Gun Law Debate Thread [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Gun Law Debate Thread

zicofirol
04-17-2007, 04:28 PM
Since the other thread was meant just on info from the shooting but quickly turned into a debate on gun laws I think we should just have to make a separate thread, now its not unusual for people to use this emotional roller coaster to justify banning guns, first many people dont understand that gun ownership is in fact a right protected by the consitution as it should be:

Here it is in wording, 2nd amendment- A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

that should be enough to end the debate but it isn't so people use these emotional situations rather than facts to prove their point on gun control, here are some links with different stats, including about the "success" of the british gun law ban, haha:

http://www.rkba.org/comment/brown/England.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3419941.stm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2003/01/05/do0502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2003/01/05/ixopinion.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/high-cost-of-gun-control.html

even when the UK had the same gun laws as the US did, there was more murders by handguns in the US...

http://guncite.com/swissgun.html
As for the swiss example, yes the control of firearms in switzerland is much stricter than the US, but gun ownership but that doesnt take away from the fact that if you have a crazy guy ready to kill I dont think he will be to concerned with breaking ammo laws, and guns are mroe available than many european countries who still have higher murder rates...


ps. not that these results will change your mind, as we have seen feel good policy is always supported regardless of results...

NyGeL
04-17-2007, 06:57 PM
ban them for civlians.

Jim Jones
04-17-2007, 07:52 PM
won'r make a difference. Look what ahppened in Germany and Dunblane etc....
In Switzerland every male has to have military service and he gets to keep his arm after that. Yet Switzerland is not like the U.S. There was only one mass killing in recent years and not that many people died.

trixtah
04-17-2007, 08:10 PM
I said it then, I'll say it again. Gun control won't curb murderous intent. All a weapon really is, is a force multiplier. Even with a gun ban, it will STILL be easy to acquire a firearm. Even if all the guns in the world were destroyed, they'd be created and rampant on the black market. Do proponents of Gun Control really believe that supply and demand (the latter greatly amplified as a consequence) would plummet as soon as guns are abolished?
Anecdote time: When I was in middle school in a relatively upscale neighborhood, I could easily come in possession of a firearm if I so wished. If you can convince me that gun control will work, sure I'll keep an open mind. I've done several debates for school on this subject though, and I've never been convinced either way. There is just nothing you can do about incidents like yesterdays shooting without restructuring how we raise the world's young--the majority of the blame can be directed at society in general.

MisterQ
04-17-2007, 08:15 PM
Here it is in wording, 2nd amendment- A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

that should be enough to end the debate

It is in theory possible to repeal the Bill of Rights, sacred as they are held.... amendments have been repealed before (prohibition), and thus nothing is set in stone.

I am personally unsure what effect a change in gun laws would have on the likelihood of this sort of incident happening. But it's certainly still deserving of debate.

tangerine_dream
04-17-2007, 08:23 PM
Changing the amendment and/or across-the-board banning of guns will do nothing but create a black market and cause more crazies to stockpile weapons and become paranoid of the government taking away their constitutional rights. It would have the potential of creating another Civil War here which I assume nobody wants.

If somebody wants a gun badly enough, they will find a way to get one, legally or illegally.

trixtah
04-17-2007, 08:33 PM
On the other side of the coin, on a college campus where controlled substances are everywhere, allowing a bunch of drunken fratboys (EXAMPLE ONLY!) the right to possess a firearm isn't the brightest idea. Then again, where do you draw the line on gun bans?

Saying that guns should be banned because they serve one purpose alone is borderline ignorant. Swords were made for one thing alone...BAN THEM ALL! Unless you find yourself cutting your steak with a sabre...

If I were to rob my neighbor, yes, I admit--I'd use a gun. If I didn't have a gun? Would I still rob him? Most likely, but in this case, I'd use a kitchen knife. I'd also be much less afraid of a bullet that he is incapable of owning thanks to a gun ban.

Chris 84
04-17-2007, 09:13 PM
Guns should be banned, and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The 2nd Amendment was brought into being in order to protect the US civilians from a corrupt and unwanted government (I'm sure those who framed the constitution had Britain in mind) and is really the rather radical right to insurrection. Using the wording of the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership in the 21st Century just seems to me to be bizarre.

However, I personally can't see any real changes in the law happening in the near future, partly because it would probably be a major vote-losing idea, in particular with the influence of the NRA in American politics.

I think it is unquestionable that the east access to guns which seems to exist in America is rather influential in boosting the number of shootings.....that would seem obvious to me.
Of course one would still be able to get hold of a gun even if they were banned, but the illegality of possession, and the added trouble which it would be necessary to go to in order to obtain one would certainly lead to fewer gun owners.

zicofirol
04-17-2007, 09:36 PM
On the other side of the coin, on a college campus where controlled substances are everywhere, allowing a bunch of drunken fratboys (EXAMPLE ONLY!) the right to possess a firearm isn't the brightest idea. Then again, where do you draw the line on gun bans?

Guns are banned in most campuses in the US, in fact just 2 years ago the Virginia Tech law of guns on campus was more enforced when a student with a state permit to carry a gun was found to take a gun to school, imagine how many other students had taken guns to school before that and how many shootings happened? But I agree school's should ban guns...


Guns should be banned, and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The 2nd Amendment was brought into being in order to protect the US civilians from a corrupt and unwanted government (I'm sure those who framed the constitution had Britain in mind) and is really the rather radical right to insurrection. Using the wording of the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership in the 21st Century just seems to me to be bizarre.

Switzerland has lower crime rates then the UK and the US, maybe we should adopt their gun laws, they must be doing something right...

If you would of cared to look at the links I provided, gun ban in the England backfired as violence increased by a good margin, even gun crime increased...

and as I pointed out before even when the UK had the same or similar gun laws to the US, the US always had more gun crimes... so why do you insist on a policy that does not work.

as for the 2nd amendment it was not thinking of Britain, the use of guns for personal defense was a given and any writing from that time suggest that the law was not questioned in that way, but yes the right to bear arms was done as a means to protect from the US government...

