MikeEMT Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I don't agree with gun control. People focus on guns because of the media. However guns are not the problem. There are far less crimes and homicides committed with guns than other weapons. Why should I be punished because of some dumbass criminal? People die every day in car crashes. Many of those result in a Vehicular Homicide charge. Should our cars be banned because some idiot kills innocent people with a vehicle? Should I ban knives because people get stabbed to death? A gun has never killed a person. It is nothing but a hunk of steel. It has no brain, no life of its own. It cannot make decisions on its own. It takes a person to make a choice. A person must choose to use a gun in anger. A person must aim the gun and pull the trigger. It is the person we need to control. Plea bargains', good time, consecutive sentences, etc. must be abolished. In the 1800's our prisons were hard. There was no tv, radio, books or leisure time. Prison was an 8x10 cell with a bed and a bucket for bathroom use. If you weren't in your cell reflecting on your crimes, you were out in the yard doing hard labor or on a chain gang. The ACLU, NAACP and other so called "civil rights" organizations have turned our society into a bunch of sissy, politically correct crybabies. Commit a crime and you should be punished. Mass murders have always happened and always will. They occur every day somewhere in this world. We must remember that Evil exists and sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Wars have been fought over this. The only way to overcome evil is to embrace the good that is in life.
craig Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) A gun has never killed a person. It is nothing but a hunk of steel. It has no brain, no life of its own. It cannot make decisions on its own. It takes a person to make a choice. A person must choose to use a gun in anger. A person must aim the gun and pull the trigger. It is the person we need to control. Maybe, however the point is that military style assult weapons have NO place in the general community..I own guns, I live in a rural area and abide by the laws that allow me to own them. Assult weapons are not used for "hunting" and most responsible people would agree with that. Yes we do need to control the 'person', but we also need to control the óbject'. "People say what if they had a knife?'' Trouble with that statement is that a knife cannot kill 30 people in one go from 50 feet, thent o be reloaded and then kill andother 30.......... Take the most lethal available weapon away from the 'mentally disturbed' and then there will be no easy way for them to ''go postal' (another great American term, that derives from these type of events) if they do not have the access to these style of weapons (assult weapons) at the time the Australian Governemnt implemented the new gun control laws here in 1990's I was apprehensive and alarmed, but see the good it has done in both my role as an emergency service worker and a avid shooter. So yes control the person, get better mental health services, but also control the tool that can cause this high number of deaths. Mass murders have always happened and always will. They occur every day somewhere in this world. We must remember that Evil exists and sometimes there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Wars have been fought over this. we can do some thing to prevent this, and we can do things to minimise these results..........no one is advocating that you dont own a gun, what they are saying is why does ''joe public" need assult weapons? Why do you not have a better way of recording where these weapons are? do all people that own firearms have them secured in a way that is safe storage (a locked gun safe, with the ammo separate)...... Do this and you can move forward to preventing things like what happened in Conneticut. Edited December 18, 2012 by craig
spenac Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Saw this on another site and it should put an end to the discussion. Edited December 18, 2012 by spenac
craig Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 Saw this on another site and it should put an end to the discussion. No one said make guns illegal......gun control is not making them illegal.....it is making the community safe again I ask, why does Joe public need to own military style assult weapons? If these type of weapons were controlled, then maybe it would not be as easy for the 'nutters' to get hold of then to carry out these sensless murders.......... it's illegal to drink under 21 in the USA (and I know people do it) but maybe were should amend the rules to make it ok for anyone to drink as alcohol dont kill people, its the drunk people that do it............ You can own your hunting rifle, buy why have the same style of weapon the troops are using in the middle east or Afganistan?
spenac Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I wonder if as some say that the writers of the constitution were to stupid to understand that weapons would change in the future and really just wanted everyone to have a musket like some claim? If they were that stupid seems the document would never have survived. I am sure they realize that the history of weapons was always progressing. Started with bare hands, rocks, sticks. Then slings to speed rocks up. Spears and bow and arrows of different sorts as time went by. Then some black powder weapons of many sorts. Surely they understood that those that would be attacking would continue to progress with their types of weapons thus would expect that a person would be able to have equal or better to defend themselves. But maybe you are right that they were just ignorant people and did not know history so really just meant a musket was all that was allowed, though I could not find that written anywhere in the constitution.
