177 replies to this topic

[Lister]

As I asked before. Canadians own a lot of guns, but do not use them to kill each other as often as in the U.S. Why?

As far as corrupt governments go, and the murder of hundreds of millions of people, repeatedly, I can't ignore history. Someone has to at least bring it up. Someone has to remain vigilant. If that makes me "the goat" or "the kook" that is fine. I have a thick skin.

We don’t own a lot of guns and the guns we do own weren’t easy to get. Plus it’s more about the TYPE of gun that we’re allowed to own. I could go over the reasons why Guns are owned in Canada but I don’t really have the stats to back it up. Suffice to say that those that I know who own guns own them either for Hunting, Sport, or leisure. The only people I’ve heard of who own Guns for self defense are living on the street or involved heavily in crime (and they’re few in number).

Due of the difficulty in obtaining firearms in Canada as far as self defense goes we look for other ways. Before I entered into Property Management I did nearly a decade of Private Security and I can say in Canada simply wearing a jacket that says “Security” on it is enough to prevent crime and violence.

You might say “Well that’s just hippy wishy washy Canada” but then it works doesn’t it? In the US everything starts 5 levels higher than in Canada. That is when you think about defending your home you START at gates, security system, and Guns; we start at closing the door. When you want to defend cash in your stores you start at a Shot Gun under the till; we start at locking the cash drawer.

Security is just a higher priority for you and as a result criminals have to make larger moves. In a sense the US has Super-Sized Drinks, Super-Size Burgers, and Super-Sized Crime; the whole idea of “Go BIG or go Home!” Therefore to me it makes sense that larger security means ever larger crime and thus only makes things worse.

Obama today spoke about using all his power to take action but it’s obvious even to an outsider that he won’t be able to do much quickly. Luckily (and extremely unfortunately) he is able to take action at the beginning of his term and thus has time to make a difference.

Mind, you spoke of Social Media being the reason for a decrease in violence overall; do you think it’s fair to make a connection between the digital age and larger more violent mass shootings? Through the internet, 24 hour news networks and the like we’re turning these desperate and disturbed individuals into world-wide infamous super villains. Gun Control will make it harder for them to get a hold of more potent weapons but I don’t think that will end the mass shootings… Perhaps Gun Control can only help to shorten the victim list…

In Canada we don’t have Guns for self defense because we don’t need to defend ourselves. For the US to get to that point it’s going to take extremely gradual but consistent disarming of your people through a gradual tightening of control. This is possible as you have the right to bear arms but it doesn’t say that you have the right be able to purchase a Hand Gun at 7/11.

FYI Mind I agree with you that the history of Corrupt Governments mass killing is a serious issue to take into consideration but I don’t agree that more Guns are the solution to that. If your people are armed to the teeth doesn’t it make sense that the government will only have better arms which in the long run would result in much larger bloodshed? I realise a Natural Distrust of Government is business as usual in the US but I don’t agree that your Gun can improve your Government let alone defend you against it. Should everyone have a Surface-to-air missile system in their back yard to defend against unmanned drone strikes from a potentially corrupt US government?

[Lister]

If instead of firearm homicides, we consider the number of violent crimes, then the US isn't even in the top 10.



http://www.dailymail...Africa-U-S.html

I think all those countries have stronger gun control than the US. When people aren't allowed to have guns and defend themselves, violent crime is more common.

This to me is even more proof that Guns are the problem. The US population isn’t really even all that violent yet you still manage to kill to an insane degree.

I’m not surprised that the UK and Australia tops that list and I know it has NOTHING to do with Guns. Look at the top 3; all are British. I’m sorry but the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh(less) are rowdy and violent. This stems from a massive history of being bored and drinking a lot. Likely the UK would have topped that list for thousands of years before Guns were invented.

[rwac]

This to me is even more proof that Guns are the problem. The US population isn’t really even all that violent yet you still manage to kill to an insane degree.

I’m not surprised that the UK and Australia tops that list and I know it has NOTHING to do with Guns. Look at the top 3; all are British. I’m sorry but the English/Scottish/Irish/Welsh(less) are rowdy and violent. This stems from a massive history of being bored and drinking a lot. Likely the UK would have topped that list for thousands of years before Guns were invented.

It's not just accidental that Americans aren't that violent, it's much more risky to say rob a house in some states in the US where you can shoot the burglar, no questions asked. Here in the US, it's way more dangerous to attack someone at random, they might have a firearm.

There's also plenty of racial issues in the US that no one really wants to talk about.

