"Gun town U.S.A." Not a murder in 25 years!!!

well. of course i'm gonna use them. i don't understand why that's a problem.

 

It's not. I never said that I had a problem with people using guns.

It's just a fact that people who have guns have a higher rate of killing people with a gun. That's all. I believe in different gun laws to approach this fact than Bill does, yet it's made out to seem like I want to relinquish all guns on the face of the earth because I want people to be vulnerable and unable to defend themselves.

 

CITATIONS, please?

We've seen articles and links proving that quite the opposite is true,

but, we're to just throw all that out the window because to you,

"It's just a fact?"

Nice try ~

No banana.

But here's this:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=People+don%27t+kill+people%3B+guns+kill+people

 

Fyrenza, could you please refrain from trying to flame me and insult me?

I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

 

mamaKCita

You’re a hunter, fine, but that is not how pro-gun arguments are usually framed, invariably the argument comes down fear, a supposed threat, usually crime or the government.

One pro-gunner once confided that he thought that the reason that their wasn’t more call for gun control in the US was that a lot of people believed that most gun related killing took place in certain economic or ethic groups that they didn’t much care about or between criminal that they thought deserved it.

The view that ‘if they want to shoot each other let them, its no great loss’

Fear and a seeming disregard for fellow human beings “living in a state of constant local warfare”, I ask you is that the signs of a healthy society?

 

Fyrenza

LOL…Oh come on, I nearly died from irony overload

You support all this spurious conspiracy crap based on little more than innuendo, contentious supposition and bias so myopic as to be virtually blind. Give opinions you that you are unable to back up or defend in any rational way and yet you scream for triple A, one hundred percent proofs from others?

 

I wondered how long it would be before that tied old cliché would turn up

Guns don’t kill people, people do

It’s a slogan, a platitude not an argument, its dumb as in the since that it doesn’t really say anything or mean anything and it certainly isn’t a substitute for a rational and reasoned argument.

It’s a mantra of the pro-gun lobby - or more often the supporters of that lobby that don’t really have any decent arguments of there own so just borrowed the slogans.

OK I’ll try to be simple since it is obvious that people that use slogans like simple - we are in a thread about the use of guns – shouting that it’s about guns being used is stating the fucking obvious don’t you think?

And surprise, surprise its about people using guns, Oh wow once more the fucking obvious is stated.

Oh and it points out that guns can kill, that they’re weapons designed with the express purpose to maim and kill – well my, I would never have known that if this little jingle hadn’t pointed it out, I though guns were used for flower arranging or to paint cute pictures of bunny rabbits.

What this limp and pathetic platitude does not address in debate about gun is…well everything fucking else.

Come on people if you have anything decent to contribute please present it, if not don’t bother and definitely keep such dumb platitudes to yourself.

 

As I’ve said what interests me in this subject is mentality and attitudes

I mean its interesting contrasting the recent shootings in Alabama and Germany.

In the US there seems to have been a collective shrug of the shoulders, an acceptance that ‘these things happen’.

In Germany on the other hand it seems to have caused a bout of national soul searching, questions are being asked about their society (on the radio last night a German commentator was wondering if German society was too competitive and overly stressful for young people) and solutions are being sort, gun control yes, but lots of other things such as putting money into counselling services and other social programmes.

It seems to me that many Germans see the shooting not only of individual tragedy but also as a symptom of a possible deeper malaise.

Americans don’t seem so inclined to do that.

*

 

i wasn't making a judgement on those people living in a state of constant warfare, though i can understand your knee-jerk reaction to the statement after all the threads on the topic. my response was in regards to the social contracts breaking down in overpopulated regions with not much money or opportunity for better your lot. i came from one of those neighborhoods, i know the people there. there's a bigger problem happening there than gun ownership. anywhere you go in the world, no matter the color of the inhabitants, you're gonna find some people doing very nasty things to each other and fighting twice as hard to hold onto what little they have using whatever they can. when i was little, it was knives, bats, vehicles, etc. a baseball bat across the back of the skull isn't a whole lot different than a gun.

what i'm saying is that i don't really think that guns are the problem, i think poverty and hopelessness are. yeah, you're gonna get a couple whackjobs here and there, and people who are just plain evil greedy. but the tools don't change a whole lot.

