And as far as drunk driving.....I'm for staunchly enforcing all laws and punishing those who break them, whether they are drunk drivers or lunatics with guns.
And what if it was not, in fact, illegal to drink and drive?
Then we would have a lot more innocent dead people than we do now.
Do you believe that making guns(or handguns) totally illegal tomorrow would have an effect on the murder rate?? And if so, how long would it take?
Yes I think it would. We can't dismiss the fact that one of the problems with handguns is that it seems to make the process of actually KILLING someone easier. Press a button/pull a trigger. Not that murders would cease to exist, but I do believe it would curtail the killing. As for how long it will take, well I don't know. Outlawing handguns is only one of the steps. Like I said before, one of the things we need to do is start to actually have a nationwide discussion and examination of THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE that permeates throughout our nation. The psychological damage is there, dude, in all of us. But it's the kids today who are 8 years old, 10 years old, these are the kids that are going to be fucked up if we don't start to change things.
Every type of concealable handgun should be illegal.
do you honestly think that would solve the problem?
And please define "the problem".
i dont think there is a "problem" [/b]
That should be soooo funny. But it's not.
No, I think FirmeRola and I are both saying that there is not one, singular problem to solve. It's many things converging negatively to amplify a tragedy like this, and simply calling for the banning of all concealable handguns is just being reactionary.
There are restrictions on handguns in VA, and only the most die-hard NRA advocates would argue that there shouldn't be any. There IS undeniably a gun culture in the USA, but it is far from being a monolithic, one sided negative as many opponents would paint it. All these things are only tangentially related to what happened yesterday, however, and I still think people just want explanations for questions that they are never going to have answered to their satisfaction.
I just fear what happens when there is a mad stampede for mental safety blankets, that's the aftermath of this kind of tragedy that I find unnecessary and harmful. People want action. Well, in this case, against what exactly?
if your fucked up in the head & want to kill people you are going to do it
So your point is that we should give this person easy access to guns?
Guns are a blight on society, and its tragic that you've been a victim, seen friends become victims, seen tragedies like what happened yesterday, and your answer is, "well, guns arent the problem. It's people." So whats your solution. Or is this situation just hopelessly fucked, and our only option is to arm ourselves, barricade the front door and accept "the American way". Do you honestly not see any issue with using constitutional pronouncements from revolutionary times to defend semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles?
I'd also be interested to know, those who are defending the current status quo, how many are from urban vs rural/suburban areas?
"Bullet's should cost Five-Thousand Dollars each!"
The point here Rock is that arguing for protecting gun ownership (or at least, concealed weapons laws) simply b/c it's legal is avoiding the question of whether or not you think it's healthy for a society to have as many guns in circulation as America does.
Yes, I feel as though that is the question that really needs to be asked. And I say "NO."
I say no, as well. I never like arguments that boil down to "It'll happen anyway." I think that's plain lazy and not proactive.
And as far as drunk driving.....I'm for staunchly enforcing all laws and punishing those who break them, whether they are drunk drivers or lunatics with guns.
And what if it was not, in fact, illegal to drink and drive?
Then we would have a lot more innocent dead people than we do now.
Do you believe that making guns(or handguns) totally illegal tomorrow would have an effect on the murder rate?? And if so, how long would it take?
Yes I think it would. We can't dismiss the fact that one of the problems with handguns is that it seems to make the process of actually KILLING someone easier. Press a button/pull a trigger. Not that murders would cease to exist, but I do believe it would curtail the killing. As for how long it will take, well I don't know. Outlawing handguns is only one of the steps. Like I said before, one of the things we need to do is start to actually have a nationwide discussion and examination of THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE that permeates throughout our nation. The psychological damage is there, dude, in all of us. But it's the kids today who are 8 years old, 10 years old, these are the kids that are going to be fucked up if we don't start to change things.
Ironically, the Religious Right has been trying, in vain, to bring what THEY perceive as the "CULTURE OF VIOLENCE" to a national discussion by pointing at violent Rap Music, Video Games, Movies, etc. and for the most part, they are blown off as wingnuts.
