it is now taking to satisfy viewers and the resulting effects on society, David Puttnam, a noted film director, simply observed, "We are destroying ourselves."
TV producers clearly face a dilemma in dealing with the apparent conflict between the negative effects of TV violence and positive program ratings.
So what's the answer?
First, we have to take a look at how violence is used. Eliminating all violence from the media is not in keeping with the reality of the human condition. Violence has always been with us and probably always will be. But the 32,000 murders and 40,000 attempted murders witnessed by normal TV viewers over 18 years is clearly unrealistic and exploitative.
Violence is being used as a superficial way of grabbing and holding an audience.Many TV and film producers have elected to "take a higher road" and not rely on gratuitous violence to capture and hold an audience. This route typically results in more accolades for their work and more personal respect from the creative community. But the higher road is often the more difficult one. It takes talent to engage an audience through the strength of your storytelling and production expertise.
Could this be the reason.....
T
TheWeatherman
Guest
Kangy said:
I have a sneaking suspicion you aren't entirely familiar with "assault rifles". Forgive me if I'm incorrect.
First, assault rifles in the true sense are not available to the general public without extreme restrictions. The details aren't that interesting, but suffice to say that they just aren't available.
Second, civillian versions of assault rifles function (for practical purposes) exactly like hunting rifles: one trigger pull, one bullet. And no, there is nothing special about the bullets, either: in fact, they're generally tiny and FAR underpowered compared to common hunting cartridges.
Finally, ignoring the design and function of assault rifles, the end goal of killing a person should be examined. Although it is truly tragic, there is no modern way of incapacitating a person as thoroughly as killing them. That is not the goal: the goal is to stop, but we just haven't found a better means to make that happen yet. So in a situation like home defense when the actions of an intruder might cost the life of you or your family, wouldn't it make sense to stop them as efficiently as possible?
As a slight tangent, there has been considerable discussion here regarding home defense. Even in the US, it is NOT legally acceptable to kill someone in your home under any circumstances. In general, they must present a threat: shooting a person running away with your valuables will generally get you jail time.
T
TheWeatherman
Guest
CptStern said:
Sorry, I don't understand the point.
Tr0n said:
It's worth noting that although you may be able to purchase one, you might well be disqualified from carrying said firearm.
The_Monkey said:
Actually, in the USA the police are not legally obligated to protect us. Also, I think rather than "gangster" the term you're looking for is "vigilante", and it has happened reasonably often in our history. This isn't really relevant though, because in general we're referring to the right of self-defense, self-preservation, not the right to enforce the laws. Here's an honest question for you:
As I previously said, you can defend yourself against a violent intruder, but it's a really bad idea to shoot him for the sole reason of preventing theft.
Nickcpus said:
While I'm not rude enough to call you deluded, you are extremely misinformed. The argument of "guns cause sociopathic breakdowns" is not worthy of response. As for training, it's just a solid fact that personal defense training is widely available. You can get it from a multitude of sources ranging from your friends to the same schools that train law enforcement officers.
Nickcpus said:(Regarding home defense
Who made you judge and jury? maybe they are just drunk and confused about where they live and stumbled onto your porch by accindent. Now your scared and shoot them claiming self defense, happens all the time.
If they are stumbling around on the porch, they aren't a threat, and they shouldn't be shot. If they become a violent threat by breaking into the house etc, does it really matter WHY they did it? If there is a legitimate reason for self defense, the "why" question is irrelevant.
D
Desertrat
Guest
I never have seen a loaded gun jump up from a table and shoot somebody. I never have seen a car decide to go off the road. I never have seen an axe fall unassisted onto a foot.
Seems to me that tools are tools. The only difference is the usage.
I don't understand the punishment of the masses for the sins of a few.
I don't have a gun because I fear. I do not fear because I do have a gun. I note that at age 70 and with some arthritis, karate and such are of little help in the admittedly uncommon event of assault on my precious body. "Admittedly uncommon" includes lawsuits and fires and accidents to my automobile, but I have carried insurance for decades. A self-defense firearm is nothing more than a different form of insurance.
'Rat
Seems to me that tools are tools. The only difference is the usage.
I don't understand the punishment of the masses for the sins of a few.
