There's also this problematic document, which grants all sorts of rightsThat's largely because we have this problem in the US, Luis.
inconvenient to big government & its desire to make us really really secure.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Another School Shooting
- Thread starter CMike
- Start date
inconvenient to big government & its desire to make us really really secure.
There's also this problematic document, which grants all sorts of rights
inconvenient to big government & its desire to make us really really secure.
I fail to see how the Constitution would in any way encourage firearms.
The Second Ammendment, particularly, is a popular yet very unfitting choice of argument to defend the right of their ownership.
The perception that one or the other may or should be used for such a purpose is certainly widespread in the USA. But I am not convinced that it really fits the actual text ... although, to be fair, it would be a minor issue even if it did.
Buttercup
Veteran Member
There's also this problematic document, which grants all sorts of rights
inconvenient to big government & its desire to make us really really secure.
You aren't insinuating that I'm advocating for revoking the second amendment, are you?
Why is anyone surprised at this?
America's right to bear arms is strongly supported, obviously the British could attack any time now!
So why get upset over this obvious consequence?
Sad but it goes with the territory.
USA gun policy global comparisons
Cheers
Hey,
I'm American, hate guns and want more gun control. I had a debate with another American here and gave the same numbers indicating how specific Asian countries had low gun violence and also had very high gun control doctrines but there is no acknowledgement from gun advocates. They simply believe it is innate and a symbol of freedom. They refer to guns simply as tools without further acknowledgement of the destructive powers and the purposes of a gun. I try to be respectful to others in their beliefs but this is just downright wrong and delusional in my honest opinion.
All the gun advocates that proclaim the best defense is with a gun. You're wrong. What you don't have is initiative. Any person in a gun fight with initiative has preparation: equipment (type of gun, rate of fire, armor) , tactical advantage (positioning, cover, stealth, numbers, supression, flanking). And most importantly, they have the first shot. The person with no conviction of killing with a first shot will "win" more times than not.
You're paint'n with a pretty broad brush there, fella.
If you focus on the most extreme elements of the pro-gun side,
would you want us treating you like the worst on yours?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
You're forgetting that everyone is a superhero and superheroes always beat the bad guys. Checkmate.
You're forgetting that we know there are no guarantees in life or gun fights.
All we can do is improve our odds.
We seem to be lost & forgotten in the fog of polarized rhetoric.
Last edited:
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Nothing is more crazy than for an individual to cherish and exercise their rights and freedoms.
Btw, crime and violence is caused by psychological/sociological issues, not inanimate objects.
Last edited:
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Actually, I think there are quite a large number of us. The problem is that reasonable and moderate voices tend to be ignored in favor of the red faces and spittle flying of the extreme ends.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
We get these people who somehow feel that if more people had more guns that we would have a safer society, but if that were to be true, then how is it that we have roughly 300,000,000 guns in the States, which is one for just about every man, woman, and child, and yet we have homicide and gun-related death rates many times higher than in western Europe, Australia, and Canada? If having lots of guns supposedly makes us safer, why ain't it working out that way?
The fact is that it isn't making us safer in most cases but not all, and those who profess such nonsense simply don't know the stats and/or they make all sorts of "creative" excuses and/or use even basic logic.
The fact is that it isn't making us safer in most cases but not all, and those who profess such nonsense simply don't know the stats and/or they make all sorts of "creative" excuses and/or use even basic logic.
Let me detail my stand then.
I'm not advocating gun abolishment. I'm advocating gun control. It is not innate. It should not be a freedom. We don't allow some people to drive. We don't allow some people to go near schools. We don't allow some people to even use computers. There are many cases that warrent control because it simply is destructive to others and society. How can guns not be part of this thinking?
The amendment is not very clear on how to bear arms and I find it is not withstanding the test of time. There has to be very strict laws and processes to control who possesses of guns. It has to be continual and heavily enforced.
The worst case is some 9 year old being allowed to shoot an uzi at the gun range. This is the most indicative notion of the problem America has with gun control or actual lack of gun control. Someone died, and there were no legal case against the parents or company in this situation. It's sever negligence on both groups and should be recognized as a law.
Last edited:
A gun is the most efficient thing anyone can use for killing.
Factor in cost, use, availability, tactical advantage and you have the most efficient inanimate object for killing. Am I being fanatical in this belief or do I actually have a point? Or maybe you are being fanatical with your beliefs because you should easily point out to me what other purpose a gun is used for outside of killing. And if you say support or feed your family, well, what are you killing in order to do that?
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Very good. Is it true that even hairdressers need a licence to operate in many States? In the UK we get the impression that you need to be licensed or certificated, ie, qualified, to do almost anything.
Maybe Safety Qualification, Criminal Record Check, Licensing, Mental Health Record Check and Compulsory Insurance for gun holders might be a good idea after all?
If you searched for old threads, you'd even find gun nuts like me proposing
additional restrictions. Other than our disagreement about it being a right,
we're closer than you might think.
I'm also peripherally involved in fighting over-regulation of hair-dressers, eg, LA's
requirement that hair braiders get a cosmetology license (2000 hours of schooling
to apply chemicals that braiders don't use).
Yes, I'm a hairdresser advocate, & proud of it!
I actually did think we were closer to the same ideals but I'm just being a bit over-emotional about this particular topic.
Thanks
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Yes, it's kind of a running joke that it takes more training to be a hairdresser than it does to be a cop.
And how did such polarization come to be?