Err ... I've already said I favour the strictest gun control laws.
It's not a question of either/or - we can do both. But I agree the time-scales are different.
Gun control
- Thread starter ukbob
- Start date
It's not a question of either/or - we can do both. But I agree the time-scales are different.
Even if 'true' it's irrelevant the sex creed or colour of the shooter when discussing gun control. The gun law argument doesn't need to discriminate, the percentages of all gun users would be reduced which is the only point. If further focus can reduce it further, then fine, but it's not the issue.
What exactly are you suggesting? That all men must sit down and talk their feelings through with a group of Women? By law?
I have to admit a giggle when saying man control, no idea why.Well as Glaston said, 'man control'. Which could be extended to 'man and woman control', which could further be extended to other categories like race and religion.
I am against control in all its forms, although your mention of religion does push my utopian limits.
A question though, why do people not try to ban religion?
It has caused even more deaths than guns, almost as much as man in fact.
Little doubt there given the history of the human race. I suppose we've got 'better'.
Maybe it's because religion is primarily a tool to control mankind, not kill us
*awaits lynchin*
You ask: what has this got to do with what we are talking about?
I'll tell you: we're talking about a man who shot dead many children and some adults. This follows on from many other similiar incidents in which a man has shot dead many other people. And doubtless there will be several further such incidents in the next year, and the year after, and the year after - all involving men with guns.
That's what it fecking well got to do with it.
When was the last time a woman went on such a murderous rampage and destroyed countless lives?
PS. Talk of "banning men" is your ridiculous distortion. Not mine.
That's all good Glaston, but what do you actually suggest is done?
100% agreed.Maybe it's because religion is primarily a tool to control mankind, not kill us
*awaits lynchin*
There is a small amount of frustration of how sensible for the most part the books are, given how religions have wielded them.
I don't know if this has been asked (or answered), but do you (or anyone else for that matter), think the Bill of Rights has anything to do with this?
I don't know enough about American history to know how they go about altering things like that, but can they amend amendments so easily as to just pass a law on this?
Oh do grow up. And while you're about it, read earlier in this thread where I've already put forward suggestions as to what's needed in this regard.
Ever heard of schools and education ... to give just one example? For instance we could focus less on teaching calculus - which most people never use anyhow - and more on teaching emotional intelligence. And we could focus less on teaching chemistry - again which most people never use - and more on teaching basic human/social skills like how to listen properly, how to articulate your feelings, the uses of body language, what empathy involves etc etc etc.
Then we might produce fewer emotionally stunted, psychopathic, aggressive, paranoid and cold male adults ... the sort that gun down kids in a school.
Perhaps this seems like a lot of airy-fairy nonsense to you. Who knows.
You're a fecking idiot Glaston.
Can we educate a trait out?
One could argue that psychopaths are often highly intelligent and educated. It's the chemical imbalance, or demons inside or whatever you want to believe that's stops them caring about right or wrong.
It's a interesting topic though, as to why men are more likely than women.
One could argue that psychopaths are often highly intelligent and educated. It's the chemical imbalance, or demons inside or whatever you want to believe that's stops them caring about right or wrong.
It's a interesting topic though, as to why men are more likely than women.
And you have contributed mightily to the discussion. Well done.
Because men are naturally more aggressive, it's like that across almost all of the animal kingdom, why would we be any different?
What's the point in talking to someone who thinks we should stop teaching a chuck of maths so we can learn emotional intelligence or whatever you want to call it instead.
It's more about where we're going, than where we've come from.
In the UK we've moved beyond slavery, feudalism, child labour etc etc etc. People change, things can evolve - and education is a key part of this. Men are not exempt. Men are not doomed to be forever stuck in time.
None of those things you mention are even remotely the same as removing a genetic trait. If that's what it is, of course.
So we have removed things that actually don't make any sense from a purely animalistic point of view.
The same Bill of Rights that contains this outdated law contains laws that protect freedom of speech and religion, a free press, the right to a speedy and fair trial, prevents the government from unlawful seizure of private property, amongst others. The founders made sure that before any one of these amendments were changed, an overwhelming majority of the people were in support. Unfortunately they didn't have the power of divination.
But yeah, it's not so easy to abolish/restrict the right to bear arms.
Well, we created these things and then we removed them. Which proves we have the power of conscious choice, which in turn proves that we are far from being "purely animalistic".
So much for the "men-are-and-will-forever-be-ruled-by-animal-instincts" argument.
I'm not sure you got the point there.
Not sure of what point you are trying to make Glaston? Males are more violent. Males use guns to kill more often than women. Agreed, but what has that to do with gun control and its ability to reduce gun deaths? Are you proposing greater gun controls for males or that gun control isn't necessary and that we should just control men's violent urges or something else? It isn't entirely clear.
Australia suffered 13 mass murders between 1981 and 1996. In the 16 years since gun law reforms: zero.
Are these correct ? Could be a template for USA to follow.
Are these correct ? Could be a template for USA to follow.
Glaston, I think what you're saying is valid. However you need to consider some very serious points.
1. When it comes to a man, where do you draw the line between natural behavior and attitudes generated through culture?
I was reading an article the other day on gender roles. Biologically, there are only so many distinctions between men and women. The rest is created by culture. It was a US-based article so it referenced the kind of toys kids played with and how it factored in creating gender roles. Boys should like the GI Joe character while girls flock to the Barbie house. At a very early age, kids are already being educated on their role in society.
2. Most men are responsible for these shootings, but is that really at the heart of the issue?
Yes. I agree education can help but with this thread being about gun control, I'm not sure where your argument fits in. I'm up late watching these idiots argue how having more "responsible" gun owners out there is the ONLY way to solve this gun problem. I'm actually shaking at the sight of this. I have never seen such thickness and cold-hearted tripe on television. I think I've lost some faith in humanity.