I don't have a gun because I fear. I do not fear because I do have a gun. I note that at age 70 and with some arthritis, karate and such are of little help in the admittedly uncommon event of assault on my precious body. "Admittedly uncommon" includes lawsuits and fires and accidents to my automobile, but I have carried insurance for decades. A self-defense firearm is nothing more than a different form of insurance.
'Rat
firemachine69
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 0
Nickcpus said:
You took the LAMEST researches, which have no validity whatsoever. Did you also know, in those 329, they were considered very likely or extremely likely to commit violent acts? Nice twist... Not to mention, 329 is a far cry of the States' population.
At this point in time, I'd also like to point out, again, the "forbidden apple". The V-Chip is inneffective. It,s a lame excuse by modern parents to do their babysitting job. A virtual babysitter if you will.
T
TheWeatherman
Guest
Recoil said:
Damn, that's a good point! The Nazis might have done something really terrible, like rounding them up, using them for slave labor, mass executions, etc... That kind of counter-violence would have been terrible!!
I've heard this crap before about "violence begets more violence". Maybe you've seen it more like this: "Gewalt erzeugt Gegengewalt, also Hände weg von Waffen!"
Again, if you thought about this at all, you'll realize what a ridiculous platitude it is.
N
Nickcpus
Guest
firemachine69 said:
Ah yea...ok...two in the head and one in the chest right. I bet you guys are real bush supporters and believe this war is all about finding WMD right.
That’s ok, the international community is starting to organize their anti-gun control regulations. Most of the world sees America as a dangerous cowboy who is toting their six shooters around and taking cheap shots at the weak. What Arrogance.
Oh yea don’t take it personal, its just the way it is.
Cowboy cowboy what cha gonna do when the UN comes for you….
UN pressed to adopt treaty on global gun tracing
24 Jan 2005 05:00:30 GMTSource: Reuters
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Arms control activists urged U.N. treaty writers on Monday to approve a system for tracking small arms sales around the world, saying it was easier to track lost airline luggage than a machine gun. Amnesty International, Oxfam International and the International Action Network on Small Arms called for a legally binding global marking and tracing treaty covering small arms and ammunition at the start of a two-week U.N. conference weighing how to deal with the problem. "A piece of lost luggage can be traced from San Francisco to Sierra Leone within hours, yet deadly weapons disappear without trace on a daily basis," said Jeremy Hobbs, the director of Oxfam International. A report by the three groups found that while weapons and ammunition often carry serial numbers, there is no worldwide system to record the information and make it available worldwide. Nor are arms brokers -- middlemen who arrange arms sales across borders, putting them beyond the reach of most national governments -- required to register and report on their dealings in most countries.That renders serial numbers "useless as a tool to identify, locate and trace illegal arms shipments," the groups said. A worldwide marking and tracing mechanism would help enforce arms embargoes and identify international brokers who violated national or international laws, ultimately saving lives, they said. The 191-nation U.N. General Assembly adopted a global action plan in 2001 to try to reduce the carnage from the $1 billion-a-year illegal trade in small arms.But arms activists say the U.N. crackdown, because it was not binding on governments, has yet to make a real difference in stemming the bloodshed, particularly in Africa where small arms are sold and resold and are the weapon of choice in numerous low-level conflicts and civil wars.The small-arms category includes powerful weapons like grenades, mortars, assault rifles and shoulder-fired antitank and antiaircraft missiles as well as handguns.More than half of the global small-arms trade is believed to be legal. But weapons that start out legal often find their way into the black market, with arms stolen from state security forces a major source of the supply, studies have found.
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
U.N. seeking global gun control?
