Why the necessity of guns?

[rigney]

Since the rationale for using weapons goes back for centuries, I wonder just how many of us truely understand armament and our need for guns? This video will shed some light on honorable and corageous men and women who in many instances gave their everything for our safety here at home. Literally millions of them still walk our streets today with only one thought in mind, "How do I make it through tomorrow"? Other than the thought of doing themselves harm, few if any, think of inflicting suffering on another person. Then, we have a handfull of "Mental Cases" who scheme to kill anyone they deem necessary to slake their appetite for blood, and we want to destroy this heritage to over 300,000,000, the right to bear arms? Are we a sick society or what? Watch this hour long video and compare it with what is going on today.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/10/war_torn_1861_2010_new_doc

Edited January 18, 2013 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

If there was a video, we could comment about it.

In the meantime, the thread begs the question.

The first thing to establish is "are guns ever necessary, and if so, under what circumstances?"

 

Also the OP seems to muddle two issues.

Those who gave their lives and health in war need our consideration and respect.

That has nothing to do with the "right" for soccer moms to carry a gun on the school run.

 

It also overlooks the point that 95% of the world's population are not in that 300,000,000.

Those few are a statistical blip.

[ralfy]

In my opinion, the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were achieved not to make citizens safe but part of attempts by the government to stop countries from not using the petro-dollar (which was the case in Iraq) and to combine claims that the Al Qaeda was involved in 9/11 with the need to control resources in the Afghanistan-Kazakhstan region. In short, these realpolitik activities were no different from what military powers engaged in during the past sixty years, leading to millions of civilians dead worldwide.

 

If any, the results of those two invasions have made the world even more dangerous.

[rigney]

Since the rationale for using weapons goes back for centuries, I wonder just how many of us truely understand armament and our need for guns? This video will shed some light on honorable and corageous men and women who in many instances gave their everything for our safety here at home. Literally millions of them still walk our streets today with only one thought in mind, "How do I make it through tomorrow"? Other than the thought of doing themselves harm, few if any, think of inflicting suffering on another person. Then, we have a handfull of "Mental Cases" who scheme to kill anyone they deem necessary to slake their appetite for blood, and we want to destroy this heritage to over 300,000,000, the right to bear arms? Are we a sick society or what? Watch this hour long video and compare it with what is going on today.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/10/war_torn_1861_2010_new_doc

 

This was supposed to be the link of the initial post.

 

 

If there was a video, we could comment about it.

In the meantime, the thread begs the question.

The first thing to establish is "are guns ever necessary, and if so, under what circumstances?"

 

Also the OP seems to muddle two issues.

Those who gave their lives and health in war need our consideration and respect.

That has nothing to do with the "right" for soccer moms to carry a gun on the school run.

 

It also overlooks the point that 95% of the world's population are not in that 300,000,000.

Those few are a statistical blip.

I wasn't speaking of the other 95% of world population, they are screwed up enough without my help. I was making a distinction between the sanity and insanity of normal people who go off the deep end under extreme pressure, as compared to mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason. And "soccer moms"? I hope they each get a conceal and carry permit.

Edited January 19, 2013 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Why do you not understand that those soccer moms with permits are the sort of people who sometimes turn into " mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason"

 

Why do you want them to have guns when they do it?

Are you trying to make it easier for them to kill lots of people?

[rigney]

 

This was supposed to be the link of the initial post.

 

 

I wasn't speaking of the other 95% of world population, they are screwed up enough without my help. I was making a distinction between the sanity and insanity of normal people who go off the deep end under extreme pressure, as compared to mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason. And "soccer moms"? I hope they each get a conceal and carry permit.

Just want to add one more thing. You can bet all of your "unpicked boogers" that the gun nuts hope you gun control freaks win the argument. The more you rail about taking guns out of responsible citizens hands, the more they love it.

[Ringer]

Just want to add one more thing. You can bet all of your "unpicked boogers" that the gun nuts hope you gun control freaks win the argument. The more you rail about taking guns out of responsible citizens hands, the more they love it.

Yes, they love losing, that's why they have guns.

 

Gun regulations aren't about taking guns away from responsible people, it's about minimizing unnecessary dangers. In the US it has been deemed unconstitutional for handguns to be overtly outlawed at the federal level nor would it be cost effective to try to find and take legally held firearms, so saying they are 'taking guns' is just a scare tactic and strawman.

[rigney]

Yes, they love losing, that's why they have guns.

 

Gun regulations aren't about taking guns away from responsible people, it's about minimizing unnecessary dangers. In the US it has been deemed unconstitutional for handguns to be overtly outlawed at the federal level nor would it be cost effective to try to find and take legally held firearms, so saying they are 'taking guns' is just a scare tactic and strawman.

I am well aware of our second amendment rights. I'm just wondering if the British, Aussies and several European nations knew their gun rights before the confication started? And Scare Tactics and Strawman" my ass! The point is: Mental Cases don't give a damn who wins this stupid guns+ or guns- fiasco we have gotten ourselves into, as long as they can get a few in their hands. As of now, we should just shut the fuck up about our problem and expose the nuts as they fall from the tree by letting the law ferret them out, hopefully before one of them can act again.