The point here Rock is that arguing for protecting gun ownership (or at least, concealed weapons laws) simply b/c it's legal is avoiding the question of whether or not you think it's healthy for a society to have as many guns in circulation as America does.
Yes, I feel as though that is the question that really needs to be asked. And I say "NO."
I say no, as well. I never like arguments that boil down to "It'll happen anyway." I think that's plain lazy and not proactive.
I love solutions.....I hate pointing out a problem and wishing it away.
Should we go door to door and confiscate weapons??
Should we ask people to voluntarily turn them in??
Should we stop allowing U.S. companies from manufacturing and/or importing them into the country as if the millions here already won't perpetuate what you perceive as the problem.
In my perfect world there are no guns.
In my fantasy world you can wave a magic wand and make them all disappear.
I think the problem is that there's a major polarization in attitudes. The right want to blame violence on culture but arguing over gun control is a third rail. The left tends to focus on gun control but gets more cagey around blaming culture as the root. Libertarians don't want anyone fucking with their guns OR televisions.
Personally, I think going after the culture of violence is a valid strategy so long as you acknowledge that violence is more than just a cultural manifestation and has to do with an array of other social factors that can be addressed - social support networks, gun control, improved law enforcement, etc.
My heart goes out to these people who experienced this tragedy. Some people are beyond sick.
It's strange how the media decides what kind of violence is worthy of covering. I didn't see much about the SLC shooting. I lived in SLC for a few years, three blocks from that mall. I used to work in the mall. That was bugged.
I also worked in an after-school program where someone got shot in thehead in front of us and the kids. That got zero coverge.
My heart goes out to these people who experienced this tragedy. Some people are beyond sick.
It's strange how the media decides what kind of violence is worthy of covering. I didn't see much about the SLC shooting. I lived in SLC for a few years, three blocks from that mall. I used to work in the mall. That was bugged.
I also worked in an after-school program where someone got shot in thehead in front of us and the kids. That got zero coverge.
It's a numbers game. If SLC had resulted in 30 deaths instead of 5, best believe, it would have made front page everywhere.
It's not an either/or. Eliminating guns would surely reduce the number of gun deaths (I mean, duh) but part of the reason we have so many guns is because we live in a culture that celebrates gun violence. It's not that hard to see how the two are interconnected. If you're serious about tackling the issue of violence in society, I think it's reasonable to address all these angles.
I think the problem is that there's a major polarization in attitudes. The right want to blame violence on culture but arguing over gun control is a third rail. The left tends to focus on gun control but gets more cagey around blaming culture as the root. Libertarians don't want anyone fucking with their guns OR televisions.
Personally, I think going after the culture of violence is a valid strategy so long as you acknowledge that violence is more than just a cultural manifestation and has to do with an array of other social factors that can be addressed - social support networks, gun control, improved law enforcement, etc.
The only problem being that 'going after the culture of violence' is as impossible a battle as the war on drugs. You can, however, stop selling guns relativly easily.
No, I think FirmeRola and I are both saying that there is not one, singular problem to solve.
Get rid of guns. I'm not just thinking hand guns (concealable or for show). I'm thinking ban ALL un-liscenced gun-ownership. Liscences only provided with a good reason to own or use a single shot[/b] rifle - nobody needs to hunt or keep rabbits/rats down with an Uzi or a magnum.
There IS undeniably a gun culture in the USA, but it is far from being a monolithic, one sided negative as many opponents would paint it. What exactly are the positives to being able to shoot somebody?
People want action. Well, in this case, against what exactly? Easy access to guns. There is no reason for it.
It's not an either/or. Eliminating guns would surely reduce the number of gun deaths (I mean, duh) but part of the reason we have so many guns is because we live in a culture that celebrates gun violence. It's not that hard to see how the two are interconnected. If you're serious about tackling the issue of violence in society, I think it's reasonable to address all these angles.
Thanks, dude. That's what I've been trying to say. Deal with root causes. Deal with class division, deal with poverty, racism, deal with the lack of education that our kids get, deal with abuse and neglect. Deal with the desensitization to violence kids have. Deal with the lack of hope kids have. I dunno.