Atleast in the UK violent crime has gone up since the gun control measures and the handgun ban.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

http://reason.com/ar...twisted-outcome

the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

[niner]

Wow, very interesting data, PWAIN. I calculated a "Criminality rate" = (murder rate/gun ownership rate * 100%). The results were kind of non-obvious. Mexico is a total outlier because they are in the middle of a drug war, but I think the rest of the countries' data are saying something about the kind of people who own guns. In Japan, gun ownership is very low, but it looks like the guns that are there are mostly owned by criminals. Australia and Canada are numbers two and three in the criminality parade. America, well known as a benign and peaceful land, is very close to France in criminality of gun owners, followed by Sweden and Germany. The Swiss and the Brits have the most peaceable gun owners of the lot.

Country, Ownership rate, Murder rate, Criminality rate
USA 89 3.2 3.6
Switzerland 46 0.7 1.52
Sweden 31.6 1.0 3.16
France 31.2 1.1 3.53
Canada 31 1.6 5.16
Germany 30 0.8 2.67
Mexico 15 22.7 151
Australia 15 1.0 6.67
England and Wales 6 0.1 1.67
Japan 0.6 0.4 66.7

(Sorry about the crappy formatting) So, what can we learn from this? Looks like Japan, Australia and Canada are doing a bad job of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. It looks like England and Switzerland are doing a good job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without wildly restricting gun ownership in general. I think America ought to look at what the Swiss and the Brits do, and see if we could pick up a clue or two. If the answer turned out to be that the Swiss and Brits have a lot of rifles, but not many handguns, what do you suppose the NRA would have to say? The "R" in NRA stands for Rifle, after all... Maybe they should change their name to the National Saturday Night Special Association.

Edited by niner, 17 December 2012 - 05:20 AM.

[PWAIN]

I’m not surprised that the UK and Australia tops that list and I know it has NOTHING to do with Guns.

Note the newspaper clip refers to Austria not Australia.

[PWAIN]

(Sorry about the crappy formatting) So, what can we learn from this? Looks like Japan, Australia and Canada are doing a bad job of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys. It looks like England and Switzerland are doing a good job of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, without wildly restricting gun ownership in general. I think America ought to look at what the Swiss and the Brits do, and see if we could pick up a clue or two. If the answer turned out to be that the Swiss and Brits have a lot of rifles, but not many handguns, what do you suppose the NRA would have to say? The "R" in NRA stands for Rifle, after all... Maybe they should change their name to the National Saturday Night Special Association.

I have lived in South Africa, the UK and Australia each for over a decade. My experience is that the stats do not necessarily align with the reality of life in these places. In South Africa, I found that crime touched just about everyone I know there. In the UK very few people seemed to have been touched by crime but there was a fair bit of vandalism and non violent crime. Violent crime in the UK seems to be heavily concentrated in certain areas and at certain events like football matches. In Australia, I have rarely ever had concerns about crime. Sure it happens but it is really the exception rather that the norm. Again this is very much area specific with many areas almost crime free and most crime concentrated in a small number of areas. Australia's gun deaths will likely be distorted by 2 things, first the organised crime and killings which have largely been allowed to wipe themselves out and now would not likely feature. The second is the bikie gangs which have plagued Australia and appear to be gradually being dealt with. I think an interesting fact is that in Australia 11 mass murders were recorded in the decade before gun control was introduce and zero since... I don't expect the US will ever really change while it leads the world however I would like the attempts to blur the facts as much as possible until inertia results be recognised for what they are.

[Turnbuckle]

In Pareto's analysis, you find that 80% of all problems come from 20% of the sources, so you are most efficient in spending your recorces on those 20%. In the USA, we typically use a reverse Pareto analysis and throw money and political capital at the least imporant source. In this case, gun deaths, which are a tiny fraction of all deaths but are far more emotional.

Attached Files

•  causes of death.jpg   155.4KB   11 downloads

[mikeinnaples]

If you are already willing to defy law and morality, why would one of these deranged individuals suddenly decide to follow the law when it comes to obtaining or possessing 'legal' firearms?

[trance]

In Pareto's analysis, you find that 80% of all problems come from 20% of the sources, so you are most efficient in spending your recorces on those 20%. In the USA, we typically use a reverse Pareto analysis and throw money and political capital at the least imporant source. In this case, gun deaths, which are a tiny fraction of all deaths but are far more emotional.

 causes_of_death.jpg   155.4KB   1 downloads

Most all those causes of death in that graph are a result or process of aging.