I think it is unquestionable that the east access to guns which seems to exist in America is rather influential in boosting the number of shootings.....that would seem obvious to me.
Of course one would still be able to get hold of a gun even if they were banned, but the illegality of possession, and the added trouble which it would be necessary to go to in order to obtain one would certainly lead to fewer gun owners.
The injust drug prohibition causes more deaths than legal guns, why does switzerland who has higher gun ownership than most if not all European countries have lower crime rate?

and just like drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition didnt work so would gun prohibition not work.

If you would make gun's illegal the only one's who would not buy them are lawful citizens, criminals and nutjobs will just go to the black market...

Chris 84
04-17-2007, 09:58 PM
Switzerland has lower crime rates then the UK and the US, maybe we should adopt their gun laws, they must be doing something right...

If you would of cared to look at the links I provided, gun ban in the England backfired as violence increased by a good margin, even gun crime increased...

and as I pointed out before even when the UK had the same or similar gun laws to the US, the US always had more gun crimes... so why do you insist on a policy that does not work.

as for the 2nd amendment it was not thinking of Britain, the use of guns for personal defense was a given and any writing from that time suggest that the law was not questioned in that way, but yes the right to bear arms was done as a means to protect from the US government...


The injust drug prohibition causes more deaths than legal guns, why does switzerland who has higher gun ownership than most if not all European countries have lower crime rate?

and just like drug prohibition and alcohol prohibition didnt work so would gun prohibition not work.

If you would make gun's illegal the only one's who would not buy them are lawful citizens, criminals and nutjobs will just go to the black market...

I don't know enough about Swiss gun laws and crime to comment, but Swiss society is very different from American society.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your links really are crap. They are just opinionated rants, no more valid as evidence than your own comments in this thread. Where stats are indicated they are often wrong, and the UK legal system is constantly highlighted, when in fact the Scottish legal system is quite different to the English.

"Well, there may be trouble in paradise. Our friends across the Atlantic did tighten their already strict gun laws, with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. Obedient British subjects generally maintained a stiff upper lip as they surrendered their guns and their rights. How much did crime drop as a result of this sacrifice? It did not drop at all. In fact, according to the local newspapers, England is being swept by a wave of crime, including plenty of gun crimes."

The part in bold is not true, and the evidence used is flimsy to say the least.

From the last link " It is illegal to even own toy guns" - this is absolute garbage. Seriously.

I don't set much store by links which are so riddled with inaccuracy.

buddyholly
04-17-2007, 11:56 PM
Here it is in wording, 2nd amendment- A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.



I have always wondered why more is not made of the fact that the amendment speaks of a "Militia" and the "People'' with a capital P. Use of the word ''People" suggests to me that it is a collective right, such as a national army.
I see nothing there to suggest that private citizens have a right to bear arms. The amendment even speaks of a ''regulated militia'', which makes it clear to me it is not talking about private, unregulated ownership.

And being brought up in Britain I have no doubt that prohibiting private arms is the way to go, especially non-hunting type guns. I have never even held a gun and am happy not to have.

trixtah
04-18-2007, 12:07 AM
I have always wondered why more is not made of the fact that the amendment speaks of a "Militia" and the "People'' with a capital P. Use of the word ''People" suggests to me that it is a collective right, such as a national army.
I see nothing there to suggest that private citizens have a right to bear arms. The amendment even speaks of a ''regulated militia'', which makes it clear to me it is not talking about private, unregulated ownership.

And being brought up in Britain I have no doubt that prohibiting private arms is the way to go, especially non-hunting type guns. I have never even held a gun and am happy not to have.

Non-hunting type of guns? What sorts of guns would those be?

NicoFan
04-18-2007, 12:21 AM
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


There is no mention of "guns" in the 2nd Amendment. It says the right to bear arms - which would include guns but today "arms" also means nuclear weapons. Would anybody advocate people owning their own stash of nuclear weapons? :lol:

As someone said, the amendment was meant to protect citizens from a corrupt government.

It was not meant for many of the reasons pro-gun people rant on and on about.

Julio1974
04-18-2007, 01:03 AM
There is no mention of "guns" in the 2nd Amendment. It says the right to bear arms - which would include guns but today "arms" also means nuclear weapons. Would anybody advocate people owning their own stash of nuclear weapons? :lol:

As someone said, the amendment was meant to protect citizens from a corrupt government.

It was not meant for many of the reasons pro-gun people rant on and on about.

I agree with you. The second amendment should not be read as enshrining an individual right to have guns. However, I highly doubt the current Supreme Court would agree with us.

By the way, I was reading yesterday the opinions posted in the NYT and I was so amazed. There are so many people who belive in this notion of a constitutional right to bear arms. It's also surprising how they feel much more secure with guns.

NicoFan
04-18-2007, 01:16 AM
By the way, I was reading yesterday the opinions posted in the NYT and I was so amazed. There are so many people who belive in this notion of a constitutional right to bear arms. It's also surprising how they feel much more secure with guns.

Many people in the US are in love with their guns. I'm from the Northest and it's bad enough there, but I lived in the South for awhile - in a couple of the towns, it is against the law NOT to have a gun in your house. They ride around with them in their cars, and actually bring them to work.

I don't get the love affair with guns. :shrug: I wouldn't allow a gun in my house for all the money in the world. Personally, I think all guns should be melted down and made into something that would be positive for the world.

Lee
04-18-2007, 01:26 AM
I agree with you. The second amendment should not be read as enshrining an individual right to have guns. However, I highly doubt the current Supreme Court would agree with us.

By the way, I was reading yesterday the opinions posted in the NYT and I was so amazed. There are so many people who belive in this notion of a constitutional right to bear arms. It's also surprising how they feel much more secure with guns.

You need to live in USA to understand how they feel about guns. And after living in Arizona, a state where it's legal for people carrying their guns with them everywhere (except otherwise banned like schools, etc), I can tell you no matter what kind of gun control law or ban imposed by the federal government, the gun owners will still be carrying their guns with them and the law enforcement won't care too much about enforcing the law.