I think the problem is that there's a major polarization in attitudes. The right want to blame violence on culture but arguing over gun control is a third rail. The left tends to focus on gun control but gets more cagey around blaming culture as the root. Libertarians don't want anyone fucking with their guns OR televisions.
Personally, I think going after the culture of violence is a valid strategy so long as you acknowledge that violence is more than just a cultural manifestation and has to do with an array of other social factors that can be addressed - social support networks, gun control, improved law enforcement, etc.
The only problem being that 'going after the culture of violence' is as impossible a battle as the war on drugs. You can, however, stop selling guns relativly easily.
Moke - you're comparing apples and oranges.
The better analogy actually is "illegal drugs" vs. "illegal guns." Frankly, I don't see how stemming the circulation of illegal guns (let alone legal guns) would be any easier than stemming the circulation of illegal drugs.
Changing a culture of violence is actually not as hard as you make it sound. Look at how the FCC went batshit over Janet's nipple. Censorship of major media - t.v., radio, cinema - is far easier to enact, at a policy level, then trying to limit gun access. The ACLU ain't got nothing on the NRA.
Not to diminish from the horror of the event, but I have to disagree with you, rock.
Unless you believe it's insane not to value human life over everything else, people murder for sane reasons all the time. I don't mean to suggest that murder isn't nearly always morally reprehensible and murder should be treated less severely than it is now. Rather, I only question the value of talking about murder in such absolutes terms.
On the subject of firearms, I was an urbanite all my life until moving to New Brunswick. Guns meant nothing to me. Now I live in a town where I'd wager at least 2/3 of the population has a rifle and you see shotgun casings on the side of the road (which I assume fall out of the truck after coming back from hunting). I've gone hunting just enough to realise that shooting guns is ridiculously good fun. While handguns are heavily restricted, shotguns are not and you could cause all the carnage you wanted with one. Meanwhile, in a bad year there will be one homicide in town and it won't necessarily involve a firearm.
My experience here supports Oliver's argument: guns are just one factor out of many in these multiple murders. While I'm all for severe restrictions on handguns, I think we are foolish to look at guns as the predominate force in these killings. It's much too easy and not at all constructive.
In a different world Id be for gun control. Not this one, it's too late for that.
That's just outright apathetic and LAZY. Change your world, every day my man.
You need to back up with that shit, dude. You don't know me or my reasons. Apathetic and lazy I AM NOT.
Violence has touched my life in too many ways. Call me paranoid but I want the ability to protect myself.
Like I said, someone got shot in the head in front of me over basketball. An friend was shot with a shotgun and killed. Another was shot , not killed, by some religious freak. These guns aren't legal.
It's not an either/or. Eliminating guns would surely reduce the number of gun deaths (I mean, duh) but part of the reason we have so many guns is because we live in a culture that celebrates gun violence. It's not that hard to see how the two are interconnected. If you're serious about tackling the issue of violence in society, I think it's reasonable to address all these angles.
Thanks, dude. That's what I've been trying to say. Deal with root causes. Deal with class division, deal with poverty, racism, deal with the lack of education that our kids get, deal with abuse and neglect. Deal with the desensitization to violence kids have. Deal with the lack of hope kids have. I dunno.
I'm with this 100% as long as we can agree that individual citizens have as much, if not MORE, responsibility for correcting these things than the Government does.
Not to diminish from the horror of the event, but I have to disagree with you, rock.
Unless you believe it's insane not to value human life over everything else, people murder for sane reasons all the time. I don't mean to suggest that murder isn't nearly always morally reprehensible and murder should be treated less severely than it is now. Rather, I only question the value of talking about murder in such absolutes terms.
On the subject of firearms, I was an urbanite all my life until moving to New Brunswick. Guns meant nothing to me. Now I live in a town where I'd wager at least 2/3 of the population has a rifle and you see shotgun casings on the side of the road (which I assume fall out of the truck after coming back from hunting). I've gone hunting just enough to realise that shooting guns is ridiculously good fun. While handguns are heavily restricted, shotguns are not and you could cause all the carnage you wanted with one. Meanwhile, in a bad year there will be one homicide in town and it won't necessarily involve a firearm.