America is some deep shit if they allow loons like I just saw get away with just utter rubbish. Someone somewhere is pushing money into this issue. What I've seen has just shown me gun control is a lot more complicated than we think. I fear America will get stuck in a cycle. At least we put it right after Dunblane.
Actually, for a country with so many firearms in freewheeling circulation mandatory firearms safety classes for kids starting at age 12 wouldn't be amiss.
Misuse and abuse stems from ignorance. With things like sex and drugs the subsequent problems are less detrimental to society as a whole. With firearms the consequences are deadly.
You might think it is a ridiculous notion but considering the detached persona of all these mass shooters implanting a respect for what firearms are capable of and an understanding of the consequences of using them might prove successful.
Considering the saturation of firearms in the US it's not nearly as unrealistic as banning them.
The US does need to screen those who can acquire firearms more thoroughly, as well as implement more stringent rules for storage. This will effectively eliminate accidental shootings and reduce suicides by firearm, even though suicide rates won't change significantly.
A lot of very interesting views in this thread on gun control. I wish to contribute but I am actually outraged at what I've heard from these Yanks. These blokes actually think, they actually THINK more guns can solve the problem. There has to be money involved. We just had 20 kids die. 20!?!? Yet these buffoons don't seem to be effected in the slightest. They just brush it to the side and say "well all these tragedies happen in banned gun zones".
Don't get what the feck you require gun's for anyways unless your life is under threat ? And that too automatic assault rifles ?
Right to own guns ? Wtf ? Make right to own Grenades and Nuclear bombs next.
Right to own guns ? Wtf ? Make right to own Grenades and Nuclear bombs next.
Does anyone have any statistics for gun fatalities in the UK before and after the Firearm Acts 1 and 2?
Anyone catch Piers Morgan there?
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/15/pmt-ct-shooting.cnn
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/15/pmt-ct-shooting.cnn
With the amount of firearms in the US, banning guns would actually cause civil unrest. I don't see the point of having more citizens with firearms. These are weapons designed to kill. Does your country really need more citizens with firearms to protect themselves?
In an emotionally charged scenario, you have to be ice cold to process the situation accurately and react accordingly. Is gun training sufficient for that? If you're going to go down that route, you need to be mindful of the type of guns people possess. Currently, I don't see how you can really handle that. So you could very well end up with more citizens packed with semi-automatics. This bloke shot 100 rounds in 3 minutes. Is there any cap on ammo?
Screening should help. The US just needs to take baby steps in the right direction. I'm not sure how allowing more individuals to own guns is doing that. There's too many weak assumptions there. In the long-term, you need the cultural mindset to change. Because what I witnessed an hour ago was barbaric.
The other problem is the home. Parents need to be honest with themselves and the condition of their children. Sheer ignorance to psychological issues allows such events to happen. From a mental health standpoint, what's in place in the states is clearly letting your country down. It's time you lot put it right. I don't want to read another horror story like this. You people have the capability to actually do something positive. Something good can come from this. Question I have is with this heavily complex issue, are people going to really rally together? Or are we going to witness more bloodshed, more politics, more lobbying, and an ever increasing tension with an issue that should have been done and dusted ages ago?
Yeah, more guns is what we need!
Seriously, you can put a moron in a cheap suit, and he is still a moron in a cheap suit.
Seriously, you can put a moron in a cheap suit, and he is still a moron in a cheap suit.
Different times mate. IIRC, the point was to protect against being invaded by militia and susceptible to another British invasion. It's outdated. That's why you make amendments. Think about it. Forget philosophy and realize citizens packing guns will be nothing but a small dent to what the US military pack in their arsenal. They have planes which act as drones and can wipe out hundreds of people in seconds. What chance do American citizens actually have if such a totalitarian circumstance ever arose?
Am I saying they shouldn't own guns at all? Absolutely not. But this idea that having more weapons is going to really protect you against the government is just bollocks. You're simply overpowered in every way. The reason these lobbyists want the gun control debate to lose its focus by making obscene statements tells me some of these organizations don't give the slightest feck about people's lives. The love of money really is powerful.
I really fear for the US because I see little sign that people are willing to make a sacrifice on a large-scale just to save more lives.
Can't load it but I'm fairly sure it's the video that almost made me break my TV
Fair play to Morgan, giving it to the wackos. One gent on there states the murder rates went up in the UK after Dunblane and the Firearm Acts. Piers doesn't really give him a chance to expand on that statement. I'll assume he means since people could not protect themselves with "guns." Piers also states 162,000 guns were handed in after Dunblane.....the English are sensible people whereas us Americans are going off the deep end. Unfortunately that would never happen here.
What kind of reforms did they implement after these mass shootings? Obviously they did something right.
The only time I'll ever credit Piers for being sensible. It could happen though. Highly improbable due to the high emotional attachment to guns (materialism).
Aye if you noticed that bloke focused on singular points. He provided no sound context whatsoever. It's like how we use stats on the caf.
Even if it stops 1 life it will be worth it to just try something, those defending the right to have a gun sicken me, obviously you won't be able to stop everyone from owning a gun but you could at least try and make it more difficult, how the feck does one get an automatic weapon and a bullet proof vest? Even if you limited it to 1 small pistol and 3 bullets, anyone caught with more gets jail time. It would be a start, innocent children are being killed and people don't give a shit because a piece of paper says they're allowed the right to own a gun when they don't need one. Wankers the lot of em
You are sick and so is your country.