Unless the mentality/culture of the gun owners/lovers change, it won't really work no matter what gun control laws are in place.

zicofirol
04-18-2007, 01:28 AM
I have always wondered why more is not made of the fact that the amendment speaks of a "Militia" and the "People'' with a capital P. Use of the word ''People" suggests to me that it is a collective right, such as a national army.
I see nothing there to suggest that private citizens have a right to bear arms. The amendment even speaks of a ''regulated militia'', which makes it clear to me it is not talking about private, unregulated ownership.

And being brought up in Britain I have no doubt that prohibiting private arms is the way to go, especially non-hunting type guns. I have never even held a gun and am happy not to have.

the issue of intent of wording has been recently debated and there is not much doubt about the wording, it did indeed mean the right of citizens to own guns. Just years later after the constitution was written we see the first mention directly quoting the constitution for the right of citizens to bear arms, that discussion has been debated by much more qualified people and it really is a non issue. If we go by the earlies interpretations of it, meaning they are the closest to how the wording was used then we can determine the meaning.

Plus the same wording is also used in the 1st and 4th amendemnet:
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

here is no mention of "guns" in the 2nd Amendment. It says the right to bear arms - which would include guns but today "arms" also means nuclear weapons. Would anybody advocate people owning their own stash of nuclear weapons?

As someone said, the amendment was meant to protect citizens from a corrupt government.

It was not meant for many of the reasons pro-gun people rant on and on about. a nuclear weapon is not a self defense weapon for individuals, its an indescriminate killer, its like saying I should be able to ut mines on my yard to protect me,lol...

So by your interpretation of the constitution if people by weapons to protect themselves from a corrupt government then its ok?

I don't know enough about Swiss gun laws and crime to comment, but Swiss society is very different from American society.
But if the law works then it should work regardless of the society, by your thinking switzerland who has higher gun ownership than the UK should have lower crime and murder rate, and that is not the case at all...
Knowing that switzerland has a lower crime and murder rate dont you think the UK should adopt the same laws?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but your links really are crap. They are just opinionated rants, no more valid as evidence than your own comments in this thread. Where stats are indicated they are often wrong, and the UK legal system is constantly highlighted, when in fact the Scottish legal system is quite different to the English.
Opinion rants, yes but with facts included, one of the facts is how crime went up in the UK right after the ban on guns, even gun violence went up, haha...

another point which you keep on ignoring is since murder by guns has been recorded (late 1800's) the US and Uk had similar laws yet the US always had higher murder rates...

"Well, there may be trouble in paradise. Our friends across the Atlantic did tighten their already strict gun laws, with the Firearms Act of 1997, making self defense with a firearm completely impossible for ordinary people. Obedient British subjects generally maintained a stiff upper lip as they surrendered their guns and their rights. How much did crime drop as a result of this sacrifice? It did not drop at all. In fact, according to the local newspapers, England is being swept by a wave of crime, including plenty of gun crimes."

The part in bold is not true, and the evidence used is flimsy to say the least.

From the last link " It is illegal to even own toy guns" - this is absolute garbage. Seriously.

I don't set much store by links which are so riddled with inaccuracy.
Its not true? so you can buy a handgun in the UK, because if you cant then you cant defend yourself with it, obviously...

Even if illegal, much like drugs which you can find easily you would have no problem buying guns in the US...what you would do is create a black market and a new opportunity for gangs, the mafia and thugs to make money...


And this is to all, I cant see why people have a problem with people owning guns for protection, unless you have a policeman posted out in each house then people will feel the need to have guns for protection, I personally know of two stories (where I know the people) that a gun prevented a mugging and a house robbery....

Julio1974
04-18-2007, 01:50 AM
You need to live in USA to understand how they feel about guns. And after living in Arizona, a state where it's legal for people carrying their guns with them everywhere (except otherwise banned like schools, etc), I can tell you no matter what kind of gun control law or ban imposed by the federal government, the gun owners will still be carrying their guns with them and the law enforcement won't care too much about enforcing the law.

Unless the mentality/culture of the gun owners/lovers change, it won't really work no matter what gun control laws are in place.

I lived two years in Boston. But I know the north east is not the US. People are much more liberal there.

NicoFan
04-18-2007, 01:59 AM
I lived two years in Boston. But I know the north east is not the US. People are much more liberal there.

:lol: :lol:

Indeed.

NyGeL
04-18-2007, 05:59 AM
You need to live in USA to understand how they feel about guns. And after living in Arizona, a state where it's legal for people carrying their guns with them everywhere (except otherwise banned like schools, etc), I can tell you no matter what kind of gun control law or ban imposed by the federal government, the gun owners will still be carrying their guns with them and the law enforcement won't care too much about enforcing the law.

Unless the mentality/culture of the gun owners/lovers change, it won't really work no matter what gun control laws are in place.

well... USA economy is (in a big part) based on Weapons Industry.

zicofirol
04-18-2007, 07:37 AM
well... USA economy is (in a big part) based on Weapons Industry.
not that big: GDP by sector- agriculture (0.9%), industry (20.4%), services (78.6%)
and military spending as part of GDP is only 4.06%

Chris 84
04-18-2007, 12:53 PM
Opinion rants, yes but with facts included, one of the facts is how crime went up in the UK right after the ban on guns, even gun violence went up, haha...

another point which you keep on ignoring is since murder by guns has been recorded (late 1800's) the US and Uk had similar laws yet the US always had higher murder rates...


Its not true? so you can buy a handgun in the UK, because if you cant then you cant defend yourself with it, obviously...

Even if illegal, much like drugs which you can find easily you would have no problem buying guns in the US...what you would do is create a black market and a new opportunity for gangs, the mafia and thugs to make money...


And this is to all, I cant see why people have a problem with people owning guns for protection, unless you have a policeman posted out in each house then people will feel the need to have guns for protection, I personally know of two stories (where I know the people) that a gun prevented a mugging and a house robbery....

But many of the facts are flawed. I have pointed out a couple of errors, but there are many :shrug:

Have the UK and US has similar laws since that time? Owning guns has never been something which is "normal" in the UK, and whereas it is a "constitutional right" in America, gun control laws have existed for years and years in the UK. A license was always needed, and many people were priced out of the market for gun ownership in this way.

As for gun ownership, people still can own guns if the authorities are convinced by them that their owning of a gun is necessary. Self defence is not, however, a valid reason for owning a gun, and hasn't been thought of such in the UK since the Second World War.