My experience here supports Oliver's argument: guns are just one factor out of many in these multiple murders. While I'm all for severe restrictions on handguns, I think we are foolish to look at guns as the predominate force in these killings. It's much too easy and not at all constructive.
Danno.....sorry to make you write all that....my post was OOOOOOZING with sarcasm.....guess it didn't come across well.
I think the problem is that there's a major polarization in attitudes. The right want to blame violence on culture but arguing over gun control is a third rail. The left tends to focus on gun control but gets more cagey around blaming culture as the root. Libertarians don't want anyone fucking with their guns OR televisions.
Personally, I think going after the culture of violence is a valid strategy so long as you acknowledge that violence is more than just a cultural manifestation and has to do with an array of other social factors that can be addressed - social support networks, gun control, improved law enforcement, etc.
The only problem being that 'going after the culture of violence' is as impossible a battle as the war on drugs. You can, however, stop selling guns relativly easily.
Moke - you're comparing apples and oranges.
The better analogy actually is "illegal drugs" vs. "illegal guns." Frankly, I don't see how stemming the circulation of illegal guns (let alone legal guns) would be any easier than stemming the circulation of illegal drugs.
Changing a culture of violence is actually not as hard as you make it sound. Look at how the FCC went batshit over Janet's nipple. Censorship of major media - t.v., radio, cinema - is far easier to enact, at a policy level, then trying to limit gun access. The ACLU ain't got nothing on the NRA.
I was thinking more along the lines of what Cosmo's been talking about. Social change for the better. I think the cycle of poverty-drugs-violence is very much the same issue. And making any head way in this field is very difficult. And takes care, time and patience to achieve. Not exactly things you find in abundance is US politics. You could theoretically stop, or limit, the sale of guns easily. And this would have an immediate effect on stopping incidents like this from happening.
Speaking from a country where you can't own a handgun, legally (not even our police are armed). This make sense to me.
It's not like the people who commit these acts are from a criminal background. Most seem to have bought guns legally or at least from a legal outlet. If you take away the ease of which people like this, can buy a gun, surely you reduce the risks of this happening again.
The right to bear arms in this country is not predicated on the right to hunt, or the right to defend oneself against criminals. It is predicated on the fact that the founding documents of this country assert the peoples' right to rise up and depose their government if the government becomes despotic.
That's why the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and that's why it needs to stay there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for restrictive gun control laws. And yes, I do think they'd have a notable effect over the long term. But addressing gun access without addressing the reasons why people USE guns is two different issues.
That's why I'm confused by your comparison to the war on drugs. There's two issues: the desire to use drugs and access to drugs. It is, of course, difficult to change the underlying personal and social forces behind why people abuse drugs. However, if you could, in theory, cut off the supply of heroin tomorrow, you'd have a lot less people using heroin in a month's time.
The problem is that heroin is already illegal but it still finds its way, quite easily, into people's hands.
In any case, there's no politically conceivable way you can ban private gun ownership across the board. We'd sooner LEGALIZE drugs than ILLEGALIZE gun ownership. Ergo, addressing gun violence requires a strategy that limits both gun access (however one can) AND the celebration of violence as a culturally acceptable mode of behavior.
It's not an either/or. Eliminating guns would surely reduce the number of gun deaths (I mean, duh) but part of the reason we have so many guns is because we live in a culture that celebrates gun violence. It's not that hard to see how the two are interconnected. If you're serious about tackling the issue of violence in society, I think it's reasonable to address all these angles.
I hear you, I wasn't trying to imply either/or. My point is that if your discussing gun violence, i want to hear how people can argue against reducing the legal availability of certain kind of guns. To talk about art and culture is important as well, but in this discussion, i think its a sidestep. Reducing the legal availability of guns could have a profound effect, whereas trying to influence the creation of music or movies sets a dangerous precedent. I agree the culture can be poisonous, but theres no justification for the current gun laws, thats all I was saying. In the end, this loner at VT may have had some criminal connections to acquire a gun, but different laws would have been a barrier. Im all for changing the culture of violence any way we can as citizens, but as far as what the government should regulate, guns I agree with, culture im much less sure of.
Speaking from a country where you can't own a handgun, legally (not even our police are armed). This make sense to me.
