Signature thread about gun control and gun violence

[syldssuf]

{sigh again} You're twisting my words again. Straw man argument again.

Some things cause definite harm to people. Like shooting them.

Some things do not. Like owning a gun.

Get it straight!

Ugg, I give up. I say I'm right, tons of people say I'm wrong. Lots of information, some good, some not, flies from both sides. The end result is frustration and blood pressure increasing, and no minds being changed. Because they refuse to. They're incapable of it.

BTW, my parents originally indoctrinated me with anti-gun crap. Looking at the real figures involved changed it.

Please read the Gunfacts book?

[Jazzy]

"There is a difference between actual murder and attempted murder. That difference is usually incompetence on the part of the criminal. But with responsible ownership, the difference can be a gun instead."
I see. Criminal comes in, attempts to murder you. You kill the criminal. It's gone from attempted murder to murder.

What would you do with a gun apart from shoot things? Give me a break.

[Figment]

But if people do not own guns, they can't exactly shoot each other. And what do you do with guns but shoot animals and people?

How many people do you personally know who have been killed by guns? Or killed others? Or who have killed themselves with guns? I hate to bring suicide into the argument, but the ten thousand odd people who die by self-inflicted gunshot wounds a year is a large part of my adamant devotion to strict gun control.

[VanillaCoke]

I'm certain the percentage of gun crime where innocent people die is far larger then when someone actually gets saved. Gun crime creates more problems then it solves.

Incorrect. The vast majority of "gun crime" in the USA has a career criminal (usually gangster) as both the perpetrator and the victim. It's gangs killing gangs more than gangs killing innocents.

Armed robbery? Teenage yobs with guns/BB guns? I'm quite glad we don't have many gangsters in England, it's one unnecessary banning guns cuts down on.

You may think its your moral right to own a gun but it's not your moral right to kill someone.

According to who? God? You? Politicians?

According to my moral system, it is my right to kill someone, but only if they pose an immediate threat to my life, or the life of a loved one, if lethal force is the only alternative. And if they're using lethal force, then responding in kind is the safest way of making them stop. I will not sacrifice myself, my family, or my boyfriend so that a criminal may go to jail for killing them.

Sorry are you god too? Or should we let a justice system based on the majorities views decide. Lets check the guys actually guilty before blasting him.
It is, however, okay to fight back equally to what they fight with. For example they punch, you punch; they kick , you kick. Kick and punching wont miss fire into some kids head either.

[syldssuf]

Japan has over twice the suicide rate of the USA. Guns are verboten there.

That's my final bow. I'ma go back to refreshing the news page and waiting for round 3 to start.

It's started! This thread was useful for something after all! Yay!

[Monkeyguy]

I guess I didn't read the part where Figment mentioned suicide by means other than guns.

[Figment]

Love that you're fleeing the thread before answering my direct questions. I only ask because I suspect you might feel differently if you had personal experience with death by guns. Your relience on statistics suggests that, for all your gun owning, you do not fully comprehend the consequences of firing those guns.

[chickvw]

Comparing countries is futile folks. We all are raised in entirely different ways, and you cannot change an entire country overnight. Ok, so the UK doesn't want guns in their country.. it works for them. The US through our media has become so tainted with guns, they are a "normal" thing in society.... Frankly, if I had one in my house for One night, I wouldn't be able to sleep. But there ARE good uses for them... I can't help that the tool is used by people with wrongful intents... it is the Person that is a weapon, not the gun. That person could hijack a plane with a gun or with a Nail file.. They'll accomplish their goal somehow. Oh well, *meh* No more arguing for me, screaming through a brick wall isn't much fun.


And Figment, I don't know what 'smalltown' area you grew up in, but I live in Southern Illinois, where more income is based off Oil, Corn(andethanol) and Soybeans than Anything else. Oh, and I gave you a case of a VIOLENT deer.. with enough info to Google it. You ignore it? not my problem.

[Jazzy]

Japan has traditions of suicide to avoid dishonour in battle, or family dishonour- in Western cultures, suicide is a sin which will traditionally send you to Hell, but in Japan it is not seen that way.

I don't honestly care about changing your views. My initial point still stands: I do not think your signature is appropriate.

And I still don't think deer are violent unless provoked. Did the deer hurt anyone? Nope. Did the deer get killed? Of course!

[syldssuf]

Love that you're fleeing the thread before answering my direct questions. I only ask because I suspect you might feel differently if you had personal experience with death by guns. Your relience on statistics suggests that, for all your gun owning, you do not fully comprehend the consequences of firing those guns.

Exactly. You've had someone killed by guns, so you hate guns.

My dad was killed by a car, and I admit 100%, I have an irrational fear and hatred of cars. I never drive when I can get someone else to drive me. Bleah. I'd rather walk or ride a bike.

But do I go attacking other people's right to own cars? No. I can come up with tons of reasons why cars should be banned. Danger. Pollution. Accidents. But private ownership of cars is still necessary to some degree.

