Should the United Nations Be Allowed To Disarm Amerika ??ns

Yeah..... you're arguing about our laws, but you're on the other side of a big pond.

No, I don't want guns in the hands of criminals. Doing anything perfectly is impossible, but there are MANY measures, including some that hurt everyone and not just criminals, in place to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and make those people having guns a very serious offense.

Again, the fact is, criminals can get the guns, regardless if they can buy them at walmart, because they're CRIMINALS. Duh. So they don't care if the gun's legal. And there's a gun waiting to be purchased on every street corner in some areas. No paperwork, no nothing, cash on the nail for a gun.

Felons, for example, can not own guns(or vote, keeping them from doing anything to even change this situation). You can't walk into a store, and walk out with a gun, there is a waiting period, I think usually two weeks? possibly longer, depending on what you're trying to buy. That doesn't mean two weeks while they order it, that means you select it, and pay for it, and get a receipt, and they say great, it'll be here for you in two weeks, an put it aside. Despite the fact that (AGAIN) .22 caliber handguns are the murder weapon of choice, automatic weapons have been banned for all because it's easy to make them sound criminal and use them as scapegoats.(when in reality, they're mostly just really fucking fun)

A felon in possession of a gun (or even a knife) can face serious jail time. This isn't taken lightly.

You talking about the criminally minded sort of shows the direction you're coming from-and that direction is airstrip one.

Actions are criminal, thoughts are not.

 

Roo

Now I’ve often asked do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals and the most common answer I got is – yes, but that is impossible – the second bit turning the yes effectively into no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

– but –

– because –

The same ‘yes, but that is impossible’ argument

You then seem to go on to complain about the few measures that are in place.

Which fits in with - But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them

You then go on to hint that any moves to limit the access of firearms to the irresponsible or criminally minded would end in an authoritarian dystopia. Again it all seems to be about scaremongering rather than rational or reasonable argument.

 

Stop or I'll dial 911?

 

If you had not carefully edited what you quoted to exclude the vital parts, then maybe I could take you more seriously.

As I explained, it's impossible-regardless of gun control. If gun control would really take guns out of the hands of criminals, I'd be all for it. The gun waiting on every street corner is NOT A LEGAL FIREARM, the law does NOT APPLY TO IT, often cheap guns have ALREADY BEEN USED FOR MURDERS and that's why they're on the street corner in the first place. You can make guns illegal, and it will ONLY HURT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

I did not hint that anything WOULD end in an authoritarian dystopia, I stated, in full, that it probably would not but COULD, given time. Rather like in britan, where you have pseudo authority figures pressing their way into your homes to check for unlicensed TV's.

The fact that something is IMPOSSIBLE and that the way you're suggesting we go about it does NOT hurt the criminals, but law abiding citizens, does NOT make me support giving criminals guns. Again, if gun control would control violent crime, I would support it.

Also, you made the assertion it takes less criminal intent to kill someone with a gun, and that for example, stabbings wouldn't happen to replace the shootings. This is pure bullshit, it takes just as much understanding of what you're doing to point a gun at someone and shoot them, as it does to stab them. In fact, it's MORE criminal to use a gun, there are already all sorts of charges that ONLY apply to guns, using a handgun in almost any type of crime, or even having a LEGAL handgun in one pocket and a bag of pot in the other, leads to very serious charges that would not follow if you used a knife, club, your bare hands, etc. In fact, the same charges apply if you claim to have a handgun, or use a fake gun.

And again, anyone convicted of a LARGE range of crimes (which, in my state, includes possession of more than 4oz of weed) may not own a gun, without incurring very serious penalties, possibly including YEARS in jail.

Stop saying you're not against responsible legal gun ownership, before going on to explain how you think that responsible legal gun ownership should be made illegal. It's rather pathetic doublethink.

Try arguing with what I say, not what you can edit my quotes to sort of make it look like I'm saying.

 

Roo

No I didn’t say that, I have said –

It seems to me that some seem to feel that Americans are basically barbarians who are more impolite and more murderous than others and so the only way to keep them in check is through the threat of violence.