It's not like the people who commit these acts are from a criminal background. Most seem to have bought guns legally or at least from a legal outlet. If you take away the ease of which people like this, can buy a gun, surely you reduce the risks of this happening again.
The right to bear arms in this country is not predicated on the right to hunt, or the right to defend oneself against criminals. It is predicated on the fact that the founding documents of this country assert the peoples' right to rise up and depose their government if the government becomes despotic.
That's why the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and that's why it needs to stay there.
Are you serious?!
Iraq had an army, with tanks and an airforce. Did that do them any good when the US government decided to depose their government. Its such an antiquated argument no wonder the US is stuck in the culture of gun violence, it is.
Speaking from a country where you can't own a handgun, legally (not even our police are armed). This make sense to me.
It's not like the people who commit these acts are from a criminal background. Most seem to have bought guns legally or at least from a legal outlet. If you take away the ease of which people like this, can buy a gun, surely you reduce the risks of this happening again.
The right to bear arms in this country is not predicated on the right to hunt, or the right to defend oneself against criminals. It is predicated on the fact that the founding documents of this country assert the peoples' right to rise up and depose their government if the government becomes despotic.
That's why the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and that's why it needs to stay there.
everything you say leads to the opposite conclusion.
the "right to bear arms" is NOT about self defense (as you say yourself) and therefore, please explain why our forefathers (if they were alive today) would interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the people have a right to own a handgun or any weapon that can be concealed. congress has already limited the type of arms that people can own. if you concede that they have this right (and that the right to bear arms is not limitless), then what would be your CONSTITUTIONAL argument for keeping handguns legal?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for restrictive gun control laws. And yes, I do think they'd have a notable effect over the long term. But addressing gun access without addressing the reasons why people USE guns is two different issues.
That's why I'm confused by your comparison to the war on drugs. There's two issues: the desire to use drugs and access to drugs. It is, of course, difficult to change the underlying personal and social forces behind why people abuse drugs. However, if you could, in theory, cut off the supply of heroin tomorrow, you'd have a lot less people using heroin in a month's time.
The problem is that heroin is already illegal but it still finds its way, quite easily, into people's hands.
In any case, there's no politically conceivable way you can ban private gun ownership across the board. We'd sooner LEGALIZE drugs than ILLEGALIZE gun ownership. Ergo, addressing gun violence requires a strategy that limits both gun access (however one can) AND the celebration of violence as a culturally acceptable mode of behavior.
O.
I was never disagreeing with your point. I should have made it clearer, I meant that in general, the social reasons for violence, and drug abuse, are similar.
I'd be interested to know what people think about the motives of say, some teenage white dude, from the burbs, shooting up his school. And say, the situation in Philly, that Cosmo talked about. Do they arise from the same core problem with American society, or are they separate problems?
Comments
Yes I think it would. We can't dismiss the fact that one of the problems with handguns is that it seems to make the process of actually KILLING someone easier. Press a button/pull a trigger. Not that murders would cease to exist, but I do believe it would curtail the killing. As for how long it will take, well I don't know. Outlawing handguns is only one of the steps. Like I said before, one of the things we need to do is start to actually have a nationwide discussion and examination of THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE that permeates throughout our nation. The psychological damage is there, dude, in all of us. But it's the kids today who are 8 years old, 10 years old, these are the kids that are going to be fucked up if we don't start to change things.
So your point is that we should give this person easy access to guns?
Guns are a blight on society, and its tragic that you've been a victim, seen friends become victims, seen tragedies like what happened yesterday, and your answer is, "well, guns arent the problem. It's people." So whats your solution. Or is this situation just hopelessly fucked, and our only option is to arm ourselves, barricade the front door and accept "the American way". Do you honestly not see any issue with using constitutional pronouncements from revolutionary times to defend semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles?
I'd also be interested to know, those who are defending the current status quo, how many are from urban vs rural/suburban areas?
"Bullet's should cost Five-Thousand Dollars each!"
I say no, as well. I never like arguments that boil down to "It'll happen anyway." I think that's plain lazy and not proactive.