Secouriste Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) I don't think it is wise to think the writers of the constitution would have anticipated the future. Their time was troubled and difficult enough. Why on earth would they have tried to think for the centuries to come? Study a bit the History of law and you'll see that no rule is meant to last forever. What matters are the values and guidelines of a society, they determine the Law, not the contrary. Then, that picture is based on a dangerous shortcut: You mistake the law for the law enforcement. It is obvious to everyone that making something illegal will not make is disappear, and that only an efficient and strict law enforcement will actually make it decrease and even stop. I remind you that I talk of guns only, I'm not trying to explain how to reduce crime or avoid mass-shootings. Because that needs analysis on many other issues... I agree that a gun left alone will never kill anyone, and I agree that many gun owner are perfectly sain and non-dangerous people. Yet many others aren't or wouldn't in situation of danger. My personal opinion is that when you put the scale all the "okay people" and on the other side, all the risks, risks win. Why do you own a gun? For the beauty of the thing? Make a collection, for which you don't need much ammo. For sport? Own a sport gun or a small caliber. For hunting? Then have a rifle or a shotgun. For self-defense in an isolated place? Rifle is good too. Also I don't see how people can claim they have the right to own military guns like assault rifle, why not anti-tank rifles and bazookas while we're at it? I 100% agree with Craig. Edited December 18, 2012 by Secouriste 1
island emt Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Can you imagine a scenario where a bunch of billy bob rednecks got all budweisered up, and grabbed their AK -47' & bushmaster assault rifles from the gun racks in their pickups, jumped on their 4 wheelers and raced off into the woods to hunt down the elusive bambi? Now you see how stupid this scenario is. ? Of course they don't carry an assault rifle through the woods looking for bambi, They are designed for killing human beings! Period........... If you have a legitimate reason to own an weapon that is capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute , I'd be interested in knowing what it is. For all you constitutionalist I do not believe anyone needs to possess a semi automatic assault rifle , who's primary desisn & intent is to kill human beings. I've never seen anyone hunting animals for food with one, or walking though the woods with one for sporting purposes. They are designed for ONE thing only . To take human lives. It is not the intent of the second amendment to possess military assault weapons, no matter what spin the NRA puts on the discussion. We were on a call recently where the homeowner had dozens of weapons in the home and thousands of rounds of ammunition. He doesn't even hunt, he is a prepper with dehydrated rations by the case , steel bars for his windows & doors and is preparing for the apocalypse. Or when the men in white suits come to take him away to the funny farm. Edited December 18, 2012 by island emt 2
Arctickat Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) I am sure they realize that the history of weapons was always progressing. The founding fathers were smart guys and knew that times would change. Thomas Jefferson felt that any constitution would be worthless after 19 years and would need to be rewritten by each generation. Not sure where ERDoc got his facts from but I know he is conscientious enough to take his word for it. So if the founding fathers considered the constitution to be a dynamic and living document, why hasn't the government followed through with their recommendations? Secouriste makes an excellent point. The United States seems to be the only country in the world in which the law defines the society rather than the society defining the law as it should be. Can you imagine a scenario where a bunch of billy bob rednecks got all budweisered up, and grabbed their AK -47' & bushmaster assault rifles from the gun racks in their pickups, jumped on their 4 wheelers and raced off into the woods to hunt down the elusive bambi? Yes, every time I watch "Sons of Guns" Edited December 18, 2012 by Arctickat 1
ERDoc Posted December 18, 2012 Author Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) Sorry, I should have provided references. http://www.citizensf...nstitution.html spenac, I never said the writers of the constitution were stupid. In fact it is just the opposite. They were very smart men but they were not psychic. They knew society changes and as such, so should the constitution. This is why they gave us the ability to amend the constitution. They knew that what worked in 1780 might not work 1980, 2280 or 3180, They wanted the people to have the ability to adapt to changes when necessary. They did not want to let us just change things on a whim, which is why they made it so that 3/4 of the states must ratify a proposed amendment in order for it to be added to the constitution. The constitution is such a fluid document that even amendments can be amended, such as the 21st repealing the 18th. EDIT: as others have said, gun control is not the same thing as gun prohibition. Everyone should be able to protect themselves, family and property. There is no need for semi-automatic assault weapons with 100 round magazines. These things are for war, not protection. EDIT#2: Just some more food for thought http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ Edited December 18, 2012 by ERDoc
chbare Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 ERDoc, what are your thoughts on handguns? We can talk about assault type weapons all day long; however, when we take a look at violent crime systemically in the United States, hand guns are used to kill many more people than assault type weapons. This trend goes back at least as far as the 1970's. With that said, I understand we are talking about mass shootings in contemporary time; however, should we not extend the dialogue to include a systemic discussion?
Recommended Posts