Conference moving toward plan that would regulate U.S. arms
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
A U.N. group is working toward establishment of an international system to register and regulate civilian possession of firearms, according to a former congressman. The ultimate aim of many members of the conference on small arms is to outlaw personal ownership of guns altogether, said Georgia Republican Bob Barr in an interview yesterday on the newly syndicated WorldNetDaily Report with Joseph Farah. Bob Barr was an official representative of the U.S. State Department's delegation at the conference's week-long session last week. It is known officially as the first Biennial Meeting of States on the Implementation of the Program of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. At the beginning of the session, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged members to redouble efforts to curb small arms and light weapons. "The United Nations remains firmly committed to prevent, combat and eradicate the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons in all its aspects," he said. The group will meet again in 2005, followed by a review conference scheduled for 2006. If not for the U.S. State Department and organizations such as the National Rifle Association, "this locomotive would have had a lot more steam," Barr said. Barr commended U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton for focusing the U.N.'s attention on international trafficking of illicit arms and not on U.S. ownership of arms. "He has done an outstanding job of monitoring this and standing up to it in a way the State Department frequently does not do," Barr said.However, Barr warned that many member nations, including the UK, Netherlands and India, want to set up a legally binding protocol requiring all U.N. countries to start registration of firearms. The potential implications of that are enormous, he said, noting it is a small step toward the ultimate nightmare of American gun owners – "the U.N. knocking on our door to get our firearms." "If we were to allow in any way, shape or form the U.N. to begin the process of registering and regulating fire arms – ultimately their goal of doing away with personal firearms – we would have dealt a blow to our sovereignty," he said. Barr called on citizens to urge their representatives to stay on top of the issue and ensure the U.S. is not faced with a legally-binding document that would commit the country to some form of firearms registration and regulation by the U.N. or any outside authority.
"The presence of several anti-gun groups at this and other related conferences underscores the threat they pose to the constitutional rights of American citizens if we fail to closely monitor their activities," Barr said in a statement. "In fact, many of these groups receive substantial funding from anti-firearms governments to move their agenda." During the conference, the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey released its findings for 2002, which paid special attention to U.S. gun ownership. "By any measure the United States is the most armed country in the world," the report said. "With roughly 83 to 96 guns per 100 people, the United States is approaching a statistical level of one gun per person."
D
Dmack_901
Guest
Don't you know the UN doesn't do anything. They just sit around and steal money from the oil-for-food program.
And when we dont' follow them... you'll do what? Beg
Other than the fact that wmds were found(and, I know you won't believe that), the Iraq war was about terrorism, fixing the Oil-for-Food, andsecuring the Oil supplies(not taking it).
This qoute just about sums it up. FYI, The most cops suck with a gun. And about guns turning people into raging drug store robbers... Well, ok buddy, whatever you say.
Pericolos0
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2004
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 0
it's quite simple actually. I'm happy theres rigid gun laws over here (belgium) because this way the criminal cant get to guns (the easy way) either. I don't know how its like when a burglar is in your house in america, but when that happens over here theyre usually totally unarmed. And run off as soon as they hear s1 coming down the stairs. Who needs guns? 
It's probably different in the us, but almost noone over here feels like they need a gun to protect themselves.
Safety, because noone has a gun.
It's probably different in the us, but almost noone over here feels like they need a gun to protect themselves.
Safety, because noone has a gun
.
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Dmack_901 said:
really? UNICEF, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the eradication of small pox since the formation of the World Health Organization, the World Food Program, UN-HABITAT program, the world criminal court ...ya they dont do anything worthwhile
sure the UN has had a lot of failures; Srebrenica killings comes to mind, but you cant argue they're "not doing anything" lest you appear ignorant
btw Franklin Roosevelt was one of the founders of the UN ...look him up
Dmack_901 said:
watch you kill yourselves and shake our heads in disbelief
Dmack_901 said:
really?
willing to put some money on it?
so, now I suppose you'll present your evidence they found WMD?
Dmack_901 said:
I want you to point out at least one incident where an american was killed by iraqi terrorism
Dmack_901 said:
fixing it? please explain to me why the oil-for-food program was put into place in the first place
Dmack_901 said:
you're saying there's a difference?
Dmack_901 said:
'nuff said, your level of insight betrays you
R
RZAL
Guest
Nickcpus your so silly and as for the UN Hypocrisy Hipocrisy Hipocrisy...................
U.N. building to lose submachine gun stash
By Stewart Stogel
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
NEW YORK - The United Nations, under pressure from the Bush administration, has decided to move a stash of submachine guns out of the organization's New York City headquarters.The MP5s, made by Heckler and Koch of Germany, are to be moved to U.N. peacekeeping operations overseas, State Department sources said.The United Nations purchased the restricted weapons for the personal protection of Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his travels around the NewYork metropolitan area.The weapons often were visible in the support van of Mr. Annan's motorcade as it moved throughout the city. It was not clear why Mr. Annan's bodyguards needed such weapons, said sources within the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under a U.S. agreement with the United Nations, DSS bears ultimate responsibility for Mr. Annan's protection within the borders of the United States.