Ironically, the Religious Right has been trying, in vain, to bring what THEY perceive as the "CULTURE OF VIOLENCE" to a national discussion by pointing at violent Rap Music, Video Games, Movies, etc. and for the most part, they are blown off as wingnuts.
What kind of discussion do you think we need?
And should they include the above??
I love solutions.....I hate pointing out a problem and wishing it away.
Should we go door to door and confiscate weapons??
Should we ask people to voluntarily turn them in??
Should we stop allowing U.S. companies from manufacturing and/or importing them into the country as if the millions here already won't perpetuate what you perceive as the problem.
In my perfect world there are no guns.
In my fantasy world you can wave a magic wand and make them all disappear.
ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!???????!!!!!!!!!!
If so....YES & INSTANTLY.
Personally, I think going after the culture of violence is a valid strategy so long as you acknowledge that violence is more than just a cultural manifestation and has to do with an array of other social factors that can be addressed - social support networks, gun control, improved law enforcement, etc.
It's strange how the media decides what kind of violence is worthy of covering. I didn't see much about the SLC shooting. I lived in SLC for a few years, three blocks from that mall. I used to work in the mall. That was bugged.
I also worked in an after-school program where someone got shot in thehead in front of us and the kids. That got zero coverge.
It's a numbers game. If SLC had resulted in 30 deaths instead of 5, best believe, it would have made front page everywhere.
Do you think these contribute more, less or the same amount to the culture of violence as handguns?
Do you think cleaning up the above would take longer, or would be more easier than cleaning up the amount of guns out there?
They are called wingnuts cause they have no problem with letting the assualt weapons ban expire, and yet they speak up about rap music.
I would call them hypocrites, in addition to wingnuts.
It's not an either/or. Eliminating guns would surely reduce the number of gun deaths (I mean, duh) but part of the reason we have so many guns is because we live in a culture that celebrates gun violence. It's not that hard to see how the two are interconnected. If you're serious about tackling the issue of violence in society, I think it's reasonable to address all these angles.
That's just outright apathetic and LAZY. Change your world, every day my man.
The only problem being that 'going after the culture of violence' is as impossible a battle as the war on drugs.
You can, however, stop selling guns relativly easily.
Get rid of guns. I'm not just thinking hand guns (concealable or for show). I'm thinking ban ALL un-liscenced gun-ownership. Liscences only provided with a good reason to own or use a single shot[/b] rifle - nobody needs to hunt or keep rabbits/rats down with an Uzi or a magnum.
There IS undeniably a gun culture in the USA, but it is far from being a monolithic, one sided negative as many opponents would paint it.
What exactly are the positives to being able to shoot somebody?
People want action. Well, in this case, against what exactly?
Easy access to guns. There is no reason for it.
Thanks, dude. That's what I've been trying to say. Deal with root causes. Deal with class division, deal with poverty, racism, deal with the lack of education that our kids get, deal with abuse and neglect. Deal with the desensitization to violence kids have. Deal with the lack of hope kids have. I dunno.
yeah, just like that.
Moke - you're comparing apples and oranges.
The better analogy actually is "illegal drugs" vs. "illegal guns." Frankly, I don't see how stemming the circulation of illegal guns (let alone legal guns) would be any easier than stemming the circulation of illegal drugs.
Changing a culture of violence is actually not as hard as you make it sound. Look at how the FCC went batshit over Janet's nipple. Censorship of major media - t.v., radio, cinema - is far easier to enact, at a policy level, then trying to limit gun access. The ACLU ain't got nothing on the NRA.
Not to diminish from the horror of the event, but I have to disagree with you, rock.
Unless you believe it's insane not to value human life over everything else, people murder for sane reasons all the time. I don't mean to suggest that murder isn't nearly always morally reprehensible and murder should be treated less severely than it is now. Rather, I only question the value of talking about murder in such absolutes terms.
On the subject of firearms, I was an urbanite all my life until moving to New Brunswick. Guns meant nothing to me. Now I live in a town where I'd wager at least 2/3 of the population has a rifle and you see shotgun casings on the side of the road (which I assume fall out of the truck after coming back from hunting). I've gone hunting just enough to realise that shooting guns is ridiculously good fun. While handguns are heavily restricted, shotguns are not and you could cause all the carnage you wanted with one. Meanwhile, in a bad year there will be one homicide in town and it won't necessarily involve a firearm.