The case of Tony Martin which is often brought up is a case where a couple of young guys broke into his house. He disturbed them and they ran away, but Martin, while they were running, shot one of them in the back. Under any sensible self-defence laws that exist in this world, self-defence could not have been said to be an "excuse" for him in this instance.

I have a problem with anyone owning a gun, and that goes for the police too.

buddyholly
04-18-2007, 01:21 PM
Non-hunting type of guns? What sorts of guns would those be?

For a start, the kind that was used at Virginia Tech.

buddyholly
04-18-2007, 01:31 PM
But if the law works then it should work regardless of the society, by your thinking switzerland who has higher gun ownership than the UK should have lower crime and murder rate, and that is not the case at all...
Knowing that switzerland has a lower crime and murder rate dont you think the UK should adopt the same laws?




I think you are getting lost in your own bad logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not make any sense of this at all.

tennisace
04-18-2007, 01:45 PM
The legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute

"Throughout the history of the USA, many Court decisions have limited the right to keep and bear arms. The Miller case in the early 20th century limited the right to own certain classes of weapons. More recently, we have the following from the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicates that the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that the average citizen is part of that militia: "Since the Second Amendment right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of the state to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm." (Stevens v. U.S., United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1971).

A similar ruling from the Seventh Circuit held that "Construing [the language of the Second Amendment] according to its plain meaning, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is inextricably connected to the preservation of a militia . . . We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment." (Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1982).

Recently, although the Supreme Court has not issued a clear cut ruling on 2nd Amendment rights, a 1992 decision by the conservative majority stated that "Making a firearm without approval may be subject to criminal sanction, as is possession of an unregistered firearm and failure to pay the tax on one, 26 U.S.C. 5861, 5871." (UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. THOMPSON/CENTER ARMS COMPANY, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, June 8, 1992). This opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Chief Justice William Renhnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, indicates that the Supreme Court has a right to limit 2nd Amendment rights. So, it is clear that the 2nd is not absolute, and thus cannot be used as a prima facie reason why any gun should be legal."

In addition:

Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia'''). See also Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996); United States v. Gomez, 92 F.3d 770, 775 n.7 (9th Cir. 1996) (interpreting federal prohibition on possession of firearm by a felon as having a justification defense ''ensures that [the provision] does not collide with the Second Amendment'').

NyGeL
04-18-2007, 02:22 PM
not that big: GDP by sector- agriculture (0.9%), industry (20.4%), services (78.6%)
and military spending as part of GDP is only 4.06%

lol, not that big??? I'm sure that 4% might be, at least, 30 or 40% in the world.

And I'm not talking only about production, I'm talking about the whole mechanism behind belic industry wich includes Scientific Researchs, transport of weapons, marketing, etc. Look at your statistics, you're considering "Military Spending" different than Industry.

If you want to aim, play basketball :p

This is not a matter of banning weapons so people can't buy them. It's just a step trying to remove them from people conscience. This is a "short-term" moving for a "very-long-term" topic.

For those who said "If I want to kill I can do it with a knife", of course, If I want to kill I can do it with my own hands, but it's easier to kill 20 guys with a machine-gun than with a knife. And the existence and easiness of getting them, promotes this massive murders.

NyGeL
04-18-2007, 02:36 PM
From Wikipedia:

Region 1984 1994 2004
North America 25.0% 57.2% 63.2%
Western Europe 26.5% 26.3% —
Eastern Europe 39.3% 8.6% —
Europe — — 30.5%

The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, with a sales volume that exceeds the next 14 countries combined. Military sales equate to about 18 percent of the Federal budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation.
John Ralston Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP.

Arms Sales Statistics by SIPRI: http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/aprod/graphs/world_aprod.html
http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/aprod/graphs/GDP.html

The value of their arms sales exceed the gross domestic product (GDP) of most poor countries and their total sales compare to the GDP of medium-sized developed or industrializing countries.

Zicofirol statistics are a joke.

LoveFifteen
04-18-2007, 02:44 PM
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with private citizens owning guns to protect themselves, and everyone knows it! Unfortunately, guns and ammo are big business here in the States, and those big corporations will always spending billions lobbying to get their way. :sad:

Guns should be totally banned in the US. The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous.

LoveFifteen
04-18-2007, 02:47 PM
I lived two years in Boston. But I know the north east is not the US. People are much more liberal there.

Please don't say things like that. We who live in the Northeast have just as much a right to be Americans as the fat, ugly redneck in Texas. :shrug:

trixtah
04-18-2007, 02:50 PM
For a start, the kind that was used at Virginia Tech.

A glock 19. I've seen people hunt with pistols. What kind of "non-hunting" gun are you alluding to? Are you talking about shooting game--a single bolt action rifle? A gun that shoots imaginary bullets of plasma? This argument holds no water here...

Neely
04-18-2007, 03:14 PM
I think it would "only" cut down the crimes done in an emotional act by the average civilian. But that would be already something. But like others said above, it won't be helpful for all of those people who plan it or who have made up a criminal intend.

In some shootings you have a guy who is sure about what to do and thought of it long time in advance and planned it, in others you have somebody who is unstable and who decides on one incident to do such a crime because a certain level was reached he could not bear anymore. The latter category has the hope to cool down again if they don't have the gun ready at hand.

zicofirol
04-18-2007, 04:26 PM
I think you are getting lost in your own bad logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can not make any sense of this at all.
I was responding to chris that if we are to make gun policy based on the crime rates of other countries then the UK should copy switzerland as they have a lower crime rate then them, this would mean that guns could be legally purchased...

lol, not that big??? I'm sure that 4% might be, at least, 30 or 40% in the world.

And I'm not talking only about production, I'm talking about the whole mechanism behind belic industry wich includes Scientific Researchs, transport of weapons, marketing, etc. Look at your statistics, you're considering "Military Spending" different than Industry. I stand corrected then, but the stats I showed are what military industry is as part of the GDP, I guess that might not include exports, anyway a ban on guns would not prohibit the manufacture of weapons, I am sure in England you still have handguns being made, just a guess though...