That if they didn’t have a gun they would still would be the same number of murders, because Americans would use a knife, a car, a baseball bat, their teeth, they are simply more murderous.

So they feel the only thing to do is get tooled up with a gun or knife or something anything that can protect them from their vicious, murdering fellow citizens.

But is that true – and if it is – isn’t that a sad indictment of US society that should be rectified? Shouldn’t the question be what is wrong with my society and what can be done to make it a better place?

What I’m asking is why do you think that if Americans didn’t have guns they would kill with something else and if so what does that say about your society?

For example let us look at the bit about Philadelphia i posted earlier

Philadelphia i believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides while on the other hand London with around 7.5 million only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

I’d be asking what is going wrong in your society, why don’t you seem to be asking that?

 

Roo

No I got rid of the waffle to get to the real point you were making – a point that you are now repeating -

It is the same pro-gun argument that I was highlighting – that it is impossible so nothing should be done - in other words you do want guns in the hands of criminals.

Also as I’ve said (many times) it would not just be about gun control laws but about tackling the socio-economic factors that can lead to criminality, in my view if someone has turned to crime then their society has already failed them.

Please calm down Roo (all this caps lock shouting isn’t healthy), because if you calmed down you might just see the flaws in your argument.

You see it is incredibly simplistic – that isn’t your fault it is the same simplistic way of thinking that I have noticed in most pro-gunners. To you and them gun control equate to just one thing – the banning of all guns.

Your whole argument against me is based on that fallacy and that is why it’s flawed and you’d know it was flawed if you read all of my posts, rather than just the first ten words.

*

To me it would be about harm reduction, it’s not just about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals or anyone that might us them to do harm, but reducing crime in general.

That would involve a holistic approach, involving social, economic and political changes but would also include gun control measures.

But you can have gun control measures that don’t involve a total ban. There are gun control measures in place already in the US that don’t involve a total ban.

The problem is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when they claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to begin by trying to limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

Here are a couple of ideas I’ve suggested before

Any handgun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

Also according to the FBI gun misuse is often associated with domestic violence. So -

Anyone wanting to purchase a gun would first have to pass a psychological evaluation.

If in a relationship a partners, if they could give due reason, would have the ability to veto (in confidence) the handing out of a gun license (or have it removed).

*

 

Again: the fact that people kills says whatever it does about society. You make it sound like not having a gun would make someone who would make an attempt on another's life with a gun suddenly peaceable. This is simply not the case.

One decides to kill, then decides how. Maybe my country is more murderous, we do have social problems and yes, I'm proud to say, we're not like britan. (Better gang shootings than door to door TV license checkers, again....)

The fact is, the guns are out there. It's not even about new guns being bought or sold, there's millions upon millions of unaccounted for guns in the US (in fact, there isn't any "accounting" for guns here, as in britan, they're sold and that's it, and have been for hundreds of years) and you're not going to get them up. Criminals might buy a gun from someone, but that someone likely didn't go buy it for the criminal. Lots of weapons have been floating around a long time. Make guns illegal, and I can't buy a gun, but johnny gangbanger still can.

Other than mentioning that your country HAS a tyrannical TV licensing program., I don't say you can't or that the english are inherently more tyrannical than americans. Get off your high horse and get back to your side of the pond, where you might have some understanding of the dynamics of gun ownership and crime (if not tyranny as it relates to bullying people into buying licenses so that they go "ahh, might as well watch the ol' propaganda tube, paid for it to dissuade that investigation, after all")

Not to mention the tyranny of saying that someone can't own a steel pipe on a handle, with a little hammer on the back end....

Or maybe the british don't like guns, because after centuries of brutal murderous occupation if ireland, the irish had their fill and fought back.... And if they JUST hadn't had guns, they would have been non murderous, peaceful, repressed people for ever...

(picture of people with guns)

Yep, look at those guns, that's the problem, not the fact that you pushed them so far.