Japan has traditions of suicide to avoid dishonour in battle, or family dishonour- in Western cultures, suicide is a sin which will traditionally send you to Hell, but in Japan it is not seen that way.

Exactly. In certain areas of the USA, we are taught that innocent and noble humans deserve to live, while criminals deserve to live, but a little bit less. Maybe more if they can be rehabilitated, but much less if not. And rapists, pedophiles (who actually molest children), and murderers do not deserve to live. It's indoctrinated enough that some people are willing to kill in order to preserve their own life, or the life of an innocent.

In other areas of the US, and most of Britain, it's taught that all human life is equally precious, and it's better to sacrifice yourself for the good of the community.

There's no fighting it. It can drive Japanese people to commit suicide, and Americans to kill in self-defense.

I don't honestly care about changing your views. My initial point still stands: I do not think your signature is appropriate.

Don't like the sig? Come and take it! But c'mon, I spent a ton of time on it. But if it bothers you that much, I can change them to bubble guns or other Neopets weaponry if you want.

[Figment]

I said at the beginning of this "debate" that I don't necessarily attribute the US's problems with gun deaths to our gun control laws, but to our cultural relation to firearms and to violence. I added later that I cannot personally think of any way to change this cultural structure without removing the weapon it is built around. People are going to feel entitled to kill each other as long as they have easy access to firearms, as long as they are saturated with media violence, as long as they grow up with a cultural belief in vigilantism. These beliefs are surely very deeply rooted in our national identity. But the national identity won't change until something physical is changed.

I grew up in Wyoming, where the primary sources of income are oil drilling and ranching.

*edit*

No, I actually haven't had a close relative killed by a gun. The people I know who have been killed by guns were all very peripheral acquaintances, and in one case, a distant cousin who I had only met once as a child. But I have directly observed the social and emotional repercussions of gun death on the individual. Have you?

As I said, the majority of my opinion rests on the suicide statistics. YES, there are many ways to kill yourself. I know this, probably better than any of you do. But the fact remains that guns are by far the most effective method, and that most people who use them "succeed." It is also a fact that most people who kill themselves are not in what you or I would call their "right mind." And that almost all of the "failed" suicides that I have met (which is almost certainly more than anyone here) are devoutly grateful that they didn't die. Really, the only person I have ever met who regretted being saved was a man who tried to kill himself with a handgun and failed, but ended up essentially retarded from the brain damage. And was so horrified at the prospect of having to live his life severely disabled because of his actions that he wanted desperately to die.

Guns are easy and quick, especially if you have easy access to them. Severely depressed and suicidal people rarely have the initiative to purchase firearms -- in my experience they're lucky to get out of bed. They use whatever they have about the house. God knows I would be dead right now if my parents owned a gun. And God knows I am eternally thankful that they do not.

[chickvw]

Did the deer hurt anyone? No.

WRONG '05 had 9 injuries, and '06 had 7 leading up to the incident, and this was the ONLY shot fired at ANY of the bloody deer.
Btw, for those of you who 'cant be bothered'....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 7157.story
http://news.siu.edu/news/June06/060606tc6127.jsp
and the Doozy... a pamplet released due to 2005's injuries... not to mention the fact that large areas were taped off from students.. the student in front of hte library??? that's the Middle of campus!

http://www.siuc.edu/summer/deer_brochure3.pdf

[VanillaCoke]

Your Signature is still threatening me with plushie, with a gun.

Like guns are cool or something.

Your sig still has the word bitch in bold letters, I cannot ignore it.
Both are offensive and inappropriate.

[syldssuf]

I said at the beginning of this "debate" that I don't necessarily attribute the US's problems with gun deaths to our gun control laws, but to our cultural relation to firearms and to violence. I added later that I cannot personally think of any way to change this cultural structure without removing the weapon it is built around. People are going to feel entitled to kill each other as long as they have easy access to firearms, as long as they are saturated with media violence, as long as they grow up with a cultural belief in vigilantism. These beliefs are surely very deeply rooted in our national identity. But the national identity won't change until something physical is changed.

Ever hear of Rwanda? 800,000 people were killed by machetes. Not because of the machete, but because people there believe that it's acceptable to kill people who disagree with them. If machetes were banned, they'd have used clubs.

In certain areas of America, it is only acceptable to kill in order to preserve an innocent human life, choosing to sacrifice the less innocent one. Guns have nothing to do with it. We'd use swords or knives if they were banned.

Though in some areas, like Texas, it's legal to shoot people who steal your stuff, and that's just crazy.

Like I said, I'm moving to Vermont. Gay civil unions, minimal gun control, and a 5 cent refund for recycling.

[AngharadTy]

Syldssuf, you might get a better reception if you stopped being haughty and condescending. "Ever hear of Rwanda?" Please. That is just offensive because it assumes our ignorance. You could also consider stopping your pained sighing, because it's not winning you any points.

Granted, I don't expect this discussion to yield any honestly good results, but the only chance you have of that is if you're more polite.

If it gets less polite, I'll be happy to lock this.