My experience here supports Oliver's argument: guns are just one factor out of many in these multiple murders. While I'm all for severe restrictions on handguns, I think we are foolish to look at guns as the predominate force in these killings. It's much too easy and not at all constructive.
You need to back up with that shit, dude. You don't know me or my reasons. Apathetic and lazy I AM NOT.
Violence has touched my life in too many ways. Call me paranoid but I want the ability to protect myself.
Like I said, someone got shot in the head in front of me over basketball. An friend was shot with a shotgun and killed. Another was shot , not killed, by some religious freak. These guns aren't legal.
I'm with this 100% as long as we can agree that individual citizens have as much, if not MORE, responsibility for correcting these things than the Government does.
Danno.....sorry to make you write all that....my post was OOOOOOZING with sarcasm.....guess it didn't come across well.
I was thinking more along the lines of what Cosmo's been talking about. Social change for the better. I think the cycle of poverty-drugs-violence is very much the same issue. And making any head way in this field is very difficult. And takes care, time and patience to achieve. Not exactly things you find in abundance is US politics.
You could theoretically stop, or limit, the sale of guns easily. And this would have an immediate effect on stopping incidents like this from happening.
The right to bear arms in this country is not predicated on the right to hunt, or the right to defend oneself against criminals. It is predicated on the fact that the founding documents of this country assert the peoples' right to rise up and depose their government if the government becomes despotic.
That's why the right to bear arms is in the Constitution, and that's why it needs to stay there.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for restrictive gun control laws. And yes, I do think they'd have a notable effect over the long term. But addressing gun access without addressing the reasons why people USE guns is two different issues.
That's why I'm confused by your comparison to the war on drugs. There's two issues: the desire to use drugs and access to drugs. It is, of course, difficult to change the underlying personal and social forces behind why people abuse drugs. However, if you could, in theory, cut off the supply of heroin tomorrow, you'd have a lot less people using heroin in a month's time.
The problem is that heroin is already illegal but it still finds its way, quite easily, into people's hands.
In any case, there's no politically conceivable way you can ban private gun ownership across the board. We'd sooner LEGALIZE drugs than ILLEGALIZE gun ownership. Ergo, addressing gun violence requires a strategy that limits both gun access (however one can) AND the celebration of violence as a culturally acceptable mode of behavior.
I hear you, I wasn't trying to imply either/or. My point is that if your discussing gun violence, i want to hear how people can argue against reducing the legal availability of certain kind of guns. To talk about art and culture is important as well, but in this discussion, i think its a sidestep. Reducing the legal availability of guns could have a profound effect, whereas trying to influence the creation of music or movies sets a dangerous precedent. I agree the culture can be poisonous, but theres no justification for the current gun laws, thats all I was saying. In the end, this loner at VT may have had some criminal connections to acquire a gun, but different laws would have been a barrier. Im all for changing the culture of violence any way we can as citizens, but as far as what the government should regulate, guns I agree with, culture im much less sure of.
Are you serious?!
Iraq had an army, with tanks and an airforce. Did that do them any good when the US government decided to depose their government.
Its such an antiquated argument no wonder the US is stuck in the culture of gun violence, it is.
The dude that did this was a scumbag.
A real piece of shit.
Him taking his own life was cowardly and too good for him.
Fuck this guy!!
everything you say leads to the opposite conclusion.
the "right to bear arms" is NOT about self defense (as you say yourself) and therefore, please explain why our forefathers (if they were alive today) would interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that the people have a right to own a handgun or any weapon that can be concealed. congress has already limited the type of arms that people can own. if you concede that they have this right (and that the right to bear arms is not limitless), then what would be your CONSTITUTIONAL argument for keeping handguns legal?
O.
I was never disagreeing with your point. I should have made it clearer, I meant that in general, the social reasons for violence, and drug abuse, are similar.
I'd be interested to know what people think about the motives of say, some teenage white dude, from the burbs, shooting up his school. And say, the situation in Philly, that Cosmo talked about. Do they arise from the same core problem with American society, or are they separate problems?