The legal arguments why the 2nd is not absolute
Thos are all in the later half of the 1900's , the earliest commentary on the 2nd amendmend by professionals who studied the constitution is in the early 1800's where it is interpreted as being about self defense, if it was not intended that way, dont you think they would of made laws to prohibit gun ownership?
also an earlier court case than the one's you mentioned:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"),[30] the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Also the bill of rights was a document specifically set to protect individuals from the government, the wording "the people" is also used in the 1st and 4th amendment, and it clearly is intended to mean individuals...

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with private citizens owning guns to protect themselves, and everyone knows it! Unfortunately, guns and ammo are big business here in the States, and those big corporations will always spending billions lobbying to get their way.

Guns should be totally banned in the US. The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous.
everyone knows about it? ha, so much so that the earliest interpretations in court decision indicated the right of citizens to carry guns, even if its intended to be to protect us from government then you can still buy guns...

As for your last statement, I actually laughed out loud at that one "The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous." :retard: :retard: :retard: off course, as we know demand of a good can be ended by government law, just like alcohol, drugs etc... Just the whole drug black market would be interested in buying guns aside from many other people...

marti_228
04-18-2007, 04:38 PM
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.

tennisace
04-18-2007, 05:10 PM
"Those are all in the later half of the 1900's , the earliest commentary on the 2nd amendmend by professionals who studied the constitution is in the early 1800's where it is interpreted as being about self defense, if it was not intended that way, dont you think they would of made laws to prohibit gun ownership?
also an earlier court case than the one's you mentioned:"

Miller is precedent. It doesn't matter what an earlier court said(or what was said about the interpretation before) once new case law is made. Take the cases of separate but equal. Plessy had precedent until overturned by Brown v Board of Ed. Just because Plessy was once "law" doesn't mean it it remains law in perpetuity or that because other iinterpretions of the 14th Amendment before Brown said separate but equal was constitutional.


There have been attempts to place stricter rules on guns ownership but they haven't gotten out of Congress - due primarily to the choke hold the NRA and other gun lobbies have on politicians. A law has to be passed first before it can be reviewed through the judicial process for constitutionality. And even then one must have "standing" to challenge.

Julio1974
04-18-2007, 05:58 PM
I was responding to chris that if we are to make gun policy based on the crime rates of other countries then the UK should copy switzerland as they have a lower crime rate then them, this would mean that guns could be legally purchased...

I stand corrected then, but the stats I showed are what military industry is as part of the GDP, I guess that might not include exports, anyway a ban on guns would not prohibit the manufacture of weapons, I am sure in England you still have handguns being made, just a guess though...


Thos are all in the later half of the 1900's , the earliest commentary on the 2nd amendmend by professionals who studied the constitution is in the early 1800's where it is interpreted as being about self defense, if it was not intended that way, dont you think they would of made laws to prohibit gun ownership?
also an earlier court case than the one's you mentioned:

In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) (the "Dred Scott Decision"),[30] the Supreme Court indicated that: "It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union . . .the full liberty . . .to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Also the bill of rights was a document specifically set to protect individuals from the government, the wording "the people" is also used in the 1st and 4th amendment, and it clearly is intended to mean individuals...


everyone knows about it? ha, so much so that the earliest interpretations in court decision indicated the right of citizens to carry guns, even if its intended to be to protect us from government then you can still buy guns...

As for your last statement, I actually laughed out loud at that one "The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous." :retard: :retard: :retard: off course, as we know demand of a good can be ended by government law, just like alcohol, drugs etc... Just the whole drug black market would be interested in buying guns aside from many other people...

"To see the Second Amendment as primarily concerned with an individual right to hunt or protect one's home is like viewing the heart of the speech and assembly clauses as the right of persons to meet to play bridge or to have sex" (Akhil Reed Amar, Professor of Yale Law School)

zicofirol
04-18-2007, 07:11 PM
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.

Why cant you have a gun for protection? You are in essence saying an individual has no right to defend himself and is at the mercy of their attacker...

If you look at the amount of guns in the US you would think it's chaos, but its not, and I would say most murders occur because of the drug prohibition and the violence it creates...

Really think about the amount of guns in the USA, by the scaremongers estimates the US should look more like Iraq...

Oh and a ban on guns would only prohibit lawful citizens from buying them, criminals will always get them...

Jim Jones
04-18-2007, 08:01 PM
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.

what tests are you talking about.... SAT's? :lol:
Cho would have surely passed the test as would many people. Also should victims who were robbed or ***** not be allowed to buy weapons? Also in many European nations it is easy to buy guns. In Switzerland all males have their weapon from military service. My remains in my closet and I won't be getting rid of it even though I am done with the army.

marti_228
04-18-2007, 08:09 PM
what tests are you talking about.... SAT's? :lol:
Cho would have surely passed the test as would many people. Also should victims who were robbed or ***** not be allowed to buy weapons? Also in many European nations it is easy to buy guns. In Switzerland all males have their weapon from military service. My remains in my closet and I won't be getting rid of it even though I am done with the army.


You should learn to read. At the end, I said that the problem is much deeper, it's not only about guns. The American society has a problem, if not, this kind of things wouldn't happen so often.
I'm talking about psychological tests. That's quite obvious.

LoveFifteen
04-18-2007, 09:32 PM
"The idea that there would be a huge black market for guns is completely ridiculous." :retard: :retard: :retard: off course, as we know demand of a good can be ended by government law, just like alcohol, drugs etc... Just the whole drug black market would be interested in buying guns aside from many other people...

Why is there no gigantic "black market for firearms" in Western Europe, Iceland, Scandinavia, Australia, or New Zealand then?

Lee
04-18-2007, 09:41 PM
Guns should be absolutely banned for civilians, except those to hunt and you should be required to undergo several tests that prove that you CAN have a gun. For God's sake! It's crazy and stupid that you can buy a gun in a supermarket for 70 dollars and that children carry guns as if they were an ipod. Of course, this doesn't happen everywhere in the US but it happens quite often.

I think the problem is deeper than banning guns but it's a step to prevent from this kind of shootings to happen.