Edited January 20, 2013 by rigney

[Ringer]

I am well aware of our second amendment rights. I'm just wondering if the British, Aussies and several European nations knew their gun rights before the confication started? And Scare Tactics and Strawman" my ass! The point is: Mental Cases don't give a damn who wins this stupid guns+ or guns- fiasco we have gotten ourselves into, as long as they can get a few in their hands. As of now, we should just shut the fuck up about our problem and expose the nuts as they fall from the tree by letting the law ferret them out, hopefully before one of them can act again.

Well, considering Australia did a buy back program, the government must have amazing mind control skills to 'confiscate' since that was voluntary. Certain guns were outlawed, but I don't know of actual confiscations. I'm less sure about how Europe's laws progressed.

 

How is it not a straw-man and scare tactics? They cannot legally ban many guns, and it would be unbelievably ineffective to search and take every gun. So government confiscating guns won't happen, straw-man, and saying 'crazy' people will still have guns while 'normal' people don't is using scare tactics.

 

And you know what the most amazing thing is about trying to keep 'nuts' away from guns. It won't really do anything. The vast majority of crimes are committed by people without mental health problems.

[rigney]

Have to agree that most crimes are done by the average perp, but few of them want to get tied into mass murder unless it's gang bangin'.

Moontanman dropped this link about England on the forum, but there has been very little discussion on the issue as of now.

">

Edited January 20, 2013 by rigney

[Ringer]

Yeah? And very few people with mental illness get tied to mass murder at all. So again those who do not have a mental health problem are more dangerous.

[rigney]

Yeah? And very few people with mental illness get tied to mass murder at all. So again those who do not have a mental health problem are more dangerous.

You're kidding, right?

[Ringer]

Not in the least.

Several general conclusions are supported by this brief overview. First, mental disorders are neither necessary, nor sufficient causes of violence. The major determinants of violence continue to be socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status.

 

Second, members of the public undoubtedly exaggerate both the strength of the relationship between major mental disorders and violence, as well as their own personal risk from the severely mentally ill. It is far more likely that people with a serious mental illness will be the victim of violence.

 

Third, substance abuse appears to be a major determinant of violence and this is true whether it occurs in the context of a concurrent mental illness or not. Those with substance disorders are major contributors to community violence, perhaps accounting for as much as a third of self-reported violent acts, and seven out of every 10 crimes of violence among mentally disordered offenders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

“Research has shown that the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994).”

http://promoteacceptance.samhsa.gov/publications/facts.aspx?printid=1 Edited January 20, 2013 by Ringer

[John Cuthber]

This is bizarre,

Many criminals don't have mental health problems.

Most people with mental health problems don't become mass murderers.

The people who do become mass murderers don't generally act particularly oddly before they go on a killing spree.

So, since you can't spot the loonies in advance, the only way to ensure that loonies don't get guns is to ensure that nobody gets them.

More realistically, if you reduce the number of people with guns then you will reduce the number of people with guns who flip and shoot up the local shopping centre or whatever.

[rigney]

This is bizarre,

Many criminals don't have mental health problems.

Most people with mental health problems don't become mass murderers.

The people who do become mass murderers don't generally act particularly oddly before they go on a killing spree.

So, since you can't spot the loonies in advance, the only way to ensure that loonies don't get guns is to ensure that nobody gets them.

More realistically, if you reduce the number of people with guns then you will reduce the number of people with guns who flip and shoot up the local shopping centre or whatever.

Not having seen a picture of Lanza before or after his ride to infamy, I can't attest to what he looked like during his rampage. Even if I had a hunch the guy was nuts, I'm not qalified as a psychiatrist to have picked him out of a lineup for questioning. But the guys who shot up Columbine, the theater outside Denver or the one who shot Gabby Gifford at the political rally? Their pictures gave me the creeps,and sure looked nutty to me. And while the mass majority of those who are mentally unstable are not criminally insane, you can bet that a small faction of the nuttier ones are listening to every word being said on the issue, determined to make their mark as soon as they get a chance. Long before firearms were ever invented, a guy named Samson killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Tell me now, do we really need guns to commit mass murder?

Edited January 20, 2013 by rigney

[john5746]

Long before firearms were ever invented, a guy named Samson killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Tell me now, do we really need guns to commit mass murder?

Yeah, and I farted on a plane waiting for liftoff and it killed all aboard. If we are going to use make-believe in our though process, its going to get stupid real quick.

 

Would you be OK with replacing guns with a jawbone of an ass? With knives? With cars? Why not?

[rigney]

Yeah, and I farted on a plane waiting for liftoff and it killed all aboard. If we are going to use make-believe in our though process, its going to get stupid real quick.

Would you be OK with replacing guns with a jawbone of an ass? With knives? With cars? Why not?