Currently, there is no cure or solution for death due to the processes of aging.

That cannot be said for gun deaths, at any age, however.

Edited by trance, 17 December 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

In Pareto's analysis, you find that 80% of all problems come from 20% of the sources, so you are most efficient in spending your recorces on those 20%. In the USA, we typically use a reverse Pareto analysis and throw money and political capital at the least imporant source. In this case, gun deaths, which are a tiny fraction of all deaths but are far more emotional.

 causes_of_death.jpg   155.4KB   1 downloads

Most all those causes of death in that graph are a result or process of aging.

Currently, there is no cure or solution for death due to the processes of aging.

That cannot be said for gun deaths, at any age, however.

Here are the death rates for children 19 and under in 2007. Murder with firearms were about 4% of the total. That's still a lot, but why focus on these 20 when that is the child death rate by firearms every three days? It's only because it made the national news, I expect. And I expect most child deaths by firearms are teens in inner city neighborhoods, not six-year old white kids in the suburbs.

http://www.childdeat...rtalitydata.htm

Edited by Turnbuckle, 17 December 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[Lister]

I agree with Mike in that those who want to obtain guns bad enough will do so regardless of laws. Why I feel tighter restrictions would be beneficial is for those potential mass murderers who lack the drive necessary to obtain guns without them being readily available.

While someone who has been planning for over a decade may still obtain the guns they want, someone who makes these kinds of decisions quickly would lack the readily available firepower to proceed. If someone is emotionally unstable and there happens to be guns within arm’s reach, it should be no surprise that murders are the result.

Guns are powerful weapons and the idea that they’re trivial harmless toys is seriously failed thinking.

[niner]

If you are already willing to defy law and morality, why would one of these deranged individuals suddenly decide to follow the law when it comes to obtaining or possessing 'legal' firearms?

It's a matter of making things easy or making things hard. It was easy for this kid to get his hands on a bunch of guns and high capacity magazines. Had that been more difficult, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

[niner]

Here are the death rates for children 19 and under in 2007. Murder with firearms were about 4% of the total. That's still a lot, but why focus on these 20 when that is the child death rate by firearms every three days? It's only because it made the national news, I expect.

You're still comparing gun deaths to deaths from illness. This has to be one of the worst arguments in favor of guns that I've ever heard. A better way to look at the data you presented is that firearms are responsible for 57% of the child deaths due to homicide or suicide.

And I expect most child deaths by firearms are teens in inner city neighborhoods, not six-year old white kids in the suburbs.

At the rate you're digging that hole, you are going to need a longer handled shovel...

[Turnbuckle]

Here are the death rates for children 19 and under in 2007. Murder with firearms were about 4% of the total. That's still a lot, but why focus on these 20 when that is the child death rate by firearms every three days? It's only because it made the national news, I expect.

You're still comparing gun deaths to deaths from illness. This has to be one of the worst arguments in favor of guns that I've ever heard. A better way to look at the data you presented is that firearms are responsible for 57% of the child deaths due to homicide or suicide.

And I expect most child deaths by firearms are teens in inner city neighborhoods, not six-year old white kids in the suburbs.

At the rate you're digging that hole, you are going to need a longer handled shovel...

I'm comparing deaths with deaths, as it's my contention that when these sorts of tragedies occur, people try to make political hay out of it and thus bad laws are passed. The deaths in this case amount to 3 days of child deaths due to firearms, and the total firearm deaths amount to 4% of the total deaths among children. Unless you're going to make the argument that one sort of death is more tragic than the other, then it's a small issue on the national stage. And it would have been a small issue had these deaths been spread out. Furthermore, I'm not making an argument for firearms. I'm not in the 2nd amendment camp at all. I'm just making the point that we have a terrible method of picking issues in this country. What is the issue, anway? Is it gun control, or is it mental illness? This kid supposodedly had aspergers, a form of autism. So why don't we address that issue and make that issue number one. Because something really screwy is going on--

Attached Files

•  autism.jpg   65.89KB   3 downloads

Edited by Turnbuckle, 17 December 2012 - 07:49 PM.

[niner]

Unless you're going to make the argument that one sort of death is more tragic than the other, it's a small issue on the national stage. And it would have been a small issue had these deaths been spread out. Furthermore, I'm not making an argument for firearms. I'm not in the 2nd amendment camp at all. I'm just making the point that we have a terrible method of picking issues in this country. What is the issue, anway? Is it gun control, or is it mental illness?