Oh wait, they would have done it with knives, molotovs (what your lot call "petrol bombs") and whatever else they had. Just like american gangsters.


Britan is responsible for the fucked up state of the world today, nearly single handedly. You guys are not ones to be preaching to the US, the guys who saved your asses from the monsters you created. (......twice)

But I guess if you think back far enough, past our saving you with our culture of guns that lead to a ready war industry, the english had something to fear from our gun toting culture, too..... Had we not shot those fuckers, we'd have been one of the british-fucked colonies to fall apart, and the world would be pretty ugly today.

 

Roo

Please resize picture or remove it or i will have to delete your post it is distorting the thread. I tried to do it myself but it didn't work.

Balbus

 

i guess that's one way to silence the opposition, huh?

 

Sorry Roo, but the picture was too big so i've removed it.

Reb - i was not planning on getting rid of what he'd said only the picture.

 

Roo

Again you are not doing your side of the arguemet any favours.

As I’ve said your whole argument against me is based on the fallacy that ‘gun control’ means the banning of all guns and that is why your argument is deeply flawed and you’d know it was flawed if you read all of my posts, rather than just the first ten words.

To me it would be about harm reduction, it’s not just about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals or anyone that might us them to do harm, but reducing crime in general.

That would involve a holistic approach, involving social, economic and political changes but would also include gun control measures.

But you can have gun control measures that don’t involve a total ban. There are gun control measures in place already in the US that don’t involve a total ban.

The problem is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when they claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

PS: As to your rant against Britain and the British, I’m not sure why you’re doing it or what its meant to achieve in this discussion, it just seems rather juvenile?

 

Should the United Nations be allowed to dissolve the royals as the anachronisms they are and dedicate the money they "earn" to social services for the common people??

 

Scratcho

I’d say yes, I have long been in favour of getting rid of the British monarchy. But what has that to do with the gun issue?

 

My point with the rant against the british is that I think you have social problems too. You took up all the guns (which was possible in your country, they'd been kept MUCH tighter tabs on) so they're not a problem, but you have other problems too. And yeah, it's a different culture, so that was all possible.

As I've said, I think an approach that attacks the causes of crime is great. Guns are not a cause, and again, I don't think that anyone commits crimes they wouldn't otherwise, because they have a gun. Okay, some people might be more SUCCESSFUL with a gun, but having the gun is not what made them a murderous person is, living under the rule of the LAPD and the US war on drugs is what made them that kind of person.

I'm confident that I could craft legislation that would fix the problem. And it wouldn't touch the tools people use to do bad things, it would eliminate their DRIVE to do the bad things.

Frankly, in my opinion, if none of the good things I could do to make people not want to commit crimes would work (it wouldn't on EVERYONE) good people having guns could change their mind. In the UK people sue when their home invasions fail and they get shot for menacing someone in the night. I'd rather say hey, let's all play nice... but if you don't play nice, you might also rob the wrong guy and get your brains blown out.

 

It makes about as much sense as the original question,because the United Nations is not and won't be in a position to disarm america. That's all. There are many things wrong in the world that would benefit from some organization on high to right. The world is rife with guns ,bombs,ignorance,liars,cheaters,killers,self righteous hypocrites, starving people,dying children(30,000 a day dying from starvation,torture,ect). Hasn't it been ever thus? So,to me there are more important issues than the original question. You may ask me what can be done about these things--and I will answer-hell if I know. According to my limited knowledge of history and my 72 years of observation regarding human actions on earth--not much has changed from pre-history,in my opinion.

 

I think scratcho just won the thread.

 

Oh boy---right---again! (as said by one of my favorite performers--Laurie Anderson)

 

But facts as for factual relations, not brothers or sisters; no one down below answered my question about the nature of the American government's relation to imperialism for the western civilization's cause concerning Power by the "pen" as well as the "sword" (or if you like by the persuasion of Means).

"You are now ready for Love." --- the man in the Gold Rimmed glasses.

 

With all due respect--shut up. (off to WORK I go)