63
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:20 pm
@mysteryman,
i got two words for you, con fiscation


actually now that i look at it i guess it's one word
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:25 pm
@Green Witch,
So the car should be ban as it kill 50,000 people very year as human life is more important then your need to get to work correct Green Witch?

Most large engineering projects such as a dam it is known roughly how many people you are going to loss building it no matter how careful you are, so we should care for human life more then the need to have a dam or a power plant or whatever.

Second if you was a real witch and could removed all the firearms in the country I might even be in favor of so doing! Oh and also be able to keep any small metal shop from manufacturing more. See my last paragraph.

However no matter what laws or punishment we pass for having a gun, guns will be around for those who are willing to paid for them.

If we can not control drugs what make you think that we can control 200 millions weapons that are already in the country?

We are not talking about being able to control the killers with the guns all we can do is limit the ability of the citizens to protected ourselves from such people.

Second even under the Nazis control people was able to manufacture fully auto sub machine guns in Europe using plans that the British agents brought in. These plans still are in the public domain and any small machine/metal shop can turn them out in numbers and human nature being what it is would start doing so tomorrow if there was a complete ban on guns.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:29 pm
@msolga,
May I add: My concerns are entirely about the victims of such shootings. I have far less concern about the rights of anyone to own a gun, just in case they might need it, for "defensive" or any other reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you wish to make damn sure that no one is in a position to stop such a killing spree? Correct?
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:32 pm
@BillRM,
that's a crap argument, with out looking up the stats i bet i could safely say that happens in less than 1% off all cases


now if we all had 5 year olds armed with pistols like david suggests that might help Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:34 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas

Yes, I did read about the recent shootings in Germany.

Is that correct? That there's no difference in the frequency of such mass shootings/killings in Germany & the US? (For the purpose of this discussion I'm referring specifically to guns, if that's OK.) That surprises me, because I haven't come across nearly as many media reports of mass shootings in Germany as in the US.

djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:39 pm
@msolga,
i remember the canadian reporter covering the shootings saying it was a rare occurrence, only a couple in the last twenty years or so
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:40 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
So you wish to make damn sure that no one is in a position to stop such a killing spree? Correct?


Incorrect, Bill

I believe it would be preferable if no individual was in a position to instigate such a shooting spree in the first place.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:41 pm
@msolga,
agree
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:42 pm
Here's the problem as I see it: I grew up around guns because people in my family hunted and did some sport shooting. My brothers' stopped hunting when they went to college and once they started having children decided not to keep guns around. My father still has some collectables, but I'm sure whoever inherits them will sell them. No one in my family is interested in guns for the sake of owning guns It was once normal for a family to own guns to hunt or use around a farm for varmint control, but today's gun enthusiast seems different.

I think the largest growing segment of gun owners are more about the power guns give an individual and not the sport. Guns no longer equal food or safety from an intruder, but rather individual power and machismo. We've had a few drug raids in my area and the cops didn't find hunting rifles, but rather small sized machine guns . These military style guns are scary. I think people who crave them are not the same as the guy who owns a few guns to hunt deer or protect his family from intruders. These bigger, badder guns are designed to kill many quickly and give the user a feeling of invincibility. I think they are just want criminals crave and it's why drug lords in Mexico come to the US to stock up on weapons. I don't think we are ever going to see these guns removed from our society because the people who are attracted to them have an addiction to the feeling of power these guns offer . We could not eliminate these guns in our society anymore than we can get rid of drugs. We are saturated with them- and they are a big, profitable business based on demand.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:44 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
I believe it would be preferable if no individual was in a position to instigate such a shooting spree in the first place.


And how would you do that, especially since someone with a modicum of knowledge and access to a machine shop can produce a firearm in only a few hours.

Are you going to ban all machine shops?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:46 pm
@Green Witch,
Quote:
I think they are just want criminals crave and it's why drug lords in Mexico come to the US to stock up on weapons.


But less then 30% of the guns confiscated in mexico come from the US.
Most are either home made or imported from other countries, instead of the US.
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:55 pm
@BillRM,
Why don't you try reading my posts before blabbering on. I said nothing about banning guns.
0 Replies
 
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:57 pm
@mysteryman,
30%? Only according to Fox News. The US government has long disagreed with that figure. Why would they go anywhere else? - it's extremely easy to get guns in California and ship them over the border. Plus, we make dame good guns.
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:59 pm
@mysteryman,
So why don't we see more handmade guns? Why aren't they cranking them out in Japan or Scotland? Really MM, I'm not someone who thinks it's possible to get guns out of the US, but to say people are going to start making them is silly.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:59 pm
@Green Witch,
That sounds like a border control problem then GW, not a gun ownership problem.