Make believe? Can't recall exactly where, but I read about that jawbone incident in my early youth. Confidentually, it did make more sense to me than your description of killing a plane load of people with a wet fart you blew while "waiting for lift-off"? Were you by chance, at one time an astronaut?

 

Why do you not understand that those soccer moms with permits are the sort of people who sometimes turn into " mental nut cases who are simply determined to kill others for no known reason"

 

Why do you want them to have guns when they do it?

Are you trying to make it easier for them to kill lots of people?

Could you reference for me where some deranged soccer mom murdered a bunch of kids? Or any other kind of sports mom for that matter.

[john5746]

Make believe? Can't recall exactly where, but I read about that jawbone incident in my early youth. Confidentually, it did make more sense to me than your description of killing a plane load of people with a wet fart you blew while "waiting for lift-off"? Were you by chance, at one time an astronaut?

Yeah, I read it in a little bible story book for kids a long time ago. I was also reading marvel comics, which were far better, IMO.

 

I'm guessing you realize a jawbone would not make a good weapon. I think you know that guns are most effective at killing. That's why god created them, right?

Could you reference for me where some deranged soccer mom murdered a bunch of kids? Or any other kind of sports mom for that matter.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but soccer moms sometimes have boys. So, if they decide to have a gun, I hope they make sure the kids can't get to it and I hope they don't feel the need for an assault rifle. I can only hope. Maybe you can convince them to carry your jawbone instead?

[John Cuthber]

1 Their pictures gave me the creeps,and sure looked nutty to me.

2 And while the mass majority of those who are mentally unstable are not criminally insane, you can bet that a small faction of the nuttier ones are listening to every word being said on the issue, determined to make their mark as soon as they get a chance.

3 Long before firearms were ever invented, a guy named Samson killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. Tell me now, do we really need guns to commit mass murder?

1 So you can identify a potential mass killer by sight. That's a very clever trick, can you explain two things, first how do you do it and secondly, why didn't you do it before someone got killed? Or are you going to admit that it's often impossible to make the distinction far enough in advance to be any use?

 

2 It's true that someone somewhere is probably planning an attack like that.

Why do you want to give him the right to own a gun?

 

3 Fairy tales don't count as evidence.

 

And as to the soccer moms, if you think that the particular group I chose is important, then you haven't understood the issue.

The question isn't about identifying the past serial killers, it's about identifying the next one.

The problem is that you can't.

That's why the only way to ensure that the next wannabe mass murderer doesn't get a gun is to ensure that nobody gets one.

 

Anyway, without a gun would this have happened?

http://www.topix.com/forum/afam/TD1LCIR90QVBSC1T5

[rigney]

Yeah, I read it in a little bible story book for kids a long time ago. I was also reading marvel comics, which were far better, IMO.

 

I'm guessing you realize a jawbone would not make a good weapon. I think you know that guns are most effective at killing. That's why god created them, right?

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but soccer moms sometimes have boys. So, if they decide to have a gun, I hope they make sure the kids can't get to it and I hope they don't feel the need for an assault rifle. I can only hope. Maybe you can convince them to carry your jawbone instead?

But then, we're always going to have a few Lizzie Bordens, right? I'm referring to the psychopathic broad who shot her boyfriend once while proceeding to slit his throat and stab him numerous times. Naa! Give her the jawbone.

[John Cuthber]

But then, we're always going to have a few Lizzie Bordens, right? I'm referring to the psychopathic broad who shot her boyfriend once while proceeding to slit his throat and stab him numerous times. Naa! Give her the jawbone.

The jawbone story is still not actually true, why are you sticking to it?

Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an assault rifle.

[Lance]

 

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, but soccer moms sometimes have boys. So, if they decide to have a gun, I hope they make sure the kids can't get to it and I hope they don't feel the need for an assault rifle. I can only hope. Maybe you can convince them to carry your jawbone instead?

 

 

Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an assault rifle.

 

Assault rifles were banned in the US in 1986. The current political debate is completely unrelated. But unfortunately this seems to the the heart of the issue. Misinformation.

[John Cuthber]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

 

I presume that you have no problem with the jawbone story, even though it too, is misinformation.

Edited January 20, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Lance]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

 

I presume that you have no problem with the jawbone story, even though it too, is misinformation.

 

The jawbone story isn't being spoon fed to the American population. So, no I have no real problem with the jawbone story.

[John Cuthber]

 

The jawbone story isn't being spoon fed to the American population.

You might want to check again. For example it was spoon-fed to Rigney.

 

Anyway, as I pointed out, I was using hyperbole.

It really doesn't matter what sort of guns you use.

The point would have been valid if I had said

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her an anti tank gun." or

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a revolver." or even

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a pistol." or

"Give her a jawbone if you must, but don't give her a shotgun."

 

So the ban on assault rifles doesn't actually affect my point.

The heart of the issue is that if you don't give people guns then, if they turn out to be nutters, at least they are not nutters with guns.

Since it's impossible to tell in advance who is going to flip (unless you have Rigney's magic gift for spotting a "wrong un") the only way to stop loonies getting guns is to stop anyone getting them.