A death by murder IS more tragic than an accidental death. It leaves scars that can last for generations. If one first grader had been murdered in a classroom once a week for twenty weeks, or once a month for twenty months, I think it would be on the national news. The death of innocent children, in a classroom, no less, is considered to be materially different than the death of adults. When a nut shot up a theater in Aurora, look how fast that faded from the news. Even at the time, any discussion of gun control was deemed "off the table" and essentially pointless. I'm not expecting much to happen, but just from listening to the news and people's response to this tragedy, it feels different this time.

[mikeinnaples]

If you are already willing to defy law and morality, why would one of these deranged individuals suddenly decide to follow the law when it comes to obtaining or possessing 'legal' firearms?

It's a matter of making things easy or making things hard. It was easy for this kid to get his hands on a bunch of guns and high capacity magazines. Had that been more difficult, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

He killed the person that owned them and stole them. Yes, I realize it was his mother.

Standard mag or high capacity mag isn't going to make a difference when you are killing people incapable of fighting back. It takes exactly a second to change out a mag on my 9mm....

Anyways, we all have easy access to chemicals to make explosives. Whats to stop someone from using those instead?

[Lister]

If you’re smart enough you can make weapons of mass destruction; though for some reason we don’t see too many weapons of mass destruction (such as chemical weapons) used in mass killings in the US.

Decisions are made based on difficulty and the decision to kill with a gun is far too easy a decision to make in the US. Whether people can get a gun or not isn’t the issue; it’s about how easy you can get a gun.

With regards to mental health; you can treat their condition but if you don’t remove the threat of giving them easy access to guns you’re still opening the door to serious risk.

Unless you train everyone military style giving victims guns only risks further deaths due to accidental friendly fire.

Increased guns only lead to increased deaths. If someone breaks in and steals your silverware it’s not the end of the world; if though you both shoot each other to death in the process it is the end of your world.

[Turnbuckle]

With regards to mental health; you can treat their condition but if you don’t remove the threat of giving them easy access to guns you’re still opening the door to serious risk.

And sometimes the treatment makes them suicidal, or worse, homicidal. This is the sort of rampage that government propaganda would have us believe is the inevitable result of illegal drugs, but in fact it is the result of legal drugs that they have foisted on the population.

[niner]

This is the sort of rampage that government propaganda would have us believe is the inevitable result of illegal drugs, but in fact it is the result of legal drugs that they have foisted on the population.

Wait a minute. You know for a fact that this massacre was the result of legal drugs?

[niner]

Anyways, we all have easy access to chemicals to make explosives. Whats to stop someone from using those instead?

Well, we used to, anyway. Now it's a lot harder, but if you know what you're doing, you can still make a tolerable bomb. The problem is, homemade bombs are a lousy way to kill people. They're erratic and hard to control. They're almost as likely to kill you as the intended target, if you're trying to use them in a close quarters situation. Explosives might be a better answer for Mind's concern with an out of control government, but good luck getting the amount of materials you'd need to be effective.

[The Immortalist]

I agree with Mike in that those who want to obtain guns bad enough will do so regardless of laws. Why I feel tighter restrictions would be beneficial is for those potential mass murderers who lack the drive necessary to obtain guns without them being readily available.

While someone who has been planning for over a decade may still obtain the guns they want, someone who makes these kinds of decisions quickly would lack the readily available firepower to proceed. If someone is emotionally unstable and there happens to be guns within arm’s reach, it should be no surprise that murders are the result.

Guns are powerful weapons and the idea that they’re trivial harmless toys is seriously failed thinking.

You make a very good point in that with tighter gun control killing sprees that are done on a whim could be stopped.

The recent mass shooter in Connecticut Adam Lanza was a severely autistic 20 year old with severe social anxiety and other behavioral issues who never had a job in his life. If his mother never kept guns in the house I doubt he would have actually had the means to obtain a gun.

And if he ever did get a gun regardless I doubt he would have been able to obtain all the ammunition and high power rifles he used in the shooting if there was tighter gun control.

Edited by The Immortalist, 17 December 2012 - 10:52 PM.

[niner]

The recent mass shooter in Connecticut Adam Lanza was a severely autistic 20 year old with severe social anxiety and other behavioral issues who never had a job in his life.

I saw a picture of him today and the first thing that ran through my mind was "boy, that kid looks like he's on the spectrum". I doubt that he was severely autistic, though. Sounds like he was moderately functional, if not high functioning. So that's a great combination- a kid with problems, dad's flown the coop, and mom's got an arsenal. She's lucky he killed her, because having to live with this would have been hellish for her. She would have been a pariah.