A few months ago, a 19 years old was killed by her date. The guy is an ex-convict with a long list of personal assault charges. She was killed by a gun which was legally purchased by a woman who gave it to the ex-convict. And even without that woman purchased a gun for him, there are still many many ways he could obtain a gun.

And when you say 'except those to hunt', everyone has the right to hunt and you need not be a professional hunter so that's moot.

Lee
04-18-2007, 09:50 PM
You should learn to read. At the end, I said that the problem is much deeper, it's not only about guns. The American society has a problem, if not, this kind of things wouldn't happen so often.
I'm talking about psychological tests. That's quite obvious.

Everyone get tested, so what? Lock up all those with potential of a killer? Force them to an asylum for psychos?

And it's not only American society has this problem. Other countries have something similar.

I am not saying there's no problem and I am not saying nothing should be done. Actually, from what I saw from an interview last night on TV, a government agency has a section analysing this kind of rampage and trying to come up with some policies. It's just that it's not a knee jerk reaction and I thank God for that.

marti_228
04-18-2007, 10:48 PM
I don't know what they should do with that people but they can't have a gun. There ust be some kind of barrier to buy guns.


Of course that things happens in other countries, but most fo the times happen in the US and there is a reason.

Jim Jones
04-18-2007, 11:26 PM
I don't know what they should do with that people but they can't have a gun. There ust be some kind of barrier to buy guns.


Of course that things happens in other countries, but most fo the times happen in the US and there is a reason.
Actually this is just a repetition of what I said in my good rep to you. But I decided to say it here too. There are many nations where this type of shootings are worse then U.S. They are in developing nations like Brazil. Also U.S. is a huge country. One cannot compare a nation of 300 million with one of 60 million. To compare it it may be best to so so with another developed huge region such as EU. And what have we had recently? Shootings in Germany, UK, Switzerland etc.. Finally it is not much better then U.S.

buddyholly
04-18-2007, 11:42 PM
I was responding to chris that if we are to make gun policy based on the crime rates of other countries then the UK should copy switzerland as they have a lower crime rate then them, this would mean that guns could be legally purchased...



Maybe it is just the use of ''they'' and ''them''

I understand the above sentence as saying that the UK has a lower crime rate than Switzerland, but I think you mean the opposite. Something like -

.....the UK should copy Switzerland, which has a lower crime rate.

buddyholly
04-18-2007, 11:52 PM
You should learn to read. At the end, I said that the problem is much deeper, it's not only about guns. The American society has a problem, if not, this kind of things wouldn't happen so often.
I'm talking about psychological tests. That's quite obvious.

Well, I'll finish by saying that I agree it is not just the availability of guns that is the problem. School shootings only rarely take place outside the US. Therefore the problem does seem to be in US culture. I suggest it is the result of extreme religous beliefs, take any religion you like, most of them are obsessed with images of death and destruction and righteous elimination out the non-believers.

Lee
04-19-2007, 12:57 AM
Well, I'll finish by saying that I agree it is not just the availability of guns that is the problem. School shootings only rarely take place outside the US. Therefore the problem does seem to be in US culture. I suggest it is the result of extreme religous beliefs, take any religion you like, most of them are obsessed with images of death and destruction and righteous elimination out the non-believers.

huh? I don't recall any of the school shootings in US have anything to do with religion.

buddyholly
04-19-2007, 01:30 AM
huh? I don't recall any of the school shootings in US have anything to do with religion.

Well, just hold that thought until you have seen all the stuff that was sent to NBC today.

zicofirol
04-19-2007, 04:24 AM
Why is there no gigantic "black market for firearms" in Western Europe, Iceland, Scandinavia, Australia, or New Zealand then?

first off Iceland has 250,000 people, lol, western europe certianly has a problem with illegal gun market, I know the UK has it, in scandanavia they are having growing problems with armed eastern european gangs, not sure about Australia and New Zealand, but I am sure you have no idea on what their gun black market looks like...

But if we are using your logic then why is it that a country like switzerland with more gun ownership than the UK, has lower crime rates?

gomarray
04-19-2007, 05:27 AM
Switzerland has high gun ownership but a low crime rate because they have a high per capita income and very good living conditions for all (as a friend told me, "there are no slums in Switzerland!"). Britain has alot of people living in inner cities who are living in poverty, plus there are problems with gangs and large numbers of immigrants who don't get along with each other.

To generalize, Swiss people get along with each other well, and have proven themselves to be very reasonable, non-violent people, so if they want to have guns, they can have them, and I'm not worried about hearing of mass shootings in Basel any time soon.

Americans on the other hand, don't have such a good track record with guns, and tend to take liberties with guns that people from other countries don't take. I know the Virginia Tech shooter was South Korean, but he lived here since he was 8 and I think that America's violent culture might have rubbed off on him a little (I haven't heard of too many mass shootings in Seoul either). There are alot of great people in America, but also a whole lot of homicidal maniacs, who may snap at any moment and go on a shooting spree. These lunatics just don't exist in such large numbers in other developed countries.

In Britain we had a mass shooting in Hungerford and then one a few years later in Dunblane. After the second one, everybody said enough is enough, we adopted tighter gun laws, you got to hand in your weapons without any questions being asked and we moved on. There have been no mass shootings in Britain since Dunblane in 1996. I don't know if it will happen again, but I think we sent a firm message out that we don't tolerate that kind of shit. If one person fucks up, then everybody gets punished for it (gun owners, anyway). Seems to be a reasonable way to go about things, seems like its worked so far. Logic like this never seems to be applied on the other side of the Atlantic.

In the States, they just let this shit happen over and over again, and they say that taking away guns won't solve anything, that people will always find guns. Well yes, they will always find guns because they make so fucking many! Stop making the guns, try to destroy as many as we can, get guns out of the public eye as much as possible, and with time, maybe things will get better. Maybe not, because many Americans are fucking insane after all, but you have to at least try to do something different, because the current policy on guns is clearly not working. How many times does this have to happen before change takes place. The sad thing is, change doesn't happen when it should in the U.S. I know its off topic, but we have known for a long time that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were based on faulty intelligence and that the general public and politicians were misled. Has something benn done to rectify this? No! The point I'm trying to make is that the United States does not take action when it needs to, colossal mistakes are never corrected. There could be 50 university students killed each day for the next year, and they still wouldn't change anything. And that is the greatest example of idiocy you could ever witness.

fadou
04-19-2007, 11:45 AM
Domestic dispute in Ville Platte turns deadly
Town Talk staff

An argument between a Ville Platte couple seeking a divorce ended Monday morning with both dead.