 

i wouldn't say that we're not so inclined, it's just that we're so constantly in the discussion. the discussion never stopped. it's never far from the american psyche.

 

Indeed, these things happen constantly, normally a few times a year, it's always on our mind, we just know this stems from bigger issues you can't just fix with regulations, fix all of America's social problems then there won't be massive gun crime anymore. Remember despite random little fuckers like the Alabama guy going around and shooting people, most of the people murdered in the US every year have an actual motive behind it, and drugs/money/money from drugs is the general reason.

Fuck these school shooters, not because they killed people, but because of the inevitable legislative response

 

mama

But that’s it - I’ve meet many pro-gunners here over the years that have been very vocal on defending gun ownership or claiming gun ownership is a good way of dealing with social problems such as crime but they don’t seem that interested in debates on poverty or hopelessness or the ways of tackling them, and I’ve really tried to engage them on those subjects.

In fact many of their contributions to the more social or economic threads have been negligible, derisory or down right none existent.

And while many have claim that they are interested in tackling these things, when actually pushed to give their views it was very often clear that they hadn’t given it much thought let alone consideration and at other times there ideas seemed to be calculated to increase poverty and hopelessness (getting rid of all welfare and other social programmes, installing free market economic ideas and other things like that).


*

 

Mama and Mad

But my point is it never seems to become a true debate it’s more about people shouting repetitively and hoping to drown out the other side.

A conflict of slogans and statistics with some people never seeming to wonder or question the mentalities and attitudes behind their viewpoint.

 

i think everyone is guilty of the shouting down and statistical pissing contests in this particular debate. sometimes people seem too accusatory or nasty on the topic and it's hard to listen without getting defensive or offensive and in the end, no one really listens at all anymore on either side. we all get pretty sold on our own viewpoints and beliefs and are proud of how those beliefs reflect upon us as people. an attack on those beliefs ends up feeling like an attack on ourselves.

i've read through a lot of these "debates" and understandably decided to just lurk and browse. i'm not a poli sci or sociology major, never have been, never would be. both are far too nebulus and moot for me to get into. this one struck me as particularly interesting due to the nearly sumultaneous tragedies on either side of the atlantic and how people are viewing them.

 

I agree KC. It's kind of a dead horse most time for me.

 

Actually, Balbus,

any proofs would do.

While y'all sit there and insist that we back up every single sentence we post,

a simple request for any citations from Ari are met with utter disregard,

and that's just disrespectful, no matter how you cut it.

Please refrain from swooping into a thread, and just saying whatever, off the top of your head,

especially when others have taken the time and effort to post links and articles that INDISPUTABLY REFUTE your stated claims.

What if we said the same things to y'all that you have to us, regarding "sources?"

'No likeee ~ must use our preferred sources'?

And yet, in order NOT to be deemed Conspiracy Nuts, we have to provide articles from YOUR preferred sources, or you just sneer at them, as if that makes them invalid or false.

imho, y'all don't take enough time to actually READ the links and articles ~

Balbus, i KNOW you know what i'm saying, here! ~

with an open mind, if for no other reason than to just be able to get a concept of where the other person is coming from. (That, btw, is what i 'support' ~ not any certain "Conspiracy Theory," but if y'all would take the time to read, and listen, some of what you're calling CT's just AREN'T anymore ~ they have been proven to be valid 'conspiracies.' Even that one about McCarthy ~ it seems to me it came up in a thread that had nothing to do with him, but it was damned sure interesting...

You know, have y'all come up with any concrete criteria that we can use to PRE-screen our posts, RE: they're Conspiracy threads or Politics threads? You know, if a thing actually exists (like this band of elite, Illumaniti), then talking about what it may or may not do (like our Government),

does not constitute propounding some sort of Conspiracy Theory.

Just THINK about it, for ONE MINUTE ~

Do you honestly NOT believe that the very richest people in the world just aren't too worried about the state of the State? WHY?

Do you not understand the concept of "Follow the Money?"