[shifter]

In my unimportant opinion (coming from Australia), the right to 'bear arms' is an outdated ideal dating back to the colonial era. And when it was made, the technology and firepower back in that day was not enough for 1 man to go on a massacre. If all that man had was a 17th century firearm, he might have got 3-4 shots off, that aren't as accurate/deadly and would have been overpowered easily enough. 21st century tech allows a novice to fire indiscriminately hundreds of rounds with ease.

This 'right' has been skewed so much that it's now embedded into your culture and lifestyle. You guys feel 'naked' without one. It's time America woke up and realized 'hey we are in the 'civilization' era now!' And people on this forum, who aspire to obtain 'Immortality' should be enlightened enough to believe that guns are not necessary for everyday 'Joe Bloggs'

Personally, I think it's disgusting that for a nation it has become a source of nationalist PRIDE in owning a weapon designed to take another life. I know you will never get rid of the guns out of everyday citizens completely, but surely you could restrict the type of guns and amount of ammo 'ordinary' people can buy? Afterall do you really NEED a dozen semi/fully automatic guns?

In Australia, they got rid of the guns mostly and yes it's on the 'black market', but I would say the vast majority of illegal gunfire is used by criminals against other criminals.

And I think this is one case where if all his Mother had was 1 pistol with 6 bullets, he either wouldn't have had the balls to go through with it or couldn't be bothered as not as much 'glory' or worst case, there would be far less burials today.

Now I will say to the pro gun people here

I have no problem with Farmers having a gun, Gun use on a rifle range for sport, controlled sport hunting or professional hunters/cullers etc. But I do have a problem with the fact that anyone can have access to a gun. Almost any gun imaginable. Very easily. And a ridiculous number of them! (you need several at home a few in the car, a few at the office??) I would not be surprised if there is enough ammo inside ordinary homes in the US to kill the world over. Sorry, but I can never view 'America' and 'Enlightened' together when I see that and the fact they never want to give that part of themselves up.

You'll never get a solution overnight, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't work towards one. If my viewpoint is idealistic, then I say, great, it's a noble goal and societies should work towards this notion. It's not enough to just 'get' immortality. One should also 'earn' it. As guns as part of any mans cultural right have, has no place in it.

Edited by shifter, 18 December 2012 - 05:29 AM.

[The Immortalist]

The recent mass shooter in Connecticut Adam Lanza was a severely autistic 20 year old with severe social anxiety and other behavioral issues who never had a job in his life.

I saw a picture of him today and the first thing that ran through my mind was "boy, that kid looks like he's on the spectrum". I doubt that he was severely autistic, though. Sounds like he was moderately functional, if not high functioning. So that's a great combination- a kid with problems, dad's flown the coop, and mom's got an arsenal. She's lucky he killed her, because having to live with this would have been hellish for her. She would have been a pariah.

Why would she have been a pariah? Isn't divorce common in our society? Also it seemed like the kid kept to himself so it's not like the kids problems were bringing attention to her.

[mikeinnaples]

Country Civilian firearms per 100 residents^[97] Number of homicides by firearm^[98] Homicide by Firearms --rate per 100,000 population^[99] United States of America 89 9,960 3.2 Switzerland 46 51 0.7 Sweden^[100] 31.6 92 1.0 France^[101] 31.2 682 1.1 Canada 31 554 1.6 Germany 30 690 0.8 Mexico 15 26,757 22.7 Australia^[102] 15 229 1.0 Turkey^[103] 12.5 England and Wales 6 41 0.1 Japan^[104] 0.6 506 0.4


The above table taken from here: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Is also pretty intresting in my opinion. I think you really have to ignore all the facts to deny a correlation between gun numbers and gun deaths.

Well Mexico is an obvious outlier. They have extremely tight gun laws and have the highest firearm related homicides per capita on the list by far.

Combine corrupt government, rampant crime, and the fact that only criminals have guns... and you have a recipe for problems.

The recent mass shooter in Connecticut Adam Lanza was a severely autistic 20 year old with severe social anxiety and other behavioral issues who never had a job in his life.

I saw a picture of him today and the first thing that ran through my mind was "boy, that kid looks like he's on the spectrum". I doubt that he was severely autistic, though. Sounds like he was moderately functional, if not high functioning. So that's a great combination- a kid with problems, dad's flown the coop, and mom's got an arsenal. She's lucky he killed her, because having to live with this would have been hellish for her. She would have been a pariah.