Models of the MP5 made since 1986 may be purchased only by law-enforcement agencies.The U.N. security force does not have "law-enforcement status," explained a source at the U.S. mission in New York. U.N. Security Chief Michael McCann made the decision to obtain the weapons in 1998, U.S. government sources said. Mr. McCann declined to comment but said through a spokeswoman: "The United Nations has been working closely with the United States" to resolve the issue. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates the sale and purchase of the MP5s, originally denied the United Nations permission to purchase the guns. Key factors were the U.N. security department's lack of formal status as a law-enforcement agency and the risk of non-U.S. citizens gaining access to the weapons, State Department sources said. The United Nations, aided by senior officials in the Clinton administration, persuaded the ATF to grant permission.
In February 2002, the Bush administration ordered a review of the U.N. security officers' use of the weapons.Shortly after the 2002 ATF examination, U.N. security officials told The Washington Times, the MP5s were removed from Mr. Annan's security detail and locked up. State Department sources said the United Nations and ATF never reached an accommodation that would have allowed the rifles back on the streets of New York.The United Nations agreed to transfer the weapons outside the United States. It was not clear when the weapons were to be moved."We were told that the guns are headed to U.N. peacekeeping operations,"said one U.S. diplomat.
U.N. building to lose submachine gun stash
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030811-112153-1373r.htm
FLASHBACK
UN bodyguards face guns inquiry
THE bodyguards of Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, are under investigation by American officials for allegedly illegally importing and possessing sub-machineguns used to protect him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$LJYLYQYAAC3WHQFIQMGSFF4AVC
BQWIV0?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F02%2F22%2Fwannan22.xml&_requestid=162927
Kofi's Kwips and Kwotes
In this regular feature we bust the bubble of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his buddies by printing their comments on one side of the page and the truth on the other. (Kofi and the truth are rarely on the same side, anyway.)The U.N. claims to stand for human rights. In fact, their aim is to extend the brutal standards of third world politics and third-world "justice" to the entire world -- including the United States. U.N. institutions and policies would replace our Bill of Rights with a version of "rights" that is far, far weaker in its protection of the individual and far more favorable to the aims of oppressive, socialistic governments.
http://www.jpfo.org/kofikwotes.htm
The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"
U.N. building to lose submachine gun stash
By Stewart Stogel
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
NEW YORK - The United Nations, under pressure from the Bush administration, has decided to move a stash of submachine guns out of the organization's New York City headquarters.The MP5s, made by Heckler and Koch of Germany, are to be moved to U.N. peacekeeping operations overseas, State Department sources said.The United Nations purchased the restricted weapons for the personal protection of Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his travels around the NewYork metropolitan area.The weapons often were visible in the support van of Mr. Annan's motorcade as it moved throughout the city. It was not clear why Mr. Annan's bodyguards needed such weapons, said sources within the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Under a U.S. agreement with the United Nations, DSS bears ultimate responsibility for Mr. Annan's protection within the borders of the United States.
Models of the MP5 made since 1986 may be purchased only by law-enforcement agencies.The U.N. security force does not have "law-enforcement status," explained a source at the U.S. mission in New York. U.N. Security Chief Michael McCann made the decision to obtain the weapons in 1998, U.S. government sources said. Mr. McCann declined to comment but said through a spokeswoman: "The United Nations has been working closely with the United States" to resolve the issue. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which regulates the sale and purchase of the MP5s, originally denied the United Nations permission to purchase the guns. Key factors were the U.N. security department's lack of formal status as a law-enforcement agency and the risk of non-U.S. citizens gaining access to the weapons, State Department sources said. The United Nations, aided by senior officials in the Clinton administration, persuaded the ATF to grant permission.
In February 2002, the Bush administration ordered a review of the U.N. security officers' use of the weapons.Shortly after the 2002 ATF examination, U.N. security officials told The Washington Times, the MP5s were removed from Mr. Annan's security detail and locked up. State Department sources said the United Nations and ATF never reached an accommodation that would have allowed the rifles back on the streets of New York.The United Nations agreed to transfer the weapons outside the United States. It was not clear when the weapons were to be moved."We were told that the guns are headed to U.N. peacekeeping operations,"said one U.S. diplomat.