Carrol Prudhomme, 61, and Brenda O. Prudhomme, 59, both died at a Ville Platte hospital after the two shot each other during an argument just before 10:30 a.m. Monday at Brenda Prudhomme's home, police said.

Ville Platte Police Sgt. Linton Fontenot said Carrol Prudhomme went to his estranged wife's new home, 121 St. Paul St., after discovering something earlier that morning. Fontenot said he doesn't know at this point in time what it was that made Carrol Prudhomme go to Brenda Prudhomme's home in anger. Once there, the two began to fight, and both pulled out guns -- one a .38-caliber pistol and the other a 9mm pistol, Fontenot said. Each of the Prudhommes was shot in the torso.

Fontenot said this is the first encounter the Police Department has had with the couple.

No one else was at the home at the time of the shooting. The two had grown children.


:o :o
ok! guns don't prevent the murders but i'm sure that guns made things easier for themself and will make things easier many others in the future .:rolleyes:

Regenbogen
04-19-2007, 12:43 PM
If one person fucks up, then everybody gets punished for it (gun owners, anyway). Seems to be a reasonable way to go about things, seems like its worked so far. Logic like this never seems to be applied on the other side of the Atlantic.
That would absolutely not work. With something like that, all the ordinary people are going to be getting guns illegally too, because they'll feel their rights are being taken away or whatever.

It's just something people are used to here. If the government ever bans guns they're going to have to figure out how to do it gradually, or it would be a mess.

gomarray
04-19-2007, 01:20 PM
Nobody knows if it would work or not until it actually happens. If the only people allowed to have guns were the police and security officers, I think it wold help. Some criminals might still be able to get access to guns, but with time this could change. I would also suggest that the gun deaths that would take place if guns were banned would mostly be criminals shooting other criminals.

The bottom line is that the problems could not be any worse than what is happening right now, so something needs to be done.

Regenbogen
04-19-2007, 01:57 PM
Nobody knows if it would work or not until it actually happens. If the only people allowed to have guns were the police and security officers, I think it wold help. Some criminals might still be able to get access to guns, but with time this could change. I would also suggest that the gun deaths that would take place if guns were banned would mostly be criminals shooting other criminals.

The bottom line is that the problems could not be any worse than what is happening right now, so something needs to be done.

Well, my mum and my uncle have planned elaborate ways to keep their guns if this ever happens. :tape: So I'm rather skeptical. It seems like a lot of people will find any way possible to get around this, and I'm worried that might make it easier for any random person to get a gun since people will start getting them illegally all the time.

Neely
04-19-2007, 02:39 PM
so if they want to have guns, they can have them, and I'm not worried about hearing of mass shootings in Basel any time soon.
The debate about the army guns of members of the Swiss army isn't non-existing in Switzerland either. Because of the few gun delicts they record (especially on the domestic and familial level) a huge amount is done by army guns. A Swiss study done at the University of Zürich claims that the availability of a weapon especially favours the impulsive intent as the weapon allows a quick realization of your intent. (BTW, it also found this is true for suicides, where army guns play a crucial role especially for males who kill themselves.)

Overall I still agree, given the amount of weapons in households, their gun crime is low, that's what you also said. And lets hope there will never be a mass shooting in Basel, I did not hear from one yet. But you can have idiots and menally ill people in every country, and in Switzerland shootings also did happen, most of the time one or two victims. I think the biggest one was 14 killed people that I heard of.

zicofirol
04-19-2007, 03:19 PM
Lets not forget the USA is also a country of 300 million people, so youd expect to see more of these shooting in number than in European numbers.

Something that has not been mentioned is the fact that crie rates in the USA have been going down and are at 50 year record lows, or around there. I have heard policemean and economist who have made statistics about murder rate and they both agree most of it comes from the drug prohibition.l

Another thing to mention, in columbine two big propane bombs where place that if exploded would of killed many more, I think both where done with commonly used and legal material, my point is when someone is crazy and plans out a killing they will find a way to do it...

*Ljubica*
04-19-2007, 09:09 PM
Guns should be banned, and I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The 2nd Amendment was brought into being in order to protect the US civilians from a corrupt and unwanted government (I'm sure those who framed the constitution had Britain in mind) and is really the rather radical right to insurrection. Using the wording of the 2nd Amendment to justify gun ownership in the 21st Century just seems to me to be bizarre.

However, I personally can't see any real changes in the law happening in the near future, partly because it would probably be a major vote-losing idea, in particular with the influence of the NRA in American politics.

I think it is unquestionable that the east access to guns which seems to exist in America is rather influential in boosting the number of shootings.....that would seem obvious to me.
Of course one would still be able to get hold of a gun even if they were banned, but the illegality of possession, and the added trouble which it would be necessary to go to in order to obtain one would certainly lead to fewer gun owners.

Great post - and exactly how I feel. Of course people will always find a way to get hold of a gun if they want to, but to my mind, the very fact that guns are legal in the States and can be kept in households where young chldren live, creates an attitude to them which I find unhealthy. A colleague of mine recently returned from a holiday in the States. On the whole, he liked the country and enjoyed his holiday, but, as a Father of two young sons, he was appalled that you could just walk into a High Street store and buy a gun :shrug: I guess that whole culture is impossible to understand for people bought up in places where you are generally taught to believe that guns are evil and kill people, and are to be avoided at all costs.