Then guess what? Whether you call them the Ultra-Rich, the Elite, heck, the HogWash HotDog Vendors,

or the Illumunati ~

it's the folk'es with the mostest that are being discussed.

So now, do you think it's a CT to believe that the { -- fill in this blank with one of the above ^^^ -- } (for me) Ultra-Rich are in the driver's seat right now?


Bottom line, i think y'all have gotten cross-wise with some of the subscribers who frequent these areas,

and that you're probably stretched pretty thin, as far as coverage goes, which makes for frayed nerves

and not enough time to devote to just being regular members.

i don't presume to speak for everyone here, but that's my opinion...

 

Honestly Fyrenza, I've been debating this issue for a long time, so out of respect I didn't want to kick up any more dust in here. But alright.

This article was published 04/24/2008, so it's up to date with actual statistics.
"Pro-Gun" States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death rates:
http://www.vpc.org/press/0804gundeath.htm

Deaths Involving Fire Arms:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/studie...005/16-4-b.pdf

Do you see how stricter gun laws have decreased deaths involving firearms in Canada?

Page 7 & 8 give you the statistics of Urban cities and the average deaths involving fire arms and how stricter firearm laws have shown a decrease in homicides:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2007008.pdf

More Stats from actual studies:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/...rearmoverview/

 

Very nice ~

i do appreciate the effort!

However, there are 2 little issues i'd like to address:

1) WHERE are these "gun crimes" happening? It looks to me like they are centered in the big cities ~ where, let's face it, there isn't much to shoot, besides other human beings.

2) i'm really wondering about this one ~ Is O-Bozo trying TO arm America, or to DISarm America?

On the one hand, he wants these militias and private armies, and training in warfare for 18-25 year olds, right?

But on the other hand, he wants stricter gun laws, and for all of these militia folks to have to depend on the Gov to buy their weaponry for them?

When the NWO could so easily (as they HAVE, in fact, down here in Texas, come to think of it!) have the citizenry do all the buying ~ from their companies, of course.

Of those two choices, i'm going to have to say they'll go with expensive guns and ammunition, offered by their companies, with the threat of gun and/or ammo control hanging over everyones heads, to 'stimulus package' them,

and that anyone that can afford the price tag can take their pick.

Now, those 18-25 year olds? They'll already be semi-trained in the usage of their weapons. Who's going to buy a gun that they never shoot? (imho, as the costs go up, the firing ranges will become free, and, perhaps, even like yesterday's arcades)

Heck, let 'em buy guns at 15, offer free basic handling training, along with the free "arcade range," and you could end up with a pretty decent army, needing only organization and leadership to be effective. You could do that with infatuated kids in 3 months.

Wonder how long they can keep the run on guns and ammo going?...

 

mama

And that’s my point.

What I’m trying to work out and understand is what lies behind those views.

But it is often very hard to get past the posturing, pro-gunners often seeming more interested in trying to beat up anyone who seems to even slightly criticise the pro-gun stance. They never seem interested in examining the mentality that underscores their views.

I asked some questions earlier -

Does large scale gun ownership, which in the US has historically and culturally been born out of fear of others a sign of a healthy society or one that has problems?

And why does gun ownership seem to be seen and promoted by many as a means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems while they seemingly want to ignore the possible causes?

No-one seems to be addressing them, so is no one disputing that fear is the basis of a lot of the US’s gun culture or that many pro-gunners don’t seem interested in the causes of societal problems or solutions to them (besides wider gun ownership that is)?

Fear is a potent weapon in politics and has been used to great effect in the US, almost always favouring conservative or right wing groups, fear of blacks, fear of communists, fear of drug pushers, fear of terrorists. And policies built on such fears, to me, been some of the worse mistakes in US history. Segregation, anti left witch hunts both domestic and foreign, the war on drugs, the war on terror, all examples of fear based policies that pushed out rational argument or constructive agreements. Undercover of which some politicians have brought in measures that have been to the detriment of American society as a whole.

In other words is the gun issue being used as a smoke screen or distraction to get out of having to discuss the real issues confronting US society, to drive out rational thought and constructive agreements?

 

:smilielol5:

So you're saying that more people with guns are using guns to kill people, than people without guns are using guns to kill people, makes sense to me.