U.N. building to lose submachine gun stash
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20030811-112153-1373r.htm
FLASHBACK
UN bodyguards face guns inquiry
THE bodyguards of Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary-general, are under investigation by American officials for allegedly illegally importing and possessing sub-machineguns used to protect him.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$LJYLYQYAAC3WHQFIQMGSFF4AVC
BQWIV0?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F02%2F22%2Fwannan22.xml&_requestid=162927
Kofi's Kwips and Kwotes
In this regular feature we bust the bubble of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his buddies by printing their comments on one side of the page and the truth on the other. (Kofi and the truth are rarely on the same side, anyway.)The U.N. claims to stand for human rights. In fact, their aim is to extend the brutal standards of third world politics and third-world "justice" to the entire world -- including the United States. U.N. institutions and policies would replace our Bill of Rights with a version of "rights" that is far, far weaker in its protection of the individual and far more favorable to the aims of oppressive, socialistic governments.
http://www.jpfo.org/kofikwotes.htm
The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"
R
Robert Hairless
Guest
I'm almost convinced. But then the first thing we need is a worldwide ban on violent games and movies. We shouldn't be encouraging people to think that violence is fun. And we need to discourage young people throughout the world from wanting guns.
One way to start would be by allowing people in all countries to bring law suits against the makers of violent games and movies.
One way to start would be by allowing people in all countries to bring law suits against the makers of violent games and movies.
R
RZAL
Guest
I'm affraid your not to far from the truth, I think several law suits have already been filed claiming just that. It would be interesting to see what Google has to say. I'm sure a few years down the road will see this issue blown out of proportion just like all the others. And for the record I AM AGAINST CENSORSHIP.Robert Hairless said:
The Patriot "Freedom is not Free"
P
Pistoleer
Guest
What an interesting discussion! However, I am somewhat curious as to why anyone outside the US should feel the need to wish to impose their views on the people of another country. Notwithstanding that somewhat intrusive premise underlying the poll that forms the basis for the discussion, sit back and listen to my story.
I am an American. I have owned and shot handguns for more than 30 years and half a dozen now reside in a safe in my home.
I own handguns because I enjoy the challenge of the sport of target shooting. I am always puzzled by comments that there is no rationale for owning handguns, but it is okay to own rifles for hunting. When I was younger, I hunted with rifles, but by age 20 I found that I no longer enjoyed killing animals.
In dire circumstances, I would use my handguns for self defense in my home. But I am not a bloodthirsty "Rambo" waiting for a burglar to break into my house so I can shoot someone. The first line of defense in my house is a burglar alarm system. If the electronic alarm does not dissuade someone from entering my house, my second line of defense is a 135-pound dog. Anyone that still wants to enter my house must be very determined, very stupid, or very drugged.
I have household insurance, so I would not object to burglars taking whatever they could haul away before the police ultimately arrive at my house. And I think that few burglars are so bent on self-destruction as to confront an armed homeowner. But pity the soul who feels compelled to try to enter the living area of my house, because I will defend myself and my family members. I would not search for or chase after an intruder, but I would surely shoot one who attacked me or a member or my family.
For those who contend that my handguns are a danger to me because a burglar would take them away from me and use them on me, I can only say that you have an active imagination. If I can not retrieve a pistol from my safe before an assailant is upon me, the assailant will also be unable to get to my guns. If I have retrieved a pistol from my safe, my assailant had better be wearing body armor if they hope to escape unharmed.
Some people would contend that the very presence of handguns in my house poses a threat. Maybe those people have encountered different types of guns from those that I own. My guns are inanimate objects. And they are securely stored to prevent access by unauthorized persons. Four individuals in my house have access to my safe. I was trainined to use handguns in the military. My wife was trained to use handguns while working for a sheriff's department. And we have trained our two now-adult sons in the safe use of firearms. There has never been a firearms 'incident' after 180 gun-years of exposure to handguns in my home.
So tell me again why I should not be able to own handguns. But don't tell me that I should not be able to own handguns because other people use handguns improperly. By that logic, alcohol and/or automobiles should be banned because some people drink and drive with disasterous consequences. And please don't whine about how inherently dangerous guns are, because an inventory of the hand tools and power tools in my garage would make my guns look like paragons of safety.
I am an American. I have owned and shot handguns for more than 30 years and half a dozen now reside in a safe in my home.
I own handguns because I enjoy the challenge of the sport of target shooting. I am always puzzled by comments that there is no rationale for owning handguns, but it is okay to own rifles for hunting. When I was younger, I hunted with rifles, but by age 20 I found that I no longer enjoyed killing animals.