I've long been saying we need better border control. I think we could create a million jobs right there.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 07:03 pm
@Green Witch,
Quote:
but to say people are going to start making them is silly.


Is it?
I have made 4 of them myself, and a there are gunsmiths all over the country that make both long guns and handguns.
Granted, they are mostly made for private customers or to custom specs that a big company cant do, but there ARE people that make their own guns.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 07:07 pm
@hamburger,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, hamburger. No, I haven't read Outliers.
If Gladwell's findings about the Scottish are correct, then thank goodness gun ownship is not so widespread (by the sounds of it) there! Sounds like casualty rates could be a damn sight worse than they already are!

I found your comments (quoted below) very interesting. The emphasis on common good in Canadian law, compared with the rights of individuals. I think Canada might be onto something here! Wink :

Quote:
it's interesting to compare the U.S. and canada (the U.S. of course having a much larger population by ten) .
people from all over the world make up the population of both countries - including many scots , and who are about as peaceful as can be here .
and when it comes to variety in immigrants - both old and new - there is probably every population group in the world represented in canada .

while we personally think that there is a somewhat higher level of crime than 50 years ago - particularly gun violence by drug gangs - canada is still a pretty peaceful country .

it has been suggested by some that one of the reasons can be found in canada's constitution act of 1867 - the years canada was "founded" .
this is what is being referred to as the principal objects of the federal government :
Quote:
Section 91 authorizes Parliament to "make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada "


and the mounties (royal canadian mounted police) enforced these laws from early on - much to the annoyance to some american settlers and cattle-thieves who were being asked (not always politely) to : " hand over your guns " .
even now , the first question likely being asked of anyone coming across the border from the U.S. is : "are you bringing any weapons in ? " .
and again , much to the annoyance of some americans , they have to give up their weapons .
some , of course , try to bluff their way in . the canadian border guards seem to have a pretty good nose and will say : "please pull over to the inspection building " .
and if weapons are found , they will be confiscated and a fine may be levied or they may be asked to go back to the U.S.
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 07:10 pm
@maporsche,
So what are they going to do? Rip apart every truck and car? Ex-ray every Fed-Ex and UPS box? The reality is the guns are here to stay. We are going to supply criminals. Children will shoot children. Crazy employees will get to kill their co-workers. People will get to blow away their spouses. The American love of guns is always going be to a source of tragic death and crime - I see no end to it, as Msolga asks. At least I wish the gun people would just admit they care more about guns than people -and they don't have to worry- they win! The guns stay, we couldn't get them out of the US with all the laws in the universe. I personally have never lobbied or voted for someone because I thought they would be tough on guns. I think it's hopeless and pointless even to argue about it.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 07:16 pm
@Green Witch,
Green Witch you have a population that what guns and no legal manufactoring and guess what going to happen! Of course with 200 millions guns we do not need to go into manufacturing mode anytime soon however there is no way for the government to control guns anymore then they can control drugs.

Just make it hard for law abiding citizens to protect themsleves.

I any case here what did happen when a people needed guns many decades ago. Sub-machine guns manufacture by even village blacksmiths!!!!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
the name of the factory where it was developed (Shepherd Turpin ENfield), is one of the ubiquitous weapons of the Second World War.

Since Allied air drops of war materiel would not begin until late 1943, the only route available to the resistance movement to procure SMG's was to begin their own clandestine manufacturing programs.
These underground manufacturing programs achieved remarkable success, and are conservatively estimated to have produced more than 1,300 SMG's based more or less on the Sten design. These guns spanned the spectrum from crudely made local designs hand made by village blacksmiths to small runs of provincial "lookalikes", to high quality copies made by skilled industrial workers. In Warsaw alone there were several factories engaged in producing Sten copies, some of which produced hundreds of guns. The following list highlights the details of Polish Sten production:
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 07:16 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
The emphasis on common good in Canadian law, compared with the rights of individuals.


But I would rather have the "rights of individuals".
Not just regarding gun laws, but in all things.

"Common Good" can be used to subvert anyones rights, IMHO.
If a court decides its the "Common Good", what would stop them from confiscating your home or property?
What would stop them from deciding that a group of people can no longer be allowed to vote, because they dont vote the right way?
What would stop them from banning certain religions, based on the idea that its for the "Common Good"?

That term "Common Good" is scary.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 01:41:54