What happened in Virginia was tragic, and my heart goes out to the young people involved, and to their bereaved families and friends. As I said before, there is no doubt that a crazy person can always get hold of a gun if they want to badly enough (wherever they live), and no laws will eradicate that kind of incident completely. But in my opinion, the fact that guns are so easy to obtain in the States surely has some corrolation to the fact that they do seem to be so many school/college/campus tragedies there, whereas in somewhere like the UK there has only ever been one (Dunblane in 1996). I wonder how many more innocent kids will die before people realise these weapons of death should be banned from the streets? To me, in a civilised, law-abiding country, there should be no need for ordinary families to keep lethal weapons in their homes - just seems crazy to me.

alfonsojose
04-19-2007, 09:16 PM
Easy gun access + culture of lack of respect to minorities ("nerds","gays","chinesse") + pressure to be "sucessful" ("loser","bullies","famous","SVU") =U.S. shootings

shotgun
04-19-2007, 09:27 PM
There are many nations where this type of shootings are worse then U.S. They are in developing nations like Brazil.

The type of shootings that happen here are totally different though. They are mostly related to poverty, drug traffic, criminal youth gangs and the kind of stuff you would expect from a third world country. Here, you don't see massacres like that in an university or in a private school. Here, to get a gun legally you have to go under several tests and match many conditions that are required. Needless to say, the vast majority of guns that end up generating deaths here haven't been legally purchased.

zicofirol
04-19-2007, 10:40 PM
The type of shootings that happen here are totally different though. They are mostly related to poverty, drug traffic, criminal youth gangs and the kind of stuff you would expect from a third world country. Here, you don't see massacres like that in an university or in a private school. Here, to get a gun legally you have to go under several tests and match many conditions that are required. Needless to say, the vast majority of guns that end up generating deaths here haven't been legally purchased.

yes, we all know most of the gun crime in the US comes from school shootings!!

in the US, most gun crime comes from the drug war...
Everyone is missing two key points:

1. Has banning guns worked in other countries? no, againn the most recent example i sthe UK, they banned guns, and crime shot up, gun crime even went up, lmao

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm
check first link, for crime figures which also rose after the gun ban...


2. Would banning guns eliminate the demand for guns and their availability? hell no.

just like with drugs, you can get them pretty easily, all banning guns would do is create a black market it certianly wouldnt have much of an impact on demand for guns, if people want them, they could still get them.


Having said this, why make a policy that does not work and if anything would only deter law abiding citizens from owning guns?

shotgun
04-19-2007, 11:12 PM
yes, we all know most of the gun crime in the US comes from school shootings!!


Yes, because that's exactly what I said!

:cuckoo:

Nev
04-20-2007, 12:56 AM
Haha... it's funny, shotgun discussing the gun law

buddyholly
04-20-2007, 12:55 PM
Yes, because that's exactly what I said!

:cuckoo:

I think he was being sarcastic.

shotgun
04-20-2007, 02:37 PM
Haha... it's funny, shotgun discussing the gun law

;)

I think he was being sarcastic.

Yes, I think so.

zicofirol
04-20-2007, 02:44 PM
Yes, because that's exactly what I said!

:cuckoo:

Really?
The type of shootings that happen here are totally different though. They are mostly related to poverty, drug traffic, criminal youth gangs and the kind of stuff you would expect from a third world country. Here, you don't see massacres like that in an university or in a private school.
The type of shooting that happen here is totally different? your inferring that most shootings int he USA come from school shootings but brazil's come from proverty, drug traffic etc. Actually the overwehlming majority of shootings in the US come from that also...

lol...


Oh here is an article on a small town that in 1982 had higher crime rate than the nation's average , well they passed a law requiring all citizens to have a firearm in their house, as you can imagine, all hell broke loose!! NOT!, actually the crime rate "plummeted"
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288

Jim Jones
04-20-2007, 02:53 PM
hey shotgun stop trying to justify the violence in Brazil. Violence and more specifically teen violence knows no boundaries. So stop saying it is mostly a U.S. thing. Not long ago there was a school shooting in Canada. There was one in Germany where 16 people died, more then in Colombine. Virginia tech is on east coast and colombine is west coast which si far far away. It is equivalent to school shootings oin Spain compared with school shootings in Poland. U.S. is a huge nation.

shotgun
04-20-2007, 03:19 PM
Really?

The type of shooting that happen here is totally different? your inferring that most shootings int he USA come from school shootings but brazil's come from proverty, drug traffic etc. Actually the overwehlming majority of shootings in the US come from that also...

lol...


I was referring to Jim Jones' post where he says "this type of shooting is worse in Brazil." By "this type of shooting" I assume he meant shootings that happen in universities or environments that you wouldn't expect it to happen, and caused by people you wouldn't expect to be doing it in the first place, not shootings that are caused by people that have been involved with criminality long before. By "totally different", I mean totally different from the case that triggered the discussion, not totally different from what usually happens in the States. Obviously there are plenty of violent regions in the U.S. as well (with security there being much better than here).

So no, I'm not inferring anything here, you're the one who seems to be inferring something. :wavey:

hey shotgun stop trying to justify the violence in Brazil. Violence and more specifically teen violence knows no boundaries. So stop saying it is mostly a U.S. thing. Not long ago there was a school shooting in Canada. There was one in Germany where 16 people died, more then in Colombine. Virginia tech is on east coast and colombine is west coast which si far far away. It is equivalent to school shootings oin Spain compared with school shootings in Poland. U.S. is a huge nation.

I'm not saying it's mostly an American thing at all, surely it happens everywhere, therefore no need to point fingers saying that in a certain place this type of shooting is worse than in another. The only thing one can do is face the numbers based on what has happened already, but such type of violence can happen anywhere in the future. No one should be stupid enough to say, "this will never happen where I live".

Having said that, I personally think poverty, lack of opportunities, drugs, growing up in a violent environment, are factors that are much more likely to cause shootings than bullying and the odd mental disease. Not that I'm trying to justify anything, but the first kind of case is easier to understand.

zicofirol
04-20-2007, 04:27 PM
I was referring to Jim Jones' post where he says "this type of shooting is worse in Brazil." By "this type of shooting" I assume he meant shootings that happen in universities or environments that you wouldn't expect it to happen, and caused by people you wouldn't expect to be doing it in the first place, not shootings that are caused by people that have been involved with criminality long before. By "totally different", I mean totally different from the case that triggered the discussion, not totally different from what usually happens in the States. Obviously there are plenty of violent regions in the U.S. as well (with security there being much better than here).

So no, I'm not inferring anything here, you're the one who seems to be inferring something. :wavey:


Oh, I though you where responding to me...