In dire circumstances, I would use my handguns for self defense in my home. But I am not a bloodthirsty "Rambo" waiting for a burglar to break into my house so I can shoot someone. The first line of defense in my house is a burglar alarm system. If the electronic alarm does not dissuade someone from entering my house, my second line of defense is a 135-pound dog. Anyone that still wants to enter my house must be very determined, very stupid, or very drugged.
I have household insurance, so I would not object to burglars taking whatever they could haul away before the police ultimately arrive at my house. And I think that few burglars are so bent on self-destruction as to confront an armed homeowner. But pity the soul who feels compelled to try to enter the living area of my house, because I will defend myself and my family members. I would not search for or chase after an intruder, but I would surely shoot one who attacked me or a member or my family.
For those who contend that my handguns are a danger to me because a burglar would take them away from me and use them on me, I can only say that you have an active imagination. If I can not retrieve a pistol from my safe before an assailant is upon me, the assailant will also be unable to get to my guns. If I have retrieved a pistol from my safe, my assailant had better be wearing body armor if they hope to escape unharmed.
Some people would contend that the very presence of handguns in my house poses a threat. Maybe those people have encountered different types of guns from those that I own. My guns are inanimate objects. And they are securely stored to prevent access by unauthorized persons. Four individuals in my house have access to my safe. I was trainined to use handguns in the military. My wife was trained to use handguns while working for a sheriff's department. And we have trained our two now-adult sons in the safe use of firearms. There has never been a firearms 'incident' after 180 gun-years of exposure to handguns in my home.
So tell me again why I should not be able to own handguns. But don't tell me that I should not be able to own handguns because other people use handguns improperly. By that logic, alcohol and/or automobiles should be banned because some people drink and drive with disasterous consequences. And please don't whine about how inherently dangerous guns are, because an inventory of the hand tools and power tools in my garage would make my guns look like paragons of safety.
R
Robert Hairless
Guest
RZAL said:
Oh, absolutely! Every good person is against censorship. But we are not talking about what they can read or say. We're only talking about how they are allowed to behave, so it's not censorship if we let them read or play games as long as it's not violent games.
We must always keep in mind that if we don't force people to do what we want they are going to do what they want, which of course is not the correct way for them to behave. That's all we're trying to do in these messages. We're not talking about the serious matter of controlling people's entertainment, only about the trivial matter of how they live their lives.
I'm glad you raised the point about censorship. We certainly don't want to be censors, only to control the lives of people in other countries.
KoreBolteR
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 1
Pureball said:
in the UK, if the Burglar is downstairs you can not shoot him. but if he is on the stairs or upstairs you can.. lol.
personally i think the people entering your house illegaly put thier own life at risk entering another persons house, and should pay the price with whatever neccessary measure the family member does to them to protect his/her family. :hmph:
burner69
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 1,587
- Reaction score
- 0
Pureball said:
You're allowed reasonable force. So if the burglar is attacking you with a baseball bat, you can use a large blunt object to beat him off with. If you see he's armed with a pistol you could, I suppose, get your hunting rifle out and threaten him with it, then if he goes for his pistol you could shoot him, and probably get away with it.
The papers, or anyone who believes the daily mail, will tell you that Tony Blair says it's okay for burglars to break into your house, and you can't do a dam thing about it. The law states reasonable force, shooting a guy with a shotgun when he's unarmed ain't reasonable force - as I believe Tony Martin, a famous British case, did.
firemachine69
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 0
Again. Break into my home, EXPECT to be shot/stabbed/whatever, know you're on a kamikazi mission if you enter uninvited (family excluded ).
You can't judge whether he's armed or not, most of the time it would happen at night, when seeing conditions would be low. And don't BS me "I'd turn on the lights".
).You can't judge whether he's armed or not, most of the time it would happen at night, when seeing conditions would be low. And don't BS me "I'd turn on the lights".
KoreBolteR
Tank
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2004
- Messages
- 3,724
- Reaction score
- 1
firemachine69 said:Again. Break into my home, EXPECT to be shot/stabbed/whatever, know you're on a kamikazi mission if you enter uninvited (parents excluded
You can't judge whether he's armed or not, most of the time it would happen at night, when seeing conditions would be low. And don't BS me "I'd turn on the lights".
i wudnt turn on the lights, but my upstairs is very creaky, my matress on my bed is noisy and so is my floorbourds, so if anyone broke into my house, they would certainly know if i was gonna go down and kill them
:rolling: :E
firemachine69
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 0
If he can't take a hint of a shotgun being pumped, then he deserves to be shot.
firemachine69
Newbie
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 392
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm sorry, I don't download an unknown XLS file from someone I don't know.