Dad didn't exactly fly the coop. He took care of his family and way paying an insane amount of money to do so. Not only that, he was seeing his son as much as he could up until the point his son cut him off and refused to see him any longer. Of course this may have been a warning sign, because he appeared to be harboring a ton of resentment towards his family for the divorce. You know what they say about hindsight...

[aim1]

This "culture" is awash in violence and sex.

Hollywood with their trash...rap music, movies and tv is so full of shit.
Like Quintin Tarentino...every one of his movies loaded with gratuitous violence, coming out the other day and denying that the violence in movies has any influence.
If that's the case why are cigarette commercials banned?

Also, Chicago, with it's tough gun laws, is one of the most violent cities in the world. Every weekend there are 10 to 20 shootings, but people are in denial about the causes.

I have a gun...I will use it to kill bad guys if the need arises.

[mikeinnaples]

Eye on the the TV
'Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be, like...
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used a poison in his tea, and kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's no fun 'til someone dies

Don't look at me like I am a monster
Frown out your one face, but with the other
Stare like a junkie into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother holds her child, watches him die
Hands to the sky crying, "Why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die...from a distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing
Neither the brave nor bold
Will write as the story's told
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing

I need to watch things die...from a good safe distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same, so...

Why can't we just admit it?

Blood like rain come down
Drum on grave and ground

Part vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and Voyeur
Stare at the transmitter
Sing to the death rattle

La, la, la, la, la, la-la-lie (x4)

***Credulous at best your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men
Pull your head on out your hippie haze and give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again
The universe is hostile, so impersonal
Devour to survive... so it is, so it's always been

We all feed on tragedy
It's like blood to a vampire

Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
Much better you than I


- Maynard James Keenan

[Lister]

While James may be right about the nature of the world I have no interest in supporting a driver further in that direction.

The nature of the deep dark may stem from our more primal side but I refuse to live as a savage. I honestly look down on those who cling to weapons and cling to selfishness; those who constantly make excuses for their detrimental attitude that pulls the rest of us down.

Perhaps the violent, the pedophile, the murderer, the dictator, the arms dealer and the drug dealer serve a purpose. Perhaps that purpose is to balance out society; to show us the bad so we may see the good. Perhaps they serve a purpose but for my part in society I will always push for the light, the good, and the just.

Realism always pretends to be the middle ground yet I see so many pessimistic “realists”. This time around your deep dark world has come true and it’s your own fault. This time around it’s the optimists turn to change things.

You don’t need a gun just as I don’t; and if you think do I don’t care.

[mikeinnaples]

I have a gun for protection Lister. At the point in time I no longer have the need to protect my family from people that would do them harm, I would gladly give it up because the need would be gone.

I disagree with you that there is no need. Society has not evolved enough yet.

[Lister]

I have a gun for protection Lister. At the point in time I no longer have the need to protect my family from people that would do them harm, I would gladly give it up because the need would be gone.

I disagree with you that there is no need. Society has not evolved enough yet.

Right and that’s your view versus my view. While I assume you’re wrong I’ll be the first to admit that I may be wrong too (and am likely wrong about many things). Really it’s an overall philosophy that’s too broad to change someone’s mind (just like that poem you posted).

I again state the obvious; Guns are too easy to get in the US and having more guns or putting more guns in more hands will not work.

• Having a gun will not always prevent a violent act.
• When that Violent Act occurs it is much more likely to result in a death or many deaths (worse result than if increased violence had occured due to lack of guns)
• Guns are too powerful on a community level to serve as a deterrent individually and too weak to serve as a deterrent against the government.
• Guns only purpose is to harm and to kill
• Lock your doors and stop being so paranoid. If someone breaks in, let them take what they want then allow the police to do their job.
• If you think your legal system is flawed or too weak then work on strengthening it.
• Work on building a better society instead of worrying about whether you can trust your neighbour’s kid or that Hispanic family down the block.

It’s not just about whether you should have guns or not; it’s a great thing to feel safe enough to live without weapons. You seek to have guns because you desire to feel safe. That feeling, that safe feeling you feel because of your guns; my society grants me even more safety than that. Your lack of safety is because of too much guns, not because of too few.

Shifter made a very good point when he said that the laws are outdated. You think the weapons you have today are the same as they were 50 years ago? It’s just a never ending arms race and it’s not healthy.