On that "someone you know", remember, the whole world knows each other by some 5 places down (a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of my friend).
On that "someone you know", remember, the whole world knows each other by some 5 places down (a friend of a friend of a friend of a friend of my friend).
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
firemachine69 said:
no ..the fbi stats page identifies the majority of victems are killed by an acquaintance
dictionary.com defines acquaintance as:
1. Knowledge of a person acquired by a relationship less intimate than friendship.
2. A person whom one knows.
R
RZAL
Guest
You might find this link interesting. The case deals with/sets the federal standards when Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force in America. I know this thread is on private citizens but some of these factors can be applied to individuals. Of course each state sets its own standards regarding citizens and the use of deadly force.burner69 said:
TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=471&invol=1
The Patriot “Freedom is not Free”
D
Desertrat
Guest
Interesting about that "acquaintance" thing, CptStern: When you look at who shoots whom, it's not an honest-person gun-owner doing the shooting or being shot.
The majority of "acquaintances" are either gang types, or they are intra-familial deals where there is already a police history of problems at the household. Further, most data shows such shootings have occurred in situations where drugs or alcohol are somehow involved.
For the US types here, one of the better studies done about gunlaws and the efficacy thereof, see Wright, Rossi & Daly's "Under The Gun". Published by the University of Florida Press, these statisticians preceded Prof. Gary Kleck's work. I've found it interesting that even if one throws out all of Prof. Lott's research, his bare conclusions merely mirror those of WWRD.
One thing I know for sure: Honest folks sometimes do need serious means for self defense. Infrequently? Sure. But I as a responsible person see no reason to be inhibited by the immaturity of others. I have the human right to live a peaceful life, uninterrupted by the hostility of others. Since there is nobody else with any requirement to guarantee that right, it's up to me to protect myself and my own people--wife, kid, whomever.
'Rat
The majority of "acquaintances" are either gang types, or they are intra-familial deals where there is already a police history of problems at the household. Further, most data shows such shootings have occurred in situations where drugs or alcohol are somehow involved.
For the US types here, one of the better studies done about gunlaws and the efficacy thereof, see Wright, Rossi & Daly's "Under The Gun". Published by the University of Florida Press, these statisticians preceded Prof. Gary Kleck's work. I've found it interesting that even if one throws out all of Prof. Lott's research, his bare conclusions merely mirror those of WWRD.
One thing I know for sure: Honest folks sometimes do need serious means for self defense. Infrequently? Sure. But I as a responsible person see no reason to be inhibited by the immaturity of others. I have the human right to live a peaceful life, uninterrupted by the hostility of others. Since there is nobody else with any requirement to guarantee that right, it's up to me to protect myself and my own people--wife, kid, whomever.
'Rat
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Desertrat said:
well actually you're supporting my point that guns should be banned ..if it's criminals killing and commiting crimes then it stands to reason that doing away with guns will lessen the amount of people killing and committing crimes with guns ...that's indisputable
Desertrat said:
what I dont understand is that americans are the only ones who think this way. Nowhere else in the world is there such a pre-occupation with arming yourself because of a "perceived threat" (unless of course it's a warzone)
N
Nightfall
Guest
I fail to understand the preoccupation with "gun crimes" as opposed to "knife crimes", or "blunt object trauma crimes". Perhaps your concern is that if criminals didn't have access to firearms, they would be less able to put their fellow citizens at risk? If this was true, wouldn't prisons be a safe place? The criminals in a prison certainly have no access to weapons such as firearms or knives. However, I assure you that prisons are not safe havens. The inmates regularly assault one another with improvised tools and bare hands. Despite the absence of firearms, it is still a dangerous, even deadly place to be. Why? Because activities such as shootings, stabbings, rape, and other violent crimes are not the result of an inanimate object such as a baseball bat or gun, but the result of human behavior, human personalities. A criminal with no firearm is no less capable of or willing to visit violence upon his fellow man, as evidenced by my prison example.CptStern said:
Similar threads
